Scripts

[Lars Martin Fosse]

At 16:21 12.09.96 BST, you wrote:
>I would agree with Lars Martin Fosse concerning the language of Indology: 
>If we want to be understood by all, we must use English (or Sanskrit and 
>perhaps Hindi). But we cannot dismiss the fact, that French and German 
>are important languages for the Indology and that anyone who is not able 
>to understand them will not have access to certain important books.

This is of course correct! The ability to read German and French is
extremely valuable for the simple reason that so much highly important work
has been produced in those languages. But in a world where global
integration is happening all the time, using one's own native tongue is not
always an advantage. This is self-evident to a speaker of a small language
(there are only 4 million Norwegians, and we shall never be able to make our
language a "world language"). It is a bit less clear to speakers of
medium-sized languages like French, German or Italian (the Italians write
important stuff in Italian, too), not to mention the Russians who write in
Russian, but I think they have to realize that in the interest of
communication and integration of the scholarly community throughout the
world, a "business language" is an advantage, and in the case of India,
English is the natural choice.

As for using Sanskrit or Hindi as means of communication, that is not an
ideal choice either. Scholars outside our field (e.g. comparative linguists
or general linguists) may take a natural interest in our work, but would be
excluded if we were to produce our stuff in Sanskrit or Hindi. Again,
English commends itself. 

As a speaker of a minority language, I take a rather unsentimental approach
to the choice of language in such matters. (I have to use a foreign language
anyway, and I have minimal sympathy for speakers of other languages who
cling to their own tongues regardless of whether their colleagues can
understand them or not). I think of language purely as a means of
communication, as a vehicle for bringing a thought from the mind of one
person to the mind of another person. Efficiency should be a priority, and
efficiency is not served if we insist upon using European languages that may
be more or less incomprehensible to our Asian colleagues.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse