Sure but language also has aesthetic effect. There's a tone to words, quite separate from the meaning of the words, that enhances the meaning because of the intonation. Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message----- From: Deepak Shenoy <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:53:46 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [silk] outdated words in "Indian English" On Jul 13, 2012 10:34 PM, "ss" 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/ > > Incidentally. > http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gurgaons-of-the-mind/973709/0 > "Gurgaons of the Mind" Recently I came to the conclusion I was gurgaon-ing, in that article's sense of the word, in my dislike for SMS lingo (like 4=for, l8r etc). Language is mostly for communication. Grammar and spelling can take a hike, really, if we can communicate effectively with someone else using whatever the heck works. If SMS lingo works, why not, when you have like 140 characters in twitter, and you lose context otherwise. So if the phrases India uses are "outdated" abroad, who cares?
