The Irish language is failing.

tipparetops

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The USA and Australia aren't proper countries? Half of North Africa and the Middle East aren't countries? Most of South and Central America aren't countries?
Wanna go back and think that one through again?
And just to be clear, it's only language makes you Irish?

No I do not need to think about it,
if you have your own language you are a real country,
If your language is given to you by way of occupation by a foreign power you have to ask, What are you?

Dan_Solo

tipparetops wrote: »

No I do not need to think about it,
if you have your own language you are a real country,
If your language is given to you by way of occupation by a foreign power you have to ask, What are you?

So Brazil, Egypt, the USA, Australia, Argentina etc aren't real countries and have no national identity? Surreal assertion.
Is India a real country? They use English and a thousand other languages? No, I guess not. China? They have 100 types of "Chinese", some so different they can't say one word to each other. They're out too I guess.
So about 1/4 of the Earth is "real countries" then. Truly bizarre.

PopePalpatine

tipparetops wrote: »

I do not think anyone can be confident in their national identity if they cannot speak their own language.

I speak English just fine, thank you very much.

tipparetops

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So Brazil, Egypt, the USA, Australia, Argentina etc aren't real countries and have no national identity? Surreal assertion.
Is India a real country? They use English and a thousand other languages? No, I guess not. So about 1/4 of the Earth is "real countries" then. Truly bizarre.

Sorry you did not like my answer, I assume you thought I did not have one.

USA, Australia, Brazil and Argentina have seen mass immigration into them from their colonial powers.
In most cases they are speaking their own tongue.

India is not a real country, it is lines drawn on a map by Britain.
Egypt speaks arabic.

I know you are struggling for a good comeback, bizarre is not one.

boardise

Language isn't an essential part of national identity at all. This belief is born of the lazy simplism that plagues discussion of quite complex issues in a world full of multinational states and multicultural nations.
India has 16 official languages and hundreds of local ones. About 19 countries use Spanish as their main or only language. There is no Argentinian language or Chilean language etc.
There is no Swiss language -you can be Swiss and use German ,French, Italian or Sweizerdeutsch. Similarly no one speaks Belgian. Examples abound around the globe.

A national identity can be a variable amalgam of historical memory, religion, shared values etc. Language may or may not be a large or small component.
The equation 'one nation'='one language ' simply does not hold.
Claiming that Gaelic is 'necessary' for an Irish national identity is a palpable nonsense.
Apart from anything else, identities are not fixed but ever-changing.

tipparetops

boardise wrote: »

Language isn't an essential part of national identity at all. This belief is born of the lazy simplism that plagues discussion of quite complex issues in a world full of multinational states and multicultural nations.
India has 16 official languages and hundreds of local ones. About 19 countries use Spanish as their main or only language. There is no Argentinian language or Chilean language etc.
There is no Swiss language -you can be Swiss and use German ,French, Italian or Sweizerdeutsch. Similarly no one speaks Belgian. Examples abound around the globe.

A national identity can be a variable amalgam of historical memory, religion, shared values etc. Language may or may not be a large or small component.
The equation 'one nation'='one language ' simply does not hold.
Claiming that Gaelic is 'necessary' for an Irish national identity is a palpable nonsense.
Apart from anything else, identities are not fixed but ever-changing.

There is 2 languages in Ireland -
You can speak Gaelic, you are Irish
you only speak English, you are Anglo Irish.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

tipparetops wrote: »

Sorry you did not like my answer, I assume you thought I did not have one.

USA, Australia, Brazil and Argentina have seen mass immigration into them from their colonial powers.
In most cases they are speaking their own tongue.

India is not a real country, it is lines drawn on a map by Britain.
Egypt speaks arabic.

I know you are struggling for a good comeback, bizarre is not one.

Most people in the US and Argentina can trace to ancestry to countries other than England and Spain.

tipparetops

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Most people in the US and Argentina can trace to ancestry to countries other than England and Spain.

But who colonised and than controlled them for years.

USA - Britain - English
Argentina - Spain - Spanish
Brazil - Portugal - Portuguese


etc etc etc

Dan_Solo

tipparetops wrote: »

But who colonised and than controlled them for years.

USA - Britain - English
Argentina - Spain - Spanish
Brazil - Portugal - Portuguese


etc etc etc

So what? They've been independent longer than Ireland has. So while they were independent and the Brits were still here, by your rules Ireland was a more "real" country because more of us spoke "our own" language.
BTW, a heap of countries speak Arabic. But of course you're telling us now none of these are real countries because they don't have "their own" language.

Dan_Solo

tipparetops wrote: »

There is 2 languages in Ireland -
You can speak Gaelic, you are Irish
you only speak English, you are Anglo Irish.

Like I said, if I pay an Eskimo to learn Irish apparently he's magically more Irish than 90%+ of the people here on the island.

Carlos Orange

tipparetops wrote: »

India is not a real country, it is lines drawn on a map by Britain.

Ireland is not a real country, it is lines drawn on a map by Britain.

dlouth15

tipparetops wrote: »

There is 2 languages in Ireland -
You can speak Gaelic, you are Irish
you only speak English, you are Anglo Irish.

I suspect this was the thinking around the time of the formation of the State: if you are Irish then naturally you speak Irish. Therefore set up the Irish language curriculum in a way that assumes Irish is already spoken. Teach it like English is taught in England, i.e, a course in literacy and literature rather than language learning.

Then 100 years later wonder why very few speak the language. Wonder also why many have built up a resentment towards it.

The entire Irish language policy is based on this false assumption that if you are Irish you naturally speak Irish. Therefore based on this assumption it is absolutely vital that all documents must be in Irish, otherwise you are denying the right of all Irish people to read documents in their own language.

The false assumption buried below the surface but rarely examined is that we speak Irish in the same way that Italians speak Italian or Germans speak German. It would be ludicrous if official documents in Germany weren't in German so likewise we must have all documents primarily in Irish.

Now of course most Irish language activists will acknowledge that some don't speak it, but this they put down to a bad attitude or laziness.

The irony is that pretending that Irish is natural to the Irish is the biggest obstacle to reviving the language. The reality is that no language is natural to any given population.

We as a country have got our understanding the relationship between language and a country completely wrong.

The French don't speak French because it is their national language. The reverse is the case. French is their national language because it is the language they speak.

I would like to see an end to our national hypocrisy. Either drop Irish as an official language OR work genuinely to revive it. I don't care which.

If we were to work genuinely to revive it then we have to get rid of notions that being Irish means you speak Irish. We have to admit that knowledge of the language is extremely limited in most people despite 12 years of compulsory classes in school. It is limited to the extent that most people would have to start from scratch if they were to learn it properly.

We have to stop distorting figures. The 450,000 children who attend school with compulsory Irish classes are not "speaking Irish on a daily basis". Most of them can't speak Irish in any meaningful sense of the term. Proper research is needed.

We need to stop thinking that a better attitude is needed. This might be true if a small minority were refusing to speak the language that everyone else speaks. But when an entire country does not use a language it is not down to attitude. People don't speak French in France because they are favourably disposed towards the language but because it is the language that is spoken there. Their attitude is irrelevant.

We need to stop listening to Irish language activists and groups like Conradh na Gaelge. They have had their way over the last 100 years. Their way has failed. Irish continued to decline under their watch. And needless to say, for God's sake don't give them any money!

We could decide that a proper revival is impractical. That is fine too. Ironically this would probably lead to more Irish actively spoken in the country without the stultifying effect of current language policy. Let the language enthusiasts themselves be responsible for keeping the language alive.

Un Croissant

johnny osbourne wrote: »

how do you say - i'm happy- in irish

my guess is, tá gáire orm, or tá mé sásta, but neither sound right?

Irish exam today? Good luck.

Grayson

psinno wrote: »

Ireland is not a real country, it is lines drawn on a map by Britain.

They obviously can't draw a straight line. Our coastline is a mess.

tipparetops

dlouth15 wrote: »

I suspect this was the thinking around the time of the formation of the State: if you are Irish then naturally you speak Irish. Therefore set up the Irish language curriculum in a way that assumes Irish is already spoken. Teach it like English is taught in England, i.e, a course in literacy and literature rather than language learning.

Then 100 years later wonder why very few speak the language. Wonder also why many have built up a resentment towards it.

The entire Irish language policy is based on this false assumption that if you are Irish you naturally speak Irish. Therefore based on this assumption it is absolutely vital that all documents must be in Irish, otherwise you are denying the right of all Irish people to read documents in their own language.

The false assumption buried below the surface but rarely examined is that we speak Irish in the same way that Italians speak Italian or Germans speak German. It would be ludicrous if official documents in Germany weren't in German so likewise we must have all documents primarily in Irish.

Now of course most Irish language activists will acknowledge that some don't speak it, but this they put down to a bad attitude or laziness.

The irony is that pretending that Irish is natural to the Irish is the biggest obstacle to reviving the language. The reality is that no language is natural to any given population.

We as a country have got our understanding the relationship between language and a country completely wrong.

The French don't speak French because it is their national language. The reverse is the case. French is their national language because it is the language they speak.

I would like to see an end to our national hypocrisy. Either drop Irish as an official language OR work genuinely to revive it. I don't care which.

If we were to work genuinely to revive it then we have to get rid of notions that being Irish means you speak Irish. We have to admit that knowledge of the language is extremely limited in most people despite 12 years of compulsory classes in school. It is limited to the extent that most people would have to start from scratch if they were to learn it properly.

We have to stop distorting figures. The 450,000 children who attend school with compulsory Irish classes are not "speaking Irish on a daily basis". Most of them can't speak Irish in any meaningful sense of the term. Proper research is needed.

We need to stop thinking that a better attitude is needed. This might be true if a small minority were refusing to speak the language that everyone else speaks. But when an entire country does not use a language it is not down to attitude. People don't speak French in France because they are favourably disposed towards the language but because it is the language that is spoken there. Their attitude is irrelevant.

We need to stop listening to Irish language activists and groups like Conradh na Gaelge. They have had their way over the last 100 years. Their way has failed. Irish continued to decline under their watch. And needless to say, for God's sake don't give them any money!

We could decide that a proper revival is impractical. That is fine too. Ironically this would probably lead to more Irish actively spoken in the country without the stultifying effect of current language policy. Let the language enthusiasts themselves be responsible for keeping the language alive.

You can lie to yourself all you wish, the reason you do not speak Irish is because you cannot or you will not.
If you cannot, fair enough you tried but if you will not it is you choosing to be an Anglophile.

PopePalpatine

You say "Anglophile" as if you've managed to find a synonym for "FOOKIN WEST BRIT BASTURD".

I hated Irish class for as long as I can remember. It was about as tedious as the weekly preparation masses for First Communion and Confirmation.

tipparetops

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You say "Anglophile" as if you've managed to find a synonym for "FOOKIN WEST BRIT BASTURD".

I hated Irish class for as long as I can remember. It was about as tedious as the weekly preparation masses for First Communion and Confirmation.

Ok which are you -
not able to learn it or do not want to learn it.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Speak for yourself. My identity is secure enough that the language I speak doesn't change it. As said earlier, shouldn't we switch to an exact copy of 900AD Irish society if losing any part of our heritage leaves us so damaged?

I didn't comment on your identity - it's not for me to decide what your identity is?

I don't think that "losing our heritage" is the equivalent of changing our society like that?

Don't understand your argument.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But it is YOU that is claiming Irish is important because it is part of our heritage... now you're saying it's the only part that's important? Only the language and X, Y, Z are important? Sorta shifting your definition from post to post there.

I never said that Irish language is the only part that's important to Irish identity?

dlouth15

tipparetops wrote: »

You can lie to yourself all you wish, the reason you do not speak Irish is because you cannot or you will not.
If you cannot, fair enough you tried but if you will not it is you choosing to be an Anglophile.

But isn't this what we've had all along. Trying to browbeat people into learning the language. That's worked hasn't it?

Dughorm

briany wrote: »

Plenty of patriots who didn't know hardly a lick of Irish as well.

The argument being made by some is that we're losing Irish and that's tragic because we're losing part of our identity, or, indeed our soul, as some might put it. We're losing Catholicism as well, as the country is becoming ever more secular, but why wouldn't Catholicism be just as much a part of the Irish identity as Irish is? Catholicism has been here for over 1500 years, the people have fought hard to retain it, it's informed many aspects of daily life and been much more than an ideology. In fact, it's outlasted the Irish language as a relevant thing on most of the island. I say they are historically equally important facets of the culture of the people and for it to be fashionable to bemoan the loss of one and silently cheerlead the loss of another as an irrelevance is a total hypocrisy, in my view. You have to recognise that all facets of culture can become irrelevant, no matter how entrenched they might have once been.

Still think Catholicism isn't relevant to this discussion about whether Irish should be a mandatory subject in schools.

It's an ideology but to claim it is an intrinsic part of Irishness is unfair to non-catholics in my opinion, past and present.

Irish language is a means of communicating unique to Ireland* for centuries - even non-Irish people learned it such as those Ulster settlers you referred to previously.

I accept that culture changes and this includes language- in fact the Irish language isn't a fixed concept either by the way if you look at the evolution of the language over the centuries.

briany wrote: »

Plenty of patriots who didn't know hardly a lick of Irish as well.

And which partriots shared the attitudes here to the language?

*And Scotland in varients

Dughorm

dlouth15 wrote: »

But isn't this what we've had all along. Trying to browbeat people into learning the language. That's worked hasn't it?

There's no point browbeating anyone into learning anything - that is oppressive.

I don't accept that learning basic Irish as part of a basic education in skills and culture is oppressive.

PopePalpatine

tipparetops wrote: »

Ok which are you -
not able to learn it or do not want to learn it.

I don't want to learn it. I was quite good at German in secondary school, because at least the curriculum assumes that students are learning it as a foreign language. That's not the case in Irish, thanks to venal boggers.

Honestly, the more I come across the likes of you, who have to restrain yourselves from sneering "lol West Brit" at 95% of the country, the more I hope the language fucks off and dies.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tipparetops wrote: »

You can lie to yourself all you wish, the reason you do not speak Irish is because you cannot or you will not.
If you cannot, fair enough you tried but if you will not it is you choosing to be an Anglophile.

Again, I've debunked you're idea as hypocritical and lazy because it required you putting no thought or research into it, and you never disagreed with me.

The post you reply to and dismiss, however, speaks of good research and experience.

Dughorm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I was quite good at German in secondary school, because at least the curriculum assumes that students are learning it as a foreign language. That's not the case in Irish...

Exactly - the expectations of the curriculum are the problem. It doesn't accept that Irish is not the mother tongue of the majority of the population.

That can be changed though and with a bit of political backbone would be.

LordSutch

tipparetops wrote: »

Ok which are you -
not able to learn it or do not want to learn it.

You make him sound as if he's the exception to the rule, where as in reality it is you (the Irish speaker) who is in the minority within Ireland. Irish as a subject has been a massive failure in the school curriculum since it was introduced post independence. The average person on the street just doesn't speak Irish, yet every single one of them have gone through the process of being taught through the medium of compulsory Irish, from primary school right up to leaving cert, yet most of cvant speak it apart from the cupla focal which hardly counts for diddly squat in any proper meaningful conversation.

So what next? I predict at least another twenty years before the penny finally drops. "We do not speak Irish" and Irish is not our 1st spoken language.

Currently Irish is the 3rd most spoken language in Ireland behind, 1 English, 2 Polish, 3 Irish, and with Chinese/Msndarin hot on heels for 3rd place in the next decade if not sooner!

So why must all children be made to spend soooo much time doing Irish?

Dughorm

Grayson wrote: »

But It could be said that it is an ideology. Thee are undoubtedly people for whom it is an ideology. No-one is saying it's tied to religion. Just that like religion it can be considered an ideology.

That's an interesting question - whether Irish is an ideology?

Any religion, history, politics, philosophy is by definition an ideology.

Regarding, these people for which Irish is an ideology you're referring to, I would say that their politics is an ideology (a politics of turning Ireland into a nation of solo Irish speakers etc...) but the language itself is not an ideology - it's just a language, a tool to communicate.

It would be a pity if Irish were monopolised by these people.

Dughorm

LordSutch wrote: »

So why must all children be made to spend soooo much time doing Irish?

As I've said before - it's for nostalgia. It's delusional to claim otherwise.

Now, whether that is a good thing is a separate issue - it depends on what you think that primary/secondary education should achieve.

indioblack

tipparetops wrote: »

You can lie to yourself all you wish, the reason you do not speak Irish is because you cannot or you will not.
If you cannot, fair enough you tried but if you will not it is you choosing to be an Anglophile.

So all my relatives in Cork are Anglophiles? Can't wait to tell them!

Un Croissant

I think this is my most successful thread.

Dem feelz*







*English. For all those Irish speakers out there.

Dan_Solo

tipparetops wrote: »

If you cannot, fair enough you tried but if you will not it is you choosing to be an Anglophile.

Ah, I get it now. You don't know the difference between Anglophone and Anglophile...
So the USA, Canada, India, Australia etc are "anglophile"? Even if they've had rather brutal wars with England?