Is Irish a dead language?

MysticalRain

deise go deo wrote: »

Well where is that written? The view I have put forward on the function of education comes from a 17 century prussian schollar, Hagel.
I dont believe the funcution of education is to teach some nationalistic cultural identity, as I said I believe that it is to expand the childs mind and bring them to a point that they can continue their own education.

The education system dosent revolve around religion and Irish. there is only 2 classes of religion per week and there is the same amount of time given to maths as there is to irish and english. So why are you focusing on Irish, surely english potery or shakespear is just as useless to the smart econemy?

What is the economic rational for teaching history? There arent many jobs in that either.

Why do you fundamentaly disagree that improved teaching would lead to improved understanding of Irish?

Well you can find it documented in official government literature. Encouraging high-tech innovation through education has been government policy for the last 30 years, and is the primary cornerstone of our economy. I can quote the CEO's of Intel and HP for their guidelines on what a 21st-century education system should be. Their opinions seem more relevant to me than the writings of a long dead 17th century Prussian scholar.

That might be the case in secondary school. But when I was in primary school, we spend more time preparing for our confirmation ceremony, than we did learning about maths or science. Hence many of us were at a disadvantage when we hit secondary level. It is also very disingenuous to claim that the education system doesn't revolve around Irish, when it is one of the three core subjects.

Unlike Irish, history is not compulsory. At least not beyond junior circuit level anyway, and far less time is spent on it than Irish. If somebody wants a job teaching history, then more power to them. They can be free to choose that as a subject for their leaving search. No such choice exists for Irish.

Why do you fundamentaly disagree that improved teaching would lead to improved understanding of Irish?

Irish is a difficult subject to begin with, and quite frankly, most people just simply do not see the point in studying it. Unlike with maths or English, the vast majority of people will never touch Irish after they leave school. The way the point system is designed, Irish is perceived as an obstacle to success, and is dropped by many students as an honours subject so they can focus their efforts elsewhere.

You can improve teaching methods all you like, but the fact is school is one of the worst places to learn a language, and exams kill any joy in it for it for most people. If you really want to learn language, you need to move to the location where it spoken, and immerse yourself in it. Granted that's a problem with the teaching of languages in general in our education system. But Irish has its own unique set of difficulties in addition to that.

deise go deo

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well you can find it documented in official government literature. Encouraging high-tech innovation through education has been government policy for the last 30 years, and is the primary cornerstone of our economy. I can quote the CEO's of Intel and HP for their guidelines on what a 21st-century education system should be. Their opinions seem more relevant to me than the writings of a long dead 17th century Prussian scholar.

That might be the case in secondary school. But when I was in primary school, we spend more time preparing for our confirmation ceremony, than we did learning about maths or science. Hence many of us were at a disadvantage when we hit secondary level. It is also very disingenuous to claim that the education system doesn't revolve around Irish, when it is one of the three core subjects.

Unlike Irish, history is not compulsory. At least not beyond junior circuit level anyway, and far less time is spent on it than Irish. If somebody wants a job teaching history, then more power to them. They can be free to choose that as a subject for their leaving search. No such choice exists for Irish.


Irish is a difficult subject to begin with, and quite frankly, most people just simply do not see the point in studying it. Unlike with maths or English, the vast majority of people will never touch Irish after they leave school. The way the point system is designed, Irish is perceived as an obstacle to success, and is dropped by many students as an honours subject so they can focus their efforts elsewhere.

You can improve teaching methods all you like, but the fact is school is one of the worst places to learn a language, and exams kill any joy in it for it for most people. If you really want to learn language, you need to move to the location where it spoken, and immerse yourself in it. Granted that's a problem with the teaching of languages in general in our education system. But Irish has its own unique set of difficulties in addition to that.

I doubt confirmation would take much time above the normal time spent on religion in primary school which was no where near the same as the time spent on maths. Not that i'm particularly in favour of teaching ''religion'' as such in school, although it can be a convient space to teach morality, right and wrong etc which I would be in favour of. I think that things like preparation for the conformtion being done in schoole wont be around for much longer anyway due to the increasingly multicultral nature af the country.

The ceo of intell is perfictally intitled to his opinion, and im sure it has its merits, Has he voiced concerens over the teaching or Irish as a compulsery subject? As for that long dead prussion scholar, he was largley responciple for the creation of the widely renouned enlighned prussion education system, so maybe not so irrelavant?

Your post suggested that the education system revolved around Irish alone. whereas I have shown that it is no more prominent in the system than english or maths.

True it is optional, but you suggested the main function of eduction is economic, so why is business studies, which has a clear economic benefit also optional if as you claim the goverment see the function of education in the same way you do? English is not optional and i doubt anywhere near as many people who use Irish when they leave school use the quotes from shakespear they were ''Forcefully indoctrinated'' in. So I ask again why focuse on Irish?

What unique set of dificulties? Irish is not any more dificult to learn than any other language.

recedite

gaeilgegrinds1 wrote: »

The point made that most of the children in Gaelscoileanna are the progeny of teachers and civilservants is true. Don't know what it proves really other than teachers see the value of them perhaps?

They want their kids to get into college and become the teachers and civil servants of tomorrow. The reason that it is essential for people in government jobs to have Irish is because one of these same people might ring up with a routine enquiry and demand to be dealt with through the Irish Language. It becomes a self perpetuating farce. All teachers of course must be able to teach it, even if they want to teach a different subject.

We have the reams of government and EU documents to be translated by bilingual people so that same bilingual people will be able to read them. More jobs, but more taxes for everyone else to pay for it all.


Then we have the small number of Gaeilgeoirs actually living in the Gaeltacht. I wonder if they would bother with it if they didn't make so much money running summer schools teaching Irish, and collecting Udaras grants.

I reckon the worst thing that could happen to Gaeilgeoirs would be if the rest of us were fluent in Irish. Then they would no longer be "special".
No more special grants, special exam points bonuses, special jobs.

Its not a "Dead Language", just brain dead, and being kept alive on a State life support system.

So why has the State pushed this so much since independence?
When one political elite replaces another it can often happen that only the name changes. In order to convince the long suffering public that everything has changed, the new order trumpets new slogans and renames government controlled organisations, in our case using Irish. After a while a comfortable status quo is established, in which the beneficiaries are quite happy, and they make sure to maintain that.

MysticalRain

I doubt confirmation would take much time above the normal time spent on religion in primary school which was no where near the same as the time spent on maths. Not that i'm particularly in favour of teaching ''religion'' as such in school, although it can be a convient space to teach morality, right and wrong etc which I would be in favour of. I think that things like preparation for the conformtion being done in schoole wont be around for much longer anyway due to the increasingly multicultral nature af the country.

Well I went to a rural school, so maybe things were different elsewhere when it came to the teaching of religion.

The ceo of intell is perfictally intitled to his opinion, and im sure it has its merits, Has he voiced concerens over the teaching or Irish as a compulsery subject?

Take a look for yourself. The guy from HP had some particularly blunt words to say about our education system.
http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/hp-boss-questions-time-spent-on-irish-49889.html
http://digital21.ie/news/item/547

Your post suggested that the education system revolved around Irish alone. whereas I have shown that it is no more prominent in the system than english or maths.

As I pointed out in my last post, you're missing the point. The fact is Irish should never have been elevated to the level of English or maths in the first place, and there is certainly no justification for keeping it there if we want to have a competitive 21st-century economy.

True it is optional, but you suggested the main function of eduction is economic, so why is business studies, which has a clear economic benefit also optional if as you claim the goverment see the function of education in the same way you do?

I said business is one key area of education. There is no law that says somebody has to focus purely on business. Science, maths and technology are other key areas. Some people choose business careers, others choose science or engineering. The economic value comes from an education system that produces people who have marketable skills in those given areas. Of course if Irish wasn't a compulsory subject, more people could choose business studies as a leaving cert subject.

English is not optional and i doubt anywhere near as many people who use Irish when they leave school use the quotes from shakespear they were ''Forcefully indoctrinated'' in. So I ask again why focuse on Irish?

The English curriculum has its problems, although as it has been reformed in recent years if I recall correctly. In my view, there should be less focus on Shakespeare and more focus on basic grammar. But the fact is, basic literacy in English is a vital skill for everybody in the society we live in. Irish certainly isn't for the vast majority of us.

What unique set of dificulties? Irish is not any more dificult to learn than any other language.

The ones I just mentioned - the point system, and peoples perceptions of the language. As for difficulty. Some languages are easier to learn than others. Irish is generally acknowledged as being one of the more difficult ones.

deise go deo

recedite wrote: »

They want their kids to get into college and become the teachers and civil servants of tomorrow. The reason that it is essential for people in government jobs to have Irish is because one of these same people might ring up with a routine enquiry and demand to be dealt with through the Irish Language. It becomes a self perpetuating farce. All teachers of course must be able to teach it, even if they want to teach a different subject.

We have the reams of government and EU documents to be translated by bilingual people so that same bilingual people will be able to read them. More jobs, but more taxes for everyone else to pay for it all.


Then we have the small number of Gaeilgeoirs actually living in the Gaeltacht. I wonder if they would bother with it if they didn't make so much money running summer schools teaching Irish, and collecting Udaras grants.

I reckon the worst thing that could happen to Gaeilgeoirs would be if the rest of us were fluent in Irish. Then they would no longer be "special".
No more special grants, special exam points bonuses, special jobs.

Its not a "Dead Language", just brain dead, and being kept alive on a State life support system.

So why has the State pushed this so much since independence?
When one political elite replaces another it can often happen that only the name changes. In order to convince the long suffering public that everything has changed, the new order trumpets new slogans and renames government controlled organisations, in our case using Irish. After a while a comfortable status quo is established, in which the beneficiaries are quite happy, and they make sure to maintain that.[/QUOTE]


So you would force people who live their lives through the medium of the Irish language to speak English when comunicating with their Goverment?


So stand for election on the basis of doing away with irish. If the sentiment is so popular then it should be easy right.
Maybe the reason that no political party is proposing this is they realise that the majority of the Irish people have goodwill towards the laungauge?
Would you be one of those who routinely accuses Fianna Fáil (Justifiably) of being shameless vote grabbers? If people were hostile to the language then why would they support it?

deise go deo

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well I went to a rural school, so maybe things were different elsewhere when it came to the teaching of religion.


Take a look for yourself. The guy from HP had some particularly blunt words to say about our education system.
http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/hp-boss-questions-time-spent-on-irish-49889.html
http://digital21.ie/news/item/547


As I pointed out in my last post, you're missing the point. The fact is Irish should never have been elevated to the level of English or maths in the first place, and there is certainly no justification for keeping it there if we want to have a competitive 21st-century economy.


I said business is one key area of education. There is no law that says somebody has to focus purely on business. Science, maths and technology are other key areas. Some people choose business careers, others choose science or engineering. The economic value comes from an education system that produces people who have marketable skills in those given areas. Of course if Irish wasn't a compulsory subject, more people could choose business studies as a leaving cert subject.


The English curriculum has its problems, although as it has been reformed in recent years if I recall correctly. In my view, there should be less focus on Shakespeare and more focus on basic grammar. But the fact is, basic literacy in English is a vital skill for everybody in the society we live in. Irish certainly isn't for the vast majority of us.


The ones I just mentioned - the point system, and peoples perceptions of the language. As for difficulty. Some languages are easier to learn than others. Irish is generally acknowledged as being one of the more difficult ones.

I went to a rural school aswell.

What he said(HP) was interesting, I agree, Irish should not just be looked at but radicaly overhauled, I have stated my perferd result of such an overhall, I do not know, If this were to happen, how much time would be deemed appropriate for the teaching of irish, it may well be less than it is now,(cant see it being more tbh) I would have no problem with the inclusian of chinease as an option for the leaving cert.

Saying Irish shouldent be on a par with English and maths is not the same thing as saying the education system revolves around Irish.

I was using business as an example, and if irish was optional then it would mean less people would do business as people who choose irish may not be able to choose business due to a clash of times, and It may even take up more time as it would mean it would fit in differently into the day than it is now. There would probably be Irish going on at two different times dureing the day rather than one as it is now in order to avoid time clashes with the students other options

The vast majority are basicly literate by the Junior cert, so should English be optional for the leaving cert aswell?

Who acknowledges Irish as generaly more dificult language to learn? It is vastly easier to learn than English, it has very few irrigular verbes. Peoples perceptions of the language is very intangible. The points system is actually skued in favour of thoes with good Irish.

P. Breathnach

recedite wrote: »

They want their kids to get into college and become the teachers and civil servants of tomorrow. The reason that it is essential for people in government jobs to have Irish is because one of these same people might ring up with a routine enquiry and demand to be dealt with through the Irish Language. It becomes a self perpetuating farce. All teachers of course must be able to teach it, even if they want to teach a different subject.

Much of what you say is inaccurate. There is no requirement for Irish to become a civil servant (although there is a small advantage if an applicant has good Irish). The requirement for Irish to become a teacher of subject other than Irish is there on paper, but it's something of a farce: you would want to be trying hard in order to fail the examination, and passing it does not truly mean that you have any noticeable competence.

...
Then we have the small number of Gaeilgeoirs actually living in the Gaeltacht. I wonder if they would bother with it if they didn't make so much money running summer schools teaching Irish, and collecting Udaras grants.

The number is small as a percentage of our population, but not absolutely small. And yes, many would use the language without any financial incentive, because it is genuinely their first language. I was in the gaeltacht just a few days ago, and experienced people using the language even though there wasn't any financial incentive for them. Do you think that a four-year old child conversing with a neighbour is influenced by grants? Do you think that the pensioners having a pint in the local see themselves as teachers?

...
Its not a "Dead Language", just brain dead, and being kept alive on a State life support system...

That's a nonsensical categorisation, and it's simply inaccurate.

Rockery Woman

dlofnep wrote: »

The Irish language isn't dead. It's just not as prevelvant in society as it should be, which is largely attributed to the poor curriculum in school. Lack of fluent speakers will obviously impact it's visibility in society.

Agree! We learn it in school for 10 years but can many people speak it? Also there are variations in regions Connacht Irish is different from Ulster Irish for example. And if you dont speak it regularly you will lose the skill very quickly "an bhfuil cead agam dul go dti an leithreas" is all most people know :eek::eek:

deise go deo

Rockery Woman wrote: »

Agree! We learn it in school for 10 years but can many people speak it? Also there are variations in regions Connacht Irish is different from Ulster Irish for example. And if you dont speak it regularly you will lose the skill very quickly "an bhfuil cead agam dul go dti an leithreas" is all most people know :eek::eek:

So what do you think the solution is? Or do you care?

Welcome to Boards btw:)

tolosenc

As a university level student of linguistics and a non-native fluent speaker of Irish who has lived on the continent, here are my €0.02...

Firstly, Irish is not a dead language. A dead language is defined as one which no longer has any living native speakers. As I count many native speakers of Irish among my family and friends, I'm 100% certain that the language is living.

However, the language isn't in the best of health. The number of native speakers is declining despite the current upward trend in the number of overall speakers. One of the many reasons behind this is the higher prestige of English. English is the dominant language of the world, and we live in a country in which it is the native language of the vast majority. It's easy to understand why traditionally bi-lingual families may choose to abandon Irish in favour of the language they use all day every day.

There also exists an animosity towards the language in a large segment of the population. There are issues with how the language is presented to children, and no one is denying that.

The syllabus in schools is all wrong. Irish as it is taught in national schools has no real coherence to anything. No number od "líon na bearnaí"s is going to improve a childs knowledge if he doesn't get what's going on in hte first place. What I see as the obvious answer to this (I recognise the flaws in it too) is to have all primary schooling in Ireland conducted entirely through Irish. Kids would have an astonishing fluency by the age of 6 and the language itself would no longer be a barrier.

Many parents hated Irish at school and kids pick up at home that it is "stupid" or "a waste of time". Negative vibes from parents and older siblings are never going to help foster an interest in a young school child, thus this mentality really does need to be looked at.

Thirdly, the typical person involved in the promotion of the Irish language is a self righteous twat who is completely dislocated from the reality of the situation. Case and point being the complete inability to even vaguely modify the school syllabus. I participated in schools debating 'as Gaeilge' when in secondary school and was very unimpressed with the oftentimes superior attitude of the typical gaeilgóir to be found running events like these. Things like referring to people by a bastardisation of their actual name need to stop. When you go to France, Spain, Italy or wherever, names aren't translated.

Living on the continent, it is actually shocking to see just how poorly we match up to other nationalities when it comes to learning languages. Here, you're weird if you know more than English, whereas knowing fewer than 3 in places like Germany, France, Spain is very odd. A greater understanding of a language other than one's own at an early age aids the ability to learn further languages at any point in one's life.

Ultimately, we shouldbe aiming to have a situation like Scandanavia/Holland, where we all speak our own language(Irish) amongst ourselves, but all have a very high standard of English. A bilingual society is where we need to be.

deise go deo

Thats a very interisting post. I think the whole 'its Dead' thing has been put to bed. Still not gona stop people saying it though:rolleyes:

Yes haveing primary education done entirely as gaeilge would solve the problem, however the resources/teachers and will simpily is not there.

As for the whole calling someone by there Irish name, I never saw a problem with it, If someone asked to be called by the english version of there name and were ignored on the other hand, Thats just downright ignorent

imo

Soldie

tolosenc wrote: »

A bilingual society is where we need to be.

Why?

lugha

tolosenc wrote: »

Firstly, Irish is not a dead language. A dead language is defined as one which no longer has any living native speakers. As I count many native speakers of Irish among my family and friends, I'm 100% certain that the language is living.

My old Irish teacher, a Connemara lad and of course Irish enthusiast, used to argue that a language could not be considered dead if it was constantly changing (new words etc.), which he said was the case with Irish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think this is quite true. There are certainly gaelicizations of English words in Irish. Although there are many words that appear to be thus, but simply come from the fact that both Irish and English borrowed from Latin. (Or in fact that Irish and Latin are somewhat related and share a lot of words from their common base.)

Most words for modern things simply have a new word, which arose in native speech. Or are a compound word of two other words.

What government documents tend to do is not come up with a new word and instead resort to strings of words in the genitive. They, in fact, rarely come up with a new word.

An example might be "Keynesianism, where instead of making up a single word they do something more like:
Theory of the social economics of Keynes.
This is just of the top of my head, sometimes it can be a string of genitive "of the" which are eight or so "of the"s long!

Of course this just shows the ridiculous nature of the government documents.

Iwasfrozen

tolosenc wrote: »

Thirdly, the typical person involved in the promotion of the Irish language is a self righteous twat who is completely dislocated from the reality of the situation. Case and point being the complete inability to even vaguely modify the school syllabus. I participated in schools debating 'as Gaeilge' when in secondary school and was very unimpressed with the oftentimes superior attitude of the typical gaeilgóir to be found running events like these. Things like referring to people by a bastardisation of their actual name need to stop. When you go to France, Spain, Italy or wherever, names aren't translated.

I agree that the attitudes of the typical gaeilgoir leaves much to be desired. But it's not only personal names they annoyingly translate, place names don't escape their attention either.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I agree that the attitudes of the typical gaeilgoir leaves much to be desired. But it's not only personal names they annoyingly translate, place names don't escape their attention either.

Thats perspective really. I like the Irish translation of my name and intend to use it more often.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats perspective really. I like the Irish translation of my name and intend to use it more often.

That's ok, just don't translate other peoples names. And for god's sake, don't translate place names. It's incredibly annoying. And doesn't do anything for the language except make people hate you.

Wolfe Tone

Well what about english place names which are anglicized versions of the original Irish name?

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well what about english place names which are anglicized versions of the original Irish name?

How does that explain abominations such as Nua-Eabhrac, Stócólm and Tóiceo?

I'll say it again, changing place names does nothing for the language and only makes people hate you.

Wolfe Tone

I agree about Foreign places to an extent, but within Ireland I disagree.

only makes people hate you.

Thats a bit OTT. Maybe only people with a fundamental vendetta against the language. Not referring to you of course.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I agree about Foreign places to an extent, but within Ireland I disagree.

Why do you only agree to an extent?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats a bit OTT. Maybe only people with a fundamental vendetta against the language. Not referring to you of course.

Is it OTT? Or is it a reasonable response to the pompous self-important attitudes of the gealgeoirs that feel the need to rename areas in the first place.

The way I see it if an area is majority english speaking then gealgeoirs should respect that and call it by it's english name. I would never try to angloise the name of a majority speaking Irish area.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How does that explain abominations such as Nua-Eabhrac, Stócólm and Tóiceo?

That's fairly normal stuff for any language community. In English, we speak of Rome, Warsaw, Cologne, and Moscow.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... the pompous self-important attitudes of the gealgeoirs that feel the need to rename areas in the first place....

Do you object to Irish speakers using the original Gaelic names of places? Is it permissible for me, when using Irish, to speak of Baile Átha Cliath or Dún Dealgain?

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's fairly normal stuff for any language community. In English, we speak of Rome, Warsaw, Cologne, and Moscow.

In english these place names are historical. No such history behind their irish counter-parts.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you object to Irish speakers using the original Gaelic names of places? Is it permissible for me, when using Irish, to speak of Baile Átha Cliath or Dún Dealgain?

They should only be used when speaking irish.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They should only be used when speaking irish.

I disagree. I often use both english and Irish place names, I like to mix it up


The Irish name is just as valid as the english, if not more so.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I disagree. I often use both english and Irish place names, I like to mix it up

Which is when I would stop speaking with you in real life.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The Irish name is just as valid as the english, if not more so.

No, God no, it is not more valid. If you are speaking english you should use the english name of the place you are speaking about. If you are speaking in irish you should use the irish name. That stands to common sense.

I may as well take the bait here and ask you why you think the irish name of an area is more valid then it's english name?

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Which is when I would stop speaking with you in real life.

So if someone said to you "Ah, Iwasfrozen, I had a great time over in Dun na nGall, was lovely" You would stop talking to them? Why? This to me appears highly OTT, small and petty. It reeks of an irrational hatred for a language.

No, God no, it is not more valid. If you are speaking english you should use the english name of the place you are speaking about. If you are speaking in irish you should use the irish name. That stands to common sense.

I may as well take the bait here and ask you why you think the irish name of an area is more valid then it's english name?

Well I completely disagree.


Well for historical reasons mainly. But mostly I think that either or is fine.