Why can nobody speak Irish?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-08-2013 12:43AM

An Coilean wrote: »

I dont think we do, life is not so easy to compartmentalise. If I discuss love, politics etc. Is that practical or cultural communication? What if I do so through poetry or debate or just over a few pints in the pub?

Language certainly is of fundemental importance to culture. I am not arguing that it is the only means through which culture can be expressed, but it is certainly the primary means. It is inconcivable that any nation or individual could have an identity not primarily founded upon and communicated through language.

Again, there are other valid ways of expressing culture and Identity, i never argued otherwise, however that does not mean that language is not fundemental to culture and Identity.
Again this link between language and identity is widely recognised and that you are trying so hard to minimise its suggests to me that you see it as a threat to an 'Irish identity without Irish'.

Worked for the Welsh, their language was in rapid decline before the started their campaign of positive action.

1 - There are points where they overlap, granted. But the specific Irish langauge has not been nessecary for Irish writers to express their cultural and nationality. And there has been nothing anglo-american about it. Some have even blended them and stil lproduced original, cultral work. Are you familair with the work of Eoin Colfer? Benny and Omar?
2 - I am not arguing that it is the only means through which culture can be expressed, - you said a nation whithout lanague is a nation without soul, which sounds to me like you did. I even showed you an individual who had an identity based on visual art. No langauge at all. Nothing fundamental about it.
3 -I am not trying to deminish the connection, you are trying to hype it up. What i am trying to do is keep things in perspective. I'm trying - and have succeded in doign so - is to point out that there are EQUALLY VALUABLE ways of expressing a cultrual identity. Equally - not better, not worse. Equally.
4 - Still haven't asnwer my question about the Welsh.

epluribusunum · 07-08-2013 12:45AM

And please quote me in the entirety of my post because otherwise I can be manipulated if you are only addressing certain points. Thanks.

Carlos Orange · 07-08-2013 12:46AM

An Coilean wrote: »

As i said before, its more on the vandalism side of the spectrum than violence, they spraypaint walls rather than going around kneekapping non Welsh speakers.

Physical force politics aint my thing however you dress it up. The proper way to address politicians you disagree with is words not actions.

SunMoonStars · 07-08-2013 12:51AM

Irish is taught terribly, I went to a Gaelscoil, which I hated. Out of the twenty students who were in my class, who were taught so much more Irish than in other primary schools, I was the only one who did higher level Irish for the Junior Cert. And I probably failed that because of my Secondary School Irish teacher, moving me up to Higher Level and then not supply me with any information or anything about the Higher Level exam. In short, I messed up the fiction and poetry part.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 07-08-2013 01:23AM

Jumping in at the end here having skipped all but the first page of this thread. IMO irish was taught years ago akin to poetry, it was rhymed off with many not having a clue what they were saying.

The reason Europeans are able to learn and speak English is because they know its of use to them in many other countries, irish isn't even of use here in Ireland, its a dead language and should be treated as such and buried...or if they insist on continuing to teach it then teach it purely as a spoken language and forget about all the crap poetry, depressing stories and knowing how to spell every single word including fadas and maybe people might take more of an interest in it. It's bad enough to have to learn something you have no interest in but to learn every single aspect of it including poetry and prose makes it even more unpopular.

Peanut Butter Jelly · 07-08-2013 01:59AM

There's a big difference between been qualified to teach Irish and knowing how to teach Irish.

I went through 5 years of just simply not been able to get interested in class. Most of that, I hate to say it was down to my teacher. She's a lovely woman, but Irish isn't her forté. When she tells you that it's the least favourite out of the three she's qualified in, after History and Business, you know she's not that interested compared to others. It was the same with others in the class, Higher level by the way. We would get sheets upon sheets of stuff, that mightn't be used again for months, and then expected to have them at that specific moment in time, when we were told the previous day that we would be dong something else. There was no continuity to the teaching.

But I went on a summer course to a local woman. I thought it wouldn't be much good, but in 5 days, she blew my mind. I proceeded to get grinds off her with 5 others out of my class of 9, one of which were already on the summer course. We learned more in a 90 minute grind that in a school week. It was the way she did it, little sayings and that just stuck in your head and I remembered them for months. Her notes were top notch aswell. I'd gladly say that she is a godsend to her pupils and that anyone that doesn't think so simply doesn't embrace her wealth of knowledge.

Rubeter · 07-08-2013 06:35AM

riclad wrote: »

ITS a dead language, because most ordinary people do not speak it.

Why thank you, it's nice you think us Irish speakers are extraordinary.

BognarRegis · 07-08-2013 07:21AM

An Coilean wrote: »

Aha.Yes I am well aware of them, are you suggesting that restoring Irish and getting rid or English are one and the same objectives?

There can only be one common language.

An Coilean · 07-08-2013 08:59AM

BognarRegis wrote: »

There can only be one common language.

What? There is no basis for this claim.
A common language is simply a language spoken by all or a significant proportion of the population of a given area. There can be two or three or more.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 09:41AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

You cannot just call you Constitution wording artificial because you disagree with it.

Yes, I can, if the practicalities of the matter prove it so. Irish is only the primary langauge of Ireland, in as much as it was spoken before English hundreds of years ago. But today, English is the primary form of communication in Ireland and it has been for quite some time. It doesn't matter what some bozo wrote on a bit of paper. The reality of the situation dictates otherwise.

epluribusunum wrote: »

If it says Irish is the primary national language then it is.

No, it really doesn't. If a tiny percentage of the nation can speak Irish and mostly badly, but 100% can speak English, then I'll go with the latter. Anything else is just silly.

epluribusunum wrote: »

If history was such a big role then most people would reject English, given the history as you said.

Of course they wouldn't. Our use of English as our primary form of communication has prevented us from being some backwater state. It has allowed us to communicate with the nations of the world and to trade with whomever we wish. Our use of English was and is essential to our economy and our everyday dealings with the entire planet. Given that, historically, the Irish have been woeful at learning languages, if Irish was our basic form of communication, we would, quite frankly...be fucked.

epluribusunum wrote: »

But instead people now look up to the UK.

I think that such a sentiment would meet with complete rejection from the vast majority of people in this country. Sure there is lots to admire about Britain, as there is with all nations, but there is nobody that universially "looks up to the UK".

epluribusunum wrote: »

Communication is how people identify and connect, and it always will be so that is why language is imperative.

...and that is why our use of English as our primary language has been so important for us. It has allow us to connect with the people of the world and continues to do so. Put it like this...I'm Irish and from your use of "Na Zdrowie" is an earlier post, I presume you are Polish...

...and yet English has allowed both of us to communicate successfully.

epluribusunum wrote: »

Currently, Irish is pointless but it does not have to be that way. Are you incapable of knowing 2 languages?

Historically, the Irish have been awful at learning languages. I did French and Irish in school and I don't know much of either. In fact, I've learned more German since leaving school than I have of either of the aforementioned languages. The simple fact is that the Irish have just never been that great at picking up another tongue. It's changing these days, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree, if you think that Irish is what people will be wanting to learn as a second language. It would be much more likely that a European language would be chosen in the future, considering the more outward looking focus that most nations are taking. Learning Irish has no practical use, it would simply be a hobby, or some bogus, fake, nationalistic badge of some sort.

epluribusunum wrote: »

Why not have your language from your Constitution and respect your past patriots and then teach English in school as well. The possibility is there but people dont seem to care. i have studied Irish independence and it is a shame to see a nation not respect its past. Not just the language aspect either.

I'd wager that the men who fought the war of independence spoke mostly in English in their everyday dealings

But either way, Irish HAS been taught in schools...for YEARS and still it is very much the minority language in this country. People DON'T care, because it would be, quite simply, a useless accusition to one's knowledge and just because people don't see any practical use for bothering with Irish, doesn't mean that they do "not respect" the nations "past". I just cannot agree with that kind of binary assertion.

epluribusunum wrote: »

The Irish worship the UK culture. The coverage of the royal family was enough right there. It will make sense for both parties. It is only a matter of time. A nation of 4 million with the same language, close proximity, very similar cultural and family ties, it is only a matter of time my friend. Maybe not in our lifetime but it is inevitable.

Sorry lad, but the above paragraph is absolute nonsense. :pac:

gobnaitolunacy · 07-08-2013 09:58AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Historically, the Irish have been awful at learning languages. I did French and Irish in school and I don't know much of either. In fact, I've learned more German since leaving school than I have of either of the aforementioned languages. The simple fact is that the Irish have just never been that great at picking up another tongue. It's changing these days, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree, if you think that Irish is what people will be wanting to learn as a second language. It would be much more likely that a European language would be chosen in the future, considering the more outward looking focus that most nations are taking. Learning Irish has no practical use, it would simply be a hobby, or some bogus, fake, nationalistic badge of some sort.

Unless you plan on working in a call centre/living and working in France/Germany/Italy or teaching languages, the need to keep up usage of the European language simply isn't there, coupled with the fact that most Irish immigrants will head to Anglophone countries rather than the Continent...to quote a hackneyed phrase we're closer to Boston than Berlin.

It's not that we're useless at learning languages, it's just that we either 'use it or lose it'.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 10:30AM

We're generally terrible at learning languages and we have been always been, even when it's been rammed down people's throats in teh way that irish has been. It's a symptom of being an Island nation, coupled with the fact that we have been using English as our primary communication for a long time.

Your point about learning European languages is somewhat valid, but it would still be of more practical use than learning Irish...which has none.

One needs to keep up the practice of any language to keep it current.

Rubeter · 07-08-2013 10:37AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course they wouldn't. Our use of English as our primary form of communication has prevented us from being some backwater state. It has allowed us to communicate with the nations of the world and to trade with whomever we wish. Our use of English was and is essential to our economy and our everyday dealings with the entire planet. Given that, historically, the Irish have been woeful at learning languages, if Irish was our basic form of communication, we would, quite frankly...be fucked.

Utter rubbish. You really haven't thought about what you are saying here because last time I looked quite a few countries do quite well without English as their primary form of communication.
You do realise there are other languages spoken in Europe and the world, or do you?

Just to add, this is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read here in AH, and that is saying something.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 10:42AM

It has allowed US to be able to trade successfully with our trading partners and communicate with most of the people we wish to.

If our primary communcative form was Irish, it would be a differnt story.

We ceratainly wouldn't have maintained our position as a hub for many multinationals in the last 20 years or so.

Our use of English as our primary language has helped is, no end.

Rubeter · 07-08-2013 10:57AM

Tony EH wrote: »

It has allowed US to be able to trade successfully with our trading partners and communicate with most of the people we wish to.

If our primary communcative form was Irish, it would be a differnt story.

We ceratainly wouldn't have maintained our position as a hub for many multinationals in the last 20 years or so.

Our use of English as our primary language has helped is, no end.

If we had never changed to English and still spoke Irish why would we be any different to countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland etc......
I chose those countries because of their high standard of living, small populations, languages unused outside their borders and not having English as their primary forms of communication.
The proof you are talking rubbish is all around you.

gobnaitolunacy · 07-08-2013 11:01AM

Rubeter wrote: »

If we had never changed to English and still spoke Irish why would we be any different to countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland etc......
I chose those countries because of their high standard of living, small populations, languages unused outside their borders and not having English as their primary forms of communication.
The proof you are talking rubbish is all around you.

Most of those countries are too fugging cold to be colonished by the naughty old Brits.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 11:01AM

Rubeter wrote: »

If we had never changed to English and still spoke Irish why would we be any different to countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland etc......

Because they speak English well and use it to communicate with outside partners.

If OUR situation was reversed and we used Irish as our primary language and English as a, at best, poor second language, it would inevitably have a very grave impact on our ability to deal with other countries.

We certainly would not have enjoyed the "celtic tiger" years without English.

Rubeter wrote: »

The proof you are talking rubbish is all around you.

Keep going...you're heading the right way for a ban

Rubeter · 07-08-2013 11:14AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Because they speak English well and use it to communicate with outside partners.

But it is not their primary form of communication (nor even a form of communication amongst themselves within their respective countries), which you claim is essential.

If OUR situation was reversed and we used Irish as our primary language and English as a, at best, poor second language, it would inevitably have a very grave impact on our ability to deal with other countries.

We certainly would not have enjoyed the "celtic tiger" years without English.

You have to include addendums now to keep going.

Why would we have never taken on English as a widely learned second language, just like all the rest of Western Europe?
In reality because of our geographical position it is highly likely we would have a higher proportion of learned English speakers than any other European country.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 11:23AM

Rubeter wrote: »

But it is not their primary form of communication (nor even a form of communication amongst themselves within their respective countries), which you claim is essential.

Oh FFS... :rolleyes: you're not really paying attention are you.

Rubeter wrote: »

You have to include addendums now to keep going.

What?

Rubeter wrote: »

Why would we have never taken on English as a widely learned second language, just like all the rest of Western Europe?
In reality because of our geographical position it is highly likely we would have a higher proportion of learned English speakers than any other European country.

Because, historically, we haven't been good at learning other languages. This really isn't that hard to understand. Given our historically difficulty with learning other languages, it's reasonable to assume that a lot of people would only be able to use it at a relatively poor level, just like we do today with other languages, inculding Irish.

That would inevitably have a serious impact on us as a nation, given the fact that a huge number of our business dealings take place across a large number of companies in other nations. For instance, myself and everyone I know deall on a daily basis with outsourced companies around the world and they do so in English.

EVERYTHING we deal with, we deal with in English, even with the immigrants that have come over here.

Carlos Orange · 07-08-2013 11:44AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Because, historically, we haven't been good at learning other languages.

I don't know if you can say that in the incredibly hypothetical world where we don't mostly speak English in Ireland and presumably were never invaded by the Normans.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 11:56AM

Well, it's very easy to say actually. If we look at our past record with learning languages, it's pretty woeful. Even if we limit it to just looking at our experience with learning Irish. The results have been absolutely terrible, there's just no two ways about it. As a nation, we simply haven't been that great at studying other languages.

But as I said, probably it has something to do with that is the fact that we have used English as our primary form of communication, both domestically and globally. Perhaps that has made us somewhat "lazy", as it were.

Carlos Orange · 07-08-2013 12:03PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, it's very easy to say actually. If we look at our past record with learning languages, it's pretty woeful.

What past history? We have just wiped away nearly 900 years of history and reset. We will probably end up as French speaking protestants or invaded by China.

rubadub · 07-08-2013 12:10PM

we haven't been good at learning other languages.

Tony EH wrote: »

If we look at our past record with learning languages, it's pretty woeful. .

I would say its sensible and understandable.

I don't believe there is something wrong with us mentally which stops our ability to learn languages. Like do university students here score lower in ability compared to other countries? those who do actually have an interest in learning other languages.

People nowadays are probably "woeful at learning arithmetic" since they have calculators on their phones.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 12:14PM

I agree, there's nothing "wrong" with us, we just haven't been very good at it in the past.

That doesn't mean that that situation would stay like that forever, of course.

sugar_fiend · 07-08-2013 12:20PM

welsh is more widely spoken in wales than irish is here and they are part of the uk , I wish I could speak irish fluently and admire those who can , id hate to see it die and id love if it became the primary language again

rubadub · 07-08-2013 12:24PM

Tony EH wrote: »

I agree, there's nothing "wrong" with us, we just haven't been very good at it in the past.

Grand, its just semantics so. I would have worded it differently, like "we have not shown an interest to learn them in the past"

Davidius · 07-08-2013 12:43PM

To say that we've been historically bad at learning languages sounds fairly spurious. The fact that English is spoken widely here is an obvious counter-point. What else is there to go on in the historical record? Our people have been communicating with outsiders for a long time and the Irish language owes a large amount of its vocabulary to Latin and Norse.

I have no doubt that we would still have high rates of fluency in English even if Irish were the common language.

Rubeter · 07-08-2013 01:31PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh FFS... :rolleyes: you're not really paying attention are you.

You make a claim, I show evidence your claim cannot be true, where is the problem?

What?

Difference between your first post where you say "not having English as a primary language" and then adding later "and not speaking English as a second".
This is known as an addendum.

Tony EH wrote: »

Because, historically, we haven't been good at learning other languages. This really isn't that hard to understand. Given our historically difficulty with learning other languages, it's reasonable to assume that a lot of people would only be able to use it at a relatively poor level, just like we do today with other languages, inculding Irish.

That would inevitably have a serious impact on us as a nation, given the fact that a huge number of our business dealings take place across a large number of companies in other nations. For instance, myself and everyone I know deall on a daily basis with outsourced companies around the world and they do so in English.

EVERYTHING we deal with, we deal with in English, even with the immigrants that have come over here.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Irish people are bad at learning languages, you seem to be mixing up desire and ability, this is something we have in common with other English speaking nations.
Here do some learning.

Tony EH · 07-08-2013 02:01PM

Rubeter wrote: »

You make a claim, I show evidence your claim cannot be true, where is the problem?

You've done no such thing.

Rubeter wrote: »

Difference between your first post where you say "not having English as a primary language" and then adding later "and not speaking English as a second".
This is known as an addendum.

Whatever, you know what I mean.

Rubeter wrote: »

There is no evidence whatsoever that Irish people are bad at learning languages,

Other than the fact that we are.

Even if we take, alone, the years of having Irish practically beaten into us, along with how "important" it was/is, and yet there are only an extreme minority of people in the country that can speak it speaks volumes. I remember as a kid being constantly told that without Irish, one couldn't "pass" the Leaving cert and still there are a piddling amount of people that can actually use the language in anything other than a few basic words.

In fact, there aren't too many irish people that can claim a second language at all.

Wibbs · 07-08-2013 02:12PM

Davidius wrote: »

To say that we've been historically bad at learning languages sounds fairly spurious.

Very spurious more like D. The only thing limiting us in learning other languages is because we're born into a world language. If we were all Irish speaking from the cradle we'd be learning English (and other languages) to beat the band, or at least as well as many Europeans.

Go back in history here and people were frequently bilingual at least. Worldwide historically people would have been more multilingual overall. EG your average Roman would be fluent in Latin and Greek* and maybe if they were a Gaul or Iberian for example a third language from their lands of origin.

You see that here and in these islands in the early medieval where Irish monks went walkabout. Bede notes 4 languages commonly spoken in his England of the time(Irish being one of them). Chances are high traders and travelers as well as monks would have a smattering of a couple of languages. Their origin language and vulgar Latin** for a start.

Then again they had these languages because they needed them. They were practical in everyday use for many people and when a common language(in this case english) won out, then the need for the other languages and dialects fell away and become contracted, endangered or even died out like Cornish. Happened in France too.

Spain interestingly held onto a few languages down to today. While Castilian(Spanish) is officially the lingua france, millions speak Catalan as their first language, plus you have Basque and Galician to boot. One thing I have noted about them as a culture is many tend to be quite into their original background. In the big cities you tend to find out their familial origins fast enough if they're not originally from there. They're proud to be Asturian or Basque etc first. I found them not unlike us in Ireland in that sense of the local. You'll know quick enough if a bloke is from Tipp or Dublin(and which side:)) or Cork. Hell you can't shut the Corkonians up on the matter

The Swiss likewise held onto a few languages too and they've been a largely isolate nation for a very long time and a very stable one with it, so you might expect they'd find and stick to a common tongue. I wonder if they're equally parochial for want of a better word?

*If you ever build a time machine learn Greek as that would be more useful to you than Latin in Rome.

** I find it interesting that even though Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman world it died out and latin survived and formed the basis of the romance languages. I presume because it was more the language of writing and law etc so...

Why can nobody speak Irish?

Comments