How to revive the Irish language.

Scanlas The 2nd

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Seanchai wrote: »

Suffering Lord. Any more idiotic anti-Irish stereotypes from the British rightwing to throw in there?

I'm not saying I agree with the hyperbolic language used but I do agree with his point to an extent. It goes back to what I said earlier today; the reasons constantly given for wanting Irish to be "revived" are sentimental ones revolving around restoring our Irishness. "We have to keep the language alive cause its the language or our ancestors, it's our national language, it's who we are". These are points that, effectively, revolve around stating a desire to remain isolated from the larger world who do not speak a word of Irish.

Irish is not a language of progression; it's a language of recession and isolation.

If we teach kids Irish properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond.

Lord TSC

Qualitymark wrote: »

Teamshadowclan, in my youth the same debate was raging over the teaching of Latin.

"If you get rid of compulsory Latin, schools will still offer it for those who value it" was the mantra.

Latin was taken off the core curriculum and within a breath it disappeared from 99% of all schools - much to the detriment of the understanding of grammar and history and derivation in all languages, much to the disastrous detriment of language learning.

But does that not simply show that there isn't a nessecary demand for Latin, and that forcing it on people through compulsory teaching is redundant?

I get the argument that making it optional makes it more likely to die, but to me, that's just a further sign that it isn't a nessecary component of society and thus should not be forced on everyone. If there is a passion for the language, as the pro-language side argue, then it will survive. If there is not, if it truly is not nessecary in society, then you cannot force it on people to keep it alive artificially.

Again I say, choose a reason why Irish should be revived, ask what the reason is that Irish should stay alive, and if you can come up with one that does not rely on personal sentimentality, then that's the basis of the Irish language revival movement.

If we teach kids Irish properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond.

This is the argument constantly used, but the problem is it is not an argument for the teaching of Irish as a second language; it is simply an argument for the teaching of a second language. It does not work as some people think it should work...

It can just as easily be used by the other side of the debate by saying "If we teach kids French properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond". I asked this yesterday; why does Irish get the automatic secondary language spot in school?

Qualitymark

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But does that not simply show that there isn't a nessecary demand for Latin, and that forcing it on people through compulsory teaching is redundant?

I've met so many people who say "I wish I'd learned Latin - would have loved to, but it simply wasn't offered by my school".

An Coilean

Interest in History wrote: »

The data on past schemes should be looked at here. I think that in 1960 27% (?) of the primary schools were all-Irish - the 'A' schools. Very intense efforts were made by governments in the past and these should be studied to see what can be learned from their experience.

My guess is that the present shape of things will persist in the long run. A certain number of gaoilsceallanna catering for a special interest section of society in a limited arena of activities. A certain number of state jobs directed towards those with Irish. Politicians paying lip-service in a detached sort of way and following the maxim of passing by a sleeping dog without kicking it.

Will Ruairi Quinn's interest in literacy problems lead to a re-allocation of school hours away from Irish? Will the new Gaeltacht Act have the effect reducing the area of recognised Gaeltacht? Would that matter in terms of the morale of the language movement? It's hard to distinguish movement in these matters as it occurs with glacial slowness.

Could you provide a source on the number of A schools there were in the 60's? I ask because anything I have read on the issue said that the number of A schools declined rapidly during the 30's till by the mid 60's there were only a handful left, centered on Dublin.

Now perhaps it is worth while to study why they declined so rapidly, but it must be bourn in mind that an A school was not a Gaelscoil, they did not use an L2 Immersion model of education, and they were not established by local iniatative.


I think it unlikely that literacy will be used as an excuse to reduce time spent on Irish when the governments own body on curriculum reform has reported that time spent learning the rules of literacy in one language is applicable in others. Ie learning literacy in Irish benefits literacy in English.

As for the the Gaeltachts, yes, the current Gaeltacht Bill means the Minister can kick areas out of the Gaeltacht if efforts are not made to preserve and promote the language in those areas. It also means that areas not currently in the gaeltacht can be added to it if they meet the criteria. Campaigns to that effect are already ongoing in some areas, most notably in Clare.

Lord TSC

Qualitymark wrote: »

I've met so many people who say "I wish I'd learned Latin - would have loved to, but it simply wasn't offered by my school".

But whats stopping them now? If someone would genuinely like to understand a language, it could not be easier to do so today with all the resources available online. And furthermore, why should everyone be forced to study a language based on the fact some people lament on something they didn't do as a teenager? We're drifting back to sentimentality here again; "God, I wish I had done something as a kid, even though it is a nessecary requirement of life now".

Scanlas The 2nd

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Qualitymark wrote: »

Teamshadowclan, in my youth the same debate was raging over the teaching of Latin.

"If you get rid of compulsory Latin, schools will still offer it for those who value it" was the mantra.

Latin was taken off the core curriculum and within a breath it disappeared from 99% of all schools - much to the detriment of the understanding of grammar and history and derivation in all languages, much to the disastrous detriment of language learning.

But does that not simply show that there isn't a nessecary demand for Latin, and that forcing it on people through compulsory teaching is redundant?

I get the argument that making it optional makes it more likely to die, but to me, that's just a further sign that it isn't a nessecary component of society and thus should not be forced on everyone. If there is a passion for the language, as the pro-language side argue, then it will survive. If there is not, if it truly is not nessecary in society, then you cannot force it on people to keep it alive artificially.

Again I say, choose a reason why Irish should be revived, ask what the reason is that Irish should stay alive, and if you can come up with one that does not rely on personal sentimentality, then that's the basis of the Irish language revival movement.

If we teach kids Irish properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond.

This is the argument constantly used, but the problem is it is not an argument for the teaching of Irish as a second language; it is simply an argument for the teaching of a second language. It does not work as some people think it should work...

It can just as easily be used by the other side of the debate by saying "If we teach kids French properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond". I asked this yesterday; why does Irish get the automatic secondary language spot in school?

We could get by just fine without any foreign language as English speakers. We can learn foreign languages as well as Irish without a problem if taught properly. By teaching Irish we enrich our cultural identity, I think we would be respected more as a nation by being fluent in our own language.

Lord TSC

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

We could get by just fine without any foreign language as English speakers.

Which I referred to last night, so no argument there.

We can learn foreign languages as well as Irish without a problem if taught properly.

Again, no arguments there.

By teaching Irish we enrich our cultural identity, I think we would be respected more as a nation by being fluent in our own language.

And there we go. Sentimentality. I don't see how it enriches our cultural identity in anyway, but that's a personal opinion, and one you're entitled to. If learning Irish makes you feel more Irish, off you go and learn it. Don't force it on everyone else though cause you want to feel more Irish. And to be frank, I think if we want to be more respected as a nation, it might be a better idea to tackle our drink and unemployment problems before we start talking to each other in a tongue no one outside Ireland understands...

(As for the Latin thing, it's being pointed out to me here at home that Latin has probably played a bigger part in my life than Irish has, be that in graduation ceremonies, on the degree certificates up on my wall, every time someone goes to church. I'd argue that Latin has played a far bigger (though still minor) role in my life than Irish has in recent years :P)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If we teach kids Irish properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond.

So why not teach them a secodn language like French or German from the onset...?

Qualitymark wrote: »

Teamshadowclan, in my youth the same debate was raging over the teaching of Latin.

"If you get rid of compulsory Latin, schools will still offer it for those who value it" was the mantra.

Latin was taken off the core curriculum and within a breath it disappeared from 99% of all schools - much to the detriment of the understanding of grammar and history and derivation in all languages, much to the disastrous detriment of language learning.

The idea is not to make it completely optional, just to make it optional from the leaving cert or secondary school on. Leave it compulsory in primary, teach it with a bit of passion and enthusaism, and you'll avoid the same pitfalls. You'll get enough kids wanting to carry on to allow the language to prosper. Of course, you won't get everyone, but you won;t get everyone anyway.

Qualitymark wrote: »

I've met so many people who say "I wish I'd learned Latin - would have loved to, but it simply wasn't offered by my school".

Same with Irish. Yet somehow, they rarely enrol in adult/evening classes...

delthedriver

What is our cultural identity? Our history shows we were part of the British Commonwealth for centuries. In more recent timers we have had an influx of prople from Eastern Europe and beyond. On that basis perhaps we should be teaching Polish and Russian ahead of Irish . The Muslim community far outweighs even our smallest minorities. I think in ten years time when we look back, our Irish heritage will look dramatically different. The days of the fair maidens dancing at the crossroads to the tune ofirish fiddle music and chatting as Gaeilge are gone forever, now is the time to move on.

Scanlas The 2nd

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If we teach kids Irish properly in primary school it helps them learn other languages more easily in secondary school and beyond.

So why not teach them a secodn language like French or German s...

Yes that's a possibility, Spanish or Italian too. I'd personally prefer to be fluent in a foreign language than Irish but we spend so much time in school, i'm sure we could spare forty minutes a day in primary school to learn Irish.

Cú Giobach

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Again I say, choose a reason why Irish should be revived, ask what the reason is that Irish should stay alive, and if you can come up with one that does not rely on personal sentimentality, then that's the basis of the Irish language revival movement.

To ensure its survival. To quote an old teacher of mine "If you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick", if you aim high, though you may not reach your goal you will get higher than if you just aim straight ahead.

Now for why we should ensure its survival.
Every language is unique and special, the loss of each one makes the world a poorer place culturally and helps decreases the rich and wonderful diversity all the cultures of the planet can contribute to give us, something more and more people are becoming concerned with worldwide with the spread of what might be called a "western monoculture" that the sad loss of linguistic diversity is very much part of.
A change is happening worldwide that we are intrinsically part of that can be observed by the changes in attitudes among, for example, Australians to their indigenous peoples and their culture (many are starting to actually embrace aspects of it as a part of theirs now,) and the same throughout The Americas, the old ideas that some here still cling to regarding cultural diversity are actually slowly disappearing among the more enlightened of us.
Cultural diversity is something you cannot put a price on or buy, only treasure.

We are in a position of being the guardians of one of the planets many languages or to put it another way one of the unique and special things that contribute to the rich diversity we as humans can enjoy, to disregard this responsibility would not only show us up as a nation but as a species.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes that's a possibility, Spanish or Italian too. I'd personally prefer to be fluent in a foreign language than Irish but we spend so much time in school, i'm sure we could spare forty minutes a day in primary school to learn Irish.

They already spend that! Also, a latin or germanic langauge would actually be a lot better for a language-learning point of view than Irish would because there are more similarities with the other languages.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

They already spend that! Also, a latin or germanic langauge would actually be a lot better for a language-learning point of view than Irish would because there are more similarities with the other languages.

Irish is closer to the Latin languages than it is to the Germanic.

paddyandy

Learning a language is one thing learning how it's used another .

Scanlas The 2nd

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes that's a possibility, Spanish or Italian too. I'd personally prefer to be fluent in a foreign language than Irish but we spend so much time in school, i'm sure we could spare forty minutes a day in primary school to learn Irish.

They already spend that! Also, a latin or germanic langauge would actually be a lot better for a language-learning point of view than Irish would because there are more similarities with the other languages.

Yes we already spend that time on Irish but we teach it insanely badly. Teach it well instead so 12 year olds are fluent leaving primary school.

The advantage to learning a language different to others is it causes more growth and connections in your brain. Learning two similar languages doesn't benefit your mind like learning two different languages like a Germanic and romance one.

An Coilean

delthedriver wrote: »

I think in ten years time when we look back, our Irish heritage will look dramatically different. The days of the fair maidens dancing at the crossroads to the tune ofirish fiddle music and chatting as Gaeilge are gone forever, now is the time to move on.

You havent been to a Fleadh Ceol recently have you?

As for chatting in Irish, yep thats still going strong too.

Gone forever? Nope.

LordSutch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To ensure its survival. To quote an old teacher of mine "If you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick", if you aim high, though you may not reach your goal you will get higher than if you just aim straight ahead.

Now for why we should ensure its survival.
Every language is unique and special, the loss of each one makes the world a poorer place culturally and helps decreases the rich and wonderful diversity all the cultures of the planet can contribute to give us, something more and more people are becoming concerned with worldwide with the spread of what might be called a "western monoculture" that the sad loss of linguistic diversity is very much part of.
A change is happening worldwide that we are intrinsically part of that can be observed by the changes in attitudes among, for example, Australians to their indigenous peoples and their culture (many are starting to actually embrace aspects of it as a part of theirs now,) and the same throughout The Americas, the old ideas that some here still cling to regarding cultural diversity are actually slowly disappearing among the more enlightened of us.
Cultural diversity is something you cannot put a price on or buy, only treasure.

We are in a position of being the guardians of one of the planets many languages or to put it another way one of the unique and special things that contribute to the rich diversity we as humans can enjoy, to disregard this responsibility would not only show us up as a nation but as a species.

Amazingly I agree with most of that, apart from "To quote an old teacher of mine "If you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick", if you aim high, though you may not reach your goal you will get higher than if you just aim straight ahead". This part I disagree with 100%.

Grayson

There's one thing I don't get. If we spend the next 40-50 years changing they syllabus and managing to teach Irish in such a way that school leavers are fluent, in 50 years time We'll have a population that converses in Irish.

What's the point in it? How is that Ireland any better off than this one? Will it stop violence in the streets? Will it create more jobs? Will the people act any differently than they do now? Would it be any different than if we taught everyone Esperanto? Or tried to get everyone to learn Croatian? I know people are probably thinking I'm trolling there, but I mean it. What is the actual difference?

They won't have a greater sense of being Irish because being Irish is about more than the language. The practical lessons from poetry and prose can still be taught by teaching English. Speaking English hasn't affected us artistically. We have Joyce, Behan, Yeats and Kinsella etc.... So as Irish we actually have a huge cultural legacy that we've created... in English.

Art doesn't need another language. Paintings and sculpture speak for themselves. And as for music. Well, learning Irish isn't going to make people like trad any more than they do now. In fact, if you wander around the city centre or any town in Ireland you'll find trad sessions in pubs. And this is in places where no-one speaks or uses Irish. So it doesn't really seem to have hurt music.

History doesn't need another language to be valid. History has been taught in English since the foundation of the state. I don't believe I'd have a better understanding of the Flight of the Wild Geese or the 1916 rebellion if I'd been taught through Irish. So I have just as much appreciation of my cultural heritage as anyone else.


So why do we want the population of Ireland to speak Irish in 50 years? Would the population be more Irish? I can't see people wandering around bursting into Irish song. They'd be the exact same as they are now, just speaking a different language. Why is it so important that the language people speak in 50 years is Irish rather than English?

An Coilean

Grayson wrote: »

There's one thing I don't get. If we spend the next 40-50 years changing they syllabus and managing to teach Irish in such a way that school leavers are fluent, in 50 years time We'll have a population that converses in Irish.

What's the point in it? How is that Ireland any better off than this one? Will it stop violence in the streets? Will it create more jobs? Will the people act any differently than they do now? Would it be any different than if we taught everyone Esperanto? Or tried to get everyone to learn Croatian? I know people are probably thinking I'm trolling there, but I mean it. What is the actual difference?

They won't have a greater sense of being Irish because being Irish is about more than the language. The practical lessons from poetry and prose can still be taught by teaching English. Speaking English hasn't affected us artistically. We have Joyce, Behan, Yeats and Kinsella etc.... So as Irish we actually have a huge cultural legacy that we've created... in English.

Art doesn't need another language. Paintings and sculpture speak for themselves. And as for music. Well, learning Irish isn't going to make people like trad any more than they do now. In fact, if you wander around the city centre or any town in Ireland you'll find trad sessions in pubs. And this is in places where no-one speaks or uses Irish. So it doesn't really seem to have hurt music.

History doesn't need another language to be valid. History has been taught in English since the foundation of the state. I don't believe I'd have a better understanding of the Flight of the Wild Geese or the 1916 rebellion if I'd been taught through Irish. So I have just as much appreciation of my cultural heritage as anyone else.


So why do we want the population of Ireland to speak Irish in 50 years? Would the population be more Irish? I can't see people wandering around bursting into Irish song. They'd be the exact same as they are now, just speaking a different language. Why is it so important that the language people speak in 50 years is Irish rather than English?

First off, who said anything about people speaking Irish Instead of English. No one is looking for that, its just a strawman argument thrown about time and again by those opposed to the revival movement.
A bilingual Ireland, Irish and English speaking is what is aimed for.

The benefits of this are many and varied, yes it would create employment, major international business would have to employ Irish people to deal with their Irish customers through Irish, and to translate their marketing campaigns etc as happens in other countries that have their own language.

Perhaps you dont think speaking Irish will have any effect on a persons own fealing of Irishness, but why don't you ask an Irish speaker? They will more than likely tell you that it dose hold significance to their identity.

As for History, up till very recently Irish history was was written in Irish, huge amounts of it was never translated into English. If you want to have anything more than a shallow insight into much of Irish history, you have to know Irish.


The reason it should be Irish rather than any other language, is that there is demonstrable public support for it being Irish, time and again, any time the question has ever been asked, the answer has always been the same.
Creating a bilingual Ireland rather than staying the monolingual nation that we are would be beneficial for everyone, Bilingualism has proven cognative benefits.
It may come as a shock to some people, but no, English alone really is not enough.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Irish is closer to the Latin languages than it is to the Germanic.

French would be even closer.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes we already spend that time on Irish but we teach it insanely badly. Teach it well instead so 12 year olds are fluent leaving primary school.

The advantage to learning a language different to others is it causes more growth and connections in your brain. Learning two similar languages doesn't benefit your mind like learning two different languages like a Germanic and romance one.

Okay, so, Chinese then?

An Coilean wrote: »

The benefits of this are many and varied, yes it would create employment, major international business would have to employ Irish people to deal with their Irish customers through Irish, and to translate their marketing campaigns etc as happens in other countries that have their own language.

You're creating a need here were one does not exist. The end product serves no function if the nation is bilungial (or if everyone already understands the first langauge).

Perhaps you dont think speaking Irish will have any effect on a persons own fealing of Irishness, but why don't you ask an Irish speaker? They will more than likely tell you that it dose hold significance to their identity.

This is for the individual to decide. Besides - who said that national identity has to be expresse via language? Or at all?

As for History, up till very recently Irish history was was written in Irish, huge amounts of it was never translated into English. If you want to have anything more than a shallow insight into much of Irish history, you have to know Irish.


The reason it should be Irish rather than any other language, is that there is demonstrable public support for it being Irish, time and again, any time the question has ever been asked, the answer has always been the same.
Creating a bilingual Ireland rather than staying the monolingual nation that we are would be beneficial for everyone, Bilingualism has proven cognative benefits.
It may come as a shock to some people, but no, English alone really is not enough.

Bilingualism is, at the moment, a pipedream. But you don't need an entire nation to be bilungial for a language to prosper, you just have to have enough people to be passionate about it, as has been said earlier. But those people have GOT to realise that there are plenty of people who DON'T feel massively attracted to it, DON'T feel the urge or to express a feeling of national identity. Also that some of these people are in the 13-18 age group and have a right to dislike or disengage from the language if they feel that there energies and effort would be better served by studying soemthing else.

Lord TSC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To ensure its survival. To quote an old teacher of mine "If you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick", if you aim high, though you may not reach your goal you will get higher than if you just aim straight ahead.

Now for why we should ensure its survival.
Every language is unique and special, the loss of each one makes the world a poorer place culturally and helps decreases the rich and wonderful diversity all the cultures of the planet can contribute to give us, something more and more people are becoming concerned with worldwide with the spread of what might be called a "western monoculture" that the sad loss of linguistic diversity is very much part of.
A change is happening worldwide that we are intrinsically part of that can be observed by the changes in attitudes among, for example, Australians to their indigenous peoples and their culture (many are starting to actually embrace aspects of it as a part of theirs now,) and the same throughout The Americas, the old ideas that some here still cling to regarding cultural diversity are actually slowly disappearing among the more enlightened of us.
Cultural diversity is something you cannot put a price on or buy, only treasure.

We are in a position of being the guardians of one of the planets many languages or to put it another way one of the unique and special things that contribute to the rich diversity we as humans can enjoy, to disregard this responsibility would not only show us up as a nation but as a species.

Well, that's all nice and good, but how bout giving each person the choice about what they want to "help preserve" and the likes?

This all boils back down to (and I know I'm using this word a lot) sentimentality; "We must protect it because it is Irish and we should retain our Irishness". Not that we need the Irish language to communicate, but that we should keep it going so we can retain our Irishness. But again I say, not everyone is as interested in retaining their Irishness as others, and surely we should be free to choose?

Excuse me if as a 25 year old non-drinker who faces a "**** off and emigrate" attitude from Ireland every day if I don't rush to embrace my Irishness and declare myself proud of this country. And again I state, if you want to win a debate against people who are arguing that it is not nessecary to dedicate so much time and resources into the language, you'll have to come up with more than sentimentality.

Furthermore, no one is arguing against the survival of the Irish language! The debate is on how to "revive" the language, and I've been trying my best over today and yesterday to point out why there's a resentment of the language there. I don't want it to die. I just want the people who have the passion to see it survive take the bulk load of the work in ensuring that survival. I don't care about the Irish language, so don't want it to be forced down my throat . I just want the freedom to make my own choices in the matter. But that's obviously too much to ask from the pro-compulsion side of the arguement...

The reason it should be Irish rather than any other language, is that there is demonstrable public support for it being Irish, time and again, any time the question has ever been asked, the answer has always been the same.

Ah here now. Surely you know the logical follow up to this statement is a request for such support to be veirifed by facts and figures from independant survey groups, asking detailed questions...

Cú Giobach

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Well, that's all nice and good, but how bout giving each person the choice about what they want to "help preserve" and the likes?

This all boils back down to (and I know I'm using this word a lot) sentimentality; "We must protect it because it is Irish and we should retain our Irishness". Not that we need the Irish language to communicate, but that we should keep it going so we can retain our Irishness. But again I say, not everyone is as interested in retaining their Irishness as others, and surely we should be free to choose?

Excuse me if as a 25 year old non-drinker who faces a "**** off and emigrate" attitude from Ireland every day if I don't rush to embrace my Irishness and declare myself proud of this country. And again I state, if you want to win a debate against people who are arguing that it is not nessecary to dedicate so much time and resources into the language, you'll have to come up with more than sentimentality.

Furthermore, no one is arguing against the survival of the Irish language! The debate is on how to "revive" the language, and I've been trying my best over today and yesterday to point out why there's a resentment of the language there. I don't want it to die. I just want the people who have the passion to see it survive take the bulk load of the work in ensuring that survival. I don't care about the Irish language, so don't want it to be forced down my throat . I just want the freedom to make my own choices in the matter. But that's obviously too much to ask from the pro-compulsion side of the arguement...
.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Irishness and sentimentality, I am on about conserving worldwide diversity, if you want to discuss that then please do.
P.S. I am neither pro nor anti-compulsion, why don't you try and respond to what I am actually saying, otherwise I won't bother responding to your posts.

Lord TSC

Diversity through retaining a sense of Irishness among the Irish people, right?

Cú Giobach

LordSutch wrote: »

Amazingly I agree with most of that, apart from "To quote an old teacher of mine "If you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick", if you aim high, though you may not reach your goal you will get higher than if you just aim straight ahead". This part I disagree with 100%.

Fair enough, it was actually an add on to make my post more relevant to the quoted post.

How to revive the Irish language.

The more I have read these "Irish language" threads on boards the more I have begun to realise something.

The very first step in reviving any language does not involve the methods of teaching or even the teaching of a single word of that language, the first steps are, Teaching what language actually is and its importance to human beings, the ability to use basic logic to decide what is important or not and the importance of conserving, the irreplaceable uniqueness of, and how special every single culture/language on the planet is.

The importance of language.
In every thread we see the usual argument of "language is just a tool for communication". Language goes way beyond just communication, we think in language so what language you think in has a bearing on how you think, and how you think has a bearing on the person you are.
The language/s you speak is/are part of what defines you as a human being, and how you view the world around you.


Logic.
We constantly hear the "Number of speakers worldwide" argument, learning Mandarin will not give me the ability to speak to over a billion people, in fact learning the language wouldn't be remotely relevant compared to the difficulty in building the time machine I would need to constantly go back over the number of human lifetimes needed to converse with that number of people.
To quote myself from an earlier post "Learning a language spoken by 5 billion people is worthless if you have no reason to meet those people, and learning a language spoken by 500 is very worthwhile if you deal with those people every day."

Cultural diversity.
We constantly hear the "It's a bog language for boggers" comments.
Every single culture and language on the planet is special and irreplaceable, as I said earlier that is something we cannot buy or put a price on but only treasure. It is a poorer world as each one is lost.
Respect them all, including the one on this island.

Education is the key to reviving the Irish language, but for many not education in the language itself , yet.

Cú Giobach

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Diversity through retaining a sense of Irishness among the Irish people, right?

Retaining the irreplaceable Irish language, making the world a richer place.

Lord TSC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Retaining the irreplaceable Irish language, making the world a richer place.

I've bolded the bits of that sentence which are pure opinion and which I completly disagree with.

But that's your opinion, you're free to it, and free to persue it as you see fit.

Why am I not free to have my opinion and place the time and efforts of my children elsewhere?

poeticseraphim

paullyons00 wrote: »

In my opinion, the only way we can possibly revive the Irish language to make it the first language of the people, business and pleasure, is as follows:

All citizens below the age of 30 and above the age of 17 have 5 years to reach an agreed level of fluency.

Each will be assessed through an oral and written exam at the end of those 5 years.

If the candidate does not pass on his/her first exam, they will be given a second chance to pass but at a higher pass mark.

Any candidate who fails the second exam should be stripped of their rights and citizenship and should face a hefty prison sentence.


This may seem autocratic or communist, but in my view its the only way we can revive the language or else it will die out in years to come.

I'd love to hear your opinions on my way of thinking and alternative views on how we should go about reviving the language.

ERM...that would KILL the language....

My opinion is take it off the leaving cert and make it optional....then take all the billions we have invested over the years and put it into the Gael Scóils they are doing well not just in reviving the language but acheiving good results in general education.

People who spout the above have little knowledge of how languages are actually learnt and how the brain does that. If all students are coming out with the same results then it is not the studens but a bad sysem for teaching languages.

The other issue is in reality people will never reach a high level of speaking a language without engaging with native high level speakers on an individual basis. It is a part of the problem with the summer Irish college system you have beginners and intermediate anglophones speaking Irish with each other instead of high level educated native speakers as you would on a foreign echange programme. Infact they usually insist upon this in such programmes.

Also the way it should be taught in classes should be up to date in terms of language learning techniques. The Alliance Francais would be a prime example of how a language should be technically taght to achieve good results. They teah all their classes THROUGH French from raw beginners up. And they separate raw beginners from beginners and intermediate etc. All teachers are native speakers and they have many social clubs...classes are fun!

And we have to address the issue of there not currently being enough high level native speakers nationwide to provide high level conversation to facilitate high fluency. Nor are there enough reading materials such as novels and magazines plays etc.

Also you have to respect Anglophones and Hiberno-Anglophone culture and stop indoctrination and the identification of Irish with one view point or lifestyle.

But really we spend so much teaching it in schools for the leaving andit has not worked ..drop it as a requiredsubject and put that money into Gael Scóils and teach it as they do in the Alliance Francais. To revive it people have to enjoy expressing themselves in it with their contemporaries...not middle aged gaelgoirs with attitude and conservative views.

Lack of choice is suppression ....and people , especially Irish people will resist that...and they should indoctrination is not good.

Take it of the leaving as a required subject and pump those funds into Gael Scóils.

And i think free classes should be available tto those who CHOOSE to learn it...to be honest Irish teachers and courses are not currently interested in people learning it just making money....

Speak it more and write more in it Gaelgoirs should produce more material.

Cú Giobach

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I've bolded the bits of that sentence which are pure opinion and which I completly disagree with.

But that's your opinion, you're free to it, and free to persue it as you see fit.

Why am I not free to have my opinion and place the time and efforts of my children elsewhere?

You can think and do whatever you like, where have I ever said otherwise?
Linguistic and cultural diversity is something more and more people planet-wide respect and wish to retain, remain stuck in the past if you wish, it's no skin off my nose, though it would be sad to see kids brought up with that attitude, still each to their own.

Lord TSC

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You can think and do whatever you like, where have I ever said otherwise?

Oh, I must have missed where Irish was made optional in schools :rolleyes:

Linguistic and cultural diversity is something more and more people planet-wide respect and wish to retain, remain stuck in the past if you wish, it's no skin off my nose, though it would be sad to see kids brought up with that attitude, still each to their own.

:rolleyes:

Usually I try and come up with something more thought out that a roll eyes emoticon, but it's pretty obvious at this stage that you're not interested in actually discussing the language but instead in making snarky remarks about being stuck in the past (which, to be frank, I find hilarious in the context of this debate)....

DonkeyStyle \o/

delthedriver wrote: »

The days of the fair maidens dancing at the crossroads to the tune ofirish fiddle music and chatting as Gaeilge are gone forever, now is the time to move on.

In fairness, dancing around drunk at a crossroad sounds like a good time. Can we still do this?