How to revive the Irish language.

someuser905 wrote: »

no one cares about that culchie babble
let it go

If no one was interested in it, you wouldn't have to ask people to "let it go".
Also your calling it "culchie babble" shows your "no one" comment to be illogical, your calling people who use Irish culchies means that such people must exist and that you must be aware of them, someone ≠ no-one, therefore you are talking out of your arse. :D

Grayson wrote: »

I remember reading, years ago, that there were more native cantonese speakers in ireland than Irish speakers.

And considering I get a chinese takeaway every so often I'm actually more likely to hear chinese than irish.

Nope, Chinese is well down the list. Have a look at the census returns, its all there.

Currently there are 4.2 million people in ireland. 72,000 speak irish outside of the education system. that's just over 1.5% of the population.

Its 77,000 actually, there has been a census since 2006

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I think we both know that's not true. Once, possibly, but I tried three times, you ignored all three.

I'm am finished with that, the conversation is still there to be seen if you wish to embarrass yourself.

And here is another perfect example! You do not in any way defend the fact that your repsonce was condescending, nor do defend making absolutely no rebuttal to the point you were replying to. Instead, condesending remark aimed at me.

Yep, anyone who thinks "you tell em boyo" is abusive, deserves condescension (plus pity).

Case closed.

You tell 'em boyo.

Grayson wrote: »

It's obvious that pretty much all efforts to revive the Irish language so far have been a failure. I'm certain even the most pro-Irish people in this thread would agree. I mean it's been 90 years since the free state was founded, millions, perhaps billions have been spent in that time and less than 2% speak Irish on a daily basis. I think we can assume that the process so far has been a disastrous failure.

Firstly, while I am sure you did not really intend this meaning, could you be more careful with your words? We are all 'pro-Irish', whether or not we choose to speak the language of some of our ancestors.

Many of us are 'pro-Irish language' but there are varying degrees of this commitment ranging from indulgent tolerance to zealous fanaticism.

The revival movement is failing because it fails to understand the real reasons why we choose to speak English. It compounds this failure with delusional metrics and tactics based on coercive measures.

Grayson wrote: »

Actually, to get back to the original thread topic.

It's obvious that pretty much all efforts to revive the Irish language so far have been a failure. I'm certain even the most pro-Irish people in this thread would agree. I mean it's been 90 years since the free state was founded, millions, perhaps billions have been spent in that time and less than 2% speak Irish on a daily basis. I think we can assume that the process so far has been a disastrous failure.

To judge success or failure we really need to take a wide look at things, I think it rather simplistic to suppose that focusing on the time span from the foundation of the state to now, and taking the education system, and more specifically the compulsory status of Irish in that system as the only noteworthy factor, will give us anything even close to a balanced or accurate answer to the question.

Firstly the time scale, 90 years or three - four generations is quite a short time span in terms of language shift, it also has the unfortunate effect of discounting what went before. Given that the famin just 80 years before and the waves of emigration triggered by it was still having a huge influence on the linguistic make up of much Ireland, I think it somewhat biased to ignore it.

It should also be noted that the Irish Language movement, later to become the revival movement started some 30 years before the foundation of the state.

But the topic is can the language be revived. My question to the pro Irish people is, on an on-going basis, what are the criteria for failure/success? One of my favourite shows is Yes Minister. In one episode the minister tries to get a measure pushed through that would decide if projects were success or failures. For all projects, certain metrics would be pre-determined. they would set forth the criteria it had to meet to be a failure and the criteria it had to meet to be a success.
If the curriculum was revamped and new tactics were adopted, what criteria would be necessary to determine if it had been a success or failure?

At the risk of sounding like Sir Humphrey Appleby, it should be pointed out that before you set the criteria of success or failure of any given project, you must first examin its background, the climate in which the project is being undertaken and its prospects for success.
Equally when looking back on a project, when assessing it, it is not sufficient to deem it a success or failure without defining what its aims were, what prospect it had of achieving those aims and whether the methods used were appropriat.


With regards the revival of the Irish Language from the foundation of the state, its backround was one of being officially suppressed by those in power, the climate in which the project was being undertaken was one in which extreme poverty and high emigration was a fact of the communities where the language was spoken. A significant stigma had been built up around the speaking of Irish which would take major change to disapate.
As for the prospects of success, the language was in a trend of decline and that decline was supported by social and economic factors.

If we take the criteria for success as being the revival of the language accross the country, which was the stated political aim at the time, then undoubtedly at the current time the revival movement has been a failure.

If however you take a more in depth look, you will see that progress has been made, the trend of decline has been halted, the stigma associated with speaking the language has disapated, the language community, while often ignored and less than equally treated by officialdom, is certainly no longer being suppressed.

There are also several signs the language begining an upward trend, the strenghtening of the language in core Gaeltacht areas, the growth of the Language outside traditional Gaeltacht areas through Gaelscoileanna and the engagement of young people in Irish speaking organisations and clubs around the country.

For example, we could double the number of people who speak Irish at home over a period (say 20 years), but that would be 3-4% of the population. Which I'd think would still be pitiful small.

So what % should we be aiming for realistically, over what time period and how much additional resources would be needed before we declare the tactic successful? And what criteria would you apply to declare it a failure?

As for what criteria should be layed down for success or failure of the revival from here, firstly 20 years is far to short a time frame for significant change. Think of it as a community with a population, it is as unlikely that the number of Native Irish speakers will dubble in a single generation as it is that the population of the country will.

More realistic goals would be the consolidation of the Irish speaking communities in the Gaeltacht, the continuing growth of the Gaelscoil movement and increasing the number of people who can speak Irish through giving them the oppertunity to do so.

Failure being the resumption of decline in the numbers of native Irish speakers, the halting or decline of the Gaelscoil movement and a fall in the number of people who can speak Irish.

An Coilean wrote: »

There are also several signs the language begining an upward trend, the strenghtening of the language in core Gaeltacht areas,

How does what you say equate with this statement, which says the opposite, on the website of the Irish Language Commissioner?

There are currently Gaeltacht areas in seven counties (Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry, Cork, Waterford and Meath). The economic development of the Gaeltacht has, however, been accompanied by declining percentages of Irish speakers. In 2002, a government commission reported that of the 154 electoral divisions in the Gaeltacht, only 18 divisions have 75% or more people in them who are daily speakers of Irish.

Grayson wrote: »

The gaeltachts are isolated, remote and quite poor really. There's no reason to go there except to learn irish. And people who grow up there move away because the irish industry / cottage farming can't support them all and a lot don't want to work in that industry anyway.

It's not 1950 you know . Nowhere is really isolated anywhere in Ireland anymore with modern technology, Connemara has serious links with one of Ireland's biggest cities and even the Aran Island ferries are like something out of James Bond.
No reason to go there?? Tell that to the tourists, one of if not the major industry which you forgot about, not to mention small technology driven industries.

I'd say it's a while since you were last "out West", the days of knitting by firelight, along with everyone scratching a bare existence from the sea or land are well gone.

Grayson wrote: »

My family live in the back end of Mayo. Three years ago I was sitting next to a coworker who was from Sweden. It was christmas eve. We both left work at the same time (on the northside about halfway between the city centre and the airport). We were both heading home. She was at her house outside stockholm before i was in mayo. I was getting the train. Once I got to Westport it was still another hour to get home.

That means nothing. It was quicker to take Concorde from London to NY than it is to drive from Cork to Dublin today, so what? What if your Swedish friend lived on one of the many islands and had to take a plane, train, bus and ferry?? It's a totally meaningless comparison. It's interesting that you mention Sweden though, now there's a country with some remote and isolated spots, not Ireland.
P.S. The ISS goes around the whole Earth in 90 mins.

Being a bit of a trip from Dublin does not equal isolated by the way, believe it or not but for quite a few of us going to and from Dublin plays no part in our lives.

The Dublin - Galway road might be ok, but if your anywhere off the main roads to galway or limerick, it's a nightmare to travel. The road from longford to castlebar is really bad.
And I don't know when the last time you were in donegal, but try getting from Dungloe to Donegal town. It's a good 45 minutes to an hour for a trip that could be 20 minutes if the roads were straight.

This isn't a discussion about the state of the nations roads. And since when was a 45 minute drive remote and isolated, that is less time than a great many of the commuters who work in Dublin spend driving, and they do it twice a day.

The west might get some tourism, but the gaeltacht is not the cause of it. That tourism would still be there even if the language completly died. My point was that there isn't enough to support an expansion of the population in gaeltacht areas. Or are you saying that it is and it needs no development? Or are you just picking on something for the hell of it?

Nobody said the language was the point of tourism but mentioning the Irish (language) industry and cottage farming, while not just ignoring one of the major employers in the West, tourism, but saying "nobody goes there" just to make a point is slightly misleading don't you think.
Picking you up on your rather exaggerated comments is also not saying that no investment is needed.