Dear friends, The script controversy of Konkani is now about to take a religious colour. V. IXTT, a Konkani weekly published by a religious order and edited by a priest, has given an editorial call to the ecclesiastical authorities to begin teaching Konkani in their schools in the Roman script. Readers have also written to the editor supporting this recommendation. A signature campaign is also in full swing with copies of the letter being available with the parish priests. The reasons are as follows: There is vast difference between the language *spoken* by the child at home and in the neighbourhood and the Antruzi dialect that is found *printed* in her text books. Thus the child is more confused than enlightened. Therefore, the universally accepted principle that the child is best instructed in her mother tongue at the primary level is not valid in the existing situation. Any Goan Catholic, especially one living in the Old Conquests belt, will wholeheartedly agree with the above contention because the dialect printed in the books is not spoken in ones locality. Therefore, one need not be surprised if the signature campaign gains tremendous response. Consequently the Church may be forced to accept the suggestion of the priest editor. Let us assume that this does happen. Then what? The first question that will arise is: Which orthographic rules to adopt? There are two choices: (a) Roman script with DKA (1988) rules written by Fr. Matthew Almeida et al. or (b) Graeco-Roman script with TSKK (2005) rules written by Fr. Pratap Naik. The next question is: Which dialect should be adopted for printing the text books? The Karnataka Government too is presently grappling with this problem. Any Catholic will scoff at this question and counter it with: What is wrong with the dialect used in the Povitr Pustok Novo Korar? Sounds reasonable! But, pray, which Goan Catholic child *speaks* this dialect? I find that the Biblical dialect is not spoken, *in exact terms*, anywhere in Goa. In support of this contention I present here a few passages from the printed Bible and some representative colloquial samples of those very same passages in two talukas of Goa. A rendition in the Antruzi dialect is also added for comparison. They are marked (a) = Biblical print version, (b) = colloquial version of Velim, Salcete, (c) = colloquial version of Mapusa, Bardez, (d) = Antruzi print rendition. [Please note that Antruz = Ponda taluka.] 1. Mt. 7, 3 (a) Tujea bhavachea dolleant asa tem kuskutt tum kiteak polletai, ani tujea dolleant asa ti patti tuka dixtti poddonam? (b) Tuj bhavadolleam astem kiskutt tum kitea chôita, ani tujdolleam asti patt tuk dixponnam? (c) Tujea bhavachea doeant aham tem kus tum kiteak poitai, ani tujea doeantli patti tukam disonam? (d) Tujea bhavachea dolleant asa tem kuskutt tum kiteak polloita, ani tujea dolleant asa ti patti tuka dixtti poddona?
2. Mk. 2, 8 (a) Te tanchê bhitor oxem chinttat mhonn Jezun aplea monant rokddench ollkhun, tankam zap dili: Tumchea monant tumi oxem kiteak chinttat? (b) Te tenchbhitô exchinttaimunn Jezun apnnamonam rokddem ôllkilem ani tenko inchalem: Tunge monam tum exkitea chintta-i? (c) Te tenche bhitor ohem chint'tat munn Jezun aplea monan rokddench oukhun tenkam mhollem: Tumchea monan tumi ohem kiteak chint'tat? (d) Te aple bhitor oxem chinttat mhunn Jezun rokhddench parkhilem ani tankam oxem sanglem : Tumchea monant tumi oxem kiteak mhunn chinttat? 3. Mk. 8, 12 (a) Ani Aplea kallzan thaun suskarun Tannem mhonnlem: Hi sonsôt kiteak mhonn khunna sodta? Hê sonstik khunna mellchinam mhonn tumkam sangtam (b) Ani Apleage kallzam son suskar sônn Tenn mhullem: I sônsôt kiteamunn hunnsôdita? Iê sônsti hunn mêllchnamunn sangot tunkam. (c) Ani aplea kauzant sakun suskarun tennem mhuttlem: Hi sosot kiteak munn khunnam sodta? He sostik khunnam mevchi na munn sangtam. (d) Ani aplea kallzantsun suskarun Tannem mhonnlem: Hi sonsot kiteak mhunn khunna sodta zait? Hanv tumkam sangtam he sonstik khunna mellchi na. 4. Mk. 9, 20 (a) Ani tãnnim taka haddlo. Ani Jezuk dekhonam fudem devcharan taka khubdailo ani to dhornnir poddun, tonddantlean fenno kaddun, addvo-udaro lolltalo. (b) Ani têm tek ahllo. Ani Jezu chôinafuddem devchran tek hudôilo ani to dhôniponn, tonddantulean hênnkann, ontudar lottalo. (c) Ani tennim teka haddlo. Ani Jezuk dekhona borobor deucharan teka aloilo ani to zomnir poddun tonnantlean fenno kaddun addvo-udaro loutalo (d) Ani tannim taka haddlo. Ani Jezuk polloina fuddem denvcharan taka khudoilo ani to zomnir poddun umtho udaro lollunk laglo. 5. 1Kor 11, 2 (a) Tumi sodanch mhozo ugddas kortat ani hanvem xikoilam tem tumi samballttat dekhun, hanv tumkam vakhanntam. (b) Tum sodam muzugdddas kotai ani ãi xikoil tem sabattai, dekun anv tunk xabax munttam. (c) Tumi mhazo sodanch ugddas kot'tat ani aien xikoilam tem tumi sambautat dekun anv tumkam vakanntam. (d) Tumi sodanch mhoji iad kortat ani hanvem xikoilam tem tumi samballttat dekhun hanv tumchi tust tokhnnai kortam. From the above, it is clearly evident that the versions marked (d) are closest to the Biblical Dialect marked (a), and those marked (b) are the farthest removed from both these. This means that the confusion in the minds of children, if it does exist today, will still persist even after the Roman script is adopted. Therefore, what will be the net gain? While on this subject, one might also ponder over the question: Is there any place in the world where the childs textbooks are printed in her *colloquial version* of the language? One could also probe a little deeper and ask whether there is any living language in the world which is spoken, throughout its milieu, exactly as it is written. And then one will come to the realization that this problem is not peculiar to Konkani. It is universal. How does this happen? Why does a colloquial version vary from the standard language? The speaker is always in a hurry to finish his say as quickly as possible. Therefore, he tries to pack as many words in as short a time as possible. Dr. P. B. Janardhan ( in his A Higher Konkani Grammar) terms this phenomenon as pressure of speed consciousness. Consequently, some words are shortened or even omitted. The hearer has no problem in getting the message as he is assisted in this regard by the tonal nuances as well as facial expressions and gestures of the speaker. [Compare the spellings used in chat over internet and the use of emoticons.] This assistance is obviously not available to the reader. Therefore, the writer has no option but to spell out every word in its full form. And that becomes the language. The rules for shortening vary from one locality to another and also from one community to another. Hence the difference that is noticed between the colloquial versions cited above. The Mapusa version is not prevalent, in identical form, in the whole of Bardez; in like manner, the Velim version too varies from village to village in Salcete. Yet, some general taluka-wise characteristics can be stated. In Salcete, any initial HO seems to be silent but actually it is aspirated i.e it is converted to OH; e.g. HANV becomes AHNV and AHDD (i.e HADD = bone) is distinct from ADD (across). Initial VO becomes silent; e.g. VAREM becomes AREM. Initial KHO and FO are invariably converted to HO; e.g. KHOREM becomes HOREM and FAIDO becomes HAIDO. To this may be added the partial or complete omission of case and tense suffixes, which renders the speech comic, especially to non-Salcete ears. In Bardez, any medial or terminal LLO is either elided or converted to VO; e.g. KALLIZ becomes KA-IZ, GOLLTTA becomes GOVTA and SAMBHALL becomes SAMBHAV. Some medial SO become HO; e.g. KOSO ASA becomes KOHO AHA. In Antruz, if a medial LLO is followed by a hard palatal consonant it is converted to YO; e.g. KHELLTTA becomes KHEYTTA. The same word is pronounced as KHEVTA / FEVTA in Bardez and as HETTA in Salcete, the LLO being dropped entirely. But the greatest difference comes in the pronunciation of trisyllabic words in which the middle syllable has a short I, U or O. In Bardez as well as Antruz, the first two syllables are clubbed together after dropping the middle I, U or O, and the word is pronounced as disyllabic. Thus MAGOTA of Salcete becomes MAGTA in Bardez and Antruz. Similarly RANDILEM and PANTTULO of Salcete become RANDLEM and PANTTLO in the other talukas. And SANDDLO of Bardez and Antruz could be either SANDDILO or SANDDOLO in Salcete depending upon the meaning i.e. whether transitive or intransitive. Another major difference is in the Past Perfect Tense suffix of verbs. In Salcete it is .LOLO whereas it is ..ULLO in Bardez and ILLO in Antruz; e.g. ASLOLO, ASULLO, AXILLO. In fine, one finds that the Salcete speech is much different from those of Bardez and Antruz which two have much in common. Let the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in Goa ponder over the above points before they take the plunge into the Roman or Graeco-Roman orthography for school text books in Konkani. Do ponder over these points. S. M. Borges __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com