Talk:Irish language/Archive 2

NPOV

This article is like the proverbial curate's egg; very good in parts, POV drivel in other places. Whole chunks are so POV it beggars belief. Large chunks of it are written from an extreme Sinn Féin bias that is blatently OTT. It needs wholescale culling of its agenda to confirm to even elementary NPOV rules.

For example

The government refused to implement the 1926 recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission, which included restoring Irish as the language of administration in such areas. As the role of the state grew, it therefore exerted tremendous pressure on Irish-speakers to speak English. This was only partly offset by measures which were supposed to support the Irish language. For instance, the state was by far the largest employer. A qualification in Irish was required to apply for state jobs. However, this did not require a high level of fluency, and few public employees were ever required to use Irish in the course of their work. On the other hand, state employees had to have perfect command of English and had to use it constantly. Because most public employees had a poor command of Irish, it was impossible to deal with them in Irish. — editorialising and propagandising.

However, from the early 1960s onward the elite increasingly, and wrongly, blamed nationalist ideology, including the Irish language. In the 1970s and 1980s, after fighting broke out in Northern Ireland, the elite sought to distance the Republic of Ireland from the conflict and counter sympathy for the oppressed northern nationalists by launching a fanatical anti-nationalist onslaught. Although the language was not a primary target, many of those who sought to defend it from increasing attacks were hampered by repressive state measures such as official censorship. This banned many language activists from being interviewed or quoted in the broadcast media, even during election campaigns. — one of the POV OTT paragraphs anywhere on Wikipedia. (Now deleted.)

The justification offered was that, in making the English lettering large enough to be easily read by motorists from a distance, there was no space to include Irish. The use of the single Irish words left, 'An Lár' (meaning city centre) was criticised on the basis that no-one would know what it meant, even though it was a term used widely for decades on street signs. — blatant POV.

Many see this as a deliberate attempt by anti-nationalist politicians to wipe out the language. — an outrageous bit of POVing.

These are supposed to ensure that the proportion of English speakers in the local population does not increase. But even this may be too little, too late, as many of those areas have a majority of English speakers, with all Irish speakers being bilingual, using English as their everyday language except among themselves. — blatant editorialising.

The main reason for the decline was the pressure the state put upon Irish-speakers to use English. — POV.

The Planning and Development Act (2000) attempted to address the latter issue, but the response is almost certainly inadequate. — editorialising.

Outward migration of Irish-speakers could be reduced if the state, which is the main employer in the Republic of Ireland, were to exercise its right to have certain jobs performed in Irish and relocated to the Gaeltacht. On 3rd December 2003 the Minister for Finance announced a new Decentralisation programme, moving over 10,000 civil and public service jobs to 53 locations in 25 other counties outside Dublin. The government explicitly said this was being done to boost the economy of outlying areas. None of these jobs were used to provide employment for native Irish-speakers in the Gaeltacht. — more editorialising

Many republicans in the six counties, including Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams, learnt Irish while in prison, a development known as the jailtacht' — irrelevant and showing a political bias.

What was once a reasonably good article has been turned into a joke by all the agenda-driven, POV editorialising and preaching. It needs massive culling and rewriting, or else the complete deletion of everything but the information on the linguistic structure of the language, etc followed by a whole new body of text to be added in. In its current form it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, agreed. Large portions of the text show bias. It is interesting that a number of these subjective statementes use the structure "many say...." or similar. This is a poor attempt at neutrality! I think a re-write is called for, particularly of the political section. 7Munkys 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--ClemMcGann 11:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I'll support any changes you feel need to be made. ℬastique▼^talk 03:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think alot of this can be saved, the first paragraph should be changed slightly, and the last bit on people learning it in jail is very interesting and there is no doubt it should be kept in. Maybe use "Northern Ireland" or something to make it less POV. Put it under Trivia maybe. The rest of the stuff raises good points, but needs to made less biased alright. - User:Dalta

This article is fine as is all articles that I have seen on the encyclopedia. The author uses proper stats and sources. Anyone who has a problem with the article is clearly mis-reading something.

With respect Jtdirl has a point too much of the article is blow-by-blow politics and commentary that Irish is been stamped out at every corner. Parts he has citied as been pov might better be served in other articles or not included at all in wikipedia. Too many off the point slots ruine the flow of the article. It needs restructuring and maybe even more subsiduary articles. Djegan 18:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No one has done anything to address the NPOV situation, so I'm taking off the ugly tag now. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

INTERESTING NOTE

The Cambridge Encyclopedia,2004 edition,states under the "Irish Literature" entry that the Irish language was the LAST European Language to be written down. This proves that history,as written in England about Ireland,really is "bunk".

It proves either that (1) you misread and/or misunderstood what was written, or (2) the author of that article hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about. Irish was first written down in Ogham inscriptions in the fourth century A.D. and Old Irish was first written down in the sixth century. Albanian and Finnish, on the other hand, were first written down in the 16th century. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish and the Gardaí

Someone just added text about Irish no longer being a requirement for entry in the Gardaí. Is this the case? I understood the question was "under discussion". Was it decided? Evertype 08:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The law has been changed to allow policemen from other forces to join the Gardaí, and they will not be required to have any Irish. The requirement remains for those joining ab initio. Lapsed Pacifist 13:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Source? Evertype

Vicipéid??!!

I was looking at Wikipedia through Irish (Gaeilge) and I noticed that Wikipedia has been translated to 'Vicipéid'. However, there is no 'V' in the Irish language. Usually 'v' sounds in english are translated to 'fh' in Irish therefore making it 'Fhicipéid'. Correct???????

Incorrect. Fh is silent in Irish and is only used when words beginning with the letter f undergo lenition. V is used only in foreign words in Irish (and in the surname Ó Cuív), but there are actually a fairly good number of foreign words in Irish beginning with v. Foclóir Póca (a small Irish-English/English-Irish dictionary) lists over 50 words beginning with v in Irish, including (just to list the ones where Irish v corresponds to English w):

• vaigín - waggon
• valbaí - wallaby
• válcaeireacht - walking, strolling
• vallait - wallet
• válsa - waltz (noun) and válsáil - waltz (verb)
• vardrús - wardrobe
• vásta - waste (noun) and vástáil - waste (verb)
• vástchóta - waistcoat
• vata - watt and vatacht - wattage
• vuinsciú - coping; wainscot

So Vicipéid as the equivalent of Wikipedia is quite correct. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You'll note that every single one of those words is "made up", e.g. a created word, developed in the past 60 years or so. There -is no V- in the Irish language, along with another 7 letters that -just aren't there-. The correct spelling would, however, be Bhicipéid and not Vicipéid, as thats what makes the most similar sound. --Kiand 15:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And you'll note that Wikipedia is also a recently created word. As I said, words with v in Irish are all loanwords. If "there is no v" in Irish just because it's used only in loanwords, then by the same reasoning there is no j or z in English, since all the words that have those letters are borrowed from other languages. Irish may not have had the letter V 60 or 100 years ago, but it does now. Bhicipéid could only exist as the lenited form of a word *Bicipéid. Vicipéid is the correct spelling since the word is a borrowed word. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A "loanword" of Wikipedia would be... "Wikipedia". Not "Vicipéid". And I'd far prefer to mangle Irish grammar than add letters that aren't there to the language, meaning "Bhicipéid" as preferential to "Vicipéid". --Kiand 17:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been another option to adopt "Wikipedia" unaltered. That's what they did for the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia. But since there's a tradition of using v in loanwords like the above in Irish, the creators of Irish Wikipedia decided to go with Vicipéid. Incidentally, p is also only used in loanwords in Irish; would you say that the letter p "isn't there" in Irish either? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The letter "p" is long since accepted as one of the 18 letters in Irish, the letter "v" isn't. Theres a major difference. Also, I don't think you're at all accurate about that, as I don't think words like "Priomh", "pé", etc are loanwords. My 1927 Irish Text Society dictionary, complete with non-latin characters, has 40 pages of words -beginning- with P. And none with V.

The only difference is in time. P was introduced to the Irish alphabet several centuries ago, V was introduced several decades ago. So what? They're both there now. I don't know the etymology of pé off the top of my head, but príomh is a loanword from Latin prīmus. The 1927 dictionary has no words with V because it uses the uncial script, which indeed had no V. But the orthography of that dictionary is now obsolete. There was a spelling reform in 1948; the uncial script is no longer in use except decoratively, and the letter V is now part of the Irish alphabet. Read any scholarly non-fiction, or even a newspaper, written in Irish, and you'll encounter the letter V, and not just in names. If you don't like it, take it up with Foras na Gaeilge. We won't settle anything arguing about it on a Wikipedia talk page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The "loanword" vs. "genuine word" argument is completely redundant. If you would apply the same criteria of etymological purity to the vocabulary of the English language there wouldn't be any English language left. The usage of the letter V in written Irish goes back a long time. The Royal Irish Academy's Corpus na Gaeilge gives 28 examples of the word "véarsaí" in print in Irish texts between 1713 and 1850, and that's only one of the many words beginning with V in that corpus, never mind word containing the letter in non-initial position. The implicit rule has always been that words beginning with a v or w sound in their basic un-lenited form are spelled with v, whereas those in which the v or w sound only ocurres once the word is lenited are spelled with bh. There was a brief phase in the 1920s when self-styled language popes tried to purify the spelling along the lines of the arbitrary dogma proposed by an earlier contributor, that "there is no V in Irish". The infant civil service of the Irish Freestate was originally taken in by this fashionable aberration, but when the Caighdeán Oifigiúil was published in 1953 the V was reinstated.

Just to stir things up a bit, a possible clean way of borrowing the word would be to spell it as Uicipéid. There's longstanding precedents for this, like the name Uilliam, of which Liam is simply an abbreviated form. --Kgaughan 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nach m'bfhearr go bpléfeadh sibh an Bh nó an V don wikipedia i ngaeilge trí Ghaeilge??????????

Not at English Wikipedia, no. But there is discussion of the same question (and equal broad consensus that Vicipéid is a perfectly acceptable Irish spelling) at ga:Plé:Príomhleathanach#Ní 'v' as Gaeilge. Angr/talk 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First bible in Irish

I think the ref to Bedell in the Irish Language Movement section is incorrect: the first translation (NT, I recall) was in the late 16thC. by an Irish cleric. I don't have facts to hand - help anyone?shtove 19:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No Monolinguial Irish Speckers

I had assumed that the last monolinguial Irish speaker had died within the last twenty-thirty years; indeed, I knew and still know people for whom English is not a language they speck with ease. However, I have being delighted to learn that there are in fact still monolinguial Irish speckers. Best of all, they are not elderly folk, but children. Obviously this will change as they grow up, go to school, etc, but it is pleaseing that at least some families (those I speck of live in Tour Mhic Eadhigh) have enough confidence to raise their children in a purely Irish specking enviorment. It is stunning to think that there are children being raised in Ireland who don't know a word of English yet; wish I was as lucky! Fergananim 12:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have met such children myself. I have also met children here in Germany who were growing up bilingual in Irish and German and didn't know a word of English. (Then they moved to Dublin and the situation changed). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I always thought all Irish speakers were bilingual in Irish and English. Wow, you learn something new every day. Are all Hiberno-English speakers bilingual to some degree? Regarding the bilingual Irish-German speakers, does that mean that at least one of their parents came from Irish speaking Ireland then moved to Germany. Mark 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Their father came from Ireland, but not from the Gaeltacht. He grew up in Dublin; his parents were language-revivalist schoolteachers who spoke Irish fluently but not natively, and did so at home; he also went to Gaelscoil. Then he moved to Germany and married a German woman and had kids. He'd speak to them in Irish and she'd speak to them in German. Then they moved back to Dublin, put the kids in Gaelscoil, and got a series of German au-pairs so that the kids would have more exposure to German than just their mother. They figured the kids would just absorb English from the environment, but did notice one boy tended to settle arguments with his fists when he was unable to speak to other boys in the neighborhood.

As for bilingualism, yes, virtually all Irish speakers over the age of about 6 are bilingual with English. I would not say all Hiberno-English speakers are bilingual to some degree, but everyone who grew up in the Republic of Ireland has at least some knowledge of Irish (or has had some knowledge of it at some point in their life) because it's a required subject in school. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, nearly all kids who went to a state school in Northern Ireland won't know any Irish whatsoever.--feline1 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Following up on the above, a cousion of mine from the Gaelteacht similarly moved abroad and married, his children being raised specking Irish (from him) and French (from their mother). Not until the family moved to New York did the children begin to learn and speck English. All in all I am much more confident about the future of our language than I was fifteen or twenty years ago. Fergananim 14:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

(The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:

Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

• Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
• Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
• Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
• Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
• Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

Well to be fair, Scots Gaelic came out of an Irish invasion in the 5th century anyway, and even now, while the 2 languages are not mutually intelligible, they largely look identical in written form. So I guess lumping them together is ok. - Peter

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

God, that map is bollocks, not to put too fine a point on it! LOL --feline1 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Endangered language

Is irish really an Endangered language ot doesn't seem to be one according to the endangered language page and it is not on the List of endangered languages? Fabhcún 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "endangered" and "language". See Talk:List of endangered languages#Irish for why Irish isn't on that list, although the explanation there leads one to wonder why Scottish Gaelic is on the list. I suppose as long as Irish is a required subject in schools in Ireland it's not in danger of running out of learners, but it is very much in danger of native speakers, especially ones who descend from an unbroken line of native speakers. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 01:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that it could have no native speakers in 50 years (which i doubt) make it one, the main reason why i ask is because I had a look at the category of Endangered langs and to be Irish has too many speakers to be in that catagory. Fabhcún 10:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling reform of 1948

The article refers exactly once to the "spelling reform of 1948". Does this deserve more elaboration? --Doradus 18:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Education in Irish language

I have raised the matter of the "compulsory" nature of the language in education in the ReoublicTalk:Republic_of_Ireland#Education_in_Irish_language. Any comments welcome. Djegan 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A opinion Poll conducted by IMS showed that the Irish Public were in favour of Irish being retained as a compulsory subject by an margin of 52% to 48%. Moreover, both USI (the 3rd level students' Union) and USS (the Union of Secondary School Students) favour Irish being retained as a compulsory subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.145.135.227 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish in Education

The section on Irish in education really needs be rewritten. It makes a number of unsubstansiated claims and indulges in generalisations. I tinkered with it a little, but that is not the solution to its obvious deficiencies both in fact and style.

--Dfcarolan 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Laregly your edits are accurate - the state can determine standards in schools in which it funds but can do little outside that system (indeed this is the case in all subjects). Djegan 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is in need of an urgent overhall. The main problem, as i see it, is that it makes no reference to gaelscoileanna. There are now 25,000 primrary and 6,000 secondary school students attending 158 such schools (as of the start of this academic year), and the number is growing each year. this will ensure the future of the language and goes against your generally negative outlook. Also it is inappropriate to suggest that Irish is derided by students. My experience is that, although many find it hard to speak it, they have a positive attitude towards those who do. --polo12345 17:43, February 2006 (UTC)

I edited this section to remove all the unverified and deeply hostile verbiage. I also included a link to a site with reliable information on this subject. Note the "Support for Irish" section of this site shows that 91% of people were in favour of Irish being taught in schools, and only 5% were against. The material I deleted was clearly inserted by some one from that almost insignificant minority who are hostile to Irish 81.98.208.57 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take exception to 81.98.208.57's "edits". This was wholesale deletion, not edits. I'm reverting it. YES, it has some POV in it, and we need to balance that. But statements there were true in terms of being common knowlege. I love the Irish language, make no mistake. But there was ecyclopaedic merit in much of what you, who are anonymous, deleted. Evertype 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

took out the reference to the reform movement as i don't see why this group needs to be name checked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) .

want to learn

There are number of sites offering online Irish lessons. b:Irish, for example. But your best bet is to find a language school in the Gaeltacht and spend two or three weeks there in the summer. --Angr (tɔk) 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also...the language book series "Teach Yourself" is pretty good. I bought one for Irish and it came with two CDs and it was very helpful.

Placenames in English ?

The caption for the picture states "Picture of a typical Irish road sign with placenames in English and Irish." Surely the place names are not in English but Anglicised spellings of Irish place names. The place names usually mean something in Irish. In English they are meaningless.

84.135.216.193 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglicised spellings of Irish place names = what people call them in the English language. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More often than not that is just a badly pronounced version of the Irish. Its still not English.84.135.216.193 19:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dublin is english for dublin, it is its offical name ie an english place name. The caption is not saying that the name has a meaning what does London mean for example Fabhcún 21:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then cant a fair about of irish place names not be condidered to be badly pronounced versions of old norse. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why of course the names are in English, the fact that many are also anglicised spellings of Irish names is only of academic interest really and should not be used in a photo explaination as to do so would only allow limited explaination of the significance of anglicised spellings in Ireland. I suspect our anonymous user maybe living in a gaelic paradise. Djegan 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A few questions from a non-Celtic

Hello, I'm completely unfamiliar with the Irish Language or any Celtic language for that matter. I have two questions:

What does the " O' " mean when used before a family name as in O'Brien or O'Connor?

Similarly, (and I realize this question might refer more to Scottish than to Irish), but what is the meaning of the prefix "Mc" or "Mac" in family names such as McDonald or MacDonald? ThanksLoomis51 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See Irish name. Djegan 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Djegan!Loomis51 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article was nominated for listing on Wikipedia:Good articles. I haven't listed it because I think it's better than good, and deserves to be nominated on WP:FAC. Would suggest peer review first, I think wider community input would be useful, but generally it seems very interesting, detailed and thorough to me. Worldtraveller 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Official language vs. Official working language

I have dropped the word working from the phrase

decided to make Irish an official working language of the European Union.

as the definition of working language appears to be different than official language in the linked article Languages of the European Union. In that article's talk page I've asked that perhaps the definition could be made clearer so this misstatement is not so easy to make. Shenme 05:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish Phonetics/Phonology

Does someone out there have a sufficient knowledge of the phonetics and phonology of the Irish language to include a section in this article? I realize the vast differences among the dialects complicate things and perhaps something as general as the "Orthography and Pronounciation" is as specific as is necessary, but an article on a language seems (to me) incomplete without addressing some trademarks of the sound system, such as palatalization versus velarization.--Coyne025 02:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's discussed in a separate article, Irish phonology. See also the articles on the dialects: Ulster Irish, Connacht Irish, and Munster Irish. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)