Gaelic Activities Programme

[GunChleoc]

Dh'fhuair am post-d inntinneach seo:

Motivated by the great success of the *"Gaelic In The Home"* courses, CNSA now intend to move onto the next step, which is the launching of the exciting and high innovative *"Gaelic Activities Programme"*, starting in Skye, Inverness, Oban, Glasgow and Edinburgh.**

Bearing in mind the above, we now have an ever growing number of newly fluent speakers, who together with a host of already fluent, plus native speakers, are all asking the following question.

Given that we are fluent speakers, where we will use the language?

And of course the answer is, in one or more of the Gaelic centred activities that will be created by the above programme.

It is by way of activities such as cooking, family history, sports, keep fit; indeed the list is endless, that communities are strengthened and made more dynamic; social amenities are enhanced; people's health can be improved; language and culture can flourish; families can find new and enduring ways of bonding, that can be lifelong and endlessly satisfying for all family members. Quality social interaction improves every participants life in any number of ways.

Then again, these activities are ideal for passing the language onto others, be they this, or even more importantly, the next generation; crucial to Gaelic's future survival. While others may be keen to just learn the language for the fun of it. Whatever their arrangement, these activities are perfectly suited for families to embrace and explore as a unit.

An added bonus, would be that we attract lots of older people to come along and join in. Many of us are all too aware that their Gaelic is very often, of the highest quality and therefore, it seems a shame, not for everyone to share in this gift.

Although we have spoken about a variety of activities, we are particularly keen to see strong elements of sport, fitness, healthy diet, language/culture and food strongly promoted. Accordingly, we are seeking anyone who has a skill in these and any other interests, that they would like share with others.

We are always being told that we should get out of our chairs and start "making a real difference", and rightly so.

Well, for a change, why not help "make a real difference" only this time for Gaelic.



To find out how, just contact Finlay Macleoid on (…01542-836322 or email him at finlay@cnsa.org.uk as soon as possible; lets all make it happen soon!

Remember, there is a warm welcome for all comers and one does not need to be able to read or write Gaelic to take part in the activities.

[Níall Beag]

Ooops. Misread it. Withdrawn.

[Fionnlagh]

xxxx

[Fionnlagh]

xxxxx

[neoni]

chaidh an dearbh nì ud a ràdh riumsa, 's mi air a bhith ga h-ionnsachadh fad nas lugha na dà mhìos aig an àm. 's e iognadh gun do chum mi orm idir, agus chan eil rìan nach cuir e stad air luchd-ionnsachaidh eile a' cluinntinn nach e ach a' bheurla le faclan eile a bhios aca.

[Níall Beag]

Unfortunately, if a teacher, teaches through English rather than entirely through Gaelic from the first minute, then naturally the structure used by the learner will leave them and sadly us having to listen to THA and then THA at the beginning of almost every single sentence rather than the vast array of words available to any Gaelic speaker.
Little wonder few if any native Gaelic speakers wish to converse with a learner or have the embarrasment of being so called corrected by a learner who only mouths THA THA THA at the beginning of every sentence as happens regularly.

No, I disagree entirely.

The "tha" problem is introduced when a teacher introduces too much vocabulary, rather than introducing grammar quickly.

It doesn't matter what the language of instruction is -- if the answer to every question asked is "tha" or "chan eil", the learner will generalise these as "yes" and "no" regardless of what the teacher says.

I started learning Gaelic under Margaret MacKinnon (tro meadhan na Bheurla) at a one-week SMO summer course. She taught us the verb "to be" in the past, present and future, declarative and interrogative, and she threw in a couple of other irregular verbs for good measure. What came out of this was that we were all forced to answer questions that in English would be yes/no with various different verbs.

I don't believe we could have covered that ground as quickly if she hadn't been able to simply tell us "you answer the question with the verb". It's a rule that we could apply quickly and easily. I simply have no idea how I would possibly be able to work that out simply from listening and/or mimicking.

I know a lot of people have come through TIP, but I have to question whether this is the only course they have attempted.

My experience in my very brief period teaching English was that the majority of successful students are effectively teaching themselves in between classes, or had effectively already learnt it in previously classes and were effectively only repolishing or learning how to apply previous learning.

I imagine a lot of your students had previously tried learning from Teach Yourself, Colloquial or in some other classes. Even if they never learnt to produce real language from these previous courses, they will have still been consciously aware of some of the peculiarities of Gaelic grammar -- such as the lack of yes and no.

I find it very hard to imagine people coming to recognise such alien features independently.

[Gràisg]

Sgrìobh Ruairidh MacIlleathain san Inverness Courirer (Dihaoine)

'Tha sinn gu cinnteach feumail air cothroman a bharrachd ar cànan a chleachdadh nar beatha làitheil. Tha mise, agus mo leithid, nas fortanaiche na mòran oir tha m' obair gam bhogadh ann an Gàidhlig. Chan ionnan sin don a h-uile duine.'

Tha Ruairidh agus Fionnlagh a' dol gu cnag na cuise, feumaidh cothroman a bhith ann gus ar cuid Gàidhlig a chleachdadh. Cha tèid ath-thilleadh gluasad cànain a choileanadh às aonais. Bu chòir dhuinn a h-uile taic a ghabhas a thoirt don a leithid iomairt a tha CNSA a' cur air dòigh.
Ach a bharrachd air sin tha mi làidir den bheachd gum bu chòir do na buidhinn Gàidhlig a' gabhail barrachd suim ann an ciamar a tha luchd-ionnsachaidh na Gàidhlig a' dèanamh an dìcheal gus piseach a thoirt air cùisean ann a bhith a' dhèanamh conaltraidh air loidhne.
A-nis aig a cheann thall chan eil mise a' faicinn nan tachartasan air-loidhne mar roghainn ma bhàsaicheas a' Ghàidhlig buileach glan sna comhearsnachdan traidiseanta. Tha fhios agam nach eil coimpiutair aig a h-uile neach-ionnsachaidh no fileantach ach, dhomhsa tha a' Ghàidhealtach 'mas fhìor' na pàirt de shaoghal na Gàidhlig a tha fhathast beò gaus tha i na pàirt den strì airson an cànan a shàbhaladh. Ma tha a' Ghàidhlig agad agus compiutair faisg air làimh, carson nach gabh thu ràmh didsteatach? (nuair a thig thu dhachaigh bho thachartas CNSA )

[Níall Beag]

Faod mi faighneachd, carson a dh' fheumas comas leughadh agus sgriobhadh a bhi agad mus gabh thu os laimh cur-seachad sa Ghaidhlig.

Duilich-fhéin -- bha mis' a' leughadh ro luath agus cha tuig mi e gu ceart. (For some reason I thought speaking was involved -- I've retracted my original statement.)

Tha mi ag aontachadh riut air seo. Chan eil litreachas an rud as feumaile, agus tha feum againne air barrachd "activities". My rant at the SMO's English-language activities program was incorrectly applied here -- I now see what you're proposing is what I've been asking for for quite some time.

Cuideachd, ma tha thu fuireachd an Dhun-eideann carson nach eil thu a cur air chois diofair nithean sa Ghaidhlig a-mhainn. Chan eil e cho duilich sin a dheanamh gu h-araidh ma tha uidh agad sa chuspair.

Dà adhbharan:
1) Chan eil Gàidhlig gu leòr agam.
2) Chan eil clàr-ama steidhichte agam -- chan eil fios 'm bho seachdain gu seachdain ma bhitheas mi anns a' bhaile.

But I'm willing to spend my money and time on holiday activities in Gaelic medium -- sailing[*], volunteer work on one of the community-owned estates, anything where I'm doing something and learning something new, where the words are part of the activity.

[*] If you can convince Iain MacKay to have the Eala Bhan out in the islands for a Gaelic-only cruise, I'll be one of the first to sign up.

[yellow-ceitidh]

Chan eil an sMO cho trom ri na Eireanneachan:

Students who speak one complete sentence in English, for whatever reason, must leave the course and there will be no refund of fee.
Coláiste na bhFiann

Seoladh ...
Tha dùil agam dèan mo "Yachtmaster".

What are we supposed to use instead of "tha" then?

[Níall Beag]

What are we supposed to use instead of "tha" then?

That depends on the sentence, of course!

But here's a quick hint to help: the so-called "simple present" in English is a myth.

The only true present tense in English is the present progressive -- the "-ing" tense.

So "I am painting" is the present, because I am doing it now.

So what tense is "I paint houses"? It can't be present, because you don't know whether or not I'm doing it now. I do it normally. I would say the proper name for this tense is the habitual tense.

One of the big learners mistakes is because of this misguided belief in a "simple present". If you believe that "I paint" is the present, you will tr*nsl*t* it to "tha mi a' peantadh", but that's wrong. If you instead understand that "I paint" is habitual, you will use the Gaelic habitual tense, which just happens to be the same as the future.
(And why not? If you do it normally, you're likely to do it at some point in the future!)


Now, before anyone else says it, there are a few things that look like exceptions, but I'll explain why these don't actually break any rules:

"I love you!"
Would it be romantic to say "I'm loving you"?
No, because that implies that our love won't last forever. We want to say that love is eternal.
The same goes for "I promise". If you're not supposed to break your promise, you're not going to do anything to imply that it's temporary, are you?

"I think..."/"I believe..."/"I know..."
If you said "I'm thinking" or "I'm believing" it would imply a bit of doubt, because it presents the possibility that you'll change your mind in the future. Using the habitual tense states clearly that this is a measured opinion and that you're going to stick by it.
"I am knowing" makes no sense at all, because how can you "know" and "doubt" at the same time?

"I understand"/"I see"
Once you understand something, that's it. You've told me something, I either understand it or I don't. Half an hour later, I won't suddenly start misunderstanding something that I understood earlier -- that just doesn't make sense. Understanding is forever -- habitual.

"I have"
Well that's just not real English -- it used to be, hundreds of years ago. You'll still see it written down everywhere, but if you listen to your friends and family, you're far more likely to hear them say "I've got".
Why?
Because there is no simple present in Modern English, so "I have" wouldn't make sense.
(And because the British Isles are essentially Celtic. No Celtic language has a verb equivalent to "to have", so our ancestors couldn't really understand the concept.)


Now, as I was saying: the problems in English-medium language teaching do not stem from the fact that English is the most common language of instruction -- all problems in learning are caused when the material is presented in a way that allows confusion.

The problem with immersive courses is that it is extremely difficult to identify and deal with confusion. Whereas Ceitidh was able to ask a simple question and get an answer that hopefully covers what she needed to know.

If she's still confused, she can ask again. Because we're using a language she understands, I know she will understand my words, leaving us just to deal with understanding of the concept, which is the important part, after all.

[GunChleoc]

Saoilidh mi (seo rosgrainn dhuibh nach eil air tòiseachadh le "tha") gum b' fhèarr leis na h-oileanaich an dà chuid fhaighinn: mìneachaidh ann an cànan a thuigeas iad, agus conaltradh nàdarrach anns a' chànan a bhios iad ag ionnsachadh.

I think (here you have a sentence that doesn't start with "tha") that it would be best for students to get both: explanations in a language that they understand, and natural conversation in the language that they are learning.



Co-dhiù, seo mar a bhios e ag obrachadh dhomhsa. Tha feum agam air riaghailtean agus air tuigsinn ciamar a tha an cànan ag obrachadh. Barrachd air sin, feumaidh mi èisteachd ris a' chànan is a' conaltradh cho tric 's a ghabhas. Nise, o chionn 's gu bheil mi nam aonarach far a bheil mi a' fuireach, chan eil ach an t-eadar-lìon agam is làraichean mar Radio nan Gaidheal agus an làrach seo is a leithid. Nuair a bhios cothrom siubhail a dh'Alba agam, bidh gach mionaid as urrainn dhomh bruidhinn ri duine sam bith le Gàidhlig bho thùs aige glè phriseil is feumail dhomh. Thig an latha nuair a dhìochuimhnicheas mi riaghailtean a' ghràmair agus siud an latha nuair a bhios fìor Ghàidhlig agam. Cha ruig mi an latha siud gun riaghailtean ag ionnsachadh roimhe co-dhiù agus cha ruig mi e gun ghabhail pairt ann an conaltradh nàdarrach nas motha. Sin mo bheachd-sa.

Anyway, that's how it works for me. I need rules and to understand how the language works. In addition to that, I need to listen to the language and to converse as often as possible. Now, because I am on my own where I live, I only have the internet and sites like Radio nan Gaidheal and this one and such. When I have the opportunity to travel to Scotland, every minute I can talk to any native speaker of Gaelic is very precious and useful to me. The day will come where I will forget the grammar rules and that will be the day I will have real Gaelic. I will not reach that day without first learning rules though, and neither will I reach it without taking part in natural conversation. My 2 cents.

[Fionnlagh]

xxxx

[Níall Beag]

'S aithne dhomh gle fhaisg air 100 oileanach ann an Alba Nuadh a thog na Gaidhlig gu ruige seo gun leabhraichean neo leughadh neo sgriobhadh neo grammar air na tri bliadhna a chaidh seachad. Carson a thathar dol a chleachdadh modhanan ionnsachaidh a tha sean fhasanta agus a toirt cruth atharrachadh air saoghal na Gaidhlig agus air ar canain.

tha thus' a' deanamh falamh na h-amair gun sùil a chuir ann airson leanabh.

Och, chan eil Gàidhlig gu leòr agamsa...

Just because old-fashioned learning methods involved books doesn't mean that all methods involving books are old-fashioned.

Now I do not believe that books are the best way to learn a language, but I do believe that if there is proper support they can be useful in the absence of other learning opportunities. I learnt a lot of my Gaelic "immersively" by going to the Edinburgh conversation circle. For several months, each between work and the cearcall, I would open my copy of Scottish Gaelic in Three Months, select one single grammar point and try to remember it. I would then use it several times that evening. This built up week on week. The grammar points in the book were concisely and clearly explained, so rather than spend half-an-hour in an immersive lesson trying to work out what the teacher is saying, I was able to use it right away, and once I was using it <i>meaningfully</i>, I could remember it without any problems. If I'm parroting it without knowing why or what I'm saying, it won't really stick.

Do you real know what that hundred did outside class? Are you sure they never looked in a grammar book? Are you sure they didn't discuss grammar points outside of class? Are you even sure that they weren't tr*nsl*t*ng in their heads during class? If none of this has been measured, then you are doing what all teachers do: crediting themselves with their pupils' success. Maybe the pupils are responsible for their success...?

Personally I believe native-language instruction without books is the best way to start, but the teaching world is polarised between book geeks and immersion freaks -- to give you back your own words -- who are more than willing to pick up on one single error and condemn an entire method based on it, rather than remove the single error and improve the method. You and all the others like you will happily stand at opposite ends of the circle slagging off the guys at either side, and anyone who tries to take the middle ground cops flak from the lot of you.

You all make so much noise proclaiming your "world changing big ideas" that no-one can hear when someone tries to suggest a small change.

The history of language learning is like a pendulum swing wildly. We've been where you want us to be before, and it didn't work then. The stable spot is somewhere in the middle, not out on the edge.

[Fionnlagh]

xxxx

[Níall Beag]

The present system of language learning was developed when they were tr*nsl***** the Bible from Classical Greek, Latin, Aramic and Hebrew. Only one language at the time was spoken as a community language; Aramic and it is still spoken today.
All the Scholars had to do was tr*nsl***** the written word and in order to do this, they needed to read these languages, write them and know the grammer. Speaking any of these languages was simply unimportant, indeed speaking got in the way so it was left to one side.

What day is it today? And what year? I assure you that the Grammar tr*nsl*t**n Method is anything but the present system. The last time I came across any GT material was when we started cleaning out my grandmother's bookcase after her funeral.

Now I say this as someone who did two languages at high school, has taught English as a foreign language and is studying for a languages degree with the Open University.

My exams were last month. There was no tr*nsl*t**n.

For the first exam, I was given a CD and an information sheet, all in Spanish. Apart from the standard university regulations, all the task instructions were in Spanish. I was required to produce a letter in Spanish. There was no tr*nsl*t**n.

The second exam, I was given the information sheets in advance. In the exam itself, I was given a single short paragraph in English telling me who I was and the viewpoint I was to debate. I read it once, and that was it. I prepared a short speech, in Spanish. I listened to the other student's speeches, also in Spanish, then we debated for 20 minutes, in Spanish, till we agreed, in Spanish, on what we would do. There was no tr*nsl*t**n.

All through the course, my marked tasks (half were written and half were spoken) were taken from Spanish materials and task descriptions with the goal of producing Spanish language. This course featured no tr*nsl*t**n whatsoever. There was no tr*nsl*t**n.

This system was then introduced into our universities and teaching colleges as students could easily be examined. Today, we are left with one of the worst methodologies possible for language acquisition, that is other than for English.

That opinion is valueless now that you have shown a total lack of awareness of the methodologies that are in use.

We do still have a massive problem with "teach-to-test", but that is not a problem that stems from the methodology. In fact, one of my main gripes with mainstream teaching is the overuse of gapfills from an early stage. The original Cloze Test checked reading fluency by allowing the subconcious to fill the gaps, whereas we are training students to decide conciously which word goes where.

So yes, language work in the class is still overly concious, but you can't use this one flaw to abandon and ignore all previous experience and research. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We've been through the Natural Methods before.

That's why I'm talking about a pendulum.

For more than 10,000 years Gaelic was passed on successfully to the next generation using natural learning methods. Is it now the case that we have a generation who question nothing as they are frightened of the result.

Natural methods, fine. But the only natural method is in infancy: you cannot recreate a child's infancy in an adults class. The material you use in your classes is tuned and graded to an extent no parent would ever conceive of doing. The so-called "natural methods" were abandoned as ineffective by mainstream teaching even before I was born.

Language teaching is sorely inadequate in this country, yes.
Change is required, yes.
Repeating the mistakes of previous generations of teachers a good thing, no.

Edit:
I've just looked up a very important article on-line -- should be required reading for all course designers.
http://webh01.ua.ac.be/didascalia/mortality.htm