| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 17-Apr-01 11:21 PM
Grammatically speaking, publicly calling a Black
American Black is correct.
But socially speaking, identifying him or her as
an African-American is surely a wiser and more
respectful thing to do. There is NO hard and fast
rule about this, and you simply use your judgment.
Unlike technical terms, words used in public discourse
do NOT exist inside the vaccum of grammatical purity
and dictionary-meaning alone, but -- whether we like
it or not -- within the larger context of social and
political changes.
Either Nepalese or Nepali is grammatically correct.
Neither word is offensive.
Hence, grammatical purity and offense are simply
NOT the issue here.
The issue is of preference: All things being equal,
what would be more preferable? Nepali or Nepalese.
Hell, the word Nepali -- besides being more and more
widely used -- is even SHORTER than the word Nepalese.
Nationalistic pride and the New York Times
notwithstanding, Nepali's brevity alone offers
a compelling reason to use it over Nepalese.
oohi
ashu
How one
|
| namita |
Posted
on 18-Apr-01 06:13 AM
I feel the vibration that 'Ashu is Back!' just by looking at the big bold green letter staring at me 'Nepalese!'
Welcome back Ashu. Your penchant for tweaking some raw nerves were greatly missed.
ps about the the term 'African-American': in the good old days of virulent bigotory blacks were referred as colored people when they did not want to say outright 'nigger.' Then came the pc and they were referred as African-Americans. Now, blacks protest not everybody with a dark skin is from Africa. Therefore, they are once again referred as people with color in many occassions! I cannnot predict what the future will hold the fate of this term, but what I do know is until the race relation is dealt justly, there will always be this question hanging how to call it and what to call it.
namita
|
| null |
Posted
on 18-Apr-01 11:12 AM
Deutschland or Germany? Bangla or Bengali? Nepali or Nepalese? Should everything confirm to a single construct? Let's call us (or them) whatever pleases us and let "them" enjoy the same freedom too... "Nepali" definitely comes more naturally to most of us born and raised in Nepal. But some of our friends seem to think it should be Nepali for "all". Should we formalize it? I think not. These are nuances that differentiate all the languages, even the ones with the same root. Let's just leave it at that...
|
| Null |
Posted
on 18-Apr-01 11:13 AM
And I'm not talking about political correctness...
|
| ramita |
Posted
on 18-Apr-01 01:35 PM
I prefer the word Nepali over Nepalese myself, but I can't favor imposing all instances of the word Nepalese be changed to the word Nepali to suit MY preference!
It seems desperate to be bringing in all kinds of nuances about race, bigotry, political correctness, sexism and even feminism just to win the "Nepali" argument!
Some people have a penchant for tweaking raw nerves, just for the sake of it! To me, that's more of a problem than being called "Nepalese".
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Apr-01 11:37 PM
Null wrote:
>Nepali or Nepalese? Should everything
>confirm to a single construct?
No.
That is why, no ONE here is saying that everything
should confirm to s single construct.
> "Nepali"
>definitely comes more naturally to most of
>us born and raised in Nepal.
Yes.
>But some of our
>friends seem to think it should be Nepali
>for "all".
No.
Again, no one here is saying that "it should be Nepali
for "all"."
If anything, Nepali is, with reasons,
RECOMMENDED to all, but certainly
not FORCED upon anyone.
Let's get this distinction clear.
>Should we formalize it? I think
>not.
Again, no one here is talking about
"formalizing" either Nepali or Nepalese.
>These are nuances that differentiate
>all the languages, even the ones with the
>same root. Let's just leave it at that...
Of course, we can always leave things at
that. That's perfectly fine.
But the whole point of any discussion is
to clarify ideas, share thoughts and
think through an issue, even when
some of us may not agree with
the conclusions.
oohi
ashu
|
| Null |
Posted
on 19-Apr-01 10:59 AM
Ashu point well taken. A rose is a rose is a rose... Next question: Gorkhali or Nepali? :-)
Actually that might be an interesting discussion. Should we take pride in calling ourselves Gorkhalis? Epitome of bravery or just mercenaries hired by the British empire? They never fought their war! Is hacking into a cannon barrel with a khukri stupidity or a show of determination and strength?
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Apr-01 11:05 AM
>Ashu point well taken.
Thank you, my dear fellow Nepali.
oohi
ashu
|
| Hari |
Posted
on 19-Apr-01 11:49 PM
Fine, forget nationalism, forget grammatical correctness, forget imposing standards.
Sure, you can claim the usage to be personal preference, independent choice, etc. etc.
'Nepalese' contains the root 'Nepal' and is not generally offensive, and naturally, after being used for so long by the westerners, it has incorporated itself into dictionaries, peoples' tongues, textbooks and other print. AND, there's no public outcry but a general acceptance.
All fine and dandy.
In some ways, yes, we cannot impose what the english speaking world calls us, just like they cannot impose on us what we call them, be it 'kuire' or 'gore' or 'amrikan' or anything else. But, the question is, what is the CORRECT way of referring to them? If we are to follow the rules of our language, Nepali, then it would be something like 'sanyukta rajya ameriki' for a citizen of the US and 'ameriki' for the inhabitants of the two combined continents. Do we bother ourselves with 'sanyukta rajya ameriki' every time we refer to Americans? Certainly not. Most of the times, we resort to 'Amrikans' which is simply 'American' with a Nepali accent. ;-)
So, yes, we too call Americans what they call themselves. So, naturally, it is only fair that they call what we call ourselves, Nepali, not Nepalese.
That brings up the next, perhaps a more serious question: What are the grammatical rules of 'Global English'? I say Global English because the international version of English that is widely being used worldwide as a common language should incorporate in it niceties that the American version of English does not need to have. To be fair, Americans can of course keep on calling us Nepalese, and keep on adding 'ese' to describe peoples of other lands. After all, that is what is grammatically correct in their language. But what about the 'international' English, and the 'international' standards?
Why should third party countries, for example Nepal, call others what the Americans call them? A case in point: we call Germans for the people of Deutschland (we also call the country 'Germany' just like the Americans). Why do we do that? Does there need to be this hegemony of English over other languages? Certainly not in the 'international' version of it. Why should we make "Germans" the standard? Why don't we make "Amerikaner" the standard?
Of course, all of these are mostly philosophical musings. But, to be fair, I think there is no problem at all if we adopt, in the context of this 'international' English, a convention in which we call all the countries and their peoples what they call themselves. And that certainly would agrue (though NOT require) more for calling ourselves NEPALI.
Dui Paise Musings
Hari
|
