What to teach and what not.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:27 am

I'm not sure what you mean by variant. British versus American? I assume Indians speak British, since they mostly know English from being a former UK colony. But in my personal experience, the Indians I knew and know all sound American to me.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:22 pm

jotham wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by variant.
British versus American?

And the rest. Indian English, for example? Scottish English?

I assume British, since they mostly know English from being a former UK colony. But in my personal experience, the Indians I knew and know all sound American to me.

Where did you meet these Indians?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:31 pm

I met them in the USA and in Taiwan.
Indians speaking Scottish English? That would raise my eyebrow.
One time, I talked with a Taiwanese person who spoke English with a slight French accent, which piqued my curiousity. I inquired if he had learned French before. He hadn't, and that really had me curious. I kept delving, and he finally admitted having had a longtime friend who was Belgian. He picked up the French accent speaking English.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:46 pm

Indians speaking Scottish English? That would raise my eyebrow.

te="jotham"]

How about this?

The form of English that Indians (and other subcontinentals) are taught in schools is essentially British English, especially Scottish English, which influenced Indian dialects with rhoticity and trilled...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_English

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:41 am

Interesting. Wasn't aware of all this. But I found it interesting that Oxford made an Indian-English dictionary describing the widespread dialect, but was "an abject failure," because Indians wanted a proper English dictionary, i.e., prescriptionist (to them as NNES, not us as NES). The philosophy behind the Indian-English dictionary, in fact, parallels the philosophy of mainstream linguist dictionaries treating English today, and successfully so because of little competition. This bolsters my belief that a prescriptionist dictionary — like American dictionaries used to be before 1961 — would do very well on the American market as people become aware of the differences; it might very well supplant linguist dictionaries over time as a mainstream reference. (Perhaps on the British market too: just because most British academia are linguist-minded doesn't mean the average British dictionary consumer is.) The Indian-English dictionary is fine, but apparently of interest to a select few academians interested in studying language, i.e., linguists.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:44 am

a proper English dictionary, i.e., prescriptionist

Does such a thing still exist?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:24 am

The Scots formed a disproportionate part of the colonial elite in India, mainly because of limited chances back home.

Someone once remarked that Sri Lankan English, and by extension, Indian English, was a strange mixture of the language of the parade ground and that of the minor public school. This results in some strange collocations.

I think I've mentioned a couple of times the student at a top Colombo school who introduced his father to his teacher with the words "This is pater bugger."

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:32 am

Stephen Jones wrote:The Scots formed a disproportionate part of the colonial elite in India, mainly because of limited chances back home.

Someone once remarked that Sri Lankan English, and by extension, Indian English, was a strange mixture of the language of the parade ground and that of the minor public school. This results in some strange collocations.

I think I've mentioned a couple of times the student at a top Colombo school who introduced his father to his teacher with the words "This is pater bugger."

It seems that you and the journalist below both think the word "bugger" is monosemous.

"Grammar soon became secondary to fluency. Fluency alone now was the characteristic of good Sri Lankan English. If anything a bugger here and bloody there made it even haute culture as I soon realized when a Thomian introduced his father thus: "Machang, have you met Pater bugger?" And the father seemed oblivious to the devious sexual practices being ascribed to him."

http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/11/20/fea01.html

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:35 pm

Icome from the North so 'bugger' is a friendly term. It is however not normally admitted into the same salons that 'pater' is. The amusement comes from the mixed register.

By the way, does monosemous mean 'semen only from one part'? Quite an accurate description, no?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:02 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Icome from the North so 'bugger' is a friendly term. It is however not normally admitted into the same salons that 'pater' is. The amusement comes from the mixed register.

Glad you clarified that for us all. Do you have any more examples, or is "pater bugger" your stock one?

By the way, does monosemous mean 'semen only from one part'? Quite an accurate description, no?

??? I'm sure you understand your comments.