Is Irish a dead language?

astrofool

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes I would agree that there should be no requirement for Irish, or any subject, that has nothing to do with said course. Currently it doesn't make much difference because you have to do Irish.

Universities should be free to have their own requirements for entering a course. For foreign students they (usually) require that they have done English, Maths + other language. Sometimes the English requirement is dropped to having done an English language course instead.

They have these requirements so that the students that they select have the greatest chance of completing the course. All uni level subjects require someone to have a background in logic (maths) and literature (language), and thus those requirements are usually baked in, even for, say, Arts, it's very hard for someone who doesn't understand the concept of say, statistics, to understand something like History, or Art.

The uni requirement for Irish is completely artificial, and a bit of a joke, it's not accepted as the foreign language requirement, and puts Irish students at a disadvantage to English, or American students (and you could argue, French, German, Chinese, Japanese etc, who all study English as part of their education, more Chinese will know English than the rest of the world combined soon).

What should be done to solve this:
Drop compulsary Irish for the LC.
Allow students to pick up another language at primary level (e.g. French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese)
Allow Irish to be accepted as the second language requirement

I'd estimate the results would probably be less people learning Irish, but a lot more people learning Irish to a higher standard (as it now gives them something).

Pete_Cavan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

While it is true that irish is the first official language of our constitution school systems are under no constitutional obligation to provide education in irish language educations in our schools. As per article eight of the constitution:

Whether or not the constitution stipulates Irish should be a compulsory subject in Irish schools or not is irrelevant. There are many aspects of our educational system that are not directly catered for in the constitution. Bunreacht na hEireann, the document which established the independent state, administers our system of government and guarantees certain fundamental rights to Irish citizens, states Article 8.1 The Irish language as the national language is the first official language. The point I was making is that our language is an important part of the fabric of this country.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure you are right in saying most people don't want to see the language die. But why must the onus be put on children to learn it? If the majority of people don't want to see it die off then why don't they learn it instead of forcing it on their children?

It seems to me that people are all for the language as long as they don't have to learn or speak it.

First of all, it is much more difficult to learn any language as an adult, if it was hard when you were a kid its much harder now. Also most adults would not be able to devote the time necessary to learning the language. Anybody concerned with the survival of the Irish language, and it was easier to learn, they would be pleased they were forced to learn it as a child, although they probably didnt think so at the time.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have no doubt placing more emphasison the spoken aspect of the language will encourage more people to learn it and even enjoy it. But there will always be some people who don't want to learn it. Regardless of the way it is taught.

There will always be some people who don't want to learn full stop. Does that mean they should be excused from attending school? What advantage does making Irish optional have? If they didnt learn Irish they wouldn't realise how much they hate it, they would just turn their hatred to another subject and wish they didnt have to do it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Irish needs to be both reformed and made optional doing one without the other just isn't enough in my book.

If Irish was optional many children would choose not to learn it on the basis that they preceive it to be difficult and an old-fashioned thing to learn without getting any experience of the language. If you agree that the Irish language is an important part of our culture why would you want to do something that would greatly damage it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not that I don't like irish. I didn't like learning it. I saw it as being pointless and would have much rather spent my time working on my maths.

Partly the former but not completly. I also didn't like the amount of time being spent on it, 4.3 hours a week. That I thought would be better spent learning subjects I considered relevent to my leaving cert results.

If Irish was easier to learn and you did not have to devote so much time to it, leaving you with more time to concentrate on other subjects, and everybody you know had a decent level of Irish allowing out to use it in everyday life, would you still dislike learning Irish?

Pete_Cavan

astrofool wrote: »

The uni requirement for Irish is completely artificial, and a bit of a joke, it's not accepted as the foreign language requirement, and puts Irish students at a disadvantage to English, or American students (and you could argue, French, German, Chinese, Japanese etc, who all study English as part of their education, more Chinese will know English than the rest of the world combined soon).

What? Why would an Irish university accept Irish, the first official language of this country, as a foreign language? If you want to use Irish as a foreign language when applying to a university go to a university in another country, where you would probably have to pay huge fees. And how does it put Irish students at a disadvantage to English, or American students?

eddyc

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If you agree that the Irish language is an important part of our culture why would you want to do something that would greatly damage it?

If Irish is an important part of our culture most of us would already be speaking it everyday, this is obviously not true. Irish WAS an important part of our culture, which is now gone, or changed. People who support the language like to go on about our heritage and culture, but if its so important why don't we have everyone living in thatch cottages, eating potatoes and dancing jigs all day long. I mean we all have to learn the old culture yeah? People should be allowed learn Irish if they want to, but to pretend that its an important part of Irish identity today is delusional.

Iwasfrozen

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Whether or not the constitution stipulates Irish should be a compulsory subject in Irish schools or not is irrelevant. There are many aspects of our educational system that are not directly catered for in the constitution. Bunreacht na hEireann, the document which established the independent state, administers our system of government and guarantees certain fundamental rights to Irish citizens, states Article 8.1 The Irish language as the national language is the first official language. The point I was making is that our language is an important part of the fabric of this country.

I acknowledge that irish is the first language of our country as stated in the constitution. But it is a very big jump from saying "irish is a central part of our government" to "irish is a central part of our country". There is far more to a country then it's government and legal system.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

First of all, it is much more difficult to learn any language as an adult, if it was hard when you were a kid its much harder now. Also most adults would not be able to devote the time necessary to learning the language. Anybody concerned with the survival of the Irish language, and it was easier to learn, they would be pleased they were forced to learn it as a child, although they probably didnt think so at the time.

While it may be easier to learn a language as an adult. It is not impossible.
the majority of people say they don't want the language to die off but make no effort at all to learn it. Instead they pass on the burden to their children just like their parents did with the excuse "it is easier for children to learn it".

All I'm saying is that the majority of people are in favour of the language only if they don't have to learn it.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There will always be some people who don't want to learn full stop. Does that mean they should be excused from attending school? What advantage does making Irish optional have? If they didnt learn Irish they wouldn't realise how much they hate it, they would just turn their hatred to another subject and wish they didnt have to do it.

Forcing irish on people who don't want to learn the language will only result in another generation of people who dislike the language and the futher slide of irish into oblivion. If irish was made optional then only those with a keen interest would take it up and we as a country would have a small group of people who can fluently speak the language as opposed to a large group who can't. I believe this would benefit the language in the long run. And at the same time saving us tax money to boot!

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If Irish was optional many children would choose not to learn it on the basis that they preceive it to be difficult and an old-fashioned thing to learn without getting any experience of the language. If you agree that the Irish language is an important part of our culture why would you want to do something that would greatly damage it?

They will still have the opportunity to experience irish first hand in primary education so that won't really be a problem and these children, with the help of their parents of course, can make an informed decision based on the childs ability and culture whether or not to take up irish.

Also I don't believe that making irish optional will damage the language. I believe that it will lower the numbers learning it yes, but it will "trim the fat" if you want to put it that way. And leave us with a small group of people who are passionate about the language rather then a large group who don't really care. And this can only be good in the long run.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If Irish was easier to learn and you did not have to devote so much time to it, leaving you with more time to concentrate on other subjects, and everybody you know had a decent level of Irish allowing out to use it in everyday life, would you still dislike learning Irish?

Well thankfully I am now finished secondary school and never have to learn the language again but no. If irish didn't take up so much of my time I don't think I would have considered it as annoying as I did.

deise go deo

I would imagin they ment accepting Irish as a second langauage.
Im not sure but I think they want to change the system to Universities only needing English and a second language.
Moast Universities require English, Irish and a foreign language.
UL dont require a foreign language and will accept English and Irish as the second language
I owe my place there to this.:)

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Partly the former but not completly. I also didn't like the amount of time being spent on it, 4.3 hours a week. That I thought would be better spent learning subjects I considered relevent to my leaving cert results.

Irish is relevant to your leaving cert results.
They take your best 6,as im sure you know. so if Irish is in that top 6 then it will be counted in your points. Now from your seaming intence dislike of it I assume that your not great at it, but just because you dont like it dosent mean it dosent make the difference for a lot of people between getting into collage or not.

4.3 hours a week. Just think of how many hours you watch tv. You could have used some of this time more productivly if you were so worried about your maths.

I dident like Irish in school. I did ordinary level and I did quite badly at it too. Do I blame Irish for the result I got in my LC? No.( I just scraped enough points to get the collage place I wanted) My result was a direct result of the work I put in to it. The same as you and every one else.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

Irish is relevant to your leaving cert results.
They take your best 6,as im sure you know. so if Irish is in that top 6 then it will be counted in your points. Now from your seaming intence dislike of it I assume that your not great at it, but just because you dont like it dosent mean it dosent make the difference for a lot of people between getting into collage or not.

4.3 hours a week. Just think of how many hours you watch tv. You could have used some of this time more productivly if you were so worried about your maths.

I dident like Irish in school. I did ordinary level and I did quite badly at it too. Do I blame Irish for the result I got in my LC? No.( I just scraped enough points to get the collage place I wanted) My result was a direct result of the work I put in to it. The same as you and every one else.

*Jesus*

I don't even know where to begin with this one so I will list this answer out to make it easier for myself.

1. Irish was relevent to my leaving cert because I want to go to an NUI college. So much so that I took grinds to pass OL.
2. I didn't need it for points but it took up time I could have spent doing other subjects.
3. I do not dislike the irish language. I dislike the cost and time that it requires to learn.
4. I didn't watch any television last year. I was studying a lot and what ever little time I did have I would rather spend on here or with my friends.
5. I wasn't worrying about maths. It was my favourite subject.
6. I'm not blaming irish on my leaving cert results. I haven't even got them back yet!
7. Please don't make assumptions about people you don't know on the internet. It isn't big and it certainly isn't clever.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

By the way, it's college, not collage. The latter is a form of art in which miscellaneous materials are stuck to a backing.

Petty.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

MUSSOLINI wrote:

Petty.

Yes, that was a bit low.

*Goes back to correct spelling.*

nuac

Having reviewed this interesting debate I now believe

1. The compulory Irish policy and all it's support mechanisms have failed.

2. Numbers of bona fide speakers are declining - outside education and others who are paid for speaking Irish directly or indirectly.

3. On present trends Irish will be extinct within 50 years.

Solution

180 degree policy change

Government to ban the use of Irish, spoken and written.

this will waken the Irish contra-authoritarian tendency, increase the number of Irish speakers and users, and guarantee the future of the language.

Anybody else got a better idea?

deise go deo

nuac wrote: »

Having reviewed this interesting debate I now believe

1. The compulory Irish policy and all it's support mechanisms have failed.

2. Numbers of bona fide speakers are declining - outside education and others who are paid for speaking Irish directly or indirectly.

3. On present trends Irish will be extinct within 50 years.

Solution

180 degree policy change

Government to ban the use of Irish, spoken and written.

this will waken the Irish contra-authoritarian tendency, increase the number of Irish speakers and users, and guarantee the future of the language.

Anybody else got a better idea?

I agree that the education of Irish as it is now is a failure.
However I beleive that the method of teaching and curriculum are the root of the problem not its compulsory status.

Can I ask where you got your figures showing the decline of 'Bona fide'
Irish speakers?

I may be optimistic but I cant see Irish being any weaker than it is now in 50 or 100 years.

As for banning Irish, Its a bit of a cliche to be honest. So yes I do beleive there are better Ideas. :cool:

Focalbhach

nuac wrote: »

Solution

180 degree policy change

Government to ban the use of Irish, spoken and written.

this will waken the Irish contra-authoritarian tendency, increase the number of Irish speakers and users, and guarantee the future of the language.

Anybody else got a better idea?

deise go deo wrote: »

I agree that the education of Irish as it is now is a failure.
However I beleive that the method of teaching and curriculum are the root of the problem not its compulsory status.

I fully agree.

Pete_Cavan

eddyc wrote: »

If Irish is an important part of our culture most of us would already be speaking it everyday, this is obviously not true. Irish WAS an important part of our culture, which is now gone, or changed. People who support the language like to go on about our heritage and culture, but if its so important why don't we have everyone living in thatch cottages, eating potatoes and dancing jigs all day long. I mean we all have to learn the old culture yeah? People should be allowed learn Irish if they want to, but to pretend that its an important part of Irish identity today is delusional.

Just because the language is not used in every day life by the majority of people in this country doesnt mean its no longer part of our culture and heritage. Just because the Egyptians dont put dead pharaohs into the pyramids doesnt mean they are not part of their heritage and identity anymore.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

While it may be easier to learn a language as an adult. It is not impossible.
the majority of people say they don't want the language to die off but make no effort at all to learn it. Instead they pass on the burden to their children just like their parents did with the excuse "it is easier for children to learn it".

All I'm saying is that the majority of people are in favour of the language only if they don't have to learn it.

If they are in favour of the language despite the poor way they have been taught it then they would greatly appreciate it had they been taught it in a simpler and more useful way. This resentment of the language has been built up for the generations because of the way it has been taught, and I dont include its compulsory status in that. I believe it is possible to change the language so that it is no longer a "burden" while it remains compulsory.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Forcing irish on people who don't want to learn the language will only result in another generation of people who dislike the language and the futher slide of irish into oblivion. If irish was made optional then only those with a keen interest would take it up and we as a country would have a small group of people who can fluently speak the language as opposed to a large group who can't. I believe this would benefit the language in the long run. And at the same time saving us tax money to boot!

I agree that forcing Irish on kids in the current way it is taught will only result in another generation of people who dislike the language. Changing the way it is taught could result in a generation would love the language. If the focus was on the spoken language these children could grow up using it regularly. Ok it might take a few generations for that to happen but there is no reason why, if taught correctly, the language cant thrive again. The main problem now is the perception that it is too difficult. This may be true but there is no reason why this cant change (over time).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They will still have the opportunity to experience irish first hand in primary education so that won't really be a problem and these children, with the help of their parents of course, can make an informed decision based on the childs ability and culture whether or not to take up irish.

Well then why not apply the same to English and Maths?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also I don't believe that making irish optional will damage the language. I believe that it will lower the numbers learning it yes, but it will "trim the fat" if you want to put it that way. And leave us with a small group of people who are passionate about the language rather then a large group who don't really care. And this can only be good in the long run.

There is no fat to trim. Only those who have a genuine interest and are passionate about the language pursue it continue to use it beyond secondary school. Making it optional doesnt change that. Having a two stream system whereby the lower stream is focused on conversational Irish without the literature would help people that, would otherwise neglect the language, maintain an interest in it.

eddyc

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Just because the language is not used in every day life by the majority of people in this country doesnt mean its no longer part of our culture and heritage. Just because the Egyptians dont put dead pharaohs into the pyramids doesnt mean they are not part of their heritage and identity anymore.

Does the Egyptian government require everyone to learn ancient Egyptian if they want to go to college?

deise go deo

eddyc wrote: »

Does the Egyptian government require everyone to learn ancient Egyptian if they want to go to college?

If they did would it be relevant to this country?

eddyc

deise go deo wrote: »

If they did would it be relevant to this country?

I was pointing out that his example wasn't equivalent to what is happening in Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pete_Cavan

eddyc wrote: »

I was pointing out that his example wasn't equivalent to what is happening in Ireland.

I was not making a comparison between the pyramids and the Irish language in relation to education. You said that the Irish language was not part of our culture or heritage any more. I made a comparison between the Irish language and the pyrimads on the basis that both were very important to their country in the past but neither are used today as they were in the past. This does not however mean that they do not remain part of that countrys culture or heritage. This was to support the argument that I put forward that the Irish language remains important as part of your heritage.

I quoted you on this and replied directly below the quote in my post so this should have been quite clear. What did you think I was saying? That Egyptians should be buried in a pyramid in order for them to do to college? It was quite easy to understand if you read it.

Pete_Cavan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do they not want to learn it? Because of the way it is taught. So yes, the method of teaching and curriculum are the root of the problem not its compulsory status.

eddyc

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I was not making a comparison between the pyramids and the Irish language in relation to education. You said that the Irish language was not part of our culture or heritage any more. I made a comparison between the Irish language and the pyrimads on the basis that both were very important to their country in the past but neither are used today as they were in the past. This does not however mean that they do not remain part of that countrys culture or heritage. This was to support the argument that I put forward that the Irish language remains important as part of your heritage.

I quoted you on this and replied directly below the quote in my post so this should have been quite clear. What did you think I was saying? That Egyptians should be buried in a pyramid in order for them to do to college? It was quite easy to understand if you read it.

I never said Irish wasn't part of our culture, I said it wasn't as important as it used to be. The reason I'm saying this is because most people don't speak it. The pyramids are of course part of the Egyptian culture too, the difference is they learn about that history, in Ireland we are trying to resurrect it.

Iwasfrozen

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If they are in favour of the language despite the poor way they have been taught it then they would greatly appreciate it had they been taught it in a simpler and more useful way. This resentment of the language has been built up for the generations because of the way it has been taught, and I dont include its compulsory status in that. I believe it is possible to change the language so that it is no longer a "burden" while it remains compulsory.

You said that the majority of people don't want to see the language die off. I said that while this was true people do not want to learn the language and would rather delegate this burden onto their children.

If people care so much about the irish language as you claim they do, don't they get off their ass and learn it?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I agree that forcing Irish on kids in the current way it is taught will only result in another generation of people who dislike the language. Changing the way it is taught could result in a generation would love the language. If the focus was on the spoken language these children could grow up using it regularly. Ok it might take a few generations for that to happen but there is no reason why, if taught correctly, the language cant thrive again. The main problem now is the perception that it is too difficult. This may be true but there is no reason why this cant change (over time).

You don't seem to understand. If one doesn't like the irish language. If they don't like the sound of it. Or don't like speaking it then no amount of teaching reform can help this. Why should person A be forced to learn a language because person B thinks it should be part of their culture.

Let person B learn it while person A spends his time studying something else.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Well then why not apply the same to English and Maths?

Because english is the spoken language of the state and maths is the father science from which all other sciences derive.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is no fat to trim. Only those who have a genuine interest and are passionate about the language pursue it continue to use it beyond secondary school. Making it optional doesnt change that. Having a two stream system whereby the lower stream is focused on conversational Irish without the literature would help people that, would otherwise neglect the language, maintain an interest in it.

How are you going to organize an exam based on conversational irish?

Iwasfrozen

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why do they not want to learn it? Because of the way it is taught. So yes, the method of teaching and curriculum are the root of the problem not its compulsory status.

Not everyone who doesn't want to learn irish does so because of the way it is taught. I didn't want to learn french, so I didn't I learned german instead. I simply liked the german language more then the french. It had nothing to do with the way either language was taught.

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You said that the majority of people don't want to see the language die off. I said that while this was true people do not want to learn the language and would rather delegate this burden onto their children.

If people care so much about the irish language as you claim they do, don't they get off their ass and learn it?

If Irish is as unpopular as you think it is then why do all the main political parties support it. If the people were against it then the politians would be aswell.

You don't seem to understand. If one doesn't like the irish language. If they don't like the sound of it. Or don't like speaking it then no amount of teaching reform can help this. Why should person A be forced to learn a language because person B thinks it should be part of their culture.

Let person B learn it while person A spends his time studying something else.

Yes but that assumes that people dont like it for those reasons, I beleive people dont like it because of how it was tought.

How are you going to organize an exam based on conversational irish?

Its called an oral exam.
You did one a few months ago as part of your leaving cert.:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

If Irish is as unpopular as you think it is then why do all the main political parties support it. If the people were against it then the politians would be aswell.

That's exactly the phenomenon I was referring to. People seem quite happy to support the language over some vauge notion of Irishness as long as they don't have to learn it. Doesn't that seem paradoxical to you?

deise go deo wrote: »

Yes but that assumes that people dont like it for those reasons, I beleive people dont like it because of how it was tought.

I'm not assuming anything for the entire population because I like to think of people as individuals. Some people will not like it for a reason, some will not like it due to the way it is taught and some will love it.

That is why we must modify our education system to fit the needs of people as individuals rather then the current "one size fits all" policy that has been a huge failure in promoting the language.

deise go deo wrote: »

Its called an oral exam.
You did one a few months ago as part of your leaving cert.:rolleyes:

Indeed I did young Sir. And I think it is the most unfair form of exam I have ever encountered. While thankfully I got through with only the odd "yeah" or "emmm" in my fifteen minutes, others where not so lucky and whether by illness or nerves they just didn't perform. People that I would say were easily better then me in practice.

Wolfe Tone

How is the Oral unfair? That is the easiest part and the people are looking to give you marks.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

How is the Oral unfair? That is the easiest part and the people are looking to give you marks.

What about someone who has a sore throat on the day? Or someone so caught up with nerves that they find it hard to regurgitate their learned off notes. Any exam that brings fourteen years of learning irish down to a fifteen minute conversation is unfair.

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What about someone who has a sore throat on the day? Or someone so caught up with nerves that they find it hard to regurgitate their learned off notes. Any exam that brings fourteen years of learning irish down to a fifteen minute conversation is unfair.

That can be applied to the actual sit down exams too. The Oral is no more unfair than any other LC exam.