Of Indian English and History Sheeters

I stumbled across a nice article on Indian English a few minutes ago. It explores the many variations of Standard (or BBC) English that are in use in India. I came across it while doing a Google search for the definition of the word "dias". This article told me that "dias" ia a mispronunciation of the word "dais" which is generally accepted only in India. The link to the article is:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/South-Asian-English

I also learnt, much to my surprise, that words like batchmate, eve teasing and opticals are not standard English and are not used outside India.

One word I have always been curious about is "history-sheeter". I know it is not part of standard English and is used only in India. But it has become standard in India and is used in newspaper articles, government notifications and other such bastions of standard English. What I find curious about this word is its complexity and apparent lack of relation to any word in English or in any Indian language. Most words in Indian English are either derived from some Indian words (such as bunglow, mantra, guru), or are corrupt forms of some English words (such as fundu from "fundamental" and backside from "rear") or are literal translations of Indian words (such as "good name" - "bhalo naam" in Bengali and taxi-wallah). However, the word history-sheeter, meaning someone who has a long criminal record, has no equivalent in standard English. Worse still is that there is no term in standard English or in any Indian language (as far as I know) which conveys exactly the same meaning. The closest word I have found is "rap-sheet". The word "rap sheet" refers to the criminal record of a person in standard English. However, it refers to the record and not the person. How "rap-sheet" evolved to "history-sheeter" - if indeed it did so in the first place - still remains a mystery to me.

Read More

The survival value of a brain

Why did Nature give us more brains than is absolutely necessary for our survival? All She had to do was give us enough brains to be able to invent a few stone tools to make up for not giving us claws. That would have been enough to ensure our survival. What makes it more amazing is that Nature generally is very stingy with her gifts. Chimps have just enough brains to survive and procreate. On a good day, the deer can only run fast enough to out run the tiger. So why indulge humans?
A chap named Snell proposed a standard called encephalization quotient (EQ) to compare the brain to body weight ratios among various species. I found the following chart showing the EQ for a few mamals:

Man	7.44
Dolphin	5.31
Chimpanzee	2.09
Dog	1.17ut
Horse	0.86

It basically means that man's brain to body weight ratio is 7.44 times the average ratio for mamals. This really is over kill. 3 would have been sufficient. Look at the state Nature is in today. There is not a single part of her that is not fighting for survival today. And it is all due to the "extra" few ounces of brain matter she granted Man all those milenia ago. The first things man discovered that were more than just survival tools were fire and wheel. That was around 40,000 years ago. Since that day, Man has not done a single thing which has not upset Nature's equations in some way. He has made a mess of whatever he has touched. He is the only species to have single handedly brought the threat of total extinction upon himself. And not just himself, but all of Nature. None of this would have happened if Nature had stuck to her policy of giving just enough resources to enable a species to survive. That one mistake has effectively sealed her fate.

I found a nice article called What is intelligence, anyway? Its discusses the definition of intelligence and explores the relationship between brain and intelligence. The Wikipedia entry for human evolution is here.

Read More