hotmail.com wrote: » The Irish lovers like to blame poor teaching on the unpopularity of the Irish language when we know there's more important factors i.e. the general lack of interest in a language that no one wants to speak.
Wibbs wrote: » God not Hebrew again. It's a completely different historical environment and the comparison is lazy and ill informed. The will wasn't the thing, the need was. The returning Jewish diaspora were made up of many different groups with different languages. They required a lingua franca in a deeply practical way and Hebrew was it. We already have a lingua franca it just happens not to be Irish. I'm sure there is an equivalent to "apples and oranges" as Gaelige and it applies to this argument.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » @Conorhal. And what about people who simply don't want to learn Irish?
conorhal wrote: » We however are so self loating as a nation we're actively demolishing or state and ripping apart our common identity, demonizing our history and ploughing under our language. It's shameful but reflective of the society we live in today, atomized and selfish.
conorhal wrote: » The question that has to be asked is why though? And how can that be turned around?
conorhal wrote: » The Israelis however were building a state and recognised that far more then a mere lingua franca was required to do that, a common identity was required and hebrew helpd created that. .... It's shameful but reflective of the society we live in today, atomized and selfish.
BognarRegis wrote: » Modern Irish people speak an internationally popular language and strive to get along with their neighbours and accomodate those of different religious views. Using English has helped us avoid isolation.
You want us to be more like Israel? A country that, to put it politely, has a robust relationship with its neighbours, a controversial human rights record and a language that alienates it from non Jews? And at the same time, you deplore societies that are atomised and selfish?
Rubeter wrote: » Yea, all those non English speaking countries in Europe are very isolated and insular. Population of Europe 700,000,000.... Population of English speaking countries in Europe 68,000,000
Rubeter wrote: » Can you have a discussion without making things up and claiming people said things they didn't? All he did was mention the language, he said nothing about being more like Israel politically or socially.
BognarRegis wrote: » Can you have a discussion without making things up. I never said the non-English speaking countries were insular?
Why would one would want to make an obscure language the common language of your country? It's an important question.
Rubeter wrote: » This comment shows you can't argue the point I made. Rubeter-1 BognarRegis-0 This is too easy. That depends on the language, country and people, and a better question is why not? Have a look at this and see if you can find a correlation between the language of a country and it's wealth. Off you go now and tell the people of Norway they would be better of if they spoke English or Mandarin.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » No, we're not. We just put more emphasis on other expressions of national pride. Football, for example.
mickeyk wrote: » Can't argue with your last point, perhaps he is the exception.
psinno wrote: » According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population 89% of people in Norway can speak English already so I'm sure the improvement would be fairly marginal.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » And the population of people in Europe that speak English is about 250,000,000
Grayson wrote: » But you're asking us to ditch our native language, like Norwegian, to develop a different native language.
Friend Computer wrote: » Norway is rich primarily because of its massive oil deposits. Oh and correlation != causation, etc.. Maybe you should try reading up on these things yourself, first.
Rubeter wrote: » More makey uppy stuff.
Grayson wrote: » Where did I make it up? There are many people advocating the use of irish as a first language for the entire population.
Rubeter wrote: » Are you for real? You incorrectly stated that I am "....asking us to ditch our native language, like Norwegian, to develop a different native language." You made that up, the proof is there for all (including you) to see. I'm not going to reply to any more stupidity.
Grayson wrote: » You said Norwegians speak Norwegian and are therefore more economically successful. I won't comment on the stupidity of that.
Rubeter wrote: » Woosh, right over your heads. More makey uppy stuff. What on earth are you on about? Can anyone here actually read English.
Tony EH wrote: » Perhaps you should have typed it in Irish, maybe more people would have understood what you were on about.... ...ah no, wait a sec....they wouldn't...
Rubeter wrote: » No I didn't.
Rubeter wrote: » Have a look at this and see if you can find a correlation between the language of a country and it's wealth.
The only stupidity here is people constantly claiming people said things they didn't and then arguing against those things, highly stupid indeed.
Rubeter wrote: » That depends on the language, country and people, and a better question is why not? Have a look at this and see if you can find a correlation between the language of a country and it's wealth.
Friend Computer wrote: » Do you... actually understand English? Because that's exactly what you implied. I mean, do you know what the word "correlation" means? Because I'm guessing you don't if you think you weren't implying there's a correlation between the language they speak and their economic success.
See? "find a correlation between the language of a country and it's [sic] wealth", here you imply that there's some kind of connection between the wealth and language spoken.
Well maybe if you knew how to actually use the language there wouldn't be any confusion. Or just avoid the big words since they seem to be giving you trouble.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Actually just by eyeballing that map I can see a correlation between the Anglophone world and prosperity.
Rubeter wrote: » Try reading the list instead.
