The Irish language is failing.

psinno

psinno wrote: »

Are you equating making Irish optional with stopping people who want to learn Irish learn Irish?

I've no idea why you're asking that question or jumping to that particular conclusion, but the answer is in two parts.

As a native (and indeed expert) English speaker the answer is no. Why? Because as a native English speaker my understanding of the words "making Irish optional" is clear and unambiguous.

However, as a native English speaker raised in Ireland and being adept at placing what people say in its appropriate cultural and societal context, in this instance the answer is yes. I'm well used to reading or hearing the gripes and whinges of people who believe they have no capacity to understand the Irish language dressed up as arguments to remove it from the education system and from public life. Those so-called arguments take a variety of forms, and "making it optional" is one of those. But these various "arguments" are no more and no less than thinly-veiled expressions of hostility and frustration on the part of people who - for whatever reason - simply don't have a grasp of Irish.

Shep_Dog

Deleted User wrote: »

Meanwhile, last week the ESRI issued a study which said this:

"While the attitudes towards the Irish language among primary and post-primary students in the Republic of Ireland are often negative, the report finds considerable support for the language among adult population - 67 per cent of the respondents in the Republic of Ireland and 45 per cent from Northern Ireland felt positive about the Irish language."

You're being selective, the ESRI also said this:

New Study Shows that While Attitudes Towards the Irish Language are Broadly Positive, This Does Not Translate Into Significant Use of the Language

If we define 'support' for Irish, as actually using the language in a person's life, I think we might get a truer picture.

JacquesSon

Tá Gaeilge agam.

I have terrible and perhaps indecipherable Irish but the language lives.

Thuigam go maith ach tá bron orm nach mbíonn áblta caint go spraoi as gaeilge.

JacquesSon

JacquesSon wrote: »

Tá Gaeilge agam.

I have terrible and perhaps indecipherable Irish but the language lives.

Thuigam go maith ach tá bron orm nach mbíonn áblta caint go spraoi as gaeilge.

Úsáid cibé Gaeilge atá agat, agus ná bí buartha faoi.

PopePalpatine

Deleted User wrote: »

Where? From the same posters on this website, often using several nicks in the one discussion to express their pathological hatred for the defining mark of any distinctive culture, its language?

I've only the one username, I (and I can assume the other posters who at the very least don't want miserable poetry shoved down their throats) can't be bothered breaking the rules against multiple accounts per person.

BTW, do you think all of the Spanish-speaking countries across Central and South America are some culturally homogeneous group? How about the two Koreas? Or north Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

I really would welcome if one of the Irish haters - and, as shown, a bit of digging reveals that the person who starts with "I don't hate Irish but..." usually is on record as wishing for its death or engaging in pseudo-racist attacks against people who are culturally Irish - could stand for election specifically on an anti-Irish platform. Meanwhile, last week the ESRI issued a study which said this:

"While the attitudes towards the Irish language among primary and post-primary students in the Republic of Ireland are often negative, the report finds considerable support for the language among adult population - 67 per cent of the respondents in the Republic of Ireland and 45 per cent from Northern Ireland felt positive about the Irish language."

The "groundswell of opinion" is, if anything, against the Irish haters - every one of whom, in my experience, are to the far right of the political spectrum on every issue and especially on issues relating to the people who fought for Irish independence and the legitimacy of Irish independence itself (and who usually self-describe as "Libertarian" or some other nutcase neo-fascist ideology beloved of the immature and sociopathic).

I noticed you don't put the bit about students having a negative opinion about Irish in bold. How are you certain that 67% who have a positive view of Irish still want it made compulsory in schools?

Shep_Dog

Shep_Dog wrote: »

You're being selective, the ESRI also said this:



If we define 'support' for Irish, as actually using the language in a person's life, I think we might get a truer picture.

By the same idiosyncratic definition of "support", if we define "support" for the Dublin team by the number of people who play on it, we have a total of 15 GAA supporters in Dublin.

I'll stick with the dictionary's, and the ESRI's, definition of "support" rather than the definition of those who are always trying to put down Irish (and anything else in society they deem to be weaker and thus open to bullying).

diograis

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Úsáid cibé Gaeilge atá agat, agus ná bí buartha faoi.

Fúithi, as gaeilge is feminine. Close though

diograis

diograis wrote: »

Fúithi, as gaeilge is feminine. Close though

I was actually referencing something else....


....ach ná bí buartha faoi.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By the same idiosyncratic definition of "support", if we define "support" for the Dublin team by the number of people who play on it, we have a total of 15 GAA supporters in Dublin.

I'll stick with the dictionary's, and the ESRI's, definition of "support" rather than the definition of those who are always trying to put down Irish (and anything else in society they deem to be weaker and thus open to bullying).

15 also being the total number of people who use Irish in every day life. Yes, we should spend millions to support them. No one is buying your argument that the actual number of people actually speaking Irish doesn't matter.
Question: how many people here press "Irish"at the ATM? If Ireland went Irish only and English was outlawed, I would have to move elsewhere. And so would many people.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I (and I can assume the other posters who at the very least don't want miserable poetry shoved down their throats)

Yet, the "miserable poetry" in English and whatever other literature was "forced" down your throat, along with being "forced" to go to school and being "forced" to do pointless equations and formulae and everything else in this apparent concentration camp of schooling is never an issue.

This is about the bullies looking for a scapegoat for their own failings in life. They get OCD about Irish not because it's uniquely "pointless" - most, if not all, subjects in secondary school are pointless in terms of working life - but because they see a mob picking on something in a weak position and they want a sense of community by joining it and kicking whatever is weaker. That's the long and the short of the motivation of the Irish haters.

Finally, if, in contrast to the mass of cultural and linguistic experts across the world, you really contend that a language is not critical to cultural distinctiveness I can only put it down to an unawareness of the difference between an identity and a culture; mistaking differences within Spanish-speaking Latin America as primarily "cultural" rather than primarily of identity might indicate this is where the confusion is.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If Ireland went Irish only and English was outlawed, I would have to move elsewhere.

How would Ireland survive with that little bit less hatred and paranoia?

PopePalpatine

Strawmen...strawmen everywhere. You don't want to listen to the concerns of anyone that doesn't see the value in compulsory Irish, just portray them as "West Brit" bogeymen. You still haven't shown me that 67% of the population want to force students to learn Irish.

riclad

Imagine if every school taught latin to every pupil,
and 99 per cent of people will not use it after school,
maybe 1 per cent of people speak it.
And it costs billions to teach it.
Thats were we are now with irish.
it has little practical value .
Unless you are a teacher or work in rte/tg4 .
WE need more students learning french ,german etc
WE have a limited education budget ,let pupils pick 5 subjects, that maybe of practical use
when they leave school.
make it an optional subject after year 1 in secondary school.
if everyone chooses top study irish ,thats fine.
irish is like being catholic,
theres 1000,s of people pretending to be catholic,
to get their children into a school.
And they go to church for a wedding or funerals and communion.
if someone likes irish let them study it it,
others can study,french ,chemistry, etc any subject they have an interest in.

Shep_Dog

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll stick with the dictionary's, and the ESRI's, definition of "support" rather than the definition of those who are always trying to put down Irish (and anything else in society they deem to be weaker and thus open to bullying).

You can choose to believe what gives you comfort as it would be no doubt, too distressing for you to accept the fact that we are an English-speaking nation with no real intention of actually speaking Irish.

I am heartened by your empathy for the weak and the bullied. Would this empathy extend to the practice of forcing native English-speaking children to speak Irish?

Dughorm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Would this empathy extend to the practice of forcing native English-speaking children to speak Irish?

What about our practice of forcing Irish children to learn the works of a 16th century English playwright? Is that unjust to you?

Shep_Dog

Dughorm wrote: »

What about our practice of forcing Irish children to learn the works of a 16th century English playwright? Is that unjust to you?

There's a big difference to educating pupils about an important contributor to their English-speaking culture and forcing them to speak a language which is not theirs.

Perhaps forcing children to learn Irish is some kind of cultural penitence for the great sin of their forefathers in forsaking 'The Language'?

Dan_Solo

I'd imagine 99% of the Irish population "supports" baby dolphins but probably aren't all that keen on being forced to adopt one for 14 years of their life.

Dughorm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

There's a big difference to educating pupils about an important contributor to their English-speaking culture and forcing them to speak a language which is not theirs.

Perhaps forcing children to learn Irish is some kind of cultural penitence for the great sin of their forefathers in forsaking 'The Language'?

There's also a big difference to educating pupils about an important contributor to their Irish heritage and forcing them to read a Shakespearean English which is not theirs.

Would you have all pupils learn about the Kings of England given their important contribution to English-speaking culture?

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

There's also a big difference to educating pupils about an important contributor to their Irish heritage and forcing them to read a Shakespearean English which is not theirs.

Would you have all pupils learn about the Kings of England given their important contribution to English-speaking culture?

Um my memory might be a bit hazy on this, but I'm sure we actually did learn about the kings of England in school as they had a pretty major impact on Irish history beyond the language they spoke.
Or are you pretending none of that happened?
Anyway, could you list some of these important pieces of English literature written by English kings? Ya know, so you're not just having an irrelevant rant about the tans etc?

Sh1tbag OToole

Its funny the way people think we should teach kids the language of whatever big countries are doing well economically at the minute. Pure sell outs I tell ya, boss!

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'd imagine 99% of the Irish population "supports" baby dolphins but probably aren't all that keen on being forced to adopt one for 14 years of their life.

I'd imagine 99% of the Irish population "supports" quality education but probably aren't all that keen on being forced to pay school books, 'voluntary' contributions, etc... etc.... for 14 years.....

Irish can certainly be part of a quality education in Ireland in my opinion.

Shep_Dog

Dughorm wrote: »

Would you have all pupils learn about the Kings of England given their important contribution to English-speaking culture?

The actions of the kings and queens of England have had a huge influence on the history and culture of Ireland.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Um my memory might be a bit hazy on this, but I'm sure we actually did learn about the kings of England in school as they had a pretty major impact on Irish history beyond the language they spoke.
Or are you pretending none of that happened?

And the people who spoke Irish had a pretty major impact on Irish history too... if this is the new criteria you are using?

Dughorm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The actions of Kings and Queens of England have had a huge influence on the history and culture of Ireland.

Do you think it should be mandatory for people to learn about the history and culture of Ireland? If so I can't see the basis for your opposition to learning Irish given its sizeable historical influence....

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

I'd imagine 99% of the Irish population "supports" quality education but probably aren't all that keen on being forced to pay school books, 'voluntary' contributions, etc... etc.... for 14 years.....

Keen or not, they do actually do it, so they must be keen in some capacity.
Which is more than can be said for Irish.

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

Do you think it should be mandatory for people to learn about the history and culture of Ireland? If so I can't see the basis for your opposition to learning Irish given its sizeable historical influence....

You've deliberately conflated learning about Irish and learning Irish. I wonder why?
Do we need to learn to speak every language connected with every country in our history books?

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Keen or not, they do actually do it, so they must be keen in some capacity.
Which is more than can be said for Irish.

And as has been shown with the amazing leaving cert results in Irish, pupils must be keen in some capacity to learn it....

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

And the people who spoke Irish had a pretty major impact on Irish history too... if this is the new criteria you are using?

Nice try. It was your proposal that we needed to learn how to speak a language to learn any history, not mine.
Off with ya.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You've deliberately conflated learning about Irish and learning Irish. I wonder why?
Do we need to learn to speak every language connected with every country in our history books?

I'm simply reflecting back the point that Sheep_Dog was making that the reason we should learn Shakespeare is due to its cultural impact on the English Language- given your logic should we have to learn Shakespearean English then?

Do you agree that Shakespeare should be mandatory but not Irish?

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

And as has been shown with the amazing leaving cert results in Irish, pupils must be keen in some capacity to learn it....

OK... baby steps here...
IT'S COMPULSORY.
What do you want, for them to fail their LC because they don't like Irish?

Shep_Dog

Dughorm wrote: »

I can't see the basis for your opposition to learning Irish

Whoa, not so fast. Back up there. Nice try to conjure up a 'straw-man' argument, but I never said any such thing.

I'm not opposed to anyone learning Irish. I have never said that. I am opposed to children being forced to learn and speak Irish.

There's a big difference to being educated about the culture of Ireland and being forced to learn and speak Irish. Children can easily learn about their culture through the medium of English. It's their native language after all.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK... baby steps here...
IT'S COMPULSORY.
What do you want, for them to fail their LC because they don't like Irish?

It's also compulsory to pay the school books and the "voluntary" contribution so you are simply refuting your own point here....

Dughorm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

I am opposed to children being forced to learn and speak Irish.

But you are not opposed to children being forced to learn Shakespeare?

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

It's also compulsory to pay the school books and the "voluntary" contribution so you are simply refuting your own point here....

Yes and? So if it was compulsory to get a kick in the balls you'd say everybody was keen on a kick in the balls because that's what they did?

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

However, as a native English speaker raised in Ireland and being adept at placing what people say in its appropriate cultural and societal context, in this instance the answer is yes.

What I'm getting here is the realisation that Irish speakers don't have a self sustaining cultural mass without state mandated mandatory cultural manipulation. Which may be true.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes and? So if it was compulsory to get a kick in the balls you'd say everybody was keen on a kick in the balls because that's what they did?

Sorry, trying to discuss this with you is feeling like the equivalent to getting a kick in the balls!!:pac:

So are you in favour of compulsory Shakespeare then?

Dan_Solo

psinno wrote: »

What I'm getting here is the realisation that Irish speakers don't have a self sustaining cultural mass without state mandated mandatory cultural manipulation. Which may be true.

TBH they still don't have it. 1% use it in any fashion daily.
And they're all here on this thread it seems.

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

Sorry, trying to discuss this with you is feeling like the equivalent to getting a kick in the balls!!:pac:

So are you in favour of compulsory Shakespeare then?

If you're wrong all the time it might feel like that alright...
As part of a compulsory English curriculum yes, learning a pivotal literary figure's output is important. Plus how to analyze and interpret, which are skills transferrable to modern English usage.
Wouldn't kill me if they dumped it mind, but still more use than learning a dead language like Irish.

Deranged96

Ah lads who resurrected this thread? can we not let sleeping dogs (languages) lie? Apparently not so here I go

Is there any point discussing the school system? I think everyone is in agreement that changes have to be made, including optional Irish at LC level.

Nobody is pressing for Ireland to speak Irish at the determinant of English. This straw man has cropped up a couple of times since the second coming of this thread. English is an invaluable asset. Clearly anyone suggesting that we abandon the most lucrative and far reaching tongue on the planet is an imbecile.

I think that most proponents of Gaeilge wish to see it as a language that's spoken on a habitual basis by the Irish people, just enough so that it is visible and prominent (but not dominant) in day to day life.

This video is a sad watch, the Irish language will never see such dire straights as it is a valued academic language but one wonders if spoken Irish is headed down a similar path.


Irish culture is more or less, redundant. We lost most of it with Christianity and later on we cast aside some dead weight to become a modern nation. I think its time that we allow the Irish language, our most important link to our heritage, a chance. With a competent minister at the helm, good will, prudent expenditure and a good plan, there is no ceiling

In Finland and Sweden they have multiple official languages and dialects, and they're all doing just fine.

Carlos Orange

Dughorm wrote: »

Sorry, trying to discuss this with you is feeling like the equivalent to getting a kick in the balls!!:pac:

So are you in favour of compulsory Shakespeare then?

I checked. Shakespeare is optional.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As part of a compulsory English curriculum yes, learning a pivotal literary figure's output is important. Plus how to analyze and interpret, which are skills transferrable to modern English usage.
Wouldn't kill me if they dumped it mind, but still more use than learning a dead language like Irish.

Those transferable skills are in Irish also with the added benefit of a proper grounding in grammar which is wholly missing in the English curriculum. Learning Shakespeare is of no additional benefit going on your criteria. Why not learn the output of pivotal literary figures in both languages I say...

I happen to favour both being compulsory. But that's because of my philosophy of education.

Shep_Dog

Dughorm wrote: »

So are you in favour of compulsory Shakespeare then?

I'm in favour of compulsory English-language education for native English-speakers or Irish speakers who wish to speak English. The inclusion of Shakespeare in the English-language curriculum seems a wise choice

But we digress, we are discussing why the Irish language has failed despite it being compulsory for everyone to learn it. Perhaps it is an Irish cultural trait to rebel against oppressive acts just as we did against the British? This might explain things.

Dughorm

psinno wrote: »

I checked. Shakespeare is optional.

Since when? which exams are you referring to?

Dughorm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

I'm in favour of compulsory English-language education for native English-speakers or Irish speakers who wish to speak English. The inclusion of Shakespeare in the English-language curriculum seems a wise choice

But Shakespeare isn't useful which seems to be criteria of many speakers here....

I happen to have used a lot more leaving cert Irish than Shakespearean English I tell you! Not that I have anything against Shakespeare!

Dughorm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

But we digress, we are discussing why the Irish language has failed despite it being compulsory for everyone to learn it. Perhaps it is an Irish cultural trait to rebel against oppressive acts just as we did against the British? This might explain things.

Was learning Shakespeare an oppressive act for you or just part of a decent education? Have you used it since school or are you still rebelling against it?

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

But Shakespeare isn't useful which seems to be criteria of many speakers here....

For the 99% of the country who NEVER use Irish after leaving school, Shakespeare is far more useful than Irish.

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

Was learning Shakespeare an oppressive act for you or just part of a decent education? Have you used it since school or are you still rebelling against it?

If you think you haven't used any English that's been around since Shakespeare you should go back to school TBH.

Dughorm

Deranged96 wrote: »

Is there any point discussing the school system? I think everyone is in agreement that changes have to be made, including optional Irish at LC level.

I don't

Deranged96 wrote: »

Irish culture is more or less, redundant. We lost most of it with Christianity and later on we cast aside some dead weight to become a modern nation.

What? Not in the slightest - Irish culture is omnipresent! Music, Film, Literature, Language, Sport, Drama, History, Dance, Humour.... celebrated by world every year!!

Deranged96 wrote: »

I think its time that we allow the Irish language, our most important link to our heritage, a chance. With a competent minister at the helm, good will, prudent expenditure and a good plan, there is no ceiling

What a lovely idea! And with 1916 anniversary coming up what a great opportunity to start!

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

For the 99% of the country who NEVER use Irish after leaving school, Shakespeare is far more useful than Irish.

I genuinely find that hard to believe... depends what you mean by "useful" of course.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you think you haven't used any English that's been around since Shakespeare you should go back to school TBH.

But using your logic, surely I don't need to study Shakespeare to use the English that's been around since Shakespeare's time!