Fionnlagh wrote:It is very clear that we have different objectives. Mine are to develop systems and methods to enable inter-generational transmittion to occur and for that there are many things that need to be done over and above simply learning Gaelic.
Then why do you continue to conflate the two things into one? TIP is first and foremost about initial language education.
I must admit that I've never been clear on what you mean by Gàidhlig 'san Dachaigh, but I've had a look at the website, which I have to say is exceptionally clear and well laid out.
However, you are conflating two separate issues: initial learning and intergenerational transmission.
I would be fully supportive of any courses that seek to fill the gaps in a fluent speaker's vocabulary relating to child-rearing, but if you make this the goal of initial learning then you corrupt the natural progression of learning.
Take a step back and pop down to your local library. Flick through some other languages. See how much more rigid those are that consider situations more important than language structured in its own terms. Even just think about "ciamar a tha thu?" a favourite of teachers but which I reckon only 25% of Gaels I've met actually use. Fixed language like that just isn't that useful.
So, yes you can learn a language to fluency and still not be able to ensure that inter-generational transmittion occurs. Without Gaelic dies and rather quicker than many here seem to realise.
Yes, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Running before you can walk.
Once people are fluent, they can start thinking about intergenerational transmission, but people who are only learning present an unsuitable model -- the next generation of natives will inherit learner errors.
What you are doing is drowning your dog in cream, mar a chanas 'ad.
Unfortunately, television and road-signs have little or no long-term effect on this situation.
What's long term and what's short term? Having Gaelic as part of the habitual environment encourages it's use in the here and now. The more we use Gaelic, the better we know it. Language is one area where the short term always affects the long term.
Akerbeltz said it right -- you're peddling a silver bullet, a panacea, one size fits all. Language development has to be approached from multiple angles. One course doesn't fix the language.
Unlike others, I do believe that the perfect initial learning course can be written; I don't believe we have our own ways of learning, simply that we have our own ways of coping with suboptimal input in poor courses. In other words, we cope with failures in teaching in different ways, but successes in teaching in the same way.
However, that's the way in to a language -- developing it further and keeping it going need something completely different, and you're trying to do both in one.
Finlay, if there was only one thing that I could say to you it would be this:
You are good at identifying problems, and these problems must be highlighted. By identifying these and presenting them, this is a service to the language.
However, you are doing yourself and the language a disservice by entangling these problems with your proposed solution. On the simplest level, this makes your message unclear.
More dangerous is that when you confuse question and answer, rejection of the answer often leads to rejection of the question.
So identify problems and present them clearly and simply.
By all means, offer a possible solution, but give the problem it's own space to breathe and let us consider them separately.
People here actually share a lot of common ground with you, and nobody seems to realise it, because you've built a monolithic system and you're not allowing us to explore the common ground between us.