Dear Prof Borges, If you make your point briefly, we could have a better chance of staying on track.
On 20 July 2012 09:30, Sebastian Borges <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > I have made no such claim. All that I'm saying when me and my kids want to learn Konkani, we find the Roman script far, far easier to do so. I bear no animus against those who find the Devanagari script more convenient; and I will not grudge them their right to choose for myself, as they should not block mine. > 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? > Of course, Bardezi's dominance is as unfair. Not just Sashtti but so many other dialects have lost out... the Pednem boli, the Canacona variant. Probably the Tiswadi dialect is close to Bardezi. This is an issue too. But just because one wrong was committed in the past, it cannot be used as an argument to justify the hegemony of Antruzi and its one-language-one-script-one-people logic. FN PS: There is no Bardezi script, agreed. But isn't it a fact that Romi mostly uses the Bardezi script (and hence is closely connected with it) while Devanagari is mostly Antruzi-influenced? If we want to go into the categories of Padribhas and Bamonbhas (as outlined by Dr William R. Da Silva, himself a priest) then that is another issue too! As far as the verse goes, my problem is that the hegemonical grip over language in today's Goa means that the language and usage of large sections of people is getting delegitimised.
