Fòram na Gàidhlig

Pròiseict Oilthigh Chambridge:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/60 ... tions.html

The World Oral Literature Project aims to help cultures under threat from globalisation create lasting records of their native languages.

Still in its inaugural year, the project led by Cambridge University's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, has already handed out around 10 grants to tribes from Mongolia to Nigeria - and the researchers admitted traditional British languages such as Cornish and Gaelic are also at risk..................

..................Of the world's 6,000 natural languages, half will probably not survive for another generation.

For many communities the transmission of oral literature, through ritual texts, songs, word games and historical narrative, lies at the heart of cultural practice.

But drastic socio-economic change and the rise of more dominant global cultures are disrupting the transfer of native languages and risk annihilating them completely......

.................He said: "People often think it's often only tribal cultures that are under threat.
"But all over Europe there are pockets of traditional communities and speech forms that have become extinct.
"It is the domain of stronger nation states with better resources to look after their own indigenous tongues, through Welsh language TV and Breton literature........

To me languages are part of the environment, just as important as flora and fauna. I wish the Green movement worldwide would acknowledge that - maybe those in Gaelic development should lobby green organisations? Monolingual english speakers in this country will sometimes talk about the culture and (perhaps language) under threat in Tibet, yes a worthy cause, but will be ignorant of the perilous state of celtic languages and others in Europe.
Writing in English lol, because I've said this often enough in Gaelic

Gràisg wrote: Writing in English lol, because I've said this often enough in Gaelic

Na tha a' ciallachadh: 'preaching to the converted'!

Ach tha mi ag aontachadh leat. Chan e ach an nàdar agus togalaichean a th' anns an àrainneachd is an dualchas!

Which means: preaching to the converted!
But I agree - our environment and heritage aren't only nature and buildings.

Gràisg wrote:To me languages are part of the environment, just as important as flora and fauna. I wish the Green movement worldwide would acknowledge that - maybe those in Gaelic development should lobby green organisations?

Greenies don't care about people. Case in point: organic farming.

Justification: better for the environment, better for people.

No industrial pesticides, right? Wrong. The organic movement has been criticised for accepting chemical pesticides toxic to humans. Their justification? Because they're toxic to humans, the levels used are more strictly controlled by legislation, so farmers use less, and pollute the environment less.

Yes, they accept the poisoning of people as a suitable price for reduction of pollution, and have the cheek to tell us it's better for us.

They don't care about people.

but hey on a happier note - the new gaelic primary school in inverness is needing extended already! I now it is not strictly right to pin all our hopes on FTMG but thats where the numbers are healthier and with the news of more gaelic designated primary schools being created it is something to be worked on - all we have to do now is make sure there are the jobs for them when they finish their education

the more large organisations that are looking towards creating gaelic-strategy policy plans and the desire for more gaelic speakers to be employed the better

Chan eil mi nam "Uaine", mar a thachras, ach chan eil mi a' gabh ris a' chàineadh a rinn am Beag. Dh'fhoillsicheadh gu bheil sgealb aige air a slinnean no rudeigin coltach. Cò air a tha sinn a' bruidhinn? Nach e teachd na Gàidhlig a tha e? Am biodh deagh bheachd taic a bhuannachadh bho na h-Uainean? A bheil sin coltach ma tha sinn gan càineadh mar seo?

horogheallaidh wrote:I now it is not strictly right to pin all our hopes on FTMG but thats where the numbers are healthier

Quantity or quality? I just say cos I heard a FTMG (high school) kid saying something about "'s toil a' cluich ceòl" on BBC Alba a few weeks ago and... well... uh-huh.

just say cos I heard a FTMG (high school) kid saying something about "'s toil a' cluich ceòl" on BBC Alba a few weeks ago and... well... uh-huh.

Whatever we do, the language is likely to undergo a period of intense linguistic change. There's actually a proven link between sociological change and language change and we cannot deny the sociological change that is ongoing.

On the bright side, the kid was speaking Gaelic and let's not forget that EVERY generation has its grammatical/pronunciation gripe. Your granparents likely think your parents talk crap and your great-parents thought your granparents were using shoddy grammar.

Nèill, tha thusa caran cruaidh air na h-uainich. Chan urrainn dhut a h-uile mac-mathar dhiubh a chàineadh san dòigh sin cho furasta ri sin. Gheibhear mòran buidhnean agus iomairtean ann an saoghal na h-uainich agus thachair mi air mòran dhiubh gu h-àraidh sa Ghàidhealtachd aig àm strì an aghaidh a' Bhàrr GM. Tha iad uile diofraichte dìreach ma a tha a h-uile duine a tha ag ionnsachadh Gàidhlig.
Tha mi dìreach làidir den bheachd gu bheil cothroman ann barrachd taic fhaighinn bhuapa san fharsaingneachd, coma leamsa dè cho measail a tha gach fear no tè aca air mac an duine fhèin.

akerbeltz wrote:

just say cos I heard a FTMG (high school) kid saying something about "'s toil a' cluich ceòl" on BBC Alba a few weeks ago and... well... uh-huh.

Whatever we do, the language is likely to undergo a period of intense linguistic change. There's actually a proven link between sociological change and language change and we cannot deny the sociological change that is ongoing.

On the bright side, the kid was speaking Gaelic

I accept language that language change as a natural force, but my philosophy is that if it demonstrably comes from outwith the native speaking populace(*) it is no longer "language change" but creolisation -- the formation of a new contact language.

Nowt wrong wit creole wi't Gaelic as lexifier language, as a Yorkshire linguist might say. The problem comes when you pretend it's Gaelic, because then you disadvantage the native speakers. Why create this neo-Gaelic if all it's going to do is suppress the native Gaelic speakers? Surely English has shown itself more than capable of doing that anyway?

I didn't start learning Gaelic in order to steal it from the people who it really belongs to.

(*) Bha mi a' coimhead air Fonn mo Bheatha a-reir, agus bha Alasdair Codona a' bruidhinn mu dheidhinn am fear a "dh'ionnsaich [dha] Gàidhlig". Fior deagh ghàidhlig tradaiseanta, ach chan eil mi an aghaidh "theagaisg do" -- bidh na Gàidhealan ga ràdh fad na h-uine. Bidh e gu trìc a ràdh cuideachd "seinn air" inneal no coireagan -- bidh agus mise. Ach ged nach eil mi measail air "cluich" a chleachdach airson innealan (chan e dideag a th' anns mo ghiotàr!), uill, 's e atharrach nàdurra a th' ann. An cànan-fhéin, an rìoghailtean-sa.

it is no longer "language change" but creolisation -- the formation of a new contact language.

I think I know what you mean but let's be precise because they're technical terms It cannot be creolisation because you need a pidgin before that and the kind of Gaelic they're speaking is not a pidgin. For a pidgin, they'd have to be adult speakers imperfectly acquiring a new language, abandoning most rules of grammar etc on the way. If people like that pass the pidgin on as a native language to their children, you get a creole.

Contact language is a very vague term, I guess it could be called that but I think that it's best described as a language with a strong adstratum.

Drawing the line of when an adstratum becomes so dominant the other language becomes a substratum is tricky but not the case in Gaelic yet. We must, above all, not forget that what we think of as "pure Gaelic" has not existed in that form forever. Someone speaking Old Irish would barely recognise the language; Old Irish had more cases, more tenses, more synthetic verb forms than even good old Somhairle ever had. And I doubt all the historic changes of the last 500 years can all be explained internally. When Gaelic absorbed Pictish and went through the mouthes of the Norse, these all left traces just as big on Gaelic as English is today.

I'm not for one moment suggesting we should abandon all attempts at trying to pass on a good model of speech to the next generation. But we shouldn't be too puristic about it either because that's both counterproductive and unreasonable.

faoileag wrote:..................Of the world's 6,000 natural languages......

Tha mi a' credsinn gu bheil 6000 cus agus gur e dualchainntean air a bheil an àireamh seo a' toirt iomradh seach fìor chanain. M.e. 's e mòran dusain dhualchainntean a tha ann an Nirribhidh, ach aon (neo dà) chànan mar a leithid ann (chan eil mi a' bruidhinn mu dheidhinn Arabach neo Sìneach aig a bheil 'dualchainntean' a tha cho dìofraichte is m.e. Ruiseanach is Pòlach). Gu cinnteach, chan eil an dìofar eadar cainnte is dualchainnte an aon rud sna gach dùthaich. Mar a tha e a' tachairt gu tric, nuair a tha cànanaichean a' toirt tuairisgeul air cànain dè threubhan tùsach m.e. anns a' Chuan Sèimh neo Ameireagaidh a Deas, tha iad a' clàradh 'cànain' ann an gach baile-beag ris na cante 'dualchainnt' ann an dùthaich 'sìobhalta' far an urrainn do daoine sgrìobhadh is leughadh.

Air mhodh eile, tha mi a' cùmail suas ceumannan sam bith gus taic a thoirt do chànain neo dualchainntean an cunnart.

I believe that 6000 is too much and this number rather refers to dialects than real languages. F.ex. there's many dozens of dialects in Norway, but still one (or two) languages as such in the country (let alone Arabic or Chinese which have 'dialects' that can differ as much as f.ex. Russian and Polish). Of course, the difference between a language and a dialect is often subjective and not the same in every country. As it often happens, when lingusts are describing languages of 'primitive' tribes in Pacific or South America, they register a 'language' in every village, whereas it would be considered as a 'dialect' in our 'civilised' countries, i.e. where people can write and read.

On the other hand, I'm certainly in favour of measures towards supporting endangered languages or dialects.

Tha mi a' credsinn gu bheil 6000 cus

Chan eil, sin an àireamh ÌSEAL. Tha ceist ann saoil an e cànan a th' anns gach aon dhiubh ach san fharsaingeachd tha ceistean mar sin ceart aig luchd-cànanachais, air m' fhacal-sa.

Gaidhlig briste nas fhearr na Gaidhlig marbh a chairdean

Heck I still know folk my age who go round saying things like - I seen him on the telly last night!

an rud a th'ann - ma tha barrachd sgoilearan a nochdach, tha sin a' ciallachadh gu bheil barrachd uidh aig na parantan - mar sin - barrachd uidh aig na h-inbhich.

chan eil cail cearr le sin

akerbeltz wrote:It cannot be creolisation because you need a pidgin before that and the kind of Gaelic they're speaking is not a pidgin. For a pidgin, they'd have to be adult speakers imperfectly acquiring a new language, abandoning most rules of grammar etc on the way.

Have you met some of their parents? (And, more worryingly, teachers?)

horogheallaidh wrote:Heck I still know folk my age who go round saying things like - I seen him on the telly last night!

That is change from within the native language community -- that's fine. You can't teach a native speaker to speak "properly" because a native speaker is a native speaker, and therefore correct, but if you're teaching a learner, you have to teach native forms or you are not teaching them the language. The proper handling of verbal nouns is pretty central to Gaelic idiom....