Modern Indian Language Puns

"In the name of King Ferdinand and Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and Leon, etc., conquerors of barbarian nations, we notify you as best we can that our Lord God Eternal created Heaven and earth and a man and woman from whom we all descend for all times and all over the world. In the 5,000 years since creation the multitude of these generations caused men to divide and establish kingdoms in various parts of the world, among whom God chose St. Peter as leader of mankind, regardless of their law, sect or belief.

He seated St. Peter in Rome as the best place from which to rule the world but he allowed him to establish his seat in all parts of the world and rule all people, whether Christians, Moors, Jews, Gentiles or any other sect. He was named Pope, which means admirable and greatest father, governor of all men. Those who lived at that time obeyed St. Peter as Lord and superior King of the universe, and so did their descendants obey his successors and so on to the end of time.

The late Pope gave these islands and mainland of the ocean and the contents hereof to the above-mentioned King and Queen, as is certified in writing and you may see the documents if you should so desire. Therefore, Their Highnesses are lords and masters of this land; they were acknowledged as such when this notice was posted, and were and are being served willingly and without resistance; then, their religious envoys were acknowledged and obeyed without delay, and all subjects unconditionally and of their own free will became Christians and thus they remain. Their Highnesses received their allegiance with joy and benignity and decreed that they be treated in this spirit like good and loyal vassals and you are under the obligation to do the same.

Therefore, we request that you understand this text, deliberate on its contents within a reasonable time, and recognize the Church and its highest priest, the Pope, as rulers of the universe, and in their name the King and Queen of Spain as rulers of this land, allowing the religious fathers to preach our holy Faith to you. You own compliance as a duty to the King and we in his name will receive you with love and charity, respecting your freedom and that of your wives and sons and your rights of possession and we shall not compel you to baptism unless you, informed of the Truth, wish to convert to our holy Catholic Faith as almost all your neighbors have done in other islands, in exchange for which Their Highnesses bestow many privi

I've recently been working through the Pramana-samuccaya (tr. “Compendium of Epistemology”) by Dignaga, a south indian philosopher from roughly the 6th ce who wrote on a variety of topics in epistemology and the philosophy of language. Lately, I've been specifically working through the fifth chapter where he presents what felt to me to be an interesting skeptical critique of meaning. It reminded me somewhat of what I'd learnt about skeptical interpretations of Wittgenstein, for example.

So, I'm really curious about 1. whether and to what extent there are parallels to Dignaga's arguments in Western philosophy and 2. how viable these arguments are today, do they construe a reasonable challenge to modern notions of language-meaning or are their scope confined only to earlier and more rudimentary accounts of language?

To give the arguments as briefly as I can: Dignaga rejects the idea that the meaning of a word is just its extension because it's impossible to uniquely determine the (potentially infinite) extension of a term based on just a finite set of particular instances, making it impossible to learn the meaning of words by direct association. He also points out the if the meaning of a word was explained only in terms of its intension, understood as some ontologically real property or universal, co-reference between non-synonymous terms would be inexplicable. He then considers the idea that you can combine the two approaches and say that a word refers to an individual by virtue of it's being an instantiation of the property or universal that is meant by the word's intension. He rejects this because it would make inexplicable the hierarchical nature of concepts and the purely semantic relationships between words. According to Dignaga, per this proposal, in the phrase "the color red" the word "color" and the word "red" would co-refer to the same entity merely because the properties "being a color" and "being red" co-occur in the same particular trope that is the reference of that expression. This is apparently a problem because, then, the fact that all instances of red are also instances of color would be a merely empirical fact about the respective properties meant by "red" and "color". Take, by contrast, the term "hot fire". Here, the phrase refers to an entity that both has heat and is fire, ie simultaneously co-instantiates the properties "having heat" and "being fire". It just so happens that all instances of "being fire" are instances of "having heat

Sorry if this is super stupid but considering there’s many different local languages in India how do all the players speak with each other? I know that Hindi is very common but would every player know enough of it to communicate? Sorry again for the ignorance

The Latin 3rd person singular has -t, for example cantat, amat etc. For the 1st group it seems to have disappeared in almost all Romance languages, however I have noticed while looking at a transcription of a text in francoprovençal where unstressed -t still exist. For example:

erat > ˈevɛt *cominitiat > kˈmẽ̞θɛt quaerit > ˈkeɛt resecat > ˈreʃɛt

The -t can sometimes disappear before a consonant [ʒã dɛ veteã ˈmwɑde pɛ la frãs] (Jean "of Veteran" is going to France), but [papɔ ˈmwɑdɛt ˈeθrɛ kõ̞tẽ̞] (Dad is going to be happy) with both mwɑde and ˈmwɑdɛt < *movitat.

I checked the linguistic atlas of Italy and saw it existed in neighbouring francoprovençal dialects in Piedmont but I haven't found any other place where it exists. Does anyone know if it exists in other Romance languages for the 1st conjugation?

I understand it differs a lot based upon your gender.

These people deliberately have their videos titled in English, not mentioning the language the video is in, falsly implying that the video is going to be in English. But, when the video starts, the guy goes, "Namaskaar dostho". WTH!? This is especially annoying when you don't understand the language it is in. I've been in situations when you need to find a certain something and you're very short on time. It is only after a plethora of wasted clicks and title animations, will you be able to find a video that is in a language you understand. This is not the case with youtubers outside India. I've heard the same rant from some of my non-Indian pals - "Indians almost never flair their videos by language"

I consume a lot of European and East Asian tech content online. Some of which aren't in English. They have the decency to mark the video as [German] or [Mandarin] or "... in French" so that a viewer who wouldn't understand the language would not waste their time there.

If there are YouTubers here, kindly consider this: YouTube is a global platform. If your audience is local, it would make a huge difference if you're straight about it!

Welcome girlbosses, sigma males, and non-binary hustlers. This post is split into three sections, and elaborates on the co-opting of certain leftist terms and ideologies (specifically those used by feminists, queer activists, and indigenous and anti-racist activists) by the right wing in order to seem progressive and delude uninformed western leftists and liberals (especially NRIs) into supporting them.

1. Feminism

There are, of course, many different ideologies under the umbrella of feminism. Firstly, liberal or choice feminism. In my opinion, this branch of feminism is shallow and doesn’t take into account many of the intersections of oppressions that women face, and often reduces women’s rights to simply a crusade to have more female corporate exploiters. This can be seen in shallow feminist messaging employed by the BJP and their female MLAs.

Secondly, radical feminism. It’s necessary to emphasise that despite its name and the few good ideas they (claim to) have come up with, radical feminists tend to be quite regressive in their views about gender, sex, and their intersections with other marginalised identities. The core tenet of “radical” feminism is that society is fundamentally a patriarchy that dominates and oppresses women. This core philosophy is reductive considering there are other axes of oppression that are also crucial in determining the true power a person can hold. For example, there has been a spate of retellings of Indian myths like the Mahabharat by rich savarna feminists, that depict its leading women as victims of horrible misogyny, while ignoring that they are upper caste monarchs who largely only interact with other upper caste monarchs.

There is also intersectional feminism, which in opposition to rad feminism, does take intersections of marginalised identities like race, class, and queerness into account. However, due to the majority of focus going to Western intersectional feminism, centrist and right-wing (and some left-wing too, let’s be honest) savarna Indian feminists often forget, intentionally or not, to factor in India-specific identities like caste. This leads them to identify themselves as being oppressed in the global order, despite the fact that they are the most privileged in their own country. This is further discussed in the next section.

2. Indigenous and anti-racist activism

Decoloniality is a school of thought used primarily by Western indigenous activists and activists of colour that critique

Definetely not Hindi becuz foreign influences. I guess Bengali or Marathi could be a candidate. Nepali sounds very Sanskritized. Bengali does have a lot of Sanskrit based vocab still, but it's pronounciation is in a different direction.

10 books were selected, the hardest translation turned out to be translation into Albanian of a popular book by a prominent Armenian author Nikol Pashinyan, costing 1.695 million drams.

https://escs.am/am/news/11042

Will Brahmastra get as much love as a Baahubali?

Across most Germanic and Latin based European languages, varied from Hungarian to English, the Latin script is used, with only very minor changes.

However, in the Indian Subcontinent, almost all languages have their own unique script. These scripts are significantly different from each other. However all these writing systems developed from a single script called the Brahmi Script:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_script

"The Brahmi writing system, or script, appeared as a fully developed universal one in South Asia in the third century BCE, and is a forerunner of all writing systems that have found use in South Asia with the exception of the Indus script of the third millennium BCE, the Kharosthi script, which originated in what today is northwestern Pakistan in the fourth or possibly fifth century BCE, the Perso–Arabic scripts since the medieval period, and the Latin scripts of the modern period."

Accross languages, modern scripts descended from the Brahmi Script look significantly different from each other. Examples of which can be found in the following links:

https://imgur.com/MlkYC6S

And,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Phrase_sanskrit.svg/1788px-Phrase_sanskrit.svg.png

Why has Indian Subcontinental writing systems evolved so widely and drastically from a single source, while the Latin alphabet remains relatively similar accross European languages?

This post is an extension of a similar post I made in r/TeluguMain

It's alarming that we have no words in our languages for so many modern concepts. For eg, in Germany, they say "Eiweiß" for protein, "Kühlschrank" for refrigerator, "Heizung" for heater, and "Kopfhörer" for earphones. Yet in India we have no option but to use the English words for all these. Without modernizing our languages we risk watching them become outdated and impractical. I fear a time where English loan words become the majority of our vocabulary. Does anyone have any ideas on how we can encourage modernization of our indigenous languages?

There was a recent popular post about this on TIL: https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/rpwjx1/til_that_britain_robbed_india_of_45_trillion_18/ It’s a fairly popular claim on reddit in general.

The original source is the article by Dr Gideon Polya: https://mronline.org/2019/01/15/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/

So, what’re the foundations for the two claims and are they accepted by modern scholars?

Some of the most-spoken, non-English world languages today are French, Spanish, German, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, and Mandarin. What is the status of these languages in Star Trek? Are they ever mentioned?

https://www.pratilipi.com

I love this idea. India desperately needs more high quality literature in our native languages.

Even English language literature centered on India is much needed. In particular, the children's section of English stories needs a lot of development:

https://english.pratilipi.com/children-fiction

View Poll

Is there some difference in the way they speak vs how Chinese people speak now ?

I'm wondering if it's a good idea for me to use historical dramas for learning.

Thanks in advance :)

Thanks to my profession I travel a lot. And in West Africa I notice that among the middle and upper class English (or French) has totally replaced native African languages. The transition took place over a few generations and is ultimately rooted in the predominance of English in education and white-collar careers (government, corporate, medical etc.). And after a few generations it created a growing generation of West African youth who now speak English as their mother tongue. They often have very limited fluency in African languages and only use them when speaking to servants or the elderly.

As I think back to India, I feel we're now maybe a generation or two behind the West Africans. But the transition is surely taking place. Of course no language is "pure" and English has infused into all language. But some more than others. You listen to a conversation between to two urban educated Koreans or Germans and you will hear maybe 2-3 English words in the entire discussion. But for Indians it's closer to 30%-50%. For example, whenever main YouTube par jata hun to find a video na, hamesha 70% english mein hote hain. Matlab they'll be talking in English and kabhi kabhi Hindi words use karte hain.

Even when we think we're speaking just Hindi (or any other Indian language) we still use a large number of English words. And I'm not just talking about slang or technical terms that have no local equivalent. For example, main aaj office mein bahut busy thi, unexpected kaam aa gaya, isliye ghar late pahunchi.

To add to this, many seldom read in their native tongue almost always opting for English. I gave a Hindi novel to a cousin and she rejected it saying reading in Hindi is a pain, despite it being her mother tongue (technically). I heard another friend in his twenties say he was really impressed that I knew how to say even big numbers in Hindi. Again, another person whose mother tongue is Hindi and who was born and raised in India. This cohort is small (I know) but it's growing with every year.

There's even a class component, recently as a challenge to myself I decided to speak my Hindi with as few English words as possible and I was asked not to by co-workers (Hindi is there mother tongue) who found it irritating to follow and said I sounded simple-minded. To clarify I wasn't writing my work emails in devanagari or something, but even in casual conversations they were more comfortable in Hinglish or even English but not Hindi.

It makes me w

India doesn’t get enough representation in Criterion, but when people do talk about it, it’s only for really old movies. Is there anything 2000+ that you think would fit?.