Is Irish a dead language?

Ciaran_B

Interesting article on insideireland disputing some of the claims about the ‘death’ of the Irish language. I believe it’s the first in a series of articles looking at the various anti-Irish arguments put forward by it’s opponents.

Link

It’s a good read and makes some good points particularly about the levels of Irish in the Gaeltacht.

pierrot

Regarding the title of your post, definitely not. A language is dead when the last living native speaker of that language dies.
A lot more could be done to encourage the flourishment, rather than prolong the extinction of Irish.

PeterIanStaker

Its not dead, but the Irish media is doing its best to kill it.

gavitron22

didn't get a chance to read the thing, but we were talking about this only today, apart from the fact that it should be known (although the teaching is crap, i studied irish since i was five, took up german five months before the leaving and got two grades higher in german), the lack of a strong knowledge of the fundamentals of irish really inhibits us learning other languages, if you can't even speak your own language your going to find it harder to succesfully take up a different language. also, so many irish people are like it's impractical to learn more languages, it's such a cop out, i'm visiting my brother in an interenational college, and the average number of languages spoken FLUENTLY in three, and in the last day, i've met two people two spoke 7 languages fluently. and i can hardly speak bloody english. we need to reevaluate all this, begining with reevaluating how important irish is to our culture, heritage, and ability to progress, and that is paramount.

/rant

eddyc

Compulsion is one of the worst things to have ever happened to the Irish language. Compelling people to learn it makes people sick of it. Not to mention the terrible way in which it is thought.
Irish Music, another part of the former dominant culture of this island, is absolutely thriving, so are the Gaelic games. People love them, people love Irish Music internationally also. I think it would be different if people were compelled to do them by setting up artificial barriers to third level education, and gaining employment in certain public sector institutions where the Irish language is almost never used.
I personally don't feel its part of my culture, I was born in Ireland, but I'm an English speaking Irish person among many other things. I feel no need to learn Irish.
That being said I support the Government promoting the language and that people should be given the opportunity to learn it if they like.

dlofnep

The Irish language isn't dead. It's just not as prevelvant in society as it should be, which is largely attributed to the poor curriculum in school. Lack of fluent speakers will obviously impact it's visibility in society.

Wolfe Tone

which is largely attributed to the poor curriculum in school.

As someone who has recently finished school I can attest to this. These days Irish in secondary schools literally consists of being handed reams of notes on ridiculous poems and literally learning off answers. Ditto with topics for essays. I was hopeless with Irish for years and for my JC I wrote pages of answers that I learnt off by heart without understanding them. I got a B.

However with the oral for my leaving cert I decided to actually learn to be able to hold even a basic conversation. I went to the Gaeltacht and , among other things, actually spoke the language. I learnt more Irish there than in the previous ten years. Also, for the 6 months before my leaving I attended one hour Irish "grinds" were for an hour each week I just chatted away in Irish. I wish I had of done it earlier. For my leaving cert I had a much better understanding of basic Irish and did pretty well in my Oral and Aural. However I neglected, didn't have time, to devote as much energy to learning things off by rote for the poetry, play etc, so I believe I have done worse than in my JC. There needs to be much more emphasis on actually speaking the language. You don't teach English by teaching people Yeats and Shakespeare. I LOATHED Irish for years, however once I actually started speaking it I enjoyed it, and now intend to join an Irish speaking society in Uni. There is way too much on the course to devote any more than a single class a week to practicing for the oral and aural.

If I was in charge I would change the course dramatically, drop the vast majority of literature and have the exam consist of writing a personal essay, some comprehensions, an extensive aural and a extensive aural. Leave literature to 3rd level.

Coillte_Bhoy

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Its not dead, but the Irish media is doing its best to kill it.

Ya, blame the media. Do you inckude Tg4, and R na G, in this or any of the Irish language newspapers and magazines? Talk about a sweeping generalisation.:rolleyes:

gbee

gavitron22 wrote: »

and i can hardly speak bloody english. we need to reevaluate all this, /rant

Absolutely. Only English should be taught in school until the age of 12. At that level the English should be at what university level is today.

Then, once the student is fully aware of all the rules and their, they're, its it's etc and spelling and only then should a new language be introduced.

I personally believe that Irish is responsible for the low level of education in Ireland, in the languages as one rule in Irish is often the opposite in English ~ you know, once you get used to being confused as child, you'll never grow out of it as an adult.

Bebs

I think they need to ditch the written aspects of it and focus on teaching people to speak it. Primary school is the first and biggest in a serious of **** ups in how it's taught. Children should leave primary school fluent. So much time is spent on the language in both primary and secondary and as a nation we've feck all to show for the investment.

People need to lose the patriotic hard on they get when it comes to Irish and treat it as you would German or Spanish. That sense of misguided patriotism is an obstacle to reforming the language.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Not quite dead but not far off it. It seems to be slowly increasing in popularity though, especially in the north.

Think they should just have all primary schools taught as gaelige and make it optional after that. I think it would lead to people becoming fluent in more languages as being bi-lingual would increase their language confidence

Bebs

I don't think every primary school should be teaching in Irish. I think there should be more Irish spoken on a day to day basis but I don't think it should be to the exclusion of English which is our primary language.

It's not just up to schools. Parents need to encourage the speaking of Irish in the homes too.

Rebelheart

gbee wrote: »

I personally believe that Irish is responsible for the low level of education in Ireland.

Sweet Jesus. :rolleyes: How about lazy knacker-arsed auld pairs breeding lazy knacker-arsed scumbag kids who haven't a hope because mammy and daddy of Lazyarse land don't devote the time and thought to helping their kids with their work every day and check on their progress at every turn and do everything in their power to help their kids excel in school. The basics of good parentage, in other words.

Far better to blame their own lazy, lazy shít on something or somebody else than take responsibility for it. The scapegoat crap which all losers use to comfort themselves. Pathetic.

MysticalRain

eddyc wrote: »

Compulsion is one of the worst things to have ever happened to the Irish language. Compelling people to learn it makes people sick of it.

The funny little irony here is that those who love the language the most have done more to destroy the language than anybody else with their misguided attempts to shove the language down people's throats.

gbee

Rebelheart wrote: »

Sweet Jesus. :rolleyes: Far better to blame their own lazy, lazy shít on something or somebody Pathetic.

I'll throw in here the report into the University qualifications which highlighted the low level of education, bad grammar, poor spelling lack of fluency ~ now more or less the people in YOUR reply don't go to university.

gbee

MysticalRain wrote: »

The funny little irony here is that those who love the language the most have done more to destroy the language than anybody else with their misguided attempts to shove the language down people's throats.

And they are very militant, blacking out road signs, arbitrarily changing names, giving children in Gael Scoilanna Irish names, and not allowing them to use the names their parents gave them and their LEGAL names as on their birth certs.

Iwasfrozen

Ciaran_B wrote: »

Interesting article on insideireland disputing some of the claims about the ‘death’ of the Irish language. I believe it’s the first in a series of articles looking at the various anti-Irish arguments put forward by it’s opponents.

Link

It’s a good read and makes some good points particularly about the levels of Irish in the Gaeltacht.

I really don't see why people think this is a problem.

dlofnep

gbee wrote: »

And they are very militant, blacking out road signs, arbitrarily changing names, giving children in Gael Scoilanna Irish names, and not allowing them to use the names their parents gave them and their LEGAL names as on their birth certs.

Jesus christ. :rolleyes:

Irish language enthusiasts by large, are not militant. What names exactly are they arbitrarily changing?

I think you'll find that children are giving Irish names in not only Gaelscoileanna. I attended a national school, and our register was called in Irish. Moreover, no teacher is stopping anyone from using their English name. The custom of using Irish names is purely symbolic, and not the fascist as you would have us believe.

What a load of utter nonsense.

paky

the irish language is as dead as it will ever be. just because people speak it in school doesnt mean its alive. its like having a dead person on a life support machine :pac:

dlofnep

paky wrote: »

the irish language is as dead as it will ever be. just because people speak it in school doesnt mean its alive. its like having a dead person on a life support machine :pac:

• It is not dead.
• No matter how many times you say that it's dead, it will not make it anymore true.
• it is spoken outside of school. I myself speak Irish daily.

Do you actually know what language death is?

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

I think you'll find that children are giving Irish names in not only Gaelscoileanna. I attended a national school, and our register was called in Irish. Moreover, no teacher is stopping anyone from using their English name. The custom of using Irish names is purely symbolic, and not the fascist as you would have us believe.

Symbolic of what?

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

• It is not dead.
• No matter how many times you say that it's dead, it will not make it anymore true.
• it is spoken outside of school. I myself speak Irish daily.

Do you actually know what language death is?

A brain dead person is not dead but is being kept alive by a life support machine. Irish is a brain dead language because it is not dead but is kept alive by a life support machine. In this case the government.

paky

dlofnep wrote: »

• It is not dead.
• No matter how many times you say that it's dead, it will not make it anymore true.
• it is spoken outside of school. I myself speak Irish daily.

Do you actually know what language death is?

no what language is death?

fontanalis

I can't wait until it's gone, then the celts can be considered dead!!

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Symbolic of what?

I don't answer stupid questions. This will be no different.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A brain dead person is not dead but is being kept alive by a life support machine. Irish is a brain dead language because it is not dead but is kept alive by a life support machine. In this case the government.

I'm not interested if you think it's on life support or not. There are over 100,000 people who use the language outside of schools or work on a weekly basis. On that basis alone, it is not dead.

Of course it is supported by the Government. It is an official language. All official languages around the world are supported by their respective Governments - many countries having more than 3 languages. You're not bringing anything new to the debate.

dory

gbee wrote: »

Absolutely. Only English should be taught in school until the age of 12. At that level the English should be at what university level is today.

Are you well? Countries with kids who only learn their own language in primary school are the ones in which the adults only speak one language. We should be aiming to copy Denmark, Holland and co. not the others!

dlofnep

paky wrote: »

no what language is death?

It occurs when no native speakers of a language exist. This cannot be said for the Irish language, therefore it is not dead. People who claim that it's a dead language, are trying to invoke emotions out of it's supporters.

And if the language is dead, then why use the Irish language version of Belfast for your location? A bit hypocritical is it not?

uvox

It isn't dead. Any let's stop this bollocks about Irish language zealots and their confederates in the public sector and government calling the shots as far as language sustainability is concerned - they're not, so let's not give them the impression they are.

In fact there is no such thing as a single Irish language anyway, and we're seeing the emergences of a real Pidgin amongst urban speakers - they are the ones driving the language forward - not the Eamon O'Cuiv's of the world. Forget about the Gaelteacht (total pop 90K) as a viable source for a living language:

"The number of Irish speakers in Ireland is increasing, according to all census and survey data, and yet the number of Gaeltacht speakers is falling."


You can read more here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0116/1224262447899.html

"Urban Irish doesn’t seem to be actually Anglicising, but it is different, particularly in the area of grammar. Some experts might be tempted to call this new entity a Pidgin. Although the term has negative connotations, there is some justification for it. A Pidgin is a relatively unstable language with simplified pronunciation and grammar, created on the fly for purposes of practical communication. By definition, it has no native speakers. Should the Pidgin persist into another generation and further, it gains native speakers, becomes known as a Creole, and develops the hallmarks of an independent language, including a stable grammar."

Hardly dead. More like still evolving. So....

dlofnep

fontanalis wrote: »

I can't wait until it's gone, then the celts can be considered dead!!

What are you harping on about?

CoalBucket

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

As someone who has recently finished school I can attest to this. These days Irish in secondary schools literally consists of being handed reams of notes on ridiculous poems and literally learning off answers. Ditto with topics for essays. I was hopeless with Irish for years and for my JC I wrote pages of answers that I learnt off by heart without understanding them. I got a B.

I largely agree with your point about the way Irish is taught, however I think the problem is with the way every subject is taught. It's been a while since my leaving but I can remember just learning off reams of info for every subject rather than actually studying a subject in the traditional sense.

paky

dlofnep wrote: »

It occurs when no native speakers of a language exist. This cannot be said for the Irish language, therefore it is not dead. People who claim that it's a dead language, are trying to invoke emotions out of it's supporters.

And if the language is dead, then why use the Irish language version of Belfast for your location? A bit hypocritical is it not?

wow a 100,000 people? what a waste of money and time the last 90 years have been.

do people speak more or less irish since it became compulsory?

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't answer stupid questions. This will be no different.

Is that because you don't have an answer?

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not interested if you think it's on life support or not. There are over 100,000 people who use the language outside of schools or work on a weekly basis. On that basis alone, it is not dead.

That figure seems very large. Do you have a source for it?

Regardless even if it is correct it doesn't change the fact it is a brain dead language. No dead but being kept alive by various state backed agencies such as Foinse na gaeilge.

dlofnep wrote: »

Of course it is supported by the Government. It is an official language. All official languages around the world are supported by their respective Governments - many countries having more than 3 languages. You're not bringing anything new to the debate.

Most governments don't have to openly support their language however. The national languages of Britain, France and Germany are all self-supported and don't require the same amount of tax-payers money that Irish does. They also don't require forced education.

MysticalRain

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not interested if you think it's on life support or not. There are over 100,000 people who use the language outside of schools or work on a weekly basis. On that basis alone, it is not dead.

I'm just taking your own words here, but if less than 0.03% of the population actually speak the language on a regular basis, it most certainly is on life support. Thats the objective reality here.

fontanalis

dlofnep wrote: »

What are you harping on about?

I was only joking about the can't wait until it's gone but the only thing celtic about ireland is the language, so what will we call ourselves then?

Iwasfrozen

fontanalis wrote: »

I was only joking about the can't wait until it's gone but the only thing celtic about ireland is the language, so what will we call ourselves then?

What about the people? Racially they are still Celtic.

nicola09

I don't think that Irish is a dead language yet but I disagree completely with the way it is taught in schools, particularly at primary level. First, you only need to have a C3 in honours Irish in the leaving cert to become a primary school teacher. No offence, but that is a very low quality knowledge of the language, given the amount of time dedicated to teaching irish in primary schools, and that it is a language you have spent 14 years learning.

Secondly, when you do a B.Ed you have no obligation to take Irish as a degree subject. If the department of education want the language to survive in schools, then all teachers simply need to have better than a C3 in their leaving cert and perhaps make it compulsory to study Irish as a subject, at least for the first year of the course. Before I am attacked for insulting primary school teachers and their level of Irish, I'm speaking from my own experience in school with year after year of mediocre Irish teaching, and from my own friends who are currently studying to be primary teachers; most of their Irish is either basic, or that disgusting new "i spent five summers in the gaeltacht therefore I am fluent" brand of pidgin Irish. You know the "tá mé like CHOMH tuirseach..o mo dhia" or awful direct translation with no knowledge of grammar! I never went to the gaeltacht and I got an A1 in honours Irish for my LC so I think we need to stop sending droves of young people there every summer if thats the kind of way they are learning to speak..! :rolleyes:

I think the best solution for teaching Irish in primary schools is to have teachers in every primary school who teach irish only, like the way French or Spanish etc is taught in secondary school. That way, they can take every class in the school for a certain amount of time each day and teach them at a level appropriate to their age, in the correct manner a language should be taught; i.e by concentrating solely on the oral language with the lower school, and only begin the written language when the students have adequete command of the spoken language. It always astounds me when children have to write sentences or something in Irish, or do weird workbooks when they cant actually speak the language properly. You wouldn't expect a toddler learning English to be able to write, so I don't see why a primary school child learning irish should have to do written work in the language either. It makes no sense to me that the mark for the oral in the LC is going up to 40%, when theres no corresponding change at primary level to improve students oral Irish.

At secondary level, the problems of not spending enough time mastering the spoken language manifest because the course becomes literature heavy, which means that students have to spend massive amounts of time learning, while also trying to get their spoken irish up to scratch. In my opinion, the junior cert should have an oral exam, its madness that you learn the language for 14 years and the first time you are examined on the actual spoken language is the final year of study. If students can take an oral exam after 5 or 6 years of French then I don't see why we need to wait so long about Irish, being our native language and all...!

apologies about the length of this but I think before we declare Irish dead or worse, naively believe that it is in good health ("sure its being taught in the schools") we need to look more carefully at the way children are actually learning the language, and if they are learning in the best possible way.

paky

fontanalis wrote: »

I was only joking about the can't wait until it's gone but the only thing celtic about ireland is the language, so what will we call ourselves then?

Polish?

fontanalis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What about the people? Racially they are still Celtic.

How do you figure that out? Who cares anyway we're ready to bury a language that's anything between 4,000 to 8,000 years old.
The term celt was only used for the Irish since the victorian era (no Irish group ever called themselves celt/celtic, Gael yes celt no) when the language was described as celtic along with Scots Gaelic and Welsh, elements of culture were similar to iron age Germany (jewellery etc) so it was thought that a tribe called the celts invaded and replaced the inhabitants, never happened.
Dead language, dead celtic people.

fontanalis

paky wrote: »

Polish?

Yeah we can bury their language too.

Iwasfrozen

fontanalis wrote: »

How do you figure that out? Who cares anyway we're ready to bury a language that's anything between 4,000 to 8,000 years old.
The term celt was only used for the Irish since the victorian era (no Irish group ever called themselves celt/celtic, Gael yes celt no) when the language was described as celtic along with Scots Gaelic and Welsh, elements of culture were similar to iron age Germany (jewellery etc) so it was thought that a tribe called the celts invaded and replaced the inhabitants, never happened.
Dead language, dead celtic people.

Hey cool your jets. I'm on your side. I don't see a problem with the language dying out either. I also believe it inevitably will.

fontanalis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hey cool your jets. I'm on your side. I don't see a problem with the language dying out either.

I was being sarcastic about it dying out, why the hell are people so anxious to see it die out (change the ridiculous way it's taught). What do they think will happen overnight once it's dead, that somehow ireland will be some great modern country, it's baffling.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is that because you don't have an answer?

The answer was in the statement. It is symbolic. A gesture. Nothing more. And certainly not a fascist movement to rid someone of their English name.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That figure seems very large. Do you have a source for it?

How exactly is 100,000 large when the gaeltacht population alone is over 91,000. 100,000 weekly speakers of Irish was very conservative. I would estimate it to be 150,000. But 100,000 is a nice conservative value - that not even you can dispute (although, I'm sure you'll try).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Regardless even if it is correct it doesn't change the fact it is a brain dead language. No dead but being kept alive by various state backed agencies such as Foinse na gaeilge.

How can a language be brain-dead? It is not a living entity. It is a medium for communication. Of course it has state support. All languages around the world have state support. What is your point?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Most governments don't have to openly support their language however. The national languages of Britain, France and Germany are all self-supported and don't require the same amount of tax-payers money that Irish does. They also don't require forced education.

You've never heard of the Welsh language then, I assume?

dlofnep

fontanalis wrote: »

I was only joking about the can't wait until it's gone but the only thing celtic about ireland is the language, so what will we call ourselves then?

Irish?

dlofnep

MysticalRain wrote: »

I'm just taking your own words here, but if less than 0.03% of the population actually speak the language on a regular basis, it most certainly is on life support. Thats the objective reality here.

Math isn't your strong point, is it?

Iwasfrozen

fontanalis wrote: »

I was being sarcastic about it dying out, why the hell are people so anxious to see it die out (change the ridiculous way it's taught). What do they think will happen overnight once it's dead, that somehow ireland will be some great modern country, it's baffling.

I don't want to see it die out. I said I wouldn't have a problem with it dying out. However I don't agree with the huge amount of tax-payers money being spent on the language and I believe this should be drastically reduced.

dlofnep wrote:

The answer was in the statement. It is symbolic. A gesture. Nothing more. And certainly not a fascist movement to rid someone of their English name.

Symbolic of what though?

dlofnep wrote:

How can a language be brain-dead? It is not a living entity. It is a medium for communication.

It cannot be dead either but people use the term dead language. Therefore logically one can also use the term brain dead for a language that is being kept alive only via a life support machine in the form of state support.

dlofnep wrote:

Of course it has state support. All languages around the world have state support. What is your point?

My point being most languages don't need state support to keep the alive. Irish does.

dlofnep wrote:

You've never heard of the Welsh language then, I assume?

Yes, I've heard of the Welsh language.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

The answer was in the statement. It is symbolic. A gesture. Nothing more. And certainly not a fascist movement to rid someone of their English name.



How exactly is 100,000 large when the gaeltacht population alone is over 91,000. 100,000 weekly speakers of Irish was very conservative. I would estimate it to be 150,000. But 100,000 is a nice conservative value - that not even you can dispute (although, I'm sure you'll try).



How can a language be brain-dead? It is not a living entity. It is a medium for communication. Of course it has state support. All languages around the world have state support. What is your point?



You've never heard of the Welsh language then, I assume?

I honestly doubt 150,000 people speak irish.

paky

dlofnep wrote: »

The answer was in the statement. It is symbolic. A gesture. Nothing more. And certainly not a fascist movement to rid someone of their English name.



How exactly is 100,000 large when the gaeltacht population alone is over 91,000. 100,000 weekly speakers of Irish was very conservative. I would estimate it to be 150,000. But 100,000 is a nice conservative value - that not even you can dispute (although, I'm sure you'll try).



How can a language be brain-dead? It is not a living entity. It is a medium for communication. Of course it has state support. All languages around the world have state support. What is your point?



You've never heard of the Welsh language then, I assume?

If Irish is alive and kicking, then why does it need state support and why is neccessary to ram it down the throat of every child in the state?

Surely if we withdrew the funding it would flourish?

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't want to see it die out. I said I wouldn't have a problem with it dying out. However I don't agree with the huge amount of tax-payers money being spent on the language and I believe this should be drastically reduced.

I don't. So what?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My point being most languages don't need state support to keep the alive. Irish does.

So, English isn't supported as a mandatory subject in school? All languages which are taught in state-schools, are supported by the state. Many minority languages around the world are supported by their respective states. This isn't unique to Ireland.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, I've heard of the Welsh language.

Then perhaps you can explain this statement.

The national languages of Britain, France and Germany are all self-supported and don't require the same amount of tax-payers money that Irish does. They also don't require forced education.

Welsh is a mandatory subject up until the age of 15. It receives a similar level of support from the state, that Irish receives. So, you're talking shíte to be honest.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

I honestly doubt 150,000 people speak irish.

I would say that is a conservatively accurate figure. There is nearly a hundred thousand in Gaeltacht regions alone.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

How exactly is 100,000 large when the gaeltacht population alone is over 91,000. 100,000 weekly speakers of Irish was very conservative. I would estimate it to be 150,000. But 100,000 is a nice conservative value - that not even you can dispute (although, I'm sure you'll try).

Not everyone in the Gealtacht speaks Irish though. I have to say 100,000 sees like quite a large number for Irish speakers.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not everyone in the Gealtacht speaks Irish though. I have to say 100,000 sees like quite a large number for Irish speakers.

Ah the vast majority do. I stand over that figure.