Is Irish a dead language?

aDeener · 21-07-2010 10:20pm

lol such bull, i could express myself no problem at junior cert level and indeed long before that and funnily enough so could everyone in the school. compulsory english for LC is not a necessity (except for those with a serious agenda against irish of course)

lugha · 21-07-2010 10:37pm

You miss my point, deliberately I suspect. The public sector requirement was a “for example”. I might well have said that in the interests of promoting elements of Irish identity / culture, government controlled grants or services might be made more favourably available to those who were member of GAA clubs for example. A preposterous suggestion of course, but perhaps if such a idea was put in place decades ago there would be some posters here insisting that it be maintained.

And I am well aware of the “Irish exam requirement” for the public sector, having taken it, and I know what a ludicrously low standard there is. Seriously, if they must have such a requirement, they should really do it properly.

And you could do well to look at the GAA and how successful they are at promoting aspects of Irish culture without compulsion.

Permabear · 21-07-2010 11:00pm

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone · 21-07-2010 11:25pm

Ok, and being optional who will decide? I don't think the child would have the final say, the parents would, right?

I see a cheap dig in here at that poster. I thought you were better than that to be honest. Maybe it is just me and it was not intended.

Permabear · 22-07-2010 12:13am

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone · 22-07-2010 12:29am

So the English teaching also needs an overhaul?

Permabear · 22-07-2010 12:37am

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone · 22-07-2010 12:38am

Having just finished second level education I agree. It is very much like Irish, everyone learns off aswers.

LordSutch · 22-07-2010 7:04am

In a nutshell, I think Irish was dying long before the inception of the Republic, I also think that a decision was made that 'Irish' would be one of the main pillars of this new State, and that it would be revived by hook or by crook, & forced into every man woman and child, thus drawing a line in the sand & creating a new Irish identity, irrespective of whether the language was dying out or not.

Obvious question; "Why is the Welsh language doing so well" ?

Permabear · 22-07-2010 9:12am

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep · 22-07-2010 11:44am

It was dying, and I don't think that anyone would dispute that fact. It was dying for a number of reasons.

1) The famine killed a majority of Irish speakers.
2) The national schools introduced by Britain taught through the medium of English, and did not teach Irish as a subject.
3) Irish was pushed as a language of the poor.

Regardless of all of the above - I think we would all be speaking English today either way. The difference is - Ireland would be a true bilingual state across the board. In 1841, 4 million people here spoke Irish. After the famine, that was seriously reduced.Today that's probably no more than 150,000. (If we are to be honest about it - I don't subscribe to figures that claim 1 million and above).

Good question.

I spoke to a person to studied teaching in Wales, and she said that the teaching in the schools was much more enthusiastic, and fun-orientated. The curriculum tried to be creative, and that it was taught in a modern context, instead of an old language.

But to get a better understanding, you'd have to ask someone who studied Welsh, and for them to give their opinions on the pros and cons they saw in teaching. Welsh is a mandatory subject up until the age of 16 in Wales.

dlofnep · 22-07-2010 11:45am

Wrong.

Permabear · 22-07-2010 12:03pm

This post has been deleted.

lugha · 22-07-2010 12:47pm

It is interesting to note that for those of us not inclined to join in the ballads idolizing Pearse and his like, we would be told, dubiously, that we would not have had our freedom and independence were it not for him. That such ballads were often sung in the pubs of the old English enemy, where Irish economic migrants went in droves as the new Ireland was less than a run-away success, is an irony lost on many.
But OT.

aDeener · 22-07-2010 1:07pm

yes, because here on boards i am going to put the utmost effort into every sentence :rolleyes:

excuse me but it's hard to take anything seriously from someone who believes the GAA is alien in modern ireland

oh and it is rather amusing, considering how poor you think i can communicate, that you responded with no problem whatsoever - way to defeat your own blabbering - but hey with your history of outrageous statements that was always going to happen

dlofnep · 22-07-2010 1:32pm

I suppose that's why under British rule, Irishmen & women were still fighting for basic civil equality, housing allocation and jobs decades later in post-partitioned Ireland?

It did - but you forget to to provide the context in which it existed. The world economy was in pieces for the first half of the 20th century due to mass conflict. You also fail to mention that trade between Ireland & Britain was limited for obvious reasons during an economic war. Not to mention, Britain imposed a 20% duty on a majority of Irish exports which also affected the economy. It is to be noted however, that several trade agreements were made by the Irish Government to combat this.

You also have to compare to how Ireland faired under Britain rule during this period. In 1938 - unemployment in Britain was 12.8%, while in the north it was 28%.

Did the Free State have hiccups along the way? Absolutely - But with time, it matured as a state.

It was about tolerant as the small intestine is to gluten.

Now if you don't mind, I'd prefer to discuss the Irish language rather than engaging in a full blown, economic discussion on historical matters.

Permabear · 22-07-2010 1:55pm

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone · 22-07-2010 2:05pm

Economic protectionism was a policy of nearly every government in the immediate post wall street era. Just thought I would chip in with that.

aDeener · 22-07-2010 3:34pm

it amazes me that you can ignore what dlofnep put for you in picture - downright discrimination of the irish in britain. actually, wait, no it doesn't amaze me. this is typical.

carry on

LordSutch · 22-07-2010 3:57pm

Well said, and pretty much bang on the money.

dlofnep · 22-07-2010 4:07pm

Not really.

I don't remember anyone being forced to speak only Irish, buy only Irish or play only Irish games.

dlofnep · 22-07-2010 4:11pm

Dev was spot on with the land annuities repayments. If anything, Britain should have been paying us.

You're not going to find me disagreeing with the fact that some policies were archaic and counter-progressive.

Cute. Very cute. You completely avoided my point.

Enkidu · 24-07-2010 12:50am

This has nothing to do with the argument, but just for the sake of accuracy. We don't really know how the Celtic languages arrived in the British Isles. What is known was that at some point around 500-300 B.C. a language called Insular Celtic was being spoken on the two islands. Eventually Insular Celtic developed two dialects, one in Ireland and the other in Britain. These dialects developed into two languages, Goidelic and British. Goidelic developed into Old Irish (eventually) and a dialect of British would become Old Welsh.

How Insular Celtic got here is a mystery. Some theories are:
Celts invaded and brought the language.
Native Irish and British created it as pidgin to communicate with the Celts on the mainland.
Created as a result of a trading lingua franca based on Celtic and Punic, used by the Carthaginians on their trading routes. (This would explain some Semite like features in Irish and Welsh.)

As for the thread title, Irish is not a dead language, nor a moribund one, nor even a dying one. It's a minority language. At least that is the case if I use the strict linguistic definitions of those terms, which might be too technical a standpoint.

Also some have said that Modern Irish, or at least what is being taught in schools is a "made up language". Can ask what this means? Are people talking about the Official Standard (An Caighdeán Oifigúil)?

As somebody who loves the language I have to say I am against it being compulsory at the Leaving Certificate level.

We (by which I mean enthusiasts) are lucky that since 2000 Irish has reached the point where its numbers are stable (and possibly growing) and the 18-25 age group has been shown to be significantly more positive in their views of the language, more concretely a larger precentage are capable of speaking it and have actively sought to improve their skills, than the 25-40 age group. Also the language is really growing in Northern Ireland.

However all of this has essentially come from personal interest. The growth of the language in Northern Ireland (where it is growing fastest) originated in adult learners.

My argument against compulsory Irish at the Leaving Certificate would thus be:
(a) It is essentially unfair on those who do not want to do it. Particularly a student who is very talented at another subject possibly being held back because of it. (Yes, I am aware that one can make the same argument of the other subjects.)
(b) The language has grown mainly from genuine enthusiasm and state-mandated enthusiasm is surely an oxymoron.

P. Breathnach · 24-07-2010 1:51am

It's quite a conundrum.

Genetic research suggests that Celtic people did not arrive here in significant numbers. I am sceptical of theories relating to trade, because that would fail to explain why other elements of Celtic culture were adopted here, particularly the religious dimension.

It's an intriguing question, and one for which we will probably never have an answer.

murphaph · 24-07-2010 12:24pm

Disagree. I personally think Ireland is still a very immature state. We still vote based on ridiculous things like people's father having been the previous incumbent, or if we'd "like to go for a drink" with the candidate.

No state in which the prime minister can receive "digouts" and not resign in disgrace can be considered a mature democracy IMO. Ireland is on a par with the corrupter southern European states, and not with the more reserved and mature northern European states.

murphaph · 24-07-2010 12:28pm

Well, the bit in bold is certain, DeValera started a trade war with Britain (at the time we imported almost everything from Britain and nowhere else). He did not want that, rathering that we live a "simpler life", and in the process hindering our own economic development, such was his shortsightedness and lack of belief that the Irish people could ever become more than that.

deise go deo · 24-07-2010 12:30pm

Well christianity came here without an Inviasion, I think that people were less dedicated to their piticular religion back then. Something along the lines of 'their more powerfull/advanced than us, their gods are responciple so lets worship them as their better than ours. Bit simpilistic and pure conjecture but possiple. but this is getting off topic.

All laungauges are ''made up'' People arnt bourn with a laungauge, they were created to help with hunting, or thats what we are told anyway,
some people will come up with anything to try and win an argument:rolleyes:

deise go deo · 24-07-2010 12:37pm

People werent forced to buy only Irish, they were strongly incouraged.
Dev dident start the trade war over his wanting the Irish people to live a simpiler life he did it over the land anuities. The tarrifs he put on imports from britain was a responce to the british putting tarifs on Irish beef.
Check your history before you make claims like that.

P. Breathnach · 24-07-2010 12:54pm

The Book of Invasions, which is a proto-history that might contain germs of truth, tells us of the arrival of the Tuatha Dé Danainn (the people of the god Danu, one of the Celtic Gods), and our mythology includes Celtic gods like Lugh and Mannanán. My guess is that people who had adopted Celtic culture arrived here and their culture became the dominant component of the cultural identity of the land -- in effect, the people became Celts by a form of cultural adoption rather than by genetic inheritance.

Not too far, if we are looking at the question of Irish being part of what we are. I, for one, identify with that cultural inheritance, and I do not feel that I am alone in that.

deise go deo · 24-07-2010 1:12pm

Fair point, however I dont really see what relevance how that culture got here in the first place has. We will never know for certain.

I have also heard that the Fir Bolg who came here in one of the earlier invasions may have been linked to the belgae tribe from holland.
Anyway going on what the definition of a 'Dead language' is Irish is not Dead.

Is Irish a dead language?

Comments