Is Irish a dead language?

dlofnep

Drakmord wrote: »

If Irish is as vibrant as previous posters have suggested then why does it require such state aid?

Nearly all languages around the world receive state aid, regardless of their status. Especially minority languages.

Welsh receives state aid, and is in a similar position to Irish. I'm not sure what it is, you have problems with understanding?

Drakmord

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not sure what it is, you have problems with understanding?

I'm not sure what this question pertains to.

dlofnep

Drakmord wrote: »

I'm not sure what this question pertains to.

You seem to have a problem surrounding the funding of minority languages in relation to their ability to thrive.

Dionysus

astrofool wrote: »

Forcing us to use Irish will drastically reduce our exports as all the multinationals leave the country.

Less of the strawman arguments please. It's always amazing how the anti-Irish lobby lose all track of themselves when even trying to discuss this rationally.

The Irish = poverty mentality belongs to another age. My Connacht grandmother was very much like that, but then again she was exceedingly undereducated and had far fewer opportunities in life than her children and especially her grandchildren. She was born in 1897 and her own grandmother survived the Famine with a huge hostility to Irish culture being passed on to her daughter. It is dumbfounding that this is still going on with an albeit much smaller section of Irish society over a century later.

As for this nonsense of English being necessary for Irish economic success, to take one example of many, the Finnish people, with a population roughly equal to Ireland, are among the most educationally and economically successful in the world yet their primary language remains Finnish. The way some people here go on you'd swear a country's economic success is dependent upon using the English language as a country's principal language. Lots of heat but no light from that quarter. This is scaremongering, irrational and unsupported by the facts, namely that most economically successful states have a language other than English as their primary language.

Outside the anglophone, anglocentric cocoon of these people the linguistic reality of economic success is patently very different in the twenty-first century.

Iwasfrozen

Dionysus wrote: »

Less of the strawman arguments please. It's always amazing how the anti-Irish lobby lose all track of themselves when even trying to discuss this rationally.

That's not a strawman arguement.

Dionysus wrote: »

As for this nonsense of English being necessary for Irish economic success, to take one example of many, the Finnish people, with a population roughly equal to Ireland, are among the most educationally and economically successful in the world yet their primary language remains Finnish. The way some people here go on you'd swear a country's economic success is dependent upon using the English language as a country's principal language. Lots of heat but no light from that quarter. This is scaremongering, irrational and unsupported by the facts, namely that most economically successful states have a language other than English as their primary language.

Finland has spent huge amounts in tax money, time and educational resources to teach their population english for economical benifite. Yet you would have us spend huge amounts of tax money, time and educational resources doing the opposite! And for no other reason then a misty eyed celtic pipe dream. The mind boggles.

Dionysus wrote: »

Outside the anglophone, anglocentric cocoon of these people the linguistic reality of economic success is patently very different in the twenty-first century.

I'm afraid gaelgeoirs are the only ones in a cocoon.

Wolfe Tone

I honestly do not see how an increased amount of bilingual people would damage the economy.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I honestly do not see how an increased amount of bilingual people would damage the economy.

Can you see how an increased amount of bilingual people would help the economy? Considering the tax money, time and educational resources we would need to pump in to achieve it?

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can you see how an increased amount of bilingual people would help the economy? Considering the tax money, time and educational resources we would need to pump in to achieve it?

How does learning about History do that? How does having a population who know a great amount about Churchill, Hitler etc?


The vast majority of primary school teachers have good Irish. Why not simply increase the amount of spoken Irish in classrooms? Have some other subjects taught through Irish?

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

How does learning about History do that? How does having a population who know a great amount about Churchill, Hitler etc?


The vast majority of primary school teachers have good Irish. Why not simply increase the amount of spoken Irish in classrooms? Have some other subjects taught through Irish?

Nicely avoided. But you didn't answer my question.

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not a strawman arguement.

Misrepresenting the other side's position so you can "refute" it? That's a strawman.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finland has spent huge amounts in tax money, time and educational resources to teach their population english for economical benifite. Yet you would have us spend huge amounts of tax money, time and educational resources doing the opposite!

... making the population forget English?!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And for no other reason then a misty eyed celtic pipe dream.

Which is?

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nicely avoided. But you didn't answer my question.

If you are going to apply that logic to Irish why not other subjects? I will again cite history as an example.

I cannot see how it would directly benefit the economy no. But tell me this: is the sole purpose of education simply to benefit the economy?

Dionysus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not a strawman arguement.

It is, in fact, a strawman argument. The only people talking about force in this debate is the English monoglot, and then only a tiny, ignorant minority of them.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finland has spent huge amounts in tax money, time and educational resources to teach their population english for economical benifite.

Yeah, well in some countries such spending is clearly wasted.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yet you would have us spend huge amounts of tax money, time and educational resources doing the opposite! And for no other reason then a misty eyed celtic pipe dream. The mind boggles.

The mind boggles indeed that certain people judge the rest of the human race by what are patently their own intellectual limitations; the concept of using one's native language as one's primary language and then - shock, horror - having another language to add to it is clearly way too much to handle for those people who are struggling with one language.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm afraid gaelgeoirs are the only ones in a cocoon.

The worldview of the average speaker of Irish is linguistically and culturally considerably more open and fluid than the worldview of the assorted illiterates who are better defining themselves by what they are against - Irish language and culture - than what they are in favour of. If they really appreciated the English language in all its colour and beauty they would at least make the effort to write it to a decent standard. In contrast, the average gaeilgeoir appreciates a good standard of English as much as he or she appreciates a good standard of Irish. The same open-minded attitude towards other languages applies to most people who have bothered to learn a second language to a high standard.

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

Misrepresenting the other side's position so you can "refute" it? That's a strawman.

Ye are condoning the forced education of Irish en mass. Therefore it's not a strawman.

Leto wrote: »

... making the population forget English?!

Finland, started with a different language and spent a huge amount of tax money, time and educational resources learning english.

You want Ireland, a country in which 98-99% of the population already speaks english to spend a huge amount of tax money, time and educational resources learning a different language. It's the opposite.

Leto wrote: »

Which is?

?

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can you see how an increased amount of bilingual people would help the economy?

Do you think that's the only reason one might learn a language?

Iwasfrozen

Dionysus wrote: »

It is, in fact, a strawman argument. The only people talking about force in this debate is the English monoglot, and then only a tiny, ignorant minority of them.

Correcting my grammar. Well done, I see we* have run out of an actual argument. :rolleyes:

*That's the royal we by the way.

Dionysus wrote: »

The mind boggles indeed that certain people judge the rest of the human race by what are patently their own intellectual limitations; the concept of using one's native language as one's primary language and then - shock, horror - having another language to add to it is clearly way too much to handle for those people who are struggling with one language.

Finland learned english with a set motivation. On a state level that motivation was the attraction of foreign i.e American investors. On an individual citizen's level that motivation is British and American media. Both of which is very popular over there.

In Ireland we lack both those motivating factors and thus the only motivating factor we have left is what can only be described as a misty eyed celtic pipe dream.

But that's just my theory. We could go with your's that all monolinguals are intellectually inferior to bilinguals...

Dionysus wrote: »

The worldview of the average speaker of Irish is linguistically and culturally considerably more open and fluid than the worldview of the assorted illiterates who are better defining themselves by what they are against - Irish language and culture - than what they are in favour of. If they really appreciated the English language in all its colour and beauty they would at least make the effort to write it to a decent standard. In contrast, the average gaeilgeoir appreciates a good standard of English as much as he or she appreciates a good standard of Irish. The same open-minded attitude towards other languages applies to most people who have bothered to learn a second language to a high standard.

Can you back up any of that? Or are you only speaking from your own limited experience?

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

Do you think that's the only reason one might learn a language?

No it isn't. But it's one reason.

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ye are condoning the forced education of Irish en mass. Therefore it's not a strawman.

For the umpteenth time: why are you framing the debate in such an antagonistic way? No one has suggested forcing all schools to teach solely through Irish. You're making that up, and then decrying it. You're having an argument with yourself.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finland, started with a different language and spent a huge amount of tax money, time and educational resources learning english.

You want Ireland, a country in which 98-99% of the population already speaks english to spend a huge amount of tax money, time and educational resources learning a different language. It's the opposite.

No. The opposite to Finns' spending money to improve their command of English would be our spending money to lessen our command of English. Do you think learning Irish more effectively will detract from our English ability?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

?

The "misty-eyed Celtic pipe dream" you referred to. What is it?

Dionysus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ye are condoning the forced education of Irish en mass. Therefore it's not a strawman.

Oh, you mean by the same education system which "forces" people to learn Shakespeare/English and quadratic equations/Maths en masse?


It is patently a strawman argument, the sort invoked by people who are seeking a scapegoat for their own academic failures.

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

For the umpteenth time: why are you framing the debate in such an antagonistic way? No one has suggested forcing all schools to teach solely through Irish. You're making that up, and then decrying it. You're having an argument with yourself.

Yes they have. Read back through the thread. You'll see that many gaelgeoirs here have advocated teaching one or more subjects in irish.

Leto wrote: »

No. The opposite to Finns' spending money to improve their command of English would be our spending money to lessen our command of English. Do you think learning Irish more effectively will detract from our English ability?

Finns start with non-english language and end up with two languages. One english one non-english.

Irish start off with english language and end up with two languages. One english and one non-english.

See? Oposite.

Leto wrote: »

The "misty-eyed Celtic pipe dream" you referred to. What is it?

Oh it's a wonderful land where everyone speaks irish.

Iwasfrozen

Dionysus wrote: »

Oh, you mean by the same education system which "forces" people to learn Shakespeare/English and quadratic equations/Maths en masse?


It is patently a strawman argument, the sort invoked by people who are seeking a scapegoat for their own academic failures.

It's not a strawman because it is relevent. Using the likes of Shakespeare or Maths is a strawman because it is not relevent and tries to steer the topic off into a direction that one can "win".

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes they have. Read back through the thread. You'll see that many gaelgeoirs here have advocated teaching one or more subjects in irish.

Off the top of my head, one poster has advocated teaching one other subject (history was given as the example) through Irish. I'd actually prefer if Irish and English were interspersed through the day more generally as the teacher felt appropriate, but in general am in favour of the idea. Neither of those are the same as teaching everything through Irish, always.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finns start with non-english language and end up with two languages. One english one non-english.

Irish start off with english language and end up with two languages. One english and one non-english.

See? Oposite.

You've got the same outcome for both groups. The same outcome. The same.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh it's a wonderful land where everyone speaks irish.

Please. People don't have to use it if they don't want to; I'd like to have had the option. Hypothetically, would it be such a terrible thing if more people had Irish to a communicative level?

Wolfe Tone

I will ask again, do you believe that the sole purpose of education should be to benefit the economy?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

Off the top of my head, one poster has advocated teaching one other subject (history was given as the example) through Irish. I'd actually prefer if Irish and English were interspersed through the day more generally as the teacher felt appropriate, but in general am in favour of the idea. Neither of those are the same as teaching everything through Irish, always.

The origional poster wrote this:

astrofool wrote:

Forcing us to use Irish will drastically reduce our exports as all the multinationals leave the country.

By teaching one subject in irish. In this case history, the state is in effect forcing Irish on the population en masse. Even more so then they currently do. Which is far too much.

Leto wrote: »

You've got the same outcome for both groups. The same outcome. The same.

The thing is though we already speak english so there is no reason for us to become bilingual.

Leto wrote: »

Please. People don't have to use it if they don't want to; I'd like to have had the option. Hypothetically, would it be such a terrible thing if more people had Irish to a communicative level?

And this is what it boils down to people trying to push their belifes onto other people. And demanding the state, i.e we, pay for it.

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finland has spent huge amounts in tax money, time and educational resources to teach their population english for economical benifite. Yet you would have us spend huge amounts of tax money, time and educational resources doing the opposite!

To return to this, which I bypassed earlier: I'm not sure you understand what I'd like to see happen.

I want a slight alteration to teaching practice, to incorporate more Irish on a day-to-day, functional, communicative level (e.g. in teaching a subject heretofore taught solely through English). That does not entail spending huge amounts of tax money.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I will ask again, do you believe that the sole purpose of education should be to benefit the economy?

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

To return to this, which I bypassed earlier: I'm not sure you understand what I'd like to see happen.

I want a slight alteration to teaching practice, to incorporate more Irish on a day-to-day, functional, communicative level (e.g. in teaching a subject heretofore taught solely through English). That does not entail spending huge amounts of tax money.

But, in the most basic way I can put it, why?

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The origional poster wrote this:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. That teaching another subject through Irish will drive multinationals out of the country??

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

By teaching one subject in irish. In this case history, the state is in effect forcing Irish on the population en masse. Even more so then they currently do. Which is far too much.

We've covered this "forcing Irish en masse" thing already. Unless someone has another angle on it I think my previous posts will suffice.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The thing is though we already speak english so there is no reason for us to become bilingual.

There are many reasons one might want to have some command of a second (at least) language. What is your objection to being bilingual?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And this is what it boils down to people trying to push their belifes onto other people. And demanding the state, i.e we, pay for it.

As I said, I'm not suggesting that more resources be given to Irish. I'm talking about teaching practice.

People "pushing their beliefs" works both ways. Are you actively trying to stamp out Irish? I don't understand why you are so resolutely opposed to Irish learning, at no expense to English learning.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

I did.... I think.

I cannot see how it would directly benefit the economy no.

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here. That teaching another subject through Irish will drive multinationals out of the country??

I never said that.

Leto wrote: »

We've covered this "forcing Irish en masse" thing already. Unless someone has another angle on it I think my previous posts will suffice.

you responded to it with this:

Leto wrote:

For the umpteenth time: why are you framing the debate in such an antagonistic way? No one has suggested forcing all schools to teach solely through Irish. You're making that up, and then decrying it. You're having an argument with yourself.

That's hardly a response to your advocation of forced irish education.

Leto wrote: »

There are many reasons one might want to have some command of a second (at least) language. What is your objection to being bilingual?

What are these many reasons?

I have no objection to a bilingual nation. I have an objection to the cost in time, money and educational resources that it will take to achieve it.

Leto wrote: »

As I said, I'm not suggesting that more resources be given to Irish. I'm talking about teaching practice.

Which still takes time. Time that is the most important resource of all in the education system. We simply cannot afford to spend so much time on something that is ultimately useless.

Leto wrote: »

People "pushing their beliefs" works both ways. Are you actively trying to stamp out Irish? I don't understand why you are so resolutely opposed to Irish learning, at no expense to English learning.

No I'm not trying to stamp out Irish. I'm just against time being taken away from a subject like science and given to irish. That really grinds my goat.