Dear FN,
Talking in monosyllables does not necessarily keep the discussion on track; in fact, it could provide avenues for straying off track, beating about the bush and going on a wild goose chase. And I do not have the time for an endless and meaningless discourse. I have been brought up in the method of argumentation used in the science discipline where precision is the sine qua non; when I say spade, I mean exactly that. I give you an argument and back it up with an illustration so as not to leave any doubt in your mind regarding my say. And this, to my mind, will end up saving a lot of bandwidth, not to talk about the savings on time expended. But your approach is just the reverse; the more meaningless the better. Consider these gems: (1) << There is no Bardezi script, agreed. But isn't it a fact that Romi mostly uses the Bardezi script…> Now, who is this Romi fellow that uses the non-existent Bardezi script, and that too "for much of the 20th century, at least"? (Padribhas and Bamonbhas are Mangalore variants of Konkani which neither of us would be able to discuss; so, leave them alone.) (2) << and I will not grudge them their right to choose for myself, as they should not block mine.>> What exactly do you want to say? Could you please expand this to render it intelligible? (3) << 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.>> What is hegemony? Whose hegemonical grip are you talking about? How does the verse in question promote that? How does the verse help to delegitimise the language and usage of large sections of people? Please elaborate by citing the relevant parts of the verse to back your claim. (4) << But just because one wrong was committed in the past,it cannot be used as an argument to justify the hegemony of Antruzi…>> What do you mean by "in the past"? In the 16th century? Is it not happening today? Why should that not be corrected too? My experience in this respect is just the contrary. I wrote a couple of articles in the Saxtti dialect and they were published without emendations, of course at my request, by (the now defunct) Rashtramat in its Sunday editions. At around the same time, I sent a similar article to Sunaparant but my request was not conceded and it appeared as amended. But later I sent some articles on Orthography which appeared as sent (with an editorial note to this effect!). I have also seen columns written in the Pernem and Canacona Velip dialects appearing in Sunaparant. But none of this happens in any Roman script publication. (5) << 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.>> This is the only part that makes sense! Assuming that your kids and you are genuinely interested in learning Konkani, you must have read quite a bit of that and are, therefore, familiar with Konkani orthography in the Roman script. But why is this not reflected in the orthography of the verse that you have posted? Could you please explain? Sebastian Borges On 20 Jul 2012 Frederick FN Noronha <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Prof Borges, If you make your point briefly, we could have a better chance of staying on track. > 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. Sebastian Borges
