Is Irish a dead language?

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

Possible, but personally I just don't see this being an effect on a large enough group of people to lead to ethnic tensions. I mean how many children will there be who will be born here and educated here without ever possessing citizenship, who will see compulsory Irish as a focal point of ethnic discrimination?

I'm a little bit confused about the category "children born here and educated here without ever possessing citizenship". Who are they? Are there many of them?

I am aware of large numbers of children in our schools whose parents are not Irish citizens, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa and from Eastern Europe. Some of those children were born here, and others came here with their parents. I have heard from some teachers and others who have contact with our immigrant communities that Irish in school is not generally considered a problem for them, and that some of them are doing very well with learning Irish.

Obviously, my secondhand anecdotal evidence is very limited, but it might indicate that we should not expect problems. But it is no bad thing to be aware of the possibility that they might arise.

P. Breathnach

metrovelvet wrote: »

... I think anyone NOT from the Gaeltact should get automatic extra points on their exams.

Explain, please.

Enkidu

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think ethnic tensions is a bit strong. But Irish is part of a bigger ideological package of identity and state. There will be plenty here who do not have citizenship.

Hmnnn forcing someone to learn a language not already in natural use. I dont think foreign nationals should be forced to learn it. The more I think about it the more wrong it seems.

Well, I'm not arguing for the compulsory education of Irish for foreign nationals, I'm just arguing that ethnic tensions is somewhat of a hyperbole. However it's probably better to be aware of it, as P. Breathnach said.

sexualsheep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aha! You're assuming that we have a truely liberal republic. The vast divide between rich and poor indicates to me something different. Look, you clearly have a hatred for the Irish language. That's fine. And even if there were a sizeable majority well predisposed to the language and who support it (which I believe there is) you would still oppose it tooth and nail. That's fine too. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it. But you want everyone to 'cop on' to what big amadáns they are being because you feel that you are right, which is intellectual bullying as far as Im concerned and unbecoming of a moderator. Even a minority is still entitled to the respect and protection of the state (and I would extend that to all cultural minorities, travellers etc.) and if the Government of Ireland is not the guardian of Irish then who is? Barbados? I just don't know what you ultimately want doing with Irish? Obliterate it entirely from society? Paddywhack old ladies in carna into speaking English? I'm clearly being facetious but I don't know, perhaps these suggestions would sate your ire? Slán a chara.

metrovelvet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Explain, please.

Because they have an unfair disadvantage.

eddyc

sexualsheep wrote: »

Even a minority is still entitled to the respect and protection of the state (and I would extend that to all cultural minorities, travellers etc.) and if the Government of Ireland is not the guardian of Irish then who is?

You're right, a minority is still entitled to respect and protection, but the point is they have that and a whole lot more.

P. Breathnach

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because they have an unfair disadvantage.

Thanks for answering, but I'm still unclear what you mean!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Enkidu

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not wishing to be pedantic, but the oldest form of Irish dates back only about 1,700 years and would be unintelligible to a modern Irish speaker. Prior to that the language was, from what I gather, a variant of Gaulish. Modern Irish, on the other hand, is comparable to modern English in terms of age.

Everything you've written is correct, but I just thought I'd add some things if you don't mind. Modern Irish is indeed about as old as Modern English, depending on what exactly one considers to be the Modern version of either. I personally would consider Modern English to be born by 1550 as the great vowel shift was mostly completed by then. Irish is harder to settle on, a good modern speaker could understand stuff from the 1400s, but probably the language is only properly comprehensible from about 1600 onward.

As for the history, shortly after Indo-European spread into Europe, a dialect of it began to develop in the Hallstatt-culture region (basically the area of Europe north of the Alps). Eventually this dialect became a separate language called Proto-Celtic.
Proto-Celtic spread to Switzerland and then all of France, where in France it evolved into a language called Gaulish. The Gaulish version then spread to the Iberian Penninsula and the British Isles by means unknown. It didn't change too much in Iberia and became a language called Celtiberian.

However it mutated drastically in the British Isles, for reasons still unknown, and evolved into a quite unusual language called Proto-Insular-Celtic. Since the two islands were separated Proto-Insular-Celtic split into the oldest form of Irish (Goedelic) and Brythonic (the ancestor of Welsh).

Hope that helps somebody!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Intresting, I hadent heard of this theory before, It seems strange to think that the absence of a specific word would make someone unable to understand a concept. I suppose it is this concept that Orwell based
'New speak' on.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Intresting, I hadent heard of this theory before

It's an interesting theory, although one more suited to monoglots. In the context of the current debate, nobody has demonstrated how the ability to speak Irish magically changes the thinking of an Irish and English-speaking SUV driver who owns an iPhone, supports Man U and the Pierce Mahony's and lives in Meath... compared to an non-Irish speaking person of the same background.

I think the only difference might be a smug feeling of superor 'Irishness'?.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think the only difference might be a smug feeling of superor 'Irishness'?.

For someone complaining about posters not backing up their claims you seem very able to make claims yourself, I would like you to back this statement up with some evidence of else withdraw it as I feel it is an unfair representation of Irish speakers in Meath or anywhere else for that matter.

Focalbhach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In the context of the current debate, nobody has demonstrated how the ability to speak Irish magically changes the thinking of an Irish and English-speaking SUV driver who owns an iPhone, supports Man U and the Pierce Mahony's and lives in Meath... compared to an non-Irish speaking person of the same background.

I think the only difference might be a smug feeling of superor 'Irishness'?.

What exactly do people's possessions or likings have to do with anything?

deise go deo

Leto wrote: »

What exactly do people's possessions or likings have to do with anything?

Not much, They certainly dont have any thing to do with Gaeilge.

Dionysus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's an interesting theory, although one more suited to monoglots. In the context of the current debate, nobody has demonstrated how the ability to speak Irish magically changes the thinking of an Irish and English-speaking SUV driver who owns an iPhone, supports Man U and the Pierce Mahony's and lives in Meath... compared to an non-Irish speaking person of the same background.

I think the only difference might be a smug feeling of superor 'Irishness'?.

Not, of course, that a feeling of smug superiority would mark people in the gaeltacht who can manage to speak English, or at least feel English, better than their Irish-speaking neighbours. But we wouldn't like to balance the debate by bringing this up, would we? A superiority complex and English speakers in Ireland? Surely some mistake!

Dionysus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good. I trust you oppose Irish taxes being spent on compelling recipients of Irish work permits to attend state-funded English language courses as a condition of aforesaid work permits?

After all, the English language in Ireland surely needs no such artificial state support for its existence here ....

P. Breathnach

Leto wrote: »

What exactly do people's possessions or likings have to do with anything?

deise go deo wrote: »

Not much, They certainly dont have any thing to do with Gaeilge.

They might have. I have been giving this question a little -- just a little -- thought over the past couple of days, dragging a few ideas from remote areas of my memory, and having a short conversation with somebody who got me interested in such matters many years ago.

I'm far from up to speed, and getting my head around these matters again would involve a lot of effort, which I might decide to put in sometime, but not right now.

Our worldview is largely mediated for us by the language we use: it's very difficult, although not impossible, to hold a thought that we are unable to verbalise. It is more difficult to communicate that thought to another person, to put it into the realm of shared understanding. Imagine that some word were not available to you in English because people had never in the past formed some consensus on an idea -- for example, virtue. Any discussion on what constitutes good or desirable behaviour would be a bit different from what is now possible.

I do not suggest that any language gives a better set of tools for interpreting the world than any other -- just a somewhat different set of tools.

astrofool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

They might have. I have been giving this question a little -- just a little -- thought over the past couple of days, dragging a few ideas from remote areas of my memory, and having a short conversation with somebody who got me interested in such matters many years ago.

I'm far from up to speed, and getting my head around these matters again would involve a lot of effort, which I might decide to put in sometime, but not right now.

Our worldview is largely mediated for us by the language we use: it's very difficult, although not impossible, to hold a thought that we are unable to verbalise. It is more difficult to communicate that thought to another person, to put it into the realm of shared understanding. Imagine that some word were not available to you in English because people had never in the past formed some consensus on an idea -- for example, virtue. Any discussion on what constitutes good or desirable behaviour would be a bit different from what is now possible.

I do not suggest that any language gives a better set of tools for interpreting the world than any other -- just a somewhat different set of tools.

There's an island near the Phillipines that has no concept of time in their language (never "I ran, will run, am running"), where the citizens are, on average, more late for appointments than other countries.

On a personal note, I feel language (any language) slows down the thought process, I try and use as wide a vocabulary as possible in order to quickly make my thoughts clear (even when internalising). I feel this is especially true when doing maths, where the need to read a sum, slows down it's execution manyfold.

Another example would be the Romans not having a "zero" numeral, thus limiting their calculations.

deise go deo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

They might have. I have been giving this question a little -- just a little -- thought over the past couple of days, dragging a few ideas from remote areas of my memory, and having a short conversation with somebody who got me interested in such matters many years ago.

Im not sure, Are you saying that if an Irish speaker and an English speaker have similar possessions then they must be the same culturally? As that is the argument I thought Cyclopath2001 was putting forward. An Argument which I dont think is true or even relevent to the discussion. Although I might be reading it wrong.

But the point that The tought differences between languages would disapear or at least would be greatly reduced in someone who is Bi-Lingual is a good one in my opinion.

Focalbhach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

They might have. I have been giving this question a little -- just a little -- thought over the past couple of days, dragging a few ideas from remote areas of my memory, and having a short conversation with somebody who got me interested in such matters many years ago.

I'm far from up to speed, and getting my head around these matters again would involve a lot of effort, which I might decide to put in sometime, but not right now.

Our worldview is largely mediated for us by the language we use: it's very difficult, although not impossible, to hold a thought that we are unable to verbalise. It is more difficult to communicate that thought to another person, to put it into the realm of shared understanding. Imagine that some word were not available to you in English because people had never in the past formed some consensus on an idea -- for example, virtue. Any discussion on what constitutes good or desirable behaviour would be a bit different from what is now possible.

I do not suggest that any language gives a better set of tools for interpreting the world than any other -- just a somewhat different set of tools.

Thanks for this, and for the consideration. I share the view that language mediates our view/perceptions of the world. However, I'm a little unclear on how you're saying this relates to (e.g.) owning an SUV and iPhone, and supporting Manchester United...?

DyldeBrill

I can safely say that the language is growing.I'm a fluent Irish speaker myself and I can see huge increases in people wanting to learn Irish.I think the school system is all wrong.They need to livin things up and present the language as something thats fun and exciting, because as you all know Irish was probably the subject you hated the most in school.They lay too much emphasis on grammer and what not which turns students completely off the language.

I do feel however that TG4 are doing a great job in promoting the language with a lot of new shows being broadcasted.I would be such a shame to see a beautiful language die.

P. Breathnach

Leto wrote: »

Thanks for this, and for the consideration. I share the view that language mediates our view/perceptions of the world. However, I'm a little unclear on how you're saying this relates to (e.g.) owning an SUV and iPhone, and supporting Manchester United...?

deise go deo wrote: »

Im not sure, Are you saying that if an Irish speaker and an English speaker have similar possessions then they must be the same culturally? As that is the argument I thought Cyclopath2001 was putting forward. An Argument which I dont think is true or even relevent to the discussion. Although I might be reading it wrong.

All I am saying is that if two people who are members of different language groups happen to want or to have the same things, those things might have different meanings for them. Note that I say "might". My real point is more cautious: that I don't think you can take it for granted that they have the same meaning.

But the point that The tought differences between languages would disapear or at least would be greatly reduced in someone who is Bi-Lingual is a good one in my opinion.

Some people are truly bilingual, and can operate in two modes: at least, I think it is in two modes, rather than one extended mode.

It's less clear if a person speaks languages acquired after they have already established a first language. For example, I am fluent in English, and my Irish is fairly good but not truly fluent; it's a second language. I know that I sometimes get into the zone when I am using Irish, but that's the exception. Almost all the time, my thought mode is consonant with the particular form of Hiberno-English that I speak. But on those few occasions that I really get into Irish, I feel myself to be a somewhat different person.

You will understand that I am trying to deal with ideas that are very difficult to pin down. Thinking about one's own thinking means that the observer is also the observed, something that makes the process difficult and potentially unreliable.

TheRealPONeil

P. Breathnach wrote: »

...Thinking about one's own thinking means that the observer is also the observed, something that makes the process difficult and potentially unreliable.

And there's the core of the Sasanach V Éireannach crap.

The Irish were/are always adept at using whatever came their way to their advantage - language or otherwise. This focus on the use of language in this context is the domain of dreamers, hobbyists and political opportunists

cyclopath2001

Leto wrote: »

What exactly do people's possessions or likings have to do with anything?

They're part of the person's culture.

deise go deo

TheRealPONeil wrote: »

And there's the core of the Sasanach V Éireannach crap.

Is it? He is saying that when he thinks in Irish he feels that his thought processes are different to when he is thinking in English.
While I can understand what he means I dont think that it is the core of the discussion overall

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow, I'm actually surprised it's that much of a difference. I knew it effected what you think of as a basic colour, but I thought the effects would be quite minor outside of linguistic ones. There is probably a lot of discoveries to be made in that area, seems like a relatively young field.
I thought the strong form of the Sapi-Whorf hypothesis was a bit much, but it appears scientists in the relevant fields are accepting a weak form of the hypothesis.

The Corinthian

Anyone who has fluency in more than one language will know that your use of that language effects not only the manner you transmit concepts, but the very manner in which you construct those concepts for transmission.

However, I'm not entirely certain how this in itself is an argument for anything other than bilingualism, not necessarily Irish. And even as an argument for bilingualism, the level of benefits that it gives are debatable, especially when measured against cost.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anyone who has fluency in more than one language will know that your use of that language effects not only the manner you transmit concepts, but the very manner in which you construct those concepts for transmission.

That is why I hold that the Irish language itself has a cultural dimension. This is additional to other elements of Gaelic culture that survive into present times -- the one which appeals most to me being song.

However, I'm not entirely certain how this in itself is an argument for anything other than bilingualism, not necessarily Irish.And even as an argument for bilingualism, the level of benefits that it gives are debatable, especially when measured against cost.

The question whether we should try to get people to learn additional languages as an aid to intellectual development is worth considering. I judge for myself that my life is enriched by having the capacity to operate in three different languages. I am cautious about using that as a basis for deciding what is good for other people when I consider them as individuals.

It is much easier to accept a case for teaching/learning additional languages for their utility as means of communication.

I also see a case for teaching/learning additional languages as vehicles for cultural enrichment.

I haven't entered to any significant extent into arguments about cost, because I think cost should be related to whatever judgement we make about value, and I think that argument has not been addressed in a considered way. I go only this far: I believe the Irish language has some value, and it is worth making some provision for its maintenance.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

... I thought the strong form of the Sapi[r]-Whorf hypothesis was a bit much, but it appears scientists in the relevant fields are accepting a weak form of the hypothesis.

I think the views of many participants in this field in the middle of the twentieth century were a bit much. It was a relatively new area of major interest, and the refining effect of an established body of theory was absent, making peer review a bit more like the staking out of positions. Academic discourse was also impacted upon by political prejudices (usually, but by no means always, emanating from outside the academic world).

African-American Vernacular English (formerly Ebonics, before that Non-Standard Negro English) was a battleground, and might have distorted the orderly development of that dimension of linguistics.