Is Irish a dead language?

dubhthach

Regarding Culture, I don't think that fact that Yeats, Behan, Joyce, Casey wrote in english is particulary cultural. I think if they wrote in any language they would have had a cultural affect. For example Beckett wrote most of his works in French however we talk of Beckett as part of Irish culture not French.

I think the cultural aspect in this regard is more the Irish culture of literacy/poetry/storytelling that has existed for 100's if not 1,000's of years. We've always had respect for learned literary types.

Be it the Seanachaí telling stories by the fire to Bards/Filí to Swift's satire to the poetry of Yeats and onwards. There is a common cultural trend here of storymaking. It doesn't matter what language it is in, it could be Irish, English, French, Latin etc.

Anyways as to actual thread topic, no Irish is not dead if it was would we still be posting on this forum?

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

But is also a resourse for our future. Ireland has the potential to become a bi-lingual country, Something that would be very benifical to us as a people, Irish is the best way to do it.

This implies that you have considered other bilingual options and have determined that Irish and English would be the most beneficial pair of languages.

Can you provide details of how you arrived at this conclusion?

RandomName2

Leto wrote: »

Bolded part not true.

That notwithstanding, to suggest that you need Irish to become a public servant is blatantly untrue.
So is the suggestion that you would not be allowed to teach.
So is the suggestion that you could not become a Garda (who need an Ordinary Level D3 in two languages, one of which must be English or Irish).
So is the suggestion that you would not be allowed to become a fireman.

A little less hysteria, please.

Oh so people that I know who were unemployable in those capacities were just having to retrospectively take LC Irish (and sometimes mandatory Higher Level Irish if you want to teach at second level) were just doing it for the... craic?

I mean, I did LC Irish because I knew that without it my horizons would otherwise be severely restricted.

And in terms of the bolded part being untrue, I was speaking in RELATIVE terms.

'Nobody speaks Elvish.'

Clearly an untrue statement, no?

EDIT: Your source :

Primary school teachers must satisfy the Department of Education and Skills (DES) that they can not only teach the Irish language but also teach the range of primary school subjects through Irish. In order to gain full recognition as a primary school teacher, applicants must pass the written, aural and oral parts of the Scrúdú Cáilíochta sa Ghaeilge and provide certification that they have completed an approved three-week course in the Gaeltacht.

But we all already knew that, anyway. We all know also that to teach in any capacity for the state requires the knowledge, but not use (because nobody uses it) of Irish.

A little more accuracy please.

---

Your firefighter source doesn't mention it either way. Your garda source shows that the recruitment criteria is more sensible than one would anticipate (it still pushes learning both Irish and English, but not unreasonably so because learning a foreign language as well is standard at second level)

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

Maith Thú,

Some people seam to take the approach when gathering information that if its about Irish and its negative then it must be true .:rolleyes:

So RandomName2, Would you care to retract the following?

'I have respect for the language, but the converse is not true. It discriminates against those who do not learn it.'

Clearly not.

And seem does not have an a in it.

Focalbhach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh so people that I know who were unemployable in those capacities were just having to retrospectively take LC Irish (and sometimes mandatory Higher Level Irish if you want to teach at second level) were just doing it for the... craic?

If you can find something to say that Irish is required for public sector employment or for firefighting, I'd be interested to see it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And in terms of the bolded part being untrue, I was speaking in RELATIVE terms.

No, you were exaggerating for effect. If you want to speak in relative terms, you could say "relatively few people use Irish". Let's try to say what we mean.

RandomName2 wrote: »

EDIT: Your source :

...

From Citizens' Information: Post-primary teachers do not need to have a qualification in the Irish language unless they are employed by a Gaeltacht school or a school where Irish is the medium of instruction.

Is that clear enough? Does that address your fear that you "would not be allowed to teach (ANYTHING!)"?

RandomName2 wrote: »

But we all already knew that, anyway. We all know also that to teach in any capacity for the state requires the knowledge, but not use (because nobody uses it) of Irish.

What people think they know and what they actually know are often two very different things.

Again, bolded parts untrue. You're being disrespectful at best, deliberately antagonistic at worst. Wise up.

Focalbhach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your firefighter source doesn't mention it either way. Your garda source shows that the recruitment criteria is more sensible than one would anticipate (it still pushes learning both Irish and English, but not unreasonably so because learning a foreign language as well is standard at second level)

Just spotted this edit.

Try reading the criteria for firefighters again. Here's a particularly relevant part: Each candidate must have obtained a grade D (or a pass) in five subjects including Mathematics and English in the Junior Certificate or it's equivalent. Irish isn't mentioned.

As for the Gardaí, they do not push "both Irish and English". They look for either Irish or English. There is no requirement for both. It's quite clear.

Finally, the issue is not whether their requirements, whatever they may be, are reasonable in your view. It's that you're making clearly false claims designed to reflect negatively on Irish - I'd like to think honest mistake, but you're continuing to push it after contradictory evidence has been presented. That isn't helpful.

Cú Giobach

RandomName2 wrote: »

And in terms of the bolded part being untrue, I was speaking in RELATIVE terms.

'Nobody speaks Elvish.'

Clearly an untrue statement, no? ..........
We all know also that to teach in any capacity for the state requires the knowledge, but not use (because nobody uses it) of Irish.

OK, so you use the term "nobody" when the percentage of people doing something drops below a certain level, out of curiosity what percentage of people would you consider "somebody"??
The population of Letrim is only 28,950 so I suppose you consider that county uninhabited.
Would you consider the statement "Nobody lives in Letrim" to be true or false? (Hint)

You come up with some good points in your arguments, then come up with a clearly ridiculous statement like the above, why?

RandomName2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

OK, so you use the term "nobody" when the percentage of people doing something drops below a certain level, out of curiosity what percentage of people would you consider "somebody"??
The population of Letrim is only 28,950 so I suppose you consider that county uninhabited.
Would you consider the statement "Nobody lives in Letrim" to be true or false? (Hint)

You come up with some good points in your arguments, then come up with a clearly ridiculous statement like the above, why?

The population of Letrim relative to the population of Letrim is the population in Letrim.

If we talk about Letrim relative to its standing in the universe then it effectively doesn't exist.


---

I would probably consider over 5% to be somebody. Certainly over 10%. I would quite gladly say that the only religion in America is Christianity. Christianity makes up 94.5% of the religions in the US, so relatively speaking, it is the only religion that exists in America. One could qualify every statement, but it is both awkward and misses the big picture.

RandomName2

Leto wrote: »

From Citizens' Information: Post-primary teachers do not need to have a qualification in the Irish language unless they are employed by a Gaeltacht school or a school where Irish is the medium of instruction.

Is that clear enough? Does that address your fear that you "would not be allowed to teach (ANYTHING!)"?

Look this quite obviously is wrong. We all already know second level teaching requires Irish (and honours LC, at that). This is well known :pac: ^

Teaching in most other state institutions requires qualification in Irish.

I am unsure about teaching in universities - but a large number of those who lecture at 3rd level are not themselves Irish and MOST would be exempt anyway.* Because of the semi-private nature of most 3rd level institutes perhaps it is subject to the university in question?



^ Teaching in a second level school which is entirely PRIVATE can get around this restriction afaik.
*I know of at least one case where this categorically was not the case.

Cú Giobach

RandomName2 wrote: »

The population of Letrim relative to the population of Letrim is the population in Letrim.

If we talk about Letrim relative to its standing in the universe then it effectively doesn't exist.

By that logic then you don't exist, but your post using that logic proves you do exist therefore "your argument is invalid".

RandomName2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

By that logic then you don't exist, but your post using that logic proves you do exist therefore "your argument is invalid".

Relative to anything of any significance, I indeed don't exist.

Population of Ireland = 4,000,000 (AND ME!!!!!!)

But I am saying that my argument is produced entirely by me. I take full credit for it. So in this context there is only me (the sole producer) and the argument (the product). In this context I am of the utmost importance.

If I say that this argument is the product of thousands of years of human learning and understanding, of which I am a mere dot, then in that particular context, I indeed, don't exist.

Focalbhach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look this quite obviously is wrong. We all already know second level teaching requires Irish (and honours LC, at that). This is well known :pac: ^

As I said above - and I'm not trying to be funny - what people know and what they think they know doesn't always match up. To be honest, I didn't know what the state of play was with regards to second-level teaching until I went hunting for criteria last night. I know it's generally assumed that some Irish qualification is needed, and I might have assumed that too, but Citizens' Information (which is usually fairly reliable, and I presume got its information from the Department of Education) says otherwise. I'm open to correction (honestly) , but I'll need more than anecdotal evidence on this point I'm afraid!

Regarding universities, I wouldn't have thought there would be any need for Irish, but I couldn't say definitively one way or the other. And I'm not going looking at the moment :pac:

AlexderFranke

Creidim nach féidir tábhacht agus luach na teanga dúchasaigh nach bhfuil ag an gcuid is mó an dhaonra mar theanga dúchais a chur ina luí ar ghach éinne sa tír. Deireann an t-aon dhuine nach fiú í sin a fhorbairt go forleathan toisc nach bhfuil dlúth-ceangailt ag an tír leis an teanga sin go fóill. Deireann an duine eile gur tábhachtach an scéal é teanga dhúchasach na tíre a choinneáil beo agus a thabhairt ar aghaidh chuig na glúinte a thiocfaidh toisc go bhfuil dlúth-cheangailt ag an teanga le cultúr agus stair na tíre. Sin í chomh maith mo thuairimse. Is í an Ghaeilge an bun a bhfuil náisiún na h-Éireann tógtha i rith na n-aoiseanna air. Agus mothaíonn cuid mhaith daoine gur chaill trom agus briseadh í dul i léig na teanga dúchasaigh don tír agus dóibh féin sa chríoch. Mar sin, ba chóir an seans a thabhairt do ghach dhalta an teanga sin a fhoghlaim ar scoil mura bhfuil sí fós tugtha ar aghaidh chuig uile dhuine mar theanga dúchais. Is a gcinneadh céard a dhéanfaidh siad leis an nGaeilge ina saol. Ní thabharthas ar dhaoine baint a bheith acu le gluaiseacht na Gaeilge. Dar liom, is ceart an scéal é tacú a thabhairt go príomhá do theangacha dúchasacha seachas an bpríomh-theanga labhartha sa tír. I mo thuairim, bheadh sé ceart, mar shampla, tacú a thabhairt go forleathan ar fud na na Stáit Aontaithe do theangacha na Meiriceánach dúchasach.

Ar an taobh eile, ní fhreastalaíonn cuid na rialacha de réir na Gaeilge leis an réaltacht. Ach ba cheart go deo go bhfuil sách-Ghaeilge ag gach éinne a shocraíonn síos nó a oibríonn laistigh nó in aice leis na Gaeltachta.

I believe that it is not possible to convince everybody in the country of the importance and worth of the indigenous language that is not spoken as native language by most of the population. The one will say that it is no use sustaining it broadly because the country has no close link to that language any more. The other will say that it is important to keep the indigenous language alive and to pass it on to the coming generations because there is a close link to the culture and history of the country. This is also my opinion. Irish is the base upon which the Irish nation has been built in the run of the centuries. And great part of people feel the decline of the indigenous language to be a serious loss and a break for the country and for themselves in the end. Therefore each pupil ought to be given the chance to learn that language at school if it is not passed on to everybody as native language. It is their decision what they will do with the Irish language in their lives. They are not forced to be involved into the Irish language movement. In my point of view, is is right to support primarily indigenous languages beneath the main language spoken in the country.
In my point of view, it would be right to support broadly the languages of the Native Americans in the whole United States

On the other hand, some rules referring to Irish do not meet with the reality. But within the Gaeltacht and near it, everybody who seetles down or is working within or near the Gaeltacht.

Cú Giobach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Relative to anything of any significance, I indeed don't exist.

Population of Ireland = 4,000,000 (AND ME!!!!!!)

But I am saying that my argument is produced entirely by me. I take full credit for it. So in this context there is only me (the sole producer) and the argument (the product). In this context I am of the utmost importance.

If I say that this argument is the product of thousands of years of human learning and understanding, of which I am a mere dot, then in that particular context, I indeed, don't exist.

If we don't exist then there isn't a problem regarding the teaching, learning or use of the (non-existent) Irish language, end of (non-existent) thread.

Focalbhach

I'm loving the metaphysical turn this conversation has suddenly taken!

dubhthach

Leto wrote: »

I'm loving the metaphysical turn this conversation has suddenly taken!

Sure wasn't it metaphysical or more correctly Surreal from the beginning?

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

Has Polish Been traditionally used within this state?:rolleyes:

No but it's been used traditionally by people within the state.

deise go deo wrote: »

No It dident.
Here is some clarification for you.

European Charter on Minority Languages

The links broken.

deise go deo wrote: »

Gravy train Gaelgoirs? Name calling is for the primary school playground, not serious political discussion.:rolleyes:

Have you ever watched Primetime, Frontline or any so called "serious" political affairs programme? Name calling is the way those debates work.

deise go deo wrote: »

And you think we should be spending money on providing services for illegal immegrants over providing services in our own National Language? Nice for you, Think i'll pass.:rolleyes:

No, I was just pointing out how silly it is that we have to finance Irish in the first place. Let Irish speakers finance TG4 and Irish teachers wages.

deise go deo wrote: »

When did DeV use Terror to further his objectives? Link?:rolleyes:

Link provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_rising

Focalbhach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Have you ever watched Primetime, Frontline or any so called "serious" political affairs programme? Name calling is the way those debates work.

:eek:

Do you think that's productive?

Iwasfrozen

Leto wrote: »

:eek:

Do you think that's productive?

Probably not but it's true and this debate has been done to death.

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No but it's been used traditionally by people within the state.

Well thats just lovely for them, but it has no bearing on weather Polish is a Minority language in Ireland.

The links broken.

Second attempt.

If that dosent work just type European charter on Minority languages into Google and you should get it.

Have you ever watched Primetime, Frontline or any so called "serious" political affairs programme? Name calling is the way those debates work.

Oh come now, surly we should try to have a higher standard than those day care centers.

No, I was just pointing out how silly it is that we have to finance Irish in the first place. Let Irish speakers finance TG4 and Irish teachers wages.

Well thats just the thing, most people support the Irish language, they don't have a problem paying for its promotion. Anyway the tax take from Irish speakers dose cover the cost. again 4% of the population, less than 2% of the budget.

Link provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_rising

Care to show why that was a terrorist act? Was terror the aim? No. It was a rebellion not a terrorist act.

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

Well thats just lovely for them, but it has no bearing on weather Polish is a Minority language in Ireland.

Second attempt.

If that dosent work just type European charter on Minority languages into Google and you should get it.

Fair enough:

European Union wrote:

it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants;

But it also says this:

European Union wrote:

different from the official language(s) of that State;

deise go deo wrote: »

Well thats just the thing, most people support the Irish language, they don't have a problem paying for its promotion. Anyway the tax take from Irish speakers dose cover the cost. again 4% of the population, less than 2% of the budget.

Four percent of the population is 88,785 that's a generous guess on Irish speakers.

deise go deo wrote: »

Care to show why that was a terrorist act? Was terror the aim? No. It was a rebellion not a terrorist act.

A terrorist is a person who uses violence to force desired political change. Sounds like 1916 to me.

RandomName2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A terrorist is a person who uses violence to force desired political change. Sounds like 1916 to me.

Yes but, tbf, terrorism attempts to force desired political change through terror. 1916 was more of a coup d'etat.

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Four percent of the population is 88,785 that's a generous guess on Irish speakers.

Not really, 72,000 use Irish as their language of communication on a daily basis.

A further 100,000 use it on a weekly basis.

175000 use Irish weekly or more often. That is 4% of the population.

88,000 is just around 2% of the population.

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

Not really, 72,000 use Irish as their language of communication on a daily basis.

A further 100,000 use it on a weekly basis.

175000 use Irish weekly or more often. That is 4% of the population.

88,000 is just around 2% of the population.

So 100,00 use it on a weekly basis....

That means that their primary method of communication is English?

So... less than 2% of Irish citizens use Gaeilge as their primary method of communication?

Deise, you are doing your position no favours....

BlackBlade

ah it should be scrapped ta fuk!

Oasis_Dublin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A terrorist is a person who uses violence to force desired political change. Sounds like 1916 to me.

Terrorists who had the backing of the Irish people. Not like Loyalists up the north or even the IRA post 1962.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let Irish speakers finance TG4 and Irish teachers wages.

By your logic we should let only cancer sufferers pay for cancer wards in hospitals.

cyclopath2001

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

By your logic we should let only cancer sufferers pay for cancer wards in hospitals.

then by your logic, Irish language enthusiasts are diseased or disadvantaged?

Iwasfrozen

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Terrorists who had the backing of the Irish people. Not like Loyalists up the north or even the IRA post 1962.

They didn't have the support of the people of Dublin whose city center was destroyed and who threw cabbages at them after they surrendered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the easter rising happened and I'm glad Ireland is an independent country but let's not re-write history. The men of 1916 including Dev where terrorists and traitors.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

By your logic we should let only cancer sufferers pay for cancer wards in hospitals.

That's not using the same logic. Cancer patients are not able to look after themselves.

Dylabaloo

As for people saying its not a dead language as people still speak it, Latin is a dead language but there are still people capable in the world of reading it/Speaking it.

The Irish Language is getting no favors from the Government as stated before why should we learn abstract poems and stories like in English class, when I could strongly say all of my class cannot speak it and just about translate it. The Government should not treat Irish as if it is English, we do not use it daily, we cannot speak it.

I agree that in primary school we should solely learn how to speak it fluently instead of being handed "Mr.Skeleton the Irish boy" books and trying to get us to translate it to English while we still haven't grasped all of the English language yet.

deise go deo

Dylabaloo wrote: »

As for people saying its not a dead language as people still speak it, Latin is a dead language but there are still people capable in the world of reading it/Speaking it.

There are no Native Latin speakers, There are no Latin speaking Communities. That is why Latin is dead and Irish is not.