From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: International English/Englishes
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:29:18 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Jul29.232523.4517@Csli.Stanford.EDU> scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>In <1992Jul29.202134.24761@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar Mukund Mirashi) writes:
>
>>      Anyway, I am in perfect agreement with you, as far as the 
>>pronounciation goes. But the written English that is taught in India is
>>according to standard English English. We use "English" English grammar
>>and spellings (the syntax is NOT different, phonology, vocabulary and
>>idioms may differ, yes). My point was that the original spellings
>>of words should not be distorted, as they have been in America. I have
>>observed this only in the US (although by now, some other countries must
>>have followed the contorted US spellings as well).
>
>Mandy: be reasonable. Some of you others: calm down. Mandy, I
>doubt very much indeed whether your syntax is the same as 'standard
>English English'. For example, you say
>
>>Could you please give me a more detailed reference on the book written
>>by Braj Kachru (first time I am hearing about him..) and by any others
>
>Constructions like "this is the first time I am hearing about him" are
>not found in stanard English. Rather you'd find "..I have heard".


    Thanks for pointing out my mistake.....however I tend to write
English as I speak it.....I accept that "I have heard" is the correct
alternative....I'll try to be more precise in my syntax, henceforth.
Please do not hesitate to correct me.....I am not like one of these
stubborn Americans. I do not claim that I have mastered the language,
and do commit errors. However I am always willing to apologise for
them, and try and not commit them any further          
 
                  But perhaps Standard English as learnt in India is
>different from standard English English, just as Standard Scottish and
>Standard American and Standard Canadian and Standard Jamaican are.

    We followed the Wren and Martin textbook for English grammar
while in high school. The short stories that we read were mostly
written by English authors. 

>
>What you seem to desire is a standard international english. That's
>one thing we might usefully argue about. Then there is the question of
>*which* current variety will be the one closest to the international
>variety. You opt for an english based pretty much on British English.
>I think the reasons you use, that English sort of comes from England,
>is at first glance sensible - but there are other considerations,
>shall we say. The number currently who speak Englishes of various
>varieties, for example. I'm not going to argue for a single
>international variety, I don't know whether it is either necessary or
>sensible. I'm *certainly* not going to stick up for any one particular
>variety. 
>

      Why not follow the spellings (and as far as possible the pronounciations
  ) of words listed in the O.E.D.? In India, we have a similar problem
with Hindi. However, we consider the residents of a particular state, to
speak the pure form of the language and enforcers of the standards for
the "standard" language. The number of people who are not residents of
this state, but who speak different variants of Hindi, is much larger....
...however the Indian Govt. has decided to adopt the standard language
and not any of its variants. In this case, however, we are arguing about
a language that spans countries, not just states.....so I claim that 
since English comes from England, all countries  and their residents
should conform to this standard.


>
>>     The English spoken and written by the English is the standard for
>>the language, and all other varieties of the language spoken and
>>written worldwide should be judged according to this standard.
>
>That's your hope, but it simply is not true of the real world. You
>might get further if you start from an accurate position and argue
>from there.
>
>
>-- 
>James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USA
>                  scobbie@csli.stanford.edu

       Yes, unfortunately it isn't! Could you elaborate on what you
mean by "accurate position"?