Is Irish a dead language?

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a rigid standard be imposed that would force all regional variations and idioms into extinction, but when you get to a point where the language branches into mutually unintelligible dialects, then you're screwed, because it creates additional confusion and acts as another barrier to adoption by the presently non-Irish speaking population.

Nationalism has it's place and uses, but sometimes it becomes counter productive - even to the cause of nationalism - because it often is incapable of seeking solutions given it's rigid framework of conflicting 'principles'.

Either the Gaeilgeoirí want Irish to become the de facto first language of Ireland (or at least truly bilingual) or they prefer letting it languish as a minority language and the former is going to require sacrifice on their part.

While nationalism is a factor that often acts against such reform, I also believe that good old fashioned greed plays a large part too. When it was proposed that place names should be only in Irish withing the Gaeltach areas, many local businesses kicked up about potential lost business as a result. Even the great linguistic victory of Irish's recognition as an official EU language is suspect for me, given the bonanza in Eurojobs for those Gaeilgeoirí who will be translating reams of documents that few, if any, will actually read.

Indeed, what initiatives have been put forward recently (or ever) that did not effectively result in 'jobs for the buachaillí'?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Enkidu

The funny thing is that Welsh, the other main Celtic language, has long had a standard that hasn't killed off the dialectal variety of either Northern Welsh or Southern Welsh. Perhaps this would be the best way to go for Irish, a standard that doesn't make a native speaker cringe and provides a well understood dialect for learners. I don't see why this would have to be an imposition on the existing dialects.

nuac

Is there that much difference between Irish spoken in varous areas?. I was in school with lads from various Gaeltachtaí, mainly Connemara but also Cork/Kerry and Donegal. While there were some different words and corthaí chainnte, I can't recall any difference in conversation.

Enkidu

nuac wrote: »

Is there that much difference between Irish spoken in varous areas?. I was in school with lads from various Gaeltachtaí, mainly Connemara but also Cork/Kerry and Donegal. While there were some different words and corthaí chainnte, I can't recall any difference in conversation.

Probably as P. Breathnach was saying the difference isn't a great with younger speakers as it was years ago. I know older Donegal speakers found it quite hard to understand Munster speakers. Even in "Learning Irish" by Mícheál Ó Siadhail, which is based on the Connemara dialect, practically at any point in the text where there is something very "Connemara" and grammatically difficult he notes that younger speakers don't use it. So perhaps a standard is evolving naturally.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

...
Either the Gaeilgeoirí want Irish to become the de facto first language of Ireland (or at least truly bilingual) or they prefer letting it languish as a minority language and the former is going to require sacrifice on their part.

Even the word gaeilgeoir has become a problem, as its connotations vary greatly. I suppose that I am a gaeilgeoir as I can, and sometimes do, speak Irish. But you won't find me out beating drums.

Irish will never again be the first language of Ireland. The prospects of Ireland becoming truly bilingual are so small that they should be disregarded. So the only real options are to abandon it entirely or to make some effort to hold on to what remains. I'm firmly in the second group, because our Gaelic culture is part of my identity (and I love sean nós song).

In my opinion, the maintenance of the gaeltacht pockets is dependent on the goodwill of the people of the galltacht, and some amount of positive action. Even more, we need to get rid of the negative positions that are so inimical to Irish, things like the expectation that Irish speakers must always be the ones to accommodate others on the matter of language, and be ready to switch to English on demand.

...
Indeed, what initiatives have been put forward recently (or ever) that did not effectively result in 'jobs for the buachaillí'?

If we disregard the fact that I had to pass a trivially simple test in Irish as part of the public service recruitment process, I can say that I never made a penny from the language. Yet here and there, now and again, I did little bits to promote it. That's what you can get for nothing: a little bit of voluntary effort.

If, as public policy, we decide that Irish is a valuable cultural heritage that we should maintain, then a more substantial commitment is required. Money usually goes with policy measures, and that money becomes income for somebody. I'm fine with that, as I think the language and what goes with it is valuable, and worth a bit of money.

The first question for me is how much money we should commit to Irish -- and I don't have a thought-out answer for that.

The second question is how we ensure that we get some value for that money. It looks to me as if, despite some good achievements, we don't get good value for all the money we spend on Irish in our schools. I have some reservations about the public use of Irish, and not just with the effects of the Official Languages Act. It annoys the hell out of me that things like road signs and information signs involve execrable Irish.

But it's not all bad. It pleases me that some people in public life, including a number of leading politicians, can and do use Irish without making a song and dance about it.

The Corinthian

nuac wrote: »

Is there that much difference between Irish spoken in varous areas?. I was in school with lads from various Gaeltachtaí, mainly Connemara but also Cork/Kerry and Donegal. While there were some different words and corthaí chainnte, I can't recall any difference in conversation.

I can only comment on what I've read, of which I linked to one interesting article earlier in the thread. So it is an issue, although how serious is debatable.

As I said, regional variations are not a problem - we already have those in Hiberno-English - it is when those variations become difficult to understand or completely unintelligible that you have a problem. When that happens Irish ceases to exist and becomes two new languages.

Enkidu

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Irish will never again be the first language of Ireland. The prospects of Ireland becoming truly bilingual are so small that they should be disregarded.

Just curious, do you see a future where a sizeable minority can speak it? Say 10-15%.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In my opinion, the maintenance of the gaeltacht pockets is dependent on the goodwill of the people of the galltacht, and some amount of positive action.

So from what you're saying it's not really about the language but about protecting these communities?

Yet here and there, now and again, I did little bits to promote it. That's what you can get for nothing: a little bit of voluntary effort.

That's all well and good, but I was discussing public policy.

If, as public policy, we decide that Irish is a valuable cultural heritage that we should maintain, then a more substantial commitment is required. Money usually goes with policy measures, and that money becomes income for somebody. I'm fine with that, as I think the language and what goes with it is valuable, and worth a bit of money.

What exactly is worth the money? That we protect these communities from extinction? That's all very well, but it's not actually what's been sold to us all this time.

If that's all this is about, we can forgo the fantasy that we're trying to promote the language and just let the Gaeltachs set up casinos.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

Just curious, do you see a future where a sizeable minority can speak it? Say 10-15%.

I'm fairly sure 10-15% of the current population can speak Irish, albeit not all of them fluently.

Twenty years ago I thought that we might be witnessing the death of Irish, that the young people in the gaeltacht were abandoning it as not being cool. Since then, I have revised my opinion: the use of Irish by teenagers in the gaeltacht seems to have increased. Either Irish is more cool, or being cool is less cool than it used to be.

If the gaeltacht survives at present levels, that would give us a core 1+%. Does it seem likely that for every gaeltacht speaker we could find about ten others with a reasonable standard of Irish (let's say good enough to have a social conversation) and a willingness to use it some of the time? I don't see it. Perhaps half that number.

I am very taken with the idea that some of the future gaeilgeoirí will have more skin pigment than the present generation, and others will speak Polish at home.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

So from what you're saying it's not really about the language but about protecting these communities?

I'm taking it for granted that we can not maintain the language without maintaining the communities for whom it is their ordinary language. I would add that it's not solely the language that matters to me: it's the whole cultural package, but language is the key to that.

What exactly is worth the money? That we protect these communities from extinction? That's all very well, but it's not actually what's been sold to us all this time.

If that's all this is about, we can forgo the fantasy that we're trying to promote the language and just let the Gaeltachs set up casinos.

That's twisting things a bit -- quite a lot, actually. There is a Gaelic cultural inheritance with which many people identify. Personally, I don't have to go back far to find native Irish speakers in my ancestry, and there are very many other people who are close to Gaelic origins (and, of course, many others who are not). I simply want my heritage maintained, as do large numbers of other Irish people.

[Your casino suggestion reminds me of something. I was in a pub on Gorumna Island in Connemara. The twenty-something lads at the next table were playing cards. Their counting system charmed me: "one, two, trí, ceathar, cúig...".]

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm taking it for granted that we can not maintain the language without maintaining the communities for whom it is their ordinary language.

I disagree. You can well maintain the language without maintaining those communities by actually properly promoting the language so you no longer have to be dependent on those communities to keep it alive.

I would add that it's not solely the language that matters to me: it's the whole cultural package, but language is the key to that.

Other than the language what makes the Gaeltacht any culturally different from a non-Gaeltacht village or town down the road?

That's twisting things a bit -- quite a lot, actually. There is a Gaelic cultural inheritance with which many people identify. Personally, I don't have to go back far to find native Irish speakers in my ancestry, and there are very many other people who are close to Gaelic origins (and, of course, many others who are not). I simply want my heritage maintained, as do large numbers of other Irish people.

Actually, I'm not twisting anything - you have openly and directly put the protection of those communities as your primary goal, while claiming that the maintenance of the language would be a byproduct of this. I've completely disagreed and pointed out that your priorities are not for the language but these communities.

Indeed, for Irish to gain popularity is probably the last thing you'd want, because, as donegalfella pointed out, they would lose their special status and with it their perks.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

... Actually, I'm not twisting anything - you have openly and directly put the protection of those communities as your primary goal ....

I haven't.

I do, however, see it as the means of attaining the goal of preserving the language and the culture that goes with it.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I haven't.

Actually you have and pointed out why. Your interest is in maintaining those communities, first and foremost. The promotion of the language in Ireland is a secondary consideration.

I do, however, see it as the means of attaining the goal of preserving the language and the culture that goes with it.

What (distinct) culture? The language I get, but take that away are realistically how different are they from an English speaking town down the road?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you have and pointed out why. Your interest is in maintaining those communities, first and foremost. The promotion of the language in Ireland is a secondary consideration.

I think that I am better qualified to know my interests than you are. If you want to discuss things with me, do it on the basis of what I say than what you say that I believe.

What (distinct) culture? The language I get, but take that away are realistically how different are they from an English speaking town down the road?

As one example, I have mentioned the song tradition several times in this thread.

There is more, because there is a linkage between the language we use and the way we think. Because Irish is a different type of language from English, the mode of thought associated with it is markedly different from that associated with English and its related languages.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that I am better qualified to know my interests than you are. If you want to discuss things with me, do it on the basis of what I say than what you say that I believe.

I have based it on what you said though.

As one example, I have mentioned the song tradition several times in this thread.

There is more, because there is a linkage between the language we use and the way we think. Because Irish is a different type of language from English, the mode of thought associated with it is markedly different from that associated with English and its related languages.

This is all a bit too fuzzy and undefined to be credible TBH, especially in light of donegalfella's rejection of such. Are there studies on this alleged and distinct culture available?

Nonetheless, even if there were a distinct culture worth preserving, that is not the same aim as promoting the Irish language and frankly would be an admission that the language is all but dead except for these 'preserves'.

In short, the Gaeltachts are there to preserve the language. The language is not there to preserve the Gaeltachts.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have based it on what you said though.

Including my explicit denial?

This is all a bit too fuzzy and undefined to be credible TBH,

So you simply choose to disbelieve it?

especially in light of donegalfella's rejection of such.

But you choose to believe donegalfella's assertion?

Are there studies on this alleged and distinct culture available?

Probably. There is an extensive academic literature on the interaction between thought and language. I knew my way around it a long time ago, but I haven't kept up to date as I have pursued different interests since.

Nonetheless, even if there were a distinct culture worth preserving, that is not the same aim as promoting the Irish language and frankly would be an admission that the language is all but dead except for these 'preserves'.

Language and culture are inextricably bound up with one another. A language without a cultural dimension is probably impossible. Were it possible, it would have little value other than as a curiosity.

In short, the Gaeltachts are there to preserve the language. The language is not there to preserve the Gaeltachts.

Again, these are things that are tied together. Selecting one for attention while ignoring the other is like arguing about which leg of a chair is most important.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Including my explicit denial?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably still a duck even if you claim otherwise.

So you simply choose to disbelieve it?

Given you've failed to demonstrate it in any way, yes.

But you choose to believe donegalfella's assertion?

Because it was a clear statement of his own experience and not some fuzzy description of what dubiously would be called a distinct culture.

Probably. There is an extensive academic literature on the interaction between thought and language. I knew my way around it a long time ago, but I haven't kept up to date as I have pursued different interests since.

Then we're stuck with your fuzzy description of said 'culture'.

Language and culture are inextricably bound up with one another. A language without a cultural dimension is probably impossible. Were it possible, it would have little value other than as a curiosity.

Nonsense. Tell an Australian or American that their cultures are inextricably bound up with English.

Again, these are things that are tied together. Selecting one for attention while ignoring the other is like arguing about which leg of a chair is most important.

I never said one should ignore one for the other, I said one has priority over or serves the other.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian, it's generally regarded as unacceptable to call another poster a liar unless you can demonstrate that it's the case. Since in this case you're essentially calling another poster a liar about his/her personal interests, something where you have very little hope of proving your claim, I would advise you to drop or retract the accusation unless you feel that you can demonstrate it to be the case by more than mere assertion.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Corinthian, it's generally regarded as unacceptable to call another poster a liar unless you can demonstrate that it's the case. Since in this case you're essentially calling another poster a liar about his/her personal interests, something where you have very little hope of proving your claim, I would advise you to drop or retract the accusation unless you feel that you can demonstrate it to be the case by more than mere assertion

With respects, I've not actually suggested he's a liar, only said that I don't believe him - more correctly he has not demonstrated them in a manner that is convincing.

To begin with I have said that he prioritizes the Gaeltacht over the language and he denies this. Yet, when one poses to him that the Gaeltacht may need to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the language he chooses for the former - so what conclusion would you reach?

Secondly he's claimed that the Gaeltacht have a distinct culture worth preserving. To do this he needs to define it, prove that it still exists in the Gaeltacht and also that it is worth preserving.

Yet when asked to even define it, he mentions something about a song tradition then goes on to speak in abstract about the effect of language on culture without actually answering the question. When further asked for anything supporting his claim, he simply makes another claim that it is no doubt out there somewhere - and thus fails to supply it. By contrast donegalfella may only have given his own anecdotal evidence, but it's still a lot better than anything Breathnach has given so far, so other than not demonstrating that Gaeltacht have a distinct culture worth preserving, the only evidence on the table is to the contrary.

Now, this may mean that what he has claimed is false, but for it to be intentional, and thus a lie, is certainly not proven. He may come back and demonstrate evidence to prove his case. Or it may be false and he may genuinely, and mistakenly, believe it to be true. Or it could be deliberate.

Whatever it is, I am in no position to suggest that he is indeed lying and apologize if that was the interpretation taken up.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now, this may mean that what he has claimed is false, but for it to be intentional, and thus a lie, is certainly not proven. He may come back and demonstrate evidence to prove his case. Or it may be false and he may genuinely, and mistakenly, believe it to be true. Or it could be deliberate.

Whatever it is, I am in no position to suggest that he is indeed lying and apologize if that was the interpretation taken up.

That works for me, thanks!

moderately,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

...
To begin with I have said that he prioritizes the Gaeltacht over the language and he denies this. Yet, when one poses to him that the Gaeltacht may need to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the language he chooses for the former - so what conclusion would you reach?

That is not a fair representation of what was said. You created a false dichotomy, and I did not accept it.

Secondly he's claimed that the Gaeltacht have a distinct culture worth preserving. To do this he needs to define it, prove that it still exists in the Gaeltacht and also that it is worth preserving.

Again, not a fair representation. I wrote of the culture associated with the Irish language. I was not particularly limiting my comments to the gaeltacht community, although it is rather obvious that whatever cultural concomitants Irish has will be more evident in the gaeltacht than elsewhere.

Yet when asked to even define it, he mentions something about a song tradition then goes on to speak in abstract about the effect of language on culture without actually answering the question. When further asked for anything supporting his claim, he simply makes another claim that it is no doubt out there somewhere - and thus fails to supply it. By contrast donegalfella may only have given his own anecdotal evidence, but it's still a lot better than anything Breathnach has given so far, so other than not demonstrating that Gaeltacht have a distinct culture worth preserving, the only evidence on the table is to the contrary.

It's for you to decide whether or not my arguments persuade you, but when you treat somebody else's assertion as having more evidential value than what I say, then I suspect that you are not really interested in a considered evaluation.

Now, this may mean that what he has claimed is false, but for it to be intentional, and thus a lie, is certainly not proven. He may come back and demonstrate evidence to prove his case. Or it may be false and he may genuinely, and mistakenly, believe it to be true. Or it could be deliberate.

Whatever it is, I am in no position to suggest that he is indeed lying and apologize if that was the interpretation taken up.

I look at the topic "Is Irish a dead language?" and wonder why we are discussing me.

cyclopath2001

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is more, because there is a linkage between the language we use and the way we think. Because Irish is a different type of language from English, the mode of thought associated with it is markedly different from that associated with English and its related languages.

Can you give examples of differences in mode of thought between people with English as a first langauge and those with Irish as a first language?

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is not a fair representation of what was said. You created a false dichotomy, and I did not accept it.

But that's actually where this argument between us began - unless this was all a terrible misunderstanding. Tell me, how is it an unfair representation of what you said?

Again, not a fair representation. I wrote of the culture associated with the Irish language. I was not particularly limiting my comments to the gaeltacht community, although it is rather obvious that whatever cultural concomitants Irish has will be more evident in the gaeltacht than elsewhere.

No, but you did particularly limit your protection of the economic privileges held by the Gaeltacht as opposed to anyone else. Or did you suggest anyone else should have similar protection?

It's for you to decide whether or not my arguments persuade you, but when you treat somebody else's assertion as having more evidential value than what I say, then I suspect that you are not really interested in a considered evaluation.

No. His was anecdotal evidence - quite weak in most arguments. Problem is, you supplied nothing. Absolutely nothing. A few vague statements, and that's it.

As such, he supplied a stronger argument, simply by dint of how weak your one was. This does not mean that he's right (you'll note I've never said this) only that it makes it even more likely that you're wrong.

I look at the topic "Is Irish a dead language?" and wonder why we are discussing me.

We're discussing you because you came out with some opinion stated as fact and then failed to back it up with anything other than rhetoric.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

But that's actually where this argument between us began - unless this was all a terrible misunderstanding....

Show me.

No, but you did particularly limit your protection of the economic privileges held by the Gaeltacht as opposed to anyone else....

Show me.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Show me.

Actually that was my question.

A phrase about straws and grasping comes to mind right about now...

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually that was my question.

A phrase about straws and grasping comes to mind right about now...

So you won't show me?

Right, understood.

deise go deo

The image of a dog chasing its tail comes to mind:rolleyes: