Re: Telugu script withering away?
Bapa Rao (brao@tis.com)
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
> Consider the obvious advantages:
>
> We can mix Telugu and English much more easily if the scripts
> are the same
We have been doing this since the time of Gireesam. Oops, sorry, I thought
you meant writing English in Telugu.
>
> No more awkward translations like 'SileendhrAlu' for fungus
> 'pouna@h punyamu' for frequency. We can absorb the entire
> scientific jargon with least controversy.
I am lost here. Surely you are not saying that changing the script
eliminates the need for translation? If some terms are better adopted
as-such rather than be translated, that can be achieved by transliterating
the English/Latin into Telugu as shown by Gireesam and later adopted by
the Japanese. I don't see what differential advantage is realized in
this instance by mapping Telugu script into Latin versus the other way around.
>
>
> All the Indians can have a common script. Learning each
> other's language is easier if the script doesn't come in the
> way.
More precisely, "becoming literate in each other's language...". People
in border areas learn the neighboring language all the time, irrespective
of script. Most such people are not literate in their native language
to start with.
You are acutally proposing that all Indian scripts be replaced by
the Latin script. Is this practical, technically or politically or
economically?
Also, consider that probably the single biggest dread for non-convent type
Indian students when it comes to learning English is spelling. By
eliminating the far less spelling-dependent and far more phonetic Indian
scripts(as Budaraju Radhakrishna points out, Telugu script is not
fully phonetic or fully spelling-independent), you are interposing
the spelling barrier between all these students and their mother tongue.
I think we should quantify (through studies etc.) just how much of
a barrier script is to learning each other's languages, relative to
other things like resources, need, motivation, etc. Typically, people
with the right degree of economic motivation (business & govt. people)
always manage to become literate in other languages. I seriously doubt
that there are more Norwegians learning Vietnamese just because the scripts
are similar, compared to, say, Norwegians learning Chinese or Japanese.
>
>
> It is increasingly common to find people who can speak Telugu
> but not read and write.
Always has been! What is the literacy rate in A.P.?
Those who realize a little later in
> life that they should have learned Telugu in their childhood
> can easily fall back.
Obviously you are implicitly referring to people who "live and work" in
English. Perhaps a transliteration scheme would be helpful for such
people to make the transition, as they are also more likely to have access
to display technology which will make the script transparent. But I
think replacing Telugu with Latin script wholesale needs stronger reasons;
the above reason is like the tail wagging the dog. In fact, I would say that a
case has to be made that Telugu language is at a crisis, and that the
script is at the heart of the crisis. I am far from convinced that such
a case can be made.
The downside about adopting Latin script is that whether intended or not,
it makes a statement about our identity and how we feel about it (on the
lines of Srinivasa Rao garu's post). The real challenge facing Telugu is
an economic one, and by extension a psychological one--"we" are poor, or
afraid of becoming poor, and need English to enrich ourselves, so we
don't invest our limited resources in Telugu which further impoverishes
Telugu. If we had economic self-confidence like the Japanese or the Chinese,
we wouldn't be worrying about the survival of the language. Compared to the
problem of establishing a competitive economic base for Telugu, the script
issue is a minor technical detail. I believe that there will be no significant
widespread benefits from Latinizing Telugu.
Bapa Rao