The death knell of the Irish Language

IAMAMORON · 25-08-2019 03:12PM

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Most large towns in Ireland were garrision towns. Any town that had a wall was an English town. I can use Waterford as an example because a map of Irish language writers from the county was recently published. Waterford City, Dungarvan and Lismore were all English Towns, and yet you get Irish language writers from all over the county not just the small Gaeltacht that remains today.

http://waterfordcouncil.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=8872d536fd30470ea5a7073b43392f86

It's well known that the majority of the crowd at O'Connolls monster meatings could not understand him because he spoke in English. There were no loud speakers at the time so the vast majority of people there could not hear him speak anyway. What he said was pased by word of mouth through the crowd and was translated to Irish as it went.

Was Diarmuid MacMoru speaking Irish? I always thought Stongbow built the wall in Waterford?

So Chinese whispers at the height yeh? Lovely, where did you learn that one? Were the Ennis by-election voting papers written in Irish as well?

Don't tell me " Votail Daniel Ui Chonnaill gach daoine" , that was the slogan yes?

IAMAMORON · 25-08-2019 03:18PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In other words I know what I posted is rubbish so I can't back it up now.

Your not being very fair with such remarks. This argument will be here long after lunch. I have been honest and straight up with my opinion, it shouldn't give you the opportunity to throw in snide quips from the sideline.

kowloon · 25-08-2019 03:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The people saying this today will be the same ones bemoaning the apathy in 50 years or whenever the language does die out. The Irish language is like Notre Dame cathedral, yes it serves no practica use in our daily lives but it is a link to our past and a cultural relic that should be preserved as much as possible.

The 'is mise Bart Simpson' school of Irish don't seem to want it to be linked with the past and try their best to make it seem modern and relevant. They're failing. Taught out on its own devoid of any cultural meaning it's just a communication tool, and given that everyone who speaks Irish can also speak English, it's a useless one.
History is an optional subject, so clearly our past doesn't matter all that much, particularly if it isn't politically palatable.

Clarity edit: I think the language should be taught as part of our history and we should stop pretending it'll be used by fluent English speakers to discuss Love Island.

fly_agaric · 25-08-2019 03:36PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If you can name me one Irish novel written between say 1641 and lets say Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859) your input would be massively appreciated.

Butting in and not a history expert...
Guessing you asked that in some sort of smart-alek lawyerly way and know or think you know the answer. Ireland was very much a brought to heel colony after flight of the Earls/introduction of penal laws etc which occurred about 1 generation before the period you have selected.
The people who ran it all spoke English. If you wanted to get anywhere (I imagine) you had to speak the language. Poor peasants and serfs don't tend to produce any literature.

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 03:38PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If you can name me one Irish novel written between say 1641 and lets say Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859) your input would be massively appreciated.

The novel as a form of literature has only really been in use from the start of the 1700s.

Literature in Irish went into significant decline after the uprooting of the Irish aristocracy by the English in the 17th century. The Irish literary class who were patronised by the Irish aristocracy found themselves destitute under the new English system, reduced to being labourers to survive. It did give rise to a new form of poetry in which they bewailed their lot in life and fuled a tradition of Jacobite works in Ireland where the poet predicted the return of the true and just king who would set the world to right. Later you had a generation of poets who were born into poverity but still understood how much they as a class had lost. This was the same time as the penal laws so another element of the literary class who wanted to take to the priesthood found themselves in many cases forced to leave Ireland and go to the continent. That is why you had several Irish colleges on the continent that were patronised by aristocratic Irish families who fled to France and Spain and by families remaining in Ireland who sent their sons to be educated away from the corrupting influence of the Protestant English. This literary and aristocratic link with the continent is why you have a major literary work like Caoineadh Airt Uí Laoghaire being composed in 1773 by Eibhlín Dubh Ní Chonaill (Daniel O'Connell's aunt) for her husband, an Irishman who spent his life as an officer in the Austrian Army.

As was true of every language at the time, literature in Irish back then was mainly focused on poetry and religious texts, there were not many novels knocking around in any language in 1641. The novel as a literary form really only became popular becasue of mass literacy. This came about in English in the time period you mention, but not in Irish because the edcuation system in Ireland was under English control and the Irish language was effectivly banned in schools. As a result literacy in Irish declined significantly until before the Gaelic revival at the end of the 19th centuary you have estimates that barely 50 people could read and write in Irish. The first Irish language novel, Séadna is not written until 1891 by Peadar Ua Laoghaire. The literary revival is probably the greatest achievement of the Gaelic revival. It heavily influenced English language literature in Ireland but its most lasting contribution was creating a modern literature in Irish. Before the Gaelic revival the literary focus in Irish was on the ancient stories, the fenian sagas and so on. You had the Irish Texts Society publishing the stories from manuscripts that had been collected in the previous centuries. The idea was to "save" them because the assumption at the time was that before long Irish would be lost as a language.

The Gaelic revival went against that idea. Instead of collecting and publishing old works in Irish with an English translaton, for the purpose of "saving" them in English for the future, the revival generation decided that they would not accept the loss of Irish. Patrick Pearce, before he got caught up in the IRB was actually one of the leaders of the Irish language literary revival and was very clear that what they wanted was to create a new modern Irish language literature and they went out of their way to move past the old myths and legends as a source for literature and set out to create a modern literature dealing with contempary issues. They had a particular focus on bringing current European ideas into Irish literature. They explored themes and written froms from Russian, German and French writing. There was a lot of focus on the short story, both because that was fashonable in European literature at the turn of the 20th centuary and becase it was easy to distribute in newspapers like An Claidheamh Solais which helped to spread the Gaelic revival.

While it could be said that the Gaelic revival ultimatly failed in its aim of making Ireland an Irish speaking country, it succeeded when it comes to literature. The modern Irish language literary tradition it created continues to this day and there are vastly more people literate in Irish now than there were before the Gaelic revival began.

Loafing Oaf · 25-08-2019 03:39PM

kowloon wrote: »

The 'is mise Bart Simpson' school of Irish don't seem to want it to be linked with the past and try their best to make it seem modern and relevant. They're failing. Taught out on its own devoid of any cultural meaning it's just a communication tool, and given that everyone who speaks Irish can also speak English, it's a useless one.

My Leaving Cert Irish teacher used to insist on reading the 'popcheol' section in the Irish language magazine in class, and it was excruciating, referring to R.E.M. as 'rem' etc.
My favourite part of the Irish syllabus was stair teanga, which kind of supports your point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-08-2019 03:41PM

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm quite certain that this is not the case, there has been no precedent for such a requirement under the constitution being used to force the state to provide education through Irish were none is currently available. Given the huge battle parents have had to go through in many cases to get the Dept of Education to open a Gaelscoil, I am sure a court case would have been taken long ago if the constitution placed such a duty on the state.

As such, I am confident that there is no constitutional imperative to provide education in either language.

So, if one of the official languages oh the state WAS dropped from education, it wouldn't be unconstitutional then?

jackofalltrades · 25-08-2019 03:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No we shouldn't. We have a native language and more knowledge, not dumbing down is the way forward. Studies have shown that bilingual individuals consistently outperform their monolingual counterparts on tasks involving executive control. It's a good thing to be bilingual and we're generally smarter.

That being said, I do think it could be taught a bit better. I actually think all schools should be Gaelscoils.

I remember this being discussed on another thread and the greatest benefit occurred when the child was learning how to speak and then tapered off quite quickly as they got older.

I actually think all schools should be Gaelscoils.

A move I'd predict would seriously damage Gaelscoils and further increase the resentment towards the language.

IAMAMORON · 25-08-2019 03:50PM

fly_agaric wrote: »

Butting in and not a history expert...
Guessing you asked that in some sort of smart-alek lawyerly way and know or think you know the answer. Ireland was very much a brought to heel colony after flight of the Earls/introduction of penal laws etc which occurred about 1 generation before the period you have selected.
The people who ran it all spoke English. If you wanted to get anywhere (I imagine) you had to speak the language. Poor peasants and serfs don't tend to produce any literature.

I simply don't believe that no one wrote about this in Irish though? I am not being smart either. The concept that you spoke English or you were executed on the spot is a very common misnomer that gets thrown about. That did not happen either. Yes Cromwell was a total chunt and yes the penal laws were challenging. But this should not have subjugated the development of the language that we are led to believe. I prefer to believe that is just was not that common anyways.

It is too easy an argument to blame it all on the plantations, in fact it was the aristocrats of the 17th century that first started reprising the language anyway.

Your argument that poor peasants don't produce literature is pretty weak in fairness. If the language was being used avidly for communication somebody somewhere would have been writing about it. Someone earlier said they were all murdered and that there was no printing presses, way to convenient for such an argument.

When you add it all up I just don't buy the lie, I am happy with my own assessment of it. If anything languages would thrive under such accusations of subjugation, why did this not happen?

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 04:04PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, if one of the official languages oh the state WAS dropped from education, it wouldn't be unconstitutional then?

It nearly was in the 60s. Early on after the foundation of the state, you have the creation of "A" schools which were effictivly Gaelscoils. There were a few hundred of them around the state but by the forties the push to have schools teach through Irish was dropped and by the late 50's there were hardly any left. There were only a couple in Dublin and another few dotted around the place. The Gaelscoil movement didn't get going until the late 60s and was pushed from the bottom by parents and teachers from the start and still is.

But there was a couple of decades when education through Irish was almost non-existant in Ireland outside the Gaeltacht.

fly_agaric · 25-08-2019 04:07PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I simply don't believe that no one wrote about this in Irish though? I am not being smart either. The concept that you spoke English or you were executed on the spot is a very common misnomer that gets thrown about. That did not happen either. Yes Cromwell was a total chunt and yes the penal laws were challenging. But this should not have subjugated the development of the language that we are led to believe. I prefer to believe that is just was not that common anyways.

It is too easy an argument to blame it all on the plantations, in fact it was the aristocrats of the 17th century that first started reprising the language anyway.

Your argument that poor peasants don't produce literature is pretty weak in fairness. If the language was being used avidly for communication somebody somewhere would have been writing about it. Someone earlier said they were all murdered and that there was no printing presses, way to convenient for such an argument.

When you add it all up I just don't buy the lie, I am happy with my own assessment of it. If anything languages would thrive under such accusations of subjugation, why did this not happen?

Well you do you and believe what you want (or prefer) to believe.

Peasants did not produce literature (to use a broader term than novels) at that time.
They get written about or their oral history and stories and poems are collected by the literate (in the language that the literate speak).

As regards the decline of Irish, you don't have to execute people on the spot for speaking Irish, just make things economically uncomfortable (if you refuse to learn English).
If you persist and refuse to use language of the machinery of state, officialdom, the wealthy, the landowners etc...well its not going to be an easy life for your children is it. Slow steady negative pressure. You're talking about a long timespan after all.

Seems like the British may have forgotten their history but the new powers in this world (like China) seem to know this game very well.
Would be interesting to live long enough to see how well original culture in likes of Tibet and Xinjiang is thriving after another 100 years of the PRC/CCP efforts.

steddyeddy · 25-08-2019 04:11PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I remember this being discussed on another thread and the greatest benefit occurred when the child was learning how to speak and then tapered off quite quickly as they got older.

So the greatest benefit was in their developmental years? That's true for every single skill and activity.

A move I'd predict would seriously damage Gaelscoils and further increase the resentment towards the language.

They seem to produce better students who are happy with the language.

tim3000 · 25-08-2019 04:18PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't agree because a multitude of studies state that bilingualism has multiple cognitive benefits.

No problem I love a good debate.

We should definitely spend more money on STEM but it doesn't have to an either or scenario.

But bilingualism is not the purpose of this debate is it? I thought we were dicussing the utility of irish as a language. Please explain to me what these are.

I think the money currently wasted/spent depending on point of view could be rerouted into further education in more useful fields

steddyeddy · 25-08-2019 04:23PM

tim3000 wrote: »

But bilingualism is not the purpose of this debate is it? I thought we were dicussing the utility of irish as a language. Please explain to me what these are.

Sorry but that is the nature of the debate. Whether to place less resources in funding our second/first language.

I think the money currently wasted/spent depending on point of view could be rerouted into further education in more useful fields[/QUOTE]

Science is criminally underfunded in Ireland but this has nothing to do with funding Irish.

tim3000 · 25-08-2019 04:27PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the money currently wasted/spent depending on point of view could be rerouted into further education in more useful fields

Science is criminally underfunded in Ireland but this has nothing to do with funding Irish.[/quote]

Well surely the apparent benefits of bilingualism would be identical should we teach our kids a modern living language then? Why just focus this attention on Irish?

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 04:27PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I simply don't believe that no one wrote about this in Irish though? I am not being smart either. The concept that you spoke English or you were executed on the spot is a very common misnomer that gets thrown about. That did not happen either. Yes Cromwell was a total chunt and yes the penal laws were challenging. But this should not have subjugated the development of the language that we are led to believe. I prefer to believe that is just was not that common anyways.

Literacy was restricted to a narrow social class in every language before the industrial revolution. Your peasants don't need to be able to read to plough a field. Much like everywhere else, the literary class in Ireland was limited to aristocratic and eclastical circles. Both of these groups were targeted by the English occupation. The aristocratic class was wiped out after the rebellions in the 17th century and the eclastical class was suppressed by the penal laws.

The life of the average illiterate Irish speaking pesant in Ireland was not much effected by all this, but much like the average illiterate pesant in the rest of Europe, the ability to read and write was not needed to get by. Reading and writing was needed by the upper classes, people who delt with the state administration, the legal system. The people who could afford the education. The social class who would have been literate was not wiped out entirely and they did continue to educate their children in Irish, but there was no formal education system at the time. Education at the time consisted of a private tutor (usually a priest) or a small number of private schools usually run by the church. As education, such as it was, was tied up with the church, the Protestant English did try hard to suppress it. That is why those families who could afford it often had to send their kids to France or Spain to get a good education or for the less well off, to a hedge school. These people did write about their experiences in Irish, and the poems and songs they wrote are out there if you care to look. As time went on that social class found that they needed English. They needed it to deal with the state, they needed it if they wanted to access to justice. Eventually they were won over to using English to get ahead, it was necessary to be involved in politics, the justice system and when the English set up the public national school system you needed English to get an education.

Your argument that poor peasants don't produce literature is pretty weak in fairness. If the language was being used avidly for communication somebody somewhere would have been writing about it. Someone earlier said they were all murdered and that there was no printing presses, way to convenient for such an argument.

They did, that is why there are plenty of examples of poets producing works in Irish during all that time. Take Eoghan Rua Ó Súilleabháin for example, one of the premier poets in Irish in the mid 18th century. Have a look through www.ainm.ie, you will find the bio's of hundreds of poets writing in Irish from that period. Your posts seems to be claiming that if you have not heard of them, then they simply did not exist.

Poor peasants do produce literature, but poor illiterate pesants don't buy enough books to support a publishing industry.

When you add it all up I just don't buy the lie, I am happy with my own assessment of it. If anything languages would thrive under such accusations of subjugation, why did this not happen?

When has any language ever thrived under such subjugation?

Portsalon · 25-08-2019 04:29PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys why are you asking me for the census? I didn't mention it once.

That's what can sometimes happen when someone butts-in on an exchange between two other posters on a thread!

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 04:38PM

Upforthematch wrote: »

I'm heading off as well so I don't have the time to research for you.

Off the top of my head a book you would benefit from if you are interested in irish literature from the time is Sean O Tuama's An Duanaire Poems of the Dispossessed. Reviews on Amazon here

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Duanaire-1600-1900-Poems-Dispossessed/dp/0851053645/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=duanaire&qid=1566740234&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Since we are recomending books, might I suggest they have a look at Traidisiún Liteartha na nGael. It gives a good overview of the development of literature in Irish over the centuries.

https://www.cic.ie/en/books/published-books/traidisiun-liteartha-na-ngael-leabhair-cloite

riclad · 25-08-2019 04:41PM

I think parents who send their kids to a gaelscoil are middle class,
well off ,i think a child would be better off learning french or spanish,
If you think learning 2 languages is important.
Education has many purpose,s ,its social ,it,s preparing for the work place, its getting a qualification .
In terms of qualifications , jobs, ireland really needs workers who
can speak modern languages .Part of the success of the irish economy
is we are close to britain, america, in that we all speak english .

rogue-entity · 25-08-2019 04:43PM

They didn't teach you to speak Irish, they taught you to pass exams. It is unfortunately no different to how we teach 'foreign' languages and it is perhaps partly why that old joke persists:

What do you call someone who can speak only one language - a native English speaker.

jackofalltrades · 25-08-2019 04:44PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

So the greatest benefit was in their developmental years? That's true for every single skill and activity.

If you're arguing for Irish to be taught in school for the cognitive benefits that being bi-lingual brings, then you'd be better off having Irish speaking creches or just encouraging parents to talk Irish to their infant children.

They seem to produce better students who are happy with the language.

Because it's a choice that people freely enter into. If children are forced into going to Gaelscoils with little help/enthusiasm from their parents it's not going to lead to good results.

Stop moaning ffs · 25-08-2019 04:50PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you're arguing for Irish to be taught in school for the cognitive benefits that being bi-lingual brings, then you'd be better off having Irish speaking creches or just encouraging parents to talk Irish to their infant children.
Because it's a choice that people freely enter into. If children are forced into going to Gaelscoils with little help/enthusiasm from their parents it's not going to lead to good results.

I was allowed choose what secondary I went to and chose an all Irish school. With only basic primary Irish. Learning a third and fourth language (French and German) through a second language I barely had a grasp on wasn’t that bright. You become fluent rapidly when immersed in it though.

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 04:51PM

riclad wrote: »

I think parents who send their kids to a gaelscoil are middle class,
well off ,i think a child would be better off learning french or spanish,
If you think learning 2 languages is important.
Education has many purpose,s ,its social ,it,s preparing for the work place, its getting a qualification .
In terms of qualifications , jobs, ireland really needs workers who
can speak modern languages .Part of the success of the irish economy
is we are close to britain, america, in that we all speak english .

Irish is a modern language. There are relativly few jobs in Ireland that requre Spanish or French relative to the number of jobs that require Irish. Those jobs that do require French or Spanish etc, are likely to be filled by a native speaker from that country rather than little Johnny or little Mary who learnt French for the LC.

Irish is probably the most economically advantageous second language for someone to learn in Ireland when it comes to employment opportunities in Ireland.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 25-08-2019 05:13PM

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Irish is probably the most economically advantageous second language for someone to learn in Ireland when it comes to employment opportunities in Ireland.

Irish might be a benefit if applying for some public-sector jobs in Ireland.

For private-sector jobs, or jobs in other countries, Irish gives virtually no advantage.

Stop moaning ffs · 25-08-2019 05:18PM

In the IT only last week

Surge of interest in Irish-language courses
Employment prospects have improved for graduates with skills in the Irish language

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/surge-of-interest-in-irish-language-courses-1.3987475

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 25-08-2019 05:23PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Employment prospects have improved for graduates with skills in the Irish language

From your link: "Since the introduction of the Official Languages Act in 2003 and the recognition of Irish as an official working language in the European Union, employment prospects have improved for graduates with skills in the language."

In other words, more people can now get taxpayer-funded jobs doing things like translating official documents into Irish, so that they can sit and gather dust.

Complete waste of time and other people's money.

This "jobs for the Gaelgoirs" cottage industry should be dismantled rather than encouraged.

Stop moaning ffs · 25-08-2019 05:29PM

Bronson Low Tremor wrote: »

From your link: "Since the introduction of the Official Languages Act in 2003 and the recognition of Irish as an official working language in the European Union, employment prospects have improved for graduates with skills in the language."

In other words, more people can now get taxpayer-funded jobs doing things like translating official documents into Irish, so that they can sit and gather dust.

Complete waste of time and other people's money.

This "jobs for the Gaelgoirs" cottage industry should be dismantled rather than encouraged.

Just to point out. All eu legislation is translated into all 27 countries languages. I don’t understand your cynicism in singling out Irish alone as being a waste in this context.

If it weren’t an officially recognized eu language I imagine we’d see the usuals complaining that it isn’t.

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 05:30PM

Bronson Low Tremor wrote: »

Irish might be a benefit if applying for some public-sector jobs in Ireland.

For private-sector jobs, or jobs in other countries, Irish gives virtually no advantage.

It depends on the sector, in the entertainment industry it is a significant advantage. Most of the production companies that provide content for TG4 are privatly owned, there is work out there for actors, presentors, writers, producers, camera people etc who speak Irish.

I am not all that interested in what languages confer an advantage in the international job market, the domestic market is far more important to the average person. We do have a rather strange obsession with being prepared to emigrate, even though it is something the vast majority of people will never do. Most other countries are not so concerned with being able to emigrate, I think its a cultural holdover from the mid 20th century that is not really relevant to the reality of the modern Ireland.

I am not sure why there needs to be such a line drawn between public and private sector in any case, public sector jobs are good jobs for someone considering their options, perhaps you hold your nose at the idea of working in the public sector but most people would be happy to get a good public sector job. When it comes to assessing the skils that give you an advantage in the employment market, a skill valued by the public sector has to be seen as being advantageous.

Imreoir2 · 25-08-2019 05:32PM

Bronson Low Tremor wrote: »

From your link: "Since the introduction of the Official Languages Act in 2003 and the recognition of Irish as an official working language in the European Union, employment prospects have improved for graduates with skills in the language."

In other words, more people can now get taxpayer-funded jobs doing things like translating official documents into Irish, so that they can sit and gather dust.

Complete waste of time and other people's money.

This "jobs for the Gaelgoirs" cottage industry should be dismantled rather than encouraged.

Go bother your TD about a referendum to remove Irish from the constitution if that's how you feel, but I suspect you are moaning about it here becasue you already know you would be wasting your time. Irish is here to stay.

Fourier · 25-08-2019 05:36PM

Bronson Low Tremor wrote: »

Most scholars believe that English replaced Irish in the second half (and especially in the final quarter) of the 18th century, which is earlier than many nationalists have historically been willing to admit, but later than your own timeline.

What do you mean exactly here? The process of replacement had begun and progressed throughout that period or that by 1800 Irish was the minority language?

The death knell of the Irish Language

Comments