The Irish language is failing.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

I have never expressed any desire to see the Irish language extinguished from existence. I do have a concern that this is what will happen if Irish speaking continues to be promoted in the same agressive and uncompromising way it has been for the past 80 years.

Perhaps you have not, but others have and it is at those who desire such an outcome that the comment was directed.

As for what has been expressed on the other hand, weather or not those criticizing the Irish language have openly said that they desire to see the Irish language extinguished from existence is one thing, the outcome of the actions they suggest is quite another. I work in this area, believe me, I am well aware of what I am talking about, the actions they suggest will not help the Irish language in the slightest, they will merely finish the work of undermining and marginalizing the language in our society. As they say, actions speak louder than words, and weather on not this outcome is intended is of lesser importance than the outcome itself.

I have my own concerns about those who spend their time criticizing everything to do with the Irish language, who spin a narrative of a dead language with no future or support, who try to minimize , discredit and undermine any and all evidence that shows the number of speakers of the language has in fact grown and that the status of language enjoys wide support in our society. I have my concerns about those who on the slightest pretext, and often on none at all, call into question the honesty and integrity of those at all levels who work to ensure the languages survival. I have my own concerns about those who would see the status of the language in this country reduced to back to what it was under British rule, and in some cases want it to have even less status still. These people often protest that they only intend the very best for the language, but as I said, actions speak louder than words, and I cannot help but be concerned that these people might not be as pure of motive as they claim.

I am not only concerned, but certain that the outcome of the actions they suggest would be disastrous for the language.

Your assertion that Irish plays an important role in our culture simply ignores facts. It is no more than empty rhetoric. It is this self-delusion that blinds the Irish enthusiasts to the harm they are causing to the Irish language.

Of course, how blind of me, its those who speak Irish and work to insure its survival that are harming the language, not those that seek to undermine its status at every turn.

This may well be your opinion, but its not an opinion I share.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well you're the first Irish enforcer to tell us we have sufficient well trained Irish teachers, I'll give you that.
Why bother ever hiring more? You still seem insistent that learning Irish then language X is a more efficient use of state and pupil resources than just learning language X in the first place.Why not immediately/gradually switch to language X teaching because there's at least a minuscule chance it'll be useful. Unlike Irish.

I never said we have well trained teachers (we dont!) I'm saying they could be better trained. I honestly think you just skim these posts.
Where do we get the teachers for language X? What should language X be?
It's only more efficient because our primary school teachers already know Irish (in theory -- some probably don't). I'm not opposed to other languages being taught instead (or even along side irish) but an immediate switch wouldn't be workable. A gradual switch could work.

I believe that Irish kids could potentially find more interest in learning Irish than German or French (right now it's the opposite) if they could be persuaded to see the cultural value of it. (I know you don't see a cultural value but others do).

I've dabbled in teaching English abroad and I've seen the effectiveness of proper language teaching.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

English and French have been spoken in Ireland for 1000 years. You don't consider 1000 years to be sufficient duration to make a language indigenous? Let me guess, 2000 years, about when Irish replaced the truly indigenous Mesolithic culture, is of course enough?

English is taught in schools -- no one's shunning it. Many Normans were speaking Gaeilge by the 1300s onwards. Very little of the Hiberno-Norman literature survives unfortunately. So we can teach French but it gives little insight into our past. French did not have the same impact on Irish as it did on English.
There are few census records surviving from the 1700s but those that do show that the English settlers often had children or grandchildren who could not speak English. I've seen these records online and I'll dig up some links.

Irish was the main language for virtually every community for recorded history. It was still a significant language here 150 years ago -- unlike French. French is also not endangered.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The Irish language is not a part of many of our most famous and popular cultural achievements. Irish speaking by language enthusiasts is just one thread in the rich tapestry of Irish culture.

True, some of our culture is expressed in the Irish language, but this is not a justification for wanting to make everyone speak Irish.

Our Irish language achievements are not famous or popular outside of Academic circles because we're incapable of reading them. We do have poems and epics on par with Beowulf and the Odyssey but we don't learn their significance. We're cut off from them and learning the language is really the best way (caution : in my opinion) to fully appreciate them. A lot is lost in translations. (but translations are useful and should be taught more too).

I don't think the language should be mandatory past the Junior Cert.

Dughorm wrote: »

This is so tragic and highlights the need for an additional irish language literature subject for leaving cert

Instead of less Irish in schools we need more!

In my own opinion, the development of a second literature subject should be done as part of the creation of a curriculum suitable for teaching in Gaeltacht schools (the current Irish curriculum is simply not fit for purpose in the Gaeltacht). That subject would essentially be the same as the English course, same educational goals, materials of similar difficulty etc.

That subject would be part of the core curriculum in Gaeltacht and Irish medium schools, and an optional subject in English medium schools outside the Gaeltacht.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh I see, so only aspects of historical Irish culture, orginating from between 0AD an 1000AD, that are unique to Irish culture, should be forcefully re-enacted in our school system?
Who said they should ditch "their" language? That's up to the individual.
Now, once more, why should a pitifully minority language be compulsory in any country?

We're not re-enacting anything!! Please stop using that word incorrectly! No Irish from 1000AD is spoken in schools, only the modern dialects.

Gael Mire wrote: »

In my own opinion, the development of a second literature subject should be done as part of the creation of a curriculum suitable for teaching in Gaeltacht schools (the current Irish curriculum is simply not fit for purpose in the Gaeltacht). That subject would essentially be the same as the English course, same educational goals, materials of similar difficulty etc.

That subject would be part of the core curriculum in Gaeltacht and Irish medium schools, and an optional subject in English medium schools outside the Gaeltacht.

I can agree with the Literature Subject. In English medium schools (especially primary) teaching Irish in the morning and then forgetting about it for the rest of the day isn't working.

Break up the Irish lessons throughout the day in smaller chunks, and teaching vocabulary that's related to the subjects being taught in English. Pupils should not be berated for not asking/excusing themselves in Irish. Positive re-enforcement only.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Latin has been spoken around Ireland for almost as long. English itself is an evolving language that just happened to arrive her later than Irish which arrived later than whatever language we had before that. What is it about historical Ireland that demands re-enactment?
Oh yes, that's all it is: re-enactment. Nobody is actually learning Irish to use it. They're pretending to be Irish speakers in school and then they shun it as if their lives depended on it afterwards.
Oh, so new qualifier time then is it? Irish has to be forcibly re-enacted by schoolchildren because:
A: It was used in Ireland for 2000 years. (any less time is invalid apparently)
B: It was the "original" language of Ireland. (although it wasn't, we don't know what was but hey, we'll pick a later one instead)
C: It was a part of Irish culture that everybody used and only those parts that everybody used are valid (though feudalism, laws that allowed fines for murder etc have to be ignored here even though they applied to everybody because um, well they just are)
Have I got it?

I learn it to use it. My family live close to Corca Dhuibhne in Kerry and I enjoy speaking Irish whenever I'm there. I've friends who I speak it with, both native speakers and learners. So no, we're not re-enacting it.

Clearly you haven't got it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Would you care to stick to what I actually said at any stage?

He did, you said: ''Nobody is actually learning Irish to use it.''

That is the point he was addressing. You were caught telling obvious lies, get over it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, I see. Your "point" is that when 99% of the country don't don't speak Irish it is technically incorrect to say "nobody speaks Irish".
It just goes to show how utterly irrelevant Irish is when the pro-Irish side are reduced to whining about the different between 0% and 1% usage.
BTW, are you suggesting that if it wasn't force fed to school children that Irish would die completely? So much for a healthy thriving language!

You complained that the poster was not dealing with what you said when infact they were dealing with exactly what you said.
As for your point above, your inability to see the difference between 'nobody' and tens of thousands of people is somewhat troubling.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The positive reasons being?
Nobody appears to be either enjoying or embracing it. What's healthy about that?

Well, doing Irish is compulsory, but doing Higher level Irish is not, yet over half of students did the higher level. Is that not embracing the subject? And over the past few years, the numbers doing foundation and ordinary level have been dropping while the number doing higher have been increasing.