The Jews can revive a dead language reserved for ceremonial purposes

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

No I don't actually.

Yes. Yes, you do. Nobody has made any claim either way about appreciation of anything. The OP, for instance, doesn't care about appreciation of the language, but revival. Appreciation is indifferent to activism, but revivalists are inherently opposed to passive measures.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, no. For instance, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle predates Beowulf by 150 years. Anyway there are lots of manuscripts, documents and books written in English in the past 1000 years that survive to this day. Far more than Irish. However, Irish has been written down since the 8th century and especially so since the 11th century.

I can literally think of only one piece of fiction that comes from Old English, and it's already been mentioned.

You're conflating Old Irish, (Middle Irish, is there such a thing?) and modern Irish, and the same for English. Old English and Middle English are so different as to be different languages. It'd be as accurate to say that Ancient Romans wrote in modern Italian.

This isn't about how many pieces of paper survive. It's about how much an impact that which exists has on us.

The fact of the matter is that Irish lost out on economic development, and later the printing revolution, and virtually died out, leaving a very thin volume of literature in its wake. Name the books. The Táin. That's an important legacy, but still pretty sparse. There's also scripts which are useful from a historical point of view, but like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for Old English, doesn't go much beyond that.

The fact of the matter is that most Irish written culture is in the English language.

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes. Yes, you do. Nobody has made any claim either way about appreciation of anything. The OP, for instance, doesn't care about appreciation of the language, but revival. Appreciation is indifferent to activism, but revivalists are inherently opposed to passive measures.



I can literally think of only one piece of fiction that comes from Old English, and it's already been mentioned.

You're conflating Old Irish, (Middle Irish, is there such a thing?) and modern Irish, and the same for English. Old English and Middle English are so different as to be different languages. It'd be as accurate to say that Ancient Romans wrote in modern Italian.

This isn't about how many pieces of paper survive. It's about how much an impact that which exists has on us.

The fact of the matter is that Irish lost out on the printing revolution and virtually died out, leaving a very thin volume of literature in its wake. Name the books. The Táin. That's an important legacy, but still pretty sparse. There's also scripts which are useful from a historical point of view, but like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for Old English, doesn't go much beyond that.

The fact of the matter is that most Irish written culture is in the English language.

I'm not conflating anything. You're going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the points I made. My points were made in response to the suggestion that Irish wasn't a written language until the 18th century and that it had died out by the 18th century. Both assertions are untrue.

OneArt

feargale wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as a living language it was very much dead. They had to create thousands of words just to make it useful for everyday life.

If you want to find a language today that isn't peppered with English words and expressions you will need to visit somewhere like the jungles of Brazil or Papua-New Guinea.
To give you an example of what I have encountered in my travels:
Dutch "bumper to bumper."
Maltese " life choices" and "mothers' day."

Which reminds me in Germany they like to use "public viewing" for showing a football match in a pub. But it always makes me think of an execution. Like a with guillotine. Bring the kids and a packed lunch.
Or even better, photoshoots are simply called "shootings". English-speaking models must get a horrible shock.

RandomName2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not conflating anything. You're going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the points I made. My points were made in response to the suggestion that Irish wasn't a written language until the 18th century and that it had died out by the 18th century. Both assertions are untrue.

Technically Pictish was a written language. In practice it wasn't. These sort of semantics are like saying that Nazi Germany had jet fighters, San Francisco was built by Chinese, or Italy is three separate countries (you'd technically be correct for each, the best type of correct).

I never said that Irish had died out by the 18th century, but that it was almost dead. I really should have said 'dying', but otherwise I'm afraid that history is on my side. You disagree? Well had the numbers of Irish speakers risen or fallen in the succeeding 200 years? Oh right.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

odyssey06 wrote: »

There are millions of schoolkids in the EU learning English.
The USA fought two wars against Britain to establish their independence... they speak English. They didnt feel the need to revert to Latin or adopt Cherokee.

Maybe people are able to separate language and history?

The comparison with the USA is daft. Ireland sought independence because it had been colonized by Britain, losing its language in the process. The USA started off as group of colonizers who decided they didn't want to take orders from Britain anymore. They didn't have any other language to use apart from English and they would have had no reason to want one.

Of course, the comparison with Israel is also ridiculous. The Israelis wanted a common language amongst the people arriving from Germany, Russia, Iraq, etc. Hebrew was a natural choice. We already have a common language- it's English.

Professor Moriarty

RandomName2 wrote: »

Technically Pictish was a written language. In practice it wasn't. These sort of semantics are like saying that Nazi Germany had jet fighters, San Francisco was built by Chinese, or Italy is three separate countries (you'd technically be correct for each, the best type of correct).

I never said that Irish had died out by the 18th century, but that it was almost dead. I really should have said 'dying', but otherwise I'm afraid that history is on my side. You disagree? Well had the numbers of Irish speakers risen or fallen in the succeeding 200 years? Oh right.

Jeez you've gone full Godwin there. Look, you're arguing against points I haven't made. I'll leave it at that.

RandomName2

.... That isn't even what Godwin's law means.

odyssey06

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The comparison with the USA is daft. Ireland sought independence because it had been colonized by Britain, losing its language in the process. The USA started off as group of colonizers who decided they didn't want to take orders from Britain anymore. They didn't have any other language to use apart from English and they would have had no reason to want one.

I was more using them as an example that it is perfectly possible for one to have a distinct national identity even though a common language is shared. Ireland, England, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and anglo Canada are all very different. The Americans didn't feel that they needed a different language to be distinct, after throwing over the 'British yoke, the act of rebellion was enough.

Fourier

RandomName2 wrote: »

Technically Pictish was a written language. In practice it wasn't. These sort of semantics are like saying that Nazi Germany had jet fighters, San Francisco was built by Chinese, or Italy is three separate countries (you'd technically be correct for each, the best type of correct).

Irish was quite commonly written between the educated classes like doctors, poets and nobles. Hundreds of such letters and manuscripts survive.

It's more that it never went through the printing press revolution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that relevant? Not being proficient with a musical instrument shouldn't prevent one liking Irish traditional music.

It most certainly does if you deride other people for not playing an instrument.

8% of primary schools teach in the Irish medium, but 23% of parents would like to send their child to a gaelscoil if it was available according to an ESRI study, so you're tad wide of the mark with that.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/more-gaelscoileanna-must-be-opened-to-breathe-life-into-irish-1.3424365

Tell me, what percentage of those parents already speak Irish themselves?

To emphasise my point: it's amazing how many are up for a revival as long as it's other people who have to do the footwork of leaning and studying.

Pugzilla

odyssey06 wrote: »

The Americans didn't feel that they needed a different language to be distinct, after throwing over the 'British yoke, the act of rebellion was enough.

The US revolutionaries were mostly of British descent. English was their native language. George Washington originally served in the British army for example.

Not the case with Ireland where the vast majority of people used Irish as their first language until relatively recently.

Pugzilla

RandomName2 wrote: »

These sort of semantics are like saying that Nazi Germany had jet fighters.

Germany had the first fully operational jet fighter, the Me 262. This cannot be disputed.

pleas advice

RandomName2 wrote: »

.... That isn't even what Godwin's law means.

technically....

feargale

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I had a chat with a mate of mine who is dutch and oddly enough is nearly 50. He says you are talking nonsense. While there have been a lot of loanwords added the language has not changed. Somebody speaking the dutch of 50 years ago would be perfectly understood, they would just have difficulty describing some modern objects. But the same is true of somebody speaking english.

And does your mate say that Dutch hasn't borrowed extensively from English in the last 50 years? I would suggest to you that it has borrowed pretty well as much as Irish has in that time. Incidentally where did you get this idea that Irish modernised overnight? You're not thinking (are you?) of hata for hat, cóta for coat etc..

feargale

Oh for Jesus' sake, is Godwin here again?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It most certainly does if you deride other people for not playing an instrument.

Is everybody who might want the Irish language to do better deriding others?

Tell me, what percentage of those parents already speak Irish themselves?

To emphasise my point: it's amazing how many are up for a revival as long as it's other people who have to do the footwork of leaning and studying.

Your assuming without any evidence that the kids of these parents don’t want to study Irish? I’m always amazed by the enthusiastic pessimism on display in these threads.

feargale

JohnKyle39 wrote: »

We pay lip service to it as it is part of our culture and heritage yet nobody can be bothered to speak it. We hate the idea of losing the language but are unwilling to put any effort into saving it.

We cling to our Irish identity and resent being confused with the English but we are reluctant to put the effort into reviving and saving it.

It's so bizzare.

Bizarre? Have you opened that Irish language thread yet? You're here repeating the same old judgemental mantra about how people who don't speak Irish are lazy and unpatriotic, and yet from what I can see you rarely if ever speak Irish and you have never posted in Boards.ie in an Irish language thread. Your very last post is about Marilyn Manson. What did he do for Irish? His record is called Anti-Christ Superstar, not Frith-Chríost Ollréalt.
You have failed to answer a number of questions put to you by posters here.
Stop worrying about what others are doing. Can you speak Irish? How often do you speak it? What efforts do you make to live in the Irish language?
You objected to me calling you John, as per your username and when I asked you what you wished to be called I didn't get the courtesy of a response.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Is everybody who might want the Irish language to do better deriding others?

No, but I feel the OP might be, hence my question of how much Irish he speaks.

JohnKyle39 wrote: »

We pay lip service to it as it is part of our culture and heritage yet nobody can be bothered to speak it. We hate the idea of losing the language but are unwilling to put any effort into saving it.

We cling to our Irish identity and resent being confused with the English but we are reluctant to put the effort into reviving and saving it.

It's so bizzare.

You're assuming without any evidence that the kids of these parents don’t want to study Irish? I’m always amazed by the enthusiastic pessimism on display in these threads.

I'm assuming some of them don't speak Irish and, while they are happy for their kids to study it, I feel that it's hypocritical if they don't. Again, hence the question.