On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 13 Jul 2012 7:12:33 pm Eugen Leitl wrote: >> http://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/whnoj/as_an_indian_never_reali >> zed_that_these_words_from/ > > Big deal. Ever since Macaulay made the learning of English compulsory for the > "natives" of India who were up until then studying useless Sanskrit and > Arabic, the most priviileged Englsh speaking Indians have always considred the > Englander (or his latest avatar, the American) as the man whose English is to > be emulated. > > Indians, particularly English speaking Indians, carry with them (in my view) a > deep sense of inferiority about themselves and their culture and are always > apologetic about themselves and their own compatriots being wrong, outdated or > un PC. One's self image is built up by being different from (and "better" > than) the "native, dehati", vernacular speaking "fresh off the boat" Indian. > > This article is by yet another guy who doesn't know that a language can only > be made one's own by not being apologetic and creating imaginary "out of date" > issues as if language is a lump of raw meat that must be eaten soon before it > rots or a pair of bell bottoms that cannot be worn in public because it is out > of fashion. > > The most well adjusted Indian is the one who is not conscious and apologetic > about his English and his accent and does not squrim in the presence of other > indians who speak "out of date" English. It is not out of date in India.
I have to agree with Shiv here. As an English dialect, Indian English has a much longer history than most of the other colonial dialects. I'd guess only the american and caribbean ones are older. Why are our usages any more incorrect than any other regionalisms? Is it because our faces are browner? While it's useful to know that certain phrases don't travel well, I don't see any reason to be ashamed of them. -- b
