Is Irish a dead language?

The Corinthian

TBH, were I to suggest how to encourage adoption of Irish, I would first throw this steaming pile of manure out the window. If you read through it, it does little more than recommend increased funding to the same old groups and quangos, creating a few new quangos, strengthening of existing tired policies and pays at best lip service to Irish in the Real (non-academic) World.

Instead, and to begin with, I'd standardize the language properly. In theory it is, but in reality it's almost as bad as Swiss German.

I would probably recommend that pre-school and perhaps some or all of primary school should be taught entirely through Irish. The reason is that at that age children are very receptive to language and more than capable of speaking one language at home and another at school without confusion and even if no longer used on a day to day basis once, say eight years of age, that foundation would remain - at least for a while.

Secondly I would phase out a lot of the graft and protectionism. Irish should cease to be obligatory, at least at LC level, by the time that those fully immersed pre-schoolers get to it (but not before, as it cannot afford to lose this protection). I'd phase out the grants and payments in the Gaeltacht areas (or extend it to any Irish speaker) and slowly remove government support for Irish language broadcasting so as to force them to actually find a market that will sustain them.

Finally, one of the principle problems (still unaddressed, outside the vaguest terms, in that steaming pile of manure above) is the non-academic World, also known as the Real World. Outside of being a requirement for some jobs, there is absolutely no incentive to speak the language (and being a requirement is not an incentive, but an imposition). Ways to make Irish relevant to the adult population need to be examined, otherwise it will quickly fall into disuse the moment we leave school or college.

Enkidu

The Corinthian wrote: »

Instead, and to begin with, I'd standardize the language properly. In theory it is, but in reality it's almost as bad as Swiss German.

I strongly agree with this. Not only the grammar but also pronunciation. Grammatically the standard should be more in line with everyday speech. There are several words in it no longer in everyday use. For example um is almost gone in speech, but you still see it in standard publications like Foinse.

As for pronunciation the problem is that there is no standard. The pronunciation in the dialects can be widely different, in fact I know somebody (a French expert on Celtic languages) who said that Northern Ulster Irish and Southern Munster Irish differ more in pronunciation than Norwegian and Danish.

P. Breathnach wrote:

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.

If you don't mind P. Breathnach, may I ask which dialect's pronunciation do you use?

P. Breathnach

Without reflecting on things very deeply, my first response to The Corinthian's manifesto is positive. If I worked on it a bit, I would probably nuance some things differently.

But I dissent on one point, and dissent very strongly: that of standardising the language. The language is both preserved and developed by its own community, the pool of people for whom it is their first or joint first language. No committee can impose a standard on them.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

... If you don't mind P. Breathnach, may I ask which dialect's pronunciation do you use?

East coast, with strong Connemara overtones.

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

I'm not confusing anything.

It seems, since you truly believe you know more about linguistics than actual scholars of language (who state this fact), that this will forever escape you.

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).

The figures actually vary wildly depending on which study you read (an ESRI study from 2007-8 claims 25%).

Even taking your own figure of 5% , I hardly think over 200,000 people constitutes a "fantasy".

Actually "to have a working knowledge" of a language means just what it says.
It means to have the ability to speak the language.
If you have a working knowledge of Japanese then you can speak Japanese.
Just because you don't believe this, does not change its reality.

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.

Wow! Even the fact of the increasing use of Irish (outside the gaeltachts) is beyond your comprehension.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

... There are several words in it no longer in everyday use. For example um is almost gone in speech, but you still see it in standard publications like Foinse....

I almost let that escape unnoticed.

I had an outing with um a few years ago, having got through decades of my life without ever thinking about it or using it. I was involved in naming an organisation and um came into my head as the best preposition. I don't know why, or where from it came to visit me. But it felt right. I ran it past a few people whose formal knowledge of Irish is better than mine, and they came to the same conclusion: they could not explain the proper usage of um, but they agreed that it seemed right.

So I am a member of the um preservation movement (Gluaiseacht um Chaobhnú Um).

Cú Giobach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Instead, and to begin with, I'd standardize the language properly. In theory it is, but in reality it's almost as bad as Swiss German.
.

Then it really would be a contrived one.

You make some good points in that post. this is not one of them.

Focalbhach

Enkidu wrote: »

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:

...

Thanks for this, very interesting.

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, were I to suggest how to encourage adoption of Irish, I would first throw this steaming pile of manure out the window. If you read through it, it does little more than recommend increased funding to the same old groups and quangos, creating a few new quangos, strengthening of existing tired policies and pays at best lip service to Irish in the Real (non-academic) World.

Instead, and to begin with, I'd standardize the language properly. In theory it is, but in reality it's almost as bad as Swiss German.

I would probably recommend that pre-school and perhaps some or all of primary school should be taught entirely through Irish. The reason is that at that age children are very receptive to language and more than capable of speaking one language at home and another at school without confusion and even if no longer used on a day to day basis once, say eight years of age, that foundation would remain - at least for a while.

Secondly I would phase out a lot of the graft and protectionism. Irish should cease to be obligatory, at least at LC level, by the time that those fully immersed pre-schoolers get to it (but not before, as it cannot afford to lose this protection). I'd phase out the grants and payments in the Gaeltacht areas (or extend it to any Irish speaker) and slowly remove government support for Irish language broadcasting so as to force them to actually find a market that will sustain them.

I'm not entirely sold on complete standardisation (I quite enjoy my Donegalisms :P), but I think this post, broadly, makes a lot of sense.

Enkidu

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So I am a member of the um preservation movement (Gluaiseacht um Chaobhnú Um).

That's a great story. Maybe I shouldn't count um out, it was something the bards used. I should also learn how to use the bloody thing.:)

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I dissent on one point, and dissent very strongly: that of standardising the language. The language is both preserved and developed by its own community, the pool of people for whom it is their first or joint first language. No committee can impose a standard on them.

How do you think Italian, German, French and pretty much all other European languages came to be? Many were chosen from one of the various dialects spoken (e.g. Florentine Italian) while others were largely contrived as a means of facilitating trade and later officially adopted (e.g. High German). Without it you end up with gigantic linguistic issues where eventually one community's dialect becomes unintelligible to the rest of the country (e.g. Walliserdeutsch).

Way I view it is while it would be nice for the language to be both preserved and developed by its own community, this probably needs to be sacrificed for the greater good.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It seems, since you truly believe you know more about linguistics than actual scholars of language (who state this fact), that this will forever escape you.

Speaking a language makes you an expert on its sociolinguistics? New one.

I am no expert on sociolinguistics, but I have studied it formally in the past. You, on the other hand do not appear to have any formal knowledge in it as you claimed, incorrectly, that Irish was one of the oldest languages in Europe. It's not, it may be amongst the least changed (and if one includes dialects, there are plenty that have changed less), but in itself it is three hundred years old - at a stretch, 800 years old.

To say this is not to lessen the value of the language, but to point out that your earlier 'list of reasons' to learn/speak it was full of nonsense, with some form of spontaneous love for it, starting the list and then claiming some form of non-nationalistic appreciation for Irish culture. Arguing that it is one of the oldest in Europe is factually incorrect and frankly not a reason - otherwise we should really be resurrecting lots of other older languages or reverting to old Irish.

The figures actually vary wildly depending on which study you read (an ESRI study from 2007-8 claims 25%).

On what planet do 25% of the population speak Irish.

Actually "to have a working knowledge" of a language means just what it says.
It means to have the ability to speak the language.

No, a working knowledge is a loose euphamism that can mean aything from one or two phrases, to very basic communication that allows you to do simple things like order a drink, etc. It does not mean that one can speak the language - if you actually think it does, it would explain your rather exaggerated figures.

Wow! Even the fact of the increasing use of Irish (outside the gaeltachts) is beyond your comprehension.

And that that use is ultimately lost thereafter is beyond yours.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

How do you think Italian, German, French and pretty much all other European languages came to be? Many were chosen from one of the various dialects spoken (e.g. Florentine Italian) while others were largely contrived as a means of facilitating trade and later officially adopted (e.g. High German). Without it you end up with gigantic linguistic issues where eventually one community's dialect becomes unintelligible to the rest of the country (e.g. Walliserdeutsch).

Way I view it is while it would be nice for the language to be both preserved and developed by its own community, this probably needs to be sacrificed for the greater good.
....

Some language standardisation was achieved by coercion (princes often had unlimited powers); some was voluntary. In modern times, the voluntary approach is considered preferable.

The people of the gaeltacht would probably ignore any centralised effort at standardising Irish. If they thought about it at all, they might regard it as coercive.

Can some sort of voluntary standardisation happen? I think it can, and some of it is already happening. The key is Radio na Gaeltachta, which has the people of the different dialect groups talking and listening to one another. I know that when I was young, people from West Kerry found Donegal Irish to be largely incomprehensible (and vice versa). I don't think that is true any more.

I believe that there is some manipulation, in that people whose regional accents and usages are very strong are asked to moderate their language somewhat. But this is done for a very clear and immediate purpose: good communication. It's not being done to give the language a new common standard, but over time it may have some effect in pulling our dialects a bit closer to one another.

eddyc

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

I stand in the middle ground all be it slightly opposed to your side. I fully support the governments funding of cultural institutions like the gaeltacht, the IFI, the national museum etc. I strongly disagree when the government requires its citizens to participate in them. I would liken this to requiring a basic knowledge of Irish music and dancing to get a job in the public sector.
There is a point to be made that those who need to communicate with the government in Irish should be able to do so, but isn't that what you pay interpreters for. Its like teaching everyone in the public sector polish in case a Polish monoglot requires government facilities. Pretending that the demand justifies the cost is just crazy.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some language standardisation was achieved by coercion (princes often had unlimited powers); some was voluntary. In modern times, the voluntary approach is considered preferable.

Depends on how you define a voluntary approach. What kind of voluntary approach has been used in recent legislation, for example?

The people of the gaeltacht would probably ignore any centralised effort at standardising Irish. If they thought about it at all, they might regard it as coercive.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for them TBH. Irish has been imposed in education on the majority English speaking population of Ireland for decades in the name of preserving the language. It's about time they started giving rather than receiving for that same cause.

If they don't want to standardize, that's fine. We don't have to give them money either.

Can some sort of voluntary standardisation happen?

Possibly to an extent, but ultimately some coercion will need to be used somewhere along the line because someone somewhere will always be unhappy with what standard is chosen.

A good example of this is Switzerland, where they've never been able to agree upon a standard German dialect due to the high degree of autonomy in the federal system. They came close in the 1920's, AFAIR, almost opting for the dialect of St Gallen, but ultimately some western cantons objected and that was that.

I believe that there is some manipulation, in that people whose regional accents and usages are very strong are asked to moderate their language somewhat. But this is done for a very clear and immediate purpose: good communication. It's not being done to give the language a new common standard, but over time it may have some effect in pulling our dialects a bit closer to one another.

You're always going to get regional variations (Liverpool versus London, for example), however without a standard to limit these variations to a mutually intelligible level, it'll all end in tears.

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't have a lot of sympathy for them TBH. Irish has been imposed in education on the majority English speaking population of Ireland for decades in the name of preserving the language. It's about time they started giving rather than receiving for that same cause.

You frame it as if it was the people of the Gaeltachts who imposed compulsory Irish on the rest of the country, It was the political parties the people elected that did this.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

You frame it as if it was the people of the Gaeltachts who imposed compulsory Irish on the rest of the country, It was the political parties the people elected that did this.

I didn't frame it that way at all. The government created the policies which have financially benefited the Gaeltachts and made impositions on the English speaking majority in the name of the Irish language.

If the language is what is of importance, then the Gaeltachts will have to give just like the rest of us should government policy seek to impose upon them for that same cause.

Otherwise it would stink of that status quo graft I was talking about earlier.

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't frame it that way at all. The government created the policies which have financially benefited the Gaeltachts and made impositions on the English speaking majority in the name of the Irish language.

If the language is what is of importance, then the Gaeltachts will have to give just like the rest of us should government policy seek to impose upon them for that same cause.

Otherwise it would stink of that status quo graft I was talking about earlier.

Fair enough, Thats just the feeling I got from your post.

I just dont really see what should be done to the Gaeltachts specifically,
I dont think they should be given a free ride or anything I just dont think makeing them speak a more standard form of Irish would make any difference.

I can see there may be an argument for removing some of the focus on the dialects in the media and in schools but I dont see how forceing people in the Gaelthachts to change their way of speaking would be benifical.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

I can see there may be an argument for removing some of the focus on the dialects in the media and in schools but I dont see how forceing people in the Gaelthachts to change their way of speaking would be benifical.

To what level one would have to standardize is open to discussion, however when a fluent Irish speaker from Dublin or Ulster has difficulty comprehending one from Munster, then you need to impose some standard otherwise how the Hell are the rest of us going to hope to understand?

Interesting related article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0116/1224262447899.html

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

To what level one would have to standardize is open to discussion, however when a fluent Irish speaker from Dublin or Ulster has difficulty comprehending one from Munster, then you need to impose some standard otherwise how the Hell are the rest of us going to hope to understand?

I accept that, It can be hard to understand extremes of certain dialects. I was talking to someone from Liter mór a few months ago in a Ciorcal Comhrá in Waterford, It was very hard to understand what he was saying, That said it was hard to understand him in English too:D

I dont see what the government can do to change this other than perhaps teach a standard form or at least a moderate form of the local dialect in the local schools.

Focalbhach

deise go deo wrote: »

I just dont really see what should be done to the Gaeltachts specifically,
I dont think they should be given a free ride or anything I just dont think makeing them speak a more standard form of Irish would make any difference.

I can see there may be an argument for removing some of the focus on the dialects in the media and in schools but I dont see how forceing people in the Gaelthachts to change their way of speaking would be benifical.

I imagine it would be a fairly organic process, in that you couldn't somehow make existing speakers change the way they speak but future generations would be brought up with a more standardised form (again, obviously, pending reform so that the new standard would actually be learnt). Learners in the various regions would still have more exposure to a particular dialect, but with an accessible media they'd come closer together gradually.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont see what the government can do to change this other than perhaps teach a standard form or at least a moderate form of the local dialect in the local schools.

Don't be silly, the government isn't going to do anything other than throw money to keep the gravy train going. There's too many vested interests involved to let something like the language get in the way.

And if you don't believe me, tell me if there is anything radical about the governments 20 year plan for the language or whether it's all about setting up new quangos and giving more money to existing groups and quangos.

catbear

When will this thread die?

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't be silly, the government isn't going to do anything other than throw money to keep the gravy train going. There's too many vested interests involved to let something like the language get in the way.

What has this got to do with what I said. Anyway the goverment we have now wont be in power for very much longer. FG is on the way in, they seem to have some ambition to make changes at least. They are still drawing up their education policy but from what I have heard they want to base it around the Finnish model.

And if you don't believe me, tell me if there is anything radical about the governments 20 year plan for the language or whether it's all about setting up new quangos and giving more money to existing groups and quangos.

I havent read much of the 20 year plan, but yes your assement is broadly accurate I would say, so what would you like to see done in its place.

deise go deo

catbear wrote: »

When will this thread die?

Iv asked myself that too.:(

P. Breathnach

catbear wrote: »

When will this thread die?

When the question is settled.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

What has this got to do with what I said. Anyway the goverment we have now wont be in power for very much longer. FG is on the way in, they seem to have some ambition to make changes at least. They are still drawing up their education policy but from what I have heard they want to base it around the Finnish model.

Successive governments from all parties have essentially maintained the same policies, so I wouldn't hold my breath of FG, Labour or anyone else making much of a difference, TBH. The reason I've responded this way is that ultimately, as intellectually fascinating it is to discuss this, there are too many vested interests there for anything to ever actually happen (except for a slow withdrawal of funds and support at some stage in the future) - so it was a reality check of sorts.

I havent read much of the 20 year plan, but yes your assement is broadly accurate I would say, so what would you like to see done in its place.

I posted all I am likely to post a page or so ago. What I do know is that this is a problem and especially where a language is demographically weak as it acts as a barrier to adoption. However without knowing the full nature of linguistic balkanization in Irish or the standardization options available, I am in no position to recommend a standard, much less an implementation.

The Corinthian

I would note that the final and possibly most important part of what I suggested, in my earlier post suggesting what I would do, has gone seemingly unnoticed.

Dionysus

The Corinthian wrote: »

The government created the policies which have financially benefited the Gaeltachts and made impositions on the English speaking majority in the name of the Irish language.

The same governments which were democratically elected by the same English-speaking majority of which you speak. Let's not shift the "blame" for government policy to gaelgeoirí in gaeltachtaí or create some procrustean Irish society that totally ignores the widespread support, since the foundation of this state, for government policy on the Irish language from the "English-speaking majority", the complexity of whose views on, and feelings towards, Irish are overlooked by your neat categorisation of them as merely an "English-speaking majority".

It is support from your "English-speaking majority" which is solely ensuring that Irish maintains its position in the institutions of the independent Irish state. This is the reality and the reason why, when it comes down to it, none of the anti-Irish language posters here would ever establish a political party to run in elections on their anti-Irish platform.

Express your views by all means, but don't delude yourself that the real basis of political support for the Irish state's language policy does not rest with your "English-speaking majority" first and foremost. It does.

The Corinthian

Dionysus wrote: »

The same governments which were democratically elected by the same English-speaking majority of which you speak. Let's not shift the "blame" for government policy to gaelgeoirí in gaeltachtaí or create some procrustean Irish society that totally ignores the widespread support, since the foundation of this state, for government policy on the Irish language from the "English-speaking majority", the complexity of whose views on, and feelings towards, Irish are overlooked by your neat categorisation of them as merely an "English-speaking majority".

It is support from your "English-speaking majority" which is solely ensuring that Irish maintains its position in the institutions of the independent Irish state. This is the reality and the reason why, when it comes down to it, none of the anti-Irish language posters here would ever establish a political party to run in elections on their anti-Irish platform.

Express your views by all means, but don't delude yourself that the real basis of political support for the Irish state's language policy does not rest with your "English-speaking majority" first and foremost. It does.

What on Earth are you on about? Where did I apply blame to anyone?

Someone questioned whether the government should impose standardization on the Gaeltachts. I pointed out that there has long been a policy to promote the language by the government, which already imposes (though compulsory education) upon a majority of the population. If the cause is the language, then it is only fitting that the Gaeltachts give by doing as the rest of us have in accepting an imposition, rather than simply receive, for the greater good of the language.

There is no blame there - unless the Gaeltachts are only happy to receive and not give, and that is ultimately a moot point. Why so defensive?

cyclopath2001

Dionysus wrote: »

It is support from your "English-speaking majority" which is solely ensuring that Irish maintains its position in the institutions of the independent Irish state.

But, strangely, no position in the daily lives of the millions of Irish people who do not wish to speak Irish.

Dionysus wrote: »

none of the anti-Irish language posters here would ever establish a political party to run in elections on their anti-Irish platform.

It's a recurring weapon in the Irish-language lobby's arsenal that anyone who questions spending on Irish is 'anti-Irish'.

If people were given a choice between a hospital in Roscommon and the continuation of the expensive 'Official Languages Act', what would they choose?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.