Nationalism and the Irish Language

The Corinthian

conchubhar1 wrote: »

quite good really - 2010 and technology enable people to translate should they wish.

Good for you. I was wondering how you managed to post in Irish.

Actually speaking a language works better for me.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A very weak argument. Children in the Gaelscoileanna learn English. English books are not currently banned for publication so your comparison is preposterrous and fabricated. After the 1831 education Act children were forbidden to learn or speak Irish in national schools. This has been historically accepted as attemted linguicide.

The 2006 census returns pertaining to the Irish language are here (PDF file), for anyone who cares to peruse them.

In the 2006 census, 1,650,982 people aged three and over claimed the ability to speak Irish. Of those, 452,925 said that they spoke the language only within the educational system.

Asked about the frequency with which they used the language outside the educational system, 53,130 people said they spoke it daily; 96,716 said they spoke it weekly; 578,779 said they spoke it less frequently than weekly; and 411,043 said they never used it.

These figures speak for themselves, I think

As has been pointed out 42% of people can now speak it as opposed to 19% in 1926.
More importantly for revitaling the language the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes. The amount of Irish speaking schools in operation now is unprecedented. This is clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language.

Many people will rant because they hate it but you will find that the vast majority of these people hate nationalism (only the Irish variety) and have irrationally associated it with and projected this hatred to the Irish language.

#15

Ah come on, 42% cannot speak Irish.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

As has been pointed out 42% of people can now speak it as opposed to 19% in 1926.

Even if we ignore the truly unreliable nature of gathering such data through self assessment, a point that has been repeatedly made to you and you continue to ignore, I am taken aback by the completely dishonest manipulation of this data by you.

Over half of those who 'can speak it' either never do or only do so in education (where they are forced to). Of the remainder, only a small fraction claim to speak it on a daily basis, constituting well under 5% of the population.

And claim is an important word here because anyone who may have retained Cúpla Focal from their school days could claim to 'speak' the language. In reality, the Irish spoken by most of us, myself included, sounds more like this.

So laughable are your interpretation, let alone reliability, of your claim that I can equally say I speak Latin, ancient Egyptian and Japanese by the your same logic.

More importantly for revitaling the language the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes. The amount of Irish speaking schools in operation now is unprecedented. This is clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language.

Where you deduce that "the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes" is beyond me. Irish is a required exam in some of the professions, such as the Bar, but unless you are one of those rare solicitors or barristers who practice through the language (they do exist as even if small a demand does exist), it is a once off exam you cram for an never think on again. Where did you get this bizarre connection?

Worst of all you see this as "clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language" when the only thing that has been clear is that it has been in continuous decline for years. Such a deluded view is actually counter productive to the health of the language as it would lead one to believe that the strategies employed since independence have succeeded. People like you are killing the language.

I dread the day that, without change or reform in how we promote Irish, conversations with someone like you will begin to resemble Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch.

Many people will rant because they hate it but you will find that the vast majority of these people hate nationalism (only the Irish variety) and have irrationally associated it with and projected this hatred to the Irish language

If you can actually resort to something more than simplistic and empty rhetoric, such accusations may be more believable. If you want to find someone who has betrayed his nation or the Irish language, I suspect you will have better luck finding them in a mirror.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

A very weak argument. Children in the Gaelscoileanna learn English. English books are not currently banned for publication so your comparison is preposterrous and fabricated. After the 1831 education Act children were forbidden to learn or speak Irish in national schools. This has been historically accepted as attemted linguicide.

I raised this with you when you brought up the Education Act in the first place, but you chose to ignore it. But prior to the Education Act, there was no free education. So the only people capable of having formal education were those from more wealthy backgrounds or those entering the priesthood. By your own admission, the majority of Irish speakers were from the poor, which meant that they wouldn't have been able to afford any formal education prior to the Act.

In any case, since they were from the poorer classes, they would have been needed to work (being an extra mouth to feed) rather than gain an education that wouldn't have been of particular use to them. Thus its likely that only girls that weren't working in the workhouses would have the free time to attend these new national schools.

So your big objection is based on the prevention of Irish being taught in schools which wouldn't have catered to the majority of Irish speakers in the first place.

No doubt you'll ignore this once more. But the point remains that your objections are rather limited in the understanding of the era, and the real life options of the people living through it. I find that this is common in people who accuse of British intent to destroy the language. Simply put, these arguments fail to take note of the actual lifestyles of the very people they're talking about.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

A very weak argument. Children in the Gaelscoileanna learn English. English books are not currently banned for publication so your comparison is preposterrous and fabricated. After the 1831 education Act children were forbidden to learn or speak Irish in national schools. This has been historically accepted as attemted linguicide.

OK lets accept this then. So what? Its not the first nor will it be the last time a language has died off for political and economic reasons. It dodnt only happen here. It's happened in damn near every country you can mention. How many Native Americans speak their ancestral language? Especially in South America. Regretable, maybe. A fact, certainly.

As has been pointed out 42% of people can now speak it as opposed to 19% in 1926.

As has been pointed out to you that is utter tosh. Nearly half? I know and have known a lot of people in my life all over this country. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many I have met who are fluent. I have never heard the language "in the wild" and given I have fished in many Gaeltacht areas, that is surprising. I have heard it in Dublin, though again mostly it was the new pidgin Irish(as the one person I know who is native speaker described it).

More importantly for revitaling the language the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes.

Hmmm for someone overly concerned about the engerlish way of doing things, this "class" thing seems to give you a hard on. Better we lost guff that than Irish.

The amount of Irish speaking schools in operation now is unprecedented. This is clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language.

There were Irish schools before you know. Quite a few, especially in the 40/50's, including in such jackeen bastions as Dublin. My mother and one of my uncles was schooled in it. Was quite fashionable for a while. There is a resurgence in Irish schools and that's grand, but it remains to be seen if this translates into wider use. Mates of mine send their kids to same(for some dubious reasons too) and yet in the home they still speak english. In one case their parents have a smattering yet again they speak english outside of school. Plus there are many private rugby type schools, yet GAA and soccer are much more popular sports. Dont be too shocked if Irish schools go out of fashion again, or have less of an effect on the language than you may think.

Many people will rant because they hate it but you will find that the vast majority of these people hate nationalism (only the Irish variety) and have irrationally associated it with and projected this hatred to the Irish language.

Utter tripe. While some are like that, I have found more self defined "irish" speakers have a far more backward and exclusionary nationalism and attitude to same.

Wibbs

As another example of language, its censure and it's resurgence. Look more recently at the former soviet bloc countries where Russian was the forced language since WW2(and before). In less than 20 years since the wall fell, those languages are in full use today and Russian is largely a memory.

Why? For a few reasons I think. Primarily because everyone wanted them back. I would say also that the cultural links between the empire country and them were far less than between Ireland and Britain. Many go on about the 800 yrs of oppression stuff and there is a helluva lot in that, but equally there was a helluva lot of cultural connection and exchange too. Your average British man or woman has a lot more in common with your average Irish man or woman, than a Russian has with a Latvian. Certainly more than an Irishman would have with an Italian. On purely shared history and culture.

This does not mean an Englishman wants to be Irish, nor the other way around. Much like a Scot doesnt want to be English. But that tie is there going way way back even before the 800 yrs business. The Scots spoke(and still do in places) Gaelic because of Irish missionaries. Their pictish language long dead. It died for much the same reasons too. Practicality, censure and the fact that speaking Irsh/Gaelic was a serious advantage to the indigenous peoples for educational, political and economic reasons. Sound familiar? Should they blame us and use us as an never ending excuse for the loss of their language?

Hell even their countries name is because we culturally invaded the place(and actually invaded too). Scotti was the Roman name for the Irish as a group and Scotia the name for Ireland. Which makes an even bigger joke of the NI problems as it's Scoti fighting Scoti with nary a Saxon to be found. It could so easily have gone the other way and we could be having this convo on Boards.co.uk about how the Irish influenced us for 1000 yrs and why dont we revive Old English or Norse. The welsh got some invasion from us too. There are Irish Crannogs all over Wales.

Actually the best thing that could happen for these islands and its peoples who have all given so much to the world, is if the notion of "British" went the way of the flesh. Indeed its a relatively recent invention.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even if we ignore the truly unreliable nature of gathering such data through self assessment, a point that has been repeatedly made to you and you continue to ignore, I am taken aback by the completely dishonest manipulation of this data by you.

I presented this statistic exactly as it is presented in the 2006 census. Check your facts before you question my honesty again.

So laughable are your interpretation, let alone reliability, of your claim that I can equally say I speak Latin, ancient Egyptian and Japanese by the your same logic.

Again, I have not interpreted, changed the data from the census in any way. Your claims should be directes at the CSO. Dont think they are interested in cheap boasting either though.

Where you deduce that "the majority of speakers are now in the professional classes" is beyond me. Irish is a requi
red exam in some of the professions, such as the Bar, but unless you are one of those rare solicitors or barristers who practice through the language (they do exist as even if small a demand does exist), it is a once off exam you cram for an never think on again. Where did you get this bizarre connection?

The 2006 Census which breaks down those who are able to speak Irish by socio-economic group. The majority of those come from the professional classes. You may not like it because it puts the language in a better position for revitalisation but thats neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes.

Worst of all you see this as "clear evidence of a sustained resurgence in the language" when the only thing that has been clear is that it has been in continuous decline for years. Such a deluded view is actually counter productive to the health of the language as it would lead one to believe that the strategies employed since independence have succeeded. People like you are killing the language.

Again your post feverishly attempts to misrepresent me.
I pointed out correctly that those with the ability to speak Irish is now over double the amount of 1926.
That gaelscoileanna are opening at an unprecedented rate in our cities North and South.
The fact that professionals are now the group with the highest literacy is relevant because that is a basis for it to be used in commerce: an essential step in revitalising a language wouldnt you agree?

I dread the day that, without change or reform in how we promote Irish, conversations with someone like you will begin to resemble Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch.

Looks like my pointing out blatant hypocrisies in your earlier posts has hit you right on the ego!

If you can actually resort to something more than simplistic and empty rhetoric, such accusations may be more believable. If you want to find someone who has betrayed his nation or the Irish language, I suspect you will have better luck finding them in a mirror.

You misunderstand. Most of the people on this thread who are against the Irish language are against it as an extension of a hatred of nationalism. Language has nothing to do with nationalism. Therefore many of these arguments are unreliable and amount to no more than an irrational attack on their perception of Irish nationalism.

Valmont

T runner wrote: »

Language has nothing to do with nationalism

I thought we had already established that yes, a state sponsored Irish revitalisation scheme is indeed nationalistic in nature for the historical reasons that have been discussed throughout the thread.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good point, I missed that! Why were books in existance in "mainland Britain" if there was no-one to read them?
And why were only Irish books banned in Ireland?

By 1840, Ireland had only 1,973 national primary schools, educating 232,000 children, a tiny fraction of the population (estimated at 8,175,124 in 1841). Furthermore, only 100,000 of those children attended school on a daily basis. Primary education up to age 12 did not become compulsory in Ireland until 1876; but in the census of 1881, only 18% of the Irish population was recorded as Irish-speaking. We can certainly debate what does accounts for the decline of the Irish language, but it's really stretching it to blame the primary schools of the day.

Why are you comparing the amount of children in Primary education with the total population instead of the amount of children of primary school going age as you should have? Are you trying to deliberately mislead us?

232,000 is significant 9 years after the education act. None of these children will learn Irish or speak it in school. If you want to learn Irish or learn through Irish you must do it illegally in a hedge school. No-one will have read an Irish book as they are banned from publication. That means that Nobody will be able to read or write in Irish Irish language is thus effectively killed permanently from the middle classes altogether and commerce. The 18% figure is therefore hardly surprising. Your refusal to accept

I nwtice your evasive use of the passive voice when you say that it "has been historically accepted as attempted linguicide." Accepted by whom? Can you give any historical references?

Heres a few I know of:

Modern Ireland 1600-1972
R.F Foster

The Cause of ireland
Liz Curtis

The Narrow Ground
ATQ Stewart

If I find any web based Ill post.

Hmm... He must have me on ignore because once again he's bypassed me completely. :rolleyes:

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The national schools started being established in 1831. Your figure is for 1867 after 35 years of students had gone through primary school with Irish prohibited. Your quote below:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Irish had never been an "economic force." That's precisely why the Irish shifted to speaking English.

Thats absurd. You are saying that economics did not exist in Ireland until the advent of the English language.

The proscription on printing books during the Penal Laws did not obliterate "all Irish publications"; it merely prolonged the longstanding scribal tradition in Ireland. To quote the Oxford Companion to Irish Literature: "That there was a great deal of Irish literature circulating in [handwritten manuscript form], whether tales of various types, bardic poetry, stories of Cú Chulainn or Fionn, devotional writing, Gaelic historiography, aislingí or Jacobite poetry, is attested by Crofton Croker, who remarked in the 1820s that every Munster village possessed its Gaelic manuscripts" (357). Again, however, I'm sure that the continuation of the manuscript tradition during the period of the Penal Laws, and the fact that Catholic Emancipation happened in 1829—a time when you claim that the Irish Language was alive and well in every corner of the nation—will not deter you from your claims.

Dont strawman. I have never claimed "... in 1829—a time when you claim that the Irish Language was alive and well in every corner of the nation". I have set out the sequence of teh language shift as below on more than one occasion.

The language shift in Ireland occured over 300 years. Factors affecting its decline included the attempted movement of the Irish population to Connaught by Cromwell. The Penal Laws, The Education Act of 1831 which banned Irish from national schools and meant that within a generation it was only used by uneducated serfs. The Act which reinforced Irish as the language of the underprivilaged and uneducated by banning the publishing of books in Irish. Would the former Soviet States' languages have stubbornly lasted 300 of Russian linguicide until independence? I doubt it.

The question was "WHY DID THE ENGLISH BAN THE PUBLICATION OF BOOK IN THE IRISH LANGUAGE"?
(There was no answer in all that spoofing).

Since the middle of the eighteenth century, the Irish themselves had identified Irish as a parochial language that mitigated against economic opportunity. And so they switched to speaking English.

No, as Irish speakers massively bore the brunt of the death toll in the famine, they associated speaking Irish with death by starvation.
The reason that the Irish speaking population was by deliberate actions by the British government, including relocating Irish speakers to Connaught, The Penal Laws, The education act of 1831 and banning the publication if Irish literature. Some of these are classic techniques for linguicide and were used by Stalin to try and destroy the Ukranian language.

Again, you seem to be claiming that an analogous "artificial famine" was inflicted upon Ireland—so you are again coming close to blaming the English for deliberate genocide. Perfectly consistent with your "800 years" mantra, of course

Another strawman. I am obviously claiming that Stalin used the identical technique of banning the education in and publication of Ukranian as the British did with Irish in the 18th century. You cant defend it so you defend the strawman.

You have not been able to deny the actions of the British Government to inflict linguicide other than to claim that these attempts were not successful.

You must also accept that Irish language speakers were at odds with Imperialists by the actions of the British government and were forced into a nationalist standpoint. Therefore posters here criticising the Irish language for its historical association with nationalism are being unfair. People should have the right to read, write and learn in their own language and have the right to reject a regime that denied this.

I do not think that the language should be revived for nationalist reasons (as people mean it on this thread).
It should be encouraged to protect and revitalise a minority indiginous language.

If you claim that the protection of Irish is only motivated by nationalism then you must also condemn the protection of Finland Swedish and other minority languages by thier government is also nationalism.

Peppapig

Valmont wrote: »

Bearing in mind that there are no tangible benefits to the economy from promoting such a program.

Its not all about economic benefits.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

I raised this with you when you brought up the Education Act in the first place, but you chose to ignore it. But prior to the Education Act, there was no free education. So the only people capable of having formal education were those from more wealthy backgrounds or those entering the priesthood. By your own admission, the majority of Irish speakers were from the poor, which meant that they wouldn't have been able to afford any formal education prior to the Act.

In any case, since they were from the poorer classes, they would have been needed to work (being an extra mouth to feed) rather than gain an education that wouldn't have been of particular use to them. Thus its likely that only girls that weren't working in the workhouses would have the free time to attend these new national schools.

So your big objection is based on the prevention of Irish being taught in schools which wouldn't have catered to the majority of Irish speakers in the first place.

No doubt you'll ignore this once more. But the point remains that your objections are rather limited in the understanding of the era, and the real life options of the people living through it. I find that this is common in people who accuse of British intent to destroy the language. Simply put, these arguments fail to take note of the actual lifestyles of the very people they're talking about.

Donegalfella has already posted that 233,000 pupils were in the national school system by 1831 only 9 years after it was established. For poor people there was the option of "Hedge Schools" before and after
the Act of 1831: and these although illegal were used. The Act meant that the only education accessible through English would now get you out of seftdom.
The fact that Irish publications were ILLEGAL, meant that as an economic force Irish is dead within a generation. This means that it is no longer used by anyone in the middleclasses or upperclasses or by anyone wishing to be anything other than an uneducated peasant.
If you think this isnt deliberate fair enough, but tell me this: why was the publication of books in Irish banned by the British State?
If you dont give a straight up answer to this then please dont ask me to respond, I dont have much time on these fora.

97i9y3941

alot of people cant speak it,let alone i think its waste of taxpayers money translateing the documents into irish when its the taxpayers who can barely speak it are paying for fund of it,im actually surprise this hasnt come up yet in the cutbacks we have in gov at the mo..

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ill just cut and paste another answer as your method of debating seems to be to ignore the points you cant answer:

The Act meant that the only education accessible through English would now get you out of seftdom.
The fact that Irish publications were ILLEGAL, meant that as an economic force Irish is dead within a generation. This means that it is no longer used by anyone in the middleclasses or upperclasses or by anyone wishing to be anything other than an uneducated peasant.
Tell me this: Why was the publication of books in Irish banned by the British State?

Here is also a description of Soviet Imperial oppression of the Ukranian language.
Sounds eerily familiar.

Persecution and russification

Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, ..... demanded to "immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian".

Soviet Ukraine's autonomy was completely destroyed by the late 1930s.[citation needed] In its place, the glorification of Russia as the first nation to throw off the capitalist yoke had begun, accompanied by the migration of Russian workers into parts of Ukraine which were undergoing industrialization and mandatory instruction of classic Russian language and literature. Ideologists warned of over-glorifying Ukraine's Cossack past, and supported the closing of Ukrainian cultural institutions and literary publications. The systematic assault upon Ukrainian identity in culture and education, combined with effects of an artificial famine (Holodomor) upon the peasantry—the backbone of the nation—dealt Ukrainian language and identity a crippling blow from which it would not completely recover.[citation needed]

T runner

T runner wrote: »

Donegalfella has already posted that 233,000 pupils were in the national school system by 1831 only 9 years after it was established.

Not bad considering the size of the population of Ireland at the time. But TBH I can't really see the relevance to my post.. Since we're talking about the act itself, and what was before it... not the national school system afterwards...

For poor people there was the option of "Hedge Schools" before and after the Act of 1831: and these although illegal were used. The Act meant that the only education accessible through English would now get you out of seftdom.

You do know what a Hedge School was, don't you? We live in a rather.. wet country.. You also understand the difficulty in finding a decent hedge teacher? hmm... let me guess, the subjects taught by the hedge teacher were... Irish and Irish History. Both orally taught, yes? The language the teacher spoke, and the history of everything the English had ever done bad to the Irish... And subject to change depending on the teacher found.. Yes, the Irish were so better off before the Education Act..

The fact that Irish publications were ILLEGAL, meant that as an economic force Irish is dead within a generation.

Economic force? You do understand that making any publication illegal drives UP the price and demand? But TBH I'm not quite sure how Irish would have any economic force, when its likely very few people would have been able to afford to buy the books...

This means that it is no longer used by anyone in the middleclasses or upperclasses or by anyone wishing to be anything other than an uneducated peasant.

Err.. I'm confused... Why would the upper or middle classes be needing Irish literature when you made the repeated point that the majority Irish speakers were poor? Were these Upper and middle classes Irish too, or were they English/British people curious about the Irish?

If you think this isnt deliberate fair enough, but tell me this: why was the publication of books in Irish banned by the British State?

Because they were looking to educate the Irish in English. That there was no likelihood of GB ever leaving Ireland due to its strategic position close to England, so therefore they would try to educate Irish people in the English way of things... After all the English way had created the largest worldwide empire since the Romans, or the Mongols. So I guess, they believed that the English way of things might be of benefit to the Irish, and make them productive rather than being a drain on the Empire..

Having a population speak the language of the conquerors goes a long way towards integration into the empire.. There would also be the economic benefits as well. I wouldn't have been suprised if they were hoping that Ireland would turn into another useful little colony like Scotland or Wales.

If you dont give a straight up answer to this then please dont ask me to respond, I dont have much time on these fora.

EVERY answer I have given you has been straight up and perfectly easy to understand. Better yet, the questions I have asked you, have been straight up. Ask any of the Mods. I haven't played with you, even though it has taken you three pages to respond to me... Although you haven't answered any of my questions, just asked me more instead.. Go figure...

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

]You do know what a Hedge School was, don't you? We live in a rather.. wet country.. You also understand the difficulty in finding a decent hedge teacher? hmm... let me guess, the subjects taught by the hedge teacher were... Irish and Irish History. Both orally taught, yes? The language the teacher spoke, and the history of everything the English had ever done bad to the Irish... And subject to change depending on the teacher found.. Yes, the Irish were so better off before the Education Act..

"the history of everything bad the English ever did to the Irish"

In fairness, Your posts are extremely biased, unsubstantiated and ignorant.

Subjects may have been reading, writing, mathematics, accounting, surveying.

Quote from a scholarly article below. (Find it yourself)

The Irish hedge school system also contained a considerable element of instruction in
mathematics (Dowling, 1968; Adams, 1998; and McManus 2002). Dowling (1968, p.
63) suggests that mathematics textbooks of ‘great merit were in the hands of a great
many [hedge] schoolmasters’. Books stocked by contemporary booksellers included
titles on arithmetic by John Gough, Edward Cocker and George Fisher5 (Adams 1998,
p.108). Gough and Cocker in particular appear to have been extensively used and still
survive in The National Library of Ireland, along with a text book by Elias Voster.

Err.. I'm confused...

Any chance of omitting these annoying little smart shiite words?

Because they were looking to educate the Irish in English. That there was no likelihood of GB ever leaving Ireland due to its strategic position close to England, so therefore they would try to educate Irish people in the English way of things... After all the English way had created the largest worldwide empire since the Romans, or the Mongols. So I guess, they believed that the English way of things might be of benefit to the Irish, and make them productive rather than being a drain on the Empire..

A drain on the empire? I know, all those two shipments of maize they gave us during the famine and we just spat it out! Although, 7 Million pounds of crossed the Irish sea in the form of rent to absentee landlords in London during the famine. Maybe the drain was flowing the other way!!!!

The English way of things was of benefit only to the English.

Having a population speak the language of the conquerors goes a long way towards integration into the empire.. There would also be the economic benefits as well. I wouldn't have been suprised if they were hoping that Ireland would turn into another useful little colony like Scotland or Wales.

Please say the words "useful little colony like Scotland or Wales" to a Scots or Welsh-man!

EVERY answer I have given you has been straight up and perfectly easy to understand. Better yet, the questions I have asked you, have been straight up. Ask any of the Mods. I haven't played with you, even though it has taken you three pages to respond to me... Although you haven't answered any of my questions, just asked me more instead.. Go figure...

Take it that youre on my ignore list...Go figure!

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

I presented this statistic exactly as it is presented in the 2006 census. Check your facts before you question my honesty again.

I did. Even if we accept the statistics you presented, you presented as Irish speakers people who would realistically not be capable of speaking the language beyond simple phrases, let alone actually make any attempt to use it, in arriving at your conclusion. I outlined this, but you have ignored this in your reply.

This was very blatant, if simplistic, manipulation of the data - which has been repeatedly been called into question. Again ignored by you.

Again your post feverishly attempts to misrepresent me.
I pointed out correctly that those with the ability to speak Irish is now over double the amount of 1926.

Except it's not double. Having 'cúpla focal' does not constitute speaking the language and to claim this, as you did, is either delusional or dishonest.

The fact that professionals are now the group with the highest literacy is relevant because that is a basis for it to be used in commerce: an essential step in revitalising a language wouldnt you agree?

Have you ever actually been in business?

Looks like my pointing out blatant hypocrisies in your earlier posts has hit you right on the ego!

I have no idea what you're blathering about at this stage.

You misunderstand. Most of the people on this thread who are against the Irish language are against it as an extension of a hatred of nationalism. Language has nothing to do with nationalism. Therefore many of these arguments are unreliable and amount to no more than an irrational attack on their perception of Irish nationalism.

Now you really are being dishonest. You've repeatedly linked support of the language with national history - and given little reason for us to support it other than nationalism. Now you claim that it "has nothing to do with nationalism"?

Then there is the assumption that because one may dislike the language they must be anti-nationalist. This juvenile, black and white, thinking ignores that resentment against the language has come about due to it's coercion, not to mention the fact that Irish national identity is not defined by the language as I and others have repeatedly pointed out.

Sorry, but it is obvious that you are trying to pull a fast one here.

Look, I'm not sure why you feel you need to pretend that the language is not in serious trouble. Maybe because you fear that conceding this will endanger it or future funding / tax breaks for it (and perhaps you). Maybe it's some sort of hyper-nationalistic thing where one may not question any of the symbols of 'national identity' without you responding with crypto-religious ire.

Why does not matter. What matters is the language is in trouble and at this stage because of us an not the British. If we pretend it's not it will simply get worse until some day in the future you could put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly when the subject is mentioned, but it'll be too late as the majority of Ireland will overrule you and switch off the life support.

That is why I believe that attitudes such as yours are actually killing the language when it could still be saved.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

In fairness, Your posts are extremely biased, unsubstantiated and ignorant.

In fairness? You must be joking. Lets break this down a bit...

Biased... I'm Irish, Irish speaking and From the West of Galway.. So I'm biased because I don't see everything that the British did in ireland as being bad, or Evil... You, Sir, are the extremely biased one here.

unsubstantiated and ignorant.... You have yet to prove anything I have said to be wrong... In fact, when you do attempt to do so, you use words like may or perhaps. Hardly words denoting fact. I notice that you yourself haven't responded to my post, rather have just grabbed some other guys opinion.

Subjects may have been reading, writing, mathematics, accounting, surveying.

Sure, and they may have been fairy tales, racial slurs, propaganda, hate literature etc.

Quote from a scholarly article below. (Find it yourself)

don't know why you don't provide it yourself, if you had it on hand.. :rolleyes:

The Irish hedge school system also contained a considerable element of instruction in mathematics (Dowling, 1968; Adams, 1998; and McManus 2002). Dowling (1968, p.63) suggests that mathematics textbooks of ‘great merit were in the hands of a great many [hedge] schoolmasters’. Books stocked by contemporary booksellers included titles on arithmetic by John Gough, Edward Cocker and George Fisher5 (Adams 1998, p.108). Gough and Cocker in particular appear to have been extensively used and still
survive in The National Library of Ireland, along with a text book by Elias Voster.

I'd still love to know who was buying these books (Irish or English), how people could afford these books, and how wide the distribution of books were?

Any chance of omitting these annoying little smart shiite words?

Any chance of you answering the bloody question rather than jumping around?

A drain on the empire? I know, all those two shipments of maize they gave us during the famine and we just spat it out! Although, 7 Million pounds of crossed the Irish sea in the form of rent to absentee landlords in London during the famine. Maybe the drain was flowing the other way!!!!

You asked a question, which I answered. Now you seem to have changed the question after I have answered. Seriously, if you don't want to hear an answer thats not dripping with hatred of the english, why bother asking?

I gave a realistic, and impartial answer based on the realities of empires worldwide.

The English way of things was of benefit only to the English.

Err.. nope. Since many Irish people gained wealth as a result of doing business with the British through their traditions. The opportunities for benefit were there. The Irish of the time just chose not to take them up on the chance.

Please say the words "useful little colony like Scotland or Wales" to a Scots or Welsh-man!

Please, respond to the post. The point stands. Scotland and Wales were productive states within Britain, providing resources like manpower for their armies, skilled workers, teachers, and monetary resources. There would have been the hope that Ireland could have provided the same benefits one day.

Take it that youre on my ignore list...Go figure!

I'm not suprised. I hope the mods forgive me for saying this, but you remind me of me when I was 14. I'd heard all the stories about British oppression from my grandparents, heard all the songs decrying the sacrifices of the Irish people, I'd been told the "true" history of this country, and I'd visited most of the IRA/IRB spots of western Ireland in honor of their sacrifices.. I was so filled with bile and hatred that I poisoned the ground I walked on.

Then at 17, I had a teacher who challenged all of these conclusions. Gave me a chance to judge the British occupation based on history rather than hate filled memories (highly subjective and changed memories).

So I figure, "you T runner", are there now. You can't allow the British to be anything but Demons out to destroy everything that is Irish. And they still would if they had a chance. Isn't the oral history we have wonderful? :rolleyes:

Ignore me if you want... because at this point in time you're not capable of having an intelligent discussion.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I guess I need to point out the difference between "can speak" and "speak"?

I can speak English, Irish, French, German. I speak only English on a weekly basis. I have 12 years education in Irish and 7 in French, 2 in German. If I started attending an Irish speaking club nightly: after 2 nights I would be able to hold a conversation tentavely in Irish and hold it reasonably after a week. I would not be learning much new vocabulaty in all liklihood.
This would not be possible for someone who "could not speak" Irish, would it?
If I spoke French every evening the timing would be similar.

In Finland, where 5% speak the minority Swedish language, Swedish and Finnish are both classified as National languages. Public servants must be able to communicate both and intending students must be proficient in both.
There is no huge economic advantage in the population knowing Swedish.

Like Ireland Finland would have a high percentage "who can/could" speak Swedish but a low percentage who actually do.

The reason given for legislation protecting Swedish is not a nationalistic one: It is to protect a minority's rights. They have their familiar problems though:

Here the question is asked why Swedish has to be a compulsory subject for not so willing Finns. The younger generation considers it "humiliating" to have to learn Swedish, and feels that this leaves less room for Finns to learn the more important languages like English, French and German.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

You have not seen the obvious reason: The soviet Union had only one crack at linguicide over a period of 35 years.

We've had 90 years of trying to revive a language, yet what language is the vast majority of conversation and commerce taking place in?

The language shift in Ireland occured over 300 years. Factors affecting its decline included the attempted movement of the Irish population to Connaught by Cromwell. The Penal Laws, The Education Act of 1831 which banned Irish from national schools and meant that within a generation it was only used by uneducated serfs. The Act which reinforced Irish as the language of the underprivilaged and uneducated by banning the publishing of books in Irish. Would the former Soviet States' languages have stubbornly lasted 300 of Russian linguicide until independence? I doubt it.

Some of these countries would have cultural similarities with Russia more than others. Any of the European languages would have slavic languages related to Russian. Irish has no linguistic relation to English apart from being Indo-European.

OK another far better example then. Basque. That's a language and a culture that has been under threat for 100's(if not 1000's) of years, in both France and Spain.

Indeed in Spain it was illegal and its teaching, publishing and speaking was banned under Franco. That jumped up little moron only pegged it in 1975 and that law repealed in the late 70's, yet you will hear Basque on the streets spoken by everyday people going about their everyday business(30 to 40% of people in the region actually speak it). You will hear Basque music, indeed they have some half decent punk bands. You will see Basque written all over the place etc. Spanish is still required simply because of economic reasons etc, but they have kept their language alive and growing. I have heard more Basque fluently spoken in a week, than I have heard fluent Irish in a lifetime(outside of TG4 and the like).

It's not even an indo european language. Its an orphaned language and makes Irish and all the rest look like the new kids on the block.

They've been under various empires and influences too yet still retain the oldest language in Europe(and one of the oldest in the world)

So how do you explain that then?

TBH and IMHO while Irish individuals have had a huge influence on world history far beyond our geographical and population size, I think as a cultural group we're actually weak and wishy washy. The notion of the rebel Irish is a misnomer.

Though that has its good and bad points. I would suggest that our huge influence beyond these lands(in the last 200 yrs anyway) is down to us being english speakers. While the Basques have retained their unique language, try naming a famous one*. I would contend that if we had remained entirely Irish speaking the same difficulty in citing an influential Irish person after the 10 century would arise. Indeed the light shining on this little island to the west of Europe was because the scholars were fluent in Latin. Yet another lingua franca. The issue I have with any small language is that it destines the nation to be parochial. And we have far and away enough of that as it is.

The loss of the Pictish culture actually resulted as a result of the two heirs to that throne being educated in Ireland. Theyre father was murdered as King and they were moved to Ireland for safety and brought up as Gaelic (Scottish) lords before returning to reclaim their throne.
As Gaelic was the only language they knew the Pictish kingdom within a generation had shifted to Gaelic-the language of western Scotland-and this led to a kingdom what we know as Scotland today.

Two Irish speaking kings cant educate an entire nation. So that's a complete non starter. The huge influence of Irish missionarys and the monasteries was of far more importance than that singular event. For a start Scotland had many many tribes. A single language event like that would not have had that effect. For centuries, English kings only spoke French, yet England retained anglo saxon and english. Indeed if it had, Irish here would have died out within a generation after the norman conquest. The educated classes of the time in Scotland had to have Irish to function. And where did they get educated? The parallels as far as the transmission of the language and the death of the old language are very close. You dont need to outlaw a language to kill it. As I pointed out Basque was outlawed for longer periods of time, yet it remains.

Irish declined for certain reasons. However, the reasoning that Irish is at the end of a natural decline and should be left to die is simply untrue and needs to be refuted.

It is though. Its resurgence is just as fake as it's "linguicide".

The Corinthian wrote:

Even if we accept the statistics you presented, you presented as Irish speakers people who would realistically not be capable of speaking the language beyond simple phrases, let alone actually make any attempt to use it, in arriving at your conclusion. I outlined this, but you have ignored this in your reply.

This was very blatant, if simplistic, manipulation of the data - which has been repeatedly been called into question. Again ignored by you.

+1. As I pointed out, I know and have known a lot of people from all over this land of ours. I have known very very few who spoke Irish to any degree of fluency. One guy I know from Donegal spoke Gaelige as his first language. Only learning Bearla when he got to school and he has often said, outside his area and areas like it, very very few speak it and even fewer speak it well.

Oops I used Gaelige agus Bearla in that sentence. :eek: Better put me down as an Irish speaker when next the census comes around. :rolleyes: You have heard that self reported data is all but useless scientifically and statistically haven't you? I would call it the "Every man on the web has a ten inch mickey theory" tm All a question like that on a census can tell you is what proportion may want to learn it, what proportion feel guilty about not having it and what proportion are kidding themselves.


*ignatious Loyola founder of the jesuits is the only one I can think of.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Biased... I'm Irish, Irish speaking and From the West of Galway.. So I'm biased because I don't see everything that the British did in ireland as being bad, or Evil... You, Sir, are the extremely biased one here.

Zing! Can't really claim you're a jackeen west brit then. Funny my mate from Donegal who is an Irish speaker, would echo what you've said on here. He feels the state of the language is a pity and a damn shame but he is realistic about. His kids speak it so hes keeping it alive that way. He reckons the language is evolving away from localised Irish though. He also reckons this is a good thing. A language pickled in aspic is usually doomed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Zing! Can't really claim you're a jackeen west brit then. Funny my mate from Donegal who is an Irish speaker, would echo what you've said on here. He feels the state of the language is a pity and a damn shame but he is realistic about. His kids speak it so hes keeping it alive that way. He reckons the language is evolving away from localised Irish though. He also reckons this is a good thing. A language pickled in aspic is usually doomed.

Personally, I think the biggest problem Irish people have is that they find it so difficult to let go of the past, and better yet, look at the past without seeking to be victims all the time. I got tired of all the Drama queen acting which you hear over and over about the British occupation. Were there bad moments and terrible actions by the British? hell, yes. Were there good things introduced by the British? Also hell, yes. There has been too much focus on the bad, and not enough of the good, considering our close relationship with Britain over the last 40-50 years. There is also too much emphasis on the language as a tool to reinforce the hatred of the British. Can't we just treat it as a language rather than a historical stick? Somehow I expect I'll be waiting a long time before that happens.