How to revive the Irish language.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 8:37am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This topic has nothing to do with religion.

I have given you a link regarding the effects of learning a second language in school, you can either look into it or examine the results of numerous studies on this area by those learned in the subject or keep quoting politicians who have very little experience or knowledge in this regard, your choice.

The only subject I personally might listen to regarding, or question a politician about, is politics, (or more accurately, how to get votes).

Of course the subject has nothing to do with religion and Ruairi Quinn never suggested that it had. He was addressing the question of illiteracy and in that context the allocation of school time to Irish and to religion.

I don't quote any politicians on the gounds that they are experts on education. I quote them because they control the education system.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 8:48am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You are making an assumption (language learning is responsible for poor levels of literacy and the standard of English) that has been shown to be incorrect, and basing your statement above on that assumption.

No: "language learning" is not "responsibile for poor levels of literacy". But the mis-allocation of school hours in the periods that I referred to had a neagtive bearing on literacy in English.

I was not there, of course, so I can only quote what I have read.

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 8:51am

Interest in History wrote: »

Of course the subject has nothing to do with religion and Ruairi Quinn never suggested that it had. He was addressing the question of illiteracy and in that context the allocation of school time to Irish and to religion.

Well since religion and Irish are two utterly different subjects, putting them together like that regarding improving literacy, which religion has little bearing on and Irish actually does, shows that his thinking is a little "askew" on the matter.

I don't quote any politicians on the gounds that they are experts on education. I quote them because they control the education system.

If you want to actually learn about something I would suggest listening to an expert on the subject.

Interest in History wrote: »

No: "language learning" is not "responsibile for poor levels of literacy". But the mis-allocation of school hours in the periods that I referred to had a neagtive bearing on literacy in English.

I was not there, of course, so I can only quote what I have read.

Again you are basing that comment, not on people who actually know about the subject and who would actually disagree with it, but on people who's expertise lies elsewhere, it is a very simple matter of using logic in deciding who to listen to.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 8:56am

oldmangrub wrote: »

It's not 1936 anymore. Pedagogical research into language learning has moved on. It is widely accepted that bilingual teaching in schools enhances literacy and language acquisition. I believe this research is the stumbling block our conspiring pro-Irish politicians face in trying to reduce the amount of time Irish is taught in primary schools. It's why they failed to enforce a strategy of teaching English to junior infants in Gaelscoils (senior infants is the common practise).

Yes: we have an unhappy intermingling of the pedagogical and the political. Teaching and learning Irish relates to the first. "The Revival of Irish" relates to the second.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 8:56am

Interest in History wrote: »

Reg Huindley, in his book "The Death of the Irish Language" characterises the response of the general population of Ireland to the Revival efforts of the governments as "structured evasion". Meaning that the population can't stop government actions, and that ostensively they must go along with them, but that they indirectly make sure that it all comes to nothing.

You take two words "structured evasion" from the actual book. You put your own slant on it, specifically "meaning that the population can't stop government actions, and that (.....) they must go along with them, but that they indirectly make sure that it all comes to nothing." When you say "meaning" you could have stated "from these two words I'm going to put this context on what I think Reg Hindley means." Or "in my opinion this means." When you state "meaning" without a subject some might presume you're paraphrasing Hindley himself. Reg Hindley has stated his annoyance that people who are inherently opposed to Irish occasionally use his book for their own purposes. Mostly due to the title. It's lazy, and deliberately misleading and doesn't respect it as a full body of work.

As for your recent quotes, I would say that "imposing Irish as an elite language" is poorly articulated and a contradiction in itself. I do not accept that "Dublin middle-class Gaeilgeoirí" constitute "the political elite." You appear to be still talking about history. Nineteen twenty two is a long time ago. The fact is, that now, in 2012, the political support for Irish does not account for its support among Irish people. It's many decades since independence and we're in a better position to make choices about our identity now than we were then. The Gaelic revival drove the want for independence in the first place. If it hadn't had taken place, we would likely still be part of the UK. You won't find many Irish people who have a problem with it. You'll find a lot of "non-elite" Irish people now have ideologies that are more in common with the "elite" of the 10's and 20's than with the "non-elite" of that same era. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 9:04am

Interest in History wrote: »

No: "language learning" is not "responsibile for poor levels of literacy". But the mis-allocation of school hours in the periods that I referred to had a neagtive bearing on literacy in English.

I was not there, of course, so I can only quote what I have read.

Can you clarify, are you opposed to second language learning on the basis that you believe (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) that learning a second language has a negative bearing on literacy in English?

Yes: we have an unhappy intermingling of the pedagogical and the political. Teaching and learning Irish relates to the first. "The Revival of Irish" relates to the second.

Can you elaborate? Pedagogical = learning Irish in school; fine. Political = the revival of Irish; which is what in practise?

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 9:17am

oldmangrub wrote: »

You take two words "structured evasion" from the actual book. You put your own slant on it, specifically "meaning that the population can't stop government actions, and that (.....) they must go along with them, but that they indirectly make sure that it all comes to nothing." When you say "meaning" you could have stated "from these two words I'm going to put this context on what I think Reg Hindley means." Or "in my opinion this means." When you state "meaning" without a subject some might presume you're paraphrasing Hindley himself. Reg Hindley has stated his annoyance that people who are inherently opposed to Irish occasionally use his book for their own purposes. Mostly due to the title. It's lazy, and deliberately misleading and doesn't respect it as a full body of work.

As for your recent quotes, I would say that "imposing Irish as an elite language" is poorly articulated and a contradiction in itself. I do not accept that "Dublin middle-class Gaeilgeoirí" constitute "the political elite." You appear to be still talking about history. Nineteen twenty two is a long time ago. The fact is, that now, in 2012, the political support for Irish does not account for its support among Irish people. It's many decades since independence and we're in a better position to make choices about our identity now than we were then. The Gaelic revival drove the want for independence in the first place. If it hadn't had taken place, we would likely still be part of the UK. You won't find many Irish people who have a problem with it. You'll find a lot of "non-elite" Irish people now have ideologies that are more in common with the "elite" of the 10's and 20's than with the "non-elite" of that same era. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

I quote your cogent reply in full. You are correct in criticising the way that I inserted "meaning" without the attendant discipline. I did not think that iin our thread that was needed. But was the result misleading? Did I give an unfair impression to any reader as to Hindley's point of view about the language elite. A very similar point about the elite was made by Tom Garvin in his "Preventing the Future". Was my quotation misleading in that case, in your opinion?

You say that it is many decades since independence and we're in a btter position to make choices about our identity than we a were then. Well: I could debate whether or not you can 'choose' an identity. But anyway, when one relates this thought to a community, and when it involves a change from what they are to becoming something different, then you inevitably rest on the actions of an elite in leading the change. The Irish are an English-speaking nation now and if you're going to change that it ivevitably requires some leadership, if not some arm-twisting.

You'd enjoy Oakshott on this, I think, where he says in his "Truthfulness, Liberalism, and Critique":

"Many people have come to know that the way to the politics of identity is often coercive (people turn out to need some vogorous help in discovering their identity.)"

An Coilean · 21-08-2012 9:44am

Interest in History wrote: »

Of course, the situation to-day is not so extreme. Nonetheless, in 2011, Ruairi Quinn linked the amount of time spent nowadays on Irish and Religion with illiteracy problems.

Indeed he did, and as has been pointed out to you several times, as far as Irish is concerned, he has been proven worng. That you insist on continuing to bang this drum suggests to me that you are more interested in some kind of smear campaign than actually debating the topic based on evidence.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 9:45am

Interest in History wrote: »

I quote your cogent reply in full. You are correct in criticising the way that I inserted "meaning" without the attendant discipline. I did not think that iin our thread that was needed. But was the result misleading? Did I give an unfair impression to any reader as to Hindley's point of view about the language elite. A very similar point about the elite was made by Tom Garvin in his "Preventing the Future". Was my quotation misleading in that case, in your opinion?

You say that it is many decades since independence and we're in a btter position to make choices about our identity than we a were then. Well: I could debate whether or not you can 'choose' an identity. But anyway, when one relates this thought to a community, and when it involves a change from what they are to becoming something different, then you inevitably rest on the actions of an elite in leading the change. The Irish are an English-speaking nation now and if you're going to change that it ivevitably requires some leadership, if not some arm-twisting.

You'd enjoy Oakshott on this, I think, where he says in his "Truthfulness, Liberalism, and Critique":

"Many people have come to know that the way to the politics of identity is often coercive (people turn out to need some vogorous help in discovering their identity.)"

With regard to both quotes I believe they demonstrate the apathy among ordinary people to politics. That's universal. The Gaelic revival did involve ordinary people from early on (without any executions) so I would argue that it has long since crossed the social divide as well as the political one. GAA is played all over the country and despite the support of middle-class families, the most impressive revival of Irish in Dublin has taken place in Clondalkin.

We can make choices about our identity. We don't chose our identity but rather it's the result of our environment; a combination of what we are similar to, and what we differ from. If a significant proportion of Irish people want to speak Irish, but don't, I would accept that that is still part of their identity. I would have no problem describing them as "English-speakers and "people who want to speak Irish". I would have a problem with anyone deciding on their behalf that the latter is irrelevant.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 10:06am

oldmangrub wrote: »

Can you elaborate? Pedagogical = learning Irish in school; fine. Political = the revival of Irish; which is what in practise?

A political ideology requires universality and uniformity. In its nature it is to be applied to the whole community and everybody has to comply because of the validity of the tenets of the ideology and because they are deemed to be important, or indeed vital, to the survival of the community politically.

Education starts with the aim of imparting basic skills to all of the young so that they can function in society. But then it progresses more towards choice and the free will of the pupil, allowing for more differencaition reslting from pupils' different needs, aptitudes and resources.

Education has a basic flexibility. The problem with ideologies is that they become competely rigid and almost imposible to change after it becomes embedded in a political system. So it is with our Revival. A relevant quotation, this time from Adrian Kelly's book "Compulsory Irish": "The attempted revival through the education system illustrated the dangers of allowing ideology to win over pragmatism in the fomulation of policy".

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 10:19am

Interest in History wrote: »

A political ideology requires universality and uniformity. In its nature it is to be applied to the whole community and everybody has to comply because of the validity of the tenets of the ideology and because they are deemed to be important, or indeed vital, to the survival of the community politically.

Education starts with the aim of imparting basic skills to all of the young so that they can function in society. But then it progresses more towards choice and the free will of the pupil, allowing for more differencaition reslting from pupils' different needs, aptitudes and resources.

Aside from education, is Irish applied to the whole community with everyone having to comply? Are you talking solely about taxation?

I think education should strive towards the acquisition of skills until the age of sixteen, and after that in tuning skills in preparation for the work-place. This will be premature for some kids, but the present system does hinder those who do have their mind (more or less) made up. Prior to the age of sixteen, if subjects were optional it would be parents who decided what their kids did and I actually would rather the education system decided and offered a full syllabus. Lack of subject choice in single-sex schools frustrates me. All subjects, in my view, should be optional from the age of sixteen.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 10:21am

oldmangrub wrote: »

With regard to both quotes I believe they demonstrate the apathy among ordinary people to politics. That's universal. The Gaelic revival did involve ordinary people from early on (without any executions) so I would argue that it has long since crossed the social divide as well as the political one. ......

We can make choices about our identity. We don't chose our identity but rather it's the result of our environment; a combination of what we are similar to, and what we differ from. ....

On the first point - Tom Garvin had a research paper way back - 1986. "The Invention of Tradition: The Gaelic League and the Politics of Revolution in Ireland".

On your second point - I think that all that matters here is the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached. I personally don't think that when everything else in a person's life and environment is unchanged that it makes a whit of difference whether he calls a glass a 'gloine' or something else. But like you, I don't mind either.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 10:37am

oldmangrub wrote: »

Aside from education, is Irish applied to the whole community with everyone having to comply? ......

I think education should strive towards the acquisition of skills until the age of sixteen, and after that in tuning skills in preparation for the work-place. This will be premature for some kids, but the present system does hinder those who do have their mind (more or less) made up. Prior to the age of sixteen, if subjects were optional it would be parents who decided what their kids did and I actually would rather the education system decided and offered a full syllabus. Lack of subject choice in single-sex schools frustrates me. All subjects, in my view, should be optional from the age of sixteen.

On your first point the answer is 'Yes, of course, while in school'. And the state authorities do this on ideological grounds with the result that the education/linguistic outcome is a secondary matter to them. To teach Irish to every child in every school is the requirement of the ideology and the validity of the ideology does not depend on whether or not the children acquire Irish as a functional language.

Of course, most people like 'some' Irish anyway, so the universality aspect of the ideology only becomes a problem as students get to the point of wanting to drop Irish in favour of something else. But the system allows most students to get a good pass in Irish without actually having to learn it as a language. And thus they get through at minimum cost. "Structured evasion" as some might call it.

On your second point: I'd say that practically everybody would agree with your position. I do.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 10:58am

Interest in History wrote: »

On the first point - Tom Garvin had a research paper way back - 1986. "The Invention of Tradition: The Gaelic League and the Politics of Revolution in Ireland".

On your second point - I think that all that matters here is the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached. I personally don't think that when everything else in a person's life and environment is unchanged that it makes a whit of difference whether he calls a glass a 'gloine' or something else. But like you, I don't mind either.

Well, on the first point, you haven't responded unless you're asking me to read a research paper from 1986?

I'm not sure what you mean about "the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached." Especially when you go on to state that there isn't a whit of difference about whether you call a glass a 'gloine' or something else; are you implying the identity of Irish-speakers is imaginary? Is that tolerant? Are you not trying to diminish their difference to English-speakers and diminish their similarity to their own community? This fascinates me.
While we've moved on from Sapir, linguists will still contend that languages do indeed influence our thought processes. Certainly this is more notable between Irish and English than closely-related languages like English and French. Combine Irish with Swahili and Mandarin and you're heading for a roller-coaster. There's a qualitive difference between "Tá uaigneas orm" and "I am lonely" for example. We also inherit cultural traits through our language, for example Irish vocabulary reflects a preoccupation with the sea and more of its proverbs have a rural foundation than say English would.

As to your updated argument. If the state authorities teach Irish on ideological grounds while most people like 'some' Irish is that really controversial? edit: Sorry you were saying it wasn't controversial until a certain point. Ignore that if you've already read it. The Gaelscoil movement is community-based in its foundation rather than political, any movement towards the bilingual teaching I'm espousing would need to be too. It's the only way I can see us competing with multi-lingual companies that might work. Might being the word that most matters from politicians' point of view. It won't be funded or encouraged unless there's community support.
I'm sure that a lot of people would disagree with me on my second point. There are various groups and individuals that for a multitude of reasons would prefer if one of /two of/ all of the core subjects remained so until the completion of the Leaving Certificate. Many for valid reasons; some are just concerned parents who don't trust their daft kids to choose subject combinations wisely. It's sticky, but I would tend to agree with another poster that if we haven't taught them those skills by then, we simply haven't taught them enough.

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 11:36am

oldmangrub wrote: »

There's a qualitive difference between "Tá uaigneas orm" and "I am lonely" for example. We also inherit cultural traits through our language, for example Irish vocabulary reflects a preoccupation with the sea and more of its proverbs have a rural foundation than say English would.

I was reading recently via a link from here or another thread about a people speaking (I think) a Central Asian language where they conceive of the past being ahead of them, and the future behind them, for example the phrase "Looking ahead to the future" would make no sense and could elicit the response "If the future is in front of you, why can't you see it?".

This also brings to mind something I came across recently reading about so called "untranslatable words" in this link someone puts something across better than I can.

For myself, the hardest part about learning a new language isn’t so much getting acquainted with the translations of vocabulary and different grammatical forms and bases, but developing an inner reflex that responds to words’ texture, not their translated “ingredients”. When you hear the word “criminal” you don’t think of “one who commits acts outside the law,” but rather the feeling and mental imagery that comes with that word.

Thus these words, while standing out due to our inability to find an equivalent word in out own language, should not be appreciated for our own words that we try to use to describe them, but for their own taste and texture. Understanding these words should be like eating the best slab of smoked barbequeued ribs: the enjoyment doesn’t come from knowing what the cook put in the sauce or the seasoning, but from the full experience that can only be created by time and emotion.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 11:51am

You're right Cú! I think that's reflected in primary schools across the country.

Student: "Cad é an Ghaeilge ar 'It was bleeding deadly!'
Teacher:

Student: "Irish is crap."

or even;
Student: So out of the blue, that's 'as an ngorm', yea?
Teacher:

"Try 'gan choinne'
Student: "Irish is a load of crap".

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 12:05pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

You're right Cú! I think that's reflected in primary schools across the country.

Student: "Cad é an Ghaeilge ar 'It was bleeding deadly!'
Teacher:
Student: "Irish is crap."

or even;
Student: So out of the blue, that's 'as an ngorm', yea?
Teacher: "Try 'gan choinne'
Student: "Irish is a load of crap".

Ní dearfainn i do choinne.

paddyandy · 21-08-2012 12:29pm

There is Big Money to be made reviving the dead ;but first you have to convince people that it can be done .The Irish language shares a similar mode of existence for the foreseeable future .

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 12:43pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean about "the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached." Especially when you go on to state that there isn't a whit of difference about whether you call a glass a 'gloine' or something else; are you implying the identity of Irish-speakers is imaginary? Is that tolerant? Are you not trying to diminish their difference to English-speakers and diminish their similarity to their own community? This fascinates me.

There's a qualitive difference between "Tá uaigneas orm" and "I am lonely" for example. We also inherit cultural traits through our language, for example Irish vocabulary reflects a preoccupation with the sea and more of its proverbs have a rural foundation than say English would.

.

My point about tolerance is to do with leaving people to feel privately what they feel privately. And in society, to extend to different people as much option as possible to follow their own predelictions. How do I know whether or not another person's values are imaginary? Should I care? Does that other person need me to care? They are real to them and that's enough for me. When the gaeilgoir is alone with friends does he fret over whether or not he is "appreciated" by a bunch of people speaking another language in a different place?

I don't know if you're right in saying that the vocabulary of the Irish language has more about the sea than the vocabulary of English. can you elaborate on your "Tá uaigness orm" / "I m lonely" point. Obviously the sense of either phrase in either language will vary a lot according to context. And of course, the form. So: e.g. " I feel very alone" versus Táim im aonair".

indioblack · 21-08-2012 1:34pm

Interest in History wrote: »

The politians are focused on their need to show that our independent state is "Not England". The Irish language provides them with a brand image that shows that. No politician actually believes that the population will adopt Irish as a vernacular and no politician cares, because the purpose of the brand image is served by Irish irrespective of anybody speaking it.

Good reply. It's similar to a post I made here some days ago - the people want Irish to be there - they just don't want to learn it.

dubhthach · 21-08-2012 2:05pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I was reading recently via a link from here or another thread about a people speaking (I think) a Central Asian language where they conceive of the past being ahead of them, and the future behind them, for example the phrase "Looking ahead to the future" would make no sense and could elicit the response "If the future is in front of you, why can't you see it?".

You are thinking of Tuvan which is a Turkic language spoken in Tuvan Republic of the Russian Federation (it's also spoken in Mongolia and China). It belongs to the "Siberian Turkic" group within the wider Turkic languages, fair among of loanwords from neighbouring Mongolian.

There was a article in National Geographic recently on minority languages and it mentioned the example you gave.

Tuva only became part of Russia in 1944 when it was annexed by the Soviet Union.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 2:54pm

Interest in History wrote: »

My point about tolerance is to do with leaving people to feel privately what they feel privately. And in society, to extend to different people as much option as possible to follow their own predelictions. How do I know whether or not another person's values are imaginary? Should I care? Does that other person need me to care? They are real to them and that's enough for me. When the gaeilgoir is alone with friends does he fret over whether or not he is "appreciated" by a bunch of people speaking another language in a different place?

I think we can state with clarity that what people "feel privately" is not imaginary. Metaphysical, certainly. Imaginary, no. And there's a difference between not being appreciated by other Irish people (not necessarily in a different place) and having other Irish people ponder whether or not your identity is 'imaginary'. Yes, I think some Gaeilgeoirs would mind, others would dismiss it for the misinformed drivel that it is.

'Tá uaigneas orm' does not mean 'I am lonely'. Loneliness (as in the English word for an emotion) comes from the word lone. 'I'm lonely' simply implies you're alone and not happy about it. Uaigneas has echoes of the word grave. It is also an emotion, yes, but it doesn't overlap in meaning. It's just the closest translation of 'loneliness' you can find in the Irish language. And likewise, loneliness is the closest translation you can get in English of 'uaigneas.' Also the preposition 'ar' (first person 'orm') is used to position something; on a table for example is 'ar bhord'. Admittedly prepositions are fairly arbitrary in nature, but the fact that you can say 'tá cóta orm; tá uaigneas orm' does reflect a different outlook on emotional states. It's just one example.

Unfortunately, Irish people are generally monolingual and are somewhat shut off from engagement with these different thought processes. Education should seek to amend that. We will never compete with continental Europe if we can't really think in another language, merely translate to and from it. That is not the level of fluency required. If Irish people can reduce languages to a different way of saying the same thing we haven't really taught them correctly and we've also instilled in them an element of cultural ignorance. The idea of language affecting how we perceive the world and think wasn't invented by me. Nor are linguists and academics the only ones who see the evidence of it. I would presume most of the world, being at least bilingual, take it as a given. Here's what a Spanish/English person says about it on yahoo answers for example. I've quoted it below.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110514074811AA4tMxc

Language affects perception of cause, possession, accountability, and nature.

For example, if you say "It is raining" in English, it is a simple statement of condition. Literally translated from Spanish, you will say "He makes it rain", implying a deified nature.

If you say "I am in pain" in English, it implies that the pain is part of you (intrinsic). Translated from Spanish, the phrase would be "I have pain", meaning that pain is with you, not part of you (extrinsic).

This is why you hear speakers of foreign languages say "It sounds better in (insert language)" or "It loses something in the translation". Because the perception in that language is different.

Other languages, of course, have similar differences. If one wanted to test whether the language actually affected perception, the test is simple. Translate a foreign language literally (you'd have to do it yourself, most translator programs do not literally translate for this very reason), and see if you get different reactions/understandings (aka perceptions) if you say something like "He is making it rain" vs. "It is raining"

It is the primary reason why a neophyte language speakers can inadvertently be so funny when they first attempt to use their new vocabulary.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 3:11pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

I think we can state with clarity that what people "feel privately" is not imaginary. Metaphysical, certainly. Imaginary, no.

'Tá uaigneas orm' does not mean 'I am lonely'. Loneliness (as in the English word, not the emotion) comes from the word lone. 'I'm lonely' simply implies you're alone and not happy about it. Uaigneas has echoes of the word grave. It is also an emotion, yes, but it doesn't overlap in meaning. It's just the closest translation of 'loneliness' you can find in the Irish language. And likewise, loneliness is the closest translation you can get in English of 'uaigneas.' ...Unfortunately, Irish people are generally monolingual and are somewhat shut off from engagement with these different thought processes....

I'm endeavoring to follow you. I see that metaphysics is defined as 'the investigation of the world, or of what really exists, generally my means of rational argument rather than by direct or mystical intuition...etc."

And as to descriptions of emotions as conveyed in different languages: I take off my hat to your success in demonstrating this so well.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 3:24pm

Interest in History wrote: »

I'm endeavoring to follow you. I see that metaphysics is defined as 'the investigation of the world, or of what really exists, generally my means of rational argument rather than by direct or mystical intuition...etc."

And as to descriptions of emotions as conveyed in different languages: I take off my hat to your success in demonstrating this so well.

Thanks, very polite of you.

I probably should have said abstract instead of metaphysical. That definition is of the fancy variety.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 5:08pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

Thanks, very polite of you.
I probably should have said abstract instead of metaphysical. That definition is of the fancy variety.

Abstract is defined as: "separated from matter, practice or particulars; ideal; abstruse".

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 5:29pm

I'm not sure if you're still trying to understand me or if you're just quoting dictionaries for the sake of general discussion. But to clarify if wanted; metaphysical, abstract; describe things that aren't tangible or concrete. Emotions and concepts are abstract and metaphysical, a box is not. But they're not imaginary just because they're not concrete.

imelle · 21-08-2012 5:38pm

just go around randomly saying "Is Féidir Linn" to people. . . well it worked for Obama

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 5:41pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're still trying to understand me or if you're just quoting dictionaries for the sake of general discussion. But to clarify if wanted; metaphysical, abstract; describe things that aren't tangible or concrete. Emotions and concepts are abstract and metaphysical, a box is not. But they're not imaginary just because they're not concrete.

I agree that we have slithered away to one side.

What I tried to convey at the start of this passage is that I don't mind how another person explains the origins of their feelings and choices. I don't even seek or expect an explanation. If, in our case, a person feels an attraction to the Irish language and chooses to learn it and use it, knowing that that is their choice is enough for me. I do not challange the choice by saying 'that's imaginary' or anything else, good or bad. And if that person is indifferent to my indifference I don't regard it as offensive. Wht should he care what I feel, or if i feel nothing at all.

That's my concept of tolerance.

of course, if he joins a club that seeks to impose his feelings and choices on me or mine - well, that's different! That would be a political matter and I might have to object.

opti0nal · 21-08-2012 5:48pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

If a significant proportion of Irish people want to speak Irish, but don't, I would accept that that is still part of their identity.

What a pity the survey, which focused exclusively on the desire to speak Irish did not inquire if the respondent might also like to speak other languages.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 10:23pm

Interest in History wrote: »

I agree that we have slithered away to one side.

What I tried to convey at the start of this passage is that I don't mind how another person explains the origins of their feelings and choices. I don't even seek or expect an explanation. If, in our case, a person feels an attraction to the Irish language and chooses to learn it and use it, knowing that that is their choice is enough for me. I do not challange the choice by saying 'that's imaginary' or anything else, good or bad. And if that person is indifferent to my indifference I don't regard it as offensive. Wht should he care what I feel, or if i feel nothing at all.

That's my concept of tolerance.

of course, if he joins a club that seeks to impose his feelings and choices on me or mine - well, that's different! That would be a political matter and I might have to object.

I concur with your sentiments on this. And I've no problem whatsoever with indifference. No individuals, clubs or interest groups should enforce their will on society. The only thing that has a right to force anything on us as individuals is the society we live in; law, educational practise, best practise in health etc are based on what are considered communal values, and don't contain an opt-in, opt-out clause. Not in the kind of democracy we have. Continued debate about what values we do hold 'communally' and the updating of practise in light of them is to be welcomed. After all, we all have to live with them. So yes, if the 'me and mine' feels let down by these practises objection and debate is to be welcomed. Equally, the voices of those who want to sustain or reform these practises should be welcome.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 10:34pm

opti0nal wrote: »

What a pity the survey, which focused exclusively on the desire to speak Irish did not inquire if the respondent might also like to speak other languages.

If you have a link to a survey that asks individuals do they have the desire to speak Irish I'd like to see it. Most surveys tend to focus on some future generation and ignore the one we have now. Bit depressing to oldies like me. There possibly are surveys about Irish peoples' interests in other languages. I don't know. Go look for them!

LordSutch · 22-08-2012 8:09am

Interest in History wrote: »

The politians are focused on their need to show that our independent state is "Not England". The Irish language provides them with a brand image that shows that. No politician actually believes that the population will adopt Irish as a vernacular and no politician cares, because the purpose of the brand image is served by Irish irrespective of anybody speaking it.

But I wonder if that need to show the world that we are "not England" still exists today? Ireland has made its mark now, and people the world over now recoginse that the ROI is a sovereign country in its own right. Yes I agree that at the birth of this State Irish was one of the levers introduced to mark us out as being different to England, but maybe it is time for the powers that be to take their foot off the gas now, and to relax compulsory Irish in schools (even for a trial run period), lets say for example, giving students a choice of one language (Irish, French, German, or Spanish) to study and to concentrate on 100%, from Junior Cert through to the Leaving Cert . . .

oldmangrub · 22-08-2012 9:26am

LordSutch wrote: »

But I wonder if that need to show the world that we are "not England" still exists today? Ireland has made its mark now, and people the world over now recoginse that the ROI is a sovereign country in its own right. Yes I agree that at the birth of this State Irish was one of the levers introduced to mark us out as being different to England, but maybe it is time for the powers that be to take their foot off the gas now, and to relax compulsory Irish in schools (even for a trial run period), lets say for example, giving students a choice of one language (Irish, French, German, or Spanish) to study and to concentrate on 100%, from Junior Cert through to the Leaving Cert . . .

I don't think it does. But I don't accept that's what motivates the support for the Irish language in the first place. Culturally, acquiring your own language won't make you "less British" since Welsh is widely spoken and supported. There is a point of view that reduces the language to being basically, just a method of being "less English". I'm not comfortable with this myself. As I've said before, identity is formed through what we differ from and what we are similar to. Even back in the 1920's, the Gaelic Revival was about forging cultural links somewhat artificially between Irish people as much as it was about making us different from the English. And of course, we've moved on from the Gaelic Revival. Things that are based purely on wanting to be different from the English should be dismissed as petty. The Irish language isn't one of them, being based as it is on cultural similarities and indeed a common language between members of a community.
Most Irish speakers and supporters of the language simply don't want to be marginalised and likewise don't want it to be marginalised. They still see themselves as part of the wider Irish community. I've been reading threads on this over the last couple of days and I'll often see arguments about those that support Irish seeing those that don't as 'West Brits' while not finding any evidence of this in the thread itself. Plenty of evidence, I might add, of people reducing it to 'an effort to make yourself less English' or claims that Irish people support Irish because 'its called Irish'. Very patronising and over-bearing really.
Now, I would argue that the Irish-speaking community and supporters possibly should be marginalised. Certainly, the politicians should still have to legislate for Irish (I don't agree with the "sure you speak English too so that'll have to do for you" mentality) but if the majority wants Irish removed as a core subject in schools then it should be.
I do think that there's a way we could teach Irish from early on that would benefit those for whom it matters a lot and those for whom it matters not a whim. (I've already discussed this and don't want to thread-hog this time) There will be those who don't base their objections to the teaching of Irish on logic but I doubt they're a substantial percentage.

edit: To clarify, when I said "possibly should be marginalised" I mean that I respect majority opinion, not that I personally would support it. And while I don't support compulsory Irish after the JC, I don't support compulsory English or Maths either.

opti0nal · 22-08-2012 5:18pm

oldmangrub wrote: »

If you have a link to a survey that asks individuals do they have the desire to speak Irish I'd like to see it.

Indeed the survey you quoted does not apparently indicate any willingness on the part of the respondents to speak Irish themselves, they just hope that others might.

oldmangrub · 22-08-2012 9:45pm

opti0nal wrote: »

What a pity the survey, which focused exclusively on the desire to speak Irish...

opti0nal wrote: »

Indeed the survey you quoted does not apparently indicate any willingness on the part of the respondents to speak Irish...

Dismissing a survey and then using it to demonstrate a point, and contradicting yourself in the process.

they just hope that others might.

You haven't pinned it down there either.

I'm sure the cnag mafia (Don't call them by their full name, they'll find you) were as displeased with the results of the research as you were. They'll surely hunt down the traitors that carried it out. A hundred years optional, they're breeding, and spreading, and if they're to be contained you need to set up your 'Gaelic ghettos' fairly quick!

Anyway, I'm not making your argument for you. Lighten up and turn off tunnel vision. Nobody's out to get you. I find your Gaelic ghetto idea rather endearing for what it's worth. I wouldn't mind living there myself.

podgeandrodge · 22-08-2012 10:03pm

Oh God, now Google have come to save us and plastered Irish language street names in the middle of the English street names on Google Maps.

:mad:

oldmangrub · 22-08-2012 10:47pm

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Oh God, now Google have come to save us and plastered Irish language street names in the middle of the English street names on Google Maps.

:mad:

Why get pissed off about our embarrassing streetnames? They're not even in English to begin with for the most part. They're just silly gobbledygook made up rubbish. Nothing the English language can claim or be blamed for. I know they're too ingrained now and can't be changed but I wish they just had them in English and/or Irish, rather than gobbledygook and Irish. Like 'Stonemason's way' or 'Bealach an tSaoir'; a lot much better than 'Ballinteer Way' would be. It'd be nice, for the sake of the English language, to have names that actually meant something! For the sake of a bit of mental engagement at the very least!

Maps should include whatever the local term for the area is though. No need for alternate versions. They're really not somewhere to be promoting Irish (or mental engagement I admit). Surely google are going to confuse tourists?! I know the signs are bilingual (or gobbledygook and Irish- monolingual go leith) but in a lot of cases locals won't know the Irish. Remember eejits publishing maps with the Gaeltacht names in English a few years ago and then moaning that the locals were confusing the foreigners? Imagine if France, or Spain had maps in English; drunken tourists rambling around for hours.

Where have they managed to cram the Irish names in? I can barely see the English ones most of the time.

kenmc · 22-08-2012 10:51pm

Thread is too long to read. Has anyone asked "why" rather than "how" to revive the irish language? Terminal is terminal, you can extend it a bit with a bit of life support, but at the end of the day death will come. Sooner the better as far as I'm concerned, replace it with a useful language, that you can actually use to communicate outside of a few pockets of curiosity living museum.

Cú Giobach · 23-08-2012 8:22am

oldmangrub wrote: »

I find your Gaelic ghetto idea rather endearing for what it's worth. I wouldn't mind living there myself.

I've got an idea for this ghetto.
First any languages would have to be welcome there, so families won't be split and non Irish speaking people feel welcome. For the sake of tourists both foreign and domestic road signs could be bi-lingual (with English) and the same with official documentation (so as not to disenfranchise the non Irish speakers living there).
An island would be nice and personally I would like a spot where the weather isn't to extreme, mild in the winter and not too hot in the summer with enough rain to enable good growing, off the coast of western Europe and in the gulf stream would be quite pleasant.
We could name the place after one of the old Celtic goddesses of Éiru, Banba or Fódla, I like Éiru because it has a quite mystic sound, we could call it The Land of Éiru or Éireann.

oldmangrub · 23-08-2012 8:45am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Very good Cú! I'd be fairly content with that myself.

(Mighn't sit well with the genocidal tendancies of an fear os do chionn nó an fear 'roghnach' though)

Ghetto within a ghetto?

Grayson · 23-08-2012 1:16pm

Interest in History wrote: »

I'm endeavoring to follow you. I see that metaphysics is defined as 'the investigation of the world, or of what really exists, generally my means of rational argument rather than by direct or mystical intuition...etc."

Well, actually metaphysics just means next to physics

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

he first major work in the history of philosophy to bear the title “Metaphysics” was the treatise by Aristotle that we have come to know by that name. But Aristotle himself did not use that title or even describe his field of study as ‘metaphysics’; the name was evidently coined by the first century C.E. editor who assembled the treatise we know as Aristotle's Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle's works. The title ‘metaphysics’—literally, ‘after the Physics’—very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (ta phusika).

paddyandy · 23-08-2012 2:00pm

The Irish Language is like a dead man on life support because the hospital will always be paid .Re-define it's place but stop wasting money on it .

opti0nal · 23-08-2012 5:04pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I've got an idea for this ghetto.
... we could call it The Land of Éiru or Éireann.

That's been tried already, it didn't work.

dubhthach · 23-08-2012 5:34pm

opti0nal wrote: »

That's been tried already, it didn't work.

Last time I looked the country was still called after the goddess Éiru

Ireland
12c., Anglo-Norman, with land + native Eriu

eg. Éire-land

Of course it's rather fitting, as Amerghin the chief poet of the sons of Míl told the goddess Ériu that the island would always be named after her, to which she responded that the island would thus always belong to the sons of Míl. The "sons of Míl" are the Irish or so the pseudo-history/mythology goes.

Seanchai · 23-08-2012 7:22pm

A phone company just charged my native speaking friend, who has spoken Irish as her principal language since the cradle, the princely sum of €1 to her credit/debit card as a way to verify that she is who she says she is. Why? Because the phone/broadband company in question (which has a state-bestowed monopoly in her area under the National Broadband Scheme) has her address under an anglicised form. She uses the name her place has always been know as by her people. It is, it should be pointed out, also the name which is the sole legal name of the place under Irish law in 2012. That name remains in Irish.

The company in question refused to accept this and said in order to confirm her identity, despite having all the household bills which they required with the same Irish address on them, they would have to make a deduction from her card. A non-refundable deduction, mind you.

This is the sort of anti-Irish bigotry and sheer ignorance which Irish speakers encounter day in and day out across Ireland. They should not have to fight for such basic respect, a basic respect English speaking monoglots demand for themselves. In effect what happened today was that she insisted that the company accept her address in Irish and the broadband company said "you'll then have to give us a credit/debit card, which we'll charge, because all your bills have the name in Irish and this company does not recognise placenames in Irish."

Incredible. Discrimination pure and simple. No wonder so many Irish speakers have been beaten into submission. Every day there is some battle against intolerant English monoglots to assert your identity and not have their one imposed on you.

indioblack · 23-08-2012 7:41pm

Seanchai wrote: »

A phone company just charged my native speaking friend, who has spoken Irish as her principal language since the cradle, the princely sum of €1 to her credit/debit card as a way to verify that she is who she says she is. Why? Because the phone/broadband company in question (which has a state-bestowed monopoly in her area under the National Broadband Scheme) has her address under an anglicised form. She uses the name her place has always been know as by her people. It is, it should be pointed out, also the name which is the sole legal name of the place under Irish law in 2012. That name remains in Irish.

The company in question refused to accept this and said in order to confirm her identity, despite having all the household bills which they required with the same Irish address on them, they would have to make a deduction from her card. A non-refundable deduction, mind you.

This is the sort of anti-Irish bigotry and sheer ignorance which Irish speakers encounter day in and day out across Ireland. They should not have to fight for such basic respect, a basic respect English speaking monoglots demand for themselves. In effect what happened today was that she insisted that the company accept her address in Irish and the broadband company said "you'll then have to give us a credit/debit card, which we'll charge, because all your bills have the name in Irish and this company does not recognise placenames in Irish."

Incredible. Discrimination pure and simple. No wonder so many Irish speakers have been beaten into submission. Every day there is some battle against intolerant English monoglots to assert your identity and not have their one imposed on you.

Ah, the English - and monoglottal English at that.

oldmangrub · 23-08-2012 7:44pm

^

I have a € on my phone bill instead of an é, I like to think it adds a bit of swagger to my name. :cool:
It wasn't €ircom was it?

Phone companies have a reputation for being ignorant to everyone. This shouldn't happen but I don't think Irish-speakers are being discriminated against day in, day out. Or beaten into submission. The only place I ever encounter intolerant monoglots (sounds like an alien tribe) on a regular basis is in the writing of Kevin Myers.

MysticalRain · 23-08-2012 8:48pm

Seanchai wrote: »

A phone company just charged my native speaking friend, who has spoken Irish as her principal language since the cradle, the princely sum of €1 to her credit/debit card as a way to verify that she is who she says she is. Why? Because the phone/broadband company in question (which has a state-bestowed monopoly in her area under the National Broadband Scheme) has her address under an anglicised form. She uses the name her place has always been know as by her people. It is, it should be pointed out, also the name which is the sole legal name of the place under Irish law in 2012. That name remains in Irish.

The company in question refused to accept this and said in order to confirm her identity, despite having all the household bills which they required with the same Irish address on them, they would have to make a deduction from her card. A non-refundable deduction, mind you.

This is the sort of anti-Irish bigotry and sheer ignorance which Irish speakers encounter day in and day out across Ireland. They should not have to fight for such basic respect, a basic respect English speaking monoglots demand for themselves. In effect what happened today was that she insisted that the company accept her address in Irish and the broadband company said "you'll then have to give us a credit/debit card, which we'll charge, because all your bills have the name in Irish and this company does not recognise placenames in Irish."

Incredible. Discrimination pure and simple. No wonder so many Irish speakers have been beaten into submission. Every day there is some battle against intolerant English monoglots to assert your identity and not have their one imposed on you.

I think that was just a tad over dramatic.

In fairness, telco companies treat all their customers poorly. So it's nothing personal. Try dealing with a call centre in India...

MysticalRain · 23-08-2012 9:06pm

If I had a Euro for every webpage on the internet that won't accept my own Irish name because it has an O' in front of the surname...

opti0nal · 23-08-2012 9:07pm

Seanchai wrote: »

...English speaking monoglots ...Every day there is some battle against intolerant English monoglots

How do you know they're monoglots? Is it because they don't speak Irish?

How come you have to battle with English 'monoglots' every day. Do you live, perhaps, in England?

How to revive the Irish language.

Comments