Is Irish a dead language?

deise go deo

MysticalRain wrote: »

Whether or not Dev was a divisive figure is a separate, and largely irrelevant, point to the one I was making. The fact is, both Washington and Dev were central players in the foundation of their countries. Both as military figures, politicians, and ultimately as people who shaped their national identity in very profound ways.

Its far from like with like, Washington is not seen as a backward repressive figure, DeV is, and as such trying to associate the language with him(Or at least the negative myth that has grown up around his name) Is a poor attempt to put Irish in a bad light.

You can dance around the point all you want, but the fact is the Irish language is tied in with a culture that supports a kind of misty eyed nationalism (not to mention an inward looking isolationism) that had a detrimental effect on the economic health of this country. It's not as if millions of Irish people opted to speak English mainly for economic reasons during the 1800s either.

How many times are you going to put your perception forward as fact?
That is not a fact, that is your opinion.;)

So Dev never wrote any noted prose/poetry in gaelic? So what? Neither have 99% of the people who have supported the language over the years. It doesn't change the fact that Dev had a keen personal interest in the language, and its revival. Blaming Dev for 200,000 Gaelgóirs emigrating is simplifying matters just a wee bit. Just because Dev failed in his efforts to revive the language, that doesn't mean that the pro-gaelic crowd can rewrite history and portray him as an enemy of the language because they believe he didn't do enough to save it.

DeV the person was not an enemy of the Language, however Dev the historical myth is a tool used to bash the language and every thing remotely 'Irish'. The man has had more lies and slander propagated about him than any other in Irish history. Thats civil war politics for you.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

, but the fact is the Irish language is tied in with a culture that supports a kind of misty eyed nationalism (not to mention an inward looking isolationism) that had a detrimental effect on the economic health of this country.

Saying this is like saying German is tied to jackbooted stormtroopers or French is tied to frogs legs and snails, it is utter crap.
All through the "Dev's Ireland" years the vast majority of people spoke English, and there is no doubt that the people advocating this image were not just the Irish speakers of the land.
What I find quite ironic is that often people who have this image of Irish consider themselves progressive and forward thinking, yet they just can't see the "elephant in the room", and spout bigoted nonsense like this.

MysticalRain

deise go deo wrote: »

Its far from like with like, Washington is not seen as a backward repressive figure, DeV is, and as such trying to associate the language with him(Or at least the negative myth that has grown up around his name) Is a poor attempt to put Irish in a bad light.

Just because a historical figure is perceived in a negative light, that does not make him irrelevant to the discussion. Not least when the historical figure was a strong supporter of the Irish language and culture. What you are arguing here is that a certain section of our history should be off-limits to discussion for the sole reason that it is perceived in a negative light. And yes, Dev largely deserves the negative perception of his policies. His economic policies of self-sufficiency and isolation were economic destructive policies that held the country back for decades. That's not my opinion. That is the historical record.

How many times are you going to put your perception forward as fact?
That is not a fact, that is your opinion.

What exactly are you trying to dispute here? It is a well-documented historical fact that millions of Irish people voted with their feet, and abandoned the language for their own economic progress. The Gaelic language is inherently tied with culture and nationalism, and not always in a good way either as the consequences of Dev's economic policies demonstrated.

Besides, I wasn't the one here who brought up religion, nationalism, and linked them with Irish. That was brought up by another advocate of the language in this thread who express an opinion that it would be a good thing for their children to be educated in education system which focused more on teaching subjects like religion, Irish history, and the Irish language at the expense of more progressive subjects like science, maths, and European languages.

DeV the person was not an enemy of the Language, however Dev the historical myth is a tool used to bash the language and every thing remotely 'Irish'. The man has had more lies and slander propagated about him than any other in Irish history. Thats civil war politics for you.

I wasn't around during the Civil War, and do not support any of the political parties associated with the conflict. So I do not base any of my opinions on those allegiances.

MysticalRain

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Saying this is like saying German is tied to jackbooted stormtroopers or French is tied to frogs legs and snails, it is utter crap.
All through the "Dev's Ireland" years the vast majority of people spoke English, and there is no doubt that the people advocating this image were not just the Irish speakers of the land.
What I find quite ironic is that often people who have this image of Irish consider themselves progressive and forward thinking, yet they just can't see the "elephant in the room", and spout bigoted nonsense like this.

Well if you're going keep bringing up German history here, what you are arguing is the equivalent of telling someone they can't mention Otto von Bismarck's role in the foundation of the modern German state, and the shaping of it's culture, just because some people perceive him in a negative light.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well if you're going keep bringing up German history here, what you are arguing is the equivalent of telling someone they can't mention Otto von Bismarck's role in the foundation of the modern German state, and the shaping of it's culture, just because some people perceive him in a negative light.

I see you made no comment on the point I raised. We are talking about a language here and my comment was perfectly valid in light of this discussion.
Your comparison with Bismarck is not valid in this context.
You said the Irish language is tied to a certain period of Irish history (a very very short period) and I showed you the idiocity of this statement.
I could have picked any languages on the planet for this, I just picked 2 of Europes major ones.
Now, would you care to respond to the point??

MysticalRain

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I see you made no comment on the point I raised. We are talking about a language here and my comment was perfectly valid in light of this discussion.
Your comparison with Bismarck is not valid in this context.
You said the Irish language is tied to a certain period of Irish history (a very very short period) and I showed you the idiocity of this statement.
I could have picked any languages on the planet for this, I just picked 2 of Europes major ones.
Now, would you care to respond to the point??

This thread hasn't been solely about language since deise go deo introduced Adolf Hitler (of all people) into the debate, and CaseyAnn mixed religion and nationalism into it.

I am happy to confine this debate purely to the language itself and not stuff like religion and Nazi Germany if others don't keep bringing those subjects up.

Fags are Evil

Hopefully funding for Irish will be ruthlessly cut in the upcoming budget.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

This thread hasn't been solely about language since deise go deo introduced Adolf Hitler (of all people) into the debate, and CaseyAnn mixed religion and nationalism into it.

I am happy to confine this debate purely to the language itself and not stuff like religion and Nazi Germany if others don't keep bringing those subjects up.

I am not Deise go deo or CaseyAnn.
I see you are still not responding to my point.
You are trying to tie a language to a certain point of a country's history, do you want to discuss this??
If you don't, then just don't respond to my post.

MysticalRain;
the fact is the Irish language is tied in with a culture that supports a kind of misty eyed nationalism (not to mention an inward looking isolationism) that had a detrimental effect on the economic health of this country

This is the comment I picked you up on.

MysticalRain

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I am not Deise go deo or CaseyAnn.
.

This conversation doesn't revolve around just yourself.

I see you are still not responding to my point.
You are trying to tie a language to a certain point of a country's history, do you want to discuss this??

I have already explained my point. Several times now. All you did was regurgitate the same point I have replied to elsewhere. If you don't like the answer, then that's fair enough.

It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that Dev's political reign was a "a very very short period" in Irish history. As a politician, Dev was one of the longest-serving in the state's history, and his political impact cast a long shadow which still had an impact decades later.

This is the comment I picked you up on

It's funny how the supporters of the Irish language constantly harp on about how much the language is tied into our culture and national identity. Yet whenever somebody criticizes the more negative aspects of said culture, or the people associated with it, the same crowd claims that particular aspect of our culture is irrelevant to the language.

murphaph

deise go deo wrote: »

What made English so powerfull is its connection with powerfull countries, First the British Empire and then The US.
The English language dident start to grow until the British started to expand their Empire, The Same was true of other languages. French grew when France took over other countries, same with spanish.

The English language is not a 'better' language than anyother. It is actually a difficult language to learn as it uses a different structure to most European languages and has many irrigular verbs that one must learn.

Actually English is a better language for many things as it can be more subtle/precise than (say) German and is a much more efficient language requiring usually about 3/4 of the number of words to tell the same story as a German text (my GF tells me these things, she's a translator). That's why English is the favoured language for patent applications, for example. A German patent is longer because it has to use more words to cover the bases (kupplung means coupling, but also clutch, connector, hitch etc.).

Krusader

Fags are Evil wrote: »

Hopefully funding for Irish will be ruthlessly cut in the upcoming budget.

It will be cut and has been cut just like everything else

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

This conversation doesn't revolve around just yourself.

Because you refuse to respond to what I am saying I might as well be talking to myself.

I have already explained my point. Several times now. All you did was regurgitate the same point I have replied to elsewhere. If you don't like the answer, then that's fair enough.

You have not explained how a language is linked to a solitary part of a nations history.
Is Russian inextricably linked to Stalinism??

It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that Dev's political reign was a "a very very short period" in Irish history. As a politician, Dev was one of the longest-serving in the state's history, and his political impact cast a long shadow which still had an impact decades later.

Irish history goes back thousands of years, Dev's glorious reign was an extremely short period in this.

It's funny how the supporters of the Irish language constantly harp on about how much the language is tied into our culture and national identity. Yet whenever somebody criticizes the more negative aspects of said culture, or the people associated with it, the same crowd claims that particular aspect of our culture is irrelevant to the language.

Dev is part of Irish history, I personally do not consider him or his as part of Irish culture.
Again, please explain how a language is connected to a negative part of a nations history.
Of course if you feel Russian is forever tied to Stalin, German to Hitler, and English to Queen Victoria then I would accept (but not agree with) your argument and just give up conversing with you.

Edit;

millions of Irish people voted with their feet, and abandoned the language for their own economic progress.

Don't forget those that died and those that were forced to leave in order to survive, and the bigotry and intolerance shown to the language by those in power. You make the language shift of the 19th century sound like a 21st century change of fashion.

Krusader

MysticalRain wrote: »

It's funny how the supporters of the Irish language constantly harp on about how much the language is tied into our culture and national identity. Yet whenever somebody criticizes the more negative aspects of said culture, or the people associated with it, the same crowd claims that particular aspect of our culture is irrelevant to the language.

This statement is quite laughable and idiotic.

You cry and moan about Dev , but if it wasn't for people like Dev who risked their own precious lives for this country, freedom would only be a pipe dream for you and the rest of us. Yes many of our fallen heroes were Irish speakers but so to were many (probably most of them) of them English speakers but alas we don't see you bringing up that point. Yes let us paint the Irish language with nationalisn, republicanism, chuckyism, whatever -ism you want. god forbid it should be taken for what it is, a beautiful, everyday language for communicating with your fellow man

cyclopath2001

Crosáidí wrote: »

It will be cut and has been cut just like everything else

I think funding for teaching Irish to actual, authentic native speakers where Irish is their first language should be retained.

Enkidu

murphaph wrote: »

Actually English is a better language for many things as it can be more subtle/precise than (say) German and is a much more efficient language requiring usually about 3/4 of the number of words to tell the same story as a German text (my GF tells me these things, she's a translator). That's why English is the favoured language for patent applications, for example. A German patent is longer because it has to use more words to cover the bases (kupplung means coupling, but also clutch, connector, hitch etc.).

English is also highly irregular in its verbal system and has a spelling system that looks like it was designed by somebody who never spoke the language.
However it also has very regular nouns and quite simple clause rules.

Basically, every language has its strengths and weaknesses. English is not objectively better as a language from a linguistic standpoint. However, it is more useful from an economic standpoint since so many people speak it.

Krusader

Enkidu wrote: »

English is also highly irregular in its verbal system and has a spelling system that looks like it was designed by somebody who never spoke the language.
However it also has very regular nouns and quite simple clause rules.

Basically, every language has its strengths and weaknesses. English is not objectively better as a language from a linguistic standpoint. However, it is more useful from an economic standpoint since so many people speak it.

dough, through, cough, rough = madness :pac::pac:

MysticalRain

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Because you refuse to respond to what I am saying I might as well be talking to myself.

Well you might as well be if you keep misinterpreting the broader argument I was making (of which Irish was one particular aspect of it). You butted in to a discussion between myself and another poster about the Irish education system. The other poster diverted the conversation onto another tangent when said she was in favour of an education system that focused more on teaching the Irish language, religion, and Irish history at the expense of other subjects such as science, European languages, as well as teaching a version of history that didn't focus purely on Irish nationalism.

I pointed out that it would be a bad thing if the Irish education system reverted to the Dev-era Ireland where the country was myopic cultural backwater, ruled by the Catholic church, not to mention an absolute economic basket case. There was no bigger poster-child perpetuating those policies than Dev. To the extent that Dev was connected to the Irish language, it basically boils down to a narrow cultural nationalism that corrupted the Irish education system by placing far too much emphasis teaching Irish and not enough emphasis on the other more progressive subjects.

Irish history goes back thousands of years, Dev's glorious reign was an extremely short period in this.

We're talking about the modern Irish state here, and the gaelic revival which began 120 years ago. Dev's reign encompassed a significant proportion of that particular time period. So to dismiss his impact on the language is to ignore history.

Don't forget those that also died and those that were forced to leave in order to survive, and the bigotry and intolerance shown to the language by those in power. You make the language shift of the 19th century sound like a 21st century change of fashion.

Of course it's obvious that there were other factors at play here. But the fact is, a great deal of Irish people did choose switch to convert to English speakers of their own volition. That trend continued at a gradual pace long after the English left.

Krusader

MysticalRain wrote: »

Of course it's obvious that there were other factors at play here. But the fact is, a great deal of Irish people did choose switch to convert to English speakers of their own volition. That trend continued at a gradual pace long after the English left.

And now there are a great deal of Irish people who wish to converse and be taught of their own volition in the Irish language and is continuing at a gradual pace, can we not have be due the same privileges and rights

MysticalRain

Crosáidí wrote: »

This statement is quite laughable and idiotic.

You cry and moan about Dev , but if it wasn't for people like Dev who risked their own precious lives for this country, freedom would only be a pipe dream for you and the rest of us. Yes many of our fallen heroes were Irish speakers but so to were many (probably most of them) of them English speakers but alas we don't see you bringing up that point. Yes let us paint the Irish language with nationalisn, republicanism, chuckyism, whatever -ism you want.

Oh spare me that claptrap. I don't have any major problem with what Dev did before or during the fight for independence. It's what people like him did after it was over that I am speaking about. I sure as hell don't feel grateful to him for helping to ignite a civil war for a start.

god forbid it should be taken for what it is, a beautiful, everyday language for communicating with your fellow man

I certainly haven't criticized the language for those reasons. So please stop twisting my words into something they are not. As many people have pointed out in the thread, the problems with the Irish language have less to do with the language itself, and more to do with external factors as they relate to it.

MysticalRain

Crosáidí wrote: »

And now there are a great deal of Irish people who wish to converse and be taught of their own volition in the Irish language and is continuing at a gradual pace, can we not have be due the same privileges and rights

That's great if people learn the language because of a genuine love for speaking it. Nobody is saying people shouldn't have the right to speak the language (if that is how you are interpreting my post).

However, I think it's a bit rich to consider Irish speakers they persecuted minority in the present context when you have large state subsidies for promoting the language, not to mention the full rigor of the Irish state coercing students into studying it. My point is that it should not be a compulsory subject - at least not beyond primary level, and it is given too much weight at the expense of other subjects.

Fags are Evil

Crosáidí wrote: »

It will be cut and has been cut just like everything else

I was talking more about an eradication of funding -- a modern day Cromwellian approach.

Krusader

MysticalRain wrote: »

That's great if people learn the language because of a genuine love for speaking it. Nobody is saying people shouldn't have the right to speak the language (if that is how you are interpreting my post).

However, I think it's a bit rich to consider Irish speakers they persecuted minority in the present context when you have large state subsidies for promoting the language, not to mention the full rigor of the Irish state coercing students into studying it. My point is that it should not be a compulsory subject - at least not beyond primary level, and it is given too much weight at the expense of other subjects.

Well we can't seem to get full funding for gaelscoileanna unlike English medium schools or even some schools recognised

MysticalRain

Crosáidí wrote: »

Well we can't seem to get full funding for gaelscoileanna unlike English medium schools or even some schools recognised

Maybe too much money is being diverted elsewhere. Like on translating documents that nobody reads. Or just maybe the money isn't there anymore.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well you might as well be if you keep misinterpreting the broader argument I was making (of which Irish was one particular aspect of it). You butted in to a discussion between myself and another poster about the Irish education system. The other poster diverted the conversation onto another tangent when said she was in favour of an education system that focused more on teaching the Irish language, religion, and Irish history at the expense of other subjects such as science, European languages, as well as teaching a version of history that didn't focus purely on Irish nationalism.

Quote:

MysticalRain;
the fact is the Irish language is tied in with a culture that supports a kind of misty eyed nationalism (not to mention an inward looking isolationism) that had a detrimental effect on the economic health of this country

You still haven't answered my question, "How can a language be inextricably tied to one part of a nations history??"
As for "butting in" I have been part of this thread for quite a while now.
As I said, if you can explain this I will accept (but not agree with) your argument.
Just to give you a hint as to where I am "coming from", if someone makes a generalisation like this about a peoples religion, skin colour, or language they are sectarian, racist or prejudiced. Not qualities I (or any decent person) has any time for.

I pointed out that it would be a bad thing if the Irish education system reverted to the Dev-era Ireland where the country was myopic cultural backwater, ruled by the Catholic church, not to mention an absolute economic basket case. There was no bigger poster-child perpetuating those policies than Dev. To the extent that Dev was connected to the Irish language, it basically boils down to a narrow cultural nationalism that corrupted the Irish education system by placing far too much emphasis teaching Irish and not enough emphasis on the other more progressive subjects.

You are making comments about a language based on one rather pathetic part of a nations history, all I am saying is for your point to have any validity you must point out how you can have an opinion and view of a language based on this, and unless you are coming from a bigoted prejudiced anti-Irish angle then you must also hold this true for other languages as well,
do you feel French is forever tied to madame guillotine and Robespierre's terror??

We're talking about the modern Irish state here, and the gaelic revival which began 120 years ago. Dev's reign encompassed a significant proportion of that particular time period. So to dismiss his impact on the language is to ignore history.

We are talking about a language, a method of communication, you have an impression of a language based on this "Dev's Ireland " image.
I have an impression of Irish as a method of communication.

Of course it's obvious that there were other factors at play here. But the fact is, a great deal of Irish people did choose switch to convert to English speakers of their own volition. That trend continued at a gradual pace long after the English left.

The deaths of hundreds of thousands, the emigration of millions and an official bias are not just "other" factors. The famine and emigration hit the Irish speaking areas the hardest and Irish speakers were looked down on by Anglophones, these are arguably the main reason for the small numbers of Irish speakers left in the West of Ireland. Had these had not occurred the Irish language would have parity with English here today and we would not be having this conversation.
To get a realistic idea just look at the situation of other European languages today.
Irish speakers today are forced to speak English because of the wider populations inability to speak Irish.

AlexderFranke

Anois, cuirfidh mé síos mo chuid tuairime mar fhoghlaimeoir eachtrannach arís.
Is í an Ghaeilge a tharaingíonn mo chuid suime i dtreo na hÉireann. Is seoid speisialta í an Ghaeilge i measc oidhreacht na tíre. Gan í, is dóigh ná mbeadh aon thuras chuig an Éireann déanta agam. Is iad teangacha a a dhéanann mórchuid saibhreasa cultúrtha na dtíortha ar an domhain. Mar sin, dar liomsa, is fiú gach teanga an domhain atá ann inniu a bheith tabhairt ar aghaidh chuig na glúinte ag teacht. Is fiú an teanga réigiúnda a thabhairt ar aghaidh ar scoil chuig an gcuid sin na bpáistí nach bhfaigheann ísa bhaile. Dar liomsa, níor chóir an cinneadh sin a thabhairt i dtreo na dtuismitheoirí. Ba cheart do no daltaí a chinneadh iad féin an mian leo an Ghaeilge a ghlacadh mar chuid tábhachtach an tsaoil nó nach mian tar éis dóibh dul i dteagmháil léi ar feadh bunscolaíochta. Sin í an aois a fhoghlaimeofar teangacha níos éasca ná níos déanaí sa saol. Tar éis an teastas sóiséarach, bíonn aois na ndaltaí feiliúnach chun an rogha a ligean acusan féin, ach amháin i gceantair éigin na tíre. Ach i mBaile Átha Cliath, mar shampla, ní fiú an Ghaeilge a chur ar dhaltaí sin níos sine ar scoil gan aon suim inti.
Mar sin, molaim an Ghaeilge a choinneáil mar ábhar éigeantach go dtí an teastas sóiséarach ar fud na tíre agus ar feadh na scolaíochta uilig sna ceantair sin in aice leis an nGaelltacht, mar shampla an Ghaillimh. Laistigh na Gaeltachta, ba cheart an múineadgh trí mheán na Gaeilge amháin a bheith ar fáil. Is fiú polasaí éagsúla de réir suí san áit a chur chun cinn. Cad a bhíonn feiliúnach i nGaillimh, ní bhíonn sé feiliúnach freisin i mBaile Átha Cliath.


Now, I will again put down my point of view as foreign learner of Irish.
It is Irish that attracks my interest towards Ireland. Irish is a special juwel within the country's heritahe. Without Irish, it is likely that I would not have made any travel to Ireland. It is languages that make great deal of the culltural richness of countries in the world. Therefore it is worth every language in the world to be passed on to the coming generations. It is worth passing on the regional language at school to that part of children who do not get it at home. I think that this decision ought not to be directed towards the parents. The pupils ought to take their own decision if they want to embrace Irish as important part of their life or not after they have got in contact with it at primary school. This is the age when languages are learnt more easily than later in life. The time after the Junior Certificate is suitable to let the pupils their own decision, except for cerrtain areas. But in Dublin, for example, it is no use forcing it on pupils with no interest in it at all.
Therefore I suggest to let Irish remain a compulsory subject until the Junior Certificate all over the country and during the whole schooling time in areas near the Gaeltacht, for example Galway. In the Gaeltacht, only teaching through the medium of Irish ought to be available. It is use to apply different policies according to the local situation. What is suitable in Galway has not to be suitable in Dublin.

cyclopath2001

[QUOTE=Cú Giobach;68998098
To get a realistic idea just look at the situation of other European languages today.
Irish speakers today are forced to speak English because of the wider populations inability to speak Irish.[/QUOTE]Inability? You make it sound like English-epeaking Irish people are somehow defective Irish people.

The best way for people to enjoy an Irish-speaking lifestyle would be for them to concentrate themselves in a critical mass of self-sustaining Irish-as-a first-language communities whwre they can live their lives in their chosen langauge. The existing Gaeltactanna would form a good nucleus, but we'd need to ensure that any foreign investment that might be diverted there from English-speaking areas, would be compatible with the skills of the Irish-speaking population.

Cú Giobach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Inability? You make it sound like English-epeaking Irish people are somehow defective Irish people.

Give us a break. You are constantly coming up with stupid statements like that, reading things into peoples posts, if you're like that in real life I pity you.

The best way for people to enjoy an Irish-speaking lifestyle would be for them to concentrate themselves in a critical mass of self-sustaining Irish-as-a first-language communities whwre they can live their lives in their chosen langauge.

Ha ha, you want us to live on reservations, so we don't infect the anglophile gaelaphobic masses.

The existing Gaeltactanna would form a good nucleus, but we'd need to ensure that any foreign investment that might be diverted there from English-speaking areas, would be compatible with the skills of the Irish-speaking population

Ah sure all we can out wesht is grow a few shpuds and gather donkey loads of seaweed from the foreshore.

Your most pathetic post so far, by a long shot.

Focalbhach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Inability? You make it sound like English-epeaking Irish people are somehow defective Irish people.

What he said was that the wider population can't (or in some cases, IMO, lack the confidence to) hold a conversation as Gaeilge. Do you think that's an inaccurate assessment?

eddyc

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Quote:

You still haven't answered my question, "How can a language be inextricably tied to one part of a nations history??"
As for "butting in" I have been part of this thread for quite a while now.
As I said, if you can explain this I will accept (but not agree with) your argument.
Just to give you a hint as to where I am "coming from", if someone makes a generalisation like this about a peoples religion, skin colour, or language they are sectarian, racist or prejudiced. Not qualities I (or any decent person) has any time for.



You are making comments about a language based on one rather pathetic part of a nations history, all I am saying is for your point to have any validity you must point out how you can have an opinion and view of a language based on this, and unless you are coming from a bigoted prejudiced anti-Irish angle then you must also hold this true for other languages as well,
do you feel French is forever tied to madame guillotine and Robespierre's terror??



We are talking about a language, a method of communication, you have an impression of a language based on this "Dev's Ireland " image.
I have an impression of Irish as a method of communication.



The deaths of hundreds of thousands, the emigration of millions and an official bias are not just "other" factors. The famine and emigration hit the Irish speaking areas the hardest and Irish speakers were looked down on by Anglophones, these are arguably the main reason for the small numbers of Irish speakers left in the West of Ireland. Had these had not occurred the Irish language would have parity with English here today and we would not be having this conversation.
To get a realistic idea just look at the situation of other European languages today.
Irish speakers today are forced to speak English because of the wider populations inability to speak Irish.

Perhaps in practice, but monolingual Irish speakers have an incredible array of government facilities provided to them in the Irish language. Are they forced to speak English, well thats a great way of putting it, if you mean like if I go to France I am forced to speak French, hardly oppressive now is it?

Harping on about the language shift is also pretty pointless because it really doesn't matter why most of us speak English, we simply do now. It doesn't matter anymore that the English/Catholic Church did it, it doesn't matter that Irish speakers were looked down upon. I have no interest in the victimhood felt by those who feel our culture was taken away from us, I am only interested in the present.

murphaph

AlexderFranke wrote: »

Anois, cuirfidh mé síos mo chuid tuairime mar fhoghlaimeoir eachtrannach arís.
Is í an Ghaeilge a tharaingíonn mo chuid suime i dtreo na hÉireann. Is seoid speisialta í an Ghaeilge i measc oidhreacht na tíre. Gan í, is dóigh ná mbeadh aon thuras chuig an Éireann déanta agam. Is iad teangacha a a dhéanann mórchuid saibhreasa cultúrtha na dtíortha ar an domhain. Mar sin, dar liomsa, is fiú gach teanga an domhain atá ann inniu a bheith tabhairt ar aghaidh chuig na glúinte ag teacht. Is fiú an teanga réigiúnda a thabhairt ar aghaidh ar scoil chuig an gcuid sin na bpáistí nach bhfaigheann ísa bhaile. Dar liomsa, níor chóir an cinneadh sin a thabhairt i dtreo na dtuismitheoirí. Ba cheart do no daltaí a chinneadh iad féin an mian leo an Ghaeilge a ghlacadh mar chuid tábhachtach an tsaoil nó nach mian tar éis dóibh dul i dteagmháil léi ar feadh bunscolaíochta. Sin í an aois a fhoghlaimeofar teangacha níos éasca ná níos déanaí sa saol. Tar éis an teastas sóiséarach, bíonn aois na ndaltaí feiliúnach chun an rogha a ligean acusan féin, ach amháin i gceantair éigin na tíre. Ach i mBaile Átha Cliath, mar shampla, ní fiú an Ghaeilge a chur ar dhaltaí sin níos sine ar scoil gan aon suim inti.
Mar sin, molaim an Ghaeilge a choinneáil mar ábhar éigeantach go dtí an teastas sóiséarach ar fud na tíre agus ar feadh na scolaíochta uilig sna ceantair sin in aice leis an nGaelltacht, mar shampla an Ghaillimh. Laistigh na Gaeltachta, ba cheart an múineadgh trí mheán na Gaeilge amháin a bheith ar fáil. Is fiú polasaí éagsúla de réir suí san áit a chur chun cinn. Cad a bhíonn feiliúnach i nGaillimh, ní bhíonn sé feiliúnach freisin i mBaile Átha Cliath.


Now, I will again put down my point of view as foreign learner of Irish.
It is Irish that attracks my interest towards Ireland. Irish is a special juwel within the country's heritahe. Without Irish, it is likely that I would not have made any travel to Ireland. It is languages that make great deal of the culltural richness of countries in the world. Therefore it is worth every language in the world to be passed on to the coming generations. It is worth passing on the regional language at school to that part of children who do not get it at home. I think that this decision ought not to be directed towards the parents. The pupils ought to take their own decision if they want to embrace Irish as important part of their life or not after they have got in contact with it at primary school. This is the age when languages are learnt more easily than later in life. The time after the Junior Certificate is suitable to let the pupils their own decision, except for cerrtain areas. But in Dublin, for example, it is no use forcing it on pupils with no interest in it at all.
Therefore I suggest to let Irish remain a compulsory subject until the Junior Certificate all over the country and during the whole schooling time in areas near the Gaeltacht, for example Galway. In the Gaeltacht, only teaching through the medium of Irish ought to be available. It is use to apply different policies according to the local situation. What is suitable in Galway has not to be suitable in Dublin.

Ich bin ja beeindruckt!
I'm impressed!