Why do you hate Irish?

Dughorm wrote: »

I can recap some of mine you haven't addressed at all.

1. You agree with the benefits of a child of learning a second language, but prefer if it were a foreign language. Others, myself included, believe this should be Irish. Why? The clue is in the words "foreign language" - we have two non-foreign languages - Irish and English - we should cover our own languages first. You do accept that Irish isn't a foreign language, right?

I do. However I also accept that the purpose of language is communication and that learning a foreign language allows us to expand the number of peoples that we can communicate with. Ergo, while learning Irish may be of equal developmental value, it's of far less practical value to students and the nation in general.

2. Ireland has been a bi-lingual society for a considerable time - there are Irish speakers (what's rare is wonderful ) and English speakers. There are bi-lingual signs. It is giving both languages in a bi-lingual society appropriate respect to teach both in an equivalent manner. More recently, we have new Irish who speak different languages and that is a good thing but those languages are private languages not official ones.

While we may officially have two languages, reality differs from your view that Ireland is a bi-lingual society. A relatively small sub-set of Irish people are multi-lingual and those that speak Irish make up an even smaller sub-set of that group.

3. Irish is our national language in the constitution, whether you like it or not. Therefore it is going to be a core element of public life in this country. You aren't a hostage to any lobby group here. Don't like it - Do something about - campaign to get the constitution changed.

A woman's life isn't "within the home", all authority doesn't descend from the "Most Holy Trinity" and the attendance rates at religious services would certainly indicate that Irish society doesn't in fact acknowledge "that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God".

While there's much to be admired about our constitution, it's a deeply flawed document and the argument that Irish holding a position in it justifies anything is akin to the argument that it proves the existence of God.

All these form the thinking behind Irish being mandatory and continuing to be so.

And all are, as I've just demonstrated, flawed arguments.

I love the studying etymology. Shakespeare played a contribution here. And yet teaching someone "how to communicate in that language" does not require teaching them etymology.

Shockingly, Leaving Cert English and Irish are not "Business English or Business Irish", they're Literary English and Literary Irish subjects. We study Shakespeare and other literature because of its literary genius, we study poetry because it shows us the power of imagery, we teach creative writing because it expands the imagination. I'm in favour of this being mandatory in both English and Irish.

Leaving cert French used to have a literary element but it got dumped as part of the dumbing down of the leaving cert - optional Irish would be yet another part of this deterioration.

Leaving aside the issues of French and English (as I've already pointed out that the method or fact of teaching any other subject has no bearing on the merit of compulsory Irish): what you'd call a deterioration, I'd call an opportunity for improvement.

I don't care what the syllabus for Irish looks like, just that it's not mandatory. I don't think I've seen anyone calling for it to be banned, or removed as an option for study btw so those sharing your opinion that it's a superior subject of study should be free to study it for JC and LC and those of us, like myself, who consider it worthless, should be free to study something else.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You strike me shep dog as someone who may need to be brought through this from first principles. That's ok, there are one or two others like you on this thread.

So lets start at the beginning. Do you agree Irish should be taught as a subject in national school? I open that question to deepest too, and sleepy if she's of a mind to answer it.

He has no problem answering it: No it shouldn't be part of the National School curriculum.

Now can you quit with the condescension and either address some of the many points that have been put to you or, if you can't, admit that your position is invalid.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I would ask people what nationality are we? Where are our roots? Celtic/Gaelic or Anglo/English.

These are important questions when attempting to ascertain our identity.

You would be surprised how many people, young people in particular, who have no clue about our national identity, our history, who we are, where we came from, where we want to go.

Some people take pride in our history, our identity, the people we produced, including President Kennedy, James Joyce, Seamus Heaney and many others.

While others think Ireland is basically a sh*t country and we should be ashamed of most of our past. Cue posters saying pretty much this, only ever focusing on the bad. I'm fairly sure they think 1916 was a disaster for this country too, and that Ireland only started to be half decent from about the year 2000 onwards. If they think that, then I am ashamed of such people in turn.

You always know the people who have no pride in their country, no pride in the culture or history. They never tire of telling you about it.

Ah, the old "you need to speak Irish to be Irish" codswallop.

The history of our nation is overwhelmingly recorded in English and if such a thing as a "national identity" exists, ours is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

There's good and bad in both, though again, you're off topic. None of this provides an argument for Irish to form a mandatory part of our education system.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you think it should be mandatory for all children born here and who grew up here? Or should it be optional. I'm not trying to cause an argument or win a point by the way. I'm just saying that someone has to teach it. Those teachers have to learn Irish. Its kind of a cycle there. The only way to break that cycle is to remove Irish from the national school curriculum completely.

That's a fairly warped argument. Everyone has to learn Irish so that some people can teach it?

And removing Irish from the national school curriculum so it can be replaced with a more valuable language would be a perfectly logical improvement to that curriculum.

So if we make it optional in secondary school as for example sleepy advocates, ultimately we might as well remove it entirely from the education system as what little we'd learn would be relatively pointless.

Ultimately while we teach it in national school, there is a need to teach it in secondary school too, and so the whole "industry" of learning Irish which many people look down their noses at would have to continue.

That's some of the most circular thinking I've ever come across, ever consider a career as a sci-fi writer? Maybe there's a market for sci-fi "as gaeilge", you could hardly write anything as crap as Dúnmharú ar an DART!

If making Irish optional in secondary school would kill the Irish language, how can anyone attempt to describe it as a living language?

We both know that it wouldn't though. If my kids were free to study other subjects, yours would still be free to study it in secondary school. You'd still have the freedom to speak it and would likely influence your own children to study it. As would all those arguing for it's mandatory status to remain in this thread.

It's a simple enough argument when you bring it down to first principles really: some of us want the freedom to (as we see it) improve the education our children get. Some of you don't want to grant us that freedom despite not being able to provide a single solid arguments to support that position.

I could go off on a long tangent as to the reasons why you might adopt such a position (vested interests etc.) and, as Shurimgreat adequately demonstrated, he can go off on a long rant about why those of us who want to see the mandatory status are terrible excuses for Irish people altogether or how one might take issue with elements of other mandatory subjects but let's stick to that simple question: why should you have the right to force anyone to study Irish?

Easca Peasca wrote: »

I'm very much a supporter of Irish and personally I would lean towards leaving the language as compulsory in both national and secondary schools. That's what I'd vote for.

I would also understand the arguement for making the subject optional in secondary schools. Having gotten a basic education in the language and a taste for it, the individual could choose whether or not they keep it on. The result would be smaller Irish classes (I'd imagine) in which the language could be taught to a higher standard as those who are present chose to be there.

I'm hearing this a lot, but not from anyone whos prepared to tell me hwo this helps the language? Or the student, for that matter.

Especially considering you make a perfect argument for optional Irish - which hel bnoth the langauge ans the student more, as you portray - in the second paragraph.

i.e. "I know what I want but I can't rationalise it"?

The only argument that I'm actually seeing for mandatory Irish is "because I want it that way".

Easca Peasca wrote: »

Yeah, admittedly it's a view I haven't quite worked out myself yet! I suppose it would come from the hope that improved methods of teaching would make it a far more accessible language. If more students took a positive shine towards it, it's role as a compulsory subject might not come under scrutiny as often. However, better teaching still would not explain why it's on the same par as English and Maths, which are both equally vital for student's futures.

One would hope so, but the evidence of 80-odd years of national education points to the contrary. The people who have the power to change things are either incapable of doing so, or unwilling. It's basically saying "**** you" to the students which is massively unfair.

English and Maths post junior cert are most certinaly not vital. Nothing at that stage is.

As you can probably tell, I'm thinking out loud I know what I'd like to see happening with the language, but not the reasoning behind it. Might give thread a better read and see what I come up with

Fair enough - but the basic problem is: nothing is changing, and the people who are bored and frustrated are still bored and frutrated.

Easca Peasca wrote: »

I can very much rationalise it

More students working with the subject means it has a greater chance of being sustained and because of the value I have on Irish, I see compulsory as being positive for it. That's the very basic rational. Better teaching would of course help, but that's a different argument.

More students working with the subject or studyign the subkect isn't what is happenign though. It's more people doing the bare minimum to get a grade for college which makes any sustenance a very poor investment.

Easca Peasca wrote: »

I can very much rationalise it

More students working with the subject means it has a greater chance of being sustained and because of the value I have on Irish, I see compulsory as being positive for it. That's the very basic rational. Better teaching would of course help, but that's a different argument.

A person who has less value on the language would argue against that, probably along the lines of it being a 'dead language' or comparatively unnecessary alongside Maths or English.

The language staying compulsory would be my first choice, but I can also see benefits in it being optional at second level.

i.e. I like it so I want to force it on everyone else in order to sustain it. Would you consider the same argument to hold any weight if you were to apply it to religion? If not, why do you think it holds any validity in relation to Irish?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Just out of interest, how many native Irish speakers do you know? I am assuming you don't live near a Gaeltacht and hence don't come into regular or daily contact with native Irish speakers. Clearly you think they are mythical creatures who don't exist in reality, dreamed up by someone, the equivalent of unicorns.

So, yes how many do you know? Have you ever talked to a native speaker? Friendly with any? Live near any? These are important questions.

Under the official boundaries, set in 1956, I actually grew up in the Gaeltacht.

Of course, almost no-one in the areas used Irish day-to-day unless they'd been told to expect the inspector for the Deontas to call. And, to be fair, there were only one family on my road that I was aware of that were scamming the grant in this fashion.

I know plenty of passionate Irish speakers (including some whose professions depend upon the language) and count many as friends so I'm afraid your assumptions are as wrong as your arguments.

Now, since I've answered your questions, have you any actual arguments to make for the retention of Irish as a mandatory subject? Or are you going to keep attempting to change the subject?

I hated it in school due to
a) how it was taught - rammed down our throats.
b) series of terrible teachers, who seemed to hate it as much as they hated us.

But - I then spent 2 summers in the Aran Islands, and by the end of the 2nd summer I found one day I was thinking in Irish.
That felt really cool.

I haven't used it since I left school, but years later I really wish I had kept it up. There was something about how my thoughts felt if that makes sense in Irish that just seemed easier, nah that doesn't make sense I know but I don't know how else to say it.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

When you espouse extreme views like this its very hard to take you seriously. I think you will find yourself in a tiny minority who thinks Irish should be dropped as a compulsory subject in National School. A lot of people are interested in Irish, not just native speakers. Is it so difficult for you to get your head around this? That many people actually like Irish.

Not at all. Many people believe in God, Allah and Homeopathy too. It takes all sorts!

To be honest, I agree that I'm in a minority who'd like to see Irish dropped as a compulsory subject for National School and possibly even for Junior Cycle. I'm pretty certain you're in the minority with regards to it remaining compulsory for Leaving Cert though.

I do think you should have left Ireland during your kids education. Like I said your views on national school Irish put you in a tiny minority. And yes your respect for the Irish identity is minimal, since the Irish language forms a huge part of our identity.

It may form a huge part of *your* identity but that doesn't hold true for the vast majority of the population.

The history or our language was not recorded predominately in English. Please educate yourself on our history. Much of our history was recorded in Latin, much of it in Irish and much of it in English. Most of the myths and legends came to us through the Irish language. This country spoke Irish for at least a thousand years before the relatively new English came along and took over [/b] at the point of a sword or barrel of a gun , something clearly you are over joyed over.

Honestly? Yeah, I am. We'd be living in awful poverty if we didn't have English as our first language. It's questionable as to whether either of us would be able to afford the luxury of computers and internet was Irish still our native tongue.

What foreign language did you learn in school? French? Spanish? How much of it did you use after school?

French, I continued to study it in University and have used it extensively whilst travelling, have even benefited from having learnt it when in non-Francophone countries as the other Romance languages can be interpreted to a some extent when you have one of them and it made picking up enough Spanish to get by far simpler. It's nice to be able to watch French movies in their native language from time to time too.

Though, yet again, you've failed to provide any reason for the mandatory status of Irish. Do you plan to make an argument to support your view at any point in this thread? I'm trying to be polite and to engage you in conversation but if you don't have an argument, just admit it and we can conclude that you're wrong.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I and others have made plenty of arguments all of which you have ignored. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

I've shown each argument presented to be falacious. That's not the same thing as ignoring them.

I watch French films in their native language too. I also read the subtitles! I learned French in school. Was average at it. Can I speak it fluently now? Nope, like most people I learned pigeon French in school. Unless I lived for 6 months in France, I am not going to be anywhere near fluent in it. I assume you spent time during college in a French speaking country, hence the relative fluency.

Nowhere did I state that I was fluent in French. I have a basic proficiency in it that were I to immerse myself in their culture for a year or two could potentially become fluency. Like many language students I can understand far more of the language than I can speak. I'm very glad I learned what I did of it in school (thanks mainly to a very good Junior Cert teacher, my Leaving Cert teacher was appalling) but for all that I like the language I'd never force it on others in the fashion you want to force Irish on the rest of us.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So what do you think would be in the curriculum if you let students decide? They do have a wide variety of choice in secondary school by the way. What adults in the department of education think is important or interesting and what kids think will certainly differ.

Is that a rhetorical question..? I mean the options are already there.

Assuming that the department of education know best is the argument to authority, and still tells us nothing about why the status of Irish (or any other subject, but let's stick to Irish as we're going off topic otherwise).

Your main point again seems to be "students should be forced to do things that are hard and boring" and your reasoning is "because the department of education says so."