Nationalism and the Irish Language

T runner · 07-01-2010 04:01PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If 5% speak the language weekly and another 5% have good enough Irish to be able to speak it immediatley through the rust: One could say that if one third of the rest of us could speak Irish after a few days refreshment you have your 42%. I dont think that this is unreasonable.

So in a census when I was asked if I could speak Irish I honestly answered yes.
I would give the same answer for French or German if asked because I know that if I had a few days to dust off the rust I could speak them.
This is in complete contrast to someone who didnt have these languages and who would take many months and probably years to replicate this from scratch.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 04:06PM

eleanoroosevelt wrote: »

I posted on this thread around the start of it. I came back to it tonight and
The way in which Irish was hammered into schoolchildren was the product of a young republic. After years of oppression we got freedom, we struggled to create a free state for ourselves, and so idealistic Ireland was born.
We were a young country newly given independence and like a child growing up, we made mistakes along the way. We succumbed to the oppression of the church, we battered Irish into children. In gaining our freedom we then proceeded to rob freedom from our people. Our nation of roaring nationalists became a nation of supressed mice.

I always hear expressions like these in relation to Irish. Irish has apparently been hammered, battered and drummed into Irish children. It's been shoved and forced down their throats etc.

I really fail to understand what is meant by these expressions. Just that it's a compulsory subject in schools? In that case is maths "battered" into children? Or is it the teaching methods which being referred to with these phrases?

Or is it just hyperbolic rhetoric that is as idiotic and pathetic as the "800 years" brigade?

Seriously, ridiculous spending like the translation of legal documents to Irish etc. I can understand people being angry about, but all this bull about forcing Irish on schoolchildren and it being a huge tragedy irritates the crap out of me.

Arguments about time spent on Irish aside (and I agree, too much time is spent on it), I think it's fairly reasonable for a primary education system to consist of the following core subjects:
- One's mother tongue
- Maths
- A language other than one's mother tongue

So French or German might be slightly more useful to certain students, it doesn't mean what we have in place now is horrifically bad or anything.

At second level, the Irish curricula need to be greatly revised and teaching methods reviewed (the same is true of Maths), and perhaps the idea of making it non compulsory at LC level should be considered, but again, it's not a horrifically bad system or the huge injustice that it's made out to be.

I know too much exposure to the "800 years" crowd is enough to make one want to cut all ties of association with their version of Irishness, but these people don't have a monopoly on the Irish language - most can't even speak it despite professing their love for it so outwardly.

Restoring Irish as the primary working langage of Ireland is not going to happen, but all I'm saying is give the idea of keeping Irish alive in an educational context a chance.

Wibbs · 07-01-2010 04:18PM

T runner wrote: »

If 5% speak the language weekly and another 5% have good enough Irish to be able to speak it immediatley through the rust: One could say that if one third of the rest of us could speak Irish after a few days refreshment you have your 42%. I dont think that this is unreasonable.

Its massively unreasonable and pie in the sky frankly. I would learn to speak Irish only slightly faster than I would learn say Spanish. I did French for less time and I reckon I would be on par with learning Irish again. The thing is why would I bother? I would never be fluent. I would always sound like a "foreigner" in my own country, supposedly speaking "my" language. At best I would be speaking an invented Irish. In any case it would be far less useful to me than say Spanish or French. We already have a national language of communication that just happens to be english and all the word brings with it.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2010 04:41PM

T runner wrote: »

If 5% speak the language weekly and another 5% have good enough Irish to be able to speak it immediatley through the rust: One could say that if one third of the rest of us could speak Irish after a few days refreshment you have your 42%. I dont think that this is unreasonable.

LOL. You're kind of scraping the argument barrel at this stage, T runner.

You've climbed down from your extraordinary earlier claim of 42% to a vague series of assumptions that kind of, sort of, could add up to around 40% if we just put in "a few days refreshment" (and I suspect it would take a bit more than 'a few days' to be even mildly conversational in it for most of us).

Ask yourself this; why don't "one third of the rest of us" go to the trouble of "a few days refreshment" for the language?

How do we manage to have an educational system that teaches it for 12 years and yet the vast majority of this country never use it the moment they leave school, left only with a few memorized phrases that will no doubt become indispensable if we ever need to get permission to go to the toilet or declare ourselves present in an exclusively Irish speaking environment?

If you cannot face such questions honestly, then frankly the language is doomed.

T runner · 07-01-2010 04:47PM

Wibbs wrote: »

We've had 90 years of trying to revive a language, yet what language is the vast majority of conversation and commerce taking place in?

English?

OK another far better example then. Basque. That's a language and a culture that has been under threat for 100's(if not 1000's) of years, in both France and Spain.

Indeed in Spain it was illegal and its teaching, publishing and speaking was banned under Franco.

That jumped up little moron only pegged it in 1975 and that law repealed in the late 70's, yet you will hear Basque on the streets spoken by everyday people going about their everyday business(30 to 40% of people in the region actually speak it). You will hear Basque music, indeed they have some half decent punk bands. You will see Basque written all over the place etc. Spanish is still required simply because of economic reasons etc, but they have kept their language alive and growing. I have heard more Basque fluently spoken in a week, than I have heard fluent Irish in a lifetime(outside of TG4 and the like).

It's not even an indo european language. Its an orphaned language and makes Irish and all the rest look like the new kids on the block.

They've been under various empires and influences too yet still retain the oldest language in Europe(and one of the oldest in the world)

So how do you explain that then?

I dont really have enough to go on. Perhaps, If you could tell us the Government directives that were made against the Basque Language and people we could compare. Again if the only attack on the language was by Franco then the example has the same weaknesses as your Soviet one.

TBH and IMHO while Irish individuals have had a huge influence on world history far beyond our geographical and population size, I think as a cultural group we're actually weak and wishy washy.

Please elaborate

Though that has its good and bad points. I would suggest that our huge influence beyond these lands(in the last 200 yrs anyway) is down to us being english speakers. While the Basques have retained their unique language, try naming a famous one*.

First of all, are you suggesting that the Basques would be better off if they spoke only Spanish?

OK, A few contemporary Basques?

Xabi Alonso, footballer.
Didier Deschamps, footballer.
Bixente Lizarazu, footballer.
Miguel Indurain, cyclist.
and maybe the greatest of them all: Serge Blanco.

Have you heard of any of these?

I would contend that if we had remained entirely Irish speaking the same difficulty in citing an influential Irish person after the 10 century would arise. Indeed the light shining on this little island to the west of Europe was because the scholars were fluent in Latin. Yet another lingua franca. The issue I have with any small language is that it destines the nation to be parochial. And we have far and away enough of that as it is.

This would be my preferenced choice for the linguistic literacy of Ireland.

1 English and Irish (English majority)
2 English only
3 Irish only

Who is advocating that we be an Irish only speaking country? Where are you getting that assumption?

Two Irish speaking kings cant educate an entire nation. So that's a complete non starter.

I wasnt suggesting we change to a strange type of monarchy with two Irish speaking brother Kings in order to have everyone in Ireland speaking Irish.

The huge influence of Irish missionarys and the monasteries was of far more importance than that singular event. For a start Scotland had many many tribes.

Scotland had many chiftains but the two priciple tribes/cultures/kingdoms was the Christain Scotti to the west and the Pagan Pictish Kingdom to the North East. No doubt you are right that the conversion of the Pictish to the Irish church was of major significance in the language shift.

It is though. Its resurgence is just as fake as it's "linguicide".

Yet a lot more necessary.

Permabear · 07-01-2010 05:05PM

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 05:11PM

Well, corporal punishment was hardly unique to Ireland or the teaching of Irish, in fairness.

Permabear · 07-01-2010 05:25PM

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet · 07-01-2010 05:29PM

Question. Did the Brits beat the language into you like the Irish priests and nuns did?

Wibbs · 07-01-2010 05:32PM

T runner wrote: »

I dont really have enough to go on. Perhaps, If you could tell us the Government directives that were made against the Basque Language and people we could compare. Again if the only attack on the language was by Franco then the example has the same weaknesses as your Soviet one.

Government directives? Try reading peoples posts. It was banned. It was illegal to speak it, write it or teach it. It was illegal to foster Basque sports or culture too. As for historically, both France and Spain have censured Basque and the Basque culture for 100's of years. The Basques were looked down upon by both states and were until recently. As far back as the romans they were being attacked. The moors had a good try at them too(though failed miserably). The French side has less Basque speakers because of serious attacks on the language and culture for 100's of years. Essentially they've had it worse than us, for longer and across two nations not one.

Please elaborate

We're not cohesive or as a nation. I dunno, hard to explain. We have a huge proportion of internationally reknowned people. As I said far and away ahead of the size of us. We do seem to be an either or people though. We're either parochial or international. We have less of a middle ground I would say. IMHO The Scots aren't dissimilar actually. The English have had a lot of internationally reknowned people. But they have an equally large population. Maybe Napoleon was right. They're a nation of shopkeepers. They have a more consistent middle ground. They also spot a bargain when they see one(or did). Look at how many Scots, Irish and Welsh shaped their nation. A few years back when they had the competition to find the "best" Historical English person, they faced some difficulty when the top 20 was full of non English people.

First of all, are you suggesting that the Basques would be better off if they spoke only Spanish?

Clearly they dont think so, hence the actually speak Basque on a daily basis, but yes, objectively they would be better off on a few levels. In any event, you're doing what you always do and that's move the goalposts when uncomfortable truths kick in.

OK, A few contemporary Basques?

Xabi Alonso, footballer.
Didier Deschamps, footballer.
Bixente Lizarazu, footballer.
Miguel Indurain, cyclist.
and maybe the greatest of them all: Serge Blanco.

Have you heard of any of these?

Well Googled. I knew Indurain, but then I followed cycling at the time(they're mad into cycling over there). I'm not a footballist, so had no clue about the others. I have no idea who Senor Blanco is.

In any event, again a moot point. Try naming(without Google either) an internationally well known and influential Basque man or woman of the last 1000 yrs. Shouldnt be too hard.

This would be my preferenced choice for the linguistic literacy of Ireland.

1 English and Irish (English majority)
2 English only
3 Irish only

Who is advocating that we be an Irish only speaking country? Where are you getting that assumption?

Trying to change the goalposts again. I never said Irish only. Its never gonna happen anyway. Again I say, why is Irish an objective and cultural advantage?

I wasnt suggesting we change to a strange type of monarchy with two Irish speaking brother Kings in order to have everyone in Ireland speaking Irish.

Eh what? I would love to know the mental process that sprung from anything I wrote on the matter that led you to that. I simply said your contention for the spread of Irish in Pictish Scotland had feck all to do with two local chiefs speaking the new language.

Scotland had many chiftains but the two priciple tribes/cultures/kingdoms was the Christain Scotti to the west and the Pagan Pictish Kingdom to the North East. No doubt you are right that the conversion of the Pictish to the Irish church was of major significance in the language shift.

No doubt? Jeez its like pulling teeth. So I was right then? God forbid.

Anyway how do you think the Christian Scotti became Christian? They had been pagan Picts, speaking their own language until we showed up to convert them. There would have been some previous trade links and some "irish" speakers, but they would have been a minority until the missionaries showed up.

Yet a lot more necessary.

Why? So far your reasoning seems more about the fact that the English attempted to kill the language, so therefore we must restore it. Give us practical reasons why.

BTW I agree with others. You seem willful in your ignorance of points raised by others.

metrovelvet · 07-01-2010 05:33PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Both my parents said the teaching of Irish was a much crueler feat. They, like all other Irish immigrants, did not pass on any Irish to their new world offspring. The only immigrant group not to.

Irish people dont want to speak it.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 05:38PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Both my parents said the teaching of Irish was a much crueler feat. They, like all other Irish immigrants, did not pass on any Irish to their new world offspring. The only immigrant group not to.

Why does this exist so?

metrovelvet · 07-01-2010 05:44PM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why does this exist so?

Youve got to be kiddinb me. It looks like 5 people live there. In some dinky town in Ontario. Nyc? Boston? Chicago? The other main pitstops of Irish immigrants. Nada, niente, rien.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 05:56PM

No one lives there. It's not a traditional Gaeltacht.

The point is, there exist members of the Irish diaspora who are interested in the language.

Here's an article from the New York Times from 2006.

Sure, the interest might seem small compared to the amount of Irish who emigrated, but it does still exist and isn't insignificant.

Eliot Rosewater · 07-01-2010 06:05PM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I really fail to understand what is meant by these expressions.

They are used in the metaphorical sense, obviously. And metaphorically they are "battered" into you, tbh. When I was in secondary school Irish was the subject that had the most resistance from students. The average student dislikes Irish greatly. The average Irish student doesn't like the fact that a) the teaching of it is crap, b) they they cant speak it properly, c) they never get an opportunity to speak it because its actually not spoken outside of some families or areas and b) is of no use after school. A lot of students will swallow French and German knowing that they will speak it later, or at least be able to chat up the nice Parisian bird at the bar.

You average Leaving Cert student doesnt give a toss about "800 years" or the supposed Irish "culture." All theyre thinking about is what to do next in college, or how to make money after the exams.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 06:41PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

They are used in the metaphorical sense, obviously. And metaphorically they are "battered" into you, tbh. When I was in secondary school Irish was the subject that had the most resistance from students. The average student dislikes Irish greatly. The average Irish student doesn't like the fact that a) the teaching of it is crap, b) they they cant speak it properly, c) they never get an opportunity to speak it because its actually not spoken outside of some families or areas and b) is of no use after school.

I disagree. They dislike it because the teaching is crap and the exams are stupidly difficult. They might rationalise their dislike with reasons such as "no one speaks it", but these aren't the actual reasons for their dislike.

If the Irish course was simplified and became an easy A in the LC, you can bet the feeling of dislike for Irish would dramatically decrease. You're generally correct when you say:

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You average Leaving Cert student doesnt give a toss about "800 years" or the supposed Irish "culture." All theyre thinking about is what to do next in college, or how to make money after the exams.

Since Irish is compulsory and the exams very difficult for someone who's not fluent, it is a barrier to college entry, and thus a dislike is induced.

For the same reason, Maths is also disliked.

Irish teaching and the syllabi at second level are completely out of touch and stupid.

French and German wouldn't be as disliked because the exams are so relatively easy. Nothing to do with students thinking they'll use them in the future in the majority of cases. Most students wouldn't have any degree of fluency in French or German upon leaving school, let alone enough "to chat up a Parisian bird", I lol'd at that.

Permabear · 07-01-2010 06:44PM

This post has been deleted.

Bigdeadlydave · 07-01-2010 07:00PM

Well I am in 6th year atm and struggling with higher level Irish. A common vibe seems to be "Ive been doing this for 10 years, why do I still suck?" Most people I know are quite interested in Irish and would really like to be good at it. I certainly would, even if its only to spout off a few lines while on holidays at those who mistake me for english

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 07:01PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the fact that I don't really agree with gratituous spending on the Irish language has been made clear in this thread already.

Being pro-Irish doesn't mean being pro-the government's spending on Irish.

I do take your implied point that part of why Irish appears to be thriving overseas is the result of a large amount of financial backing.

But just because the government's policies on Irish are stupid (just like a lot of their policies, what's new?) doesn't mean we should abandon it.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 07:08PM

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Well I am in 6th year atm and struggling with higher level Irish. A common vibe seems to be "Ive been doing this for 10 years, why do I still suck?" Most people I know are quite interested in Irish and would really like to be good at it. I certainly would, even if its only to spout off a few lines while on holidays at those who mistake me for english

I think there are a lot of students like you, and from what I hear from older people, there would appear to exist more students with outlooks like yours than would have existed 10 or 20 years ago.

I would say that students who don't give a damn about the language are still in the majority, but I think that the number of pro-Irish students is growing. This is all speculation based almost entirely on hearsay and my own experience, mind.

metrovelvet · 07-01-2010 08:16PM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I think the fact that I don't really agree with gratituous spending on the Irish language has been made clear in this thread already.

Being pro-Irish doesn't mean being pro-the government's spending on Irish.

I do take your implied point that part of why Irish appears to be thriving overseas is the result of a large amount of financial backing.

But just because the government's policies on Irish are stupid (just like a lot of their policies, what's new?) doesn't mean we should abandon it.

Define thriving. Please dont say 42%.

Herbal Deity · 07-01-2010 08:48PM

I feel this is tangental and pedantic.

By "thriving" I mean that Irish is experiencing at least some success and growth overseas.

Why do you continue to be so patronising? The 42% stat not only does not relate to Irish overseas, but I have not once used that stat in this thread. Furthermore, I have not once engaged in a discussion regarding usage figures of Irish and have clearly stated that daily usage of Irish is not an issue for me, but rather that I simply feel it has a place in the education system.

metrovelvet · 08-01-2010 10:17AM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I feel this is tangental and pedantic.

By "thriving" I mean that Irish is experiencing at least some success and growth overseas.

Why do you continue to be so patronising? The 42% stat not only does not relate to Irish overseas, but I have not once used that stat in this thread. Furthermore, I have not once engaged in a discussion regarding usage figures of Irish and have clearly stated that daily usage of Irish is not an issue for me, but rather that I simply feel it has a place in the education system.

You cited a new york times article which mentions 7 people at Yale studying. My bet is there are more students studying sanscrit. Havung to go to the most elite establishment in US academia to learn cupla focla or whatever you call it isn't necessarily growth. After all the ivory tower is a mauselium for dead languages. It may simply be there as a programme for phd students who need it for the history dissertations.

Herbal Deity · 08-01-2010 12:40PM

You didn't read the article beyond the first paragraph.

It doesn't matter anyway, it's not important.

</tangent>

T runner · 08-01-2010 02:04PM

We're not cohesive or as a nation. I dunno, hard to explain. We have a huge proportion of internationally reknowned people. As I said far and away ahead of the size of us. We do seem to be an either or people though. We're either parochial or international. We have less of a middle ground I would say. IMHO The Scots aren't dissimilar actually. The English have had a lot of internationally reknowned people. But they have an equally large population. Maybe Napoleon was right. They're a nation of shopkeepers. They have a more consistent middle ground. They also spot a bargain when they see one(or did). Look at how many Scots, Irish and Welsh shaped their nation. A few years back when they had the competition to find the "best" Historical English person, they faced some difficulty when the top 20 was full of non English people.

I asked why you thought the Irish as a cultural group were "wishy washy" and you reply about how Celts have shaped the English nation?

Clearly they dont think so, hence the actually speak Basque on a daily basis, but yes, objectively they would be better off on a few levels. In any event, you're doing what you always do and that's move the goalposts when uncomfortable truths kick in.

How so? Your point was that people are worse off speaking minority languages so I asked you if the Basques (your example) would be better off speaking Spanish only.

You said:
"While the Basques have retained their unique language, try naming a famous one*......The issue I have with any small language is that it destines the nation to be parochial."

Well Googled. I knew Indurain, but then I followed cycling at the time(they're mad into cycling over there). I'm not a footballist, so had no clue about the others. I have no idea who Senor Blanco is.

In any event, again a moot point.

Then dont ask it next time! (Hint: Only ask rhetorical questions when you are certain of the answer.)

BTW Between a half and 2/3 of the worlds population are bilingual. There are also many multilinguists. Monolinguism is not the norm.

Why? So far your reasoning seems more about the fact that the English attempted to kill the language, so therefore we must restore it. Give us practical reasons why.

That's a strawman argument. Please show me where I have equated any attempted linguicide as a reason for restoring it.
I have refuted some peoples assertion that the language should be let die as it is at the end of an entirely natural decline. Historical facts including Government Acts indicate that this is fallacious. Dont misrepresent

BTW I agree with others. You seem willful in your ignorance of points raised by others.

I dont understand what you meant by that. What others? What points?

One "other" has made a personal attack on my honesty. Do you agree with that?

T runner · 08-01-2010 02:58PM

The below is the statistics for children learning in Irish speaking schools.

Primary level

Of the 470,000 primary school pupils in the Republic of Ireland, 34,800 do all of their school subjects through Irish while 120,000 pupils use Irish as their Normal Language of Communication for at least one other subject(except Irish). This means that 7% of the schooling population have all their subjects taught through the medium of Irish, while 33% of pupils have at least two or more subjects (incl. Irish) taught through Irish.

In the Republic of Ireland: (7.4%)

* 25,800 pupils attend Gaelscoileanna (5.4%)
* 9,000 pupils attend Gaeltacht schools (2%)

In Northern Ireland: (2%)

* 2,653 pupils attend Gaelscoileanna

[edit] Second level

Of the 335,000 secondary students in the Republic of Ireland, 9,932 do all their school subjects through Irish. This means that 3% of the schooling population have all their subjects through the medium of Irish.

In the Republic of Ireland: (3%)

* 3,030 students attend Gaeltacht secondary schools
* 5,687 students attend Gaelcholáistí
* 981 students attend Irish stream schools
* 234 students are taught some subjects through Irish

In Northern Ireland: (0.5%)

* 632 students attend Gaelcholáistí

While this shows that Gaelscoileanna are more populous than Gaeltacht schools a more revealing statistic is the 33% of all pupils have atleast 2 subjects taught through the medium of Irish.

According to experts on the preservation of language the language must continue to be passed from parent to child. This means that a language will be spoken in a house if 2 generations speak it.

The diversity between the amount of Irish spoken in school and at home has rightly been
pointed out.

It would seem logical that the parents of the 33% should be targetted:

They have already indicated their interest and encouraging them to speak Irish in the home would immediately create a bilingual house.

Structures through the Gaelscoileanna themselves might be the most obvious solution.
This could be achieved through courses, oral nights (parents and pupils), software etc to help the parents get started. The parents would at last be glad of the 12 years of learning Irish as its usefulness would would quickly become more apparent parents.

Resources for this could be attained by adopting a more granular approach to bilingualism in the country. While keeping its national status, only districts with regular speakers (daily) above a certain quota (in Finland 3000 people or 6%) would get bilingual status. This would now mean the Gaeltacht and the main cities. (areas could be checked every 5 years or more)
Irish language resources from English only areas could then be diverted to and focused on creating bilingual homes.

Herbal Deity · 08-01-2010 03:58PM

Functional bilingualism shouldn't be a goal though IMO.

I think grants for Irish speaking households are ridiculous.

I admire your enthusiasm and idealism, T Runner, but I don't think you're being realistic.

Irish is a perfectly legitimate primary school subject, and arguably a legitimate compulsory subject up to JC level. I don't think I can justify any gratituous spending on it beyond the education system, however.

Permabear · 08-01-2010 03:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs · 08-01-2010 04:12PM

T runner wrote: »

I asked why you thought the Irish as a cultural group were "wishy washy" and you reply about how Celts have shaped the English nation?

OK lets join the dots. I said IMHO individuals have had a great impact while the general mass is wishy washy.

How so?

You avoid obvious questions and barrel on regardless.

Then dont ask it next time! (Hint: Only ask rhetorical questions when you are certain of the answer.)

Avoiding the point yet again.

BTW Between a half and 2/3 of the worlds population are bilingual. There are also many multilinguists. Monolinguism is not the norm.

Source please. 1 third of the world would be Chinese(near enough) and few speak anything but various forms of chinese. I would agree that bilingualism is useful. Very much so. I would however argue which language would be useful as a second language. Most bilingual types would have their native language and then a world language as the second one. You would want to be high on crack to suggest Irish is our "native" language as it stands anyway. But as english is, then yes I can see some reasoning to add Irish, but French, or Cantonese would be more useful.

That's a strawman argument. Please show me where I have equated any attempted linguicide as a reason for restoring it.
I have refuted some peoples assertion that the language should be let die as it is at the end of an entirely natural decline. Historical facts including Government Acts indicate that this is fallacious. Dont misrepresent

I dont think Im misrepresenting. You ahve repeatedly stated that the English gov made a concerted effort to stamp out the language through law and education and this is stuck in your craw and see our duty as reviving it. Natural or not as the every day working language of this country it is in decline and has been for 100 years. Yes there have been blips on the scope. The irish schools for one and maybe they will make a difference, but if it wasnt in decline we wouldnt even be having this convo. Indeed we would be writing as Gaelige.

I dont understand what you meant by that. What others? What points?

OK for a start, how do you explain how a language like Basque has survived and is growing when it has been under attack as a minority language and culture for 100's of years from many sources? The Irish seemed to give up their language very easily by comparison.

One "other" has made a personal attack on my honesty. Do you agree with that?

Nope. I think you're honest, if blinkered and you do avoid the obvious. Your statement and continued faith in the census stats of 42% a good example.

Wibbs · 08-01-2010 04:13PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would sum it up alright. Lots of lip service but little lips service in Irish.

Nationalism and the Irish Language

Comments