[Indic-computing-users] Fwd: article on technical neologisms

[Ravikant <rav...@sa...>]

Dear Indiccers,

I liked the following article, written by an expat computer engineer, for=
 its
refreshingly commonsensical approach to technospeak in a new language. I
received it in my mail. Enjoy!

ravikant
-----------------
How a Language grows
Agastya Kohli ( Aga...@ma...)


I am no linguist. I have not studied the growth and development of a
 language. I am not an expert in the field. But I use languages. I grew u=
p in
 an environment, where a language wasn't merely a subject you took in sch=
ool.
 When you studied a language, you studied it well. So along with learning=
 a
 couple of languages, I also learned the nature of languages. How they
 interact with each other, how they interact with the society, how they
 change over years, grow, develop, flourish, or alternatively, shrink, lo=
ose
 their shine, diminish, and eventually disappear. No, I didn't have a cou=
rse
 in college on the topic, but one makes observations, and takes notes.


For example, I decided to study a little Spanish. Of course, the letter "=
j"
 is used extensively in Spanish, but is pronounced almost like an "h".
 'Jesus' is "hay-soos", and Juan is "hu-aan". So when my teacher told me =
that
 the Spanish word for "a young man" is "haw-ven", it sounded like another
 foreign word to me. But then she wrote it on the board - Joven.


When you grow up in India, speaking Hindi all your life, it doesn't take =
much
to make a Yamuna-Jamuna connection, and all of a sudden, Joven looked a l=
ot
like "yauvan" - Sanskrit for youth. Sure, a young man was called "haw-ven=
". I
don't remember much else from that Spanish class, but I do remember joven=
.


It didn't take a class in linguistics to make the Yamuna-Jamuna connectio=
n,
 or to make a Joven-Yauvan connection.  When you study a language, you st=
udy
 the nature of languages simultaneously. Many languages, both Indian and
 otherwise interchangeably use the sounds "ya" and "ja" (letters I, Y and=
 J),
 "ra" and "la", "ka" and "ga". I have a German friend named Katja (pronou=
nced
 Katya), and a Chinese friend who spells the word "are" as "ay - al - ee"=
. No
 wonder "badariya" is just a derivative of "badaliya" in Hindi, and "beka=
ar"
 and "begaar" mean the same thing.


And in my opinion, that's how languages grow. Whatever is easier to say i=
s
what becomes the norm. The concept of "mukh-sukh" (mouth-comfort) makes a
language add words as variants of themselves.


Its not just with sounds - its also with word meanings. A language has a =
word
for a concept. Something similar rolls around, and the same word expands =
its
meaning.


They had these things called coaches - pulled around by horses. People co=
uld
sit in them and go places. A number of years later, the horses have now b=
een
replaced by internal combustion engines. So what do they call a car in
Spanish? A "coche". In English, the word "car" really comes from "carriag=
e" -
which is something that gets carried. So a word has a meaning, a related
concept attaches itself to it, and the word adapts to accommodate the rel=
ated
concept. That's how languages grow. Sure some people called them automobi=
les,
but a car is still a car in English - one horsepower, or two hundred.


Of course, my favorite - sticks of wood with cloth soaked in oil tied at =
one
end. They would light the cloth on fire, hold the stick on the other end,=
 and
walk around with it in dark places. It worked as a source of light - they
called it a "torch". Fast-forward a few hundred years, technology changes=
,
now they have plastic tubes with batteries on one side and a bulb on the
other. It's a source of light - and yes you're right - they called it a
"torch". Of course, in America, they call them "flash lights". A differen=
t
society saw a product, was inspired by a different way of looking at it, =
and
added another word to the language.


They tell me, that a language that doesn't grow - that doesn't change wit=
h
time will eventually die. And I completely agree with them. But I am not =
sure
I understand the definition of "grow" and "change with time". The way I s=
ee
it, a language grows by innovation. When a people use a language, they co=
me
across something new that needs to be communicated; a word gets altered,
adapted, changed, to communicate the new concept.
We  - the community that works and plays with Hindi seems to work
 differently. We don't want the language to innovate. We want the languag=
e to
 borrow. A new concept comes along, usually with a word in English, and
 without thinking twice about how Hindi would express the same concept, w=
e
 borrow the word. There are examples all over the place.


When Xerox first developed a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to use on a
computer, they also developed a pointing device. It was an instrument
connected to the computer that controlled an arrow like cursor on the scr=
een.
You moved the device, it moved the arrow, and by clicking the buttons you
could provide input to the computer. The device was an oblong shaped half
sphere, about 4 inches long, with a cable that ran to the back of the
computer. To some creative mind, it looked like a small mouse with a long
tail, so they called it a mouse. In Spanish, they call it a "ratos" (thin=
k
rat). In Hindi, we can easily call it a "moosa" (Sanskrit for mouse). But=
 its
so much easier to just call it a "mouse" even in Hindi. Do we not have a =
word
for the concept? Why do we need to borrow a completely foreign word for
something that we already have a word for?


One afternoon, my two-year-old nephew was sitting in front of a computer,
looking at the cursor - a solid block on the screen - blinking. On, off. =
On,
off. He pointed at it, and said "titlee" (butterfly). And I thought to
myself, if a cursor looks like a butterfly to a two year old, that is wha=
t we
should call it in Hindi. Titlee. After all, why is a mouse acceptable, bu=
t
not a much prettier butterfly.


I've always referred to my TV's remote control as "bandook" (gun). Sure, =
its
not exactly the same thing - but its an expansion of a concept. If you ca=
n
"aim-and-shoot" with a camera and a gun, how different is a remote contro=
l
really?


Lets stick with computers and technology for a little while longer. Why i=
s a
window (as in Microsoft Windows) not called a "patt" in Hindi? Most of th=
e
time that's what it is - an information board, a "pop up screen". Why do =
we
seem to use "website" as a word in Hindi? To me, it's a "parav/padav"
(stopping point). Why is an Internet portal called a portal? Because it's=
 a
launching point from where a surfer can go in many different directions. =
May
be we should call it a "chauraahaa" in Hindi.


Lets go outside the world of hi-tech. Hindi newspapers always talk about
 which party has how many "seats" in the parliament. How come we don't us=
e
 the word "baithak" for it? Since when is "metro" a Hindi word for a loca=
l
 train system in a city? It's not even a word in English!


Doordarshan and Aakashvani of course have been abandoned as Hindi words f=
or
television and radio - they have simply become proper nouns - names of
corporations, leaving us with nothing better than "Teevee" as a Hindi wor=
d.


How come we call the burning cloth version of a torch a "mashaal", but we
 call the battery-bulb version a "torch" in Hindi? We have a "gaari/gaadi=
" -
 as a moving vehicle. But for some reason, a car is just as much a Hindi
 word. Was this because Hindi needed to "change with the times"? Or is th=
is
 something else?


Yes, a language must grow. If it doesn't, it perishes. But does a languag=
e
grow because people who use it are creative and innovative with it? They
think it, they speak it, they write it, and they use it? Or does it grow
because they're too lazy to try to explain things to their readers in the=
ir
own words, and find it much easier to simply borrow and replace?


By simply borrowing words from another language, is Hindi growing? Or is =
it
loosing its identity as the soul of over half of the population of the
country, and becoming a language incapable of being the national
communication channel of India? If most of the words in Hindi are not nat=
ive,
would it still remain and independent language? Would people read any
literature written in it? Would there be any Nobel prizes for Hindi schol=
ars?
Or would they simply be ignored and described as a "mish-mash language th=
at
came about after the British invaded India"?


They might call me a purist, who doesn't want to see the language moderni=
ze
itself. But I'll let them know - I coined the Hindi word for a remote
control. It doesn't get any more modern than wirelessly influencing an
electrical appliance. And, I coined the Hindi word for a cursor - sure I
needed help from a two year old kid to come up with that one - but he did
better than most professional Hindi journalists out there.



About the Author


Agastya Kohli, born Jan 31, 1975, and brought up in Delhi, moved to Chica=
go,
IL for his Bachelors in Computer Engineering from Illinois Institute of
Technology, roughly ten years ago. After a stay of four years in Chicago,=
 and
completion of the degree program, he moved to Dallas, TX and worked as a
Network and Unix System Administrator for a little under 2 years. He then
moved again to the greater Seattle, WA metro area, and has been working i=
n
the wireless telecom industry for the last 4 years in various capacities.

-------------------------------------------------------