Peig Sayers

dj jarvis

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

We don't just get taught English. It's our native language that we're surrounded by from day one, if you don't live in the gaeltacht. It's our parents first language (in most cases). Of course we use it more. You can't really function in Ireland without speaking English because almost everything is in English. Irish might have been the population's first language once, but it isn't now. It's taught as a second language, like French or German. That's the difference between Irish and Finnish. It's a massive difference.

as i have already said - i was not comparing Finnish with Irish , they just happened to ask the question , i gave them my reason for not liking or speaking it, and as the thread shows , i am far from the only one who has come to the same conclusion.

and peig did not help this dislike of the language - as the thread title suggest.
it is open to each persons interpretation , excuse the pun.

dj jarvis

dj jarvis wrote: »

as i have already said - i was not comparing Finnish with Irish , they just happened to ask the question , i gave them my reason for not liking or speaking it, and as the thread shows , i am far from the only one who has come to the same conclusion.

and peig did not help this dislike of the language - as the thread title suggest.
it is open to each persons interpretation , excuse the pun.

I know, but a lot of foreigners, when they ask why we don't speak Irish, don't seem to get that it's not the same situation as with their native language. Peig probably didn't help but the explanation for why we don't speak Irish, IMO is that we don't speak Irish. I know that sounds weird, but why would we be fluent in a language we learn for a few hours a week in school and don't use the rest of the time? How many people are fluent in French or German? Only those who have a special interest and have usually spent time in those countries. Same as with Irish (replace France/Germany with the gaeltacht). Most people just don't get exposed to the language enough to speak it with any degree of proficiency, IMO.

thetoffeeman

I had to go through that book when I was in school and have never met anyone who enjoyed the "leabhair". Back then, they taught Irish in exactly the same way they taught english- prose/poetry/written/spoken. Maybe if the dept of education brought us more into contact with native irish speakers, the language would flourish more nowadays. I live in a gaeltacht, but I have little Irish, but my young fella is fluent to a high degree in Irish. But even if more people spoke better Irish, I don't think Peig would be any more exciting or rivetting. It was/ is a shocking read,

Howard Juneau

Peig was sanitised beyond recognition by the time we got to read it...but, I actually enjoyed it.
I had a good working knowledge of Irish, but I enjoyed the book more for it's historical portrayal of life on the islands.
Harsh life & no real escape unless you could raise a few quid to go to 'Murica!
Bet Peig said a few prayers for Cait Jim when the money never arrives for her passage over

dj jarvis

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

I know, but a lot of foreigners, when they ask why we don't speak Irish, don't seem to get that it's not the same situation as with their native language. Peig probably didn't help but the explanation for why we don't speak Irish, IMO is that we don't speak Irish. I know that sounds weird, but why would we be fluent in a language we learn for a few hours a week in school and don't use the rest of the time? How many people are fluent in French or German? Only those who have a special interest and have usually spent time in those countries. Same as with Irish (replace France/Germany with the gaeltacht). Most people just don't get exposed to the language enough to speak it with any degree of proficiency, IMO.

i agree to a point , but one comparison i will draw is this,

under both Swedish and Russian occupation of Finland, they speaking and teaching of Finnish was " discouraged " to put it mildly,
as was Irish under British rule here.
After the Finns gained independence they embarked on reintroducing the language , establishing it as the main spoken language , as the Irish tried under Dev and McQuaid.

only difference i can see is on how the proceeded with this task
from the Finns i understand that is was embraced by all , and they succeeded , this is against the backdrop of Swedish been spoken by the middle and upper classes everyday , only the working classes and farming peasants spoke finnish , it was seen as a second class language , still they managed to change it around totally.

the same did not happen with irish - question is why ? to me its obvious , the states involvement and teaching , and in both instances they made a bags of it.

i have a sneaking suspension they did not have sadistic brothers and nuns beating the crap out of people , while teaching that feckin poxy book

but that is just my opinion

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dj jarvis wrote: »

but Irish is our national language , and we are all taught it , but dont use it . we also get taught English but use it more,
the question is why ?

Because English is the mother-tnogue of most Irish children. This is not the case in Finland. It's that simple.

as many have said , they feel it is down to the way it was taught in the past , i cant speak for modern days , but in the past , the schooling of the language did nothing for it

** also i am not really comparing Finnish to Irish , they just happened to be the nationality who asked the question , they could have been danish or french - that is why it was mentioned **

As to why people my in generation (40ish) never, for the most part learnt it, two words that can be sumed up by the thread title. Yes, there was more to it than that, obviously, but, as I said earlier, she personifies every reason why Irish schoolchildren didn't learn Irish.

As to modern days, well you'd have to ask a large group of 10-15 year olds. Of course, you'd also have to listen to them, which, going by the evidence of the thread, is the tricky bit.

dj jarvis

dj jarvis wrote: »

i agree to a point , but one comparison i will draw is this,

under both Swedish and Russian occupation of Finland, they speaking and teaching of Finnish was " discouraged " to put it mildly,
as was Irish under British rule here.
After the Finns gained independence they embarked on reintroducing the language , establishing it as the main spoken language , as the Irish tried under Dev and McQuaid.

only difference i can see is on how the proceeded with this task
from the Finns i understand that is was embraced by all , and they succeeded , this is against the backdrop of Swedish been spoken by the middle and upper classes everyday , only the working classes and farming peasants spoke finnish , it was seen as a second class language , still they managed to change it around totally.

the same did not happen with irish - question is why ? to me its obvious , the states involvement and teaching , and in both instances they made a bags of it.

i have a sneaking suspension they did not have sadistic brothers and nuns beating the crap out of people , while teaching that feckin poxy book

but that is just my opinion

I don't know why, it's probably a mixture of things.

Still, Swedish is not a major international language the way English is. It was always going to be very difficult to try to change the population's mother tongue when English is such a dominant language globally. I suppose teaching everything through Irish in every school from day one would have been a start - why didn't that happen?

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because English is the mother-tnogue of most Irish children. This is not the case in Finland. It's that simple.



As to why people my in generation (40ish) never, for the most part learnt it, two words that can be sumed up by the thread title. Yes, there was more to it than that, obviously, but, as I said earlier, she personifies every reason why Irish schoolchildren didn't learn Irish.

As to modern days, well you'd have to ask a large group of 10-15 year olds. Of course, you'd also have to listen to them, which, going by the evidence of the thread, is the tricky bit.

but it was not used in the past , and they managed to change it , as the Irish tried , but failed miserably
is it down to the teaching and curriculum ? or just the Irish not really caring for the language?

dj jarvis

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

I don't know why, it's probably a mixture of things.

Still, Swedish is not a major international language the way English is. It was always going to be very difficult to try to change the population's mother tongue when English is such a dominant language globally. I suppose teaching everything through Irish in every school from day one would have been a start - why didn't that happen?

very good point - it would have made a huge difference , but they style of that teaching and the books used i think played a huge part in it also

becasue that is what the Finns done - and it worked

as usual , an Irish solution to an Irish problem :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

dj jarvis wrote: »

as usual , an Irish solution to an Irish problem :rolleyes:

It's not a problem. The Irish people don't speak Irish because they don't want to. Our language is English and Irish is never going to be revised as the dominant language of the nation full stop.

dj jarvis

dj jarvis wrote: »

very good point - it would have made a huge difference , but they style of that teaching and the books used i think played a huge part in it also

becasue that is what the Finns done - and it worked

as usual , an Irish solution to an Irish problem :rolleyes:

I don't think teaching Irish as a second language was EVER going to make people fluent in it, no matter what books were used, tbh. I'm an English language teacher and have students who take classes for 3-4 hours a day, Monday to Friday. It takes them ages to progress through the levels, and they're living in an English-speaking country, surrounded by the language.

The only way for it to work would be to put EVERYTHING in Irish and make it the national language in practice, not just in theory.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dj jarvis wrote: »

but it was not used in the past , and they managed to change it , as the Irish tried , but failed miserably
is it down to the teaching and curriculum ? or just the Irish not really caring for the language?

You'd have to ask the Finns.

They do have a much more ratinoal and liberal appraoch to education though: here, we see it something more along the lines of discipline than education.

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

I don't know why, it's probably a mixture of things.

Still, Swedish is not a major international language the way English is. It was always going to be very difficult to try to change the population's mother tongue when English is such a dominant language globally. I suppose teaching everything through Irish in every school from day one would have been a start - why didn't that happen?

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

I don't think teaching Irish as a second language was EVER going to make people fluent in it, no matter what books were used, tbh. I'm an English language teacher and have students who take classes for 3-4 hours a day, Monday to Friday. It takes them ages to progress through the levels, and they're living in an English-speaking country, surrounded by the language.

The only way for it to work would be to put EVERYTHING in Irish and make it the national language in practice, not just in theory.

It'll never happen, thank ****. God forbid we should actually try and education a child in this coutnry, rather than ue them as pawns for a language revival.

The you can't unroll the dice.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You'd have to ask the Finns.

They do have a much more ratinoal and liberal appraoch to education though: here, we see it something more along the lines of discipline than education.





It'll never happen, thank ****. God forbid we should actually try and education a child in this coutnry, rather than ue them as pawns for a language revival.

The you can't unroll the dice.

You can unroll the dice. Catalan was successfully revived after being banned under Franco. It's a shame the same didn't happen with Irish, IMO.

Aineoil

This is an interesting thread. Between 1921 and 1922, the govermment wanted Irish. But it was only spoken in Gaeltacht areas - same as today


I have roll books that are prior to 1921 - all in English.

Roll books in 1921 - all in Irish

New government!

Iwasfrozen

Aineoil wrote: »

This is an interesting thread. Between 1921 and 1922, the govermment wanted Irish. But it was only spoken in Gaeltacht areas - same as today


I have roll books that are prior to 1921 - all in English.

Roll books in 1921 - all in Irish

New government!

That's a horrible practice. Changing a child's name is akin to cultural imperialism.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

You can unroll the dice. Catalan was successfully revived after being banned under Franco. It's a shame the same didn't happen with Irish, IMO.

I meant in terms of teachimg everything in Irish. I know a revival can be done, but in Ireland the economic (not to mention social) implications of such a shift in education would be catastrophic.

You're talking about teaching everything in a language the majority of kids don't speak. Not to mentionforcing parents to teach their kids Irish before they go to school when they themselves don't speak it.

Purely to serve a few.

How is this fair to the child?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I meant in terms of teachimg everything in Irish. I know a revival can be done, but in Ireland the economic (not to mention social) implications of such a shift in education would be catastrophic.

You're talking about teaching everything in a language the majority of kids don't speak. Not to mentionforcing parents to teach their kids Irish before they go to school when they themselves don't speak it.

Purely to serve a few.

How is this fair to the child?

The Catalans started teaching everything in Catalan again. Why couldn't the same have been done in Ireland?

I agree that in this point of time it would be very difficult, given that the last few generations speak little to no Irish themselves, but not impossible. I don't really get all these implications you're talking about - plenty of children are educated in a language their parents don't really speak. Loads of kids in Spain go to British schools where everything is taught in English, then they speak Spanish the rest of the time. Their English is never as good as their Spanish but certainly passable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

The Catalans started teaching everything in Catalan again. Why couldn't the same have been done in Ireland?

But Spanish is not a universal langauge the way English is. You have to take into account the fact that the kids' langauge of choice is English. Their music is in English. Their movies are in English. Their TV shows are in English. Their world is in English.

I agree that in this point of time it would be very difficult, given that the last few generations speak little to no Irish themselves, but not impossible. I don't really get all these implications you're talking about - plenty of children are educated in a language their parents don't really speak. Loads of kids in Spain go to British schools where everything is taught in English, then they speak Spanish the rest of the time. Their English is never as good as their Spanish but certainly passable.

The edcation in most British schools abroad is primarily in English. This is the whole function of a British school: to teache English. The do have an emphasis on the local langauge, becaue the students need the language, but they do not do teach everthing in the locla langugae - it would defeat the purpose.

The point you're missing, though, is that the schools do not teach Spanish - they teach the local language, which in the example you site, is Spanish. Big difference.

Also, you haven't asnwered my question: how is it fair on a child? Again - it's an education system, not a langauge revival system.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But Spanish is not a universal langauge the way English is. You have to take into account the fact that the kids' langauge of choice is English. Their music is in English. Their movies are in English. Their TV shows are in English. Their world is in English.

It's still a massive global language, though. Second to only English globally, I imagine. It's not like Swedish.

The edcation in most British schools abroad is primarily in English. This is the whole function of a British school: to teache English. The do have an emphasis on the local langauge, becaue the students need the language, but they do not do teach everthing in the locla langugae - it would defeat the purpose.

The point you're missing, though, is that the schools do not teach Spanish - they teach the local language, which in the example you site, is Spanish. Big difference.

Also, you haven't asnwered my question: how is it fair on a child? Again - it's an education system, not a langauge revival system.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Normal Spanish kids in Spain often go to British schools because their parents think it will be useful for them to have a second language, even if they don't speak it themselves. Immigrant kids, including British/Irish kids, in Catalonia go to schools where they are taught in Catalan, even if their parents don't speak any Catalan. It's grand, generally.

How is it NOT fair on a child? What does it really matter which language lessons are delivered in?

ronano

I don't dislike the irish language, how about you teach it right, less learning off stuff and rather conversational and focus on the basics. Add to this how about irish speakers just stop being dickheads please? smugness and arrogance goes hand in hand with that shower

dj jarvis

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

It's still a massive global language, though. Second to only English globally, I imagine. It's not like Swedish.



I don't think you understood what I meant. Normal Spanish kids in Spain often go to British schools because their parents think it will be useful for them to have a second language, even if they don't speak it themselves. Immigrant kids, including British/Irish kids, in Catalonia go to schools where they are taught in Catalan, even if their parents don't speak any Catalan. It's grand, generally.

How is it NOT fair on a child? What does it really matter which language lessons are delivered in?

so just like our Irish speaking schools in a country predominantly that speaks English
but Irish could be taught as the prominent language , while having English as the " second " language not impossible to have both spoken as fluently as each other, problem is , it was not done from the start , as has been said , the dice have been rolled , difficult to achieve but as other country's have shown , far from impossible to reverse

problem might be the public's appetite for it , FFS they are now getting rid of history , give it time , it will be a year on how to use google and good luck

dj jarvis

ronano wrote: »

I don't dislike the irish language, how about you teach it right, less learning off stuff and rather conversational and focus on the basics. Add to this how about irish speakers just stop being dickheads please? smugness and arrogance goes hand in hand with that shower

Paint much with that broad stroke ?

dj jarvis

dj jarvis wrote: »

so just like our Irish speaking schools in a country predominantly that speaks English
but Irish could be taught as the prominent language , while having English as the " second " language not impossible to have both spoken as fluently as each other, problem is , it was not done from the start , as has been said , the dice have been rolled , difficult to achieve but as other country's have shown , far from impossible to reverse

problem might be the public's appetite for it , FFS they are now getting rid of history , give it time , it will be a year on how to use google and good luck

Yep, but it's every school rather than a select few. I agree with you - don't see what's so impossible about it or why it would ruin kids' education. Plenty of kids go to gaelscoileanna and get on fine - why couldn't all kids do it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

It's still a massive global language, though. Second to only English globally, I imagine. It's not like Swedish.

You're missing the point: it's the useage of the langauge that you're trying to replace.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Normal Spanish kids in Spain often go to British schools because their parents think it will be useful for them to have a second language, even if they don't speak it themselves. Immigrant kids, including British/Irish kids, in Catalonia go to schools where they are taught in Catalan, even if their parents don't speak any Catalan. It's grand, generally.

How is it NOT fair on a child? What does it really matter which language lessons are delivered in?

Ah, ok - I did misunderstand - oops But again: why do they learn English?

It's unfair on the child to put the needs and wants of yourself before those of the kids, becaue that is exactly what you are doing. if they live in English for the first four or five years of their life, as the majority do, do then logic would imply that they continue to live their lives in English. Keep it simple, stupid* as they say.

*not implying you're stupid - that's just the way the phrase goes

inocybe

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

Yep, but it's every school rather than a select few. I agree with you - don't see what's so impossible about it or why it would ruin kids' education. Plenty of kids go to gaelscoileanna and get on fine - why couldn't all kids do it?

It's impossible because there would be huge opposition from parents and students, I'd fight to the point of civil disobedience against it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're missing the point: it's the useage of the langauge that you're trying to replace.

What do you mean?

Ah, ok - I did misunderstand - oops But again: why do they learn English?

It's unfair on the child to put the needs and wants of yourself before those of the kids, becaue that is exactly what you are doing. if they live in English for the first four or five years of their life, as the majority do, do then logic would imply that they continue to live their lives in English. Keep it simple, stupid* as they say.

*not implying you're stupid - that's just the way the phrase goes

They learn English for a variety of reasons.

I don't agree at all. You think most kids can't easily cope with different languages? Of course they can. Four/five is very early in terms of language acquisition. Kids all over the world start school in a language that's different to the one their parents speak. Why the need to keep it simple?

inocybe

inocybe wrote: »

It's impossible because there would be huge opposition from parents and students, I'd fight to the point of civil disobedience against it.

Why?

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're missing the point: it's the useage of the langauge that you're trying to replace.



Ah, ok - I did misunderstand - oops But again: why do they learn English?

It's unfair on the child to put the needs and wants of yourself before those of the kids, becaue that is exactly what you are doing. if they live in English for the first four or five years of their life, as the majority do, do then logic would imply that they continue to live their lives in English. Keep it simple, stupid* as they say.

*not implying you're stupid - that's just the way the phrase goes

that is the totally the wrong way to do it , teach them all from the start , multiple languages , my 5 year old speaks fluent Finnish and English , and is doing great in Irish , because she has had it from day 1 , so why not do that with Irish/English , works for many other nations , i have yet to hear a negative for having multiple languages.

teach them English and Irish and so on

just not the same way it was done with peig and the like , it has to be engaging

ronano

dj jarvis wrote: »

Paint much with that broad stroke ?

ah you're right, just got bit miffed!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

What do you mean?



They learn English for a variety of reasons.

I don't agree at all. You think most kids can't easily cope with different languages? Of course they can. Four/five is very early in terms of language acquisition. Kids all over the world start school in a language that's different to the one their parents speak. Why the need to keep it simple?

You're comparing system that learn a second langauge with a system that is tryign to inplement everything in a second language.

In nay case you're still missing the main point: what is the benefit to the child of switching everthing in a different langauge?

dj jarvis wrote: »

that is the totally the wrong way to do it , teach them all from the start , multiple languages , my 5 year old speaks fluent Finnish and English , and is doing great in Irish , because she has had it from day 1 , so why not do that with Irish/English , works for many other nations , i have yet to hear a negative for having multiple languages.

teach them English and Irish and so on

just not the same way it was done with peig and the like , it has to be engaging

Which is fine, but not the idea what was originally proposed by Izzy.

Your point is, your child has had it since day one. The proposal here is to introduce it at year 5, and complety change everything the child isuse to without any consideration for the child.

For the umpteenth time: it is an education system. It's goal is to educate. It's goal is NOT - nor should it be - a lanaguge revival; and to state othewise is massively selfish.