School Irish refers to the standardised Irish taught in schools and grammar books. Its an artificial language; not artificial in the sense that it was made by man, as all languages are made by men...and women ; but artificial in the sense that the laws and rules concerning the language were intentionally made up by a small group of people trying to follow certain guidelines. This is in contrast to how languages are suppose to develop i.e naturally and slowly over time. Thus, the language changed hugely in the space of 10 years and is continuing to change with great pace. Languages must remain dynamic and move with the times if they are to survive; but the rate of change and over-simplification of Irish is just enormous.

The standard was suppose to make learning Irish easier as it standardised spelling, grammar and to a certain extent vocabulary. It combined certain aspects of each dialect i.e some features of Munster Irish, barely any features of Ulster Irish (a utter disgrace), a heavy bias towards Connacht Irish (as it is seen as the bridge between Munster and Ulster Irish) and some features of extinct dialects (which I personally don't have a problem with), .

Natural or Gaeltacht Irish is the language as it is spoken in the regions of Ireland that have retained Irish as the everyday vernacular of the people since whenever Irish became the dominant language of Ireland. Some aspects of Gaeltacht Irish are not accepted in the Caighdeán/ Standard even though they have long historical roots stemming into Old Irish.

The standard was never intended to replace Gaeltacht Irish; it was suppose to be the language of formality, government and school. However, it is eroding Gaeltacht Irish in Gaeltacht areas. Also, the standard formalised the language and parted it from being a language (a means of expression and communication) and turned it into a subject to be learned (so yeah, you could say the emphasis is very much on grammar and not communication). It could very well be argued that if Irish speaking parents continued to speak the native language to their children then the "Caighdeán" may not be eroding the native vernacular itself. However, the formalisation and hegemony of the standard combined with natives being corrected on their Irish in schools may have turned children and parents away from speaking their native tongue, combined with this is the irony, like the song says "you don't know what you have until it is gone"; where native speakers took their own language for granted and saw better opportunities in speaking the language of the world i.e English. This is still occurring today.

A lot of native speakers are at odds with the Standard as they feel it alienates them from their own language; the language that has been past down to them generation by generation. Dialectal Irish is no longer published, instead the work is highly Standardised and resources for learning dialectal Irish are either not in existence, in the case of Ulster Irish, or out of print. Thankfully, the problem is not as bad as the plight of Breton were native language speakers are almost ridiculed.

The standard also fosters a few problems: There is no guidelines on pronunciation, nor is proper, native pronunciation thought in schools. This results is most pupils, and I mean most, and a lot of teachers having very poor pronunciation skills. Their pronunciation is heavily based on their mother tongue i.e English and they cannot distinguish between broad and slender consonants, the native "r" or many other features. I am often mocked for speaking Irish like an Irish person, in a country where most people pronounce Irish as if they were foreigners. I don't mean this in an élites way, I am not a native speaker, I am a product of the school system. However, I was not blind or ignorant to the situation either, as most people are.

The other problem, isn't really a problem, but it kind of is. The standard also acts, unintentionally (I hope), as a funnel for Béarlachas and Béarlachas phrases and perspectives to enter the language at a unsustainable rate often displacing already fully functional native words and expressions. It does this of course, as the "Standardised" language is that of the learner and it is only natural for the learner's mother tongue to influence the language that it has learned. This results in much of the literature that is produced today, through the medium of Irish, by Irish-learners as being heavy-handed on Béarlachas and in my opinion lacks the character, turn of phrase and native expressions that can be seen in the works of the truly native speakers of the pre-1960/70s era.

One could argue that the native language is not free from Béarlachas either and that Conamara Irish is heavily influenced by English. Indeed, the native language is not free from Béarlachas. However, I would put the counter-argument forward that in the case of Gaeltacht Irish, it is native Irish speaker, a person that his expression and perspective is governed by the Irish language; a person (who used to anyway) upon seeing the the colour, of what the English-language-perspective and interpretation would see as orange, would call it buí. The colour "glas" for him does not automatically mean green, but could be a shade of blue. This difference in perspective is just not confined to "colour" but style of expression and syntax and much more. So, when the Conamara speaker adopts and interprets an English word and idiom he/she processes it with an Irish-language mind-set and perspective resulting in the English word being Gaelicised and the word itself takes on a new identity.

Contrast this with an Irish learner, whose mother tongue is English, when he/ she interprets Irish it is done so with an English-language mindset and psychology. likewise, when a Irish-learner expresses himself/ herself in Irish, an English-language mind set is also used i.e do you think in English when you are speaking and writing Irish? To not do this takes years, upon years of immersion and practice (but when your examples to follow have the same problem as you do, the the problem becomes circular, ever repeating itself). This can lead to the Irish language being processed through English-language thought, resulting in Béarlachas. All that said, many people of the Gaeltacht have adopted English as their mother tongue and continue to do so; you only have to contrast the Irish of Gaeltacht children now with that of their grandparents and the distinction is clear, not just in expression but in pronunciation and every other aspect of the language.

I applaud learners of Irish to the high-heavens and I applaud people who speak Irish with their children as the vernacular of the home (learners or natives) even more. I really don't care how many mistakes people are making, once they strive to rectify these mistakes. My hope is that Irish language learners may be assimilated into the corpus of native Irish speakers and not the other way around. This happens naturally in other languages as the body of native speakers far out-weigh the body of learners. Hopefully, we can build a future for Irish together in a system where everyone feels included and not ridiculed, where we uphold the identity and integrity of the language and thus uphold our own identity. This may have seen overally critical of the learner, it did not intend to be so, instead I aimed to highlight the challenges faced by learners and natives alike, challenges that we may not see coming. My view may seem overally romanticised and nativist, I certainly will concede to that.

Crossed with everyone and apologies about how long it is !

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

I had a similar experience when I was in second year (8 grade). I first learned about dialects and the fact that what we were learning wasn't "real" Irish at all, it was standard. I remember feeling utterly betrayed and I lost all my interest in the language for awhile, after being so passionate about it up 'til then. That experience made me question everything that was put in front to me from then on out. The experience encouraged me to explore dialects and native pronunciation, which I thought, ignorantly, before that was just a different, weird dialect compared to mine. In the end that experience and my awakening to what I would consider as "real" Irish only strengthened my connection with the language and opened up a whole new cultural enlightenment for me.

I was lucky enough to attend an excellent naíonra and Gaelscoil for primary school, although we wrote in standard Irish we practiced a form of Kerry Irish- spelling and pronouncing inniu as inniuimh, dearmad as dearúd, tirim as t'rim srl... The emphasis was very much on learning the language naturally through speech and songs and listening to the teachers. Just as a native speaker would learn. I maintain that this is the best way to learn a language and normalise it in that fashion rather than having artificial, heavy grammar lessons. I do admit though, having everything done naturally like that left a huge gap in my knowledge, I knew it was an bhean bheag and ag an ngeata but I never knew why. Gaps, which I have only been filling in properly with the last 4 years. Also, learning everything by ear and mouth led to misconceptions that I had to rectify, but still I do believe emphasis should be placed on speech and song especially at such a young at impressionable age.



The leaving Cert course hadn't changed at all by the time I did my Leaving Cert in 2010, huge emphasis on literature. Although, we were well geared for that as we attended a Meánscoil lán-Ghaelach and a Gaeltacht school where all our subjects were taught through Irish (except English, but including foreign languages). Some courses like history, biology and geography didn't have the text books through Irish, so a lot of our learning resources were in English. Something, I hope an Gúm and the Department of education get around to remedying fairly soon.

The course has changed, however, for the detriment of the language and nothing really has occurred except a simplification of the course. When I attended school we had to do around 12-15 poems (these were proper poems/songs like Úrchill an Chreagáín and Mo Ghile Mear, 6-7 gearrscéalta (fiche bliain ag fás srl..) and the whole book of Maidhc Dainín. The course now only requires 5 poems (only 2 of them hold any merit as literature i.e an tEarrach Thiar and an Spailpín Fánach); 5 very short gearrscéalta and only one third of Maidhc Dainín.

You might say great that gives more time to emphasis the spoken language, well it does, or to the outsider it does. An average scrúdú béil when I was doing leaving Cert lasted 15 mins, even though the scrúdú béil is worth a lot more marks now it still only lasts 15 min.

When I did my scrúdú béil you had the:

the greeting (2 min, at most)
A piece from a dialectal extract that we had seen before (in order to gauge or reading and pronunciation skills) (3 min, at most)
And then a full blown conversation 10 min)

now you have:

the greeting (2 min)
You read a 2 verses from a one of the 5 poems you have already studied as part of the course) (3min)
Sraicphictiúr (a sequence of 20 possible picture conversations, that students write out and learn off and hope the ones they know best comes up- a false conversation if you like. The teacher then asks you 2 questions regarding the sraicphictiúr that you must answer off the cuff and you must ask the examiner 2 questions as well) (on average 7 min)
Actual real general conversation, about 3-4 minutes, 5 if your lucky.

Most people learned off answers to questions for the general conversation anyway, the examination commission cannot help that, but it is blindingly obvious when answers are learned off because the student sounds like a robot and keeps saying "am am am ama". The sraicphictiúir have just replaced the essays you learned of for literature! Would you call that an emphasis on speaking the language I certainly don't. They say the sraicphictiúir will help with vocabulary and conversational skills, but only if the conversation you are having in real life is exactly what it is like in the pictures in front of you.

If I was doing my leaving Cert now, I would not benefit at all from the current curriculum, it would only be to the detriment of my Irish learning and my Irish learning experience. We were never encouraged to learn questions off, plus limiting Maidhc Dainín's book to s third would also have greatly hindered my development, as no book since or before has helped me to understand the turn of phrase of Gaeltacht native Irish than Maidhc Dainín's A thig na Tit Orm.

This current curriculum will only prove to lower the standards of the top achievers, but it will help raise those struggling at the bottom- a psuedo-improvement on the bell curve! If you ask me they were lazy in their approach instead of trying to bring about change by restructuring the whole Irish curriculum i.e from the bottom up, the changed it from the top down, to heed quick results but no benefit in mind for the language at all!




This is exactly what made me mad in the first place when I was in second year, it felt I had to begin my language learning all over again. Native pronunciation is still not taught or emphasised now. This is exactly what I mean by a restructuring from the bottom up. The results will be slow, but I believe there is great benefit to be had for the language if things like this are emphasised!

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

Cupla focal - two small words lán de bhrí.

_________________
Múinteoir Gaeilge - Irish Teacher
My "specialty" is Connemara Irish, particularly Cois Fhairrge dialect, but I can also speak Ulster and Munster Irish with native-level pronunciation.
Is fearr Gaeilge ḃriste ná Béarla cliste, cinnte, aċ i ḃfad níos fearr aríst í Gaeilge ḃinn ḃeo na nGaeltaċtaí.
Gaeilge Chonnacht (GC), go háraid Gaeilge Chois Fhairrge (GCF), Gaeilic Uladh (GU), Gaelainn na Mumhan (GM), agus Gaeilge an Chaighdeáin Oifigiúil (CO).

cinnte!

Leanann ceist amháin ceist eile is léiríonn an éigse eadoimhneacht do chuid eolais!

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

There's a line that uses "cúpla" for "couple" in one of the songs from Hyde's "Religious Songs of Connacht": Muire agus Naomh Seosamh. I believe that book was originally published in 1906, and is a compilation of Connacht sacred songs collected by Hyde. So it may or may not be Béarlachas, but it's definitely not something we can pin on TG4.

Redwolf

Its definitely Béarlachas, Dineen doesn't give "cúpla" as meaning " a couple" i.e lovers. Neither does Focal.ie and neither does FGB.

I am not blaming TG4 for making the connection I am blaming TG4 for spreading its misuse .

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

What I was saying, though, is it evidently WAS in use to mean "couple" (i.e., lovers) in Connacht as early as 1906. Douglas Hyde collected the songs as he found them there, and in Muire agus Naomh Seosamh, "cúpla" definitely means "couple" as in a married pair, as the verse in question is referring to Mary and Joseph walking in a garden.

Redwolf

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice

A Chionnfhaolach... 'S é seo an rud is corraithí a léigh mé riamh

Dheara thá i bhfad níos mó dea-sgéala/dea-sgéalta ná droch-sgéala ann a mhic, ach ní labhratar mar gheall air na droch-sgéaltaibh i n-aon chor agus cuirtear dallamallóg air dhaoinibh dá bhárr san.

_________________

Please wait for corrections/ more input from other forum members before acting on advice