KUTARK, and the vanquished English Scholar.
What is rich? What is poor? Absence of one proclaims the presence of another.
Both correspond to the absence of or the presence of resources, in one or the other form or format.
We were discussing the comparative status of English language with Hindi. A scholar in Hindi literature would not concede any inferiority in comparison with English, though English is acknowledged to have acquired wider acceptance owing especially to its usage versatility. Hindi might be less, rather much less, in circulation on the global scale, but its literature , if combined with its parent script, Sanskrit, is still a branch of language that would leave the world regret its lack of its knowledge, peripheral, workable or deep, whatever.
The vociferous Scholar who had been batting so tenaciously for English refused to give up, despite his strenuous arguments getting jaded, hence he advanced more arguments in the hope that the respondent's spirit would soon flag , which in fact did flag, forcing him to give up. But before he gave up, an interlocutor butted in, telling both that they had both misconceived. By intellectualisation , nothing could either be proved or disproved . Proof of a thing proved only the inadequacy of the respondent , rather than of the subject matter which failed for want of better logic.
But then how to draw an inference, if discussions would not yield results?
The interlocutor showed an easy way, a practical one.
He said, as two vying individuals to buy an Auddi or a Metcedez Benz. One who buys is rich. One who gawks is poor. It is so simple. No need of long wasteful arguments.
But then how to coarse the richness of a language? Asked both the contestants .
It is likewise simple, told the interlocutor.
But how, he was asked.
The interlocutor uttered a word in Hindi, KUTARK. He asked the scholar , the votary of English language to cite its English equivalent.
SOPHISTRY. Pat came an answer, explaining what it means. It means a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning, a false argument; sophism.
But these expressions are scarcely synonymical with KUTARK. Just see the cutting edge that the word KUTARK exudes as against which sophistry is too maimed an expression which has no front foot to exhibit its aggression , it is too much on the front foot.
In utter exasperation, the English scholar closed the debate, shooting the last arrow he was left with in its quiver. He said, language stems from human character that expresses its emotions and thought currents that arise in usual interacts and intercourse. KUTARK is a habitual Indian way of life, hence the expression finds its natural habitat in the Hindi language. But a Britisher is unaware of this human faculty, having failed to give up its characteristics, of calling a spade a spade. They ditch to logic. It may be misconceived or even fallacious but never to the extent of being that which may be defined as KUTARK , much less of the kind Congress still uses vociferously against the Midi Government, oblivious of its size shrunk to a pitiable 44 in the Lol Sabha.
What is rich? What is poor? Absence of one proclaims the presence of another.
Both correspond to the absence of or the presence of resources, in one or the other form or format.
We were discussing the comparative status of English language with Hindi. A scholar in Hindi literature would not concede any inferiority in comparison with English, though English is acknowledged to have acquired wider acceptance owing especially to its usage versatility. Hindi might be less, rather much less, in circulation on the global scale, but its literature , if combined with its parent script, Sanskrit, is still a branch of language that would leave the world regret its lack of its knowledge, peripheral, workable or deep, whatever.
The vociferous Scholar who had been batting so tenaciously for English refused to give up, despite his strenuous arguments getting jaded, hence he advanced more arguments in the hope that the respondent's spirit would soon flag , which in fact did flag, forcing him to give up. But before he gave up, an interlocutor butted in, telling both that they had both misconceived. By intellectualisation , nothing could either be proved or disproved . Proof of a thing proved only the inadequacy of the respondent , rather than of the subject matter which failed for want of better logic.
But then how to draw an inference, if discussions would not yield results?
The interlocutor showed an easy way, a practical one.
He said, as two vying individuals to buy an Auddi or a Metcedez Benz. One who buys is rich. One who gawks is poor. It is so simple. No need of long wasteful arguments.
But then how to coarse the richness of a language? Asked both the contestants .
It is likewise simple, told the interlocutor.
But how, he was asked.
The interlocutor uttered a word in Hindi, KUTARK. He asked the scholar , the votary of English language to cite its English equivalent.
SOPHISTRY. Pat came an answer, explaining what it means. It means a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning, a false argument; sophism.
But these expressions are scarcely synonymical with KUTARK. Just see the cutting edge that the word KUTARK exudes as against which sophistry is too maimed an expression which has no front foot to exhibit its aggression , it is too much on the front foot.
In utter exasperation, the English scholar closed the debate, shooting the last arrow he was left with in its quiver. He said, language stems from human character that expresses its emotions and thought currents that arise in usual interacts and intercourse. KUTARK is a habitual Indian way of life, hence the expression finds its natural habitat in the Hindi language. But a Britisher is unaware of this human faculty, having failed to give up its characteristics, of calling a spade a spade. They ditch to logic. It may be misconceived or even fallacious but never to the extent of being that which may be defined as KUTARK , much less of the kind Congress still uses vociferously against the Midi Government, oblivious of its size shrunk to a pitiable 44 in the Lol Sabha.
No comments:
Post a Comment