On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Nikhil Mehra <[email protected]>wrote:
> ** > 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. > A rose is a r0s3 is a r0z? Thaths > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel > ------------------------------ > *From: * Deepak Shenoy <[email protected]> > *Sender: * [email protected] > *Date: *Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:53:46 +0530 > *To: *<[email protected]> > *ReplyTo: * [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 *Subject: *Re: [silk] outdated words in "Indian English" 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 phrases India uses are "outdated" abroad, who cares? > > -- Homer: Hey, what does this job pay? Carl: Nuthin'. Homer: D'oh! Carl: Unless you're crooked. Homer: Woo-hoo! Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
