Is Irish a dead language?

deise go deo · 05-02-2011 5:45pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

A terror-ist is someone who uses terror to further their aims.

1916 was not about using terror as a means of furthering Irish independance. It was a straight out rebellion against a foreign government.

The Rebels dident have a mandate from the People, that dosent mean they dident have support. Unionists throwing stuff at prisoners when the British army was in full control of the streets is hardly evidience of the mood of the city.

Who exactly were they traitors to?

The Irish people? Who voted overwhelmingly in thier favor only 2 years later? I dont think so.

Britain? So What? The rebels dident owe Britain any loyalty.

This is getting way off topic, I would be happy to continue this in History if you like?

PMOOB · 05-02-2011 5:54pm

gbee wrote: »

Absolutely. Only English should be taught in school until the age of 12. At that level the English should be at what university level is today.

Then, once the student is fully aware of all the rules and their, they're, its it's etc and spelling and only then should a new language be introduced.

I personally believe that Irish is responsible for the low level of education in Ireland, in the languages as one rule in Irish is often the opposite in English ~ you know, once you get used to being confused as child, you'll never grow out of it as an adult.

Fully half baked or Raimeas

People learn languages by immersion in the talking of it - infants from parents being the typical example. To wait to try to learn a second language ubtil a child is 12 is a huge handicap. The best position wold be to have a child fluent in 2 languages by 12 (second level) Research shows that children fluent in 2 languages find it easier to leand further languages than children with only 1 language. Also remember that we are talking about LANGUAGES - spoken languages - the rules are irrelevant to most people and come later

RandomName2 · 05-02-2011 7:00pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

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

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

The Easter rebels certainly did NOT have the support of the people when they took up arms - unlike unionist politicians whose political stance have always maintained the support of their loyalist areas.

Cancer wards are paid for only by those susceptible to cancer - which just happens to be all of us.

That fact that almost 100% of Irish citizens learn the language and that only 4% ever really use itself speaks volumes.

Not that one would want any obvious division in society between those who speak it and don't. Who the hell wants Ireland to go like Belgium?

cyclopath2001 · 05-02-2011 7:46pm

PMOOB wrote: »

People learn languages by immersion in the talking of it - infants from parents being the typical example. To wait to try to learn a second language ubtil a child is 12 is a huge

indeed, this is why the Irish language strategy plans to have Irish language enthusiasts 'intervene' and 'advise' prospective parents on the benefits of 'bilingualism' (or more precisely, speaking Irish and English).

cyclopath2001 · 05-02-2011 7:48pm

deise go deo wrote: »

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

If you measure the vibrancy of Irish by the communities that use it, then, you will be sabotaging your own inflated figures for Irish language use.

Oasis_Dublin · 05-02-2011 8:57pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

That's outrageous. The Dublin wives who threw cabbage had husbands in Belgium. A few Anglo-Irish wives and brothers do not speak for the Irish public. Don't generalise, it's disgustingly ignorant. The first time the people got a chance to vote the IPP was destroyed.

I think de Valera was a traitor by the time of June 1921 to April of 1923 but to describe him as a traitor in 1916 is totally unfair.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

The Irish language is sick. It's part of what we are. The government should help to make it better.

Oasis_Dublin · 05-02-2011 9:00pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Easter rebels certainly did NOT have the support of the people when they took up arms - unlike unionist politicians whose political stance have always maintained the support of their loyalist areas.

Cancer wards are paid for only by those susceptible to cancer - which just happens to be all of us.
That fact that almost 100% of Irish citizens learn the language the fact that only 4% ever really use it speaks volumes.

Not that one would want any obvious division in society between those who speak it and don't. Who the hell wants Ireland to go like Belgium?

Unfortunately you've read the word "loyalist" and taken it to mean "Unionist"; there is a difference.

Not everyone has cancer. I can only hope that it doesn't affect us all.

It's not creating societal divisions now, why change it?

RandomName2 · 05-02-2011 9:30pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

That's outrageous. The Dublin wives who threw cabbage had husbands in Belgium. A few Anglo-Irish wives and brothers do not speak for the Irish public. Don't generalise, it's disgustingly ignorant.

Don't call the citizens of Dublin 'A few Anglo-Irish wives and brothers'. It's disgustingly ignorant.

The 1916 rebels were traitors to the democratic process of O'Donnell, Butt, Davitt, Parnell, and Redmond. They threw away the work of politicians claiming that blood-letting was the only way forward; that a call to arms during World War One in order to add to the problems of the Allies was a good idea, that the Home Rule Bill was of singular unimportance, that the Irish on the front were of no consideration.

The destruction of the IPP being representative of a general support of the Irish rebels, considering that the election was after the rising and executions, and after the First World War, and after the great unrest in Ireland after the First World War, is itself a serious generalisation. Many of the IPP's followers were dead (including Redmond's brother in the war and Redmond himself from heart failure soon after). Even then, if you look at the votes, the IPP still managed a respectable 220,000 votes, even if they lost almost all their seats.

I think Iwasfrozen went down a bit of a wrong path - but his sentiment was somewhat correct tying the armed revolution to the over-consideration of the Irish language in the formation of the Irish state (if that was what he was doing).

RandomName2 · 05-02-2011 9:34pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Unfortunately you've read the word "loyalist" and taken it to mean "Unionist"; there is a difference.

Not everyone has cancer. I can only hope that it doesn't affect us all.

It's not creating societal divisions now, why change it?

I understand the difference between the words loyalist and unionist. My use of the words was deliberate.

We all pay towards treatment for cancer because it is a concern that concerns us equally as a nation (although naturally, for some individuals, it is of greater and more immediate importance).

---
The Irish language is not creating societal divisions, at least, not at the moment. If 40% of the population spoke Irish instead of 4%, the situation might be quite different though. It would be a terrible thing to see Irish people divided about their choice of language, and for this to be used as a badge of identity (as it is to a large extent in Belgium).

Cú Giobach · 05-02-2011 11:25pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Irish language is not creating societal divisions, at least, not at the moment.

Sometimes I wonder about that.
There is at least one poster on this board who believes Irish speakers are ethnically different to English speakers and should live in their own

"Cultural quarters" where they can live

"an Authentic Gaelic way of life". Or to put it another way, They should be ghettoised. :rolleyes:

Focalbhach · 07-02-2011 1:05am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder about that.
There is at least one poster on this board who believes Irish speakers are ethnically different to English speakers and should live in their own "Cultural quarters" where they can live "an Authentic Gaelic way of life". Or to put it another way, They should be ghettoised. :rolleyes:

I think that's more a problem with that specific poster than a real social issue.

Oasis_Dublin · 07-02-2011 1:58pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder about that.
There is at least one poster on this board who believes Irish speakers are ethnically different to English speakers and should live in their own

"Cultural quarters" where they can live

"an Authentic Gaelic way of life". Or to put it another way, They should be ghettoised. :rolleyes:

That poster doesn't speak for the majority of those in favour of putting money into the Irish language.

Oasis_Dublin · 07-02-2011 2:04pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I understand the difference between the words loyalist and unionist. My use of the words was deliberate.

We all pay towards treatment for cancer because it is a concern that concerns us equally as a nation (although naturally, for some individuals, it is of greater and more immediate importance).

---
The Irish language is not creating societal divisions, at least, not at the moment. If 40% of the population spoke Irish instead of 4%, the situation might be quite different though. It would be a terrible thing to see Irish people divided about their choice of language, and for this to be used as a badge of identity (as it is to a large extent in Belgium).

"unlike unionist politicians whose political stance have always maintained the support of their loyalist areas."

If this is intentional, I would disagree with it. Loyalists are more akin to grenading funerals and calling for "ulster" independence than their Unionist neighbours.

Oasis_Dublin · 07-02-2011 2:10pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Don't call the citizens of Dublin 'A few Anglo-Irish wives and brothers'. It's disgustingly ignorant.

The 1916 rebels were traitors to the democratic process of O'Donnell, Butt, Davitt, Parnell, and Redmond. They threw away the work of politicians claiming that blood-letting was the only way forward; that a call to arms during World War One in order to add to the problems of the Allies was a good idea, that the Home Rule Bill was of singular unimportance, that the Irish on the front were of no consideration.

The destruction of the IPP being representative of a general support of the Irish rebels, considering that the election was after the rising and executions, and after the First World War, and after the great unrest in Ireland after the First World War, is itself a serious generalisation. Many of the IPP's followers were dead (including Redmond's brother in the war and Redmond himself from heart failure soon after). Even then, if you look at the votes, the IPP still managed a respectable 220,000 votes, even if they lost almost all their seats.

I think Iwasfrozen went down a bit of a wrong path - but his sentiment was somewhat correct tying the armed revolution to the over-consideration of the Irish language in the formation of the Irish state (if that was what he was doing).

The few Anglo-Irish wives and brothers I referred to were in reference to those who threw fruit and vegetables at the rebels. It was not a go at the citizens at Dublin. A 5th generation (at least) Dub like myself is not in the business of slighting the citizens of our nation's capital! Don't assume, its highly ignorant.

Traitors to the democratic process of the London based IPP members perhaps but certainly not traitors to the cause of Irish freedom.

LordSutch · 07-02-2011 2:36pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The few Anglo-Irish wives and brothers I referred to were in reference to those who threw fruit and vegetables at the rebels.

Dear Lord, this is rewriting history right in front of our eyes!

Just a few Anglo-Irish wives & brothers, I think it was more than that :rolleyes:

It is a fact that the 1916 rising was a very very unpopular event, and to say that just a "few Anglo-Irish" people took offence is to rewrite hisrory in the extreme, the rising was a stab in the back to all. Remember we were in the middle of the Great War when the rebels attacked.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Irish language, top marks to Mr Kenny with todays announcement re leaving Cert Irish.

deise go deo · 07-02-2011 2:44pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Irish language, top marks to Mr Kenny with todays announcement re leaving Cert Irish.

What announcment was this? Link?

LordSutch · 07-02-2011 2:49pm

I heard on the radio this morning (Pat Kenny) that Enda Kenny has announced that one of his parties main aims is to take away the compulsive nature of Irish in the leaving cert, he went on to say that although Enda is a keen Irish speaker, (and loves the language), many decades of compulsion had had a negative effect on the language, hence easing the mandatory nature for leaving cert students. (or words to that effect), I think 'Peig' was mentioned too . . .

Top marks to Enda I say.

deise go deo · 07-02-2011 2:54pm

LordSutch wrote: »

I heard on the radio this morning (Pat Kenny) that Enda Kenny has announced that one of his parties main aims is to take away the compulsive nature of Irish in the leaving cert, he went on to say that although Enda is a keen Irish speaker, (and loves the language), many decades of compulsion had had a negative effect on the language, hence easing the mandatory nature for leaving cert students. (or words to that effect), I think 'Peig' was mentioned too . . .

Top marks to Enda I say.

He is setting himself up for a fall, There will be people on the streets if he goes ahead with this poorly tought out policy.

Strange that he came out and said that too, I was talking to several FG people about it over the last few days(Including one of their senators), They all seamed to think that no decision had been made, that it would be a matter for discussion with the relevant parties after the election and that it was not a very important part of their plans in any case, Seams FG is in some confusion over what they want to do.

LordSutch · 07-02-2011 2:58pm

Well Pat Kenny did say that it would be a double edged sword, with many welcoming the FG announcement, whilst at the same time antagonising those who maintain that Irish must be retained as a compulsory leaving cert subject.

Oasis_Dublin · 07-02-2011 3:18pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Dear Lord, this is rewriting history right in front of our eyes!

Just a few Anglo-Irish wives & brothers, I think it was more than that :rolleyes:

It is a fact that the 1916 rising was a very very unpopular event, and to say that just a "few Anglo-Irish" people took offence is to rewrite hisrory in the extreme, the rising was a stab in the back to all. Remember we were in the middle of the Great War when the rebels attacked.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Irish language, top marks to Mr Kenny with todays announcement re leaving Cert Irish.

What are you basing any of that drivel on?

A fact? That is patent nonsense. Enrollment in the British army had fallen right off by 1916. Redmond's Woodenbridge speech was but a memory. Regional papers denounced the Rising but their sources were government sources, hence you had headlines about the Rising being a German conspiracy or a leftist revolt etc.

The only negative reply came from a small minority of the Dublin population. Your writing suggests that the whole of Dublin was out booing them, which is obviously totally untrue.

It has nothing to do with the Irish language but I was merely replying to nonsense that I read.

Kosseegan · 07-02-2011 3:20pm

deise go deo wrote: »

He is setting himself up for a fall, There will be people on the streets if he goes ahead with this poorly tought out policy.

Strange that he came out and said that too, I was talking to several FG people about it over the last few days(Including one of their senators), They all seamed to think that no decision had been made, that it would be a matter for discussion with the relevant parties after the election and that it was not a very important part of their plans in any case, Seams FG is in some confusion over what they want to do.

It was a finer Gael led government which abolished the compulsory Irish requirement in the Public Service in the 1970's. From a situation where every civil and public servant had a modicum of Irish, in a generation the situation has arisen where only a small percentage have. Ther new policy will mean that Irish will become a minority leaving Cert subject thrown in at the end of the LC along with Physics and Hebrew.

deise go deo · 07-02-2011 3:24pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

It was a finer Gael led government which abolished the compulsory Irish requirement in the Public Service in the 1970's. From a situation where every civil and public servant had a modicum of Irish, in a generation the situation has arisen where only a small percentage have. Ther new policy will mean that Irish will become a minority leaving Cert subject thrown in at the end of the LC along with Physics and Hebrew.

I'm not worried really, There is plenty of support for Irish remaining compulsory(Especially amongst younger people), Anyway, I dont think FG will form a majority government and Labour have already come out against this policy.

LordSutch · 07-02-2011 3:25pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

What are you basing any of that drivel on?

The only negative reply came from a small minority of the Dublin population. Your writing suggests that the whole of Dublin was out booing them, which is obviously totally untrue.

You are talking through dirty Republican rose rinted spectacles me thinks

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the Irish language but I was merely replying to nonsense that I read.

Exacta-mondo, and historical Republican fiction must be put down.

You should visit Flanders some time, a very sobering trip, specially with soo many (tens of thousands) of Irish names on the memorials.

Getting back to Enda's 'leaving cert Irish' peoposals, any thoughts ?

SkepticOne · 07-02-2011 3:36pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Well Pat Kenny did say that it would be a double edged sword, with many welcoming the FG announcement, whilst at the same time antagonising those who maintain that Irish must be retained as a compulsory leaving cert subject.

My guess is that the pro-compulsion crowed, though vocal, are very small in number.

deise go deo · 07-02-2011 3:40pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Getting back to Enda's 'leaving cert Irish' peoposals, any thoughts ?

Well, Enda is suggesting that his Idea will promote the Language, This is what I have a problem with, This is simply not true, There is no evidience that this will happen but plenty to suggest it wont.

Some people dont care if Irish is lost as a living language, they dont want it to be promoted, Many of those people support Endas proposal because they can see the simple fact that removing Irish from the Core of the Education system will be bad for the language, Thats fair enough, Thats what they want and they are honest enough to admit it.
But Enda is basicly telling Lies about the effect his proposal will have.

For those of you who actually believe that Making Irish optional will benifit the language, Where is the Evidience? Why dose Every Irish language organisation disagree with it?

deise go deo · 07-02-2011 3:45pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

My guess is that the pro-compulsion crowed, though vocal, are very small in number.

Well back in 2005, when Enda first came out with this idea the population were effectivley split on the Issue.

Public is Devided

I have heard that a more recent poll has shown 65% in favor of Irish remaining compulsory. If I can find it I will put up a link.

The interesting thing about these polls however is that younger people are more in favor of compulsion. This can be explained by better teaching methods In my opinion, People over 35 had to deal with Peig and literaly having the language beaten into them.
Since then things have changed and it seams attuides have too.

Oasis_Dublin · 07-02-2011 3:54pm

LordSutch wrote: »

You are talking through dirty Republican rose rinted spectacles me thinks

Exacta-mondo, and historical Republican fiction must be put down.

You should visit Flanders some time, a very sobering trip, specially with soo many (tens of thousands) of Irish names on the memorials.

Getting back to Enda's 'leaving cert Irish' peoposals, any thoughts ?

As soon as you provide me with evidence I'll gladly withdraw my factual statement (this is rhetorical of course, because you are wrong).

As some from a family who fought on the part of Britain in WWII (two grand-uncles) I would advise you to cop on. You don't know what you are talking about.

Kenny's idea is bad. It needs to be reformed.

LordSutch · 07-02-2011 4:15pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

As soon as you provide me with evidence I'll gladly withdraw my factual statement (this is rhetorical of course, because you are wrong).

As some from a family who fought on the part of Britain in WWII (two grand-uncles) I would advise you to cop on. You don't know what you are talking about.

From Wiki; At first, many member s of the Dublin public were simply bewildered by the outbreak of the Rising.[85] James Stephens, who was in Dublin during the week, thought, "None of these people were prepared for Insurrection. The thing had been sprung on them so suddenly they were unable to take sides".[86]

There was considerable hostility towards the Volunteers in some parts of the city. When occupying positions in the South Dublin Union and Jacobs factory, the rebels got involved in physical confrontations with civilians trying to prevent them from taking over the buildings. The Volunteers' shooting and clubbing of civilians made them extremely unpopular in these localities.[87] There was outright hostility to the Volunteers from the "separation women", (so-called because they were paid "Separation Money" by the British government) who had husbands and son fighting in the British Army in World War I, and among unionists.[88] Supporters of the Irish Parliamentary Party also felt the rebellion was a betrayal of their party.[89]

Finally, the fact that the Rising had caused a great deal of death and destruction also contributed towards antagonism towards the rebels. After the surrender, the Volunteers were hissed at, pelted with refuse, and denounced as 'murderers' and 'starvers of the people'.[90] Volunteer Robert Holland for example remembered being abused by people he knew as he was being marched into captivity and said the British troops saved them from being manhandled by the crowds.[91]

No mention of the Irish language though, now lets get back on topic 'please'! and how did the rising get into this thread?

Godge · 07-02-2011 6:19pm

deise go deo wrote: »

I'm not worried really, There is plenty of support for Irish remaining compulsory(Especially amongst younger people), Anyway, I dont think FG will form a majority government and Labour have already come out against this policy.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/EDJ/2010/12/02/00004.asp

"Deputy Ruairí Quinn:

I thank the delegates for their papers. There is a great deal of meat in them and I hope we have the capacity to digest it all and get back to them.
<A name=N146>This country has been put into receivership. I ask the delegates to look at the correspondence in today’s newspapers and try to think how they would answer the following three questions in six months. With 3,200 primary schools, why is it that we have more primary schools per pupil than any other country in the OECD? Why is it that the biggest single policy failure in this State since 1922 has been the teaching of the Irish language? Why does the Book of Estimates not tell us how much it costs each year? How much time do we spend teaching faith formation in our primary schools? Why do we have five primary school colleges that are controlled by religious orders? Dr. Joseph Ryan said that the kid starting school today will work until 2070 and I agree with the remarks of Mr. Mike Jennings. However, we have changed. We are now in receivership and must give a quarterly report to the IMF and Brussels. Whoever comes back after the general election must ask these questions and I hope we have some answers."

Official policy might say one thing but the quote above is not the first or the last time I have heard Ruairi Quinn (Labour spokesperson on education) question the way in which Irish has been taught. That includes the compulsory nature of the subject. I cannot find the exact quote I am looking for but I would not be so sure about Labour's commitment to compulsory Irish.

Godge · 07-02-2011 6:24pm

deise go deo wrote: »

He is setting himself up for a fall, There will be people on the streets if he goes ahead with this poorly tought out policy.

Laughable. People weren't out on the streets when the bank guarantee bankrupted the country. Students couldn't even muster up more than one street march against the rise in college fees. The people might be out on the streets of Barna or Baile an Fheirtearaigh but I don't think too many will notice. Could see Dev Og elected again though, but he needs the votes after falling asleep at the FF manifesto launch this morning.

Is Irish a dead language?

Comments