How to revive the Irish language.

Scanlas The 2nd

Birroc wrote: »

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The importance of language.
In every thread we see the usual argument of "language is just a tool for communication". Language goes way beyond just communication, we think in language so what language you think in has a bearing on how you think, and how you think has a bearing on the person you are.
The language/s you speak is/are part of what defines you as a human being, and how you view the world around you.

Cultural diversity.
We constantly hear the "It's a bog language for boggers" comments.
Every single culture and language on the planet is special and irreplaceable, as I said earlier that is something we cannot buy or put a price on but only treasure. It is a poorer world as each one is lost.
Respect them all, including the one on this island.

Education is the key to reviving the Irish language, but for many not education in the language itself , yet.

I admire your enthusiasm but I have to say your reasons for keeping Irish alive are stretched very thin above. I am sure you believe it but I doubt the majority would. And I am a bogger living in the bog!

PS. I'll sell you some turf.

How about this reason, a lot of people want it kept alive.

Cú Giobach

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How about this reason, a lot of people want kept alive.

Perfect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The very first step in reviving any language does not involve the methods of teaching or even the teaching of a single word of that language, the first steps are, Teaching what language actually is and its importance to human beings, the ability to use basic logic to decide what is important or not and the importance of conserving, the irreplaceable uniqueness of, and how special every single culture/language on the planet is.


The importance of language.
In every thread we see the usual argument of "language is just a tool for communication". Language goes way beyond just communication, we think in language so what language you think in has a bearing on how you think, and how you think has a bearing on the person you are.
The language/s you speak is/are part of what defines you as a human being, and how you view the world around you.

Disagree with you here. Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language. And even if it did, why Irish? Why not some other language?

Logic.
We constantly hear the "Number of speakers worldwide" argument, learning Mandarin will not give me the ability to speak to over a billion people, in fact learning the language wouldn't be remotely relevant compared to the difficulty in building the time machine I would need to constantly go back over the number of human lifetimes needed to converse with that number of people.
To quote myself from an earlier post "Learning a language spoken by 5 billion people is worthless if you have no reason to meet those people, and learning a language spoken by 500 is very worthwhile if you deal with those people every day."

But if those 500 people already speak a laanguage you speak, why learn a secodn language to converse in them? I have about 20 Russian freinds here who all speak English - what would be the logic of me learnign Russian?

The logic simply is there there are not enough non-English speaking Irish people on this island to make learnign it nessecary.

Cultural diversity.
We constantly hear the "It's a bog language for boggers" comments.
Every single culture and language on the planet is special and irreplaceable, as I said earlier that is something we cannot buy or put a price on but only treasure. It is a poorer world as each one is lost.
Respect them all, including the one on this island.

Disagree with you here. Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language. And even if it did, why Irish? Why not some other language?

The bog language reference is boorish and ignorant, granted. But that said, you have to realsie thst a lot of people do not see the langauge as a treasure, they see it as an obstacle and a nuisance, and there is nothing wrong with this opinion. I've always seem culture as something that I can take or leave. I don't like GAA? No one forces me to play it. Fine. I don;t like trad Irish music and dance? Fine. No one forces it one me. I don't like Irish langauge? Woah, this people decide had to be forced on me.

Long story short, I don't do or think or enjoy anything that is culturally Irish, but this doesn't make me any less of a person.

Education is the key to reviving the Irish language, but for many not education in the language itself , yet.

Education means encouraging people to think for themselves. If you accept this, then you ahve to accept that a lot of people - not neesecarily a majority - will not have any great affinity for the language, no matter how it important to them personally. A lot of these people will be teenagers.

Are you ready to teach them that their dislike of the language is valid and are you ready to teach them how to present their point in a debate?

Lord TSC

Interest in History wrote: »

The Language Lobby is highly organised and is able to mobilise its vote. So a comparatively few number of people can put the frighteners on the politicians, as they did in the last election when Enda Kenny and Fine Gael advoced free choice in Irish for the Leaving Cert.

On the other hand, people who want less Irish don't care all that much about the question. It does not effect their actual lives in Ireland's actual English-speaking world. Their childen learn enough of it to satisfy the people in power and after that they forget all about it.

Spot on here, really.

Here's the thing (and going back to the original question); in order to "revive" the Irish language, there needs to be a change in tactics. Unfortunately, a lot of people who want a resurgence in the language are also happy with the status quo and don't want to risk going backwards. As such, these topics pop up every now and again and always degenerate into the same circle of arguments.

"How can we improve the numbers of Irish speakers?"
"Well you could try X, Y or Z."
"Ah, but those could backfire and lead to a loss in numbers. Better not take the risk and stick with what we have now."

And repeat. There's not a desire on the revivalists side to take a chance at a new approach, and these topics always end the same way; with nothing new having been contributed, and no desire to try any new ideas .

Cú Giobach

Very hard post to read but I think I found your points.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Disagree with you here. Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language. And even if it did, why Irish? Why not some other language?

It is illogical to say you will get the chance to speak to billions of people by learning Mandarin.

But if those 500 people already speak a laanguage you speak, why learn a secodn language to converse in them? I have about 20 Russian freinds here who all speak English - what would be the logic of me learnign Russian?

Very simple comment that obviously went over your head, why should I learn a language spoken by 5 billion I will never meet, when I could learn the language of the 500 I will meet.

The logic simply is there there are not enough non-English speaking Irish people on this island to make learnign it nessecary.

Nobody said it was necessary for communication reasons only.

The bog language reference is boorish and ignorant, granted. But that said, you have to realsie thst a lot of people do not see the langauge as a treasure, they see it as an obstacle and a nuisance, and there is nothing wrong with this opinion. I've always seem culture as something that I can take or leave. I don't like GAA? No one forces me to play it. Fine. I don;t like trad Irish music and dance? Fine. No one forces it one me.

It's a grand opinion, each to their own, but on media such as this expect your opinion to be questioned or else don't partake.

I don't like Irish langauge? Woah, this people decide had to be forced on me.

My heart bleeds, but sorry not my problem.

Long story short, I don't do or think or enjoy anything that is culturally Irish, but this doesn't make me any less of a person.

You tell 'em boyo.

Education means encouraging people to think for themselves. If you accept this, then you ahve to accept that a lot of people - not neesecarily a majority - will not have any great affinity for the language, no matter how it important to them personally. A lot of these people will be teenagers.

Nice statement of the obvious.

Are you ready to teach them that their dislike of the language is valid and are you ready to teach them how to present their point in a debate?

I'm not gonna teach anyone anything, though the clear presentation of a point in a debate does seem tricky for some alright.

An Coilean

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Spot on here, really.

Here's the thing (and going back to the original question); in order to "revive" the Irish language, there needs to be a change in tactics. Unfortunately, a lot of people who want a resurgence in the language are also happy with the status quo and don't want to risk going backwards. As such, these topics pop up every now and again and always degenerate into the same circle of arguments.

"How can we improve the numbers of Irish speakers?"
"Well you could try X, Y or Z."
"Ah, but those could backfire and lead to a loss in numbers. Better not take the risk and stick with what we have now."

And repeat. There's not a desire on the revivalists side to take a chance at a new approach, and these topics always end the same way; with nothing new having been contributed, and no desire to try any new ideas .

The only thing you are referencing here is making Irish optional, there is no Y or Z. Believe me if you have any ideas besides making Irish optional, lets hear them.
First of all, making Irish optional is rarely suggested with the intention of improving the number of Irish speakers, more usually it is pushed by those who don't care about reviving the language, or are activly against it, so I think you can forgive the revival movement for being doubious at best, and second there is no evidience that making Irish optional will have anything but a negative effect.

Do you really blame revivalists for not going with an Idea pushed by people who don't care about or are actively hostile to their goals, which on the balance of evidence is quite likely to have a negative effect.

Lets not forget that when second language leanguage learning was made optional in England it was an absolute disaster for the numbers learning a second language there.

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Fair enough, it was actually an add on to make my post more relevant to the quoted post.



The more I have read these "Irish language" threads on boards the more I have begun to realise something.

The very first step in reviving any language does not involve the methods of teaching or even the teaching of a single word of that language, the first steps are, Teaching what language actually is and its importance to human beings, the ability to use basic logic to decide what is important or not and the importance of conserving, the irreplaceable uniqueness of, and how special every single culture/language on the planet is.

The importance of language.
In every thread we see the usual argument of "language is just a tool for communication". Language goes way beyond just communication, we think in language so what language you think in has a bearing on how you think, and how you think has a bearing on the person you are.
The language/s you speak is/are part of what defines you as a human being, and how you view the world around you.

Maybe that's why Irish has not enjoyed the revival it's proponents expected. You've all been thinking in English!

Interest in History

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How about this reason, a lot of people want it kept alive.

The confusion in th whole national language debate - not just this current example - arises from two completely different phenomena being intermingled.

The first is the existence of a wish on the part of an individual or group to use one or another language of their choice.

The second phenomenon is the wish of an idividual or group to impose their choice of language on others who don't have the wish to use it.

The first is the exercise of freedom; the second is its denial.

The serious debate should never be about the why's and wherefore's of what I choose for myself. It should only be about the legitimacy of my choice being imposed on others.

Lord TSC

An Coilean wrote: »

The only thing you are referencing here is making Irish optional, there is no Y or Z. Believe me if you have any ideas besides making Irish optional, lets hear them.
First of all, making Irish optional is rarely suggested with the intention of improving the number of Irish speakers, more usually it is pushed by those who don't care about reviving the language, or are activly against it, so I think you can forgive the revival movement for being doubious at best, and second there is no evidience that making Irish optional will have anything but a negative effect.

The reason I personally always bring up compulsion vs optional is becasue I think to start a revival, you've got to tackle the resentment a lot of people have. The resentment towards the Irish language is bred in the fact its compulsory up to leaving cert. Making it optional past JC would mean people would have plenty of time to study it, get the basics learned and start developing a passion. If after the JC people still don't want to learn it, then it shouldn't be forced on them.

I get it would probably see less speakers, but for me, that just shows that a revival isn't nessecary, since obviously plenty of people could get by perfectly fine without Irish. I guess that's the problem here. One side's stance is "Irish should be learned and studied by those who want to study it, who have a passion for it" and the other is "Irish should be learned by all regardless of what they want, it should be forced on people regardless of passion."

If you want people to speak Irish, you have to get over the ideology of forcing it on people. You need to tackle the resentment. That's not just in school, mind. Look back at the opening post to see a suggestion that it should even be forced on people after school as well :S

I don't want to see the language die. I just think that you need to make sure the focus is being put towards those with a passion for it, and if the language drops off because people are given a choice, then perhaps you have to ask why that is?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Very hard post to read but I think I found your points.


It is illogical to say you will get the chance to speak to billions of people by learning Mandarin.

Very simple comment that obviously went over your head, why should I learn a language spoken by 5 billion I will never meet, when I could learn the language of the 500 I will meet.

Nobody said it was necessary for communication reasons only.

It's a grand opinion, each to their own, but on media such as this expect your opinion to be questioned or else don't partake.

My heart bleeds, but sorry not my problem.

You tell 'em boyo.

Nice statement of the obvious.

I'm not gonna teach anyone anything, though the clear presentation of a point in a debate does seem tricky for some alright.

1 - Never said anything about Mandarian...?
2 - I answered this: there is no NEED to learn either language for this specific purpose.
3 - Relating solely to logic, communictaion is the main prupose of a lanaguage.
4 - I've no problem with my opinion being questioned, what would you like to ask?
5 - Not mine either, now that I've turned 18. But you've missed the point: why is language compulsory, but other cultural Irish activities not?
5 - ... and your point is?
6 - So you accept hath students should be listended to and have their opinions validated?
7 - So you accept that students not liking the Irish langauge and wanting to study somehing else instead is fine. Okay. So we agree there.

Also, if you stop over-multiquoting, reponses will be easier to read.

Interest in History

An Coilean wrote: »

....First of all, making Irish optional is rarely suggested with the intention of improving the number of Irish speakers, more usually it is pushed by those who don't care about reviving the language, or are activly against it, so I think you can forgive the revival movement for being doubious at best, and second there is no evidience that making Irish optional will have anything but a negative effect.....
QUOTE]


These statements are obviously true. So the question becomes:

"In terms of civil rights, is it proper that the wishes of those who don't care about the reviving of Irish, or who are actively against it, are permanently subordinated through politic power to those with opposite views, that is, to the revivalists?"

indioblack

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The reason I personally always bring up compulsion vs optional is becasue I think to start a revival, you've got to tackle the resentment a lot of people have. The resentment towards the Irish language is bred in the fact its compulsory up to leaving cert. Making it optional past JC would mean people would have plenty of time to study it, get the basics learned and start developing a passion. If after the JC people still don't want to learn it, then it shouldn't be forced on them.

I get it would probably see less speakers, but for me, that just shows that a revival isn't nessecary, since obviously plenty of people could get by perfectly fine without Irish. I guess that's the problem here. One side's stance is "Irish should be learned and studied by those who want to study it, who have a passion for it" and the other is "Irish should be learned by all regardless of what they want, it should be forced on people regardless of passion."

If you want people to speak Irish, you have to get over the ideology of forcing it on people. You need to tackle the resentment. That's not just in school, mind. Look back at the opening post to see a suggestion that it should even be forced on people after school as well :S

I don't want to see the language die. I just think that you need to make sure the focus is being put towards those with a passion for it, and if the language drops off because people are given a choice, then perhaps you have to ask why that is?

The Irish language won't die. I'd hazard that most people in Ireland have some emotional attachment to it.
They just don't want to learn it.

_Kaiser_

I still cannot believe in this day and age that we are still talking about propping up a language that despite millions being thrown at it over the years, dedicated regions to speak it in, and unfair favoritism shown it in our already pressurised school system, and hundreds of hours spent per year teaching it, is for all intents and purposes dead and buried and of absolutely no practical value to our kids.

That doesn't mean I'm saying "kill it off now", but it DOES need to be removed from our schools (just as religion should be). If you want your kid to learn their "cultural heritage" then take some initiative and teach it to them yourself (it wouldn't do any harm for a lot of parents to become more personally involved anyway rather than expecting the school and TV/internet to raise their kids), or get grinds, or send them to a Gaeltact school, but don't expect 25/30 other kids to have to suffer through it - especially where a good percentage of those kids may not have even been born here (ditto religion, although with the seemingly endless scandals and stories of shocking abuse coming from the Catholic church I'm amazed anyone can "in good faith" support it at this stage).

Ultimately it's very simple.. the country is broke, our "well educated workforce" is a myth as our education standards continue to slip down the international rankings, and those companies we rely so much on to keep the show running (the Google's, Microsoft's, Intel's of this world) have repeatedly had to import workers to fill jobs our own kids can't do.

I actually lived in Holland for a few years as a kid back in the mid-80s and even back then every child in my class spoke at least 2 languages fluently (Dutch and English) and in most cases 1/2 more... in effect the classrooms then were what ours are becoming now - a diverse multicultural environment.

Small wonder then I suppose that 20 years on these kids (and many more like them) are coming here to take up jobs while our own are forced to join the dole queues or emigrate and take their chances.

Scanlas The 2nd

Interest in History wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How about this reason, a lot of people want it kept alive.

The confusion in th whole national language debate - not just this current example - arises from two completely different phenomena being intermingled.

The first is the existence of a wish on the part of an individual or group to use one or another language of their choice.

The second phenomenon is the wish of an idividual or group to impose their choice of language on others who don't have the wish to use it.

The first is the exercise of freedom; the second is its denial.

The serious debate should never be about the why's and wherefore's of what I choose for myself. It should only be about the legitimacy of my choice being imposed on others.

Should we impose maths, geography and history on others?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Should we impose maths, geography and history on others?

Nope. No subject should be copulsory after the Leaving. Two of those are optional after the Leaving anyway.

Ficheall

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Nope. No subject should be copulsory after the Leaving. Two of those are optional after the Leaving anyway.

Do you mean after the Junior Cert... or...? Or am I missing something relevant?

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

1 - Never said anything about Mandarian...?
2 - I answered this: there is no NEED to learn either language for this specific purpose.
3 - Relating solely to logic, communictaion is the main prupose of a lanaguage.
4 - I've no problem with my opinion being questioned, what would you like to ask?
5 - Not mine either, now that I've turned 18. But you've missed the point: why is language compulsory, but other cultural Irish activities not?
5 - ... and your point is?
6 - So you accept hath students should be listended to and have their opinions validated?
7 - So you accept that students not liking the Irish langauge and wanting to study somehing else instead is fine. Okay. So we agree there.

Also, if you stop over-multiquoting, reponses will be easier to read.

Since you are not debating any of the points I actually raised in the initial post you quoted and instead just seem to be reading random words and responding to your own brain, I think I will leave off "chatting" with you.
Are you drunk?

HelloYoungBoy

The Irish Language isnt a Pokemon, you cant revive it

podgeandrodge

C&#250 wrote: »

If you are right with your analysis above and those that don't want it compulsory feel less strongly than those that do, added with the apparent majority* wanting it remain so, then isn't the obvious choice based on those realities to continue with compulsion.


* Don't ask me for proof, it's been done to absolute death here with evidence always produced for a majority in favour, but none ever produced against.

The "majority" will always say they want Irish retained. Much like the majority of smokers will say they want to give up. It's an answer that just comes naturally because Irish people feel a moral obligation to defend it to an extent. Ask them should vast amounts of public money be spent on trying to keep it alive and I reckon a majority will say No. Ask them should people get extra marks in other subjects simply for answering in Irish and they will say No.

Anyone here going to defend the huge disgraceful waste of public money being spent on Irish translations of English documents? Every piece of rubbish coming in our door being doubled up to abide by the Official Languages Act?

RTE using our license fees spending money on guaranteeing a proportion of Irish language programming? Even when we have TG4 already subsidised to do the same thing? Mad!


Irish is a "nice to have". If it had a future this debate would have ended years ago as people would have actually used it.

Irish = Sky Sports. Pay for it if you're interested.

Cú Giobach

podgeandrodge wrote: »

The "majority" will always say they want Irish retained. Much like the majority of smokers will say they want to give up. It's an answer that just comes naturally because Irish people feel a moral obligation to defend it to an extent. Ask them should vast amounts of public money be spent on trying to keep it alive and I reckon a majority will say No. Ask them should people get extra marks in other subjects simply for answering in Irish and they will say No.

Anyone here going to defend the huge disgraceful waste of public money being spent on Irish translations of English documents? Every piece of rubbish coming in our door being doubled up to abide by the Official Languages Act?

RTE using our license fees spending money on guaranteeing a proportion of Irish language programming? Even when we have TG4 already subsidised to do the same thing? Mad!


Irish is a "nice to have". If it had a future this debate would have ended years ago as people would have actually used it.

Irish = Sky Sports. Pay for it if you're interested.

Nice rant. Feel better?

podgeandrodge

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nice rant. Feel better?

Yes thanks!

LordSutch

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The reason I personally always bring up compulsion vs optional is becasue I think to start a revival, you've got to tackle the resentment a lot of people have. The resentment towards the Irish language is bred in the fact its compulsory up to leaving cert. Making it optional past JC would mean people would have plenty of time to study it, get the basics learned and start developing a passion. If after the JC people still don't want to learn it, then it shouldn't be forced on them.

I get it would probably see less speakers, but for me, that just shows that a revival isn't nessecary, since obviously plenty of people could get by perfectly fine without Irish. I guess that's the problem here. One side's stance is "Irish should be learned and studied by those who want to study it, who have a passion for it" and the other is "Irish should be learned by all regardless of what they want, it should be forced on people regardless of passion."

If you want people to speak Irish, you have to get over the ideology of forcing it on people. You need to tackle the resentment. That's not just in school, mind. Look back at the opening post to see a suggestion that it should even be forced on people after school as well :S

I don't want to see the language die. I just think that you need to make sure the focus is being put towards those with a passion for it, and if the language drops off because people are given a choice, then perhaps you have to ask why that is?

Here here, well said, and great to see you getting away with this point of view (virtually indetical to mine) without getting tons of abuse from . .

I wont mention his name, just in case he plugs into this thread and lets rip. shush

_Kaiser_

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nice rant. Feel better?

Actually I think he raises some valid points, but I guess a 4 word quip is more suited to AH :rolleyes:

Qualitymark

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Anyone here going to defend the huge disgraceful waste of public money being spent on Irish translations of English documents?

Completely agree.

Incidentally, one (Northern Protestant) teacher within my ambit turned years of the kids she taught on to Irish by running Cafe Gaeilge once a week, during which the kids could talk about anything (in Irish) while drinking coffee and eating cake. They loved it.

Cú Giobach

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Actually I think he raises some valid points, but I guess a 4 word quip is more suited to AH :rolleyes:

Been there done that, couldn't be arsed going over it again and again ad infinitum, and why should I? Not everyone interested in the language wants to shove it down everyone else's throat, whatever the ignorant masses think.

If you read my posts regarding the language you might notice I have no interest whatsoever in The compulsion debate or What the government does regarding it (or much else that they do for that matter), all I want to do is discuss it as a language in the same way I would discuss any language on the planet, my interest on this front is primarily in languages in general (not that I'm a linguist or anything) not politics, that I leave to others.
So when people try to engage me in these tedious debates I make it quite clear if I have no interest. The words "Irish" and "language" in a thread always end the same but I still like to pop in and put a few people straight regarding factual errors regarding language and debate those, not debate something I have no interest in.
Is that OK with your lordship?

Paddy Samurai

paullyons00 wrote: »

I'd love to hear your opinions on my way of thinking and alternative views on how we should go about reviving the language.

Declare that Irish is now banned and that is illegal to speak ,read or teach Irish.

Within two years we will all be speaking fluent Irish.:D

Qualitymark

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

Declare that Irish is now banned and that is illegal to speak ,read or teach Irish.

Within two years we will all be speaking fluent Irish.:D

Is dócha nach mbéadh, do mo bhrón.

Paddy Samurai

Qualitymark wrote: »

Is dócha nach mbéadh, do mo bhrón.

Bloody foreigners!.:D

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ficheall wrote: »

Do you mean after the Junior Cert... or...? Or am I missing something relevant?

Personally, I would say up until the completion of the Junior Cert, have Maths and English as the only compusory subjects due to relevance. After that, everything optional.

If, at the age of 15, kids cannot count or communicate, something more drastic is wrong with the system that compulsion is not going to sort out.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Since you are not debating any of the points I actually raised in the initial post you quoted and instead just seem to be reading random words and responding to your own brain, I think I will leave off "chatting" with you.
Are you drunk?

Eh...? You avoid every point I and two other posters rasied, ignore them, deicide instead on some petty insults toward all three of us, and then claim .the moral highground?

Paddyandy? Degsy? A re-reg?

KenSwee

Coming to this late.

I don't want to learn Irish and I don't want my kinds to either.
They are going to be introduced to languages that are valuable should they wish to travel or work abroad.
If they want to learn it later in life, they are welcome to do it but I won't be encouraging them.
I'd prefer if the whole world spoke just a few languages.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Eh...? You avoid every point I and two other posters rasied, ignore them, deicide instead on some petty insults toward all three of us, and then claim .the moral highground?

ME: Logic. "We constantly hear the "Number of speakers worldwide" argument, learning Mandarin will not give me the ability to speak to over a billion people,"

YOU: "Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language."

ME: "It is illogical to say you will get the chance to speak to billions of people by learning Mandarin."

YOU: " Never said anything about Mandarian...?"

I won't go into the rest of your comments because they are all in the same vein, you not saying anything about what I actually said or the points raised, I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

Interest in History

Cú Giobach wrote: »

* Don't ask me for proof, it's been done to absolute death here with evidence always produced for a majority in favour, but none ever produced against.

Eoin Kilfeather has a piece on opinion polls and Irish at google.com/site/failedrevival.

I don't think that opinion polls have a lot to add to our knowledge of the actual position.

Most people like a bit of Irish and accept it as a national symbol but don't want or need to speak it. A small number of people do employ it as a language in much the way that the Russian elite employed French around the end of the eighteenth century, because it shows something about them.

Among the former ther are many who could do with less of it and among the latter there are some who aspire to make it the vernacular of the whole community, and you've got everything in between.

There is no way to devise a question with a 'yes' or 'No' answer which will provide a measure of the thinking about Irish accross the whole community.

LeeroyJ.

Sorry but there is no point reviving the language. Start teaching children in school a language that will actually get them a job like Spanish German or French or keep teaching them Irish and keep the 15% unemployment rate. All the big companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Apple require a second fluent language (not Irish). It's the same nonsense with all the protection around travelers, child services should get those kinds into school and not protect this 'culture'...

Just my 2 cents.

Wibbs

Interest in History wrote: »

There is no way to devise a question with a 'yes' or 'No' answer which will provide a measure of the thinking about Irish accross the whole community.

Well you can. The proof is in the pudding. The very title of this thread illustrates it. The plain fact is this; the vast majority of people born in this nation can't speak Irish worth a damn if at all* and have little interest in trying, despite the best efforts of the Irish state since it's founding.

The more strident pro Irish camp know that compulsion is to be fought for tooth and nail, because they also know that removing it will show the actual level of grassroots support for the language, which is essentially sweet fanny adams. When compulsion was dropped for daily spoken Irish in the civil service the language stopped being spoken across the board overnight and consider this was among people who actually had Irish to a conversational level. Any time compulsion is dropped for the language people march with their feet away from it. Hell stand outside a Gaelscoil and listen to the kids. The further from the gates the less they speak it. They text, chat and facebook and all that guff as Bearla. My goddaughter goes to one and I collect her often enough to hear this (and hear some of the teachers bemoan it).

The Gaeltacht areas have contracted more and more with each passing decade since the foundation of the state. Gaeltacht in 1926, thirty years later and today(well 2007). As if Irish speaking primary schools, road and housing estate signs as Gaelige and such window dressing are going to reverse that rot. Why? IMH because the real reason for it's contraction is nada or little to do with the education system etc, it's because beyond "ah sure I have a cupla focal" most Irish people simply don't care about it enough. Not "Yay" or "Nay", mostly "Meh".

I personally don't believe the language will die out any time soon. A minority do speak it daily and won't stop overnight. I can see another strand of it evolving into a pigeon Irish, the Irish of the school.








*according to a native Donegal Irish speaking friend an awful lot of self styled Gaelgoirs at times sound like stilted foreigners with phrasebooks in hand.

Qualitymark

KenSwee wrote: »

I'd prefer if the whole world spoke just a few languages.

Surely you shouldn't want your children to be taught any other language then?

The sensible thing, though, if others had your philosophy, would be to make all languages other than Mandarin illegal. After all, Mandarin is spoken by more people than any other language. (Actually, it's not; it has scarcely penetrated to most people in China, who stubbornly speak their own languages, but why let facts get in the way of a good theory.)

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

*according to a native Donegal Irish speaking friend an awful lot of self styled Gaelgoirs at times sound like stilted foreigners with phrasebooks in hand.

One interesting thing about that is, the native speaker will almost never correct someone and hardly notice mistakes during conversation, because they are concentrating on what people are trying to say and forming a response in their head (like you would do concentrating on a French person with broken English), whereas many non-native speakers will actually correct someone because they have all these "rules and regulations" floating around their head (correcting a learner of a language without being asked is considered the height of ignorance, if you don't understand the person, you just say "sorry I don't understand you").
I don't speak grammatically good Irish and just speak the first thing that comes into my head that feels natural and concentrate primarily on being understood, rather than being grammatically correct and therefore slower, staccato and without a comfortable flow.
It is people concentrating primarily on grammar that can lead to the "stilted foreigner" feeling you mention, as often the words don't flow and even native speakers of all languages don't use perfect grammar when chatting casually.

By the way, if someone corrects me without being asked I always respond the same, "Oh, so you're not a native speaker then" and when they look at me quizzically I explain the above, I have never gotten it wrong yet. Yeah!!! :cool:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

ME: Logic. "We constantly hear the "Number of speakers worldwide" argument, learning Mandarin will not give me the ability to speak to over a billion people,"

YOU: "Where is the connection between logical thinking and language? Logic is more the product of maths and science, it has very little to do with language."

ME: "It is illogical to say you will get the chance to speak to billions of people by learning Mandarin."

YOU: " Never said anything about Mandarian...?"

I won't go into the rest of your comments because they are all in the same vein, you not saying anything about what I actually said or the points raised, I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

If you can't comment on or answer the two questions raised above, or the points rasied by other posters, it's probably wise that you do not go on.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If you can't comment on or answer the two questions raised above, or the points rasied by other posters, it's probably wise that you do not go on.

Why? Because I have an Irish user name and like languages? FFS. :rolleyes:
I could ask you a million questions on things you have no interest in and demand a response too you know.
Why should I respond to "compulsion" or "government spending" comments when neither interest me and I could actually argue both sides of the debate? I would love to tell you to piss off, but that would be against the charter, wouldn't it.

By the way, If you can't see how off track your questions to me were (only one of which I pointed out in my "ME: YOU: post"), then there is no point in trying to discuss anything rationally with you.

Bye.

By the way demanding people get into debates they have no interest in getting into, goes against the position of "choice" you advocate, I can choose to debate or respond to any dam thing I want. If you don't like that, tough shit, and I will continue posting here as much as I please unless I am banned.

donegal_man

I honestly think the problem with revival lies (unless things have changed since my day) in the way the language is taught. We didn't learn it as a vibrant living spoken language but as a cultural artifact, the language of long dead poets and patriots. I still remember in primary school standing up and rhyming of the declensions of some verb that I had memorised the night before and then promptly forgetting it by lunch time.
Conversely when I began to learn German and later Polish I learnt how to communicate, how to talk to people. The result is that if you dump me in the middle of Berlin or Warsaw I can ask directions, order food and drink and make a fair stab and having a conversation with the bar tender using the local language. None of which I could do in Gweedore.

ViveLaVie

Seanchai wrote: »

The number of teachers of English in particular who do not have a grasp of the basic grammar of that language is consistently astonishing. There are no excuses for it. It's not as if a native speaker of English getting a degree in English is as hard an intellectual feat as getting a degree in Maths, Irish, French or the like. They can familiarise themselves with their subject knowledge much quicker, as it's all in their native language so they should be great teachers with all that spare time they can devote to teaching methodology. Alas, because they chose English for their degree, they probably hadn't much of a work ethic to begin with. So they waffle their way through an entire career as a (bad) teacher of English.

Is this a joke? Seriously?

What exactly do you think the subject matter of an English degree is? Learning off grammar rules and pronounciation? I'll give you a hint. It's not. It's the study of literary criticism.

So, by your logic, a philosophy degree, a history degree, an economics degree, a medicine degree and a dentistry degree are all easier to get than a Maths or French degree because the student can familiarise themselves with their subject matter faster through the medium of their native tongue? And the fact that doctors and philosophers choose to study through English and not French or 'Maths language' whatever you seem to think that is means they're lazy and have a poor work ethic?

What a ridiculous comment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why? Because I have an Irish user name and like languages? FFS. :rolleyes:
I could ask you a million questions on things you have no interest in and demand a response too you know.
Why should I respond to "compulsion" or "government spending" comments when neither interest me and I could actually argue both sides of the debate? I would love to tell you to piss off, but that would be against the charter, wouldn't it.

By the way, If you can't see how off track your questions to me were (only one of which I pointed out in my "ME: YOU: post"), then there is no point in trying to discuss anything rationally with you.

Bye.

Em... you were the one that brought up the points of langauage and logic, and Irish and education, and now you're throwing your toys out of the pram because suddenly they're irrelevant...?

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Em... you were the one that brought up the points of langauage and logic, and Irish and education, and now you're throwing your toys out of the pram because suddenly they're irrelevant...?

Logic, regarding which language to learn.
Language, regarding how it affects us as human beings.
Irish, because it was the topic of this thread.
Education, regarding the use of logic explained above and teaching how language is more than just communication.
You did not respond to any of the actual points but instead just seemed to pick random meaning out of my post and ask irrelevant, meaningless questions, hence my asking if you were drunk, go back and have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. Here and Here.

I am not responding to you anymore if you want to carry on with this nonsense, Ok?

An Coilean

Interest in History wrote: »

Eoin Kilfeather has a piece on opinion polls and Irish at google.com/site/failedrevival.

I don't think that opinion polls have a lot to add to our knowledge of the actual position.

I had a read of that, his position was essentially that any poll or census report that disagrees with his position is propaganda and can be ignored.
Truely enlightened stuff.


I have yet to read the whole document, but of what I have read there are some serious problems, coming to conclusions that support the narative he is trying to create with out supporting evidence, and passing on false information to name but a few.

I know you wont accept this, as it is clear that you have no real insight into the topic beyond this document.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Logic, regarding which language to learn.
Language, regarding how it affects us as human beings.
Irish, because it was the topic of this thread.
Education, regarding the use of logic explained above and teaching how language is more than just communication.
You did not respond to any of the actual points but instead just seemed to pick random meaning out of my post and ask irrelevant, meaningless questions, hence my asking if you were drunk, go back and have a look for yourself if you don't believe me. Here and Here.

I am not responding to you anymore if you want to carry on with this nonsense, Ok?

Oh come on! You made four points - logic, importance, cultrual diversity and education, and I aswered all four. You said you had difficulty following my point because of the multiquoting, I stopped multiquoting. You then threw the toys out of the pram because you simply disagreed with what i was saying.

Logic? I pointed out that logic is more of a skill learnt in other subjects, such as Maths and science, langauge having different skills of its own. To elaborate, language is more of right-brain function, calling on expression and artistic abilities than logic and deduction.

Which language to learn? I suggested French, German, as they will be more practical. To another poster, I beleive I suggested Chinese, which I presume is where you Mandarin comment came in.

How it affects us? I pointed out that people are effected in different ways. To some it is just a tool. Live with it. To others it is more. Fine. I also pointed out that I don't need to learn a langauge to speak to people I already share a common language with!

Education? I know you're not bothered by compulsion, but it is something that is slowing down any ongoing rivial. I pointed out that edcuation should encourage students to debate and which may lead to a lot of them rejecting the learning of Irish altogether. Possibly even the rejection oflearning a second language altogether. I also asked if you would be ready to hear this? Judging by your comments to me and other posters who simply disagreed with you, and by the idea that I'm attackign your username (??) I'm guessing not.

All posted in similar format in the second post above, directly under the point you rasied.

ViveLaVie

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Logic? I pointed out that logic is more of a skill learnt in other subjects, such as Maths and science, langauge having different skills of its own. To elaborate, language is more of right-brain function, calling on expression and artistic abilities than logic and deduction.

Just in response to this...

Logic is a skill learned in learning a second language. It might be a different kind of logic to the type acquired through maths and science, but it's a logic nonetheless.

It only calls on expression and artistic abilities when it's already been learned and the speaker wants to say something in a particularly skillful way.

To speak at the most basic level in any language requires the use of logic in successfully putting together grammar and vocabulary. It really isn't just a mindless learning off by rote. If that were the case half the country would be fluent in Irish as that's what you're taught to do in LC HL Irish.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Just in response to this...

Logic is a skill learned in learning a second language. It might be a different kind of logic to the type acquired through maths and science, but it's a logic nonetheless.

It only calls on expression and artistic abilities when it's already been learned and the speaker wants to say something in a particularly skillful way.

To speak at the most basic level in any language requires the use of logic in successfully putting together grammar and vocabulary. It really isn't just a mindless learning off by rote. If that were the case half the country would be fluent in Irish as that's what you're taught to do in LC HL Irish.

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I would still harbour that learning grammar and vocabulary is something that could be done learning English alone, but I see your point. Having learnt German, though, it didn't really take much logic, it was more practice and reptition, even though the gramatical structure is very different.

If second languages were to be learnt, I'd recomment German for this reason alone (although I prefer French for the linguistics).

indioblack

Most of my relatives in Ireland have a few words of Irish - but I doubt if any of them could string a meaningful sentence together. Just as well - I wouldn't know what they were saying anyway!
This thread, like all the others, is not about a particular language.
It's about cultural identity.
Those Irish relatives of mine like to know that Irish is there, they want people to defend it - and they would welcome the debate over it's unlikely demise.
They want to know the language is there - it's important to them - but they don't want to learn it or use it themselves. If they did, they would have learned it of their own volition - they've had enough time.
It's important to them - but not enough to learn it.
You could say that is an Irish solution! Maybe it is.

ViveLaVie

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I would still harbour that learning grammar and vocabulary is something that could be done learning English alone, but I see your point. Having learnt German, though, it didn't really take much logic, it was more practice and reptition, even though the gramatical structure is very different.

If second languages were to be learnt, I'd recomment German for this reason alone (although I prefer French for the linguistics).

Well if I'm understanding you correctly here, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that you learn that logic already when you learn English as your mother tongue. I would have to disagree here. Acquiring a second language after the age of 12 is very different to learning it as you grow up and acquiring it naturally. I would think the majority of native English speakers don't understand the grammar and/or structure of English as we just aren't formally taught this in school. In fact, while a lot of people would be able to speak formally in English, a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable doing so. Most people speak colloquially for the majority of the time.

I would also argue that the more languages you learn the better developed this skill becomes. Equally someone who learns French to degree level should have a more developed 'language logic' than someone who only studies it for the LC.

I don't know German myself but English is classed as a Germanic language so I'm surprised that you didn't find them similar in some way?

I would advocate learning Spanish and French as they are the most widely spoken languages in the world aside from English. They are also Romantic languages so have a very different set-up to English.

Cú Giobach

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oh come on! You made four points - logic, importance, cultrual diversity and education, and I aswered all four. You said you had difficulty following my point because of the multiquoting, I stopped multiquoting. You then threw the toys out of the pram because you simply disagreed with what i was saying.

I had difficulty reading your post because
1. you weren't responding to my points and coming up with irrelevancies I was trying to figure out.
2. you were literally all over the place script-wise.
I got annoyed with you because you were insisting I respond to your points yet were totally ignoring mine and just making up random comments that had nothing to do with any of my points in this thread. That is bad form and would annoy the Dali-Lama.

Logic? I pointed out that logic is more of a skill learnt in other subjects, such as Maths and science, langauge having different skills of its own. To elaborate, language is more of right-brain function, calling on expression and artistic abilities than logic and deduction.

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you say here.
Read it again. It is about using logic to decide what is logical and what is not, basically teaching kids to distinguish between the "silly" and the "rational".

Which language to learn? I suggested French, German, as they will be more practical. To another poster, I beleive I suggested Chinese, which I presume is where you Mandarin comment came in.

My point had nothing whatsoever to with anything you said, but was around the rather silly notion that, The worldwide number of speakers of a language is more important in deciding which language to learn than the language of the people you will interact with on a daily basis, and Speaking a language somehow magically gives you access to all the speakers of that language.
I speak one of the world's most common languages, yet to gain access to the hundreds of millions of English speakers I would have to do a hell of a lot more than just speak the language, that was where logic came in.

How it affects us? I pointed out that people are effected in different ways. To some it is just a tool. Live with it. To others it is more. Fine. I also pointed out that I don't need to learn a langauge to speak to people I already share a common language with!

Language is intertwined with human cognition, since everybody (except for some unfortunate individuals) thinks, then it affects everybody.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, language goes beyond just communication and is way more than just a tool.
Linky another link, that one is a bit long how about this one. I can produce quite a few more if you wish.

Education? I know you're not bothered by compulsion, but it is something that is slowing down any ongoing rivial. I pointed out that edcuation should encourage students to debate and which may lead to a lot of them rejecting the learning of Irish altogether. Possibly even the rejection oflearning a second language altogether. I also asked if you would be ready to hear this? Judging by your comments to me and other posters who simply disagreed with you, and by the idea that I'm attackign your username (??) I'm guessing not.

My mentioning of education was about teaching tolerance, logic and how language affects cognition, none of which you mention here, it was not about compulsion in education.

If I have given no stance on compulsion how can you or others disagree with me regarding it? Same for government spending.
Maybe a class in basic logic needed?

All posted in similar format in the second post above, directly under the point you rasied.

Some points yes, the irrelevant ones that had nothing to do with what I have been saying.

ViveLaVie

Cú Giobach wrote: »

My point had nothing whatsoever to with anything you said, but was around the rather silly notion that, The worldwide number of speakers of a language is more important in deciding which language to learn than the language of the people you will interact with on a daily basis, and Speaking a language somehow magically gives you access to all the speakers of that language.
I speak one of the world's most common languages, yet to gain access to the hundreds of millions of English speakers I would have to do a hell of a lot more than just speak the language, that was where logic came in.

Just in response to this...

I would be of the opinion myself that it would be somewhat useful to have one of the more widely spoken languages because it gives you more opportunities to work abroad and then interact with a number of people who couldn't have previously. Obviously somebody who can speak French would have the option of moving to France, Quebec, Belgium etc and adapting much more easily than someone who can't speak French.

I think Spanish and French would be good languages to have because they are 2nd and 3rd respectively on the ladder of widely spoken languages and have the 2nd and 3rd largest amount of people learning them as additional languages.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Language is intertwined with human cognition, since everybody (except for some unfortunate individuals) thinks, then it affects everybody.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, language goes beyond just communication and is way more than just a tool.
Linky another link, that one is a bit long how about this one. I can produce quite a few more if you wish.

I haven't checked those links yet but I absolutely agree. It's been proven that having a second language expands thinking and improves IQ. It can even make you see things differently i.e. a language that has more vocabulary to describe nuances in colour actually teaches the brain to distinguish more effectively between colour. So a speaker of one particular language could see more colours than a person who speaks another.