Jump to content

Talk:Indian English/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Not a Facebook page for tourists

I've removed inaccuracies in the lead and added some history. I'd like to emphasize that this is an encyclopedia page about the history, phonology, morphology, and syntax of Indian English. English has been in use on the Indian subcontinent since the first half of the 19th century. Indian English is increasingly treated as a dialect of English. Not only does it find mention in the Oxford English Dictionary, but it is also, during the last decade, the subject a number of lexical and phonological studies. They are the sources that should be used. This page is not just about expressions of Indian English that tourists or visitors to India find curious or entertaining. Besides, in many instances, they get it wrong. Please use the scholarly sources below or the OED to cite your edits. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Balasubramanian, Chandrika (2009), Register Variation in Indian English, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-2311-4
  • Baumgardner, Robert Jackson (editor) (1996), South Asian English: Structure, Use, and Users, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 978-0-252-06493-7 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  • Braj B. Kachru (1983). The Indianisation of English: the English language in India. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-561353-8.
  • Gargesh, Ravinder (17 February 2009), "South Asian Englishes", in Braj Kachru; et al. (eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 90–, ISBN 978-1-4051-8831-9 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor= (help)
  • Hickey, Raymond (2004), "South Asian English", Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects, Cambridge University Press, pp. 536–, ISBN 978-0-521-83020-1
  • Lange, Claudia (2012), The Syntax of Spoken Indian English, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-4905-9
  • Mehrotra, Raja Ram (1998), Indian English: Texts and Interpretation, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-4716-1
  • Sailaja, Pingali (2009), Indian English, (Dialects of English), Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-2595-6
  • Schilk, Marco (2011), Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-0351-2
  • Sedlatschek, Andreas (2009), Contemporary Indian English: Variation and Change, Varieties of English Around the World, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-4898-2

PS Here are some examples of Indian English usage (though by no means exclusive) that are to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

  • academic (noun): U.S., Canad., and Indian English. In pl. Reading, thinking, and study as opposed to technical or practical work.
    • Examples:
      • 1974 Anderson (S. Carolina) Independent 18 Apr. 4 b/1 ‘They must be good in academics as well as coordination,’ she said.
      • 1991 Hindu (Madras) 6 Dec. 27/2 For 14 years he immersed himself in academics and was a fine achiever.
  • accomplish (verb, transitive) To make complete or perfect; to fit out or equip. Also with with. Now chiefly Indian English.
    • Examples:
      • 1970 S. K. Kochhar Secondary School Admin. (2008) 222 We can only have the best work-man if we accomplish him with the best tools.
      • 1992 H. L. Chopra in V. Grover Polit. Thinkers Mod. India XVII. lxiii. 488 His insatiable thirst for knowledge accomplished him with all modern standards of scholarship.
  • airdash (verb intransitive) Indian English, to make a quick journey by air, esp. in response to an emergency or crisis; (also occas. trans.) to send (a person) on such a journey.
    • Examples:
      • 1973 Hindustan Times Weekly 25 Mar. 1 Governor B. K. Nehru, who airdashed to Shillong yesterday, flew back to Imphal today.
      • 2002 Hindu (Nexis) 14 Jan., It is time for the Prime Minister..to airdash to London.

These are not listed in the article. On the other hand, some poster boys (or whipping boys) of Indian English usage, such as "do the needful," are still occasionally used in BrE (albeit humorously, eg. 1992 J. Torrington Swing Hammer Swing! xiii. 118, I went over to the drinks cabinet to do the needful.)

Mainly, though, if you can't cite usage (that you think might be Indian English) to something reliable (such as the sources listed above), please don't add it to the article. You are welcome to discuss it here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Indian English is not a real dialect. The grammar and phonology used by Indian English speakers is suggested by their native languages. I am a non-English speaking Indian and I haven't seen any people (except Anglo-Indians) who speak English in their day to day lives. African-American Vernacular English (Black slang) can be considered a dialect because it is a native language for a community in a region, but Indian English is an acquired one and not related to nativity.
I also disagree with Wikipedians' comments on retroflexion of "t and d" in Indian English. For native English speakers, "t and d" are only dental. Most of Indian English speakers do not have conversations with native English speakers. Therefore Indians think that "t and d" are retroflex in English. It is not true that alveolar consonants in English sound like retroflex to Indian ears.
I also disagree with the comments of Fowler&fowler. English has been in use in India since the inception of trade by British East India Company. However, it is not used by many Indians in their daily lives. Even if some Indian English speakers try to imitate British accent, their English can't be called a dialect. I read English books in the library but do not speak English at home. Many Indians do not even go to libraries and they are not aware "how English is used by native English speakers".

Praveen-vizag (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A dialect or regional variety of a language doesn't have to be one spoken by first language (L1) speakers, it can be spoken and sustained by second-language (L2) speakers as well. Until well into the 20th century, English was L2 for some in Ireland (the Irish L1 speakers), Scotland (Scots L1 speakers), Wales (Welsh L1 speakers). The speakers of Anglo-Cornish, a dialect of English spoken in Cornwall, were once (in the 17th and 18th centuries) L2 speakers as well, being L1 speakers of Cornish. (This was the case even though these languages are Germanic languages with historical links to Old- and Middle-English.)
We say very clearly at the outset that India is an L2 country, that the proportion of Indians who speak English with reasonable facility are probably no more than five per cent. But 5% of 1.2 billion is 60 million people, larger than the population of many L1 English countries. Regardless of what we personally think about the nature Indian English, the reliable sources treat it as a regional variety of English which over time (now nearly 200 years) has evolved distinctive syntax and pronunciation. If scholarly books are written on a subject, per Wikipedia guidelines, it becomes notable. That's all there is to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


An acquired one cannot be compared with a native dialect even if it is used by many. In my street, only one family speaks English at home. They are Anglo-Indians (scions of the Englishmen who settled in India during the British era). Cockney isn't used by many. It is confined only to London and nearby. Still it is called a dialect but Indian English is not. Read this discussion here [1].

Praveen-vizag (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Even many Indian teachers are not aware "how English is used by native English speakers". I had a discussion with an Indian teacher on Indian English question. He was reluctant to agree that many Indians aren't proficient in English. He said "The problem specified by you is about off-shore projects. There is no much problem with Indian English in teaching and seminars". There could be a proficient English speaker from an AAVE spoken zone in the USA but not from India.

Praveen-vizag (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence, whether in the form of what happens on your street or what people say in blogs, is irrelevant for Wikipedia, though it may be very interesting in other contexts. If reliable third-party sources exist on a topic, it becomes notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Scholarly sources are the most reliable of sources (see WP:Reliable Sources#Some_types_of_sources.) That scholarly sources on Indian English exist is undeniable. Examples are listed both above and in the references. Indian English is therefore a notable topic. A "dialect," is a regional variety of a language; it doesn't have to be L1. Wikipedia's page Dialect lists Standard Indian English as an example of standard dialect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Fowler, you are not aware about the teaching system we have in India. There are teachers in India who have B.Ed. certificate but not aware about spelling rules in English. These teachers cannot train their students in using correct phonology and syntax. Come to India and speak with some Indian students and teachers. Then you may understand about the problem with Indian English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.179.88 (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If an Indian uses "astonish" instead of "surprise", it does not mean "astonish" is an Indian English word. Read the book "Constructs of Indian English" [2]. Praveen-vizag (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take that up with the authors of the books listed above or with the Oxford English Dictionary, whose 2013 draft edition has some 700 expressions of "Indian English," including some listed in the article. You are wasting both my time and likely your own. This is not the forum for those discussions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a student in economics and my medium of instruction is English. I have more to do with standard English but not with sub-standard variants like Indian English. An economist need not be a lexicographer but he should be aware about the standard use of the language he uses for his study. Praveen-vizag (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What was the valid evidence shown by the Wikipedians to prove that alveolar consonants sound like retroflex to Indian ears? Is there any biological difference between British ears and Indian ears? English is an official language in India. It is used in government offices, police stations and courts here. Inside the court, I can understand "what the judge dictates to the clerk in English" but a villagefolk may not. We have such technical problems with usage of English in India. Still some people insist that India is an English speaking country and there is a dialect called Indian English. Wikipedia relies on sources but Wikipedians have responsibility to check the credibility of those sources. Praveen-vizag (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although during the sensitive period of language acquisition, the infant brain is open to all sounds, its phonemic sensitivity gradually decreases thereafter to allow it to concentrate on higher order structures of the surrounding (L1) language such as stress patterns and intonation. Indian languages, especially Dravidian languages, don't have alveolar stops (neither laminal-alveolar nor apico-alveolar), only retroflex (subapical-palatal). Most Indians learn English as L2, when they are past the sensitive period of language acquisition and consequently hear sounds in other languages through the phonemic prism of their first language. British speakers of L2 Hindi (such as some linguists) have the same problem, but in the reverse. It has nothing to do with British or Indian ears, but everything to do with development of the human brain. Immigrants from India in the US or Britain, even though they live among L1 speakers, are not usually able to distinguish clearly between alveolar stops and retroflex. Adult immigrants are seldom able to clearly reproduce alveolar stops even after decades. A nine month old child on the other hand, doesn't have to be told where to place his tongue, whether to use the tip, the blade or the underside, etc. They can faithfully reproduce the sounds spoken in their environment (with help from their parents of course). That Indian speakers use retroflex sounds is simply a distinguishing feature of Indian English, not a mark of sub-standard usage as you seem to be implying. Again, this is not a forum for airing personal beliefs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion. My native language is Telugu. Our language has no alveolar consonants but it has dental and retroflex varieties of coronal consonants. We were taught English by Indian speakers of English and therefore most of us often use retroflex varieties while pronouncing coronal consonants in English. Not only Wikipedia, some other websites also cite that Dravidian languages have no dental consonants. As a speaker of a dravidian language, I stress that coronal consonants doesn't necessarily sound like retroflex to speakers of my language. If someone puts the misguiding information in Wikipedia from a non-credible source, I can't help. I even own a website on Telugu grammar and phonology. According to Wikipedia's link policy, I cannot promote my own website here but another user can add the link of my website in Wikipedia. I can wait till then. Praveen-vizag (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid no one can add material from a web site in the article, especially not one on Telugu. Only peer-reviewed reliable sources are allowed on Wikipedia, which the website is not. This is my last reply. You very obviously have an axe to grind, are shifting the warrants of your arguments, one minute a student of economics eager to learn standard English, another a linguists of Telugu. Whatever you are, please read up on WP:Policy. If you don't abide by policy, you stand in danger of being blocked. Meanwhile, I will examine the reference to alveolar stops etc in the article. Someone else added it, but I will look at the sources and either add the supportive ones, or remove the statement. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Even I am not afraid. Here is the internal link on Telugu phonology [3]. Wikipedia would gain nothing if it blocks me. People of my linguistic group (Telugu) use both varieties of coronal consonants in their day-to-day speech. I disagree only with the statement that alveolar consonants sound like retroflex to Indian ears. I have no disagreements with other comments on phonology.

Praveen-vizag (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Retroflexion is not the only reason for odd pronunciations in Indian English. Indian languages have less vowel sounds and diphthongs compared to European languages. Therefore cot and caught are merged in Indian English. It is easy to avoid retroflexion. Just move your tongue towards the teeth and avoid curling it back. Then a dental plosive comes from your mouth. Avoiding cot and caught merger is a difficult task for Indians but avoiding retroflexion is not. Praveen-vizag (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

These are not my words but from another scholar [4]. Praveen-vizag (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Native English speakers cannot understand Indian English because of phonology and pronunciation related problems. For example: Indian languages (except Urdu) do not have "Z" sound. Hindi and Telugu speakers pronounce "J" instead of "Z", and Tamil and Malayalam speakers tend to pronounce "S". "Music" is pronounced as "myoozik" by native English speakers but Hindi speakers pronounce it as "myoojik" and Tamil speakers pronounce it as "myoosik". There are also problems like pronunciation of silent letters. In the word "business", the letter "i" is silent. Some Indians do not omit silent letters in pronunciation. While the standard pronunciation of the word is "bizness", it is pronounced as "bijiness" in some Indian accents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.188.212 (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Even phonological differences cannot create a thing called 'New English'. For Example: Tamilians pronounce Sanskrit word 'Srinivasa' as 'Cheenivasan' and Andhraites pronounce the same word as 'Srinuvasu' (No.All telugu people pronounce Srinivasa as Srinivasa only. I accept the truths about Indians speaking English but not about the native language.) and North Indians pronounce the same word as 'Shrinivas'. Should we think that there are things called North Indian Sanskrit, Andhra Sanskrit and Tamilian Sanskrit?

Why not? From what you say, there are several different standards of Sanskrit pronunciation; so that, to understand a Sanskrit word, you'd have to know where the speaker is from. —Tamfang (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Teluguites pronounce the word 'fan' as 'fyanu' and Odiya speakers pronounce the same word as 'fano'. There are many such examples related to phonology. But phonology cannot be a reason to create a term called 'Indian English'.

Retroflex varieties of "t" and "d".

Native English speakers articulate "t" and "d" with alveolar ridge. Alveolar "t" and "d" are similar to dental t(त) and d(द) in Sanskrit but many Indians think that "t" and "d" are retroflexes (equal to ट and ड in Sanskrit which are articulated by touching tongue against upper part in the mouth) in English. Retroflex varieties of "t" and "d" are not found in English. Those phonemes are found only in Indian, Chinese and Australian languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.71.91 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It is easy to learn English grammar by reading books but it is difficult to learn voice articulation by that mean. Most of the Indian children are taught English by non-native speakers of English. Therefore they fail to learn voice articulation. I use dental varieties of t and d while speaking English but I use both varieties (retroflex and dental) of those consonants while speaking Hindi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.67.197 (talk • contribs) 11:41, November 3, 2013

In Sanskrit, retroflex consonant is called moordhanyam and dental consonant means dantyam. In all European languages, (including Russian), "t" and "d" are either alveolar or dental. Sanskrit has no alveolar consonants. The best option for Indians is to use dental varieties of "t" and "d" but not retroflex varieties of those sounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.79.10 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Retroflexion of T and D is not confined to South Indian English

It is not true that only South Indians tend to use retroflex varieties of "t" and "d" in English. Coronals are dental in South Indian (Dravidian) languages by default. Retroflexes are secondary coronals in Dravidian languages. Even North Indians often tend to use retroflex consonants. "R" is retroflex in Hindi but dental in some Tamil dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.28.57 (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tamil speakers do not use retroflex consonants in initial. They use retroflex consonants as either germinate or intervocalic or post-nasal. North Indians use retroflex consonants even in initial. All varieties of Indian English are influenced by the regional languages of the speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.226.51 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tamil speakers do not use retroflex variety of "s" which is found in Sanskrit, except in case of using granthakshara. Tamil speakers often tend to use dental "s" where North Indians use retroflex "s". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.60.84 (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

T, D, and N in Hindi

In Wikipedia's article, it is written that "t" and "d" are post-alveolar consonants in Hindi. I am not convinced with that statement. In the book "Modern Hindi Grammar" by Omkar N. Koul, it is written that Hindi has two varieties of t\d\n. i.e. retroflex and dental. In that book, there is no information about the use of post-alveolar sounds. I don't know whether alveolar and post-alveolar sounds are used in Urdu or not. As a speaker of standard Hindi, I use either dental or retroflex varieties of t\d\n in Hindi. I think post-alveolar sounds are used by speakers of non-standard dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.113.8 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hindi speakers also use retroflex varieties of "t" and "d". They also use aspirated and unaspirated variants of "t" and "d". Thus, Hindi speakers use four varieties of "t" and "d". The main problem is with Tamil speakers who use "t" for retroflex variety and "th" for dental variety while transliterating Tamil names in English. Native English speakers cannot articulate retroflex varieties of "t"and "d". English has only one retroflex consonant. That is "r". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.99.144 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason emphasised

I can't agree that post-alveolar use in Hindi is the good reason for using retroflex counterparts while transcribing English letters in Devanagari. Standard Hindi has no post-alveolar plosives. I have checked the sounds used by news readers on national Hindi TV channels. All of them use either dental or retroflex varieties of "t" and "d". It is not true that post-alveolar plosives exist in Hindi. A typical Indian English speaker may not have heard the speech of a native English speaker. Therefore he may be unaware that "t" and "d" are only dental in Standard English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.211.127 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Even in Arabic, "t" and "d" are alveolar. Indians do not use retroflex varieties of "t" and "d" while transcribing Arabic words in Devnagari, but they do so for English. It's because of unawareness on English phonology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.219.251 (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment on Indian ears

In Indian schools, children are taught English by Indian speakers of English but not by native English speakers. So, even their phonology doesn't conform to the norms of Standard British English. I cannot agree with the statement that alveolar consonants sound like retroflex consonants to Indian ears. Indians even use retroflex varieties of N and L in their native languages but only T and D are retroflexed in Indian English. It is the result of the outdated methods used by Indian teachers in teaching English but not the problem with ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.187.2 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Commonly Misspelled Words

I have added few words.

The problem with Indian English is related more to pronunciation than to spelling. For example: "Elizabeth" is pronounced "Ilizabeth" by native English speakers but it is "Elijabet" in Indian English. Indians can write English without spelling mistakes but the problem is mostly with pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.179.188 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

English not common as a first language in India

Corrected earlier ambiguous wording saying most English speakers in India were "first language speakers". This probably was intended to mean that most English speakers in India were first language speakers of some other language, but it seemed to say that most English speakers in India had English as their first language. In fact the 2001 Indian census lists only about 226,000 native English speakers, less than 1/10 of a per cent of the population, whereas much greater percentages of Indians speak English with some level of proficiency as a second or third language.CharlesHBennett (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

25% of Indians speak Hindi at home and 16% of Indians use Hindi for inter-ethnic communication. Thus 41% of Indians use Hindi. In India, only Anglo-Indians, Scottish Indians and Irish Indians speak English at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.28.57 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

English as as the lingua franca of India makes about as much sense as Finnish as the lingua franca of the United States would. Hardy anyone is naturally fluent. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hindi is the common language for inter-ethnic communication in India. Most of the Indian languages share almost same phonology, though there are some exceptions in it. Oriya, Marathi and Konkani speakers frequently use retroflex varieties of "N and L". Inspite of these exceptions, many Indians are familiar with Hindi phonology. They find problem mostly with English phonology. "F, W & Z" are not found in Indian languages. Oriya speakers still tend to pronounce "Ph" instead of "F". "T & D" are always retroflexed in Indian English though all Indian languages have dental counterparts. In South Indian languages, coronals are dental by default and retroflexes are secondary coronals. But even South Indians use retroflex counterparts in English. English is an acquired language for Indians. People are more proficient in their native languages than in their acquired languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.8.255 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Where can I learn more about Indian English vocabulary?

I am very interested. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sailaja (2009, cited in the article) may be a good start. Peter238 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The vocabulary of Indian English is similar to that of British English. But the grammar, phonology and pronunciation used by Indian English speakers sounds odd to native English speakers. Read the article by Jason Baldridge on Indian English.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons with American English?

Since Indian English largely derives from British English, wouldn't the differences between Indian and British English be more useful? 175.159.97.138 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I fully concur.Zhongguoyingdu (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have removed that section heading; it had no content anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This section is off-topic. It actually belongs to the article about American English. Indian English does not differ from American English; American English differs from other English variants. Besides, there are many more differences than these... Alain Pannetier (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Original research

Comparisons with British English are being made with zero sources. No original research please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with Received Pronunciation was already there before, see the 5th point of section 2.1 Vowels. And not all, but few Indians do speak with an accent similar to the RP.
EpiphanicJoe (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
True, and §2.1 should have a citation.
That point deals specifically with varied pronunciation of the letter 'a', which I think adds to the picture of typical pronunciation of Indian English.
I don't find it very useful to note that some Indians speak with the RP accent - some may speak with perfect American or other accents, but such observations don't add to the picture of Indian English. Ad absurdum, if everyone spoke with RP there would be no need at all to discuss pronunciation in this article. Batternut (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes Sir, few among actors and others in India imitate accents like the American with the help of television and YouTube but that's very rare as most English medium schools and universities there give emphasis to the English of the UK. Moreover, Indian English derived from British English, so there are similarities. On the contrary, Indian English have less similarities with American English because of differences in grammar, intonation of speech, morphology, orthography etc.
Hope this helps. Thank you Sir Batternut (talk)
EpiphanicJoe (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What's with the Phonology section?

The information in the Phonology section seems incomplete and inadequate. I've worked on improving it, but it is reverted.

This is how it was 'Indian accents vary greatly. Most Indians lean toward a more vernacular, native-tinted accent for their English speech.'

The changes I had made was 'Indian accents vary greatly. Few Indians speak English with an accent similar to the Received Pronunciation which is referred to the Standard British(English) Accent, whereas most Indians lean toward a more vernacular, native-tinted accent for their English speech. For instance, natives from the east and those from the south of India who are more familiar with their their respective Regional language(s) than English tend to pronounce English words in accents of their regional languages, unlike those from modern times who give emphasis to their Pronunciation in English.'

It is being reverted and the Phonology section contains the same incomplete and inadequate information as before. So, can anybody add adequate information in the Phonology section or help me do so? Thank you. EpiphanicJoe (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to welcome EpiphanicJoe (talk · contribs) to wikipedia! Batternut (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure this article has room for improvement - when adding your contributions please bear in mind the manual of style, particularly the guidelines hinted at above regarding citing references (see WP:SOURCES) and avoiding what may appear to be 'own research' (WP:NOR). Batternut (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Two major issues.
1. Without sources, it looks like original research.
2. Is all of it notable? You've been restoring content that states words to the effect of "Not many Indians use British English" - it doesn't seem notable to say what they don't speak. They don't speak Italian either. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Comparison with Received Pronunciation was already there in Indian English, see the 5th point of section 2.1 Vowels. That's one of the source itself. And not all, but few Indians do speak with an accent similar(not exact same) to the RP.
Alas you cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Batternut (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Although RP refers to Standard British Accent, it's use is Britain is minimal now. RP is used by 2-3% people in Britain. For source, see section 2.1 Regional in British English and section 1. History in Received Pronunciation.
3. The contents I've been restoring stated about the relation between "Few Indians" and the "Received Pronunciation", not "British English" as a whole like your claim on me.
4. No one stated that Indians are familiar with Italian language.
EpiphanicJoe (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


Then don't add content regarding "Standard British(English) Accent", talk exclusively about "Received Pronunciation" - oh and source it.
No one stated that indians speak Italian, I know. Then why are you talking about how many indians have a "Standard British(English) Accent" ?Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright Sir, but I just mentioned that few Indians have an accent similar to the RP, not exact RP or exact "Standard British(English) Accent". I don't know why people here argue on the basis of what they think despite appreciating what it actually is. Also, I didn't mention anything without knowing it to be true and none of that is based on my personal opinion. Anyway, may I know what all can be sourced, only other sites or books as well?
Thank you Sir Spacecowboy420 (talk)
EpiphanicJoe (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi EpiphanicJoe, really what's needed is sources saying one way or the other. So it would be better to look for sources that describe how Indian people speak English. It may also be that large parts of the existing article are both unsourced and questionable. If so, they should be removed -- not replaced with opposing points of view that are still unsourced.
Spacecowboy420 -- I think the criteria for inclusion of content within an article are relevance to the topic, not notability. You might also offer to EpiphanicJoe a little more appreciation of his viewpoint. MPS1992 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You may be correct there. I think that while some references to the British Raj are relevant to the article, the constant comparisons to British English are not relevant. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comparisons with British English

I am removing these comparisons, as there are numerous dialects of British English with vastly different pronunciation. Hiberno-English, Scottish English , Cockney, Estuary English, Geordie, Mancunian and Scouse are all British English.

Also, with the lack of sources, it seems very much original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have left the references to comparisons in regards to spelling, as these are not affected by regional dialects. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Alas, this is only a fraction of the unreferenced material in the article. YBG (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It's the first step. I would feel guilty if I removed 50% of the article at once. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sir, in point 6 of section 2.1 Vowels, after some context is removed, it is "Words like cast is pronounced as kɑːst, castle as kɑː.səl, fast as fɑːst, task as tɑːsk and so on. Similarly, words with 'o' also have similarities with the latter with the exception of those from South India who have similarities with Americans as mentioned above(refer to point 3)." The second sentence was better with the previous context. Since, some context has been removed, seems like it needs some changes like "Words like cast is pronounced as kɑːst, castle as kɑː.səl, fast as fɑːst, task as tɑːsk and so on. On the other hand, words with 'o' in South India, have similarities with some Americans as mentioned above(refer to point 3)."
Also, I would refer the point(s) I've added, just let me know if I should add the link(s) here in talk page or directly to the article?
Thank you Spacecowboy420 (talk)
EpiphanicJoe (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Spelling pronunciation

In § Spelling pronunciation the description of Western anglophone pronunciations of "jewel" and "jewellery" used the labiodental approximant [ʋ]. This phone does not exist in US or RP English, and I have changed it to [uː] in both words. (I am a linguist and a native speaker of US English.) I have not touched the Indian pronunciations being described, which may for all I know use [ʋ], as I am not familiar with them. --Thnidu (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

College Slang is not Indian English

From the article, I could find several words that are not commonly used by Indians, but are actually slang used by college students. They do not represent Indian English, but rather the demography of the editors of this particular article.

Note to editors: However often you may have used a word, think about its prevelance among all English speakers in India before adding it here. In my opinion -ji, maybe even yaar count as Indian English, but fundu or cheating-giri certainly don't. -Jbritto

Agreed. --Anon

Well, slang isn't part of Standard Indian English, but it is a register of Indian English. Presumably this article is talking mostly about the standard register. -- Beland (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_English/Archive_3&oldid=1136816481"