Talk:Indian English/Archive 1

The article is inaccurate
This article lists:
 * 1) Common mistakes committed by Indians with incomplete knowledge of English, which any English teacher in India would frown upon
 * 2) English slang used in India and
 * 3) Mostly just claims about which, being an Indian myself, I've never heard - neither in real life nor on TV.
 * 4) Terms or words like co-brother, cousin brother etc doesn't exist in English. Those words are used by those people who have insufficient knowledge in English. It is unnecessary to promote such words. Such words are not understood even by most of the English speakers in India. Even I didn't hear such words during my school days though I did study in English medium school.

The list of "anamolies" would mostly fall into the first category and everything else would fall into the second category.

A more appropriate title for this article would be "Common mistakes and slangs in Indian English" (no, I'm not suggesting that the title should be changed). A *real* article about Indian English would be very short and point out that it is almost entirely similar to British English except for some small differences most of which arise out of some "old" rules still existing in Indian English.


 * I agree. Most of the "Indian English" in this article are merely common mistakes commited by indians. --Robin 18:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that depends - are they, for example, also used by native indian speakers of English ? If so, they cease to be 'mistakes' and become 'regionalisms'. And Slang is an important part of any regional English.
 * Yes it depends. On their prevalence. In this case, many of the slang usages listed, such as 'fundu', 'deadly', 'sexy' are unique to IIT campuses ( and arguably other colleges ). I'm pretty sure the person who added those words to this page is from an IIT, and is maybe under the misconception that the whole of India speaks as they do. These words/phrases are hardly representative of Indian english, in fact most english speakers in India would be confused by these words.


 * I agree: The section on colloquial usage is almost certainly written by someone from IIT. I can attest to it as an IITM allumnus that they make perfect sense within those environs, but do not exist in everyday English in India-indeed, as has been pointed out, it would confuse, rather than communicate. This section makes a strong case for deletion.


 * Here we run into the difference between standard and nonstandard dialects. Standard Indian English probably closely resembles Standard British English (as most standard English dialects do, compared to regional variants).  However, when a group of people reliably speak in certain unique patterns, and can communicate effectively amongst their own that way, that's a dialect that deserves to be studied.  Those patterns may deviate from the standard dialects (even the local standard dialect), but non-standard does not mean "wrong" or "unworthy of note."  That's a POV stance that linguists do not accept.  I support making clear, possibly with separate subsections, what is considered standard Indian English, and what is considered nonstandard (with further notes regarding regional and subculture variation, i.e. northern vs. southern, differences by language of origin, college slang), but none of this should be deleted or even labeled "incorrect", any more than Urdu or Punjabi should be derided as "incorrect" Hindi.  If it's how some people really, consistently speak, then it's "correct" enough to be included. --Skoosh 15:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange stuff
Very good article. However, I've never even heard much of the stuff that is being passed off as Indian English. Whoever heard of "He met his panipat."??? A lot of the words, phrases, idioms, etc are just examples of local language words being used when speaking in English. These are also examples of English being spoken incorrectly by people, as well as colloquailisms and college slang. Ze hawk 04:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Panipat and Kurukshetra are not correct. -- Anon.

"He met his panipat."??? / panipat is  an indian place with history, panipat refers to complete destroyed i.e to lose in a competition or fail in a project etc. it can pass of as an good english sentence.

Influence of Scottish English on Rhoticity in Indian English?
This article makes the claim that the rhoticity and trilling of Indian English are influenced by Scottish English. Does anyone have any more information on this? I find it somewhat dubious, and would imagine the trilled 'r' of Indian English arises out of the phonology of the indigenous languages, but I have long wondered about the fact that Indian English retains rhoticity and how this could have come to be (presumably, Indian English developed out of the English of the mostly non-rhotic British colonialists; how was rhoticity rediscovered? From the orthography? That would be odd, but clearly something odd happened...). -Chinju 11:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct. I cant agree more.--Darrendeng 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of "pain" and "fire" entries
I invite Yamamoto to discuss his reversions of these entries. Mirkhanshah 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this article conform to the NPOV?
Most Indians don't know that English is a stress-timed language, and word stress is an important feature of English pronunciation.
 * Wouldn't it be more NPOV if this (and some other) feature(s) of Indian English would be described more neutrally, eg. "While most English dialects are stress-timed, Indian dialects of English are often syllable-timed". The whole tone of this article is too "prescriptivist", writing about these dialects as if they were "inferior" compared to English English just because it's strange for the Britons' ears. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk)


 * I agree about that specific quote being POV. Your suggested wording would be a big improvement. Can you give other examples of places the article is too "prescriptivist"? -- Avenue 12:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that many Indian English speakers don't even know that their pronunciation scheme is actually incorrect as compared to RP /different would be a better word; while it must be emphasized that it's considered nonstandard, it should not be suggested that RP is "better"/).
 * And I could cite all other sentences which label the vernacular varieties "incorrect". Spelling pronunciations are borderline cases but even those examples are quite possibly POV. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At the same time, this form of English is not considered "correct" even in India. Officially, British English is still considered the only "correct" form. So, for instance, Note that many Indian English speakers don't even know that their pronunciation scheme is actually incorrect as compared to RP /different would be a better word. But any Indian who does appreciate the difference, considers the Indian version "wrong" and not just "nonstandard" or "different". I think this should be taken into account. --HellFire 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * These varieties may be considered incorrect (or "wrong") by some, but this is simply irrelevant from a (descriptivist) linguistic point of view. That it has no official recognition (and that it is not a prestigious variety) is already implied by the word "nonstandard", and – as minor differences in pronunciation and lexis do not affect (harm) their speakers ability to communicate effectively (at least w/ those who speak the same variety) – there is no need to label them "incorrect" or "wrong". --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a POV slant to this article. It should not list mistakes in Indian English. It should be unique characteristics of Indian English. It is not a mistake it is just different. Mattisgoo 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a few quick changes to the article to remove some of what I considered to be POV comments. Unfortunately, I think the article still needs a lot of rewording and inline citations to avoid having the feeling of hearsay or opinion -- especially in the first few sections. Good luck to all who try. Mattisgoo 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. This should be taken care of, since as it is, many parts of this article (especially in the detailed list of differences) give the impression of Indian English being deficient. Godd examples for a more careful use are e.g.: Creole_language or English-based_creole_languages Atoll 09:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of speakers
Unless I've missed it, there seems to be no mention in this article of how many people speak Indian English (which may or may not be the same as the number of people in India who can or do speak English). According to this article in the Guardian newspaper by David Crystal, there "must be" 350 million: "more than the combined English-speaking populations of Britain and the US". Does anyone have any recent figures? Flapdragon 12:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian English Vs. Hindi
"Someone" has added so many Hindi words like yaar, etc and suggesting that they're Indian English. In fact, it is *not*. When someone couldn't find any words in English, they used to mix their native tongue. yaar is used just a fashion in informal context by few Hindi speakers (rarely others). Every native speakers have their own mixing gesture; for example, in Tamil someone may talk like "Ok da", "Tell me da", etc. And these words cannot be a Indian English; but there might be some generic term to refer these. --Rrjanbiah 04:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I fully support you on that (only moral support, no editorial support as I don't have the time:-))! KRS 06:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and acknowledgement:) Please look at my previous reply. --Rrjanbiah 08:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are many non-Hindi speakers who use the word 'yaar' so commonly in English that it has become a part of Indian English. I do understand that occasional usages of words from Indian languages in English doesn't qualify, but this has become part of the popular lexicon. If you want to add Tamil words, that's fine. But there is definitely a definable set of characteristics of Indian English. If even 50% of Indians speaking English use the word 'yaar', or 'matlab', or 'keh', in their ENglish regularly, then it seems reasonable to add it in as a part of INdian English. As I said, feel free to add Tamil words used frequently by Tamilians when speaking fluent English. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:01, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we need to differentiate between formal usage, colloquialisms (such as yaar) and downright slang (such as deadly, funda and fundu which are college slang.) Shameer 05:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Your obident servant" is now considered outdated in Indian official communication (dho 03:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC))

In addition to "yaar", there are several other words listed for which it is questionable whether they are examples of Indian English, or instead Hindi words that are used commonly by people who speak both Hindi and Indian English. Masaalah is not an English word, it is an Indian word. In addition, why is this listing even here? There is another page for English words of Indian Origin. They belong on that page, if at all. That page has been updated and some of the words given in this list are no longer on the list of English words of Indian origin. I have removed the offending words in both instances pending a reason they should be returned. Tritium6 16:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"yaar" is actually a punjabi word. It means "friend". It is not Hindi. Anyone who lives in India would know that it is not English, not even "Indian English".

"yaar" is a word that exists in both Hindi and Punjabi. It is originally a Farsi (Persian) loan word. It is a fairly legitimate Hindi word. I agree with Shameer, we need to differentiate...

yaar, na etc. are hinglish , na is southindian, minglish & hinglish word.


 * I have also added the word "chal" under this topic, as a word that is so frequently used when bringing an end to a conversation. Although it is "Hinglish", it is used almost as frequently as "yaar" and hence merits a place here, IMHO Prahladv 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor content
This article has far too much unsubstantiated, and in my opinion, frivolous information. It doesn't reach anywhere near WP standards. Oops! I just remembered I'm on a wikibreak... Ta ta! Amit 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonly Mispronounced Words
Not sure if this belongs in this article but my wife (bengali speaker) drives me nuts with her consistant mispronounciation of a range of words such as "risk" ("ricks"), "disc" ("diks"), "film" ("filim"), and "birthday" ("birtday")

Cheers,

Anit

Anit- That is not an Indianism. Did your wife go to Catholic School? The pronunciations you have listed are a signature of the Indian Catholic/Convent Schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.130.16 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mispronunciation cannot be compared with dialect in any way. Odiya speakers pronounce the word 'film' as 'filmo' and Teluguites pronounce it as 'filimu' and Tamilians pronounce it as 'pilimu'. Mispronunciations and phonological problems are not enough reasons to call the so called 'Indian English' as a dialect.

Any sources on Indian English intonation?
Does anyone here know any Wikipedia-citable sources describing the intonation (pitch pattern) of English as spoken by people from India?

I'm thinking in particular here of the pattern, apparently common to many languages of India, where stressed points in an utterance are marked by a lower pitch, followed by a rise in pitch in subsequent syllables. As a native speaker of English from North America, I would assert that this pitch pattern is confusing and often makes it sound as if the Indian speaker is stressing the wrong syllables (since most English dialects generally associate stress with higher, not lower pitch).

I attempted to mention this issue in the page on Non-native pronunciations of English, but I was shot down by other editors who wouldn't accept that my claim was sufficiently documented. I cited a source which discusses the pitch patterns of several languages of India, but this was dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds that the source did not talk specifically about these native intonation patterns being carried over into English or other second languages.

It seems that there aren't very many sources of information about intonation — perhaps because many writers don't take notice of it and/or assume (incorrectly) that it's "just natural" and doesn't need to be described. I'd be grateful if anyone could help me find something credible that talks about this intonation issue in Indian English. Thanks. Richwales 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wells mentions it (work cited in the text): "The questions of word stress, sentence accents, and intonation raise in acute form the problem whether certain typical pronunciation characteristics of Indian English should be regarded as belonging to an autonomous variety of English, with its own systems, structures, and rules, or as straightforward errors.  'A very common fault among Indian speakers', reports Bansal (1969: 143) 'is the incorrect stressing of English words, that is, differently from the usual RP pattern' (and, we might add, the pattern of other native-speaker varieties)... On rhythym, sentence accent (sentence stress), and intonation, I cannot do better than quote Bansal yet again (1969: 144). 'The sentence stress in Indian English is not always in accordance with the normal RP pattern, and the characteristic English rhythm is not maintained.  The division of speech into sense groups and tone groups is sometimes faulty, and pauses are made at wrong places.  The location of the intonation nucleus is not always at the place where it would be in normal English.  The rising-tone sometimes used as the end of statements must sound unusual to the RP-speaking listeners'.  Among his examples are I know `what you mean; ,Get me a `cup of tea, please (with no contrastive meaning intended); and `Don't take any `notice of them"

This is from Wells, Accents of English iii: 630-631. The work by Bansal he is quoting seems to be The intelligibility of Indian English, Hyderabad; Central Institute of English, 1969. Grover cleveland 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusion between Indian english and hinglish
Contibutors and editors on this page have a big confusion between indian english and hinglish. I was in india for two years doing my research on Indian english. Indian english is British english that follows grammar of wren and martin not so common in UK these days. Whatever vernacular words and syntaxes added on the page as examples of Indian English here is actually hinglish (a combination of english and hindi and other vernacular languages) and it should be part of seperate page. My professor in India in New Delhi had very strict demarkation between two and i never saw his students mixing english with hinglish. I strongly request to clean up this page.--Sticksnstones 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. Lets take up the task of cleaning this article of the stuff that does not belong to this page. apurv1980 10:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even better, please get rid of all the stuff that is not referenced, per WP:V. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

influence of global economy
Has the neccesity of speaking the language of their customers had any influence on the language of Indians employed by foreign firms for customer and technical service? The article notes that "hello, what do you want?" is a common Indian English telephone greeting but I think that most America English speakers would find it abrupt and rude. The few times I've dealt with Indian customer service reps I've been impressed by their knowledge of American idioms and colloquialisms (or perhaps they've just been faking it, like my sister when her teen-aged kids are talking). 165.91.65.150 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)RKH

Indian call centre reps take classes which teaches them the American idioms and colloquialims that you mention. They also have courses which offer to teach them how to speak with an american accent instead of an indian one. Now, I do not know if this is common throughout the whole call center industry but if i were to make an assumption based on the feature i saw on an indian tv channell a few months back, I would say many reps do undergoe training to appear more 'western'. Saadbd (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed
I have removed all citation needed for the section Idioms and Popular phrases. PLEASE NOTE THAT HAVING A CITATION FOR EACH AND EVERY WORD ON WIKIPEDIA IS AN IDEALISTIC, WISHFUL THINKING. This section had citation needed for each and every line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the future, please use careful discretion to make citation demands, and only for individual controversial cases. Additionally, I have also made changes in other sections, adding and clarifying on dress, non-veg, frock, foreigner, Mohammadan, full-pant, etc. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"make a move now" also used in NZ English
to mean "I'm leaving now/soon". ie "I'd better make a move, it's getting late" means "I'd best be off now, it's getting late" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.210.9 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on colloquial usage
The section on colloquial usage is certainly written by someone from IIT (or a similar institute), and in no way represents Indian English. Should the section be pruned/deleted? --Robin (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Everything without a reference can be mercilessly deleted. shreevatsa (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Error Regarding Non-Indian English
When explaining that Indian English uses expressions like "chai-vai" to mean "tea and stuff", the following claim is made:


 * This usage is not unknown in other English-speaking countries, e.g., Fran Drescher's autobiography "Cancer Schmancer".

This appears to be a misunderstanding. Although expressions like "Cancer Schmancer" exist in American English (I don't know about other dialects of English), this does not mean "Cancer and stuff". Rather, it means "I don't care about Cancer" or "Cancer is not a big deal to me". And the cluster "schm" is almost always used for this, rather than just some random initial consonant sound. I'm removing the above sentence from the article. If someone puts it back, please explain why. Xezlec 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, as a native speaker of US English who has lived in India for most of the past 16 years. The cluster "schm" in "cancer-schmancer" means exactly what you say, and I believe it comes from Yiddish. The reduplication I hear in India is always with an initial w/v (or occasionally b?) and means "and similar stuff." But I don't hear it all that often in the English spoken by well-educated Indians, and I don't think I've seen it in the magazines and newspapers, though I believe I've seen it in novels, where authors are often writing in English conversations that are meant to be originally in another Indian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckyLadakh (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Stress-timing, sing-song, etc.
The section about Indic languages being "sing-song" and/or lacking syllable stress seems confusing, and I'm not convinced it's accurate. My impression of what's really happening is that many (possibly most?) Indic languages use a lower tone or pitch on stressed syllables — in contrast to most English dialects, where stressed syllables are generally pronounced with a higher pitch. This causes other English speakers to think that the Indian English speaker is stressing the wrong syllables, because they respond to the pitch contrast and misinterpret the higher pitch immediately before and/or after the Indian English speaker's intended stressed syllable as if that were the real stress point. For example, whenever one former co-worker of mine (whose native language was Tamil) would say the word "machine", it invariably sounded to me like he was saying "mission"; he was in fact stressing the second syllable, as far as he was concerned, but it simply didn't sound that way to me because of his pitch contour. If someone would like to try rewriting this part of the article, please go ahead; otherwise, I'll try my hand at it if no one else wants to volunteer. Richwales 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds a lot like you're just going from personal experience. Do you have a source for this? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jesus, does every word on Wikipedia have to have a reference now? Who the heck is going to write a paper on something so trivial?  I've observed this phenomenon too.  I think most native English speakers will agree with it.  Surely there must be some room on Wikipedia for very simple, uncitable, uncontested things that are the general consensus (as there is in any encyclopedia, or any scholarly publication at all for that matter).  Or did you actually disagree with the above claim? Xezlec 04:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In this particular a citation seems necessary. The claim made is too specific, and Original Amit 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This page states it as a known fact, and gives some references that may or may not be related. Does this satisfy you?  http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/sala25/verma.htm Xezlec (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's Hindi only. In my personal experience, Hindi and north-Indian languages have a different stress pattern from other Indian languages; and besides the article is about English, which may be consciously pronounced differently. Just to be clear: what exactly is being contested here? shreevatsa (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I went ahead and added whatever seemed right to me (and possibly contradictory to what I said above ;-)) If someone thinks this is wrong; feel free to change it. shreevatsa (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are linguists researching "so trivial" a topic. Here are some references supporting the claim that lower pitch indicates emphasis in Indian English rather than higher pitch.  (Apologies if my etiquette isn't up to par, I'm a Wikipedia newbie.)
 * Moon found some evidence of low pitch accent correlating with emphasis in Telugu English and Hindi English (Russell Moon. 2002. "A comparison of the acoustic correlates of focus in Indian English and American English")
 * Indian English and South Asian English varieties in general use low fundamental frequency to mark an accented syllable.(Pickering, Lucy and Wiltshire, Catherine. 2000. "Pitch accent in Indian-English teaching discourse". Pages 173-183 in World Englishes Vol. 19)
 * Several research studies suggest that low pitch is associated with emphasis in Hindi-Urdu (Lars O. Dyrud 2001 "Hindi-Urdu: Stress Accent or Non-Stress Accent?"; Patil, Umesh et al. 2008. “Focus, Word Order and Intonation in Hindi-Urdu”. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, Vol. 1, Issue 1).
 * The suprasegmental devices for showing emphasis from the first language of a speaker are likely to influence their pronunciation of English (Kachru, Braj B. 2005. "Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon". Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong).
 * There is evidence that emphasis strategies are transferred from Hindi to English - such as the inclusion and emphasis of particles (Gumperz, John. 1982. “Language and Social Identity”. Cambridge University Press, UK).
 * Therefore it's not a stretch for linguists to theorize to what extent prosodic features of an Indian English speaker's first language are mapped onto their pronunciation of English. True, different Indian languages will have different prosodic systems, so we should stay away from attempting to generalise Indian English.  Instead, descriptions might have to specify Indian English as spoken by people who have language X as their first language.Tavitsre (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On another point to do with this section, it is probably better to describe Indian languages as "syllable-based" rather than "syllable-timed". The latter term is considered too crude a distinction (David Crystal. 1996. "The Past, Present and Future of English Rhythm".)Tavitsre (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made some very bold edits, please review
There was a lot of content in this article that had built up over time that was not pertinent to Indian English. Someone who comes to this article may be coming here because they heard a non-english word such as "prepone" that was spoken by several indian speakers who were otherwise speaking English. That is what Indian English is... Please familiarise yourself with what Indian English is before you add Hindi, Hindi Slang, Hinglish, etc to this article. Those topics belong in other articles.

This article needs a ton of work to make it readable, but the first step is to remove the material not directly related to Indian English. There some Wikicops who are so eager to revert my bold changes that they did so before I even had finished. I ask you to listen to what I am saying and understand that over time some articles build up a lot of excess junk. I tried to remove it. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be doing the right thing, so I'll assume good faith. Also, I removed your warnings. :-)    Fyyer    22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this article contains a lot of cruft. I strongly approve of any attempt to improve it. But I note that you've removed all the sections about pronunciation, about how Indian English is spoken. (Including much content that was sourced.) Removing sourced content and keeping unsourced hearsay is never a good idea. We should probably restore some or much of the phonology section, following this discussion. However, please feel free to trim the other sections; it's long overdue. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For other languages where pronunciation of English is the main difference over native speakers, there is no wikipedia page (eg German English or French English). Pronunciation is not what makes Indian English what it is in my opinion.... it is the grammar and word definitions (including many words that western English speakers would not understand, like "prepone", or "co-brother", as well as archaic english like "do the needful")). To put it another way, it is not pronunciation that would make Indian English speakers difficult to understand in western english speaking countries - it is word choice and grammar... that is the main difference over standard english. Pronunciation differences might be a minor sidenote in some cases, but more likely it belongs in some other article. It certianly should not make up 50% of the article in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, put it back in.. but we need to focus strongly on what Indian English really is... first and foremost it is word choice and grammar. That is still not made clear even in the current article. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We also need a good section on the evolution of Indian English... how it evolved from British English into what it is now. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And what makes you the arbiter of what Indian English "really" is? Everyone thinks their pronunciation is perfectly fine and not worth mentioning, don't they? :-) (And if you're judging by what makes "Indian English speakers difficult to understand in western english speaking countries", in my experience it is overwhelmingly phonology.) Look at some of the articles about other varieties of English — American English, Canadian English, Australian English — phonology is featured at least as prominently as grammar/vocabulary in each. That said, I agree with you that this article should definitely not be about "Hindi, Hindi Slang, Hinglish, etc", and this article needs to be made a lot clearer. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indian English is not defined by pronunciation, it is word choice and grammar. I think you are referring to accent perhaps? Those other article have similar issues, but frankly Indian English is a much more major topic than Canadian English since it has so many speakers. It ought to be a better article! When someone wanst to learn more about Indian English it is almost always NOT "why does that person sound different?" but more "why does that person use words I am not familiar with?" and "why do other english speakers who look to be indian seem to understand them"? and "how come they seem to be speaking in english but some words are not in the english dictionary"? Instead the first thing they saw when they came to this article was a massive tome about very technical pronunciation differences. That's why I am saying that pronunciation should be a minor part of this article, or maybe its own article. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're repeating what you said the first time, with no substantiation. "Indian English is not defined by pronunciation, it is word choice and grammar." -- why? (I agree that it ought to be a better article, of course.) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You people are reverting everything I did, including unrelated edits I made that has nothing to do with dialect (see Indian Numbering System above, English Authors of Indian descent, etc). If you have to revert, revert the parts that are contentious, not everything. If you are not willing to accept the bold edits that this article needs, and instead aquiesce to every cut and paste from obtuse scholarly articles, this POS article will never be readable. Grow some balls. This article reads like Munci's PHD thesis, not an encyclopedia article. If you put the dialect stuff back, I am probably going to move it into its own article to keep it from filling up this article. (That is, if I feel like wasting any more time on this POS article) 75.101.11.171 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CIV, please. People will revert everything because that's the most convenient thing to do (especially for an awful article like this, which no one wants to waste time on). The article was left alone for a few days, so that you could make your improvements, but when nothing happened, someone was bound to reach for the revert button. Again, I agree with you that the phonology section is not a shining example of great writing, and it has unsourced crap too, which ought to go. But ultimately the consensus is that any article about a language dialect should include some information about phonology. If you're interested in improving the article, reinstate it and trim it properly yourself, or create a new article, or whatever. Otherwise someone will just do the easy thing and revert everything "for now", and that's how the article will stay for a long time. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of edits, not just the phonology section. User Munci much after the fact painstakingly reverted ALL of my edits (this was not easy after all the time had passed). He did not only revert the part in contention. That does not seem right. ANYWAY, how do you feel about moving the phonology stuff into it's own article? And if so, what shouldd the title be? 75.101.11.171 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there's enough credible information to make a new article, but Phonology of Indian English or something like that would work. See the American English article for an example. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I put all of the phonology material back in, but moved it to the last section of the article. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

General remarks
And informative article would require not only description of the syntax of South Asian English, but also of its phonology and perhaps even its morphology (where distinctive). A list of popular expressions is fine, but these will need to be sourced; some of them, for example, are not unique to South Asian English. Not all are archaic in other Englishes as suggested somewhere in the article. (I have fixed the page Do the needful as an example.)

One of the features of spoken South Asian English that a non-South-Asian native speaker of English will likely notice first is its sounds, which include the pronunciation of individual words as well as the pattern of stresses and intonation in sentences. Although much is made of the retroflex consonants of South Asian English (as indeed of most South Asian languages with the exception of Burmese, Pushto and a few others geographically peripheral languages), the stresses and intonation are equally distinctive, and should certainly be described here. (That is, of course, if sources are available for such description, which they likely are.)

A native speaker of English not familiar with spoken South Asian English might find it harder to understand than say the spoken English of a Dutch, German, (and even Greek and Egyptian, although not French) speaker of English as a second language. This is because the stresses and intonation in those languages are more similar to Standard English than are those of most South Asian languages. (Intonation is often noticed first by a listener, and learned first too by a native speaker. Notice, for example, the exaggerated intonation of children's speech in any language, a habit encouraged by society, in part, so that the children get it right.)  I will add a few things here and there when I have time, but I agree that this article needs to be vastly improved.

Lastly, I would prefer the page name changed to South Asian English (rather than Indian English) for many reasons that I won't elaborate on now, but that almost any one can divine upon a moment's reflection. Regards Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your effort in improving the article (it sure needs a big facelift), I am a bit concerned about your opinions judging by the edit summaries you have used while deleting some of the material. For example, I don't think it was suggested anywhere in the article that all the expressions in Indian English are outdated expressions from other Englishes, only that some of them are. And yes, P.G. Wodehouse is widely read in India. Cribananda (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly was implied that many expressions are. What else does the sentence, "Older British writers, such as Thomas Hardy and P.G. Wodehouse, who made creative and comical use of now-obsolete forms of colloquial language, might be surprised to hear the phrases and expressions that they parodied still in everyday currency among speakers of Indian English" mean?  Wodehouse, in any case, didn't parody those expressions; neither was his humor that of stock phrases.  The slang of Bertie Wooster and the formal diction of Jeeves were very much current in Edwardian Britain when the books began to be written.  I removed the Wodehouse material because it is inaccurate.  Wodehouse, for example, has never entirely gone out of fashion in either the UK or the US (where he finally settled).  The BBC alone has been producing the Jeeves-Bertie Wooster serials for over 50 years now.  Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, now better known for Kingdom and House, was just one pair of a long line of actors to take on the roles.


 * I did, by the way, read part of the S. Tharror story that was cited in the edits I removed. Some of the material there sounds apocryphal to me.  It is unlikely that an educated Briton, let alone an author on a literary panel, would ask how the name "Wodehouse" was pronounced, unless they were being facetious.  As for Wodehouse being popular in India, sure he probably is popular among the private-school-educated crowd.  But, seriously, how large a segment of India's English speaking population of approximately 90 million does this group constitute?  1%?  And what stock Wodehousian expression is now a common expression in Indian English?  Can we have an example or two?


 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not making fun of Indian English, only making sure that it receives accurate representation here, one not fronted by the self-descriptions of an elite group of speakers.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Let me also suggest that clues to the expressions of Indian English (as has also been suggested above) will likely lie in the native languages of the (historical) speakers, since some of these expressions have never existed in English. My guess is that the expressions were formed, or gained wide currency (and I'll have to look for sources for this) in the second half of the nineteenth century, when, in the aftermath of Wood's Education Dispatch of 1854, first the East India Company and then the British Government (through the Secretary of State for India, the India Office, and the Viceroy) opened thousands of primary-, middle- and high-schools in British India.  The British were already aware of various regional and even religious differences in the evolving Indian English, as I found, to my surprise, in footnotes of volume 2 of Smith's Anglo-Vernacular Reader for the East Indies, written for middle-school students, and published in 1880.  Some footnotes, for example, remarked upon particular tendencies among "Hindoo" speakers, contrasting them with those of "Muhammadan" speakers and so forth.  Consider, for example, a more advanced reader, Wollaston's Indian Reader: Designed for the use of students in the Anglo-Vernacular schools of India (1877).  Where, in this reader, can one find expressions that could have spawned those of current Indian English?  I couldn't find even one from the article's list.  Here is a typical example.  In other words, it doesn't seem that they were being taught the Indian English expressions of today.  And, here are two more readers/grammars of the same vintage:
 * K. F. Evans's Elementary Anglo vernacular grammar: English and Burmese (1880) and
 * The Takallum-ul-madrasah, Or, School Dialogue, in English and Devnagri: For the Use of Anglo-vernacular Schools (1883), likely written by Indian authors. Even this reader, although offering up quaint expressions here and there, doesn't use the staple expressions of Indian English.  Consider, Sentence 12, the exclamation, "How few boys there are!" That is quite different from the interrogative: "How few boys there are?" that, according to the article, seems to be current in Indian English.  What, then, happened in the last 120 years?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused by what you are trying to do here. If you are assuming that I'm here to defend Indian English as perfectly grammatical, but simply a remnant of the archaic British English, you are mistaken. The article does not try to do that either. I think it's pretty clear and undisputed that it is the native grammar that plays a significant role in both Indian English usage and phonetics. Anyway, please go ahead and edit the article, I'm sure a lot can be done. Cribananda (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not really arguing with you, but rather questioning some of the assumptions of the article or of its talk page, and generally also trying to open up the discussion a little. I myself will be on Wikibreak until July 1, but will look at some sources while away.  I can help with grammar and phonetics issues, but not with the examples.  In addition, as I've already stated before, I think it will be a good idea to redirect Indian English to South Asian English.  There seem to be four or five "South Asian English"-related articles on Wikipedia.  The best sourced (although still incomplete) is Regional_differences_and_dialects_in_Indian_English; in addition, there are Sri Lankan English, Indian English, Pakistani English, and Burmese English.  I believed that the Wiki community would be better served if all these articles were redirected to South Asian English.  There would also be no confusion (for an average reader) with "American Indian English" (example 1: American Indian English, example 2: America's second tongue: American Indian education and the ownership of English, 1860-1900, and example 3: O Brave New Words!: Native American Loanwords in Current English.  Thanks for your reply and look forward to more discussion in July.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the other articles are fine to be merged as South Asian English but Burmese English is too different for it be merged too I feel. Munci (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sections
First of all, this is an excellent article. I really enjoyed reading it. I don't know much about this subject and found this fascinating. I do; however, have a couple of requests:

There are two sections early in the article about common phrases in Indian English: -Use of yaar, machaa, abey, arey in an English conversation between Indians, mainly by people of native Hindi-speaking origin; 'ra', 'da', 'machaa' is more frequently used in the South.

-Use of "baazi"/"baaji" or "-giri" for the same purpose, as in "business-baazi" or "cheating-giri." (Also prevalent mainly in Hindi-speaking states.) Unfortunately, none of these terms is explained -- so now I know that these terms exist, but unlike the other examples, I have no idea what they mean or what significance they have.

Can some knowledgeable person please fix this? Thanks Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think this is a terrible article and makes for painful reading. :-) But no one ever gets around to fixing it, and it's good you enjoyed it, in any case. I don't want to look at the article right now, so I can explain here if you like. The words in the first set (yaar, machaa, abey, da, ra) are comparable to English 'dude'/'buddy'/'man', in that they are usually terms of address. 'Baazi' or 'giri' are Hindi suffixes that refer to the doing of something, comparable to, say, the "-ship" in "one-upmanship" or "stewardship" and the "-ery" in "piratery" or "cookery". They are certainly not Indian English per se; perhaps they are worth keeping in a section on code-switching. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Idioms and popular words/phrases
There are many items on this list that are simply British as opposed to American English: make a move, top marks, graduate, housewife... --80.6.92.10 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

- Please do not add offensive phrases and idiomatic expressions. It get embarrassing to share the article with children, colleagues, and others.

While i agree that some content is not relevant, many of the listed usage words/phrases/expressions still exist today. The article definitely needs to be cleaned up. Thanks User:Indian_English —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Use of Doctor for non-medical Phds
Is it normal to refer to people with Phds as "Doctor" in India. I went to a UK Mandir to meet the priest, who has a Phd in Sanskrit. I asked for Dr. Sherma and nobody seemed to know who I meant, so I said "the priest". Straight away they said, "ah, you want Shri Shirmaji". Is this normal in Indian Engish usage? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, its normal to refer to people with Phds as "Doctor". And in some cases, people take offence if u omit that Jay (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian languages have /θ/ (as in "thin") and /ð/ (as in "the")
The article says: All major native languages of India lack the dental fricatives (/θ/ and /ð/; spelled with th). Usually, the aspirated voiceless dental plosive [t̪ʰ] is substituted for /θ/ and the unaspirated voiced dental plosive [d̪], or possibly the aspirated version [d̪ʱ]. is substituted for /ð/.[14] For example, "thin" would be realized as [t̪ʰɪn] instead of /θɪn/.

Can someone correct this? Thanks. --213.23.255.223 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Caesarean
Currently listed among the Indian English idioms is Caesarean, is commonly used for Caesarean section.

What the? Calling it a Caesarean is pretty common among English speakers everywhere. This doesn't really belong on a list of specifically Indian idioms.

Ordinary Person (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've deleted the entry. Azzurro2882 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brand Names, etc.
What about a word such as "eversilver" which is frequently (almost exclusively, actually) used in South India (especially Tamil Nadu), to refer to stainless steel? To the best of my knowledge, that was the name of the company that first introduced stainless steel to India / South India. In that case, it fits into the "xerox" and "primus" category, I guess. Could someone please enlighten me as to the origin of that term.
 * AFAIK, when the Salem Steel Plant was set up, its stainless steel products were sold under the brand name of 'Eversilver', and that's where the name came from. In my opinion, it is valid to list this under Indian English. -Jbritto

Indian-isms should be phrases such as, "your good name" and "your obedient servant", which are so prevalent in govt. offices, etc., that they are not "incorrect" but uniquely Indian.
 * Not uniquely Indian - but still occurring in some circles in UK English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.152.9 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unique Phrases in Indian English
I'd just note that "godown", listed as an example of a word "unique to Indian English", is used to describe apparently the same structures (river- or dock-side warehouse) in Singapore and Singaporean English. So, to be pedantic, it probably shouldn't be included here, or at least not described as unique to Indian English.

Of course both the godowns themselves and and the name were undoubtedly imported into Singapore during the Raj, but nevertheless they're clearly not uniquely Indian. For all I know, the term may have been commonplace in various Malayan englishes, or further afield.

Does anyone know the name of the academy that guides the development of Indian English? It has escaped me. --63.231.226.163 04:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are other words on this list that are not unique to Indian English (and may not even have originated there)...for example glass means tumbler in British english (I think, at least it does in Australia), and specs is slang for eyeglass (spectacles) in Australia. It seems to be quite common for a particular group to think that their usage is unique when it is not. --GPoss 11:54, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah, would you please explain the expressions that you added on Aug 26th? If possible, I'd like to know your sources for "Hello, What do you want?" and "Q: How do you do? A: I'm fine. Thank you". I've never heard of the former being used politely, and my Oxford isn't being very cooperative in the latter case. --LuciferBlack 21:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I must say that these expressions are not readily encountered. Most Indians, whether or not their English is good, say "Namaste"/"Namaskar", "Salaam aleikum" or "Hi"/"Hey"/"Hello"/"How are you?". Often they'll use expressions from Hindi like "haal kya hai?" or Bengali "ki khobor?" and then lapse into English. It sounds like these Rrjanbiah additions are more geared to a specific community as opposed to a pan-Indian circle. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:50, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * By judging your remark, I understand you don't know anything about India. Ever did a phone call to some Hospitals or offices?? --Rrjanbiah 04:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Hello, What do you want?" is an expression used by a few in hospitals amd offices. But it IS considered RUDE. So I am removing the rude part. Never heard any one use Panipat or Kurukshetra while conversingin English either. -- Anon.


 * LuciferBlack, 1. It is common expression in India especially at hospitals, offices (in phone or in reception). I came to know, the expression is rude for native speakers from the seminar of Prof. Nedumaran, one of the good communication experts. 2. . BTW, are you a native speaker (I guess, you're not)? If so, what is your English (BrE, CaE,..)? --Rrjanbiah 04:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah: Your pseudo-decisive comments about what I do and do not know ring of arrogance. I'm quite familiar with India, having lived there and interacting with Indians on a daily basis. Regardless, I have removed this:

"* Q: How do you do? A: I'm fine. Thank you (Without knowing the real expression 'How do you do?'. 'How do you do?' is a formal greetings and the correct reply is just to repeat ';How do you do?')"

First of all, even in America or the UK, "How do you do?" or "How are you doing?" is adequately answered by "Fine, thanks." or some variation thereof. In this case, either reply is 'correct,' and in fact the supposedly 'wrong' answer is them most common one outside of India.

As for the second one, which I've left, I'm still not sure that's an example of 'Indian English' or simply 'bad English.' But whatever. By the way, try to be less willfully contentious Rrjanbiah. You constantly assume that the moment someone disagrees with you he/she is a hyper-fundamentalist patriot psycho who hates, specifically, you. In reality, most of us, certainly I, just want to edit and work on a clean, neutral and factual article. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just another example of typical LordSuryaofShropshire-ism... You always criticize others but trying to project you're the one who knows everything. Regarding "How do you do?", I couldn't understand how native speakers will reply wrong; and I hope some native speaker will comment on that. --Rrjanbiah 04:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * FYI, Rrjanbiah, I came of age in Bombay (yes, I still call it Bombay), and currently reside in Canada. So I *have* had sufficient exposure to Indian, British and Canadian English. Ow, I hate being nice while nursing a hangover. Just go read what Shropshire said. --LuciferBlack 20:37, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

LuciferBlack, the major problem with NRIs is that they don't understand/try to understand what others say; and they think they're the one who knows everything. --Rrjanbiah 04:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Rrjanbiah, the major problem with Indians currently living in India is that they don't understand/try to understand what others say; they think that they're the ones who know everything. Criticisms of bias and ego run both ways buddy.--LordSuryaofShropshire 17:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shropshire, you steal the retorts from my mouth :) --LuciferBlack 13:18, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm an Indian, and I cringe at Rrjanbiah's English ("Ever did a phone call to ... ", "you always criticize others but trying to project ... ", "NRIs ... they're the one ..."). --Mallika

To get back on topic - I'm unsure of the original source for including many of these, but a significant number of words and idioms included in this article are perfectly common in other varieties of English and have no real place here: "flyover" for an overpass; "specs" for glasses; to "expire" as a euphemism for to die; forms of "to graduate" referring only to bachelor's or first university/college degrees; "double" or "triple" when reading off a list of numbers; "like anything" to express intensity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.152.9 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Consonant and Vowel inventory??
Does someone have some information on the consonant and vowel inventories for Indian English phonetics? It's important stuff. We need a chart. 97.81.65.138 (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete the Idioms and popular words/phrases section
This section is filled with nonsense. Delete it, start from scratch with actual citations. 122.169.216.21 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree! I'll hide it right now, if people can find cites for any they can be moved out to view. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to delete this bogus page New page name?
I'm sure the point I'm about to make has been made upstairs by others; in fact, I think DickyP seems to be making it as well. I claim there's nothing called Indian English. To be sure there are words or expressions that are sometimes used by Indians when they speak English that are peculiar to the subcontinent, but this list is quite short. These expressions are either slightly older expressions of British English (such as thrice), or words of Anglo-India (such as tiffin, station) or are expressions that are considered ungrammatical by the more fluent Indian speakers themselves. The English spoken in India (the standard variety) is not syntactically different from Standard British English. There is no grammar of Indian English, no dictionary of Indian English. This page is simply a list of expressions, many ungrammatical, that native speakers of Indian vernaculars use when they speak English as a second or third language. It's time to either delete this page, or change its title to a more accurate one, such as: List of words or expressions ... Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No to deletion, Yes to name change. Continuing this discussion to decide on a better name would be more accurate and productive. Simply because, some expressions used by Indians have completely different meanings, most obvious example being fired (yelled at, or scolded) vs fired (employment termination), which I've heard first hand, on many occasions. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise, my own Indian co-workers sometimes use somewhat-odd expressions... and have explicitly used the term "Indian English" to describe such oddities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed the section title. I guess I see the need for such a page, but I'm troubled by the banner in this talk page which proclaims: this article uses Indian English.  None of the colloquial expressions that are used in spoken English in India are considered correct in written Indian English.  None of the pages that purportedly use "Indian English," are divergent any way from standard written British English.  So I'm perplexed what the banner means.  Perhaps I should conduct the discussion on the talk page of the template, as someone suggested.  But talk pages of templates seldom attract many editors.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * New article name could be more regional, such as 'South Asian English expressions', it would include variations on English by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Since there are many similarities and usage overlap between them, in some cases. Don't think there are that many variations yet, that each country needs their own article. Banner seems overkill, it might sense years down the line, but not at the moment, but I'd like to hear from others on this as well. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack 10:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A big NO to the proposal. There's nothing "bogus" in this page name. GHits, books and scholar clearly show that the original claim was a bad faith nomination. Shovon (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, Shovon76, there's no reliably published dictionary of Indian English, nor, more importantly, is there a grammar. The published dictionaries are retitled facsimile reprints of Hobson-Jobson (a hundred year old glossary of Anglo-Indian (in the 19th century meaning of the word) terms).  The on-line versions are personal ones compiled by people who are recalling family lore.  These compilers are clueless about the global history of these words.  For example one "dictionary" in Shovon76's list has words such as "gum boots," which can be founf even in dictionaries of American English.  According to the same on-line dictionary, "allright" in Indian English means okay, but the second meaning in Webster's is "yes, agreed : very well," which is the same thing.  Other words such as "fags" for cigarettes and "fagged out" for tired are older slang words in American and British English respectively.  There are very few expressions (e.g. "batch-mate") that are localized to the subcontinent and they are usually expressions of "South Asian English,"  not just Indian English.  As Ravinder Gargesh says in his article, "South Asian Englishes,", in the Handbook of World Englishes, "There is at present no prescribed or defined standard of English in South Asia." It is very difficult then to understand what the sentence, "This article uses Indian English" means.  More pertinently, for the purposes of a written Encyclopedia, is there a difference between, Standard written English and "standard" written Indian English?  If so, I'd like a reference for it.   I think IncidentFlux's proposal of changing the name to "South Asian English expressions" is a good one.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to me, we should prepone this decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Indian English with Indian vernacular colloquiallisms/slang
This article has become very long and unwieldy, and I find many of the examples added recently don't quite belong here. Let me explain:

1. I think this article lists many usage samples that really have little to do with Indian English, being simply examples of colloquial usage that is not English at all. Some of these are:

theek hai, oof, oh-fo, waah, yaar, macha, ki, maane

While these are certainly commonly heard in Hinglish etc, since the words are not English at all, but Hindi/Tamil/Bengali, this usage can hardly be called Indian English.

2. I would also like to make a distinction between modern youth slang and "true" Indian English. Some of the former are:

deadly, sexy, fundas

"True" Indian English, IMHO, is not slang that youth use among themselves with the full awareness that they are using non-standard English. Rather, it is the at times quirky, at times old-fashioned, and at times plain ungrammatical English that Indians often use WITH COMPLETE UNAWARENESS that they are using forms which might appear peculiar to the modern day American or Brit. It is these latter forms of usage that are interesting to study, often demonstrating the influence of vernacular languages, the influence of formal, old-fashioned manners, and the gentle euphemism that often characterizes Indian culture itself, or other systematic reasons behind their usage. Examples of "true" Indian English are:

"What is your good name?"; "How many issues you are having?"; "My all friends are like this only".

I therefore propose that this article be pruned to reflect the above stricter, narrower interpretation of what constitutes Indian English, rather than be a laundry list of every Hindi interjection and youth slang term that has come into Hinglish and the speech of very informal urban youth. Sticking to the narrow interpretation makes for a more readable article and preserves the features of interest that unite a lot of "true" Indian English.

Please discuss, and if you agree, let us come to some consensus to prune the article as necessary. Thanks!

--Splitpeasoup 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I agree. Actually, yaar, etc., is worth its own article. Maybe we can move that stuff to Hinglish? Acsenray 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. --Splitpeasoup 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I second this Doctor Bruno 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agreeSticknstones 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indian English is the colloquial language! What else could it be?  It isn't officially a different language.  It seems that Indian English has three elements.  Obsolete phrases; obsolete words; and unique abbreviations or contractions.  All signs of a old-fashioned and backward society and a very poor education system. Hopefully as Indian gets wealthier (having finally ditched Gandhian socialism) education will improve and Indian "English" disappear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)