A Gaeltacht in Dublin?

dpe · 14-03-2012 12:56pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I can never fathom why Hebrew is brought up as an example in this debate. It's re-emergence/re-invention was and is a very different beast with very different reasons and drivers behind it. They were building a new country with peoples from the four corners of the earth, all with different languages and cultures. They needed a lingua franca and modern Hebrew fit the bill. We already have a common language.

Well, it does have some relevance. They could have gone with Yiddish (which most of the new arrivals spoke) or even English, so Hebrew was actually the hard choice; so in that regard it shows it is possible to get a country to pick up an entirely new language within a generation; what it doesn't necessarily show is why its desirable to do so. Nationalists seem to be firmly of the belief that national identity and unique language are intrinsically linked; that you're somehow diminished as a nation if you don't have your own language. Which is of course absolute rubbish.

deise go deo · 14-03-2012 1:10pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Argument? My argument is that it is a baseless claim to assert that Irish had become the minority language by 1800. The lack of evidence to support your claim backs me up nicely.

You can start with the many historical analyses in Reg Hindley's book The Death of the Irish Language. George Brendan Adams' linguistic map of 17th century Ireland may also make interesting viewing, since it shows how the language shift actually began in the early seventeenth century.

I have not said that the language shift did not begin in the 17th centuary, quite the contrary actually if you read my post.

As for these books, I have not read them, so forgive my not being able to discuss them more fully, but are they based on the same unreliable sources that you have been using?

No matter how you bang on (and on, and on) about the Famine, there's simply no way that it can account for the census returns of 1851, which showed only 320,000 monolingual Irish speakers remaining in the country, out of a population of 6.5 million. By the middle of the nineteenth century, just 23.3 percent of the population (and 2.4 percent of the population of Leinster, the most populous province) could speak Irish at all. That is evidence not that umpteen millions of Irish speakers were wiped out in the Famine (which, inexplicably, all English speakers survived), but that a language shift from Irish to English had been going on for a very long time.

I have not cliamed that the Famine was a singular event which alone was responsible for the language shift, again read my post.
My claim was that figures from before the famine are not credible sources, which I have shown, and which any examination either of the figures themselves, or how the surveys were carried out will show.

I believe that if you read my post you will see that I said: 'The replacement of the Irish Language with English was a long process'

I am not disputing that it was occuring before the Famine, just the claim that it was a choice rather than an imposition by the state.

there's simply no way that it can account for the census returns of 1851, which showed only 320,000 monolingual Irish speakers remaining in the country, out of a population of 6.5 million. By the middle of the nineteenth century, just 23.3 percent of the population

As for this, by your logic 43% of the Irish Population can speak Irish today, because that is what was reported in the 2006 census. Given that the Irish Language was held in low regard at the time, and that there had just been a Famine which had a major influence on the Irish psyche, reinforcing negative feelings twords anything Irish, you don't think that there might have been a tiny bit of undereporting?

Wibbs · 14-03-2012 2:12pm

dpe wrote: »

Well, it does have some relevance. They could have gone with Yiddish (which most of the new arrivals spoke) or even English, so Hebrew was actually the hard choice; so in that regard it shows it is possible to get a country to pick up an entirely new language within a generation;

Well Yiddish brought it's own cultural baggage with it and the early Zionists tried to remove it from their culture for some reason. Maybe because of it's German influences after the war also took it out of the equation?

what it doesn't necessarily show is why its desirable to do so. Nationalists seem to be firmly of the belief that national identity and unique language are intrinsically linked; that you're somehow diminished as a nation if you don't have your own language. Which is of course absolute rubbish.

Exactly. I'm all for preservation, but not imposition.

deise go deo · 14-03-2012 2:19pm

dpe wrote: »

Nationalists seem to be firmly of the belief that national identity and unique language are intrinsically linked; that you're somehow diminished as a nation if you don't have your own language. Which is of course absolute rubbish.

Do you think the French national identity would be unaffected if they spoke German?

A nation not having a language of its own does not negativly affect it, a nation loosing its own language however can have a serious impact on a national identity.

Permabear · 14-03-2012 2:43pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 14-03-2012 2:59pm

This post has been deleted.

dpe · 14-03-2012 3:00pm

deise go deo wrote: »

Do you think the French national identity would be unaffected if they spoke German?

A nation not having a language of its own does not negativly affect it, a nation loosing its own language however can have a serious impact on a national identity.

Depends on the timing. If they'd been speaking German for hundreds of years, no I don't think their national identity would be affected in a negative way. It might be different, but not necessarily worse. As I said in an earlier post, modern French is a recent imposition anyway.

You claim losing your own language can have a serious impact on a national identity, but you don't back that up with why? The one thing you can say about English as a language is that the English don't own it. The Irish version of English is equally as valid as the American or Australian or Scottish or even Indian versions of English. The Irish should accept that "Irish-English" is just as valid a national language as Gaelic-Irish, if not more so, as it genuinely reflects Ireland as it is, not as it was in some mythological romanticised past. Take it as one of the pluses of 800 years of occupation rather than seeing it as something to regret.

Enkidu · 14-03-2012 4:10pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think I remember reading in An tOileánach/The Islander, that the author states that he remembers some old people speaking Irish in Dingle when he was young boy. Which means the language shift was completed in that area somewhat before the famine.

I should say Hindley isn't a very good book on the language shift, as there are some outright factual errors and George Brendan Adams deals more with "possibly" creating a map. Either way both of them didn't have access to the full range of facts and I think the situation is better understood today.

Irish slowly began to lose its prestige after the flight of the Earls. However the idea that it became the language of backward peasants isn't exactly true, as some of the English aristocracy in the pale had their children educated in the Bardic Standard.

However around 1700, when the last Bards disappear and the last pieces of Annalistic writing peter out, Irish is still the main language of most of the country and the Bards were mainly concerned that people should speak good English in addition to their Irish.

Then there is a blank spot, 1700-1830, where we know very little about the language. We can reconstruct things from 1830 onward by extrapolating backward from later census data and reading personal accounts. It can be clearly seen that Irish was no longer the main language of the island and the trend amongst the population was to stop speaking it. The famine only accelerated trends already present in most of the country.

The real question is what happened during 1700 - 1830, which is basically when greater Leinster stopped speaking Irish. We might never know, it's interesting that another massive famine Bliain an Air/the year of slaughter occured in this period. Some say this caused Leinster to stop speaking Irish, but nobody really knows.

Anyway it's an area of active research and I just want to emphasise that not much is known, but we know enough to say that the decline of Irish wasn't down to the 1840s famine.

Permabear · 14-03-2012 5:05pm

This post has been deleted.

opti0nal · 14-03-2012 7:52pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd go further and say English is what unifies us and connects us to the rest of the world.

Quite what motives the enthusiasts have for forming a Gaeltact in Dublin and the practical details of how they'll make it work and if we have to pay for it are all very unclear.

My understanding has been that original Gaeltacht subsidies were designed to encourage people to remain in areas where Irish was spoken as a first language, give that these areas were relatively deprived and people would leave them if they had no work. Dublin, of all places, seems to be a totally unsuitable candidate.

Grudaire · 15-03-2012 12:58am

opti0nal wrote: »

You appear to be passing a judgement on our current linguistic state. What do you find unsatisfactory about the language spoken by the majority of citizens here and what parts of the Zionist approach would you apply to achieve the 'progression' you desire? In what way are Hebrew and Irish comparable?

I can think of better ways to change our reality than to reinstate Irish as common language of Ireland.

Passing judgement - seems a bit harsh. Are you passing judgement or expressing an opinion - I'd like to think I'm expressing an opinion!

You said it couldn't be done! I was merely pointing out that it's not very aspirational to say something cannot be done.

Wibbs · 15-03-2012 8:23am

Cliste wrote: »

You said it couldn't be done! I was merely pointing out that it's not very aspirational to say something cannot be done.

Why would we aspire to do it in the first place? Why would we aspire to reintroduce a language to a place where it has been extinct for at least two centuries? It's being culturally artificial for the sake of it, or for the sake of some bleary eyed late 19th century concept of cultural purity. That's the point. Hey we may as well go the whole hog and reintroduce late middle Irish rather than some watered down Munster Irish. So we can be all accurate about it.

opti0nal · 15-03-2012 8:28am

Cliste wrote: »

Passing judgement - seems a bit harsh. Are you passing judgement or expressing an opinion - I'd like to think I'm expressing an opinion! I was merely pointing out that it's not very aspirational to say something cannot be done.

It seems judgemental of English to say that we can make progress by replacing it with Irish. It is of course a baseless opinion as you offer no evidence as to how this would progress us as a nation, for example by solving our economic problems. Perhaps you just mean 'progress in accomplishing the main aim'?

Can you explain why you think that the approach taken by Zionists would be appropriate? As far as I know, many Palestinians found this to be quite unsatisfactory?

Some things should not be done.

Grudaire · 16-03-2012 12:41am

But I wasn't trying to argue that it should or shouldn't.... Oh forget it,

Bain sult as Lá Féile Phádraig - feicfidh mé sibh i snáth éigin eile anseo gan dabht!

(Enjoy Paddy's day, see you in another thread

)

opti0nal · 16-03-2012 8:06am

Cliste wrote: »

Bain sult as Lá Féile Phádraig - feicfidh mé sibh i snáth éigin eile anseo gan dabht!

Indeed let us celebrate that much-loved Briton who had great influence in changing Irish society, beliefs and customs.

Wibbs · 16-03-2012 11:16am

Oh god you did not go there.

I actually remember a time when to suggest Patrick was a Romanised Briton was damn near cultural blasphemy. In my school days I was told various origins to avoid the B word. French, Welsh, Scots and a vague "Celt" were the usual ones. The again the English go the other way and ignore/deny the huge influence of the Irish church in Christianising the country. They say Augustine and that's fine and dandy, but he was nearly a century or two too late.

Enkidu · 16-03-2012 5:58pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god you did not go there. I actually remember a time when to suggest Patrick was a Romanised Briton was damn near cultural blasphemy. In my school days I was told various origins to avoid the B word. French, Welsh, Scots and a vague "Celt" were the usual ones.

It's funny that they'd say Welsh and avoid Briton, since the Welsh are basically just one class of Briton. Of course I know the mental equation being executed in their heads: Briton = British = Brit = English.

Actually Patrick was probably a bilingual speaker of Primitive Welsh (or late British might be more accurate as Welsh, Cumbrian and Cornish hadn't split yet) and the British dialect of Latin. (His Latin is too good for him not to be a native speaker.) So you'd think the fact that he was a Latin speaking Christian Celt would be enough for them. Shows you the power of a word.

junder · 16-03-2012 8:24pm

Enkidu wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god you did not go there. I actually remember a time when to suggest Patrick was a Romanised Briton was damn near cultural blasphemy. In my school days I was told various origins to avoid the B word. French, Welsh, Scots and a vague "Celt" were the usual ones.

It's funny that they'd say Welsh and avoid Briton, since the Welsh are basically just one class of Briton. Of course I know the mental equation being executed in their heads: Briton = British = Brit = English.

Actually Patrick was probably a bilingual speaker of Primitive Welsh (or late British might be more accurate as Welsh, Cumbrian and Cornish hadn't split yet) and the British dialect of Latin. (His Latin is too good for him not to be a native speaker.) So you'd think the fact that he was a Latin speaking Christian Celt would be enough for them. Shows you the power of a word.

Why would they avoid the term Briton since that's who they are, they very people that the term Britain was derived from

Cú Giobach · 16-03-2012 9:01pm

junder wrote: »

Why would they avoid the term Briton since that's who they are, they very people that the term Britain was derived from

Because of its relationship with the modern, commonly held meaning of the word British, and its association in the eyes of many with "English".
I thought anybody from Britain or Ireland would understand that.

junder · 16-03-2012 9:55pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Why would they avoid the term Briton since that's who they are, they very people that the term Britain was derived from

Because of its relationship with the modern, commonly held meaning of the word British, and its association in the eyes of many with "English".
I thought anybody from Britain or Ireland would understand that.

Any welsh person who knows thier history would not only not have a problem with the term Briton but would actully be proud of the name

nuac · 16-03-2012 10:34pm

Interesting post Enkidu.
How did Irish stand at that time ( I presume Old Irish ) i.e was it more closely linked to whatever the Picts were speaking?

I live near Croagh Patrick. Must check in the morning to see if someone whitewashed the equivalent of "Brits out" in Old Irish on any rocks there in the 5th Century.

There are some Ogham markings on stones at Killadangan, a nearby townland. Might be worth checking them

Cú Giobach · 16-03-2012 10:40pm

junder wrote: »

Any welsh person who knows thier history would not only not have a problem with the term Briton but would actully be proud of the name

And many do for that very reason, I know of one elderly lady (who can but rarely does speak English) who loves the word and hates the word Welsh, but because of that quite common thing with language where words change their meaning or "feeling" over time, many don't see it that way, until of course it's pointed out to them that the Sais hijacked the word.

Unfortunately, it seems for the masses the word now has connotations of Englishness through the term "British", and the feeling of a word is more important than its exact historical origin.

opti0nal · 18-03-2012 8:58pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

one elderly lady (who can but rarely does speak English) ....Unfortunately, it seems for the masses the word now has connotations of Englishness through the term "British"

I'm having difficulty understanding both these statements, can you help?

I suspect that if we understood the reasononing behind them, we might also understand why English-speaking Irish people, particularly those living in Dublin, forsake their native maternal (English) language and assume Irish as their preferred language.

Cú Giobach · 19-03-2012 7:10am

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm having difficulty understanding both these statements, can you help?

Just this once, an elderly Welsh lady I know, who's first language is Welsh and who lives in a place where the vast majority of people speak Welsh as their first language and who has never had to speak much English in her lifetime, and who now practically never speaks English, embraces the word Briton because she knows the history behind the word, and doesn't like the word Welsh because she knows the history behind it also.

To many people in Wales (and Scotland and Ireland) the term British can mean "English" more than a collective word for those from Britain, how this word no longer just means "from Britain" can be seen from its use by people, and to describe people, who are not actually from Britain itself.

opti0nal · 19-03-2012 7:37am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

an elderly Welsh lady I know, who's first language is Welsh and who lives in a place where the vast majority of people speak Welsh as their first language

So, she speaks Welsh because she has Welsh as her native maternal language and everyone around her speaks Welsh. This is quite different to Dublin where it is proposed that people change from their native, maternal English, when everyone around them speaks English.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To many people in Wales (and Scotland and Ireland) the term British can mean "English"

Indeed it would be very 'unfortunate', as you said, to think somebody English, when they are not.

Cú Giobach · 19-03-2012 7:44am

opti0nal wrote: »

So, she speaks Welsh because she has Welsh as her native maternal language and everyone around her speaks Welsh. This is quite different to Dublin where it is proposed that people change from their native, maternal English, when everyone around them speaks English.

Very good deduction, you're on the ball today.

Indeed it would be very 'unfortunate', as you said, to think somebody English, when they are not.

Yep. Bye.

opti0nal · 19-03-2012 7:50am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Very good deduction, you're on the ball today.

So, why would native English speakers, living in a city of English speakers, where English is used for normal day-to-day activities, decide to change their daily language to Irish?

Wibbs · 19-03-2012 9:29am

nuac wrote: »

Interesting post Enkidu.
How did Irish stand at that time ( I presume Old Irish ) i.e was it more closely linked to whatever the Picts were speaking?

IIRC they were different languages. As late as the 8th century the venerable Bede describes the languages as different and he would have heard them first hand.

Bede wrote:

At the present time, there are five languages in Britain, just as the divine law is written in five books, all devoted to seeking out and setting forth one and the same kind of wisdom, namely the knowledge of sublime truth and of true sublimity. These are the English, British, Irish, Pictish, as well as the Latin languages; through the study of the scriptures, Latin is in general use among them all.

I presume what he calls "english" is the language of the Saxons? No idea what language "british" was though. Interestingly enough he seems to be talking about Britain as the landmass that contains England, Scotland and Wales(though doesn't mention Welsh), not Ireland which he always refers to separately and as separate in his writings. So he considers Irish(a "foreign" language) as a language of "his" country. No enmity involved. Maybe try convincing some of the Northern English towns that they should have a Gaeltacht?

I live near Croagh Patrick. Must check in the morning to see if someone whitewashed the equivalent of "Brits out" in Old Irish on any rocks there in the 5th Century.

Highly unlikely. That sentiment came much later. Back then and stretching back thousands of years, the connections and cultural interchange between these two islands were many. Hell they even found an Irish bloke buried among the locals and Romans in a Roman town in what is now southern England.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To many people in Wales (and Scotland and Ireland) the term British can mean "English" more than a collective word for those from Britain, how this word no longer just means "from Britain" can be seen from its use by people, and to describe people, who are not actually from Britain itself.

Very much so and the E word carries a lot of baggage with it. Has done for a very long time. Let's face it not surprisingly given that they packed most of said bags themselves.

opti0nal wrote: »

So, why would native English speakers, living in a city of English speakers, where English is used for normal day-to-day activities, decide to change their daily language to Irish?

They wouldn't and there's the rub. It makes little practical sense, beyond the cultural window dressing of new road signs and place names and they would be new and utterly artificial. The vast majority would automatically continue to read the english on signs etc. I'd include a goodly chunk of Gaeligoirs in that too. Forget practical sense it's nonsensical. A daft and futile exercise in cultural fancy.

Cú Giobach · 19-03-2012 10:08am

Wibbs wrote: »

I presume what he calls "english" is the language of the Saxons? No idea what language "british" was though. Interestingly enough he seems to be talking about Britain as the landmass that contains England, Scotland and Wales(though doesn't mention Welsh), not Ireland which he always refers to separately and as separate in his writings. So he considers Irish(a "foreign" language) as a language of "his" country. No enmity involved. Maybe try convincing some of the Northern English towns that they should have a Gaeltacht?

British would have been the Brythonic Celtic language. The forerunner of modern day Welsh, Cornish and Breton.
He would have considered the Gaelic language as one of the languages of his country because it was already in use in Western Scotland for a few hundred years before his time, and in a multilingual country/landmass, a language that has been in use for a few hundred years wouldn't be considered "foreign" to that country/landmass.

Wibbs · 19-03-2012 12:25pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

British would have been the Brythonic Celtic language. The forerunner of modern day Welsh, Cornish and Breton..

Ahh right. Makes sense.

He would have considered the Gaelic language as one of the languages of his country because it was already in use in Western Scotland for a few hundred years before his time, and in a multilingual country/landmass, a language that has been in use for a few hundred years wouldn't be considered "foreign" to that country/landmass

My point being that it was a foreign tongue born on the back of conquest(Dalriada etc) and a religious "invasion" and it's surprising he appears to show no issue with this, nor considers it foreign because of the history behind it. Doubly so as in his writings he mentions more than once of Irish raiders and armies coming over killing and enslaving locals right up to his time.

Bede wrote:

they were rapidly reduced to a state of terror and misery by two extremely fierce races from over the waters, the Irish from the west and the Picts from the north; and this lasted many years.

He regards English/Saxon similarly(and they were recent invaders, "pagan" and really bloody vicious). It seems to me anyway that he doesn't view language as some sort of a political football to take issue about, just another method of communication. Something we might learn from.

Gaeltacht in Dublin? Only if local people in a majority decide to go down that road. Hold a local plebiscite* to gauge the want for it. If a majority are in favour then grand, if not then do not impose cultural window dressing for the sake of it and for the sake of the small in number but very vocal Irish language lobbyists.

*Not like the Dingle plebiscite on the name change. That was an undemocratic farce on the part of O'Cuiv and his minions.

A Gaeltacht in Dublin?

Comments