How to revive the Irish language.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 12:30am

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

We had a debate on whether it should be compulsory around the founding of the state. Until we see wide support for its removal then logically it should remain compulsory?

The majority in said debate seemed to think there was no practical reason for mandatory Irish. If a student chooses it, then all facilities should be made available to them, yes, but said student should have the choice.

GaryIrv93 · 12-05-2012 12:52am

wilkie2006 wrote: »

With a user name of GaryIrv93, are you sure that you're not dismissing the language simply because you're doing your Leaving Cert and think it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at the moment? I think that attitude is every bit as visceral and shallow as the argument* you're dismissing.

* And I don't think that argument, where people say 'meh', even exists. People just grow up a bit and reflect that the Irish language actually is important to culture and to identity.

Let's leave our usernames out of this. No it's not necessarily for that reason; thinking it's a 'pain in the arse'. Personally I'd consider myself decent enough for basics in speaking the language. I'm not dismissing Irish though? What I am dismissing is the compulsion of Irish, and that people should be allowed to choose another subject if they wish to do so, because seriously, what's the reason for it being compulsory for everyone when there are other more useful subjects out there that are of more relevance to students who don't place so much importance on so called ''national identity'' and ''culture + heritage''? I mean, if you want to learn Irish, and speak it etc, then by all means do. Nobody's trying to ban Irish, or take away it's speakers the right to use it, but other students should be given a choice whether or not they want to learn it. Compulsion just backfires - instead of creating more speakers, it's creating resentment and is driving young people away from speaking it. The language would be a lot more appreciated if people were given the choice. if something's continuously forced on you, then you develop resentment towards it, which is especially the case with Irish. Hardly a way to revive a language.

I think ''meh'' does exist, for those who don't give a toss whether it stays compulsory or not. Because whatever decision won't effect them in any way, it really makes no difference to them, does it not?

Galvasean · 12-05-2012 12:58am

I'm working on an Irish language short film tomorrow. I'll let you know how it pans out.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 12:59am

dpe wrote: »

Bluntly, no. Its education choices by political fiat. The very fact that an education subject should require a vote to change it tells you all you need to know. I can't see any justification for compulsion other than ideology. Its absolutely self-evident that Irish is only "useful" from an education standpoint because the state itself has made it "useful" by making it a requirement for various public sector roles; its a rigged deck. And I'm sorry, but the Soviet example used earlier is very apt, because the thinking behind the flow from subject achievement to advancement within the state apparatus is pretty much identical.

It does not require a vote to change. But a vote would be a fair way to handle it.

I said personally if teachers decided to remove compulsion I would be fine with it.

But in regards to both. Good luck. Compulsion is staying for the foreseeable future.

Yes this is Ireland. Big clue as to why Irish is required a lot whether a majority use it or not. You must not have been here long?

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm working on an Irish language short film tomorrow. I'll let you know how it pans out.

Don't have unrealistic goals and it will go fine.

Wibbs · 12-05-2012 8:20am

FrostyJack wrote: »

As for China expansion being a meme, I think you better check the latest international financial information, if China doesn't continue to grow the Worlds economy is down the drain so what language you speak will be unimportant. The World economy was never in bed with Japan as it is with China.

The worlds economy won't go down the drain. It'll contract alright, but not nearly to the disastrous degree mooted. The money and production will simply go elsewhere, wherever is financially and practically viable. As for China's growth. Like I say, watch this space. They're facing serious issues coming down the line. Numero uno among them a major shift in demographics. The flow of cheap young workers into the workforce that drove their growth is in major decline and will remain so for at least a decade, more like two. Demographics strongly tend to follow economic graphs. The wrong demographics can screw an economy real fast. The aforementioned Japan suffered a smaller version of it, but China's version is monumental. Then you have the building/property and other bubbles that should be familiar to Irish readers. Bubbles the Chinese government are trying hard to deflate with mixed success. Then you have the widening urban/rural divide. A divide that historically never boded well for China. Oh but China is different? Yea this time it's always different, but we were saying that about Ireland 6 years ago. To suggest the obvious was considered naysaying. I know, I did and it was(on this site too).

I think you misread what I said, I was being sarcastic. I said they don't follow all old customs just the ones they want, like picking and choosing what it is to be Irish.

Ah gotcha.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 8:38am

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

*pidgin and not in any way true if you know what pidgin actually means.

Actaully: I find that the OED gives both alternatives ,'pigeon' and 'pidgin', as spelling for the linguistic term. We learn something every day?

As definition it gives: "Pidgin-English - the jargon consisting chiefly of English words, often corrupted in pronunciation, and arranged according the Chinese idiom.... So: for my "kind of pigeon" as applied to the emerging forms of "Irish", let's look at some examples.

Sinn Féin poster: "Seas suas d'Eirinn". This gets its meaning from the reader recognising that it is a near replica of the English phrase "Stand up for Ireland". On page 40 of the 'Sraith Pictiúr' booklet the phrase "Tá an ghrian as scoilteadh na gloch" is frank in its replication of the colloquial English of "The sun is splitting the rocks", from which the Irish derives its meaning. . On the same page "... a girl and two boys.." is translated as "cailín amháin agus beirt bhuachallí" thereby employing English grammar which follows the number two with the plural whereas in Irish it is followed by the singular.

Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidin in 'A New View of the Irish language' page 95, says:
about the teaching of Irish: "The literary texts studied become fewer and fewer and less challanging linguistically as each decade passes with a consequent decline in written standards. The sustainability of any meaningful literacy is now in question." She also rubbishes the Pass Oral exam in the Leaving Cert and her article on this may be found on google/site/failedrevival.

The study of a language at this level is valueless in any educational or cultural terms.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 9:00am

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Don't have unrealistic goals and it will go fine.

Michael Oakshott, the political philosopher, wrote that to attempt something impossible is inherently corrupting. Also that the role of ideology in politics is to sustain a programme which is based on by-passing the realities of the situation in which the politician is acting. Living mentally within the confines of an ideology, and projecting all explanations of the situation through the prism of the ideology, the politician hopes to exclude real-life considerations with all their uncontrollable nuisances. So soon, inevitably, he has to rely on falsehoods in order to protect his position.

He quotes the Revival of Irish as a case in point.

LordSutch · 12-05-2012 9:07am

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

We had a debate on whether it should be compulsory around the founding of the state.

Interesting, and I would like to know much more about this debate on mandatory Irish in the early 20s (never heard of it before). Of course this is now the 21st century, times have changed, and the authorities have made their point "We are Irish and this is not part of England" this is Ireland, we are a free and independent state and we speak Irish! Nedless to say reality is a diffenent thing as successive decades of school leavers have shown, and we still don't speak Irish. So we are where we are, its now 2012 and Irish is officailly the 1st National language of ther country. Irish is still compulsory from Primary school right through to Leaving Cert, but we still don't speak it en masse, and it looks like we never will :cool:

I suggest its time for a re-run of the 1920s debate you speak of.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 9:13am

LordSutch wrote: »

Interesting, and I would like to know much more about this debate on mandatory Irish in the early 20s ....
I suggest its time for a re-run of the 1920s debate you speak of.

See:

Akenson, Donald Harman: "A Mirror to Kathleen's Face - Education in Independent Ireland 1922 -1960. (McGill-Queen's University Press)

Garvin, Tom: "Preventing the Future (Gill & McMillan - 2006)

Kelly, Adrian: "Compulsory Irish - Language and Education in Ireland 1870s - 1970s (Irish Academic Press)

LordSutch · 12-05-2012 9:29am

Many thanks for that, but to save me going to the library this am, in a nutshell, was there a debate at the founding of the State?

IvySlayer · 12-05-2012 9:33am

The education system forcing me to learn stupid, complicated poetry put me off the language.

Kinda wish I was fluent in it now though

MysticalRain · 12-05-2012 9:33am

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The second there is a hint of wide support for its removal then I am all for having a proper discussion and a vote on it.

The hint is that up to 45% of the public are in favour of removing the compulsary status depending on the opinion poll.

grenache · 12-05-2012 9:46am

1. Make all schools Gaelscoileanna.

2. Less poems and written learning and more emphasis on oral Irish in schools.

lividduck · 12-05-2012 9:53am

grenache wrote: »

1. Make all schools Gaelscoileanna.

2. Less poems and written learning and more emphasis on oral Irish in schools.

So further reduce the choice of parents that want their children to have a have a proper education, based upon real choices of relavent subjects?
:mad:

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 9:58am

NoHarm1994 wrote: »

Thomas Kinsella made it his primary language because he had a passion for it ...I think more people should take a leaf out of his book 'Is fearr Gaeilge briste ná Bearla cliste' mar a deirtear!

I know what you mean by this slogan ("Broken Irish is better than clever English") in your context. I saw it used by Dinny McGinley in the Dail debate on the 20-Year Strategy - May 26 2011.

But it is a dangerous slogan. If it were to be taken literally it could only apply to an ignoramus.

Incidentally, look up that Dáil debate and give yourself a laugh from the contributions of Mr. 'Ming' Flanagan, T.D., and Mr. Frank Feighan, T.D.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 10:08am

grenache wrote: »

1. Make all schools Gaelscoileanna.
2. Less poems and written learning and more emphasis on oral Irish in schools.

I'd say that you'd have difficulty enforcing your No 1 action. How much force would you be willing to use? How much force have you got?

By the way - under Education Minister Derrig all (repeat ALL) primary schools were ordered to teach all the curriculum through Irish and a great effort was made to put this into practice. It was called the Modh Díreach', equivalent to immersion teaching as we know it now.

As for your No 2 action: what result can be expected from teaching only the spoken form of a language when the language is hardly spoken, and then mostly pretty badly?

Cú Giobach · 12-05-2012 10:35am

Interest in History wrote: »

Actaully: I find that the OED gives both alternatives ,'pigeon' and 'pidgin', as spelling for the linguistic term. We learn something every day?

As definition it gives: "Pidgin-English - the jargon consisting chiefly of English words, often corrupted in pronunciation, and arranged according the Chinese idiom.... So: for my "kind of pigeon" as applied to the emerging forms of "Irish", let's look at some examples.

Sinn Féin poster: "Seas suas d'Eirinn". This gets its meaning from the reader recognising that it is a near replica of the English phrase "Stand up for Ireland". On page 40 of the 'Sraith Pictiúr' booklet the phrase "Tá an ghrian as scoilteadh na gloch" is frank in its replication of the colloquial English of "The sun is splitting the rocks", from which the Irish derives its meaning. . On the same page "... a girl and two boys.." is translated as "cailín amháin agus beirt bhuachallí" thereby employing English grammar which follows the number two with the plural whereas in Irish it is followed by the singular.

Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidin in 'A New View of the Irish language' page 95, says:
about the teaching of Irish: "The literary texts studied become fewer and fewer and less challanging linguistically as each decade passes with a consequent decline in written standards. The sustainability of any meaningful literacy is now in question." She also rubbishes the Pass Oral exam in the Leaving Cert and her article on this may be found on google/site/failedrevival.

The study of a language at this level is valueless in any educational or cultural terms.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pidgin

A simplified form of speech that is usually a mixture of two or more languages, has a rudimentary grammar and vocabulary, is used for communication between groups speaking different languages, and is not spoken as a first or native language. Also called contact language.

a language made up of elements of two or more other languages and used for contacts, esp trading contacts, between the speakers of other languages. Unlike creoles, pidgins do not constitute the mother tongue of any speech community

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pidgin?q=pidgin

a grammatically simplified form of a language, typically English, Dutch, or Portuguese, some elements of which are taken from local languages, used for communication between people not sharing a common language.
[as modifier] denoting a simplified form of a language, especially as used by a non-native speaker:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pidgin

a simplified speech used for communication between people with different languages

There is a very big difference between pidgin and one language being influenced by another.
Listen to the speech of various people here and you will hear aspects of their English heavily influenced by Irish grammar, would you consider the English they speak as pidgin?

By the way you are actually thinking of a Creole language and while Irish could go that way, it isn't yet.

confusticated · 12-05-2012 10:59am

wilkie2006 wrote: »

With a user name of GaryIrv93, are you sure that you're not dismissing the language simply because you're doing your Leaving Cert and think it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at the moment? I think that attitude is every bit as visceral and shallow as the argument* you're dismissing.

* And I don't think that argument, where people say 'meh', even exists. People just grow up a bit and reflect that the Irish language actually is important to culture and to identity.

I share his opinion, and I'm 22, did Irish for the Leaving, liked the language well enough and would have done it if it had been optional. However, I spoke French 10 times better than Irish by the time I did my Leaving having done it for 6 years as opposed to 14.

There were points earlier about the number of Irish speakers growing - I'd be interested to know if the proportion of Irish speakers is growing, because the population is also growing according to the last census iirc.

Fbjm · 12-05-2012 11:10am

I like not having the language spoken by everyone, it comes in useful for talking about others behind their backs without them knowing :pac:

Enkidu · 12-05-2012 11:27am

FoxT wrote: »

If that is true, then doesn't it demonstrate that the language is dead?

No, Wibbs has already given reasons. For example Icelandic hasn't really changed for one thousand years and it is still completely alive. English has changed less than the average language.

Enkidu · 12-05-2012 11:33am

Interest in History wrote: »

Sinn Féin poster: "Seas suas d'Eirinn". This gets its meaning from the reader recognising that it is a near replica of the English phrase "Stand up for Ireland". On page 40 of the 'Sraith Pictiúr' booklet the phrase "Tá an ghrian as scoilteadh na gloch" is frank in its replication of the colloquial English of "The sun is splitting the rocks", from which the Irish derives its meaning. . On the same page "... a girl and two boys.." is translated as "cailín amháin agus beirt bhuachallí" thereby employing English grammar which follows the number two with the plural whereas in Irish it is followed by the singular.

Actually beirt takes takes the genitive dual which is identical to the nominative plural for buachaill, so that sentence is grammatically correct. However your point is correct, most people who claim to speak Irish outside the strong Gaeltachtaí essentially speak some kind of pidgin and have very low functional literacy in the language. Give most people who went to a Gaelscoil a book written by a native speaker with no influences from English syntax and they can't read it, what's worse is that I've met people with a good command of Irish who are proud they can't read it because they see Irish as a genuine "salt of the earth" language that doesn't have literature.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 12:54pm

wilkie2006 wrote: »

With a user name of GaryIrv93, are you sure that you're not dismissing the language simply because you're doing your Leaving Cert and think it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at the moment? I think that attitude is every bit as visceral and shallow as the argument* you're dismissing.

* And I don't think that argument, where people say 'meh', even exists. People just grow up a bit and reflect that the Irish language actually is important to culture and to identity.

Even if he is, so what? He'll be at least 16, so why should he not be allowed a negative opinion of the language?

These are the people you should be listening to if you want to revive the language, not dictating to, because they well tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

Even if you don't want to hear it.

Ficheall · 12-05-2012 2:00pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Even if he is, so what? He'll be at least 16, so why should he not be allowed a negative opinion of the language?

These are the people you should be listening to if you want to revive the language, not dictating to, because they well tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

Even if you don't want to hear it.

16 year olds have negative opinions about most things though...

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 2:04pm

Enkidu wrote: »

Actually beirt takes takes the genitive dual which is identical to the nominative plural for buachaill, so that sentence is grammatically correct.

You responded when I said that it should be "beirt buachaill" and not "beirt buachaillí". I stand corrected. I was just recalling the sounds of "beirt fhear" or something from the dim and distant...

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 2:14pm

MysticalRain wrote: »

The hint is that up to 45% of the public are in favour of removing the compulsary status depending on the opinion poll.

About 2006 (I think) the Irish Independent commissioned an MRBI poll which (I think) gave 63% as being in favour of choice. But you'd have to look it up.

In sites.google.com/site/failedrevival there is a paper by Eoin Kilfeather on Irish and opinion polling. Interesting, I thought. My own view is that you can take your own poll by walking down the streets of a few Irish towns and the general opinion polls can't add very much to what you will see for yourself.

That site also has a paper called "Modern Irish: A Case Study in Language Revival Failure" by Andrew Carnegie of the University of Calgary and the University of California. It's worth a browse but doesn't add anything much to what we all know locally.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 2:16pm

Ficheall wrote: »

16 year olds have negative opinions about most things though...

Still: if you want their support it would be good to remember
"Moll an óige agus tiocfaigh sí"

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 2:19pm

Fbjm wrote: »

I like not having the language spoken by everyone, it comes in useful for talking about others behind their backs without them knowing :pac:

Or if in Ireland, in front of their faces without them knowing it.

As Manchán O Mangán found out in his hilarious TV tour around the country.

GaryIrv93 · 12-05-2012 4:12pm

Being 18, everyone knows at that age what interests them and what doesn't. The whole policy of compulsory Irish doesn't take that into account which annoys me. I've no problem with the language itself, as it's nice to have a unique language, but having it forced down your throat whether or not you take interest in it is destroying that.

One guy might have an interest in languages, literature, and whatever else is involved in Irish in schools, and so will likely have a natural ability for it, wheras the guy next to him, instead of Irish which doesn't really interest him and doesn't see the logic of being forced for 14 years to 'learn'' Irish and not even being fluent in it by the end, probably has much more of an interest in practical subjects, maths etc which will be needed to get him through life. Irish being compulsory takes away his right to learn another interesting subject and therefore resents it and heaps abuse on it for the rest of his life. Therefore it's compulsory status just creates another Irish-hater, instead of another pro Irish-speaker. Everyone would be happy (apart from the Irish language hardliners) if they were given the choice to learn it or not, which I don't think is too much to ask for.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 4:28pm

Ficheall wrote: »

16 year olds have negative opinions about most things though...

16 year olds tend to be positive about a lot of things, but if you prefer to go down the route of sterotypical generalisations, you won't find them. And you certainly won't learn anything useful.

12-05-2012 4:29pm

deise go deo wrote: »

As the Americans would say, you do the math.

The best available research in the area of second language learning(Carried out by the Canadians in case you think its just rabid Gaeilgoirs making stuff up) says that it takes 5000 hours of contact with a language to learn it to fluency, over the course of the average students time in the education system in Ireland they get 1200 hours of contact with Irish, which is just under the ammount of time needed for a basic ability in a language according to the same research. So is it just ridicuolus that Irish kids dont come out fluent in Irish?

Also, research indicates that time spent learning a second language is beneficial in an education system even if fluency in the language is not achieved.

But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good rant, god knows they rarely do. Oh and also, there is really very little to suggest that there is any kind of widespread dislike of the Language its sel.

I teach English, a non-existent language in day-to-day Vietnamese life and it's amazing how well students learn from proper ESL methods with no practice outside the classroom and absolutely nowhere near the hours you've mentioned.

I've brought a group of adults from complete beginner, ie. "Hello, my name is _____ " to a better conversational level than most who sit the Leaving Cert in 6 months with 3 classes a week. The difference in them was massive.. I went out for food and drinks with them a few times and each time, they could chat more and more. I didn't want to know their views on ancient poetry and certainly have no interest in listening to a 100 different idioms and phrases while drinkin a beer. I want to chat to them about normal stuff and that's what I taught them.

Even my few Vietnamese lessons from last year means I can have a basic conversation, haggle and generally be able to get by because it's what I learned.. I didn't learn some BS poetry or whatever. I am definitely more capable in Vietnamese than I probably ever was with Irish if I look at it from a "keeping the langauge alive" type of use.

Also, your 5000 hours for fluency figure isn't really relevant.. That is what's needed to live in a country as if it's your own in terms of language. Like my Dutch and Swedish friends who rarely speak their first language. Fluency is not required to keep a language alive. The ability to chitchat is required to keep a language in use since we'll always revert to English for serious talking.. It needs to be taught from a purely conversational angle and even one year with a few hours a week would achieve more than the 14 year system in place at the moment.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 6:21pm

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Being 18, everyone knows at that age what interests them and what doesn't. The whole policy of compulsory Irish doesn't take that into account which annoys me. I've no problem with the language itself, as it's nice to have a unique language, but having it forced down your throat whether or not you take interest in it is destroying that.

One guy might have an interest in languages, literature, and whatever else is involved in Irish in schools, and so will likely have a natural ability for it, wheras the guy next to him, instead of Irish which doesn't really interest him and doesn't see the logic of being forced for 14 years to 'learn'' Irish and not even being fluent in it by the end, probably has much more of an interest in practical subjects, maths etc which will be needed to get him through life. Irish being compulsory takes away his right to learn another interesting subject and therefore resents it and heaps abuse on it for the rest of his life. Therefore it's compulsory status just creates another Irish-hater, instead of another pro Irish-speaker. Everyone would be happy (apart from the Irish language hardliners) if they were given the choice to learn it or not, which I don't think is too much to ask for.

Quoted in full because it says it all.

I have to sign off now for a while and I think all involved for an interesting and good natured discussion.

Interest in History · 12-05-2012 6:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

..... Even my few Vietnamese lessons from last year means I can have a basic conversation, haggle and generally be able to get by because it's what I learned.. I didn't learn some BS poetry or whatever. I am definitely more capable in Vietnamese than I probably ever was with Irish if I look at it from a "keeping the langauge alive" type of use....
.

I guess the key thing is that it is useful to have a bit of the Vietnamese language in order to get by in Vietnam.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 8:48pm

Interest in History wrote: »

Actaully: I find that the OED gives both alternatives ,'pigeon' and 'pidgin', as spelling for the linguistic term. We learn something every day?

As definition it gives: "Pidgin-English - the jargon consisting chiefly of English words, often corrupted in pronunciation, and arranged according the Chinese idiom.... So: for my "kind of pigeon" as applied to the emerging forms of "Irish", let's look at some examples.

Sinn Féin poster: "Seas suas d'Eirinn". This gets its meaning from the reader recognising that it is a near replica of the English phrase "Stand up for Ireland". On page 40 of the 'Sraith Pictiúr' booklet the phrase "Tá an ghrian as scoilteadh na gloch" is frank in its replication of the colloquial English of "The sun is splitting the rocks", from which the Irish derives its meaning. . On the same page "... a girl and two boys.." is translated as "cailín amháin agus beirt bhuachallí" thereby employing English grammar which follows the number two with the plural whereas in Irish it is followed by the singular.

Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidin in 'A New View of the Irish language' page 95, says:
about the teaching of Irish: "The literary texts studied become fewer and fewer and less challanging linguistically as each decade passes with a consequent decline in written standards. The sustainability of any meaningful literacy is now in question." She also rubbishes the Pass Oral exam in the Leaving Cert and her article on this may be found on google/site/failedrevival.

The study of a language at this level is valueless in any educational or cultural terms.

Ok, spelling aside the point is very very wrong. 2008 is out of date I am afraid as the curriculum has changed quite a bit.

I can translate several hiberno english phrases directly into irish - is that pidgin/creole? Influence != pidgin/creole.

LordSutch wrote: »

Many thanks for that, but to save me going to the library this am, in a nutshell, was there a debate at the founding of the State?

In a nutshell, Yes.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 8:55pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Interesting, and I would like to know much more about this debate on mandatory Irish in the early 20s (never heard of it before). Of course this is now the 21st century, times have changed, and the authorities have made their point "We are Irish and this is not part of England" this is Ireland, we are a free and independent state and we speak Irish! Nedless to say reality is a diffenent thing as successive decades of school leavers have shown, and we still don't speak Irish. So we are where we are, its now 2012 and Irish is officailly the 1st National language of ther country. Irish is still compulsory from Primary school right through to Leaving Cert, but we still don't speak it en masse, and it looks like we never will :cool:

I suggest its time for a re-run of the 1920s debate you speak of.

This is indeed the 21st century. Has been for roughly 12 years or so.

Do not act like we had a debate 90+ years ago and have never revisited since. This debate is not old. Irish has continued to be compulsory though throughout.

So wait it is the 21st century and we do not speak Irish en masse? Two solid solid points.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 9:09pm

MysticalRain wrote: »

The hint is that up to 45% of the public are in favour of removing the compulsary status depending on the opinion poll.

2011 - 53pc in favor of compulsion remaining vs 44pc against. You worded that in a bias way. The majority are in favor of compulsion. The teachers are in favor of compulsion and the Government pretty much seem to agree to have forgotten their plans.

So yes it make perfect sense to disregard all this and remove compulsion.

I am out of this thread. It is circular by nature.

Wild Bill · 12-05-2012 9:15pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

2011 - 53pc in favor of compulsion remaining vs 44pc against. You worded that in a bias way. The majority are in favor of compulsion. The teachers are in favor of compulsion and the Government pretty much seem to agree to have forgotten their plans.

So yes it make perfect sense to disregard all this and remove compulsion.

I am out of this thread. It is circular by nature.

Yeah. Let's just VOTE!

(Then put a 10 year moratorium on any further "debate")

The wittering of the anti-Irish side gets to sound like fingernails scraped across a blackboard. :cool:

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 9:18pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yeah. Let's just VOTE!

(Then put a 10 year moratorium on any further "debate")

The wittering of the anti-Irish side gets to sound like fingernails scraped across a blackboard. :cool:

I know. I wish we could. But when I mentioned it people said "it says a lot about it if we need a vote to change it".

Completely side stepping the fact that the majority support it and no major powerful body supports removing it either (ie no party no FG backtracked nor do the teachers).

Therefore without a definitive vote (which is not warranted imo given the facts) this gets very very circular fast. Students do not get 100% choice it is school.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 9:27pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I know. I wish we could. But when I mentioned it people said "it says a lot about it if we need a vote to change it".

Completely side stepping the fact that the majority support it and no major powerful body supports removing it either (ie no party no FG backtracked nor do the teachers).

Therefore without a definitive vote (which is not warranted imo given the facts) this gets very very circular fast. Students do not get 100% choice it is school.

Compulsion, clearly, is not working, regardless of how many people want it. It does nothing for the dissinterested student and nothing for the language.

So we return to the question: how do you revive the Irish language?

That was one of the things that always mystified me about Ireland: how ideas and systems that clearly do not work get support.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 9:44pm

Not working, how so? Is it failing to teach Irish to a majority of kids in school? I don't think so.

I have answered the revival thing before. People misunderstand Irish revival more than they apparently misunderstand what Pidgin and dead means.

Irish in the Gaeltachts is falling but a more diverse and wide number of people know and/or speak it today. There is a TV station, computer software, newspapers, magazines, websites and phones in Irish. I call that a success. You probably won't.

The Revival that most people seem to think about is one that ended decades ago and was acheived its main goal* and besides a few clearly "away with the birds" idealists they did not believe we would all return to speaking Irish so even that revival which is not the one of today is misinterpreted. (Pearse mainly)

That would be the Gaelic revival (which encompassed more than language but still) Irish would more than likely be dead* without that revival and it ended a long long time ago (read before compulsory Irish). (more than likely this is my opinion from what I have studied in both history and irish but this is all speculation so please don't be all "why didnt they let it die")

If you completely misinterpret something then you are likely to think it has "failed".

MysticalRain · 12-05-2012 9:56pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

2011 - 53pc in favor of compulsion remaining vs 44pc against. You worded that in a bias way. The majority are in favor of compulsion. The teachers are in favor of compulsion and the Government pretty much seem to agree to have forgotten their plans.

So yes it make perfect sense to disregard all this and remove compulsion.

I am out of this thread. It is circular by nature.

It has nothing to do with bias. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence to support your claim that a resounding majority of the population are in favour of compulsory Irish. The real figures are no where near that, and have probably declined compared to what they would have been 20 years ago.

Whether or not teachers are in favour of compulsion is worth taking into account. But I wouldn't be in favour of letting those whose job it is to provide a service dictate what's best for their customers just because of their own personal bias.

As for the current government's views on the matter...it wouldn't surprise me if they revisit the matter in the near future. Various business lobby groups, not to mention multi-nationals based here having been lobbying for reform of the education system (less religion and Irish and more foreign languages and STEM subjects). Eventually the government may be forced to listen to what they are being told by employers due to economic necessity as much as anything else.

MysticalRain · 12-05-2012 10:08pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

There is a TV station, computer software, newspapers, magazines, websites and phones in Irish. I call that a success. You probably won't.

"Success" all depends on how many people actually use those services. Not simply that they are available. There is no point in claiming some Irish language publication is a "success" if few people actually read it.

I can't find an figures on the circulation of Foinse for instance. It could be massive or minuscule for all we know. If it is more than the low tens of thousands, then I would be inclined to call it a success.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 10:10pm

MysticalRain wrote: »

It has nothing to do with bias. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence to support your claim that a resounding majority of the population are in favour of compulsory Irish. The real figures are no where near that, and have probably declined compared to what they would have been 20 years ago.

Whether or not teachers are in favour of compulsion is worth taking into account. But I wouldn't be in favour of letting those whose job it is to provide a service dictate what's best for their customers just because of their own personal bias.

As for the current government's views on the matter...it wouldn't surprise me if they revisit the matter in the near future. Various business lobby groups, not to mention multi-nationals based here having been lobbying for reform of the education system (less religion and Irish and more foreign languages and STEM subjects). Eventually the government may be forced to listen to what they are being told by employers due to economic necessity as much as anything else.

They might revisit. Currently they are not though.

So teachers.
The public.
The government.

All in favor of keeping it compulsory to varying degrees.

"it wouldn't suprise me" "likely rising" etc are all hearsay. The here and the now shows compulsion is here and likely here for the foreseeable future.

They all have good usage when compared to the usage of Irish. They are hardly going to have usage in the 100,000's when you consider the usage of Irish.

So yes, success. But as I said a lot would disagree and a lot would agree. Circular /thread.

MysticalRain · 12-05-2012 10:14pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Currently they are not though.

Currently...

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 10:21pm

MysticalRain wrote: »

Currently...

Yes. I live in what is fact and what is likely going forward (FG slogan not intended) based on those facts.

If they scrapped it when they were so adamant it seems very likely they have scrapped it for good. Labour seem unlikely to change their minds. FF are also in favor of keeping the status quo. As is every other party afaik.

Everything points conclusively to them not bringing it back up but then again but hey anything could happen (sean sherlock "bill"…)

A much more worthwhile debate would be better teaching of Maths and a proper push to Science/IT. But hey pick on something like Irish over and over again and fail to see it is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Irish and Science/IT are not mutually exclusive before you try to say they are.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 10:25pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Not working, how so? Is it failing to teach Irish to a majority of kids in school? I don't think so.

I have answered the revival thing before. People misunderstand Irish revival more than they apparently misunderstand what Pidgin and dead means.

Failing by the fact that the majority of leaving cert kids don't speak it. Whether they can or can't is a moot point.

I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that by "revive" the OP meant that it was popular and used regularly, not just had the latent ability.

Irish in the Gaeltachts is falling but a more diverse and wide number of people know and/or speak it today. There is a TV station, computer software, newspapers, magazines, websites and phones in Irish. I call that a success. You probably won't.

It's only a success if they are being used. Are they? It's not hard to get the lnaguage into the media, it is hard to get people to want and use said media ahead of its English based equivalent.

The Revival that most people seem to think about is one that ended decades ago and was acheived its main goal* and besides a few clearly "away with the birds" idealists they did not believe we would all return to speaking Irish so even that revival which is not the one of today is misinterpreted. (Pearse mainly)

That would be the Gaelic revival (which encompassed more than language but still) Irish would more than likely be dead* without that revival and it ended a long long time ago (read before compulsory Irish). (more than likely this is my opinion from what I have studied in both history and irish but this is all speculation so please don't be all "why didnt they let it die")

If you completely misinterpret something then you are likely to think it has "failed".

Perhaps I have. As I said above, I assumed you meant able and willing. I don't beleive a significant majority can use the language on a regualr basis on leaving school, but could be wrong. I'm pretty sure that the majority don't.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 10:27pm

The OP and what the majority of people think are not the same then perhaps. I have stated several times than I know no one and I mean no one who thinks we will revert to speaking Irish even majority bi-lingually.

That is not the "goal". So the rest of your points are "moot" as you said yourself.

Yes, you are clearly missing the point. It is never ever going to be used as much as English ever. No one has said it is to be or it will. A lot of people even think the 20 year strategy is a stretch to put it kindly.

You are right the majority don't use it after school (that is not only true for Irish but true for a lot of what is taught to varying degrees). The majority do not use the history they learnt either for example.

MysticalRain · 12-05-2012 10:33pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Yes. I live in what is fact and what is likely going forward (FG slogan not intended) based on those facts.

We both cited facts. What you are really saying here is that your own conjecture is better than mine.

If they scrapped it when they were so adamant it seems very likely they have scrapped it for good. Labour seem likely to change their minds. FF are also in favor. As is every other party afaik.

Everything points conclusively to them not bringing it back up but then again anything could happen (sean sherlock "bill"...)

I think if any minister is going to do it, it is going to be Ruari Quinn. He has hit the ground running with a reforming agenda from day one. Whether or not, he will turn his attention to the matter of compulsory Irish remains to be seen. I suspect it may come about after the dust has settled on a few other controversial issues he's dealing with currently. We shall see...

As an aside, I have some degree of respect for parties like Sinn Fein being in favour of compulsary Irish. They are nationalists after all. But I had to laugh at FF piling on FG about protecting our culture and national identity. FF had no problem bulldozing motorways through our national monuments when they were in power. Not to mention bankrupting the country to the extent that funding for the Irish language had to be cut back.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 10:34pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The OP and what the majority of people think are not the same then perhaps. I have stated several times than I know no one and I mean no one who thinks we will revert to speaking Irish even majority bi-lingually.

That is not the "goal". So the rest of your points are "moot" as you said yourself.

Yes, you are clearly missing the point. It is never ever going to be used as much as English ever. No one has said it is to be or it will.

You are right the majority don't use it after school (that is not only true for Irish but true for a lot of what is taught to varying degrees). The majority do not use the history they learnt either for example.

I never said that I thought it would repalce English. I would have thought some form of bilingualism a la Scandanavia is the goal. But ut all comes down to what exactly is meant by "revive the Irish language". Makign everything avialable in Irish? Making everyone learn at laast a few words? Getting it popular? Getting it to the point where the majority of poeple can converse in Irish? getting to the point where teh majority of people CHOOSE to converse in Irish?

Sounds obviousy, I know, but you can't achieve your goals until you firtsly clearly define what your goals are.

conor.hogan.2 · 12-05-2012 10:37pm

Ye, all opinion. As I said at least twice. All opinion with some facts on both sides and the thread is circular by nature.

MysticalRain wrote: »

FF had no problem bulldozing motorways through our national monuments when they were in power. Not to mention bankrupting the country to the extent that funding for the Irish language had to be cut back.

Point 1 - I think is nonsense. They did not bulldoze anything of value. (I looked quite a bit at that "controversy" as I studied History and Archaeology in college but this is all just my opinion again)

Point 2 - I know. They have some cheek in general talking about any issue as far as I am concerned.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 12-05-2012 10:39pm

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Ye, all opinion. As I said at least twice. All opinion with some facts on both sides and the thread is circular by nature.

So forgive me not trawling back through 23 pages, but what was the goal defined as?

How to revive the Irish language.

Comments