Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 July 29

Language desk
< July 28	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 29

Indian English: acceptable or not

Wikipedia's article on Indian English lists various ways in which the English language spoken in India differs from "Standard English", however, the article does not say which is more acceptable among the "educated classes" in the country. In India, are you more likely to get in trouble in polite company for using the Indian variety of English or for using the Anglo-American variety? What about different forms of writing: a newspaper article, a grant proposal, correspondence with the government, business-to-business communications, legal drafting? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm not Indian, I know that, traditionally and formally, the British style is considered more "correct", due to the historical grounds in India; However, in the last decades, Indian English undergoes a clear process of Americanization, even among the educated classes, so nobody may get in trouble when using American properties of English. HOOTmag (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but that was not what my question was about. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought your question had been about the British English vs. the American English, but now I've just noticed that your question had been about the Indian variety of English vs. the Anglo-American variety. As far as I know (and again, I'm not Indian), nobody gets in trouble for using any style of English, but let's wait for the indians here to answer your question directly. HOOTmag (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no simple or single answer to your question, because:

• Some of the quirks of Indian English (-ji and shree; use of "Kindly" and "respected" in formal correspondence) are considered more acceptable in formal use than their Anglo counterparts.
• Other quirks (most of the examples listed in Grammar quirks), are looked down upon by the "educated classes", and not (usually) found in newspapers etc.
• Yet other quirks (most of the examples used in Interjections and casual references) are colloquialisms mainly prevalent among teens and youngsters, and used chiefly in conversation with their peers (cf. dude, yo etc)
• Finally there are some differences in vocabulary, and terms such as lakh (hundred thousand), crore (ten million) are routinely used and often preferred over million, billion etc.

In short, written Indian English is not very different in grammar from British English; as mentioned above, there are differences in vocabulary as the language has adapted to account for local foods, habits, customs etc. In my judgment, there are more differences in spelling and usage between British- and American English than between (written) Indian- and British English. Try reading an Indian newspaper (say, The Hindu) and see if you spot any differences in grammar. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That was very insightful Abecedare.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Yaar, good stuff LOL! Okay, here's a (strictly hypothetical, of course) situation: Let's say you're working for an Indian company and you're being asked to send a memo to the home offices in Mumbai. Now, your letter is in somewhat bland but perfectly ordinary English as spoken by Brits and (former) colonials including 'Murcans. HOWEVER.... The boss asks you to show him the memo before you send it off. Then he says, "Fine but change this and this." Turns out, he wants you to use prepositions in non-standard ways. Instead of, "A performance OF Verdi BY the Haffenreffer Opera Company," he wants you to write, "A performance ON Verdi OF the Haffenreffer etc." So, do you tell him he is WRONG (and piss him off)? Do as you're told (and risk bringing down the wrath of the home office on your boss)? What? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends on who is more likely to "fire"^§ you!

Sticking to grammar, are you sure the boss understand the intended meaning correctly ? The sentence he wrote would make sense if he thought that Verdi is a member of the Haffenreffer Opera Company, and the performance was about Verdi. Perhaps the situation can be elided by rephrasing the sentence, "The Haffenreffer Opera Company performed a composition by Verdi ..." and hoping that the Indian boss doesn't suspect the reason.

§: In somewhat colloquial Indian English "to fire" someone can mean that you scolded the person, rather than laid them off; also used as "I got a firing from my boss today morning" :-) Not sure if such usage is prevalent in UK or US. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, you're a treasure. One fine morning we're all going to wake up and discover, it's official: Indian English has forked from Anglo-American English and become a language in its own right. And it will be Abecedare's regular language column in The Economist informing us of the event. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In the American English sense, the word "fire" (in job-related terms) simply means that you no longer have your job because your boss, well, "fired" you. The only "good" meaning for "fire" that I've ever heard in the US is when somebody tells you that "You're on Fire" (you're doing extremely well in something). Even then, you should probably still check whether you're actually on fire (as in burning). lol.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a difference: The Hindu uses the word "thrice" about seven times more often than The Times does. But of course that's a difference in vocabulary, not grammar. I can't think of a way to reliably check its use of the progressive present with a stative meaning (I am knowing him very well). +Angr 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll find sentences like "I am knowing him very well" in edited writing, although such use is common enough in spoken Indian English.

Aside: Channel V (a competitor of MTV India) had a series of promotional spots, starring the character Quick Gun Murugan and tag line "We are like this only", that parodied a certain genre of Tamil/Western action movies and Indian English. Some of the clips can be seen on youtube: [1], [2], [3]. Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Attributing sentence to author

Which sentence is better?

1. According to Peruvian writter, Emilio Luna Vegas, Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and few old muskets.

Or

1. Cáceres's troops faced against the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with the usage of archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and few old muskets.

I ask this because there's a user who is essentially having almost every other sentence have "According to," which really destroys the readability of the article. It makes it end up sounding more like a term paper than an encyclopedia.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the "According to ..." phrasing casts more doubt on the statement. That is, mentioning that it is "according to" one person draws attention to the fact that there are others who disagree. Using just the reference, on the other hand, implies that the statement is generally accepted by most people familiar with the subject. In your case, the fact that the nationality of the writer is included further changes the statement, implying that being Peruvian is somehow relevant to Vegas's assessment of the situation. - The character of the underlying statements is the ultimate arbiter of what is best. If they are generally accepted statements, and we're just using Vegas as an authoritative reference, the second option would likely be preferred. If, however, there is serious disagreement among historians as to the veracity of the statements, drawing attention to who said it and their potential biases is a good thing. However, if it is indeed every other sentence getting this treatment, a better form may be to use separate paragraphs, with only the first sentence doing the disclaiming and following sentences being left with an implicit disclaimer. (e.g. "According to {Scholar 1} ... {Sentence}. {Sentence}. ... {Sentence}. {Paragraph break} {Scholar 2} disagrees, stating that ... {Sentence}. {Sentence}. {Sentence}.) I'd suggest dropping a note on the user's talk page asking what concerns he's trying to address. It could be a simple misreading of the WP:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words policies, thinking (incorrectly) that every time we reference someone, we need to explicitly say who it is in the text. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the issues discussed above, there are also minor flaws with the punctuation and/or word usages in both versions. Possible improvements would be:

1. According to the Peruvian writer Emilio Luna Vegas, Cáceres's troops faced the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and a few old muskets.

and

1. Cáceres's troops faced the better equipped and armed Chilean troops with archaic weaponry such as machetes, spears, slings, clubs, stones, and a few old muskets.

Arguably "better-equipped . . . Chilean troops" (note the hyphen) would be more correct, but in this instance it would also require "-armed" (i.e. "better-equipped and -armed Chilean troops"), which is a little awkward. Also, as "troops" implies a body of regular soldiery, would "Cáceres's forces" be more appropriate? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "Caceres's forces" is probably more appropiate. There were some regular troops under his command, but the vast majority were simple militia or rebels (Montoneros in Spanish).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Check

Can any of you please analyze the following sentence?

"After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis worsened following the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru."

Is it in correct English grammar? Does it seem to push a POV of some sort? Thanks in advance.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious grammatical problems. I also don't see any POV issues. It's pretty much all statements of verifiable facts, except for the assertion that the crisis worsened, which is an opinion which may or may not be controversial, depending on the crisis. The sentence construction, though, implies that there is a link between the taxation crisis and the invasion. If there isn't a clear, verifiable link between the two (like an official Chilean government position that the invasion was the result of the tax crisis), it's probably POV to imply that there is. One additional issue, though, is that I'd prefer to see less ambiguous-ness. "a taxation controversy": Which one? What happened? "in a territory": Which one? - These need not be handled in the sentence itself, but it would be good to treat them in the surrounding sentences. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Yes, there is a verifiable link (actually, there are links) that link the taxation controversy directly to the invasion. This sentence is in the Lead paragraph of the article; do you think it truly requires explanation in the lead section?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is confusing, though, because its construction makes it difficult to follow what happened. Apparently the worsening of the crisis occurred (a) after a taxation controversy and (b) following an invasion and the discovery of a secret alliance. So apparently there was a taxation controversy, then there was an invasion and the discovery of a secret alliance, and then the crisis worsened. The reader is left uncertain how these disparate elements fit together. John M Baker (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a quick summary of what happened. The sentence is going in the WP:Lead section of the article. The questions you raise are exactly the type of questions that readers are supposed to ask themselves: Therefore, they will look more closely into the article for the response.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're putting it into the lead section, that's even more of a reason for making it simpler and easier to read. The way it's currently drafted, people won't "look more closely into the article", they'll be put off from going any further. For it to work as a summary, it needs to be made less confusing and to be broken down more clearly into its constituent parts. John M Baker is quite right, you need to make it clear how they fit together in the lead. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's any way you can get by the current disputes going on in the article, as every newly added sentence or word starts a bomb of discussion, then I would surely make my best attempts to break and expand the different parts of the sentence: This is currently the article's lead:

The War of the Pacific, occurring from 1879-1884, was a conflict between Chile and the joint forces of Bolivia and Peru. Also known as the "Saltpeter War," the war arose from disputes over the control of territory that contained substantial mineral-rich deposits. After a taxation controversy in a territory disputed by Chile and Bolivia, the crisis was deepened after the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory and the discovery of a secret defensive alliance between Bolivia and Peru. The war officially began on 1879, after the Chilean declaration of war and the activation of the casus foederis of the treaty between Peru and Bolivia. The conclusion of the conflict ultimately led to the Chilean acquisition of the Peruvian territories of Tarapaca and Arica, as well as the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral, leaving Bolivia as a landlocked country.

The disputed territory is the "Litoral Department," the controversy is a "ten cents tax raise on a British-Chilean company by Bolivia," the Chileans invaded because they claimed that their border treaty with Bolivia had been broken due to the tax raise, and then the Chileans intercepted a letter that led them to discover the "secret defensive alliance." That's pretty much the crisis.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody willing to give a shot at creating a better sentence based on the information I provided?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)