Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How to revive the Irish language.
Options
Comments
-
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.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.0 -
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.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
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...0 -
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...0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
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.0 -
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.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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:0 -
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.0 -
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.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
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".0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
"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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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.0 -
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.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
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.0 -
We both cited facts. What you are really saying here is that your own conjecture is better than mine.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.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.0 -
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.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement