|
 |
The role and usefulness of Irish | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Марк Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 4851 days ago 2096 posts - 2972 votes  Speaks: Russian* | Message 129 of 162 05 July 2012 at 1:34pm | IP Logged | ||
Why? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6498 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 130 of 162 05 July 2012 at 1:48pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I mentioned Henry not because he controlled a large part of the country, but because his actions from around 1631 marked a turning-point in the relations between England and Ireland. Until then it seems that Irland mainly was rules by the kind of people which Henry II brought there. With Henry VIII's split from the catholic religion, which didn't please the Irish, Ireland became something to be subdued. And even though Henry didn't at once get the control he wanted he laid down some principles that didn't bode well for the Irish semi-autonomy:
Henry VIII‘s Irish policy marked a turning point in the history of relations betweenEngland and Ireland: 1. It added religion to the problems already faced by English kings in Ireland. To be regarded as truly loyal, Irish Catholics would have to change their religion. 2. It introduced a new fierceness and lack of tolerance in the conduct of relations with Ireland. Executions were now commonplace. 3. Its expense forced English rulers to look for cheaper alternatives to controlling Ireland, thus paving the way for the policy of plantation or settling Protestants in Ireland. 4. It began a train of events which transformed Ireland. In 1500 royal authority was feeble and mainly confined to the Pale. By 1700 royal authority was extended to all parts of the country. (quote from 'Irish Pathways') Edited by Iversen on 05 July 2012 at 1:50pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Tyr Senior Member Sweden Joined 5577 days ago 316 posts - 384 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Swedish | Message 131 of 162 06 July 2012 at 2:34am | IP Logged | ||
|
I guess a big difference with Irish and Welsh is that Welsh is such a critical part of the Welsh national identity.
Wales has traditionally legally been pretty much just a standard part of England. Welsh was the key difference and a big definer of Welshness. Ireland on the other hand...even when Ireland was part of the UK it was a seperate and equal country. Now it is independant it has even more of a seperate identity as a completely different sovereign state. It just doesn't rely on Gaelic so much to define itself. It hasn't always been the case of course. Back in the 19th century Irish was critical to Irish nationalism. However this was very much a top-down thing. The anglo-Irish elites learning Irish as something cool and uniquely Irish, rather different to the Welsh where its generally the people on the bottom level who have been preserving their language. If Ireland had not became independant then who knows, perhaps Irish would be doing much better in Ireland as it would be far more critical to Irish identity. As things stand though its a bit redundant and pointless for the average man on the street.
Yes it is wrong. Languages aren't my main area of knowledge but history is. I never denied bad things happened in history. Look into history and you'll find examples of every country doing bad things to their neighbours. What I object to is the daft and all too common painting of history as one of the English doing nothing but try their hardest to stamp out the celts. Which is just nonsense. The world is not so black and white. Even in your examples- Edward I was a French speaker. Part of a dynasty just as foreign to England as to Scotland. You more often see this with reference to the Norman invasions of Ireland but it always strikes me as kind of insulting that England gets the blame for what the guy busy oppressing the English did in his spare time. And English speakers in Scotland go back much longer than him, English is just as native to Scotalnd as Gaelic is. Henry VIII- and English catholics had it much better? Just because he spoke the same language as the people in England and ranked his title of king of England higher than that of king of Ireland it doesn't mean he treat common English people any better, the fault here is hardly with the English but with absolute monarchs in general. Even just judging what these monarchs got up to- it wasn't out of any particular hatred of Irishness or whathaveyou. Such concerns just didn't apply until the 18th-19th centuries. It was about expanding their personal power. That this led to English becoming ever more important and Irish ever less so was just as side effect. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Марк Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 4851 days ago 2096 posts - 2972 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 132 of 162 06 July 2012 at 6:23am | IP Logged | ||
|
I wonder why this thread wasn't closed from the beginning?
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| DaraghM Diglot Senior Member Ireland Joined 5946 days ago 1947 posts - 2923 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: French, Russian, Hungarian | Message 133 of 162 06 July 2012 at 10:36am | IP Logged | ||
We can be very lackadaisical about what we have, until you take it away from us. I also think the fear of loss of our cultural identity would drive it. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| DaraghM Diglot Senior Member Ireland Joined 5946 days ago 1947 posts - 2923 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: French, Russian, Hungarian | Message 134 of 162 06 July 2012 at 10:38am | IP Logged | ||
I wondered that too. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Solfrid Cristin Heptaglot Winner TAC 2011 & 2012 Senior Member Norway Joined 5129 days ago 4143 posts - 8864 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, Spanish, Swedish, French, English, German, Italian Studies: Russian | Message 135 of 162 06 July 2012 at 11:39am | IP Logged | ||
Presumably because the moderators want to give us all a chance to show that we are adults - or resonsible teenagers - who can discsuss matters in a calm and rational way. How about proving them right? Would that be an idea? Edited by Solfrid Cristin on 09 July 2012 at 12:33am 7 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Elexi Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5360 days ago 938 posts - 1839 votes Speaks: English* Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 136 of 162 06 July 2012 at 2:18pm | IP Logged | ||
|
To be pedantic I should point out that the Kings of England, like Henry VIII were the
Lords of Ireland not Kings of. Further, I am not entirely sure that the connection between the suppression of the Catholic mass (which as I understand it was said in Latin until the 1950s) and the suppression of the Irish language can be made out. Queen Elizabeth I of England paid for an printing press to be built using Irish characters and set TCD under Archbishop Uilliam Ó Domhnaill of Tuam at work to make translations into Irish of the New Testament and the Book of Common Prayer, with other works following. Whilst I accept that Roman Catholicism was suppressed, often cruelly (as were Calvinists in France), I don't see that it can be said that the Irish language was suppressed as a result of it - in fact the opposite seems to be the case. Here is a link on Church of Ireland translations: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Muss-Arnolt/ch9&10. htm 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
