Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Nationalism and the Irish Language

12357…15

Comments

  • #122
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    Herbal Deity wrote: »

    Surely it's the teaching of the language that is an issue rather than the language itself?

    Irish language teaching has improved a great deal since the introduction of the 1999 curriculum IMO (primary level). The emphasis is on speaking and understanding.

    Cannot say anything about secondary. What would you propose to improve teaching? At either level.


  • #123
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But Irish children had no choice but to speak and learn English at school as no other language was tolerated after the Education Act of 1831! There is almost unanimous agreement among historians that the Education Act was used to forcibly prohibit the use of Irish. English wasn't some "gateway" to the professional classes. It was the only way to receive education itself!
    This effectively killed the possibility of an educated Irish speaking population which was the intention. The inevitable result in time was that it was not possible to speak Irish as your primarly language and have any possibility of leading a life other than that of a serf.

    In your book it is OK to commit linguicide but not OK to take active measures to reinvigorate a language or save it. That is not balanced or reasonable and shows perhaps a personal bias behind this irrationality?

    BTW if you disagree that the British actions including Act of 1831 and banning Irish language book publication then please substantiate your argument dont just ignore these historical facts.
    And yet it isn't working, on either the economic or linguistic front. In the past census, only 20 percent of the Gaeltacht population stated that they spoke Irish on a daily basis. On the economic front, please feel free to come up here to Gweedore and look at the results of decades of state investment in "disadvantaged local economies." More than 20,000 people in Donegal are on the dole.

    The gaeltacht is now clearly interspersed with English speaking families which is hardly surprising. It is a sign that the local economies have improved perhaps.


    Did you miss the statistic I quoted above? In the 2006 census, only 53,471 people out of a population of 4,459,547 said that they spoke Irish on a daily basis outside the educational system.

    But 41% of the population are able to speak Irish as opposed to 19% in 1926.

    Apart from public workers the highest proportion of speakers are in business and management positions. The education policy seems to have worked in putting certain foundations in place. The amount of children entering all Irish schools indicates that people are now taking the next steps.(Like it or not)
    You can talk about Reverend Boyd and his congregation all you want, but you're clutching at increasingly short straws

    I figured you wouldnt like that. Of course it was the Irish speaking community evidenced by Boyds Linen Hall speech outside Ulster gaeltachts thats relevent but dont attack the post when youre not able to!


  • #124
    foxcomm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭foxcomm


    This post has been deleted.


  • #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    And in the other sector? :rolleyes:


  • #126
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    +1 on that.

    I want to emigrate to Germany in the medium-term, I really wish I had more experience with the language.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    T runner wrote: »
    But 41% of the population are able to speak Irish as opposed to 19% in 1926.

    Apart from public workers the highest proportion of speakers are in business and management positions. The education policy seems to have worked in putting certain foundations in place. The amount of children entering all Irish schools indicates that people are now taking the next steps.(Like it or not)

    okie dokie. I've had enough. Show me evidence please.


  • #128
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    German and French are only the second and third most widely used languages in the EU—but of course there wouldn't be any actual real benefit in teaching them to Irish children.

    But German and French are taught to irish children. What are you talking about!


    That's not really what we're talking about. To promote a culture and succeed is one thing. To promote a culture and fail, but to keep on going for 76 years, through romantic aspiration and sheer nationalistic pigheadedness, drumming the same dismal "cupla focail" into generation after generation after generation, is quite another. As Albert Einstein once put it: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    41 % of Irish people can now speak Irish as opposed to 19% in 1926.
    Almost 50% of people in management positions can speak it. There is a large increase in people outside gaeltacht areas speaking it. More and more Irish speaking schools are opening outside the gaeltacht. The structures are coming into place where it will be possible for a larger number of people (hopefully a critical mass) will be able to speak Irish in the future. The whole premise of the anti-Irish language argument seems to be that it is a dead language but there is little evidence of this.

    We know the association of the Irish language revival with early 20th century romanticism is mislead revisionist bull.

    How many of the thousands of parents now putting their children in Irish speaking schools do this because of the Gaelic literary revival? Ridiculous!


  • #129
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    foxcomm wrote: »
    I actualy think that we're dealing with a bunch of misfits who are resentful, possibly because they weren't athletic enough to play sports.

    LOL.

    That is hilarious. Many sports require considerably more athleticism than Gaeilic football or hurling.
    In my time I have competed in soccer, basketball, athletics and kickboxing.

    One of them at a very high level.

    And it was then that my distaste for the GAA began, as the local GAA boys couldn't understand why someone would want to play a sport besides football.

    We got all sorts of snide, often jealous, comments about our achievements in 'non-Gaelic' sports.

    The narrow-mindedness was truly astounding. But you get used to it over the years. Which is why I'm not really surprised by you.
    While I have sympathy for those who were abused by members of clergy I am astounded by the numbers who have jumped on the bandwagon to condemn, using it as a protest vehicle for their own religious views even though they themselves did not suffer.

    Yes, you're dead right. The only people who should be allowed complain are the people who were abused.

    Everyone else should just shut up about sexual abuse.

    :rolleyes:
    If it wasnt for the religious orders the country wouldnt have had an education system

    You say it like it was a GOOD thing that the orders ran the education system.
    Why not object when you were younger and not turn up to school.

    Are you talking about primary school children? How exactly are children meant to make a decision not to go to school? You know, there is the small matter of parents, and the law of the country.

    Or are you talking about secondary school? In which case, people did leave school early. In droves.


  • #130
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    T runner wrote: »
    But German and French are taught to irish children. What are you talking about!


    You are correct, but they are started too late.

    The critical time for language acquisition is between 2 and 7. The earlier we start those languages, the better.


  • #131
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Deleted User wrote: »
    okie dokie. I've had enough. Show me evidence please.

    Census 2006 same source as Donegalfella.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Actually, if you do some job searches online or in the newspapers (for within Ireland), you will find plenty of jobs asking for people bilingual in French, German, Spanish, etc. I've seen very very few jobs asking for someone fluent in Irish.
    Outside of international call centre/customer service jobs?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Economically speaking, emigration would be something the education system would want to discourage, no?

    And I'd argue that teaching something for the benefit of those who may wish to emigrate would be teaching something for a minority interest.

    They also have 6 years in secondary school to learn French/German.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I don't oppose it, I'm just not deluded enough to think it will ever happen.


  • #133
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    foxcomm wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I must say, every time I read a post/hear a comment like this, a little part of me begins to wonder whether my interest in and support of the Irish language is worth the association with individuals like yourself.


  • #134
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    #15 wrote: »
    You are correct, but they are started too late.

    The critical time for language acquisition is between 2 and 7. The earlier we start those languages, the better.

    So from the point of view of language acquisition it is correct that Irish is taught in National school?

    Do other countries teach foreign languages between the ages of 2 and 7?

    I learned French in second level and third level and german in third. Havent used them in a while but fluent in French and workmanlike in German. I think learning Irish was a huge advantage for my ability to pick up the other languages.

    Understanding placenames and geographical features is something we all take for granted in every country but these would be foreign to us in Ireland without a knowledge of Irish.


  • #135
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    In your childhood years, you are most receptive to language. I have always hated the Irish language and hated having to learn it in school, but I can still understand TG4 a fair bit. Like many others, I feel much of the language is now set in stone in my head, and that angers me somewhat. How I wish that a USEFUL secondary language had been hammered into me in school in those early years in the same way. I'd gladly substitute all my knowledge of Gaeilge for French or German. I did do German later on but boy am I rusty.

    Oh and I hate nationalism...makes my skin crawl.

    Nationalism has nothing whatsoever to do with the "language" of Irish or its encouragement.

    This post and its familiar theme of people evoking emotions such as "hating" Irish when young is more evidence of the cause of the vitriol and irrationality of the anti-language arguments here.


  • #136
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    T runner wrote: »
    So from the point of view of language acquisition it is correct that Irish is taught in National school?

    Yes. Irish fails to be acquired properly because children do not use it outside of school.
    Foreigners tend to learn English because they see a use for it; English is seen as a desirable language.

    You could make the same argument that children wouldn't be exposed to French and German outside of school either, and you'd be right.
    Do other countries teach foreign languages between the ages of 2 and 7?

    I learned French in second level and third level and german in third. Havent used them in a while but fluent in French and workmanlike in German. I think learning Irish was a huge advantage for my ability to pick up the other languages.

    No doubt it was.

    Understanding placenames and geographical features is something we all take for granted in every country but these would be foreign to us in Ireland without a knowledge of Irish

    I agree.

    My only argument is that we spend too much time on Irish in the classrooms. Children could just as easily pick up the cúpla focail with one hour a week.

    3 and a half hours is too much, especially when we know they only have a token knowledge of it in the end anyway.

    Acquisition needs immersion, so let everyone who wants to use Irish go to a Gaelscoil.
    Everyone else can go to an English speaking school, where Irish could be a smaller subject (30-60 mins per week).


  • #137
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    T runner wrote: »
    And Ive proven with referece to the Penal Laws, Education Act of 1831 which forbade Irish, and the banning of publication of all Irish literature that it was not a natural language shift due to cultural and modernising changes, rather a deliberate attack by the British state on the Irish language.
    The historical "800 years of oppression" justification does not wash. This has been repeatedly been pointed out to you and you have failed to defend it. Are you simply going to repeat it without defending the criticisms levelled at it and hope no one notices?
    The supporting of Gaeltacht areas by irish language projects is a logical way to boost disadvantaged local economies whilst also helping maintain an indiginous language.
    Again a false justification as it is a policy that does not actually seek to boost disadvantaged local economies, only Irish-speaking local economies, irrespective of whether they are disadvantaged or not.
    Irish is at its strongest now in cities like Dublin, Belfast and Galway.
    There are more children than ever in Irish speaking schools in these cities which translates to action by these childrens parents for a future in which Irish is spoken.
    Strongest now in cities like Dublin, Belfast and Galway? In which alternative reality?
    T runner wrote: »
    Census 2006 same source as Donegalfella.
    This has been completely discredited here and elsewhere because of it's complete lack of scientific credibility. Perhaps we should have a survey and ask people if they think they are well read and take their answer as 'evidence' too?


  • #138
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The historical "800 years of oppression" justification does not wash. This has been repeatedly been pointed out to you and you have failed to defend it. Are you simply going to repeat it without defending the criticisms levelled at it and hope no one notices?

    I cant answer every half baked post in the time a spend on boards unfortunately.

    The main themes in the OP are the Irish language and Nationalism. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with revealing how any association of Irish speakers with nationalism actually arose. In defence to others' assertions that it was the Irish themselves who freely chose English I am entitled to point out that official State Acts of the time explicitly prohibited its use.

    The intentions of the state seem to be pragmatic in nature but if some choose to use

    I would also point out the hypocrisy of accusing me of "revisionism" from one your previous posts while espousing one of the universally accepted historical facts namely "The Great Irish Myth". Similarly there is hypocrisy in accusing someone of using history on this thread while using history in a post with the (revisionist?) claim that current interest in revitalising Irish is due only to a group of concerned protestants in the early part of the last century.

    If you have any criticism of the substantiated claim that there was an orchestrated and deliberate attempted linguicide by the British state on the Irish language evidenced by the language Act of 1831 and other legislation Id be happy to hear it. But you must do better than dismissing historical facts because they disagree with your personal political viewpoint. Also please substantiate any more "Great Irish Myth Theories".

    Again a false justification as it is a policy that does not actually seek to boost disadvantaged local economies, only Irish-speaking local economies, irrespective of whether they are disadvantaged or not.

    As has been pointed out because of policies carried out in the past and the economic consequences of them almost ALL gaeltacht areas are economically deprived. As the government also has an interest in keeping the level of Irish speaking high in these areas
    it is prudent to kill two birds with the one stone so to speak. It is perfectly legitimate for the government to have different economic policies in different areas as the need arises.

    Strongest now in cities like Dublin, Belfast and Galway? In which alternative reality?

    Good argument again there thanks.

    Among other things most of the All Irish speaking schools in Ireland are being opened in Belfast and Dublin.

    I have attached for you (again!) an article by Rev Boyd which may broaden your views or not.


    This has been completely discredited here and elsewhere because of it's complete lack of scientific credibility. Perhaps we should have a survey and ask people if they think they are well read and take their answer as 'evidence' too?

    Censii are accepted and used worldwide to gain information about the inhabitants of a State. Again you seem not to object when they are used to support your argument.


  • #139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Corinthian. +1 Spot on.


  • #140
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    T runner wrote: »
    Nationalism has nothing whatsoever to do with the "language" of Irish or its encouragement.

    Like I said before, the very early years are when children pick up language easiest, so if nationalism is not the reason for forcing Irish upon them, instead of a useful foreign language, then what is?
    This post and its familiar theme of people evoking emotions such as "hating" Irish when young is more evidence of the cause of the vitriol and irrationality of the anti-language arguments here.
    A child may or may not hate having to learn a language at school, but when I was young I could even see then how pointless Irish was. I may have hated learning German or French in junior and senior infants, but I would now be thankful for it.


  • #141
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    When they say they speak it daily, weekly, or less frequently, what are the measures of speaking it? Are we talking about using a word here or there? Or are we talking about full blown conversations lasting longer than 5 minutes?


  • #143
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Horace Plunkett was a former unionist MP for South Dublin and was about as far from being a "romantic nationalist" as it was possible to get. He devoted his life to trying to modernize the Irish economy and society. This is what he had to say in his book "Ireland in the new century" about the Gaelic League and its attempts to revive the Irish language and a distinct Irish cultural identity:
    The national factor in Ireland has been studiously eliminated from national education, and Ireland is perhaps the only country in Europe where it was part of the settled policy of those who had the guidance of education to ignore the literature, history, arts, and traditions of the people. It was a fatal policy, for it obviously tended to stamp their native country in the eyes of Irishmen with the badge of inferiority and to extinguish the sense of healthy self-respect which comes from the consciousness of high national ancestry and traditions. This policy, rigidly adhered to for many years, almost extinguished native culture among Irishmen, but it did not succeed in making another form of culture acceptable to them. It dulled the intelligence of the people, impaired their interest in their own surroundings, stimulated emigration by teaching them to look on other countries as more agreeable places to live in, and made Ireland almost a social desert. Men and women without culture or knowledge of literature or of music have succeeded a former generation who were passionately interested in these things, an interest which extended down even to the wayside cabin. The loss of these elevating influences in Irish society probably accounts for much of the arid nature of Irish controversies, while the reaction against their suppression has given rise to those displays of rhetorical patriotism for which the Irish language has found the expressive term raimeis, and which (thanks largely to the Gaelic movement) most people now listen to with a painful and half-ashamed sense of their unreality.

    The Gaelic movement has brought to the surface sentiments and thoughts which had been developed in Gaelic Ireland through hundreds of years, and which no repression had been able to obliterate altogether, but which still remained as a latent spiritual inheritance in the mind. And now this stream, which has long run underground, has again emerged even stronger than before, because an element of national self-consciousness has been added at its re-emergence. A passionate conviction is gaining ground that if Irish traditions, literature, language, art, music, and culture are allowed to disappear, it will mean the disappearance of the race; and that the education of the country must be nationalised if our social, intellectual, or even our economic position is to be permanently improved.

    With this view of the Gaelic movement my own thoughts are in complete accord. It is undeniable that the pride in country justly felt by Englishmen, a pride developed by education and a knowledge of their history, has had much to do with the industrial pre-eminence of England; for the pioneers of its commerce have been often actuated as much by patriotic motives as by the desire for gain. The education of the Irish people has ignored the need for any such historical basis for pride or love of country, and, for my part, I feel sure that the Gaelic League is acting wisely in seeking to arouse such a sentiment, and to found it mainly upon the ages of Ireland's story when Ireland was most Irish.


  • #144
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    T runner wrote: »
    I cant answer every half baked post in the time a spend on boards unfortunately.
    Simply dismissing a rebuttal that has been made repeatedly by more than one poster as "half baked" is intellectually dishonest, I'm afraid.
    The main themes in the OP are the Irish language and Nationalism. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with revealing how any association of Irish speakers with nationalism actually arose. In defence to others' assertions that it was the Irish themselves who freely chose English I am entitled to point out that official State Acts of the time explicitly prohibited its use.
    This does not address any of my points, the first of which is that historical nationalism is practically the only justification you are proposing for the status that the language enjoys in Ireland.
    I would also point out the hypocrisy of accusing me of "revisionism" from one your previous posts while espousing one of the universally accepted historical facts namely "The Great Irish Myth". Similarly there is hypocrisy in accusing someone of using history on this thread while using history in a post with the (revisionist?) claim that current interest in revitalising Irish is due only to a group of concerned protestants in the early part of the last century.
    I did not use history to promote my argument; I used history to rebut your argument. How else would you like me to do that?
    If you have any criticism of the substantiated claim that there was an orchestrated and deliberate attempted linguicide by the British state on the Irish language evidenced by the language Act of 1831 and other legislation Id be happy to hear it. But you must do better than dismissing historical facts because they disagree with your personal political viewpoint. Also please substantiate any more "Great Irish Myth Theories".
    You obviously did not read my posts. The "Great Irish Myth" refers to argument, that was once common, where all of Ireland's woes were as a result of "800 years of oppression", while ignoring the history of the state since independence. Indeed, even if we take what you say as fact, it does not explain why the language has actually declined even further post independence. Hardly the fault of the British, is it?

    I still await your defence of my rebuttal.
    As has been pointed out because of policies carried out in the past and the economic consequences of them almost ALL gaeltacht areas are economically deprived.
    No, they were carried out because Gaeltacht areas are Irish speaking. If the policies were designed to assist economically deprived areas, they would target economically deprived areas - end of. Whether Gaeltacht areas are economically deprived or not is at best a secondary consideration. An altruistic by-product, if you will.
    Good argument again there thanks.
    No I am challenging your assertion. It is frankly delusional to believe that Irish is in any way 'strongest' in urban areas such as Dublin or Cork - or if it is, then the language is in far worse shape than any of us thought.
    Among other things most of the All Irish speaking schools in Ireland are being opened in Belfast and Dublin.
    Correlation does not imply causation. Population is growing faster in urban areas, so can you show me how the growth of Irish speaking schools is vastly outstripping the growth on non-Irish speaking schools or that they are popular principally because people want their children to speak Irish?
    I have attached for you (again!) an article by Rev Boyd which may broaden your views or not.
    I've read it. It's ridiculous propaganda. Please do not confuse attempting to convert someone to your point of view with any kind of 'broadening'. It's not.
    Censii are accepted and used worldwide to gain information about the inhabitants of a State. Again you seem not to object when they are used to support your argument.
    Censii are accepted and used worldwide to gain certain information about the inhabitants of a State - but only if the data can be trusted. I will accept census data for matters such as population, age distribution and the like, but to suggest that self assessed questions such as "can you speak X language" can be accurately is ridiculous, regardless of whether it supports my argument or not.


  • #145
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Horace Plunkett was a former unionist MP for South Dublin and was about as far from being a "romantic nationalist" as it was possible to get. He devoted his life to trying to modernize the Irish economy and society. This is what he had to say in his book "Ireland in the new century" about the Gaelic League and its attempts to revive the Irish language and a distinct Irish cultural identity:
    I find it fascinating how T runner's and your historical arguments seem to extend only so far as 1916.


  • #146
    Karlusss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Karlusss


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    A child may or may not hate having to learn a language at school, but when I was young I could even see then how pointless Irish was. I may have hated learning German or French in junior and senior infants, but I would now be thankful for it.

    You'd be thankful for German because it's somehow inherently less pointless than Irish? Does the fact that 90% of Germans will have better English than you will ever have German, to the extent that it's quite difficult to get a German who hears your Anglophone accent to even respond to you in German, impinge on that?

    Do you judge all culture by its immediate practical usefulness?

    The problem of what to do with a language - ultimately the broadest and most important carrier of a culture - that very few people speak is a difficult one, but I think it's because society hasn't decided what it means by "Irish" as an ethnonym yet.

    It's becoming clear that the current generation don't see Irishness as the same as those who grew up in the climate of the Gaelic League and initially set policy in independent Ireland. Whether that means we're going to dump the language and lean our culture on Father Ted, rugby, soccer and a communal fondness for tea remains to be seen. I'll keep speaking Irish either way.


  • #147
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #148
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    Karlusss wrote: »
    You'd be thankful for German because it's somehow inherently less pointless than Irish? Does the fact that 90% of Germans will have better English than you will ever have German, to the extent that it's quite difficult to get a German who hears your Anglophone accent to even respond to you in German, impinge on that?

    I think you are trying to pull an argument out of thin air. I know three people who lived in Germany and had such good German that the locals did not know they weren't native speakers. Just imagine how good they would have been had they started at age 4! Also, I know a German here in Ireland who practically has an Irish accent.
    Do you judge all culture by its immediate practical usefulness?
    I don't judge culture at all - I try to keep all that sh*te away from me.
    The problem of what to do with a language - ultimately the broadest and most important carrier of a culture - that very few people speak is a difficult one, but I think it's because society hasn't decided what it means by "Irish" as an ethnonym yet.
    I know exactly what 'Irish' means as an ethnonym - born and raised in Ireland.
    It's becoming clear that the current generation don't see Irishness as the same as those who grew up in the climate of the Gaelic League and initially set policy in independent Ireland.
    And how do you see Irishness?
    Whether that means we're going to dump the language and lean our culture on Father Ted, rugby, soccer and a communal fondness for tea remains to be seen.
    I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about.
    I'll keep speaking Irish either way.
    To whom? You're speaking English to me...


  • #149
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    And this is an indication of the numbers of Irish speakers?

    I live in a household of Irish speakers. We're all more or less fluent in speaking & writing Irish. And I've been sitting here for the last 5 minutes trying to remember the last time we've had a conversation in Irish. No luck. The only time we speak Irish is when we want to talk about my sisters kids and not have them understand..


  • #150
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    The Corinthian wrote:
    I find it fascinating how T runner's and your historical arguments seem to extend only so far as 1916.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're looking for a more recent argument in defence of the state promotion of the language I would direct you to the book "Back from the Brink" by the economist Marc Coleman. He has a section in the book that defends public expenditure on the language and that argues against the cuts to the department of the gaeltacht proposed by the MacCarthy report. His argument in favour of the language is similar to the points made by Horace Plunkett. A country with a strong sense of national identity and national pride is highly likely to be populated by people who really want that country to be a success.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And this is an indication of the numbers of Irish speakers?

    I live in a household of Irish speakers. We're all more or less fluent in speaking & writing Irish. And I've been sitting here for the last 5 minutes trying to remember the last time we've had a conversation in Irish. No luck. The only time we speak Irish is when we want to talk about my sisters kids and not have them understand..

    Come over to Teach na Gealt to flex the aul Gaeilge muscles.

    Nobody will force you to speak the language, but you will be facilitated to use it if you want to :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement