පලුදු වු නව ලිබරල්වාදය හා අසමමිතික ජාතික චින්තනය අතර සටන

මෙවර ජනාධිපතිවරණය.......................

Eminent scholar Claude Levi-Strauss has passed away: he was the true founder of structural anthropology who was born in Brussels in 1908 to Alsatian Jewish parents. Let us pay our greatest gratitude to him at this sorrowful day. He was very lucky to live over a century in the human world.

Linguist oder Polyglotter Wer ist ein Linguist?

Auf diese Frage zu antworten, lässt uns an den allgemeinen denkenden Mustern der Gesellschaft sehen. Wenn diese Frage einer Person aufgebracht wird, die zur Disziplin der Linguistik äußerlich ist, würden sie auf diese Weise antworten: die Person, die mehrere Sprachen spricht, ist ein Linguist. Das geschieht auch, ob die Person mindestens ein wenig Linguistik wissen muss aber die meisten Menschen zuerst fragen würden, welche Linguistik ist. Wenn wir uns als Linguisten zu jemandem anderem einführen, eher würde die Frage das erheben wie viele Sprachen sprechen Sie? Warum? Weil das die Bedeutung ist, die vom Volk bezüglich des Linguisten bekannt ist. Wenn jemand mehrere Sprachen wissen muss, kennt er als ein Polyglotter, nicht ein Linguist. Niemand konnte ein Linguist werden, indem er mehr als eine Sprache wusste; er oder sie muss diesen Erwerb übertreffen, um ein Linguist aber einige Grammatiker zu werden, die in frühen Tagen lebten, auch glaubte, dass die Leute, die mehr als eine Sprache sprechen, als Linguisten genannt werden, der nicht richtig ist. Es betont nicht, dass der Polyglotte ein Linguist nicht werden kann; abhängig von Annäherung der Sprachstudie kann sogar Polyglotter ein Linguist aber das gerade Sprechen mehrerer Sprachen werden, keiner kann ein Linguist werden, selbst wenn er zehn Sprachen spricht, ist er nicht legitim, für einen Linguisten zu fordern. So wer ist ein Linguist? Der Linguist kann nur eine Sprache sprechen, manchmal kann er mehr als eine Sprache sprechen; die Implikation ist, das ist nicht eine Eventualität mit der Sprache, die Fähigkeiten spricht. Also, sehr einfach ist Linguist ein Gelehrter, der die Sprache auf eine systematische Weise, mit anderen Worten die Person studiert, die die Sprache auf eine wissenschaftliche Weise studiert. Der Linguist schaut auf die Sprache, um zu verstehen, wie es arbeitet aber nicht, wie es verwendet. Er will nicht lernen, wie man die Sprache wohingegen Studien verwendet, die Struktur der Sprache unterliegen. Das kann sehr einfach verstanden werden, sobald wir definierten, was Linguistik ist. Linguistik ist wissenschaftliche Studie der Sprache oder wollen wir sagen, dass es eine systematische Studie der Sprache ist. Die Person, die das tut, ist ein Linguist. Traditionelle Grammatiker werden als Linguisten immer wieder genannt, der völlig falsch ist. Bedeutender srilankischer Gelehrter: Kumarathunga Munidasa kennt als ein Linguist durch einige Schriftsteller, ohne den Status eines Linguisten zu verstehen. Wenn auch sein Studiengeschäft mit der Sprache und mehr als eine Sprache spricht, ist es nicht entsprechend genug, um für einen Linguisten zu fordern, seitdem er bereits ein traditioneller Grammatiker geworden ist. Jetzt ist es offensichtlich, dass der Linguist nicht eine Person ist, die mehr als eine Sprache spricht, am wahrscheinlichsten würde er ein Polyglotter sein, soweit er die Sprache auf eine wissenschaftliche Weise nicht studiert, um zu verstehen, wie die Sprache arbeitet. Eine Metapher in Betracht ziehend, kann das sehr deutlich verstanden werden: es gibt Leute, die im Stande sind, Zahl von Fahrzeugarten zu treiben, aber sie nicht wissen, wie jene Fahrzeuge funktionieren, wohingegen ein Mechaniker nicht im Stande sein kann, sogar ein Fahrzeug zu treiben, aber er sehr gut weiß, wie dieses Fahrzeug mit allen Arten von Voraussetzungen läuft. In diesem Sinn ist ein Mechaniker einem Linguisten ähnlich, wohingegen ein Treiber einem Polyglotten ähnlich ist, wenn er mehr als einen Fahrzeugtyp treibt.

Recently there was a discussion at the National library auditorium on the topic of “National Thought”. At the meeting, a few blind followers worshipped Pro. Silva by debasing others academic efforts. We will soon start a new dialogue on these unliked cubs and fanatics of Pr. Silva.

Dearest Kapuge,

Today is your birthday. Your body has left the world whereas still you are living with us. But the mafias of media and Mafioso have forgotten you. That’s why we often don’t hear you on the radio or television. At least we can’t see you in news papers but still your voice with amiable lyrics resonate in our mind which will never stop. I still remember your lyrics…

Allata shilpa singa sarasavi pare…

Leli thalana numbe atata ran muduwa gorahedida doni…

Karagala gaga enna karawemi sohoyuraneni…

Diyaluwo weli tana…

Nirmala nam deriya himi salu wadana menike nirmala…

Gender issues-I

From the ancient period of the world, people were discussing about the male dominancy in different countries whereas it has become melted down to a considerable extent in nowadays with new arrivals of social ideologies. This male dominancy governed the Eastern countries rather than western world in many ways. The depressed fair sex was harassed a lot in countries such as India by despoiling their human rights through dedications like “SATHIPUJA”. This male dominancy was not observed in the language in those days since there were crucial areas rather than language. The feminism movement was formed against these practices in different ways in the world with various goals.

This small article is to emphasize the mail dominancy which was not yet observed in the language.

Perhaps conventional grammarians will get irritated with this observation due to the convention breakdown of their schools. Even though the western English grammarians have compiled English grammar in a clear cut manner, it is a bit impossible job to find scientific studies in those. English nouns are considered as a compulsory part of the speech out of eight parts of speech. Nouns have been defined under four categories in gender as masculine, feminine, common and neuter; here the foremost concerns are masculine and feminine nouns in this nouns category. There are two specific places that are governed the male dominancy of this grammar lesson: when gender nouns are defined by grammarians; masculine has been taken first, any way that can be considered as a coincident but rules have been applied to masculine nouns in order to make them feminine by showing the male dominancy of the grammarians and the language. No any rule has been applied to feminine nouns in order to make them masculine.

A few rule applications can be considered in support of this gender issue here: a rule has been put forward to make feminine nouns through masculine by adding ‘ess’ suffix to the masculine;

e.g.: Lion - lioness

Actor - actress

Director - directress

Author - authoress

Poet - poetess

Some certain masculine forms out of the given examples have dropped out of the use in modern English but most of these are ruling the language until the present time. This is the foremost place that the male dominancy governs.

There were some certain movements in the world that fought against the mail dominancy and gender discriminations but this language fact was not seriously taken into their account. Visibly it doesn’t make physical ill treatments to females as it seems but a critical exclusion can be recognized through the language over here. For instance, these feminine words are not able to be formed without having masculine roots. It reflects the dependability of fair sex due to the gender fact. Feminism movement is the foremost driven force that fought for the gender parity in various forms in the world. Basically they were focusing on equal rights that were not well defined clearly what they are, in their studies. This feminism movement had some splits such as liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, radical feminists and later psychological feminists, post modern or post structural feminists, black feminists and so on. Their concerns were having contradictions in contrasting their ideologies each other. The concerns of radical and Marxist feminists were quite similar and they were not totally focusing on the gender fact but the oppressed social class.

As they believed, as long as these social classes exist as oppressed and oppressor, gender discrimination goes on continuously. Once this social difference came to the end, oppressed feminine also will get free from the oppression.

This my new book was recently published which is focusing on 'National Thought'

The dynamic world with two different political orthodoxies has totally undergone changes after the cracking down of USSR and its followers. Then the foremost political practice was capitalist economic with the ideological safe guard of liberalism and later it was amended by neo-liberalism. With arise of neo-liberalism; thereby the economic diversity became a monologue where the one ideology is prominent. Then the resonating voice of the liberalism spread all over the world in an ideological point of view by the Fukuyama’s lyrical book: “The end of history and last man”. His lyrical book has come to nothing by today. In other words the last man has become nobody at this critical juncture of the world. It critically reflects the requirement of dynamic economical favors to the current world.
Totally this economic downturn could be understood with their ideological safeguards so that we suddenly remind Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan on the base of their economical liberalism where the whole world painted in a single colour. Are we able to apply further the same theories to merge the world economy into one stratum?
Please, our request is:
Let it be so………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Don’t destroy the economic diversity and heritage in the world. Don’t dilute and pour the economic diversity in the world into one basket. Agrarian countries are agrarian countries whereas industrial countries are industrial countries; the countries who are surviving with their own livelihoods let them be so. “Thatcher”! and “Reagan”! please, don’t come to our world again because we can write the history in a new stylus in contrasting Francis Fukuyama’s end of history.

He was a very simple person who was much matured. ‘Simple’ in the sense he never used mobile phones, he never used vehicles and even a motor Bick. He didn’t speak much at all. The simple symbol of his life was a smile with a slight bend of the body at the hip. This article was published after his death in order to remind quixotic memories of his life with the young generation

Who is a linguist? To answer this question let us see at the common thinking patterns of the society. If this question is raised to a person who is external to the discipline of linguistics, they would answer in this manner: the person, who speaks a number of languages, is a linguist. This also happens if the person has got to know at least a bit of linguistics but most of the people would ask first what linguistics is. If we introduce ourselves as linguists to somebody else, sooner the question would raise that how many languages do you speak? Why? Because this is the meaning that is known by populace with reference to the linguist.

If somebody has got to know a number of languages, he is acquainted as a polyglot, not a linguist. Nobody could become a linguist by knowing more than one language; he or she has to go beyond that acquisition to become a linguist but some grammarians who lived in early days also believed that the people who speak more than one language are called as linguists, which is not correct. It doesn’t emphasize that the polyglot can’t become a linguist; depending upon the approach of the language study even polyglot can become a linguist but just speaking a number of languages, no one can become a linguist, even if he speaks ten languages, he is not legitimate to claim for a linguist.

So who is a linguist? The linguist may speak only one language, sometimes he may speak more than one language; the implication is, this is not a contingency with language speaking capabilities. So, very simply linguist is a scholar who studies the language in a systematic manner, in other words the person who studies the language in a scientific manner. The linguist looks at the language in order to understand how it works but not how it uses. He doesn’t want to learn how to use the language whereas studies underlying structure of the language. This can be very simply understood once we defined what linguistics is. Linguistics is scientific study of the language or let’s say that it is a systematic study of the language. The person, who does this, is a linguist.

Traditional grammarians are called as linguists time and again which is totally wrong. Eminent Sri Lankan scholar: Kumarathunga Munidasa is acquainted as a linguist by some writers without understanding the status of a linguist. Even though his studies deal with the language and speaks more than one language, it’s not adequate enough to claim for a linguist since he has already become a traditional grammarian.

Now it is obvious that the linguist is not a person who speaks more than one language, most probably he would be a polyglot as far as he doesn’t study the language in a scientific manner in order to understand how the language works. Taking into consideration a metaphor, this can be understood very clearly: there are people who are able to drive number of vehicle kinds but they don’t know how those vehicles are operating whereas a mechanic may not be able to drive even a one vehicle but he knows very well how this vehicle runs with all kinds of requirements. In that sense a mechanic is similar to a linguist whereas a driver is similar to a polyglot if he drives more than one vehicle type.

The conservative scholar Samuel Huntington has passed away last week. He was the author of "Clash of Civilizations," the well known book all over the world. He was seventy-four years old at the death, tenured; Huntington is a mild-mannered, balding man from the political analyzers point of view.
Sri Lankan eminent author Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara admires the book that was written by Samuel: “The clash of the civilization and remaking the world order”. Amaraseka also considered this book as a safe guard for his national thought and he may worry a lot now on this death. The other eminent professor: Nalin De Silva also was on the same track in appreciating the Huntington’s book as a master piece of the national thought.
Anyway as an influential scholar, we missed Samuel.