Is Irish a Dead Language?

Enkidu

iguana wrote: »

Yes they do.

There very hard barriers to any language becoming the language of the whole globe. Most linguists consider it unlikely that any language will climb this barrier. The most optimistic predictions for English say it will probably be the language of science for the rest of the 21st century, but that's about it. Can you give me a reference to major linguists saying otherwise.

iguana wrote: »

A bastard hybrid of English and various Asian languages is the most likely to be the main earth dialect in the future. The reason that English will form the base of it is because of how fluid it is and how easily and swiftly it evolves by adapting and absorbing a wide variety of elements from all other languages it encounters.

How can you argue for this? How do you know it is likely? For instance it ignores the "Language Phylum barrier", languages from different families can rarely combine into an effective lingua franca.

Dionysus

iguana wrote: »

Of course English was forced into use in this country, this tiny, tiny minority of it's users.

Yet above you stated:

iguana wrote: »

Because it [English] wasn't forced.

Would you please make up your mind?

At any rate, the overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland spoke Irish in 1600. Where is this "tiny, tiny minority" you're speaking about?

Moreover, I'm still waiting for linguistic and academic studies to support your rather strange ideas on Modern Irish.

Speaking of 'obtuse', 'it's' and 'its' are not the same.

samboshy

Dionysus wrote: »

Yet above you stated:

Would you please make up your mind?

At any rate, the overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland spoke Irish in 1600. Where is this "tiny, tiny minority" you're speaking about?

Moreover, I'm still waiting for linguistic and academic studies to support your rather strange ideas on Modern Irish.

Speaking of 'obtuse', 'it's' and 'its' are not the same.

OWNED

rusty_racer94

orourkeda wrote: »

IT'S DEAD.

It's just a case of someone having the balls to pull the plug from the life support machine

+1

Insect Overlord

rusty_racer94 wrote: »

+1

Epic first ever post. I bet you'll be proud when you look back at that.

wellboy76

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Welsh, Catalan and Basque are all examples of minority languages that are undergoing (so far) successful revivals. Basque doesn't have even a fraction of the rich literary heritage that Ireland has, is completely unrelated to the Latin and Germanic languages that surround it and has still got quite a bit of support in certain parts of France and Spain.

Would any of the doubters from this forum be so vociferous if they were trying to tell those Welsh, Spanish and French nationals to give up and let go? I sincerely doubt it.

Welsh - Part of Britain
Catalan & Basque - Regions of Spain that want independence

We have ours, maybe if these regions got theirs they would see the irrelevance of theirs?

Insect Overlord

wellboy76 wrote: »

Welsh - Part of Britain
Catalan & Basque - Regions of Spain that want independence

We have ours, maybe if these regions got theirs they would see the irrelevance of theirs?

You see, there's the problem. Who are you to decide the irrelevance of languages spoken by thousands and thousands of people? Applying the idea of "Well I can't use it so it must be useless" really doesn't cut it.

deise go deo

samboshy wrote: »

OWNED

have you got anything valid to contribute or are you just going to troll this thread?

What is your argument? And have you any evidence for it?

iguana

Dionysus wrote: »

Yet above you stated:

Would you please make up your mind?

At any rate, the overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland spoke Irish in 1600. Where is this "tiny, tiny minority" you're speaking about.

Way to selectively quote, it's quite the lesson in distortion!

I really hope you are being deliberately obtuse, otherwise.................

1. The English language was imposed upon the people of Ireland.

2. The English language grew naturally in England.

3. The Irish make up a minority of English speakers, both now and throughout it's history.

4. English being a forced language in Ireland does not make it a language that was forced into growth or evolution as a language, because the majority of it's speakers are not from this country and the vast majority of it's evolution did not happen here.

Dionysus wrote: »

Speaking of 'obtuse', 'it's' and 'its' are not the same.

Actually "it's" refers to both "it is" and the ownership of "it". Just like it's "Peter's" for "Peter is" and "Peter's" for the object with belongs to Peter. Your mistake is one of those very common ones made by people who erroneously try to correct other's grammar and punctuation. It's in the same class as people who correct you by saying "Peter and I!" when you tell them that "He gave it to me and Peter."

wellboy76

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You see, there's the problem. Who are you to decide the irrelevance of languages spoken by thousands and thousands of people? Applying the idea of "Well I can't use it so it must be useless" really doesn't cut it.

I was counter-acting an argument but I am not going to try compare languages. They are striving to have a national identity and obviously they see the language thing an important part of it. Fair enough.

But the fact of the matter is for most people, Irish in modern day life is useless. Let people make the choice without having it made for them. That is my problem with this whole thread.

Insect Overlord

iguana wrote: »

Actually "it's" refers to both "it is" and the ownership of "it". Just like it's "Peter's" for "Peter is" and "Peter's" for the object with belongs to Peter. Your mistake is one of those very common ones made by people who erroneously try to correct other's grammar and punctuation.

You're wrong. "Its", without the apostrophe, denotes a case of ownership.

Dionysus

iguana wrote: »

Way to selectively quote, it's quite the lesson in distortion!

I really hope you are being deliberately obtuse, otherwise.................

1. The English language was imposed upon the people of Ireland.

2. The English language grew naturally in England.

3. The Irish make up a minority of English speakers, both now and throughout it's history.

4. English being a forced language in Ireland does not make it a language that was forced into growth or evolution as a language, because the majority of it's speakers are not from this country and the vast majority of it's evolution did not happen here.

You began this exchange by ostensibly trying to answer my question to Wibbs - this question - and now it transpires in this current post that since then you've made up your own questions which have little-to-no relevance to the topic under discussion. I suggest you re-read that initial post as the confusion ("distortion") doesn't rest on my side.

iguana wrote: »

Actually "it's" refers to both "it is" and the ownership of "it". Just like it's "Peter's" for "Peter is" and "Peter's" for the object with belongs to Peter. Your mistake is one of those very common ones made by people who erroneously try to correct other's grammar and punctuation. It's in the same class as people who correct you by saying "Peter and I!" when you tell them that "He gave it to me and Peter."

You are, I'm afraid, once again mistaken:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it's

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=it's+its+difference


I'm still waiting for you to support your peculiar claims about Modern Irish with linguistic/academic studies.

iguana

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You're wrong. "Its", without the apostrophe, denotes a case of ownership.

Crap you are right!:o Sorry about that one Dionysus.

marienbad

iguana wrote: »

Crap you are right!:o Sorry about that one Dionysus.

and furthermore no more of this ''me and Peter'' crap, it is Peter and I - Understood !

iguana

Dionysus wrote: »

You began this exchange by ostensibly trying to answer my question to Wibbs - this question - and now it transpires in this current post that since then you've made up your own questions which have little-to-no relevance to the topic under discussion. I suggest you re-read that initial post as the confusion ("distortion") doesn't rest on my side.

Just re-read that post you've linked. You asked how the evolution of Irish was different to the evolution of English. I answered that their evolutions were different due to the the fact that the evolution of English was natural and that of Irish was forced. The confusion lies with your misreading of the word "forced." I used forced to describe the forced* "evolution" of Irish after it fell out of greater use, not as you assumed it's use being forced upon us.

And looking at it objectively, Conradh na Gaeilge most certainly forced the "evolution" of the language. It was out of use outside of in remote areas, not by choice, but for long enough that the majority of Irish adults spoke English as their first language and had almost no Irish at all. Once a language is largely unused for long enough for the native speakers to have died it dies with them. A revival is not entirely natural. And when the people behind that revival become our Taoiseach and our president and use their power to make their interpretation the "legal" interpretation and force it (this time force as you assumed it the first time) on the populace in return for education, it is deeply unnatural.

If it had ever been a truly natural revival and evolution of language do you think that after nearly 90 years of free education in the language less than 0.02% of the population would speak it daily? 0.02% of the population is an oddity, not a revival, not a thriving language, not something which should still be a mandatory part of our education system.

*"Forced" as in, "He used steroids to force his growth."

Insect Overlord

marienbad wrote: »

and furthermore no more of this ''me and Peter'' crap, it is Peter and I - Understood !

You'd use "Peter and I" if you were following that with a verb, i.e. "Peter and I went to the shop".

Iguana's example of "He gave it to me and Peter" is perfectly fine.

The irony of this situation is funny though. So many posters are complaining that they can't use Irish (or that they've forgotten the bit they learned at school) and that it's okay because they are fluent in English. And yet, many of them are ignorant of some fairly basic English grammatical rules.

Going by that logic we could almost say English is a dead language.

iguana

Insect Overlord wrote: »

So many posters are complaining that they can't use Irish (or that they've forgotten the bit they learned at school) and that it's okay because they are fluent in English.

I think the point most "anti-Irish" people make is not "I had to do Irish at school and it sucks, boo-hiss, dead language!" I think it's that despite the fact that almost every adult who grew up in this country spent a reasonably large portion of their education being taught Irish so few people make real use of it, (80,000 people is less than 0.02% of the population of the republic) in which case it clearly isn't anywhere near a living language.

bmarley

Learning Irish to leaving cert is a complete waste of time. So many people who learn Irish in schools from 4-18 approx can hardly put a sentence together as gaeilge. It's also taught wrong in schools with too much emphasis on rote learning and learning from books. There should be a lot more oral Irish. I think it should be scrapped altogether. Dont see why students who have done L.C. through Irish should be awarded extra points, thats just ridiculous - obviously anyone who lives in Gaeltacht area will have much better Irish as they use and speak it on daily basis. Ireland and it's unfair systems.

Insect Overlord

iguana wrote: »

(80,000 people is less than 0.02% of the population of the republic) in which case it clearly isn't anywhere near a living language.

Actually, if you check that again, you'll find that it's just under 2%, and not just under 0.02%. The difference is enormous.

iguana

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Actually, if you check that again, you'll find that it's just under 2%, and not just under 0.02%. The difference is enormous.

Don't need to check it again. I woke up this morning going WTF about my crappy maths. I was very distracted yesterday. But I do stand by the fact that in a country where almost everyone has had a significant education in a language for several generations the estimation of native speakers should be a lot higher than less 1.8%.

It's a close to dead language being kept on significant, artificial life support. Forcing children to spend time huge amounts of time on it, legislating that all public documents must be published in it, providing a disproportionate amount of the state's communications and broadcasting budget on promoting doesn't make it a real, living vibrant language. It just makes it the pet project of some dead people with power.

If the state stopped trying to artificially inflate the language it might actually gain genuine popular support and come back to life naturally.

iguana

Enkidu wrote: »

How can you argue for this? How do you know it is likely? For instance it ignores the "Language Phylum barrier", languages from different families can rarely combine into an effective lingua franca.

Because it's already happening, the Phylum barrier is a defunct theory disproved by the evolution of language caused initially by mass migrations and further so by the growth of electronic communication. Creole languages are considered stable languages and English based Creole languages are experiencing exponential growth across Asia.

Some people may still consider the likes of Chinglish and Singlish to be passing corruptions but the speed of their evolution and they way they have been further encompassing elements of more and more languages suggest that in the future rather than become obsolete in favour of Standard English, Standard English will be heavily influenced by them and evolve to partially encompass them. It's what English has always done.

Cú Giobach

iguana wrote: »

Because it's already happening, the Phylum barrier is a defunct theory disproved by the evolution of language caused initially by mass migrations and further so by the growth of electronic communication. Creole languages are considered stable languages and English based Creole languages are experiencing exponential growth across Asia.

Some people may still consider the likes of Chinglish and Singlish to be passing corruptions but the speed of their evolution and they way they have been further encompassing elements of more and more languages suggest that in the future rather than become obsolete in favour of Standard English, Standard English will be heavily influenced by them and evolve to partially encompass them. It's what English has always done.

Won't happen, the current status quo will not continue indefinitely (one look at history shows that change is the norm no matter how powerful an "empire").
The majority of people on the planet have no use for or interest in English as even a second language.
The English based creole languages are a minuscule proportion of the planets linguistic diversity.
What use is English to the Billions living in rural China, other parts of Asia or South America.
There are 2nd generation Latin Americans living in the US who don't speak English.
Arabic certainly won't be supplanted by the language of the Infidel.
When a German businessman goes home after talking English all day, he speaks German to his 3 year old not some Anglo-German mix and this will continue through the generations.
Your vision is one of a quite naive Anglophone, if you lived in Russia or China you would have a very different opinion.
A language of business yes, a one world native language not a hope in hell.

Edit:
This has some interesting points.

bobbysands81

That the question can be asked is proof that the Irish language ain't dead.

If the language was dead then the question would be irrelevant... this thread is proof that it is alive, even the people saying it is dead are legitimising and giving life to the language.

Irish Halo

Well UNESCO describes Irish as definitely endangered (children no longer learn the language as mother tongue in the home) however this is only the 3rd level with 3 levels beyond this.
Level 1 - safe (language is spoken by all generations; intergenerational transmission is uninterrupted)
Level 2 - vulnerable (most children speak the language, but it may be restricted to certain domains (e.g., home))
Level 3 - definitely endangered
Level 4 - severely endangered (language is spoken by grandparents and older generations; while the parent generation may understand it, they do not speak it to children or among themselves)
Level 5 - critically endangered (the youngest speakers are grandparents and older, and they speak the language partially and infrequently)
Level 6 - extinct (there are no speakers left)

grizzly

With globalisation and mass media do you think (given enough time) we'll only have one universal language? I don't mean English or Spanish, but something that evolves from all current languages. To me this feels inevitable.

wellboy76

grizzly wrote: »

With globalisation and mass media do you think (given enough time) we'll only have one universal language? I don't mean English or Spanish, but something that evolves from all current languages. To me this feels inevitable.

Not sure. There are similarities between European languages but the differences between ours and arabic and other asian languages is enormous. Cant see it happening for hundreds of years if ever.

grizzly

grizzly wrote: »

With globalisation and mass media do you think (given enough time) we'll only have one universal language? I don't mean English or Spanish, but something that evolves from all current languages. To me this feels inevitable.

No, I dont think such a situation will ever happen, as it is globalisation is only a transient state, give it another couple of decades and the world will appear to get much larger as the costs involved in travel and transport increase and will stop most trivial travel and trade.

Mass media will still flourish and I expect online translators to get better and more witely available.

Mike 1972

grizzly wrote: »

With globalisation and mass media do you think (given enough time) we'll only have one universal language? I don't mean English or Spanish, but something that evolves from all current languages. To me this feels inevitable.

There have been several attempts before (Esperanto being the most well known) but none of them really caught on.

Globally English is gradually assuming the role originally envisaged for Esperanto despite not being generally regarded as easy to learn.

On the other hand some have suggested that in the longer term the role of English as a de facto Global language may itself come under threat from within as the language evolves and fractures into increacingly incomprehensible regional dialects which further evolve into languages in their own right.