How to revive the Irish language.

Interest in History

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Nobody who looks at the factual situation could contradict a word of what you say here.

But that was not my point. My point was that there is an elite group in society whose members are positively engaged with Irish as a language. So: there are two main opinions in society and a myriad of intermediate opinions. So: opinion polls can't help us very much because opinions are too mixed. They can't give 'Yes' or 'No' answers to our questions.

The reason that we keep having to debate this is that the Revivalist elite have the political power to impose their programme on the population at large. And this is not particularly strange. Special interest groups have disproportionate power over government in our society, in many areas of our political system. This power is embedded and was a significant factor in the failure of our independence.

The people in the Dáil? What do they represent? Look at late night television and decide for yourself!

The Revival of Irish makes a very interesting case study in the story of this independent state, and of its failure.

paddyandy

There is money in the effort but nothing in the results in getting the language up and running again and that is why the debate goes on and on and on .

Interest in History

ViveLaVie wrote: »

....... It's been proven that having a second language expands thinking and improves IQ.

Your point here: that knowing a second language expands the IQ....

Does that mean that students who do the Leaving Cert through Irish don't really need that extra 10% added to their marks? Or is that their extra IQ is just being applied to running a scam to give them an advantage in their careers?

Of course, if the scam is already there, it is logical to take advantage of it. If the exam system is corrupted to give advantage to a particular group of students that is the responsibility of the Department of Education. So that would be the doing of a corrupt Minister for Education, I suppose.

But education ministers can plead innocence on the ground of their weakness. Which is a valid defence in this case. Who would dare to say that they are part of the corruption?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I'll leave the insults out here. They add nothing to your point.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

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".

That is NOT what you wrote in the original post. No wonder you had difficulty understanding my reply.

Under logic, in the oriingal post, you asked, why learn a language spoken by people you are unlikley to meet, or that is the most popular in the world. I replied with the logic of leanring a langauge to communicate with people you already share a langauge with.

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.

You also wrote "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."

THIS is what I was replying to.

TO CLARIFY:
A LANGAUGE, FROM ONLY AN ENTIRELY PRACTICAL (I.E. LOGICAL, AS YOU PUT IT) POINT OF VIEW, IS ONLY USEFUL IF YOU NEED IT TO COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT SPEAK THE LANGUAGES YOU ALREADY KNOW.

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.

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.

Now we're talking a bout a DIFFERENT issue. Just to be clear. The use of language for devices other than communication.

I never argued otherwise - I pointed out that there are a lot of people, though, who do. And for them, if they can communicate, they're happy. And most of them can until they go abroad.



Now we're moving on to a third point: Education.

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.

Again, not what you said. You said that education was key to the Irish language's revival. Teaching about the langauge as well as the language itself.

I pointed out that compuslion was not the way. Never said that that's what you said. All you had to do was agree with it or disagree with it or say you had no feelings either way.

I also pointed out that debate, lateral thinking and decision making are equally important 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?


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

Again, I never said you had any interest in compulsion. You stated what you thought should happen in education, I stated that I thought: that students should be taught to make the decisions regarding what to study for themselves. They should be free to choose and that not having to choose a Irish would help it's revival. General point, it's what the thread is about.






I did ask a couple of questions which were not raised, yes, such as why leanring language is important but other aspects of culture, such as sport, music or art, were not.

Interest in History

donegal_man wrote: »

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.

None of which you need to do in Gweedore

Cú Giobach

ViveLaVie wrote: »

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, Canada, 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. .

Yes they are very useful languages to learn if you are going to be dealing with French or Spanish speakers, but not much use in Norway or with the other over 6 billion people who don't speak them.
Basically what I am saying is
1. The language that is most useful to learn is the one you will need and that is decided on an individual basis, the worldwide number of speakers has no bearing on this.
2. Though my main issue was with the rather silly notion that speaking a language somehow gives you magical access to all the speakers of that language, that really believe it or not, is said quite often here in AH.
As in "I would rather learn Spanish so I can talk to 500 million people, rather than Irish where I can only talk to 60,000". That makes no rational sense, even if you insert "have the option to talk to".
That was the point, I did not recommend speaking or learning any particular language including Irish.

Picking any language and saying that it or another is more useful was grand in a "smaller" world, but today the question is very much more open to debate, with one exception; the main language we speak here, we already have what is the handiest language for international travel and business, which other someone might want to learn is a personal preference based on their individual needs and life.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 if you want to talk to me clean up your post, I'm not messing about cleaning it up to try to decipher and untangle your points.

Actually don't bother, you made it clear enough in it that you can't actually read or comprehend on the most basic of levels what I wrote, since I've been over and over this with you and you still can't get it, time to call it a day.
Slán.

LordSutch

I think its time for a public debate on the issue: Its seventy/eighty years since Irish was put into our schools, presumably with the intention of teaching (making) every young Irish person speak Irish. Patently this has not worked over many decades, and the daily speaking of the Irish language is now confined to the ever shrinking gaelteacht areas in the country. So I think its time for a root and branch reform of anything and everything to do with the Irish language, a bit of 'lateral thinking' from the teaching of Irish, to the speaking of + the aims of the Irish lobby, to anything and evrtything to do with Irish. That translation service in Brussels doesn't come cheap you know.

Keep the language alive by all means, but the current status quo is totally stagnent, and badly needs an injection of some radically new thinking.

Cú Giobach

LordSutch wrote: »

I think its time for a public debate on the issue: Its seventy/eighty years since Irish was put into our schools, presumably with the intention of teaching (making) every young Irish person speak Irish. Patently this has not worked over many decades, and the daily speaking of the Irish language is now confined to the ever shrinking gaelteacht areas in the country. So I think its time for a root and branch reform of anything and everything to do with the Irish language, a bit of 'lateral thinking' from the teaching of Irish, to the speaking of + the aims of the Irish lobby, to anything and evrtything to do with Irish. That translation service in Brussels doesn't come cheap you know.

Keep the language alive by all means, but the current status quo is totally stagnent, and badly needs an injection of some radically new thinking.

I know, how about a "How to revive the Irish language" thread, surely there are enough people reading AH to contribute some little gems, without it descending into a farce.

Interest in History

An Coilean wrote: »

I had a read of that,.....I have yet to read the whole document...

I think that the Kilfeather document sought mainly to link the Revival with the activity-pattern of political elite-groups in general. So: any elite group will formulate the questions facing society in a way that gets the answers that accommodate their power. In our context, that would be that the political ideology underpinning the Revival makes the claim that the Revival is for the good of the nation. In contrast to this, he poses the question: is it just for the benefit of an elite?

I'm fairly sure that he was only interested in the Revival of Irish as an illustrative example of political dynamics. I would guess that he doesen't mind what language the Irish people speak.

Cú Giobach

ViveLaVie wrote: »

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.

I forgot to add this bit earlier.

That I feel is one of the more fascinating aspects of language, when you understand it it really opens your eyes to why people around the world are so different, it can also I believe help explain conflict, in the sense that something obvious to one person is not so obvious to another.
That one's language defines so much of who you are and how you view things, is also one hell of a reason why the loss of every language is so negative, we loose a perspective on the universe that is totally irreplaceable.

ViveLaVie

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Yes they are very useful languages to learn if you are going to be dealing with French or Spanish speakers, but not much use in Norway or with the other over 6 billion people who don't speak them.
Basically what I am saying is
1. The language that is most useful to learn is the one you will need and that is decided on an individual basis, the worldwide number of speakers has no bearing on this.
2. Though my main issue was with the rather silly notion that speaking a language somehow gives you magical access to all the speakers of that language, that really believe it or not, is said quite often here in AH.
As in "I would rather learn Spanish so I can talk to 500 million people, rather than Irish where I can only talk to 60,000". That makes no rational sense, even if you insert "have the option to talk to".
That was the point, I did not recommend speaking or learning any particular language including Irish.

Picking any language and saying that it or another is more useful was grand in a "smaller" world, but today the question is very much more open to debate, with one exception; the main language we speak here, we already have what is the handiest language for international travel and business, which other someone might want to learn is a personal preference based on their individual needs and life.

Yeah I understand what you're saying but I think at secondary level not everyone knows whether they might want to go abroad to certain countries later in life. Basically, having one of the more widely spoken languages is more of an advantage than having one that is quite obscure.


People who studied French and Spanish in college now have the opportunity to work and communicate effectively in countries besides the UK, New Zealand, Australia and America. A lot of people have to emigrate for jobs now. Bilinguals have a larger pool of countries to select from.


Obviously speaking Spanish is relatively useless in Ireland but the worldwide number does have a basis on the chances of you coming into contact with Spanish speakers and on the availability of the production of books, films and music through that language. It would give you access to a wealth of Spanish film, music and literature. I don't know if anyone suggested learning a popular language magically gives you a portal to the people who speak it. Maybe someone did?


The fact is that debating the benefits of learning Irish vs Spanish in terms of number of speakers is redundant. Anyone who can speak Irish fluently in Ireland can speak English too. Not everyone in Spain and Mexico can speak English though. So even if you can only speak English and Spanish and you haven't a word of Irish, you are still in a better position than a person who's fluent in English and Irish in terms of communication. You have the ability to speak with more people, whether or not you get that opportunity. An English speaker can still communicate effectively with someone who speaks Irish through English. So an Irish speaker has no real advantage over me in that case.



It's different if you are considering the beauty of Irish and the beauty of speaking in a language other than English. I will of course accept that somebody fluent in Irish has a huge advantage over me in that case. They can access Irish literature and programming in a way I can't. They have the ability to speak in a language integral to my culture and heritage in a way I can't. They can use it in everyday conversation with another Irish speaker. But the advantages here aren't based on efficacy of communication, but rather on culture.


Obviously having English is incredibly useful when it's the biggest language in the world. I would go so far as to say it would come in useful in countries where English isn't the official language. So many people speak it as a second language that you are bound to come across a few opportunities to use it communicate with the locals.



The same can be said for French and Spanish, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. I have often come across Italians who can't speak English but can speak French and I've been able to have a conversation with them. French is the official language of 33 countries and Spanish is the official language of 21. So maybe I wouldn't be able to use either in Norway but I could in a lot of other countries.


What about the other 6 billion people, you say? What about them? I can't learn every language! 1.5 billion speak English, 500 million speak Spanish and 200 million speak French. Obviously some overlap but not all do. The people who speak these languages are widely spread all over the world. I might bump into a few tomorrow. My chances of bumping into a native speaker of Irish are lower I'd imagine.


Either way, I take your point that the languages are only useful if you are in contact with people who speak them, but so many people do that your chances of coming into contact with them are high and you also have the opportunity to live in the countries in which they're spoken. That's a lot of countries.


Irish is useful in many ways but its primary use wouldn't be for communication purposes as Irish speakers can also communicate through English.


I would be a supporter of teaching Irish being compulsory, but for different reasons.

Interest in History

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I know, how about a "How to revive the Irish language" thread, surely there are enough people reading AH to contribute some little gems, without it descending into a farce.

It would also be good for the debate if people noted that 'alive'or 'dead' are metaphorical terms, or terms of art when applied to a language.

A language is either used and spoken or not used and spoken. The romantic/political terminology was developed in the context of the politics of 150 years ago. It is not suited to any kind of analysys.

An Coilean

Interest in History wrote: »

I think that the Kilfeather document sought mainly to link the Revival with the activity-pattern of political elite-groups in general. So: any elite group will formulate the questions facing society in a way that gets the answers that accommodate their power. In our context, that would be that the political ideology underpinning the Revival makes the claim that the Revival is for the good of the nation. In contrast to this, he poses the question: is it just for the benefit of an elite?

I'm fairly sure that he was only interested in the Revival of Irish as an illustrative example of political dynamics. I would guess that he doesen't mind what language the Irish people speak.

Interesting editing of the quote there. What ever his aims, there are some serious flaws in the document, despite presenting it as self evident, there is no attempt to actually show that the Political Elite and the Irish speaking community are one and the same, and the reality is they were and are not.
Both groups are seperate from one annother and have often been openly hostile to one another.

The introduction of Irish into the school curriculum is roundly condemned and unsupported claims are made as to the damage this had on the education recieved by children.
The problem is that modern educational research vindicates the introduction of a second language into the educational sylabus. Far from being damaging, current research shows that learning two or more languages from an early age is beneficial to the cognative development of children, it is recomended European best practice.
That the document fails to mention this, and attempts to portray what by modern educational thought is seen as beneficial as a negative, is a serious flaw and speaks of serious bias.

Wibbs

Interest in History wrote: »

None of which you need to do in Gweedore

That's about the biggest problem. As ViveLaVie points out "Irish is useful in many ways but its primary use wouldn't be for communication purposes as Irish speakers can also communicate through English"
which is a pretty bad situation for any language to find itself in. Then add in a large chunk of those who do speak it but not "correctly" and it's starting to become a pidgin Irish, or "Oirish" as I've seen some describe it as. It's hard to figure out where you go with a language that's supposed to be ours, yet the majority if they know it at all often sound like foreigners in their own land.

Cú Giobach

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Yeah I understand what you're saying but [.........]

You're talking to someone who has had a lifelong interest in the languages of the world, so what you wrote of course makes total sense to me, and which is why I never tell people that they should or must learn Irish, but I do give reasons why there is nothing wrong with learning it.

Being a mainly English speaking country does have its advantages, but there is also a disadvantage and that is complacency, as with most other English speaking countries we are woeful at learning other tongues (obviously as a nation not individually), this leads I feel to a very insular view of the world (due in part actually to the afore mentioned cognitive effects of language).
Now, whatever some people might say here in AH I think we all know that most kids starting out in secondary school have no idea what they will ultimately do with their life, whatever they feel they might want to do, and though starting to learn any language is brilliant at a young age, how useful that will eventually be is questionable, accepting of course that if someone is great at say French that could well lead them on a path to France, Belgium or the UN, but for the majority, like much school learning it will slowly disappear into the realities of life in Mulingar or Tralee. I think we have all experienced someone years out of school trying out their "school French" . Therefore we have people learning different languages they will never get the chance to use and eventually forget.

I believe Irish gives us a wonderful opportunity to all learn another language that we can use among ourselves hence keeping it fresh, plus since once you can speak even a small bit of a second language the third is orders of magnitude easier to pick up, the ability later in life to learn another and feel much less intimidated in doing so. Also what is to stop people learning two languages at school if they so wish, the more the merrier I say (yes I know, I'm odd).
Basically change from the insular monoglot English speakers we are, to a more European style multi-lingual society.
We actually have something special sitting there gathering dust that could change this country for the better.

ViveLaVie

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Being a mainly English speaking country does have its advantages, but there is also a disadvantage and that is complacency, as with most other English speaking countries we are woeful at learning other tongues (obviously as a nation not individually), this leads I feel to a very insular view of the world (due in part actually to the afore mentioned cognitive effects of language).

Yes absolutely. Woeful is the right word! Now I do think learning English is a bit easier for French people for example than learning French is for the Irish because English dominates the world. It is everywhere. They cannot escape it. I was in Paris last year. The cinemas played films in both English and French. The music in bars was American. Even the posters on the Metro were mostly in English. I couldn't believe how saturated the city was with English. It is no wonder that students of English can speak it to a higher standard than we can their language when it is so easy to get films and books in English in your local shop and even your bar plays American chart music.

This culture of language assimilation then exists that encourages them to learn not only English but other languages too.


That said, it's not an excuse. We should take more pride in learning other languages.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Now, whatever some people might say here in AH I think we all know that most kids starting out in secondary school have no idea what they will ultimately do with their life, whatever they feel they might want to do, and though starting to learn any language is brilliant at a young age, how useful that will eventually be is questionable, accepting of course that if someone is great at say French that could well lead them on a path to France, Belgium or the UN, but for the majority, like much school learning it will slowly disappear into the realities of life in Mulingar or Tralee. I think we have all experienced someone years out of school trying out their "school French" . Therefore we have people learning different languages they will never get the chance to use and eventually forget.

Agreed but I don't really see a solution to this? Unless you're suggesting Irish is the solution?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I believe Irish gives us a wonderful opportunity to all learn another language that we can use among ourselves hence keeping it fresh, plus since once you can speak even a small bit of a second language the third is orders of magnitude easier to pick up, the ability later in life to learn another and feel much less intimidated in doing so. Also what is to stop people learning two languages at school if they so wish, the more the merrier I say (yes I know, I'm odd).
Basically change from the insular monoglot English speakers we are, to a more European style multi-lingual society.
We actually have something special sitting there gathering dust that could change this country for the better.

Agreed! I would love to learn Irish properly and I intend on doing so once I'm finished college. The problem I think lies not with the lack of interest but rather with the manner in which Irish is taught in school. It is just not a practical method for learning a language. Learning essays off by rote but not knowing what they mean? Ridiculous. I had more French after six years in school than fourteen of 'learning' Irish. I am actually good at learning languages and I dropped to pass during the LC because I just thought spending two hours a night learning off an essay my teacher handed out to me, an essay identical to everyone else's, was pointless.

I think an overhaul of the curriculum is the only way to make Irish appealing.

Enkidu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

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.

Although I agree with you in the case when you are speaking, when learning a language it is generally best to improve one's grammar via study outside conversations. If you rely purely on conversation you will never get better (in fact studies show you get worse in certain ways). Although I should say the optimal way to learn grammar is by reading novels, papers, e.t.c. with a grammar book and using the grammar book only when:
(a) You don't understand the logic of a sentence
or
(b) The distinction between constructions which you think have similar meaning.

Even in these cases it's best to use the grammar only after finishing a chapter, i.e. make notes as you go along, then check the grammar.

(All of what I say applies to the intermediate stage in language learning. At the beginning you should work your way through a course book or take a class.)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Ikky Poo2 if you want to talk to me clean up your post, I'm not messing about cleaning it up to try to decipher and untangle your points.

Actually don't bother, you made it clear enough in it that you can't actually read or comprehend on the most basic of levels what I wrote, since I've been over and over this with you and you still can't get it, time to call it a day.
Slán.

Oh, for ****s sake. That seems to be you answer to ****ing everyone today.

You want it multiquoted, then not multiquoted then you start multiquoting yourself. You're not mkaing these things very clear yourself.

Let's try this again:

LOGIC
You did NOT say anything about " 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"." in the original post. Stop changing things.
I never said anything about billions of chinese. You jumped on me for saying something different. You asked what the logic was of learning a language that may be the most widely spoken, but is spoken by people you never meet. I NEVER disagreed with you - why are you still bringing it up??
I asked what was the logic in learning a language to talk to someone when you already spoke a common langauge? This question you completely ignored, three times.



COMMUNICATION
I never argued otherwise - I pointed out that there are a lot of people, though, who do. And for them, if they can communicate, they're happy. And most of them can until they go abroad.
You get a lot from languages? Great. You get a lot from Irish? Great. Other people simply don't.




EDUCATION
You never mentioned ANYTHING about "teaching tolerance, logic and how language affects cognition" un der the topic of education.
I Never said anything about you being pro-compulsion, I said education should encourage debate and teach how to make choice about what to study. Even if it means dropping all languages.

I did ask a couple of questions which were not raised, yes, such as why leanring language is important but other aspects of culture, such as sport, music or art, were not.


In short, I never said a lot of things you think I did.



NOW, General comment to avoid the confusion and necessity for moral highground:
Either learn how to read a responce to a multiquote, or do not multiquote the message in the first place. That's twice now.

Failing that, if you can not answer simple questions having been spoonfed, I suggest you follow your advice and stop posting.

ViveLaVie

Interest in History wrote: »

Your point here: that knowing a second language expands the IQ....

Does that mean that students who do the Leaving Cert through Irish don't really need that extra 10% added to their marks? Or is that their extra IQ is just being applied to running a scam to give them an advantage in their careers?

Of course, if the scam is already there, it is logical to take advantage of it. If the exam system is corrupted to give advantage to a particular group of students that is the responsibility of the Department of Education. So that would be the doing of a corrupt Minister for Education, I suppose.

But education ministers can plead innocence on the ground of their weakness. Which is a valid defence in this case. Who would dare to say that they are part of the corruption?

Sorry, I thought I'd already replied to this!

I'm not sure what you're asking me here exactly...

Extra points are awarded to encourage people to learn and use Irish. It has nothing to do with level of intelligence.

Cú Giobach

Enkidu wrote: »

Although I agree with you in the case when you are speaking, when learning a language it is generally best to improve one's grammar via study outside conversations. If you rely purely on conversation you will never get better (in fact studies show you get worse in certain ways). Although I should say the optimal way to learn grammar is by reading novels, papers, e.t.c. with a grammar book and using the grammar book only when:
(a) You don't understand the logic of a sentence
or
(b) The distinction between constructions which you think have similar meaning.

Even in these cases it's best to use the grammar only after finishing a chapter, i.e. make notes as you go along, then check the grammar.

(All of what I say applies to the intermediate stage in language learning. At the beginning you should work your way through a course book or take a class.)

Some day I hope to sit down and improve my Irish, but "so many languages so little time", Welsh is my priority at the moment, becoming fluent in German is next any day now, and Irish will just have to wait, though there is a chance I could go for something more "exotic" next, I really would to love to learn a non Indo-European one properly, it could be good fun.

Enkidu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Some day I hope to sit down and improve my Irish, but "so many languages so little time", Welsh is my priority at the moment, becoming fluent in German is next any day now, and Irish will just have to wait, though there is a chance I could go for something more "exotic" next, I really would to love to learn a non Indo-European one properly, it could be good fun.

Wow impressive Cú! How good is your Welsh?

Cú Giobach

ViveLaVie wrote: »

The problem I think lies not with the lack of interest but rather with the manner in which Irish is taught in school.

I guess the only people on the island who might disagree with you there, are the folks who could actually change it, otherwise why haven't they. :rolleyes:
The curriculum fostered a hatred of the language in me that took years to dissipate, and I spent my teens learning phrases in, and the alphabets of as many languages as I could get books and tapes on.

ViveLaVie

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Some day I hope to sit down and improve my Irish, but "so many languages so little time", Welsh is my priority at the moment, becoming fluent in German is next any day now, and Irish will just have to wait, though there is a chance I could go for something more "exotic" next, I really would to love to learn a non Indo-European one properly, it could be good fun.

Oh wow Welsh! I was in Wales recently and I'm really intrigued by the language now. Is it difficult? Did you teach yourself?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I guess the only people on the island who might disagree with you there, are the folks who could actually change it, otherwise why haven't they. :rolleyes:
The curriculum fostered a hatred of the language in me that took years to dissipate, and I spent my teens learning phrases in, and the alphabets of as many languages as I could get books and tapes on.

Same for me, my interest in Irish has actually been fostered more by my experience learning French in college. It's only now that I see the value in learning Irish, having learned a second language first.

LordSutch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I know, how about a "How to revive the Irish language" thread, surely there are enough people reading AH to contribute some little gems, without it descending into a farce.

Farce? I think this thread is doing ok. Usually we get into a downward spiral of abuse with people like me being accused of being anti Irish because of my views, but it seeems like this time we are all having an open debate, ideas being batted to and fro. No farce that I can see

PS: Sorry if I have misread/misinterpreted your farce comment?

Cú Giobach

Enkidu wrote: »

Wow impressive Cú! How good is your Welsh?

Dw i ddim yn siarad i yn dda iawn nawr, ond dw i'n gobeithio bydda i'n gallu yn fuan.
I can't speak it very well now, but I hope I'll be able to soon.
Getting comfortable with it, (though I can't write that in Welsh).
I can't get used to writing, speech has always been it for languages with me, I even find English hard and have to spell check constantly, plus go over punctuation and even grammar.

PK2008

Why is there such a hard on for reviving the Irish language?

English is a pretty good language to have as our main language, particularly for its prominence in international business- I've got Spanish, Italian and German colleagues who all wish they could speak English as well as us.

I think Irish revivalists have some kind of 'Gaelic fantasy' based on some misplaced ideal/insecurity about national identity (with more than whiff of fascism mixed in)..... but even if we could turn the entire country into native Irish speakers tomorrow what real purpose/function would it serve?

Cú Giobach

LordSutch wrote: »

Farce? I think this thread is doing ok. Usually we get into a downward spiral of abuse with people like me being accused of being anti Irish because of my views, but it seeems like this time we are all having an open debate, ideas being batted to and fro. No farce that I can see

PS: Sorry if I have misread/misinterpreted your farce comment?

I smiled as I wrote that, but just forgot to add a smiley face.
Read it as if someone was smiling genuinely and nicely while saying it.

Eoin247

There are two options for irish in education in the upcoming years.

1. Make it non compulsory (preferable)

2. Actually teach it properly in primary schools that aren't gaelscoils.

Unfortunately option two will probably not happen (without the availability of a large amount of money to train/replace these teachers.)

Lord TSC

Out of interest, could someone post a detailed outline of how it is taught wrongly in schools? That's not me being smart or snarky; just curious as to what the detailed problems are with how it's taught....