D
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"StrQST" <[email protected]> posted:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:51:39 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "StrQST" <[email protected]> posted:
> >
> >> To be very pedantic I would say . . .
> >
> >> >> > Where were you born and raised?
> >> >
> >> >> Why should this matter at all ?
> >> >
> >> > It matters a lot in explaining your attempts to corrupt my languages,
> >> > and your insistence in doing so.
> >
> >> Some of the best speakers of English are/were not born in England, and
> >> so on. I would not use place of birth as a consideration for knowledge
> >> of subject.
> >
> > Name these speakers. And which form of English did they speak --
> > British, southern US, ghetoo NY or LA, the kind spoken in southern
> > Bharat . . .?
> Once again, Bharata-Varsha if you please ( Bhaarata Varshaa ).
There is no "a" sound after Bgarat, and also not after Varsh.
You're likely a southerner from Kerala, so you will resist
learning this.
> Like in the
> pledge of allegiance that you should have said when you where in school in
> India. asmaakam priyo deshaha. bhaaratavarsha naamakaha. tasmye samarpitam
> sarvam etc, etc. Bharata is the king who ruled the land, after whom the
> land is named. Bharat is the Khadi-boli version.
Not "Khadi" but "Khar(r)ee". Khadi refers to textile.
In many schools, Vandemataram is recited.
> English is the language spoken by the natives of England.
English is spoken by natives of many lands.
> This language
> derives through the Indo-European proto-languages, Anglo-saxon, to what is
> spoken today. The present day "Englishes" including the variations that
> you spoke about are, just that, variations of the language, dialects. So
> when I mention English, I speak with respect to the Anglo-saxon direct
> descendent.
You can refer to whatever you wish.
> > So, where were you born? Why are you afraid to sign your posts with
> > your name?
> What gives you the impression that StrQST is not my name? Do you have a
> monopoly of names as well as incorrect pronounciation of Sanskrit words ?
Your name is Pillai, isn't it? That's what.
> >> >> Do all people born in your part of the world speak Sanskrit? Or do
> >> >> they spent a long time learning the grammar ?
> >> >
> >> > Both. This is true for any labguage and culture.
> >> >
> >> >> >I note that you write "Siva" instead of "Shiv, so perhaps
> >> >> > you are a Tamil-speaking southerner if not a westerner?
> >> >
> >> >> I am not a Tamil speaker, . . .
> >> >
> >> > Then you must be a westerner.
> >> >
> >> >> I am told that the language is very beautiful and perhaps as old, if
> >> >> not older than Sanskrit.
> >> >
> >> > No, Sanskrit predates Tamil. Who told you otherwise?
> >>
> >> There is evidence to the contrary, apparently. I am not a Tamil scholar
> >> and will not try to argue that point. Only point to what researchers in
> >> that area are saying with respect to the antiquity of both languages.
> >
> > Good, you are trying to argue with a native speaker of Sanskrit and
> > Hindi from the region where the languages as well as I originated. By
> > your refusal to answer the question about your origin (you don't even
> > sign your posts with you name), you have shown that you are a foreigner
> > with respect to our land and languages. Stop your colonial attitude of
> > "correcting the natives".
> Good, so you completely agree that you have no locus standi in the matter
> of Tamil. Stick to defending your usage of Sanksrit. I am not "correcting
> the natives". I am questioning *your* usage of a term.
You have neither the authority not the capability
of questioning anyone about anything on USENET -- especially
language. Now, polishing firangee boots -- that may well
be your area of expertise.
> >> >> I am sure I will get to
> >> >> that language as well. The 'S' notation is for the sound 'SH' as in
> >> >> fish (matsya ). I am quite aware that Siva is pronounced Shiva.
> >> >
> >> > No, the correct pronunciation is Shiv.
> >>
> >> I seriously doubt this.
> >
> > You can choose live in the darkness of ignorance.
> This is where either *your* ignorance or your ahambhavam is beginning to
> show. My initial question was "why you consider the "a" at the end of the
> word inaccurate?". You have still not answered that.
I answered it, but you are neglecting to acknowledge it.
Here it is again: there is no "aa" sound at the end of
that word -- unlike the "aa" sound at the end of America.
Get it, N. Pillai? Why don't you stick to the
business of insurance, or are you no longer working for
the insurance company?
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
"StrQST" <[email protected]> posted:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:51:39 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "StrQST" <[email protected]> posted:
> >
> >> To be very pedantic I would say . . .
> >
> >> >> > Where were you born and raised?
> >> >
> >> >> Why should this matter at all ?
> >> >
> >> > It matters a lot in explaining your attempts to corrupt my languages,
> >> > and your insistence in doing so.
> >
> >> Some of the best speakers of English are/were not born in England, and
> >> so on. I would not use place of birth as a consideration for knowledge
> >> of subject.
> >
> > Name these speakers. And which form of English did they speak --
> > British, southern US, ghetoo NY or LA, the kind spoken in southern
> > Bharat . . .?
> Once again, Bharata-Varsha if you please ( Bhaarata Varshaa ).
There is no "a" sound after Bgarat, and also not after Varsh.
You're likely a southerner from Kerala, so you will resist
learning this.
> Like in the
> pledge of allegiance that you should have said when you where in school in
> India. asmaakam priyo deshaha. bhaaratavarsha naamakaha. tasmye samarpitam
> sarvam etc, etc. Bharata is the king who ruled the land, after whom the
> land is named. Bharat is the Khadi-boli version.
Not "Khadi" but "Khar(r)ee". Khadi refers to textile.
In many schools, Vandemataram is recited.
> English is the language spoken by the natives of England.
English is spoken by natives of many lands.
> This language
> derives through the Indo-European proto-languages, Anglo-saxon, to what is
> spoken today. The present day "Englishes" including the variations that
> you spoke about are, just that, variations of the language, dialects. So
> when I mention English, I speak with respect to the Anglo-saxon direct
> descendent.
You can refer to whatever you wish.
> > So, where were you born? Why are you afraid to sign your posts with
> > your name?
> What gives you the impression that StrQST is not my name? Do you have a
> monopoly of names as well as incorrect pronounciation of Sanskrit words ?
Your name is Pillai, isn't it? That's what.
> >> >> Do all people born in your part of the world speak Sanskrit? Or do
> >> >> they spent a long time learning the grammar ?
> >> >
> >> > Both. This is true for any labguage and culture.
> >> >
> >> >> >I note that you write "Siva" instead of "Shiv, so perhaps
> >> >> > you are a Tamil-speaking southerner if not a westerner?
> >> >
> >> >> I am not a Tamil speaker, . . .
> >> >
> >> > Then you must be a westerner.
> >> >
> >> >> I am told that the language is very beautiful and perhaps as old, if
> >> >> not older than Sanskrit.
> >> >
> >> > No, Sanskrit predates Tamil. Who told you otherwise?
> >>
> >> There is evidence to the contrary, apparently. I am not a Tamil scholar
> >> and will not try to argue that point. Only point to what researchers in
> >> that area are saying with respect to the antiquity of both languages.
> >
> > Good, you are trying to argue with a native speaker of Sanskrit and
> > Hindi from the region where the languages as well as I originated. By
> > your refusal to answer the question about your origin (you don't even
> > sign your posts with you name), you have shown that you are a foreigner
> > with respect to our land and languages. Stop your colonial attitude of
> > "correcting the natives".
> Good, so you completely agree that you have no locus standi in the matter
> of Tamil. Stick to defending your usage of Sanksrit. I am not "correcting
> the natives". I am questioning *your* usage of a term.
You have neither the authority not the capability
of questioning anyone about anything on USENET -- especially
language. Now, polishing firangee boots -- that may well
be your area of expertise.
> >> >> I am sure I will get to
> >> >> that language as well. The 'S' notation is for the sound 'SH' as in
> >> >> fish (matsya ). I am quite aware that Siva is pronounced Shiva.
> >> >
> >> > No, the correct pronunciation is Shiv.
> >>
> >> I seriously doubt this.
> >
> > You can choose live in the darkness of ignorance.
> This is where either *your* ignorance or your ahambhavam is beginning to
> show. My initial question was "why you consider the "a" at the end of the
> word inaccurate?". You have still not answered that.
I answered it, but you are neglecting to acknowledge it.
Here it is again: there is no "aa" sound at the end of
that word -- unlike the "aa" sound at the end of America.
Get it, N. Pillai? Why don't you stick to the
business of insurance, or are you no longer working for
the insurance company?
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti