Spelling societies and bees are pitted against each other for reasons well supported by their separate philosophies or business sense.Spelling societies would always campaign against linguistic oddities made business; which is very obvious as they are raking in, and are way ahead in league by addressing Language confounding as business. Society would probably say that the bees are cashing on linguistic oddities, somehow by supporting the language barrier created with time which kept us apart; and driving us away from a uniform usage of script to support the core of the language—-something which made communication between different societies difficult.
The whole idea of swatting those umpteen numbers of spellings of seldom used words and the study of different ways different regions put letters together to spell sounds with English alphabetic script, is worth a prize money or if it is really some study.It might astound a few of us to see kids spell those big and difficult words just by getting an inkling of the origin of the words. And also might upset us to see kids occupying themselves and their brains in the pursuit of recognition.We may have the liberty to look askance at the whole event only till the time is proved to be an alternative therapy to cure Alzheimer’s; is actually a very good sport to keep your brain healthy.The whole concept as a sport where you have to wrack your brain to get ahead in the league is what I see of the event.And I personally feel that the societies do not wish to cast aspersions on such a coveted title for no strong enough reasons.
They want us to understand the Language better, a social cause. And may be that’s the reason why we could device a reliable reform in 100 years.If there is anybody who should be blamed, it has got to be only and only the society. The very inception of which is social responsibility. Why we could not device a reform when we have world’s best linguists as member? Or do I see business interests coming in the way of a good reform? I may be wrong, but when I see the member list I could not think of anything else. Or may be members are just members.What I personally feel is that the society failed to get to the wick of the problem. They centered it around only the native speakers. English is not just English it’s an amalgamation of different languages, different writing styles, and different sound probabilities.We have to broaden the scope of spelling reform; it should target every possible region in the world. Till the time we don’t think global working on spelling reforms would be a lost cause.
People will not learn by themselves and even if they do they definitely won’t learn alike. Do we see any benefit in keeping it experimental? Language is language, not science. Even if it was science we cannot fiddle with it.Java is a computer language; we cannot mix two scripts on the pretext of developing a program; we invent applications in a language and that’s it. We develop applications separately in different scripts, we don’t mix two scripts. Even if we do, we use an application to help us relate two languages. But we’ve made English language a potpourri of different scripting styles from all over the world.Think of yourself as a computer for a while. You see a written word, you process it and you read it. A written word is a command for your brain and you are programmed to read it as defined by a particular language; you might read a word right with C++, but what if Java doesn’t support the coding.It is not that complicated. You may be under the influence of two scripting styles and till the time difference is not well-defined you will be confused or confuse.
The best way to campaign against bees is to get your act together and device a reform first. Develop language software which has no room for errors so that every brain performs a specific function; understand coding in a particular fashion; read command a specific way to perform a specific function. Minimize the room for probabilities by codifying the script.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Speech habits hinder acceptance.
Proposal by commission on integration and cohesion to bar foreign origin British nationals from entering UK, on a plea to improve racial harmony, seems quite right in time.
For how long we need to procrastinate paradigm?
The proposal seems not to further on racial differences, but to have a check on it, to help you understand the true meaning of communication, to help you understand the importance of the right pronunciation of words, help people learn to respect sounds.
But how?
The whole concept seems so problematic for most of the South- Asians to actually make them do something about it. As they don’t know exactly which way to go, and they end up going nowhere.
Only hindrance is the understanding of physical arrangement of letters.
Most of the South- Asians have wrongly attached sound files with corresponding physical arrangements in their brains. Blame it on the education system. They pick mutilated sound files when they speak. English spelling structure is the easiest than the rest of the languages worldwide. They know words, their application, and every other possible thing, but not the right pronunciation. Mutilated sound files are hard wired in their brains.
Accent is not that much difficult to acquire, is like a rhythm to a song. But the mutilated word sounds kills their speech. They not only speak English language words like the way they do, they also write their native language words in English alphabetic script with the same perceptual understanding. The perceptual difference of the rhythm won’t make much of a difference if the lyrics are understandable. We have to get our basics right.
But the other side of the story is quite amazing. Instead of learning the right way, most of the South- Asians find it hard to suppress sniggers while listening to an American or Britt accent. Especially when an American or Britt read a typical Southeast Asian name spelled by South- Asians in English alphabetic script.
For how long we need to procrastinate paradigm?
The proposal seems not to further on racial differences, but to have a check on it, to help you understand the true meaning of communication, to help you understand the importance of the right pronunciation of words, help people learn to respect sounds.
But how?
The whole concept seems so problematic for most of the South- Asians to actually make them do something about it. As they don’t know exactly which way to go, and they end up going nowhere.
Only hindrance is the understanding of physical arrangement of letters.
Most of the South- Asians have wrongly attached sound files with corresponding physical arrangements in their brains. Blame it on the education system. They pick mutilated sound files when they speak. English spelling structure is the easiest than the rest of the languages worldwide. They know words, their application, and every other possible thing, but not the right pronunciation. Mutilated sound files are hard wired in their brains.
Accent is not that much difficult to acquire, is like a rhythm to a song. But the mutilated word sounds kills their speech. They not only speak English language words like the way they do, they also write their native language words in English alphabetic script with the same perceptual understanding. The perceptual difference of the rhythm won’t make much of a difference if the lyrics are understandable. We have to get our basics right.
But the other side of the story is quite amazing. Instead of learning the right way, most of the South- Asians find it hard to suppress sniggers while listening to an American or Britt accent. Especially when an American or Britt read a typical Southeast Asian name spelled by South- Asians in English alphabetic script.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Diacritics.
We see ‘a:’, ‘ei’, ‘’, ‘æ’, in an A. Sanskrit, kaya clinic,
See ei, ai, æ, in ‘ai’ combination. Paisa, Jain, saif, Mumbai,
See ei in ‘e’ venu, renu, jadeja, star savera, et. al.
i: comes so easy with ‘ee’ combination.
Seema, reema, geeta, and what not.
Most of us do not understand the purpose of a diacritic: cedilla, umlaut, grave, acute, circumflex, caron, et. al.
We all have been so innocent: Nobody told us, and who so ever did (indirectly: media) were no better.
Such like application is a disservice to the concept of diphthongs/vowel combinations. Why would we need a vowel combination if can we do away with it, and keep it simple?
It is not that much difficult to keep the spellings short, simple, and easily understandable, suggesting a particular way (a particular sound) in which it should be pronounced.
The use of diacritics marks.
Most of us actually don’t know, and even if a few do, application differences are observed. And in most of the cases, out of all those who follow diacritics, not everybody follow a specific usage. It is actually gratuitous to English language and most of the times we really do not need them. But we do what we do: Blinkered.
Perfect example: the word resume. Some say it rezju:mei, some say it rezum( short snapped ‘U’ sound). Some write it as résumé, some resumé, and some resume.
The word ‘façade’: a very few would the know purpose of a cedilla.
Détente, detente,
The word bruchetta, Montenegro, skodo, et. al.( refer to page no.____)
But the big question remains unanswered: Do we really need to remember such like small signs, when the most of our friends scrawl? It makes it practically implausible to discover diacritics in an illegible scrawl.
But diacritics have their application, purpose, and the fact is, sometimes we really need them to keep the true sounds come easy. Ignorance of the structural arrangement of letters to get the sound right has given a new direction to the spelling, reading, and pronunciation habits.
ci-t Italian
ai, ei, ay-ai German.
If we try to regularize the use of diacritics before educating everybody of the structural vagaries, it won’t help us much, would complicated things. The regularization of the usage of diacritics should not be done prior to the structural arrangement (structural behavior) regularization. As different languages across the globe use diacritics for different purposes (same diacritic but varied application in different regions or within a particular region).
The idea is to understand the structural arrangement first and see if we really need them, and if we can do without them. Because it has been observed that in most of the cases that we don’t actually need them, but we apply, and which in turn lead to alternate pronunciations and sound confounding. English language never used much diacritics, except a few borrowed words (French). And it would be in the interest of word-sounds, if we can see if we need a diacritic or not to get a particular sound. Not like the way we are managing things (varied appl. from a single diacritic) at present, and damaging the sounds. We assimilate a foreign language word (spelling) with accent marks without structural compatibility test and in most of the cases at a later stage we omit accent marks. Like the obsolete umlaut in cooperate, reenact, et. al., as it has been falling out of use.
The idea is we should use accent marks for vowel apophony, only when we cannot get the right sound with structural alterations, to keep the structure short, simple, and easily understandable. Is rather gratuitous for English language, as most of the times we really do not need them, but we assimilated foreign words like the way they were spelled by different foreign regions, and later on we damaged the sounds.
Montenegro:
This won’t make much of a difference to libertarians as they keep on damaging the sounds, as they read what they understand, as they don’t want to see beyond script. But the question is: Do we really need to?
Not in every other place.
But at least we should act in time.
Circumflex seems to be replaced by acute mark, and in some languages represent a lax sound, to distinguish homonyms, to suggest ‘s’ sound or ‘ð’ after the vowel with circumflex mark, sometimes to represent ‘a:’ sound (Turkish), sometimes to simply suggest that the vowel to be simply of a longer duration, or rise and fall of the pitch, sometimes to keep space for analogies to replace the silent ‘ugh’ (eighteenth century), et.al.
All these usages were observed to simplify the spelling but did not solve the purpose as such, as the usage was not codified and different applications and different perception existed. Instead of simplification we added to the already existing confounding.
The idea is, if we introduce something new, and the very purpose of which is simplification, and universal application, it should be told to every-possible-body. As it does not make sense in today’s modern world, you introduce something for a specific region (small) without precisely indicating the application to the rest of the world, and you simply pass on the word for the universal acceptance with such a unique mark without any indication of the pronunciation, and at a later stage you cry for the right pronunciation like the way you do. Till the time you don’t tell the world, how would the world get to know the right pronunciation?
The fact is, if we codify the use of diacritics and the educate everybody about it, we won’t misconstrue a foreign language word (spelled with English alphabetic script). Which is not that much difficult. Example: pa:tei, pætei or paste.
The unwarranted fascination for the letter ‘a’ to get every possible sound from the poor ilk, is responsible for most of the sound- spelling confounding in South-east Asia. It seems to me as if each time the letter ‘a’ is crying loud: “I am not this sound please don’t use me”, “why the hell you need me everywhere?”. But we never listened to the poor ‘a’. For how long can one take this disrespect?
And now I hear no cries but laugh: ha ha!“ I m done with your love”, and if you don’t care, I’ll damage your speech”.
Without any recourse on the structural behavior of letters, especially vowels, we would only damage sounds and probably make them conspicuously long. And the popularization of these transmuted sounds and unnecessarily lengthened words will further on the confusion. The ignorance of structural arrangement has given a new direction to spelling and reading habits.
South-east Asians spell their native language words with no better structural understanding than the easy superimposition of their native sounds with English alphabetic script, by simply comparing every sound with close alternative available in English, either be separate letters or combinations (vowel), with the same flow which they follow to spell words in Hindi script. ‘ee’ combination is the most popular combination for ‘ i:’ sound. And the sound ‘i:’ come so easy with ‘ee’ that they do not bother to see beyond. Just like the way they understand their language. To quote an example: if they had to spell they would simply superimpose with ‘s’ , with ‘ee’, with ‘m’, with ‘a’.
Recently I got to know from “Believe me I m only 24”, by Priyanka Dasgupta(TOI), that pollywood( come on, you know it) actor Meeraa proclaimed, that she is only 24, on the provocation by critics who think otherwise.
I was amazed: How does it affect anybody if she 24 or less? And also, it is improprietous to comment on her age. Isn’t it enough that she is beautiful?
But somebody told me that critics are critics, this is only what they do. O.k. fine.
I hate all those critics who just say because they have to say something. Her name (meeraa) itself suggests just the opposite. Suggest that she is of tender age, if not the disposition the spelling prowess.
Is a very popular name, and we really do not need these many letters to spell it the way it was spelled.
The answer to the spelling and pronunciation confounding is not far away from the core of the problem.
There is remarkable similarity in the different follies, the way a particular area would understand the sub language. “ jaldi karro”, “ yeh kya kar diya”.
We won’t take much time if we had seen such a script before. The idea is, it is not that difficult to understand a particular style of structural arrangement of letters to write any language with the help of English alphabetic script. And if we can read such a script with remarkable improvement in understanding of the style and with increasing ease in reading, as long as we are aware of the sounds, it is not that difficult to understand the paradigm. The knowledge of the sounds is very important.
In fact, the paradigm is much simpler than any of these writing styles.
See ei, ai, æ, in ‘ai’ combination. Paisa, Jain, saif, Mumbai,
See ei in ‘e’ venu, renu, jadeja, star savera, et. al.
i: comes so easy with ‘ee’ combination.
Seema, reema, geeta, and what not.
Most of us do not understand the purpose of a diacritic: cedilla, umlaut, grave, acute, circumflex, caron, et. al.
We all have been so innocent: Nobody told us, and who so ever did (indirectly: media) were no better.
Such like application is a disservice to the concept of diphthongs/vowel combinations. Why would we need a vowel combination if can we do away with it, and keep it simple?
It is not that much difficult to keep the spellings short, simple, and easily understandable, suggesting a particular way (a particular sound) in which it should be pronounced.
The use of diacritics marks.
Most of us actually don’t know, and even if a few do, application differences are observed. And in most of the cases, out of all those who follow diacritics, not everybody follow a specific usage. It is actually gratuitous to English language and most of the times we really do not need them. But we do what we do: Blinkered.
Perfect example: the word resume. Some say it rezju:mei, some say it rezum( short snapped ‘U’ sound). Some write it as résumé, some resumé, and some resume.
The word ‘façade’: a very few would the know purpose of a cedilla.
Détente, detente,
The word bruchetta, Montenegro, skodo, et. al.( refer to page no.____)
But the big question remains unanswered: Do we really need to remember such like small signs, when the most of our friends scrawl? It makes it practically implausible to discover diacritics in an illegible scrawl.
But diacritics have their application, purpose, and the fact is, sometimes we really need them to keep the true sounds come easy. Ignorance of the structural arrangement of letters to get the sound right has given a new direction to the spelling, reading, and pronunciation habits.
ci-t Italian
ai, ei, ay-ai German.
If we try to regularize the use of diacritics before educating everybody of the structural vagaries, it won’t help us much, would complicated things. The regularization of the usage of diacritics should not be done prior to the structural arrangement (structural behavior) regularization. As different languages across the globe use diacritics for different purposes (same diacritic but varied application in different regions or within a particular region).
The idea is to understand the structural arrangement first and see if we really need them, and if we can do without them. Because it has been observed that in most of the cases that we don’t actually need them, but we apply, and which in turn lead to alternate pronunciations and sound confounding. English language never used much diacritics, except a few borrowed words (French). And it would be in the interest of word-sounds, if we can see if we need a diacritic or not to get a particular sound. Not like the way we are managing things (varied appl. from a single diacritic) at present, and damaging the sounds. We assimilate a foreign language word (spelling) with accent marks without structural compatibility test and in most of the cases at a later stage we omit accent marks. Like the obsolete umlaut in cooperate, reenact, et. al., as it has been falling out of use.
The idea is we should use accent marks for vowel apophony, only when we cannot get the right sound with structural alterations, to keep the structure short, simple, and easily understandable. Is rather gratuitous for English language, as most of the times we really do not need them, but we assimilated foreign words like the way they were spelled by different foreign regions, and later on we damaged the sounds.
Montenegro:
This won’t make much of a difference to libertarians as they keep on damaging the sounds, as they read what they understand, as they don’t want to see beyond script. But the question is: Do we really need to?
Not in every other place.
But at least we should act in time.
Circumflex seems to be replaced by acute mark, and in some languages represent a lax sound, to distinguish homonyms, to suggest ‘s’ sound or ‘ð’ after the vowel with circumflex mark, sometimes to represent ‘a:’ sound (Turkish), sometimes to simply suggest that the vowel to be simply of a longer duration, or rise and fall of the pitch, sometimes to keep space for analogies to replace the silent ‘ugh’ (eighteenth century), et.al.
All these usages were observed to simplify the spelling but did not solve the purpose as such, as the usage was not codified and different applications and different perception existed. Instead of simplification we added to the already existing confounding.
The idea is, if we introduce something new, and the very purpose of which is simplification, and universal application, it should be told to every-possible-body. As it does not make sense in today’s modern world, you introduce something for a specific region (small) without precisely indicating the application to the rest of the world, and you simply pass on the word for the universal acceptance with such a unique mark without any indication of the pronunciation, and at a later stage you cry for the right pronunciation like the way you do. Till the time you don’t tell the world, how would the world get to know the right pronunciation?
The fact is, if we codify the use of diacritics and the educate everybody about it, we won’t misconstrue a foreign language word (spelled with English alphabetic script). Which is not that much difficult. Example: pa:tei, pætei or paste.
The unwarranted fascination for the letter ‘a’ to get every possible sound from the poor ilk, is responsible for most of the sound- spelling confounding in South-east Asia. It seems to me as if each time the letter ‘a’ is crying loud: “I am not this sound please don’t use me”, “why the hell you need me everywhere?”. But we never listened to the poor ‘a’. For how long can one take this disrespect?
And now I hear no cries but laugh: ha ha!“ I m done with your love”, and if you don’t care, I’ll damage your speech”.
Without any recourse on the structural behavior of letters, especially vowels, we would only damage sounds and probably make them conspicuously long. And the popularization of these transmuted sounds and unnecessarily lengthened words will further on the confusion. The ignorance of structural arrangement has given a new direction to spelling and reading habits.
South-east Asians spell their native language words with no better structural understanding than the easy superimposition of their native sounds with English alphabetic script, by simply comparing every sound with close alternative available in English, either be separate letters or combinations (vowel), with the same flow which they follow to spell words in Hindi script. ‘ee’ combination is the most popular combination for ‘ i:’ sound. And the sound ‘i:’ come so easy with ‘ee’ that they do not bother to see beyond. Just like the way they understand their language. To quote an example: if they had to spell they would simply superimpose with ‘s’ , with ‘ee’, with ‘m’, with ‘a’.
Recently I got to know from “Believe me I m only 24”, by Priyanka Dasgupta(TOI), that pollywood( come on, you know it) actor Meeraa proclaimed, that she is only 24, on the provocation by critics who think otherwise.
I was amazed: How does it affect anybody if she 24 or less? And also, it is improprietous to comment on her age. Isn’t it enough that she is beautiful?
But somebody told me that critics are critics, this is only what they do. O.k. fine.
I hate all those critics who just say because they have to say something. Her name (meeraa) itself suggests just the opposite. Suggest that she is of tender age, if not the disposition the spelling prowess.
Is a very popular name, and we really do not need these many letters to spell it the way it was spelled.
The answer to the spelling and pronunciation confounding is not far away from the core of the problem.
There is remarkable similarity in the different follies, the way a particular area would understand the sub language. “ jaldi karro”, “ yeh kya kar diya”.
We won’t take much time if we had seen such a script before. The idea is, it is not that difficult to understand a particular style of structural arrangement of letters to write any language with the help of English alphabetic script. And if we can read such a script with remarkable improvement in understanding of the style and with increasing ease in reading, as long as we are aware of the sounds, it is not that difficult to understand the paradigm. The knowledge of the sounds is very important.
In fact, the paradigm is much simpler than any of these writing styles.
Monday, April 16, 2007
English kaleidoscope.
Language lobbyists fight back English language hegemony.
Recently in France some language lobbyists and traders have made a forum, and they are asking the government to ban English in France.
Is this the right way we should go about it?
Was this the last resort? Did we try other possible measures?
Sometimes it makes me think it’s possible, even easy,
May be it is! SRC, 2nd SRC, may be 3rd, and lot many nascent reorganizations round the corner.
But do we have any other option left?
Language is more liquid than we human are, but the catch is, you should know how to give it a shape. You cannot beat it; you cannot force it on anybody just like that. Say, if today some government cede to the pressure of language lobbyists, to an unwarranted plea of growth of their own regional language, to bar English, there is every possibility that after 5- 10 years you will find that region lagging behind in human race of development. This is what many states in India have realized. This is a bare truth. If you want to grow! Get out of the pigeonholes and learn to fly.
The best way to hedge against English language seemingly invincible hegemony would be to put a check on the Anglicization of words (sounds) from individual regions, than running away from reality by declaring a war against the English language dominance. Such an attempt would not be more than a lost cause.
The best approach would be of being an existentialist and start experimenting, discover new things that could help human kind, and then insist the dissemination in your own language or make your area the fulcrum of international trade. That’s the only possible way. No fuss, simple, most effective, but it also calls for determination.
Language is a help, to give form to what we want to say, what we want to talk about. Today, we want to talk about knowledge, technology, something new to talk about. Who would like to sing the same old song (same lyrics, same rhythm) over and over again?
Everybody wants to know something new, something we never heard before, never experienced, nobody want to be a lone wolf, mind you, lone wolves rarely talk.
Knowledge is what is appreciated, we want appreciation (definition varies); it is very human to expect appreciation. Almost everybody does.
So, nurture your need for appreciation. Stop being a dead beat, invent something good, we’ll talk about it, and there is every possibility we might learn your language by the course of time. That means, don’t just invent one thing, do as much as you can, we’ll appreciate the efforts, and seriously try to follow you, your work, and your language.
Why do we have to find the closest escape, swarming and crying wolf wolf?
If you cannot avoid being mushy-mushy, first kill the wolf with strong indigenous knowledge base, and justify crying.
Change the focus to what is more important for human kind: development of human kind, nothing else. Quest for knowledge will always take precedence. Make your language is a language of knowledge, so that everyone can follow it. Do it for the sake of the overall development, not just language.
Growth of our language is in our hands. Growth of a language is an obverse to the growth of knowledge. You can never move up the rung nor would the language ever have a foothold, if you choose to sing the same old song. Make sure that your language shows a wider picture, a promising one rather. Dearth of words of modern application creates gap. Fill the gap, make your own language kaleidoscope and show the world some real good pictures, and make them an addict.
Get your say edgewise, show that you are real good, and grow with that. Developing economies have a better chance to do that. Try to do something real good, invent something, if we want your language to grow and spoken worldwide.
Like the way we experienced, French monopoly, German monopoly (physics, chemistry), Greece (mathematics), et. al. That suggests either we take control by physical force or by intellectual force. Application of physical force; don’t even think about it. You try to drop one nuke; you will see 3-4 coming before you could actually hit the button. So, we are left only with the Hobson’s choice of doing it with the Intellectual Force. Use it and see the change.
Recently in France some language lobbyists and traders have made a forum, and they are asking the government to ban English in France.
Is this the right way we should go about it?
Was this the last resort? Did we try other possible measures?
Sometimes it makes me think it’s possible, even easy,
May be it is! SRC, 2nd SRC, may be 3rd, and lot many nascent reorganizations round the corner.
But do we have any other option left?
Language is more liquid than we human are, but the catch is, you should know how to give it a shape. You cannot beat it; you cannot force it on anybody just like that. Say, if today some government cede to the pressure of language lobbyists, to an unwarranted plea of growth of their own regional language, to bar English, there is every possibility that after 5- 10 years you will find that region lagging behind in human race of development. This is what many states in India have realized. This is a bare truth. If you want to grow! Get out of the pigeonholes and learn to fly.
The best way to hedge against English language seemingly invincible hegemony would be to put a check on the Anglicization of words (sounds) from individual regions, than running away from reality by declaring a war against the English language dominance. Such an attempt would not be more than a lost cause.
The best approach would be of being an existentialist and start experimenting, discover new things that could help human kind, and then insist the dissemination in your own language or make your area the fulcrum of international trade. That’s the only possible way. No fuss, simple, most effective, but it also calls for determination.
Language is a help, to give form to what we want to say, what we want to talk about. Today, we want to talk about knowledge, technology, something new to talk about. Who would like to sing the same old song (same lyrics, same rhythm) over and over again?
Everybody wants to know something new, something we never heard before, never experienced, nobody want to be a lone wolf, mind you, lone wolves rarely talk.
Knowledge is what is appreciated, we want appreciation (definition varies); it is very human to expect appreciation. Almost everybody does.
So, nurture your need for appreciation. Stop being a dead beat, invent something good, we’ll talk about it, and there is every possibility we might learn your language by the course of time. That means, don’t just invent one thing, do as much as you can, we’ll appreciate the efforts, and seriously try to follow you, your work, and your language.
Why do we have to find the closest escape, swarming and crying wolf wolf?
If you cannot avoid being mushy-mushy, first kill the wolf with strong indigenous knowledge base, and justify crying.
Change the focus to what is more important for human kind: development of human kind, nothing else. Quest for knowledge will always take precedence. Make your language is a language of knowledge, so that everyone can follow it. Do it for the sake of the overall development, not just language.
Growth of our language is in our hands. Growth of a language is an obverse to the growth of knowledge. You can never move up the rung nor would the language ever have a foothold, if you choose to sing the same old song. Make sure that your language shows a wider picture, a promising one rather. Dearth of words of modern application creates gap. Fill the gap, make your own language kaleidoscope and show the world some real good pictures, and make them an addict.
Get your say edgewise, show that you are real good, and grow with that. Developing economies have a better chance to do that. Try to do something real good, invent something, if we want your language to grow and spoken worldwide.
Like the way we experienced, French monopoly, German monopoly (physics, chemistry), Greece (mathematics), et. al. That suggests either we take control by physical force or by intellectual force. Application of physical force; don’t even think about it. You try to drop one nuke; you will see 3-4 coming before you could actually hit the button. So, we are left only with the Hobson’s choice of doing it with the Intellectual Force. Use it and see the change.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Numero-astro-and what not.
When I started working on the perplexities of structural behavior of letters, I thought that I m the only person in India who wants to change the spelling of his name. But to my surprise, Suniel Shetty, Veveik Oberoi, Reteish, Retiesh, and many others have already done it. Suniel was Sunil, Veveik was Vivek.
I am not sure of the purpose of such a monumental change.
Somebody told me, people often change the spelling their name to get lucky. You change your name to get some benefit out of numerology, or it’s just a self- realization after reading a lot many books, meeting lot many people who do not support the spelling, or something else. Or may be the media has done it all by itself, because media had been so liberal to possibly do anything, almost everything. It’s good to see at last we are not that rigid.
But how good? Akshaye, Suniel, Naseeruddin, Seif is Seif,and what not.
Self-awakening: realization of the fact that the spelling does not suggest what we actually are, or may be numerology, or may be Astrology, or something else.
If these all are individual innovative attempts, we can still accept. But not, if the media is trying to advertise that they no longer validate the dispersal of inadvertent follies, and is on the creative spelling spree. Because this is not going to help us much. You first corrupt something, and later on try to correct it in your personal smoke filled kitchens. Another bad food from amateur chefs, who had been dishing out bad food hither to, and the new menu is also not that much promising.
It’s actually good to see that we finally are confused.
But I am not sure of the origin of this confusion, may be they are fascinated by mystic numerals.
Numerals are magical.
We all want to maximize the possibility of our dreams coming true.
Numerology suggests that if things are not working the way they should, its time to do a spell check.
It’s an art. With numerology you can manipulate the destiny of your child. Almost everybody wants their children to do good in life. I won’t be surprised if today I get to know of some healthy mothers expected to give a perfect birth (scissor less), crying out loud before time, not because of labors, and not because of any health related (body) reasons, but of the unhealthy credo.
“Doctor, I want it right now, today, not any other day, otherwise it won’t be of use”. Doctor: “but it not time yet”. Mother: “I don’t need a scum bag”, “I need a scientist”, “If not today, I don’t need it at all”.
Synchronized birth, right time, right date, right year, and may be the right name: one, two, three, et, al.
But now I think that I should study numerology as well. It seems promising, you don’t have to do much, just change the spelling of your name. The extra ‘s’ in my name is just to check if does any good. The formula is very simple, your name and your date of birth is reduced to a digit separately. I seriously do not know how can we get lucky with digits, but every digit (the final digit) corresponds a particular trait, and you can alter it if you can manipulate the final sum.
I wish if I could resurrect, but am no Jesus, but its o.k.
And I simply matched the final sum of the all the digits in my D.O.B with that of my name. I changed the spelling.
And if works for me, I m going to plan for synchronized babies. And then I m going to rule the world.
But I am in quandary as I also got a change to know that sounds also have some magical powers.
I have read in Hindu mythology that warriors used to say something to their arrows, and a regular arrow would transform itself in to a sophisticated missile( something close to a nuke) and the Naam Karan Sanskar( this is how they spell it), similar to christening ceremony, when you are given a name. A branch of astrology, which suggests that your name should start with a particular sound, considering all the astrological calculation.
To sum it up, a belief that sound energy can be transformed in to mechanical energy or some magical power to do wonders for you.
Which one is more powerful?
Shall I follow Numerology or Astrology, or my own creative self?
(This article does not mean to offend anybody)
I am not sure of the purpose of such a monumental change.
Somebody told me, people often change the spelling their name to get lucky. You change your name to get some benefit out of numerology, or it’s just a self- realization after reading a lot many books, meeting lot many people who do not support the spelling, or something else. Or may be the media has done it all by itself, because media had been so liberal to possibly do anything, almost everything. It’s good to see at last we are not that rigid.
But how good? Akshaye, Suniel, Naseeruddin, Seif is Seif,and what not.
Self-awakening: realization of the fact that the spelling does not suggest what we actually are, or may be numerology, or may be Astrology, or something else.
If these all are individual innovative attempts, we can still accept. But not, if the media is trying to advertise that they no longer validate the dispersal of inadvertent follies, and is on the creative spelling spree. Because this is not going to help us much. You first corrupt something, and later on try to correct it in your personal smoke filled kitchens. Another bad food from amateur chefs, who had been dishing out bad food hither to, and the new menu is also not that much promising.
It’s actually good to see that we finally are confused.
But I am not sure of the origin of this confusion, may be they are fascinated by mystic numerals.
Numerals are magical.
We all want to maximize the possibility of our dreams coming true.
Numerology suggests that if things are not working the way they should, its time to do a spell check.
It’s an art. With numerology you can manipulate the destiny of your child. Almost everybody wants their children to do good in life. I won’t be surprised if today I get to know of some healthy mothers expected to give a perfect birth (scissor less), crying out loud before time, not because of labors, and not because of any health related (body) reasons, but of the unhealthy credo.
“Doctor, I want it right now, today, not any other day, otherwise it won’t be of use”. Doctor: “but it not time yet”. Mother: “I don’t need a scum bag”, “I need a scientist”, “If not today, I don’t need it at all”.
Synchronized birth, right time, right date, right year, and may be the right name: one, two, three, et, al.
But now I think that I should study numerology as well. It seems promising, you don’t have to do much, just change the spelling of your name. The extra ‘s’ in my name is just to check if does any good. The formula is very simple, your name and your date of birth is reduced to a digit separately. I seriously do not know how can we get lucky with digits, but every digit (the final digit) corresponds a particular trait, and you can alter it if you can manipulate the final sum.
I wish if I could resurrect, but am no Jesus, but its o.k.
And I simply matched the final sum of the all the digits in my D.O.B with that of my name. I changed the spelling.
And if works for me, I m going to plan for synchronized babies. And then I m going to rule the world.
But I am in quandary as I also got a change to know that sounds also have some magical powers.
I have read in Hindu mythology that warriors used to say something to their arrows, and a regular arrow would transform itself in to a sophisticated missile( something close to a nuke) and the Naam Karan Sanskar( this is how they spell it), similar to christening ceremony, when you are given a name. A branch of astrology, which suggests that your name should start with a particular sound, considering all the astrological calculation.
To sum it up, a belief that sound energy can be transformed in to mechanical energy or some magical power to do wonders for you.
Which one is more powerful?
Shall I follow Numerology or Astrology, or my own creative self?
(This article does not mean to offend anybody)
Friday, February 16, 2007
Did we really need to write French, Latin, Spanish, if we had to write in English alphabetic script?
With an attempt to bring English to common man in the spree to do better than the peer states, Indian state governments feel so proud of the usage of English alphabetic script to spell the name of the cities on the signage’s, to ensure a smooth ride to foreign travelers and those who do not follow the local language and for tutorial purposes.
How convenient it is: you don’t have to carry literatures or even buy them to learn different languages.
It seems to be a latent approach by the various governments, seems as if they want to check if we are worldly wise. Good, it’s a nice way to learn different languages.
Many governments have not only realized the importance of English for the economic development of their respective states but actually had gone a step ahead (far beyond we could ever expect). Thanks for such a great effort.
This is actually a PDI, Public Display of Ignorance, a perfect source of amusement when you are traveling long distances across India from Ahmedabad to Kolkota, Kashmir to Kanya Kumari and you happen to know both the regional language and English quite well.
The way we write our direction boards, only French, Latin, etc., in their individual identities would get to know what exactly they wanted to write.
We not only just read them; we somehow unconsciously memorize the visual images of all those words (sound files) in English alphabetic script.
And we memorize the pattern as such, which at a later stage in our life acts as a paradigm to support our understanding of physical arrangement of English letters, to spell words which are not yet a part of English language to support our fallible spelling prowess.
To quote an example:
Did any body tell well cultivated in English ‘Sharma’ family to spell ‘Sharma’ like the way they do?
Ignorance.
They are seeing it for long and other words (minimal pairs) they know which have been spelled in English alphabetic script also support it. Like the way we’ve ‘karma’, a super hit Bollywood movie, and many more.
This is not their fault (no offence to Sharma’s, it was just an example), every body seems to be in the same rut.
Do we mean French, Spanish, or German when we write new words using English alphabetic script?
Most of the times, yes. But we do not want to.
We can divide the languages that are plausible threat to English language broadly in two categories:
1. Languages which followed script similar to English alphabetic script (language developed in same lines, with similarity in the alphabetic writing. *****Differences:
a. Different selection.
b. Different application of letters.
c. Different sound preferences.
d. Different word development (vocabulary).
All these language developed differently in their own identities.
2. Languages, which did not use, but have started using English alphabet script with time.
Different script altogether from that of English. With globalization and increase in the popularity of English, regions speaking languages other than those developed with English alphabetic script switched to English alphabetic script and started using English letters to spell words from those separate languages.
As people started to spell words (sounds), difference in application was observed. These languages (scripts) are not much different from languages which used Germanic script, but developed differently. A sub language was formed with different understanding of the physical arrangement of letters to form words.
Now the question is of word bank development (vocabulary).
People started using English for communication with a little tinge of their native language, using their set of favorite words from those languages (separately) every now and then they spoke in English. This was actually good for English language as the word bank was increasing (& for so many latent benefits, let say mysticism). But as the difference in structural arrangement was apparent, the danger to both languages was inevitable.
The best example here would be the word ‘bakra’.
‘Bakra’ is a male goat. The way they spelled it would not be appreciated.
People would use this word in their daily speech as: “I am not a bakra” or “don’t play bakra on me” to mean, “I am not a goat” and “don’t play prank on me”.
This word was fanned out by MTV India, as is a very popular reality show in which people play pranks on innocent ilk. The idea is such a sub-language is a conspicuous threat to English language and to the beauty of such like magnificent words. The sound is not what the spelling suggests.
If the word get popular among English speaking community, there is every possibility that this word will get entry in the English language banks in the near future, like the way so many such like words have already been added. These habits proliferate rapidly with the help of television and print media , and one day it explodes spontaneously to the bewilderment of a lot many people worldwide, and allow them to give English a bad name.
Say if today, this word is added without structural compatibility check, like the way it has been peppered out: b-a-k-r-a, those who do not follow the way a particular region spell words (don’t actually have to, for that reason) would probably read it as “bækr* ” or “bækra:”
Damage: There is every possibility that at a later stage an alternate pronunciation would arise when people somehow get to know the real sound, and also an alternate spelling. Some would say “baker ” or “baker:” and some would say “b*or” or “b*kraal:”, some would spell it as “bark” and some spell it as “buckra”.
The idea is, people want to use words from their respective languages, but unconsciously damage words they loved so much, to add to their speech.
How can we actually put a check on these apparent threats to the language?
By educating every body of the structural vagaries of English language.
It is equally true that there are few sounds, which are very specific to a particular region. There would be sounds very close to an English letter sound but not quite that sound.
A little change in sound is still acceptable as compared to the possible conspicuous change in the sound at a later stage or a possible structural confusion to boggle our minds, and very obvious chance to allow people to give English a bad name.
This wrong use of English alphabetic script to spell words is not just a small folly, has far fetching effects. Such popular word acts as a paradigm to spell new words. ********
Why d spelling had been impervious to change?
How could we change the sound so easily?
Do we worship a lesser God?
The word “haier”.
“air” combination would mean “air” sound ( phonetic representation) as ‘‘i’’ in hive, jive, etc., to Germans but not to the rest of the world.************
How convenient it is: you don’t have to carry literatures or even buy them to learn different languages.
It seems to be a latent approach by the various governments, seems as if they want to check if we are worldly wise. Good, it’s a nice way to learn different languages.
Many governments have not only realized the importance of English for the economic development of their respective states but actually had gone a step ahead (far beyond we could ever expect). Thanks for such a great effort.
This is actually a PDI, Public Display of Ignorance, a perfect source of amusement when you are traveling long distances across India from Ahmedabad to Kolkota, Kashmir to Kanya Kumari and you happen to know both the regional language and English quite well.
The way we write our direction boards, only French, Latin, etc., in their individual identities would get to know what exactly they wanted to write.
We not only just read them; we somehow unconsciously memorize the visual images of all those words (sound files) in English alphabetic script.
And we memorize the pattern as such, which at a later stage in our life acts as a paradigm to support our understanding of physical arrangement of English letters, to spell words which are not yet a part of English language to support our fallible spelling prowess.
To quote an example:
Did any body tell well cultivated in English ‘Sharma’ family to spell ‘Sharma’ like the way they do?
Ignorance.
They are seeing it for long and other words (minimal pairs) they know which have been spelled in English alphabetic script also support it. Like the way we’ve ‘karma’, a super hit Bollywood movie, and many more.
This is not their fault (no offence to Sharma’s, it was just an example), every body seems to be in the same rut.
Do we mean French, Spanish, or German when we write new words using English alphabetic script?
Most of the times, yes. But we do not want to.
We can divide the languages that are plausible threat to English language broadly in two categories:
1. Languages which followed script similar to English alphabetic script (language developed in same lines, with similarity in the alphabetic writing. *****Differences:
a. Different selection.
b. Different application of letters.
c. Different sound preferences.
d. Different word development (vocabulary).
All these language developed differently in their own identities.
2. Languages, which did not use, but have started using English alphabet script with time.
Different script altogether from that of English. With globalization and increase in the popularity of English, regions speaking languages other than those developed with English alphabetic script switched to English alphabetic script and started using English letters to spell words from those separate languages.
As people started to spell words (sounds), difference in application was observed. These languages (scripts) are not much different from languages which used Germanic script, but developed differently. A sub language was formed with different understanding of the physical arrangement of letters to form words.
Now the question is of word bank development (vocabulary).
People started using English for communication with a little tinge of their native language, using their set of favorite words from those languages (separately) every now and then they spoke in English. This was actually good for English language as the word bank was increasing (& for so many latent benefits, let say mysticism). But as the difference in structural arrangement was apparent, the danger to both languages was inevitable.
The best example here would be the word ‘bakra’.
‘Bakra’ is a male goat. The way they spelled it would not be appreciated.
People would use this word in their daily speech as: “I am not a bakra” or “don’t play bakra on me” to mean, “I am not a goat” and “don’t play prank on me”.
This word was fanned out by MTV India, as is a very popular reality show in which people play pranks on innocent ilk. The idea is such a sub-language is a conspicuous threat to English language and to the beauty of such like magnificent words. The sound is not what the spelling suggests.
If the word get popular among English speaking community, there is every possibility that this word will get entry in the English language banks in the near future, like the way so many such like words have already been added. These habits proliferate rapidly with the help of television and print media , and one day it explodes spontaneously to the bewilderment of a lot many people worldwide, and allow them to give English a bad name.
Say if today, this word is added without structural compatibility check, like the way it has been peppered out: b-a-k-r-a, those who do not follow the way a particular region spell words (don’t actually have to, for that reason) would probably read it as “bækr* ” or “bækra:”
Damage: There is every possibility that at a later stage an alternate pronunciation would arise when people somehow get to know the real sound, and also an alternate spelling. Some would say “baker ” or “baker:” and some would say “b*or” or “b*kraal:”, some would spell it as “bark” and some spell it as “buckra”.
The idea is, people want to use words from their respective languages, but unconsciously damage words they loved so much, to add to their speech.
How can we actually put a check on these apparent threats to the language?
By educating every body of the structural vagaries of English language.
It is equally true that there are few sounds, which are very specific to a particular region. There would be sounds very close to an English letter sound but not quite that sound.
A little change in sound is still acceptable as compared to the possible conspicuous change in the sound at a later stage or a possible structural confusion to boggle our minds, and very obvious chance to allow people to give English a bad name.
This wrong use of English alphabetic script to spell words is not just a small folly, has far fetching effects. Such popular word acts as a paradigm to spell new words. ********
Why d spelling had been impervious to change?
How could we change the sound so easily?
Do we worship a lesser God?
The word “haier”.
“air” combination would mean “air” sound ( phonetic representation) as ‘‘i’’ in hive, jive, etc., to Germans but not to the rest of the world.************
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Libertarian and conservative views over the usage of English.
So many languages developed from almost a similar alphabetic script.
The Dispersion of population led to the emergence of different languages.
Different languages developed differently with somewhat similar alphabetic script in their own separate identities.
Application differences were observed in terms of sound allocation with different arrangement of letters to spell words.
The idea is that we have already been enough liberals to the point that we cannot understand most of us. Being liberal is not going to help us any good way. If people had ever followed rules, then we wouldn’t have those many languages as we have today. The question is, if we could do any better or just float in somewhat same currents we saw primordial libertarians floating.
This is actually a crucial time for English language, and other languages as well.
If we do not want our native words go astray in maze (self-creation), and if we want to save them from being anglicized because we are not the only race that avow to be libertarian.******Then we’ve got to clear-up our acts in time, before we see too much complicated kedgeree to work on.
Original word sounds had been transmuted to something, which is not even close to the actual sounds.
The inconspicuous damage would be to every language (developed on the same script or else wise) resulting in to a concoction, and if you had to pick something from that concocted crucible you would not be able to, if you wanted to pick something that belonged to you.
People with Conservative and libertarian views are pitted against each other with no good enough reasons.
Libertarians say, language should be let free—–Good. —-Fine! This is the way languages grow.
Conservatives say, put a check, speak right.
The fact is, the so-called conservatives had been so liberal that the poor libertarians can ever possibly be.
If it flow like the way it had been flowing, there is a danger of other languages blowing away with the wind.
Libertarian would strongly support the bending or breaking of the rules of grammar and syntax. They would strongly support the idea that we can communicate effectively without being grammatically correct.
Is actually good for a language.
But conservatives wouldn’t reconsider their stance.
And liberals would backlash by saying something as pointed very nicely by ‘Jug Suraiya’(Time for Englishes nov’06 TOI) , “it would be going against the grain of English language, as is the most eclectic and self-renewing in the world”, and to sum it up, “communication takes precedence”. “Language is a free trade agreement” and what not.
No one would deny.
But! A big but. (If this is the beauty of being liberal, playing with the connotations, I enjoy it, double entendre) if the communication takes the center stage, we have to see if we have any obverse to the ostensible theory.
Different languages which developed from almost the same source, are also not that far off, then why we could not twig a German speech (or literature), French, Spanish, et al., I am talking about the normal people who are not that quick on the uptake to understand foreign languages from the same origin.
We cannot understand.
We cannot communicate effectively.
Hindrance in the free flow of feelings.
No successful trade of ideas and feelings, as we are blinkered enough to read the terms & conditions of the agreement of ideas and feelings.
It seems that it would’ve been better if used the sign language to communicate feelings and ideas. But is also not safe.
It was observed that we introduced too many letters in the alphabets that we could handle initially, as there were very few words, and also the stand of many letters was not solid as people started allocating letters differently for different sounds, at their own behest, as if they were keeping their own counsel. Also there were not much things to talk about, as the word bank was small. The alphabets were introduced but there were not much enough words in primordial languages. The full potential of the alphabet was not utilized.
Different regional usage and application of the language were observed, as the system was not that organized.
What I personally feel is that all those wars in the history took place because of the difference in the languages.
Just an example:
“Wæth yo sah en no understanth”. Who would not get agitated if had to hear this 50 times. Every such like sentence would be double Dutch for any body, who is not that good at the up take, for someone who does not speak that language.
And now just imagine that you are the person who is trying to say something for such a long time, but of no help.
And at last you give up and say something like: “ go en f*** yoerselva”.
And to your surprise, that those were the only words from your language he could understand.
And the next thing we heard of history, one was dead.
So the idea is, these things only create differences. Dwelling on the primordial to support your believes is of no use if we could not learn anything from it.
It would be better in the interest of both liberals and conservatives to come to a unanimous decision, get the language in the third way.
We cannot afford to be an ignorant and indifferent libertarian any more if we somehow want to a true liberal.
And being a hard-core conservative won’t help us either, is equally bad as being a liberal.
And both ilk’s doing their bit separately, is a disaster.
How?
To quote an example:
Say, in modern societies somebody who knows few words but no grammar and syntax.
Till the time you do not make the right gestures you won’t be able to express yourself, no matter how badly you try with your face expressions. And the fact is if we had been real good at the sign language, as not everybody is quite good at the grasp, if they ever had been, the need for language wouldn’t have arisen in the first place. It was needed when there were very few things but food, and now without language, expression of your thought is quite is task. Just remember situations when you spoke at length and people did not understand you, similar to something like that is what we have here.
Just imagine a situation where someone who did not know of the grammar and the syntax, and is not that good at art of expressions, is trying to ask if he can eat food in a formal situation.
Let say, I EAT FOOD. The possible response could be: “Good! Everybody eat food. You eat food, does not make you any good. I also eat food. Not only eat food, I drink, and I sleep, I bathe, and do lot many things.”
EAT FOOD. No thanks!
FOOD WANT EAT.
What food want eat! Your food is dead (if you chose to point at the food) it can’t eat anymore. Did u mean food want heat? Oh! You want to cook something.
WANT EAT FOOD.
No thank! Not now, I’ll eat later.
WANT FOOD EAT.
Put it on the simmer.
EAT FOOD WANT: Go.To.H**l.
And to save yourself from more efforts: eat food, no food, yes food, and possible embarrassment, you recollect your thoughts and say:
“WANT FOOD”: the possible response could be, who want food? Me, no! And if you want to eat, eat. But don’t ask me to. I’m not hungry. I’ll eat later. And if I’ll ever eat, I’ll not eat with you.
It makes it quite difficult for people to understand you. Till the time you do not use right signs you would confuse people. But signs can also confuse. And also, everybody is not as nice as you are, they have some inhibition that make them act the way they do, that’s why they take that long to understand. And sometimes, they make you feel as if they do not want to understand. Yes, most of the time they really do not want to understand.
And what if they could not understand “want food”, and you could not hold on to your dispositions and the nicety of the situation, because you were famished. And you cry with all your might and the right tone and expression. And say it again: “WANTTTTTTTT FOODDDDDDDDDDDD”.
And if still they can’t understand you, you do not belong in that place. That place might be full of hard-core conservatives.
In gumption, the knowledge of grammar and syntax is helpful.
To move to the next phase of learning, “The right pronunciation takes precedence”.
How?
To quote an example, almost everybody knows the purpose, the seriousness, and the application of the phrase “I LOVE YOU”.
No that much grammar.
Just imagine, you were beaten up with the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary, and syntax but you do not know the pronunciation.
Why would you know grammar, vocabulary, and syntax?
Almost everybody know, to get the true meaning come easy and to communicate with ease.
And if I say, the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary and syntax is of no use, if we did not know the right pronunciation in the very first place.
If u say these three golden words as:” i: loυvei: jaυ” or anything of that sort. Do anything you wish to, apply intonation rule, any grammar, or choose any other word from your vast vocabulary, which you will somehow distort the same way as you distorted these three words, won’t solve the purpose. Try to change, tone, style, or whatever.
But if the right pronunciation of the word ‘love’ and the tone required is used, you will somehow get the message across, and the desired results.
People also say ‘love has no language’. By the same token, what if your love does not speak the language you know, does not know the meaning of the word ‘love’ (script), then you are in a big trouble. Try to learn the language she knows ( and the right pronunciation) or try the sign language (risks involved).
The best approach would be to take the matter in the third way, and try to save the different languages from possible threats (hard core conservatives and libertarians)
The Dispersion of population led to the emergence of different languages.
Different languages developed differently with somewhat similar alphabetic script in their own separate identities.
Application differences were observed in terms of sound allocation with different arrangement of letters to spell words.
The idea is that we have already been enough liberals to the point that we cannot understand most of us. Being liberal is not going to help us any good way. If people had ever followed rules, then we wouldn’t have those many languages as we have today. The question is, if we could do any better or just float in somewhat same currents we saw primordial libertarians floating.
This is actually a crucial time for English language, and other languages as well.
If we do not want our native words go astray in maze (self-creation), and if we want to save them from being anglicized because we are not the only race that avow to be libertarian.******Then we’ve got to clear-up our acts in time, before we see too much complicated kedgeree to work on.
Original word sounds had been transmuted to something, which is not even close to the actual sounds.
The inconspicuous damage would be to every language (developed on the same script or else wise) resulting in to a concoction, and if you had to pick something from that concocted crucible you would not be able to, if you wanted to pick something that belonged to you.
People with Conservative and libertarian views are pitted against each other with no good enough reasons.
Libertarians say, language should be let free—–Good. —-Fine! This is the way languages grow.
Conservatives say, put a check, speak right.
The fact is, the so-called conservatives had been so liberal that the poor libertarians can ever possibly be.
If it flow like the way it had been flowing, there is a danger of other languages blowing away with the wind.
Libertarian would strongly support the bending or breaking of the rules of grammar and syntax. They would strongly support the idea that we can communicate effectively without being grammatically correct.
Is actually good for a language.
But conservatives wouldn’t reconsider their stance.
And liberals would backlash by saying something as pointed very nicely by ‘Jug Suraiya’(Time for Englishes nov’06 TOI) , “it would be going against the grain of English language, as is the most eclectic and self-renewing in the world”, and to sum it up, “communication takes precedence”. “Language is a free trade agreement” and what not.
No one would deny.
But! A big but. (If this is the beauty of being liberal, playing with the connotations, I enjoy it, double entendre) if the communication takes the center stage, we have to see if we have any obverse to the ostensible theory.
Different languages which developed from almost the same source, are also not that far off, then why we could not twig a German speech (or literature), French, Spanish, et al., I am talking about the normal people who are not that quick on the uptake to understand foreign languages from the same origin.
We cannot understand.
We cannot communicate effectively.
Hindrance in the free flow of feelings.
No successful trade of ideas and feelings, as we are blinkered enough to read the terms & conditions of the agreement of ideas and feelings.
It seems that it would’ve been better if used the sign language to communicate feelings and ideas. But is also not safe.
It was observed that we introduced too many letters in the alphabets that we could handle initially, as there were very few words, and also the stand of many letters was not solid as people started allocating letters differently for different sounds, at their own behest, as if they were keeping their own counsel. Also there were not much things to talk about, as the word bank was small. The alphabets were introduced but there were not much enough words in primordial languages. The full potential of the alphabet was not utilized.
Different regional usage and application of the language were observed, as the system was not that organized.
What I personally feel is that all those wars in the history took place because of the difference in the languages.
Just an example:
“Wæth yo sah en no understanth”. Who would not get agitated if had to hear this 50 times. Every such like sentence would be double Dutch for any body, who is not that good at the up take, for someone who does not speak that language.
And now just imagine that you are the person who is trying to say something for such a long time, but of no help.
And at last you give up and say something like: “ go en f*** yoerselva”.
And to your surprise, that those were the only words from your language he could understand.
And the next thing we heard of history, one was dead.
So the idea is, these things only create differences. Dwelling on the primordial to support your believes is of no use if we could not learn anything from it.
It would be better in the interest of both liberals and conservatives to come to a unanimous decision, get the language in the third way.
We cannot afford to be an ignorant and indifferent libertarian any more if we somehow want to a true liberal.
And being a hard-core conservative won’t help us either, is equally bad as being a liberal.
And both ilk’s doing their bit separately, is a disaster.
How?
To quote an example:
Say, in modern societies somebody who knows few words but no grammar and syntax.
Till the time you do not make the right gestures you won’t be able to express yourself, no matter how badly you try with your face expressions. And the fact is if we had been real good at the sign language, as not everybody is quite good at the grasp, if they ever had been, the need for language wouldn’t have arisen in the first place. It was needed when there were very few things but food, and now without language, expression of your thought is quite is task. Just remember situations when you spoke at length and people did not understand you, similar to something like that is what we have here.
Just imagine a situation where someone who did not know of the grammar and the syntax, and is not that good at art of expressions, is trying to ask if he can eat food in a formal situation.
Let say, I EAT FOOD. The possible response could be: “Good! Everybody eat food. You eat food, does not make you any good. I also eat food. Not only eat food, I drink, and I sleep, I bathe, and do lot many things.”
EAT FOOD. No thanks!
FOOD WANT EAT.
What food want eat! Your food is dead (if you chose to point at the food) it can’t eat anymore. Did u mean food want heat? Oh! You want to cook something.
WANT EAT FOOD.
No thank! Not now, I’ll eat later.
WANT FOOD EAT.
Put it on the simmer.
EAT FOOD WANT: Go.To.H**l.
And to save yourself from more efforts: eat food, no food, yes food, and possible embarrassment, you recollect your thoughts and say:
“WANT FOOD”: the possible response could be, who want food? Me, no! And if you want to eat, eat. But don’t ask me to. I’m not hungry. I’ll eat later. And if I’ll ever eat, I’ll not eat with you.
It makes it quite difficult for people to understand you. Till the time you do not use right signs you would confuse people. But signs can also confuse. And also, everybody is not as nice as you are, they have some inhibition that make them act the way they do, that’s why they take that long to understand. And sometimes, they make you feel as if they do not want to understand. Yes, most of the time they really do not want to understand.
And what if they could not understand “want food”, and you could not hold on to your dispositions and the nicety of the situation, because you were famished. And you cry with all your might and the right tone and expression. And say it again: “WANTTTTTTTT FOODDDDDDDDDDDD”.
And if still they can’t understand you, you do not belong in that place. That place might be full of hard-core conservatives.
In gumption, the knowledge of grammar and syntax is helpful.
To move to the next phase of learning, “The right pronunciation takes precedence”.
How?
To quote an example, almost everybody knows the purpose, the seriousness, and the application of the phrase “I LOVE YOU”.
No that much grammar.
Just imagine, you were beaten up with the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary, and syntax but you do not know the pronunciation.
Why would you know grammar, vocabulary, and syntax?
Almost everybody know, to get the true meaning come easy and to communicate with ease.
And if I say, the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary and syntax is of no use, if we did not know the right pronunciation in the very first place.
If u say these three golden words as:” i: loυvei: jaυ” or anything of that sort. Do anything you wish to, apply intonation rule, any grammar, or choose any other word from your vast vocabulary, which you will somehow distort the same way as you distorted these three words, won’t solve the purpose. Try to change, tone, style, or whatever.
But if the right pronunciation of the word ‘love’ and the tone required is used, you will somehow get the message across, and the desired results.
People also say ‘love has no language’. By the same token, what if your love does not speak the language you know, does not know the meaning of the word ‘love’ (script), then you are in a big trouble. Try to learn the language she knows ( and the right pronunciation) or try the sign language (risks involved).
The best approach would be to take the matter in the third way, and try to save the different languages from possible threats (hard core conservatives and libertarians)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)