The Irish language is failing.

Bored_lad

Reiver wrote: »

Agreed. It's meant to be inclusive.

Thats on thing non Irish people seem to think is that us Irish speakers think we are superior and snobby but we're not we're just like you and don't look down on you or think we are better than you. We don't see you as being any less Irish or ourselves being anymore Irish just because you and I can or can't speak Irish.

actua11

My personal stance is that we should all aim to have our native language as our 1st language, as most countries in Europe do along with English and has done them no harm (Sweden, Norway, Netherlands etc. etc.)

Also, specifically about the Gaeltacht areas, I've not seen figures but being protected rural areas, job availability, planning permission for new homes and other issues must be driving people away from the area, diminishing the number of the more mainly Irish language users.

About Irish, my guess is that the bad experiences that some (or perhaps most) people had learning the language has left a kind of Pavlovian response with people.

I can understand that if your speaking in a language that someone in the room doesn't understand, it can be seen as rude. However I've many many cases with friends and family where I try to drop in even a simple "Conas a tá tú?" or something similar that I know they understand and it's almost always met with a "why talk like that" or "cop on" type response.

I'm almost reminded of Del-Boy in Only Fools and Horses who try to drop in the odd bit of French in the same way, or how people try to speak a little Spanish at the bar on their holidays.

People it seems have no issue learning even the odd few words of a language, but it seems to be more of a case that the language itself isn't a problem but the reputation is in tatters of how it's taught and it's place in Irish society. Though I'm not sure how to go about fixing this reputation....

4zn76tysfajdxp

actua11 wrote: »

My personal stance is that we should all aim to have our native language as our 1st language, as most countries in Europe do along with English and has done them no harm (Sweden, Norway, Netherlands etc. etc.)

In fairness, that will never happen.

Shrap

feargale wrote: »

This is unfair to Aineoil who has told a tale which illustrates to all save the blind that all the rudeness and intolerance attaching to this issue does not rest on one side. You should address that tale before smokescreening it by attempting to drag Aineoil into another issue which, to my knowledge, has not been touched on by Aineoil.

I have nothing against Aineoil at all, and he/she came back with a well thought out comment on what I had presented in my post. I think you are doing he/she down by not giving credit for he/she to be able to answer to my statement of fact. He/she did indeed answer rather well actually. Did you spot that?

BTW, "smokescreening", "dragging", etc. are not how I would describe my polite and personal/subjective posts here, but if you have a problem with them, as the mods say, report them.

Shrap

Bored_lad wrote: »

Thats on thing non Irish people seem to think is that us Irish speakers think we are superior and snobby but we're not we're just like you and don't look down on you or think we are better than you. We don't see you as being any less Irish or ourselves being anymore Irish just because you and I can or can't speak Irish.

Mostly I think you have been conversing with Irish people who do not speak the language. Considering the posts that have already claimed I didn't try well enough, that I clearly wasn't cut out for college, and how I've passed on my feelings towards Irish to my kids (thereby failing them), it's actually been made pretty obvious how "having Irish" makes you superior to some of us other Irish.

Deranged96

Shep_Dog wrote: »

His conceit of there being an 'Irish Race'? His dismissal of anyone showing an interest in English culture as merely imitating the English? His attack on English literature: [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"We must set our face sternly against penny dreadfuls, shilling shockers, and still more, the garbage of vulgar English weeklies like Bow Bells and the Police Intelligence. Every house should have a copy of Moore and Davis....[/FONT]"

The context is the Gaelic Revival which reinvented and re-packaged Irish culture for political reasons.

The absurd notion of the 'Irish Race'. Compulsory Irish. The aim of restoring Irish as common language of Ireland.

If I say I don't like produced american music, that its influence is destroying other forms of music, does that make me a hater of America?

I've already said to you that Hyde resigned in his role of president of Conradh na Gaelige when it became political, the he wanted the language to unite rather than divide .So clearly, he had no political agenda despite your unfounded vitriol.

You're blaming Hyde for the notion of an "Irish race"? Himself, Yeats and Cusack were simply awful for wanting to preserve and promote their heritage, weren't they? How dare they fool Irish people into thinking they have a distinct culture!

Irish should not be compulsory, but you can hardly harbour such a hate for him just because he wanted to save the language, can you? The way it has been taught has had more of a negative effect than its mandatory nature.

I cant really understand why you're contriving reasons to hate the man for supporting the language.

actua11

Alice Gifted Zenith wrote: »

In fairness, that will never happen.

I'd cite somewhere like Israel as being an example where you can bring a language back to life and prominence so it is possible and I hope it can happen but...even as an eternal optimist I'd tend to side with you, as at this moment I just can't see it happening.

ThinkProgress

Bored_lad wrote: »

Thats on thing non Irish people seem to think is that us Irish speakers think we are superior and snobby but we're not we're just like you and don't look down on you or think we are better than you. We don't see you as being any less Irish or ourselves being anymore Irish just because you and I can or can't speak Irish.

You should speak for yourself. Many others I've met have a different attitude!

But I commend you on YOUR attitude - (however I'm still not learning a dead language)

Reiver

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But I commend you on YOUR attitude - (however I'm still not learning a dead language)

Latin is dead. Gaulish is dead. Irish is not.

Shep_Dog

Deranged96 wrote: »

You're blaming Hyde for the notion of an "Irish race"? Himself, Yeats and Cusack were simply awful for wanting to preserve and promote their heritage, weren't they? How dare they fool Irish people into thinking they have a distinct culture!
...
I cant really understand why you're contriving reasons to hate the man for supporting the language.

Where do I say that I hate him? I criticised what he wrotein that essay. It's unbalanced and lacks objectivity. I then criticised the outcome of the process he started. It's no surprise that Irish is in a mess when its revival was founded on myths, bigotry and half-truths.

It's one thing to say a group of people have a distinct culture, quite another to say they are a separate race.

tawnyowl

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As long as Irish is made optional in secondary school I can agree with this.

Making Irish optional in secondary school would be controversial.

ThinkProgress

Reiver wrote: »

Latin is dead. Gaulish is dead. Irish is not.

People still speak latin, actually there are more latin speakers than Irish speakers in the world.

But both are still DEAD languages in the practical sense of mass communication!

So yes, I stand by my statement. DEAD language.

ThinkProgress

tawnyowl wrote: »

Making Irish optional in secondary school would be controversial.

Forget about it then!

We must avoid all controversy. Forever! :P

Reiver

ThinkProgress wrote: »

People still speak latin, actually there are more latin speakers than Irish speakers in the world.

But both are still DEAD languages in the practical sense of mass communication!

So yes, I stand by my statement. DEAD language.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/dead-language

Dictionary is against you. Irish is still spoken by thousands of people as their main language. Latin is not.

Deranged96

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Where do I say that I hate him? I criticised what he wrotein that essay. It's unbalanced and lacks objectivity. I then criticised the outcome of the process he started. It's no surprise that Irish is in a mess when its revival was founded on myths, bigotry and half-truths.

It's one thing to say a group of people have a distinct culture, quite another to say they are a separate race.

To be fair, it was never actually revived.
Don't know of the myths and half-truths that you're alluding to.
Of course it's an unbalanced essay, it was written to promote Irish not list the advantages of English
I assumed that calling his legacy toxic was an indictment on the man, leading me to use the word "hate".

Not sure about this race thing, the word is empty as far as human biology is concerned but it's hardly an atrocity to bill Irish people as the Irish race.

4zn76tysfajdxp

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So yes, I stand by my statement. DEAD language.

Yeah but it's not, though.

Iwasfrozen

tawnyowl wrote: »

Making Irish optional in secondary school would be controversial.

Yes, but we should do the right thing controversial or not.

ThinkProgress

Reiver wrote: »

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/dead-language

Dictionary is against you. Irish is still spoken by thousands of people as their main language. Latin is not.

I really should just ignore all your comments and points like you do mine. But I'm not lazy and I don't run away from a debate!

I guarantee you that latin is better understood by more people in this world than Irish is. It's a mute point wether it's actually actively used.

Apart from tiny little portions of this huge planet, Irish is completely irrelevant as language for communication.

I agree that languages have cultural significance, but mostly they must be actively used for communication by a LOT of people to justify keeping them alive!

Irish is dying, and in many areas it's already long dead.

English is our true national language. Irish will never be revived to become our first language. So as our national language, Irish is DEAD!

Reiver

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I really should just ignore all your comments and points like you do mine. But I'm not lazy and I don't run away from a debate!

I guarantee you that latin is better understood by more people in this world than Irish is. It's a mute point wether it's actually actively used.

Apart from tiny little portions of this huge planet, Irish is completely irrelevant as language for communication.

I agree that languages have cultural significance, but mostly they must be actively used for communication by a LOT of people to justify keeping them alive!

Irish is dying, and in many areas it's already long dead.

English is our true national language. Irish will never be revived to become our first language. So as our national language, Irish is DEAD!

Heh. That is good timing considering I went for a run this evening!

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it but it's not dead yet. Naturally Latin is far more understood across the world. But it's not a language in daily use by people as their primary language.

Irish is. It's still the language of families, still a community language in some small parts of Ireland. So it's not dead.

kingchess

ThinkProgress wrote: »

People still speak latin, actually there are more latin speakers than Irish speakers in the world.

But both are still DEAD languages in the practical sense of mass communication!

So yes, I stand by my statement. DEAD language.

By your standards then the Welsh Language is also a dead language in the practical sense of mass communication,-despite the fact that 19% of Welsh people say they speak it,..anyway I think Irish should be optional in secondary school.

Deranged96

Is everyone in agreement that it should be optional at second level with a big oul syllabus shake up?

ThinkProgress

Reiver wrote: »

Heh. That is good timing considering I went for a run this evening!

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it but it's not dead yet. Naturally Latin is far more understood across the world. But it's not a language in daily use by people as their primary language.

Irish is. It's still the language of families, still a community language in some small parts of Ireland. So it's not dead.

It shouldn't be classed as our national language.

There's nearly more polish speakers than Irish speakers in this country - I think there actually was up to a few years ago!

Maybe we should make polish compulsory in Irish schools too? :pac:

Reiver

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It shouldn't be classed as our national language.

There's nearly more polish speakers than Irish speakers in this country - I think there actually was up to a few years ago!

Maybe we should make polish compulsory in Irish schools too? :pac:

Well it is. Native speakers have the right to do their business in Irish if they so choose. It's a tongue that's been spoken the longest on our island and deserves to be protected in our constitution.

Polish is protected by the Polish constitution. Just as Irish is by ours.

ThinkProgress

Deranged96 wrote: »

Is everyone in agreement that it should be optional at second level with a big oul syllabus shake up?

Should be optional in primary too.

Or at least taught as a supplementary subject like art etc. But not as a core subject.

Why is primary different? If it's a national shift, then it affects children of all ages surely?

Reiver

Deranged96 wrote: »

Is everyone in agreement that it should be optional at second level with a big oul syllabus shake up?

Shake up wouldn't be the word I'd use. Completely scrap and rewrite it more like.

feargale

Shrap wrote: »

I have nothing against Aineoil at all, and he/she came back with a well thought out comment on what I had presented in my post. I think you are doing he/she down by not giving credit for he/she to be able to answer to my statement of fact. He/she did indeed answer rather well actually. Did you spot that?

BTW, "smokescreening", "dragging", etc. are not how I would describe my polite and personal/subjective posts here, but if you have a problem with them, as the mods say, report them.

:rolleyes:

An Ciarraioch

All that said, the Duolingo course is approaching the three-quarters of a million learner mark, so there does seem to be an interest in the language if approached in a similar manner.

tawnyowl

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, but we should do the right thing controversial or not.

The controversy would be is it the right thing or wrong thing.

ThinkProgress

Reiver wrote: »

Well it is. Native speakers have the right to do their business in Irish if they so choose. It's a tongue that's been spoken the longest on our island and deserves to be protected in our constitution.

Polish is protected by the Polish constitution. Just as Irish is by ours.

We should protect it, but that doesn't mean we should give it the status of main language. Because clearly it's not our main language, and never will be!

We should protect it like we protect other historical things. Like the way we protect the book of kells etc.

That's what the Irish language essentially is for the majority on this island - History!

But spending tens of millions trying (fruitlessly) to revive it as our main language? Foolishness!

ThinkProgress

tawnyowl wrote: »

The controversy would be is it the right thing or wrong thing.

If we had a referendum tomorrow, which side do you think would win?

riclad

IF you can speak german, french, italian you can get a job in a call centre,
or maybe work for eu company.
Everyone in ireland speaks english.
After school, irish has little practical value, unless you are a teacher ,
or work in rte,or tg4.
The government may spend billions on irish ,
but it cant keep the language alive.
There,s probably more people in ireland who speak polish or other european languages than speak irish in everyday life .
IF half the money spent on irish was spent on computers in schools ,or
upgrading school buildings and employing teaching assistants
we would all be better off as a nation .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deranged96 wrote: »

Is everyone in agreement that it should be optional at second level with a big oul syllabus shake up?

Everyone except the idiots who set the syallabus, yes.

Iwasfrozen

tawnyowl wrote: »

The controversy would be is it the right thing or wrong thing.

Well let's have that debate. I'm 100% sure making Irish optional is the right thing to do, let's drag it out into the open and talk about it.

Deranged96

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Should be optional in primary too.

Or at least taught as a supplementary subject like art etc. But not as a core subject.

Why is primary different? If it's a national shift, then it affects children of all ages surely?

I now have a mental scene in my head where two four year olds are discussing whether they'll bother with Irish or not :P

No, it should be compulsory at primary level like history and geography are. Learning another language from a young age is beneficial, and all secondary school would carry Irish whereas not all secondary schools have the array of continental languages

dissed doc

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What makes you think it will decline? English has far more total speakers than Spanish or Arabic. The latter is barely even one language anymore.

Because that is what it has been doing for years. NO reason for the trend to change, especially as non-English use of the internet accelerates.

In the mid-90s it was around 80% or more of the Internet in English. However, it is now estimated to be only around 30-40% of internet websites that are in English. There have a been a tonne of studies on it, but Anglocentric search or news sites rarely report it, and the typical search engines only index an estimated 30% of the web now.

There is still an ever growing number of websites, but the percentage of the whole in terms of language has shown an ongoing steady decline in English, and steady growth in the others. The Anglo-web-world won't dissappear, but rather the growth will be elsewhere.

native English speakers only account for around 25% of internet users now, compared to 20 years ago when it was 80-90%. In that time, use among Mandarin and Arabic speakers has exploded. Much of it is not indexed by Anglo-centric search engines. We have already passed "Peak English".

Iwasfrozen

dissed doc wrote: »

Because that is what it has been doing for years. NO reason for the trend to change, especially as non-English use of the internet accelerates.

In the mid-90s it was around 80% or more of the Internet in English. However, it is now estimated to be only around 30-40% of internet websites that are in English. There have a been a tonne of studies on it, but Anglocentric search or news sites rarely report it, and the typical search engines only index an estimated 30% of the web now.

There is still an ever growing number of websites, but the percentage of the whole in terms of language has shown an ongoing steady decline in English, and steady growth in the others. The Anglo-web-world won't dissappear, but rather the growth will be elsewhere.

native English speakers only account for around 25% of internet users now, compared to 20 years ago when it was 80-90%. In that time, use among Mandarin and Arabic speakers has exploded. Much of it is not indexed by Anglo-centric search engines. We have already passed "Peak English".

That's interesting and highlights the importance of Irish students learning useful languages instead of wasting time on a soon to be dead language.

Irish is a brain dead language take it off the machine and it will flatline.

Grayson

Reiver wrote: »

Latin is dead. Gaulish is dead. Irish is not.

It depends on your definition of dead. For a brief period Irish was considered dead by the EU. It didn't have enough speakers to qualify as an official language. It became a "Treaty Language" at the behest of the Irish government. This means that all EU publications are translated into Irish.

Dirty Dingus McGee

I find the attitude that just because Irish is becoming less common and may well die out that we should not bother doing something about it.

Does that mean that no efforts should be made to try and prevent endangered animals from becoming extinct.

Baggy Trousers

Grayson wrote: »

It depends on your definition of dead. For a brief period Irish was considered dead by the EU. It didn't have enough speakers to qualify as an official language. It became a "Treaty Language" at the behest of the Irish government. This means that all EU publications are translated into Irish.

And this is absolutely ridiculous and only drives bitterness with the language. A complete and utter waste of money...and don't even pretend to tell me it's not.

ThinkProgress

Deranged96 wrote: »

I now have a mental scene in my head where two four year olds are discussing whether they'll bother with Irish or not :P

No, it should be compulsory at primary level like history and geography are. Learning another language from a young age is beneficial, and all secondary school would carry Irish whereas not all secondary schools have the array of continental languages

Bit strange having compulsory irish for younger minds, but not older ones? Especially considering younger kids are still trying to master english anyway.

Judging from the rubbish standard when they reach secondary, i'd say it's not serving much purpose for them. Just focus more on english and maths.

A shift away from compulsory Irish would have to go right down the educational ladder. Otherwise it's a hollow change! The reason for making it optional is to make room for other studies or more time spent on skills they're going to use everyday.

There is more value in keeping history and geography. Irish is different to them I think.

I would be in favor of primary kids learning a small bit of Irish. Just some basics. But not a heavy focus on it.

It's stupid that you need strong Irish to be a primary teacher in this country. That would no longer be necessary, which would be a positive move imo.

Then just teach Irish as an optional subject the same way we teach french or german - start from scratch at 12/13 years old.

Grayson

dissed doc wrote: »

Because that is what it has been doing for years. NO reason for the trend to change, especially as non-English use of the internet accelerates.

In the mid-90s it was around 80% or more of the Internet in English. However, it is now estimated to be only around 30-40% of internet websites that are in English. There have a been a tonne of studies on it, but Anglocentric search or news sites rarely report it, and the typical search engines only index an estimated 30% of the web now.

There is still an ever growing number of websites, but the percentage of the whole in terms of language has shown an ongoing steady decline in English, and steady growth in the others. The Anglo-web-world won't dissappear, but rather the growth will be elsewhere.

native English speakers only account for around 25% of internet users now, compared to 20 years ago when it was 80-90%. In that time, use among Mandarin and Arabic speakers has exploded. Much of it is not indexed by Anglo-centric search engines. We have already passed "Peak English".

In 1995 thee were about 3000 websites. Most were based out of the US.

Now there's loads more but they're in majority languages, not minority ones like Irish. By that I mean Chinese, French, German etc...

I wouldn't say we've passed peak english. Not when the comparison you're making is between a nascent technology and now. IF you want to do that you can say we passed peak english when it expanded beyond the first two networked computers.

mickstupp

EDIT: never mind, someone else said it.

Duckworth_Luas

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If we had a referendum tomorrow, which side do you think would win?

A referendum on what?

Deranged96

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Bit strange having compulsory irish for younger minds, but not older ones? Especially considering younger kids are still trying to master english anyway.

Judging from the rubbish standard when they reach secondary, i'd say it's not serving much purpose for them. Just focus more on english and maths.

A shift away from compulsory Irish would have to go right down the educational ladder. Otherwise it's a hollow change! The reason for making it optional is to make room for other studies or more time spent on skills they're going to use everyday.

There is more value in keeping history and geography. Irish is different to them I think.

I would be in favor of primary kids learning a small bit of Irish. Just some basics. But not a heavy focus on it.

It's stupid that you need strong Irish to be a primary teacher in this country. That would no longer be necessary, which would be a positive move imo.

Then just teach Irish as an optional subject the same way we teach french or german - start from scratch at 12/13 years old.

A language isn't something you can only look at once or twice a week, it needs to be used regularly for competency.

Are we not all bemoaning the fact that you can spend 14 years at school and not be able to speak Irish? In a system where the focus is on spoken Irish, children going into first year would take to Irish well providing they've got a good foundation from primary level.

I remember no primary school georgaphy, apart from Irish counties- and I even had to look up which counties belonged to NI a few weeks ago but I can remember a nature walk we did were the teacher told us the names of trees, plants and animals as gaeilge it's a very holistic subject imo. In a la la land were it was compulsory at Primary level with a solid Optional secondly school course, there would be a lot of people confident in their Irish without a need of Further study such as is required with continental language we learn form 1st year.

What was the story with Latin in school in the bygone days, oldies?

Reiver

Grayson wrote: »

It depends on your definition of dead. For a brief period Irish was considered dead by the EU. It didn't have enough speakers to qualify as an official language. It became a "Treaty Language" at the behest of the Irish government. This means that all EU publications are translated into Irish.

It wasn't considered dead, it just wasn't accorded working language status. It was a treaty language from the start and you could even use it in the court if you wanted.

dlouth15

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Yeah I can see if being a bit exaggerated, but the main point still stands.

A huge huge number of people who say they can speak Irish simply don't do so in their daily life.

I doubt if people are outright lying when they say they speak Irish on the census when in fact only a tiny minority actually do speak it.

Irish is an unusual language in that it is universally taught in schools but, for the most part, not spoken or used outside of an academic or official context. For the majority of people, therefore, knowing Irish doesn't mean being able to speak it in the way one might be able to speak French.

Speaking French means that one should have some ability to go to France and understand and converse with the people there. Speaking Irish on the other hand means knowing a few phrases and being able to pass an exam.

Knowing French is useful for conversing in French speaking countries and understanding. Irish is useful for getting into university, advancement in certain jobs, a compulsory subject at school. It is useful if you want to teach it, and so on, but generally not useful for getting by in Ireland where English is the main language.

So when people put down that they "speak Irish" on the census form, it is how it is interpreted that is key.

ThinkProgress

Deranged96 wrote: »

A language isn't something you can only look at once or twice a week, it needs to be used regularly for competency.

Are we not all bemoaning the fact that you can spend 14 years at school and not be able to speak Irish? In a system where the focus is on spoken Irish, children going into first year would take to Irish well providing they've got a good foundation from primary level.

I remember no primary school georgaphy, apart from Irish counties- and I even had to look up which counties belonged to NI a few weeks ago but I can remember a nature walk we did were the teacher told us the names of trees, plants and animals as gaeilge it's a very holistic subject imo. In a la la land were it was compulsory at Primary level with a solid Optional secondly school course, there would be a lot of people confident in their Irish without a need of Further study such as is required with continental language we learn form 1st year.

What was the story with Latin in school in the bygone days, oldies?

But what about parents who don't see the value of learning Irish for their children?

If they object to the compulsory teaching of Irish in secondary, they would probably also object to it being compulsory in primary too?

They might be better served learning some french, german or spanish etc.

I just don't think it could be given core status in primary if it wasn't a core subject in secondary too.

mickstupp

@ Deranged96
In my first year of Latin we covered all of the grammar. Everything. In the following years we did unadapted original texts. But even after the first year, I saw a drastic improvement in the quality of my written English prose. Learning a language like Latin, or Greek, or German I suppose, something with cases, really helps you develop a deeper understanding of how language in general works. After 10 or 12 weeks you're already capable of translating significant chunks of text. After 20 you can handle almost anything with the aid of a dictionary, because the grammatical foundation is solid. After a single year, a Latin student is far more adept at the language than an Irish student after numerous years.

But that doesn't have to be the case. If Irish was taught as a foreign language is, as a second language, giving a firm basis in grammar and understanding the structure of the language, I thoroughly believe we'd all be fluent. I saw a remark here a few years ago on the subject that I think sums it up well. There seems to be some sort of assumption in this country, among those who consider it to be our native language, that there's no need to change how it's taught. We're expected to understand it by osmosis, almost. The thought of teaching it like a normal language is somehow insulting, as if to say we're better than that, it's our language, we must have some sort of innate ability to learn it, and so if we don't then we didn't try hard enough. Not the fault of the system or the teachers.

Which is bull****.

It's equal parts laziness and arrogance, in my opinion. People don't really want to put in the effort to teach it properly. That would require far too much work, reorganising things, writing a new textbook (and it would only require one good one), re-training teachers who are incompetent, setting new syllabuses. They just like to make some noise every now and then, rattle some pots and pans and claim to want to save the language. But there's never any real effort. And I think that's because people are arrogant enough to believe that we don't need to teach it like a normal language, or perhaps that we shouldn't even lower ourselves to consider it on a par with any old foreign language. What, suggest it be taught like Spanish? How dare you! Irish is better than that, because it's our heritage, it's in our blood, our DNA, it's our birthright.

All bull****.

Ironic that it's compulsory in order to maintain our identity but that the experience of having it shoved down our throats causes us to completely turn our backs on it. I wonder if they stopped bullying people into learning it would it actually be used more? Quite a paradox!

mickstupp

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I just don't think it could be given core status in primary if it wasn't a core subject in secondary too.

Why not? Doesn't everyone have to study science for their Junior Certs? That's not a core subject in primary. Can't think of a single rational reason why Irish can't be compulsory in primary and optional in secondary.