nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Peig Sayers

dj jarvis

i know even reading that name fills me full of dread :-(

i have some tourists staying with me , and they were asking about the Irish language, and they asked why we dont speak it more.

i had one answer

PEIG SAYERS !!!

that book done more to kill any love of the Language that any violent christian brother ever could

so AH - describe what you feel in one word when you hear the name
PEIG SAYERS !!!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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?

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 tot stae othewise is massively selfish.

ok i see your point , but does not give a valid reason why it cant be done, if we are going to live up to the policy that we have 2 languages, apparently

from first lesson , teach both to the same level , start next year , what would be the issue ? give it ten years and both would have equal status by stealth

can someone point out the negative of teaching English via Irish to a similar level ?

i cant see the problem - no harm in teaching the skill of linguistics from the start, while preserving the language

Umekichi

While I never had to do Peig(thankfully my secondary education was done in the 00's), I can't stand Irish. I mean not the language itself but the way it was taught.

I remember in 2nd year going to do Irish classes outside school with Conradh na Gaelige and I loved it, why? Mainly down to the fact that a) we were taught it in Conradh na Gaelige as a living language - no lists of verbs to change into the dreaded "Modh Conníollacht", no "An Pangur Bán" and definitely no idiotic poems to read and analyse(ie translate the entire thing into to English so we could understand what was going on). I loved doing those Irish classes and I learned a lot, so much so that I want to take those classes again!

As opposed to doing Irish for the JC and LC, where you were taught to pass the test which meant learning off "sample" essays, answers, stories and letters which you could regurgitate for the exam. I went from doing Hons in the JC, to Pass for 5th and bit of 6th year then down to foundation, all because I couldn't memorise pages and pages of info. I remember for my Oral(I did Pass Oral), I felt I did great as I had an actual conversation with my examiner and performed decently, yet for the Exam itself I was too weak.

I wish Irish was actually taught like a proper living, breathing language where you don't need to memorise 4 A4 pages of info so you can answer a bloody question on a stupid story about Cearrbhac mac Cába. This is why we don't use Irish as much as we should!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dj jarvis wrote: »

ok i see your point , but does not give a valid reason why it cant be done, if we are going to live up to the policy that we have 2 languages, apparently

from first lesson , teach both to the same level , start next year , what would be the issue ? give it ten years and both would have equal status by stealth

can someone point out the negative of teaching English via Irish to a similar level ?

i cant see the problem - no harm in teaching the skill of linguistics from the start, while preserving the language

My point wasn't that it couldn't be done - my point was that it would be massively impractiucal and shouldn't be done because it's not in the kids' best interests.

The idea of teaching the skill of lingusitics, I'm sorry, is a smokescreen. That's really not the aim of the exercise.

[Deleted User]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

But what difference does it make to the kids at school?

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

The kids become bilingual? When has one language ever been better than two or more?

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.

Do you know anything about language acquisition? Plenty of children around the world start school in a new language. It's really not a big deal.

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.

What's wrong with educating children in the native language of their country? Catalonia insists on Catalan for political reasons, but I don't see how the kids there suffer because of it. They grow up bilingual in Catalan/Spanish and seem to pick up foreign languages much easier than monolingual Spaniards, probably because their brains are wired for different languages and they're more tolerant of them.

Wacker The Attacker

she sounds like a right lamentatious old c*nt

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My point wasn't that it couldn't be done - my point was that it would be massively impractiucal and shouldn't be done because it's not in the kids' best interests.

The idea of teaching the skill of lingusitics, I'm sorry, is a smokescreen. That's really not the aim of the exercise.

but it is.........

is learning the national language not an imperative for a nation?
i have always been embarrassed by my lack of Irish , and the lack of other Irish people to speak it, i ran a bar in Germany frequented by many Irish , and the amount of times i have heard rubbish Irish been used to impress Germans was embarrassing - no one could speak it properly if at all.

once a week in the An shebeen bar in Frankfurt there was a gathering of Germans ( place was packed) , all speaking Irish - and me not a word, never felt so small for not knowing my national language despite being taught it from
age 5, yet got 100 times more German and Finnish

i am like many others , it went one ear and out the other , why is that ?

inocybe

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Why?

I don't want to speak Irish, I don't want it forced on my children either. I'd like to see it removed from being compulsory for leaving cert, that might help reduce the resentment against it. Revival of a language can only happen if people want it, you will never force it by legislation.

dj jarvis

inocybe wrote: »

I don't want to speak Irish, I don't want it forced on my children either. I'd like to see it removed from being compulsory for leaving cert, that might help reduce the resentment against it. Revival of a language can only happen if people want it, you will never force it by legislation.

can i ask what would spark your interest again ?
my issue is it this , i have never met a person from a country that does not know their national language , other than Irish - why is this ?
the welsh can speak welsh from my encounters with them , unless they were doing what the Irish do

why would it be a bad thing ? its been proven the earlier you introduce a child to different languages the better they are at taking in all kinds of information, they score higher in performance tests

cant see the negitve really

languagenerd

Never had to study Peig, thankfully (though An Triail was hardly more cheerful) - the only thing I think of when I hear "Peig Sayers" is that mental TV series TG4 did called Paddywhackery, where a guy lost his job in the IFSC, heard about grants for Irish speakers so pretended he could speak Irish, only to be haunted by the ghost of Peig who kept appearing out of bins and skips and stuff to give out to him :pac:

I think the Irish course has changed again even since I left school (four and half years ago), but they definitely need(ed) to revamp the syllabus. It doesn't make sense to try to cram a huge amount of literature into a subject that's also half-treated as a language subject - there just isn't time for both parts of the course. We had to spend so long on all that literature and history (one long play, three short stories/extracts, one béaloideas story, thirteen poems, each requiring a separate essay, and a huge section on Stair na Gaeilge) that there just wasn't enough time for language-learning like in French and Spanish. It was like two entirely different subjects rolled into slot, and the teachers had to compromise. That's why so many people had to learn off essays without having a clue what they meant: they could have got a high level of language but not covered a chunk of the literature that's worth over half the marks, or learn everything off (literature and language answers alike) in order to be able to answer on the day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dj jarvis wrote: »

but it is.........

No it's not. The aim is to revive the Irish langauge and force everyone to be bilingual. If it ws pruely linguistic, we'd be considering Latin insgtrad of irish.

is learning the national language not an imperative for a nation?
i have always been embarrassed by my lack of Irish , and the lack of other Irish people to speak it, i ran a bar in Germany frequented by many Irish , and the amount of times i have heard rubbish Irish been used to impress Germans was embarrassing - no one could speak it properly if at all.

That;s you personally. You have gthe choice to go to evening classes. You have the choice to not do so. You're implying that kids shuld not hace this choice.

once a week in the An shebeen bar in Frankfurt there was a gathering of Germans ( place was packed) , all speaking Irish - and me not a word, never felt so small for not knowing my national language despite being taught it from
age 5, yet got 100 times more German and Finnish

i am like many others , it went one ear and out the other , why is that ?

How is a pub in Frankfurt once a week for an adult different from an education system lasting for fourteen years for a child? Do I really have to answer that?

There are other pubs and other nights to go out drinking. Iwould purposly avoid anyone or any event that makes me feel bad simply for not having a particualr talent.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

But what difference does it make to the kids at school?

The kids become bilingual? When has one language ever been better than two or more?

Do you know anything about language acquisition? Plenty of children around the world start school in a new language. It's really not a big deal.

Then why are Irish kids not learnign Irish at under the system as it is?

What's wrong with educating children in the native language of their country? Catalonia insists on Catalan for political reasons, but I don't see how the kids there suffer because of it. They grow up bilingual in Catalan/Spanish and seem to pick up foreign languages much easier than monolingual Spaniards, probably because their brains are wired for different languages and they're more tolerant of them.

What's wrong is the size of the shift you are implementing. You also seem to think that the langauge is more important than the child. And tagging on a bilingual excuse is bull****, as I've stated before. I put it to you that you are selfishly putting the needs of the langauge ahead of the needs of the child.

The fact is that chidlren in this country are educated in English. There is no reason to change this that would be beneficial to the child. If anything, it creates more problems than it solves and is an unnessecary vanity project. It serves no practical point. And the child simply "not suffering" is not the aim.

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No it's not. The aim is to revive the Irish langauge and force everyone to be bilingual. If it ws pruely linguistic, we'd be considering Latin insgtrad of irish.

That;s you personally. You have gthe choice to go to evening classes. You have the choice to not do so. You're implying that kids shuld not hace this choice.

How is a pub in Frankfurt once a week for an adult different from an education system lasting for fourteen years for a child? Do I really have to answer that?

There are other pubs and other nights to go out drinking. Iwould purposly avoid anyone or any event that makes me feel bad simply for not having a particualr talent.

ah come on

thats is not the point i was making, and you know it - name another nation that does not know its national language - we should know it - full stop
its a sad refection on us

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dj jarvis wrote: »

ah come on

thats is not the point i was making, and you know it - name another nation that does not know its national language - we should know it - full stop
its a sad refection on us

United States.

We seem to get along fine speaking English, as do a few nations.

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

United States.

whut ?

their designated national language is English , i think they can speak it , as far as i know.

our national language is Irish

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

United States.

We seem to get along fine speaking English, as do a few nations.

and the problem with adding to it is ?

languagenerd

dj jarvis wrote: »

whut ?

their designated national language is English , i think they can speak it , as far as i know.

our national language is Irish

As far as I know, the US don't have ANY designated languages. Legally, it was just never mentioned in the constitution...

dj jarvis

languagenerd wrote: »

As far as I know, the US don't have ANY designated languages. Legally, it was just never mentioned in the constitution...

ok , i will give you that because i dont know otherwise , but lest face it its English , ours legally as far as i know is Irish and English but one is just sidelined

ViveLaVie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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?

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.

Learning languages is educative. The benefit to the children would probably be a lot more significant than that of not teaching Irish properly. In terms of intelligence and employment, having two languages is far more beneficial than one. It also encourages more lateral thinking and opens up different perspectives, as well as appreciating culture.

Language acquisition for children is easy peasy. This is not the case for adults but children soak up language like sponges. Schooling kids through Irish wouldn't cause a massive upheaval for kids or any real communication issues; within a matter of months, they'd be nattering away in Irish as easily as they already did in English.

I disagree with you on the purpose of schooling too. Yes its main tenet is to educate (and what part of language teaching is not educating?) but schools also act as microcosmos of society and children learn to act within society to a large extent in school. Increasing cultural capital probably should be on a schooling agenda.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dj jarvis wrote: »

whut ?

their designated national language is English , i think they can speak it , as far as i know.

our national language is Irish

Is it? Because someone says so? The idea that the Irish should speak Irish is no different to the idea that the Americans shoudl speak navajo.

dj jarvis wrote: »

and the problem with adding to it is ?

Nothing. It's the methods I'm condemning.

dj jarvis

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Is it? Because someone says so? The idea that the Irish should speak Irish is no different to the idea that the Americans shoudl speak navajo.

Nothing. It's the methods I'm condemning.

ok , ill leave this so

languagenerd

dj jarvis wrote: »

ok , i will give you that because i dont know otherwise , but lest face it its English , ours legally as far as i know is Irish and English but one is just sidelined

Yeah, legally, Irish is both "national language" and "first official language", while English is recognised as "second official language". This is seriously not in sync with reality though.

It's a weird one... sometimes countries have a "first official language" that people never use in their day-to-day life because it's prestigious and only used for formal and high-class situations. We have one that's practically not used at all...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Learning languages is education. The benefit to the children would probably be a lot more significant than that of not teaching Irish properly. In terms of intelligence and employment, having two languages is far more beneficial than one. It also encourages more lateral thinking and opens up different perspectives, as well as appreciating culture.

Language acquisition for children is easy peasy. This is not the case for adults but children soak up language like sponges. Schooling kids through Irish wouldn't cause a massivr upheaval for kids or any real communication issues; within a matter of months, they'd be nattering away in Irish as easily as they already did in English.

But AGAIN this is of no concern to advocates of the system. They want the laguage to be spoken more frequently - the education or skills of the child is of secondary concern. No one's actually disagreed with this yet.

If langauge aquisation is of importance, why not french or German? Far more beneficial and will deliver the same skillset - in fact, even more beneficial. Again, no one's disagreed with this yet.

I disagree with you on the purpose of schooling too. Yes its main tenet is to educate (and what part of language teaching is not educating?) But schools also act as microcosmos of society and children learn to act within society to a large extent in school. Increasing cultural capital probably should be on a schooling agenda.

Cultural, possibly, but culture goes beyond mere language. Why is Irish art not on the curriculum? I argue that art is more cultural than language becuae of it's universal appeal: I can look at a painting by by someone who never spoke english and instantly be able to communicate with them.

I could also argue that the culture shared by most children is that of pop culture - and not that of a langauge.

Insect Overlord

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If langauge aquisation is of importance, why not french or German? Far more beneficial and will deliver the same skillset - in fact, even more beneficial. Again, no one's disagreed with this yet.

Because this isn't France (or Quebec) or Germany.

ViveLaVie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But AGAIN this is of no concern to advocates of the system. They want the laguage to be spoken more frequently - the education or skills of the child is of secondary concern. No one's actually disagreed with this yet.

If langauge aquisation is of importance, why not french or German? Far more beneficial and will deliver the same skillset - in fact, even more beneficial. Again, no one's disagreed with this yet.

Cultural, possibly, but culture goes beyond mere language. Why is Irish art not on the curriculum? I argue that art is more cultural than language becuae of it's universal appeal: I can look at a painting by by someone who never spoke english and instantly be able to communicate with them.

I could also argue that the culture shared by most children is that of pop culture - and not that of a langauge.

The education of the child seems to be a secondary concern of yours. You see this measure as an act of cultural imperialism and despite the added benefits (educative ones) to children acquiring Irish, you argue against it.

French or German would indeed be beneficial, but they don't have historical and cultural ties to our society and country. They have not influenced the English we speak to such an extent that it has been shaped into its own unique version, Hiberno-English. They are not spoken as first languages in pockets of the country. They have not given rise to a rich cultural heritage that spawned generations of wonderful literature. There is no tangible connection to either French or German here, not in the same way there is for Irish.

And I could argue that it is upon language that societies are framed; our own thoughts are given structure by language; language is communication. Language influences and constructs thought and it is far more culturally significant than art. Language is truly universal and within functional societies, everyone participates fully in and through language. This is not the case with art. Your interpretation of this art is based on your capacity to give form to thought; this is achieved through language.

I also entirely disagree with your assertion that children only connect with pop culture.

[Deleted User]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then why are Irish kids not learnign Irish at under the system as it is?

Because that's now how it's taught! It's taught through a few hours a week of grammar/memorising poetry/reading, not total immersion.

What's wrong is the size of the shift you are implementing. You also seem to think that the langauge is more important than the child. And tagging on a bilingual excuse is bull****, as I've stated before. I put it to you that you are selfishly putting the needs of the langauge ahead of the needs of the child.

The fact is that chidlren in this country are educated in English. There is no reason to change this that would be beneficial to the child. If anything, it creates more problems than it solves and is an unnessecary vanity project. It serves no practical point. And the child simply "not suffering" is not the aim.

I don't understand your point of view at all. Additional languages are really only ever of benefit to children. Being monolingual is a massive handicap in life. I'm really, really sorry I didn't get to learn Irish as a child. I don't understand what 'problems' you think would arise from children being educated in Irish.

Iwasfrozen

dj jarvis wrote: »

but it is.........

is learning the national language not an imperative for a nation?
i have always been embarrassed by my lack of Irish , and the lack of other Irish people to speak it, i ran a bar in Germany frequented by many Irish , and the amount of times i have heard rubbish Irish been used to impress Germans was embarrassing - no one could speak it properly if at all.

once a week in the An shebeen bar in Frankfurt there was a gathering of Germans ( place was packed) , all speaking Irish - and me not a word, never felt so small for not knowing my national language despite being taught it from
age 5, yet got 100 times more German and Finnish

i am like many others , it went one ear and out the other , why is that ?

Then stop bitchin and learn it. If I wanted to learn it I would. What's your excuse?

Iwasfrozen

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

I don't understand your point of view at all. Additional languages are really only ever of benefit to children. Being monolingual is a massive handicap in life.

What benefits are there to speaking Irish above a major European language?

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

I'm really, really sorry I didn't get to learn Irish as a child. I don't understand what 'problems' you think would arise from children being educated in Irish.

Learn it now.

[Deleted User]

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What benefits are there to speaking Irish above a major European language?

Learn it now.

But it's not Irish vs a major European language, is it? It's Irish and English vs just English and there are plenty of benefits in being able to speak Irish and English. Being bilingual makes it easier to learn additional languages in the future, it connects Irish children to their culture, it means you can discuss things in public in other countries without being understood, plenty of reasons.

I am learning it now but it's incredibly difficult. Children soak up languages like sponges, why wouldn't you introduce them when the kids are young?

dj jarvis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then stop bitchin and learn it. If I wanted to learn it I would. What's your excuse?

we are talking about teaching the next generation in a way that does not end up with them hating the language , ya know , the point of the thread

try reading the thread first before you make stupid comments and you might understand this simple concept

if you have nothing constructive to offer then i suggest you sling your hook

dj jarvis

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

But it's not Irish vs a major European language, is it? It's Irish and English vs just English and there are plenty of benefits in being able to speak Irish and English. Being bilingual makes it easier to learn additional languages in the future, it connects Irish children to their culture, it means you can discuss things in public in other countries without being understood, plenty of reasons.

I am learning it now but it's incredibly difficult. Children soak up languages like sponges, why wouldn't you introduce them when the kids are young?

there is no good reason for not doing this , but this being an open internet forum you are bound to attract people that will argue against it for days , becasue they can, but with no real substance to their argument.
English speaking nations are the worst at having a second or third language, and this is detrimental to them going forward.

this thread is turning into a circle jerk - enjoy the ride :rolleyes: