Discussion:
[Goanet] RE: the Borges Road to Nowhere
jose colaco
2005-11-15 05:00:19 UTC
Permalink
From: Sebastian Borges <s_m_borges at .....>

1: < Let me make it amply clear that I have, to date, not criticized let
alone trained any guns on Romi Konkani; in fact I regularly write in that
medium.>

2: < The editor has first VERY CUNNINGLY AND MALICIOUSLY introduced the
bracket "(pre 1961)" in my statement which is put within quotes.>

3: < Any reader of my original statement will have realized that I was
referring to the situation that existed in the NINETEENTH CENTURY and at the
beginning of the twentieth.>

4: < I wonder whether the editor lives or has lived anywhere in Goa. If he
did, he would not have made the statement contained in the last para quoted
above. If "those who paractise the Caste system could NEVER be called
Catholics">

5:< So, who is writing unadulterated nonsense and making moronic statements,
with
or without oxy-? >



====

Dear Prof Borges,

I suppose we all will have to wait for TGF's "Konkani -editorial" writer to
respond to you on TGF.

I will add my two-kaudi bit here


re #1: Please expand this bit from you with relevance to the request of the
Romi wriiters to secure recognition for the Romi script

http://www.goanet.org/post.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2005-
November/date&post_id=035007

Borges: < NO LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD has made much progress when burdened with
two scripts; [and Konkani presently is saddled with THREE major ones!] Take
Sindhi, for instance.>


re #1: Please explain this bit from you with reference to Romi Konkani
writers desire to have Rom Konkani recognised

Borges: <Yet their language (Sindhi) has made little progress on the
literary front. This is because it employs two different scripts: Arabic and
Devanagari.>

Please provide us PROOF that it is because Sindhi "employs two different
scripts" that it "made little progress on the literary front"

BTW: Is Prof Borges FOR the recognition of Romi Script for Konkani ...or is
he against?

==

re #2: Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF editorial writer "VERY
MALICIOUSLY introduced the bracket".

==

re #3: Please provide proof that "Konkani was NEVER used in PUBLIC by the
upper 'castes' of both the religions". This is a personal query from a
descendant (i.e. me) of a predominantly Konkani speaking family - a family
which (I am reliably informed) spoke Konkani and only Konkani - in Velim for
generations.

So, once again ...WHERE did you get this unadulterated nonsense from?

BTW: I trust you will accept that Velim is a part of Goa.

==

re #4: With regard to the Caste System of India, I will only state my
position. You can take it or leave it. I am not writing to any 20th or 19th
Century person, I am writing in the 21st century to you Professor Borges.
This is my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with me. I personally
believe that ANYBODY who practises the Hindu Caste System is a Hindu. Full
Stop.

That person, never mind his surname, church going habits, rank in church etc
..... can NEVER be regarded a Catholic.

Hey, I have known of ward-attendants practising for many years as surgeons.
They can NEVER be doctors!

So also, NOBODY who practises the apartheid Caste System of India or even
the Apartheid system of South Africa can be regarded...a Catholic.

The same too wrt Pedophiles, Financial Swindlers, Philanderers etc

You are free to prove me wrong.

==

re #5: Let's get to some of these points ...then we can put the Moronic in
the Oxy!

As far as I read in the TGF editorial...there are two types of folks

1. Those who want to get recognition for ROMI Konkani

2. Those who are writing these voluminous Road Maps to Nowhere in an attempt
to oppose the Romi chaps.

Where do you belong Prof Borges?

sincerely

jc
Sebastian Borges
2005-11-18 03:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Re: "UDAY BHEMBRE's ROAD MAP TO HELL" Part XIV

On 15/11, Jose Colaco <colaco_2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
#1: <<Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF
editorial writer
"VERY MALICIOUSLY introduced the bracket".>>

#2: <<Professor Sebastian Borges


noted recently
that Konkani "was spoken (pre 1961) only by the
labourers and servants; the ?elite?, i.e. the upper
castes of both the religions, employed it only to
communicate with the former, never using it in
public.">>

#3: <<What unadulterated nonsense is Prof Borges
writing about?. Did he ever visit the villages of
Salcete, the heartland of Konkani in the pre1961 era?
What is it that was spoken at the tinto (market
square) of Salcete villages. In which language were
the church sermons delivered?. Unless Prof Borges is
suggesting that ALL Sashticars are of the so called
lower "castes".>>

#4: Please provide proof that [in the NINETEENTH
CENTURY and
at the beginning of the twentieth] "Konkani was NEVER
used in PUBLIC by
the upper 'castes' of both the religions". This is a
personal query from a descendant (i.e. me) of a
predominantly Konkani speaking family - a family which
(I am reliably informed) spoke Konkani and only
Konkani - in Velim for generations.


Dear Mr. Colaco,
Re: #1, here?s the PROOF:
My original statement ran as follows:
<<As I have explained in the first part, the
persecution followed by suppression and neglect over a
period of over three centuries had reduced the Konkani
language to a quasi-dead state; a language, which at
the time of the arrival of the Portuguese had attained
a higher level of development than the Portuguese
language, had been reduced to the state of a patois
and damned as a dialect of Marathi which did not
suffer from those depredations. The language was
spoken only by the labourers and servants; the
?elite?, i.e. the upper castes of both the religions,
employed it only to communicate with the former, never
using it in public. It was the great Portuguese
historian, Dr. J. H. da Cunha Rivara who, having been
earlier acquainted with a similar situation in the
Iberian Peninsula, diagnosed the ailment and gave a
clarion call to the sons and daughters of Konkani to
revive her.>>

But the TGF editor has quoted me as at #2.

Could you try and locate ?(pre 1961)? in my statement
above? Is it not an unwarranted interpolation? Why
would anyone do so? If one examines the quotation
carefully, one would detect that it was
?cut-and-pasted?. Therefore, the unwarranted
interpolation was a DELIBERATE mischief. And the
purpose? The succeeding para i.e. #3 gives the game
away. Please read that para carefully. Is it not
clear that the interpolation was effected in order to
justify that para? If that bracket were to be deleted
from my statement, would the following para make any
sense? Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that
this mischief was perpetrated WITH MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT.

Re: #4: I am reliably informed about the situation
that existed during that period. But, leaving that
period aside, could you figure out the reason that
made a famous tiatrist, the late Alfred Rose to advise
Goans, in song, not to consign Konkani to the Kitchen
but to welcome her into the Drawing Room? And that
was in the latter half of the TWENTIETH century! From
this I reckon that my information was truly reliable.
It should also answer your question, partly at least.
Now, could you please provide PROOF that you are a
descendant of a predominantly Konkani speaking family
- a family which spoke Konkani and only Konkani - in
Velim for generations?




With best wishes,
S. M. Borges
From: Sebastian Borges <s_m_borges at yahoo.com>
1: < Let me make it amply clear that I have, to
date, not criticized let
alone trained any guns on Romi Konkani; in fact I
regularly write in that
medium.>
2: < The editor has first VERY CUNNINGLY AND
MALICIOUSLY introduced the
bracket "(pre 1961)" in my statement which is put
within quotes.>
3: < Any reader of my original statement will have
realized that I was
referring to the situation that existed in the
NINETEENTH CENTURY and at the
beginning of the twentieth.>
4: < I wonder whether the editor lives or has lived
anywhere in Goa. If he
did, he would not have made the statement contained
in the last para quoted
above. If "those who paractise the Caste system
could NEVER be called
Catholics">
5:< So, who is writing unadulterated nonsense and
making moronic statements,
with
or without oxy-? >
====
Dear Prof Borges,
I suppose we all will have to wait for TGF's
"Konkani -editorial" writer to
respond to you on TGF.
I will add my two-kaudi bit here
re #1: Please expand this bit from you with
relevance to the request of the
Romi wriiters to secure recognition for the Romi
script
http://www.goanet.org/post.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2005-
November/date&post_id=035007
Borges: < NO LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD has made much
progress when burdened with
two scripts; [and Konkani presently is saddled with
THREE major ones!] Take
Sindhi, for instance.>
re #1: Please explain this bit from you with
reference to Romi Konkani
writers desire to have Rom Konkani recognised
Borges: <Yet their language (Sindhi) has made little
progress on the
literary front. This is because it employs two
different scripts: Arabic and
Devanagari.>
Please provide us PROOF that it is because Sindhi
"employs two different
scripts" that it "made little progress on the
literary front"
BTW: Is Prof Borges FOR the recognition of Romi
Script for Konkani ...or is
he against?
==
re #2: Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF
editorial writer "VERY
MALICIOUSLY introduced the bracket".
==
re #3: Please provide proof that "Konkani was NEVER
used in PUBLIC by the
upper 'castes' of both the religions". This is a
personal query from a
descendant (i.e. me) of a predominantly Konkani
speaking family - a family
which (I am reliably informed) spoke Konkani and
only Konkani - in Velim for
generations.
So, once again ...WHERE did you get this
unadulterated nonsense from?
BTW: I trust you will accept that Velim is a part of
Goa.
==
re #4: With regard to the Caste System of India, I
will only state my
position. You can take it or leave it. I am not
writing to any 20th or 19th
Century person, I am writing in the 21st century to
you Professor Borges.
This is my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with
me. I personally
believe that ANYBODY who practises the Hindu Caste
System is a Hindu. Full
Stop.
That person, never mind his surname, church going
habits, rank in church etc
..... can NEVER be regarded a Catholic.
Hey, I have known of ward-attendants practising for
many years as surgeons.
They can NEVER be doctors!
So also, NOBODY who practises the apartheid Caste
System of India or even
the Apartheid system of South Africa can be
regarded...a Catholic.
The same too wrt Pedophiles, Financial Swindlers,
Philanderers etc
You are free to prove me wrong.
==
re #5: Let's get to some of these points ...then we
can put the Moronic in
the Oxy!
As far as I read in the TGF editorial...there are
two types of folks
1. Those who want to get recognition for ROMI
Konkani
2. Those who are writing these voluminous Road Maps
to Nowhere in an attempt
to oppose the Romi chaps.
Where do you belong Prof Borges?
sincerely
jc
jose colaco
2005-11-15 05:00:19 UTC
Permalink
From: Sebastian Borges <s_m_borges at .....>

1: < Let me make it amply clear that I have, to date, not criticized let
alone trained any guns on Romi Konkani; in fact I regularly write in that
medium.>

2: < The editor has first VERY CUNNINGLY AND MALICIOUSLY introduced the
bracket "(pre 1961)" in my statement which is put within quotes.>

3: < Any reader of my original statement will have realized that I was
referring to the situation that existed in the NINETEENTH CENTURY and at the
beginning of the twentieth.>

4: < I wonder whether the editor lives or has lived anywhere in Goa. If he
did, he would not have made the statement contained in the last para quoted
above. If "those who paractise the Caste system could NEVER be called
Catholics">

5:< So, who is writing unadulterated nonsense and making moronic statements,
with
or without oxy-? >



====

Dear Prof Borges,

I suppose we all will have to wait for TGF's "Konkani -editorial" writer to
respond to you on TGF.

I will add my two-kaudi bit here


re #1: Please expand this bit from you with relevance to the request of the
Romi wriiters to secure recognition for the Romi script

http://www.goanet.org/post.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2005-
November/date&post_id=035007

Borges: < NO LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD has made much progress when burdened with
two scripts; [and Konkani presently is saddled with THREE major ones!] Take
Sindhi, for instance.>


re #1: Please explain this bit from you with reference to Romi Konkani
writers desire to have Rom Konkani recognised

Borges: <Yet their language (Sindhi) has made little progress on the
literary front. This is because it employs two different scripts: Arabic and
Devanagari.>

Please provide us PROOF that it is because Sindhi "employs two different
scripts" that it "made little progress on the literary front"

BTW: Is Prof Borges FOR the recognition of Romi Script for Konkani ...or is
he against?

==

re #2: Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF editorial writer "VERY
MALICIOUSLY introduced the bracket".

==

re #3: Please provide proof that "Konkani was NEVER used in PUBLIC by the
upper 'castes' of both the religions". This is a personal query from a
descendant (i.e. me) of a predominantly Konkani speaking family - a family
which (I am reliably informed) spoke Konkani and only Konkani - in Velim for
generations.

So, once again ...WHERE did you get this unadulterated nonsense from?

BTW: I trust you will accept that Velim is a part of Goa.

==

re #4: With regard to the Caste System of India, I will only state my
position. You can take it or leave it. I am not writing to any 20th or 19th
Century person, I am writing in the 21st century to you Professor Borges.
This is my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with me. I personally
believe that ANYBODY who practises the Hindu Caste System is a Hindu. Full
Stop.

That person, never mind his surname, church going habits, rank in church etc
..... can NEVER be regarded a Catholic.

Hey, I have known of ward-attendants practising for many years as surgeons.
They can NEVER be doctors!

So also, NOBODY who practises the apartheid Caste System of India or even
the Apartheid system of South Africa can be regarded...a Catholic.

The same too wrt Pedophiles, Financial Swindlers, Philanderers etc

You are free to prove me wrong.

==

re #5: Let's get to some of these points ...then we can put the Moronic in
the Oxy!

As far as I read in the TGF editorial...there are two types of folks

1. Those who want to get recognition for ROMI Konkani

2. Those who are writing these voluminous Road Maps to Nowhere in an attempt
to oppose the Romi chaps.

Where do you belong Prof Borges?

sincerely

jc
Sebastian Borges
2005-11-18 03:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Re: "UDAY BHEMBRE's ROAD MAP TO HELL" Part XIV

On 15/11, Jose Colaco <colaco_2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
#1: <<Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF
editorial writer
"VERY MALICIOUSLY introduced the bracket".>>

#2: <<Professor Sebastian Borges


noted recently
that Konkani "was spoken (pre 1961) only by the
labourers and servants; the ?elite?, i.e. the upper
castes of both the religions, employed it only to
communicate with the former, never using it in
public.">>

#3: <<What unadulterated nonsense is Prof Borges
writing about?. Did he ever visit the villages of
Salcete, the heartland of Konkani in the pre1961 era?
What is it that was spoken at the tinto (market
square) of Salcete villages. In which language were
the church sermons delivered?. Unless Prof Borges is
suggesting that ALL Sashticars are of the so called
lower "castes".>>

#4: Please provide proof that [in the NINETEENTH
CENTURY and
at the beginning of the twentieth] "Konkani was NEVER
used in PUBLIC by
the upper 'castes' of both the religions". This is a
personal query from a descendant (i.e. me) of a
predominantly Konkani speaking family - a family which
(I am reliably informed) spoke Konkani and only
Konkani - in Velim for generations.


Dear Mr. Colaco,
Re: #1, here?s the PROOF:
My original statement ran as follows:
<<As I have explained in the first part, the
persecution followed by suppression and neglect over a
period of over three centuries had reduced the Konkani
language to a quasi-dead state; a language, which at
the time of the arrival of the Portuguese had attained
a higher level of development than the Portuguese
language, had been reduced to the state of a patois
and damned as a dialect of Marathi which did not
suffer from those depredations. The language was
spoken only by the labourers and servants; the
?elite?, i.e. the upper castes of both the religions,
employed it only to communicate with the former, never
using it in public. It was the great Portuguese
historian, Dr. J. H. da Cunha Rivara who, having been
earlier acquainted with a similar situation in the
Iberian Peninsula, diagnosed the ailment and gave a
clarion call to the sons and daughters of Konkani to
revive her.>>

But the TGF editor has quoted me as at #2.

Could you try and locate ?(pre 1961)? in my statement
above? Is it not an unwarranted interpolation? Why
would anyone do so? If one examines the quotation
carefully, one would detect that it was
?cut-and-pasted?. Therefore, the unwarranted
interpolation was a DELIBERATE mischief. And the
purpose? The succeeding para i.e. #3 gives the game
away. Please read that para carefully. Is it not
clear that the interpolation was effected in order to
justify that para? If that bracket were to be deleted
from my statement, would the following para make any
sense? Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that
this mischief was perpetrated WITH MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT.

Re: #4: I am reliably informed about the situation
that existed during that period. But, leaving that
period aside, could you figure out the reason that
made a famous tiatrist, the late Alfred Rose to advise
Goans, in song, not to consign Konkani to the Kitchen
but to welcome her into the Drawing Room? And that
was in the latter half of the TWENTIETH century! From
this I reckon that my information was truly reliable.
It should also answer your question, partly at least.
Now, could you please provide PROOF that you are a
descendant of a predominantly Konkani speaking family
- a family which spoke Konkani and only Konkani - in
Velim for generations?




With best wishes,
S. M. Borges
From: Sebastian Borges <s_m_borges at yahoo.com>
1: < Let me make it amply clear that I have, to
date, not criticized let
alone trained any guns on Romi Konkani; in fact I
regularly write in that
medium.>
2: < The editor has first VERY CUNNINGLY AND
MALICIOUSLY introduced the
bracket "(pre 1961)" in my statement which is put
within quotes.>
3: < Any reader of my original statement will have
realized that I was
referring to the situation that existed in the
NINETEENTH CENTURY and at the
beginning of the twentieth.>
4: < I wonder whether the editor lives or has lived
anywhere in Goa. If he
did, he would not have made the statement contained
in the last para quoted
above. If "those who paractise the Caste system
could NEVER be called
Catholics">
5:< So, who is writing unadulterated nonsense and
making moronic statements,
with
or without oxy-? >
====
Dear Prof Borges,
I suppose we all will have to wait for TGF's
"Konkani -editorial" writer to
respond to you on TGF.
I will add my two-kaudi bit here
re #1: Please expand this bit from you with
relevance to the request of the
Romi wriiters to secure recognition for the Romi
script
http://www.goanet.org/post.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2005-
November/date&post_id=035007
Borges: < NO LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD has made much
progress when burdened with
two scripts; [and Konkani presently is saddled with
THREE major ones!] Take
Sindhi, for instance.>
re #1: Please explain this bit from you with
reference to Romi Konkani
writers desire to have Rom Konkani recognised
Borges: <Yet their language (Sindhi) has made little
progress on the
literary front. This is because it employs two
different scripts: Arabic and
Devanagari.>
Please provide us PROOF that it is because Sindhi
"employs two different
scripts" that it "made little progress on the
literary front"
BTW: Is Prof Borges FOR the recognition of Romi
Script for Konkani ...or is
he against?
==
re #2: Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF
editorial writer "VERY
MALICIOUSLY introduced the bracket".
==
re #3: Please provide proof that "Konkani was NEVER
used in PUBLIC by the
upper 'castes' of both the religions". This is a
personal query from a
descendant (i.e. me) of a predominantly Konkani
speaking family - a family
which (I am reliably informed) spoke Konkani and
only Konkani - in Velim for
generations.
So, once again ...WHERE did you get this
unadulterated nonsense from?
BTW: I trust you will accept that Velim is a part of
Goa.
==
re #4: With regard to the Caste System of India, I
will only state my
position. You can take it or leave it. I am not
writing to any 20th or 19th
Century person, I am writing in the 21st century to
you Professor Borges.
This is my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with
me. I personally
believe that ANYBODY who practises the Hindu Caste
System is a Hindu. Full
Stop.
That person, never mind his surname, church going
habits, rank in church etc
..... can NEVER be regarded a Catholic.
Hey, I have known of ward-attendants practising for
many years as surgeons.
They can NEVER be doctors!
So also, NOBODY who practises the apartheid Caste
System of India or even
the Apartheid system of South Africa can be
regarded...a Catholic.
The same too wrt Pedophiles, Financial Swindlers,
Philanderers etc
You are free to prove me wrong.
==
re #5: Let's get to some of these points ...then we
can put the Moronic in
the Oxy!
As far as I read in the TGF editorial...there are
two types of folks
1. Those who want to get recognition for ROMI
Konkani
2. Those who are writing these voluminous Road Maps
to Nowhere in an attempt
to oppose the Romi chaps.
Where do you belong Prof Borges?
sincerely
jc
jose colaco
2005-11-15 05:00:19 UTC
Permalink
From: Sebastian Borges <s_m_borges at .....>

1: < Let me make it amply clear that I have, to date, not criticized let
alone trained any guns on Romi Konkani; in fact I regularly write in that
medium.>

2: < The editor has first VERY CUNNINGLY AND MALICIOUSLY introduced the
bracket "(pre 1961)" in my statement which is put within quotes.>

3: < Any reader of my original statement will have realized that I was
referring to the situation that existed in the NINETEENTH CENTURY and at the
beginning of the twentieth.>

4: < I wonder whether the editor lives or has lived anywhere in Goa. If he
did, he would not have made the statement contained in the last para quoted
above. If "those who paractise the Caste system could NEVER be called
Catholics">

5:< So, who is writing unadulterated nonsense and making moronic statements,
with
or without oxy-? >



====

Dear Prof Borges,

I suppose we all will have to wait for TGF's "Konkani -editorial" writer to
respond to you on TGF.

I will add my two-kaudi bit here


re #1: Please expand this bit from you with relevance to the request of the
Romi wriiters to secure recognition for the Romi script

http://www.goanet.org/post.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2005-
November/date&post_id=035007

Borges: < NO LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD has made much progress when burdened with
two scripts; [and Konkani presently is saddled with THREE major ones!] Take
Sindhi, for instance.>


re #1: Please explain this bit from you with reference to Romi Konkani
writers desire to have Rom Konkani recognised

Borges: <Yet their language (Sindhi) has made little progress on the
literary front. This is because it employs two different scripts: Arabic and
Devanagari.>

Please provide us PROOF that it is because Sindhi "employs two different
scripts" that it "made little progress on the literary front"

BTW: Is Prof Borges FOR the recognition of Romi Script for Konkani ...or is
he against?

==

re #2: Bile apart, please provide PROOF that the TGF