Is Irish a dead language?

eddyc

And how many tens or hundreds of millions are being poured into subsidising English language teaching and culture in Ireland today? And that's just the money for English language classes for non-English speaking immigrants to Ireland at a time when hundreds of thousands of Irish people are unemployed.

And does your "everybody else" include the enormous number of English-speaking Irish people who love Irish and wish that a portion of their taxes go towards promoting the Irish language? If you really believe that even a majority of English speakers in Ireland support your anti-Irish language views, then why has that community of yours not successfully ended all funding to the Irish language in Ireland if English-speaking monoglots are the anti-Irish majority which you appear to believe they are?

I am not anti-Irish, I made a post at the beginning of this discussion where I said that the government should support the language and help people if they want to speak it.
I think your point about English is irrelevant to the discussion.
People are free to vote for the man who wants to pour money into teaching people Irish, I personally don't agree with the fact that it's compulsory. The policy of compulsory Irish has been a spectacular failure, possibly doing more harm than good to the language making people resent, and yes even hate it.

catbear

Is the Irish language dead?

Culturally? Yes.

Politically? No.

To emphasise just note that this discussion is in the politics forum.

cb

P. Breathnach

This is a dispiriting discussion -- not so much because of the topic, but because of the amount of side-tracking.

It is an observable fact that there are many thousands of people, perhaps some tens of thousands of them, who speak Irish as a first language. In addition, there are some people who are fully bilingual in Irish and English, having them as joint first languages. These groups are the core language community.

There are very many more people with Irish as a second language, and have speak it well enough to be considered fully or fairly fluent; a great proportion of this last group are willing to use Irish, and frequently do.

I'm not going to get far into the numbers argument because I disbelieve almost all the numbers given or the inferences drawn from them. I am satisfied on the basis of what I can observe that there is a significant group who can and do use Irish; I am equally convinced, from my experience of the world around me, that the set of people who can and do use Irish in any meaningful way is quite a small percentage of our population, a long way below 10%, probably below 5%. I would not be astonished if it were found to be about 3%, comprising about 40,000 native speakers and about 80,000 others with reasonable competence in the language. But that is a big enough group to make for a living language.

For the most part, the Irish people abandoned the language several generations ago, and it was not all down to its being beaten out of them: there was a considerable voluntary adoption of English so that people could interact with the power and administrative structures, and from the time of the famine onwards, as preparation for the possibility of emigration. The aspiration to reverse that move was always hopeless: we never had a chance of a full restoration of Irish as the main language of this state. But I do not see that as a justification for discarding what remains of a rich cultural heritage. I am in favour of respecting the Irish language community and assisting it to maintain the heritage, but I am not in favour of coercing the rest of the population to become like them.

A bit more honesty would be welcome. The Gaeltacht, as officially designated, is in part a fiction. Dingle, for example, has not been an Irish-speaking town in the lifetime of anybody now living, or their parents or grandparents. A hundred years ago the general sentiment in the town was anti-Irish, although some traders could use the language because there was the possibility of making money from the people of Ventry or Dunquin.

SkepticOne

dlofnep wrote: »

The facts are the language is not dead. Being a minority language, and being a dead language are two different things. That's a fact.

Yes, strictly speaking a language is not dead if there are people alive who can speak it. But unlike minority languages in other countries, we've created a dead language that exists along side the spoken minority one. For the (I would guess) the majority of the country, Irish is learned a bit like Latin an Greek were learned in previous decades. The fact that there's a minority language called Irish spoken in parts of Ireland is of only minor relevance. These areas could be wiped out by a tsunami and Irish would continue to be learned in school and used as an arbitrary entry requirement for universities, government jobs etc. Documents would continue to be translated into Irish, even the ones that no one reads in either language. This is Irish, the dead language as opposed to Irish the minority language.

CoalBucket

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I suspect the vast majority of those who said they speak Irish in the census were fibbing. No way do one million people speak Irish in this country.

Again I point out that these figures are the only available on the speaking of the Irish language. I could say that there are 2 million speaking Irish and it would have as much basis for your guesstimate.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So why do you support the expense of countless millions in teachers salary and document translation? What are your reasons for taking such a stance? Other then misty eyed celtic tripe that is.

So If Irish was to stop being taught tomorrow teachers would stop being paid ? I do not think that funding the education system in this country is a waste.

As for document translation, I agree that this is unneccesary however I again go back to my original point that the funding for the Irish language should be better spent rather than withdrawn.

With reference to misty eyed celtic tripe, does advocating the survival and promotion of the Irish language make someones comments misty eyed celtic tripe.

As stated previously I don't speak Irish, I don't dream of the land of river dance and aran jumpers but I'm also not anxious to wipe out our national language.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the constitution. I recognise it is an official of the state. It is not however the official language of the state but rather one of two.

Well then you are ignoring the constitution because it states that it is the official language. English is recognised as an official language but the secondary language.

RoRoCullen

It shouldn't die out as long as they keep it compulsory in schools.. But all languages are thought the 'wrong way' in school.. All writing and not enough talking.. I regularly speak Irish with my friends! Obviously with a few English words.. It began when around 20 Spanish students were waiting on a dart and were annoying us because they knew we couldn't understand them ; They shut up as soon as I said is maith liom bainne..

P. Breathnach

CoalBucket wrote: »

... Well then you are ignoring the constitution because it states that it is the official language. English is recognised as an official language but the secondary language.

If you want to make a point about the constitution, it is better to get it right: Irish is "the first official language" and English is "a second official language". That is more nuanced than deeming English to be a secondary language.

Not that it really matters a damn anyway: this is largely pious aspiration stuff, although it does give people an implied right to deal with the state through Irish, a right that is sometimes used and sometimes abused.

CoalBucket

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you want to make a point about the constitution, it is better to get it right: Irish is "the first official language" and English is "a second official language". That is more nuanced than deeming English to be a secondary language.

Not that it really matters a damn anyway: this is largely pious aspiration stuff, although it does give people an implied right to deal with the state through Irish, a right that is sometimes used and sometimes abused.

Whilst I appreciate the input I have already posted Article 8 directly from the constitution.

I tend to agree that the pious aspiration stuff is and can be abused. However advocating the survival of the Irish language doesn't make someones comments "misty eyed celtic tripe" as they are being portrayed. A point you would certainly appreciate Mr. Walsh

Bebs

CoalBucket wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate the input I have already posted Article 8 directly from the constitution.

I tend to agree that the pious aspiration stuff is and can be abused. However advocating the survival of the Irish language doesn't make someones comments "misty eyed celtic tripe" as they are being portrayed. A point you would certainly appreciate Mr. Walsh

Survival at what cost though? The language is resented by a lot of the students who learn it and the fluency rate is abysmal for the time spent learning the language.

Surely it'd be better to restructure the course and focus on speaking it? I think more students would engage with the language if they could hold a proper conversation in Irish.

dlofnep

SkepticOne wrote: »

But unlike minority languages in other countries, we've created a dead language that exists along side the spoken minority one. For the (I would guess) the majority of the country, Irish is learned a bit like Latin an Greek were learned in previous decades. The fact that there's a minority language called Irish spoken in parts of Ireland is of only minor relevance. These areas could be wiped out by a tsunami and Irish would continue to be learned in school and used as an arbitrary entry requirement for universities, government jobs etc. Documents would continue to be translated into Irish, even the ones that no one reads in either language. This is Irish, the dead language as opposed to Irish the minority language.

I agree that Irish as it currently stands is taught as nothing more than a subject, rather than a living language. At least in English speaking schools. In the Gaelscoileanna, the opposite is true. It is taught as a living language, and students are fully immersed in the language.

This accounts for 7.5% of school attendees. Is it a huge number? Not really, but it certainly is noteworthy when you consider that the Irish language could very well be in as poor a state of Manx today. It's also worth noting that the demand for such services through Irish are stretched, as people are often waiting 3-4 years on a waiting list to put their children through Gaelscoilenna. I would estimate that if possible, we would see a similar system to the Welsh model which sees over 20% of people attending immersion-based schools by choice.

I don't believe that this is starry eyed aspiration. It could also solve the debate around mandatory Irish. With a strong Gaelscoil population, we could debate the merits of optional Irish. You won't find many people disagree with you, even in the strongest Irish language circles that having Irish as a requirement for University is backwards. And of course, there are a few things that could be changed.

I firmly believe that Irish is making a comeback, and will continue to do so. It's not something that is going to change overnight. And it's not something that we will see suddenly happen. I personally don't see any worthwhile change in the curriculum in the near future, and until it does - the language in English speaking schools will be little more than a filler subject. I believe the future of the language has been placed in the hands of those who attend Gaelscoileanna, and in general - Urban Irish speakers. Too much responsibility is placed on the Gaeltacht, and that cannot be sustainable in the long run.

walshb

pierrot wrote: »

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.

C'mon, that is just clutching at straws and being official for the sake of it.

A language is dead when pretty much the whole of its country doesn't speak or care to speak it.

dlofnep

walshb wrote: »

A language is dead when pretty much the whole of its country doesn't speak or care to speak it.

No, that is an endangered language. If we're going to have a discussion on language, then we can at least use the internationally recognised linguistic terms for language states.

Irish has over 100,000 speakers. It's far from dead, and is gaining strength. If we are to continue this discussion, then we will not get anywhere unless you give a balanced view of the situation. I'm not overblowing the amount of Irish speakers, and in the same respect - you should not undercut it's state.

walshb

dlofnep wrote: »

No, that is an endangered language. If we're going to have a discussion on language, then we can at least use the internationally recognised linguistic terms for language states.

Irish has over 100,000 speakers. It's far from dead, and is gaining strength. If we are to continue this discussion, then we will not get anywhere unless you give a balanced view of the situation. I'm not overblowing the amount of Irish speakers, and in the same respect - you should not undercut it's state.

Well, I suppose from an individual standpoint, 99 percent of persons I converse with do so in English, and cannot do so in Irish. To me, that is a dead language.

BTW, I have some Irish, am I then included in the figures?

dlofnep

walshb wrote: »

Well, I suppose from an individual standpoint, 99 percent of persons I converse with do so in English, and cannot do so in Irish. To me, that is a dead language.

To you, it is a minority language which you do not use. A dead language implies that there are no native speakers. You're confusing very basic linguistic terms. I'm not disputing that it's a minority language, nor am I disputing the role that it plays in your life. However, it is not a dead language and therefore - I will dispute that.

I feel saddened that this discussion has turned into a meaningless semantic debate. If we had of used the accepted terms for language state, then we wouldn't be going around in circles on this issue.

So what is a dead language?

"a language that is no longer learned as a native language"

Irish is learned as a native language, and therefore - it is not dead.

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I have some Irish, am I then included in the figures?

In which figures? Perhaps the number of people who can speak some Irish, but don't use it - if there is such a figure. Then yes, I guess you would be a part of that figure.

I however use Irish on a daily basis, so I guess I'm on the opposite spectrum of those who can speak Irish, and use it regularly.

walshb

I know full well that OFFICIALLY it is not dead, but seriously, as regards percentages and numbers who can actually speak the language and care for it, the figures are pretty dismal.

CoalBucket

Bebs wrote: »

Survival at what cost though? The language is resented by a lot of the students who learn it and the fluency rate is abysmal for the time spent learning the language.

Surely it'd be better to restructure the course and focus on speaking it? I think more students would engage with the language if they could hold a proper conversation in Irish.

I couldn't agree more. That has been my point throughout this thread.

If you read back my posts in this thread I advocate the restructuring of funding and a complete rethink in how the language is taught.

Obviously there is something drastically wrong with the fluency levels of Irish and this needs to be addressed rather than ignored.

I favour this proposal as opposed to the proposal that the language is on the way out and it should be left like that.

dlofnep

walshb wrote: »

I know full well that OFFICIALLY it is not dead, but seriously, as regards percentages and numbers who can actually speak the language and care for it, the figures are pretty dismal.

But nobody is disputing that the figures are low. People are disputing whether the language is dead or not. It obviously isn't, as more and more people are speaking it - and Gaelscoileanna continue to open up around the country with a very high demand, and long waiting lists.

20goto10

dlofnep wrote: »

But nobody is disputing that the figures are low. People are disputing whether the language is dead or not. It obviously isn't, as more and more people are speaking it - and Gaelscoileanna continue to open up around the country with a very high demand, and long waiting lists.

Gaelscoileanna is the solution. Like many European countries, we should be able to speak our own language fluently but also speak English as it has obvious benefits to us. There are a lot of Gaelscoileanna opening up and they have a good reputation for education across the board.
<br/>
We should not be learning to speak Irish in secondary school. It should be used for progressing the langauge, much the same way as English is.

eddyc

20goto10 wrote: »

Like many European countries, we should be able to speak our own language fluently

Can you accept that some people who live in Ireland do not consider Irish but rather English as their native language?

Wolfe Tone

eddyc wrote: »

Can you accept that some people who live in Ireland do not consider Irish but rather English as their native language?

Yes, for example Unionists would consider english to be their native language.

dlofnep

eddyc wrote: »

Can you accept that some people who live in Ireland do not consider Irish but rather English as their native language?

English is everyone's native language in Ireland, or at least 99% of the population. Anyone who speaks a language from birth, and fluently - has by that very definition it as their native language. (A person can have more than 1 native language).

People misunderstand the meaning of native, and often confuse it with indigenous. The Irish language is the indigenous language of Ireland, but it is the native language of perhaps only 5% of the population. Take me for example - I can speak Irish, and speak it everyday - but it is not my native language because I have not learnt it from birth, and I'm not 100% fluent.

It's pointless discussing the semantics of what a native language is. I see no need to entertain it as a topic, as it doesn't address the issue at hand.

dlofnep

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes, for example Unionists would consider english to be their native language.

I consider English my native language And I speak Irish probably as much as anyone else. Don't get caught up in semantic-based arguments.

Wolfe Tone

dlofnep wrote: »

I consider English my native language And I speak Irish probably as much as anyone else. Don't get caught up in semantic-based arguments.

As do I, the point I was making is that todays Ireland is a multicultural island. Many people live here from all over the world and bring their "native" languages with them.
For example many of the Chinese who live here would consider Chinese their native language etc etc...
One can have more than one native language surely? But there can be no argument that English is this islands historical "native" language.

20goto10

eddyc wrote: »

Can you accept that some people who live in Ireland do not consider Irish but rather English as their native language?

Yes because I am one of them. I can still say I would have liked to have been properly educated and be able to speak both.

20goto10

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

As do I, the point I was making is that todays Ireland is a multicultural island. Many people live here from all over the world and bring their "native" languages with them.
For example many of the Chinese who live here would consider Chinese their native language etc etc...
One can have more than one native language surely? But there can be no argument that English is this islands historical "native" language.

The Netherlands is a perfect example. It's more multi-cultural than Ireland is. They speak Dutch and English and you get by just fine without knowing a word of Dutch (although I'm not sure if that is the case in the professional world - do they speak dutch or English in their offices for example?)

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

The Netherlands is a perfect example. It's more multi-cultural than Ireland is. They speak Dutch and English and you get by just fine without knowing a word of Dutch (although I'm not sure if that is the case in the professional world - do they speak dutch or English in their offices for example?)

I worked with ABN Amro for a short time and Dutch was frequently spoken in their offices, both in Dublin and Amsterdam.

T runner

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 would agree that the vast majority of people who claim that Irish is dead actually want it to be so. It is often tied to a political viewpoint.

Some of them see it as a backward language, part of a culture that they abhor. You often get the Aran jumpers, dancing at the crosswords references thrown in with their arguments to try and associate the language with a particular culture.

In actual fact all this attitude is trying to achieve is to deny people their right to be billingual.

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

I worked with ABN Amro for a short time and Dutch was frequently spoken in their offices, both in Dublin and Amsterdam.

Well as an initial transitional phase I would say English would remain the working language in Ireland while Irish would be frequently spoken at an informal level. The fact is many Irish companies communicate regularly with foreign countries, so its likely it may never change except maybe out of habit.

20goto10

T runner wrote: »

It is often tied to a political viewpoint.

I agree politics should not come into it. Personally I think all primary schools should eventually be Gaelscoileanna and anyone who wants to be educated in Ireland (and paid by the Irish taxpayer) should have to learn the language. Your political, cultural or religious stance should not be a factor.

sensibleken

20goto10 wrote: »

I agree politics should not come into it. Personally I think all primary schools should eventually be Gaelscoileanna and anyone who wants to be educated in Ireland (and paid by the Irish taxpayer) should have to learn the language. Your political, cultural or religious stance should not be a factor.

Thats very true about politics. I hated irish in school. I thought it was pointless and associated the language with a 'maidens dancing at the crossroads' view of Ireland that i found incredibly disturbing.

However some time in my mid twenties I fell in love with the language, perhaps because it was a time when you could love our culture without being a 'nationalist'. I spent hundreds of euro on trying to learn it again but am still far short of fluent due to the lack of people to speak it with.

While i wouldn't agree that Gaelscoileanna should be the only types I would rather see a growth through promotion than compulsion