Madam, - As a Gaeilgeoir and an Irish person, I found James Hyde's letter of November 3rd extremely offensive and indeed open to ridicule.
It is not up to linguists to change a language to suit those who do not have the patience or the desire to learn it. A language is not something that can be reduced to the lowest common denominator. The Irish language is ancient and beautiful and should be left untouched. It is up to the relevant and already existing bodies to encourage its use — as they do.
If Mr Hyde does not wish to speak Irish he does not have to. Ireland is a land rich with culture and heritage and the Irish language - as it is - is just one element. Where does one draw the line? - Yours, etc,
Madam, - James Hyde's sally upon Irish contains some grains of wisdom - which, however, are almost inextricable from the profoundly biased assumptions underpinning the bulk of his letter.
A "lárchanúint", or "standardised spoken variety" of Irish has been available since the mid-1980s, but contrary to his suggestion, has been shoved down no throats. His reference to "grammar beatings" prompts the question of which generation of Irish people he refers to. In the 19th century the so called "grammar beatings" were carried out on Irish-speaking children.
Mr Hyde urges keeping things simple. "Simple" could be a description of the term "terra nullius", invoking the principle that Australia constituted unowned land before the arrival of English-speaking settlers.
Nowadays, one aspect of its less than glorious legacy is the reduction of up to 200 indigenous spoken languages (a phenomenon of biodiversity) to fewer than 50, with many of those also endangered.
Mr Hyde's avowed longing for logic and simplicity may questionably create opportunities for some, but at whose expense? - Yours, etc,