An interesting thread has been ongoing on this website about our website www.teanganua.pro.ie and the pros and cons of the modernisation of the Irish langauge.

My command of English has been questioned due to the high incidence of typos in the website: there in my posts too, Im afraid!

The background to the topic is a students frustration at being thought grammer without vocabulary, and focus on exams at expense of practice and love of the language.

In my studies in Serbain, I see a language modernised for the very same reasons over 150 years ago, right from the wording to the written script.

It shows we have a lot to learn in this field, and we can, should we try, revive tha language by these means.

All and any feedback would be appreciated, remeber, I think fast, and talk fast, and typos are part of my world!

Ill try to improve my spelling: resolution number one for 2005!

An Caighdéan Oifigiúl is a considerable simplification. Simplifying language needs to be approached carefully, since you might cut learners off from speakers, and from all literature written previously.

The key issue in schools in Ireland is that most teachers lack fluency and few children have support from home for learning the language.

What can be acheived with fluent teachers can be seen in Gaelscoileanna.

So the first line of attack needs to be teacher training, not dumbing down the language.

from what it seems...you want to form a type of pidgin-irish as a bridge to learning full-on gaeilge. I understand the impetus for this, but i question its wisdom. irish is one of the most regular languages i've encountered, with only 11 irregular verbs (12 if you're counting both cluin and clois), regular spelling, and abnormally regular grammar.

i honestly feel that one of the most important things that could be done to ease learning the language for english speakers is to "bring back the dot" for the séimhiú...not the entire seancló font with all its archaic letter forms, but the dot instead of the H, so that you're not creating false visual connections by using combinations like ch sh th etc

as far as religious connotations in language...it's part of the culture...by your logic there we'd have to do away with goodbye in the US (God be wit'ye)

By the way, it's grammar you were taught!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=grammar

Grammer appears to be a small town in Indiana.

Also, most Irish speakers in Ireland will be offended by your use of "Gaelic"; the language is called Irish in English. Gaelic is spoken in Scotland.

You should have been "taught grammar" rather than "thought grammer". That's not poor typing.How will we know the difference between your "typos" and your"simplifications"?

Tomas, tá céad míle fáilte romhat - dobro dosao!

Ne mogu da slazem se s tobom u vezi sa srpskim jezikom. Naravno, Vuk je standardizirao srpski knjizevni jezik ali ne mislio bih da je ga uprostio. Ucim jezik i moram da kazem da su glagoli vrlo teski :-) Kao vjerovatno znas, sprska gramatika je komplikovnija nega irska gramatika.

I cannot fully agree with you regarding Serbian. Of course, Vuk did standardise the Serbian literary language but I wouldn't say he simplified it. I'm learning the language and I have to say that the verbs are very hard :-) As I'm sure you know, Serbian grammar is more complicated than Irish grammar.

Bheadh amhras orm go bhfuil fhios sin aige. Creidim nach bhfuil aige ach Béarla agus Gaeilge na scoile. Dá mbeadh níos mo teangacha aige, thuigfeadh sé an cheist níos fearr. Ach tugann a theachtaireacht thuas le tuiscint nach bhfuil ann ach dalta go fóill, mar sin tá dóchas ann dó.

Ní thagann ciall roimh taithí!

perhaps some of our esteemed guests could try xhosa.

Back to Aonghus' point that you must approach simplification carefully and gradually, lest you risk separation of the printed language and learners from its literature and its speakers. I could not agree more. Sadly, as many readers and contributors here know, even the the Caighdeán Oifigiúil "acheived" a few degrees of separation from native speakers of the extant dialects. The unintended consequence was the silencing of the older generation of native speakers who were informed -- often by zealots of considerably less fluency -- that they were saying it all wrong.

Rubbish.

What is this based on? Have you listened to Radio na Gaeltachta recently?

There are vibrant communities of native speakers of all ages all around the country, both within and without the Gaeltacht.

There is a lot of poppycock talked about the Caighdéan Oifigiúil causing problems, but books by native speakers in dialects are still being published and read.

And how exactly will your simplification/modernization/"regalicization" solve that problem?

By the way, what does that last mean? (regalicization) Speaking the Queen's English perhaps? Or bringing back Brian Boru from the grave?

(Message edited by aonghus on December 20, 2004)

And in regard to your apparent hang up about "Dia 's Muire dhuit" being too catholic (There is an irony there, considering what the word catholic means, but never mind)

There are devout Moslems, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Presbyterians who are native speakers from the Gaeltacht. There are also a fair number of non religious people. Why not ask them, rather than come up with a test tube solution?

is e mo thuraim gur biodh ceann faibanna amhain is mo ag baint leis an Caighdéan Oifigiúil. ma breathain tu ar stair na eireann ta iomad nasc eagsula idir eireann is alblbann "struth na maille" mar a dearfa. bris Caighdéan Oifigiúil an ceangall stairiul litriocht direach idir an da taobh. ach ni mor dom a ra, thanaig an teacslaidine no romain on ga ar an pairt rialtias braitainis an religuin protistnach a cur cun cinn sa 1600 u.

Ní thuigim go beacht thú, A bhric bháin.

Tá an tseanchló bunaithe ar na lamhscríbhinní, mar a bhí gach cló i dtús ama. Foilsíodh an Bíobla agus Teagasc Críostaí protustúnach sa chló sin san 17ú aois. As sin go tús an 20ú aois is beag a clóbhuaileadh i nGaeilge; mar sin, níor tháinig aon fhorbairt ar na clóanna.

Nuair a thosnaíodh ag clóbhuaileadh athuair, baineadh usáid as clóanna den tseandéanamh. Ach ar ball, ar mhaithe le sabhailt airgid, thosnaíodh ag usáid clóanna nua.

Smaoinigh freisin nach raibh sa bhuailte (ponc chun seimhiú a chuir in iúl) ach gleas ag na manaigh chun pár a shabhailt. Bhí an "h" ann i gconaí.

Tharla forbairt ar clóanna sa bhealach céanna sa Ghearmáin, ait go bhfuil an "Fraktur" ionann is imithe.

ceapaim nach raibh aon lamh scribhin a bhi ann sula an 7 u aois. tugadh an roman alphabet don na daoine goidleage tar eis an tam sin. roimhe an re seo ni raibh pe rud ann ach ogham. is mar a cheile teacs goidleag agus teacs roman o dhucas. folsiodh an rialtas breatainais an cead labhar (san re elizabeth). athriodh se an chlo ar an tam sin chun e a foilsu.

Níor athraigh siad an chló. Mhúnlaigh siad an cló ar na lamhscribhinní a bhí ann ag an t-am sin.

Féach http://www.connect.ie/users/morley/cloanna/cloanna3.htm

le haghaidh breis eolais.

Gheobhaidh tú pictiurí de lámhscribhinní anseo

http://www.isos.dias.ie/irish/index.html

agus feicfidh tú an nasc leis an tseanchló go soléir.

Aire! Laidin atá i roinnt de na lámhscribhinní úd!

ceapaim gur an ailt seo simiul. http://www.spd.dcu.ie/library/LIBeng/Special%20Collections/spcoll4cent.htm

ta dha taobh don aon sceal cinnte bb

"And in regard to your apparent hang up about "Dia 's Muire dhuit" being too catholic (There is an irony there, considering what the word catholic means, but never mind)There are devout Moslems, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Presbyterians who are native speakers from the Gaeltacht. There are also a fair number of non religious people. Why not ask them, rather than come up with a test tube solution"

I couldn't agree more! I'm a protestant myself and I certainly don't share the Catholic view of Mary but I always use Dia is Muire duit and never think of it as anything but proper, natural Irish.

A Bhric báin, n'fheadar an dhá thaobh atá againn, nó ann amhlaidh go bhfuil muid ag féachaint ar an scéal chéanna ó phointe béagainín eagsúl!

Mar achoimre:
Is an aibitir laidine atá sa tseanchló, móide an buailte a tháinig ó nós na manaigh "h" a scríobh os cionn litir. Tá cuma na litreacha bunaithe ar lámhscribhinní na manaigh.

(Message edited by aonghus on December 21, 2004)

A Aonghuis agus a Jonas, a chairde,
Aontaim libh.
The European languages are full of expressions which reflect the fact that Christanity, in its various denominational manifestations, has been a key aspect of the sociolinguistic "ecosystems" within which these languages have developed.
In some cases like saying "Dia 's Muire duit" in Irish, or saying "God Bless You" in English when someone sneezes, the original reference of the phrase is still clear. In others, like saying "Goodbye" in English (i.e. "God be with you") or using the word "bloody" (i.e. a reference to Christ's blood) as a (generally mild nowadays) profanity, the link to the original is less clear in the form currently in use.
What is certainly clear is that you can draw no real inference about the speaker's religious beliefs from the use of such phrases.
Beir bua agus beannacht!
Chris

Aonghuis, a chara, -- I believe you have my posting above confused with one from "Tomasocarthaigh" since some of the comments didn't apply to my posting or my views. You will notice that my spelling is pretty good. (That's not a slam at "Tomaso..." as it appears to me that his typos may be the result of mild dyslexia.)
Apart from my generally agreeing with you about proceeding slowly with language simplification and the Caighdea/n in general, your"rubbish" comment did apply to my comments on a generation of native speakers feeling silenced. There's no question that there are vibrant communities of native speakers both within and without the Gaeltachtaí who are quite comfortable reading, writing and speaking the Caighdeán. And as time goes on this becomes less of an issue. However, on several occasions, I have had older native-speaking friends and acquaintances (mostly age 55 and older and either with limited schooling, or who were educated in a place and time where their local dialect was used, not the Caighdeán)say that they were very uncomfortable and self-conscious about speaking Irish with people not from their community. They felt that their Irish was sub-standard and grammatically incorrect. I can think of five instances right off the top of my head. The best example that springs to mind is of an acquaintance of mine that I met at an Irish language immersion course about 10 years ago. He's from Dumha Éige on Oileán Acla. (He lives in Caol now.) When he was growing up there 50 years ago it was still mostly Irish speaking. At the beginning of the course, we were asked to assess our fluency. He rated his as "fair". It quickly became apparent that he was every bit as fluent as our native-speaking instructor. When asked why he was taking the course and why he rated his fluency as just fair, he said that he left school early and what formal learning of Irish that he had at school was written in the old script. He also said that the vocabulary and grammar in the books he looked at was different than what he knew from his home and community. Probably the major benefit that he took from the course was a boost in confidence that his Irish was as good as any. It's a pity that speakers such as him -- and I believe there were and are many -- felt that they had nothing to contribute to the sustenance of the Irish.

Tomás,
I owe you an apology, I did mix you up with tomasocarthaigh. And my "rubbish" comment arose out of that, since I thought he was a) proposing simplification, and b) agreeing with me that it was dangerous!

I have never come across this problem, my understanding was that the reluctance of native speakers to speak Irish with strangers had more to do with it being "the natural thing" to speak English to "outsiders" rather than a feeling that their Irish was inferior. I suppose that is because I would find telling a native speaker there was something wrong with the way they spoke absurd.

The Standard, as I understand it, is for the written language - it was needed because there had been three hundred years of no written standard. But most languages have a wide difference in dialects and the standard written language.

But I would be the first to admit that zealots (in any language) can do harm; I just assumed it only affected learners who had their confidence damaged.

Acla has a particular disadvantage in that the community is small, and the dialect is an intermediate one between Donegal and Conamara; so very few books would be all familiar.

(Message edited by aonghus on December 21, 2004)

Full marks to Daltai and its community for this debate... its just the input I was trying to achieve through my own website.

My group is aimed at those who cannot speak Irish: who find Irish far too hard to learn. The official version, I say needs simplification, in the same way Mandarin Chinese is the official language of China, but there are as many dialects of chinese as there are chinese, and the official version does not inhibit them.

On the point of 'dia's mhuire duit', it is a personal feeling of mine, though Catholic, that 'conas ata tu' may be better. When I teach my Serbian, Polish and Czech friends Irish, thats what I teach them.

Maybe we should go European, like in Serbia where the Italian 'ciao' has replaced 'zdravo' and 'dobar dan' among the youth.

My typos are my trademark I'm afraid, life's too short to worry about spelling!

On a lighter note, I've always thought dyslexia was a cruel word for the condition: how can they remember to spell it?

From those who find holes in my argument: any input on concrete ways to improve the spoken?

Gaelic / Irish

Among ourselves, we always call Irish 'Gaelic', both being interchangable. The same way we call mass 'church', some thinking we are Protestant.

Im glad to hear Jonas does not feel that way about the infamous 'dis mhuire duit', again, its just a thought of mine. Maybe Im too politically incorrect.

To the debate about Serbain grammer: yes, its extremely complex, but the Serbain people never mind bad grammer. Either that or they were just being nice to me when I was on holiday in Vrsac in August!

Any users who are not fluent in Irish? What do you think?

i am not fluent, and i agree in starting simple and moving to the more complex.

there are other ways of saying hello that are also standard greeting...why not use one of them ('s é do bheatha, mayhaps)? altho, you would still have to teach them something as basic as Dia's Muire dhuit else they will find themselves stumped at the most basic level of conversation.

i always teach conas atá tú as how are you...i tell my students what they can expect from the other two dialects, but only expect them to learn the simplest form, and the one that most closely mirrors the english. "inventing" things to be close to english doesn't accomplish much, however (i was recently corrected for using "fáilte romhat" to mean, "you're welcome" and told it is best suited for "welcome to my home" as opposed to its english counterpart.

i'm all for finding the simplest way to teach something, but it should be reasonably accepted practice in SOME kind of real dialect...your students will speak a kind of mongrel, mutt Gaeilge, but due to accent and vocabulary are likely to be flagged as outsiders the second they open their mouths anyway (if not before).

quote:

My typos are my trademark I'm afraid, life's too short to worry about spelling!

Which is fine for posts. But if you expect your arguments to be taken seriously, you ought to get your web pages proof read. Otherwise, it just comes across as the ideas of a half baked amateur.

You shoudl check out Nicholas Williams idea of a Cáighdéan cúng for learners - it is goind the direction you seem to want. But I haven't been able to find much on the internet.

Here is a link to his pamphlet at litriocht.com

http://www.litriocht.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=52&products_id=1624

As for foreigners trying to learn Irish; I attend a conversation group every fortnight, which is led by a Czech who is totally fluent. He learned most by immersion in Gleann Colm Cille.


I think you are seeing obstacles which simply aren't there.

No, you are very politically correct. PCness demands that people change their way of doing and saying things to accommodate imagined slights and obstacles of others. Because you find Irish difficult, it should be changed. Because you find a problem of a religious basis for a greeting, it should be changed.
Meanwhile, the rest of us just go along, adapting to the language as the natives speak it and surprisingly most of us manage to learn.

well said! pcness should be outlawed and those who who further it should be sent to the moon!

While those who find languages easy adapt well to Gaelic / Irish, we are losing thousands every year who are disreguarded as the official language will not meet them half way.

Those not of an academic persuaution who are favourably disposed to the langage is what we are working towards.

We aim to bring those back in, and our site is to debate the best way of doing so.

"While those who find languages easy adapt well to Gaelic / Irish, we are losing thousands every year who are disreguarded as the official language will not meet them half way.

Those not of an academic persuaution who are favourably disposed to the langage is what we are working towards." - Tomasocarthaigh



If you are saying that unless a person is academic and a natural linguist they can't learn another language then I would have to completely disagree with you! Millions of people all over the world manage it, and are succeeding all the time.

Irish is no harder than other languages all over the world, and they do not have to specifically change and become easier to accomodate learners. If the language is taught and learnt properly then there is absolutely no reason why someone would'nt be able to become fluent in it.

I think this has a lot to do with the typical attitude of the Americans, British, Irish and some other countries. There are some places in the world where being able to speak up to 4 languages fluently is completely normal, yet people in the aformention countries don't seem able to realise that bilingualism is a possibility- in whatever languages.

Just my tuppenceworth, I am new to the board, and am sorry to rant, and hope I don't make a bad impression.;)

Is fíor dhuit a Bheirceart. Tá saol an Bhéarla dall cuid mór ar an fíor saol ilteangach.

Agus tá an fínscéal ann le fada gurbh teanga casta í an Bhéarla.

A Thomais Uí Carthaigh:
An bhfuil gaeilge agat fhéin ar do thoil? Muna bhfuil, conas gur féidir leat i a mhúineadh?
Agus cén cabhar a thugann do shuíomh idirlín do dhuine ar bith - faoi lathair níl le fail air ach droch-bhéarla?

Agus tá an fínscéal ann le fada gurbh teanga casta í an Bhéarla Ghaeilge - a bhí i gceist agam dár ndóigh.

Ní fínscéal é go bhfuil Béarla casta (ach firinscneach!)

While those who find languages easy adapt well to Gaelic / Irish, we are losing thousands every year who are disreguarded as the official language will not meet them half way.

A Thomáis, I take it you must be joking?!? What does the German language do to meet learners half way, what do French, Spanish, Italian, Russian or almost any language do to meet learners? Nothing, and of course they shouldn't! If we are to learn a language then we try to really learn that language, not some pidginised form of it. I don't think English will replace it's ludicrous spelling or the hundreds of irregular verbs to make it easier for learners. Every language is there for its speakers.

Ne mogu da kazem da razumijem zasto hoces da mijenjas lijep jezik.

On the point of 'dia's mhuire duit', it is a personal feeling of mine, though Catholic, that 'conas ata tu' may be better. When I teach my Serbian, Polish and Czech friends Irish, thats what I teach them.

Maybe we should go European, like in Serbia where the Italian 'ciao' has replaced 'zdravo' and 'dobar dan' among the youth.

I don't quite understand the comparison. It is true that at the moment 'ciao' has replaced 'zdravo' and 'dobar dan' to a certain degree, this change has nothing to do with religion. There is nothing religious whatsoever with neither of them. "Dobar dan" is the greeting used by about 200 million Europeans. The pronunciation differ a bit but it's comprehenseible to about half the population of Europe.

I don't understand the idea of "going European" either. What on earth is that? 'Dia is Muire duit', 'Dobar dan' and 'Ciao' are all equally European, they are phrases in different European languages. Sure, if the English feel like exchanging "hi" and "hello" for "morjens" and "terve" in order to go European they are of course welcome to do it...

who are 'the English'?

Dear Unregistered Guest, the English are the people who inhabit England, much like the Irish inhabit Ireland. If you look at a map of Europe, you can find England by searching for a large island north of France. England make up the major part of this large island with Scotland and Wales making up the rest. The English speak a language usually called English. I hope this short explanation helped you to understand who the English are. If you have more questions you are most welcome to register and take part in the discussion.

just discovered the site - interesting discussion. Languages ar at once very complex and at the same time simple, any child can learn a language, we all did. I hated Irish and French at school. I didn't need Irish or French when I left school but when I came to live in France at the age of 37, guess what? yes, total panic. My school French was of no help so I just got stuck in day-by-day and I'm now fluent in French (I wish my teachers could see me). Agus cad faoi mo chuid Gaeilge? Tá caighdeán réasúnta maith agam anois, níos fearr ná díreach tar éis an Ard-teist. Ba mhaith liom bheith ábalta an Ghaeilge a labhairt chomh maith leis an Fhraincís.....lá amháin b'fhéidir
What's my point? learning a language is not rocket science - do it by speaking it but don't expect 'them' to make allowances for you!

A few fair points are being thrown forwards and backwards here, but the thrust of the argument is being lost: for those who wish to have a second language, sure learning will not be a problem: but for those who wish to know Irish as their culture, but are not of a speaking background or of academic profile, the modernisation suggested would help greatly.

Fact: nine out of ten school leavers have no conversable command of Irish.

After ten to thirteen years learning it in school.

Fact: schools teach written before spoken, and grammer before vocabulary, spelling before pronounciation.

The second fact explains 90% of the cause of the first fact.

In school we hated Irish, and French... not because of the languages themselves, but because of the way they were taught, and we learned what we know from interaction with actual speakers of the languages in question, on a 'as you need it 'basis.

As is the case with the little Serbian I have.

My command of Irish is poor, due to lack of practice, but my desire for the language is good, if it were easier to learn.

The fact no other language supposidly conforms itself to its learners does not mean Irish cannot: on that point Cornish is currently undergoing the process, see www.omniglot.com for info, Serbian has to a great degree in the spelling sense, Mandarin Chinese and Bahasa Indonesian to name but a few.

We can be innovators on the world stage with our language modernisation.

Input from non speakers of the language would be good for this forum: what are your thoughts?

Skirting throught other threads here has brought up the fact of Scots Gaelic being difficult as its spelling is not as standardised as Irish is as of now.

Prehaps they need modernisation too!

Interaction between the two may help find a common cure to the failing of our languages.

for those who wish to have a second language, sure learning will not be a problem: but for those who wish to know Irish as their culture, but are not of a speaking background or of academic profile, the modernisation suggested would help greatly.

I know many non-native speakers of Irish who are fluent, only one of them has an academic background that concerns Irish. The overwhelming majority has just learned it because they want to. It is a myth that learners of Irish are just academics, another myth is that Irish is a hard language - it's easier that many other European languages.

Fact: nine out of ten school leavers have no conversable command of Irish. After ten to thirteen years learning it in school.
Fact: schools teach written before spoken, and grammer before vocabulary, spelling before pronounciation.
The second fact explains 90% of the cause of the first fact.

I agree with you here, but what needs to be reformed is the way Irish is taught in schools, not the language itself.

The fact no other language supposidly conforms itself to its learners does not mean Irish cannot: on that point Cornish is currently undergoing the process, see www.omniglot.com for info, Serbian has to a great degree in the spelling sense, Mandarin Chinese and Bahasa Indonesian to name but a few.

Cornish is a special case, it's a language once dead being revived. Large parts of both vocabulary and grammar have had to be re-invented. Irish is, baochas le Dia, a living language.

I'm surprised that you constantly bring up Serbian, because Vuk's reform of Serbian is the opposite of what you are suggesting. If you have read anything about the history of either Vuk or the Serbian language, you will know that his reform was to base the written language on the spoken one. He collected an enormous body of genuine Serbian as spoken by villagers and the based his ortography on a single dialect (his own, the East Hercegovinan dialect). The written language that his form was directed against was a constructed, unnatural language. Saying that this was done for the benefit of learners of Serbian is nonsense, of couse. In the early 19th century very few people learned foreigne languages, those few who did learned French, German, English or Russian. The Serbian reform (which never simplified the language) was for the benefit of the Serbian people.

We can be innovators on the world stage with our language modernisation.

Being an innovator is not always a good thing, I could give many examples. Making the language poorer ("easier") is no reform I'd like to see. To me, it sounds more like Orwell's 1984.

Niorbh a fhiú a dhath ariamh a bhfuarthas in aisgidh.

Ok, I really didn't want to be in this little debate but all the same, I will put my simple two cents worth in. I am not fluent in the language. I can barely get a few sentences down without the use of a dictionary (and any fluent speaker on this site). Now, I take French in school and what you said about everyone hating it (or Irish...or any language), well, I just don't think that's true. I hate French. I also hate Chemistry, and Math, and English! I don't hate the French class because it's in French or because I spend an hour trying to learn it or speak it. I hate French class because I'm a high school student. We just don't tend to like work. :) I get by quite fine in that class and to me, it's just like English class except in French.

Now as for the Irish language, well...I definitely don't take that in school! But if I did, it would be the same thing. I can't think of any languages that are easy to learn so are we going to change these languages just so I can learn them. No, because that's not the point. If you change the language so that some people will have an advantage to learn it, then won't you be making it more difficult for the people who already know it? And just to continue this point, who would be the people using this new form of the language? It would be new learners, learners who are not part of a group of people who learnt it from their parents and so on and so forth. To me, these new learners wouldn't be considered true speakers of the language compared to the other. Who can beat a language passed down, rather than a new one made up every time someone has a problem with spelling a word? What this debate really should be talking about is improving how the language is taught and not how it can be changed.

"And a little child shall lead them." Sorry, Natalie, I know you're not a child but a cailín cliste. And you've summed it up well. It's the methodology that needs the change not the content.Bunrang classes should be simple conversation, little rhymes, seanfhocals, etc and only later should grammar be introduced. This is how a mother teaches her child. If she used the methods used to teach languages in school, there would be a lot of speechless children.

And alas there are a lot of speechless children and adults...

and alot more of both that *should* be

;-)

if anyone thinks "dia dhuit" or any of the religious greetings in ireland are only pleasantries, i can only say that it speaks volumes to me about their lack of knowledge of irish culture.

A Bhreacbain, a chara,
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that these phrases are "only" pleasantries.
Phrases which become pleasantries in a language are incredibly important and very often encode fundamental aspects of the culture which underpin that language.
Without under-estimating the importance of Christianity - and in particular Irish Catholicism - for the development of the culture and the language, and the importance that it continues to play for many speakers of the language, the purely linguistic fact is that learners should learn to say "dia duit/dhuit" and/or to respond "dia's muire duit/dhuit" as and when it is apporpriate to do so, regardless of their own religious views.
Beir bua agus beannacht!
Chris

Maybe for the modern times there is some substance in the argument?

Can we not have our culture without the religion aspect rammed down our throats?

In education at least, give the option to put on par with the 'dia duit' some alternative?

Certainly.
But do so by finding out what people who object to Catholic teaching, and who speak the language, say, rather than inventing something.

Your solution is incorrect, because "Conas tá tú" is a question, which requires an answer: it is not a greeting.

Also, if you are teaching, you ought to tell people what the majority of people use, as well as any alternatives.

You should be teaching the language which is spoken, not what you would like.

There is far too much talk about "ramming down throats" where Irish is concerned - and most of it is untrue.

Some possible alternatives:

Mora dhuit (ar maidin, um thráthnóna)
'Sé do bheatha (answer: Go maire tú or go raibh míle maith agat)

These are taken from "An Béal Beo" Tomás Ó Maille: and represent actual spoken versions

Aonghuis, a chara,
Tá an ceart agat, mar is gnách!
If there is a preception among native speakers that "Dia duit" is something that they do not wish to say because of their religious beliefs, then they will adopt an alternative form and of course it will then be right to teach that as an alternative to learners.
I have heard no evidence from native speakers that this is the case.
Languages are dynamic reflections of living human cultures and they do not require to have reforms enacted upon them - although that has never stopped zealous legions of reformers in the past in relation to any number of languages!
People say "goodbye" in English regardless of their religious views. I've never heard it suggested that this reflects that English speakers have had religion rammed down their throats. Nor have I ever come across any suggestion that it should be replaced by some religiously neutral alternative - still less that learners of English should be taught to say something else with less overtly religious connotations.
Slán beo!
Chris

To the TOC'S of this world, religion is always rammed down throats and anything with even the slightest allusion to it must be done away with. Grammar rules and spelling are also infringements upon his rights and so they too must be changed. The world is just full of oppression for these downtrodden folks. I tell you, this poor fella has the weight of the world on him. Why can't you all just change - is it too much to ask for this sufferer?

Two points to make:

1) This "dumbing down" approach is the clarion call of a weak teacher. A thinking teacher, an impassioned teacher, a teacher who gives a flip, will find a better way to teach. A teacher who respects the student and believes in the students' abilities will find a way to bring those abilities to the fore front. They DON'T look for ways to make the subject easier...they look for ways to make the subject more interesting!

What this clown is proposing is the equivalent of changing math because poor little Johnny just can't seem to get the concept of 2 + 2 = 4. He finds it easier to have 2 + 2 = 57, so that's going to be the new answer....what a crock!!

2) In the vast majority of english speaking countries if someone sneezes you're going to hear "God bless you" or "bless you" with "God" implied. The only ones who kick and scream about this are the fanatical atheists and agnostics and the rabid liberals.

The phrase is "Dia duit". It's been said for centuries and probably has lost all prescient religious overtones for those who use Irish as a first, or at least primary, language. Get over it.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who preach the need for "tolerance" seem to be some of the most INtolerant people I've ever encountered.

Le meas,

James

P.S. The whole western world would be a bit better off if we started looking for newer (and less oppressive) ways to put God back in our cultures instead of inventing new (and equally oppressive) ways to take him out!!

(There, that ought to stir things up!!!)

OH, and one more thing...for TOC...

Proposal thinking I am of yours rediculous most seems it to me.

See, I wasn't good at english grammar so my teacher invented a new way for me to learn it!!!

Of course, then I couldn't get a job, nobody could understand me, people who spoke english as a first language looked at me like I was an idiot....

Grow up. Get some respect for your students and learn to be a teacher. Quit looking for the easy way out! Suck it up and TEACH!

James, a chara,

I don't fault your enthusiasm, but I thought your "Clown" comment to be a bit over the top. Tomás is a guest here with a point of view. Feel free to disagree with, criticize or rebuke his thesis, but past experience has proven that the use of invectives in a rebuttal typically leads to a closed thread rather than more enlightened discussion.

Caoimhín

so...James...don't hold back...tell us how you really feel...

lol

http://www.daltai.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/daltai/discus/show.pl?tpc=20&post=18630#PO ST18630

Zdravo, Jonas! Dozvoli mi da ti popravim nekoliko gresaka:

"Ne mogu *da se slazem*..."
"...ali *ne bih mislio* da *ga je* uprostio."
"...*komplikovanija nego* irska gramatika."

U pravu si kad kazes da je srpski tezak za ucenje, ali stalno citanje, izmedju ostalog, mnogo pomaze.

Ní abróinnse gur fusa an Ghaeilge ná an tSeirbis ar chor ar bith, ach ar ndóigh ní chiallaíonn sé sin ach...go dteastaíonn "Mayo Irish Basic Course" a bheith cosúil leis an "Serbo-Croatian Basic Course"!

Níor léas an t-ábhar seo uilig anuas ón mbarr, faraor, ach feictear dom as an méid a léigh mé go bhfuil dhá ghné ag baint leis an snáithe.

1. Teoiric an tsuímh 'An Teanga Nua' .i. go dteastaíonn athchaighdeánú arís

2. Go bhfuil beannacht nua de dhíth i dteanga na Gaeilge seachas 'Dia duit' - 'Dia is Muire duit'.

Is mó go mbaineann an chéad ní le míthuiscint ná le haon ghné ghramadaí. Irish people who don't have Irish are the most vociferous in how it should be taught, reformed, reborn, re.....
It is a socio-linguistic realisation pertinent to sections of the Irish population who do not speak Irish and very often lack any informed knowledge of where, what or how they are ever going to. It is not dissimilar entirely from that minority of the Irish population who become uncomfortable when they first realise that some people who are not Irish born can command a fluency in Irish greater than their own.
It is an attempt to map out something for themselves. Ní fiú mórán a bheith leis mar iompar. Is leor an méid sin uaim féin ina thaobh.

Maidir leis an ngnáthbheannacht Ghaeilge, is ceadmhach do chách a rogha ruda a rá nuair a chastar duine dó, ar ndóigh.

Dia duit - Dia is Muire duit.
Dia duit - An Fear céanna duit.
Bail ó Dhia ort - Go mba hé duit / an bhail chéanna ort.

An Muslamach ag beannú dá chomh-Mhuslamach:
(Go mbeannaí) Alah duit - Faoi Alah thú.

Mar a roinn Aonghus thuas:
Mora duit (ar maidin, um thráthnóna).
'Sé do bheatha - Go maire tú / go raibh míle maith agat.

An té nach gcreideann i nDia ag beannú don duine eile nach gcreideann i nDia:
Maith an fear / Maith an bhean - Maith thú féin.

Bhí sé sin éasca a chairde, nach raibh?

i would say that dia dhuit is probably older than the reformation but im only guessing. i know that this greeting was also used in scotland although im not sure if only amongst catholics. i would also say if your a protestant and you answer back dia is mhuire dhuit, that your not saying god and the virgin mary to you literally. as far as i know mary was jesus mother it depends what you think of her status. hardly worth killing someone over as happened in the religious wars in europe!!!

one simple personal wish, could the Irish language adopt direct words for 'yes' and 'no' ?

bheadh an saol níos simplí (mo shaol ar a laghad -:)

Caoimhín,

You are correct. The use of "clown" was uncalled for....I stand corrected.

James

Ní fheadfadh.
Tá sé simplí go leor cheana.
Ar mhaith leat freagra? - ba mhaith!

Paul_h's wish reminds me somewhat of the joke about the Rabbi and the Priest at a wedding reception:
"When will you finally eat pork?" asks the priest.
"I will at your wedding" said the Rabbi.

Languages are different. Cultures are different. Why is this a problem?

it's not a problem as such, just a question of practicality. When your mother tongue has words for 'yes' and 'no', I guess your brain gets used to having specific words which express the notion of 'positive' and 'negative' through the use of specific words. This facility if I can call it that, does not exist in Irish (from the perspective of a non-mother tongue speaker). I'm sure if you ask many secondary school students to tell you the Irish for 'yes' and 'no' they will reply 'Sea' and 'Ní hea', and this is an age old problem.

Precisely.

Which is why one's brain should be programmed to at least two languages as early as possible. Most of the world does this - it is only the major monoglot cultures, headed by english, that "don't get it".

Personally I think the benefits bilingualism is one of the strongest arguments for maintaining and preserving Irish in Ireland.

The lack of single words for "yes" and "no" didn't stop medieval scholars from producing magnificent historical, medical, legal and scientific treatises in Irish; and I don't think it need be a problem now.

i think that a lot of our current politicans have acheived paradoxically the goal aonghus speaks of. they are well able to speak english while not answering in the affimative or the negative to direct questions.

Hello all. Very interesting postings. As one who may be the recipient of "dumb-downed" teaching of the Irish language I have a simple question. I am interested in beginning to learn irish and am wondering the best resources available. it is clear that all of you on here are either fluent or fast becoming so. Obviously the best way to learn would be through total immersion but that is unfortunately not a possibility. Are any of the "teach yourself" programs worthwhile? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Which is why one's brain should be programmed to at least two languages as early as possible. Most of the world does this - it is only the major monoglot cultures, headed by english, that "don't get it".

Quite true. To me, being monoglot is simply beyond belief. I can honestly say that I don't know a single monoglot person in Finland. (Having lived for my whole life and being socially active both at school and at university I know quite a number of people :-) ) Of course there are monoglots here, especially in the older generation, but they are becoming very rare. In countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands the same is true.

Zdravo, Jonas! Dozvoli mi da ti popravim nekoliko gresaka

Hvala lijepo! Ne govorim ovo jezik vrlo dobro ali mislim da je zanimljiv i lijep jezik i ucit cu vise. Gdje si naucio srpski?

Ní abróinnse gur fusa an Ghaeilge ná an tSeirbis ar chor ar bith, ach ar ndóigh ní chiallaíonn sé sin ach...go dteastaíonn "Mayo Irish Basic Course" a bheith cosúil leis an "Serbo-Croatian Basic Course"!

Bail ó Dhia ort, ba mhaith liom féin é sin. D'fhoghlaimíos canúint Mhaigh Eo nuair a bhí seanduine ón Fod Dubh do mo múineadh blianta ó shin ach is í canúint Chiarraí atá agam anois. Is breá liom caint Mhaigh Eo fós, áfach - an rabhais féin riamh sa cheantar san?

I'd recommend starting with "Buntús Cainte" or, if you want Ulster Irish, "Cúrsa Closamhairc Gaeilge." After you get through one of those, follow it with "Learning Irish." When you've done that, you'll be off to a good start. Be ambitious, meticulous, patient, inquisitive, resourceful and all that good stuff. There's a reason for every single detail of every dialect, and the way to get the full picture and to understand why any one of those dialects is the way it is, or why it's not like another, is to study them all, including those of Scottish Gaelic, and do it in depth, reading plenty of literature and listening to the radio programs and everything. After you've done that for a few decades, you'll...be off to a good start.

>...bhí seanduine ón Fod Dubh do mo mhúineadh blianta ó shin...<

Tá a fhios agam, a Jonas, mar léigh mé seanteachtaireacht de do chuid-sa inné.

>...an rabhais féin riamh sa cheantar san?<

Ní rabhas, ná in áit ar bith eile in Éirinn; ach abramaist "go mbíonn mo chroí ann" ar chaoi eicínt an tan a chluinim cainteoirí breá na n-áiteacha sin ag comhrá nó ag seanchas ar an raidió, agus nuair a léighim scéalta dá bhfuil scríobhtha ina gcanúint-san.

Well, if we're going to modernize Irish, we might as well modernize English while we're at it.

I mean, the US is so much a bigger influence, worldwide, than Britain/England is. So let's get rid of those pesky British English spellings (colour, modernise) and words (lift, lorrie) and just use good ol' American English.

(tongue firmly in cheek, of course)

I'm defnitely not a native Irish speaker, and I do not think it should be simplified. I took Spanish in school, and learned various amounts of German and Italian. Every language is different. That's the beauty of them.

The very first thing you learn when you learn a second language is that it's not a simple transliteration of words. Each grammar is different.

100% right, "a Dheirg."

> So let's get rid of those pesky British English spellings (colour, modernise) and words (lift, lorrie) and just use good ol' American English.<

And simplify the latter while we're at it:

"Soh lets get rid uv ðohz peskee Bridish Eengglish speleengz (colour, modernise) and wördz (lift, lorry) and just yooz gwwd ohl Umerökön Eenglish: kulör, modörnyz, elövaydör."

And we beder simplöfy ðö gramör too, uv kors:

Y þeenk, yoo þeenk, hee þeenks, shee þeenks, wee þeenk, yoo þeenk, ðay þeenk.

Y þeenkt, yoo þeenkt, hee þeenkts, shee þeenkts, wee þeenkt, yoo þeenkt, ðay þeenkt.

Y hav þeenkt, yoo hav þeenkt, hee havz þeenkt, shee havz þeenkt, wee hav þeenkt, yoo hav þeenkt, ðay hav þeenkt.

Negödiv:

Y dohnt þeenk, yoo dohnt þeenk, hee dohnt þeenks, shee dohnt þeenks, wee dohnt þeenk, yoo dohnt þeenk, ðay dohnt þeenk.

Y dohnt hav þeenkt, yoo dohnt hav þeenkt, hee dohnt hav þeenkts, shee dohnt hav þeenkts, wee dohnt hav þeenkt, yoo dohnt hav þeenkt, ðay dohnt hav þeenkt.

>[tung förmlee in ceek, uv kors)<

Myn lykwyz, uv kors.

When I finished high school I'd had two years of French and four and a half of German, and afterwards I studied Dutch a little and was pleased to find that it was simpler than German, having fused the masculine and feminine, for the most part, into a "common" gender. Later I looked into Afrikaans and was delighted to find that it had eliminated the neuter, so that nouns are just plain nouns, with no gender at all, as in Modern English. By that time I'd taken up some more Romance languages on my own and had thus gotten inspired, two years after graduating from high school, to go to college and earn a degree, and I was taking community college courses in Spanish and German, among other things. One day I told my German teacher that I thought they should follow the example of Afrikaans (and English) and "abolish" the three German genders. Of course he chuckled and said, "Well, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way..."

I had also learned about Esperanto, read a little bit about it and gone through a few lessons in it, and thought it was just wonderful, that Zamenhof was absolutely right and everyone in the whole wide world should learn Esperanto and adopt it and use it and forget about all these other crazy, unnecessarily and absurdly complicated languages. I got over it...

It goes to show that dialects that adapt to their users often develop into better beings in their own right, as in dutch being better to learn than German, and Afrikkans being simpler than dutch.

Each has kept its culture alive and yet is heading the direction I think offical state Irish should go, similar to Mandarin Chinese.

A chara, I'm sure we all appreciate your dedication to Irish, but you cannot have failed to notice than not one single person here has supported your ideas. This is explicitly a forum for learners of Irish - I guess many people here are struggling with various aspects of the grammar. Now, if you cannot convince even learners of Irish that the language should be "simplified", who do you hope to convince? Evidently people who are learning Irish wish to learn Irish, not some pigdin version of it.

A big problem throughout your posts is the fact that you are constantly talking about linguistics, sociolinguistics and different languages, but your remarks show a lack of understanding of all these subjects. What on earth do you mean by:

It goes to show that dialects that adapt to their users often develop into better beings in their own right

Dann bist du der Meinung, dass Nederlands besser als Deutsch ist. Es ist wahr, dass die Deutsche Grammatik nicht immer so einfach ist, aber die Niederlandsiche lautspreche kann auch sehr schwierig sein.

In other words, why is Dutch better to learn the German?

Then there was the Serbian example which is the opposite of what you suggest. Vuk Draskovic based modern Serbian on the speech of the people instead of the artifical written language of his time. You suggest replacing the speech of the people with an artifical construction. The Serbian example and what you suggest for Irish could not be more removed from each other, yet you bring up Vuk's reform to support your case.

Last but not least, I too would like to see the official Irish language reformed. Come to think of it, there are many languages in the world that could be reformed. But a language it there for its people, not for learners. Language reforms should focus on brínging the official language closer to the people, not imposing an unnatural speech on the native speakers. My final question to you is simple: for whom do you think the language (any language) should be, the speakers of that language or learners?

(Cím go bhfuil locht sa phost a scríobhas inniu. Sorry, really embarrasing mistake on my part in the last post. Of course I meant Vuk Karadzic and no-one else.)

> Vuk Draskovic <

Heh! When he was younger and more hirsute, I thought of a nickname for him: Vukodlakovic.

> Vuk Karadzic <

Yup, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic.

Anyway, here's a good article, as timely today as it was in 1935, on the subject of "standardization" and "simplification":

http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~oduibhin/leigh/marbhadh.txt

How do the languages develop into beings? Is that where babies come from?

Well I do not believe in a "simplified version" of the language to suit people who are intolerant of the cultural aspects of Irish. If you are so silly to not accept dia duit.. dont doit!
Our language will survive without those who claim it is too hard (so is riding a bike swimming etc) there are no short cuts to learning a new skill. The language does not need updating, the way it is taught does.
I am learning a little every day through study and hard work! mandarin chinese was imposed to unite all of China with a simplified writing system so the Communists could control all of China. Multiple languages make unity difficult. look to India, English is what their government works on due to the multitude of languages within the sub continent. Irish needs to be re evaluated in that the way it is taught. Not based on the way that latin was taught. The rote memorization idea is out dated immersion is best. my 2cents Yes Engllish has been simplified many times think Chaucer amd Shakespear I bet you would have a hard time reading them with our present spelling system. well make it 25cents

(Message edited by dan on January 10, 2005)

riding a bike swimming is *very* hard...the wheels get very little traction ;-)

A number of points: the simplified version is to promote to those who no longer speak the language: native speakers remain as they were.

It is aimed as much at the written as the spoken, hence the parrallell to Serbian.

It will unify, not to control, but to survive, as in Mandarin Chinese.

The 'beings' I refered to were dialects becoming languages in their own right: as Dutch diverged from German, and Afrikkaans from Dutch, or on a more local plane: Lallans from English, and Ulster-Scots from Lallans.

In our Celtic Languages, Cornish and Breton emerged from Welsh in a similar fashion.

I think there was a quote somewhere that summarises my suggestions at looking how other languages eveolved. It went something along the lines of "those who look, see,; but those who refuse to look or look with closed eyes cannot see"

The end result of my proposals is the Officail Irish being of the modernised sort akin to Mandarin, but with Gaeltacht areas still having their dialect being official.

This creates Ulster Irish, Munster Irish and Connacht Irish, along with the new Millennium Irish, to coin a phrase (hence the title of the site).

There is room for it due to two important points: 1) Its better than no Irish and 2)it replaces the now extinct Leinster Dialect.

Your genealogy of languages is somewhat askew.
Cornish, Welsh and Breton share a common ancestor; so do Dutch and German. The only accuracy you have is that Afrikaans started as a dialect of Dutch.

And none of this was as a result of the kind of linguistic eugenics you seem to be thinking of.

There is no longer a Leinster dialect, true - but there are plenty of people in Leinster who speak Irish. Some of them even learned it in English medium schools. (Seas suas, a Fhear na mBróg!).

And the example of this site shows that people who have never set foot in Ireland can learn to write fluently - even word perfect in obscure dialects.

You would be better employed in learning Irish correctly, rather than teaching a bowdlerised version to your pupils.

(Message edited by aonghus on January 10, 2005)

the point's been made. he's already invested in all those bells and whistles and isn't going to be giving up.

I'd like to suggest we simply stop posting to this thread.

stick a fork in it...it's done...

sorry Antaine i forgot a comma mea culpa!
" riding a bike,swimming :0

A Thomais, a chara,
I agree with Aonghus that your geneology of languages is wrong, although I'd say that you have two points right, with your references to both Afrikaans and Ulster-Scots being accurate.
I find your continual references to Chinese particularly perplexing. You often mention Mandarin Chinese: what do you mean by this? Do you mean "Pu-Tung-Wah" (if you'll pardon my transliteration)? If so, I don't think that the points you are trying to illustrate are valid.
Do you mean the Chinese Great Character writing system? If so, the points you are trying to make are valid, but the case is so radically different from the Irish situation that it really offers no useful anaolgy.
On a personal level, I'd also be obliged if you'd stop repeating the nonsense that is put about by some supporters of the "Ullans" movement, suggesting that Lallans is a derivative of English. Not only is this wrong, but I'd imagine, from much of the rest of what you say, that you would have no desire to be associated with the politics which generally go along with public support for this entirely inaccuare assertion.
Le meas,
Chris