Is Irish a dead language?

Oasis_Dublin

The money generated by tax is not supposed to be spent purely on those services which people who provide the tax desire. I don't really approve of money being given to the arts council, I've no desire for drama productions to be produced at a cost to the exchequer. I deal with it though. I want tax payers money to be spent promoting the language. Why is my opinion, or the opinion of anyone who disagrees with the anti-Irish brigade, less important?

Godge

deise go deo wrote: »

This state has a policy of Bilingualism, That means that it provides its services in both Official languages. The reason it dose this is to support the growth of a bilingual population, this is both of benifit to the state and the individuals involved.

The state wants to promote the Irish language, They do this by useing it.
Very few people have a problem with that.

As for your claim of a huge waste of money, Can you please provide us with the figures you are basing this on?
Many countries in Europe are bilingual, it is a simple fact of life for them and shock of all, it is not a financial burden on them, It is just the way things are.

Irish is growing in This country. You will just have to get used to that.

Ha Ha! I see the greatest irony in the biggest victory of the Irish language lobby becoming their greatest defeat.

Securing EU status and the Official Languages Act were meant to be the great victories. However, both have meant that instead of completing H.Dips, Irish language graduates have gone off into translation studies.

What does that mean? future generations of kids will not have qualfiied Irish teachers teaching them. As a result they will have less Irish. A vicious circle will ensue with a grater proportion of Irish qualified people going into translation of documents that nobody will ever read (unless they are desperate insomniacs) while the teaching of the language will decline despite the many advances and radical changes in curriculum over the last 25 years.

Godge

deise go deo wrote: »

The figure from 06 has fallen quite a bit by now, Some Irish language bodies have had their funding cut seveerly, Foras na Gaeilge for Example is down by around 40%.


Anyway. The total for Irish in 2006 was 1.1billion. Or to put that in perspective, about the same as the DF costs.
Just under 2% of the budget.

And hopefully the trend will continue. Better the money be spent on health or social welfare.

If not, the Ulster Scots agency could do with some money. Either that, or funding should be given to a new agency set up to abolish the Irish language which is supported by a significant percentage of the population as mentioned by deise about three pages ago.

deise go deo

Godge wrote: »

And hopefully the trend will continue. Better the money be spent on health or social welfare.

If not, the Ulster Scots agency could do with some money. Either that, or funding should be given to a new agency set up to abolish the Irish language which is supported by a significant percentage of the population as mentioned by deise about three pages ago.

I don't think that is a very accurate description of what I said, There is no significant % of the population in favor of abolishing the Irish language.:rolleyes:


Anyway, Back in reality, Enda's Policy is loosing FG votes, I hope he cops on soon and puts in place a reasonable and evidence based policy soon.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

and by your own account, Use Of Irish Is Increasing....maybe if we slash Irish funding more, this will will lead to More People Speaking Irish?

Is this crap really the best you can come up with? Your really just letting your self down.:(:rolleyes:

RandomName2

I just thought of something!

The same amount of money is spent on teaching English in schools as Irish (well, a little bit more on Irish due to oral and aural exams ans extra qualifications needed in Irish but we'll leave that aside)

Now the standard of some peoples' English could do with significant improvement, and the primary school curriculum doesn't include grammar - but which, would you say, is better value for money?

Focalbhach

RandomName2 wrote: »

Now the standard of some peoples' English could do with significant improvement, and the primary school curriculum doesn't include grammar - but which, would you say, is better value for money?

Possibly number 1, certainly not 2, most probably 3.

RandomName2

Leto wrote: »

Possibly number 1, certainly not 2, most probably 3.

Your irony radar is a bit off.

I'm being serious. Although most peoples' capacity to English stems from the home - it nevertheless is clear that euro-for-euro that Irish is not good value.

There are only two questions: would a better syllabus improve the situation for Irish, and would cutting English spending have any real detrimental effect?

For the former, probably yes. And probably yes for the former as well. In reality there is no terrible impact for Ireland that so few have a good grasp of Gaeilge, the same could not be said for English. English teaching could, perhaps be improved for its value, but that notwithstanding, it clearly is better value for money by a staggering margin.

Wibbs

deise go deo wrote: »

I don't think that is a very accurate description of what I said, There is no significant % of the population in favor of abolishing the Irish language.:rolleyes:

But since no significant % seem to be making a daily effort to speak the language outside small rural enclaves and education it doesn't seem to matter. Loads of lip service, all as Bearla.

deise go deo

Wibbs wrote: »

But since no significant % seem to be making a daily effort to speak the language outside small rural enclaves and education it doesn't seem to matter. Loads of lip service, all as Bearla.

Do you know how hard it is to speak Irish daily outside the Gaelthacht? People can know each other for years and not realize that they can both speak Irish.
Tír gan Deis, Tír gan Theanga.
Fortunately the opportunities to use Irish are growing, and the language is too.

72,000 people speak Irish on a daily basis. Of them 18,000 are in school.(They speak In and out side the education system) This is a highly encouraging statistic, it shows that Irish speaking is strong amongst the younger generation.
A language is only really in trouble when its population of speakers is ageing, In the case of Irish it is most popular with young people. The continued growth of the Gaelscoil/Gaelcholaiste movement will see this popularity translated into more and more fluent Irish speakers.

Focalbhach

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm being serious. Although most peoples' capacity to English stems from the home - it nevertheless is clear that euro-for-euro that Irish is not good value.

... it clearly is better value for money by a staggering margin.

English is the first language of most pupils in Irish schools. Irish teaching is aimed (poorly) at second-language learning. You're talking about two completely different aims and approaches as if they're directly comparable. I'm not sure on what basis you're making this (superficial, as far as I can see) 'value' comparison.

RandomName2

Leto wrote: »

English is the first language of most pupils in Irish schools. Irish teaching is aimed (poorly) at second-language learning. You're talking about two completely different aims and approaches as if they're directly comparable. I'm not sure on what basis you're making this (superficial, as far as I can see) 'value' comparison.

Okay - but if the teaching of Irish is coming from the position of it being the equivalent to a foreign language, then it is an almost entirely pointless exercise.

Foreign language teaching is supposed to be almost entirely utilitarian in nature. If it didn't have a practical function it wouldn't be taught. That's why French, German and Spanish are the foreign languages of choice in secondary schools - because they are the most spoken languages after English in the Western world.

(Although in reality there would be more practical application for C++ than German tbh)

deise go deo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay - but if the teaching of Irish is coming from the position of it being the equivalent of a foreign language, then it is an almost entirely pointless exercise.

Foreign language teaching is supposed to be almost entirely utilitarian in nature. If it didn't have a practical function it wouldn't be taught. That's why French, German and Spanish are the foreign languages of choice in secondary schools - because they are the most spoken languages after English in the Western world.

(Although in reality there would be more practical application for C++ than German tbh)

That's not true, teaching a second language(In most country's that happens to be a foreign language) is beneficial in and of its self. Language learning has clear educational benefit, that is why they are taught.

Personal Benefits

Why, How and when

Both of these links show clearly that the reasons to learn a second language go's beyond a narrow utilitarian purpose.

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

That's not true, teaching a second language(In most country's that happens to be a foreign language) is beneficial in and of its self. Language learning has clear educational benefit, that is why they are taught.

Personal Benefits

Why, How and when

Both of these links show clearly that the reasons to learn a second language go's beyond a narrow utilitarian purpose.

The personal benefits link mostly is focused on the utilitarian aspect of being able to speak a language where the mutual medium will not be English.

Other than that, in terms of intellectual stimuli and culture, it would be served better through ancient greek (according to the arguments put forward within the link).

The other link touches upon the aspect of total immersion - which is something that I am against for much (although by no means entirely) the same reason I am against faith schools - it creates barriers where they need not be. Whilst a total immersion Chinese school would be of more practical benefit than a total immersion Irish school, it would be an... unwelcome development.

deise go deo

RandomName2 wrote: »

The other link touches upon the aspect of total immersion - which is something that I am against for much (although by no means entirely) the same reason I am against faith schools - it creates barriers where they need not be. Whilst a total immersion Chinese school would be of more practical benefit than a total immersion Irish school, it would be an... unwelcome development.

An unwelcome development? Its a bit late for that, They have developed. That is what the gaelscoil movement is.

They have been shown to be very successful, Second language Immersion is a very good form of education.

What barriers do they create?

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Tír gan Deis, Tír gan Theanga.

Explain please.

Tapes

Its time to get real irish a useless language, putting money into it is as good as putting money into anglo irish bank. It should be fully abolished in school and replaced with german and spanish. Im sick of people saying its a part of our culture, that was 100s of years ago, there are many other things that were part of our culture 100s of years ago that we wouldnt dream about bringing back now.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Explain please.

Now you will know who to ask next time.

deise go deo

Tapes wrote: »

Its time to get real irish a useless language, putting money into it is as good as putting money into anglo irish bank. It should be fully abolished in school and replaced with german and spanish. Im sick of people saying its a part of our culture, that was 100s of years ago, there are many other things that were part of our culture 100s of years ago that we wouldnt dream about bringing back now.

Ya, But that would require a level of public support for destroying the national language that just dosent exist.

MysticalRain

If the public really supported the language, they would be speaking it.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Now you will know who to ask next time.

Not good enough. Explain here, in English what it means and why you said it.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Not good enough. Explain here, in English what it means and why you said it.

I provided A translation, Thats all I am required to do.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I provided A translation, Thats all I am required to do.

I cannot see any translation here in this thread.

What does it mean, and why did you say it?

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I cannot see any translation here in this thread.

What does it mean, and why did you say it?

Sorry, I provided a translation, How I provide a translation is entirly up to me. Im sure you will work out what I said If you try.;)

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Sorry, I provided a translation, How I provide a translation is entirly up to me. Im sure you will work out what I said If you try.;)

Why so evasive?

Why did you say it?

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why so evasive?

Why did you say it?

Why so persistent? Why are you demanding a second translation?

Nip The Tip

Ciaran_B wrote: »

Is Irish a dead language?

Yes.

/end discussion

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Why so persistent? Why are you demanding a second translation?

It appears to be a statement grossly insulting to the majority population of this country.

But, I have not seen any translation by you and in this thread, so I cannot be sure of what you meant. Nor have I seen any explanation of why you would have said it.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It appears to be a statement grossly insulting to the majority population of this country.

Its not.;)

Cyclopath, I dont have to explain what I said to you, so get over it.

Melodeon

According to the translation 'provided', it's some sort of nonsensical gibberish, and may thus be safely ignored, I'd suspect:

Irish to English translation
Country without opportunity, without Language Country