How to revive the Irish language.

Wibbs · 09-05-2012 10:14pm

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I studied Latin in college but I wasn't taught to speak it, just read and write it. Where did she study it? Was it in Italy?

Oh yea, she was Milanese born and bred. Big into languages. Great facility for them too. She was fascinated by Irish. Indeed my interest was peaked about old Irish through her.

Enkidu wrote: »

I think it is probably one of two things:
1. A learner over shooting the mark (they remember Irish has certain sounds and accidentally over do them)
2. Certain dialects can be quite harsh on certain sounds. I'll listen out and see if I catch this. (I've also found out more about Irish in America and then there is slowburner's questions, which I found the answers too, but haven't written a post on yet, I should start a "Stuff Enkidu said he'd find" thread ).

There'll be a fair few waiting with bated breath. Get a wriggle on for feck sake.

Enkidu wrote: »

Interestingly enough we have reconstructed Jesus' dialect of Aramaic:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/mark_chapter_1_aramaic_audio.html

Also there is a blog by a guy here:
http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.com/
Who's an expert in the dialect (and Aramaic in general), he's even raising his daughter in the dialect (!!)

Many years ago I met a Palestinian chap whose background was Aramaic speaking. He recited the Our Father/Lord's prayer in it and it rhymed which was fascinating to me, cos it really doesn't in English. According to him it doesn't rhyme in Hebrew either(though he may have been thinking of modern Hebrew). Which suggests it was likely straight from the horses mouth or close enough. Nice sounding language too.

This is very true, Ostler explores these issues much better than I can explain, but in essence your point is probably right. English + Others (5-7 languages) will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future, but it may no longer be necessary to learn them due to Machine Translation as Iwasfrozen has said. English will probably function as a lingua franca for longer than typical since it has become culturally detached as you said. What I find really interesting though is that Ostler and other linguists suspect English will be a family of related languages by the 2200s.

Interesting indeed. Though if we hit this vaunted singularity in the interim all bets are off.

The notion of language itself may change in such a scenario. We may no longer require that interface between minds that language provides. A turbo charged version of non native english speakers on forums today. Language is in essence the externalised imagery of the internal mind made flesh. If we do get to a stage where that interface is more direct language could become very interesting indeed.

deise go deo wrote: »

Two things, first of all, the point about machine translation was me, and secondly English can only be siad to be culturally detached in the West. In the Middle East and Far East it is the language of an outside culture.

It's the language of an "outside culture" for much of the west too. You would probably describe it as such in the Irish example, yet we have made it our own and speaking as an Irishman we improved the bugger while doing so. To be fair I'll give the English Liam Shakespeare, but I wouldn't be shocked to find his ma didn't have an affair with the local Paddy milkman.

To any English folks reading, ye can have Wordsworth and Milton. And Ben Johnson. That lot are enough to be getting on with anyway.

deise go deo · 09-05-2012 10:38pm

Wibbs wrote: »

It's the language of an "outside culture" for much of the west too. You would probably describe it as such in the Irish example, yet we have made it our own and speaking as an Irishman we improved the bugger while doing so.

There is a difference, while English is not their native language, it is a language of Western culture which they are part of, in the west English can be described as being culturally detached, to the Middle or Far East however it can not be said to be culturally detached as it is attached to Western culture which is external to them.

In the same way French could be said to be culturally detached in much of the former French Empire, it is still used in many African Countries for official porposes as a neutral compromise between ethnic groups with their own native languages.

dpe · 09-05-2012 10:46pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Hugely different. There was no single cohesive celtic language spoken in England before or the during the romans being there up until English gained prominence.

Irish was spoken by the majority here for all our recorded history for over a 1000 years and is still spoken by a sizable yet still small minority here.

Absolutely untrue, the Brythonic Celtic spoken by the Britons south of the wall was as mutually intelligible as the various dialects spoken in Ireland, certainly by the time the Romans left. And even if it wasn't the case, it doesn't matter; you could just as easily say native languages as native language. Don't like the British example? OK, is Coptic Egyptian the native language of Egypt? The parallels with the replacement of Irish with English and Coptic with Egyptian Arabic are pretty similar, and yet I don't think anyone would seriously claim Coptic as the native language.

And what on Earth is a sizeable yet small minority? Its one or the other.

Interest in History · 10-05-2012 5:29am

ViveLaVie wrote: »

.....A national language may represent the national identity of a nation or country. ....Therefore, Irish is a national language of Ireland ......

From E.F. O'Doherty, psychologist

"Language as a symbol of independence or nationality is a valuable thing. But there is a danger about all symbols, and especially about social symbols, which is vital to an understanding of human society. It is the danger (of which examples are legion) that the symbol may itself take presedence over the thing symbolised. This is what happens in the idiosyncratic use of individual words by the schizophrenic. Its analogue in society is the elevation of the symbol above other social values."

Interest in History · 10-05-2012 5:36am

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It is the native language of all Irish people. It may not be the chosen language of everybody, it may not be the first language of everybody, but it is the native language of Ireland and as such the Irish people.

I think that "native language" is too fluid a term to be useful for analysis. In terms of Ireland's liguistic reality it would be more useful to work with the term "mother tongue" and apply it to the population.

Enkidu · 10-05-2012 9:13am

deise go deo wrote: »

Two things, first of all, the point about machine translation was me,

Apologies, post corrected.

and secondly English can only be siad to be culturally detached in the West. In the Middle East and Far East it is the language of an outside culture

Indeed, however that is not the argument. Arabic is expected to remain strong in the Middle East, English seems to be making no in roads against it, as such it is one of the 5-7 additional strong languages. Rather what is being said that in the areas where English has become dominant and a major Lingua Franca, it is seen as less attached to a specific culture than most previous Lingua Francas, which may help it to last some amount longer.

Enkidu · 10-05-2012 9:15am

dpe wrote: »

Absolutely untrue, the Brythonic Celtic spoken by the Britons south of the wall was as mutually intelligible as the various dialects spoken in Ireland, certainly by the time the Romans left.

For historical accuracy I should say that the Brythonic dialects were mutually intelligible even at the time the Romans left.

deise go deo · 10-05-2012 9:44am

Enkidu wrote: »

Apologies, post corrected.

Indeed, however that is not the argument. Arabic is expected to remain strong in the Middle East, English seems to be making no in roads against it, as such it is one of the 5-7 additional strong languages. Rather what is being said that in the areas where English has become dominant and a major Lingua Franca, it is seen as less attached to a specific culture than most previous Lingua Francas, which may help it to last some amount longer.

Was the Fall of Latin as a Lingua Franca not due more to the encrochment of other Linguistic groups in the terrotory's where it had been the Dominant Language, Saxons in England, Franks over the Northern part of the Continent, The Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Italy and Spain? More so than it not being seen as sufficiently culturally detached amongst the population where it had served as a Lingua Franca.

Perhaps there are other examples I am not aware of where a Lingua Franca was rejected because it was seen as overly culturally attached by those who previously used it.

Cú Giobach · 10-05-2012 9:46am

Wibbs wrote: »

With some. You may notice I broke the different types up. As the Sesame Street song went "one of these things is not like the other". How in gods name is it bigotry? The usual emotive stuff from the lobby and it makes little sense. Wut?

WTF is it with this "lobby" crap?
The nearest thing to a "lobby" here are the people who want to change the status quo. People who claim to like the language are not a ****ing "lobby", no more than people who like soccer and express that opinion are a "lobby". :rolleyes:

You want to change things the majority don't, so you are the special interest minority lobby, get it?

dpe · 10-05-2012 10:10am

Enkidu wrote: »

Apologies, post corrected.

Indeed, however that is not the argument. Arabic is expected to remain strong in the Middle East, English seems to be making no in roads against it, as such it is one of the 5-7 additional strong languages. Rather what is being said that in the areas where English has become dominant and a major Lingua Franca, it is seen as less attached to a specific culture than most previous Lingua Francas, which may help it to last some amount longer.

Not sure about that, English is the most widely spoken second language in large parts of the middle east. In fact its easier to list the exceptions (Iran, Syria, Lebanon - although here English is replacing French, Yemen), because everywhere else English is so prevalent. Arabic certainly won't be replaced simply because of its intrinsic religous significance (unless Islam gets its own version of the Reformation), but for most educated Arabs (and Pakistanis, and Egytians etc.) English is pretty much the only choice for a second language right now.

It'll be interesting to see if Mandarin makes inroads in the long-term, but I always get this weird feeling from Chinese people that they'd prefer it foreigners didn't try to learn their language.

Wibbs · 10-05-2012 10:37am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

WTF is it with this "lobby" crap?
The nearest thing to a "lobby" here are the people who want to change the status quo. People who claim to like the language are not a ****ing "lobby", no more than people who like soccer and express that opinion are a "lobby". :rolleyes:

I'm talking about the very vocal Irish lobby who regularly pop up all over the place. You can hardly claim they don't exist. Certainly not by comparison to any anti Irish language lobby that may exist.

You want to change things the majority don't, so you are the special interest minority lobby, get it?

The "majority" have voted with their lips, most of all the majority have said "meh", hence we're having this conversation as Bearla. No special interest group required.

dpe wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if Mandarin makes inroads in the long-term, but I always get this weird feeling from Chinese people that they'd prefer it foreigners didn't try to learn their language.

It might D, but I doubt it. Too complex and too tonal in nature. Hard to learn for people from a non tonal language background. Something like English or Spanish is "easier" to learn and be understood even if you get some of the vowel sounds arseways. DgD's examples of different sounding English speakers a good example. They may find it hard work but they'll get the gist of each other, whereas a wrong vowel sound in Mandarin could change the whole meaning of a sentence.

Enkidu · 10-05-2012 10:49am

dpe wrote: »

Not sure about that, English is the most widely spoken second language in large parts of the middle east.

No it isn't. MSA = Modern Standard Arabic is the most widely spoken second language in the Middle East and the dominant Lingua Franca of the region. There is also very little evidence that English is putting any pressure on it*. Some people in the region may add English as a third language, but MSA is the priority. French and English would be roughly equal in the Middle East today. (Most educated Lebanese prefer to speak French to Arabs from other countries instead of MSA for example.)

*Studies available if requested.

Cú Giobach · 10-05-2012 11:00am

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm talking about the very vocal Irish lobby who regularly pop up all over the place. You can hardly claim they don't exist. Certainly not by comparison to any anti Irish language lobby that may exist.

You constantly refer to "the Irish language lobby" here in AH, when it is the likes of yourself who are doing the lobbying. You have included me in this numerous times, what exactly am I lobbying for? It's clear what you're lobbying for.
Who would more correctly be called a lobby, a group wishing to keep the status quo as per the wishes of the majority, or a minority trying to change it?

The "majority" have voted with their lips, most of all the majority have said "meh", hence we're having this conversation as Bearla. No special interest group required.

We're having this conversation as Bearla because this is an English language forum, would you care to meet me elsewhere and continue in Irish or maybe even in Welsh or German?

golden lane · 10-05-2012 11:07am

if this thread was in irish..........how many would be interested enough to post......

or for that matter...could.....

well, i couldn't........have i not got a heritage..........am i not irish.........

what on earth am i then.....................

my parents and grandparents spoke english.........is that my heritage.........

am i a second class citizen.............

Cú Giobach · 10-05-2012 11:23am

golden lane wrote: »

if this thread was in irish..........how many would be interested enough to post......

or for that matter...could.....

well, i couldn't........have i not got a heritage..........am i not irish.........

what on earth am i then.....................

my parents and grandparents spoke english.........is that my heritage.........

am i a second class citizen.............

Is Newgrange part of your heritage? I guess not, since neither you parents nor grandparents built it.

languagenerd · 10-05-2012 12:51pm

This thread has managed the impressive feat of going around in circles while still managing to branch off on a mad tangent!

I bet the OP didn't expect it to a) last this long or b)end up like this :P

The amount of hatred for Irish is pretty sad tbh, but I can see both sides' points. I don't think either group is gonna change their opinion any time soon.

I'm out.

ViveLaVie · 10-05-2012 2:20pm

Interest in History wrote: »

From E.F. O'Doherty, psychologist

"Language as a symbol of independence or nationality is a valuable thing. But there is a danger about all symbols, and especially about social symbols, which is vital to an understanding of human society. It is the danger (of which examples are legion) that the symbol may itself take presedence over the thing symbolised. This is what happens in the idiosyncratic use of individual words by the schizophrenic. Its analogue in society is the elevation of the symbol above other social values."

Hmm very interesting point you make here. However, I'm not necessarily sure that the concept of Irish as the national language and therefore a symbol of Irishness has taken precedence over the language or the Irish nationality itself. As evident even on this thread, an awful lot of people contend that it is our national language and even go so far as to say it should be wiped out and forgotten about. I personally think it's important to keep it alive as a part of our cultural heritage but I seem to be in a minority here. As other people have stated, it doesn't make you more Irish to be able to speak it, or less Irish to struggle with it. So I don't think we've quite reached that point yet.

Wibbs · 10-05-2012 3:31pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You constantly refer to "the Irish language lobby" here in AH, when it is the likes of yourself who are doing the lobbying. You have included me in this numerous times, what exactly am I lobbying for? It's clear what you're lobbying for.

Really pray tell what am I lobbying for? This should be good. If you say the extinction of Irish, try again as you would be wrong.

Who would more correctly be called a lobby, a group wishing to keep the status quo as per the wishes of the majority, or a minority trying to change it?

Show me one organisation for the promotion of the removal of Irish in this country. Ranged against that are many pro Irish organisations, many funded with public money along various Irish language action groups and vested interests that come out of the woodwork when subjects like the debate on compulsion comes up. The wishes of the majority you refer to is a red herring. Just like the oft quoted census stats that claim a majority can use the language to some degree. When such things actually affect people on the round that support tends to dry up as witnessed in the case of the Dingle/Daingean example.

We're having this conversation as Bearla because this is an English language forum, would you care to meet me elsewhere and continue in Irish or maybe even in Welsh or German?

The country/culture is a majority english language one. This site merely reflects that. How are the purely Irish websites and language forums doing out there?

Is Newgrange part of your heritage? I guess not, since neither you parents nor grandparents built it.

Indeed not, but where do you hear suggestions that we should be building drystone corbeled roofs in suburbia. Newgrange is a (wonderful) museum piece. A different thing entirely. If Irish went that way it would be a real shame, but it's not.

Wibbs · 10-05-2012 3:37pm

ViveLaVie wrote: »

As other people have stated, it doesn't make you more Irish to be able to speak it, or less Irish to struggle with it.

True but are you not leaving out a large chunk of Irish people out of those two. What about a third group of Irish people, who don't want to struggle with it at all and don't see it as relevant to them, but who don't want to see it go from those who wish to speak it?

golden lane · 10-05-2012 3:39pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Is Newgrange part of your heritage? I guess not, since neither you parents nor grandparents built it.

growing up in dublin in the forties and fifties......we could not afford a heritage..........

maybe my ancestors buit it........

what i do know....is the irish language, did me no good whatsoever....

and until i see it is gainful to the standard of living for now and the future, i believe it will do nobody else good..........

ps still got cane marks on my hand........for not saying...gurra morra gut........

Interest in History · 10-05-2012 4:11pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Really pray tell what am I lobbying for? This should be good.
.

Does this help?

Oxford English Dictionary: To lobby (trans): To influence members of a house of legislature in the exercise of their functions....

The Revival lobby does this to get resources for their programmes and organisations. I don't think that there is any anti-Revival lobby. The contrary impulse in society (that of NOT reviving Irish) is effected by structured evasion rather than by structured lobbying. The Language Freedom Movement was a real lobby, though that was in the early 1970's, forty years ago.

ViveLaVie · 10-05-2012 5:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

True but are you not leaving out a large chunk of Irish people out of those two. What about a third group of Irish people, who don't want to struggle with it at all and don't see it as relevant to them, but who don't want to see it go from those who wish to speak it?

By struggle I meant cannot speak it or don't want to speak it. I see the third group of people included under this.

dmcronin · 10-05-2012 5:10pm

I think the Irish language should be revived by banning it.
Remove all Irish translations from signage etc.
No Irish language translations of govt docs.

We'll save a fortune.

Drive it underground, there will spring up a network of Gaelgoir Craichouses all over the country, illegal Irish-English dictionaries and bootleg copies of Peig being sold on the black market.

Everyone wins

Cú Giobach · 10-05-2012 6:28pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Really pray tell what am I lobbying for? This should be good.

How about the removal of compulsion in school, is that good?

If you say the extinction of Irish, try again as you would be wrong.

:rolleyes: Why would I want to say that.

Show me one organisation for the promotion of the removal of Irish in this country.
Ranged against that are many pro Irish organisations, many funded with public money along various Irish language action groups and vested interests that come out of the woodwork when subjects like the debate on compulsion comes up.

Nothing there about my point. People who like and/or defend the Irish language here in AH are not "lobbyists" and the term would be better applied to those who want to change the status quo, so why do you refer to many (me included) as such?

The wishes of the majority you refer to is a red herring. Just like the oft quoted census stats that claim a majority can use the language to some degree. When such things actually affect people on the round that support tends to dry up as witnessed in the case of the Dingle/Daingean example.

Do you really believe you know what people want, better than they do themselves?

The country/culture is a majority english language one. This site merely reflects that.

Why thank you for stating the bleeding obvious. Any more not so startling facts?

How are the purely Irish websites and language forums doing out there?

I have no idea.

Indeed not, but where do you hear suggestions that we should be building drystone corbeled roofs in suburbia. Newgrange is a (wonderful) museum piece. A different thing entirely. If Irish went that way it would be a real shame, but it's not.

Glad you got the point but a better analogy would be teaching 12th century Irish which we don't, both our architecture and the language taught are modern European ones.

conor.hogan.2 · 10-05-2012 6:41pm

"How are the purely Irish websites and language forums doing out there?"

Quite well actually. Plenty of blogs and stuff on Twitter, Facebook and purely Irish language forums/networks too. Newspapers, online media too.

But if you want to be really obvious and redundant you can just state that they are not doing as well as English language sites and you would be 100% correct (but still utterly utterly pointless)

Better Technology coverage in Irish language media than English language media (in Ireland) and TG4 has (several) times better production than RTÉ and TV3.

My Samsung phone can be 100% in Irish as can Facebook or Ubuntu or Windows XP and 100's of apps on my computer.

Interest in History · 10-05-2012 7:15pm

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Hmm very interesting point you make here. However, I'm not necessarily sure that the concept of Irish as the national language and therefore a symbol of Irishness has taken precedence over the language or the Irish nationality itself. As evident even on this thread, an awful lot of people contend that it is our national language and even go so far as to say it should be wiped out and forgotten about. I personally think it's important to keep it alive as a part of our cultural heritage but I seem to be in a minority here. As other people have stated, it doesn't make you more Irish to be able to speak it, or less Irish to struggle with it. So I don't think we've quite reached that point yet.

Two points in response -

If you take the Irish population that actually exists, and if you seek symbolism to represent them as they actually are, you would not use the Irish language to do this. But taking Irish as a political symbol that reflects the founding myth of the state - Cuchulainn, Pádraig Pearse, Different-from-England, etc., you might say that although its obviously a contrivance, irish is OK for that, because that's the way with political symbolism.

The problem arises when you take a symbol and deploy it as if it were a part of reality. This is what happens when you make every child in the land learn it during all of their school years, in line with the pretence that it will be adopted by the population as a vernacular.

Of course, the native-born English speaking population resents being told that they are speaking the wrong language because English is their mother tongue and they have bonded with it from their earliest days as suckling infants. They also resent the waste of national resources and of their own private resources on a project that is obviously futile because the population has no notion in the wide world of changing their vernacular fom English.

In principle, it would be quite easy to resolve the problem. Treat the language itself as a cultural resource, introduce it in school for a period, and then make it a subject of choice, to be taken by those who want it and enjoy it. As far as I can judge, most educators would agree with that. But the politicians can't agree to it. The idea of admitting to the failure of their iconic project and of crossing the interest groups involved in its continuation sends them into a blue funk. Although: Ruairi Quinn seems up to calling a spade a spade.

conor.hogan.2 · 10-05-2012 7:55pm

Interest in History wrote: »

As far as I can judge, most educators would agree with that. But the politicians can't agree to it. The idea of admitting to the failure of their iconic project and of crossing the interest groups involved in its continuation sends them into a blue funk. Although: Ruairi Quinn seems up to calling a spade a spade.

1 - FG wanted to reduce compulsory Irish.
2 - You are mental if you think teachers agree with that.

So you think most teachers and one of the 2 parties in govt (the largest one, no less) wants to remove compulsory Irish but they do not - why do they not?

If you think it is just because a minority (a whopping resounding minority) want it to stay you are actually insane, if it went to a referendum soon I know I would put my money behind keeping it compulsory.

Wild Bill · 10-05-2012 8:10pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

If you think it is just because a minority (a whopping resounding minority) want it to stay you are actually insane, if it went to a referendum soon I know I would put my money behind keeping it compulsory.

Indeed.

And maybe we should have a referendum.

It gets tedious listening to those who wish to complete the work of cultural genocide that started with the plantations and progressed through Cromwell and the Famine to the dawn of the State.

MysticalRain · 10-05-2012 8:29pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

"How are the purely Irish websites and language forums doing out there?"

Quite well actually. Plenty of blogs and stuff on Twitter, Facebook and purely Irish language forums/networks too. Newspapers, online media too.

But if you want to be really obvious and redundant you can just state that they are not doing as well as English language sites and you would be 100% correct (but still utterly utterly pointless)

Better Technology coverage in Irish language media than English language media (in Ireland) and TG4 has (several) times better production than RTÉ and TV3.

My Samsung phone can be 100% in Irish as can Facebook or Ubuntu or Windows XP and 100's of apps on my computer.

The OP's point was how many people actually use those facilities. Not their availability. There isn't much point in stating that Windows is localized for Gaelic if nobody actually uses it. Irish newspapers might have their problems, but their readership is an order of magnitude greater than any magazine or newspaper published in Irish.

If you think it is just because a minority (a whopping resounding minority) want it to stay you are actually insane, if it went to a referendum soon I know I would put my money behind keeping it compulsory.

I wouldn't be so sure. There isn't any real evidence to indicate that there is a "resounding" majority in favour of keeping the language compulsory.

I think the proponents of the language tend of confuse support for the language in a general sense (which the vast majority of Irish people are in favour of) with keeping it compulsory. Similar to how they often perceive even the slightest criticism of the language, or government policy towards it, as nothing less than an attempt to wipe it out.

Wild Bill · 10-05-2012 8:49pm

MysticalRain wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. There isn't any real evidence to indicate that there is a "resounding" majority in favour of keeping the language compulsory.

I think the proponents of the language tend of confuse support for the language in a general sense (which the vast majority of Irish people are in favour of) with keeping it compulsory. Similar to how they often perceive even the slightest criticism of the language, or government policy towards it, as nothing less than an attempt to wipe it out.

OK. So let's just vote then!

If it goes against Irish then let's abandon it and say to the colonists - "you win, mission complete".

How to revive the Irish language.

Comments