Hi Tony
Just some quick interspersed observations re your response below.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony M Barreto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] St Xavier's College?
Cornel
I think you have missed two obvious facts which makes you think that you
could not be wrong.
Cornel: I have neither thought nor said that I could not be wrong anywhere
in my response to your first post! Obviously, you have read more on this
issue than I expressed.
Precision on extrapolating from the written word is not a bad characteristic
to have
for any author of any pedigree surely!
One: The Diocesan Society of Education runs the college at Mapusa. (So
obviously St Xavier's is not an association that runs it.)
Second: St Xavier's College is very obviously a name given to the college.
In Canacona we have Shree Mallikarjun College. Wouldn't it be funny to say
Shree
Mallikarjun's College?
Cornel: Funny? Not at all. In Goa/India and the world over, there are all
kinds of names associated with colleges and even those not deemed to be
saints any more like Philomena! Indeed in Goa, some of the long established
colleges are associated with names of business families who may not be
involved in any management of the institutions whatsoever.
Secondly, you have surprisingly misinterpreted the word "associated" as used
by me. "Associated" or something associational or perhaps even relational,
does not imply ipso facto that an association runs or has to run a
particular college. It can and does indicate that, in the example you
provided, the College in Mapusa wishes to be associated with the name of a
saint. It could indeed have chosen to be associated with the name of a
celebrity from Bollywood if it so chose and did not transgress current
'copyright' or brand name rules. It is perfectly legitimate for the college
to refer to itself as St Xavier's College and it beggars no grammatical rule
as you mistakenly indicate.
I know your mistaken justification stems from the wide usage of St
Xavier's. And usage is certainly a better argument to insist on sticking
to St Xavier's College with some relaxation to the rules of grammar.
Cornel: With respect, there was no "mistaken justification" on my part. I
merely indicated,
correctly, that the names of saints are used worldwide for all kinds of
things from streets, shops, schools, colleges, superstores etc. I was
stating a fact, and not justifying the use of a saint's name. Mine was an
exemplification, not a justification as there was nothing to justify unless
you chose to read it as such! I therefore put it to you that the mistaken
idea is yours on some narrow and pedantic view of grammar usage.
The second justification could be that St Xavier's as it is used carries
with it a hallow of prestige. But illiterate expressions and bad use of
grammar is always irritating. It should have been particularly so for an
English native.
Cornel: Grammar is not an ossified product or something set in stone. It is
constantly changing in all languages including in the UK where English
grammar usage used to be taken more seriously several decades ago. Indeed,
grammar has not been taught officially in UK state schools for at least
forty years even though I personally have reservations about this situation.
Rules of English grammar, whether in a weak or strong sense, seem to apply
more
rigorously in ex-colonial countries, and sometimes, such usage appears
strange here when spoken or even written especially when language use is
sometimes incredibly 'flowery'. However, I must say that, my academic
colleagues and I have been most impressed by the use of excellent English by
many Indian students now doing postgraduate work here. Their English usage
is sometimes superior to the UK natives who have had no foundation in
grammar.
I have old books on rules of grammar that would now sit comfortably in a
museum as so much has changed in colloquial English usage in the UK. We now
often write in English as she is spoke! And incidentally, the last sentence
is correctly used even though the last word would always have been "spoken"
in the past! The word "gotten" is increasingly creeping in from America for
"got" and this is true for many other words despite some in the UK who
believe that the Americans are bastardising English! By way of another
example, the grammar rule on the split infinitive has changed sides
periodically. I
hope you know what I mean as in to boldly go or to go boldly!
Finally, I do not know of which English native you speak. In my case, I
happen to be a Brit by choice, residence and citizenship. I am definitely
not an English native nor would I want to be one re my many identities!
Seasons greetings
Cornel
PS I have just noted Gabe informing us that he is a former St Theresa's
pupil, Nairobi. Clearly, if we get more of such responses on Goanet, there
could be many many examples that would nullify your forlorn insistence on
one inane grammatical usage.
