Is Irish a dead language?

deise go deo

MysticalRain wrote: »

We're talking several hundred thousand people here. How is that "a few people"?

Several hundred thousand people in this country need Chinese in their jobs?
You got anything to back that up?

del_c

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are we talking about this is relation to irish?

In your opinion. Other ore pragmatic people would disagree and assert that education has a purely economic role in society.

Do you want to take this statement back then?

Iwasfrozen

del_c wrote: »

In your opinion. Other ore pragmatic people would disagree and assert that education has a purely economic role in society.

Yes I do recall writing that.

del_c wrote: »

Do you want to take this statement back then?

No, I don't.

del_c

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In your opinion. Other ore pragmatic people would disagree and assert that education has a purely economic role in society.


Yes I do recall writing that.

No, I don't.

But you would agree with the goal of education as being

(a) enable individuals to achieve their full potential and to participate fully as members of society; and (b) contribute to Ireland's social, cultural and economic development.

...you can't agree with both you know, so I am going to have to request you to make up your mind

Iwasfrozen

del_c wrote: »

But you would agree with the goal of education as being

(a) enable individuals to achieve their full potential and to participate fully as members of society; and (b) contribute to Ireland's social, cultural and economic development.

...you can't agree with both you know, so I am going to have to request you to make up your mind

Actually I can agree with both or I can also agree with neither.

del_c

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually I can agree with both or I can also agree with neither.

Ah, I see you are one of those, who see themselves as outside the realms of logic.

How can I state that education has 3 goals, and then state that it has only one goal, without making a fool of myself?

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

History and geography are not compulsory beyond junior cert. I don't disagree that they could be made optional before junior cert level.
Most subjects in the Irish curriculum are not taught in the quite the same hard-assed way that Irish is (history and geography being two examples that don't have quite the same misery attached to them as Irish does). But aside from that, I personally did find the teaching of a few subjects to be offputting because it was forced down my throat. But at least I could see a practical point to being forced to learn maths and science. Furthermore, if I really dislike the subject, I had the choice to drop it post Junior cert if I really want to. That way I could focus on subjects that I genuinely liked and excel at those.

I have advocated Irish should be compulsory up to group cert and and then as a choice.
Misery is an interesting use of term here, and is quite subjective.
Whether a subject turns out useful or not depends on what career a person ends up with and what will interest him/her in the future something extremely few people have the slightest clue of pre group-cert.

Iwasfrozen

del_c wrote: »

Ah, I see you are one of those, who see themselves as outside the realms of logic.

Nope, I don't.

del_c wrote: »

How can I state that education has 3 goals, and then state that it has only one goal, without making a fool of myself?

I assume that despite your use of "I" you are referring to me. In that case I didn't say education has three goals, nor did I say education has only one goal.

Though if you aren't referring to me then if the three goals are derived from the one goal then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself.

Now can you please tell me how this ties in with irish instead of going around in a silly circle?

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

You are making a point that people may skue things to favor their own point of view and then post a link to a massively Biased article as support for this?

Exactly.

deise go deo wrote: »

Do you agree that the source you posted is Biased, and misleading in its interpretation of the results?

It is an alternative interpretation by someone who does not have an economic interest in the report's findings and who is probably outraged at the way the data has been exploited.

deise go deo wrote: »

As for authencity, We have an Comisinéir Teanga and the ERSI V a Blog.
That you choose the blog speaks volumes about your own willingness to skue facts to your own point of view.:p

And you choose 'an Comisinéir Teanga '. The ESRI did not design or interpret the survey, they're just the hired help, leave them out of it.

What is meant by 'support'? The survey gives no detailed analysis. But, we do know, from daily observation, that this 'support' that you claim, really means 'thinking it's a nice idea, but not actually bothering to make any effort to learn it and having no problem with the idea of other people learning it'.

I'll bet that if you asked how many people supported the idea of badminton (for example), you'd probably also get 93%. Just don't ask them for money.

MysticalRain

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I have advocated Irish should be compulsory up to group cert and and then as a choice.

That would be a good start.

Misery is an interesting use of term here, and is quite subjective.

That has been the general opinion of several generations of Irish schoolkids. Irish is one of those subjects that is singled out time and time again as being a dreadful subject to learn compared with others, even by people who love the language. I really don't know why the message continues to fall on deaf ears.

Whether a subject turns out useful or not depends on what career a person ends up with and what will interest him/her in the future something extremely few people have the slightest clue of pre group-cert.

That might be true of the non-compulsory subjects. But it is certainly not true of the compulsory ones i.e. English, and maths.

del_c

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Though if you aren't referring to me then if the three goals are derived from the one goal then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself.

Now can you please tell me how this ties in with irish instead of going around in a silly circle?

So let me get this straight; there are social aims, cultural aims and economic aims, but the the social and cultural aims, are subserviant to the overriding main goal, which is economic?

This is not true. Have a look at a few articles on the sociology of education and get back to me with some proper grounded arguments, not just soundbites pulled off the top of your head.

So therefore, as I said, there are 3 aims of education; they are social in nature, cultural in nature and economic in nature, and they do overlap. Teaching Chinese from a primary level, would be of questionable benefit economically (as I said Leaving Cert Chinese would useless in a meeting anyway and the status of Chinese in 20 yrs time is uncertain), would contribute nothing toward understanding Irish culture, and the others on this island who love the language.

From your purely"economic" standpoint, teaching Irish would not be much less beneficial than the teaching of any other language, as proficiency in a second language opens neural networks that ease the acquisition of a third language considerably.



P.s. There's no such language as Chinese

cyclopath2001

del_c wrote: »

.....would contribute nothing toward understanding ........ the others on this island who love the language.

I think you've never spoken truer words.

Maybe we should have 'how to understand Irish Language Enthusiasts' as a subject. There is clearly a big gap in how the enthusiasts think and how the rest of us do.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

That would be a good start.


That has been the general opinion of several generations of Irish schoolkids. Irish is one of those subjects that is singled out time and time again as being a dreadful subject to learn compared with others, even by people who love the language. I really don't know why the message continues to fall on deaf ears.


That might be true of the non-compulsory subjects. But it is certainly not true of the compulsory ones i.e. English, and maths.

Language learning is very hard unless it is done properly, the way the language is taught needs to be changed.
"Ooo...it's too hard", isn't really an excuse not to be taught something in school.
Are English and maths the only other compulsory subjects up to and including group-cert?

MysticalRain

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Language learning is very hard unless it is done properly, the way the language is taught needs to be changed.
"Ooo...it's too hard", isn't really an excuse not to be taught something in school.
Are English and maths the only other compulsory subjects up to and including group-cert?

I think there are certain reasons why Irish is far harder than it should be.

I think most subjects are compulsory for Junior cert. But English, maths and Irish are the only compulsory subjects for all the way through until leaving cert. At last that was the way back in my days at school.

Cú Giobach

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think most subjects are compulsory for Junior cert.

In order to give children a good all rounded education.
I can see nothing wrong with the teaching of Irish, but a hell of a lot wrong with the method.

del_c

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In order to give children a good all rounded education.
I can see nothing wrong with the teaching of Irish, but a hell of a lot wrong with the method.

Irish has utilitarian benefit, it has a huge cultural benefit. Let's start teaching it properly, and get an increased payback on our investment of time and money. Nobody Not too many would argue with that, I would think....I think the figure is around 6% or so actually.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Exactly.

It is an alternative interpretation by someone who does not have an economic interest in the report's findings and who is probably outraged at the way the data has been exploited.

So they present a fair and accurate picture of the data?
I would say they have distorted the survey far more than An Comisinéir has.

And you choose 'an Comisinéir Teanga '.

Yes, Hardly surprising considering he actually knows what he is talking about.
Honestly that you would even put the credibility of the two sources on the same playing field speaks of self delusion.:rolleyes:

What is meant by 'support'? The survey gives no detailed analysis. But, we do know, from daily observation, that this 'support' that you claim, really means 'thinking it's a nice idea, but not actually bothering to make any effort to learn it and having no problem with the idea of other people learning it'.

The survey breaks the kind of support down into several groups as you know.:rolleyes:

I'll bet that if you asked how many people supported the idea of badminton (for example), you'd probably also get 93%. Just don't ask them for money.

The survey was about money, What do you think is meant by state support?

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

So they present a fair and accurate picture of the data?
I would say they have distorted the survey far more than An Comisinéir has.

The truth is usually found between two extremes.

deise go deo wrote: »

Yes, Hardly surprising considering he actually knows what he is talking about.

Or that his interests and yours coincide.

deise go deo wrote: »

The survey was about money, What do you think is meant by state support?

The survey does explain that 'support' is a blank cheque plus some hospital closures.

In any case, no amount of government (or more precisely, our) money will make up for the very obvious lack of willingness or intention of citizens to learn and speak Irish.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The truth is usually found between two extremes.

Generally but when you have an extreme labeling what it disagrees with as also 'Extreme' then the issue gets confused im sure you agree.

Or that his interests and yours coincide.

The man works with Irish language issues every day, I think its fair to say he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the subject.

The survey does explain that 'support' is a blank cheque plus some hospital closures.

The less said about this example of 'Enlightened' debating the better,
I would be embarrased if that was all I could come up with to be honest :rolleyes:

In any case, no amount of government (or more precisely, our) money will make up for the very obvious lack of willingness or intention of citizens to learn and speak Irish.

So things will stay as they are now and not change ever?
Most people are unable to speak Irish, Is it not fair to assume more people would speak Irish if they were able to?

del_c

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think you've never spoken truer words.

Maybe we should have 'how to understand Irish Language Enthusiasts' as a subject. There is clearly a big gap in how the enthusiasts think and how the rest of us do.

Fantastic idea sir. We could have subject in the close study of the cultural output of Irish language enthusiasts and speakers. By its nature of course it would require the study of the language, and its grammar. Some conversational skills would also be appropriate to communicate with this important group within our society. And as they make up 41% of the population, it think it would be only right to make it a compulsory subject through school.

Fan nóiméad anois a Phadí. I know a subject that might fit that description.

cyclopath2001

del_c wrote:

Fantastic idea sir. We could have subject in the close study of the cultural output of Irish language enthusiasts and speakers. By its nature of course it would require the study of the language, and its grammar.

Or a study of the psychological motivation of a born English speaker who decides that Irish is his true 'native' language.

deise go deo wrote: »

The man works with Irish language issues every day, I think its fair to say he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the subject.

Maybe he's too close to the existing ways to engage in new thinking?

deise go deo wrote: »

The less said about this example of 'Enlightened' debating the better, I would be embarrased if that was all I could come up with to be honest :rolleyes:

Asking people if they agree with state support for Irish is a rather vague question unless you inform them as to what they are agreeing to and what it's going to cost. Otherwise, it's just a 'mom and apple pie' question.

deise go deo wrote: »

Most people are unable to speak Irish, Is it not fair to assume more people would speak Irish if they were able to?

Yes, indeed, m in the same way as most people are unable to speak French and Mandarin, but it is fair to assume that they would if they were able to.

deise go deo wrote: »

So things will stay as they are now and not change ever?

They'll remain the same as long as the Irish-lobby continues with policies and attitudes that have failed since the foundation of the state.

del_c

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or a study of the psychological motivation of a born English speaker who decides that Irish is his true 'native' language.

One of his native languages a chara, One of 2.

cyclopath2001

del_c wrote: »

One of his native languages a chara, One of 2.

For most of the population, Irish is not a native language, merely an official one.

del_c

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

For most of the population, Irish is not a native language, merely an official one.

No, I am afraid that Irish is a native language to all on this island, as it is native to these shores. It is just not a mother tongue for all.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or a study of the psychological motivation of a born English speaker who decides that Irish is his true 'native' language.

I think a second language would be a more beneficial thing to teach in School:)

Maybe he's too close to the existing ways to engage in new thinking?

Not really, One of his main points was a criticism of how the language is thought in schools. His office is intendant.

Asking people if they agree with state support for Irish is a rather vague question unless you inform them as to what they are agreeing to and what it's going to cost. Otherwise, it's just a 'mom and apple pie' question.

And to suggest the cost is either Irish or Hospitals is ignorant and childish

Yes, indeed, m in the same way as most people are unable to speak French and Mandarin, but it is fair to assume that they would if they were able to.

Im glad you agree. Out of interest, Dose the fact that I dont speak French mean I Reject it?

They'll remain the same as long as the Irish-lobby continues with policies and attitudes that have failed since the foundation of the state.

What policy is that?
I have already said that the last thing I want is a continuation of the terrible curriculum priorities and teaching methods that have been in place to date, Most Irish Enthusiasts would be of the same mind. But if you want to argue over points you assume I support rather than what I have actually said then be my guest.

cyclopath2001

deise_go_deo wrote:

Im glad you agree. Out of interest, Dose the fact that I dont speak French mean I Reject it?

It means that that you have rejected it as a option for you. In the same way as I and many other Irish people reject learning Cantonese, Serbo-Croat and Irish. In the case of the latter, this is a stronger rejection given the many 'opportunities' made available.

del_c wrote: »

No, I am afraid that Irish is a native language to all on this island, as it is native to these shores. It is just not a mother tongue for all.

Either you do not understand the meaning of the word 'native' or you are deliberately choosing to abuse the meaning so as to add additional emotional standing to your position on Irish.

'Native' means 'from birth'. So, unless the child was speaking Irish from the earliest age possible, it's not the 'native' language of the child.

Irish is an indigenous language of this country, but most of the population don't speak it and have not for a very long time.

senordingdong

deise go deo wrote: »

What policy is that?
I have already said that the last thing I want is a continuation of the terrible curriculum priorities and teaching methods that have been in place to date, Most Irish Enthusiasts would be of the same mind. But if you want to argue over points you assume I support rather than what I have actually said then be my guest.

I think that before the curriculum is changed there should be other changes made in the community.
Like maing Irish out first language, and changing all the signage and place names first.

I think immersion in the language would be the most helpful thing....and that the lack of immersion is the biggest problem.

cyclopath2001

senordingdong wrote: »

I think that before the curriculum is changed there should be other changes made in the community.
Like maing Irish out first language, and changing all the signage and place names first.

I think immersion in the language would be the most helpful thing....and that the lack of immersion is the biggest problem.

Will this change of signage, place names and 'immersion' be imposed on the majority English-speaking community against their will or will you hold a 'survey' first?

Cú Giobach

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It means that that you have rejected it as a option for you. In the same way as I and many other Irish people reject learning Cantonese, Serbo-Croat and Irish. In the case of the latter, this is a stronger rejection given the many 'opportunities' made available. .

To reject something you have to actively refuse it, I have never been offered the chance to learn Bulgarian therefore I have never rejected the language.
To assume every person who does not speak Irish has not learned it because of a dislike for it or is anti-Irish is just plain wrong. I personally know and have spoken to a large number of people who have not learned the language for quite a number of reasons, including, Not having time, a perceived lack of ability, lack of money....etc. Many of these people feel embarrassed about not speaking it, and many would love to learn it.

If someone does not learn a second language because of family and work commitments it does not mean they are actively against it. Your quite naive and constant rhetoric in this regard is diminishing your argument quite substantially.

del_c

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

'Native' means 'from birth'. So, unless the child was speaking Irish from the earliest age possible, it's not the 'native' language of the child.

Irish is an indigenous language of this country, but most of the population don't speak it and have not for a very long time.

"J. R. R. Tolkien in his 1955 lecture "English and Welsh" distinguishes the "native tongue" from the "cradle tongue," the latter being the language one happens to learn during early childhood, while one's true "native tongue" may be different, possibly determined by an inherited linguistic taste, and may later in life be discovered by a strong emotional affinity to a specific dialect (Tolkien personally confessed to such an affinity to the Middle English of the West Midlands in particular)."


I would not understand native tongue as being equivalent to mother tongue either, if you do, then I would agree with you. I would however agree with the definition above and also with the statement "The Irish and English Languages are the native languages of the Irish People"

...If you prefer indigenous, then that's fine...doesn't really change the fact that Irish is an inherent part of Ireland and spoken by Irish people.