Someone may have already picked up on this, but after a long Hallowe'en day, and some 100 posts to catch up on, I can't be bothered to check before committing the unhallowed YART-in-public. I urge all to read the cover story in November's Atlantic Monthly (a U.S. magazine): "What Global Language?"
There's a forum there for comments, also a thread here, which I have just created.

(BTW, Barbara Wallraff is their esteemed back-page 'Agony Aunt' on usage, and if you're cool you can join her Grammar Police Squad *proudly displaying my badge*)

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/11/wallraff.htm

Whoa, Anna, that is a WAY LONG article, Sweetie!
I'll copy part of it:

"English is a system of communication, and highly germane to it is what or who speakers of English care to communicate with, and about what. The more we need to use English to communicate with machines -- or with people whose fluency is limited or whose understanding of English does not coincide with ours -- the more simplified the language will need to be.

And yet technology is expanding English, by requiring us to come up with new words to describe all the possibilities it offers. " She goes on to mention emoticons! (Question: did she know she was YARTing? )

At first I was thinking, "This is true", but then I realized that it is true for any language!

One of her main points was that there are more non-native-English speakers in the world than native English-speakers. She also mentioned something that I had been unaware of: that significant numbers of non-English users are now gaining access to the Internet.

But one thing that she didn't mention except tangentially, is something that I feel is very important in determining whether English will become "the" global language: the fact that this development, in my opinion, will be tied to
economics, and as far as I know, native English speakers have the majority of the world's wealth. I've always heard the expression, "money talks", and in this context it may
have a literal interpretation!

One thing this article gave me was a link to babel fish, so I added it to my Favorites. Maybe I'll eventually try to
figure out how to work it. It looked pretty daunting to me.

One thing this article gave me was a link to babel fish, so I added it to my Favorites. Maybe I'll eventually try to
figure out how to work it. It looked pretty daunting to me.

Daunting? Babelfish is one of the funniest sites on the Web, IMHO. It and all its clones are hilarious! Try taking a favourite piece of poetry, translate it fromEnglish to anything else, then translate the result back into English, and you will see a painfully funny reminder of the limitations of technology as a replacement for the human intellect.

if you're cool you can join her Grammar Police Squad

Sigh! When I read this I thought that perhaps there was a new Word Police exam out, but alas! No. There hasn't been a new exam in nearly five months, unfortunately.

>There hasn't been a new exam in nearly five months...

actually, I preferred the site *before it went to the 'Word Police' format; to wit, the 'Word Fugitives' -- but I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.

this development, in my opinion, will be tied to
economics

Jackie,
Whilst I agree that economics are a factor, and much as I love the potential literal truth of "money talks" , I think adoption of a language is dictated by far more subtle factors than material wealth. You'd have to ask "what's the value of people taking the effort to learn the language", and the higher the value, the better the incentive to learn the language well (or rather, according to the standards of the most valuable dialect - heck, this gets like swallowing a fur-ball).

The value of a language can be dictated (ouch) by such features as:
* the culture to which you can gain access (both in terms of technology and art),
* the ideas you can express (e.g. if Inuits have several words for different kinds of snow and a new Ice Age sets in, Inuit could be a valuable language),
* good friends and work colleagues who use the language (especially if you take a fancy to any of them ),

etc...

In other words, there's a whole bunch of "soft" criteria that come into the equation. This is appropriate if we see language as more organism than construction (mea culpa, folks).

Following on from that - and this is mentioned in the article - it's almost impossible to define an English speaker except by subjective means. Even if you could get people to do an official test, what variant of the language would you measure against? You'd probably have to pick a time as well as a place!

I'm sure that in a few years' time I'll have trouble understanding what my kids are saying to their friends, that's my opinion. Still, if I give 'em a dose of (by then ancient) AWADtalk it may serve to return the compliment.

a long Hallowe'en day

Why doesn't that surprise me?


Hope you're fully recovered, and have brushed all the cobwebs away...

Shona, does your comment mean I've graduated from "Aunt" to "Fish on a Broom"?

Auntie, I was merely implying that your talents are indeed many and varied.
[worshipful]*

I couldn't possibly presume to tell you how to get around in the evenings.
[creep]*

* (c)2000 The Campaign For Real Emoticons

Hi Anna
It took me a while to wade through the article and get at her meaning, but having done that I found she is talking about me! The thrust of her article is:

"English isn't managing to sweep all else before it - and it ever does become the universal language, many of who speak it won't understand one another"

This is my experience: English is not my first language (I had written that somewhere else) but my reality is a little more complex than that. It does not mean I am fluent in my native language (Marathi). My entire education has been in English. I speak English and Hindi with friends and colleagues. I speak Marathi with my family. I think in English. So English is the language I am most conversant in. (I cringe when I write that). All was fine and I slept well at night :), until I came on this board.

I found the English I spoke was so different from the English the others were speaking. I found the sentence construction I used and the way I used words was VERY different. At first it was a shock. I realised my knowing and speaking English did not necessarily make me conversant with the world. Then I had to decide whether or not to change my language style. The English I speak is perfect for within my country but inadequate outside it. Isn't that what the article says?

PS every post I make I work on the sentence construction and words so that it "fits in" better.

In reply to:

---

The English I speak is perfect for within my country but inadequate outside it. Isn't that what the article says?

PS every post I make I work on the sentence construction and words so that it "fits in" better.

---

Not only is your English more than adequate, Avy - I am aghast that you should want to change your English to model it more closely after another variant. It seems to me that, unless there is a potentially dangerous lack of mutual comprehension, speakers of different branches of Emglish should be happy with their "native" English. Vive la différence!

Hi Avy,

All was fine and I slept well at night :), until I came on this board. I found the English I spoke was so different from the English the others were speaking. I found the sentence construction I used and the way I used words was VERY different.
I would suggest that the cross-section of people you see on this board, particularly amongst the regulars, is in no way representative of the English-speaking population at large. You're looking at a very small group here, many of whom have a passion for words, language and literature, and who have an excellent command of things like vocabulary and grammar. I often feel inadequate, but I get over it and post anyway. What I'm trying to say is that if you measured yourself by a more reasonable standard, you'd probably make a higher assessment of your English skills.

2. PS every post I make I work on the sentence construction and words so that it "fits in" better.
Me too, and still the errors (spelling, grammatical, plain old woolly thinking,...) creep in. In truth, sometimes my posts are fairly casual, more like the language I'd use speaking to or emailing a friend, and sometimes I'll put more effort into making it "correct". I imagine that I'm not alone on that point.

There are certainly a few errors and unusual constructions in your post above, and I don't know how different it would have been if you hadn't worked hard on it, but I don't think any English speaker would have any problems understanding exactly what you are saying. Which is more than can be said for some of the posts I've seen here from native English-speakers!

I think I can safely say that both (all?) of us are learning something valuable here.

>every post I make I work on the sentence construction and words so that it "fits in" better.

Avy, I must say that this statement has me bemused. "fits in" with what? the queen's english? aussie english? kiwi english? canadian english, eh? american english?? (heaven forfend) english as spoken by italians... or spaniards... or?

I haven't been paying close attention to your roots (and your bio is starkly unhelpful ;) and they certainly don't come across as obvious, which says something about your success in fitting in I guess.

all I can add is "phooey" to fitting in.

>>I speak English and Hindi with friends and colleagues. I speak Marathi with my family. I think in English.

Avy, in which language do you dream?
I know people suddendly going back to their native language when they are in anger - for example, when children break a glass...
Ciao
Emanuela

This is what I love about this Board.

There are so many times I consider an appropriate response to a post, but first (naturally) check the existing responses. What I increasingly find is that what I wanted to say has already been said, but with an eloquence and passion (think that's the right word) far beyond my original conception.

This is very inspiring.

I'm so proud!


Old Mother Shona
(treading momentarily on Jackie's turf)

Eaaooww…. That was just a comment on the article. I did not think it would generate such a response. But thank you all for your replies

Max : You are right. The word "fit in" was wrong. I should have used "to be understood." Sometimes the way we use words have a different meaning with the first language speakers of English. If I have come to know that my language is different. I have also come to like the differences. I think our English is more rhythmic and less dry. So absolutely Vive la difference

Marty : I know I speak good English. It is just that sometimes the English I speak conveys a different meaning to first language English speakers. I think the words "fit in" is an example. I meant not what you all took me to mean. And in the article the Barbara woman says just that. I work on my posts to prevent being misunderstood which is exactly what happened.

Tsuwm : Again not fit in but to be understood. All the types of English you mentioned are first language English speakers. Between the first language English speakers there is no trouble of loosing the meaning or changing the meaning in translation. With us we mean one thing and not necessarily is the same thing conveyed to monolingual English speakers with words used because of the translation. Yeah "phooey" to fitting in. Unfortunely "not phooey" to being misunderstood. (:

Emmanuela - I am not sure but think I dream in languageless thoughts… (thank god for that)

Bye

Avy

Thanks for your posts here. Like Shona, I'm proud to be associated with a Board that manages (if such reification of a virtual entity is allowed) to respond with such warmth, passion and eloquence.

In keeping with the subject of this thread, I wonder if the globalisation of English might be less confused if words and grammatical idiosyncracies from nations like India could be introduced to 'mainstream' English, much as vast swathes of Amercian English become the norm (thanks Hollywood).

For me, for instance, common Indian English terms like morcha and, of course, 'eve teasing' are just crying out to be used in mainstream English. Given a choice, I'd also introduce (though their history, even in Indian English, is not spectacular) hungama, and rada.

What are your favourite Indian English words or grammatical (syntactical purely?) innovations that, in your opinion, would help enrich global English?

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Dearest Avy, my sweet--

but to be understood

You have just stated the ultimate aim of every person on the planet. So, I think that means that you "fit in"
perfectly with the rest of us!

Shona, thank you for acknowledging that the gutter is not my only 'turf', and you are indeed welcome upon it.

Eaaooww?. That was just a comment on the article.

Between the first language English speakers there is no trouble of loosing the meaning or changing the meaning in translation.

Avy,
I think you're wrong about first language speakers not loosing their meaning in their posts sometimes. I have noticed often enough that when I post a comment that I expect to draw little attention or response, the reaction seems never ending. Similarly, I have posted things that I thought would spark discussion which were completely overlooked. In some way, I believe that the reason for this may be poor wording on my part. Some of my meaning does get lost between my brain and my keyboard. English is my first language, and I still have to work to make myself understood by such an attentive audience.

Hi Xara
"Eaaaooww" is what happens when the spotlight suddenly turns on you, when you have to explain the words you have been mumbling in the shadows. Yes. I too get surprised by unexpected reaction. Perhaps that is collective subconscious - one that is hard to predict, or maybe as you say the writing was not clear enough - definitely in my case.

Hi Shanks
I don't know about enrich, but one grammatical usage that would make the language howl in pain is "We are like that only" (: (Used to mean that is the way we are, whether you like it or not)

What I do like are some Urdu words which have sensuousness, impossible to capture with any English substitute. Some of these words are :
Afsos - a very gentle word - meaning regret pronounced ufsource
Ijjazat - meaning permission pronounced e-jaa-zut. I like phonetics of this word
Kanoon - meaning law and justice pronounced kaa - noon.

Of course these are not Indian English words, of which I like the ones you mentioned and the swear words. The most often used being "Saalaa" (Sorry Jackie. That is very mild swear.)

Avy

"We are like that only" - Of course. Fond memories.

Also, now you mention it: "What goes of your father's?" (Tera baap ka kya jaata hain?)

For context: In India, the inheritance idea is very strong, as is respect for the patriarch. So someone lays claim to an idea, or property in his (usually his, not hers) father's name, not his own. So in playground's around the country you will hear children pushing and shoving each other around to the words: "Is this your father's garden, or what?" (Do you claim to own this place, that you are attempting to bully/control the rest of us here?) Taken to its extreme, it becomes "What goes of your father's?" (What does you father lose by this?) In other words - "I do not believe you have a personal stake in this matter, so kindly shut up and let me carry on..."

Oh dear. Prolix explanations for brief sentences. Is there a Sesquipedalians Anonymous?