--- On Thu, 10/12/09, ss <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: ss <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [silk] Why is Indian English so floral?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, 10 December, 2009, 17:31
> On Wednesday 25 Nov 2009 2:49:14 pm
> ss wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 Nov 2009 10:25:33 am Deepa Mohan
> wrote:
> > > Integral to the idea of
> > > fractal recursivity is that
> > > the same oppositions that distinguish given
> groups from one another on
> > > larger scales can
> > > also be found within those groups.
> >
> > In simpler terms the linguistic difference that kept
> the Brit master on a
> > higher level than the brown sahib was the same
> diference that kept the
> > brown sahib high in comparison to his English
> challenged compatriot.
> >
> > For Ram that means sauce for the goose, sauce for the
> gaandmaster.
> >
> > shiv
>
> Deepa - I came across a classic description of fractal
> recursivity on another
> forum (bharat-rakshak). I had been cursing an article in
> the Hindu for
> sounding so idiotic when a forum member posted the
> following reply about some
> Indian journalists. I quote
>
> > I have observed that the MSM English media in India
> always writes as if it
> > is some kind of a third party - but more specifically
> as if the journo ...
> > is a citizen of America/England or both. He/she writes
> from a western
> > viewpoint as if India is some third world country that
> he/she has been,
>
> What this man has described is classic linguistic
> fractal recursivity in its
> exact sense. The colonised takes on the language and
> attitudes of the
> colonizer and uses that on his own compatriots. This has to
> be the acme of
> Macaulayism.
>
> shiv
Hmmm. And this 'recursivity' is what you are describing.
Interesting.
I have two questions.
1. Would you generally agree that irony is not our favourite inflection of
language?
2. Why do we seem to hate the word 'florid'?
