How to revive the Irish language.

podgeandrodge

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nice rant. Feel better?

Yes thanks!

LordSutch

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The reason I personally always bring up compulsion vs optional is becasue I think to start a revival, you've got to tackle the resentment a lot of people have. The resentment towards the Irish language is bred in the fact its compulsory up to leaving cert. Making it optional past JC would mean people would have plenty of time to study it, get the basics learned and start developing a passion. If after the JC people still don't want to learn it, then it shouldn't be forced on them.

I get it would probably see less speakers, but for me, that just shows that a revival isn't nessecary, since obviously plenty of people could get by perfectly fine without Irish. I guess that's the problem here. One side's stance is "Irish should be learned and studied by those who want to study it, who have a passion for it" and the other is "Irish should be learned by all regardless of what they want, it should be forced on people regardless of passion."

If you want people to speak Irish, you have to get over the ideology of forcing it on people. You need to tackle the resentment. That's not just in school, mind. Look back at the opening post to see a suggestion that it should even be forced on people after school as well :S

I don't want to see the language die. I just think that you need to make sure the focus is being put towards those with a passion for it, and if the language drops off because people are given a choice, then perhaps you have to ask why that is?

Here here, well said, and great to see you getting away with this point of view (virtually indetical to mine) without getting tons of abuse from . .

I wont mention his name, just in case he plugs into this thread and lets rip. shush

_Kaiser_

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nice rant. Feel better?

Actually I think he raises some valid points, but I guess a 4 word quip is more suited to AH :rolleyes:

Qualitymark

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Anyone here going to defend the huge disgraceful waste of public money being spent on Irish translations of English documents?

Completely agree.

Incidentally, one (Northern Protestant) teacher within my ambit turned years of the kids she taught on to Irish by running Cafe Gaeilge once a week, during which the kids could talk about anything (in Irish) while drinking coffee and eating cake. They loved it.

Cú Giobach

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Actually I think he raises some valid points, but I guess a 4 word quip is more suited to AH :rolleyes:

Been there done that, couldn't be arsed going over it again and again ad infinitum, and why should I? Not everyone interested in the language wants to shove it down everyone else's throat, whatever the ignorant masses think.

If you read my posts regarding the language you might notice I have no interest whatsoever in The compulsion debate or What the government does regarding it (or much else that they do for that matter), all I want to do is discuss it as a language in the same way I would discuss any language on the planet, my interest on this front is primarily in languages in general (not that I'm a linguist or anything) not politics, that I leave to others.
So when people try to engage me in these tedious debates I make it quite clear if I have no interest. The words "Irish" and "language" in a thread always end the same but I still like to pop in and put a few people straight regarding factual errors regarding language and debate those, not debate something I have no interest in.
Is that OK with your lordship?

Paddy Samurai

paullyons00 wrote: »

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

Declare that Irish is now banned and that is illegal to speak ,read or teach Irish.

Within two years we will all be speaking fluent Irish.:D

Qualitymark

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

Declare that Irish is now banned and that is illegal to speak ,read or teach Irish.

Within two years we will all be speaking fluent Irish.:D

Is dócha nach mbéadh, do mo bhrón.

Paddy Samurai

Qualitymark wrote: »

Is dócha nach mbéadh, do mo bhrón.

Bloody foreigners!.:D

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ficheall wrote: »

Do you mean after the Junior Cert... or...? Or am I missing something relevant?

Personally, I would say up until the completion of the Junior Cert, have Maths and English as the only compusory subjects due to relevance. After that, everything optional.

If, at the age of 15, kids cannot count or communicate, something more drastic is wrong with the system that compulsion is not going to sort out.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Since you are not debating any of the points I actually raised in the initial post you quoted and instead just seem to be reading random words and responding to your own brain, I think I will leave off "chatting" with you.
Are you drunk?

Eh...? You avoid every point I and two other posters rasied, ignore them, deicide instead on some petty insults toward all three of us, and then claim .the moral highground?

Paddyandy? Degsy? A re-reg?

KenSwee

Coming to this late.

I don't want to learn Irish and I don't want my kinds to either.
They are going to be introduced to languages that are valuable should they wish to travel or work abroad.
If they want to learn it later in life, they are welcome to do it but I won't be encouraging them.
I'd prefer if the whole world spoke just a few languages.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Eh...? You avoid every point I and two other posters rasied, ignore them, deicide instead on some petty insults toward all three of us, and then claim .the moral highground?

ME: 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,"

YOU: "Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language."

ME: "It is illogical to say you will get the chance to speak to billions of people by learning Mandarin."

YOU: " Never said anything about Mandarian...?"

I won't go into the rest of your comments because they are all in the same vein, you not saying anything about what I actually said or the points raised, I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

Interest in History

Cú Giobach wrote: »

* Don't ask me for proof, it's been done to absolute death here with evidence always produced for a majority in favour, but none ever produced against.

Eoin Kilfeather has a piece on opinion polls and Irish at google.com/site/failedrevival.

I don't think that opinion polls have a lot to add to our knowledge of the actual position.

Most people like a bit of Irish and accept it as a national symbol but don't want or need to speak it. A small number of people do employ it as a language in much the way that the Russian elite employed French around the end of the eighteenth century, because it shows something about them.

Among the former ther are many who could do with less of it and among the latter there are some who aspire to make it the vernacular of the whole community, and you've got everything in between.

There is no way to devise a question with a 'yes' or 'No' answer which will provide a measure of the thinking about Irish accross the whole community.

LeeroyJ.

Sorry but there is no point reviving the language. Start teaching children in school a language that will actually get them a job like Spanish German or French or keep teaching them Irish and keep the 15% unemployment rate. All the big companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Apple require a second fluent language (not Irish). It's the same nonsense with all the protection around travelers, child services should get those kinds into school and not protect this 'culture'...

Just my 2 cents.

Wibbs

Interest in History wrote: »

There is no way to devise a question with a 'yes' or 'No' answer which will provide a measure of the thinking about Irish accross the whole community.

Well you can. The proof is in the pudding. The very title of this thread illustrates it. The plain fact is this; the vast majority of people born in this nation can't speak Irish worth a damn if at all* and have little interest in trying, despite the best efforts of the Irish state since it's founding.

The more strident pro Irish camp know that compulsion is to be fought for tooth and nail, because they also know that removing it will show the actual level of grassroots support for the language, which is essentially sweet fanny adams. When compulsion was dropped for daily spoken Irish in the civil service the language stopped being spoken across the board overnight and consider this was among people who actually had Irish to a conversational level. Any time compulsion is dropped for the language people march with their feet away from it. Hell stand outside a Gaelscoil and listen to the kids. The further from the gates the less they speak it. They text, chat and facebook and all that guff as Bearla. My goddaughter goes to one and I collect her often enough to hear this (and hear some of the teachers bemoan it).

The Gaeltacht areas have contracted more and more with each passing decade since the foundation of the state. Gaeltacht in 1926, thirty years later and today(well 2007). As if Irish speaking primary schools, road and housing estate signs as Gaelige and such window dressing are going to reverse that rot. Why? IMH because the real reason for it's contraction is nada or little to do with the education system etc, it's because beyond "ah sure I have a cupla focal" most Irish people simply don't care about it enough. Not "Yay" or "Nay", mostly "Meh".

I personally don't believe the language will die out any time soon. A minority do speak it daily and won't stop overnight. I can see another strand of it evolving into a pigeon Irish, the Irish of the school.








*according to a native Donegal Irish speaking friend an awful lot of self styled Gaelgoirs at times sound like stilted foreigners with phrasebooks in hand.

Qualitymark

KenSwee wrote: »

I'd prefer if the whole world spoke just a few languages.

Surely you shouldn't want your children to be taught any other language then?

The sensible thing, though, if others had your philosophy, would be to make all languages other than Mandarin illegal. After all, Mandarin is spoken by more people than any other language. (Actually, it's not; it has scarcely penetrated to most people in China, who stubbornly speak their own languages, but why let facts get in the way of a good theory.)

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

*according to a native Donegal Irish speaking friend an awful lot of self styled Gaelgoirs at times sound like stilted foreigners with phrasebooks in hand.

One interesting thing about that is, the native speaker will almost never correct someone and hardly notice mistakes during conversation, because they are concentrating on what people are trying to say and forming a response in their head (like you would do concentrating on a French person with broken English), whereas many non-native speakers will actually correct someone because they have all these "rules and regulations" floating around their head (correcting a learner of a language without being asked is considered the height of ignorance, if you don't understand the person, you just say "sorry I don't understand you").
I don't speak grammatically good Irish and just speak the first thing that comes into my head that feels natural and concentrate primarily on being understood, rather than being grammatically correct and therefore slower, staccato and without a comfortable flow.
It is people concentrating primarily on grammar that can lead to the "stilted foreigner" feeling you mention, as often the words don't flow and even native speakers of all languages don't use perfect grammar when chatting casually.

By the way, if someone corrects me without being asked I always respond the same, "Oh, so you're not a native speaker then" and when they look at me quizzically I explain the above, I have never gotten it wrong yet. Yeah!!! :cool:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

ME: 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,"

YOU: "Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language."

ME: "It is illogical to say you will get the chance to speak to billions of people by learning Mandarin."

YOU: " Never said anything about Mandarian...?"

I won't go into the rest of your comments because they are all in the same vein, you not saying anything about what I actually said or the points raised, I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

If you can't comment on or answer the two questions raised above, or the points rasied by other posters, it's probably wise that you do not go on.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If you can't comment on or answer the two questions raised above, or the points rasied by other posters, it's probably wise that you do not go on.

Why? Because I have an Irish user name and like languages? FFS. :rolleyes:
I could ask you a million questions on things you have no interest in and demand a response too you know.
Why should I respond to "compulsion" or "government spending" comments when neither interest me and I could actually argue both sides of the debate? I would love to tell you to piss off, but that would be against the charter, wouldn't it.

By the way, If you can't see how off track your questions to me were (only one of which I pointed out in my "ME: YOU: post"), then there is no point in trying to discuss anything rationally with you.

Bye.

By the way demanding people get into debates they have no interest in getting into, goes against the position of "choice" you advocate, I can choose to debate or respond to any dam thing I want. If you don't like that, tough shit, and I will continue posting here as much as I please unless I am banned.

donegal_man

I honestly think the problem with revival lies (unless things have changed since my day) in the way the language is taught. We didn't learn it as a vibrant living spoken language but as a cultural artifact, the language of long dead poets and patriots. I still remember in primary school standing up and rhyming of the declensions of some verb that I had memorised the night before and then promptly forgetting it by lunch time.
Conversely when I began to learn German and later Polish I learnt how to communicate, how to talk to people. The result is that if you dump me in the middle of Berlin or Warsaw I can ask directions, order food and drink and make a fair stab and having a conversation with the bar tender using the local language. None of which I could do in Gweedore.

ViveLaVie

Seanchai wrote: »

The number of teachers of English in particular who do not have a grasp of the basic grammar of that language is consistently astonishing. There are no excuses for it. It's not as if a native speaker of English getting a degree in English is as hard an intellectual feat as getting a degree in Maths, Irish, French or the like. They can familiarise themselves with their subject knowledge much quicker, as it's all in their native language so they should be great teachers with all that spare time they can devote to teaching methodology. Alas, because they chose English for their degree, they probably hadn't much of a work ethic to begin with. So they waffle their way through an entire career as a (bad) teacher of English.

Is this a joke? Seriously?

What exactly do you think the subject matter of an English degree is? Learning off grammar rules and pronounciation? I'll give you a hint. It's not. It's the study of literary criticism.

So, by your logic, a philosophy degree, a history degree, an economics degree, a medicine degree and a dentistry degree are all easier to get than a Maths or French degree because the student can familiarise themselves with their subject matter faster through the medium of their native tongue? And the fact that doctors and philosophers choose to study through English and not French or 'Maths language' whatever you seem to think that is means they're lazy and have a poor work ethic?

What a ridiculous comment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why? Because I have an Irish user name and like languages? FFS. :rolleyes:
I could ask you a million questions on things you have no interest in and demand a response too you know.
Why should I respond to "compulsion" or "government spending" comments when neither interest me and I could actually argue both sides of the debate? I would love to tell you to piss off, but that would be against the charter, wouldn't it.

By the way, If you can't see how off track your questions to me were (only one of which I pointed out in my "ME: YOU: post"), then there is no point in trying to discuss anything rationally with you.

Bye.

Em... you were the one that brought up the points of langauage and logic, and Irish and education, and now you're throwing your toys out of the pram because suddenly they're irrelevant...?

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Em... you were the one that brought up the points of langauage and logic, and Irish and education, and now you're throwing your toys out of the pram because suddenly they're irrelevant...?

Logic, regarding which language to learn.
Language, regarding how it affects us as human beings.
Irish, because it was the topic of this thread.
Education, regarding the use of logic explained above and teaching how language is more than just communication.
You did not respond to any of the actual points but instead just seemed to pick random meaning out of my post and ask irrelevant, meaningless questions, hence my asking if you were drunk, go back and have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. Here and Here.

I am not responding to you anymore if you want to carry on with this nonsense, Ok?

An Coilean

Interest in History wrote: »

Eoin Kilfeather has a piece on opinion polls and Irish at google.com/site/failedrevival.

I don't think that opinion polls have a lot to add to our knowledge of the actual position.

I had a read of that, his position was essentially that any poll or census report that disagrees with his position is propaganda and can be ignored.
Truely enlightened stuff.


I have yet to read the whole document, but of what I have read there are some serious problems, coming to conclusions that support the narative he is trying to create with out supporting evidence, and passing on false information to name but a few.

I know you wont accept this, as it is clear that you have no real insight into the topic beyond this document.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Logic, regarding which language to learn.
Language, regarding how it affects us as human beings.
Irish, because it was the topic of this thread.
Education, regarding the use of logic explained above and teaching how language is more than just communication.
You did not respond to any of the actual points but instead just seemed to pick random meaning out of my post and ask irrelevant, meaningless questions, hence my asking if you were drunk, go back and have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. Here and Here.

I am not responding to you anymore if you want to carry on with this nonsense, Ok?

Oh come on! You made four points - logic, importance, cultrual diversity and education, and I aswered all four. You said you had difficulty following my point because of the multiquoting, I stopped multiquoting. You then threw the toys out of the pram because you simply disagreed with what i was saying.

Logic? I pointed out that logic is more of a skill learnt in other subjects, such as Maths and science, langauge having different skills of its own. To elaborate, language is more of right-brain function, calling on expression and artistic abilities than logic and deduction.

Which language to learn? I suggested French, German, as they will be more practical. To another poster, I beleive I suggested Chinese, which I presume is where you Mandarin comment came in.

How it affects us? I pointed out that people are effected in different ways. To some it is just a tool. Live with it. To others it is more. Fine. I also pointed out that I don't need to learn a langauge to speak to people I already share a common language with!

Education? I know you're not bothered by compulsion, but it is something that is slowing down any ongoing rivial. I pointed out that edcuation should encourage students to debate and which may lead to a lot of them rejecting the learning of Irish altogether. Possibly even the rejection oflearning a second language altogether. I also asked if you would be ready to hear this? Judging by your comments to me and other posters who simply disagreed with you, and by the idea that I'm attackign your username (??) I'm guessing not.

All posted in similar format in the second post above, directly under the point you rasied.

ViveLaVie

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Logic? I pointed out that logic is more of a skill learnt in other subjects, such as Maths and science, langauge having different skills of its own. To elaborate, language is more of right-brain function, calling on expression and artistic abilities than logic and deduction.

Just in response to this...

Logic is a skill learned in learning a second language. It might be a different kind of logic to the type acquired through maths and science, but it's a logic nonetheless.

It only calls on expression and artistic abilities when it's already been learned and the speaker wants to say something in a particularly skillful way.

To speak at the most basic level in any language requires the use of logic in successfully putting together grammar and vocabulary. It really isn't just a mindless learning off by rote. If that were the case half the country would be fluent in Irish as that's what you're taught to do in LC HL Irish.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Just in response to this...

Logic is a skill learned in learning a second language. It might be a different kind of logic to the type acquired through maths and science, but it's a logic nonetheless.

It only calls on expression and artistic abilities when it's already been learned and the speaker wants to say something in a particularly skillful way.

To speak at the most basic level in any language requires the use of logic in successfully putting together grammar and vocabulary. It really isn't just a mindless learning off by rote. If that were the case half the country would be fluent in Irish as that's what you're taught to do in LC HL Irish.

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I would still harbour that learning grammar and vocabulary is something that could be done learning English alone, but I see your point. Having learnt German, though, it didn't really take much logic, it was more practice and reptition, even though the gramatical structure is very different.

If second languages were to be learnt, I'd recomment German for this reason alone (although I prefer French for the linguistics).

indioblack

Most of my relatives in Ireland have a few words of Irish - but I doubt if any of them could string a meaningful sentence together. Just as well - I wouldn't know what they were saying anyway!
This thread, like all the others, is not about a particular language.
It's about cultural identity.
Those Irish relatives of mine like to know that Irish is there, they want people to defend it - and they would welcome the debate over it's unlikely demise.
They want to know the language is there - it's important to them - but they don't want to learn it or use it themselves. If they did, they would have learned it of their own volition - they've had enough time.
It's important to them - but not enough to learn it.
You could say that is an Irish solution! Maybe it is.

ViveLaVie

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I would still harbour that learning grammar and vocabulary is something that could be done learning English alone, but I see your point. Having learnt German, though, it didn't really take much logic, it was more practice and reptition, even though the gramatical structure is very different.

If second languages were to be learnt, I'd recomment German for this reason alone (although I prefer French for the linguistics).

Well if I'm understanding you correctly here, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that you learn that logic already when you learn English as your mother tongue. I would have to disagree here. Acquiring a second language after the age of 12 is very different to learning it as you grow up and acquiring it naturally. I would think the majority of native English speakers don't understand the grammar and/or structure of English as we just aren't formally taught this in school. In fact, while a lot of people would be able to speak formally in English, a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable doing so. Most people speak colloquially for the majority of the time.

I would also argue that the more languages you learn the better developed this skill becomes. Equally someone who learns French to degree level should have a more developed 'language logic' than someone who only studies it for the LC.

I don't know German myself but English is classed as a Germanic language so I'm surprised that you didn't find them similar in some way?

I would advocate learning Spanish and French as they are the most widely spoken languages in the world aside from English. They are also Romantic languages so have a very different set-up to English.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oh come on! You made four points - logic, importance, cultrual diversity and education, and I aswered all four. You said you had difficulty following my point because of the multiquoting, I stopped multiquoting. You then threw the toys out of the pram because you simply disagreed with what i was saying.

I had difficulty reading your post because
1. you weren't responding to my points and coming up with irrelevancies I was trying to figure out.
2. you were literally all over the place script-wise.
I got annoyed with you because you were insisting I respond to your points yet were totally ignoring mine and just making up random comments that had nothing to do with any of my points in this thread. That is bad form and would annoy the Dali-Lama.

Logic? I pointed out that logic is more of a skill learnt in other subjects, such as Maths and science, langauge having different skills of its own. To elaborate, language is more of right-brain function, calling on expression and artistic abilities than logic and deduction.

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you say here.
Read it again. It is about using logic to decide what is logical and what is not, basically teaching kids to distinguish between the "silly" and the "rational".

Which language to learn? I suggested French, German, as they will be more practical. To another poster, I beleive I suggested Chinese, which I presume is where you Mandarin comment came in.

My point had nothing whatsoever to with anything you said, but was around the rather silly notion that, The worldwide number of speakers of a language is more important in deciding which language to learn than the language of the people you will interact with on a daily basis, and Speaking a language somehow magically gives you access to all the speakers of that language.
I speak one of the world's most common languages, yet to gain access to the hundreds of millions of English speakers I would have to do a hell of a lot more than just speak the language, that was where logic came in.

How it affects us? I pointed out that people are effected in different ways. To some it is just a tool. Live with it. To others it is more. Fine. I also pointed out that I don't need to learn a langauge to speak to people I already share a common language with!

Language is intertwined with human cognition, since everybody (except for some unfortunate individuals) thinks, then it affects everybody.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, language goes beyond just communication and is way more than just a tool.
Linky another link, that one is a bit long how about this one. I can produce quite a few more if you wish.

Education? I know you're not bothered by compulsion, but it is something that is slowing down any ongoing rivial. I pointed out that edcuation should encourage students to debate and which may lead to a lot of them rejecting the learning of Irish altogether. Possibly even the rejection oflearning a second language altogether. I also asked if you would be ready to hear this? Judging by your comments to me and other posters who simply disagreed with you, and by the idea that I'm attackign your username (??) I'm guessing not.

My mentioning of education was about teaching tolerance, logic and how language affects cognition, none of which you mention here, it was not about compulsion in education.

If I have given no stance on compulsion how can you or others disagree with me regarding it? Same for government spending.
Maybe a class in basic logic needed?

All posted in similar format in the second post above, directly under the point you rasied.

Some points yes, the irrelevant ones that had nothing to do with what I have been saying.

ViveLaVie

Cú Giobach wrote: »

My point had nothing whatsoever to with anything you said, but was around the rather silly notion that, The worldwide number of speakers of a language is more important in deciding which language to learn than the language of the people you will interact with on a daily basis, and Speaking a language somehow magically gives you access to all the speakers of that language.
I speak one of the world's most common languages, yet to gain access to the hundreds of millions of English speakers I would have to do a hell of a lot more than just speak the language, that was where logic came in.

Just in response to this...

I would be of the opinion myself that it would be somewhat useful to have one of the more widely spoken languages because it gives you more opportunities to work abroad and then interact with a number of people who couldn't have previously. Obviously somebody who can speak French would have the option of moving to France, Quebec, Belgium etc and adapting much more easily than someone who can't speak French.

I think Spanish and French would be good languages to have because they are 2nd and 3rd respectively on the ladder of widely spoken languages and have the 2nd and 3rd largest amount of people learning them as additional languages.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Language is intertwined with human cognition, since everybody (except for some unfortunate individuals) thinks, then it affects everybody.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, language goes beyond just communication and is way more than just a tool.
Linky another link, that one is a bit long how about this one. I can produce quite a few more if you wish.

I haven't checked those links yet but I absolutely agree. It's been proven that having a second language expands thinking and improves IQ. It can even make you see things differently i.e. a language that has more vocabulary to describe nuances in colour actually teaches the brain to distinguish more effectively between colour. So a speaker of one particular language could see more colours than a person who speaks another.