Peig Sayers

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!

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?