Talk:Irish language

Ref to Gaelic and Irish Gaelic in lead section

Apologies if this is going over old ground, but given the edits of some anons, this doesn't seem to have gone away. Granted the anons could very likely be the same user, and as such the edits are not indicative of anything remotely reaching CON for removal. However these edits would seem to suggest that at least a discussion is in order. Personally I agree that, because some people (rightly or wrongly) use these labels, they should be ref'ed in the article. However, I don't think it needs to be in the lead section. The various names (with additional context about where and when they are used) are already dealt with in the relevant section. Personally I think that's enough. Putting these labels in the lead gives them too much weight and suggests a measure of legitimacy. A problem in my view given that these labels have been recognised by most editors as at least suspect (and at worst simply incorrect). Recommend we find a way to reword the lead to tone them down (or simply remove and let "names" section cover it). Other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gaelic is also used to refer to the Goidelic language of Scotland, beside Scottish Gaelic. Scottish Gaelic is even the proper name of the language. So maybe the article could just mention that the two other names are not official, but still in moderately widespread use? So far, most people I've talked to from America refer to the language as Gaelic, maybe because they think of Irish as Hiberno-English. Also, aside from that, I don't think the Gaelic Athletic Association concerns all Gaelic people either, only those in Ireland. And while that refers to the people and not the language, language and culture are often linked, so it could be said that even in Ireland itself, 'Gaelic' is somewhat synonymous with 'Irish', even if the language is generally not called Gaelic. CodeCat (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. However I suppose what I was trying to find out was whether other people thought that 'Gaelic' or 'Irish Gaelic' were sufficiently broadly used for it to be mentioned in the opening sentence. Personally I don't. Not least because they're already ref'd (as they should be) in the name section, and may cause problems in the lead where no context is provided to explain the "conflict with other uses" issues you allude to. Guliolopez (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, just my twopence worth, but... While it is indeed true that the vast majority of people in Ireland and the UK use "Irish" without an qualifier to describe the language there are still many people, both for and against the Irish language, who refer to it as "Irish Gaelic" or simple "the Gaelic". On the other side of the pond "Irish Gaelic" or simply "Gaelic" is the term used by a very substantial minority - if not a slim majority. I know I have personally heard (although anecdotal and therefore not reliable as a source) a group of people talk about "Irish Gaelic", "Scottish" and "Scotch" where we on this side of the pond speak of "Irish", "Scottish Gaelic" and "Scots". Although the names are discussed in the name section, many potential readers of the article may have moved on before getting that far. Where there are alternative names that enjoy widespread popularity, even if that popularity is non-existant in the original territory, then they should be included. Obviosuly terms such as "Erse" should be left out of the LEDE and discussed in more detail in the names section, but "Gaelic" should remain in the lead. At least, that's my own opinion on the matter anyway. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 05:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The names "Irish Gaelic" and "Gaelic" are indeed used for this language, particularly in older sources and parlance. Imprecision and conflict with other uses aren't good reasons to remove a common term. We wouldn't remove the common term "Pennsylvania Dutch" from the Pennsylvania German language article simply because the name isn't precise; regardless of whether the language is Dutch or not, that's what it's usually called.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for it to be in the lead section as well as the name section. It only reinforces the incorrect term for the Irish language as 'Gaelic'. If you go to any bookshop in the world and look for a Gaelic dictionary, you will end up with a Scottish Gaelic dictionary, not Irish. Accamedically, the language is called Irish, and that is what the vast majority of Irish people call the language. Should we start calling Welsh 'Brythonic'? Anyway, I think it should be removed from the lead section, but no doubt that one Wikipedia user will get his way as usual. Wiki01916 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I know perfectly fluent speakers of Irish who use the term "Gaelic". And it is Goidelic that corresponds to Brythonic. There is nothing wrong with "Gaelic" being retained in the lead. -- Evertype·✆ 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Irish is the most common name in Ireland, and so per WP:TIES is the one the article uses; but there are lots of people outside Ireland who wouldn't know what Irish language refers to (a dialect of English?), but many of them have heard of “Gaelic” at some point, so mentioning alternative names helps them realize what the article is about. (For example, Gasoline mentions petrol, truck mentions lorry, etc.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I lived in Ireland for about 15 years and I don't recall ever hearing anyone refer to the language as anything other than "Irish". I would go so far as to say that some people took exception to the language being referred to as "Gaelic". The language is officially called Irish. I don't think Wikipedia should be listing incorrect usage no matter how common. Self determination is the important thing here. I think the people of Ireland are entitled to call their native tongue whatever they see fit. Sue De Nimes (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaeilge/Irish. As an Irishman,I am constantly amazed at the confusion of foreigners on this issue. The matter can be simply explained. "Gaeilge" is the name of the language in Irish, and "Irish" is the name of the language in English, just as "Deutsch" and "Italiano" are the names of these languages in German and Italian respectively, but "German" and "Italian" in English.

Germans do not say "I speak Deutsch" any more than an Irishman would say "I speak Gaelic". If they are speaking English, they would say "I speak German" or "I speak Irish", respectively. I am baffled that this seems to cause confusion for foreigners in Ireland, when the concept must be readily understandable to them regarding other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.118.29 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisit

Yet another anon has removed "Gaelic" from the intro (and in this case replaced it with "Gaeilge"). The opening sentence is now doubly redundant (as it ref's "Gaeilge" twice - first as native name and second as alternate label). I can't conscience re-adding "Gaelic" again myself (as, though sometimes used, it's misleading). Can we just remove it so the opener reads as below? Guliolopez (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish (Gaeilge), also known as Irish Gaelic, is a Goidelic language....

I'm going to be BOLD and remove the unattached Gaelic as per your suggestion above. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish and the French language

There is nothing in the article about how similar Irish is to French - although they are in different language families (Goidelic Gaelic versus Romance) they appear to be quite similar. For example, the Irish for "How are you?" is quite similar to the French "Comment allez vous?" Then, many of us were probably taught at school how similar the French for John (Jean) is to the Irish for John (Sean). Does any one wish to add anything to the article on Irish-French similarities? There is an invite! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We work via citing Reliable Sources, not because someone thinks Irish and French sound "similar." While the Celtic Gaul-ancestors no doubt settled the British Isles as far as Britons, Welsh, Picts, Scots, et al are concerned, the development of French via the Frankish language interacting with Gallo-Roman Latin left the original Celtic tongues long ago, and would have been separate from the Celtic tongues in Ireland by centuries. While they may share some root-words here and there, they are very different. A linguist can chime in here with better facts than a historian on this topic. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Pat Carey; and the Gaeltacht(s)

I've removed the following quote from Pat Carey as being, with all due respect to Mr Carey, inappropriate to the lead paragraph of an encyclopaedic article about the Irish language:

In February 2011, Pat Carey, then Ireland's Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs, stated: "The Irish language is an important part of who we are. It is an important part of where we have come from and where we are going".(ref)"Launch of Fianna Fáil's policy on the Irish language and the Gaeltacht". Official website of Fianna Fáil. http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/statement-by-pat-carey-at-launch-of-fianna-fails-policy-on-the-irish-langua/. )/ref)

I don't see any problem with it going in somewhere else more appropriate, if the article develops a longer section about current political issues regarding the Irish language; but as it stands, I don't see such a place.

I've also changed the text from saying that Irish-speaking areas are "referred to collectively as Gaeltachtaí" to saying that they're referred to collectively as the Gaeltacht. This is more accurate (Gaeltacht is, after all, an abstract noun), and also in line with official usage as in, for example, "Raidió na Gaeltachta" and "Údarás na Gaeltachta". The plural "gaeltachtaí" can of course be used to refer to several distinct Gaeltacht areas, for example. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also in doubt about this line: "A speaker of the language may be called a Gaeilgeoir both in Irish and in English." As far as I know, this term is really only ever used to refer to Irish learners and enthusiasts, and hardly ever (perhaps never?) to native speakers for whom speaking Irish is just a fact of their upbringing and everyday life, especially in the Gaeltacht. I am strongly minded to delete it too - but any comments? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also removed the following material from the article, where it was stuck at the bottom of the section on dialectology:

A good example is the greeting "How are you?". Just as this greeting varies from region to region, and between social classes, among English speakers, this greeting varies among Irish speakers:

• Ulster: Cad é mar atá tú? ("What is it as you are?" Note: caidé or goidé and sometimes dé are alternative renderings of cad é)
• Connacht: Cén chaoi a bhfuil tú? ("What way [is it] that you are?")
• Munster: Conas taoi? or Conas tánn tú? ("How are you?" – conas was originally cia nós "what custom/way")
• "Standard" Irish: Conas atá tú? ("How are you?")

In fact this is not a good example, it's a bad example. While it's kind of cute, and is a popular talking-point in discussing Irish dialects, it misrepresents the real nature of the distinctions between the dialects, which is much more thoroughly and scientifically discussed in the immediately preceding sections.ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Gaeilgeoir"

I've removed the following line from the lead paragraph:

A speaker of the language may be called a Gaeilgeoir both in Irish and in English.(ref)Watson, Iarfhlaith (1998), "Teilifís na Gaeilge as a Public Sphere", Irish Communications Review, ISSN 0791-0010, http://www.icr.dit.ie/volume7/articles/article05.html, retrieved 08-07-2011 (/ref)

I've explained my reasoning in the above section, and here I'll just add that the reference given does not directly address the issue. However, the usage in the article seems more supportive of my view than of the claim on behalf of which it's enlisted. The writer consistently refers to the "Gaeltacht/Gaeilgoir public sphere", which suggests that the term "Gaeilgeoir" does not, for him, necessarily encompass Gaeltacht speakers of Irish. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish Scottish and manx Gaelic

My understanding is that all three languages are developed from one common original language, rather than Irish being the ancestor and displacing the former indigenous languages of Scotland and the Isle of Man. If this is thought to be wrong I certainly would like to see a very reliable source for the claim. Dabbler (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's correct that they developed from a common language, but the ancestor is an old form of Irish: Old Irish (the page for Goidelic languages says even Middle Irish is a common ancestor). It's really more a matter of naming, whether Old Irish is considered Irish or not. In a sense, Scottish Gaelic and Manx are no less Irish than modern Irish is, except for the fact that they're not spoken in Ireland. A similar situation exists with Afrikaans and Dutch as well, or even between British and American English. They both descended from a common ancestor a few hundred years ago, and they are both equally 'English' or 'Dutch' from a linguistic point of view. CodeCat (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it should be made more clear in this Irish language article which I understood to be on the modern language, that there is a common Older Irish language from which all three are descended not as it seems to say that Scottish and Manx are descended from modern Irish through some sort of colonisation process.Dabbler (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Scottish and Manx are indeed descended from a language spoken by colonists from Ireland, which displaced the former indigenous languages of Scotland and the Isle of Man. This language is referred to as Old Irish. It's called Irish because it was the language of Ireland. It's called "Old" because Irish has changed a lot since then. This account of the relationship between Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic is very well accepted and I'm not aware of any strong grounds to doubt it. garik (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is so well known and understood then it will be easy for you to proivide a reliable reference for this claim. I just would like to see some evidence. Dabbler (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I added one almost six hours ago. garik (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict while I was posting the following. In reviewing the article, I see that you have provided a reference and rewaorded the passage a bit. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a couple more, from a particularly comprehensive volume on the Celtic languages. I've added the Google books urls if you want to read the sections for yourself. garik (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Native speakers

The info box at the top of the article claims that there are 1.7 million native speakers in Ireland and 95,000 in the UK. Is this someone's idea of a joke? An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The first figure's based on the census, and appears to include anyone who has some knowledge of Irish, as explained in the introduction. I'm not sure exactly where the UK figure comes from, but I would guess from the 2004 census. It may suffer from the same problem. To be honest the infobox should probably be edited to include something more realistic (or at least to make clear that 1.7 million should be taken with a pinch of salt). garik (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It used not say that. I suspect that what has happened is that someone has edited a parameter on Infobox Language to make it display "Native speaker" as the label for the "speaker" parameter (update: template talk page seems to confirm this). I have requested assistance on Template_talk:Infobox_language#Native_speakers and will comment out the mistaken information in the meantime. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

According to our lead, 1.7M is not even correct as the number of L2 speakers, as many of them admittedly speak little Irish. I added the figs from the most recent source in our lead, the 2004 Irish Examiner article, which says 40k native and 260k fluent in Ireland. However, Ethnologue has the 260k figure as being from the 1983 census, so the Examiner data would seem dubious. (Newspapers are typically a terrible source for ethnographic info.) I think we need an actual RS on the number of native speakers, as well as the number of fluent speakers (not just the number of people who have had it in school), and combined Ireland–UK. (Ethnologue has 95k in the UK, but I suspect that isn't native, not if Ireland is 40k.) — kwami (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The ELL2 (2006), repeating its first ed. (1994), says,

Native speakers of Irish have been recently estimated at around 2%, perhaps 60 000 in all, with about 10 000 living in viable language communities in two western countries. In addition, there are families in English-speaking areas where both parents are fluent Irish learners and where Irish is the everyday language. There are no estimates of the numbers of such families, but a figure of around 2% of the population would not be unreasonable.

Now, 2% is not 60,000, but this should at least tell us if other sources are in the ball park. — kwami (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, which are the "two western countries"? We should add them to the states where Gaelic is spoken. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you missed L2 as in your other language template edits and on this page before you edited it ?Jembana (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would've added it if I knew how many there were. But we don't really know even how many L1 speakers there are. The current figure is little better than a guess, and dated at that. If you have a good source, please add it in! — kwami (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the Irish Central Statistics Office, Census 2006 Volume 9 page 11 has 1.7 million as the number of Irish language speakers in 2006. This includes L1 and L2 and is an underestimate because the footnotes say that people who didn't bother answering this question were lumped in non-Irish speakers. I'll put it up with the URL.Jembana (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This was mentioned at the beginning of this section. Those aren't all L2 speakers; many of them hardly know any Irish. — kwami (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if that were true, there would be parts of Ireland where you could address a stranger in Gaelic. I came across one ref that said this hasn't been done for 200 years. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you have reverted a valid reliably referenced statement without providing counter-references which is against Wikipedia policy. Please provide your counter references to justify your claims.BTW when I was in Ireland last a few years ago, I greeted people outside Dublin in Irish and got a torrent of Gaeilge back each time so your claim seems dubious to me.Jembana (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not my claim. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article? Right in the lead we have a referenced statement that "While census figures indicate 1.66 million people in the Republic with some knowledge, a significant percentage of these know only a little Irish."

We had a 2004 ref that there were 260,000 fluent speakers in Ireland. However, another editor agreed with me that it was a bit dicey taking it as a RS. It is, however, consistent with the ELL estimate that perhaps 2% speak it natively and another 2% live in non-native Irish-speaking households. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference used is 1991 - the Census figure of 1.66 million is from the 2006 Census !!! The lead has been compromised by edits. Please be careful before you maintain such certainties on feet of clay.Jembana (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, but the point is still valid. Self reporting isn't any more reliable now than it was then. When we have huge discrepancies in reports of the numbers, we need to find RSs from linguistic surveys, not newspaper articles or self-identification. — kwami (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is such a survey by The Independent - the figure 15% of the population (over 3) comes up again and again - these are people speaking Irish every day or 538,283 from the 2006 census question - see the following and the 2006 census PDF link I used as a reference:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110223004108AAWVCAw (see last answer)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110616025223AAMDEiC

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090818194702AAEbMlD

Hope this helps.Jembana (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction, that was 3 years and over - the 538,283 daily speakers figure comes from the following:

http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75642

453,207 who speak it daily within the education system only 31,605 within the education system who speak it also outside the education system 53,471 who are outside the education systemJembana (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say from that how many are fluent. Presumably the 85k who speak it daily outside school are (and they may be mostly native speakers), but how many of the others?

The Independent survey would be interesting to see, though by itself it wouldn't mean much. But if we get a bunch of independent non-RS's that cluster together, that fact would be significant. — kwami (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The 2 last figures would seem add up to your native speakers figure by and large - I'd say it represents the Gaeltacht parents and their kids. See what I can find.Jembana (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just seeing all this... does the source in this edit really say there are 1.66 million speakers of Irish in the Republic alone (I can't read the tables right now). That's ridiculous on its face. Presumably the figure includes anyone with some knowledge of Irish at all (or claims to have)? This needs to be sorted out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the number who self-reported, not actual L2 speakers. It doesn't mean they're native or even fluent, just that they picked up enough in school to feel they're able to say they speak it. Census reports may be okay for immigrant languages, but not for anything emotionally charged. — kwami (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to do something with the wording then, because now the paragraph is just dumping numbers without indicating why they're different. The Census figure should at least indicate that that number is the number who reported being able to speak the language to a degree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, where did you get the 2011 Irish speaker Cenus results from ? The link only give preliminary results for the 2011 census and no Irish speaker results of yet. Are you confusing the 2011 Census with the 2006 results I pointed you to last night ?Jembana (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Those edits do not pass WP:VERIFY, another mistake kwami - the number of daily speakers should be 85,000 from the 2006 census figures - also see the following to verify that this is the correct interpretation of the census figures:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/vow-to-triple-our-irish-speakers-2470030.htmlJembana (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you left out the kids who speak it outside of school figure - including them gives the 85,000 (your figure left out the Gaeltacht and Gaelgoire kids).Jembana (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, you're right, they're 2006. I don't see where the Independent gets 83k from, though: Outside ed + daily = 85k may be closest, if we assume that 'also outside ed' means 'daily'. Maybe it's a typo? — kwami (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks right now :)Jembana (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even the particle use with "yes-no" questions is not an Irish specialty

Did you know? Probably not. Here's what the current version of the article says: None of these features are peculiar to Irish, however. All of them occur in other Celtic languages as well as in non-Celtic languages: morphosyntactically triggered initial consonant mutations are found in Fula and Shoshoni; VSO word order is found in Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew; and Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Catalan and Galician have two different forms for "to be". The use of prepositional pronouns recalls the Semitic languages, as well as some lesser-known European languages such as Venetian. All true. And there is something missing here: the use of particles for yes-no questions, like: An ndéanann sé an obair? (Does he do the work?) The "an" is the particle here. When reading, this immediately recalled Finnish: Haluatko kahvia? (Do you want (some) coffee?) But it makes no sense putting that in the article if even the Irish grammar article doesn't mention these particles in questions anywhere. -andy 77.191.196.29 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Except "an" is not a particle. A particle in linguistics has no inflected forms. "an" is an inflected form of the Irish copula "is", along with "ní", "ba", "nach", etc. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 00:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)