A Gaeltacht in Dublin?

Cú Giobach

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If Irish hadn't been passed down, it would be dead, it isn't.
If it isn't being passed down now, there would be no children speaking it, there are.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

53,471 = .4% of the population?

53471 divided by 4 = 13367.75 this is .1%
X 10 = 133677.5 or 1%
X100 = 13,367,750

Population of Ireland is 13.3 million now is it?

The actual % is 1.26%, the % of daily Irish seakers just grew threefold in the space of a single post, if thats not thriving....
And of course that figure excludes those who speak Irish daily both in and outside of the education system.

The driving assumption behind the Gaeltacht strategy was that the language would survive and thrive in dedicated areas of the country if the state provided enough funding. In reality, over the past few decades, most of the so-called "Gaeltachts" have become largely English-speaking areas where Irish is no longer spoken habitually in families or among peers. The strategy has failed, as has the overarching principle that the government can control which languages people choose to speak.

The question why is an important one, you made the assumption that people in the Gaeltacht have switched to speaking English, this is by and large not the case, you will find that if you go through the Census returns that the population of the Gaeltacht areas has grown significantly over the past 20 years with the number of Irish speakers remaining more or less static, the Irish Language is not declining in Gaeltacht areas as such, more it is being swamped.

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

53,471 = .4% of the population?

53471 divided by 4 = 13367.75 this is .1%
X 10 = 133677.5 or 1%
X100 = 13,367,750

Population of Ireland is 13.3 million now is it?

The actual % is 1.26%, the % of daily Irish seakers just grew threefold in the space of a single post, if thats not thriving....
And of course that figure excludes those who speak Irish daily both in and outside of the education system.

Unless I'm missing something...

[53,471/6,380,661]*100 = 0.84%

RandomName2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If Irish hadn't been passed down, it would be dead, it isn't.
If it isn't being passed down now, there would be no children speaking it, there are.

It's being passed down by teachers.

Gaeltachts per se are irrelevant in the discussion as to why Irish is still around. By definition Gaeltachts require state support and supervision in order to exist and persist so any discussion about them being the originators of the promulgation of the Irish language is a non-starter.

Parents helping their kids with their compulsory Irish homework does not, in my opinion, constitute it being passed down from generation to generation.

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Unless I'm missing something...

[53,471/6,380,661]*100 = 0.84%

Where are you getting 6,380,661 as a figure for the Population from?

CSO

Population of Ireland(Republic) is 4,329,848 as of census 2006.

opti0nal

deise go deo wrote: »

Where are you getting 6,380,661 as a figure for the Population from?...Population of Ireland(Republic) is 4,329,848 as of census 2006.

You're excluding Belfast and its 'Culturlann' then?

Focalbhach

opti0nal wrote: »

You're excluding Belfast and its 'Culturlann' then?

I doubt Belfast and its Cultúrlann were included in the 2006 Census figures that Permabear quoted.

deise go deo

opti0nal wrote: »

You're excluding Belfast and its 'Culturlann' then?

Of course I am, the figure of 53,471 daily Irish speakers excludes NI, so the figure for the total population should too, unless your trying to make the % of daily Irish speakers look smaller than it really is of course.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well looking at the census figures, all gaeltacht areas in 1971 had a total of 55,500 Irish speakers, by 2006 though the percentage of the total had decreased, the overall number had increased to 64,000, hardly a miserable failure in preserving the language, the main problem has been the influx of non Irish speakers into the Gaeltacht over the last 15 years or so.

The Gaeltacht has always only represented a minority of Irish speakers, there are more Irish spekers in Ballymun than there are in Conamara, the significance of the Gaeltacht is that in those areas, Irish is still the community language. The proposal being brought forward is to reorder the existing Gaeltachts to reflect the reality on the ground, and hopefully give the weaker gaeltachts a bit of a nudge back twords using Irish for fear of loosing their status, it will set down the criteria needed to be met for areas outside the existing gaeltacht areas to gain Gaeltacht status, or in the case of some areas in Clare, regain gaeltacht status, and it will set up a new system of Gréasán Gaeltachts where the Irish speaking community in areas that do not have a Majority/Large Minority of Irish Speakers can gain recognition and support to develop oppertunities in their area to use and transmit the language.

Cú Giobach

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interestingly you leave out the 31,606 people within the education system, who speak Irish daily outside the education system, in other words almost everyone under 18.
Irish is still a living language and because of the number of native speakers it is not considered endangered, now if not by being passed from one generation to the next, please explain how these native speakers acquired the language.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's being passed down by teachers.

Gaeltachts per se are irrelevant in the discussion as to why Irish is still around. By definition Gaeltachts require state support and supervision in order to exist and persist so any discussion about them being the originators of the promulgation of the Irish language is a non-starter.

Parents helping their kids with their compulsory Irish homework does not, in my opinion, constitute it being passed down from generation to generation.

Since my point which started this little discussion was that an area having the status of a Gaeltacht was not what kept the language alive but people passing it down (which is how all living languages are transmitted) then Gaeltachts are indeed quite relative to the discussion here.
Are you trying to tell us that in a place like, for example The Aran Islands, where Irish is the day to day method of communication and the native tongue of the inhabitants, that people only transmit the language because it has Gaeltacht status?

opti0nal

Ok, it's agreed we so we can leave out the NI culturlanna.

deise go deo wrote: »

....fear of loosing their status, it will set down the criteria needed to be met for areas outside the existing gaeltacht areas to gain Gaeltacht status, ...can gain recognition and support to develop oppertunities in their area to use and transmit the language.

What are the practical elements/benefits of the 'status', 'recognition' and 'support' you refer to? And more importantly, how much will they cost?

Will people be paid to speak Irish?

Why do we need such laws?

The Corinthian

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Irish is still a living language and because of the number of native speakers it is not considered endangered, now if not by being passed from one generation to the next, please explain how these native speakers acquired the language.

Has there been comprehensive and neutral census of the language in Ireland in the last ten or twenty years?

I say this because I'm quite skeptical of a lot of the figures; with census self-assessment claims being proffered, or surveys from partisan (both pro and against) organizations. And the definitions of fluency and daily use often used in many statistics are very dubious or skewed, IMHO.

I find that these discussions tend to devolve into two camps with apparently irreconcilable alternate realities; those who claim the language is alive and well and those who claim that it is all but dead. And like Schrödinger's cat, we're unlikely to really come to any agreement until we peer inside the box and examine its contents.

Are you trying to tell us that in a place like, for example The Aran Islands, where Irish is the day to day method of communication and the native tongue of the inhabitants, that people only transmit the language because it has Gaeltacht status?

I thought the point of having the Gaeltachts was to protect the language?

If it's fine on it's own merits, then I'm sure you'll agree we can save ourselves a nice chunk of money by abolishing the incentives associated with them.

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Has there been comprehensive and neutral census of the language in Ireland in the last ten or twenty years?

I say this because I'm quite skeptical of a lot of the figures; with census self-assessment claims being proffered, or surveys from partisan (both pro and against) organizations. And the definitions of fluency and daily use often used in many statistics are very dubious or skewed, IMHO.

I find that these discussions tend to devolve into two camps with apparently irreconcilable alternate realities; those who claim the language is alive and well and those who claim that it is all but dead. And like Schrödinger's cat, we're unlikely to really come to any agreement until we peer inside the box and examine its contents.

My comparrision between the 1971 census and the 2006 census is I believe a valid one, even if you question the accuracy of the figures, it is a like with like comparrision, and unless you think there is some reason for the 2006 census to be more dubious or skewed than the 1971 census, then the trend in the ability to speak Irish in Gaeltacht areas is evidently not one of decline.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

My comparrision between the 1971 census and the 2006 census is I believe a valid one, even if you question the accuracy of the figures, it is a like with like comparrision, and unless you think there is some reason for the 2006 census to be more dubious or skewed than the 1971 census, then the trend in the ability to speak Irish in Gaeltacht areas is evidently not one of decline.

Your logic is flawed; I would consider both censuses to contain dubious data, based upon self-assesment, which is not an objective means of measuring anything. Do you have an objection to a comprehensive and neutral census of the language in Ireland?

deise go deo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your logic is flawed; I would consider both censuses to contain dubious data, based upon self-assesment, which is not an objective means of measuring anything. Do you have an objection to a comprehensive and neutral census of the language in Ireland?

I don't think so, is there any reason to assume that the quality of one census is substantially different to the other?

As for a comprehensive and neutral census of the language in Ireland, how would you suggest it be carried out? What would have to be done before you would accept the findings as broadly accurate?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

deise go deo wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not the point I made. If both censuses are inaccurate, comparing them is really irrelevant to the truth.

As for a comprehensive and neutral census of the language in Ireland, how would you suggest it be carried out? What would have to be done before you would accept the findings as broadly accurate?

A survey, of a statistically relevant sample, that tests participants on their skills in understanding and speaking Irish, carried out by a non-partisan organization (without an agenda or interest to promote or demote the language - and this would include the department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs).

Permabear wrote: »

Are you willing to acknowledge that people, especially in Gaeltacht areas, often exaggerate their facility with or use of Irish when filling in their census forms? It seems to me that many people will happily tick the "I speak Irish every day" box, even if they actually don't, for fear of stanching the flow of government funding to their area.

From what I've been told, by people I've known who come from Gaeltacht areas, the government is part of this problem. Visits are made by officials to check fluency, who then coax and help those tested along so that the 'fluent' box can be ticked.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lets say that the ability to speak Irish is exagerated by a factor of 20, or 200 even, if the exageration is consistent from 1971 to 2006 then the fact that the total numbers claiming to speak Irish daily has not declined, shows that the language has not declined in Gaeltacht areas, despite the claim so often made that it has.
So the question is, is there any reason to assume that there was greater exageration of ability in 2006 than there was in 1971?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swimming in a sea

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I like the 2007 picture,

nuac

I live in Mayo. Altho I wasn't around in 1926 I question the extent of the county shown as Irish speaking in 1926, Parts of Achill, Tourmakeady and Erris OK but I never heard the other areas shown were Irish speaking in 1920's.

.

opti0nal

deise go deo wrote: »

Lets say that the ability to speak Irish is exagerated by a factor of 20, or 200 even...
So the question is, is there any reason to assume that there was greater exageration of ability in 2006 than there was in 1971?

No, the question is: 'how do we get back all the money paid to fake Gaeltachts?'

Wibbs

nuac wrote: »

I live in Mayo. Altho I wasn't around in 1926 I question the extent of the county shown as Irish speaking in 1926, Parts of Achill, Tourmakeady and Erris OK but I never heard the other areas shown were Irish speaking in 1920's.

Though this is only personal and thirdhand observation and hearsay.... My dad and his family were big into fishing the Mayo lakes(and other Gaeltacht areas)and I remember them discussing(and lamenting) that you would hear Irish a lot more before say the 50's/60's in those areas. By contrast when I was doing same with my dad in the 80's and 90's I heard it in Mayo in particular... well pretty much never TBH*. I did hear it in Donegal though. I'd say the economics of those areas coupled with the pretty large flight of youth from same had a toll on the language.



*Though to be fair were we would be staying were areas aimed at tourists and fishing types so maybe less likely to hear it in such places?

Focalbhach

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I like the 2007 picture,

Why (dare I ask)?

Wibbs

Focalbhach wrote: »

Why (dare I ask)?

Ditto F. Though I'm very much against Irish language window dressing for the sake of some IMHO misguided cultural ideal(no shít sherlock I hear some cry:D), I'm personally saddened by the contraction in native Irish usage that those maps appear to show.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I can testify with certainty that much of East Mayo marked as Gaelthacht in 1926 was not Irish-speaking, my older relatives who were alive in the years shortly after have no recollection of those area's having any population of Irish speakers.

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just had a read through the report, fair enough, I conceed the point, it seems the Gaeltacht is in more danger than I had tought.

Wibbs

I'm not happy to agree it makes for grim reading. In which case DgD I reckon diverting funds from window dressing type projects(of which there are many) into the areas that are left that are still strong in the language at grass roots level is the way forward. If and when that makes a difference(and I think it would), then start spreading the word. However I'd support Irish language schools where ever they are.

Now bear with me this is an odd analogy. Even for me... With endangered or threatened species in the wild you seek first and foremost to preserve the habitat. On top of that you try captive breeding to keep the stock vital. I'd see the stronger Gaeltachts as the "natural habitat" and the Gaelscoil movement as the "zoos". Gaeltachts in Dublin etc? The "habitat" is wrong, there isn't enough "breeding stock" and there's a big risk of "hybridisation". IMHO the equivalent of sticking mountain gorillas in the Wicklow mountains hoping they'll survive and reproduce. Well they both have mountain in their name... Told you it was odd even for me :)

My biggest concern with this subject (as the Corinthian touched on before) is there are no clear figures on the ground as to the health of the language. In the majority of cases it's personal feeling, self reporting and bias on both sides. And I think deep down people feel this. This does not help the languages cause when the pro lobby are claiming how healthy the language is all over the country when they only time they hear or see it is on telly, in school, road signs and translations on government spam through their letterbox.