y shud inglish b Bkoming D language in India?. It only grew bkose of kolonial xploitashon , it does not deserve it, I refuse to even loathe it hence i boathe it.

I am suffering from kolonial blues, did not study fesiks for a week bkose of inglish being d language it being ritten in.
, wud have felt better had i never thought of it,

It brings us 2 a philosophical question, are we better of never being konsciously aware of some questions, Bkause of the cognitive load those questions might force on your identity?

For a moment there, I thought you had a blocked nothe.

Regarding your question [and in my best Dr Phil voice]: What you need to do here is confront, explore, and deal with whatever "crisis of identity" a question may present to you. You will only become stronger with this knowledge and your ability to deal with it. It may be something that affects your everyday life, even for your entire life. The sooner you come to terms with it and completely understand it, the sooner you become a more mature and stronger human being, able to handle life's difficulties and conflicts, whether they be cultural, physical, emotional, or whatever.

/Dr Phil

JayWilson wrote:For a moment there, I thought you had a blocked nothe.

Regarding your question [and in my best Dr Phil voice]: What you need to do here is confront, explore, and deal with whatever "crisis of identity" a question may present to you. You will only become stronger with this knowledge and your ability to deal with it. It may be something that affects your everyday life, even for your entire life. The sooner you come to terms with it and completely understand it, the sooner you become a more mature and stronger human being, able to handle life's difficulties and conflicts, whether they be cultural, physical, emotional, or whatever.

/Dr Phil

Thanks, but I am done, I think, I plot to rule the world and impose the language of
Piraha people.

However you are lucky that I have just read on Gandhi,jainism and quakers and decided the best bit to do is to learn other languages and translate physics into them. You can only beat colonialism blues by being creative in your own world and tradition

Perhaps you should also consider that once English itself was a suppressed language under the colonial yoke of Norman French?

Matt_B wrote:Perhaps you should also consider that once English itself was a suppressed language under the colonial yoke of Norman French?

please I am trying to unplot things in my head.

I agree. Indian languages need to be developed far further than they have been now, and take over some of English's domains in the subcontinent. Of course, this doesn't mean that South Asians shouldn't learn English, just that they shouldn't forget about their own languages... in other words, just like places like Scandinavia and the Netherlands where most people speak English really well but speak their own language most of the time as well as in professional/educational contexts.

Just take over English and make it your own. You need your own Joyce.

(or even NWA)

Animavore wrote:Just take over English and make it your own. You need your own Joyce.

(or even NWA)

Bingo!

The real problem here is provincialism. There is no one language better than any other, but there is definitely a case for having one single language spoken by everybody. There are only a few contenders for that role, and English is by far the front runner, being already spoken by the vast majority of people as at least a second language (which is the case for the majority of native speakers, sadly). It also has the other advantage of being completely malleable in ways that most other languages are not, in that you can form new words without ambiguity based on just a few simple rules. It also embraces words from other language. especially where the non-English word describes something that English has no word for. This, of course, makes it supremely evolvable, and in this sense it is difficult to find another reasonable candidate for global language.

Chinese, of course, is the best of the runners-up, and indeed is rapidly being taken up in business circles, but it still has a long way to go in terms of being spoken broadly, and is hampered by saturation of dialects, often raidcally different. That's not to say that English doesn't have its dialects, and indeed there are dialects of English that cannot be understood by other English speakers (once a scouser gets going at full speed, forget it, unless you're a scouser, and that's not even dialect, only accent).

Och, an' dinnae git mi staerted oan a gie hearsh Scoh-tush ahhccent ye wee strappers.

Animavore wrote:Just take over English and make it your own. You need your own Joyce.

(or even NWA)

So, u cant escape it so accept it is it?.

hackenslash wrote:

Animavore wrote:Just take over English and make it your own. You need your own Joyce.

(or even NWA)

Bingo!

The real problem here is provincialism. There is no one language better than any other, but there is definitely a case for having one single language spoken by everybody. There are only a few contenders for that role, and English is by far the front runner, being already spoken by the vast majority of people as at least a second language (which is the case for the majority of native speakers, sadly). It also has the other advantage of being completely malleable in ways that most other languages are not, in that you can form new words without ambiguity based on just a few simple rules. It also embraces words from other language. especially where the non-English word describes something that English has no word for. This, of course, makes it supremely evolvable, and in this sense it is difficult to find another reasonable candidate for global language.

Chinese, of course, is the best of the runners-up, and indeed is rapidly being taken up in business circles, but it still has a long way to go in terms of being spoken broadly, and is hampered by saturation of dialects, often raidcally different. That's not to say that English doesn't have its dialects, and indeed there are dialects of English that cannot be understood by other English speakers (once a scouser gets going at full speed, forget it, unless you're a scouser, and that's not even dialect, only accent).

There is no case for everyone to have one language, there is a case for people to be able to communicate with others and that means translation technologies. Second, english is not embracing new words as much as new words are entering into it given the huge number of non-english native speakers taking it. The rest comes from the number of people taking it, else wud you expect the same amount of words entering into it say 300 yrs ago?.
Power changes the world, they get to impose not just their language but also their culture, dressing styles and a lot more, it is due to the asymmetric power relationship.Otherwise people must choose(in which case it becomes random) or perhaps make a new language which is the best, but there is no scientific evaluation of which language is a better one.

Saim wrote:I agree. Indian languages need to be developed far further than they have been now, and take over some of English's domains in the subcontinent. Of course, this doesn't mean that South Asians shouldn't learn English, just that they shouldn't forget about their own languages... in other words, just like places like Scandinavia and the Netherlands where most people speak English really well but speak their own language most of the time as well as in professional/educational contexts.

cavarka9 wrote:

Animavore wrote:Just take over English and make it your own. You need your own Joyce.

(or even NWA)

So, u cant escape it so accept it is it?.

I think it's a non-issue. And this is from someone coming from a postcolony who can barely speak 5 sentences of his own native language. It doesn't mean the our culture or heritage is gone. It's just been co-adapted.

cavarka9 wrote: There is no case for everyone to have one language, there is a case for people to be able to communicate with others and that means translation technologies.

You think a technological solution is better than being able to communicate freely? I'd love to hear your case.

Second, english is not embracing new words as much as new words are entering into it given the huge number of non-english native speakers taking it. The rest comes from the number of people taking it, else wud you expect the same amount of words entering into it say 300 yrs ago?.

You might want to go and do some study on the history of English, which will shatter your illusions in this regard. English is an agglomerate of at least three distinct languages, and readily consumes words from other languages if they serve a purpose not currently served. This goes back to a long time before empire-building. A quick browse of a robust etymological English lexicon should serve you here.

Power changes the world, they get to impose not just their language but also their culture, dressing styles and a lot more, it is due to the asymmetric power relationship.

See, here you make it look like I am saying that one language should take over other languages. I'd love to see you support that charge. It is actually my contention that everybody should be bi-lingual at least. What I am advocating, though, is the embracing of a language that has a broad degree of applicability, sufficient malleability to readily allow evolution, etc.

Otherwise people must choose(in which case it becomes random) or perhaps make a new language which is the best, but there is no scientific evaluation of which language is a better one.

No, but there are sound principles by which they might be evaluated, such as breadth of applicability, sufficient vocabulary for clarity, etc.

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: There is no case for everyone to have one language, there is a case for people to be able to communicate with others and that means translation technologies.

You think a technological solution is better than being able to communicate freely? I'd love to hear your case.

Obviously, you have to teach the rest of the world one language, most people wudnt like that, If you think that they shud not have that choice to reject I wud like to hear it,the only reason people are taking to it is because of science and business interests. It is not the language, it is what you can understand and obtain once you learn it that matters. If technology helps why not use it, why must people spend time learning an entire new language when they can converse with ease in 20 more with technology.

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: Second, english is not embracing new words as much as new words are entering into it given the huge number of non-english native speakers taking it. The rest comes from the number of people taking it, else wud you expect the same amount of words entering into it say 300 yrs ago?.

You might want to go and do some study on the history of English, which will shatter your illusions in this regard. English is an agglomerate of at least three distinct languages, and readily consumes words from other languages if they serve a purpose not currently served. This goes back to a long time before empire-building. A quick browse of a robust etymological English lexicon should serve you here.

Really, I think I made a very sound argument based on probability, It is upon you to show that 300yrs ago english was consuming words from other language at the same rate as now. I dont even know how you are going to go about it.

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:
Power changes the world, they get to impose not just their language but also their culture, dressing styles and a lot more, it is due to the asymmetric power relationship.

See, here you make it look like I am saying that one language should take over other languages. I'd love to see you support that charge. It is actually my contention that everybody should be bi-lingual at least. What I am advocating, though, is the embracing of a language that has a broad degree of applicability, sufficient malleability to readily allow evolution, etc.

I think I made a general statement, I never made the observation with regard to you or even 'english' in particular.

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:
Otherwise people must choose(in which case it becomes random) or perhaps make a new language which is the best, but there is no scientific evaluation of which language is a better one.

No, but there are sound principles by which they might be evaluated, such as breadth of applicability, sufficient vocabulary for clarity, etc.

Random wud do fine because languages depend on their use and that has a lot to do with power and business structures, go ahead and evaluate all the possible languages and gud luk.

cavarka9 wrote:Obviously, you have to teach the rest of the world one language, most people wudnt like that,

Upon what robust evidence do you base this conclusion?

If you think that they shud not have that choice to reject I wud like to hear it,

Once again, you are prescribing a position to me that I do not hold. Where did I say anything about forcing anyone to do anything?

the only reason people are taking to it is because of science and business interests.

Among others. Certainly they play a big part, although I don't see how this supports any of your contentions.

It is not the language, it is what you can understand and obtain once you learn it that matters. If technology helps why not use it, why must people spend time learning an entire new language when they can converse with ease in 20 more with technology.

Well, this would be all very well if it weren't for the simple fact that technology may well be transient, especially given our species' willingness to keep all its eggs in one basket. Perhaps you aren't seeing the broader implications here.

Really, I think I made a very sound argument based on probability, It is upon you to show that 300yrs ago english was consuming words from other language at the same rate as now. I dont even know how you are going to go about it.

Rate? What the fuck has rate got to do with anything? Did you even bother to go and look at what I suggested? English didn't even exist in its current form 200 years ago, and its borrowing from other languages goes a fuck of a lot further back than that. Perhaps you missed the bit about it being an agglomerate of at least three other languages at root. It is and has always been an evolving language.

I think I made a general statement, I never made the observation with regard to you or even 'english' in particular.

It might have been a general statement, but your implication was that I attempting to force a conclusion. This is much like the idiot in the tech forum who suggested that expressing my opinion constituted some sort of oppression.

Random wud do fine because languages depend on their use and that has a lot to do with power and business structures, go ahead and evaluate all the possible languages and gud luk.

Well, we can evaluate applicability and malleability. Let's see, which areas use English as a core language for precisely those reasons..?

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:Obviously, you have to teach the rest of the world one language, most people wudnt like that,

Upon what robust evidence do you base this conclusion?

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

If you think that they shud not have that choice to reject I wud like to hear it,

Once again, you are prescribing a position to me that I do not hold. Where did I say anything about forcing anyone to do anything?

hackenslash wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:
the only reason people are taking to it is because of science and business interests.

Among others. Certainly they play a big part, although I don't see how this supports any of your contentions.

Considering that we have gotten into a language game where I answer to your 'whole replies' and you are answering to my 'partial replies'. I suggest that you read and reply to me on the whole. Else perhaps I too shud break your sentences down.Now I dont need to.

Here is how things began,

The real problem here is provincialism. There is no one language better than any other, but there is definitely a case for having one single language spoken by everybody. There are only a few contenders for that role, and English is by far the front runner, being already spoken by the vast majority of people as at least a second language (which is the case for the majority of native speakers, sadly). It also has the other advantage of being completely malleable in ways that most other languages are not, in that you can form new words without ambiguity based on just a few simple rules. It also embraces words from other language. especially where the non-English word describes something that English has no word for. This, of course, makes it supremely evolvable, and in this sense it is difficult to find another reasonable candidate for global language.

Chinese, of course, is the best of the runners-up, and indeed is rapidly being taken up in business circles, but it still has a long way to go in terms of being spoken broadly, and is hampered by saturation of dialects, often raidcally different. That's not to say that English doesn't have its dialects, and indeed there are dialects of English that cannot be understood by other English speakers (once a scouser gets going at full speed, forget it, unless you're a scouser, and that's not even dialect, only accent).

and here was my reply to your 'whole reply'

There is no case for everyone to have one language, there is a case for people to be able to communicate with others and that means translation technologies. Second, english is not embracing new words as much as new words are entering into it given the huge number of non-english native speakers taking it. The rest comes from the number of people taking it, else wud you expect the same amount of words entering into it say 300 yrs ago?.
Power changes the world, they get to impose not just their language but also their culture, dressing styles and a lot more, it is due to the asymmetric power relationship.Otherwise people must choose(in which case it becomes random) or perhaps make a new language which is the best, but there is no scientific evaluation of which language is a better one.

I do not think that I began my reply by doing it in this way.

The real problem here is provincialism.

There is no one language better than any other,

but there is definitely a case for having one single language spoken by everybody.

There are only a few contenders for that role,

and English is by far the front runner,

being already spoken by the vast majority of people as at least a second language (which is the case for the majority of native speakers, sadly)

. It also has the other advantage of being completely malleable in ways that most other languages are not,

in that you can form new words without ambiguity based on just a few simple rules.

It also embraces words from other language

. especially where the non-English word describes something that English has no word for.

This, of course, makes it supremely evolvable,

and in this sense it is difficult to find another reasonable candidate for global language.


Chinese, of course, is the best of the runners-up,

and indeed is rapidly being taken up in business circles,

but it still has a long way to go in terms of being spoken broadly,

and is hampered by saturation of dialects, often raidcally different.

That's not to say that English doesn't have its dialects,

and indeed there are dialects of English that cannot be understood by other English speakers (once a scouser gets going at full speed, forget it, unless you're a scouser, and that's not even dialect, only accent).

Now, wud you mind providing justification for each of your sentences with evidence where you can.

But, I do not wish to go so far, here is where I disagree with you,

but there is definitely a case for having one single language spoken by everybody.

There are only a few contenders for that role,

and English is by far the front runner,

[/quote]

Tell me about this case for everyone to have one single language spoken by everybody,

Is it necessary? yes or no?.

If there are only a few contenders, what makes the selection possible among those few.

why has english become frontrunner?.


Or put it other way, why has spanish become frontrunner in south america?

and why cannot that become a front runner?

But of course, if you wish to continue by chopping sentences, then I wudnt mind that.

Come to where I live, Indians HAVE made their own version of English.

The thing with English, notwithstanding its having been spread by an empire, is that before that empire was even a possibility, it was the language of illiterates for 2 centuries, following the Norman conquest, during which time it lost much of the grammatical baggage that most languages have.

As a result it became easy to learn and also easy to adapt.

The result is that it is a language that consumes any word that doesn't run away fast enough, which means that a lot of the language comes form other languages anyway. And if you don't believe me then I recommend that you shampoo your hair in a bungalow in the company of a kangaroo.

It has become the ultimate adaptive language, by several accidents of history. And this is the real reason why it remains so popular.

Y'get mi buana?