Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should we suppress the Irish language.. ?
Options
Comments
-
Looking over the thread - I think it's safe to say that while the majority of people support the language, there are some which do not. I think we could continue arguing for another 20 pages, but it will result in the same arguments.
I'm glad the language still has support, and I have full confidence it will be brought back into everyday life in Ireland. Gaelscoilenna are opening up every year with long waiting lists, and there are alot of people active outside of Gaeltachtaí trying to learn the language. Not to mention the new 20 year plan by the Government, which is developed correctly could give a major boost to the language.
If Wales can do it, we can do. Gaeilge abú!0 -
If Irish is so wonderful, then why are all these extra incentives needed for people to learn it?radioactiveman wrote: »How about giving you 20 extra points if you get an A1 in Honours Irish in the leaving? Or even if you are just deemed brilliant enough to actually fking speak like a native in the oral, 20 extra points on the spot. That would motivate people.
Molested.kickoutthejams wrote: »Were you touched by the Irish language as a child?0 -
If Irish is so wonderful, then why are all these extra incentives needed for people to learn it?
Well in fairness, the language had been brutally suppressed for years so it does need a leg up to a certain extent.
Giving people extra marks in their Physics test for answering in Irish is absolutely the wrong way to go about it though. If the 3rd level institutions in Ireland had any balls they would put pressure on the government to scrap the bonus marks for answering in Irish.
I mean really why should a fluent Irish speaker be given an advantage over other students going for college places when the chances are they won't be needing any Irish at all.0 -
kickoutthejams wrote: »Yes, but if it gives people pleasure and they find it a good language, then it is useful. Regardless of how subjective it is, it still can be a useful language, even if you don't think si.
The state is funding a lot of stuff I disagree with, personally I think funding Irish isn't a bad thing although not the way the state is going about it.
Well if Irish is useful because people find pleasure in learning it, then so are Swahili and Zulu. The state shouldn't fund those in school as mandatory subjects though. I'll further address what you said about funding later this the post.kickoutthejams wrote: »Don't you dare bring Heath Ledger into this:mad:
A person's language can indeed define them, doesn't always have to be that way but it is still something people can define themselves by.
Why are you bringing up American's trading Irish for English. Why would they? They learned English due to the country they grew up in and Irish due to a belief in their ancestry/a simple interest in the language.
Ok well if people can define themselves by the language they speak, then I can define myself by the spec of my computer, or the brand of milk I buy in the shop. In fact, more so by the latter two, because I chose them.
Americans learning Irish in an attempt to get in touch with their ancestors' culture, fair enough. They think that will help to 'define' them. I don't get people with that mentality. It reminds me of a recent thread here where an American guy wanted to change his name to Seamus and 'become' Irish. Like I said before, I feel sorry for people with such seemingly empty lives.kickoutthejams wrote: »Uh, what?
I said some people view others as rootles when they don't define themselves by their birthplace (I should also have put in their culture, forgot to do so)
Ok...but is being rootless a bad thing?kickoutthejams wrote: »At any rate, you might be defining yourself by being Russian. I went to school with American kids born in South Africa who viewed themselves as South African.
I might, in the parrallel universe where I lived there, and my whole life was different. I just thank Heath Ledger that I don't want to define myself by anything so shallow. As for the American kids viewing themselves as South African, well, I think we are getting a bit off track here and veering into another topic.kickoutthejams wrote: »I did know Belgians who had never been to America but who defined themselves as American due to their watching of American TV and identifying far more with the American dialect than their own.
Weird...kickoutthejams wrote: »You saying you've never met an Irish speaker who defined themselves as such?
I know I have.
I don't think I've met a whole lot of Irish speakers.kickoutthejams wrote: »Not really, I accept that parents have choices to make for their kids. Kids can't think for themselves on some issues at such an age. YOur argument on parents being filled with culture and blind patriotism could be used the opposite way. A kid might be better off learning Irish but the parents refuse as they are filled with a following of British/American culture or a blind hatred of all things Irish.
But that's the point. IS a kid better off learning Irish? Don't you think it would be far more valuable to have the kid learn French or German?kickoutthejams wrote: »At any rate, I would support kids learning Irish as part of the curriculum until they enter secondary school and then have the choice to make themselves.
People say similars things about religion. Maybe this is for another thread, but the concept is the same IMO - forcing a useless, outdated piece of culture down a child's neck before they are old enough to know better.0 -
Of course it should'nt be done away with. Think about it,all them people died,michael collins etc to fight for a true Ireland, so the GAA and our language amongst other things make irish people unique without it all of them people died in vain and we may as well start flying the english flag.0
-
Advertisement
-
While I totally disagree, at least you're being honest.Think about it,all them people died,michael collins etc to fight for a true Ireland, so the GAA and our language amongst other things make irish people unique without it all of them people died in vain and we may as well start flying the english flag.
While there are many similarities between England and Ireland, there are also plenty of differences; you just mentioned a big one yourself, i.e. the GAA. Forcing an ancient language on the population to further differentiate between the two is totally unnecessary.0 -
While I totally disagree, at least you're being honest.
While there are many similarities between England and Ireland, there are also plenty of differences; you just mentioned a big one yourself, i.e. the GAA. Forcing an ancient language on the population to further differentiate between the two is totally unnecessary.
Yes it's unnecessary. I'd go further and say it smacks of an inferiority complex.
Ironically, a xenophobic move like forcing the population to use Irish would bring us more into line with our neighbours who cling to £'s and lbs.0 -
This anti-Brit thing is a dilemma that Irish people have wrestled with for years.
They can't decide how to dance jigs at the crossroads, while at the same time support Manchester United.
When watching TV, they want to switch over to the Liverpool game, and yet part of them feels it would be more 'Irish' to watch TnaG...without the English subtitles.
There are thousands of Irish people who moved to England to better themselves, and they are still doing so.
So they don't hate everything English after all, huh? They want it both ways. They want to retain their Irish-ness, but they also want the advantages of living in evil England.
In the Kilburn area of north London there is a sizable population of Irish people. They used to have collections for the IRA in the pubs there.0 -
I never stated it was a genocide. It wasn't. But the British Government failed their duties to the Irish people. So long as we agree on that, that's fine.
As I pointed out earlier, the concept that the government had a "duty of care" is essentially a modern concept. The closest the government of the time had was the Poor Laws, which placed responsibility for the care of the weakest members of society on the local parish and community, which also did not apply in Ireland. The government of the time was "laissez faire" - it did not get involved other than in matters of law. Your refusal to even acknowlege my point that Landowners, not the government, caused and could have solved the artificial famine, only goes to support my point about the attitudes to history Irish people have. Facts are unimportant, and when they undermine the "hate the brits" agenda, they should be ignored and/or suppressed.Nice wikipedia'ing there bub. The Irish language was still spoken throughout Ireland in the 1800's. Ireland was bilingual coming into the beginning of the 1800's. In 1800 100% of children in all Gaeltacht regions had Gaeilge as a first language, in 1860 only 5% had. Look into the demographics. I have no doubt that English was becoming popular in Ireland, but if the famine and banning of gaeilge had not of happened - Ireland would be right now a true bilingual country.
And again, your whole point of view is skewed towards the "blame the brits" attitude rather than looking at the facts.
Blaming the banning of Irish in National schools would be relevant if Irish had been taught in National schools before. The teaching of Irish wasn't "removed" all of a sudden by the state. People were still free to learn and speak the language. By your argument, people were fully fluent prior to the introduction of National Schools. Therefore there would have been no need for people to be taught Irish in school, would there? There would, however have been a need for them to be taught English, in order to improve their job prospects. A far more relevant point is that the Catholic Church discouraged the language as "backward", and given the Church's influence over the people, this is far more likely to have had an effect on the language than whether or not the official schools taught Irish to a population that was already fluent.The famine and national schools killed Gaeilge. They both combined had the greatest impact on the language in recorded history. Not to mention, the influence of British rule over the years was a direct cause of it's slow downfall. This is documented fact. So yes, the British are directly responsible for the death of the language, whether you would like to accept it or not.
1: Why would any occupying nation take on the language of the nation it occupies? That makes no sense. The Normans refused to speak English for hundreds of years, and official court documents were still produced in French in the 1700's.
2: Your logic that the non-teaching of a subject that the population was already fluent in in an institution that hadn't existed up until that point, is to blame for the decline, is flawed at best as I have pointed out above.
3: The country's religious and political leaders of the time all made much bigger and more concerted efforts to stamp out the language than the government did. In fact, the government-backed Church of Ireland took greater steps to promote the language than the Catholics ever did.
But again, don't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your rosy-tinted view of history.0 -
Well, I disagree with it being mandatory but schools do fund a whole host of languages.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Well if Irish is useful because people find pleasure in learning it, then so are Swahili and Zulu. The state shouldn't fund those in school as mandatory subjects though. I'll further address what you said about funding later this the post.
You can indeed.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Ok well if people can define themselves by the language they speak, then I can define myself by the spec of my computer, or the brand of milk I by in the shop. In fact, more so by the latter two, because I chose them.
They are empty by your opinion. I wouldn't foist mine on them.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Americans learning Irish in an attempt to get in touch with their ancestors' culture, fair enough. They think that will help to 'define' them. I don't get people with that mentality. It reminds me of a recent thread here where an American guy wanted to change his name to Seamus and 'become' Irish. Like I said before, I feel sorry for people with such seemingly empty lives.
Again it's all subjective.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Ok...but is being rootless a bad thing?
Again, it's only by your definition they are shallow. People are free to define themselves however they want.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I might, in the parrallel universe where I lived there, and my whole life was different. I just thank Heath Ledger that I don't want to define myself by anything so shallow. As for the American kids viewing themselves as South African, well, I think we are getting a bit off track here and veering into another topic.
I live in Galway, I meet a lot.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I don't think I've met a whole lot of Irish speakers.
Different strokes for different folks. Languages are about far more than communication. I personally take great pleasure in learning languages. In everything from the phrases to the dialect. I learnt Latin. Never have any reason to speak it. Still liked doing it.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »But that's the point. IS a kid better off learning Irish? Don't you think it would be far more valuable to have the kid learn French or German?
Again, useless and outdated in your opinion.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »People say similars things about religion. Maybe this is for another thread, but the concept is the same IMO - forcing a useless, outdated piece of culture down a child's neck before they are old enough to know better.
Parent's will foist their own views on kids: on everything from morality to politics. It's human to do so. The trick is to make sure it's not done too heavily until the kid can decide for themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
kickoutthejams wrote: »Well, I disagree with it being mandatory but schools do fund a whole host of languages.
Great, so do I.
I think the rest of our discussion is going nowhere. You obviously are very much pro-culture, heritage, country..etc. I, on the other hand think there are too many 'cultures', languages and countries. These things only serve to divide the human race in my opinion, and have no real further value. Why have two languages when one will do? Just so one can say, "You are not from my tribe, and I'm not from yours"? I'm perfectly capable of figuring out who I am without looking to my ancestors, my flag, religion or language.0 -
We've pretty much been agreed on that from the start.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Great, so do I.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I think the rest of our discussion is going nowhere. You obviously are very much pro-culture, heritage, country..etc. I, on the other hand think there are too many 'cultures', languages and countries. These things only serve to divide the human race in my opinion, and have no real further value. Why have two languages when one will do? Just so one can say, "You are not from my tribe, and I'm not from yours"? I'm perfectly capable of figuring out who I am without looking to my ancestors, my flag, religion or language.
It's important to note that I am personally for heritage, culture etc. I don't think it should be forced on anyone.
But I would disagree with you when you say too many cultures, languages and countrys are around and divide the human race. Human's are divided on pretty much everything and there are great benefits from multiculturalism (for example, I love Chinese food and French philosophy, Ireland was extremely enriched by contact with this)
I think a homogenisation of human culture is a terrible thing. I love the diversity that humans have. So much would be lost if we started merging into one big universal culture.0 -
Slutmonkey57b wrote: »Blaming the banning of Irish in National schools would be relevant if Irish had been taught in National schools before.
So it's not relevant that they did not educate people in their native language in a widespread, national school system? Yeah, that SURELY didn't do anything to destroy the language. :rolleyes:Slutmonkey57b wrote: »The teaching of Irish wasn't "removed" all of a sudden by the state. People were still free to learn and speak the language.
Yes, yes it was. Anybody educated in the national schools were not allowed to learn Gaeilge in the schools. The national schools were prevelant throughout Ireland. And THUS - caused a severe decrease in the amount of people who were educated through the medium of Irish.Slutmonkey57b wrote: »By your argument, people were fully fluent prior to the introduction of National Schools. Therefore there would have been no need for people to be taught Irish in school, would there?
If you stop posting nonsense and read what I wrote, you'd see that children within the Gaeltachtai went from a 100% rate of first-spoken by the children, to 5% from the inception of the national schools system, til the end of the famine.
If you are suggesting that the national schools did not have a severe effect on the Irish language, then you are deluded beyond belief.Slutmonkey57b wrote: »A far more relevant point is that the Catholic Church discouraged the language as "backward", and given the Church's influence over the people, this is far more likely to have had an effect on the language than whether or not the official schools taught Irish to a population that was already fluent.
Oh yeah - going from full irish immersion to full english immersion through school had a minumum effect whatsoever on the language.. :rolleyes:Slutmonkey57b wrote: »1: Why would any occupying nation take on the language of the nation it occupies? That makes no sense.
So now you agree that Britain destroyed the language? Which is it? Make up your mind.Slutmonkey57b wrote: »2: Your logic that the non-teaching of a subject that the population was already fluent in in an institution that hadn't existed up until that point, is to blame for the decline, is flawed at best as I have pointed out above.
No, I have already outlined how ridiculous that argument is. Next.Slutmonkey57b wrote: »But again, don't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your rosy-tinted view of history.
What facts? What tinted view have I outlined? Everything I have stated is accurate. You are an apologist for Britain and refuse to accept their part in the demise of the Irish language, which was a major factor in it's demise.0 -
So it's not relevant that they did not educate people in their native language in a widespread, national school system? Yeah, that SURELY didn't do anything to destroy the language. :rolleyes:
Yes, yes it was. Anybody educated in the national schools were not allowed to learn Gaeilge in the schools. The national schools were prevelant throughout Ireland. And THUS - caused a severe decrease in the amount of people who were educated through the medium of Irish.
1) You are apparantly deliberately ignoring your own earlier point that the language was healthy, flourishing, and widely fluently spoken.
If the language was so healthy, and there was no bar on people speaking it, and it was the first language of the people......
2) Why would it be necessary to teach it in the newly formed schools? It wouldn't be.
3) There was no "decline" in the number of people educated through Irish. The National Schools were created because there was no widespread teaching of anything. You are repeatedly trying to paint a picture of a sudden decline in academic standards following the banning of Irish in school. That simply could not be the case if, prior to this event, there were no schools. This was not a change in policy in an existing academic environment that led to a change in standards and proficiency. There was no prior academic standard.
4) The teaching of French and German in modern schools doesn't suddenly result in the immediate decline of the English language, does it? No - because English is people's first language, they are proficient in it before encountering another language, and they use it all day in their daily lives.
The only reason Irish could have declined and failed is if there was pressure outside school to stop using it.If you stop posting nonsense and read what I wrote, you'd see that children within the Gaeltachtai went from a 100% rate of first-spoken by the children, to 5% from the inception of the national schools system, til the end of the famine.
Factual information isn't nonsense. See above, your own preferred statistics are actually undermining your argument.If you are suggesting that the national schools did not have a severe effect on the Irish language, then you are deluded beyond belief.
You accuse me of being deluded, yet you repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge the various things I've pointed out that undermine your arguments. Repeating flawed or incomplete theories doesn't make them any more plausible. You are harping on about one part of a historical process and ignoring other, more directly relevant factors in the demise of the language.Oh yeah - going from full irish immersion to full english immersion through school had a minumum effect whatsoever on the language.. :rolleyes:
They were still "fully immersed" according to you when they were outside school, weren't they? Their parents, family, friends, all spoke Irish fluently. Your argument holds as much weight as suggesting that children brought up speaking English suddenly lose the ability to speak English if they are enrolled in a gaelscoil. It's utter nonsense.So now you agree that Britain destroyed the language? Which is it? Make up your mind.
Why are you so desperate to assert that one single factor, or in the case of your arguments, two factors both the fault of the British, are the cause of the death of the language? I simply maintain that there was more than one factor involved, and that the National Schools were a minor one, for the logical reasons outlined above. Social pressure from outside the schools to give up speaking the language and switch exclusively to English (which was coming from the Irish Heirarchy) was clearly a much larger factor.No, I have already outlined how ridiculous that argument is. Next.
Actually, you not only haven't outlined anything, you've failed to address it at all. I've repeated it several times, and each time you've demanded to know why I won't "admit" that the National Schools are responsible for the failure of the language. That's not a rebuttal of any sort.What facts? What tinted view have I outlined? Everything I have stated is accurate. You are an apologist for Britain and refuse to accept their part in the demise of the Irish language, which was a major factor in it's demise.
You have spent the whole post ranting about my bias, when you have failed to even look outside your argument of "it's all the fault of the National Schools and the Famine, and therefore all the fault of the British". You haven't even acknowledged that there might be other contributing factors, never mind which factors had the greater influence, never mind offered explanations as to what's drawn you to those conclusions.
I've made several, clear, reasoned arguments that have pointed out that there is more than one reason a) why there was an artificial famine, and b) why the Irish language failed. I also made the point that the Irish attitude to History is to veer defiantly in favour of the "those evil Brits did it" without recourse to thinking about what else might have been going on at the same time. As your posts get more and more heated, and more and more focussed on getting me to "admit" that the British are at fault, you're only proving that theory more and more correct.
You accuse me of being an apologist.
1) Stating that the British Government was laissez faire, and did not care about the poor of any part of its empire (England included) at the time of the famine is not an "apologist" position.
2) Stating that Native Irish Catholic landowners, living on their lands, saw the suffering of the peasants and chose to ignore it, is not an "apologist" position.
3) Stating that the Catholic Church and the Irish Political classes both made great efforts to stamp out the use of Irish and force the population to switch to English is not an "apologist" position.
The above are factual, documented positions. The reason I think they inspire such impassioned vitriol is that they undermine the way our history is presented to us, and the way a lot of Irish people choose to view the world: "800 years of us vs. the Brits". I merely maintain that life, and history, are rarely that simplistic.0 -
OK everyone is clear that the language was persecuted by the powers to be, be that the British and/or the church before 1922.
Official persecution stopped then! why did the language continue to decline.
I don't know the percentage of Irish speakers in 1922, but am certain the figures continued to fall almost up to the present day.
It should have taken one generation for the decline to be stopped, i.e. 1922 1940's when the state initially tried to revive the language.
But because the government (& civil service) never practiced what they preached, the decline continued.
If any Irish government was serious about restoring the language to being the first spoken language of the country, they would have compelled their own TD's & civil servants to use the language.
Then people would have seen that Irish was useful to have and would have retained what they were learning at school.
As it was many in the Gaeltacht were still being forced to use english for any official business, revenue services, social service, healthcare etc, probably still true today.
This is one of the main reasons that many feel that Irish is a "dead language".
Any real revival needs to come from the top and be supported by the people.
Except in Belfast where the people have taken it unto themselves to revive the language - as much to spite their neighbours and establish a seperate identity, than a for a real love of the language.0 -
ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »Excuse me ? I have no problem with the English language thank you very much. Just because i wrote a message quickly in a online forum, which may have been unclear, doesnt mean im an example to be used by your "righteous" arse as some sort of guinea pig to the failures of the irish government.
According to your earlier post, you do, or rather that you're not bothered on account of being an engineer?
My "righteous" arse is doing nothing more than pointing out an inconvenient fact:
The supporters of Irish have been using the "badly taught" excuse for decades. The truth is that it is better, and more consistently taught, and more lavishly funded, than any other subject in school. Blaming the teachers, the Government, and the schools, is nothing more than finding a fall guy for the failure of the language to stand on its own two feet. I'm sorry you took offense at me using you as an example, but frankly it provided a perfect example of what I was highlighting: Lack of aptitude in Irish is supposedly the Goverment's fault, but lack of aptitude in other subjects is the student's fault.By the way as you seem to pick what you like out of my posts ill just presume you agree with my other points.
A classically brilliant solution to the problem of someone who inconveniently doesn't agree with a flawed assumption.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Except in Belfast where the people have taken it unto themselves to revive the language - as much to spite their neighbours and establish a seperate identity, than a for a real love of the language.
That attitude of language as a political tool, and a system of xenophobic exclusion, is one that is far more relevant in my opinion to the revival movement down here than any other arguments about its place in daily life.0 -
You continously claim that the national schools had little to no effect on the language, but yet - the figures show a dramatic decline in the fluency of the language after their introduction. And then a further decline after the famine - at a rate that was never before seen prior to the national schools implementation. The numbers speak for themselves.
One more thing.Your argument holds as much weight as suggesting that children brought up speaking English suddenly lose the ability to speak English if they are enrolled in a gaelscoil.
Gaelscoilenna teach English as a subject. The National schools did not teach Irish as a subject. Secondly, English is the primarly language used in everyday life here - so it is hard for them to not pick it up. Thirdly, Ireland in the 1800's was bilingual - both languages were used, but when one is used in standard curriculum, it soon became the primary language, and hence - irish died. If the national schools educated through the medium of Irish, and the British Government had responded to the famine appropiately, Ireland would today be a bilingual country. Fact. And that sir, is the reason why Britain is directly responsible for the demise of gaeilge. So no, my argument holds it's weight just fine.0 -
kickoutthejams wrote: »It's important to note that I am personally for heritage, culture etc. I don't think it should be forced on anyone.
But I would disagree with you when you say too many cultures, languages and countrys are around and divide the human race. Human's are divided on pretty much everything and there are great benefits from multiculturalism (for example, I love Chinese food and French philosophy, Ireland was extremely enriched by contact with this)
I think a homogenisation of human culture is a terrible thing. I love the diversity that humans have. So much would be lost if we started merging into one big universal culture.
I didn't say multiculturalism was not a good thing. Only that the world has too many (in times past, we had FAR more). Multiculturalism is something that occurs naturally when different people live together, and it's a good thing, as I believe that eventually we will have a 'universal' culture, and that will be a mix of everything. I don't, however think it's progressive to bring out the resuscitation paddles on a dying language, just for the purpose of being able to divide one group from another. Let's not forget that the Irish language lobby wants it to be an official European language, and for it to have far more prominence in our society. Imagine we ended up resurrecting it completely, and speaking it as our first language - one more interpreter to attend UN meetings I suppose. I don't think it's a good idea to dilute our grasp of English any further TBH.0 -
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Let's not forget that the Irish language lobby wants it to be an official European language, and for it to have far more prominence in our society. Imagine we ended up resurrecting it completely, and speaking it as our first language - one more interpreter to attend UN meetings I suppose. I don't think it's a good idea to dilute our grasp of English any further TBH.
Lookt to how other countries with a minority language operate, Holland, Iceland to name but two. Those countries have ensured that children are educated in at least one other international language (mainly English) so their citizens have no difficulties in the international arena.
There is no reason who Ireland can't do the same, as things stand the chances of Ireland becoming monoglot Irish are zero.
I'm all in favour of Ireland being bi-lingual with people being at ease using either language depending on the mood/curcamstances, welsh people can "switch" between welsh and english easily during a conversation.
EDIT: I dont see much point in going over the history as to why the language declined before the 1920 anymore, that particular spilt bottle of milk has long gone off, the bad smell is still around, clean it up! and move on.
What is done is done! look forward not back!0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Lookt to how other countries with a minority language operate, Holland, Iceland to name but two. Those countries have ensured that children are educated in at least one other international language (mainly English) so their citizens have no difficulties in the international arena.
There is no reason who Ireland can't do the same, as things stand the chances of Ireland becoming monoglot Irish are zero.
I'm all in favour of Ireland being bi-lingual with people being at ease using either language depending on the mood/curcamstances, welsh people can "switch" between welsh and english easily during a conversation.
EDIT: I dont see much point in going over the history as to why the language declined before the 1920 anymore, that particular spilt bottle of milk has long gone off, the bad smell is still around, clean it up! and move on.
What is done is done! look forward not back!
Making Ireland bi-lingual would ultimately mean sacrificing some of the population's ability with English. How could it be any other way? Our 'Irish English' dialect is a direct result of the two languages mixing. Iceland and Holland don't have the same level of proficiency with the English language as native speaking countries. I'd rather the population of Ireland remained fluent English speakers, and didn't downgrade English to just some international language that may help people in the business world. People all over the world push themselves hard to become even somewhat proficient at English. We are already there! The notion of Ireland using state money to fund the collapse of our English language seems pointlessly insular (on an emotional level) and asininely stupid (on a practical level). How much of our economy relies on our English language interaction with other countries? A hell of a lot I'd imagine.
The resurrection of dead language is hardly ever for harmless, cultural, academic reasons. Just look at the resurrection of Hebrew in Israel. When was that language last used in day to day speech before 1948? It was a political device for separating two people. Raising Irish from the dead has the same political and divisive undertones.0 -
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Just look at the resurrection of Hebrew in Israel. When was that language last used in day to day speech before 1948? It was a political device for separating two people. Raising Irish from the dead has the same political and divisive undertones.
I think that hebrew was resurrected because the new state had peoples from all over europe dumped their as a result of being displaced in WWII, all speaking different languages - which one to use?
Lets favour no one and use an extinct one instead, then no one can claim favorism in the choice. It was a success as it unified Jews from many different backgrounds.
Unfortunately for some, Irish has political (republican) overtones, that's probably one of the reasons for it's failure to be accepted by many.0 -
How do you know i'm an engineer?Slutmonkey57b wrote: »According to your earlier post, you do, or rather that you're not bothered on account of being an engineer?
Do you know the grade i got in higher level english,irish,math etc etc in the leaving cert my assuming friend?
Your going to judge my aptitude in a subject on a post i make on an online forum,
Example A is meant to be me is it? Everyone gather round while my grammar etc gets commented on by William Shakespeare himself.I was highlighting: Lack of aptitude in Irish is supposedly the Goverment's fault, but lack of aptitude in other subjects is the student's fault.0 -
Correlation is not causation.You continously claim that the national schools had little to no effect on the language, but yet - the figures show a dramatic decline in the fluency of the language after their introduction. And then a further decline after the famine - at a rate that was never before seen prior to the national schools implementation. The numbers speak for themselves.
Eh, no; that would be counterfactual hypothesis.If the national schools educated through the medium of Irish, and the British Government had responded to the famine appropiately, Ireland would today be a bilingual country. Fact.
Well said.Deleted User wrote: »I dont see much point in going over the history as to why the language declined before the 1920 anymore, that particular spilt bottle of milk has long gone off, the bad smell is still around, clean it up! and move on.
What is done is done! look forward not back!0 -
that particular spilt bottle of milk has long gone off, the bad smell is still around, clean it up! and move on.
What is done is done! look forward not back!
and always twirling, twirling twirling towards freedom! /rolleyes0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I think that hebrew was resurrected because the new state had peoples from all over europe dumped their as a result of being displaced in WWII, all speaking different languages - which one to use?
Lets favour no one and use an extinct one instead, then no one can claim favorism in the choice. It was a success as it unified Jews from many different backgrounds.
Unfortunately for some, Irish has political (republican) overtones, that's probably one of the reasons for it's failure to be accepted by many.
Well, most of them would have spoken Yiddish, and the Arab Jewish population would have spoken Arabic. You'd think that when moving to a place in the world where most people speak Arabic, you'd do the same. Let's not get into that though - we'd go way OT.0 -
-
I don't think having a universal culture will solve anything to be honest. We need the constant merging of different cultures to achieve multiculturalism, it is also a continuous thing so we would never really have a single universal culture. Most likely just one culture which is by necessity adopted by others.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I didn't say multiculturalism was not a good thing. Only that the world has too many (in times past, we had FAR more). Multiculturalism is something that occurs naturally when different people live together, and it's a good thing, as I believe that eventually we will have a 'universal' culture, and that will be a mix of everything. I don't, however think it's progressive to bring out the resuscitation paddles on a dying language, just for the purpose of being able to divide one group from another. Let's not forget that the Irish language lobby wants it to be an official European language, and for it to have far more prominence in our society. Imagine we ended up resurrecting it completely, and speaking it as our first language - one more interpreter to attend UN meetings I suppose. I don't think it's a good idea to dilute our grasp of English any further TBH.
People from the same cultures have had enough rows in the past, so I doubt one giant universal culture will change this.
Irish is an official EU language. I am glad it is as it gave me the opportunity to study it in foreign school systems. Funnily enough, I knew translators over in Belgium who were studying Irish as they found it such a wonderfully unique language. They liked it.
At any rate, why would it matter if we spoke Irish as a first language but still maintained English as a business language? Wishful thinking I know, but I almost every Dutch person I met had excellent English. They were practical about it. They didn;t insist on continuous dubbing like the French did on English media but maintained a balance between the two.0 -
I'm sure you are quite aware of what I said; the following is NOT fact, despite your claim to the contrary:So basically, you had absolutely nothing to say.
"If the national schools educated through the medium of Irish, and the British Government had responded to the famine appropiately, Ireland would today be a bilingual country."0 -
Advertisement
-
You continously claim that the national schools had little to no effect on the language, but yet - the figures show a dramatic decline in the fluency of the language after their introduction. And then a further decline after the famine - at a rate that was never before seen prior to the national schools implementation. The numbers speak for themselves.
The numbers (assuming they're accurate, and you haven't provided sources) tell you the result. They don't tell you the cause. Assigning meaning to those numbers means you have to evaluate all the factors which affected use of the language, not just the two you like the sound of best. Since you're refusing to acknowledge the other historical factors, your "conclusion" is flawed and meaningless.
Analogy:
Pupil Ted gets an A in his mock Junior cert French exam.
Pupil Ted gets a C in his real Junior Cert French exam.
Your conclusion:
Pupil Ted got mugged and beaten over the head between the two exams, causing massive brain damage.
Clearly Ted's exam nerves/change in topics of exam questions/leniency in marking from his teacher in the mocks/increase in exam question difficulty couldn't POSSIBLY be factors.Gaelscoilenna teach English as a subject. The National schools did not teach Irish as a subject. Secondly, English is the primarly language used in everyday life here - so it is hard for them to not pick it up. Thirdly, Ireland in the 1800's was bilingual - both languages were used, but when one is used in standard curriculum, it soon became the primary language, and hence - irish died. If the national schools educated through the medium of Irish, and the British Government had responded to the famine appropiately, Ireland would today be a bilingual country. Fact. And that sir, is the reason why Britain is directly responsible for the demise of gaeilge. So no, my argument holds it's weight just fine.
This is your rebuttal? Really?
You claim that National Schools destroyed the language because pupils were pressurised to learn English through the schools, (and that they were under no pressure to use it outside school).
And yet you maintain that, given the same circumstances, with the languages reversed, the "mother" language is not affected at all?
This is the most nonsensical level of argument I've ever been witness to.ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »How do you know i'm an engineer?
Do you know the grade i got in higher level english,irish,math etc etc in the leaving cert my assuming friend?
Errr.... Maybe it was when you stated "more of an engineer, me" in a previous post.
If I took it as read that you were of an engineering bent and you're not, please forward the blame to the person that gave the impression you were an engineer....Example A is meant to be me is it? Everyone gather round while my grammar etc gets commented on by William Shakespeare himself.
You take offence at being used as an example. I already apologised once so I'm not doing it again. You've now made, let's see, 3 posts giving out about it? Yet you still haven't got an answer to my point:
Why is poor performance in Irish blamed on the structure of the teaching, when poor performance in other subjects is blamed on individual competence?
Why am I even asking you two to respond, I've asked the same questions multiple times and all you're both doing is harping on about the same tangential stuff so you can avoid admitting you haven't got a response to something you don't want to hear.
Which in itself is classical commentary on the attitude that Irish supporters have had in relation to the language for years now.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement