Why do you hate Irish?

Fluent when I left school. Got a B in honours Irish. 20 years later, haven't used a word since. That's the problem with Irish...

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The main context was the nationalist agenda of the time.

In order to promote secession from the UK, the nationalists needed to isolate themselves socially. Hence the GAA, the use of the Irish language and notions of an Irish race, morally superior to Britons.

That was then.

But now, in the present, in the 21st century, having been independent for over 90 years, they still want to make us speak Irish.

The notions of an Irish race predate nationalisms -- every ethnic group was considered a 'race' back then. And considering the situation we were in as part of the UK, I think the nationalist 'agenda' was a valid one, ie to become our own nation. I do think the more pacifist movements could have achieved that but with such an uneducated population violence was inevitable.

And did they actually consider themselves morally superior? Moral superiority was the order of the day in Europe, with all that empire nonsense. Nothing unique.

And while I never supported that 'foreign' game nonsense, that polarization/segregation was the result of complex factors. I wonder if it done far more damage than good to the GAA. And I don't think anyone actually considers the aims of Conradh na Gaeilge very seriously.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Problem is it's still listed as one of their goals today, when
1 - They've never actually asked Irish people if they want their every-day language replaced or not, and
2 - They want to increase the quantity of it in the education system, while completely ignoring the needs to improve the quality of it.

This is extremly arrogant and both the ideas and the attitudes push people away from the language rather then bringing them closer to it.

Honestly, in all my life i don't think i ever encountered anyone with those attitudes in the real world. My disinterest in Irish growing up had nothing to do with them, and they're the last thought that comes into my head regarding Irish.
I didn't think they'd have any real relevence -- every movement has it's fruitcakes.:pac: That shouldn't reflect on the general language movement.

However if they're impeding the education system then they are a problem. I would very much like to see serious reform.

Caoimhgh1n wrote: »

Not true. People can speak fluently, but they might struggle with the writing. Or, they speak with a dialect that follows different grammar rules than standard Irish, resulting in less points..

I'm sure the examiners take dialects into account? Writing should cone easy to a person fluent in speaking Irish.

Caoimhgh1n wrote: »

I honestly do not think the language needs a reform.

It certainly needs a good spelling reform to remove all the redundant letters and introduce new letters to the alphabet.

I think Irish is in competition with French to cram as many redundant letters into a word as it can.

Caoimhgh1n wrote: »

Please give examples of words you want to see reformed.. I am honestly interested, there is only one word I can think of that might need one, and barely.

The vast majority of words could be wrote pheonetically with fewer letters, your name included.

Irish also needs formal words for yes and no.

Ach, I don't hate it, I just kind of rebelled against it as a kid because my father spoke fluent Irish - and I wasn't altogether fond of him. To be honest, I wish I'd paid more attention to it now because I know a fair bit for someone who didn't give a sh1t. Imagine if I'd actually tried :P

Far from hating it I am so very jealous of anyone who is bilingual/multilingual/ I am poor with just one language.

Dughorm wrote: »

Better education? Miaow!

Anyhow there are such primary schools in place in any case - St. Kilians' for German immediately comes to mind. They do Irish, German and English! Why exclude Irish, if only for emotional reasons?

Why include it, other than to keep a lobby group comprised of parasites living off the tax-payer happy?

There are many practical reasons for replacing Irish with a modern language but the key one remains the same: it increases the number of people with whom the student can communicate.

The constitution is a powerful document - it's behind the reason why all those drink-drivers are getting off because they didn't get served their notice in Irish (which is ridiculous, but that's another thread).

But it does show the importance of Irish in legal and public life, and this in addition to the obvious cultural reasons gives a good foundation for widespread Irish language learning here.

You're at your old tricks again bringing in "women in the home" and "God" again into this discussion as false analogies. :pac:

So the cultural importance of Irish is to enable ridiculous loopholes for drunk drivers?

I believe the inerrant sexism and theism in our constitution are a perfect example of why it's no support for the argument of anything else in the constitution having value. The document is deeply flawed, that it elevates Irish to a position it doesn't hold to any meaningful degree in reality is one of those flaws imo.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think we have established there is nothing wrong with the Irish language per se. The issue for most people is with how it is taught. Can the teaching of it be improved? At the end of the day, you still have to test students on their ability to use Irish.

The language hasn't the vocabulary or usage to provide a means of communication in our age. I think that's a fundamental flaw in a language but if you're arguing that we've established that no-one has any problem with Irish being taught, I'd agree with you. The difference of opinion is whether that teaching should be enforced, and it would seem that there's a deep division on that; ranging from about 50/50 on whether or not it should be compulsory at Leaving Cert level to a significant minority who'd rather it not be compulsory at lower levels.

And no, at the end of the day, you don't have to test students on their ability to use language, unless they're actually studying it.

Also I would agree that Irish feels like a foreign language to some. This is natural, since they are brought up as a child in English, first words in English, learn everything in English. They then go to national school and start learning Irish which then feels like a foreign language. If they had learned a cupla focal before primary school, it wouldn't feel so foreign.

Should it be compulsory or optional? If you make it optional, many parents would simply opt out and not give their kids the chance to learn Irish. I think Compulsory up to Junior Cert is right. After that, the debate begins.

As for people saying they can't remember a word of Irish despite 13 years education in it, its amazing how much of it comes back with a small bit of practice.

And why do you think that parents shouldn't have the right to opt out and give their children the chance to learn something they see as more useful or important than Irish?

You're arguing that your love of Irish (and that of those who share your view) is more important than the freedom of a parent to raise their children as they see fit. It's akin to me arguing that because I find Latin and etymology fascinating they should be compulsory subjects for all kids.