Re: Lost in the mists of time...

From: Arindam Banerjee (adda1234_at_bigpond.com)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: 20 Jul 2004 16:00:51 -0700

Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<AwqogWGNAO$AFwgd@baesystems.com>...
> In message <890e65ea.0407191418.51d164a5@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> Banerjee <adda1234@bigpond.com> writes
>
> [irrelevant xpost removed]
>
> >Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> >news:<CCGIsRT5T5+AFw67@baesystems.com>...
> >> In message <890e65ea.0407181611.7b99c7c1@posting.google.com>, Arindam
> >> Banerjee <adda1234@bigpond.com> writes
> >> >Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> >> >news:<lo$h2TGKkm7AFwFW@baesystems.com>...
>
> [...]
>
> >> When you've finished with the cheap-shot selective quoting,
> >
> >But there was no other way I found I could agree with you on anything.
> >
> >> perhaps
> >> you'd like to consider answering the question you have so conveniently
> >> snipped?
>
> Just as a reminder, the questions (actually two) in question are:
>
> 'what do you think you mean by "phonetic" and "non-phonetic" languages?'
>
> and
>
> 'Are the "pure sounds", from which you allege that 'phonetic languages'
> are composed, absolutely identical in every context, regardless of what
> "pure sounds" precede and follow them? '
> >
> >Perhaps, yes; but as a matter of fact, no. For I know a much better
> >person for that purpose, who knows far more than I on issues related
> >to speech and education in phonetic and non-phonetic languages.
>
> But it's *you* who have been pontificating on the subject. It's up to
> you to justify your claims.

What claims? Please don't take me for some grabbing creature! Out of
general interest, and perhaps out of some altruistic view to clear
confusion, I was only talking about existing reality in India - a land
considered the mother of all Western languages, religions,
philosophies, grammar, literature, etc. according to many Western
scholars of the nineteenth century, such as Marx - of which you seem
totally ignorant. I am not making any claims, just pointing out what
is what where. As for the nature of the "pure sounds" yes they are
arranged in a particular matrix order with consonant-elements arranged
according to certain definite principles and their vocal reproduction,
perfected by practice, does follow from particular scientific
principles. As a child, you just do it following the given matrix
(known as borno-porichoy, or introduction to letters) and only later
if you are interested the beauty of it all may become apparent.
Primary school teachers and Indian-language scholars are better people
to explain the details.

> > I am
> >referring to my wife, Mrs Durba Banerjee; I have been merely the moon
> >to her sun, in whatever I have been writing on this thread. She has a
> >First Class (Honours) degree (rarely awarded) in English literature
> >from Presidency College (Calcutta University) and a First Class degree
> >in Bachelor of Education from Delhi University.
>
> And none of this is of any relevance until she posts here. Since the
> qualifications you list don't appear to include linguistics, phonetics,
> phonology, they are of precious little relevance even if she does.

You cannot get degrees in Arts and Education, nor can you teach
primary schoolchildren in public schools, if you don't know the basics
of such subjects. Not only must you know them thoroughly, you must
internalise them to the extent of making them effective, so that the
kids actually learn to read, write and speak. What we find is that
Indian methods work far better, the results are far far more
efficient. With practically nothing save the teacher and a
blackboard, just with the superior method, the Indian primary
schooling system turns kids to literates without fail and very
quickly, as opposed to modern Western systems, the results of which -
even after all the huge money spent, what with equipment such as
computers, learning aids, specialist programs etc. - are all too well
known.

Arindam Banerjee.