C'da, > *** Ram, why do you separate 'common' people from >the 'uncommon'? WHO gave > the 'uncommon' exclusive rights to use >the standards of the language?
Sorry about that. But I had to do it for several reasons. The uncommon ( as you call them) are more capable of setting the standards because of their education and talents. Anyone who thinks they have such talent is welcome to that club. And the common people may or may not have any use for such standards. All these standards (right or wrong) are by the intelligentsia, for the intelligentsia, and of the intelligentsia. So the 'common man' has little or no role or use for such standards or lack thereof of transliterations, and that too in Ingrezi. >But for those, the 'uncommon' lot, who do have a need, what is >THEIR rationale for Sanskritizing them before they transliterate >them? That is MY question Why do we have to look for a rationale? What if they just transliterated into English because every other language in took similar paths? They may NOT have seen anything wrong with such an approach? Like right now: What is the pressing need to transliterate in English?For whose benefit is this? Could the future tell us we had no backbone, and we were ga-ga over English (at the expense of neighboring languages)? And even if IS important to transliterate in English, why are we making it more difficult for the Sahibs/mems to pronounce Assamese words perfectly - why not give them leeway? IMHO, my idea of transliteration is simply this make it easy as possible for the user - without making them go thru hoops and loops, while at the same time keeping (as much as possible) the sanctity of the pronounciations. The more difficult you make it, the fewer people will be interested. --Ram On 9/14/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >You are deftly mixing up the issues:). When I said there was no rationale - > >I meant that the > common folks do not necessarily use rationale when choosing to pronounce one > and write in English > >some other way. > > > > > > *** Ram, why do you separate 'common' people from the 'uncommon'? WHO gave > the 'uncommon' exclusive rights to use the standards of the language? > > > > > Yes, many people don't have the NEED to transcribe Oxomiya words and names in > English. That is not a secret. But for those, the 'uncommon' lot, who do > have a need, what is THEIR rationale for Sanskritizing them before they > transliterate them? That is MY question. > > > You can't find a rationale, but won't accept that there was NO rationale, > other than what Rajen explained this morning. > > > You don't accept that. It is your right and prerogative not to :-), and > instead hold out the possibility of some unknown, unfathomable, logic that > must have driven the 'uncommon' to pursue such an illogical and irrational > path. > > > > > But, in one swift sweep, how can we brush aside their writings,>just > > because >we don't agree? > > > > *** Because we are just as capable, if not more,than those supposedly > 'uncommon' people whose words or actions some choose to follow or acquiesce > to, unquestioningly, merely because they were 'well-known'; to analyze the > possibilities, say it like it is, and do what makes better sense. That is why > :-). > > > We have no need to pay homage to colonial rulers or their apologists, be it > 'firingi, or be it desi :-). > > > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 9:10 AM -0500 9/14/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > C'da, > > >*** Well, you are the one who declared that there was no rationale. I was > >merely asking what it was :-). > > You are deftly mixing up the issues:). When I said there was no rationale - I > meant that the > common folks do not necessarily use rationale when choosing to pronounce one > and write in English > some other way. > My question was about your (and others') thinking that literary figures in > the past DID NOT use rationale > when they transliterated. I think they did. Now, it may NOT be palatable to > you or me, but to assume they did > not, make one think they had no clue what they were doing. > > >WHY is it nowhere to be found? > > I don't know. But assuming we haven't found such evidence, doesn't mean that > they did NOT use rationale. Maybe they > did not think it was necessary to articulate their rationale. But, in one > swift sweep, how can we brush aside their writings, > just because we don't agree? > > >>And this is the best one? What about illegal B'desis' silent (often no so > >>silent) invasion. >That might find more currency with most folks in Assam. > > > >*** It could. But the two are NOT mutually exclusive. One does NOT, in any > >way, shape or form, dilute or nullify the other. Do they? > > You are right, they are not. But, I haven't seen vociferous discussions on > illegal B'deshis. And the few times the subject has come up, it is usually > discared > as some 'Hinduvtta lungi menace' phobia. Unfortunately, transliteration seems > to be more important for netters than the "lungi menace". > It is no wonder, why common folks in Assam have little or no interest in > transliteration or 'how we can put our best foot forward to the Ingrezi > sahib/memsahib" :) > > --Ram > > On 9/14/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ram: > > > > > > >- how can we assume that someone in the past did NOT > > >use some rationale? > > > *** Well, you are the one who declared that there was no rationale. I was > merely asking what it was :-). > > > Now, if you found your own answer unpalatable, and are suggesting that there > just might have been some, WHY is it nowhere to be found? If Assam-netters, > some of Assam's best, can't find any, it must surely be something highly > secret, safely ensconced in some high-security vault, perhaps patrolled by > Black-Cats and Z-security details, 24/7 :-). > > > Of course the possibility of NONE, other than what Rajen described so well > this morning, being there ought not to be discarded--yet; rendering the > practice IRRATIONAL at best. What do you say :-)? > > > >And this is the best one? What about illegal B'desis' silent (often no so > >silent) invasion. >That might find more currency with most folks in Assam. > > > *** It could. But the two are NOT mutually exclusive. One does NOT, in any > way, shape or form, dilute or nullify the other. Do they? > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > At 10:09 PM -0500 9/13/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > C'da, > > > > > >*** And here enters the sheep factor: Because someone used it in the past, > > > without any rationale, should thinking and able >individuals in the present > > >time who can see better, ought to keep following the same path too? > > > > Just being the devil's advocate - how can we assume that someone in the past > did NOT > > use some rationale? > > Sure, new rationale can be used, and probably acceptable - if there are > listners and interested people. > > > > >*** Because of contemporary issues involving asserting one's ethnic identity > >and correcting misnomers imposed by outsiders. > > > > And this is the best one? What about illegal B'desis' silent (often no so > silent) invasion. That might find more currency with most folks in Assam. > > > > --Ram > > > > > On 9/13/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ram: > > > > > > > > >There is no rationale. > > > > > *** My point exactly :-). > > > > > > > > >One think so, as they ought to be ones telling us how to spell and pronounce. > > > > > *** And here enters the sheep factor: Because someone used it in the past, > without any rationale, should thinking and able individuals in the present > time who can see better, ought to keep following the same path too? Would be > the new rationale? That in my book would be absurd. Won't it for you too? > > > > > > > > >Just wondering. How is that this is now suddenly a hot-button issue? > > > > > *** Because of contemporary issues involving asserting one's ethnic identity > and correcting misnomers imposed by outsiders. > > > > > >How did people like K.K. Handique handle this? Or others for that matter? > > > > > *** I don't know. And I don't NEED to know, because it is way too simple a > matter for anyone to seek 'expert' validation from. And no one else should > need that either. > > > > > At any event, if I read correctly here in Assam Net at one time, KKH was an > advocate of using the 'x' letter for transliteration of our 'xo' sound. > Furthermore, times change, and so do customs, including style of writing, > spelling, what-have-you. And WE have to do the right things by our times, not > someone who has been long gone. > > > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 4:16 PM -0500 9/13/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > C'da, > > > > > > > >But the question is WHY? What is the logic, the rationale? > > > > There is no rationale. Such issues are only relevant for the intelligentsia. > For the common folks this is just another nuance. Tell me why a khetiok > working in his parched lands would want to apply any logic in this regard? > > > > >*** Do I take it therefore, that "well-known literary figures' lead here is > >the driving factor? > > > > One think so, as they ought to be ones telling us how to spell and pronounce. > > > > Just wondering. How is that this is now suddenly a hot-button issue? > > > > How did people like K.K. Handique handle this? Or others for that matter? > > > > How would KKH have written 'Oxom' or 'Oxom Xahityo Xobha' or > > even 'Xonkordeu' when they wrote in English? There were no X's then. > > > > Just curious > > > > --Ram > > > > > > On 9/13/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Many people often pronounce it one way (like Xonkrordev or Xonkrordeb), but > >>when they write it in English, they write it differently (Sankaradeva). > > > > > > > > *** I noticed. Tell me something I don't know :-). > > > > > But the question is WHY? What is the logic, the rationale? > > > > > > > > >And they did NOT come up with these spellings in English all by themselves, > >but >because of the practice of the literary figures and the GOA. > > > > > *** And what is THEIR logic? > > > > > > > > > >their lack of logic or they are just 'sheep' > > > > > > >as you suggest, is open to question. > > > > > *** Why is it still OPEN to question Ram? What part of my logic is > incomprehensible :-)? > > > > > > > > >'cause thats how it has been probably written by well-known literry figures. > > > > > *** Do I take it therefore, that "well-known literary figures' lead here is > the driving factor? And had these "well-known" people used a Bengalified > version or a Hindified version of Assamese sounds before transliterating them > in English, the sheep would have followed them just the same, and sympathetic > Assam Netters would have manufactured convoluted justifications for them just > the same ? > > > > > Call me dense, but that is the part I can't dig Ram. That inability to > process ordinary logic, particularly by people who ought to be or could be > expected to be :-). > > > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 12:59 PM -0500 9/13/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > C'da. > > > > > > > > > >>---why they should follow your or my path to spellings and transliteration. > > > > >*** Anyone endowed with an ability to reason, and knowledgeably ( about >the > >subject matter) ought to go by what is LOGICAL, not necessarily by >what > >Rajen suggests or I support > > > > They have the ability to reason well, but they just consider this as > something very important at this point of time. > > > > > > >But if you don't and you are not ashamed of pronouncing it >Xonkrordev or as > >in Upper Assam as Xonkordeu, then you ought to >transliterate it the way you > >pronounce it. > > > > Many people often pronounce it one way (like Xonkrordev or Xonkrordeb), but > when they write it in English, they write it differently (Sankaradeva). And > they did NOT come up with these spellings in English all by themselves, but > because of the practice of the literary figures and the GOA. > > > > Now, whether all this is due to their lack of logic or they are just 'sheep' > > as you suggest, is open to question. > > I think, common folks just haven't given it much thought and are not > interested in making this a hot issue. > > > > >*** WHY so ? Why does one write Sankaradeva? Can you explain :-)? > > > > 'cause thats how it has been probably written by well-known literry figures. > Don't think common folks had some agenda of pushing Sanskrit or English when > they write that way. > > > > To you or me, writing that way may be an issue with Assamese identity, but > maybe not for others (at least it looks that way) > > > > >But that does NOT make it a non-issue. Origins of all good things and > >>movements could be traced to a thought of a single individual > > > > No, it doesn't make it a non-issue. Noble as such things are, one does need > support. On the practical side, anything like this does need support and > interest - without which, you will be spitting in the wind. > > > > >> There was absolutely NO interest - > > >*** So? > > > > Same as above > > > > >Tell you what: That kind of tenacity and faith in my own sense of what is > >>right and what is not, has served me very well:-)! > > > > So it has for me. But, I wonder what it does for the "cause" :) > > > > --Ram > > > > > > > On 9/13/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ram: > > > > > >---why they should follow your or my path to spellings and transliteration. > > > > > *** Anyone endowed with an ability to reason, and knowledgeably ( about the > subject matter) ought to go by what is LOGICAL, not necessarily by what Rajen > suggests or I support. Rajen's or my role are little--we just help clarify > the issues. > > > > > > > Assamese people do not call their icon Sankaradeva, do they? Do you? If you > or others do, they ought to stick with that transliteration. But if you don't > and you are not ashamed of pronouncing it Xonkrordev or as in Upper Assam as > Xonkordeu, then you ought to transliterate it the way you pronounce it. > > > > > Is it a profound conundrum? Maybe so, to some. It certainly is NOT for me. > Ought not to be for you. > > > > > Should we follow like sheep? I would submit, we ought not to. > > > > > >Never thought, I would hear that from you? What then, do you recommend that > >>this public do? > > > > > *** Attempt to learn! > > > > > > > > >So, this is really NOT about transliteration at all, is it? > > > > > > *** WHY so ? Why does one write Sankaradeva? Can you explain :-)? > > > > > > > > >You know, some of us actually took out an online petition against this name > >issue. Want to know the results? > > > > > > > > > > *** I know. We have done that on a number of issues with similar results. But > that does NOT make it a non-issue. Origins of all good things and movements > could be traced to a thought of a single individual. > > > > > > > > > There was absolutely NO interest - > > > > > *** So? > > > > > >Well, I just reminded, once again, some of us were taken for another ride. I > >am still sore from that rough ride :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Par for the course Ram! Do I need to retell accounts of my rough rides > :-)? But still I would not back down from what I believe in to be correct, do > I? > > > > > Tell you what: That kind of tenacity and faith in my own sense of what is > right and what is not, has served me very well:-)! > > > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:43 AM -0500 9/13/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > C'da, > > > > > > > > > > > Bhuban da and Manoj do make some good points. Yes, you and Barua are probably > right about the 'subject mentality' and also how 'Assam' got > mis-transliterated. > > > > Like it or not, OXX has been bestowed the 'literary authority' as it consists > of most of the famous literary figures in Assam. > > Now, you can say -why should we listen to the dictates of OXX or the GOA etc? > Well, the question can be turned around and the common man on the street can > well ask why they should follow your or my path to spellings and > transliteration. > > > > > > Now, (even if they are all wrong, and say you, Barua, and some others are > right), how would non-literary types like myself (or Monoj - sorry Monoj) > propose a drastically different spelling or go against the best literary > minds in Assam? > > > > >the ignorant public takes it lying down, > > > > Never thought, I would hear that from you? What then, do you recommend that > this public do? > > > > >It is those who have no self esteem, continue to kow-tow to >superior > >language gods, be it Xongskrit, be it English. > > > > So, this is really NOT about transliteration at all, is it? It is more about > the Assamese identity. Why not sell that idea straight out of the box, > instead of mixing it up with transliteration - after all the common man is > ignorant :). > > > > You know, some of us actually took out an online petition against this name > issue. Want to know the results? > > > > Well, 5 voted for it, and no one else cared one way or the other. There was > absolutely NO interest - even from those who were touting opposition to the > GOA's changing the name to Asom, ga-ga -ing all the way, and egging us to > start the petition. > > > > Well, I just reminded, once again, some of us were taken for another ride. I > am still sore from that rough ride :) > > > > --Ram > > > > > > On 9/13/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear BK: > > > > > I can't see HOW the Oxom Xahityo Xobha could become the sole custodian of the > Assamese language or the Assamese identity. > > > > > It is typical of desi-demokrasy, where elections seem to bestow > dictatorial/monarchical powers to bureaucrats and elected reps., and the > ignorant public takes it lying down, while the intelligentsia, similarly > clueless remain invisible and silent. > > > > > >Rajen ought to get a full hearing as anybody else. > > > > > *** It is NOT just Rajen's pet peeve. It is an issue for all Assamese who > care about its 'ostitwo', its claim to an identity all its own, without > apologies, without having to bow to ANYONE. > > > > > > > > > It is those who have no self esteem, continue to kow-tow to superior language > gods, be it Xongskrit, be it English. > > > > > > > > *** About the 'Sankaradeva' spelling for example, could it have been that > when the first British colonial masters transliterated the name, were also > people who > > were Xongskrit learners, and could not separate the Assamese from its > Sanskrit > > connections? Thus they chose to Sanskritize an Assamese name, when they > transliterated them in English. > > > > > Once that happened, the subject people, and even their intellectuals albeit > similarly burdened by a subject mentality, could not imagine transliterating > Xongkordev. Instead they followed the steps of their colonial masters. > > > > > > And to this day, some, including for example the AT, cannot imagine breaking > from that tradition of colonial servitude, just like many of Assam's > intelligentsia. > > > > > But why should WE? > > > > > Best. > > > > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 9:56 AM -0400 9/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Language: en > > > > > > > > > > > Dear MKD/Mike et al > > > > It appears the State Government sought Asam Sahitya Sabha's views on the > matter of renaming Assam. It is possible without the benefit of wide > discussion and debate the Sahitya Sabha recommended the change to Asom and > the State Government accepted it. > > > > Perhaps even now Asam Sahitya Sabha can take up the matter again. It is not > too late as the necessary Constitutional amendments are yet to take place. > Rajen ought to get a full hearing as anybody else. > > > > Regards > > > > Bhuban > > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
