---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sebastian Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: fausto dacosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Glimpses of Konknni Dear friends, The article, "Glimpses of Konknni in Roman script" by Fr. Pratap Naik, though sketchy, is fairly truthful. Surprisingly, in spite of the title, some facts about Konkani in Devanagari script as well as performing arts are also thrown in. Yet some points need clarification. What is meant by "between 1556 to 1561 "Doutrina Christam", ….. was printed"? Was the book so voluminous that it took five years to print? Or, more likely, was it printed several times, in hundreds of copies? How is it that not a single printed copy survives worldwide? Perhaps it was never printed at that time. There is also no mention of any Konkani book having been printed up to 1922 when Thomas Stephens' "Doutrina Christam" appeared. More surprising is the fact that Fr. Naik has omitted mention of the Konkani books "of the missionaries for the missionaries" that were printed during 38 years (1622 – 1660). Was this done in order to hide the fact that not a single Konkani book in Roman script was printed between 1660 and 1890 any where in the world? And also that no Konkani book was printed in Goa even between 1890 and 1928? Doesn't this fact nail his oft-repeated lie that Roman script has a continuous tradition of 450 / 500 years in Konkani? I hereby challenge Fr. Pratap Naik to prove me wrong on this count; and this is not the first time I am throwing this challenge. Fr. Naik also exploded his own pet myth: that Devanagari script is of the Hindus whilst Roman script is of the Roman Catholics. He now proves what I have been consistently stressing; that when it comes to using Devanagari for writing / teaching Konkani, it is Catholic Goans who have led the way and the Hindus, including Saraswats, followed much later. To the evidence adduced by Fr. Naik, one could add the following: in 1926, Francisco Pedro Borges wrote a Konkani (Devanagari) religious book of 198 pages entitled "Kristanv Bhavartheacho dispott'tto sangati;" this was printed in Khanapur.
At the threshold of the twentieth century, a matriculate (equivalent to XI passed) Shenoy Goembab, in his twenties/thirties, published some Konkani translations in Roman script. And this is held against him. Some ignoramuses also think that this is a revelation, little realizing that the info is found in my translation of Shenoy Goembab's biography. But at the threshold of the twenty-first century (in 2003), a Ph.D. in linguistics in his forties/fifties, Dr. Pratap Naik s.j. wrote in his research papers, "(1) This is not the time for standardization. Konkani people are dispersed in several locations, scripts and religions. This is the time to use a single script, to understand each other, to dialogue, to learn from each other. (2) It takes time for a standard dialect to evolve. It is a process. Until that happens, let us write and read in Devanagari. When the time comes, when the day arrives, a standard dialect will automatically present itself. (3) We need a standard dialect for teaching in schools and colleges, for official correspondence, for using a formal language in public gatherings, etc. The only question that remains is, which dialect is to considered standard. (4) We do not yet have a standard Konkani. Therefore, instead of imposing the dialect of a particular community, religion or caste on others, we must use only Devanagari script for writing our own dialect. In this manner, we shall be able to learn each others' words, grammatical forms etc. Thus, within a few years, a standard Konkani will develop in Devanagari script." So can we fault the Shenoy for arriving at the same conclusion which the Father discovered nearly 100 years later? Mando arrived in 1830's. But what connection does this have with Roman script? Even as late as the 1940's, there were illiterate 'mestres' who directed Carnaval and Easter folk-plays ('zomnivele khell'). The dialogues, songs etc. were entirely in the brain of the mestre; not a single written symbol! Why could not the mandos have been composed in like manner? Or does Fr Naik have any manuscript of a mando as proof of its having been written in Roman script? I would be very happy to receive clarifications on the above points. Sotachench Zoit Zatolem. Sebastian Borges [MODERATION MESSAGE: Pls trim the earlier message before replying to it.]