Is Irish a dead language?

chughes

deise go deo wrote: »

Thats good to hear, Another figure I heard today, Also from An Comisinéir Tenga, is that 93% of Irish people are in favor of continued state support and promotion of Irish

I'd love to know where this figure come from. I reckon An Comisineir Tenga pulled it from their collective @rses.

deise go deo

chughes wrote: »

I'd love to know where this figure come from. I reckon An Comisineir Tenga pulled it from their collective @rses.

Why do you think that, I believe there was a survey in which only 7% responded that they felt Irish was undeserving of state support. If you have anything that contradicts this claim feel free to post it.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Why do you think that, I believe there was a survey in which only 7% responded that they felt Irish was undeserving of state support. If you have anything that contradicts this claim feel free to post it.

Which survey? How many people were actually consulted (i.e. the sample).Who paid for it and what exactly were the questions?

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Which survey? How many people were actually consulted (i.e. the sample).Who paid for it and what exactly were the questions?

I dont know, it was said during a presentation to a group. Its probably on their website.

chughes

deise go deo wrote: »

Why do you think that, I believe there was a survey in which only 7% responded that they felt Irish was undeserving of state support. If you have anything that contradicts this claim feel free to post it.

How many people were surveyed ? I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that 93% of Irish people when only a fraction of the Irish people were probably asked.

I'd say it's possible to find 100 people in Ireland and 93 of them think that Ireland should rejoin the UK. Would this mean that 93% of Irish people think that Ireland should rejoin the UK ? I don't think so.

As we all know, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

deise go deo

chughes wrote: »

How many people were surveyed ? I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that 93% of Irish people when only a fraction of the Irish people were probably asked.

I'd say it's possible to find 100 people in Ireland and 93 of them think that Ireland should rejoin the UK. Would this mean that 93% of Irish people think that Ireland should rejoin the UK ? I don't think so.

As we all know, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Indeed but this is the survey that was done, If you have another that contradicts it, or something else that indicates it being false then please share it.

chughes

deise go deo wrote: »

Indeed but this is the survey that was done, If you have another that contradicts it, or something else that indicates it being false then please share it.

I don't have a survey that contradicts it. What I'm saying is that I would be highly skeptical of figures like that. For my part, I wouldn't believe it's anywhere near 93% in favour.

deise go deo

chughes wrote: »

I don't have a survey that contradicts it. What I'm saying is that I would be highly skeptical of figures like that. For my part, I wouldn't believe it's anywhere near 93% in favour.

You think more than 7% of Irish people want state support removed from Irish?
Cén Fath?

What percent do you think are against Irish?

gbee

Yag reuoY wrote: »

Few people would have such contempt for the Irish language if it was optional in the education system. It really is that simple.

Right.

Like religion, 12 is the magical age.

For the child to develop optimally, they should be university level home language by 12. Then and only then should one introduce a new language.

The key is fluency, once one is fluent in one language, the home language, they can more readily accommodate other languages.

But, in Ireland, we don't actually teach English, let alone Irish and they mash the two together, Irish does not share anything with English, whilst not as stringent as the Latin from which English came, it nonetheless is contrary and opposite in declension.

And of course, Irish is seen as a militancy, we did not like it in 1916, and we don't like it today.

chughes

deise go deo wrote: »

You think more than 7% of Irish people want state support removed from Irish?
Cén Fath?

What percent do you think are against Irish?

Here's another problem with this statistic. Even if we were to accept that 93% are in favour of funding, that doesn't mean that the other 7% are necessarily against funding. My guess is that if this survey was to be carried out on the entire population of the Republic of Ireland, the biggest percentage would be in the don't know/don't care category.

Deise, you are obviously a fan of the Irish language and I know that there are a substantial number of like minded people. While I applaud your efforts in this, you must understand that there are many, many more people who don't share your views. It's not that the language is disliked, or even hated, it's more that people have no interest as it has no significant part in their lives.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont know, it was said during a presentation to a group. Its probably on their website. ...... this is the survey that was done,

What do you mean by 'this is the survey'? There is no survey linked in your message. Have you seen or read the survey yourself? How can you quote a survey you have not read?

I did find mention of this survey, is it the one you're relying on?

from 'Gombeen Nation: 'There are three kinds of lies” said Benjamin Disraeli “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Then there is The Irish Language and the Irish People, a survey sponsored by the Department of the Gaeltacht and Islands to justify its own existence.

The survey, from a sample of 1000 people......concluded that 93% of those surveyed “supported the Irish Language”.

However, on closer inspection, it becomes obvious that two separate responses to questions were given, and then the two were added together, to give the misleading figure of 93%.

Closer inspection still reveals that of the 41% of “revivalists”, 3.7% hardliners believed that Gaeilge should be the “main language” of the country, 4.7% believed that Ireland should be “bi-lingual” with Gaeilge as the “main” language, while 32% believed it should be “bi-lingual” with English as the main language. Confused? Join the club. It's all about how you frame your questions.

Rebelheart

gbee wrote: »

But, in Ireland, we don't actually teach English, let alone Irish and they mash the two together, Irish does not share anything with English, whilst not as stringent as the Latin from which English came, it nonetheless is contrary and opposite in declension.

What the fúck? I always suspected people who used the word 'whilst' instead of 'while' were pretending to be more educated that they are - I bet you also think you're speaking "proper" English when you say 'an historic' instead of 'a historic'. "The English language comes from Latin". Sweet Jesus.

gbee wrote: »

And of course, Irish is seen as a militancy, we did not like it in 1916, and we don't like it today.

Who is this "we" you speak of? (or should that be "about whom you speak"? :rolleyes:)

Rebelheart

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I did find mention of this survey, is it the one you're relying on?

How about trying something more factual and erudite than a blog, such as this article?

Rebelheart

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What do you mean by 'this is the survey'? There is no survey linked in your message.

And the group, was it 'Cheerleaders for the Irish Language' by any chance?

The ESRI did the research, actually. But let's not allow this fact to get in the way of your latest exercise in anti-Irish language bigotry.

James T Kirk

It's dead to me forever. Maybe if I hadn't been terrorised into learning it by simian republican GAA ****wits, I might appreciate it today; as it stands, you have failed like the idiots you were. You have made me hate the very sound of the language - goodbye and good riddance.

cyclopath2001

Rebelheart wrote: »

The ESRI did the research, actually. But let's not allow this fact to get in the way of your latest exercise in anti-Irish language bigotry.

Ah, alas this is just more 'smoke and mirrors' from the Irish language lobby. And, of course, the old "you're a bigot" defence employed once your delusions are confronted.

You're attempting to present this as an ESRI survey, It was not.

If you read it. You will not find the survey in the list of official publications of the ESRI. Why Is this?

The reason is that the survey was funded and the questions written by the Irish-language lobby. The ESRI's staff were merely contracted to conduct the interviews. The interpretation of the data collected by the ESRI was done by the Irish-language lobby.

Rebelheart

James T Kirk wrote: »

It's dead to me forever. Maybe if I hadn't been terrorised into learning it by simian republican GAA ****wits, I might appreciate it today; as it stands, you have failed like the idiots you were. You have made me hate the very sound of the language - goodbye and good riddance.

In fairness, if you're the one reduced to 'hating', the 'idiot' in your narrative is not as clear as you might like to contend.

PS: 'Simian' is a nice touch! Anti-Irish racism and hate all in one post. Very impressive. We're clearly dealing with a winner here, ladies and gentlemen.

cyclopath2001

Rebelheart wrote: »

In fairness, if you're the one reduced to 'hating', the 'idiot' in your narrative is not as clear as you might like to contend.

It's easier for the Irish language lobby to derive strength from its enemies than to answer its critics.

Do you agree that the '93% survey' is misleading both in its authenticity and in the interpretation of its results?

Rebelheart

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're attempting to present this as an ESRI survey, It was not.

Speaking of "smoke and mirrors", you're denying that the research was, as I said, carried out by the ESRI? Or are you just waffling and talking the usual auld horseshíte about some supposedly iniquitous and pernicious "Irish language lobby"?
While you're sulking in your rancour for the language, the Jesuit Mícheál Mac Gréil, the co-publisher of the report, remains one of the most highly respected sociologists in Ireland, a position he has held since his seminal Prejudice and Tolerance in Ireland was published in 1977. If he is now "the Irish language lobby" then your hatred for the language has brought your paranoia to new levels.

cyclopath2001

Rebelheart wrote: »

While you're sulking in your rancour for the language, the Jesuit Mícheál Mac Gréil, the co-publisher of the report, remains one of the most highly respected sociologists in Ireland, a position he has held since his seminal Prejudice and Tolerance in Ireland was published in 1977. If he is now "the Irish language lobby" then your hatred for the language has brought your paranoia to new levels.

Saying the survey 'was carried out by the ESRI' is just a way of making the survey appear more independent and objective than it was. The most important facts are that the survey was funded by a group with an economic interest in a positive outcome, the questions were drafted by a person employed by the group, and the data analysed and conclusions drawn up by that same group. There's no evidence of inetllectual involvement from the non Irish-speakers, who m=form the majority of the population.

How you can equate criticising the conduct of Irish-language interest groups with 'hatred' explains how so many people have been alienated from the language. You're deliberately creating 'enemies' so that you can play the 'anti-Irish' card.

James T Kirk

@Rebelheart: The language was crammed down my throat. Is it any wonder I've been gagging ever since? Nice work, teach. - all those wasted hours... Yours and mine together.

MysticalRain

Rebelheart wrote: »

In fairness, if you're the one reduced to 'hating', the 'idiot' in your narrative is not as clear as you might like to contend.

PS: 'Simian' is a nice touch! Anti-Irish racism and hate all in one post. Very impressive. We're clearly dealing with a winner here, ladies and gentlemen.

Nice job avoiding the point guy was making.

If I remember correctly, you happen to be a teacher. Does it ever occur to you that your militant attitude behind the Irish language may actually be off-putting to students? Nice to see the current generation of teachers are repeating the same mistakes their predecessors made.

I don't give a damn what anybody says here. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever why Irish should be made compulsory beyond primary school level. That isn't bashing Irish. As people have pointed out time and time again, making Irish optional would actually be hugely beneficial for the language. I am beginning to think that the problem here really isn't the language itself. It's the people behind it, and their misguided attempts to promote the language.

del_c

gbee wrote: »

Right.

For the child to develop optimally, they should be university level home language by 12. Then and only then should one introduce a new language.

The key is fluency, once one is fluent in one language, the home language, they can more readily accommodate other languages.

This would contradict just about everything I have looked at about language acquisition, expecially if the aim is get native speaker proficiency in more than one language.

Where did you get this this idea from? In my (fairly considerable) experience of mulit-linguingalism, kids can sponge up languages at a very early age, simply by being exposed to them.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What do you mean by 'this is the survey'? There is no survey linked in your message. Have you seen or read the survey yourself? How can you quote a survey you have not read?

I did find mention of this survey, is it the one you're relying on?

Well thats a well balanced source:rolleyes:

I wasent Quoting the Survey, I was quoting An Coimisinéir Teanga.;)
I would imagine that is the survey that an Coimisinéir Teanga was talking about.

It dose show that 93% are in favor of support for the language and 7% against support. The form of support the 93% are in favor of varies but they do favor support in one form or another. I dident claim 93% were in favor of a bi-lingual Ireland just that they favored supporting the language.

deise go deo

James T Kirk wrote: »

It's dead to me forever. Maybe if I hadn't been terrorised into learning it by simian republican GAA ****wits, I might appreciate it today; as it stands, you have failed like the idiots you were. You have made me hate the very sound of the language - goodbye and good riddance.

Terrorised? How old are you? I understand that Irish in the school system is flawed. And was worse 50 years ago but I dont support how Irish is taught in School and very few Irish enthusiasts do.

Republicanism, GAA fans and the Irish language are not all the same thing.
I happen to be all three, but I know plenty of Language enthusiasts with no interest in the GAA or republicanism.

My one peice of advice would be dont hate the language, hate the education system, but if your experience has been that bad then all I can really say is
Slán.

deise go deo

MysticalRain wrote: »

As people have pointed out time and time again, making Irish optional would actually be hugely beneficial for the language.

That has been said several times, it has never actually been supported by evidence.
I'm not saying that it would not be good for the language but I have yet to see someone point out why it would be.

del_c

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's easier for the Irish language lobby to derive strength from its enemies than to answer its critics.

Do you agree that the '93% survey' is misleading both in its authenticity and in the interpretation of its results?

This blog is begins with a daming of statistics, then goes on to either deliberately or unwittingly represent this report, to make it look like these figures are cooked. It's authenticity has been called into question here too.


Nonsensical Gombeen quote quote numer 1:
Closer inspection still reveals that of the 41% of “revivalists”, 3.7% hardliners believed that Gaeilge should be the “main language” of the country, 4.7% believed that Ireland should be “bi-lingual” with Gaeilge as the “main” language, while 32% believed it should be “bi-lingual” with English as the main language. Confused? Join the club. It's all about how you frame your questions.

// Confused? No not in the slightest, there are 3 "degrees" of those who want it revived for public life: 1. Pure Irish use; 2. Irish Use Main, English Use Secondary; 3. English Use Main and Irish Secondary. To pretend not to understand this is being deliberately dense to suit your own agenda.


Nonsensical Gombeen quote quote numer 1:
"So though there is plainly some intersection in the responses to the two questions, as the 41% who want Gaeilge revived would plainly also want to see it preserved (conversely, it follows that 59% don’t want it revived) what the authors have done is add the two figures together to come up with the impressive figure of 93% overall support."

//
The numbers break down as follows:
8.4% say they want Irish to be the main spoken language of the country
33% say they want Irish to be revived, but with English remaining as the main language of the country
52% wanting Irish preserved in the Gaeltacht and for cultural reasons
6% wanting to abandon the language completely.


And so it DOES NOT follow that 41% who want it revived, corresponds to 61% who are against its revival. It means 41% want it revived, 52% preserved(which in practice will mean you will have to revive outside the Gaeltachts, as the Gaeltachts themselves are weakening) and 6.whatever% who want it ditched.


Gombeen Man "what the authors have done is add the two figures together to come up with the impressive figure of 93% overall support. Somewhat disingenuous, no?

// Not at all - the 41% and 52% DO NOT overlap, they reflect differing degrees of support for the language.

If I wanted to pull some irish supporting figures out of my ar$e in support of the Irish language, then I would do this. If I wanted to compile a realistic and CREDIBLE understanding of the status of irish, then I would compile a survey and approach the premier statistical body in the state, who are staffed with fair minded people and ask them to do it for me.

Or is the professional integrity of the ESRI being called into question?


Why is it not published on their website? - CYCLOPATH

I don't see any research carried out by non-governmental bodies on the website; it all would seem to be commissioned by various governement departmants. This survey was commissioned by An Coimisinéir Teanga. Maybe that's the reason, though I don't know exactly, if you do, if it is really annoying you, you might write to them, ask them and then enlighten us, thanks. The ESRI DID carry out the actual research and analysis. That makes it credible to me.


Sásta anois? (Said more in hope that expectation:-))

MysticalRain

deise go deo wrote: »

That has been said several times, it has never actually been supported by evidence.
I'm not saying that it would not be good for the language but I have yet to see someone point out why it would be.

It has already been pointed out to you and explained in detail multiple times in this very thread. The evidence is 100+ years of failure in promoting the Irish language. Like the saying goes, the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

The simplest analogy I can come up with is forcing religion down peoples throats doesn't make people more religious. That's basic human psychology, which something that the promoters of the Irish language have a hard time grasping.

deise go deo

MysticalRain wrote: »

It has already been pointed out to you and explained in detail multiple times in this very thread. The evidence is 100+ years of failure in promoting the Irish language. Like the saying goes, the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

The simplest analogy I can come up with is forcing religion down peoples throats doesn't make people more religious. That's basic human psychology, which something that the promoters of the Irish language have a hard time grasping.

I have no intrest in doing the same thing over again. Irish was tought spectacularly badly in the past, with rote learning and corporal punishment as the norm. Even today Spoken Irish is low on the list of priorities in the curriculum.
The last thing I want is a continuation of this.

Method in teaching is what held back Irish.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

The simplest analogy I can come up with is forcing religion down peoples throats doesn't make people more religious. That's basic human psychology, which something that the promoters of the Irish language have a hard time grasping.

Odd thing to say when the vast majority of supporters agree the teaching needs to be changed and improved.
If just teaching is considered "shoving down peoples throats", then you could apply the same logic to all subjects.