Post #23,352
1/7/02 8:39:47 AM
|
That's not so much "better" English the Han are speaking...
...as FOREIGN (American) English. The Hindus, on the other hand, are speaking perfectly correct English -- only, it's their NATIVE English, not American (Foreign) English.
That is, the Chinese you get to hear speaking English are the tiny minority who have learnt a foreign language well enough (and got enough of an education in general) to dare emigrate somewhere where it's the first or only language. Most -- an overwhelming majority -- of their countrymen, though, don't speak it at all, or with such atrocious accents that you'd probably scream your lungs out for a good Raj-English-speaking Hindu (or Sikh) if you had to try and make sense of what they're saying.
In India, you have the opposite situation: It's precisely *because* English is big enough to be a living useful language there that it's adapting to Indian accents; that this is becoming its own form of the language, no less "correct" (in its own environment) than Strine in 'Strailia or "Yah Mon" in Jameehka (while China doesn't have a native English except *possibly* in HK -- Doug?). The Indians who emigrate are polyglot; they just take *one* of their several languages with them where they go -- and are probably no less shocked at what *you* have done to the language of the King James Bible than you at what they have.
Sheesh, guys... How the *fuck* is it that none of you could see what's so obvious? Weren't you all being Birdy(-brain)-num(bskull)-num(bskull)s there?
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #23,401
1/7/02 3:52:52 PM
|
Perfectly correct Hindu English?
It depends on what the definition of "English" is. I suppose of Ebonics counts as a legitimate dialect, then so should this.
But there are two aprts to the problem: the spoken accent, and the ideosyncracies of style. Everything they say comes out sounding more or less like "blooble ooble ooble ooble" so you figure if they just put it in writing there'll be no problem. It's at that point that you realize it's possible to write with an accent.
No, they don't spell funny or use really bad grammar. But they do use bad style. I can tell the difference between something written by a Chinese and something written by a south Indian without looking at the name. The Chinese writes in crisp clear sentences that get to the point. A little ungrammatical perhaps, but never fatally so. The Hindu style is obscurantist by comparison. Perhaps even in actuality. He doesn't so much tell you something as allude to it.
Or maybe it's partly me. But it's not through want of trying. Remember, I'm the guy who got halfway through the Bhagavad Gita (in an English translation) before giving up in exasperation. And I still get headaches from trying to read most of Ashton's posts.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #23,406
1/7/02 4:50:26 PM
|
Do you mean Hinglish?
Not to mention Bonglish and Tamlish. [link|http://www.india-seminar.com/2001/501/501%20sagarika%20ghose.htm|[link|http://www.india-seminar.com/2001/501/501%20sagarika%20ghose.htm|http://www.india-se...%20ghose.htm]] It\ufffds been argued that the invention of Hinglish et al is part of the post-colonial trajectory and a legitimate urge to convert the language of the colonial master into an authentic subcontinental tongue as valid as the American and Australian versions. But the counter-argument is that although the \ufffdchutney\ufffd languages fulfil an important role, they are as yet not developed enough to become an entire lexicon unto themselves. Your problem is that your Indian co-workers don't know the difference between Higlish and English. Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #23,408
1/7/02 4:57:00 PM
|
Still symptoms of the same phenomenon, I'd guess.
If the south Indian's English is native, or one of several "native" languages for him, you could get "bleed-over" from his other languages (that's how bilinguality works; trust me, I live among a language majority of Finnish-speakers and get to see how that's affected the Finland-Swede minority's Swedish). Maybe in Hindi or whatever, the style you call "bad" in English is all the rage? I dunno.
Whereas the Chinese, in my hypothesis, *naturally* writes "crisp clear sentences that get to the point" -- that's what you *do* in an essentially alien language; you write as if everything were a school essay, because to you, it pretty much *is*.
And I wouldn't put Raj English on a level with "Ebonics" -- there probably is a "Raj English Ebonics", the speakers of which are looked down upon and seen as bumpkins by genteel speakers of "High Raj English", and you've met only the former (because the latter are well-enough off home in India not to have to emigrate to the States)...
Oh sure, this is all pretty much conjecture, but it seems to stand to reason. (Or, to say the same thing in less scientificative terms, it "feels intuitively right".)
P.S: Never even tried the Bhagavad Gita, but I *do* feel rather OK with Ashton... :-)
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #23,410
1/7/02 5:12:56 PM
|
Effort to learn a language.
I think it's an advantage that non-native speakers have (myself included :) ). In order to be understood, we have to apply an effort and learn the language. We expect that effort to be needed. In the case of Indians, English is almost (or even fully) native tongue to them. They do not expect or plan on spend any effort learning English. So, when people around them don't understand what they are saying, their answer is, basically, "Tough, I speak English just like you do."
|
Post #23,412
1/7/02 5:22:45 PM
1/8/02 5:23:56 PM
|
To say it in Oxlish, "Ed Zachary"! :-)
Edited by CRConrad
Jan. 8, 2002, 05:23:56 PM EST
|
Post #23,413
1/7/02 5:23:00 PM
1/8/02 5:25:30 PM
|
One was enuf (WTF happened?); someone admidelete this please
Edited by CRConrad
Jan. 8, 2002, 05:25:30 PM EST
|
Post #23,425
1/7/02 6:10:17 PM
|
I think it's partially the natural Chinese manner
For all his idiosyncracies, I find Sun Tzu vastly easier to follow than the Bhagavad Gita. Even if I don't get an allusion, I can figure it out from the context. And it makes sense, too. Even Lao Tzu makes some sense to me.
By contrast, with the Bhagavad Gita, I feel like I'm being subjected to a snow job to rival any blizzard in Buffalo. The more I try to understand, the greater my suspicion grows that I'm being Sokal-ized.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #23,432
1/7/02 7:05:01 PM
|
There's another aspect to that one, I think.
Sun Tzu's topic is about human psych - so naturally it (can be) translates well-enough. The BG is about It All and.. without Anyone's silly \ufffd. But it presupposes a quite different mindset than 'ours' in the West - it is not 'theology' nor about 'Gods' - except quite peripherally, and always acknowledging such as mere symbols and not 'Beings'. Sanskrit itself was developed for the express purpose of aiding in dealing with matters which Couldn't possibly have er 'local referents' - as all other languages rely upon.
If you try to read the BG, with no interest in, exposure to.. some rather lengthy (actual) discussion of the meanings* of a number of Sanskrit words - as you see populating the work - you might well come away with the Zippo you suggest.
* meaning is ever a tall order - whole libraries on the idea. Another word like reality ? But I 'mean' - trying to get past the most often entirely too literal and serial models of It All, as is the Western practice in its 'theology' - that is the base condition.
In brief - I don't believe that the BG Can be 'read' as one might read Chaucer or Beowulf (with a dictionary) and finally.. sorta see the outlines of an allegory amidst the similes. It presupposes *some* familiarity with Eastern attitudes and allegories for Existence. It is a Cosmology.
I pretend no scholarship in Sanskrit, But I have puzzled over and discussed the many (main) concepts, and over years. During that time my 'ideas' of the words has changed as.. I have changed / we all change. 'Interest' in the ideas precedes doing this much work! IMhO - I don't believe that can be 'created along the way'.
'Explaining' further isn't much of an option, for similar reasons to why proselytizing also ever fails - no one can tell someone else what, their Questions are? (and especially! what their Questions Ought to Be\ufffd!) Hey.. it's something akin to grokking to Fullness ya know?
But I can admire your spirit in trying.. :-\ufffd
Ashton
|
Post #23,439
1/7/02 8:09:23 PM
|
Yeah, like I said.
It's a big snow job.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
