Is Irish a dead language?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kev_ps3

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Teaching our young the language of the Invader is nothing more then an illegitimate exercise in state power.
Teaching our young our native language is the correct thing a free patriotic Celtic Ireland should be doing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're not certain how Proto-Insular-Celtic arrived in Ireland, we're certainly not sure it came from an invasion by the Gaels in 300 B.C. Not that it changes the point you're making, as it still came here from the outside, although it may have arrived by trade.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

We're not certain how Proto-Insular-Celtic arrived in Ireland, we're certainly not sure it came from an invasion by the Gaels in 300 B.C. Not that it changes the point you're making, as it still came here from the outside, although it may have arrived by trade.

I rather like the trade idea: a boatload of wolf skins in exchange for a second declension. The fifth declension might have been valued at a basket of oysters (diminishing returns and all that).

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, so I'll deal with the other part. It is obvious that Irish had to arrive here in some fashion because given that it was Indo-European there had to be linguistic movement from Eastern Europe/Anatolia to here.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, but it's not proven what this meant for the language. Otherwise it would not be a current area of active research in linguistics. The exact origins of Insular-Celtic are not known, so saying that it definitively arrived through one method (invasion) is not certain. However it is even worse to pinpoint the exact tribe (Gaels) or to say it was one tribe.
In fact it is only in the last two decades that scholars have reached a tentative consensus about the Insular-Celtic hypothesis, i.e. that the grouping of Celtic is:

Insular:
Irish, Welsh
Continental:
Gaulic, Celtiberian

and not

Q:
Irish, Celtiberian
P:
Gaulic, Welsh

Enkidu

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I rather like the trade idea: a boatload of wolf skins in exchange for a second declension. The fifth declension might have been valued at a basket of oysters (diminishing returns and all that).

:DYes, I'm not so certain of it's merits either. Had the Celtic languages been divided along the Q/P hypothesis I would have said it was probably invasion. However what are the origins of the very unusual developments of Celtic here in the British Isles? The trade hypothesis usual supposes that Insular Celtic was generated as a corruption of Celtic-proper (which is far more like Italic languages, Gaulic for instance looks very similar to Latin) due to the use of the later as a trading lingua-franca. Of course it's very difficult to imagine a population learning to speak a lingua-franca as their native tongue, but it has happened before.

I personally think it was probably invasions.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

...In fact it is only in the last two decades that scholars have reached a tentative consensus about the Insular-Celtic hypothesis, i.e. that the grouping of Celtic is:

Insular:
Irish, Welsh
Continental:
Gaulic, Celtiberian

and not

Q:
Irish, Celtiberian
P:
Gaulic, Welsh

I'd be grateful if you could point me towards an online resource that would tell me a bit more about this (not a lot more, in that I don't want to engage in scholarship, but simply want to have an idea of what the scholars are doing). I'm also curious about where Breton fits in this taxonomy.

Enkidu

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd be grateful if you could point me towards an online resource that would tell me a bit more about this (not a lot more, in that I don't want to engage in scholarship, but simply want to have an idea of what the scholars are doing). I'm also curious about where Breton fits in this taxonomy.

Hey sure, no problem. Breton, by the way is closely related to Welsh, the both basically evolved from dialects of the older British/Brythonic language.

The basic idea is that Irish and Celtiberian both use Q sounds (Cá, Cé, Mac), where as Gaulic and British(Welsh, Breton) use P sounds (Pa, Paham, Map). Also different uses of f and g:

Irish:
fir (man)
fionn (white)

Welsh:
gwr (man)
gwyn (white)

People originally imagined that this basically decided how Celtic had evolved. However in recent years more evidence has gathered that it's nothing more than a convergence in British and Gaulish caused by trade.

A good document might be:
www.nuigalway.ie/archaeology/oldsite/documents/jw_celts.pdf
Although he is a proponent of the trade hypothesis.

I can recommend some very good books though:
Nora Chadwick, The Celts
Barry Cunliffe, Facing the Ocean: The Atlantic and Its peoples

However I know how sleep inducing this may be.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. Particularly the part about the Scots. Of course this observation does not just end at language. It also extends to identity. For instance for most of Irish history people in Ulster would have viewed themselves as part of the Northern end of Goidelic society along with the Scots.

Jenneke87

simonj wrote: »

Sorry if you did not understand what I said earlier
I

The roman script bible was Scots Galic, very close to Irish, like Dutch and Flemish.
As an example Swiss German and German would be further apart linguisticly, as would the Dutch dialects of Zeu and Fries.

The point I wanted to make is that many non-catholic people were native Irish speakers, and I am sure many catholics were english speaking.

Now I´m Dutch and I´ve never heard of a dialect called Zeu. In what area is that spoken?

LordSutch

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What about someone who has a sore throat on the day? Or someone so caught up with nerves that they find it hard to regurgitate their learned off notes. Any exam that brings fourteen years of learning irish down to a fifteen minute conversation is unfair.

After learning Irish for fourteen years shouldn't need to "regurgitate their learned off notes", they should be able to converse naturally in Irish (with or without learned off notes), but of course 'Irish being Irish' they will need their learned off notes to converse naturally

nuac

Thanks Enkidu and others for the scholarly turn of the debate.

Never had the P and Q Celts explained so clearly.

Enkindu, could not get the page you listed. Could you pls check it.

I remember a lecturer from UCG ( which I prefer to NUIG ) giving a lecture in Irish on place names where he mentioned the P and Q issues relating to the townland of Partry in Mayo - this may be the same man.

Enkidu

nuac wrote: »

Thanks Enkidu and others for the scholarly turn of the debate.

Never had the P and Q Celts explained so clearly.

Enkindu, could not get the page you listed. Could you pls check it.

I remember a lecturer from UCG ( which I prefer to NUIG ) giving a lecture in Irish on place names where he mentioned the P and Q issues relating to the townland of Partry in Mayo - this may be the same man.

Thanks for pointing that out nuac. It should be working in the original post now. Here's the link again:
www.nuigalway.ie/archaeology/oldsite/documents/jw_celts.pdf

Yeah, the P and Q stuff is really interesting. I notice didn't explain the Insular/Continental divide. Basically this is a divide that results from noticing severe grammar differences between Celtic as spoken on the continent and Celtic as spoken on the British Isles.
Celtic as spoken on the continent was very similar to Latin, example:

English: He has given to the mothers of Nîmes
Gaulish: Dede matrebo Namausikabo
Latin: Dedit matribus Nemausicabus

English: Pretty girl, give some ale
Gaulish: Nata vimpi curmi da
Latin: Nata bella cervisiam da

However put an Gaulish sentence next to an Irish or Welsh sentence and the grammar and sound of words will be quite different. Even though Gaulish and Welsh both make P (and g) sounds, the grammar of Welsh is more similar to Irish. The idea is that this similarity in grammar with Irish overshadows the sound similarities with Gaulish and Welsh is probably more closely related to Irish.

Basically an Irish speaker could understand the logic of Welsh sentence faster than a Gaulish sentence.

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, but there is certainly the possibility that they would change their feelings towards it. Why use words like "hate" or "love" - They have extreme meanings, and there can be no common ground on them.

I would certainly argue that a child could be influenced to like the Irish language, rather than dislike it - if they were given the tools to actually use it. Do you disagree?

nuac

Thanks Enkidu - have the article now - fascinating.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

daithicarr

having the result of language you do in school or any subject for that matter being decided by one short exam seems like a dreadful idea to me. personaly i feel continual assesment would be a better option, and might encourage proper learning of material rather than cramming it all before an exam and forgetting most of it after (as i have personaly done a good few times).

As for if lrish should remain a compulsory subject, maybe they should let the people decide by referendum ?, i havent seen any evidence that the majority would choose to remove its compulsory status, despite not being able to speak it themsleves.

if it were decided to remain compulsory then they should refrom it so students learn to speak it before they have to tackle poetry etc, teachers should have a much higher ability and the curriculum should be updated, and perhaps some subjects such as PE (which i think there should be more of in schools), Art, History etc could be done through Irish.

If it were decided to remove it as a compulsory language, for which i havent found evidence to support this would be the case, then they should just provide it for those students who want it and/or increase the gaelscoils to cater for those who wish to send their children to them.

Personaly I would like to see a compramise between the two. where children learn spoken irish and focus almost solely on spoken irish during primary school, and then have the option to continue irish at secondary. i understand they use this system in catalonia, where all kids whether spanish or catalan learn the language is primary and can then elect to continue it later.

perhaps even have no compulsory subjects ? I for one didnt find and still have never found the maths i learned after the juniour cert to be of any relevant use to me.

deise go deo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes teanage students, who are under a lot of pressure may use emotional language when refering to subjects they like/dislike. What dose this prove?

I dident like Irish when I was in school. I dident like business studies either. Not because of it being 'forced' on me but because of how I was being tought it.

I think you are grasping at straws in an effort to justify entirely unwarranted state policies of compulsory Irish. It shouldn't be a question of whether we can influence or reach every child—it should be up to the child, and his or her parents, to decide whether to invest thousands of hours of educational time on "learning" (or not, as is more often the case) a minority, fringe language.

One can also argue that every child could be influenced to love Jesus—but that reveals the ugly, indoctrinating, evangelizing agenda that is really at play here.

What has religion got to do with this debate.
Do you beleive Irish is some form of mass delusion that people only use to put themselves in positions of power?

No one is saying that the way Irish is tought in schools now is working.
You seam to think that this is because of its compulsory status, I think it is because of poor teaching and an outdated curriculum.
In gaelscoileanna Irish is compulsory but is tought in a very different way and because of this students of these schools become fluent easily.

eddyc

deise go deo wrote: »

Do you beleive Irish is some form of mass delusion that people only use to put themselves in positions of power?

Mass delusion is a bit strong but wasn't the reinstatement of Irish as the language of Ireland one of the goals of the nationalist movement that eventually did take power?

I'm not saying there shouldn't have been a republic, but at the same time it was used as a political tool to make us separate from the british no?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Irish, unlike the flying spagiti monster, dose exist;)

However, the Christian belief in redemption through purgation closely parallels the Irish nationalist's desire for deanglicized, regaelicized utopia.

The 1916 Rising was intentionally staged at Easter so as to evoke parallels with the death and resurrection of Jesus. "One man can free a people, as one man redeemed the world," wrote Pearse, a man completely obsessed with blood sacrifice (he also wrote that "bloodshed is a cleansing and sanctifying thing").

Yes Pearse did beleive that a sacrifice was nessary to awaken Ireland to the colonial manacles that entraped her.
Id say events proved him right.

What this has to do with Irish however is beyond me.

Yes Irish was used as a tool by nationalists to diferentiate Ireland from England. However that it could be used for this and still can kinda supports that Irish is part of our culture.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

daithicarr

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you seem to be implying that those who support Irish language revival are soley or largely interested in complete deanglicization of irish for some nationalist sentiments. while there are no doubt people who would like to see this it is a very small minority. of all the people i know who speak and or are enthusiastic about Irish language teaching, none feel it should be at the cost of english , instead would like to see a bi lingual or multi lingual nation. and very few support it due anglophoic nationalist views. from learning irish as an adult in various classes and groups i have never once come across a desire to learn the language due to deep held nationalistic beliefs.

eddyc

daithicarr wrote: »

you seem to be implying that those who support Irish language revival are soley or largely interested in complete deanglicization of irish for some nationalist sentiments.

Then why do we learn it?
Not everyone is required to do GAA or trad, there are more practical languages to learn, the language requirements for government jobs and NUI's are artificial and the entire country shouldn't have to learn a language that is spoken natively by a small percentage of the population.

daithicarr

eddyc wrote: »

Then why do we learn it?
Not everyone is required to do GAA or trad, there are more practical languages to learn, the language requirements for government jobs and NUI's are artificial and the entire country shouldn't have to learn a language that is spoken natively by a small percentage of the population.

why ? do you think the only reason to learn it is a anglophobic nationalistic one?
i have met many people from any different backgrounds including plenty of non irish who have or ar learning for a variety of reasons, from love of the language itself, wishing to communicate with those who speak it, a interest in the culture or music of ireland, maybe their children go to a gaelscoil and they want to improve as well... there are a whole list of reasons why a person would want to learn and each unique to that person. rarely have i come across people who are learning cause they are nationalists or republicans.

Personaly i learn it because after i got over my hatred of it after school i found i quite liked it, the way it sounds etc, i also would like to be able to speak it with people i know who do, my father spoke it and i would like to learn and pass on to my own children, and plenty other reasons beside.

but given there is no large public debate or the powers that be dont plan having one anytime soon, it is pointless to say imply that has no support. if a big enough majority were against it then in a democacy they could remove it ? it would seem given no evidence to the suggest otherwise that people largely support the promotion and teaching of Irish, if they differe on the methods used

eddyc

daithicarr wrote: »

why ? do you think the only reason to learn it is a anglophobic nationalistic one?
i have met many people from any different backgrounds including plenty of non irish who have or ar learning for a variety of reasons, from love of the language itself, wishing to communicate with those who speak it, a interest in the culture or music of ireland, maybe their children go to a gaelscoil and they want to improve as well... there are a whole list of reasons why a person would want to learn and each unique to that person. rarely have i come across people who are learning cause they are nationalists or republicans.

Personaly i learn it because after i got over my hatred of it after school i found i quite liked it, the way it sounds etc, i also would like to be able to speak it with people i know who do, my father spoke it and i would like to learn and pass on to my own children, and plenty other reasons beside.

but given there is no large public debate or the powers that be dont plan having one anytime soon, it is pointless to say imply that has no support. if a big enough majority were against it then in a democacy they could remove it ? it would seem given no evidence to the suggest otherwise that people largely support the promotion and teaching of Irish, if they differe on the methods used

I would say the same thing about music, but I don't think that the government should require everybody to do it.

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How so? I wouldn't have thought Ireland was particularly anti-intellectual.