Can we kill Irish once and for all

looking_around · 07-07-2014 09:34PM

Mcdonough wrote: »

5. It's great that the French speak French in France, and the Spanish speak Spanish in Spain, but we're not multicultural enough until we stop the Irish from speaking Irish in Ireland.

Not actually stopping the Irish from speaking Irish.

you do realise yes, that making it optional does not stop anyone in the gaeltach speaking it?
Does not suddenly close down gaelscoils.
does not stop families who want to raise their children speaking Irish from doing so.

Secondly, there are some countries who speak a language that would not have belonged to them to begin with.
Switzerland/Austria both speak German.
Brazil speaks Portuguese.

It's just a tool for communication. It changes to what is needed/used. Words lose their meaning, new ones take their place. Languages evolve/die and get replaced.
It's not a big deal.

FunLover18 · 07-07-2014 09:36PM

Mcdonough wrote: »

Let me get this straight,

1. The people who want to get rid of the Irish language hate Irish culture and history to such a great extent, that the very idea of preserving such things is a hilarious propsal to them.

2. For some reason, the fact that 97% of Irish can't even speak Irish isn't a cause for concern, and it's hysterical to think it might die out.

3. But simultaneously, we should just let it die out.

4. Actually liking your country and culture makes you a rightwing racist Nazi Hitler terrorist, and being a cool progressive means abandoning your cultural heritage in favor of England's cultural heritage.

5. It's great that the French speak French in France, and the Spanish speak Spanish in Spain, but we're not multicultural enough until we stop the Irish from speaking Irish in Ireland.

Let me get this straight,

1. Wanting to stop studying Irish for Leaving Cert is the equivalent of hating Ireland and her wonderful culture

2. For some reason you still think compulsory Irish at Leaving Cert is somehow the key to revitalising the Irish language despite the fact that it has been cmpulsory for over 70 years and the levels of Irish speakers hasn't improved

3. If we make Irish optional FOR LEAVING CERT ONLY not one person will choose it and the language will die despite the numbers to attend all-Irish primary schools

4. Not wanting to study a language at Leaving Cert level, one aspect of our wide and varied culture, makes us anti-Irish West Brits who are selling out the culture, it doesn't matter that we might be GAA players, we might study history for Leaving Cert, we might study Irish poets for English, no that doesn't make a difference the language is the only thing that matters and it is the ONLY thing that makes us Irish

5. You don't know what the word 'optional' means. Here's a definition; available to be chosen but not obligatory

X_Tidus · 07-07-2014 09:36PM

Some of the reason's I have seen made here to keep Irish compulsory are laughable. Stop with the patriotic guilt trips and stick with the facts, oh wait their are no facts to support the compulsory argument.

mickydoomsux · 07-07-2014 09:37PM

looking_around wrote: »

It's just a tool for communication. It changes to what is needed/used. Words lose their meaning, new ones take their place. Languages evolve/die and get replaced.
It's not a big deal.

But, but, but if they get rid of compulsory Irish our culture and heritage will disappear overnight and we'll all turn into the hated English!

Insect Overlord · 07-07-2014 10:03PM

X_Tidus wrote: »

Some of the reason's I have seen made here to keep Irish compulsory are laughable. Stop with the patriotic guilt trips and stick with the facts, oh wait their are no facts to support the compulsory argument.

Brilliant. Just BRILLIANT!

X_Tidus · 07-07-2014 10:06PM

An File wrote: »

Brilliant. Just BRILLIANT!

I'm glad you like it. I AM!

AngryHippie · 07-07-2014 10:07PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There was no link for the study that you posted.

Correct, You'll need access through Uni Databases to get to it. That is why I quoted directly from the conclusion.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

But from what I read the cognitive advantages of talking to/teaching children bilingually, are greatest when they are very young.
The advantages seem to taper off with age.
If you want to teach them Irish with the above goal then you would be best doing it when they are in pre-school education.

That is my issue with abandoning it, the language is being learned (And all of our current teachers have the necessary skills to teach it) on some level from age 3/4/5 (At which point the language centers are still developing, both spoken and written) which is of benefit outlined in the study.

I agree with all of the posters that point out that a foreign language would be more beneficial in the long run, but until such time as a program and curriculum to teach these from a primary level can be rolled out, then scrapping Irish is a step backwards. That is the point I was making. As for the leaving cert, it'll make bugger all difference as to whether its compulsory or not, but there would be a cost associated with changing it all.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

They're not really equal though.
English is the language 99.9% of people speak, it's also one of the big reasons multinationals set up here.
Any reduction in our ability with the language could have negative economic consequences.

99.9% of people in the country ?
99.9% of people in the world?
99.9% of made up statistics are nonsense.

I'm sure a reduction in our ability would have negative economic consequences, but what has that got to do with it ?
An increase in our ability to speak Mandarin could have positive economic consequences, but again, the logistics of training primary teachers in a foreign language and resourcing it are a nightmare.
As it stands a second language from an early age has been shown to improve the brains ability to process language in general.
We don't have the resources to teach a foreign language at primary level when this effect is most noticeable.
Ergo it makes sense to keep teaching Irish at pre-primary and primary levels. (Hence Irish, or a foreign language should be mandatory for primary teachers)
Ergo it makes sense to continue studying it, until a third language can effectively be added. (at which point choices can be made)

AngryHippie · 07-07-2014 10:22PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

French and Spanish are spoken in numerous countries as a first language.

Irish is a spoken as a second language by maybe a few thousand people in Ireland. Let's keep pouring millions into it, keep it compulsory in schools and keep it an entry requirement for jobs and college courses that will never use it. Ever.

The reason that French and Spanish (and indeed English, sometimes in Pidgin form) are that many of the countries that adopted them had not formed national identities and were a mish-mash of tribal dialects prior to the arrival of the colonialists. There are advantages to having widespread common languages in this way, but these same tribes and provincial populations suffer a cultural loss once their language goes into decline, their culture slowly but surely gets diluted to the point where it is the same as their neighbors and gradually the human race becomes magnolia.

Maybe it is inevitable, and fighting to preserve rich diverse cultures is a waste of time and money, but I personally don't think so, I think it will be a tragedy for mankind when these identities are lost.

Pat_McGroyne · 07-07-2014 10:27PM

Lads, if we didn't have Irish, what would be the difference between us and the Brittish?? Like in fairness it is part of our identity...

FunLover18 · 07-07-2014 10:31PM

Pat_McGroyne wrote: »

Lads, if we didn't have Irish, what would be the difference between us and the Brittish?? Like in fairness it is part of our identity...

Sarcasm?

mickydoomsux · 07-07-2014 10:31PM

AngryHippie wrote: »

The reason that French and Spanish (and indeed English, sometimes in Pidgin form) are that many of the countries that adopted them had not formed national identities and were a mish-mash of tribal dialects prior to the arrival of the colonialists. There are advantages to having widespread common languages in this way, but these same tribes and provincial populations suffer a cultural loss once their language goes into decline, their culture slowly but surely gets diluted to the point where it is the same as their neighbors and gradually the human race becomes magnolia.

Maybe it is inevitable, and fighting to preserve rich diverse cultures is a waste of time and money, but I personally don't think so, I think it will be a tragedy for mankind when these identities are lost.

This will absolutely happen. We are moving toward a global culture. It's seen as a sign of a progressive civilization.

Why exactly will the loss of these localised cultural identities be a tragedy? Anything worthwhile will be adopted by global culture and the rest will be discarded for not being worth the effort of preserving.

Reekwind · 07-07-2014 10:32PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yeah... it would be blatant discrimination and somewhat illegal. I don't have anything against redheads or anything, but I'd be slightly miffed if I found out that native redheads got a 10% bonus in exams just because of idea that some types of discrimination are okay, or that a company was actually given a grant for that sort of behaviour.

So by encouraging the use of Irish, the State is illegally discriminating against 95% of the population and reducing them to the status of second class citizens. Really? Next you'll suggest that we shun all the engineers because you get bonus points for honours Maths.

This is an absurd level of moaning. The State has every right (and arguably duty) to incentivise the learning of certain subjects. Yet because you yourself do not benefit from these policies, they are "blatant discrimination", "illegal" and 'bigotry'. Let me fetch my tiny violin.

However, the thread is really about mandatory Irish for LC, which there isn't any particularly strong argument to support. Perhaps that's why there's so much vitriol on the part of those who support mandatory Irish... I mean, in lieu of actual arguments.

I really don't think that you're in a particularly strong position to be arguing the quality of arguments put forward. Ditto with most of the posters that I've seen over the past few pages. There's been little but whinging about incentives, empty strawmen and the repeated (and baseless) assertion that "their are no facts to support the compulsory argument" [sic]. Frankly, that's not really strong stuff.

And as I said above, anyone who denies entirely the very existence of rationale for the encouragement of Irish via mandatory inclusion in the LC is just wilfully ignorant.

shruikan2553 wrote:

Theres more to Irish culture than the language. Irish history isnt compulsory so you might have missed that.

And? What's that supposed to mean? That we can keep chipping away at elements of Irish culture because there's other aspects that we haven't completely abandoned yet?

Obviously language is not the entirety of Irish culture. (I can't believe that I've had to explain that to someone.) But to deny it any influence on our history or culture, to dismiss its relevance entirely, is myopic in the extreme. Language obviously has a role in Ireland; from the wealth of historical literature, to the communities that still use it today, to the rote phrases that amuse us when they crop up in ads. You'd have to have a very, very superficial understanding of Irish culture to believe that the language could be excised without wider effect.

AngryHippie · 07-07-2014 10:35PM

Pat_McGroyne wrote: »

Lads, if we didn't have Irish, what would be the difference between us and the Brittish?? Like in fairness it is part of our identity...

Repeating this point doesn't really help the the argument.
It's been made, badly many many times, and has been rejected by the "Kill Irish" side of the argument as being excessively nationalist, archaic and divisive.

As to the butchery of the English language in the second part of the post, I suppose that goes to show that English is being learned just as badly by many posters on here after 12 years of schooling, and everyday use.

shruikan2553 · 07-07-2014 10:40PM

Reekwind wrote: »

And? What's that supposed to mean? That we can keep chipping away at elements of Irish culture because there's other aspects that we haven't completely abandoned yet?

Obviously language is not the entirety of Irish culture. (I can't believe that I've had to explain that to someone.) But to deny it any influence on our history or culture, to dismiss its relevance entirely, is myopic in the extreme. Language obviously has a role in Ireland; from the wealth of historical literature, to the communities that still use it today, to the rote phrases that amuse us when they crop up in ads. You'd have to have a very, very superficial understanding of Irish culture to believe that the language could be excised without wider effect.

Its not me that you need to explain it to. Its the people that think without 2 years of Irish we have nothing. We dont have compulsory GAA, music, history or dancing and yet they all manage fine. The language will live on through the native speakers as it continues to do so now.

RandomName2 · 07-07-2014 10:43PM

Mcdonough wrote: »

Let me get this straight,

1. The people who want to get rid of the Irish language hate Irish culture and history to such a great extent, that the very idea of preserving such things is a hilarious propsal to them.

I see that you're doing very badly at the homework I set you.

Mcdonough wrote: »

2. For some reason, the fact that 97% of Irish can't even speak Irish isn't a cause for concern, and it's hysterical to think it might die out.

This point doesn't really have anything to do with the Leaving Certificate examination.

As a functional language it's been gone for a very long time, but let's leave that to the side for the moment.

I understand the fear that some people have here - that making Irish optional for LC will be the beginning of a slippery slope; that the next thing is that it'll be optional for JC, and then it will be dropped from some schools as an option. Some of those fears have some merit; but that isn't what's being discussed here (hell, I'm the only one who's even bothered to bring it up). But I mean, you compulsory lot, if you want to discuss that aspect, feel free to do so; it's a lot better than

HURR IF YOU CANT BE ARSED LEARNING YUR CULTUR YOU ARE STUPID AND HATE IRELAND

Mcdonough wrote: »

3. But simultaneously, we should just let it die out.

As above

Mcdonough wrote: »

4. Actually liking your country and culture makes you a rightwing racist Nazi Hitler terrorist, and being a cool progressive means abandoning your cultural heritage in favor of England's cultural heritage.

Again, your homework assignment.

I don't really know where to begin here; it's like being a psychiatrist. Matters aren't improved by the face that Iwasfrozen's fourth paragraph has nothing to do with this response. Ah.. it defeats me for the moment.

Mcdonough wrote: »

5. It's great that the French speak French in France, and the Spanish speak Spanish in Spain, but we're not multicultural enough until we stop the Irish from speaking Irish in Ireland.

Who said anything about stop? Hell, Ireland is better with Irish in it. Just stop having it fricking compulsory.

AngryHippie · 07-07-2014 10:48PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This will absolutely happen. We are moving toward a global culture. It's seen as a sign of a progressive civilization.

Why exactly will the loss of these localised cultural identities be a tragedy? Anything worthwhile will be adopted by global culture and the rest will be discarded for not being worth the effort of preserving.

Because of the sh1te they are being replaced with.
Its one of the things I hate about our consumerist society.
Say we do keep moving towards a global culture, look at what is getting lost:

Music
Folklore
Poetry
Recipes
Manual Skills
Language
Dress

Every time one of the above suffers, who gains ?
Society ? B

Bollokcs. The only ones that gain, are the companies supplying the replacements. Arguing against this point is being a blind patsy for the exact same multinationals that are crushing diversity.
They aren't doing it because they hate individuality, or to crush civilizations, or for any sinister reason, they are doing it because its their job to maximize their market, and their profit. But again, if you think it's a good thing, then I feel bad for you. The day will come when the only diversity encountered when you travel the world will be the color of the faces you see, and that will be a tragedy for our species.

FunLover18 · 07-07-2014 10:53PM

Reekwind wrote: »

This is an absurd level of moaning. The State has every right (and arguably duty) to incentivise the learning of certain subjects. Yet because you yourself do not benefit from these policies, they are "blatant discrimination", "illegal" and 'bigotry'. Let me fetch my tiny violin.

I really don't think that you're in a particularly strong position to be arguing the quality of arguments put forward. Ditto with most of the posters that I've seen over the past few pages. There's been little but whinging about incentives, empty strawmen and the repeated (and baseless) assertion that "their are no facts to support the compulsory argument" [sic]. Frankly, that's not really strong stuff.

And as I said above, anyone who denies entirely the very existence of rationale for the encouragement of Irish via mandatory inclusion in the LC is just wilfully ignorant.

I don't have issues with the incentives myself however surely they would still act as incentives if Irish were to become optional. Nice of you to ignore all the whinging about Irish being our culture.

The reason we're not happy with the lack of facts or arguments supporting compulsory Irish is because this is clearly the position which needs defending. Optional Irish at LC level hurts absolutely no one, people who don't like it can drop and those who do can keep it up. There's nothing to defend or justify. Compulsory Irish however has been in place for decades and there is no evidence whatsoever (at least none has been presented) to suggest that compulsory Irish is as important to the survival of the language as people say. It's a fact that the majority of students drop Irish after secondary school anyway, so what difference to those two years make. I'm sorry if it's whinging but "it's part of our culture" isn't enough.

You also can't encourage someone to do something which is mandatory, nor can anything which is mandatory be deemed encouragement. Encouragement implies choice.

RandomName2 · 07-07-2014 10:56PM

Reekwind wrote: »

So by encouraging the use of Irish, the State is illegally discriminating against 95% of the population and reducing them to the status of second class citizens. Really? Next you'll suggest that we shun all the engineers because you get bonus points for honours Maths.

Define 'encouraging'.

To the former, technically yes (not the illegality bit as it doesn't conflict with anything laid down by the state (naturally) but I've heard serious discussion about whether such issues could be brought to Europe. In general it's not so much that anyone could be arsed about.

As for "all engineers"... why would I shun them?

I don't think there should be bonus points for honours maths, mind.

Reekwind wrote: »

This is an absurd level of moaning. The State has every right (and arguably duty) to incentivise the learning of certain subjects.

Care to back that up?

Reekwind wrote: »

I really don't think that you're in a particularly strong position to be arguing the quality of arguments put forward. Ditto with most of the posters that I've seen over the past few pages. There's been little but whinging about incentives, empty strawmen and the repeated (and baseless) assertion that "their are no facts to support the compulsory argument" [sic]. Frankly, that's not really strong stuff.

And as I said above, anyone who denies entirely the very existence of rationale for the encouragement of Irish via mandatory inclusion in the LC is just wilfully ignorant.

Oh sweet mother Theresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz put your money where your mouth is and produce one of these obvious rationales. Try not to just quote Iwasfrozen though.

Reekwind wrote: »

And? What's that supposed to mean? That we can keep chipping away at elements of Irish culture because there's other aspects that we haven't completely abandoned yet?

What's "chipping away" at Irish culture? Making Irish optional in the leaving certificate?

Do you think history should be compulsory for LC?

FunLover18 · 07-07-2014 11:02PM

AngryHippie wrote: »

Repeating this point doesn't really help the the argument.
It's been made, badly many many times, and has been rejected by the "Kill Irish" side of the argument as being excessively nationalist, archaic and divisive.

No repeating the point doesn't help. Backing it up with some actual argument as to how making Irish optional for LC will kill the language might help though … just a suggestion

RandomName2 · 07-07-2014 11:04PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

No repeating the point doesn't help. Backing it up with some actual argument as to how making Irish optional for LC will kill the language might help though … just a suggestion

Unfortunately... you do have that in the thread title, OP :P

FunLover18 · 07-07-2014 11:06PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Unfortunately... you do have that in the thread title, OP :P

Yeh, he really made a bad move there. Brings out the Irish fanatics and rules out any decent level of conversation on the topic

briany · 07-07-2014 11:15PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

As a functional language it's been gone for a very long time, but let's leave that to the side for the moment.

I understand the fear that some people have here - that making Irish optional for LC will be the beginning of a slippery slope; that the next thing is that it'll be optional for JC, and then it will be dropped from some schools as an option. Some of those fears have some merit; but that isn't what's being discussed here (hell, I'm the only one who's even bothered to bring it up). But I mean, you compulsory lot, if you want to discuss that aspect, feel free to do so; it's a lot better than

HURR IF YOU CANT BE ARSED LEARNING YUR CULTUR YOU ARE STUPID AND HATE IRELAND

....

Hell, Ireland is better with Irish in it. Just stop having it fricking compulsory.

There is an argument to be made that the cultural continuity of Irish was broken a long time ago, except in maybe small pockets. People who learn Irish today, are they expressing thoughts that wouldn't be possible to express in English, or are they simply taking what they would have said in English and then simply translating it? If the second, you could rightly ask, 'why take that extra step?'

As for Irish potentially dying out if you dropped it as a compulsory subject. That's totally failing to recognise a massive underlying problem with the language. If you had a dog that you thought would run away, so your solution was to keep it in a cage, that would probably work, but it wouldn't be healthy or do much for the overall relationship. You'd never get the dog to love you that way. Similarly, you'll probably keep Irish afloat by keeping it compulsory, but will you ever get students to embrace it? I think keeping the language compulsory is a tacit admittance that the state can't think of a better way to relate the language to the majority of the population, and that's more worrying than anything.

Reekwind · 07-07-2014 11:17PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its not me that you need to explain it to. Its the people that think without 2 years of Irish we have nothing. We dont have compulsory GAA, music, history or dancing and yet they all manage fine. The language will live on through the native speakers as it continues to do so now.

As it continues to do now when almost every adult member is provided with twelve years (more?) of Irish education? No one really likes how Irish is taught today but it's hard to believe that the standard or popularity of the language would increase without the current investment levels. Let's be frank: unless something is done, Irish will be dead within a century. That 'something to be done' should not include 'stop encouraging people to learn the language'.

And I go the whole hog because I can see no reason why Irish should be mandatory at any level if not at LC. All the reasons for keeping it at the latter level apply to those below. All you'd have here is repeated threads on 'kill Irish for the Junior Cert', where people would again take issues with the reasons for encouraging the learning of Irish. Or deny that such reasons even exist.

All of which is somewhat tangential given that "GAA, music, history or dancing" all draw upon Irish to some degree. All were uniformly shaped by a culture in which the Irish language was key. To lose Irish entirely is to to impact these; for even an individual to have absolutely no grasp of the language is to weaken his/her ability to fully enjoy each. You cannot, for example, fully appreciate the GAA or Irish history without some understanding of Irish.

FunLover18 wrote:

The reason we're not happy with the lack of facts or arguments supporting compulsory Irish is because this is clearly the position which needs defending. Optional Irish at LC level hurts absolutely no one, people who don't like it can drop and those who do can keep it up. There's nothing to defend or justify.

I suggest that you try to think at a level beyond the individual. The dropping of mandatory Irish would clearly be of significance to the overall standard of Irish in Ireland. To suggest otherwise is to argue that current investment levels and exam structures have absolutely no impact whatsoever, which, even if you believe that Irish is taught poorly, is impossible to seriously credit. The State clearly feels that maintaining a population of Irish speakers is desirable, for reasons that have been hashed over many times in this thread. To argue that this is wrong but that you need produce "nothing to defend or justify" your position as to why this is wrong is a cop-out borne of an excessive narrow view.

And, again, this idea that there is "a lack of facts or arguments supporting compulsory Irish" is nonsense. Even a cursory skim through this thread (or any other thread on this subject) would show that. What people really mean is 'a lack of any arguments that I agree with'.

You also can't encourage someone to do something which is mandatory, nor can anything which is mandatory be deemed encouragement. Encouragement implies choice.

No. There are many ways in which a state can influence the behaviour of its citizens to encourage a desirable outcome. Some are economic, some are legal and some are administrative. In this case the State is not 'encouraging' people to do two years of Irish; it is encouraging people to learn the language via, amongst others, the administrative use of mandatory education.

RandomName2 wrote:

To the former, technically yes (not the illegality bit as it doesn't conflict with anything laid down by the state (naturally) but I've heard serious discussion about whether such issues could be brought to Europe. In general it's not so much that anyone could be arsed about.

Because no one, outside of a few bafflingly hurt fools, considers it to be a case of discrimination or bigotry. Bring what to Europe? The fact that the State has provisions for the protection of a minority language? Good luck to those 'serious people' with that.

Care to back that up?

You mean aside from the fact that it already has measures in place to encourage the learning of Irish, Maths and English? Try the fact that the public education system exists in the first place. The State considers it necessary to have a well educated population; hence the State provides funding, oversight and direction to a national education system. This is not a controversial point. It's pretty explicit in the Constitution: "The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

Oh sweet mother Theresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz put your money where your mouth is and produce one of these obvious rationales. Try not to just quote Iwasfrozen though.

You mean aside from the economic, cultural and intellectual advantages of a bilingual society? Not really. This is page 40 of the thread and I've no real desire to waste time rehashing arguments that were done to death over twenty pages ago.

auldgranny · 07-07-2014 11:23PM

shane7218 wrote: »

So you make fun of my dyslexia instead of making a logical argument. :rolleyes:

OP I would like to apologise to you for my rude and condescending attitude to your posts. I didn't realise you had dyslexia.

TireeTerror · 07-07-2014 11:25PM

Ah I thought this read "Can we kill all the Irish once and for all" and got excited. Must be my dyslexia.....

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2014 11:58PM

AngryHippie wrote: »

Bollokcs. The only ones that gain, are the companies supplying the replacements. Arguing against this point is being a blind patsy for the exact same multinationals that are crushing diversity.
They aren't doing it because they hate individuality, or to crush civilizations, or for any sinister reason, they are doing it because its their job to maximize their market, and their profit. But again, if you think it's a good thing, then I feel bad for you. The day will come when the only diversity encountered when you travel the world will be the color of the faces you see, and that will be a tragedy for our species.

If the only difference I encounter when travailing from Ireland to say Ghana is the color of people's skin I would say that is a massive positive step for our species and if multinationals can achieve this we should all support them

Have you ever actually asked an African if they would be opposed to a western lifestyle?

P_1 · 08-07-2014 12:04AM

Mcdonough wrote: »

Let me get this straight,

1. The people who want to get rid of the Irish language hate Irish culture and history to such a great extent, that the very idea of preserving such things is a hilarious propsal to them.

2. For some reason, the fact that 97% of Irish can't even speak Irish isn't a cause for concern, and it's hysterical to think it might die out.

3. But simultaneously, we should just let it die out.

4. Actually liking your country and culture makes you a rightwing racist Nazi Hitler terrorist, and being a cool progressive means abandoning your cultural heritage in favor of England's cultural heritage.

5. It's great that the French speak French in France, and the Spanish speak Spanish in Spain, but we're not multicultural enough until we stop the Irish from speaking Irish in Ireland.

History has proven that culture ebbs and flows organically and that attempts to force people to follow the same culture as you tend to backfire

RandomName2 · 08-07-2014 12:23AM

Reekwind wrote: »

As it continues to do now when almost every adult member is provided with twelve years (more?) of Irish education? No one really likes how Irish is taught today but it's hard to believe that the standard or popularity of the language would increase without the current investment levels. Let's be frank: unless something is done, Irish will be dead within a century. That 'something to be done' should not include 'stop encouraging people to learn the language'.

You use this word 'encourage'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Reekwind wrote: »

And I go the whole hog because I can see no reason why Irish should be mandatory at any level if not at LC. All the reasons for keeping it at the latter level apply to those below. All you'd have here is repeated threads on 'kill Irish for the Junior Cert', where people would again take issues with the reasons for encouraging the learning of Irish. Or deny that such reasons even exist.

I think there's grounds for it to be optional at JC level. I think it should be compulsory in primary school (but sure everything is compulsory in primary school). The main thing is that I think it should be mandatory for secondary schools to provide it as an option. With this in place people should have a basic understanding of it from primary level, and those who are interested in it can pursue it further. Those who have no interest in it need not be burdened by it throughout secondary school. Far more to the point, the leaving certificate is about third level; nothing more. Irish predominantly has nothing to do with most third level courses. For those who are good at the language, and interested in it, it is a points asset in the LC. For others it's a drag on both time and resources. It defeats the primary purpose anyhow - forcing people to learn it does not engender love, nor does it make people speak it when there are better alternatives available.

Irish is not a useful language. The only way you will get people speaking it is either by forcing them to, or by their own personal preference.The state is unable to force people to speak it after they complete the LC, so people don't! Realistically, the current situation is not suiting either side at the moment.

Reekwind wrote: »

All of which is somewhat tangential given that "GAA, music, history or dancing" all draw upon Irish to some degree. All were uniformly shaped by a culture in which the Irish language was key. To lose Irish entirely is to to impact these; for even an individual to have absolutely no grasp of the language is to weaken his/her ability to fully enjoy each. You cannot, for example, fully appreciate the GAA or Irish history without some understanding of Irish.

You can't fully appreciate Irish history without some understanding of Irish? Erm...not... really. Not saying that it doesn't have cultural merit (because it does)... just not seeing it as being a requisite for understanding other aspects of 'Irishness'. But never mind the fact that Irish today is a bit of a garbled mess - having been endlessly fiddled around with and 'updated' in a bid to 'keep it alive'. It kind of loses its charm, and its historical resonance, when you have madey-up words that are English with an Irish flavour being focused on in the Irish educational system in an attempt to make the language 'hip'.

Reekwind wrote: »

I suggest that you try to think at a level beyond the individual. The dropping of mandatory Irish would clearly be of significance to the overall standard of Irish in Ireland.

On an absolute level, sure. Probably have no real impact on the numbers of people who are fluent, but there'd be a lot less with a cupla focal.

Reekwind wrote: »

The State clearly feels that maintaining a population of Irish speakers is desirable, for reasons that have been hashed over many times in this thread. To argue that this is wrong but that you need produce "nothing to defend or justify" your position as to why this is wrong is a cop-out borne of an excessive narrow view.

Regardless of whether this is right or wrong: having Irish be mandatory in the LC is patently not maintaining a population of Irish speakers.

Reekwind wrote: »

You mean aside from the fact that it already has measures in place to encourage the learning of Irish, Maths and English? Try the fact that the public education system exists in the first place. The State considers it necessary to have a well educated population; hence the State provides funding, oversight and direction to a national education system. This is not a controversial point. It's pretty explicit in the Constitution: "The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

You are conflating the existence of an educational system with mandatory learning of Irish through all levels of primary and secondary education. I don't really think that Maths should be mandatory for the LC; however, of course, if students do not take it they are excluded from choosing courses that are predicated upon maths.

Reekwind wrote: »

You mean aside from the economic, cultural and intellectual advantages of a bilingual society? Not really. This is page 40 of the thread and I've no real desire to waste time rehashing arguments that were done to death over twenty pages ago.

We don't have a bilingual society in anything but name; and as others have said "why not French or German instead of Irish if you're going down the bilingual track".

The main argument for bilingualism is the advantages that having a second language can pose - but since nobody outside of Ireland speaks Irish this argument falls apart pretty fast. The only real economic advantage that Irish can pose is in tourism - but that purpose is served pretty much in full by the Gaelteachts; actually having everyone in the country learn Irish for 12 years to service that ambition seems gratuitous, not to mention missing the point.

Iwasfrozen · 08-07-2014 12:25AM

Reekwind wrote: »

You mean aside from the economic, cultural and intellectual advantages of a bilingual society? Not really. This is page 40 of the thread and I've no real desire to waste time rehashing arguments that were done to death over twenty pages ago.

"Yes German and French are also languages and thus improve cognitive abilities with the added benefit of actually being useful for purposes other than being glorified pig latin but they don't teach students about their history and culture.

Yes history is covered in history and culture is covered in art but Irish should still be compulsory because it's important to learn a language to improve cognitive abilities.

Yes German and French are also languages and thus improve cognitive abilities with the added benefit of actually being useful for purposes other than being glorified pig latin but they don't teach students about their history and culture.

Yes history is covered in history and culture is covered in art but Irish should still be compulsory because it's important to learn a language to improve cognitive abilities."

A summation of the "argument" of the anti-optional crowd over the last 40 pages.

Mr. G · 08-07-2014 12:39AM

Passing ordinary level Irish isn't difficult. Having looked at the marking scheme for the Leaving Cert, it is actually quite difficult to fail it which is one of the reasons why it has one of the lowest failure rates across the Leaving Cert. I do not have an issue with it being manditory but I do feel it should be optional for the exam, with the choice of choosing another language instead.

The Irish language is part of our culture. I think it's important we still teach it but at a non-exam, yet still manditory level. I would hate for it to disappear.

Just my €0.02

Can we kill Irish once and for all

Comments