Is Irish a dead language?

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

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?

Having a set curriculum that is the same at all schools within a country is actually quite important.
In situations where parents have total freedom to choose what their children learn and don't can be quite disadvantageous, to pick an extreme example - the home schooling by American Creationist Fundamentalists.

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.

Not true, many many people want the language because of;
Their love of the language
It's part of our Culture and Identity as Irish, in non nationalistic terms.
Their desire to see one of Europe's oldest languages survive and grow.
To gain a deeper insight into the music and poetry of Ireland.
And many many more reasons.

most of the Irish spoken in Ireland is spoken by teachers, teaching Irish.

Not true ;
I try to use Irish as much as possible and the number of people who are willing and able to speak (even a small bit) it is quite surprising (outside Gaeltacht areas).

I totally agree with you that quite a lot of the bureaucratic support for the language is for reasons other than a love for the language, but we can't let this "blinker" us into believing all support for the language at a national level is negative.
A bit more "common sense" is defiantly needed. (Though putting those words together with the words "government and bureaucracy" is hmmm questionable at least ).

The Corinthian

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Having a set curriculum that is the same at all schools within a country is actually quite important.
In situations where parents have total freedom to choose what their children learn and don't can be quite disadvantageous, to pick an extreme example - the home schooling by American Creationist Fundamentalists.

Not really what we're discussing. There are actually very few obligatory subjects in any curriculum - typically basic linguistic and arithmetic skills - are the only one's that are made obligatory by the state as these are basic to survival in modern society.

Where it comes to everything else, it is optional - as long as those basic skills are adhered to. So if some Creationist wants to teach his or her kids that the World was created in six days, so be it - as long as they are able to function linguistically and mathematically within society.

In Ireland we have two sets of obligatory linguistic subjects, but for very different reasons; English, like Maths, is obligatory because it's essential to function within Irish society. Irish is obligatory so as to promote Irish, not for the education of the child.

Not true, many many people want the language because of;
Their love of the language
It's part of our Culture and Identity as Irish, in non nationalistic terms.
Their desire to see one of Europe's oldest languages survive and grow.
To gain a deeper insight into the music and poetry of Ireland.
And many many more reasons.

With all due respect, most of these make no sense. Love of a language is not a reason, but comes as a result of a reason. And what on Earth is culture and identity as Irish, in non nationalistic terms exactly? Without resorting to the nationalist well of history, it would be what it is now, today, and Irish really does not feature all that much in it. Indeed, the reality of how Irish influences our culture and identity looks a lot more like this unfortunately:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNBmFveq2U

Then learning an entire language simply to gain a deeper insight into poetry is something one chooses to do, not is forced. And if we were so worried about one of Europe's oldest languages Latin would be obligatory, not Irish, which in it's present form is actually only a few hundred years old.

Were I to cite reasons for obligatory learning any language that are not purely nationalistic, I would have to say so as to have proficiency in a language that is essential to day-to-day life. Any of the 'reasons' you've suggested merit optional learning at best.

Making it obligatory only serves the language, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The question is whether it serves the language in a positive manner, if making it optional would be the linguistic equivalent of pulling the plug on a coma patient or if it is actually having a negative effect on it's promotion.

Not true ;
I try to use Irish as much as possible and the number of people who are willing and able to speak (even a small bit) it is quite surprising (outside Gaeltacht areas).

If you used it with me, I would make an effort to conduct a conversation with you too, but you're the exception rather than the rule. Once I left school, I have never once needed it because my profession does not require it and I have never once had an occasion where it was essential - or even the option chosen by others around me.

Indeed, outside of brief moments of hearing it on the television, while flicking channels, a few bilingual signs (many of which no longer bother with the Irish version anymore) and the video at security at the airport, I never encounter it. And I'm not alone, it genuinely is not part of the vast majority of people's lives in Ireland.

Correction - I do use it for Amhrán na bhFiann, but again that's not a reason to learn an entire language.

I totally agree with you that quite a lot of the bureaucratic support for the language is for reasons other than a love for the language, but we can't let this "blinker" us into believing all support for the language at a national level is negative.

I don't believe that all support for the language at a national level is negative, but neither do I believe that the positive support is limitless either. As I said, I - and I suspect most - would like to see Ireland bilingual, but other than being fed up with decades of promises that a revival was just round the corner, we're kind of fed up with the cost of something that we might 'like' to see but ultimately there is a limit to what people are willing to pay or endure for a 'nice to have'.

A bit more "common sense" is defiantly needed. (Though putting those words together with the words "government and bureaucracy" is hmmm questionable at least ).

I don't think it's entirely the government's fault. We've had a status quo since the formation of the state that has been kept in place with the full support of vested interests, and those vested interests are normal people, not politicians. The government is just afraid to go against these vested interests.

And remember, if you really wanted to remove government bureaucracy from the language, you'd need to remove the government's role in making it obligatory both in school and the civil service.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

astrofool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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).

You could have been speaking Swahili too, and it would lead down the same road. You could also have used "feck" in a sentence and given your identity away

P. Breathnach

astrofool wrote: »

You could have been speaking Swahili too, and it would lead down the same road. You could also have used "feck" in a sentence and given your identity away

The problem is that I don't speak Swahili, and both Herself and I can speak Irish. Why should we create difficulties for ourselves?

astrofool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The problem is that I don't speak Swahili, and both Herself and I can speak Irish. Why should we create difficulties for ourselves?

I think you missed the point of my post. It wasn't that Irish was any beneficial to you, it was that another language (it could have been absolutely any) allowed you to identify yourself as being different.

Focalbhach

astrofool wrote: »

I think you missed the point of my post. It wasn't that Irish was any beneficial to you, it was that another language (it could have been absolutely any) allowed you to identify yourself as being different.

You're shifting the goalposts. Would Swahili or 'any other language' identify him (and Herself) as Irish, rather than as 'different' (whatever that may mean)? To quote the post you responded to:

P. Breathnach wrote:

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.

P. Breathnach

astrofool wrote: »

I think you missed the point of my post. It wasn't that Irish was any beneficial to you, it was that another language (it could have been absolutely any) allowed you to identify yourself as being different.

I think that you missed my point. I don't want to be different just for the sake of being different. I happen to be Irish, and both Herself and I identify with the Gaelic dimension of being Irish. So it's not primarily about being different, but about being authentic.

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really what we're discussing. There are actually very few obligatory subjects in any curriculum - typically basic linguistic and arithmetic skills - are the only one's that are made obligatory by the state as these are basic to survival in modern society.

Where it comes to everything else, it is optional - as long as those basic skills are adhered to. So if some Creationist wants to teach his or her kids that the World was created in six days, so be it - as long as they are able to function linguistically and mathematically within society.

There is a lot more for children to learn than just basic mathematical & linguistic skills in order to be able to function well and coherently in society, and have a good rounded view of the world we live in. Which is why primary school children are also taught geography and history etc.
Personally I think teaching children things like the world is 6000 years old etc is a form of child abuse. But that is another subject.

Irish is obligatory so as to promote Irish, not for the education of the child.

It is to educate the child in Irish.

With all due respect, most of these make no sense.

I know people who learned Irish as adults for these very reasons (which is why I gave them).
Myself I got into playing traditional music and consequently came into contact with the old songs, started learning them and off I went to where I am today.
It was my love for the music that got me into the language.
I could give the stories of each of the people who had the reasons I stated above, each as legitimate as my own.
If you never encounter Irish as you state, then how can you claim how to know the reasons behind peoples wish to support and learn it.

And if we were so worried about one of Europe's oldest languages Latin would be obligatory, not Irish, which in it's present form is actually only a few hundred years old.

Actually latin is alive and well in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. You are talking about the form of latin that was spoken 2000 years ago.
All languages change with time, you can no more claim Irish is not an ancient language than to claim Geoffrey Chaucer didn't speak English.
I have no desire to speak an ancient form of the language, only modern Munster Irish.

All I can really say is, I hope that if things do change and many children stop learning Irish, when they grow up they thank you, and we don't have future generations wishing their forefathers did more to encourage the use of the language or wonder why their parents didn't want them taught this part of their heritage.

To responce to the OP;
No certainly not.

.

astrofool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that you missed my point. I don't want to be different just for the sake of being different. I happen to be Irish, and both Herself and I identify with the Gaelic dimension of being Irish. So it's not primarily about being different, but about being authentic.

What I was getting at was this:

It says that I am Irish, and have a connection to the Gaelic culture.

As the person who overhears you might well notice it's not English, they almost certainly would not recognise it as Gaelic until you tell them (in which case, as I said, you could have been speaking Swahili, and got the exact same reaction, without the authenticity).

Many languages and accents are internationally known, and identify people, the Irish language is not one of them (though kudos for educating a few ) (and at least for me, the Irish accent is).

The Corinthian

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a lot more for children to learn than just basic mathematical & linguistic skills in order to be able to function well and coherently in society, and have a good rounded view of the world we live in. Which is why primary school children are also taught geography and history etc.

Indeed, however post primary and certainly post group cert, none of those subjects are obligatory.

Personally I think teaching children things like the world is 6000 years old etc is a form of child abuse. But that is another subject.

Once could argue that forcing one's child to adhere to a religion that believes that some bloke saves us all by being nailed to a tree is a form of child abuse too, but that it the privatize of parenthood.

It is to educate the child in Irish.

Please stop playing with semantics. The purpose to 'educate' the child in Irish is to promote the language, not because it is a basic future skill.

I know people who learned Irish as adults for these very reasons (which is why I gave them).

And that is their business, just as it is the business of others to learn German, French, Italian or Japanese.

Myself I got into playing traditional music and consequently came into contact with the old songs, started learning them and off I went to where I am today.

Again, this was voluntary on your part and is based upon your own interests and taste.

If you never encounter Irish as you state, then how can you claim how to know the reasons behind peoples wish to support and learn it.

I think you are confusing your own personal reasons with a justification for making it an obligatory language propped up by inordinate amounts of state resources. That I never encounter Irish is simply because in the vast majority of Irish society - unless you work in an area that requires it or travel in political or cultural circles that worship it - will never come across more than a few cupla focal at best.

Actually latin is alive and well in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. You are talking about the form of latin that was spoken 2000 years ago.

Those languages are not Latin, regardless of their linguistic origins. Latin, be it classical or even vulgar, is a dead language and only spoken in academic and ecclesiastical circles. To claim that Latin is alive and well in Italian is about as accurate as to suggest that Old Danish is alive and well in English.

And 2000 years ago we didn't speak Irish - at least not the type that is being taught today. Modern Irish is only around three hundred years old, with Early modern Irish dating back perhaps as far as 1200 AD; certainly not "one of Europe's oldest languages".

All I can really say is, I hope that if things do change and many children stop learning Irish, when they grow up they thank you, and we don't have future generations wishing their forefathers did more to encourage the use of the language or wonder why their parents didn't want them taught this part of their heritage.

Please spare me. If removing Irish as an obligatory subject taught for 12+ years in school is all that it takes to kill it off, then it is frankly not me you should be thanking but those myopic enough to think that making it an obligatory subject taught for 12+ years in school would bring it back.

If Irish is at death's door, and few would deny that it is in a healthy state, then it is probably time that those who consider themselves friends of the language look at themselves rather than blame those who are pointing out the blatantly oblivious to them.

cyclopath2001

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I have no desire to speak an ancient form of the language, only modern Munster Irish.

That's nice, enjoy.

Must people from Donegal also learn modern Munster Irish?

Focalbhach

astrofool wrote: »

Many languages and accents are internationally known, and identify people, the Irish language is not one of them (though kudos for educating a few ) (and at least for me, the Irish accent is).

I'd wonder about that, actually. The languages spoken by most of the world's population are easily recognisable - e.g., English, French, Spanish, Arabic - but you're talking about a select few languages. Mandarin, for example, is easily confused by an untrained ear in our part of the world with other east Asian languages. Are you familiar with the sounds of Swahili? Do you know the difference between Norwegian and Czech, or between Malay and Bangla? I'm not sure pinpointing the specific language is overly important.

On the accent point, the number of people abroad who've recognised my accent as Irish are far outweighed by those who guessed English/Scottish/American, whether we're talking about English or non-English speakers. It's obviously familiar to an Irish (and often but not always, British) person, but beyond that...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Must people from Donegal also learn modern Munster Irish?

I should certainly hope not!

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Once could argue that forcing one's child to adhere to a religion that believes that some bloke saves us all by being nailed to a tree is a form of child abuse too, but that it the privatize of parenthood..

Yes. I believe forcing a child to adhere to religious "sky fairy" nonsense is also wrong.

And that is their business, just as it is the business of others to learn German, French, Italian or Japanese.
.
Again, this was voluntary on your part and is based upon your own interests and taste.

This was to show that the point you made, about these reasons for learning the language were "not valid" was wrong and a statement you are not qualified to make.

Please spare me. If removing Irish as an obligatory subject taught for 12+ years in school is all that it takes to kill it off,

Who said anything about killing it off.
All I said is I hope your children thank you for not sharing this part of their heritage with them.
I'm not worried about the language dying, because I see every day more and more young people who feel proud to have a few words and actively learn Irish.

cyclopath2001;
Must people from Donegal also learn modern Munster Irish?

If maybe I had advocated that in someway,then that question would be justified.
But to answer it, yes they should, because then I would be able to understand them.

My final opinion on this matter is;
The Irish language is a very important part of our heritage and I believe it should be taught as part of the primary school and group cert curriculum, just like history and geography,
no amount of petty bickering on an internet forum is going to change that.
Tóg é go bog é, agus slán.

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please stop playing with semantics. The purpose to 'educate' the child in Irish is to promote the language, not because it is a basic future skill.

Knowing History is not a basic future skill, neither is knowing quotes from Hamlet. As has been said by Donegalfella the only reason to learn English at LC level is:

Its only arguable application is to give someone a more complex, thoughtful, nuanced, and sensitive appreciation of the world, human character, imagination, history, and language—which is why human civilizations have been producing and consuming literature in one form or another for as long as we have had human civilizations.

This is also applicable to Irish. To say that teaching Irish is only done to promoat the language is simply not true. I have seen much more benefit from my Irish Education than from what I learned in LC English.
Thousands of Kids are educated through Irish in the Gaelthachts and in Gaelscoileanna. Is the only benefit of this to promote the Irish language?

Those languages are not Latin, regardless of their linguistic origins. Latin, be it classical or even vulgar, is a dead language and only spoken in academic and ecclesiastical circles. To claim that Latin is alive and well in Italian is about as accurate as to suggest that Old Danish is alive and well in English.

Yes Irish is still alive and unlike Latin has people that have not given up on it as a living language.

And 2000 years ago we didn't speak Irish - at least not the type that is being taught today. Modern Irish is only around three hundred years old, with Early modern Irish dating back perhaps as far as 1200 AD; certainly not "one of Europe's oldest languages".

Fine, lets be pedantic. Irish is directly decended from one of Europes oldest Languages. By your measure no language is more than a few hundred years old if even.

Please spare me. If removing Irish as an obligatory subject taught for 12+ years in school is all that it takes to kill it off, then it is frankly not me you should be thanking but those myopic enough to think that making it an obligatory subject taught for 12+ years in school would bring it back.

Removing Irish as a Compulsory subject certainly will not destroy it,
however I am not intrested in some bare form of survival, also you have failed to show any benefit to doing so.

If Irish is at death's door, and few would deny that it is in a healthy state, then it is probably time that those who consider themselves friends of the language look at themselves rather than blame those who are pointing out the blatantly oblivious to them.

You would be suprised just how long people have been saying this, yet the language is still here. So what are these ''obivious'' things?

The Corinthian

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This was to show that the point you made, about these reasons for learning the language were "not valid" was wrong and a statement you are not qualified to make.

How do you figure that?

Who said anything about killing it off.
All I said is I hope your children thank you for not sharing this part of their heritage with them.
I'm not worried about the language dying, because I see every day more and more young people who feel proud to have a few words and actively learn Irish.

Fine, let's not make it obligatory any more and let's see how far that pride gets the language. Seriously, this kind of blindness is the reason the language is where it is today.

no amount of petty bickering on an internet forum is going to change that.
Tóg é go bog é, agus slán.

I suggest you find a forum where you can preach to the converted.

deise go deo wrote: »

Knowing History is not a basic future skill, neither is knowing quotes from Hamlet.

I never said it was, and it is also questionable that English literature should be obligatory either - a little more effort on grammar would be preferable.

Thousands of Kids are educated through Irish in the Gaelthachts and in Gaelscoileanna. Is the only benefit of this to promote the Irish language?

Correct. It it designed, in theory, to increase the number of Irish speakers.

Fine, lets be pedantic. Irish is directly decended from one of Europes oldest Languages. By your measure no language is more than a few hundred years old if even.

Yes, but so is every other language in Europe - this was the point I made when correcting Cú Giobach's silly assertion that Irish was "one of Europe's oldest languages", which is untrue.

Removing Irish as a Compulsory subject certainly will not destroy it,
however I am not intrested in some bare form of survival, also you have failed to show any benefit to doing so.

Actually, I've not advocated removing it as a compulsory subject, only pointing out that it has failed to bring it from anything more than a bare form of survival - which is where it is.

You would be suprised just how long people have been saying this, yet the language is still here. So what are these ''obivious'' things?

Is it here, or is it here only because a few enthusiasts make an effort and a few others are paid to speak it? Unfortunately the numbers of actual day to day Irish speakers, outside of teaching, speak for themselves. In English.

If that does not cause you to think it's time to review strategy, then there's little hope for it in the long term.

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Correct. It it designed, in theory, to increase the number of Irish speakers.

But that is not the only result of it, People educated through Irish are actually Educated and educated quite well, its not just a method of promoating the language.

Yes, but so is every other language in Europe - this was the point I made when correcting Cú Giobach's silly assertion that Irish was "one of Europe's oldest languages", which is untrue.

Irish Is Europes third oldest language. Modern Irish is Directly decended from that, Most other languages are not decended directly fom such an old Language, It dosent really mean anything other than the acient sagas could be reasonably faithfully translated into Modern Irish.

Actually, I've not advocated removing it as a compulsory subject, only pointing out that it has failed to bring it from anything more than a bare form of survival - which is where it is.

I beleive teaching methods and curriculum rather than Its compulsory status are the root of this problem.

If that does not cause you to think it's time to review strategy, then there's little hope for it in the long term.

I have said several times that Irish in schools needs a major overhaul, However I dont beleive it is the compulsory aspect that is the Problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whats your point?

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never said he was.

I actually learned the basics of Old & Middle Engilsh as a hobby in my teens, and consequently failed my leaving cert Irish.

edit; Thanks for giving me the idea for what film to watch tonight.

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suggest you find a forum where you can preach to the converted.

Merely disagreeing with you.
It's because you have this very attitude, that I terminated the discussion.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

But that is not the only result of it, People educated through Irish are actually Educated and educated quite well, its not just a method of promoating the language.

Making it obligatory is a means of promoting the language - otherwise, why not make all subjects obligatory?

Irish Is Europes third oldest language. Modern Irish is Directly decended from that, Most other languages are not decended directly fom such an old Language, It dosent really mean anything other than the acient sagas could be reasonably faithfully translated into Modern Irish.

Actually, I'd disagree. Irish, as with most other languages was influenced by other languages and so later forms were not as 'direct' as you would contend. For example horse was ech in old Irish (obvious Indo-European root there), but later morphed into capall due to the influence of vulgar Latin's caballus. Feel free to rebut.

I have said several times that Irish in schools needs a major overhaul, However I dont beleive it is the compulsory aspect that is the Problem.

I do believe that it is a problem, but I do not believe that it can afford to become optional for the time being, as to do so would cause the language to implode publicly as numbers of those doing it would almost certainly drop dramatically.

Personally I think the problem are largely a combination of denial as to the true state of the language and the vested interests behind the language who earn a living through it. They want to keep the status quo of throwing money on policies that have failed repeatedly, thus killing off any innovation.

I think time is running out - not soon, I'd give it another few decades - but unless this is corrected, the language will eventually be quietly put to sleep.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Merely disagreeing with you.
It's because you have this very attitude, that I terminated the discussion.

Actually, you disagreed, came out with some rhetorical soundbites that didn't make sense and when I pulled you up on it you got snotty and said you were leaving the discussion. Slan.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

...Actually, I'd disagree. Irish, as with most other languages was influenced by other languages and so later forms were not as 'direct' as you would contend. For example horse was ech in old Irish (obvious Indo-European root there), but later morphed into capall due to the influence of vulgar Latin's caballus. Feel free to rebut....

I think you need a word other than "morphed". Ech became each, a word that is still used. Capall was borrowed and extended the lexicon. Not that it matters much, for the essence of a language is in its syntax rather than its vocabulary.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you need a word other than "morphed". Ech became each, a word that is still used. Capall was borrowed and extended the lexicon. Not that it matters much, for the essence of a language is in its syntax rather than its vocabulary.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. However, my point it that Irish, like most other languages in Europe borrowed from elsewhere. I just find that this nonsense of calling it "one of Europe's oldest languages" irritating, because it has changed just like the rest.

Indeed, I'm no expert at sociolinguistics, but would probably point to more direct relationships (less change) in Icelandic (from old Norse), Greek (from ancient Greek) and arguably also Italian (from vulgar Latin, and if not Italian, Sardinian, which is even closer).

Anyhow, I really should not have entered this thread as discussions on the Irish language inevitably become frustratingly pointless, with one side completely opposed to the language no matter what and the other living in a De Valeran fantasy where it's alive and well, everyone should (does) automatically love it and any potential reform is at best superficial. As things stand, it's a toss-up which one of the two groups will end up killing it, TBH.

animalhuger

YES!

Get f**ken real here we speak english we watch english tv we reid english the onley place its spoken is schools and them fecken islands!

It ruind me in school!its worthless to this country!

Enkidu

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anyhow, I really should not have entered this thread as discussions on the Irish language inevitably become frustratingly pointless, with one side completely opposed to the language no matter what and the other living in a De Valeran fantasy where it's alive and well, everyone should (does) automatically love it and any potential reform is at best superficial. As things stand, it's a toss-up which one of the two groups will end up killing it, TBH.

Don't worry The Corinthian, a middle ground viewpoint is very much appreciated.

Indeed, I'm no expert at sociolinguistics, but would probably point to more direct relationships (less change) in Icelandic (from old Norse), Greek (from ancient Greek) and arguably also Italian (from vulgar Latin, and if not Italian, Sardinian, which is even closer).

The change from Old Irish to modern is on the level of Greek from Ancient Greek. (Although Irish is less conservative than Greek) Italian has changed more from Latin than Irish has from Old Irish, where as Icelandic has changed far less. In fact Icelandic is the most conservative European language.

If anybody is interested the biggest changes from Old Irish were roughly:
1. Loss of neuter words, the vast majority becoming masculine.
2. Old Irish had 66 spoken letters, Modern Irish has 52. (English has 44, German 40, Latin 31, for a comparison).
3. Reduction in the grammatical distinction between masculine and feminine. They used to be treated quite differently, now it is only somewhat differently. (Although still more than most languages)
4. Loss of deponent verbs, a type of verb ending in r.
5. Loss of the dual. Old Irish had three noun quantities: singular, dual and plural.*
6. Loss of a strong difference between some noun cases (English doesn't really have noun cases, so these are basically how a noun changes depending on its function in the sentence. For instance, John and John's book. John is the nominative case, John's is the genitive case.)
7. Language became more analytic. So instead of changing an ending of a word to indicate things, you add another word. Example: In Modern Irish you can say "I am" as Tá mé or Táim. The first is analytic, the second is synthetic. In Modern Irish the language has become more Analytic. (Although not much more)

Number (4) is also a part of the change from Latin into Italian and (7) is part of the change from Latin into French.

Number (7) is also the main change in English. English used to be a highly inflecting language (one of the most inflecting in Europe), it is now the lest inflecting in Europe. The havoc this caused with the language is responsible for most of what turned:

Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þēod-cyninga, þrym gefrūnon,
hu ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.

into

So. The Spear-Danes in days gone by
and the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness.
We have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns.

(I have restored a few long marks to the text you gave donegalfella, I hope you don't mind.)

*The dual makes things difficult for people reading the Táin Bó Cúailnge or other myths. Whenever two heroes travel together the grammar is totally different. The dual has been lost all across Europe, with few exceptions, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_%28grammatical_number%29

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

discussions on the Irish language inevitably become frustratingly pointless,

+1

Indeed, I'm no expert at sociolinguistics,

If you were, you might be able see and understand why historians & scholars of linguistics hold that Irish and Welsh are two of Europs oldest languages.

other living in a De Valeran fantasy where it's alive and well,

The (approx) 50,000 people who use it as their main method of communication, or the approx half a million people who have a good working knowledge of the language, might be surprised to find they are living in a "fantasy".

As things stand, it's a toss-up which one of the two groups will end up killing it, TBH.

As the Gaelscoileanna are going from strength to strength and have to turn many children away, and the use of the language outside the gaeltachts is actually increasing, it seems neither side is in the process of killing off anything.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

... Anyhow, I really should not have entered this thread as discussions on the Irish language inevitably become frustratingly pointless, with one side completely opposed to the language no matter what and the other living in a De Valeran fantasy where it's alive and well, everyone should (does) automatically love it and any potential reform is at best superficial. As things stand, it's a toss-up which one of the two groups will end up killing it, TBH.

I think that I stand in the middle ground, and there are not many people in my vicinity. I enjoy company, and would be pleased if you stayed.

The Corinthian

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you were, you might be able see and understand why historians & scholars of linguistics hold that Irish and Welsh are two of Europs oldest languages.

And if you were one you would stop confusing conservative with oldest, because ultimately it's not the same language.

The (approx) 50,000 people who use it as their main method of communication, or the approx half a million people who have a good working knowledge of the language, might be surprised to find they are living in a "fantasy".

Under 5% speak the language. As to the remaining self-assessed proportion that have a working knowledge, this cannot be taken in any way as an accurate measure of knowledge in the language - I have, for example, a working knowledge, but certainly would have not consider myself an Irish speaker by a long shot any more than I would consider myself a Japanese speaker (another language I have a working knowledge in).

As the Gaelscoileanna are going from strength to strength and have to turn many children away, and the use of the language outside the gaeltachts is actually increasing, it seems neither side is in the process of killing off anything.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that, TBH. Decades of forcing or encouraging kids to learn a language they have no reason to speak once they leave school, and thus ultimately lose, and the penny still hasn't dropped. I'll leave you to your fantasies.