Dear FN,
For any discussion to be meaningful, it is imperative that the discussants comprehend exactly what the other participants therein want to say. In this manner, each participant is able to see the issue in a holistic manner by looking at it from the point of view of dissenting members. This becomes possible when each one uses words and expressions which have definite meanings/connotations in common parlance. Unfortunately, this is not happening here because, in my view, you are turning the words upside down; perhaps you feel the same regarding my usage. I get the impression that you do not want a fruitful discussion. When details are provided, you feel "“flooded" perhaps because the details deny you the opportunity to grab straws for keeping afloat. In support of my contention, I present you the following evidence: A language/dialect is written (not spoken) in a script; but you think a script is written in a language. The languages/dialects have names and so do the scripts. Thus we have the Roman, Cyrilic, Perso-Arabic, Devanagari scripts each of which is used to write several languages. But we do not have a Portuguese script (Portuguese dictionaries refer to Portuguese Alphabet, not script). Some scripts are used exclusively to write a single language or were designed for one language; in such cases the name of the language is itself used as the name of the script; thus we have Malayalam, Kannada, Telegu, Gujerati scripts. But there is no Brazilian scipt; hence a "Bardezi script" is an impossibility. You have provided a verse, but have not specified what exactly your objection to it is. We must keep in mind the fact that it is in a school text-book. Any curriculum/text-book is designed keeping certain pedagogic objectives in mind. This is a language text, not one of music or folklore. Although I could not spell out exactly what the pedagogic objectives at Std. III are, I am sure enhancement of the language skills of the child is one of them. And this particular verse seems to satisfy that objective to a large extent. It uses a familiar song (or two) with some extraneous stanzas. This is nothing new; people generally indulge in this at parties and picnics. In fact, we have some commercially produced audio-cassettes providing exactly this type of medleys for their entertainment value. The verse has a cat-and-mouse theme akin to Mickey Mouse situations. The teacher can use it to encourage the children to imagine additional situations (as has been done via the extraneous stanzas), or recall MM cartoon episodes, to compose additional stanzas for which they will have to search and get additional apt Konkani words for the purpose of rhyme and metre; the task is made a little easier by providing a choice of two metres (from two songs). So, what are you objecting to, may I know? Whatever “sin” you may have envisaged, could that not have been committed by using the Roman script in stead of Devanagari? You claim to be a staunch protagonist of Konkani written in the Roman script. But I doubt you have read any Konkani in that script. If you have, please state the name of a single Konkani book/periodical which uses the orthography that you have employed for the verse you have quoted. Would any English periodical publish a badly-spelt piece submitted to it? But Konkani periodicals have to do exactly this, day in and day out; the articles need corrections for almost every word! Don't you think that those who claim to support the script should themselves use it properly, first? You cannot blame the “Devanagari-protagonists” alone for pushing out other dialects in preference to Antruzi; the “Romi-protagonists” too are equally guilty of pushing out other dialects in preference to Bardezi. But you do not protest against this! Why? Sebastian Borges On 18 Jul 2012 Frederick FN Noronha wrote: Dear Prof Borges, You've drowned us in detail! Without getting caught up in that, let me say that today's Devanagari is largely (wholly?) written in Antruzi-influenced Konkani. With Romi, the script (at least for much of the 20th century) was Bardezi. The attempt to push one dialect and script in the name of standardisation is leading to a whole lot of problems, as former Devanagari-alone supporters (like Dr/Fr Pratap Naik, Tomazinho Cardozo and others) have been bold enough to concede. Regardless of the terminology used, you've got the point I earlier sought to make. Now let me share with all what happens to a famed Goan verse when it gets "Devanagarised" and incorporated in the Std. III Konkani text book for schools in Goa. I'm transliterating from Devanagari to Romi, so the rendering is approxmiate: Hundir -- Mama Hundir mhujya mama Aani haanv sangtam tuka Aarey, mazorichyea pila lagin Khel maandun naaka. Hundir maama aaylo, Khaati ponda leeplo Aani mazorichya peelan taka Eka ghansan dharloh. So far not bad, but let's see what happens next: Hundir mama sutlo Kotye kudint dhanvlo Aani mazorichya peelak fotvon Beelant vchun leeplo. Aizy yetlo faleam yetlo Pavon pavona, Hundir mama khuin gelo Konak khobar na Hundir mama sutlo Hundir mama liplo Hundir mama liplo Aani mazoricho pilo taka Sogleak sodun laglo! Can you tell me why this hotch-podge? Is the original (and very popular) verse not good enough to teach our eight year olds? FN Sebastian Borges
