Is Irish a dead language?

The Corinthian

Leto wrote: »

I'd still appreciate an acknowledgment that organic contact with Irish does happen outside the Gaeltachts.

I acknowledged this from the onset, but unlike you my view is that it is close to negligible.

The Corinthian - you make some good points and I generally have a fair respect for your thoughts, but it's both irritating and rude to continually shift what you ask of another person in conversation and then act as if it never happened.

OK - I concede the point, although, TBH, mainly because I would like to see some sunshine today.

astrofool wrote: »

Again, what % only speak Irish?

I would have thought 0%.

P. Breathnach

astrofool wrote: »

I don't think it's more relevant, every other minority in Ireland has to deal with the state through English, Travellers, Polish, French, Germans etc. Why should a minority of Irish people, who can speak English, have millions spent (when we have huge debts) to deal with the state in Irish?

Because this is the place that made Irish speakers of them.

Again, what % only speak Irish?

I have no idea, and I don't really care.

Focalbhach

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK - I concede the point, although, TBH, mainly because I would like to see some sunshine today.

How very gracious.

:rolleyes:

deise go deo

astrofool wrote: »

Why should a minority of Irish people, who can speak English, have millions spent (when we have huge debts) to deal with the state in Irish?

Id like to see your figures for these millions spent.

Iwasfrozen

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would have thought 0%.

According to P. Breathnach's own figures between 0.45% and 0.9%.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Id like to see your figures for these millions spent.

Rather conveniently for the Irish language industry, the Official Languages Act which imposes onerous and expensive obligations on all government departments and agencies, made no provision at all for managing the cost of its implementation. These costs are set to escalate as the Irish Langauge commissioner is putting pressure on for ALL services to be available in Irish regardless of the expense.

This, of course, is much to delight of those who make money translating documents and re-translating them every time they are amended.

What's the going rate per A4 page for an official certifed translation?

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Rather conveniently for the Irish language industry, the Official Languages Act which imposes onerous and expensive obligations on all government departments and agencies, made no provision at all for managing the cost of its implementation. These costs are set to escalate as the Irish Langauge commissioner is putting pressure on for ALL services to be available in Irish regardless of the expense.

This, of course, is much to delight of those who make money translating documents and re-translating them every time they are amended.

What's the going rate per A4 page for an official certifed translation?

Dosent really answer the question.

Rebelheart

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is all a bit too fuzzy and undefined to be credible TBH, especially in light of donegalfella's rejection of such.

So you are saying it's wrong because "Donegalfella", a born and bred Yank, agrees with you? Strange logic indeed.

This is the same Donegalfella who claimed that "few people" in the gaeltacht speak Irish and that signs in the gaeltacht were not in Irish, and went silent when challenged on his "eye witness" account (and this was some posts after his rant about Irish being a "backward" language and Irish independence from Britain being a "backward" step for the Irish people).

Such is the calibre of the thinking by the anti-Irish language posters here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Dosent really answer the question.

Value for money analysis is something the Irish language lobby do not want.

But if we consider industry rates of 5c a word, with say 30 words per line and 60 lines per page, that gives 90 euro a page. Now, how many pages of information are held by Government departments?

astrofool

deise go deo wrote: »

Id like to see your figures for these millions spent.

At least €1.8million
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-pays-836418m-to-translate-reports-into-irish-1924948.html

Interesting that they are actively not producing documents due to the cost of translation that they incur. Imagine being in a department and having to reduce your documentation solely due to a stupid requirement.

P. Breathnach wrote:

Because this is the place that made Irish speakers of them.

Assuming they went to school, the state also made english speakers of them.

P. Breathnach

astrofool wrote: »

... Assuming they went to school, the state also made english speakers of them.

Sofuckingwhat?

You seem to be in favour of coercion in this area; I am not.

deise go deo

astrofool wrote: »

At least €1.8million

So not millions then.
Well I honestly cant see any benefit to translating a document if there is no demand for it. The money should be spent in a more usefull way to promoat the language.

Interesting that they are actively not producing documents due to the cost of translation that they incur. Imagine being in a department and having to reduce your documentation solely due to a stupid requirement.

Where did it say they had to reduce documentation?

Assuming they went to school, the state also made english speakers of them.

And your point is?

astrofool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sofuckingwhat?

You seem to be in favour of coercion in this area; I am not.

Nice cursing The what being that we made Irish speakers of them, but we also made English speakers of them, so they shouldn't need the documents translated when dealing with the state.

deise go deo wrote: »

So not millions then.
Well I honestly cant see any benefit to translating a document if there is no demand for it. The money should be spent in a more usefull way to promoat the language.

Where did it say they had to reduce documentation?

Thats in one year, so millions upon millions in the last decade and that doesn't:

And this doesn't include the additional spend by Government departments in translating their documents. Many of the local authorities and State agencies do not have a specific budget for translations and were unable to estimate their costs for this year.

Also:

He urged public bodies to publish documents and reports in electronic format only wherever possible.

So basically they are not printing documentation as the second they do that, they have to get it translated. Keeping it electronic only allows them not to translate it. A stupid rule preventing work getting done.

P. Breathnach

deise go deo wrote: »

... Well I honestly cant see any benefit to translating a document if there is no demand for it.

Likewise. But can demand be reasonably predicted?

And then I wonder if there is significant demand for all the documentation produced in English. The whole question of documentation in public administration is a strange one. Many things are reported on formally because, for reasons that may be arcane, "they have to be"; other things may be reported because of the need to cover one or more asses; yet other things are reported on because they bring together the facts and arguments that underlie political or administrative decisions; some reports are vanity projects; some are simply to show that value for money was obtained. The matter is worth a whole new thread.

The money should be spent in a more usefull way to promoat the language.

Or for other useful purposes. Let's not presume that a saving in any particular budget area should then be spent in is a similar area.

P. Breathnach

astrofool wrote: »

Nice cursing

Another realm of language in which I have some fluency -- as have most Irish people.

The what being that we made Irish speakers of them, but we also made English speakers of them, so they shouldn't need the documents translated when dealing with the state....

I'm not defending the Official Languages Act, because I think it is bad law -- probably doing more harm to the status of Irish than it does good. The denial of the right of Irish speakers to deal with the state through Irish is a more important question than reducing the excessive costs incurred as a result of that legislation.

deise go deo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Likewise. But can demand be reasonably predicted?

It cant, not with any accuracy any way,
I would suggest that for a translation the document should either have significence to the language, Have a proven past demand for it or have a demand at present for it in the case of new documents, Not ideal as people would have to wait for a translation but better than translating something for no real reason.

And then I wonder if there is significant demand for all the documentation produced in English.

Thats a good point, it would be intresting to see how much demand there is for documents that have no demand in Irish.

The whole question of documentation in public administration is a strange one. Many things are reported on formally because, for reasons that may be arcane, "they have to be"; other things may be reported because of the need to cover one or more asses; yet other things are reported on because they bring together the facts and arguments that underlie political or administrative decisions; some reports are vanity projects; some are simply to show that value for money was obtained. The matter is worth a whole new thread.

Maybe in certain situations in subjects dealing with the Gaelthacht etc documents should be written only in Irish and translated to English if there is Demand for it.

Or for other useful purposes. Let's not presume that a saving in any particular budget area should then be spent in is a similar area.

Well we arent really talking about major money in terms of public finances as a whole but yes if the money is needed for something else then it may as well be spent on something worthwhile.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Rebelheart wrote: »

So you are saying it's wrong because "Donegalfella", a born and bred Yank, agrees with you? Strange logic indeed.

If that was the logic I employed (regardless of donegalfella's origins), perhaps, but it's not, as I pointed out earlier:

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

I concluded that Breathnach was wrong (or at least not right) simply because he failed to even define his position, much less demonstrate or prove it. Donegalfella's anecdotal evidence was simply the icing on the cake.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Such is the calibre of the thinking by the anti-Irish language posters here.

To begin with what you are citing was not even a criticism of the language but of the Gaeltacts, and secondly IFAIK I am the only poster here who has in the last ten pages or so made an attempt at suggesting a broad strategy to promote Irish into a de facto, rather than de jure, national language. Where is the anti-Irish language thinking there? Indeed, what contribution to that end have you offered?

Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I posted a while back that if anything is killing the language it's not those who are openly hostile towards it, but those who claim to be it's supporters but are so immersed in a culture of blind nationalism and vested interests that they now defend not the language but the status quo.

That's what I think will ultimately kill the language. Breathnach has already given up on it actually becoming a national language and has decided that it is better to cut one's losses and simply concentrate on maintaining the Gaeltachts as some sort of living museum. Problem is that if that is the case then the language will eventually become abandoned in the rest of the country. The obligatory status in education will be abolished before long. Irish documentation will become optional and so Irish documents will simply stop being produced, due to cost savings and lack of demand. Even the Gaeltacts will slowly vanish, as successive governments redraw the boundaries to reduce them and thus save money.

Eventually, Irish will only be spoken by a handful of Gaeltacht villages and language enthusiasts - the latter being a bit like Esparantists, but with a flag. Irish, in effect, will be a national language in name only and in the same way that Latin is for the Holy See.

Finally, someone will call it a day and the last bit of cash support will vanish. Some will kick up, but due to the language having been abandoned everywhere else support will be limited to those making a living out of it or who support it for nationalist reasons.

I do not say this because I seek it, but because I believe it can be saved and Ireland could become a truly bilingual nation. All that is holding it back, frankly, is not those who 'hate' the language, but this defensive, blinkered attitude that desperately seeks to maintain the status quo, even if it kills the very thing it claims to support.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

... I concluded that Breathnach was wrong (or at least not right) simply because he failed to even define his position, much less demonstrate or prove it....

I had decided to walk away from this strand of the thread, not because I conceded to your assertions masquerading as argument, but as a service to other participants in the general discussion. But you won't let it go.

I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I do care about truth. I 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.

That's concerned with the cultural dimension of Irish.

Disagree with me all you like, but do not misrepresent my position.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I had decided to walk away from this strand of the thread, not because I conceded to your assertions masquerading as argument, but as a service to other participants in the general discussion. But you won't let it go.

Why should I let it go? For me it is simply further evidence of a policy of status quo as opposed to any genuine support for the language.

I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I do care about truth. I wrote

I know what you wrote and I have already pointed out that it is rhetorical nonsense, in that it simply claims an abstract link between language and how we think (and thus culture), yet still cannot define, let alone demonstrate, how the Gaeltach culture differs in any meaningful way from nearby English-speaking communities outside of language.

I even asked for you to supply evidence demonstrating it and you simply dismissed the request, saying that you where sure some existed.

The closest thing you came to proposing was a supposed song culture, without defining it, let alone showing that it actually exists beyond a tourist attraction - or at all.

As things stand, the only evidence we have that the Gaeltach culture differs in any meaningful way from nearby English-speaking communities outside of language is your abstract word for it. Conversely, however limited, the evidence against is Donegalfella's anecdotal evidence - at least he defined his evidence.

So with respects, do not accuse me of misrepresenting you, because I have offered you every opportunity to represent your position and you still have failed to do so.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why should I let it go?

You should let it go for the reason that I wanted to: because the discussion had acquired a nasty tone.

For me it is simply further evidence of a policy of status quo as opposed to any genuine support for the language.

I fail to see any evidence of a policy of status quo in what I say. It would be strange if the evidence were there, because I am not sold on the status quo, and I have confined my participation in this thread to a subset of the range of matters covered (for example, I have taken no position on the position of Irish in schools). On the other hand, I think even a casual reader would infer that I do actually support the language.

I could ask you to justify your claim but I'm not really interested: I suspect that I would get another snow job.

I know what you wrote and I have already pointed out that it is rhetorical nonsense, in that it simply claims an abstract link between language and how we think (and thus culture), yet still cannot define, let alone demonstrate, how the Gaeltach culture differs in any meaningful way from nearby English-speaking communities outside of language.

You set yourself up as if you are qualified to judge. All you can validly say is that you do not agree with what I say, or that you do not understand it.

I even asked for you to supply evidence demonstrating it and you simply dismissed the request, saying that you where sure some existed.

I said a little more than that: "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."

A reasonable interpretation might be that I do not have current references. That happens to be true. The stuff I have is 30+ years old, and it is in books and papers that are in the attic.

The closest thing you came to proposing was a supposed song culture, without defining it, let alone showing that it actually exists beyond a tourist attraction - or at all.

I didn't present it as a big thing, but as a minor one. And I actually have said several things about Irish song in this thread.

As things stand, the only evidence we have that the Gaeltach culture differs in any meaningful way from nearby English-speaking communities outside of language is your abstract word for it. Conversely, however limited, the evidence against is Donegalfella's anecdotal evidence - at least he defined his evidence.

As I said, I don't greatly care if you disagree with me. I do care that you distort or misrepresent my position. If you choose to accept some polemical writing in preference to what I say, you have that right.

So with respects, do not accuse me of misrepresenting you, because I have offered you every opportunity to represent your position and you still have failed to do so.

You wrote earlier:

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?

You have yet to accept my denial that I prioritise the gaeltacht over the language.

I could, truthfully, say that I visit both the Connemara and West Kerry gaeltachts reasonably often, and the Donegal gaeltacht very occasionally, and hear Irish spoken in all of them. I find that the people have a manner about them that is somewhat distinctive, and that the manner is each of those gaeltacht areas is somewhat similar -- for examples, a preference to approach questions very indirectly and a tendency to avoid strong expressions of agreement and disagreement. But I don't actually place much value on such observations as evidence. But now you know of my experience, and I am sure that you will give it as much weight as you do DF's report.

I now suggest that you let it go. This discussion is not improved by your running a campaign to discredit me.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I fail to see any evidence of a policy of status quo in what I say. It would be strange if the evidence were there, because I am not sold on the status quo, and I have confined my participation in this thread to a subset of the range of matters covered (for example, I have taken no position on the position of Irish in schools). On the other hand, I think even a casual reader would infer that I do actually support the language.

No, I think the casual reader would infer that you support the protection of the Gaeltachts and that this protection is more important than any policy that would widen the adoption of the language.

I could ask you to justify your claim but I'm not really interested: I suspect that I would get another snow job.

I already have and all you can do is dismiss it without even addressing it. At least I've done you the courtesy of addressing what you've said rather than dismissing it out of hand.

You set yourself up as if you are qualified to judge. All you can validly say is that you do not agree with what I say, or that you do not understand it.

No, what I can say is that I do not agree with what you say because you've not actually said anything. You've given us lots of vague rhetoric about distinct cultures and nothing else.

I said a little more than that: "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."

That little more is meaningless because the end result is the same - you supplied nothing. Perhaps I should equally claim that "there are extensive that point to a cultural homogeneity between the Irish and English communities around Gaeltacht areas" and then expect you to accept this without supplying anything.

A reasonable interpretation might be that I do not have current references. That happens to be true. The stuff I have is 30+ years old, and it is in books and papers that are in the attic.

Another reasonable interpretation, albeit cynical, is you have nothing.

I didn't present it as a big thing, but as a minor one. And I actually have said several things about Irish song in this thread.

What were they? Was it more than more wishful rhetoric? Where? Indulge us.

As I said, I don't greatly care if you disagree with me. I do care that you distort or misrepresent my position. If you choose to accept some polemical writing in preference to what I say, you have that right.

And as I already said, I am not misrepresenting you. What have I misrepresented exactly?

You have yet to accept my denial that I prioritise the gaeltacht over the language.

And as I said if is quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck it probably is a duck, regardless of what you call it. Now you may well believe that you do not prioritize the Gaeltacht over the language, but you've demonstrated that where there is a clear choice between the two you choose the latter.

I could, truthfully, say that I visit both the Connemara and West Kerry gaeltachts reasonably often, and the Donegal gaeltacht very occasionally, and hear Irish spoken in all of them.

I don't deny this.

I find that the people have a manner about them that is somewhat distinctive, and that the manner is each of those gaeltacht areas is somewhat similar -- for examples, a preference to approach questions very indirectly and a tendency to avoid strong expressions of agreement and disagreement. But I don't actually place much value on such observations as evidence. But now you know of my experience, and I am sure that you will give it as much weight as you do DF's report.

I wouldn't because you're still being completely vague. They're "somewhat distinctive" - how? In what way? Donegalfella instead pointed out that they are indistinguishable from the surrounding areas, with the same "Man Utd T-shirts and X-Boxes" as everyone else.

I now suggest that you let it go. This discussion is not improved by your running a campaign to discredit me.

I am not running any such campaign, but you have become evidence to other discussions. And until you actually supply a cogent argument to support your position, you remain simply an example of status quo that is suffocating the Irish language, by dint of your own words, and lack of them.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I think the casual reader would infer that you support the protection of the Gaeltachts and that this protection is more important than any policy that would widen the adoption of the language.

And I have clarified that this is not my position. You obstinately refuse to accept what I say, a refusal that is tantamount to saying that I am telling lies.

I already have and all you can do is dismiss it without even addressing it.

The dismissal is to say that I do not believe what you say I believe. How should I address it further? [Treat this as a rhetorical question: I'm not very interested in any answer you might make.

...

I will leave it for others to make their own judgements about whether you are running a campaign to discredit me.

I am trying to avoid derailing this thread, but my weakness in trying to take this position is that I like being dealt with in a fair and honest way.

Let it go.

Enkidu

The Corinthian wrote: »

Enkidu wrote:

I agree that this is probably the major hurdle. Although it is difficult to know what could function as an incentive without being essentially unfair to those who don't wish to speak the language. For example guides at heritage sites, e.g. Loughcrew commonly speak Irish, in fact it may be a job requirement. Here it is actually a constructive addition to the guides skills. If there were more jobs like this perhaps it would be a help.

Irish as a job requirement is something that is already in place and if only a legal requirement (i.e. you need to pass a test on it but will never use it) it never gets used and falls into disuse. As to it being used in jobs on a day to day basis, this is another tactic that's been used which simply does not work as the demand for Irish language services is too small to be commercially viable, leading to a situation whereby such jobs become drains on the state.

Hey, yes you are correct in this regard. The thing is, if a critical mass of speakers could be achieved then it would be commercially viable to have Irish-language jobs in a natural sense. Then, since you would have a market, that market would be an incentive for others to learn. My only problem is that I don't know a way to achieve the initial critical mass of speakers in a way that isn't ultimately coercive in some way. Would you have any ideas yourself?

sceptre

I've deleted about ten recent posts from this thread that are plain sucking the worth out of the universe. Rather than pig-wrestling each other in the mud and finger-pointing in a matter becoming of people who are far less smart than the main protagonist/antagonist, those who have had their posts deleted need to put on their cop-on hats before coming back to this thread, whereupon (if you do), stick to the point rather than doing what you've been doing. The "report this post" button is available, please take note of that as well.

/mod

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this artificially kept alive bi lingualism, or pretend bi lingualism seems to cost a whole lot of money that could and should be spent on other things.

For example, I received in the post a letter from the office of the Minister for Children which was sent to all parents of kids of pre school age. The letter was a four page glossy paper letter and a full colour pamphlet, also glossy. I get one copy of each in English and another copy of each in Irish, which in effect doubles the printing and postage cost of this letter.

What they really should do, aside from not print in glossy full colour, is have a special mailing list for people in the Gaeltacht. There is no justification for everyone else to be getting duplicate copies.

P. Breathnach

metrovelvet wrote: »

...
What they really should do, aside from not print in glossy full colour, is have a special mailing list for people in the Gaeltacht. There is no justification for everyone else to be getting duplicate copies.

I agree with you that waste should be avoided as much as possible, and where it is not fully avoidable, it should be reduced. I try to balance that with my belief that Irish is an important component of our cultural heritage and that we should make some reasonable effort to sustain it.

In trying to identify a reasonable balance, I think we should be honest and realistic. When I, as someone who has a reasonable command of Irish, receive documents in both languages, I almost always read the English language version. Sending me the Irish version is wasteful. I say yes to your idea of making a distinction in mailing lists, but I don't think it as straightforward as one list for the gaeltacht areas and another for the galltacht. Yes, it's a reasonable first step, but people should have the option of asking for a document in the "other" language if they would prefer it. Over time, it should be possible to generate mailing lists annotated for language preference (and, life being what it is, some errors will occur and some people will make a song and dance about them).

But I don't want to see Irish driven out of the public domain outside gaeltacht areas, and I suspect that most people will come with me on that. I want some Irish there as an affirmation of where we come from, and I want people to buy into the idea promoted by Bórd na Gaelige some years ago: "It's part of what we are".

I regret how badly it is sometimes done, and I can be very irritated by the tone of some people using Irish on public occasions ("For those of you unable to understand the first official language, I will continue in English..."). But, on balance, I think the cúpla focail are worthwhile.

Callan57

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dead handy abroad if you want to comment on the local 'talent' ....

The Corinthian

Enkidu wrote: »

My only problem is that I don't know a way to achieve the initial critical mass of speakers in a way that isn't ultimately coercive in some way. Would you have any ideas yourself?

I don't know, is the answer. Irish language TV is at best a hugely inefficient way to encourage take up of the language. There may be the odd program there that one may not find elsewhere, but few are going to take up the language for that alone.

Incentives in the past have possibly been as destructive as constructive unfortunately. Payments, jobs and LC marks may create an incentive to nominally speak the language, but the positive impact is limited (you do your exam and then never use the language again) and it generates almost as much resentment as the obligatory nature of the language.

Festivals are another option, but the problem with Irish is that it's still dancing at the crossroads with other aspects of 'traditional culture', and so other than a few small exceptions (e.g. Clannad) it's still largely limited to the nineteenth century in terms of music, dance and so on.

Sex sells, so a campaign to make the language 'sexy' might help (I suspect Gráinne Seoige probably did more for GT4 than the actual programmes she was on). Free Irish language dating sites or dating events might encourage people to make an effort - but then there's no guarantee that people would not revert to English the moment you turn your back.

Turning the Gaeltachts into domestic holiday resorts I think might help. They work well where it comes to kids doing Irish Summer camps, but there's no follow through into adulthood. So rather than have 18 - 25 year old's going off to Benidorm or the Greek islands for their holidays, encourage them to stay in Ireland. Halving the duty on alcohol in public houses would be a start; if they're going to get ossified on booze, better it's Whiskey than Ouzo.

I also suspect the windfall of such an industry to the local economy would quickly quell most local objections. Indeed, I would not limit it to the Gaeltacht, but to any area that is able to set up holiday services exclusively in Irish.

Again, ensuring that services are only in Irish would be an issue and I don't know if we have the state organs competent enough to do this at present. I have grave suspicions as to the objectiveness of the 'inspectors'. I've heard too many stories from Gaeltacht residents of nominal language tests where they are helped along by the inspector and marked as native speakers, when in reality their level of Irish is anything but. Accurate measurement of how much Irish is really spoken and to what level is a serious flaw in public policy as it is largely still based upon self assessment in the censuses and measurement by a government department that has a vested interest in keeping the numbers up.

All of these ideas are simply off the top of my head - in reality, I've no idea how you could do it, or if there is any single method to do it. However, as I said, without some practical incentive people will simply lose their Irish in adulthood through lack of use, no matter how good the schooling was.

As for the alternative, it simply won't work; coercing schoolkids to use the language is easy, adults is another matter - they have votes.