------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANKA SERVICES
For all your Goa-based media needs - Newspapers and Electronic Media
Newspaper Adverts, Press Releases, Press Conferences
www.ankaservices.com
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ongoing war of words between Miguel Braganza and Sebastian Borges over the
use of the prefix "Prof" by Sebastian Borges seems a futile war. I see it as an
issue of "technicality" and possibly the "confusing" over the usage of Konknni.
Borges has maintained and provided a "dictionary" meaning to his use of the
word 'pra.' which is short for 'pradhyapak.
His claim that the dictionary says the word means "professor, lecturer." I
would say that Borges is taking the "dictionary" meaning to his advantage.
Would it not be better if Borges uses no prefix? I have seen professors write
their name without the prefix "Prof." Some holders of Ph.D put their degrees as
a "suffix." If Borges has been called a "prof" by students and general public,
it is not his fault.
The late Joaquim Antonio Fernandes, a Konknni scholar, was called "Prof." I
myself called him professor. I posed questions on Konknni grammar to him when
we often met at the Ave Maria Press in Sonapur, Mumbai.
If I remember correctly he was called professor because I was told he taught
Konknni to seminarians. I got his phamlet, Konkani Nad-Xastr, which I studied
well when I was a youth. Similarly, I also followed Poilem Pustok published by
Ave Maria Press.
Just for the sake of information, Prof. George Mark Moraes, the noted Goan
historian, wrote a fine tribute to JA Fernandes on the latter's death in The
Examiner. Prof. Moraes called the other "prof" a "Man of Konkani Letters." I
once asked a prominent Roman-script Konkani protogonist, who is very much in
the debate over the script issue now raging in Goa if he has read "Konknni
Nad-Xastr" and he said he had never heard of the book.
On his visit to Toronto many years ago, I asked Fr. Mathew Almeida what he
thought of the same book. Fr. Almeida told me that the book had some
"structural" problems, meaning it was not grammatical sound. It was then he
told me that he was working on a Konknni textbook.
I have written a few pieces in Konknni for The Goa Times, and Ave Maria.
However, I must admit they were written labourisly and with many English words
which the editors translated.
I lost touch with Konknni when I migrated to Canada. I have reconnected with
Konknni in Dubai and one way I thought I should keep in touch with the language
is to read Konknni periodicals. Therefore, I subscribe to Gulab.
In few weeks' time I will get the Konknni course book published by TSSK.
I have provided a little background of myself and my relationship with the
language because Borges's reply (through Fausto da Costa) that he found it
"gratifying" that "someone writing in English" (that's me) raised the question
of the usage of "y" instead of "i" and other script-related issues.
True, I have never considered myself as a Konknni writer. For this very reason,
I declined an invitation to join the Konknni Basha Mandal in Mumbai. It was
J.F. Martyres, the long-serving general secretary, who requested me to join the
executive board but I told him that it would not be okay for me to accept it.
He knew my interest in the language. I could have written more pieces in
Konknni but I could not find time working as a journalist in one of Mumbai's
English dailies, first as a freelancer during my college days and then as a
staffer. I knew that Konknni, at least then and probably true know except in
cases where Konknni writers work professionaly, it was not a "paying language."
I may have veered dramatically from the point of issue regarding the battle
over the use of "prof". Since Borges writes in both scripts, it would be nice
of him if he advocates the use of both Devnagiri and Roman scripts.
I read his writings in Roman script in Gulab, but I have not read him in
Devnagiri.
What makes him take the cause of Devnagiri alone is beyound my understanding.
Would fight a "joint cause" making him a traitor to the Devnagiri cause? This
raises another question: why at all write in Roman script?
Borges should end this obvious "dichotomy" in his attitude (one part of him
advocating Devnagiri as a sole scrip and the other part of him writing in Roman
script, which he does not want) towards the language. When it comes to Konknni
script, I can say Borges shows a "split personality."
Would the good "prof" or whatever he wants us to call him or calls himself, let
us know why it is so that he is at the crossroads of the language issue?
Eugene Correia
