Re: Lost in the mists of time...
From: M. Ranjit Mathews (ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/28/04
- Next message: mb: "Re: Birth of Arabic in Arabia"
- Previous message: Miguel Carrasquer: "Re: Birth of Arabic in Arabia"
- In reply to: Arindam Banerjee: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- Next in thread: Arindam Banerjee: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- Reply: Arindam Banerjee: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:08:57 GMT
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> > ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
>> >> adda1234@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote ...
>> >> > So how are sounds in
>> >> > Maithili to be found from Hindi script?
>> >> From perusing Maitili written in Devnagri, the phonemes of Maitili
>> >> would be apparent to one who knows Hindi written in Devnagri.
>> > No, they would not be. You can write one thing and speak it the other
>> > way.
>>
>> If you spoke it "the other way", it would not mean that you don't know
>> the phonemes of Maitili. It would only mean that you don't know the
>> phones or phonology of Maitili.
>
> No, it has nothing to do with modern mleccha terminology, simply
> common and practical usage.
We're wandering far afield from the original question of whether the
hieroglyphic script had any correspondonce to sounds.
> People are naturally lazy, and speak as
> indistinctly as possible, just well enough to get the meaning through
> to their particular group. In the process, they gain in comradeship,
> but lose out on universality. Speaking what is written is nothing to
> do with *me* or *any* individual, it is just a part of overall
> culture. What should be pronounced, from the spelling, is not
> pronounced in non-phonetic or natural languages
The vocalic r that should be pronounced vocalically as per its definition,
is instead pronounced syllabically by Sanskrit speakers. Since what should
be pronounced, "from" the spelling, is not pronounced, Sanskrit is a
non-phonetic, right? Wrong, because there are no phonetic languages; there
are only phonetic scripts.
> and so pronunciation
> in such languages becomes very much a function of time, space, class,
> caste, gender, age, etc. When people pronounce what they should
> pronouce, as correctly as possible, from what is written, they have to
> follow a scientific method that is simple, straightforward, easily
> taught - and so, a standard which becomes a proper basis for higher
> intellectual endeavour.
If that is so, Indians would do well to stop learning english and learn
Esperanto instead, since the precision of the rules for pronouncing
esperanto would be a more proper basis for higher intellectual endeavor?
> Shaw wanted such a standard, but they did not
> let him. So, teaching primary schoochildren in the English language
> alone, is a nightmare that only primary school teachers can
> understand. It is not a wonder that most people brought up in
> English-only primary schools cannot even speak properly - let alone
> read and write properly - their own language. As one Aussie bloke
> mourned (this is after hearing me in the tea-room soon after I joined
> service in my company, and learning that I spoke other languages even
> better) "They taught me only one language, and that too not properly".
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
- Next message: mb: "Re: Birth of Arabic in Arabia"
- Previous message: Miguel Carrasquer: "Re: Birth of Arabic in Arabia"
- In reply to: Arindam Banerjee: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- Next in thread: Arindam Banerjee: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- Reply: Arindam Banerjee: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|