From: scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: International English/Englishes
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:25:23 GMT

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".
Perhaps this is a typo, perhaps part of your English Grammar - it's
all the same to me. 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.
There are a bunch of different standard varieties of the language we
share, wherever our native speaker status is gained, or whether we are
native speakers at all or speak it as a second language. Your
standards are your own, ours are our own, and if you want to judge us
by your standards all you'll do is make people angry.

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. 

A couple of points, however.

In the spirit of international cooperation, and thinking of the SI in
science, couldn't all English speakers use "litre, metre"? What they
do with theatre doesn't bother me much, I'm afraid, even though my
spelling is all to pot after 18 months in the US. If this seems
reasonable, perhaps the idea of the US opting for more widely
acceptable spellings doesn't seem such a crazy idea.  Given the
ubiquitous arguments against phonetic spelling on this group, I'd have
thought that a single spelling system for all Englishes would have
been viewed positively. I don't want "phonetic" spelling, but spelling
reforms don't scare me to my boots. I don't hold a religious view
of our writing system. What would be wrong with a spelling reform that
would introduce more homogeneity into the English-speaking world,
even though it made the spelling system harder?  Kind of quirky when
you first think about it, but not so crazy? Or am I too tired?

>     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