Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

The Irish language is failing.

1…2223252728…94

Comments

  • #722
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Aineoil wrote: »
    So to add to the thread, maybe learning another language might help to learn

    another?
    I've no doubt it does.
    That still isn't a great argument for learning Irish and then Italian when you could just have learned Italian in the first place.


  • #723
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Yeah, but that's English for just about everybody, not Irish. Don't see how that's helping the pro-compulsory case one bit.
    Is your argument that only someone's native language should be compulsory for them?

    Anyway, I think I said before that nostalgia is the reason why irish is mandatory not because people think it's going to replace English.

    My argument has been that it should be more practical... call it practical nostalgia if you will...


  • #724
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Is your argument that only someone's native language should be compulsory for them?
    No idea where you're getting that from. Why should anybody in Ireland have more than one language compulsory in school?


  • #725
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,318 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Is your argument that only someone's native language should be compulsory for them?

    Anyway, I think I said before that nostalgia is the reason why irish is mandatory not because people think it's going to replace English.

    My argument has been that it should be more practical... call it practical nostalgia if you will...

    There's already a subject in school that deals with matters of nostalgia. It's called History.


  • #726
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    briany wrote: »
    There's already a subject in school that deals with matters of nostalgia. It's called History.

    id disagree with you on that one... not much to be nostalgic about in 20th century history. If anything, it's vital to learn from the mistakes of the past.


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    No idea where you're getting that from. Why should anybody in Ireland have more than one language compulsory in school?

    The circular logic in your previous post was confusing.

    But to answer your new question it comes back to the benefit of learning a second language which Grayson agreed with earlier. Why do you think learning a second language is not beneficial?


  • #728
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,318 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Dughorm wrote: »
    id disagree with you on that one... not much to be nostalgic about in 20th century history. If anything, it's vital to learn from the mistakes of the past.

    There's not too much to be nostalgic about Ireland's Gaelic speaking past, either, as a lot of it saw bloodshed, oppression, invasion, meager subsistence living and a lot of poverty for the common person. The nostalgia toward Irish as a thing to speak is mainly an invention of romantics and nationalists from the 18th/19th centuries onward as a way to forge a distinct identity. Whether nationalism still has a place in today's increasingly globalised life is pretty debatable.


  • #729
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    The circular logic in your previous post was confusing.
    Nobody else seems to have even noticed your perceived "circular logic" in the first place to be confused by. Just you perhaps?
    Dughorm wrote: »
    But to answer your new question it comes back to the benefit of learning a second language which Grayson agreed with earlier. Why do you think learning a second language is not beneficial?
    Because you have to spend time learning it when you could be learning something that isn't a waste of your time.
    I notice you didn't answer this either: if you want to learn Italian, do you think it's more efficient to learn Irish first and then learn Italian, or just, you know, learn Italian?


  • #730
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    briany wrote: »
    There's not too much to be nostalgic about Ireland's Gaelic speaking past, either, as a lot of it saw bloodshed, oppression, invasion, meager subsistence living and a lot of poverty for the common person. The nostalgia toward Irish as a thing to speak is mainly an invention of romantics and nationalists from the 18th/19th centuries onward as a way to forge a distinct identity. Whether nationalism still has a place in today's increasingly globalised life is pretty debatable.

    Lot of wisdom in that post - but can you imagine a political party arguing that forging a distinct Irish identity and using Irish to achieve this is not viable??


  • #731
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Nobody else seems to have even noticed your perceived "circular logic" in the first place to be confused by. Just you perhaps?

    Ah but boards is quiet at this hour :)
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Because you have to spend time learning it when you could be learning something that isn't a waste of your time.

    But you are ok with "wasting" time in the primary curriculum on it?
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I notice you didn't answer this either: if you want to learn Italian, do you think it's more efficient to learn Irish first and then learn Italian, or just, you know, learn Italian?

    Was that Aineoil's post? I didn't realise this was directed at me...

    You have set up the question so that I obviously have to agree that it is more efficient to learn Italian instead of learning Irish to learn Italian.

    But that isn't the real question though. The real question is whether learning a second language is beneficial? You don't seem to think so. I'm not clear as to why.

    I thought the idea that Aineoil was saying that her background in learning a second language made it easier to learn another (and it was Italian in her case).

    This makes sense. Besides apparently the ability to learn new languages is easier the younger you are - why not then learn a second language?


  • Advertisement
  • #732
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,881 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Isn't that a religious language? Sure do we really need more religion in schools??



    Which says a lot about (I) the way you were taught and (ii) what you were taught.

    Tell me, as a latin scholar, you realise that the tiseal ginideach was the genetive case in latin? I sure didnt... if anything learning latin helped me learn more irish. Maybe the answer is have both latin and irish mandatory

    /joke

    I'll be honest, my Irish was so bad that all I ever studied was grammar. It's the only way I could pass exams. I could conjugate something and not have a clue what the word meant. Half the time I didn't even know what the declensions meant, I just memorised them.

    Latin was similar. Except I actually knew what the words meant.

    When I started learning spanish years later I found my latin helpful. I could discern root words. When I did biology and chemistry is was helpful too.


  • #733
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    But you are ok with "wasting" time in the primary curriculum on it?
    Not particularly TBH. More for a quiet life than anything else.
    Dughorm wrote: »
    Was that Aineoil's post? I didn't realise this was directed at me...

    You have set up the question so that I obviously have to agree that it is more efficient to learn Italian instead of learning Irish to learn Italian.

    But that isn't the real question though. The real question is whether learning a second language is beneficial? You don't seem to think so. I'm not clear as to why.

    I thought the idea that Aineoil was saying that her background in learning a second language made it easier to learn another (and it was Italian in her case).

    This makes sense. Besides apparently the ability to learn new languages is easier the younger you are - why not then learn a second language?
    Er, you seem to have mistaken me for somebody who said it was inherently a bad thing to know a second language. Which is odd because nobody here has said that at all.
    Now, why should this second language be Irish, which is entirely useless as a means of communication when you already have a language at your disposal that you are much better at? Nope, no reason at all TBH.
    This may be a shock to you, but you still didn't answer the question: which is easier overall if the objective is to learn Italian, to learn Irish then Italian, or to just learn Italian?


  • #734
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Because you have to spend time learning it when you could be learning something that isn't a waste of your time.

    This is more circular logic:

    Learning a second language is not beneficial because you could be learning something that is not a waste of your time....


    And why is it a waste of your time? Perhaps is it because you be learning something beneficial?


  • #735
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Er, you seem to have mistaken me for somebody who said it was inherently a bad thing to know a second language. Which is odd because nobody here has said that at all.

    Pretty sure it was you...
    Dan_Solo wrote:
    Grayson wrote:
    I don't think anyone questions the benefits of an extra language
    Well actually I do when you have to use valuable school time learning it when you could be doing something useful for yourself/society/humanity instead.


  • #736
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    This is more circular logic:

    Learning a second language is not beneficial because you could be learning something that is not a waste of your time....


    And why is it a waste of your time? Perhaps is it because you be learning something beneficial?
    I really don't think you have the first notion what circular logic is. Or logic for that matter.
    Learning Irish because it makes you better at learning Italian is a complete waste of time if you want to learn Italian. The only confusion is what you are inventing for yourself.


  • #737
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,318 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Lot of wisdom in that post - but can you imagine a political party arguing that forging a distinct Irish identity and using Irish to achieve this is not viable??

    I don't think it even should be an argument that any political party should need to make. There is already an Irish identity and a pretty well established one at that. I think language can exist separately from identity because history shows that many planters in Ulster took to speaking Irish, basically to function in that region. That doesn't necessarily mean that they saw themselves as being part of the Irish people because of it. By the same token, the country could be 100 percent English speaking and be no less 'Irish' because of it.

    We've all seen the argument that the Irish language is tied to Irish identity, but the argument that, say, Catholicism is as well, is dangerous waters. But why? It's been around on the island for the last 1500 years, and suffered the same kinds of persecutions and defined many aspects of Irish life for centuries (for better or worse). Young people love to call Catholicism an irrelevance all the time, and it's way more fashionable to say it should be booted from the curriculum.


  • #738
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Pretty sure it was you...
    Hard luck there, but you are ass-u-ming I think every second language is useless. They clearly are not, where Irish most certainly is. There are literally zero circumstances where it will aid you in communicating with another person. Zero.
    Try again. Find where I said all second languages were useless. Go on.


  • #739
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Hard luck there, but you are ass-u-ming I think every second language is useless. They clearly are not, where Irish most certainly is. There are literally zero circumstances where it will aid you in communicating with another person. Zero.
    Try again. Find where I said all second languages were useless. Go on.

    Dan_Solo wrote:
    Grayson wrote:
    I don't think anyone questions the benefits of an extra language
    Well actually I do when you have to use valuable school time learning it when you could be doing something useful for yourself/society/humanity instead.

    That's me done.

    Anyway lads Oíche Maith agus Codladh Sámh!


  • #740
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    That's me done.

    Anyway lads Oíche Maith agus Codladh Sámh!
    Hard luck again. Maybe the bed is what you need? Learning a language besides Irish qualifies as "doing something useful for yourself/society/humanity", so the sentence still doesn't say what you are yet again inventing that it says.


  • #741
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    briany wrote: »
    I don't think it even should be an argument that any political party should need to make. There is already an Irish identity and a pretty well established one at that. I think language can exist separately from identity because history shows that many planters in Ulster took to speaking Irish, basically to function in that region. That doesn't necessarily mean that they saw themselves as being part of the Irish people because of it. By the same token, the country could be 100 percent English speaking and be no less 'Irish' because of it.

    We've all seen the argument that the Irish language is tied to Irish identity, but the argument that, say, Catholicism is as well, is dangerous waters.

    But introducing Catholicism here is a red herring - (i) It's an ideology not a language (ii) Plenty of Protestant Patriots?

    As to whether the country could be 100 percent English speaking and be no less 'Irish' because of it - I take that you're arguing an extreme case here where Irish would be extinct - but in that case there would be a loss in Irish Identity here - so much Irish heritage would be locked away and the key to unlocking it would be thrown away, perish the thought. A key reason - because translation between languages is never exact. But thankfully that is such an extreme it will never happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Hard luck again. Maybe the bed is what you need? Learning a language besides Irish qualifies as "doing something useful for yourself/society/humanity", so the sentence still doesn't say what you are yet again inventing that it says.

    You see your Irish did come in handy there - it gave you a point in our debate.... :pac:

    Slán tamill.


  • #743
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    but in that case there would be a loss in Irish Identity here
    Speak for yourself. My identity is secure enough that the language I speak doesn't change it. As said earlier, shouldn't we switch to an exact copy of 900AD Irish society if losing any part of our heritage leaves us so damaged?


  • #744
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dughorm wrote: »
    But introducing Catholicism here is a red herring - (i) It's an ideology not a language (ii) Plenty of Protestant Patriots?
    But it is YOU that is claiming Irish is important because it is part of our heritage... now you're saying it's the only part that's important? Only the language and X, Y, Z are important? Sorta shifting your definition from post to post there.


  • #745
    tipparetops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭tipparetops


    I do not think anyone can be confident in their national identity if they cannot speak their own language.


  • #746
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    tipparetops wrote: »
    I do not think anyone can be confident in their national identity if they cannot speak their own language.
    Well then what you think is wrong. This is easily demonstrated by the number of people who can speak Irish and the number of people who claim to be Irish.
    Is it the same for playing GAA, drinking mead, going to war after the harvest is in... or just the language is required to be "really" Irish?


  • #747
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,318 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Dughorm wrote: »
    But introducing Catholicism here is a red herring - (i) It's an ideology not a language (ii) Plenty of Protestant Patriots?

    As to whether the country could be 100 percent English speaking and be no less 'Irish' because of it - I take that you're arguing an extreme case here where Irish would be extinct - but in that case there would be a loss in Irish Identity here - so much Irish heritage would be locked away and the key to unlocking it would be thrown away, perish the thought. A key reason - because translation between languages is never exact. But thankfully that is such an extreme it will never happen.

    Plenty of patriots who didn't know hardly a lick of Irish as well.

    The argument being made by some is that we're losing Irish and that's tragic because we're losing part of our identity, or, indeed our soul, as some might put it. We're losing Catholicism as well, as the country is becoming ever more secular, but why wouldn't Catholicism be just as much a part of the Irish identity as Irish is? Catholicism has been here for over 1500 years, the people have fought hard to retain it, it's informed many aspects of daily life and been much more than an ideology. In fact, it's outlasted the Irish language as a relevant thing on most of the island. I say they are historically equally important facets of the culture of the people and for it to be fashionable to bemoan the loss of one and silently cheerlead the loss of another as an irrelevance is a total hypocrisy, in my view. You have to recognise that all facets of culture can become irrelevant, no matter how entrenched they might have once been.

    I don't think the heritage would be lost, though, if all were recorded. Differences in translation may exist, but that argument doesn't compel most people to necessarily go back and learn Koine Greek in order to study the New Testament, for example, as long as the message is preserved. As long as the message is carried across. Irish will always exist on records, both written and audio, for people to learn. As a living language it's up the desire of people to keep it going, and no amount of enforced schooling can ever really drive that home. That's a grass roots thing.


  • #748
    tipparetops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭tipparetops


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Well then what you think is wrong. This is easily demonstrated by the number of people who can speak Irish and the number of people who claim to be Irish.
    Is it the same for playing GAA, drinking mead, going to war after the harvest is in... or just the language is required to be "really" Irish?[/QUOT

    Just the language, you cannot be considered a proper country without your own language.
    sport, whatever mead is, war and farming have nothing to do with it.


  • #749
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,881 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Dughorm wrote: »
    But introducing Catholicism here is a red herring - (i) It's an ideology not a language (ii) Plenty of Protestant Patriots?

    But It could be said that it is an ideology. Thee are undoubtedly people for whom it is an ideology. No-one is saying it's tied to religion. Just that like religion it can be considered an ideology.


  • #750
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,318 ✭✭✭✭briany


    tipparetops wrote: »
    whatever mead is


    You don't know what mead is? Feckin' go back t'England. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #751
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    tipparetops wrote: »
    Just the language, you cannot be considered a proper country without your own language.
    sport, whatever mead is, war and farming have nothing to do with it.
    The USA and Australia aren't proper countries? Half of North Africa and the Middle East aren't countries? Most of South and Central America aren't countries?
    Wanna go back and think that one through again?
    And just to be clear, it's only language makes you Irish? If I paid an Eskimo to learn Irish he'd be a Paddy just like Seanie from the back end of the bog instantly?


Advertisement