The Frontline on compulsory Irish

Macha

Burgo wrote: »

I haven't heard of any secondary school that teaches it tbh

Hmm just checked my old secondary school website & looks like they're not offering it any more. Boo..

OK only other one I know of is St Andrews in Booterstown, Dublin.

A real shame as I not only learned the language but also political history, philosophy, literature, archaeology and of course architecture.

(sorry that was a bit off topic)

Iwasfrozen

MonkeyMan. wrote: »

You are actually driving me mad!!! oh no its not 'nonsense' but it's a 'brain dead language' ... how very dare you!!! are you forgeting about the 7 gaeltachtaí around ireland?? there are foreigners comin into this country learnin irish!!! people like you just want it dead!

1.) It is a brain dead language.
2.) Those gaelteachts are only being kept alive by government money. Most notably Foras na Gaelige.
3.) I never said I wanted it dead. I'm pointing out the fear gaelgeoirs have that if Irish was made optional very few people would take it up and it would fade from existence.

Do you agree or disagree with the last point. If you agree then you do believe the language is dead. If you don't agree then have you actually looked at the figures for the amount of native Irish speakers?

I'll save you the bother of looking it up and tell you that only 350,000 people speak Irish natively. I would consider that a brain dead language. Wouldn't you?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1.) It is a brain dead language.
2.) Those gaelteachts are only being kept alive by government money. Most notably Foras na Gaelige.
3.) I never said I wanted it dead. I'm pointing out the fear gaelgeoirs have that if Irish was made optional very few people would take it up and it would fade from existence.

Do you agree or disagree with the last point. If you agree then you do believe the language is dead. If you don't agree then have you actually looked at the figures for the amount of native Irish speakers?

I'll save you the bother of looking it up and tell you that only 350,000 people speak Irish natively. I would consider that a brain dead language. Wouldn't you?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

I'm confused by what you mean by "brain dead".

There's a definable difference between "dead" and "dying". Assuming that it's either, which isn't all that relevant to the thread itself in the context of "it's dead/dying so it shouldn't be taught" which is paraphrasing what appears to be your point of view.

350,000 people is actually rather a lot of people speaking any language natively. Numerous countries and languages can attest to that. I'll pick Malta and Maltese as the handiest example but I can come up with a good list to add to it if I had to (which put bluntly, I don't need to as that one example is good enough). Add on Wales and Welsh if you want a dual-language country. I'd heavily question that 350,000 figure as it happens, especially outside the schoolroom on a usage basis but it's your figure.

Interpret those as three questions for clarification/defence. I'm playing the "what, please post better with some actual backup" card, which will be making repeated appearances on both sides from me going forward.

Iwasfrozen

taconnol wrote: »

This really is descending into the most childish language. Do you know the definition of a dead language?

Yes. Do you know the definition of a brain dead language.

taconnol wrote: »

You're so intent on your rant, you haven't even noticed that I didn't say that I don't want to see it as optional. My advice is to calm down.

I'm not ranting but if you think you have the upper hand answer me this question:
Give me a practical reason why Irish justifies the forty two hours a day spent on it in second level school?

Iwasfrozen

sceptre wrote: »

I'm confused by what you mean by "brain dead".

By brain dead I mean already dead but being kept alive via a life-machine in the form of education and government spending.

sceptre wrote: »

There's a definable difference between "dead" and "dying". Assuming that it's either, which isn't all that relevant to the thread itself in the context of "it's dead/dying so it shouldn't be taught" which is paraphrasing what appears to be your point of view.

I believe that children should not be forced to learn a brain dead language that is of no pragmatic use. Forty two hours a day is a huge amount of time that could be spent on basically anything. Anything would be more usefull.

sceptre wrote: »

350,000 people is actually rather a lot of people speaking any language natively. Numerous countries and languages can attest to that. I'll pick Malta and Maltese as the handiest example but I can come up with a good list to add to it if I had to (which put bluntly, I don't need to as that one example is good enough). Add on Wales and Welsh if you want a dual-language country. I'd heavily question that 350,000 figure as it happens, especially outside the schoolroom on a usage basis but it's your figure.

I doubt the figure also since that was a figure on wikipedia that's the one I used. Also according to the same list Maltese has five hundred thousand speakers and welsh one million. Though to be fair I wouldn't be in favour of forcing either off those languages on school children.

caseyann

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

By brain dead I mean already dead but being kept alive via a life-machine in the form of education and government spending.


I believe that children should not be forced to learn a brain dead language that is of no pragmatic use. Forty two hours a day is a huge amount of time that could be spent on basically anything. Anything would be more usefull.


I doubt the figure also since that was a figure on wikipedia that's the one I used. Also according to the same list Maltese has five hundred thousand speakers and welsh one million. Though to be fair I wouldn't be in favour of forcing either off those languages on school children.

Forty two hours a day?? In English speaking primary schools they spend 2 hours a day if even on Irish teaching.In secondary school they have what 90 minute classes or or 45 minute classes for Irish and then rest on other subjects.
And you think that's to long? I speak fluent Irish and so does all my family up and down the country among friends and family and other people.And you say its a dead language(Mícheart),cant be dead language, cause has to be not spoken at all anymore by people outside the class room or anywhere,so long as some speak it fluent and others can speak some,Not dead language.And i actually know it is used outside class rooms with people.

To the comment of brain dead language kind of contradicts your comment of you care about it doesn't it now?

Noreen1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Making it optional will solve that.

Please explain?
If Irish is made optional, it will more than likely be placed in the language grouping in schools, just as eg. French/German are frequently offered as options now.
If Irish is added to that Group, then pupils can choose either French, German or Irish. Hence, children will be forced to choose between Irish and a foreign language.
Realistically, that actually reduces the options available to the child, since they can no longer choose to be trilingual, only bilingual.

You question my motives? My motivation is to ensure the best possible educational system for every child in the country. I choose to look beyond marketing phrases, like "optional", to see that an increase in optional subjects actually reduces the options available to children. To that end, I support a foreign language being made compulsory in school. I also support a revised Irish syllabus, with the emphasis being on learning to speak the language, and making Irish as a leaving certificate subject optional, though revising the entrance requirement for Universities to a choice between Irish or a foreign language. That should ensure that neither language is discriminated unfairly against.

It seems to me to be a very reasonable compromise, ensuring the concerns of students having difficulty with Irish being a requirement for third level education are met, whilst ensuring that those who wish to learn Irish are allowed to do so, without having to sacrifice the advantages of also having a foreign language.

Noreen

Macha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. Do you know the definition of a brain dead language.

You clearly don't as you continue to misuse it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not ranting but if you think you have the upper hand answer me this question:
Give me a practical reason why Irish justifies the forty two hours a day spent on it in second level school?

Firstly, this is a debate not a battle.

Secondly, I'm amazed that Irish schoolchildren spend forty two hours a day learning Irish.

Pittens

Er, we do have Latin too. It's available as a Leaving cert exam and has been for the past 90 or so years.

i meant it could be made compulsory.

Iwasfrozen

caseyann wrote: »

Forty two hours a day??

Whoops, fourty two minutes.

caseyann wrote: »

In English speaking primary schools they spend 2 hours a day if even on Irish teaching.

Two hours a day that could be spent teaching Science. I don't know if they teach science now but they didn't in my day.

caseyann wrote: »

In secondary school they have what 90 minute classes or or 45 minute classes for Irish and then rest on other subjects.

Six thirty five minute classes a week equals two hundred and ten hours a week. Divided by five equals fourty two minutes a day.

caseyann wrote: »

And you think that's to long? I speak fluent Irish and so does all my family up and down the country among friends and family and other people.

It's longer then my desired amount of zero.

caseyann wrote: »

And you say its a dead language(Mícheart),cant be dead language,

I didn't say it was dead. I said it was brain dead.

caseyann wrote: »

cause has to be not spoken at all anymore by people outside the class room or anywhere,so long as some speak it fluent and others can speak some,Not dead language.And i actually know it is used outside class rooms with people.

So you agree that if it were not taught in the education system it would fade from existence? If you agree with that then you do believe the language is brain dead.

caseyann wrote: »

To the comment of brain dead language kind of contradicts your comment of you care about it doesn't it now?

I care about giving Irish children the choice of not learning Irish. But I couldn't care less for the language itself. Just like I couldn't care less for Spanish or Italien.

Iwasfrozen

taconnol wrote: »

You clearly don't as you continue to misuse it.

Then please tell me how you would define a brain dead language?

taconnol wrote: »

Firstly, this is a debate not a battle.

Secondly, I'm amazed that Irish schoolchildren spend forty two hours a day learning Irish.

Firstly, There are winners and losers in a debate.

Secondly, I ment fourty two minutes. That was an obvious typo.

Macha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then please tell me how you would define a brain dead language?

It's not my definition, it's the definition of a dead language. But a dead language is one where no single person uses it as his or her main language.

Iwasfrozen

Noreen1 wrote: »

Please explain?
If Irish is made optional, it will more than likely be placed in the language grouping in schools, just as eg. French/German are frequently offered as options now.
If Irish is added to that Group, then pupils can choose either French, German or Irish. Hence, children will be forced to choose between Irish and a foreign language.
Realistically, that actually reduces the options available to the child, since they can no longer choose to be trilingual, only bilingual.

Thus it decentralises power back into the people who should wiled it. The parents not the Government. If in such a case concerned parents can gather enough support form their peers they will be able to lobby the school to place Irish in another group. Without forcing those who don't want to learn it to do so.

Noreen1 wrote: »

You question my motives? My motivation is to ensure the best possible educational system for every child in the country. I choose to look beyond marketing phrases, like "optional", to see that an increase in optional subjects actually reduces the options available to children. To that end, I support a foreign language being made compulsory in school. I also support a revised Irish syllabus, with the emphasis being on learning to speak the language, and making Irish as a leaving certificate subject optional, though revising the entrance requirement for Universities to a choice between Irish or a foreign language. That should ensure that neither language is discriminated unfairly against.

And what of the J.C? Do you support the ramming of Irish down childrens throats untill they sit this exam? Or even Primary school? Do you support the concentration of power away from the parents and towards the government?

Iwasfrozen

taconnol wrote: »

It's not my definition, it's the definition of a dead language. But a dead language is one where no single person uses it as his or her main language.

I asked you to define a brain dead language not a dead language. There is a difference.

Macha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I asked you to define a brain dead language not a dead language. There is a difference.

Given that you just made up the term, I'm sure you'll be happy to tell us all your definition yet again.

Ugh I'm done, your debating style is pushy and unpleasant.

Iwasfrozen

taconnol wrote: »

Given that you just made up the term, I'm sure you'll be happy to tell us all your definition yet again.

Ugh I'm done, your debating style is pushy and unpleasant.

When I'm up against such die-hard nationalists I don't really have a choice.

But a brain dead language is a language being kept a live artificially by government spending in the form of Foras na Gaelige and mandatory education.

Just like a brain dead patient if the plug was pulled on this life support system the whole language would fade from existence.

Pittens

When I'm up against such die-hard nationalists I don't really have a choice.

That's also an ad hominem. It is possible to believe in compulsory Irish, the right of Northern Ireland to stay separate from the Republic, and in the EU. That would be me.

You are just unable to defend your position - I asked was education always practical ( what is practical about history) - and no answer. Stop fighting demons.

Pittens

Just like a brain dead patient if the plug was pulled on this life support system the whole language would fade from existence.

Why would it? Why would it die in the Gaeltacht. I think that Irish would get more status were it not compulsory, and that might be a reason to make it non-compulsory.

Iwasfrozen

Pittens wrote: »

That's also an ad hominem. It is possible to believe in compulsory Irish, the right of Northern Ireland to stay separate from the Republic, and in the EU. That would be me.

Well since we are discussing the language here. Why do you believe that you have the right to tell other people what they should be learning? Because what I'm getting from the nationalists in this forum is "This is what I believe in and now you must also believe in it."

Though to be fair I've come to expect this from nationalists.

Pittens wrote: »

You are just unable to defend your position - I asked was education always practical ( what is practical about history) - and no answer. Stop fighting demons.

I'm sorry if I ignored you. So many people are quoting me that it's hard to keep up with it. I'll go look for your post.

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When I'm up against such die-hard nationalists I don't really have a choice.

But a brain dead language is a language being kept a live artificially by government spending in the form of Foras na Gaelige and mandatory education.

Just like a brain dead patient if the plug was pulled on this life support system the whole language would fade from existence.

Listen, advice: drop the term. You're having to bend over backwards to explain it, no-one understood it before you tried to explain it and at worst assumed it was an insulting term and there are plenty of other terms for what you're describing that other people actually use. Useful terms include "living", "revitalised", "dying", "extinct", "dead", "moribund", "growing" and so on. You appear to be trying to rename the wheel when everyone knows it as a wheel and it's throwing the thread off-kilter in a silly way. Ironically considering this is a thread about language. Call it a language on life support if you must and back some of that up while you're at it (and explain your view on why that's bad) as there's just too much repetitious unnecessary twaddle in the past few pages about this "brain dead language" term that only you use.

Pittens

Why do you believe that you have the right to tell other people what they should be learning?

Um, right. Is that just a "nationalist" position. I think people should learn English, mathematics, history, geography, a science subject, one or two foreign languages, and probably compulsory home economics. At some stage of their school careers ( its all too much for the leaving).

The State agrees with a lot of that. You , presumably, agree with a lot of that. So there is nothing particularly "nationalist" in telling people what they should be educated in - thats the normal education system. Humans add to their knowledge every generation, and we pass it on. Core subjects are compulsory.

Noreen1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Thus it decentralises power back into the people who should wiled it. The parents not the Government. If in such a case concerned parents can gather enough support form their peers they will be able to lobby the school to place Irish in another group. Without forcing those who don't want to learn it to do so.

I think you are confusing the issue here. Parents in this state are currently guaranteed that their children can learn Irish. Since you wish change that position, might I respectfully suggest that you need to garner enough support to lobby the relevant authorities to try to get the change you want.
(By the way, moving Irish to another group only ensures that children are denied another choice.)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what of the J.C? Do you support the ramming of Irish down childrens throats untill they sit this exam? Or even Primary school? Do you support the concentration of power away from the parents and towards the government?

I don't support "ramming" anything down anyones throat. I do support good educational practice. ie. Ensuring a broad educational basis, from which every child can go on to specialise in their chosen subjects, thus ensuring that no child is prevented from attaining his or her full potential. Of necessity, that means that some children will be forced to study some subjects that they dislike, whether that happens to be Irish, Geography, Science or whatever!

Now, since we've discussed my motivation at length, maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to yours?

Noreen

aDeener

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wouldn't waste my fingers arguing pragmatically with a nationalist if I were you. They tend to live in a dream world.

i see we are fond of generalising :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

sceptre wrote: »

Listen, advice: drop the term. You're having to bend over backwards to explain it, no-one understood it before you tried to explain it and at worst assumed it was an insulting term and there are plenty of other terms for what you're describing that other people actually use. Useful terms include "living", "revitalised", "dying", "extinct", "dead", "moribund", "growing" and so on. You appear to be trying to rename the wheel when everyone knows it as a wheel and it's throwing the thread off-kilter in a silly way. Ironically considering this is a thread about language. Call it a language on life support if you must and back some of that up while you're at it as there's just too much repetitious unnecessary twaddle in the past few pages about this "brain dead language" term that only you use.

But it's a good word that more accurately explains Irish then any of those other words.

I don't want to use living because it is not as healthy as say English or French I want to differentiate between the healthy languages and the not healthy languages. It isn't really dying either, due mostly to forced education. It hasn't been revitalised becasue it is mostly confined to traditional Irish speaking areas. It isn't extinct or dead because some people still speak it. Moribound is probably the most accurate but still that doesn't emphasize its reliance on government money.

I coinded the term brain dead language because it most accuratly explains my view of the Irish language and helps me convey my views to other people. (or at least that was the plan).

Iwasfrozen

Pittens wrote: »

Um, right. Is that just a "nationalist" position. I think people should learn English, mathematics, history, geography, a science subject, one or two foreign languages, and probably compulsory home economics. At some stage of their school careers ( its all too much for the leaving).

The State agrees with a lot of that. You , presumably, agree with a lot of that. So there is nothing particularly "nationalist" in telling people what they should be educated in - thats the normal education system. Humans add to their knowledge every generation, and we pass it on. Core subjects are compulsory.

I do agree with a lot of that. But Irish is mandatory. I don't want my future children to learn Irish. You want my future children to learn Irish.

Why do you think you have the right to tell other people what their children will learn?

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But it's a good word that more accurately explains Irish then any of those other words.

I don't want to use living because it is not as healthy as say English or French I want to differentiate between the healthy languages and the not healthy languages. It isn't really dying either, due mostly to forced education. It hasn't been revitalised becasue it is mostly confined to traditional Irish speaking areas. It isn't extinct or dead because some people still speak it. Moribound is probably the most accurate but still that doesn't emphasize its reliance on government money.

I coinded the term brain dead language because it most accuratly explains my view of the Irish language and helps me convey my views to other people. (or at least that was the plan).

It's a crap misunderstood term that makes your argument look imprecise, undefined and home-brewed and (this is the bit as forum mod I care about) is likely to be misread by any passing observer as an insulting term about either the language or the people speaking it. Entirely up to you but there won't be any more time in this thread spent explaining it as the moderator part of me is concerned about all the electrons already wasted on it.

Move on regardless, there's an actual topic of discussion in play in a thread that deserves better.
(that's a justifiable mod request by the way on the basis of the past few pages)

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a curious assumption! Especially since the vast majority of people who have replied to your posts haven't made any "Nationalist" comments at all!
Maybe you'd like to share your definition of "Nationalist?"

The forum moderator would prefer an on-topic discussion as opposed to a definition that you're seeking of a personalised remark that isn't permitted by the charter in the first place. That's a no.

Noreen1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When I'm up against such die-hard nationalists I don't really have a choice.

That's a curious assumption! Especially since the vast majority of people who have replied to your posts haven't made any "Nationalist" comments at all!
Maybe you'd like to share your definition of "Nationalist?"

Noreen

aDeener

Sleepy wrote: »

If it was our primary language, our secondary (English) one would decrease in standard. They stated that native English speakers were one of the factors that brought them here. If you can't extrapolate from that statement that if Irish was our primary languages we'd have failed to provide that factor, I can't make it any clearer for you.

Yes, FDI exists in countries with different languages but we wouldn't have as much of it as we do if English wasn't our first language.


I've had my posts nitpicked to death in this thread and been dragged off-topic with nobody actually providing a decent argument in favour or maintaining the status quo, I've been a bit careless in reading who's posting what at me. I apologise.


Let's be fair here, 3rd World country line may be a bit of hyperbole but if we'd never recovered from the recession of the 80's and had endured another 20 years of >20% unemployment, I don't think it's unreasonable to say we'd be in pretty bloody awful shape as a country now.

If, in this alternative universe where, we'd adopted Irish as our primary language when we attained independence in the 20's do you honestly believe this wouldn't have adversely affected our progress from a backwards, church fearing, predominantly subsistence farming nation that had missed out on the industrial revolution into a (mostly) secular, (relatively) advanced country that's been considerable player in both the European (and, at one point over the past two decades, Worldwide) software and financial services markets?

I don't attribute all our successes to the English language, nor do I blame Irish being part of the curriculum for all of our problems. However, having English as our native tongue has had a positive impact on our society. Without it, emmigration wouldn't have been such an "easy" pressure valve on unemployment numbers in times of trouble, we wouldn't have had such success in attracting FDI, we would have had a harder time attracting American tourists etc. etc. etc.

with quality teaching, that does not have to be the case. however i acknowledge that quality teaching in this country is a problem

i dont disagree that english has had a positive impact but i have to disagree with the negative impacts you think irish would have.

your point on tourism, personally speaking i much prefer travelling to places that have something unique about them. i obviously cant speak for others but i would imagine there being some draw to these people speaking a language heard nowhere else in the world to the backdrop of stunning scenery.


Edit: wtf is with this phrase "ramming down your throat" its silly. and it seems to be only applied to irish which is ludicrous considering all the other subjects that are "forced" up until leaving cert

thebman

Pittens wrote: »

Um, right. Is that just a "nationalist" position. I think people should learn English, mathematics, history, geography, a science subject, one or two foreign languages, and probably compulsory home economics. At some stage of their school careers ( its all too much for the leaving).

The State agrees with a lot of that. You , presumably, agree with a lot of that. So there is nothing particularly "nationalist" in telling people what they should be educated in - thats the normal education system. Humans add to their knowledge every generation, and we pass it on. Core subjects are compulsory.

I did French and Spanish in first year of secondary school. I'd have no problem with Irish being compulsory for one year of secondary school and then letting people choose.

Its the whole mandatory throughout the entire time I was in school thing I had/have a problem with since it makes no sense.

I also have no problem with allowing people to choose two languages or one language and another subject. I think one language should be compulsory as it is useful to have one other language other than your native as it is required for many universities. I think the compulsory language should be open to the student though.

For instance if given the option of French/Spanish/German/Irish, I would have chosen French and German. As it stands, I have French/Irish with one serving no purpose to me and I knew it served no purpose for years but still had to do it for no reason other than some gobsh*** somewhere decided I should have to do it for some reasons they made up in their head to try to justify their idiotic decision to themselves.

Sure some people want to do Irish and a foreign language no problem with that. The problem is now that I've outlined the above, someone will come with another reason why Irish still has to be mandatory and when that is refuted another argument will come up as the people that want it mandatory don't care about reasons for it being mandatory, they just want it mandatory.

sceptre

MonkeyMan. wrote: »

1. Ní teanga caillte í
2.Tá muintir na gaeltachta sna 7 reigiún í labhairt agus dhá usáid chuile lá beo, níl an rialtas. Sea tabharaíonn foras na gaeilge cúnamh ach tá muide ag déanamh rud éigin faoi
3.Tá chuile dhuine i sna gaeltachtaí ag dul gaeilge a thógáil mar ábhar agus an bhfuil figiúir agat don líon scoláirí a thagann chuile shamhradh chun í a fhoghlam de bharr gur teanga beo agus spraoiúil í le labhairt. Tá brí lei

Agus ní aontaim leat in aon chor, mar tá an ghaeilge tógtha don liosta de theangacha i mbaol báis ( the irish language has been takin off the list of languages that are dying) yes i think i have proved my point


350,000 people!!! oh a dhia, sin an t-uafás, tá an-dóchas agam go bhfanfaidh sí beo!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

As you know full-well that many people won't be able to understand even the reasonably basic level of Irish you're using in your posts, there's no problem with you replying in Irish at your whim as long as you translate it for the people in the stalls as this is a discussion forum where everyone should be able to participate, inclusive bunch that we aim to be. Please start with the post above and work backwards (I recommend the edit button).

/mod