Is Irish a dead language?

Enkidu

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I have no problem with people having an interest in a revived, updated version of the Irish language, divorced from its cultural context and the original version spoken by some of the original population a third of a millenia ago

What is this revived, updated version of Irish? I've heard this a few times, that the Irish we have now is some kind of made up language. Could you explain this to me?

Enkidu

RandomName2 wrote: »

Also on a historic basis I am surprised that Irish speakers like the 'modifications' made to the language by public servants... and what seems like an over-bias of the Ulster dialect.

Hey RandomName2,

Not that it really changes what you are saying, but the Caighdeán Oifigiúil (Official Standard) is mostly an average of all the dialects. Since Connacht Irish is half way between Munster and Ulster it tends to end up sounding like Connacht more than the other two.

deise go deo

eddyc wrote: »

I accept your position, can you accept that there are people in this country that don't want to learn Irish and should be allowed not to.

I can certainly understand that some people have a problem with how Irish is being tought now, However I beleive that if the system was changed and Irish was tought in a practicle and positive way I beleive that the vast majority would disapear. It may be the case that even after this there would still be a few who would have a problem with Irish for whatever reason, but I beleive their numbers would be very few.
For this reason I feel compulsory Irish, If done correctally is The way forward. You may feel that to make people do a subject they dont want to is unfair but you cant please everyone and I beleive that in an optional system you would still end up with people not doing their prefered subjects because of clashes within the timetable from school to school.

This is my opinion, I dont deserve to be called a 'Mysty eyed nationalist' for it.:rolleyes:

The reason why the English-speaking population of Ireland is not fluent in Irish and does not use it in their lives is beacsue they have decided not to

The reason they dont use Irish is because they are unable to. Where are you getting these ''Facts'' from?

I have no problem with people having an interest in a revived, updated version of the Irish language, divorced from its cultural context and the original version spoken by some of the original population a third of a millenia ago

How do you divorced a language from its cultural context, and why would you want to?




There has been alot of unfair and unfounded abuse thrown at Irish language enthusiast here.

People being branded 'Misty eyed Nationalists'
People being said to be politically motivated.
People running summer courses being branded as Fascists for sending kids who dident follow the rules home. Etc. Etc.

#15

Leto wrote: »

If we're all agreed on one thing in this thread, it's that the current methods of teaching Irish do not generally lead to people who are capable of confidently speaking the language.

Not agreed.

There is a widespread idea in Ireland that a language can be learned passively - if only those damned teachers were able to put the words into our brains more effectively.

That may not be your view, but it certainly is the view of many people, some of whom posted in this thread.

It's also a major obstacle to learning other languages - but it's particularly relevant to Irish.

Irish people want to learn Irish, but have an expectation that one lesson a day should be enough to turn them into fluent speakers. They just don't put the effort in outside of the education system.

#15

deise go deo wrote: »

I can certainly understand that some people have a problem with how Irish is being tought now, However I beleive that if the system was changed and Irish was tought in a practicle and positive way I beleive that the vast majority would disapear.

What are the changes you would like to see?

The primary curriculum is heavy on oral and aural. I'm presuming you would favour a similar shift in the secondary curriculum?

deise go deo

#15 wrote: »

Not agreed.

There is a widespread idea in Ireland that a language can be learned passively - if only those damned teachers were able to put the words into our brains more effectively.

That may not be your view, but it certainly is the view of many people, some of whom posted in this thread.

It's also a major obstacle to learning other languages - but it's particularly relevant to Irish.

Irish people want to learn Irish, but have an expectation that one lesson a day should be enough to turn them into fluent speakers. They just don't put the effort in outside of the education system.

Of course people need to make an effort to learn, just as they do with all subjects.

However as it is now Irish in schools tends to make people resent Irish rather than motivate them to learn.

deise go deo

#15 wrote: »

What are the changes you would like to see?

The primary curriculum is heavy on oral and aural. I'm presuming you would favour a similar shift in the secondary curriculum?

As I said before. What I would like to see happen is for Irish at secondary school level to be split into two subjects.

One of them based around basic Irish with the aim of bringing people up to a reasonable conversational ability, that would be focused around oral and aural, with a small Basic written section. This would remain a compulsory subject.

The second would be a more advanced Irish class for people who want to continue Irish to collage or just have a strong ability/intrest in Irish.
It would be bassed around LC English and would focous on essays, potery, drama etc. This would be an optional subject.

eddyc

deise go deo wrote: »

I can certainly understand that some people have a problem with how Irish is being tought now, However I beleive that if the system was changed and Irish was tought in a practicle and positive way I beleive that the vast majority would disapear. It may be the case that even after this there would still be a few who would have a problem with Irish for whatever reason, but I beleive their numbers would be very few.
For this reason I feel compulsory Irish, If done correctally is The way forward. You may feel that to make people do a subject they dont want to is unfair but you cant please everyone and I beleive that in an optional system you would still end up with people not doing their prefered subjects because of clashes within the timetable from school to school.

This is my opinion, I dont deserve to be called a 'Mysty eyed nationalist' for it.:rolleyes:




The reason they dont use Irish is because they are unable to. Where are you getting these ''Facts'' from?




How do you divorced a language from its cultural context, and why would you want to?




There has been alot of unfair and unfounded abuse thrown at Irish language enthusiast here.

People being branded 'Misty eyed Nationalists'
People being said to be politically motivated.
People running summer courses being branded as Fascists for sending kids who dident follow the rules home. Etc. Etc.

Well thats a pity. I myself being part of the 'anti' Irish side of this debate am more than happy for there to be state funding and assistance for anyone that wants to learn Irish, promotion of the Gaeltacht etc.

What you are saying is that because of you're view, which you assert as not being 'Misty eyed Nationalism', everyone in the country should be made learn a minority language for the good of 'our' 'culture'. This is essentialism, which has no basis in fact, there is no one culture of Ireland, this has be proven on this thread a few times.

There are also reasons given about bilingualism, which are valid, but it would be more practical to teach our kids German or French than Irish.

Call your views what you like, they're hardly pragmatic are they?

#15

deise go deo wrote: »

As I said before. What I would like to see happen is for Irish at secondary school level to be split into two subjects.

One of them based around basic Irish with the aim of bringing people up to a reasonable conversational ability, that would be focused around oral and aural, with a small Basic written section. This would remain a compulsory subject.

Ok then.

You will still have the problem of people complaining that they are not fluent and cannot speak the language though.

deise go deo

eddyc wrote: »

Well thats a pity. I myself being part of the 'anti' Irish side of this debate am more than happy for there to be state funding and assistance for anyone that wants to learn Irish, promotion of the Gaeltacht etc.

What you are saying is that because of you're view, which you assert as not being 'Misty eyed Nationalism', everyone in the country should be made learn a minority language for the good of 'our' 'culture'. This is essentialism, which has no basis in fact, there is no one culture of Ireland, this has be proven on this thread a few times.

There are also reasons given about bilingualism, which are valid, but it would be more practical to teach our kids German or French than Irish.

Call your views what you like, they're hardly pragmatic are they?

In my view if the course was changed the vast majority would be happy to learn Irish.

If Compulsory Irish was such a major issue with only a few mysty eyed nationalists supporting it then it would rate higher in Political parties priorities and would in all probability have ended long ago. This however is not the case.

From what I have read and heard in my own life it is how Irish is tought that most people have a problem with, not that it is compulsory.

deise go deo

#15 wrote: »

Ok then.

You will still have the problem of people complaining that they are not fluent and cannot speak the language though.

Some people possibly, but I beleive that it would be a lot less than it is now.

eddyc

deise go deo wrote: »

In my view if the course was changed the vast majority would be happy to learn Irish.

If Compulsory Irish was such a major issue with only a few mysty eyed nationalists supporting it then it would rate higher in Political parties priorities and would in all probability have ended long ago. This however is not the case.

From what I have read and heard in my own life it is how Irish is tought that most people have a problem with, not that it is compulsory.

Or, people would like to be good at it, because it's compulsory, and there is a sense of national duty in knowing it. The idea that knowing Irish makes one more Irish, which is also false.

LordSutch

deise go deo wrote: »

For this reason I feel compulsory Irish, If done correctally is The way forward. You may feel that to make people do a subject they dont want to is unfair but you cant please everyone and I beleive that in an optional system you would still end up with people not doing their prefered subjects because of clashes within the timetable from school to school.

This is my opinion, I dont deserve to be called a 'Mysty eyed nationalist' for it.:rolleyes:

I certainly wouldn't call you a 'Mysty eyed nationalist', but I think you are somewhat swimming against the tide, with your 'Compulsory Irish is the only way forward' comment . . . In my opinion the reason Irish has been such a failure is precisely because it has been mandatory/compulsory since the foundation of the State! and even if its taught correctly I don't think it should be compulsory in this day and age, by which I mean "Wooing Unionists" into a new Irish dispensation, where not just the Roman Catholic, GAA - Irish speaking model is held up as the only model for being Irish.

Can't one be Irish without speaking a word of Irish?

Focalbhach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Adopting a second language is difficult.

It's not especially (or shouldn't be). Most of the world manages it easily enough. I suspect, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, that anglophonic comfort has something to do with our own - and the UK's, etc. - particular deficits in that area, and the idea that language-learning is inherently difficult.

deise go deo

eddyc wrote: »

Or, people would like to be good at it, because it's compulsory, and there is a sense of national duty in knowing it. The idea that knowing Irish makes one more Irish, which is also false.

From Inside Ireland.

Many discussions about the Irish language eventually get to the point where someone plays the trump card by saying: “You don't need to speak Irish to be Irish”. And they're absolutely right, if you did need Irish to be Irish then the Irish nation wouldn't exist, and clearly it does. Usually the statement is followed up by the opinion that Irish is therefore useless.

Things are more complex than that however.

Objection is often made to the idea that people who speak Irish are “more Irish” than those who don't.

I don't believe it does and I would liken the statement to an American who plays baseball claiming they were “more American” than an American who plays soccer. This is not true either, but does this mean that baseball is worthless? Is baseball more American than soccer? Yes, and would America be less American if no one in the country played baseball? Again the answer is yes.

Likewise the Irish language is more Irish than the English language and Ireland would be less Irish if no one spoke it.

Valmont

Leto wrote: »

Interesting. I find it quite handy.

Handy? For speaking to all of the Irish speaking monoglots living abroad? A friend of mine had an argument along these lines and his idea was that we need Irish as a secret language to speak to our friends while we are abroad.

deise go deo

LordSutch wrote: »

I think you are somewhat swimming against the tide, with your 'Compulsory Irish is the only way forward' comment . .

I dont beleive that compulsory Irish is the only way forward, I do beleive that compulsory Irish, if done correctly is the best way forward.

Focalbhach

#15 wrote: »

Not agreed.

There is a widespread idea in Ireland that a language can be learned passively - if only those damned teachers were able to put the words into our brains more effectively.

That may not be your view, but it certainly is the view of many people, some of whom posted in this thread.

It's also a major obstacle to learning other languages - but it's particularly relevant to Irish.

Irish people want to learn Irish, but have an expectation that one lesson a day should be enough to turn them into fluent speakers. They just don't put the effort in outside of the education system.

A lot of truth to that, of course - languages are a skill and require practice and use, particularly in the early stages of learning. I didn't mean to imply that reforming teaching methods would suddenly result in a huge burst of fluency in children without work on their part. However, I do think that a change of approach could make TG4, RnaG, etc., more accessible to children, and would enable them to practice the language more effectively in daily life, without fear of looking silly from making mistakes, as and when they should wish. A language can't be learned unless it's used.

eddyc

deise go deo wrote: »

From Inside Ireland.

I don't follow the argument, is Ireland Irish because it is Ireland or because the people there do Irish things, or if things are done in Ireland do they become Irish?

Would it not follow that giving up Irish was an Irish thing to do also, doesn't make sense.

Focalbhach

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't think it should be compulsory in this day and age, by which I mean "Wooing Unionists" into a new Irish dispensation, where not just the Roman Catholic, GAA - Irish speaking model is held up as the only model for being Irish.

Again, let's not start making assumptions and talking about things are aren't linked as if they necessarily go together.

I am quite firmly atheist. I watch GAA (football mainly, rather than hurling) the odd time, but am far from fanatical about it.

Focalbhach

Valmont wrote: »

Handy? For speaking to all of the Irish speaking monoglots living abroad? A friend of mine had an argument along these lines and his idea was that we need Irish as a secret language to speak to our friends while we are abroad.

Did I mention Irish-speaking monoglots abroad? Or are you, perhaps, making that bit up? What this thread needs is more hyperbole...

I have used Irish abroad to teach/illustrate bits of the language to foreign friends who asked about 'Gaelic'. I have used it in singing Irish-language songs. I have used it in conversation with Irish friends abroad, though I don't see how that makes Irish a secret language any more than Slovak is for Slovakians living here.

P. Breathnach

Valmont wrote: »

Handy? For speaking to all of the Irish speaking monoglots living abroad? A friend of mine had an argument along these lines and his idea was that we need Irish as a secret language to speak to our friends while we are abroad.

I have used Irish that way, and see nothing wrong with it.

It's also very useful as a mechanism for coping with socially-difficult situations (I'm remembering a bar in Bangkok).

Most of all, however, the use of Irish outside Ireland enables me to mark for myself and for others a sense of my identity as an Irish person rather than as English (when I speak English, I am generally presumed to be English).

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what?

I'm not French and neither are other Irish people.

Ah, I see.

Good. I'm glad you got my point so easily.

By the way having 34% of the country being able to speak a second language is a good proportion. Where this comes in a list of European ability is actually quite misleading, because of the linguistic diversity of Europe and the fact that many Europeans have a good/fair knowledge of English as their second language.
Also comparing to Britian is also misleading due to the history of immigration to that country. There's a good proportion of Hindi, Urdu, and Arabic speakers (not to mention Welsh) in that country.
As a mainly English speaking nation having only 66% monolingual isn't bad at all. Though personally I wish it were less.



When it comes to the Primary school teaching of Irish I always smile at the argument "people should have a choice whether they should have to learn Irish or not" , and get the image of a 4 year old choosing his/her own subjects.
For a parent to deny their child the opportunity to learn at least the basics of Irish at a young age, because of their own biases is actually quite unfair.
As for the argument French or German "are more usefull" , this is true when you are dealing with French or German speakers.
I speak English,Irish,German and Welsh and find that living here, after English, Irish is the second most usefull language, by a very wide margin.
I couldn't even begin to count the number of times people have asked me (Irish and foreign) "what does this or that mean" referring to peoples or place names etc or how do I say "this or that in Irish".

astrofool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have used Irish that way, and see nothing wrong with it.

It's also very useful as a mechanism for coping with socially-difficult situations (I'm remembering a bar in Bangkok).

Most of all, however, the use of Irish outside Ireland enables me to mark for myself and for others a sense of my identity as an Irish person rather than as English (when I speak English, I am generally presumed to be English).

Funny, my Irish accent gives me away immediately. I've also never been mistaken for being American either. Due to the dearth of numbers outside ireland who know Irish, I'd doubt that speaking Irish would point to your origins in a foreign country (unless you explained in English heat it was).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

Cú Giobach wrote: »

... I speak English,Irish,German and Welsh and find that living here, after English, Irish is the second most usefull language, by a very wide margin.
I couldn't even begin to count the number of times people have asked me (Irish and foreign) "what does this or that mean" referring to peoples or place names etc or how do I say "this or that in Irish".

I'm not entirely sold on this point as an indicator of Irish being useful as a means of communication (and, let's face it, language is principally about communication). This has much to do with Irish being an interesting curiosity.

The counterbalancing argument is in my post above about using Irish when outside Ireland: the use of Irish in some circumstances can be a meaningful communication in itself. It says that I am Irish, and have a connection to the Gaelic culture.

I don't find it too difficult to strike a balance, but it's very difficult to tell others how to do it (rather like telling somebody how to ride a bicycle).

P. Breathnach

astrofool wrote: »

Funny, my Irish accent gives me away immediately. I've also never been mistaken for being American either. Due to the dearth of numbers outside ireland who know Irish, I'd doubt that speaking Irish would point to your origins in a foreign country (unless you explained in English heat it was).

Most of my recreational travelling is done in Continental Europe, particularly France. I cannot remember an instance where anybody identified me as Irish based on my accent (and I have an Irish accent). If Herself and I use Irish, then people become aware that we are something other than English. Sometimes they become curious, and ask. It has never caused us a difficulty, and has on some occasions led to interesting conversations.

The Corinthian

Valmont wrote: »

Handy? For speaking to all of the Irish speaking monoglots living abroad? A friend of mine had an argument along these lines and his idea was that we need Irish as a secret language to speak to our friends while we are abroad.

I tried ordering a pint of Guinness from an Irish barman in a pub abroad recently and he looked at me blankly. Given this, I can see the value of a 'secret' language, I just wouldn't be so certain if this is a good enough reason to learn it.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

For a parent to deny their child the opportunity to learn at least the basics of Irish at a young age, because of their own biases is actually quite unfair.

Parents deny their child the opportunity to do a lot of things, with choice of religion being the first and most common example - unless the child is male and choice of whether to have a foreskin or not becomes the first.

Are you suggesting that the State is better equipped to make these choices than parents?

I speak English,Irish,German and Welsh and find that living here, after English, Irish is the second most usefull language, by a very wide margin.
I couldn't even begin to count the number of times people have asked me (Irish and foreign) "what does this or that mean" referring to peoples or place names etc or how do I say "this or that in Irish".

One is the problems that I see with the 'usefulness' of Irish is that much of it is artificially constructed. Outside of those very limited areas where it is a spoken language, it is only used because of government policy. One needs Irish because it is a requirement for a particular job or one needs Irish because one's job is to teach or produce Irish content - most of the Irish spoken in Ireland is spoken by teachers, teaching Irish.

This is principally my issue with the language, in that any real demand for it appears to be artificial, with the most vocal proponents supporting it because of purely nationalistic reasons or because their livelihoods (almost entirely funded by the state) are dependent on it.

An important question is why is this incredible level of support so important if the language is alive and well? I've been hearing claims of a Renaissance in the language for years, yet less than 3% of the population are estimated (by government departments that have a vested interests in the numbers being kept up) to be native speakers and even these numbers are under threat according to recent studies.

Don't get me wrong; I am not suggesting we should give up on the language. I've often said that it would be nice for Ireland to be truly bilingual, but nice does not justify the level of resources being pumped in. Even if we were to continue with this level of resources, it is difficult to deny that we have at best only made minute gains in its adoption, and at worst it has declined.

So something definitely is not working, and I don't think one needs to be pro or anti the language to realize this. The main problem I foresee with any solution is with those aforementioned vested interests; there is an army of translators, civil servants, teachers, broadcasters, journalists and even Gaeltacht residents who make money out of the status quo. And that money may ultimately be more important than anything that might save the language that feeds them.

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To give a young child the opportunity to learn a second language at an early age is of immense value Link and most parents want what is best for their children and to give them the best start in life.

Just on a personal note;
If my own parents had the option I wouldn't have learned Irish in school and would have missed out on something that became very important in my life (ie; linguistics).

Hmmm;
I notice you used the examples of Horse riding, Gymnastics etc but didn't mention Mathmatics, Geography, History etc

Scuid Mhór

Valmont wrote: »

Handy? For speaking to all of the Irish speaking monoglots living abroad? A friend of mine had an argument along these lines and his idea was that we need Irish as a secret language to speak to our friends while we are abroad.

that's a pretty valid reason as far as i'm concerned.