Is Irish a dead language?

Jim236 · 01-02-2011 12:35am

RandomName2 wrote: »

My post is nonsense because of the word 'revived'? That word was actually my conceit to the Irish-lobbyists.

Your whole post is based around the idea of reviving a language. So yes, in that context, your post is nonsense because Irish cannot be revived, because again its not dead.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I would personally not use the word 'revive' because it is nigh-impossible to generate indigenous culture through pay-cheques and public sector bias.

Generate a culture? The Irish language is the oldest language in Europe. Again, we're not reviving or generating anything here, we're talking about preserving a living language, and promoting it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You were forced to learn English? What do you speak at home - double dutch? But, no, quite simply you are correct: we are forced to learn English. That is two-fold; it is our native language and it is also pragmatic. It equips us for life both at home and abroad.

Thats an insult to all the countries that don't speak English. Are they somehow inferior or less intelligent than us just because English isn't their first language? Do you see them as backward? They manage to generate jobs and communicate with the business world with no bother. Look at Sweden, they talk Swedish between themselves but most Swedish can also speak English and use this in business.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I won't be glib and say, 'well why don't you pick up a book if you are so keen to learn Irish' (and no, that wasn't an occupatio). The Irish education system is very bad at teaching Irish, and a lot of that is due to its attitude to Irish.

Its a well known fact that children are like sponges when it comes to languages, and if immersed at an early age can pick up languages very easily. It is very difficult for adults to do this, not just because they can't take in as much, but also because many can't get the time to become fluent in a language.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, yes, but it is undue focus. Are you saying 'Oh woe is me I would now have Gaeilge at my fingertips (which is the only language of any cultural merit to me) if only I had been forced to learn all my subjects through Irish.

I dunno wtf thats supposed to mean lol, but yeh I'd love to be fluent in Irish and to be able to use it everyday. Most people I know have said the same, i.e. they want to be fluent in Irish but just hated the way it was taught.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And why all the focus on Irish? To equip us with the skills to teach Irish? Or merely to make us look different from the English? Don't we have the Catholic Church to fill that function?

Well the language is a major part of our identity and culture, and its our identity and culture that makes us different from the English and every other country.

And what do you mean "why all the focus on Irish"? Is that not what this whole topic is about?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, that much is true, although I would hardly quantify it as a mere 'token'.

So you agree all schools should be Irish medium schools?

RandomName2 · 01-02-2011 1:19am

Jim236 wrote: »

Your whole post is based around the idea of reviving a language. So yes, in that context, your post is nonsense because Irish cannot be revived, because again its not dead.

How do you preserve a living language? Preservation is a good idea - but not actually what you are referring to. How do you promote a living language? Why would a living language demand promotion?

Jim236 wrote: »

The Irish language is the oldest language in Europe.

No it's not.

Jim236 wrote: »

Thats an insult to all the countries that don't speak English.

No, it's not. You obviously didn't understand what I meant in that context.

Jim236 wrote: »

Look at Sweden, they talk Swedish between themselves but most Swedish can also speak English and use this in business.

So the Swedes have to all learn English because nobody else knows Swedish. Are we not blessed that English happens to be our native language?

Jim236 wrote: »

Its a well known fact that children are like sponges when it comes to languages, and if immersed at an early age can pick up languages very easily. It is very difficult for adults to do this, not just because they can't take in as much, but also because many can't get the time to become fluent in a language.

So you believe that because Gaeilge is taught badly that the only way in which Irish children can hope to learn it is by being taught it all day, every day. So what about more useful languages like French? Better forget those then

Jim236 wrote: »

And what do you mean "why all the focus on Irish"? Is that not what this whole topic is about?

Yes, but it is undue focus.

Jim236 wrote: »

So you agree all schools should be Irish medium schools?

That would be a very strange conclusion to arrive at from what I said.

RandomName2 · 01-02-2011 1:22am

Jim236 wrote: »

€20 billion? Are you for real?:rolleyes:

I don't believe the 1 billion euro Gaeilge budget (which is rounded DOWN btw) takes the education sector into account, or other incurred costs, not to mention revenue regurgitation.

deise go deo · 01-02-2011 1:42am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't believe the 1 billion euro Gaeilge budget (which is rounded DOWN btw) takes the education sector into account, or other incurred costs, not to mention revenue regurgitation.

The figure of 1 Billion comes from the Reform movement website. The reform movement is what remains of southern orangism. They compiled a list of all costs relating to the Irish language(and it was certainly not rounded down) this included every aspect of the Irish language including Education, TG4, Official languages act, Gaelthachts etc.

That list was based on 2006 figures and has since been cut back heavily.

Can you please provided some evidence for your claims because as far as I can see they are nothing more than delusional waffle.

I would suggest that one billion is a vast underestimate.

Every translation, every class in Irish, every payment to the Gaelteacht, every program on TG4.

Off the top of my head I would say more like 20 billion.

20 Billion spent on the Irish language? Yes that is very much off the top of your head, Do you even know how much the national budget is?

The expenditure in the budget for 2011 is 60 billion, Do you honestly believe that 1/3 of our budget is spent on the Irish language? Honestly?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Please have a look at some sources before you come up with stuff off the top of your head.:rolleyes:

dubhthach · 01-02-2011 9:27am

Regarding the official language act the Government spends about €1million a year on translating acts of the Oireachtas and other government papers into Irish. This is equivalent to the yearly cost for providing Cars and Garda drivers for:
Liam Crosgrave, Garrett Fitzgearld, Albert Reynolds, John Bruton, Bertie Ahern.

Once Cowen retires after the election the yearly "car bill" for past Taoisigh will exceed that of cost of translating official documents. If you ask me if I had a choice I would think given that they have fat pensions that they can hire a chauffeur themselves.

Regarding Education costs, teachers are going to be paid that anyways. If you were to scrap Irish in the morning you wouldn't make any saving on teachers pay. They would just have 3.5hours a week (primary) to do other things so talk of saving is illusionary.

RandomName2 · 01-02-2011 10:41am

deise go deo wrote: »

The figure of 1 Billion comes from the Reform movement website. The reform movement is what remains of southern orangism. They compiled a list of all costs relating to the Irish language(and it was certainly not rounded down) this included every aspect of the Irish language including Education, TG4, Official languages act, Gaelthachts etc.

That list was based on 2006 figures and has since been cut back heavily.

Can you please provided some evidence for your claims because as far as I can see they are nothing more than delusional waffle.

Sorry, I wasn't just talking about public expenditure (i.e. the government) but rather all expenditure incurred by the language. For instance, when children are sent to Irish camps in the West the cost to their parents is not calculated in the public expenditure (only the subsidies granted to said homes in the Gaelteacht), or when an Irish text-book is purchased only the small subsidy payed to those who produce Irish-textbooks is calculated.

Perhaps that is not entirely fair, as money spent on Irish by individuals to individuals/companies is not really comparable to that which comes directly from the public exchequer (as there is at least some form of choice exercised by the individuals involved, and it at least has some benefit to the economy).

Having said all that it still doesn't make the language actually have any innate industry attached to it, and still does not make it inherently 'useful'.

Picking holes in a one line off-hand comment does not make an argument (only in the Jerry Springer sense

)

deise go deo · 01-02-2011 1:10pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't just talking about public expenditure (i.e. the government) but rather all expenditure incurred by the language. For instance, when children are sent to Irish camps in the West the cost to their parents is not calculated in the public expenditure (only the subsidies granted to said homes in the Gaelteacht), or when an Irish text-book is purchased only the small subsidy payed to those who produce Irish-textbooks is calculated.

Perhaps that is not entirely fair, as money spent on Irish by individuals to individuals/companies is not really comparable to that which comes directly from the public exchequer (as there is at least some form of choice exercised by the individuals involved, and it at least has some benefit to the economy).

Having said all that it still doesn't make the language actually have any innate industry attached to it, and still does not make it inherently 'useful'.

Picking holes in a one line off-hand comment does not make an argument (only in the Jerry Springer sense )

In fairness, it was one hell of an off hand comment.

the cost to their parents is not calculated in the public expenditure

There is a very good reason for that, it isent public expenditure, its private expenditure.

The money spent by the state(Public Expenditure) is less than 1 billion, that includes everything. Now when you think that is less than 2% of the national budget, and there are 4% of the population who actually use Irish as a regular part of their lives(Not to mention the majority of the rest of the population who support the language), I think it is a bit silly to moan about a disproportionate amount of money being spent on Irish. If anything Irish speakers are subsidizing English language services.

I doubt there is any subsidy paid to people who produce text books, Why would there be? They have a guaranteed market equal to that in any other subject taught in our schools.

deise go deo · 01-02-2011 3:38pm

alrightcuz wrote: »

The census for 1841 was over 10 million people - and that of 1851 just over 6 million. Allowing for natural increase, it means that 6 million have gone missing - and the victims must number about 5 million.

1841 census showed that there were 8,175,124 people in Ireland
1851 census showed that there were 6,552,385 people in Ireland

Where is the 5 million you speak of?

Iwasfrozen · 01-02-2011 3:52pm

deise go deo wrote: »

1841 census showed that there were 8,175,124 people in Ireland
1851 census showed that there were 6,552,385 people in Ireland

Where is the 5 million you speak of?

Hush, never let facts get in the way of a good anti English good hate rant.

deise go deo · 01-02-2011 4:35pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hush, never let facts get in the way of a good anti English good hate rant.

Thats the bit I don't get, The facts are all you need for a good anti English hate rant. You dont need to make stuff up.

Iwasfrozen · 01-02-2011 4:38pm

deise go deo wrote: »

Thats the bit I don't get, The facts are all you need for a good anti English hate rant. You dont need to make stuff up.

Sure but why use the facts when you can buff up the facts to make them sound worse?

deise go deo · 01-02-2011 4:46pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sure but why use the facts when you can buff up the facts to make them sound worse?

It ultimatly undremines your own argument, when the verifiable facts are all you need to argue against something, there is no point making stuff up because your ligitimate argument gets lost in your exagerations.

RandomName2 · 01-02-2011 5:04pm

deise go deo wrote: »

If anything Irish speakers are subsidizing English language services.

:rolleyes:

Ah....

deise go deo · 02-02-2011 12:39am

RandomName2 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Ah....

4% of the population use the Irish language as a regular part of their lives.
Less than 2% of the budget however is spent on the Irish language.

Lantus · 02-02-2011 12:42am

deise go deo wrote: »

4% of the population use the Irish language as a regular part of their lives.
Less than 2% of the budget however is spent on the Irish language.

2% that could probably be put to better use saving the lives of children, educating them, or anything else really.

deise go deo · 02-02-2011 1:58am

Lantus wrote: »

2% that could probably be put to better use saving the lives of children, educating them, or anything else really.

Yes, but you could do all those things through Irish. Two birds with one stone.

RandomName2 · 03-02-2011 12:42pm

deise go deo wrote: »

4% of the population use the Irish language as a regular part of their lives.
Less than 2% of the budget however is spent on the Irish language.

Yes, but 100% of the people who speak Irish also speak English.

(Okay, there are a lot of minority languages here, with more speakers than that of Irish; many of whom cannot speak English... or at least fluently... but I can hardly imagine you insisting on Polish becoming an official language or having public money otherwise spent on it)

deise go deo · 03-02-2011 12:53pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, but 100% of the people who speak Irish also speak English.

So you believe that the state should decide what language its citizens can and cant use?

Iwasfrozen · 03-02-2011 1:22pm

deise go deo wrote: »

So you believe that the state should decide what language its citizens can and cant use?

No, but it souldn't support one minority language without supporting them all. Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, Ulster Scots, Shelta and Irish Sign language are all minority languages in Ireland but don't recieve as much state support as Irish.

deise go deo · 03-02-2011 1:44pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, but it souldn't support one minority language without supporting them all. Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, Ulster Scots, Shelta and Irish Sign language are all minority languages in Ireland but don't recieve as much state support as Irish.

"regional or minority languages" means languages that are:

traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population.

Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, and Ulster Scots are not minority languages in this state,
Cant is more of a dialect than a language, It is an amalgamation of Irish, English and slang words.

Irish Sign Language is a good point, though sign languages generally arent recognised as 'Languages'

Now, That dosent mean that these languages should be discriminated against, Far from it, In fact most governmental guidelines in relation to Irish make specific reference to this fact.

The reason Irish gets supported more than the others are:

a) Irish is a minority language.(Unlike the rest)
b) There are more speakers of Irish than the rest.
c) People support Irish being promoted far more than the rest, There is a mandate for Irish to be promoted.

Lame Lantern · 03-02-2011 1:46pm

I think that it in incumbent upon any state with its own indigenous language to support it as a living entity, no matter how few or how many may speak it at a given time. The extinction of a language is always a massive casualty to human culture and history and governments everywhere should be in the business of supporting endangered languages and cultures. If we were talking about providing money to protect the Red Bogland Spotted Lemur population there would be a lot more sympathy. From my point of view the extinction of any language is of a far greater concern and prevention is worth almost any price.

Jim236 · 03-02-2011 2:19pm

How can you even compare Irish to Polish, Chinese or Lithuanian?

Unlike any of them, the Irish language is indigenous to this island. Its our native language ffs, have a bit of f***in respect for it.

Whatever some people on here might like to think, the Irish language is a huge part of our culture and identity. You hear it in music, its part of the GAA, you see it on the signs, you see it in media, its part of pop culture. Its what makes us different and without it, our country would be nothing more than a Little Britain.

Iwasfrozen · 03-02-2011 3:16pm

deise go deo wrote: »

"regional or minority languages" means languages that are:

traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population.

Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, and Ulster Scots are not minority languages in this state,
Cant is more of a dialect than a language, It is an amalgamation of Irish, English and slang words.

Irish Sign Language is a good point, though sign languages generally arent recognised as 'Languages'

Now, That dosent mean that these languages should be discriminated against, Far from it, In fact most governmental guidelines in relation to Irish make specific reference to this fact.

The reason Irish gets supported more than the others are:

Sure they are Polish and Lithuanian, are traditionally used by thousands of citizens and non citizens of this state. A group which is smaller then the majority English speaking population.

Not that that matters anyway because you're shifting the goal posts, you're original comment was "So you believe that the state should decide what language its citizens can and cant use? ".

As for Shelta, it is a language rather and here's a quote from wikipedia to prove it. Referenced and all.

wikipedia wrote:

"Shelta is a language spoken by travelling communities, particularly in Ireland, but also parts of Great Britain.[1]

Ulster Scots is also a minority language in parts of Donegal.

And Irish Sign Language not a language? You'd better tell that to the Irish Deaf Society.

deise go deo wrote: »

a) Irish is a minority language.(Unlike the rest)
b) There are more speakers of Irish than the rest.
c) People support Irish being promoted far more than the rest, There is a mandate for Irish to be promoted

They all fit you're description of a minority language.
I'm willing to bet there are more Polish speakers in Ireland then Irish.
The only mandate Irish has is the one given to it by a bespectacled foreign born terrorist. It's a relic of the past and the bane of students lives.

Iwasfrozen · 03-02-2011 3:34pm

Jim236 wrote: »

How can you even compare Irish to Polish, Chinese or Lithuanian?

Easy they are both minority languages.

Jim236 wrote: »

Unlike any of them, the Irish language is indigenous to this island. Its our native language ffs, have a bit of f***in respect for it.

It's not our native language. If it's your's thats fine but it's not mine. Not that that matters anyway. Ulster Scots is also native to this Isle but i doubt you'd support your child learning it.

Jim236 wrote: »

Whatever some people on here might like to think, the Irish language is a huge part of our culture and identity. You hear it in music, its part of the GAA, you see it on the signs, you see it in media, its part of pop culture. Its what makes us different and without it, our country would be nothing more than a Little Britain.

Not true.

I've never heard an Irish language song on the radio despite living her nigh nineteen years and being conscience for fourteen.
A very small part, the word bainisteoir is used instead of manager.
Only RTÉ nuacht and similar on TG4.
What popculture? You mean pop ceithre? (spelling?)
No this is little Britain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany

deise go deo · 03-02-2011 3:37pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sure they are Polish and Lithuanian, are traditionally used by thousands of citizens and non citizens of this state. A group which is smaller then the majority English speaking population.

But they are not traditionally used in this state, Minority languages are not languages that happen to be spoken in a state at any given time,

They are languages that have a long history of being spoken within that state. Hence Irish is a Minority language in the UK but Spanish isent.

As for Shelta, it is a language rather and here's a quote from wikipedia to prove it. Referenced and all.

If you follow some of those references you will see that it is clasified as a mixed language.
A mix between Irish and other influences.:rolleyes:

Ulster Scots is also a minority language in parts of Donegal.

You dont seam to get the concept of waht a minority language is, Ulster scotts is not a minority language in this state, You saying it dosent make it so.

And Irish Sign Language not a language? You'd better tell that to the Irish Deaf Society.

I am sure that they are well aware that sign languages do not get classed as 'Languages' in international terms.

They all fit you're description of a minority language.

I'm willing to bet there are more Polish speakers in Ireland then Irish.

The only mandate Irish has is the one given to it by a bespectacled foreign born terrorist.

No they do not, I suggest you go and learn what a minority language is, It is not a language that just happens to be spoken in a state at any given time.
Go ahead and prove it
What are you on about?

Jim236 · 03-02-2011 3:47pm

Just realised Iwasfrozen is the same spanner I was argueing with in another thread.

So Deise I wouldn't even bother, the chap hasn't a clue.

Iwasfrozen · 03-02-2011 4:04pm

deise go deo wrote: »

But they are not traditionally used in this state, Minority languages are not languages that happen to be spoken in a state at any given time,

They are languages that have a long history of being spoken within that state. Hence Irish is a Minority language in the UK but Spanish isent.

That's not what you wrote in your definition, you wrote.

deise go deo wrote: »

"regional or minority languages" means languages that are:

traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population.

Polish and Lithuanian are traditionally used by nationals of this state and the group is a smaller one to that of english speakers. So by your definition they are minority languages.

deise go deo wrote: »

If you follow some of those references you will see that it is clasified as a mixed language.
A mix between Irish and other influences.:rolleyes:

A mixed language is still a language, not a dialect. :rolleyes:

deise go deo wrote: »

You dont seam to get the concept of waht a minority language is, Ulster scotts is not a minority language in this state, You saying it dosent make it so.

Why isn't it? It meets the ciriteria of the definition you presented.

deise go deo wrote: »

I am sure that they are well aware that sign languages do not get classed as 'Languages' in international terms.

I'm sure they are. But I'm also sure they would class it themselves as a language and would like some government support. And hell I'd much rather see my tax euros go to the disabled then gravy train Gaelgeoirs.

deise go deo wrote: »

No they do not, I suggest you go and learn what a minority language is, It is not a language that just happens to be spoken in a state at any given time.

Go ahead and prove it

What are you on about?

Yeah they do, read back over you'r definition and tell me Polish and Lithuanian don't fit it.
Lol, If I knew how many illegal immigrants were in the country I'm sure the government would be very interested in hearing from me.
Not what, who. De Valera.

Iwasfrozen · 03-02-2011 4:08pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Just realised Iwasfrozen is the same spanner I was argueing with in another thread.

So Deise I wouldn't even bother, the chap hasn't a clue.

I'm not the one who said without Irish Ireland would be a little Britain. lol, I guess that makes us a little Britain.

Jim236 · 03-02-2011 4:24pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not the one who said without Irish Ireland would be a little Britain. lol, I guess that makes us a little Britain.

Well without Irish, what makes us different? I genuinely can't think of much other than the GAA (of which the Irish language is a big part and one of the core reasons the GAA was founded), and traditional music maybe but even thats only unique to certain parts of the country and again the Irish language is a big part of that too.

Iwasfrozen · 03-02-2011 4:34pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Well without Irish, what makes us different? I genuinely can't think of much other than the GAA (of which the Irish language is a big part and one of the core reasons the GAA was founded), and traditional music maybe but even thats only unique to certain parts of the country and again the Irish language is a big part of that too.

Different education system, different government, different flag, different army, different weather, different health care system, different currency, different head of state, different accent, different Island, different pensions, different dole, different wild life, differnt tv shows.

The Irish language isn't the be all and end all.

Is Irish a dead language?

Comments