Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Irish a dead language?

Options
1…1617192122…131

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I did.... I think.
    Oh right, I didn't see it...

    But anyway. While I believe that the primary goal of education is to benifite the economy there is also a secondary purpose to enrich as childs mind.


  • Options
    #543
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But, in the most basic way I can put it, why?

    So that people can have an opportunity to learn Irish to some degree relatively seamlessly, in a natural and ecological way.

    So they don't have to use it if they don't want to, but equally so they can if they do. I would be surprised if it was met with the same levels of hostility among a generation taught in a useful manner as it is among previous generations.

    So that they will have access, should they choose to, to a rich body of literature, music, folklore, and history, and the ability to contribute to their ongoing development.

    So they can learn the ease and interest of learning another language early on in life. I'd bet money that that would have positive implications for our language learning in general, certainly compared to our current sorry state.


    Conversely, I ask you: do you think none of those things are worthwhile, or do you disagree that using Irish in schools as I suggest might go some way to achieving it?


  • Options
    #544
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I never said that.

    Well, what were you saying?

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    you responded to it with this:

    That's hardly a response to your advocation of forced irish education.

    I'm not advocating forced Irish education.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I have no objection to a bilingual nation. I have an objection to the cost in time, money and educational resources that it will take to achieve it.

    Is it correct to say, from this, that you don't think resources should be put into language learning in general?


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Which still takes time. Time that is the most important resource of all in the education system. We simply cannot afford to spend so much time on something that is ultimately useless.

    What extra time is being spent?

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No I'm not trying to stamp out Irish. I'm just against time being taken away from a subject like science and given to irish. That really grinds my goat.

    We're agreed then. I'm not looking for subject time allocations to be changed.


  • Options
    #545
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Oh right, I didn't see it...

    But anyway. While I believe that the primary goal of education is to benifite the economy there is also a secondary purpose to enrich as childs mind.

    So should subjects like Business studies and economics not be mandatory then?

    And scrap things like History, Geography and Classics? SPHE too?


    Would Irish not fall under enriching a childs mind? I feel it would.


  • Options
    #546
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    So should subjects like Business studies and economics not be mandatory then?

    And scrap things like History, Geography and Classics? SPHE too?


    Would Irish not fall under enriching a childs mind? I feel it would.
    Emmm, Business studies, Classics and SPHE are not primary school subjects.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But anyway. While I believe that the primary goal of education is to benifite the economy there is also a secondary purpose to enrich as childs mind.

    I think we have fundamentally different views of education and, probably, life.


  • Options
    #548
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Emmm, Business studies, Classics and SPHE are not primary school subjects.

    That doesn't really answer either of the questions you were asked.


  • Options
    #549
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    Well, what were you saying?
    That the Irish language is forced un-naturally and wrongly on young children.
    Leto wrote: »
    I'm not advocating forced Irish education.
    You are when you call for another subject to be taught in irish. In this case history.
    Leto wrote: »
    Is it correct to say, from this, that you don't think resources should be put into language learning in general?
    No, I would no object to it if there was a oppertunity for us as a nation be benifite from this mass language shift. For example a knowledge of German or French will attract TNCs to Ireland. Irish has no such oppertunity for finacial gain.
    Leto wrote: »
    What extra time is being spent?
    Time being spent learning Irish so that one can learn history. Instead of just learning history in the first place.
    Leto wrote: »
    We're agreed then. I'm not looking for subject time allocations to be changed.
    Good to hear it.


  • Options
    #550
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    I think we have fundamentally different views of education and, probably, life.
    I guess so. But I always like exchanging views on these things regardless.


  • Options
    #551
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Yes, my bad, a bit tired :) but the point remains. Should they be primary subjects then?
    Care to address the points? Or should I accuse you of dodging?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    That doesn't really answer either of the questions you were asked.
    It kind of does. We cannot scrap these subjects if they don't appear in the primary school curriculum.


  • Options
    #553
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    History and geography do.


  • Options
    #554
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    History and geography do.
    Then no, history and geography should not be scrapped.


  • Options
    #555
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Then no, history and geography should not be scrapped.
    Why not?


  • Options
    #556
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That the Irish language is forced un-naturally and wrongly on young children.

    To clarify: you think it's unnatural and wrong mainly because you see no obvious financial benefit?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You are when you call for another subject to be taught in irish. In this case history.

    As I said above, that's not exactly what I'd like to see, but I'd settle for it as something worth considering. Either way, it's not forcing Irish to the exclusion of English - it's a complementary addition.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No, I would no object to it if there was a oppertunity for us as a nation be benifite from this mass language shift. For example a knowledge of German or French will attract TNCs to Ireland. Irish has no such oppertunity for finacial gain.

    This comes back to our differing interpretations of life. We're not going to find common ground here, I think.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Time being spent learning Irish so that one can learn history. Instead of just learning history in the first place.

    They're still learning history. They're not learning Irish instead of history. They're learning history, through the medium of Irish. They're still learning the same history.


  • Options
    #557
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I guess so. But I always like exchanging views on these things regardless.

    Agreed :)


  • Options
    #558
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It kind of does. We cannot scrap these subjects if they don't appear in the primary school curriculum.

    Scrapping history/SPHE/etc specifically was not the point of Mussolini's original post, so I don't think you have answered the questions.

    If Mussolini doesn't mind me paraphrasing, I think the first question was: in a general sense, if the primary purpose of education as you see it is to benefit the economy, do you think that business-oriented subjects should be mandatory in place of other subjects with fewer obvious economic applications, such as the examples given?

    The second question was: do you think that learning Irish could be justifiable on the grounds of enriching a child's mind (your secondary criterion)?

    I'd genuinely be interested to hear your views on both of those, which is why I'm pushing for a proper answer!


  • Options
    #559
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    So that people can have an opportunity to learn Irish to some degree relatively seamlessly, in a natural and ecological way.
    But again why? Why should we spend so much money and time so that students can speak an endangered language?
    Leto wrote: »
    So they don't have to use it if they don't want to,
    How are they going to have that choice when they must learn irish to learn history or geography?
    Leto wrote: »
    but equally so they can if they do. I would be surprised if it was met with the same levels of hostility among a generation taught in a useful manner as it is among previous generations.
    Of course they will respect it more. If you brainwash children to love a language from a young age then of course they will love it.
    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf wrote:
    The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
    Leto wrote: »
    So that they will have access, should they choose to, to a rich body of literature, music, folklore, and history, and the ability to contribute to their ongoing development.
    By speaking english they already have access, should they choose to, to a rich body of literature, music, folklore, and history. Also french and german are both languages with a greater body of work then irish plus they will help our economy.
    Leto wrote: »
    So they can learn the ease and interest of learning another language early on in life. I'd bet money that that would have positive implications for our language learning in general, certainly compared to our current sorry state.
    So again. Why irish over another language?
    Leto wrote: »
    Conversely, I ask you: do you think none of those things are worthwhile, or do you disagree that using Irish in schools as I suggest might go some way to achieving it?
    I do agree. But I don't believe irish is the best medium to achieve that.


  • Options
    #560
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    To clarify: you think it's unnatural and wrong mainly because you see no obvious financial benefit?
    No english is the natural language of 98% of irish children. It is the language they first speak. I believe it is un-natural and wrong for the state to push another strange language down the throats of these young childen and tell them that the language they have spoken all their short lives is the wrong language. And that irish is their "native" language.
    Leto wrote: »
    As I said above, that's not exactly what I'd like to see, but I'd settle for it as something worth considering. Either way, it's not forcing Irish to the exclusion of English - it's a complementary addition.
    It's the teaching of history in irish, excluding english. And forces the child to learn irish before they can learn history. Something no doubt many parents will not be happy with.
    Leto wrote: »
    This comes back to our differing interpretations of life. We're not going to find common ground here, I think.
    I suppose so.
    Leto wrote: »
    They're still learning history. They're not learning Irish instead of history. They're learning history, through the medium of Irish. They're still learning the same history.
    But they must learn irish first. Then history.

    The majority of parents help their young children do homework at night. This is no problem because the work of a young child is easy for an adult.
    But a monolingual english speaker will not be able to help their child learn irish and thus the child will fall behind in two subjects.

    What if a child simply does not want to learn irish then what? I remember I did that. I toke a notion when I was eight that I wouldn't learn it. Hated the thing and no matter how much my parents or teachers tried I wouldn't do my work. I nearly had to get an exemption.

    How would you deal with a child/parent who wanted an exemption from irish? Would they then not learn history?


  • Options
    #561
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    If Mussolini doesn't mind me paraphrasing, I think the first question was: in a general sense, if the primary purpose of education as you see it is to benefit the economy, do you think that business-oriented subjects should be mandatory in place of other subjects with fewer obvious economic applications, such as the examples given?
    No such business-oriented subjects exist in primary school. And even if they did every subject is mandatory at this stage.
    Leto wrote: »
    The second question was: do you think that learning Irish could be justifiable on the grounds of enriching a child's mind (your secondary criterion)?
    No, because they don't benifite from it. Well, not as much as they would benifite from learning another language instead.
    Leto wrote: »
    I'd genuinely be interested to hear your views on both of those, which is why I'm pushing for a proper answer!
    I hope this is to your liking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But again why? Why should we spend so much money and time so that students can speak an endangered language?

    ... etc. ...

    We're going round in circles.

    I've given an answer to that - and, by the way, pointed out that it would entail neither extra money nor extra time - and to your other genuine questions already.

    The hysterics (brainwashing? :rolleyes:) and oh-so-quotable but entirely irrelevant excerpts from Mein Kampf, I'm stepping away from. It might be time to give other people a chance to freshen up this debate.


  • Options
    #563
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No such business-oriented subjects exist in primary school. And even if they did every subject is mandatory at this stage.

    Well, as this entire discussion is based around the idea of revamping primary school teaching, think hypothetically. You're Minister for Education. You can introduce business subjects if you want. What's your feeling?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No, because they don't benifite from it. Well, not as much as they would benifite from learning another language instead.

    Benefit, in terms of "enriching their mind"? I disagree.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I hope this is to your liking.

    Thanks.


  • Options
    #564
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    If Mussolini doesn't mind me paraphrasing, I think the first question was: in a general sense, if the primary purpose of education as you see it is to benefit the economy, do you think that business-oriented subjects should be mandatory in place of other subjects with fewer obvious economic applications, such as the examples given?
    Thats what I meant, thanks.

    Bringing up a Hitler quote seems to be scraping the barrel at this point.




    If students are going to be learning Irish anyway, why not kill 2 birds with one stone and learn other subjects through Irish?


  • Options
    #565
    Focalbhach
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Focalbhach


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No english is the natural language of 98% of irish children. It is the language they first speak. I believe it is un-natural and wrong for the state to push another strange language down the throats of these young childen and tell them that the language they have spoken all their short lives is the wrong language. And that irish is their "native" language.

    I'm sorry - I know I said I was stepping away, but I seem to have missed this first time around and can't let it slide. There are so, so many misinterpretaions (giving the benefit of the doubt) or fabrications of what is being suggested here.


    1) English is, obviously, the first language of the vast majority of the population. That does not mean it has to be, or should be, or needs to be, the only language. There is no danger to English here.

    2) "Strange" language?! If you're referring to Irish specifically rather than second languages in general - and seeing that you seem to have no problem with French or German, I think you are - I can think of no other way to describe that phrase than that you have a chip on your shoulder about Irish, for whatever reason.

    3) Telling the children that English is "wrong"? You're just making that up. Where are you getting that from?

    4) Telling them that Irish is their native language (presumably, for those for whom it isn't)? Again, where are you getting that from? That's groundless scaremongering, and it's unhelpful and disrespectful.


  • Options
    #566
    CoalBucket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 971 ✭✭✭CoalBucket


    Wow this thread is still running :eek:


  • Options
    #567
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    CoalBucket wrote: »
    Wow this thread is still running :eek:
    We like to make sure donkeys etc are a fine bloody paste around here.


  • Options
    #568
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    dlofnep wrote: »
    People misunderstand the meaning of native, and often confuse it with indigenous. The Irish language is the indigenous language of Ireland, but it is the native language of perhaps only 5% of the population. .
    Irish is neither the indigenous language of Ireland, nor the native language of the current population. Old Irish was brought here by the celts about 500 BC from Central Europe. Modern Irish evolved here alright.
    http://www.proud2beirish.com/Celtic-Ireland.htm

    The Celts had iron age technology, and the economic and military power associated with their new language caused the natives (here since around 2000 BC) to dump their indigenous language.

    Around 800-900 AD the Vikings started to arrive and set up Scandinavian speaking towns in Dublin, Limerick,Waterford, Wexford, and Limerick. Later the Normans arrived, and then the English. English speaking settlers founded Belfast. During all this time various languages came to prominence in different areas, but in the end, English (which evolved from some of the others) came to prominence because of its association with economic and military power.
    As I live on the East Coast myself, I am going to choose Yola as my indigenous language. It was a widely spoken indigenous language up to 19th Century and so there should be no problem with the Dept. of Education setting a Leaving Cert exam for Yola and allowing me to use it for access to university, civil service, teachers jobs etc..


  • Options
    #569
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Thats what I meant, thanks.

    Bringing up a Hitler quote seems to be scraping the barrel at this point.
    Yeah, sorry. I just couldn't resist it. :D
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    If students are going to be learning Irish anyway, why not kill 2 birds with one stone and learn other subjects through Irish?
    The reason being quite simple. If the school system is to begin teaching other subjects in irish then children will be required to be fluent in irish in order to study these subjects.

    You may say that "students will be fluent because they will be speaking it all the time" but what about students who are naturally bad at picking up languages? Or students who have immigrated from a foreign country? At the moment these students are just given an exemption from irish but under the system you propose they would have to have an exemption from other subjects as well. In this case history.


  • Options
    #570
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Leto wrote: »
    I'm sorry - I know I said I was stepping away, but I seem to have missed this first time around and can't let it slide. There are so, so many misinterpretaions (giving the benefit of the doubt) or fabrications of what is being suggested here.
    Not quite.
    Leto wrote: »
    1) English is, obviously, the first language of the vast majority of the population. That does not mean it has to be, or should be, or needs to be, the only language. There is no danger to English here.
    I never suggested there was a danger to english. Just that it was wrong to introduce a strange language with mandatory education.
    Leto wrote: »
    2) "Strange" language?! If you're referring to Irish specifically rather than second languages in general - and seeing that you seem to have no problem with French or German, I think you are - I can think of no other way to describe that phrase than that you have a chip on your shoulder about Irish, for whatever reason.
    The strange language reference was me trying to view irish through the eyes of a four year old child and indeed trying to remember what my views of irish were at the time. Irish is a strange and foreign language to them to which they have no natural loyalty or desire to learn.

    Of course I have a problem with a four year old child learning German or French. I don't believe language education should come into play at least untill first class.
    Leto wrote: »
    3) Telling the children that English is "wrong"? You're just making that up. Where are you getting that from?
    I'm getting that from the scores of primary school teachers who seem to believe they have the right to determine what language the child should speak over their parents by telling the child that irish is their "native language".
    Leto wrote: »
    4) Telling them that Irish is their native language (presumably, for those for whom it isn't)? Again, where are you getting that from? That's groundless scaremongering, and it's unhelpful and disrespectful.
    Again, I'm getting at teachers telling children that irish is their "native language".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,608 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    So, instead of making the majority of students hate one subject, we make them hate two?

    As a kid I really enjoyed History, I was ok at Irish (got my honour for all the good it has done since then), but if someone passed a law making my kid learn History through Irish, I'd make it my sole mission to find that person and kick them square in the nuts. Repeatedly.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement