a friend insists on speaking 'correct' and 'global' english. what the hell is global english? for me it is a castrated language. no coloquil nuances or tactility. i personally think a language needs to grow over place and time. it is regressive otherwise. new words are added to the dictionary. we have our own quirks in terms of pronunciations and sentence construction too. our cultural background renders it thus. why mst i speak like the british do? english as indian a language as any vernacular language. i wonder if the other erstwhile colonies face the same problem.
take the word 'peon' for example. since i cant write phoenetics...kindly make do with this...
pyune ( as in like puke) is how we would say it here.
the americans go different, while the brits hail the 'pee-un'. does that make indian way of saying it wrong? we need to deconstruct this prosaic heirarchy where the British ways are a higher factor of the equation. we are no longer colonized. it is sad, because, if the french have their way of prnouncing english words, its hip. its sexy. its the pride they take in doing things their way. but if there is any mother-tongue-infiltration in india, we term the poor person a 'verni'. i wonder why we have such a low self-esteem as a nation.
i take much pride in the fact that i am multilinguistic. i speak english, hindi, marathi and gujarati rather fluently. i understand bengali, punjabi and a little bit of french. will someday take up a foreign language too. someday.
so the point being, its perfectly ok to have a heavy twang of any which sort. construct a sentence the way you think is best. purists have no place in the PostModern (PoMo) world.
a beautiful PoMo work which designs language is Roy's 'The God of Small Things'.
P.G.Woodhouse does that too. na?
like i love saying, 'fun hua!'