Peig Sayers

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 04:39PM

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

I haven't researched this idea at all. I'm only telling you that your argument against children starting a new language at age 4/5 is ridiculous.

I'm not against "starting" a new language - I'm against educating entirely in a new language. There was no argument - I'm waiting for someone to present an argument I can debate other than "kids pick up langauges easily - fact".

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 05:07PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Statistically it's pretty much unlikely every child will adapt as well as you think they will.

Then theoretically, you haven't considered the implications or the interests of otehr people.

WHo? What advatages?

I go by my own experience. At the moment, it's the only thing ont hte table. You seem to think that ever child will adapt to a language effortlessly. I disagee. You have presented nothing to the contrary.

I simply do not believe (opinion here, not fact) that the switch will be as effortless as you think it will for every child. Nor do I think it will be as welcome. Nothing you have presented has convined me otherwise.

What stats are these? Because scientific data actually shows children do very well with acquiring languages.

Well you haven't considered the practical advantages. The advantages being the ones I've outlined repeatedly in my posts. You haven't read them?

Well I'll go look up some papers then and then I will present you with evidence - whereas your opinion will remain an opinion.

Are you going to answer ANY of the questions I posed to you regarding your own language acquisition?

Iwasfrozen · 20-10-2013 05:10PM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

What stats are these? Because scientific data actually shows children do very well with acquiring languages.

Well you haven't considered the practical advantages. The advantages being the ones I've outlined repeatedly in my posts. You haven't read them?

Well I'll go look up some papers then and then I will present you with evidence - whereas your opinion will remain an opinion.

Are you going to answer ANY of the questions I posed to you regarding your own language acquisition?

Why get so worked up about something that's never going to happen?

20-10-2013 05:14PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm not against "starting" a new language - I'm against educating entirely in a new language. There was no argument - I'm waiting for someone to present an argument I can debate other than "kids pick up langauges easily - fact".

It IS a fact. There's no reason for kids not to start school in a different language. You can argue that that language shouldn't be Irish, for a number of reasons, but all this 'the kids will get confused' stuff is rubbish. I did my thesis on language acquisition in childhood and work in that field.

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 05:22PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why get so worked up about something that's never going to happen?

I'm a language teacher and I'm really interested in language acquisition. I studied it in college. I simply enjoy discussing it.

Iwasfrozen · 20-10-2013 05:28PM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I'm a language teacher and I'm really interested in language acquisition. I studied it in college. I simply enjoy discussing it.

Fair enough. Just so long as you understand while it's interesting to discuss the pros and cons of implementing such a policy there is no way it would ever happen in the real world. Even ignoring the protests of parents, the church, the children themselves and other bodies with a vested interest the teachers union would never accept it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 07:48PM

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

It IS a fact. There's no reason for kids not to start school in a different language. You can argue that that language shouldn't be Irish, for a number of reasons, but all this 'the kids will get confused' stuff is rubbish. I did my thesis on language acquisition in childhood and work in that field.

Then can you please link me to something that shows that no child will have a problem adapting to a new langauge in which neither the child nor the teacher speak it as their mother tongue and tell me why it shows what you think it shows?

There's no reasons to change the lanaguge. There's no reason to change anything - that's my point.

If it was benefitial to the child, the idea would have been at least debated long ago. The benefit is to the Irish language, not to the child and that is wrong.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 08:17PM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

What stats are these? Because scientific data actually shows children do very well with acquiring languages.

Well you haven't considered the practical advantages. The advantages being the ones I've outlined repeatedly in my posts. You haven't read them?

Well I'll go look up some papers then and then I will present you with evidence - whereas your opinion will remain an opinion.

Are you going to answer ANY of the questions I posed to you regarding your own language acquisition?

By statisrtically, I mean 100%. Can you prove that every child eill beenfit from such a move? My point being it's highly unlikely.

The only advatge I saw anyone list was bilingual kids - and if that was a serious concern, as I said, we'd already have two compulsory languages on the syllabus in such a way that they were geared towards actually learning a langauge. We'd also have French or German as the second language: it's all very well being cultural, but if you want a practical education then Irish isn't the answer. That's why I dismissed it as a smokescreen.

And again, you haven't taken into account the level of teaching of the subject, the parental objections and the fact that it woudl tenhically be against the law of making everything available in both officvial lamgauges.

It;s a nice romantic idea. It's not practical and, as pointe out, will never happen. Because it simply is not practical.

20-10-2013 09:23PM

It is useful for kids to have a second language. I'm not gone on it being irish because I think learning a romance language at least would make picking up other ones in future easier, but I suppose either is fine. They should take out the religion in primary and replace it with tuition in another language. Proper tuition, not a syllabus that's designed based on the idea that kids already know the language...

It is a fact that kids' brains are at optimum for absorbing new languages up until 7 or so

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 11:46PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By statisrtically, I mean 100%. Can you prove that every child eill beenfit from such a move? My point being it's highly unlikely.

The only advatge I saw anyone list was bilingual kids - and if that was a serious concern, as I said, we'd already have two compulsory languages on the syllabus in such a way that they were geared towards actually learning a langauge. We'd also have French or German as the second language: it's all very well being cultural, but if you want a practical education then Irish isn't the answer. That's why I dismissed it as a smokescreen.

And again, you haven't taken into account the level of teaching of the subject, the parental objections and the fact that it woudl tenhically be against the law of making everything available in both officvial lamgauges.

It;s a nice romantic idea. It's not practical and, as pointe out, will never happen. Because it simply is not practical.

Your point is based on nothing but your own opinion! You cannot just make things up in a debate.

Yeah bilinguism is hugely advantageous for a number of reasons: it enhances performance in all subjects at school, enhances intelligence and job prospects and encourages lateral thinking. It is also a means of accessing culture.

The reason we don't have it is because English is the dominant world language and everyone else is learning it so we don't need to learn additional languages as much. However, from an intellectual and employment perspective, we should.

Right and yet again I must point out that I do not know how it would work in practice; I am speaking theoretically in terms of the benefits it would bestow. You're arguing against these benefits. That's the discussion I'm interested in having.

You brought up your own language skills as a rebuff to my question on your knowledge of language acquisition - but you've ignored all of the questions I asked you about it so I can only conclude that you don't actually know anything about language learning. Your opinion is just an opinion. However, it is an absolute fact that children soak up languages very easily. FACT.

ViveLaVie · 21-10-2013 12:24AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fair enough. Just so long as you understand while it's interesting to discuss the pros and cons of implementing such a policy there is no way it would ever happen in the real world. Even ignoring the protests of parents, the church, the children themselves and other bodies with a vested interest the teachers union would never accept it.

I'm aware of that.

shruikan2553 · 21-10-2013 12:34AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

and maybe that is the problem , the Irish just dont care about it , and if that is the case , then should we all not just admit it , and let the language die ?

Those of us who dont care about it would be glad to stop the CPR and let it live or die by itself but sadly there are the irish speaking minority who demand that we should all be able to speak "our national language" and some others who say they wish they spoke it but never actually put in any effort to learn it.

endacl · 21-10-2013 01:34AM

bluewolf wrote: »

It is a fact that kids' brains are at optimum for absorbing new languages up until 7 or so

And that's why languages should be taught before breakfast. The problem is though, that teachers can't really function before 9, and only then after a gallon of coffee.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-10-2013 01:38AM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Your point is based on nothing but your own opinion! You cannot just make things up in a debate.

Yeah bilinguism is hugely advantageous for a number of reasons: it enhances performance in all subjects at school, enhances intelligence and job prospects and encourages lateral thinking. It is also a means of accessing culture.

The reason we don't have it is because English is the dominant world language and everyone else is learning it so we don't need to learn additional languages as much. However, from an intellectual and employment perspective, we should.

Right and yet again I must point out that I do not know how it would work in practice; I am speaking theoretically in terms of the benefits it would bestow. You're arguing against these benefits. That's the discussion I'm interested in having.

You brought up your own language skills as a rebuff to my question on your knowledge of language acquisition - but you've ignored all of the questions I asked you about it so I can only conclude that you don't actually know anything about language learning. Your opinion is just an opinion. However, it is an absolute fact that children soak up languages very easily. FACT.

In fairness, I brought up my own langauge skills only after someone cliamed I knew nothing about learning a language.

I accept that you're going on the the theoretical an in theory it might be a nice idea. but in practice it won't work. Kids will only learn the languge if it's taught well and if they're in a comfortable environment. Again - I'm not against the idea of kids learning a langauge or even kids learning Irish, I'm against the manner in which you propose it.

Rubeter · 21-10-2013 06:58AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Those of us who dont care about it would be glad to stop the CPR and let it live or die by itself but sadly there are the irish speaking minority who demand that we should all be able to speak "our national language" and some others who say they wish they spoke it but never actually put in any effort to learn it.

Fortunately in this modern day and age there are quite a lot of people who do care about losing this unique and irreplaceable part of European culture and who do want effort put into preserving it.
Most broad minded, educated and traveled people of today recognise the importance of preserving minority languages and cultures for the benefit of all humanity.

BrensBenz · 21-10-2013 09:36AM

Oh Peig, and the hundreds of hours wasted by our male teacher in a black maxi dress trying to engage us in her incomprehensible whining!

My LC took place in the black and white days, when "fail Irish / fail Leaving" was the law. Since Peig was threatening to deprive many of us of our LC, somebody I know (ahem) borrowed and memorised the English notes for the alternative novel on the curriculum that year, (something about a little black donkey??) and without ever handling that book, managed to answer all of the exam questions on it.

Echoing what others have said here, why, when we have so many genuinely talented writers in Irish, did the DoEd impose Peig on us? I had / have a particular interest in the short story format for many years and, luckily, Padraic O'Conaire was also on our curriculum. I had read somewhere that O'Conaire was highly regarded internationally as a short story writer so, with the aid of de Bhaldraithe's dictionary, I painstakingly translated O'Conaire's stories into BrensBenz Irish and then reread them. This exercise taught me more Irish than the previous thirteen years of Irish classes. Pretty soon, I was able to read the originals without the dictionary and yes, the writing style and stories are truly magical.

shruikan2553 · 21-10-2013 11:31AM

Rubeter wrote: »

Fortunately in this modern day and age there are quite a lot of people who do care about losing this unique and irreplaceable part of European culture and who do want effort put into preserving it.

Then why dont they learn it?

Rubeter wrote: »

Most broad minded, educated and traveled people of today recognise the importance of preserving minority languages and cultures for the benefit of all humanity.

Languages die, words die, words change meaning. Languages are always changing, sometimes they get to the point where people dont use them anymore. It has happened to many languages before us and will happen to many languages after us. For the vast majority of the world, they dont care if Irish lives or dies. If catalan or scottish gaelic just disappeared tomorrow I would still live my life without any changes.

awec · 21-10-2013 11:47AM

Rubeter wrote: »

Fortunately in this modern day and age there are quite a lot of people who do care about losing this unique and irreplaceable part of European culture and who do want effort put into preserving it.
Most broad minded, educated and traveled people of today recognise the importance of preserving minority languages and cultures for the benefit of all humanity.

I agree it shouldn't disappear.

But if the language is that important to society it will survive without it being forced upon everyone.

Forcing it upon people is counter productive - it should be optional. Otherwise you just create resentment.

Rubeter · 21-10-2013 12:18PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Then why dont they learn it?

People do and they send their kids off to also.
If you think because there aren't hundreds of thousands of people queuing up for lessons it means nobody cares, then you are sadly naive about people, their actual lives and priorities, the sheer time and effort needed to learn a language, and how much attitudes have changed regarding the language over the last 30 odd years.
People have developed a pride in this little gift we have been left with, a very different attitude to the one our forebearers had.

Languages die, words die, words change meaning. Languages are always changing, sometimes they get to the point where people dont use them anymore. It has happened to many languages before us and will happen to many languages after us. For the vast majority of the world, they dont care if Irish lives or dies. If catalan or scottish gaelic just disappeared tomorrow I would still live my life without any changes.

You may not care but many do, imagine if English no longer existed and people had to read Shakespeare in Mandarin, that what makes his writing so special ie his wonderful use of the language would be gone never to be enjoyed again.
Each language is special and unique , encompassing hundreds or thousands of years of literature, culture and knowledge of a people, the essence of which is lost when the language is lost. Different languages have different ways of looking at things and people think differently in each language, this wonderful diversity which we can all learn from is again lost as languages are lost.

Of the 7,000 languages still in existence today only a few hundred will survive the century, think about that, after 10's of thousands of years of languages being born and dying we are left with 7,000, but after just 100 years we will be left with only a couple of hundred, we are going to lose a richness and diversity of human thought and culture that will never be replaced.
You may not care about your grandkids living in a world striped of so much richness, but those of us that love diversity and learning from others, do.

Here in Ireland we are the guardians of a language and to lose it would be a deep shame on us, letting something so special slip out of our hands would be a disgrace on us as a people.

inocybe · 21-10-2013 01:14PM

Rubeter wrote: »

Most broad minded, educated and traveled people of today recognise the importance of preserving minority languages and cultures for the benefit of all humanity.

Absolutely, but those same educated and traveled people should be able to recognize that compulsion to learn a language, in the form of our current system, breeds a lot of resentment and outright hatred. By all means preserve the Irish language for the benefit of humanity, just get it off the exam curriculum for the benefit of my child's education.

blue5000 · 21-10-2013 01:19PM

Does anyone know where she is buried? I want to go sh1t on her grave.

An Coilean · 21-10-2013 02:04PM

awec wrote: »

I agree it shouldn't disappear.

But if the language is that important to society it will survive without it being forced upon everyone.

Forcing it upon people is counter productive - it should be optional. Otherwise you just create resentment.

Nonsense, both maths and English are forced on everyone, does this also creat resentment?

Canis Lupus · 21-10-2013 02:30PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Nonsense, both maths and English are forced on everyone, does this also creat resentment?

Both are useful to everyday life. I haven't spoken a word of Irish outside school some.... 15+ years ago.

awec · 21-10-2013 02:31PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Nonsense, both maths and English are forced on everyone, does this also creat resentment?

The only nonsense here is your comparison of Irish and English and Math.

An Coilean · 21-10-2013 02:48PM

awec wrote: »

The only nonsense here is your comparison of Irish and English and Math.

You made a claim, (that a subject being compulsory will breed resentment) that claim has been shown to be false. (English and Maths are compulsory and that does not breed resentment for them).

You could also go and have a look at other education systems around the world, I have yet to come accross one that does not feature compulsory subjects, there is no evidence that this is breeding resentment of those subjects.

To put it simplly, there is no evidence that supports your claim that I have ever seen, plenty to suggest your claim is wrong, so I am going to believe that it is wrong until you can show otherwise.

An Coilean · 21-10-2013 02:49PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Both are useful to everyday life. I haven't spoken a word of Irish outside school some.... 15+ years ago.

Well thats just lovely, but its not relevant to the point I was making.

Canis Lupus · 21-10-2013 02:57PM

An Coilean wrote: »

Well thats just lovely, but its not relevant to the point I was making.

Of course it's relevant. Even a schoolchild recognises the use of maths and English for everyday use, 3rd level education and finally practical application in a lot of jobs.

Resentment is caused by having to learn a language like Irish that has no use outside of the schoolroom.

shruikan2553 · 21-10-2013 03:33PM

Rubeter wrote: »

People do and they send their kids off to also.
If you think because there aren't hundreds of thousands of people queuing up for lessons it means nobody cares, then you are sadly naive about people, their actual lives and priorities, the sheer time and effort needed to learn a language, and how much attitudes have changed regarding the language over the last 30 odd years.
People have developed a pride in this little gift we have been left with, a very different attitude to the one our forebearers had.

Exactly, they send their children but they don't try to improve their own irish.
They see the time and effort it takes to learn a language so let others put in the time and effort because they don't care enough to even try.

Rubeter wrote: »

You may not care but many do, imagine if English no longer existed and people had to read Shakespeare in Mandarin, that what makes his writing so special ie his wonderful use of the language would be gone never to be enjoyed again.
Each language is special and unique , encompassing hundreds or thousands of years of literature, culture and knowledge of a people, the essence of which is lost when the language is lost. Different languages have different ways of looking at things and people think differently in each language, this wonderful diversity which we can all learn from is again lost as languages are lost.

Of the 7,000 languages still in existence today only a few hundred will survive the century, think about that, after 10's of thousands of years of languages being born and dying we are left with 7,000, but after just 100 years we will be left with only a couple of hundred, we are going to lose a richness and diversity of human thought and culture that will never be replaced.
You may not care about your grandkids living in a world striped of so much richness, but those of us that love diversity and learning from others, do.

Here in Ireland we are the guardians of a language and to lose it would be a deep shame on us, letting something so special slip out of our hands would be a disgrace on us as a people.

I see language as a means of communication, if people enjoy languages then they are free to learn and practice them themselves. There is no need to force everyone into your hobby.

An Coilean wrote: »

Nonsense, both maths and English are forced on everyone, does this also creat resentment?

There is some resentment towards those subjects but more people see them as useful. At college level only arts may not require some sort of maths. English is needed so we can communicate. There are people that hate integration, Shakespeare and poetry. The difference is more people have required aspects of these subjects outside of school.

awec · 21-10-2013 03:49PM

An Coilean wrote: »

You made a claim, (that a subject being compulsory will breed resentment) that claim has been shown to be false. (English and Maths are compulsory and that does not breed resentment for them).

You could also go and have a look at other education systems around the world, I have yet to come accross one that does not feature compulsory subjects, there is no evidence that this is breeding resentment of those subjects.

To put it simplly, there is no evidence that supports your claim that I have ever seen, plenty to suggest your claim is wrong, so I am going to believe that it is wrong until you can show otherwise.

There is no resentment for English and Math because students can see how both of these subjects are beneficial to them in life and how important they are when finding a career.

Are people going to struggle to find employment if they can't speak Irish? Only if they want to be teachers, and even that rule is stupid.

There is no comparison to be had. English and Maths are basic skills needed by everyone in life. Irish is not, which is not a criticism of the language or those who speak it but rather an acceptance of reality.

Let people learn it if they want, and even encourage them to do so, but it should be forced upon nobody. If it is as important socially and culturally as is made out then the language will still survive.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-10-2013 05:43PM

Wondere where you were!

Welcome!

An Coilean wrote: »

You made a claim, (that a subject being compulsory will breed resentment) that claim has been shown to be false. (English and Maths are compulsory and that does not breed resentment for them).

Acutally, they do. I know plenty of people who hate Shakespear. I feel just as wretched about Wuthering ****ing Heights as I do about Peig. And as for the amount of crap on the Maths LC....

Just to clarify, though, a you know, I'm also in favour of these subjects being optional after the JC, on the basis that a student ahould have mastered enough of said subjects to function in society.

Peig Sayers

Comments