[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Administrivia : Language of Communication on SRH
Ken Stuart wrote:
> Excuse me, but this is soc.religion.hindu, NOT soc.culture.hindu .
And is it the case that religion is divorced from culture? In fact,
given that I hold, as do some others, that 'Hindu' denotes culture
more than it does religion (at least in the western sense of
"religion"), the difference between soc.religion.hindu and
soc.culture.hindu is vanishingly small to me.
> Hindi is a modern invention, from the 20th century, I believe.
Wrong -- the "khaDI bolI" of today is say about 200 years old -- when
it was one of many dialects. However, there are other dialects, which
have also existed in the past; there are even works like Tulsidas's
Raam-charit-maanas, which is sacred to many, in Hindi. And yes, the
dialect of Tulsidas is still spoken today.
The English we speak is as recent -- or even more so -- as today's
Hindi, by the same scale, yet its youth is not held against it.
> If you want to make a case for posting in Sanskrit, that would be
> debatable, but not Hindi.....
>
> English is simply the only language common to all Hindus (mostly due
> to the British conquest of all of India).
>
> It's just a practical matter.
And Sanskrit is practical?! Not a chance.
(I don't mean to offend Sanskrit-lovers here, but all must accept that
_at present_, the number of people who can speak and comprehend
Sanskrit sufficiently well for everyday communication using it, is
very small.)
English is also _not_ the language of the masses -- it is understood
(even barely) by fewer than 20% of all Hindus.
As I said previously, it is not the case that all postings to a
newsgroup need be interesting (or even understandable) to all
readers. That would be a most unsatisfactory restriction.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Namaskar,
>
> Ken
> kstuart@snowcrest.net
References:
