Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Irish a dead language?

Options
24567…131

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What are you harping on about? :confused:

    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?


  • Options
    #35
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    nicola09
    Closed Accounts Posts: 308 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    paky wrote: »
    Polish?

    Yeah we can bury their language too.


  • Options
    #40
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #43
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #45
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    paky wrote: »
    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?

    It is not forced down their throat. It is a mandatory subject. You are using subjective terms to describe a situation, which I'm not interested in entertaining.
    paky wrote: »
    Surely if we withdrew the funding it would flourish?

    No, it wouldn't. Nobody would have an opportunity to learn it if state support was removed, and nobody would have a chance to use it their day to day business if it was removed. Joshua Fishman has written indepth on this subject. I suggest you read his works, which will explain in great detail the role that state support plays in the the survival of minority languages.


  • Options
    #53
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Ah the vast majority do. I stand over that figure.
    Not really. If there are 91k people in the gealtacht I would say 70k of them speak Irish.


  • Options
    #54
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


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

    Well i've found that hard to beleive, i've never heard anyone speaking irish and i've been to the most remote parts of donegal and haven't seen anyone speaking irish. I also find that very hard to beleive that in another part of this island 150,000 people are speaking a different language.


  • Options
    #55
    Rick Deckard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭Rick Deckard


    dlofnep wrote: »
    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    .


    you're on the ball saying your post is utter nonsense..
    i wasn't allowed to use my own name down in hell gaeltacht..
    and as i have a europian surname, the commendant made up a pidgeon irish name for me by placing a few random fadas on my surname..


  • Options
    #56
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't. So what?



    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.



    Then perhaps you can explain this statement.



    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.

    My cousins live in wales and they didn't learn welsh.


  • Options
    #57
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    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.

    I'm not interested in what you consider a large number or what you consider to be the correct amount of regular Irish speakers. Pick a number, and come back to me with a source that states that amount of regular Irish speakers in Ireland.

    The population of the Gaeltacht that uses it regularly according to the latest census had it at about just under 70%. That's still a considerable sum, when you take into account the amount of Urban Irish speakers on top of the Gaeltacht population. 100,000 is absolutely and unequivocally a conservative sum.


  • Options
    #58
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Well does anyone have any official figures?


  • Options
    #59
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    peatcass wrote: »
    you're on the ball saying your post is utter nonsense..
    i wasn't allowed to use my own name down in hell gaeltacht..
    and as i have a europian surname, the commendant made up a pidgeon irish name for me by placing a few random fadas on my surname..
    You must have gone to a crap Gaeltacht. I always have a blast when I am there.


  • Options
    #60
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It is not forced down their throat. It is a mandatory subject. You are using subjective terms to describe a situation, which I'm not interested in entertaining.



    No, it wouldn't. Nobody would have an opportunity to learn it if state support was removed, and nobody would have a chance to use it their day to day business if it was removed. Joshua Fishman has written indepth on this subject. I suggest you read his works, which will explain in great detail the role that state support plays in the the survival of minority languages.

    Subjective terms like this: 'So, you're talking shíte to be honest.'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    owenc wrote: »
    My cousins live in wales and they didn't learn welsh.

    The Welsh language has been a mandatory part of Welsh education up until the age of 15/16.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement