Is Irish a dead language?

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How about instead of think about what's best for the Irish language we start to think about what's best for students instead? Or do the machiavellians of the Irish language lobby consider means justifiable by the ends?

I had thought I had made this clear before, but obviously I was mistaken.


I believe that learning Languages is in the best interest of students. I have said several times that I believe the best system would be the European model of best practice, Mother tongue +2, English and Irish being core subjects with a third optional language.

faobhar

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

And the children's parents?

I've argued for consulting all stakeholders. Iwasfrozen seems to think that parents may even be inclined towards 'vague nationalistic support' for the language and therefore their view is not as valid.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because the people who are effected don't have a vote/voice and the people who aren't afftected are indiferent/have some vauge support for Irish.


But by that stage they are by and large indifferent because it no longer affects their everyday lives. They may even develop some vauge nationalistic support for the compulsory teaching of the language. We can see this in poll results were adults who would have done anything to advoid doing Irish for the leaving cert now support it's status.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I believe that learning Languages is in the best interest of students. I have said several times that I believe the best system would be the European model of best practice, Mother tongue +2, English and Irish being core subjects with a third optional language.

Why not mother tongue+ 1 with Irish optional? That way, teachers spend their time with pupils who want to learn Irish? Seems like a better way to deploy scarce Irish teaching talent.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why not mother tongue+ 1 with Irish optional? That way, teachers spend their time with pupils who want to learn Irish? Seems like a better way to deploy scarce Irish teaching talent.

I favor Mother Tongue + 2 because that is what the EU promotes as Best Practice. I think we should do our best to reach best practice when it comes to our education system.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I favor Mother Tongue + 2 because that is what the EU promotes as Best Practice.

But maybe we have to walk before we can run?

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But maybe we have to walk before we can run?

Perhaps going forward would be better than going backwards?

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Perhaps going forward would be better than going backwards?

Like reinstating or restoring a former Common Tongue that was spoken in the past?

Perhaps we should be looking looking outward instead of inward?

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Like reinstating or restoring a former Common Tongue that was spoken in the past?

Perhaps we should be looking looking outward instead of inward?

Giving people the opportunity to use a language that hold meaning to them is what I would like to see.

I have said repeatedly at this stage that I have no interest in seeing English Replaced. What is it about this that is so hard to understand?

Irish was spoken in the past, is being spoken presently and will be spoken in the future, why the excessive focus on the past tense?

gigino

Because 99.9 % of people do not use Irish on a daily basis. Its a dead language. You do not have to go in to a newsagent or bookshop to see that. Its dead, its ugly, and let those who want to use it, use it. Do not let them force it down everyone elses throats like they did years ago at school.

deise go deo

gigino wrote: »

Because 99.9 % of people do not use Irish on a daily basis. Its a dead language. You do not have to go in to a newsagent or bookshop to see that. Its dead, its ugly, and let those who want to use it, use it. Do not let them force it down everyone elses throats like they did years ago at school.

99.9%? Really? You wouldn't happen to have a source of any kind for that would you?

Also, How can a language with 4500 daily speakers (This is from your own % figure) Be dead?

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Giving people the opportunity to use a language that hold meaning to them is what I would like to see.

Is this a euphemism for compulsory lessons for English speakers?

deise go deo wrote: »

I have said repeatedly at this stage that I have no interest in seeing English Replaced. What is it about this that is so hard to understand?

No need to take this personally, you, on you own, are not the Irish language lobby. Try to look at the bigger picture you are involved in.

deise go deo wrote: »

IIrish was spoken in the past, is being spoken presently and will be spoken in the future, why the excessive focus on the past tense?

Ask the Irish lobby what they mean when they say ' reinstate Irish....', that means going backwards in any language.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Is this a euphemism for compulsory lessons for English speakers?

Nope, I was not talking about the education system, There is much more to life and much more to the Irish language than school.

No need to take this personally, you, on you own, are not the Irish language lobby. Try to look at the bigger picture you are involved in.

Right, so why is it so hard for you to separate out the aim of CnaG from the Aim of the Irish Language movement? You keep referencing the aim of the Irish Language movment when you are in fact talking about CnaG.

Ask the Irish lobby what they mean when they say ' reinstate Irish....', that means going backwards in any language.

Ask who? Which particular part of the Irish Language movement are you talking about?

If you mean the part I am activly involved in, then we do not aim to 'reinstate Irish' If you mean CnaG, then say so, If its some other organisation, name them.

You are talking about the Language movement as if it = CnaG and CnaG = it. This is not the case.

coffee_cake

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why not mother tongue+ 1 with Irish optional? That way, teachers spend their time with pupils who want to learn Irish? Seems like a better way to deploy scarce Irish teaching talent.

I have to admit I agree on this one. I love irish and it's sad to see it so unused but compulsory irish is not the way to go. I think the days of Peig did a lot of damage :pac: Teach a European language in primary and leave the irish optional in secondary.

faobhar

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No need to take this personally, you, on you own, are not the Irish language lobby. Try to look at the bigger picture you are involved in.

Cyclopath, in fairness, I don't know a single person who wants to reinstate Irish as the first spoken language of the whole nation. The bigger picture I'm involved in definitely wasn't painted with that brush you're tarring all those who support compulsory Irish with.

cyclopath2001

faobhar wrote: »

Cyclopath, in fairness, I don't know a single person who wants to reinstate Irish as the first spoken language of the whole nation. The bigger picture I'm involved in definitely wasn't painted with that brush you're tarring all those who support compulsory Irish with.

CnaG is a bit of an enigma, it had it's premises renovated at the expense of the taxpayer, probably receives state funding, is frequently quoted in the media on issues such as compulsory Irish lessons for English speakers, is endorsed by the Irish Language Commissioner, claims to represent Irish language community, and yet, nobody supports its main aim?

This is what the 130 year old organisation claims:

Conradh na Gaeilge is the democratic forum for the Irish-speaking community and promotes the language throughout the whole of Ireland and around the world. Is main aim is to reinstate the Irish language as the common*tongue of Ireland.

Try to to take things personally, but CnaG is a significant player and its main aim cannot be ignored just because it is embarrassing.

faobhar

The above statements could be applicable to any lobby group though? I don't disagree with your description of an Conradh, but look at it like this: all of your above statements could be equally applicable to, say, Fianna Fáil. They, one way or another, receive state funding, are quoted in the media etc. They, presumably, have some support too in order for them to get elected, though the amount of FF supporters I know is few and far between.

Say I agreed with the bank bailout, does that make me a Fianna Fáiler? I think that's a highly reductive way of looking at people.

I happen to agree with a few of CnaG's policies, does that mean I wan't to restore Irish as the common tongue? Come on. I have no intention of ignoring CnaG, I just resent that Irish speakers somehow get associated with it despite having the least connection to it. Maybe the ''Irish language lobby' doesn't always fairly represent the views of the majority of Irish speakers, in much the same way that you feel the political establishment might not represent some of your views?

Oasis_Dublin

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Third level students join organisations whose Main Aim they disagree with.

Every day millions of Irish people take to the streets and speak English.

We support Irish as long as this means someone else speaks it and we don't have to. That's Ireland for you.

I disagree with your first point.

I support it and can speak. I'm not lazy and interested purely in money. That's Oasis_Dublin for you.

Oasis_Dublin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Very few relative to the total number of students studying Irish in the country. Besides who are we kidding those kids are more then likely Irish teachers in training who have a vested interest in Irish remaining compuslory.

Look I'm not saying there won't be protests but the protests will be isolated and won't damage the governments prospects in 2016.

Can you stop moving the goalposts. Firstly it was 'people don't take to the streets,' now it's 'well few people do.'

What has that to do with anything? I want people to be able to speak Irish and English. Do teachers not count as Irish speakers now?

If you believe that then you are not living in the same 26 county republic in which I live.

cyclopath2001

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I disagree with your first point.

You agree then, that all the CnaG members in the various universities are committed to the Main Aim?

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I'm not lazy and interested purely in money. That's Oasis_Dublin for you.

What point are you replying to? Are you implying that people who do not wish to speak Irish are lazy or fixated on money?

Oasis_Dublin

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You agree then, that all the CnaG members in the various universities are committed to the Main Aim?

What point are you replying to? Are you implying that people who do not wish to speak Irish are lazy or fixated on money?

I can't speak for the other Universities but the Bord na Gaeilge at COBÁC (of which I am not a member, before you have a spaz attack) does not want Irish to be forced upon the people of Ireland and to have anyone who refuses to comply shot. They merely want a certain level of the language to be talked by the population.

I was replying to the silly and poorly thought out point that, "We support Irish as long as this means someone else speaks it and we don't have to." Totally ignorant and completely incorrect.

The consistent argument of the anti-Irish brigade is that, "we should be learning Chinese, over silly Fenian Irish, it will give us a job in future." So that is obviously a desire to make as many punts as is humanly possible and not to worry about things outside of money, money and more money.

I knew a guy who got 540 in the LC, not amazing but not half bad. He did 8 subjects (where only 6 are necessary). The only subject he did at pass level was Gaeilge and he openly admitted he couldn't be arsed working at it.

faobhar

We will find neither national purpose nor personal satisfaction in a mere continuation of economic progress, in an endless amassing of worldly goods. We cannot measure national spirit by the Dow Jones Average, nor national achievement by the gross national product. For the gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulances to clear our highway carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them. The gross national product includes the destruction of the redwoods, and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles and nuclear warheads . . . It includes Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the broadcasting of television programs which glorify violence to sell goods to our children.

And if the gross national product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of public officials . . . the gross national product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile; and it can tell us everything about America -- except whether we are proud to be Americans.

A quote from a 1968 speech by Robert Kennedy which I happened across today.

It doesn't relate to many of the points made in this thread, but I think it does go a long way to answer the argument that Irish is of no value to us as it will do nothing to strengthen our economy, as compared to the value of, say, learning Chinese. Maybe there's a few things to think about in there?

cyclopath2001

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I can't speak for the other Universities but the Bord na Gaeilge at COBÁC (of which I am not a member, before you have a spaz attack) does not want Irish to be forced upon the people of Ireland and to have anyone who refuses to comply shot. They merely want a certain level of the language to be talked by the population..

That's certainly a vaguer kind of main aim, but yet another quango! Why have this one and The Language Commissioner and Udaras and Foras and.......?

Oasis_Dublin

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's certainly a vaguer kind of main aim, but yet another quango! Why have this one and The Language Commissioner and Udaras and Foras and.......?

It's as much of a quango as another university organisation
Well the COBÁC Bord na Gaeilge is a university organisation, the other organisations aren't as far as I understand.

deise go deo

I have spent the past few days reflecting on my contrubition to this thread and others on the topic. This reflection was spurred by this question from gimme5minutes and from comments referencing me in the feedback forum to the effect that I have ignored the opinion of other posters.


In my opinion there are two main issues affecting the Irish Language in schools that need to be addressed. How the language is taught, and its status as a compulsory subject.
It has been and still is my beliefe that the most pressing of these two issues is how the Language is taught.

This beliefe has lead me to focus my attention on that issue to the exclusion of the other (To the point of starting a thread to discuss only one of the two issues) and to ignore other posters points on the second issue. I have come to the conclusion that this was a mistake.

For any effective discussion on this topic, and for any effective solution to the problems in how Irish is structured in the Education system both issues must be dealt with.

I would like at this point to say clearly that I am still in favor of Irish being a core subject till the Leaving Cert. However the point raised by gimme5minutes that some students are and will be 'forced' to do Irish is a valid one and one that needs to be addressed.

Despite how it may appear, students being 'Forced' to do Irish is not something that sits well with me.

This statment may seem to contradict my support for Irish being a core subject till LC, as such I think it best to put the term 'forced' into the context in which I mean it at this point.

When I say 'forced' I am specifically talking about people who activly do not want to take Irish. In my opinion, people who are willing to do Irish are not 'forced' to do Irish just because Irish is compulsory.

Hence my constant highlighting of the curriculum being the problem. It was and still is my contention that most students who have a problem with Irish have a problem with it because of it's awful curriculum, and that by reforming the curriculum this could be effectivly delt with. That is still my contention, however my mistake in the past was ignoring the fact that even if this is done, there will still be a few students who are unwilling to do Irish for what ever reason.

I would like to further make the point that a subject being compulsory does not necessarily mean that people will be forced to do it, and that a subject being optional does not necessarily mean that people will not be forced to do it.

The case in point for this is English and Maths, while some here contend that these subjects are optional, clearly some people are forced to do them.



Now for the new suggestion that I am proposing as an answer to the issue of some students being 'forced' to do Irish.

I believe that Irish should be maintained as a core subject, but that the exemption system should be removed and be replaced with an Opt out system.

This would mean that every student would have a clear and easy option to do Irish(Irish would not have to compeat with other subjects they would also like to do) but at the same time, students would not be 'forced' to do it. They could if they wanted opt out of learning Irish and devote the time to other subjects.

Godge

deise go deo wrote: »

I have spent the past few days reflecting on my contrubition to this thread and others on the topic. This reflection was spurred by this question from gimme5minutes and from comments referencing me in the feedback forum to the effect that I have ignored the opinion of other posters.


In my opinion there are two main issues affecting the Irish Language in schools that need to be addressed. How the language is taught, and its status as a compulsory subject.
It has been and still is my beliefe that the most pressing of these two issues is how the Language is taught.

This beliefe has lead me to focus my attention on that issue to the exclusion of the other (To the point of starting a thread to discuss only one of the two issues) and to ignore other posters points on the second issue. I have come to the conclusion that this was a mistake.

For any effective discussion on this topic, and for any effective solution to the problems in how Irish is structured in the Education system both issues must be dealt with.

I would like at this point to say clearly that I am still in favor of Irish being a core subject till the Leaving Cert. However the point raised by gimme5minutes that some students are and will be 'forced' to do Irish is a valid one and one that needs to be addressed.

Despite how it may appear, students being 'Forced' to do Irish is not something that sits well with me.

This statment may seem to contradict my support for Irish being a core subject till LC, as such I think it best to put the term 'forced' into the context in which I mean it at this point.

When I say 'forced' I am specifically talking about people who activly do not want to take Irish. In my opinion, people who are willing to do Irish are not 'forced' to do Irish just because Irish is compulsory.

Hence my constant highlighting of the curriculum being the problem. It was and still is my contention that most students who have a problem with Irish have a problem with it because of it's awful curriculum, and that by reforming the curriculum this could be effectivly delt with. That is still my contention, however my mistake in the past was ignoring the fact that even if this is done, there will still be a few students who are unwilling to do Irish for what ever reason.

I would like to further make the point that a subject being compulsory does not necessarily mean that people will be forced to do it, and that a subject being optional does not necessarily mean that people will not be forced to do it.

The case in point for this is English and Maths, while some here contend that these subjects are optional, clearly some people are forced to do them.



Now for the new suggestion that I am proposing as an answer to the issue of some students being 'forced' to do Irish.

I believe that Irish should be maintained as a core subject, but that the exemption system should be removed and be replaced with an Opt out system.

This would mean that every student would have a clear and easy option to do Irish(Irish would not have to compeat with other subjects they would also like to do) but at the same time, students would not be 'forced' to do it. They could if they wanted opt out of learning Irish and devote the time to other subjects.

As someone who has sparred with you in the past, I find a lot that I can agree with in this post. Essentially, you are making two points as follows:

- the teaching of Irish should be reformed;
- nobody should be forced to study Irish until Leaving Certificate.

If most people accept these two principles, there can be a rational debate over what should be in the curriculum of Irish and on how and who should be allowed to opt out.

So while I can argue for a broader definition of Irish that includes issues beyond the language and for a broader opting-out, we can discuss these issues better in the context of the effects they will have on society, education and the language, rather than endlessly disputing points of principle around compulsion etc.

cyclopath2001

Any educational policy must put the rights and needs of parents and children first and the interests of promoting the Irish language second.

Oasis_Dublin

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Any educational policy must put the rights and needs of parents and children first and the interests of promoting the Irish language second.

The current educational policy does not put Irish promotion first, anymore than it puts English and Maths first.

cyclopath2001

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The current educational policy does not put Irish promotion first, anymore than it puts English and Maths first.

and the needs and rights of children and parents?

4diarmuid

If the successive policy of teaching Irish was the right one then we would all be speaking it, as well as English, both of which are compulsory. So why do we speak English so well and Irish so badly? Simple! We don't meet Irish in our everyday lives. So we lose the amount we did learn quite quickly. When the Jewish state of Israel was formed it had three official languages Enlish, Arabic and Hebrew. The mix of new Jewish settlers saw the language as a unifying force. In Ireland, I believe the language was seen as the preserve of the "fior gael" who perhaps consider themselves that little bit superior to the rest of us! This is reinforced by a type of "mafia" in the Civil Service who when moving up the ladder change their names to Irish to better their chances. I have classmates that did this successfully. RTE is another example of a Gaelgeoir background being an advantage.


It would be terrific to be able to have at least two strong official languages but fear it is unlikely to happen. It is close to 100 years since the foundation of the state and we are no nearer that goal however desirable.

I have lived and worked for many years on the continent and was able to speak up to five languages reasonably well to conduct meetings. I am now learning and enjoying Chinese and look forward to vistiting that country with "cupla focal" to enjoy my trip. If the circumstances are right then learning will naturally follow.


So what do we do about Irish? Change the system it's not working!

Lord TSC

This would mean that every student would have a clear and easy option to do Irish(Irish would not have to compeat with other subjects they would also like to do) but at the same time, students would not be 'forced' to do it. They could if they wanted opt out of learning Irish and devote the time to other subjects.

Here's a question though (and realise I mean it with respect; I appreciate that post and fair play to you for it). What's the difference between this "opt out" system and making it optional? You seem to be suggesting that if people really don't want to do Irish, they should not be forced to and they should be allowed to dedicate time to other subjects. But...by definition, does that not mean you are saying you think it should be optional? You're giving people the option to "opt out". I could be wrong, but I seem to get the feeling your proposing this as an alternative to making the language optional in school....

Is it that Irish would be timetabled against nothing else and if students wanted to opt out, they would...what? Sit there and do nothing in the class? Cause I have a feeling everyone would take that option to just doss about and have a free class. I do feel that if you are going to give stduents the option not to do a subject, you have to make sure something is timetabled in or the system would be abused....

---

As for the question, a few pages and days back, about what would happen students who chose not to do a compulsory subject, there weren't many answers to the question to be honest. The general feeling was that the school is not under any real power to do anything about the student, provided he doesn't distrupt the learnings of other students. Sadly, that's the case not just for the compulsion aspect of teaching but the general school life and why discipline can be a problem.

Of course, the point has been made to me that the idea of having a fail on your leaving cert would be enough to make good students work as hard as possible in the subject even if they hated it and wanted to prioritise differently. I can relate to that thought though cause its what happened me; I really didn't want to be doing the subject but knowing I had to, I worked hard. Thus the problem lies in the fact that "bad kids", the ones who would choose not to do a compulsory subject, probably wouldn't make that choice because they disapprove of Irish in schools being compuslory but because they are lazy or struggle with education, while the "good kids" who would question the usefulness of the subject in the long term would do it anyway cause they feel they don't have a choice...