Should we suppress the Irish language.. ?

ewj1978

lol! nice reply... deadly!

radioactiveman

We defo need to start building up the Irish language again.

How about giving you 20 extra points if you get an A1 in Honours Irish in the leaving? Or even if you are just deemed brilliant enough to actually fking speak like a native in the oral, 20 extra points on the spot. That would motivate people.

I would say start by having placenames on signs in Irish, on top, then English on bottom but would that be supported? I'm guessing not at the moment anyway.

javaboy

radioactiveman wrote: »

We defo need to start building up the Irish language again.

How about giving you 20 extra points if you get an A1 in Honours Irish in the leaving? Or even if you are just deemed brilliant enough to actually fking speak like a native in the oral, 20 extra points on the spot. That would motivate people.

You get 100 points for an A1 in Honours Irish. That's the reward for it. Why should there be any extra award? Most people won't need or use Irish in their chosen course so increasing it's importance as a factor in determining how 3rd level placed are decided is just ridiculous.

Besides, there is already a stupid unjustified bonus system for answering other subjects in Irish.

Earthhorse

radioactiveman wrote: »

I would say start by having placenames on signs in Irish, on top, then English on bottom but would that be supported? I'm guessing not at the moment anyway.

Just turn the signs upside down.

BrightEyes

BrightEyes wrote: »

What is it that is so appealing about defining yourself by the country you come from?

Unless you're a nomad, haging pride in the country you were raised in or have adopted, should give you a sense of "belonging" and if part of that belonging is learning the national language then fair play.

In many countries, of course, not learning the national language will result in social isolation.

Mairt

Mairt wrote: »

I think in some ways Ireland 'missed the boat' in regards to learning, or even forcing people to learn Irish.

Take Israel for example.

Until 1948 Hebrew was an almost extinct language as Jew's had been scattered to the four corners of the earth.

When it got it independance the Knesset (Israeli parliment) made it illegal to advertise, or post road signs in any other language but Hebrew and the returning Diaspora had no choice but to learn their old language.

I think we should have followed Israel's example.

For that to stand any chance of happening, the present government would have to lead by example shortly followed by the civil service.

Then the media would have to use Irish as the first language, unlikly to happen as there are too many who would oppose it.

radioactiveman

radioactiveman wrote: »

I would say start by having placenames on signs in Irish, on top, then English on bottom but would that be supported? I'm guessing not at the moment anyway.

We already do that don't we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NewM50Dublin.JPG

Flukey

JaysusMacfeck wrote: »

Irish is an inferior language (which has been drilled into us by British occupation in Ireland for many a year

On the contrary, British occupation is what destroyed the language. It has been very advantageous for Irish people to have English in terms of travelling and being able to emigrate, doing business with other nations. Having English has helped us in a huge amount of ways, but we should never lose the Irish language. Even if you can't speak it, it is all around you, in all sorts of ways. There are all sorts of little things that the Irish language has influenced. Now I can't stand over all of these, but I have seen mention of some common words actually originating from Irish, so here goes:

Shanty town = sean tí (old house)
longshore man (for dockworker) = Liongseoir (sea man)
galore = go leir (plenty)
Mucker (common expression for "friend" or "mate") - from "mo chara" - my friend.
"muck" came from the Irish word for pig, which is muc (sounds like "muck"). So a muck savage is calling him piglike. There is a mountain in Donegal called Muckish so called because it supposedly looks like a pig's back.
Smashing (as in that's smashing or very good) Is maith sin (thats very good) Irish via Liverpool to the world!

Here's an interesting book, not based on hard evidence, but plausible:
How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads (Counterpunch) (Paperback)


We have other things like our placenames. As most people know, Dublin comes from "Dubh Linn" meaning Black Pool. The common name Átha Cliath, actually referred to another nearby village. These two places grew up into one larger place with Dubh Linn being anglicised to become Dublin and with Átha Cliath also being retained. All around Ireland we have placenames that are direct translations, anglicised versions, or completely different, like Dublin's names. We have Baile becoming Bally, Cill becoming Kill or Kil and many others. Ros, Dun, Derry and lots of other parts of names come from Irish. Dún Laoghaire is of course the Fort of Leary.

We have many everyday Irish words that we use without thinking about it. We don't have a Prime Minister in Ireland any more than Britain has a Taoiseach. We could try to get rid of the Irish language, but in doing so we'd take away a lot from the English that we use. Even for those that deny it or don't have a good grasp of it, like myself, the Irish language is very much part of what we are, in a myriad of ways. So we should do something to preserve it. Lots of countries look at us and wonder why we don't do more to preserve it.

Flukey

Flukey wrote: »

Shanty town = sean tí (old house)

The Oxford Concise English dictionary claims it's "perhaps" from Canadian French "chantier" meaning a lumberjack's cabin or a logging camp. Though the Irish one makes more sense.

Slutmonkey57b

ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »

I dont agree with some of your statement. Well in this case it was a sort of a two versus one situation don't you think. I mean change would of come alot easier for the poor if they didnt have their landlords AND the british to overcome dont you think. Also did the british take over ireland to embrace or exploit it?

Your original statement was that the famine was all the fault of those evil Brits with their genocidal potato blight plan. Your current re-appraisal merely reinforces my earlier point that, as with a lot of Irish history, the "hate the Brits" agenda (supported by the teaching of history in our schools) far outweighs any interest people might have in factual information. Why listen to inconvenient documentary evidence when you can rant, red faced in the pub about those evil brits and sing a rebel ballad afterward?

Why did the British take over Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudabiliter

They were invited in as part of a local power struggle?
The pope wanted them to?
The invading forces were Norman (who had just conquered the English don't forget) and the Evil Strongbow's troops were Welsh?


But again, don't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your anti-british ranting.

No my lack of interest in the subject in secondary school is to blame. More a science guy me.

So your lack of ability in English is your fault, but your lack of ability in Irish is the Government's fault? I maintain that the teaching of Irish is no worse, and in most cases is significantly better, than the teaching of other subjects in Irish schools. (Irish schoolchildren are surrounded by Irish all day long from their first day in school, and learn it before they're taught reading and writing.)

Triangle

Bah read through the first 8 pages and gave up then.

Imo, Irish should be made an optional choice.

As for mandatory subjects I reckon it should be English, Maths + one extra language.

The government should stop pouring Cash down the drain and forcing peoiple to learn irish for certain positions.

The world is shrinking and it's a personal choice wether you want to hold onto a shrinking identity or embrace a global identity (IMO - everyones opinion differs though)

OK-Cancel-Apply

Language is a tool ffs. How can there be anything 'beautiful' about it? How the hell can we 'know who we are' by the language we speak?? I'm not defined by my geography OR my language. I define myself by my principals and morals. You are what you stand for. You are not the language you speak.

We are a tiny country, and we should stop looking inward all the time.

Lockstep

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Language is a tool ffs. How can there be anything 'beautiful' about it?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I started learning Mandarin about 5 years ago, and found it to be a wonderful language

Question could then be asked why can a language be 'wonderful'.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

How the hell can we 'know who we are' by the language we speak?? I'm not defined by my geography OR my language.

You aren't defined by your geography and language, but I do hold store in what my family and relatives did to ensure I didn't have an identity forced on me by others.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I define myself by my principals and morals. You are what you stand for. You are not the language you speak.

Not necessarily, I'd personally say that someone who defines themselves purely by morals and principles is a moralist

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

We are a tiny country, and we should stop looking inward all the time.

As a tiny country, we should take care to ensure we remember our customs, traditions and language.

Slutmonkey57b

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You aren't defined by your geography and language, but I do hold store in what my family and relatives did to ensure I didn't have an identity forced on me by others.

An attitude that fits in well with the "force everyone to learn Irish" system we have now.

Lockstep

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

An attitude that fits in well with the "force everyone to learn Irish" system we have now.

Were you touched by the Irish language as a child?

ExoduS 18.11

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Your original statement was that the famine was all the fault of those evil Brits with their genocidal potato blight plan.

where exactly have i been bashing brits? when throughout my posts is merely an appraisal of the irish as a language and how it would be a shame if it was lost?
You're the person going over board, blowing peoples statements out of proportion? If i like the irish language, it doesnt mean i hate brits. I would have thought that was clear.

So your lack of ability in English is your fault

Well i've never had any complaints of people not being able to understand me to be honest. How do i have a lack of ability in english?

but your lack of ability in Irish is the Government's fault?

I said that the curriculum needs to go under revision if the language is to flourish.

Personally, given the choice between being associated with a land that features probably the greatest proportion of literary, musical, philosophical, scientific, legal, humanitarian, and inventive minds in the world, and being associated with a land of whinging, begrudging, GAA fans, I think I'd be happy to be on the side of Stephen Fry

So, you're classing yourself as a whinging, begrudging gaa fan? Or just everyone else who doesnt agree with you?

ExoduS 18.11

kickoutthejams wrote: »

As a tiny country, we should take care to ensure we remember our customs, traditions and language.

I agree

radioactiveman

javaboy wrote: »

You get 100 points for an A1 in Honours Irish. That's the reward for it. Why should there be any extra award? Most people won't need or use Irish in their chosen course so increasing it's importance as a factor in determining how 3rd level placed are decided is just ridiculous.

Besides, there is already a stupid unjustified bonus system for answering other subjects in Irish.

I suppose it depends on how you view the language, if you really think it's a waste of time then yes, a bonus system is stupid...
It's just that introducing a bonus like that for the oral might get people to see Irish as a positive activity that will get them somewhere and might reverse the situation where a majority of students see it as a useless waste of time.

to be honest if the way it is taught was changed to just build up as much vocabulary as possible like we do with french and german, and we had an 'Irish grammar for dummies' type book that was accessible it would go a long way imo to restoring the language. I would be in favour of making it optional at leaving cert level if we just had a good enough spoken level at junior cert.

Earthhorse

Karsini wrote: »

We already do that don't we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NewM50Dublin.JPG

Leave the signs as are. Everything a-okay.

Slutmonkey57b

ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »

"I mean, its not their fault a few thousand of our ancestors died while being oppressed by a foreign country..."
The rod's out, but nothings biting on that statement anyways.

ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »

where exactly have i been bashing brits? when throughout my posts is merely an appraisal of the irish as a language and how it would be a shame if it was lost?

Your grasp of your own post history isn't great either is it?

You're the person going over board, blowing peoples statements out of proportion? If i like the irish language, it doesnt mean i hate brits. I would have thought that was clear.

My original post, that you responded to, was a clear, and rational refutation of the OP's borderline-fanatical gibbering. All I did was point out (amongst other things) that contrary to what we are taught in school about the famine, the Evil Brits were not sitting around the fireside planning on ways to exterminate the Irish by means of multiple crop failures. Starvation, and the famine as a whole, could have been easily avoided if the landowners (native catholic Irish included) had simply used some of the export surplus. They chose to profit instead. Yet this simple fact doesn't even get glossed over in history lessons - it gets buried. And given the choice between aiming invective at the Government of the time (whose official policy in all matters was not to get involved, the ultimate in "small government"), or the profiteers who bore responsibility for the artificial famine, invariably the Brits get it in the neck. That's an interesting observation no matter which side of the fence you're on. I don't take offence at it - but I do enjoy pointing it out.
I also take great enjoyment from not speaking, reading, or listening to any Irish, especially the vitriol or accusations of unpatriotic behaviour that that tends to engender in its supporters.

Well i've never had any complaints of people not being able to understand me to be honest. How do i have a lack of ability in english?

The post I quoted contains more than enough examples, but that's not the point I was making. The point I was making was this:
The failure of Irish people to speak the language is landed at the feet of the education system and the government. However, the failure of the same school students to reach reasonable competency in other subjects is either ignored or blamed on the student.
"Blame the teachers" is a cop-out on the part of the Irish fundamentalists. The fact is that people didn't learn Irish in school just like they didn't learn French - the difference is that teaching Irish lasted for 14 years, not the quality of the teaching.

Slutmonkey57b

kickoutthejams wrote:

You aren't defined by your geography and language, but I do hold store in what my family and relatives did to ensure I didn't have an identity forced on me by others.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

An attitude that fits in well with the "force everyone to learn Irish" system we have now.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Were you touched by the Irish language as a child?

You don't see the irony in stating that you don't want someone else's identity "forced" on you, then supporting the idea that forcing everyone to learn Irish teaches them "who they are and where they come from"?

book smarts

I'm sick to death of being told that Irish is our native language. It is NOT our native language. It WAS the native language of people who used to live here years ago. ENGLISH is our native language. Get over it.

Dyr

if you're such a fan of the english language then you should probably look up the word "native" in yer dictionary. :pac:

ExoduS 18.11

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Your grasp of your own post history isn't great either is it?

Would you agree or disagree, that british rule here lead to deaths of many irish people? from famine ages towards 1916?

The post I quoted contains more than enough examples, but that's not the point I was making.

the point you made was to demean my post by commenting on its grammar or wording. heres a reminder.

As you're apparently having great difficulty with English I suggest that the curriculum is not to blame for your inability to speak Irish.

Which you then tried to turn into a non-attacking post, by posting what you really meant

The post I quoted contains more than enough examples, but that's not the point I was making. The point I was making was this:
The failure of Irish people to speak the language is landed at the feet of the education system and the government. However, the failure of the same school students to reach reasonable competency in other subjects is either ignored or blamed on the student.
"Blame the teachers" is a cop-out on the part of the Irish fundamentalists. The fact is that people didn't learn Irish in school just like they didn't learn French - the difference is that teaching Irish lasted for 14 years, not the quality of the teaching.

dlofnep

Slutmonkey - Care you comment on why funds were blocked, and shipments of food were blocked on route to Ireland by English authorities? Where Abdülmecid was requested to send one tenth of his original planned funds, so not to upstage the queen's dismal charity? Also, care you comment on the poor funding from Britain to help the Irish deal with the famine?

If you think for ONE moment that Britain's response to the Irish famine was anything other than dismal, then you are living in denial and 100% inaccurate.

I like also how you bring up the "hate the brits" cliché to try and strengthen your argument. It has nothing to do with hating the brits. It is documented fact that the Irish language had a setback because Britain had banned Irish in the national schools and Britain's dismal response to the famine resulted in the deaths of the greater population of Irish speakers.

OK-Cancel-Apply

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Question could then be asked why can a language be 'wonderful'.

[Refering to Mandarin] Because it's efficient and highly adaptable to new terms and phrases.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You aren't defined by your geography and language, but I do hold store in what my family and relatives did to ensure I didn't have an identity forced on me by others.

I don't want an identity forced upon me by anyone, but I sure I'm glad I speak English as my first language.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not necessarily, I'd personally say that someone who defines themselves purely by morals and principles...

Did I say that I define myself 'purely' by my morals and principals?

...is a moralist.

Seems sort of irrelevant to the discussion. No need to go finding labels for people.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

As a tiny country, we should take care to ensure we remember our customs, traditions and language.

Why? I'm utterly disinterested in the Irish language, drinking, bodhrans, harps, leprechans, riverdancing or religion. What things do you personally take care to remember, and why?

Azhrei

"Irish is an inferior language"

Why?

"which has been drilled into us by British occupation in Ireland for many a year"

...what?

Lockstep

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You don't see the irony in stating that you don't want someone else's identity "forced" on you, then supporting the idea that forcing everyone to learn Irish teaches them "who they are and where they come from"?

Where did I say I support forcing Irish down people's throats?

The world isn't divided into those who say "I want everyone forced to learn Irish" and those who say "Irish should be abolished.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

[Refering to Mandarin] Because it's efficient and highly adaptable to new terms and phrases.

Meh, efficient languages.
Sounds a bit like 1984 where Newspeak is all about making a language as efficient as possible.


Personally, I do think Irish is a beautiful language. Take the word for "bat" for instance. Sciathán leathair
Leather wing. The imagery is so wonderfully poetic.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't want an identity forced upon me by anyone, but I sure I'm glad I speak English as my first language.

Then don't accept any language forced upon you. But don't think that Irish should die out because you have a personal issue with it.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Did I say that I define myself 'purely' by my morals and principals?

Seems sort of irrelevant to the discussion. No need to go finding labels for people.

Nah mate, you said:

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I define myself by my principals and morals. You are what you stand for.

Why not add in what else you think defines people if you think that way?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Why? I'm utterly disinterested in the Irish language, drinking, bodhrans, harps, leprechans, riverdancing or religion. What things do you personally take care to remember, and why?

Grand so, then take no interest in them and allow people who are interested to maintain their interest in the culture and language without talking about how a language should die.

Azhrei

Azhrei wrote: »

"Irish is an inferior language"

Why?

"which has been drilled into us by British occupation in Ireland for many a year"

...what?

How many generations will it take before Irish people start taking responsibility for the state of their language, rather than blaming previous generations who are now long dead!

OK-Cancel-Apply

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Why? I'm utterly disinterested in the Irish language, drinking, bodhrans, harps, leprechans, riverdancing or religion. What things do you personally take care to remember, and why?

Associating Irish with the past doesn't help it's future.

Promoting Irish as part of our heritage is one thing, but promoting the language as being useful in the present and on into the future is another thing altogether and theis is where we should be looking to improve the status of Irish.

ArthurF

ArthurF wrote: »

I would agree with TG4 broadcatsting Irish lessons, but RTE also .............. :cool:

Lessons could be initially broadcasted on RTÉ like a "edutainment" programme as was Des Bishop's "in the name of the fada" then it can be repeated multiple times during the twilight hours on TG4, not as an educational programme on TG4 during peak times as the viewers already speak Irish and may not appreciate it!

It would be helpful to learning if some more programming had Irish subtitles, either hard on the screen or as teletext.

Imagine "Father Ted" with Irish subtitles.. "Feic! Ól! Cailíní!"

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine "Father Ted" with Irish subtitles.. "Feic! Ól! Cailíní!"

I heartily endorse this event and/or product.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Lessons could be initially broadcasted on RTÉ like a "edutainment" programme as was Des Bishop's "in the name of the fada" then it can be repeated multiple times during the twilight hours on TG4, not as an educational programme on TG4 during peak times as the viewers already speak Irish and may not appreciate it!

It would be helpful to learning if some more programming had Irish subtitles, either hard on the screen or as teletext.

Imagine "Father Ted" with Irish subtitles.. "Feic! Ól! Cailíní!"

That would be actually cool. Something like Turas Teanga.

Just watched an episode of Siar sna 60’s on TG4, it was proplsed in 1964 that Galway be an all Irish city......


That was a great success.......NOT!

OK-Cancel-Apply

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Then don't accept any language forced upon you.

What, and be a mute?

But don't think that Irish should die out because you have a personal issue with it.

I don't have a personal issue with the Irish language. I think it should be allowed to die out because it's not useful. It's only spoken by a few thousand people.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why not add in what else you think defines people if you think that way?

People are defined by the choices they make, not the place they were born. The language they speak is only in indicator of where they were born, and nobody has any say in that. I feel sorry for anyone who wants to define themselves by their place of birth.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Grand so, then take no interest in them and allow people who are interested to maintain their interest in the culture and language without talking about how a language should die.

Yes, people should have the liberty to learn whatever language they like, but when it comes to the state deciding what we should and should not learn in school, I will damn well voice my opinion. As others have said, there should be more options on the poll.

Slutmonkey57b

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Where did I say I support forcing Irish down people's throats?

Isn't that what the mandatory teaching of Irish from Junior Infants onward is?
If you're not giving students a choice, then you're forcing it on them. As I pointed out, Irish schoolchildren are forced to interact and learn in Irish from their first day in school. Less useful activities, like reading and writing, are left until much later on.

dlofnep wrote: »

Slutmonkey - Care you comment on why funds were blocked, and shipments of food were blocked on route to Ireland by English authorities? Where Abdülmecid was requested to send one tenth of his original planned funds, so not to upstage the queen's dismal charity? Also, care you comment on the poor funding from Britain to help the Irish deal with the famine?

Didn't I already state that the Government's response to the problem was essentially non-existent? And that they prevented starving people from raiding the food exports (at the request of the landowners)? The government of the time did a similarly small amount for the poor of England at the time, as witnessed by the rise of the Victorian slums.

If you think for ONE moment that Britain's response to the Irish famine was anything other than dismal, then you are living in denial and 100% inaccurate.

As I've already stated previously that their response was non existent, the only "100% inaccurate" "living in denial" posting going on here is from people who refuses to acknowledge that a) The government of the day did not plan a "genocide", b) that wealthy Irish people could have ended the famine at any time they liked. Your response not only fails to accept either of these points, but rails against me for even bringing them up! Which obviously goes to prove one of my earlier points: That the "Those evil brits" agenda is of more importance to people than actual historical fact. The whys and wherefores of History are of no interest to people here, especially when they interfere in the main topic at hand: giving out about the brits.

I like also how you bring up the "hate the brits" cliché to try and strengthen your argument. It has nothing to do with hating the brits. It is documented fact that the Irish language had a setback because Britain had banned Irish in the national schools and Britain's dismal response to the famine resulted in the deaths of the greater population of Irish speakers.

National schools weren't created until 1831. The language was more than on its way to decline at that point as a minority language, and the Catholic Church was actively campaigning against its use. You might also point the finger at such great Irish Patriots as Daniel O'Connell, who also thought the language was a waste of time. But no, it's all the fault of the Brits and their planned famine.

ExoduS 18.11 wrote: »

Would you agree or disagree, that british rule here lead to deaths of many irish people? from famine ages towards 1916?

At what point exactly did I suggest they weren't responsible for killing Irish people during the course of the occupation? What I did point out is that the deaths attributed to them during the famine were actually the fault of profiteering landowners. I also pointed out that the facts surrounding the British invasion and takeover of Ireland aren't as simplistic as we are taught in school.

Which you then tried to turn into a non-attacking post, by posting what you really meant

No, I just used your clear lack of ability in one language as an example that disproves the theory that the government is to blame for the lack of Irish skills in the general population. That you took offence to me using you as an example is beside the point. The truth is that the government does far more, at much greater time and expense, to promote Irish, than it does to teach other, more relevant subjects to our students.

Lockstep

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

What, and be a mute?

Nah, choose the language for yourself.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't have a personal issue with the Irish language. I think it should be allowed to die out because it's not useful. It's only spoken by a few thousand people.

Why should something die out because it's not useful?
It gives pleasure to people, how is that not useful?

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

People are defined by the choices they make, not the place they were born. The language they speak is only in indicator of where they were born, and nobody has any say in that. I feel sorry for anyone who wants to define themselves by their place of birth.

The language a person speaks has nothing to do with where a person is born. HAve you never met Americans with Irish who learned it due to their identifying with their Irish ancestry?

I know people who pity those who don't define themselves by the place they are born. They view them as rootless etc.

Personally, I think people are capable of defining themselves by a lot of things: their nationality, sexuality, place in the military etc.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yes, people should have the liberty to learn whatever language they like, but when it comes to the state deciding what we should and should not learn in school, I will damn well voice my opinion. As others have said, there should be more options on the poll.

Well, you were saying the language should be left to die and that we should be concentrating on other languages. People should have the ability to choose for themselves.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Isn't that what the mandatory teaching of Irish from Junior Infants onward is?

Where have I ever voiced support for mandatory teaching of Irish?
What I have done in this thread is stated my support of Irish and that I don't think it should be suppressed.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If you're not giving students a choice, then you're forcing it on them. As I pointed out, Irish schoolchildren are forced to interact and learn in Irish from their first day in school. Less useful activities, like reading and writing, are left until much later on.

So? Why is this relevant to me, someone who believes Irish shouldn't be a suppressed language.

Azhrei

Deleted User wrote: »

How many generations will it take before Irish people start taking responsibility for the state of their language, rather than blaming previous generations who are now long dead!

I wasn't blaming anyone, I was politely incredulous at his saying that the British forced us to learn Irish for generations. I mean, what the hell? Also, I fail to see why Irish is an inferior language simply because a) it's older and less developed due to the small number of speakers, b) it's hard to learn and c) the OP suffered from the terrible state of Irish teaching in this country. Boo ****ing hoo, we all suffered the same, but nobody else is seriously proposing that the language should be forced to die.

What happened to live and let live?

Azhrei

Azhrei wrote: »

I wasn't blaming anyone,

What happened to live and let live?

I wasn't getting at you, Rather I was adding to what you had said.

As for Live and let live, there are some with chips on their shoulders who can't see beyond their prejudices.

Azhrei

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't getting at you, Rather I was adding to what you had said.

As for Live and let live, there are some with chips on their shoulders who can't see beyond their prejudices.

Oh, sorry! Likewise, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the op, who is clearly an idiot.

TheZenWithin

Ok here's the POV of a 17 yr old with terrible Irish.I will admit I dread an Irish class every week but I can put that aside and give the basic facts of what I see.

The curiculum for alot of subjects in this country is to say the least inadiquite. Hear the news the other day?Servey saying that alot of parents are gettig their children maths grinds,IN PRIMARY SCHOOL.

So the problem arises at the first level of education so going onto 2nd level students really haven't the foggiest as to what the teachers saying.The curiculum may be sufficient at 2nd level but not 1st level.So the common idea people have is that the language is difficult to learn and to justify not knowing it ,question its validity in our society.

Like dlofnep saod.We could be a bi-lingual country.No reason why not.

Bottom line: It shouldn't be supressed as alot of people will regret it and it'll cause alot of...problems.
But it should either have an updated curiculum or it should become optional after primary.

And I mean come on.14 yrs and not no knowing wtf the aimsire chaite is or whether i just spelt it right is bad...very bad

PS,Is maith liom gaeilge.Honest

Azhrei

Azhrei wrote: »

Oh, sorry! Likewise, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the op, who is clearly an idiot.

Does the OP even still post on here considering the thread is 2½ years old?

ExoduS 18.11

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

No, I just used your clear lack of ability in one language as an example that disproves the theory that the government is to blame for the lack of Irish skills in the general population. That you took offence to me using you as an example is beside the point. The truth is that the government does far more, at much greater time and expense, to promote Irish, than it does to teach other, more relevant subjects to our students.

Excuse me ? I have no problem with the English language thank you very much. Just because i wrote a message quickly in a online forum, which may have been unclear, doesnt mean im an example to be used by your "righteous" arse as some sort of guinea pig to the failures of the irish government.

At what point exactly did I suggest they weren't responsible for killing Irish people during the course of the occupation?

At what point did i say they were solely to blame?

By the way as you seem to pick what you like out of my posts ill just presume you agree with my other points.

OK-Cancel-Apply

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nah, choose the language for yourself.

You said that I shouldn't accept any language forced upon me... I thought you were implying I should reject English too, which of course is my first language. If you're talking about Irish in school, well, we don't really have much choice early on.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why should something die out because it's not useful?
It gives pleasure to people, how is that not useful?

What gives people pleasure is highly subjective. Some people might find pleasure in chewing razor blades, but that doesn't mean it's useful. The point is that the state is funding the furtherance of the language. If someone likes learning it for pleasure, that's a different story. I say we have a referendum.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The language a person speaks has nothing to do with where a person is born. HAve you never met Americans with Irish who learned it due to their identifying with their Irish ancestry?

For Heath Ledger's sake, I said language is an indicator of where a person was born. As is their accent for that matter. But neither someone's language nor their accent should define them. You speak of Americans learning Irish, fine, but I doubt they'd trade proficiency in English for it for one minute. Also, for an American to learn Irish is a clear choice. Here, it's state funded.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I know people who pity those who don't define themselves by the place they are born. They view them as rootless etc.

Acknowledging that you were born in a certain country is not the same as defining yourself by that fact. Because of my father's work at the time, I was almost born in Soviet Russia. I'm not sure how long we would have lived there, but had I moved back to Ireland at, say, age 4, I doubt I'd be defining myself by the Russian language or the fact that I had been born there.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Personally, I think people are capable of defining themselves by a lot of things: their nationality, sexuality, place in the military etc.

And language? Belgians speak French, Austrians speak German, Americans speak English..etc... None of those people could honestly define themselves by their language, and rightly so - the language you speak has nothing to do with 'who you are'. It's just a means of communication. I'm writing in English right now, and had I been born in Spain, I'd be writing in Spanish. English is a great language, because you can say pretty much anything you like, and express yourself to the most nuanced level. It does me fine, and I think the world could do with fewer languages, not more.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Well, you were saying the language should be left to die and that we should be concentrating on other languages. People should have the ability to choose for themselves.

Yes, but should that be a choice for the parents or the children? Irish is taught to kids at a very young age, and they wouldn't really be able to weigh up all the pros and cons of taking on the Irish language. And parents might be filled with 'culture' or blind patriotism and forget that the language won't serve their child well in the future when they get out in the world. That's why I think we should remove it from our education system, at least for those early years.

Karsini

Karsini wrote: »

Does the OP even still post on here considering the thread is 2½ years old?

I think the "OP" s/he was referring to was further up the page, rather than the OP who started the thread.

dlofnep

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I
As I've already stated previously that their response was non existent, the only "100% inaccurate" "living in denial" posting going on here is from people who refuses to acknowledge that a) The government of the day did not plan a "genocide", b)

I never stated it was a genocide. It wasn't. But the British Government failed their duties to the Irish people. So long as we agree on that, that's fine.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

National schools weren't created until 1831. The language was more than on its way to decline at that point as a minority language, and the Catholic Church was actively campaigning against its use. You might also point the finger at such great Irish Patriots as Daniel O'Connell, who also thought the language was a waste of time. But no, it's all the fault of the Brits and their planned famine.

Nice wikipedia'ing there bub. The Irish language was still spoken throughout Ireland in the 1800's. Ireland was bilingual coming into the beginning of the 1800's. In 1800 100% of children in all Gaeltacht regions had Gaeilge as a first language, in 1860 only 5% had. Look into the demographics. I have no doubt that English was becoming popular in Ireland, but if the famine and banning of gaeilge had not of happened - Ireland would be right now a true bilingual country.

The famine and national schools killed Gaeilge. They both combined had the greatest impact on the language in recorded history. Not to mention, the influence of British rule over the years was a direct cause of it's slow downfall. This is documented fact. So yes, the British are directly responsible for the death of the language, whether you would like to accept it or not.

TheZenWithin

you lot are idiots,a bunch of children looking for an arguement to vent on.

sad.

People have different abilities,intrests,likes and dislikes.

its never going to change.

So there is no definate answer to this thread(although you could read my last post and gleam some sort of answer from it).

Azhrei

Karsini wrote: »

Does the OP even still post on here considering the thread is 2½ years old?

I have no iidea, I only just discovered the thread myself and couldn't believe what I was reading, heh.

It may be an old thread but the same argument goes around and around never to be resolved.

Lockstep

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You said that I shouldn't accept any language forced upon me... I thought you were implying I should reject English too, which of course is my first language. If you're talking about Irish in school, well, we don't really have much choice early on.

I wouldn't really say a language that is the mother tongue of a country is really 'forced' upon people. It just happens to be the day to day language of the country. People will either get with it or remain isolated from the community.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

What gives people pleasure is highly subjective. Some people might find pleasure in chewing razor blades, but that doesn't mean it's useful. The point is that the state is funding the furtherance of the language. If someone likes learning it for pleasure, that's a different story. I say we have a referendum.

Yes, but if it gives people pleasure and they find it a good language, then it is useful. Regardless of how subjective it is, it still can be a useful language, even if you don't think si.
The state is funding a lot of stuff I disagree with, personally I think funding Irish isn't a bad thing although not the way the state is going about it.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

For Heath Ledger's sake, I said language is an indicator of where a person was born. As is their accent for that matter. But neither someone's language nor their accent should define them. You speak of Americans learning Irish, fine, but I doubt they'd trade proficiency in English for it for one minute. Also, for an American to learn Irish is a clear choice. Here, it's state funded.

Don't you dare bring Heath Ledger into this:mad:
A person's language can indeed define them, doesn't always have to be that way but it is still something people can define themselves by.
Why are you bringing up American's trading Irish for English. Why would they? They learned English due to the country they grew up in and Irish due to a belief in their ancestry/a simple interest in the language.

I learned Irish under the funding of the Belgian government. Also learned it under the Brits.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Acknowledging that you were born in a certain country is not the same as defining yourself by that fact. Because of my father's work at the time, I was almost born in Soviet Russia. I'm not sure how long we would have lived there, but had I moved back to Ireland at, say, age 4, I doubt I'd be defining myself by the Russian language or the fact that I had been born there.

Uh, what?
I said some people view others as rootles when they don't define themselves by their birthplace (I should also have put in their culture, forgot to do so)

At any rate, you might be defining yourself by being Russian. I went to school with American kids born in South Africa who viewed themselves as South African.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

And language? Belgians speak French, Austrians speak German, Americans speak English..etc... None of those people could honestly define themselves by their language, and rightly so - the language you speak has nothing to do with 'who you are'. It's just a means of communication. I'm writing in English right now, and had I been born in Spain, I'd be writing in Spanish. English is a great language, because you can say pretty much anything you like, and express yourself to the most nuanced level. It does me fine, and I think the world could do with fewer languages, not more.

Trust me man, the Belgians are wonderfully capable of defining themselves by the language they speak, be it French, Dutch, Flemish or German.
I never lived in Austria or America so can't speak for them. Although I did know Belgians who had never been to America but who defined themselves as American due to their watching of American TV and identifying far more with the American dialect than their own.

You saying you've never met an Irish speaker who defined themselves as such?
I know I have.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yes, but should that be a choice for the parents or the children? Irish is taught to kids at a very young age, and they wouldn't really be able to weigh up all the pros and cons of taking on the Irish language. And parents might be filled with 'culture' or blind patriotism and forget that the language won't serve their child well in the future when they get out in the world. That's why I think we should remove it from our education system, at least for those early years.

Not really, I accept that parents have choices to make for their kids. Kids can't think for themselves on some issues at such an age. YOur argument on parents being filled with culture and blind patriotism could be used the opposite way. A kid might be better off learning Irish but the parents refuse as they are filled with a following of British/American culture or a blind hatred of all things Irish.

At any rate, I would support kids learning Irish as part of the curriculum until they enter secondary school and then have the choice to make themselves.