Is Irish a dead language?

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is why I hold that the Irish language itself has a cultural dimension.

Whether that culture really reflects modern Irish culture is another matter. Cultures do change, after all.

The question whether we should try to get people to learn additional languages as an aid to intellectual development is worth considering.

Personally I think there are potentially numerous benefits to this, the question is which languages. German, French, Spanish and Italian have considerably greater practical benefits, especially given our special position in the EU (English speaking without being English). Irish's benefits are purely nationalistic, as opposed to practical, in nature - learning Welsh or Esperanto would yeald equally practical benefits.

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

I don't really know how much cultural relevance (or even authenticity) the 'culture' that was (re)born of the nineteenth century Gaelic revival has with modern Ireland. I'm not suggesting it has none, but it is arguable that it has all that much either.

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.

Sorry, but cost is ultimately the bottom line and even if we have not pinned down value, we can certainly make a stab at it and we can also make a stab at cost too. Discussing value or benefits alone really is little more than a navel exercise that seeks to avoid the difficult question of whether it is really worth it on balance.

Ultimately, if we are talking about something that is to benefit Ireland, you really need to include both benefit and cost, otherwise the costs could outweigh the benefits and leave us with something that ends up damaging Ireland on balance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

...
Sorry, but cost is ultimately the bottom line and even if we have not pinned down value, we can certainly make a stab at it and we can also make a stab at cost too. Discussing value or benefits alone really is little more than a navel exercise that seeks to avoid the difficult question of whether it is really worth it on balance.

Ultimately, if we are talking about something that is to benefit Ireland, you really need to include both benefit and cost, otherwise the costs could outweigh the benefits and leave us with something that ends up damaging Ireland on balance.

I'm not ducking the question of relating cost to benefits. My position is that we need to arrive at some consensus about the benefits in order to make a judgement about what might be a reasonable price to pay.

I do not hold that what is spent directly and indirectly on the language is justified. But my preliminary position is that the language and its concomitants are worth something, and it is worth dedicating some resources to their maintenance.

Enkidu

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.

I'm aware of this effect, but I'm actually surprised about grammatical gender effecting your perception of inanimate objects as the New York times article suggests. I would have honestly thought that didn't happen and that the effects were more limited to linguistic ones such as the way you construct concepts. It's funny I know two languages well that have gender, but I've never really felt this. Maybe I'm not being influenced by them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

balls you have :rolleyes:, you have stated here plenty of times how you believe it is right that english is compulsory for LC

Enkidu

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was in Mexico recently and there was a huge presence of Totonac and Mixteca music, both in the traditional form and in a modernised form. I didn't need to speak Nahuatl to enjoy either one, since one could still appreciate the music. However the traditional music had it's own unique charm (which the modern also had, it was much faster) which I think would be lost if they had started singing in English. (Same thing happens with English songs) I could be wrong though, but I do think the language of a song as an effect on how it feels.
In reference to Irish, I do think the fact that you're listening to a language with a very different set of sounds gives the songs a different quality. Of course that is not to say that English songs from this country are bad or that the Irish songs are necessarily better or more Irish. Also you don't need to speak Irish yourself to appreciate this difference,(I've enjoyed music in languages where I don't have a clue what they're saying) there just needs to be people who can sing in the language for the music itself to exist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

so you admit you don't "hate" this compulsion then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

now you are moving onto points which i did not make.

you said you hated state compulsion, which has since been proven to be a lie. just admit it that you are against it when it suits your own particular agenda

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

oh someone doesn't like being shown up.

you said: "i'm a liberal. i hate state compulsion"

yet you have also stated how you are an advocate of compulsory english for the LC


but yes it is me who is being silly. christ. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

this is so funny, i love how you try to dress up and hide your agenda. you have a dislike of irish, which is completely acceptable i don't mind, but then you attempt to make yourself look like the reasonable man saying "oh but its not just this i hate, i hate all forms of state compulsion" - which is fuckin bs because when comparing like with like: i.e 2 languages, english and irish, in 2 examinations, the LC, you are in favour of keeping one compulsory and not the other.

pathetic really, but not surprising

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

indeed you have and that proves how you are in favour of state compulsion when it suits your agenda. which makes your previous comment "i'm a liberal. i hate state compulsion" laughable in the extreme.

Iwasfrozen

I think we are going a little bit off-topic here.

Dostoevsky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think we are going a little bit off-topic here.

We are, actually, very much on topic. It now appears that at least one of the posters who claimed to be against state compulsion in anything, specifically language teaching, is now in favour of state compulsion when it is teaching English but against state compulsion when it is teaching Irish.

aDeener has done us all a service in highlighting this hypocrisy.

Iwasfrozen

Dostoevsky wrote: »

We are, actually, very much on topic. It now appears that at least one of the posters who claimed to be against state compulsion in anything, specifically language teaching, is now in favour of state compulsion when it is teaching English but against state compulsion when it is teaching Irish.

aDeener has done us all a service in highlighting this hypocrisy.

aDeener is doing nothing more then trying to catch someone out and therefore "win" the arguement. His case does nothing to progress the topic and could be considered harassment of another poster.

The Raven.

aDeener wrote: »

indeed you have and that proves how you are in favour of state compulsion when it suits your agenda. which makes your previous comment "i'm a liberal. i hate state compulsion" laughable in the extreme.

I don't know of anyone living in this country who wouldn't want their children to learn English at school, as it is the spoken language, like it or not. In theory, it may not be described as 'compulsory' in schools but, since all other subjects are taught through English, the reality is that the English language is compulsory by default. Therefore, I don't think it is fair to label its compulsion in schools as Donegal's 'agenda'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

aDeener is doing nothing more then trying to catch someone out and therefore "win" the arguement. His case does nothing to progress the topic and could be considered harassment of another poster.

harassment my arse, hypocrisy deserves to be called up on which is what i have done.

i can't understand why anyone would come out with such a ridiculous statement like "i'm a liberal. i hate state compulsion" when clearly they don't. why not just retract it and admit it was a silly thing to say.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

aDeener wrote: »

harassment my arse, hypocrisy deserves to be called up on which is what i have done.

i can't understand why anyone would come out with such a ridiculous statement like "i'm a liberal. i hate state compulsion" when clearly they don't. why not just retract it and admit it was a silly thing to say.

Donnegalfella has clarified the situation saying that he is in favour of minimal state compulsion. He has said so right here:

donegalfella wrote:

I certainly don't oppose state compulsion in everything, as evidenced by the fact that I prefer to live in Ireland, not Somalia.

Now would you mind discussing the topic and not other posters?

Scofflaw

Warning: thread is generating more heat than light.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Corsendonk

Yes

Now thats a better answer than all that fym.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not ducking the question of relating cost to benefits. My position is that we need to arrive at some consensus about the benefits in order to make a judgement about what might be a reasonable price to pay.

And until we arrive at that consensus we cannot consider the cost? Hmmm... I don't think so. There's absolutely no reason that both cannot be discussed in tandem, and if the cost is deemed either minuscule or obscene, it likely removes the need for a consensus on any kind of precise estimate of the benefits unless they can be valued to be in a similar ballpark to the costs.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

And until we arrive at that consensus we cannot consider the cost? Hmmm... I don't think so. There's absolutely no reason that both cannot be discussed in tandem, and if the cost is deemed either minuscule or obscene, it likely removes the need for a consensus on any kind of precise estimate of the benefits unless they can be valued to be in a similar ballpark to the costs.

Are you trying to address the issues, or are you trying to prove some unimportant case against me? It doesn't matter a damn if my strategy for addressing a question is different from yours.

I have not said that the costs should not be considered, nor have I said that they should not be considered now. What I said was

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.

and

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I do not hold that what is spent directly and indirectly on the language is justified. But my preliminary position is that the language and its concomitants are worth something, and it is worth dedicating some resources to their maintenance.

It's a consistent position, and it's my position. It's my position because I personally attach value to Irish, and hope that people in general will agree with me on that. Without finding out what the consensus might be, I'm not taking any position on what we should do to support or preserve the language.

And I don't go pussyfooting about trying to put a precise figure on the value of Irish.

Oddly, I don't see many participants in this thread trying to do what is the easier part: putting a figure on what is currently done in an effort to support the language.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you trying to address the issues, or are you trying to prove some unimportant case against me? It doesn't matter a damn if my strategy for addressing a question is different from yours.

Please try not to get personal.

I have not said that the costs should not be considered, nor have I said that they should not be considered now.

Yet you have tried to turn the emphasis away from those costs.

Of course, if I am wrong and you have no objection to considering the costs in tandem, I think this would be a more efficient means of assessing the situation.

And I don't go pussyfooting about trying to put a precise figure on the value of Irish.

That was actually my point. You won't get a precise figure on the value of Irish because much of it is open to inconclusive and endless debate. However, even without a precise figure, we can assess if the cost is wildly out of step with what the approximate value would be.

Indeed, I would also look at a third figure, in relation to either costs or benefits and that is for alternatives.