View it @https://goo.gl/3gBs3N
২০১৭।”ভাব ও অভাব নিয়ে ব্যাপক খ্যাপামি”। একতারা। সম্পা। অর্ণব সেনগুপ্ত। (৪৫-৫৮ পাতা)।কোলকাতা।
View it @https://goo.gl/3gBs3N
২০১৭।”ভাব ও অভাব নিয়ে ব্যাপক খ্যাপামি”। একতারা। সম্পা। অর্ণব সেনগুপ্ত। (৪৫-৫৮ পাতা)।কোলকাতা।
2017. “BHIM AND SINGH: INCOMMENSURABLE ‘IDOLS’?”. Ambedkar, Dalit Movement and The Left. Other Voice/ Anya svar. Special issue. (pp. 68-73) 2017. Akhar Bandyopadhyay ed. Endeavor of Bhagat Singh’s Socialist India (https://www.facebook.com/nbshsra/) concentrating on the relationship between Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar and Com. Bhagat Singh.
২০১৭। ইমন সাঁতরা, কৌশিক মুখার্জি সম্পা. ।আবিশ্ব: Beyond Anthropocene, Capitalocene। (২৬-৪২ পাতা)।
View it @https://goo.gl/vlnYCL
|Title||60 Day Views||60 Day Uniques||60 Day Downloads||All-Time Views||All-Time Downloads|
|বাংলা ব্যাকরণের প্রত্নতত্ত্ব ARCHAEOLOGY OF BANGLA GRAMMAR||434||303||11||2,176||123|
|A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION TO LA FILOLÓGICA POR LA CAUSA (1738-2016)||61||41||6||1,371||142|
|WHAT IS ‘WORD’ REALLY???||4||3||1||1,135||49|
|Theory of the Body in Baul Philosophy||178||155||0||1,130||0|
|STRUCTURAL AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS (SPbSU): LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ● СТРУКТУРНАЯ И ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА (СПбГУ): СПИСОК ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ ● গ্রন্থনবাদী আর ফলিত ভাষাতত্ত্ব: প্রকাশন তালিকা||11||11||0||957||57|
|ARCHITECTURE OF/AND BODY: CORPOREAL STUDIES (দেহতত্ত্ব)||30||23||2||888||110|
|আখর-আঁকা BANGLA CALLIGRAPHY, LANGUAGE ART AND LINGUISTIC PEDAGOGY||117||80||5||881||67|
|“এও হয়: আঁকতে আঁকতে অক্ষর (Writing by Means of Drawing)”||118||74||1||795||39|
|М. Ф. Карамян, С. А. Головань, Т. Г. Скребцова et al. — ❝АЛЕКСАНДР С. ГЕРД, ПОЛНОЕ СОБРАНИЕ СОЧИНЕНИЙ❞ (в 30-и томах) ● M. Т. Karamian, S. А. Golovan, T. G. Skrebtsova et al. — ❝ALEXANDER S. HERAD, COMPLETE WORKS❞ (in 30 volumes)||8||7||0||696||19|
|জাক দেরিদা: একটি ভুতুড়ে চলচ্চিত্র||83||77||0||598||0|
|SILENCEME: THE SILENT “OTHER” IN LINGUISTICS/SILENCE STUDIES||12||10||3||576||68|
|Non-Linguistics of Silenceme: Lalon||140||133||0||538||0|
|THE EKALAVYA RELATION: TRANSLATION, COLONIALISM AND MODERNITY||7||7||0||513||61|
|CHOMSKIAN LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY, CRIPPLED CREATIVITY AND PSI-PROPERTIES||34||31||2||508||34|
|“Wor(l)d Spaces: The Definition of ‘Word’”||35||34||1||481||32|
|THE HISTORY OF THE GREAT ACADEMIC DICTIONARY OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE (pdf complete)||3||3||0||475||45|
|O KING, STOP KILLING DEER OF OUR HERMITAGE Environmental consciousness in Indian science and technology||4||4||0||462||13|
|DEBAPRASAD BANDYOPADHYAY — AN OPEN LETTER FROM ONE PROFESSOR TO ANOTHER PROFESSOR (একটি খোলা চিঠি — نامه سرگشاده)||33||28||0||461||22|
|SEX AND TEXT||6||5||1||452||133|
|CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? LANGUAGE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE||8||8||1||443||67|
|CORPUS LINGUISTICS: AN EPISTEMOLOGY?||3||3||0||425||17|
|ENVIRONMENTALISM: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES (ECO-ECONOMICS OR GEO-SOCIOLOGY?)||3||3||0||403||51|
|“The Movement Within: A Secret Guide To Esoteric Kayaasadhanaa: Caryaapada”.||24||20||2||380||65|
|YAYATI AND BABUR COMPLEX যযাতি আর বাবর কমপ্লেক্স||5||5||0||351||41|
|The Psychology of Silence: The Story of Bharat||3||3||0||346||38|
|স্বপনচারিনী: চিনিতে পারিনি? (Dream-Lady: Can’t I Re-Cognize? (Begum Rokeya’s Sultana’s Dream))||15||15||0||338||20|
|ON RABINDRANATH TAGORE….||9||4||1||330||65|
|FOLK AND NON-FOLK: QUESTIONING THE DICHOTOMY||27||22||8||330||111|
|নীরবতার না- ভাষাতত্ত্ব: লালনে Non-Linguistics of Silenceme: Lalon||22||15||1||330||47|
|IMAGINED BOUNDARIES AND PRE-COLONIAL INDIAN IMAGI-NATION||15||11||2||329||38|
|ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL HEATING AND THE CONDITION OF CREATIVE SPEAKING SUBJECT||3||3||0||327||92|
|IN SEARCH FOR METHODS: ANEKANTAVADA||1||1||1||326||54|
|MAKING OF THE INDIAN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND OTHER ESSAYS||7||7||1||324||56|
|DO WE NEED UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOLS?||3||3||0||322||31|
|ফুকো- দেরিদা কাজিয়া [Foucault-Derrida Polemics]||2||2||1||308||124|
|“ছবি লেখেন সত্যজিৎ. (Satyajit Ray Writes Paintings)”||6||5||2||305||47|
|“মহা/ পাতি ভরত আখ্যান The Meta/Petite Narrative of Bharat.” (Bangla, English & Italian versions with an interview)||25||22||0||301||44|
|THE GREAT ACADEMIC DICTIONARY OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF AUTODIDACTIC RATIONAL EDUCATION||18||18||0||294||11|
|THE HISTORY OF THE DICTIONARY OF QUOTIDIAN RUSSIAN OF MUSCOVITE RUS’ OF THE XVI-XVII CENTURIES ● ИСТОРИЯ СЛОВАРЯ ОБИХОДНОГО РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА МОСКОВСКОЙ РУСИ XVI-XVII ВЕКОВ||6||6||0||285||39|
|“(M)Other Tongue Syndrome: From Breast To Bottle.”||18||16||3||283||42|
|Folklore: Searching for Logistics||7||5||1||280||46|
|“বাংলার খোয়াবনামা (Bangla: A Genealogical Fantasy)”||4||4||0||277||38|
|বুনো রবি ঠাকুর ( Wild Rabindranath Tagore)||7||5||1||273||72|
|Impossibility Of Translation: A Case Study||5||5||0||272||28|
|The Ekalavya Relation: Translation, Colonialism and “Other”||6||6||0||271||10|
|“আইলা টুরিজিম: একটি বুর্জোয়া ভ্রমণ বেত্তান্ত”[Aila tourism: A Petite Bourgeois’ Travelogue]”||5||5||0||270||19|
|Searching for Linguistics of Silenceme : Caryapada চর্যা-চর্চায় নীরবতার ভাষাতত্ত্ব সন্ধান : উপক্রমনিকা||17||14||4||268||56|
|Qualitative analysis vs. (?) Quantitative Analysis, In Search for Methods||25||23||1||264||15|
|একটি হাংরি অ-মানবী-(-ক-)বিতার ব্যর্থ পাঠপ্রয়াস ( An Incessant Struggle for Reading a Hungry Poem)||8||7||2||261||83|
|“পটের চিহ্নতত্ত্ব (Semiotics of Photography)”||4||4||1||254||40|
|রেলা –রবি ঠাকুর আর লালন (Lalon And Rabindranath)||11||8||2||253||38|
|LANGUAGE MOVEMENTS IN INDIA||16||16||4||252||55|
|ব্যা ব্যা ব্যাঙ্কশিপ (On Banking System)||6||6||0||243||0|
|অর্থ-নেতি NEGATION OF ECONOMICS||3||3||0||238||31|
|MUSICKING AND SPEAKING: DIFFERaNCE (SEGMENTING THE SUPRASEGMENTALS)||8||7||1||228||46|
|লোক-অলোকের ধন্দে: লোকসংস্কৃতি —উপনিবেশের পাঠক্রম (Folklore: A colonial Discipline)||24||23||2||227||47|
|কথার এন্তেকাল (Death of Dialogue)||34||32||0||226||31|
|অনেকান্ত সাহিত্যতত্ত্ব Anekanta Sahityatattva||6||6||0||226||31|
|তর্জমার তর্জনী বা একলব্যের বুড়ো আঙ্গুল (The Governance of Translation and Ekalavya’s Thumb)||9||8||0||226||47|
|“Kirtana: Speaking in Musicking”.||8||6||1||226||45|
|অনেকান্ত সাহিত্যতত্ত্ব। খন্ড-২||6||6||2||225||26|
|Folklore and Folklanguage: Myth or Reality?||4||4||1||224||56|
|SURFACE SYNTAX AND VERB-VALENCY; FUZZY NUMERALS; ABHABA AND TRACE||28||26||1||220||34|
|INTERPRETING GENETIC STRUCTURE BY DEPLOYING LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE||26||25||0||217||54|
|“দাদাইজম বা দাদায়ন ” (‘Dadas’ in Bangla Literature)||15||13||1||217||34|
|LINEAR HISTORY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: SOME PROBLEMS OF “INDIAN” HISTORIOGRAPHY||5||2||0||211||24|
|মহাভারতেতিহাস ও অবদমিত-এর প্রত্যাবর্তন: কৃষি [ Meta-History Of India & Return Of The Repressed: Agriculture]||1||1||0||208||77|
|THE CONCEPT OF ERROR (KHYATI) IN MAD-(WO)MEN’S LANGUAGE||36||33||0||207||40|
|PRAGMATICS OF SILENCEME||6||6||0||204||16|
|“(অন-)অর্থনীতিবিদ রবীন্দ্রনাথ” [City and Village” & “(Non-) Economist Rabindranath Tagore]”,||14||12||0||204||29|
|Architectural Description of Konark Sun-Temple”কোনারকের বিবরণ” কিতাবের সমালোচনা”||3||3||0||204||26|
|PREFERRING SON, TERMINATING SON: UNCONTRADICTORY CONTRADICTIONS OF CIVILIZATION||1||1||1||203||14|
|বটতলা চুম্বন পদ্ধতি আর পেটমোটা ব্যাকরণ বই”||12||5||1||202||67|
|“আ মরণ! মরণ রে…” [On Euthanasia]||12||12||1||201||35|
|”প্রাতিস্বিক-এর অন্দর সদর [Ins and Outs of The Being]”||15||13||0||201||59|
|“বাতিল ঘোড়ার পোক্ত হাড়মাস” [The firm Skeleton of Abandoned Horse]||6||6||0||201||36|
|নাস্তিক্য, মৌলবাদ আর অনেকান্ত Atheism, Fundamentalism and Anekantavada||6||6||1||192||35|
|ভাষা আন্দোলন নিয়ে কিছু দুঃখের কথা||4||4||0||188||39|
|মুদ্রার অর্থ-নেতি (Negation of Money: After Reading Marx)||14||13||2||187||40|
|এবং ইন্দ্রজিৎ: খন্ডিত উপকথা [Ebang Indrajit: Petite Narratives]||13||9||2||185||37|
|A Commentary on Indian Culture and Anekanta Vedanta (ভারতীয় সংস্কৃতি ও অনেকান্ত বেদান্ত: ভাষ্য)||12||11||0||182||33|
|“হে প্রণম্য পিতৃদেব, তুমি তো বন্ধু নও/হও” (Yayati and Babur Complex).||7||6||0||182||34|
|The Pre-Colonial Imagined Boundaries||9||9||1||181||35|
|নিসর্গ নিয়ে ভাবনা : একাধিক সমবায়ী প্রয়াস Re-Thinking Environmentalism||11||11||0||177||24|
|“Other ব্যাপারি: মহাশ্বেতা ভায়া গায়ত্রী [Others’ Business or Business of Others : Mahasweta Via Gayatri]”.||6||6||1||177||49|
|বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের বাইরে, ভিন্ন যাপনে||5||4||0||167||34|
|“মিশেল ফুকোর শৃঙ্গার তত্ত্ব (Foucault’s ‘History of Sexuality)”||9||6||1||166||23|
|নগর নিয়ে কিছু ফালতু পরি-কল্প-না||3||3||1||162||29|
|“মা-রে-গা” [“Marx-Rabindranath-Gandhi ”]||17||13||1||162||45|
|“সুকুমার রায়ের ভাষার অত্যাচার : একটি পাঠপ্রয়াস”[ Sukumar Ray’s ‘Torture of Language’: An Attempted Reading].||96||82||8||160||20|
|দুর্নীতির লজিক (Logic of Corruption)||7||7||0||158||49|
|“Crippled Creativity: Language, Psyche , Society.”||13||13||0||158||21|
|পাটরানির কথা : বাংলার আদিশিল্পের দুকাহন।. (On Jute Industry of Bengal)||45||40||0||157||21|
|FOREWORD: RE-THINKING THE PARTITION OF INDIA: HISTORICAL & LITERARY PERSPECTIVES||8||7||3||156||39|
|Language: From I-Dentity to My-Dentity||4||4||1||156||26|
|“Centre for Studies in Silence. (একটি [অ-] লৌকিক বেত্তান্ত)”||64||52||5||154||29|
|Contemporary Academics in West Bengal: A Collection এখ(৷)নকার আকাদেমিক্স সংহতি-মার্গও আমি-বিষয়ী||8||6||3||154||32|
|ভাষাতত্ত্ব: জন্মবৃত্তান্ত ও উন্মেষ||18||16||5||153||28|
|“হিন্দু পাঁজিতে যবন প্রভাব?” [Influences of Islam in Hindu Almanac?]||2||2||0||153||26|
|(AB-)NORM AND THE CONCEPT OF ERROR IN MAD (WO)MEN’S LANGUAGES||33||30||1||153||12|
|“সরলরেখায় ইন্ডিক ভাষা-ইতিহাস: সমস্যার ইতিহাস” (Linear History of Indic Language: Some Problems of Historiography).||10||9||2||153||33|
|“চোট-পাট বেত্তান্ত [Jute Industry in West Bengal]”||30||27||0||152||26|
|ধর্ম ও জনসংস্কৃতি প্রসঙ্গে [On Religion and Popular Culture]||2||2||1||152||32|
|Folksong and Classical Song: The Discursive Formation of Dividing Practice||7||6||1||152||31|
|“হরিদাসী ও অনেকে” [Horidasi and other Grannies]||43||36||2||151||22|
|একাধিক প্রস্তাব (-না): সমশৃঙ্গার||10||10||1||150||52|
|“ফিরে যাও তৈলাক্ত চাকা” [Go Back Fossil Lubricated Wheels]||16||14||0||150||14|
|“সুনীতিবাবু বেত্তান্ত ও মহা-‘ভারত’ কথা [Life of Suniti Kumar and Meta-History of Indian Nation State]”||11||9||0||150||26|
|“এই যে আমার ভাষার রক্তাক্ত শরীর: ব্যাকরণ” (This is the Blooded Body of My Language: Grammar)||10||9||3||150||32|
|“Soul’d in and out: Representation of Body, No-Body in the Hindu Philosophy.”||17||16||0||150||20|
|“সমাজের অভিধান লেখার ক্রমবর্ধমান অসুবিধা” [An Incessant Struggle for Writing a Societal Lexicon]||17||17||2||147||32|
|“মেলাবেন তিনি মেলাবেন: কোয়ান্টাম ও সমাজ বিজ্ঞান?” [Quantum Mechanics And Social Science]||15||14||0||146||18|
|প্রান্ত থেকে বলা Voices from Margins||6||6||1||139||23|
|“Interpreting the Learning-Mismatch between L1 (Bangla) in Learning L2 (English): An I.R.T. Approach”||100||89||0||138||4|
|An Interview on “Psychology of Silence” (English & Italian Versions)||4||4||1||136||25|
|”সতীনাথের ছোটগপ্পোঃ এক বা একাধিক না-ভূমিকা বা সমালোচকের এন্তেকাল” A Non-Introduction to Satinath Bhaduri’s Short Stories and the Death of Critiques||26||22||2||136||18|
|What’s after the Third Revolution in Linguistics? বিদ্যাচর্চা ও ভাষাতত্ত্বের তৃতীয় বিপ্লব||87||80||10||135||29|
|“রামমোহনের গৌড়ীয় ব্যাকরণ [Rammohan Roy’s Goudiya/Bangla Grammar]”.||6||5||1||134||40|
|Review Of the Book: “Sounds Of Silence”.||4||4||0||132||9|
|TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT MACHINE: GAUGING NORMAL INTONATION BY DEPLOYING THE CONVENTIONAL MUSICAL ALGORITHMS: A PROPOSAL||62||60||0||132||3|
|LANGUAGE PLANNER RABINDRANATH TAGORE||74||70||1||132||14|
|“দেব ভাষা নিয়ে অতিকথন” [The Myth of God’s Language}||3||3||0||130||37|
|আরবি নিশার শৃঙ্গার: সাহেবরা যা যা শেখেন Whatever May Be Learnt by the Sahibs from the Arabian Nights||13||11||1||129||18|
|“ঐতিহাসিক শব্দবিদ্যা ও কার্ল মার্কস -এর একটি উপন্যাস” [Comparative Philology and a Novel by Karl Marx].||22||20||0||128||23|
|“The Making of the Indian Philosophy of Science”.||8||8||1||128||37|
|রেনেসান্স ও ‘টিনের তলোয়ার’ Renaissance and “Simulated Sword”||19||18||0||127||32|
|Wounds of Love (তোমার প্রেমে আঘাত আছে )||8||8||0||127||30|
|Narrative of না-ইস্কুল বা/or Nice School||16||16||4||127||27|
|এবং নীরবতা [“Keep Mum: On International Mother Language Day”]||2||2||0||127||0|
|সম্প্রদান- ব্যাকরণ–রাজনীতি– অর্থনীতি (Political Economy of Sampradana Karaka)||9||7||0||127||27|
|“বি- কল্প-না [Imagining Alternatives with Possible Negations]”||3||3||0||127||22|
|ডরাইছিলা হ? আরে পুরুষ ! [ Are you scared? Hi male!, Construction of Masculinity in Bengali Culture]||7||7||0||127||15|
|‘চিরকালীন মোচ্ছবের বিচিত্র স্রোতের ভিনটানে”||79||74||9||126||17|
|“বাংলার মুখ ও শুয়ারের মাংস : প্রাককথন”||73||69||1||126||36|
|A Workshop on De/unschooling, Standardization and Plurilingualism in India||3||3||0||126||12|
|“সার্ত-এর চুপসাধনা” [Silenceme in Sartre].”||1||1||0||125||31|
|মিশেল ফুকো : মানুষের আবির্ভাব “[Foucault: Resurrection of “MAN”]||21||14||5||125||30|
|“Towards a New Word Order”||80||70||7||125||15|
|পেসাদী সঙ্গীত: একটি অনেকান্ত পাঠ-প্রস্তাবনা [Ramprasad: Plural Reading of Text]||54||48||5||124||10|
|“কল্পনার সেই ভুবন কি কখনো আসবে?”||10||9||1||120||21|
|The Glottopolitics of Linguistic Subalternity In Multilingual India||85||80||0||118||5|
|“মঁসিয়ে ফুকোর Statistics” [Statistics and Foucault]||70||64||1||118||9|
|On Mother Language Day||47||45||0||117||0|
|“ভাষা-পরিকল্পনাকার প্রশান্তচন্দ্র”. [Language-planner Prasanta Chandra Mahalanabis]||81||73||2||116||13|
|“শিল্প- সুন্দরের রসোপভোগ নাকি বর্গবিভাজন?–একটি সংকলন” [Collage on Fair and Ugly Sites}||66||63||4||116||27|
|“Preface to Poststructural Linguistics”||85||78||0||116||1|
|Localization in Globalization||89||83||7||115||18|
|“ভারতে ভাষা রাষ্ট্র: একটি প্রতিবেদন” [Indian Linguistic Nation State: A Report].||41||39||0||115||20|
|“শেষ মহাআখ্যান [Last Metanarrative].||63||60||0||115||18|
|“Chomsky and Habermas via Nyaya Theory of Debating”.||21||19||2||115||25|
|“Why Do I Forsake Historical Linguistics?”||59||57||1||115||20|
|Archaeology of Bangla Grammar||54||52||0||114||21|
|“কথার ক্রিয়াকর্ম” কিতাবের সমালোচনা||112||97||10||112||10|
|“তোমার ন্যায়ের দন্ড”[your sceptre of morals]||85||76||0||112||7|
|“বিশ্ব সাথে ‘যোগ’ -বিহার ” [ Universe Allied]||80||76||0||112||12|
|“প্রলয়-এর মুখে শুনি এ কার বাণী ?”[ Whose Voice Am I Hearing At The Time of Great Dissolution“]||28||24||1||112||17|
|৬৮-র ছাত্র আন্দোলন: আমার যাপনে-জীবনে||86||82||0||111||11|
|“পরীক্ষা পরীক্ষা [Exam, Exams]”||28||24||0||111||21|
|“কেন এই হিংস্রতার উদ্ভাস?” [Why Violence?]||4||4||1||111||36|
|“ঝাড় খেলে আত্মা তৈরি হয়.” [Construction of Specter Due To Outside Violence].||61||55||0||111||17|
|“গ্রন্থনবাদ, উত্তর-গ্রন্থনবাদ, অধিগ্রন্থনবাদ: টুরিসম থেকে তীর্থযাত্রা” [Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Meta-Structuralism: From Tourism to Pilgrims’ ‘Progress’”.||58||53||0||111||26|
|লোকসংস্কৃতি নৃবিদ্যার অভিধান:কয়েকটি প্রবিষ্টি||63||58||1||111||28|
|“কেন পড়া হয় ব্যাকরণ?” [Why Do We Read Grammar?]||79||68||1||111||15|
|“’অন্য’ ভাষায়, অনেকান্ত (প্রতি-)বাদে.” [In Different Languages, In Other protests]||53||53||0||111||15|
|“স্বপ্নলীলা : কেন আমি জন্ম নেব?”. [Dream-play: Why Should I Be Born?]||55||49||0||111||14|
|“হাটে হাঁড়ি: খুচরো পাপ ও Mall -ত্যাগ ” The Vice of Retail Market and Mall-Culture||48||41||0||111||21|
|“Myth of National Language.”||45||39||1||111||13|
|A Dialogue on Linguistic Creativity||76||70||4||111||15|
|আমরা বলছি শোনো: চারটি লেখা একত্রে…||1||1||0||110||17|
|Philosophy of Tagore Songs||10||8||0||110||0|
|“কেমন করে লিখব বাংলা ব্যাকরণের (ইতিহাস) প্রত্নতত্ত্ব:একটি উপক্রমনিকা.” [An Introductory Guide to Write Archaeology of Bangla Grammar]||49||48||2||110||33|
|“বিশ শতকে সমাজ বিজ্ঞান : একটি খসড়া প্রতিবেদন মাত্র .” [Social Science in The 20th C: A Draft Report]||10||9||1||110||26|
|“দাস সেড এডওয়ার্ড সাইদ” [Thus Said Edward Said]||45||42||0||110||15|
|বুদ্ধিজীবির নোটবই: কয়েকটি প্রবিষ্টি||60||57||0||110||14|
|চিনতে যদি পেরেই থাকো “On Madness, normalcy, abnormality”.||3||3||0||110||0|
|“Little Boxes: (Il)logic(s) of Truth-Room(s)”||6||6||0||110||6|
|পড়ুয়া খতম [Death Of Reader}||60||55||0||110||11|
|“সন্দীপন চাটুজ্জের গপ্প সম্পর্কে কয়েক টুকরো ভাট” [ Dilirium on Sandipan Chattapadhyay’s Short Stories]||58||51||2||110||8|
|কালকুটের কায়াসাধনা (Kalkut’S Corporeal Studies)||20||18||0||110||27|
|“প্রতীচ্যের বেগানারা: এক হিপক্রিটের নজরে”. [Flaneurs/Absurd Men Of The West: From A Hypocrite’s Gaze].||59||56||0||110||13|
|“’যেদিন নিঃশব্দ শব্দেরে খাবে’ : নৈঃশব্দের ভাষাতত্ত্ব ” [‘When Silence Would Swallow Non-Silence’: Linguistics of Silence]||52||50||0||110||17|
|“নানান সময়: চলচ্চিত্রেরও…” [Language, Time and Cinema]||67||63||0||110||10|
|“তর্জমার তর্জনী বা একলব্যের বুড়ো আঙ্গুল [The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals’ Anti-Modernist Response(s)]”||19||18||0||110||25|
|“Towards a Praxis of Anti-Grammar.”||12||10||0||110||23|
|“Kolkata Dialects and the Aspects of Standardization: Preliminary Observations.”||84||82||1||110||10|
|“মানব বিকাশ ও ভাষাতত্ত্বের তৃতীয় বিপ্লব: পেরিয়ে কি?”[Human Development: What’s After the Third Revolution In Linguistics?]||80||76||0||110||11|
|“টিনের তলোয়ার: উপনিবেশ প্রান্তের ভান ভাষা.” [Simulation of Simulated Sword].||39||38||0||110||10|
|“বাংলা ক্রিয়ার যোজ্যতা ও যৌগিক ক্রিয়ার সমস্যা [Valency of Bangla Verb and Problem of Compounding]”||19||17||1||110||13|
|“শিল্পকলার ভেদ-অভেদ: প্রণবরঞ্জন রায়ের সঙ্গে সাক্ষাৎকার” (an Interview on “Indian Art History and Dividing Practices” with Pranab Ranjan Roy).||74||69||1||110||11|
|কথায় সুরে, সুরে কথায় Musicking in Speaking or Speaking in Musicking||67||61||0||110||7|
|“Psi-Properties: Language, Psyche and Society.”||37||35||0||110||15|
|TOGETHERNESS OF ENGLISH: THE INTIMATE ENEMY||41||39||1||110||10|
|VEDIC SONGS: TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT MACHINE||66||64||1||110||21|
|Cyber Archive of Bangla Graphemes||32||28||1||109||30|
|“সুশান্ত চট্টোপাধ্যায় : ভারতের প্রথম নৃতাত্ত্বিক ফটোগ্র্যাফার” (Sushanta Chattopadhyay” : India’s first Visual Anthropologist)||39||37||0||109||11|
|“লোকভাষা [Folk Language]”||18||15||4||109||41|
|“আধুনিক ভাষাতত্ত্ব স্মরনিকা বা ভাষাতত্ত্বের মৃত্যু কিভাবে হলো”. [Modern Linguistics: An Obituary].||59||53||2||109||24|
|“ছোট বাক্স, ছোট বাক্স: (অ-) সত্য ঘরের (অ-)যুক্তি ‘Little Boxes: (Il)Logic(S) of Truth-Room(S)’ ”||16||16||0||109||30|
|কম্পিউটার কি কথা বলবে? Can Computer Speak?||58||56||0||109||4|
|‘Narrative Community: Voices of Israeli Backpackers’-Book Review||79||75||0||109||4|
|ECP is Dead, Long Live ECP||35||32||0||109||6|
|VIOLENCE AND POLITICS A DIALOGUE WITH SUJATA BHADRA||24||23||0||109||0|
|Two Phonological Changes in Indo-Aryan||74||69||0||109||0|
|স্ব-/স-আখর-এর ইস্তেহার [On Hans Andersen:(Il)literate Signature]||81||75||0||109||5|
|The Crippled Creativity-A Brief Theoretical Framework||48||40||0||109||19|
|“ছবি থেকে সমাজে:বুঝে নেবার উপক্রম” (Colonial Photos: A Socio-semiotic Interpretation)||67||62||0||109||17|
|“তোমাদের পৈতেতে আমার খোলা চিঠি .” [An Open Letter On The Occasion of Sacred Thread Ceremony]||44||43||0||109||12|
|“চার্বাক বেদান্ত পেরিয়ে???”[Carvaka & Vedanta: Beyond the Binary: ?]||42||37||0||109||16|
|কামনা, শৃঙ্গার, নচিকেত অভিযাত্রা –কৈশোরেই Adolescence and Sexuality||26||22||1||109||33|
|“হায় পথবাসী, হায় গৃহহারা”||16||13||0||109||11|
|“ভাষাবোধ, ব্যাপক পঙ্গুতা ও লোকনাথের সঙ্গে বিলাপ ”.[Language, Crippled Creativity and Loknath Bhattacharya]||82||77||1||109||12|
|“দোস্ত আইয়ুব সাহচর্যে একটি সাহিত্যতাত্ত্বিক পরিভ্রমণ (Abu S. Ayyub and Literary Theory)”.||44||41||0||109||11|
|“Scraps on Modernism, Post-Modernism and Indian Responses’||59||55||0||109||19|
|“কানা রঘুনাথ: এক মূর্ত নঞ্ (Raghunatha: A Name of Negatives)”||12||11||0||109||10|
|“চমস্কি আসার আগে পরে যা যা ঘটেছিল”. [Whatever happened before and after the arrival of Noam Chomsky]||14||11||1||109||26|
|লুই আলত্যুসের চর্চা Review of the book “Althusser”||82||74||11||109||11|
|Review of the photographic exhibition “Images for changes”||78||65||0||109||12|
|Review of the Lesbian Discourses Images of a Community. Koller, Veronika||48||45||0||109||7|
|“Blurring the Divide: Folk art and Classical Art.”||59||52||1||109||17|
|“স্বত্ব নিয়ে সমস্যার নিবেদন” On my-ness and economic entitlement)||69||65||0||109||11|
|“পাথুরে জীবনের কথা” ” [Life in the Stone Quarries]||76||69||0||109||6|
|“Creative Cogito and Disturbed Corporeal”||49||47||0||109||18|
|“Modern Linguistics: An Obituary”||52||48||1||109||22|
|”Mahalanobis as a Language-planner”||43||41||0||109||9|
|“Reflections on Wolf’s Negative Procreative Right: By Choice Childless Couples.”||59||55||1||109||3|
|”Standardization: Myth or Reality?”||66||57||1||109||19|
|“On Computational and Chomskyan Linguistic Theory”||79||70||1||109||7|
|“Re-reading Holub’s Anti-Poetry: ‘A Textbook on Dead Language’.”||77||70||1||109||10|
|“Computational Linguistics: A dissenter’s Voice.”||37||37||2||109||12|
|Triglossia In Bangla||53||51||2||109||21|
|“Lamont Palmer-এর ‘April 1968: King Is Dead’-এর অনুসৃজন”||79||77||1||108||10|
|পাথরে পাথরে নাচে আগুন (Dances of Fire in Basalt Quarries)||82||76||1||108||11|
|এক যে দেশের কন্যা (On Female feticide In India)||76||63||0||108||0|
|“পতিত ছবি” [“Falling Photos by Kerry Skarbakka.”]||10||9||0||108||17|
|“টানাপোড়েন: শাড়ি থেকে জীবনে ”||33||31||0||108||23|
|Review of the book “Rabindranath: vakpatih visvamanah Vol I”“রবীন্দ্রনাথ বিষয়ে একটি অগভীর সংকলন”||76||70||1||108||18|
|“লেখা-বলা খেলা.” Review of the book: dhonimala bOrnomala by Palash Baran Pal||71||67||0||108||8|
|“A Debate on Chomsky-Quine and Davidson.” চমস্কি-কোয়াইন-ডেভিডসন বিতর্ক||42||39||2||108||20|
|“সুধীন দত্তের পদ্য: যেভাবে গোড়াতেই দেখা যেতো” (Poems of Sudhindranath Dutta)||28||23||0||108||42|
|“নেড়া বেলতলায় যায় কবার?” [Brick Industry in West Bengal]||42||36||0||108||15|
|Glocal Hyperreal and the Sad Demise of the Corporeal: An Obituary||68||60||1||108||7|
|Linguistic Approach to Molecular Recognition||80||65||5||108||13|
|বঙ্গীয় লোকসংস্কৃতিকোষ : কয়েকটি প্রবিষ্টি||74||66||0||108||12|
|আমার বলে রইল না আর কিছু ? [What do We have Left to Imagine?]||66||59||1||108||10|
|“রোগ- আরোগ্যের আর্থ-সমাজ” [ On Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay]||78||69||0||108||7|
|রাসেলের সঙ্গে তর্কে বহুদূর ”. [Arguing With Bertrand Russell]||41||38||2||108||15|
|“বয়ান পাঠের মার্কসীয় তরিকা: বঙ্গীয় সংস্করণ –একটি সেন্সরড বয়ানের পুন পাঠ”. [Marxist Literary Theory: Bangla Edition-An Uncensored Version]||16||15||1||108||21|
|“ধাঁধার অছিলায় ভাষাতত্ত্বের তৃতীয় বিপ্লব” [Puzzle, Riddle and Third Revolution in Linguistics]||54||51||1||108||12|
|“জিজ্ঞাসাপাঠ”( Philosophy of Science[s] for teens)||2||2||0||108||18|
|“পাড়া থেকে বিশ্ব বা বিশ্ব থেকে পাড়া : সাইবার কলোনির অভ্যুত্থান.” [ From colony to World & World to Colony: The explosion of Cyber-Colony]||76||69||2||108||11|
|“ব্যাকরণ মানি না।” [ I do not obey Grammar]||55||51||3||108||38|
|“Nietzsche -এর যুদ্ধ বিরতি ঘোষণা” [ Stop the War: Nietzsche]||25||23||0||108||27|
|“বিজ্ঞান-বাজার-রাষ্ট্র ” [ Science, Market, State]||5||5||0||108||17|
|জেগে বা ঘুমিয়ে– ‘ভারতীয়’ দর্শনে” (Hanging between Sleeping and Waking — ‘Indian’ Philosophy).||18||16||0||108||39|
|সংস্কৃতিবিদ্যা চর্চা : সংকট ও মোচন (Culture Studies: Crisis and Solutions)||15||12||1||108||35|
|“Final Sound and Initial Sound: A Note on Playing Antyaksari.”||83||80||0||108||5|
|“The Myth of Regionalism”||73||66||8||108||20|
|“Understanding Semantics of Language Development”||67||63||0||108||8|
|“Welfare Economics: A Post-Modern Response.”||70||60||3||108||10|
|Colony’s Burden: a Case of Extending Bangla||82||78||1||108||14|
|পবিত্র সরকার: অবদান ও দায়বদ্ধতা||2||2||0||107||27|
|কোনও পুরুষালিতন্ত্রের দিকেই কি চলেছি?||40||36||0||107||22|
|Violence in Education শিক্ষায় হামলা||81||67||0||107||0|
|“এই ব্যাকরণ বইটা সুনীতি বাবুর লেখা (নয়)”||45||41||3||107||32|
|“ডিসকোর্স খতম”. [Discourse Murdered]||74||69||1||106||12|
|কোরক অভিধান সংখ্যা: সমালোচনা [Review Of korok’s Volume on Lexicography.]||52||47||0||104||4|
|গুজরাট গুলজার Gujarat Pandemonium||66||61||2||104||6|
|“Codon Distribution In DNA.”||64||62||1||104||8|
|“Archaeology of Bangla Grammar (Ph.D.Synopsis)”||56||51||3||103||34|
|“বিকল্প স্বাস্থ্যনীতির সন্ধানে” [Searching for Alternative Health Care]||69||64||0||102||16|
|উঁচু কোটির ইন্ডিয়া, নিচু কোটির ‘ভারত’ (?) : সাংস্কৃতিক অসংহতির আর্থ-সমাজ”. (Subalterns’ bharot, Superordinates’ India: Socio-Economics of Cultural disintegrity’||72||62||4||102||24|
|“ভালবাসার ভাষাতত্ত্ব” [Semiotics of Loving Communication]||70||64||1||97||8|
|“সুবিমল বসাকের গপ্পো :শারীরক ভাষ্য”||36||35||0||96||14|
|কামতাপুরি ভাষা-রাষ্ট্রের দাবিদাওয়া||44||41||0||95||24|
|পুস্তক সমালোচনা: “জীবন দর্পণে দেখা সমাজ” (Review of the Book’Society Seen Through the Mirror of Life’)||64||60||1||93||7|
|“Identification of Human Proteins Using Linguist’s Tools”||66||59||1||93||10|
|ভাষাতত্ত্ব প্রসঙ্গে [On Linguistics– a General Introduction].||65||60||3||91||14|
|”সংখ্যাতাত্ত্বিকের সাহিত্য বিচার” : গল্পগুচ্ছ” [Stylstic Interpretation by Statisticians: Tagore’s Short Stories.]||32||31||2||88||31|
|“Chomsky & Folklore???”||62||57||0||88||10|
|অধিকার আমার ??? My Right???||49||44||1||86||8|
|শিক্ষানিকেতন (Reservation in Education)||59||57||0||85||0|
|“Dante’s Portrait by Rabindranath Tagore?!”||50||48||4||85||17|
|“সোভিয়েত ভাষাতত্ত্বচর্চার আন্তর্জাতিক প্রেক্ষিত” [ International perspectives of Russian Linguistics]||27||25||0||83||17|
|আকরণ থেকে অনাকরণ-এ: প্রাচ্য ও প্রতীচ্য (Formalism to Non-formalism: The East and The West)||59||56||1||83||17|
|Ekti Jiban: a Film on a Lexicographer’s Biography||45||42||0||83||6|
|“বলির বিরুদ্ধে “||57||49||2||82||15|
|“On India Today”||57||55||1||82||4|
|“বহুশাখী বট ও মৃত কৃষ্ণচূড়া”||49||41||0||80||14|
|নবজাতকের বাস যোগ্য পৃথিবী আর নরওএ বেত্তান্ত||44||41||0||74||16|
|“মহা/পাতি ভরত আখ্যান.” (Grand/petite narrative of Bharat)||15||15||0||74||5|
|“গাঙ্গুড়ের তীরে যুবকের মৃতদেহ”||31||29||0||73||17|
|“Comparative Study of the Classification of Initial Graphemes in Distinct Words in Fourteen Novels of Bankimchandra and Rabindranath’s Galpaguccha.”||49||46||0||73||6|
|SOME PRIMARY OBSERVATION ON TA WITHOUT N||46||43||0||71||0|
|Management of Administrative Technical Terms in Bangla||46||41||0||70||4|
|সমীক্ষা: শংখ ঘোষের ‘গান্ধর্ব কবিতাগুচ্ছ’||1||1||0||55||9|
|“সমালোচনা: বাংলাভাষা চর্চা“||15||11||0||55||24|
|Review of the book “সালতামামি”||25||22||1||49||5|
|REVIEW OF THE BOOK “Conversational Persuasion as the Principle for a Veri-pragmatic Revision in our Ordinary Language Conceptualizations”||0||0||0||45||9|
|যৌথতায় কৌষিক ব্যক্তিত্ব: বরুণ চক্রবর্তী||1||1||0||27||10|
|স্বয়ং সমালোচক যখন আক্রান্ত, বিপন্ন… সমালোচনা: সটীক জাদুনগর। রাঘব বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় । [Review of the Book : Satik Jadunagar]||2||2||2||22||15|
|“বুড়ো আংলার মানসযাত্রা” [Review of the book: Chiranjib Sur’s SromonkOtha-bhrcmonbani)]||0||0||0||19||14|
Categorized research-works of Debaprasad-20
This project of (s)talker was an account of pre-colonial symbolic distributions of imagined boundaries in the geo-political construct called “India” and it is also a response to the Partha Chatterji- Amartya Sen polemic regarding the pre-colonial (non-/)existence of Indian model.
Chatterji raised the following question:
“If nationalism in the rest of the world have to choose their imagined community from certain ‘modular’ forms already made available to them by Europe and the Americas, what do they have left to imagine?….” (Chatterji, 1993:5, emphasis added)
The question, raised by Chatterji may lead us to a reading that as a so-called third world subalterns, we do not have any imagined model and we, as a colonial subject, are only aping the dominant domain. In response to this, Sen commented:
“The conceptual forms of ‘the nation as an imagined community’, which Anderson peruses, may not have much to commend it (I personally think that it does—but this is a different issue), but the fear that its western origin would leave us without a model that is our ‘own’ is a somewhat peculiar concern.” (1996: 17-18, fn. 13)
Chatterji’s question (“…what do they have left to imagine?….”) inaugurates the question of “rem(a)inder” (in Lacanian sense of the term) in the context of colonial subjectivity, which is, though destroyed by the imposed imagined symbolic order, constructs its imagined “real(-ity)” as rem(a)inder through some so-called “mythical”, “spiritual” (thus un-“scientific” from the perspective of enlightened gaze) constructions.
(S)talker discussed three evidences of pre-colonial imagined boundary- constructions in the context of Southeast Asia in connection with Chatterji-Sen debate.
The problem was inaugurated by the empirical historians, when they were searching the “real” birthplace(s) of lord Rama as if the “true” birthplace of Rama would solve the problems raised by the Sangh Parivar. If that is not the case, the (s)talker wishes to address all these imaginations of iso-corporeal as the Schrodinger’s cat problem in Archaeology. All these imagined evidences remind us the remainder of pre-colonial genealogy of “our” imagination.
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles):
What does it mean by the word “our”/”my-ness”/“my-dentity” or possedness(svatva) in the context of four Ls: Language, Labour, Land and Love ? The author of this paper has dealt with only two Ls: Language and Labour taking his cues from Raghunatha Siromoni and Karl Marx. My-dentity as a category does not depend on the exchange value as ascribed by the market economy, therefore the author has paraphrased “fit for use” (viniyogayogyata) as “use value” and it eradicates the self-other differences in the context of my-ness. The author is not talking about I-dentity or I-ness, but on my-dentity or my-ness, i.e., what “I” possesses or what belongs to “me”—my ownership, endowment, possessed-ness or rather entitlement . Thus this paper is a psychoanalytic shift from the individual ego to the possession of ego as imagined and symbolized. This paper starts with some problematic questions: Do “I” possesses something or something is imposed upon my I-dentity or as my “own” following certain rules of socio-cultural or politico-economic legitimacy? As a homo sapiens, except my supposed genetic endowment, do I have something as my “own”? Do I have my ownership of four Ls in the context or locus of this planet or universe? Then what is about the legal and market entitlement as proposed by Amartya Sen? Without questioning the stipulated value ascribed to a currency note, Sen puts “etc.” at the beginning of the exchange process .This is the paradox of his framework as it leads to fallacy of infinite regress. The author elaborates his arguments by following age old dialogic forms. He concludes his paper by following Derrida and by introducing the concepts of Anti-Grammar, n-glossia, Bhasa-samavaya.
(S)talker had anticipated the incidence of the secret moments of eco-enemy primitive accumulation and thus he acted with his theoretical tools before Singur-Nandigram incidence. He started with these two quotations from Karl Marx:
“From the standpoint of higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe, its usufractuaries, and like bona partes familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.”–Karl Marx, 1894/1959: 776
“The person, who by virtue of the title of portion of the globe has become the proprietor of these natural objects will wrest these surplus-profit from functioning capital in the form of rent.” –Karl Marx, 1894/1959: 773
Then he switched over to the concept of svatva (possessedness) as proposed by Kana Raghunatha. He argued in his padarthatatvanirupanam—
“ Another new category is possessedness (svatva).
Objection: That is nothing but being fit for use as one wishes.
Answer: Not precisely, for one may use food belonging to others.
Objector: One is not enjoined not to eat food belonging to others.
Raghunatha: You see, you must already understand possessedness in order understand such an injunction. Possessedness is a property that belongs to people when they receive gifts and that they lose when they give things away.”
To summarize, svatva as a category does not depend on the exchange value as ascribed by the market economy, therefore (s)talker was paraphrasing “fit for use” (viniyogayogyata) as “use value” and it eradicates the self-other differences in the context of my-ness.
He was then not talking about I-dentity or I-ness, but on my-dentity or my-ness, i.e., what “I” possesses or what are (being) belonged to me—my ownership, endowment, possessed-ness or rather entitlement or in other word, private property. Following navyanaiyayika term, one may call this category as svatva. Thus this project was a psychoanalytic shift from the individual ego to the possession of ego as imagined and symbolized within certain domain of order.
This project starts with some problematic questions:
Then what is about legal entitlement as proposed by Amartya Sen (1981: 1-2)? An entitlement relation applied to ownership connects one set of ownerships to another through certain rules of legitimacy. It is a recursive relation and process of connecting is repeated.”
Amartya Sen then cited an example of private ownership from the market economy and elaborated an exchange of commodity by using money-sign, which is mere a signifier that metaphysically makes unequal as equal and I really do not know the sufficient and necessary conditions behind such equation of exchange. Without questioning the stipulated value ascribed to a currency note, Sen put “etc.” at the beginning of the exchange process. The origin of entitlement starts with “etc.”, i.e. “ityadi” (iti+adi, iti means the “end of a process or state or an event”, on the other hand adi means the “origin”) is put at the “adi” or origin. This is the paradox of his framework as it leads to fallacy of infinite regress.
NEOLOGISMS: my-dentity or my-ness, Anti-Grammar, n-glossia, Bhasa-samavaya
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles):
Categorized research-works of Debaprasad-27
This collection, mainly written in Bangla, represents various aspects of Rabindranath Tagore’s contributions in environmentalism, economics, language planning, literary theory, philosophy and a comparative study of the philosophy of Marx, Rabindranath and Gandhi.
In the paper, (অন-)অর্থনীতিবিদ রবীন্দ্রনাথ” [City and Village” & “(Non-), The author tried to establish Rabindranath Tagore as a non-mainstream non-conventional economist/fiscal auditor on the basis of Tagore’s different texts, viz. novels, verses, songs, plays and essays. The author emphasized on the following points:
In the paper, বুনো রবি ঠাকুর ( Wild Rabindranath Tagore), the author extended the previous paper and described Tagore’s inclination towards ideal forest, hermitage, though the author pointed out some problems in Tagore’s agenda. However, the discontents of modern civilization was emphasized by referring to the problems of anthropogenic global heating. (see also: o King, Stop Killing Deer Of Our Hermitage: Environmental consciousness in Indian science and technology)
On the other hand, in the book, তর্জমার তর্জনী বা একলব্যের বুড়ো আঙ্গুল (The Governance of Translation and Ekalavya’s Thumb), the author dealt with a different issue related to translation studies. The first part of the monograph deals with the Dronacarya-Ekalavya relationship in case of translation by simply summarizing the propositions made in the paper “তর্জমার তর্জনী বা একলব্যের বুড়ো আঙ্গুল [The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals’ Anti-Modernist Response(s)]”, which elaborates the association of translation enterprise with colonialism, violence and pedagogy . The second part of the monograph subscribes those propositions with an ad hoc hypothesis: Rabindranath Tagore translated Eliot’s ‘(The)Journey of the Magi’ without reading ‘Journey of the Magi.’ (see also: the PowerPoint presentation: Impossibility Of Translation: A Case Study)
This peculiar as well as surprising hypothesis is subscribed by the chronology of events occurred within the pretext of confronting derivative modernity by Tagore. The Bengali young ‘modern’ thinkers, writers poets, viz. Dhurjatiprasad Mukhopadhyay (better known as D.P. Mukherji), Sudhindranath Dutta, Buddhadev Basu, Bishnu De et al., were debating with Tagore on the norms of newly introduced concept of ‘modernity’ and particularly on Eliot’s contribution on the modern ‘international’(?) literature. This polemic is elaborated by the investigator with the citation of four different Ekalavya texts of the same poem, ‘Journey of the Magi’ to reveal the emission of surplus meanings by deploying ankanta (theory of many perspectives) method.
The paper, “বাংলার খোয়াবনামা (Bangla: A Genealogical Fantasy)”, is a Bangla translation/elaborated version of the two English papers: Language Planner Rabindranath Tagore and Colony’s Burden: a Case of Extending Bangla. The Indian census reports since 1871 were put here to show the lacunas of statistical survey techniques that helped to construct genealogical fantasy and nation statist boundary. Secondly, the tensed relationship between Laksminath BejBarua, an Asamiya writer, and Rabindranth Tagore was shown to understand the impact of extra-linguistic variables at the moment of a birth of nation in the context of colonialism. Thirdly, the role of print capitalism was depicted through the endeavor of Fakirmohan Senapati, an Odia writer, by analyzing the discourse of his biography.
All the linguistic movements in colonial India lead to the demand/desire for autonomy in different spheres and were linked with anti-imperialistic nationalist movement, though, on the contrary, all these movements had become the mirror image of dominant others’ nation statist mimic imagination. In this way, there was a demand for “autonomous” and “pure” tool indigenous grammar (free from “adulteration”) of a well-defined enumerated and “pure” language which is selected centrally as a standard language. Therefore, language-managers of a given community did two things: a) they, as a member of imagined community, defined the language boundary (i.e. selection of standard and extension of the standard language from centre to periphery) and b) managed that language with the help of a tool called grammar.
The author also tried to show the Bengali intellectuals’ (language judge/-police/-managers) perspectives (19th. C. and the first three decades of the 20th C) on the issue of autonomy of two neighboring languages, viz. Oriya and Asamiya, two neighboring languages of Bangla. The paper shows a classical centre-periphery relation, where Bengal as a centre, wanted to subsume the periphery through hegemonic selving in course of standardizing and extending the political geography of Bangla with the supposed language module. The situation shows dialectic of hegemonic inclusion, which creates internal colonization, and thus captive languages with a feeling of derivative nationalism were trying to combat external colonization as well. These cases in the colonial period and at the time of the birth of a new nation states might help us to apprehend the post-colonial withdrawal syndrome from the other defeated varieties (i.e., so called “dialects”).
In the paper, “দোস্ত আইয়ুব সাহচর্যে একটি সাহিত্যতাত্ত্বিক পরিভ্রমণ”, Anekantavada is introduced in the context of Tagore’s philosophy through the analysis of Abu S. Ayyub.
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles):
As there are several references to the Indian philosophical technicalities in (s)talker’s enunciation, he was eager to look at the archaeology of the discursive space called “Indian Philosophy”.
There are many problems, when we are talking about something called Indian Philosophy (IP). We forget, at the moment of speaking about it that
(a) “India” is a socio-political construct that was born out of (mainly) 19 C. Industrial as well as print capitalist imagination of nation state.
(b) and that imagination was also appropriated by the different modes of colonialism.
(C) “Philosophy” is equated with the “darsana” as a part of political translation. Apart from their obvious similarities, there are also differences as Bankimchandra pointed out that “Philosophy” is sadhya (is to be mediated) and darsana is sadhaniya (ought to be mediated. Chattopadhyay, B. ,1879/1974:217-18)
(d) What are categorized under the umbrella of homogenized “lP” is a purely “good orient”-al project that excludes “other” non-Sanskritized way of thought and methods of proving truth. This had a precedence in Sayana Madhava’s “savrvadarsansamgraha (14th. C A.D.), which was taken, at the moment of constructing “IP” as an appropriate paradigm for setting up order of things.
(e) This order of things are approximated and appropriated by the western knowledge-base. Thus what is called as “IP” is also a derivative discourse.
(f) “vijnana” in the Indian tradition means “consciousness” (as translated by Dasgupta, 1936:86). Nothing was classified separately as “science’ in the so-called Indian tradition, though some elements of so-called “Indian culture” obviously may be categorized as “science” from the European point of view.
(g) What, as a whole, may be called and perceived as “lP of Science” today is merely a result of retrospective perceptual effect ( pratyavbhijna) , i.e. appropriating past knowledge by deploying today’s knowledge-base and techniques, which may be called “epistemological recurrence” following Bachelard.
(h) Due to this recurrence and appropriation by the western epistemology, the de-sign of modem “lP” has emerged as a result of “epistemological amalgamation”.
All these problems must be seriously explained and elaborated before going to venture into the realm of “IP of Science” as all these statements should be “proved” (i.e. need pramana) according to the need of “global”(?) Philosophy of science.
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles)
Is there any biological definition?
Are “they” (note the deictic “they” that entails spatio-temporal and personal distancing effect or process of othering) not human beings/Homo sapiens sapiens?
Is there any cultural/social definition?
Is it a politico-administrative term, adopted in Academiocracy?
Is it a colonial construct or historical apriori?
Is it a dividing practice deployed by different disciplinary technologies (subjectification) for the sake of objectification of subjects and subjection (governmentality) as well?
Why are we branding a group of human being as ab-origines?
Is it not coined (with a new semantic value) by the colonizers as an exonym for “original” inhabitants of Australia (around 1788-90) by deliberately forgetting “their” endonyms? Hiding invasion?
I am deliberately using the term” endonym” instead of “ethnonym” as I have same questions regarding the status of “ethnic group”. Why are we not simply using “group”, “kowm” or “community” for such groups?
Are “we”, the earthians, Homo sapiens, species beings (please pardon me for such strategic essentialism!) not “original” inhabitants of this planet though some of us might be displaced (either willingly or forcefully) within the earth?
Some scholars say that “they” are “primitive”, “Neanderthal MAN” (sexism intended)! Levi-Strauss opposed such de-sign-ation: primitive (1963:pg. 102). It is not surprising, if findings of The Neanderthal genome project are to be believed, that “99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical”!
NB: As I am not interested in etymology, searching “authentic “(?) meaning or metaphysical “origin” of word per se, for the obvious reason of semantic change, kindly emphasize on the political history at the time of explaining. cf. “Why Do I Forsake Historical Linguistics?” https://www.academia.edu…
See more @ FOLK AND NON-FOLK: QUESTIONING THE DICHOTOMY
For further praxis: ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL HEATING AND THE CONDITION OF CREATIVE SPEAKING…
If governance of the docile body is explored in the Crippled Creativity hypothesis, here is a regulative/ strategic principle to bypass human malleability…..
It’s not modern anatomo-clinical gaze, but a different perception of body……
A different construct…..
Body is categorized to attain mahaasukha, jouissance …
The taxonomy of body is checked in the architecture of the Konark Sun Temple……
Caryapadkaras and Lanon were consulted along with Bhartrihari and Abhinavagupta to make out the corporeal taxonomy….
In case of interpreting the Konark sun temple’s architecture (Orissa, India), there are two divergent as well as antithetical views. Nirmal kumar Bose (1926, 1932) interpreted the outer body of this temple and Stella Kramrisch (1946) was searching the inner body. The main point of their disagreement might be posed as : Were the bodies of the Hindu temples constructed on the basis of physiological corporeal or meta- physiological conjecture of body? Bose reviewed Kramrisch’s book (1947) and alleged that Stella was too metaphysical and illiterate artisans are ignorant about the intricacies of the inner body as they did not have the access to the scriptures. However, Mira Mukherjee(1993) showed the path when she introduced so-called illiterate sons of Visvakarma. The author of this paper showed the evidences of inner corporeal of the temple-architecture by re-surveying the temple and taking cue from sub-altern artisans’ world-views as well as from Mandukyoponisad, Vakyapadiya and Tantraloka.
The so-called metaphysical body is evident in the so-called “Hindu” architecture. The bisuddha-baikhari-jagrat (falsest), anahata-madhyama (speaking when dreaming) -svapna (falser), manipura-pasyanti-susupti (falsest) association might be established with many sadhaniya margas. Kavir, Dadu, Lalon, Rabindranath (though they were not writers of papers in academic journals) and other sahajiyas with the authors of Mandukyoponisad, Vakyapadiya and Tantraloka can be consulted to attain the level of paravak. Why then was I fragmenting brittle baikhari, when I was waking up?
This dialogic paper on kalkut’s (Samaresh Basu) two novels was related to Konark ‘ s sun temple . These two novels ( nirjan saikate, “lonely seashore”, 1961 revised version,1972 and Samba, “Son of Krishna, a mythical character”, 1977/78, Academy –winner novel) were two types of travelogues—first one was a physical travel from Puri Jagannath temple to Konark with five widows and the second one was a mental travel to the Sun temple. In the first one, Kalkut as a narrator highly criticized the position of Nirmal kumar Basu (Anthropologist) in describing the intricacies of the temple architecture and in the second one was on the mental journey to the distant past through retrospection, that was for the cure/care of self within the ambit of act-pleasure-desire. Not only that, indigenous leprosy-treatment or healing system within the area of the Konark-site was also elaborated, thus the relationship between human –corporeal and the nature (including celestial sphere, flora and fauna etc. ) was also depicted.
The author of this paper was concerned with the ambivalence (schizophrenic Kalkut? Samaresh Basu with divided selves?) of Samaresh Basu, the vulgar “Marxist” (cf. Godelier’s Marxist Anthropology), who was retrenched from the vulgar communist party for his allegedly “vulgar”(?) novels and short stories another one was “Kalkut”, his penname, a vagabond, who was searching the indigenous tradition through tedious journey—a type of either physical or mental/imagined vagabondage. Like Stella Kramrisch (1946), he was interested in tantra, but he tried his best to hide this fact for the sake of so-called vulgar materialism (which was a fashion in those days) as it was practiced by the corporate-controlled “official” communist party, who were using jargons, which were not used (historical/dialectical materialism etc.) by Marx himself; secondly, the secrets of such practices (sadhana) were not to be revealed to everyone. Therefore, Kankut consciously hided secrets of tantrasadhana. However, the author of this paper, by deploying discourse analysis (Foucalidian) found the cleavages within the texts of Kalkut—he repeatedly used the word “breathing”( a key-term in Tantra) and its synonyms for the care of self. The author of the paper also found a connection with Buddhist tantric cult (especially Caryapada, cf. In Search of Linguistics of Silence : Caryapada চর্যা-চর্চায় নীরবতার ভাষাতত্ত্ব সন্ধান : উপক্রমনিকা and “The Movement Within: A Secret Guide To Esoteric Kayaasadhanaa: Caryaapada”.) with the narrator’s enunciation as in the first novel five widows represented the five female characters as it was found in Caryapada-text.
The author of this paper lastly related his hypothesis of Yayati/Bubur Complexes (cf. “হে প্রণম্য পিতৃদেব, তুমি তো বন্ধু নও/হও” (Yayati and Babur Complex).)with Samba’s life as Samba was cursed by his father Krishna as Samba was caressing with aged Krishna’s young girlfriends. Thus, the author’s Yayati complex hypothesis was again subscribed by the purana as reinterpreted by Kalkut. The inner-outer structure controversy as depicted in . Architectural Description of Konark Sun-Temple “কোনারকের বিবরণ” কিতাবের সমালোচনা“ was resolved here by a poem written by Bishnu De, who was highly influenced by T.S. Eliot.
The author of this paper did not bother about the (a)formal linguistic analysis (meta-speaking on speaking, i.e. formal linguistics and philology) of the text of Caryapada (approx. 9th C A.D. A Tantric Buddhist text written in a sandhyabhasa or anti-language a la Halliday); (b) retrospective (pratyabhijna) construction of genealogical fantasy or linguistic statist identity or imagiNATION, instead he was proposing a secret guide to exquisite kayasadhana (the praxis within the body within the ambit of corporal studies)by following the path of Bhartrihari and Abhinavagupta’s post-formal non-analysis. The author followed Munidatta’s Sanskrit commentary of the Caryapada-text (written in an anti-language to hide the secrets of physiological (not in the Western medical sense of the term) points that is shaped and perceived by the world views of the so-called lower caste Tantric Buddhists)and that was commented in Sanskrit by Munidutta. This reciprocal discourse-exchange bi-way traffic) in between so-called H(igh)and L(ow) was also being observed by the author.
The paper ironically started with the salutation to the contemporary interpreters of the said text, though the author said that they are missing the world-views of the Tantric Buddhists as the contemporary scholar-interpreters did not link the perceptions of Tantric kayasadhana that is meant for ‘care of self’ (epimelia heatue). Only Shashibhusan Dasgupta (1969) discovered the secrets of the kaya(corporeal). Thus, the scholarship was condemned by the Caryapada-composers, who were considered to be ‘illiterate’ according the norms of literacy. Dasgupta(ibid) thus described the “illiterates’”(?) aversion to the recondite scholarship.
After that the author elaborated the rhetoric-terms (utpreksa/metaphor, comparison in general, vyaja/ having only appearance of, deceitful, false, simulated..) used by Munidutta to explain the surplus meanings of the texts. Even the author supplied the architectural details of Kakhar (female-shaped shrines) temples (Orissa) to explain the boat-utpreksa as used in Caryapada. Lastly, the author had linked the cakras (so-called Hindu and Buddhist systems were amalgamated here—a case of syncretism) with different stages of speeches/non-speeches (a trajectory from parole to silenceme) and sleeping/non-sleeping to reach the point of “vakpathatia” (cf. caryapada, 37 a cordoned zone of silenceme or paravak) in a tabular form with illustration. One point must be noted: the authors selfhood as a scientist was condemned here by the author himself as he criticized (a) the recent neuro-physicists’ anatomo-bio-political intervention into in body of the sadhakas/ practitioners; (b) the gap between theory and praxis as it was found in recondite scholarship. Thus the paper was an addition to the author’s agenda of introducing two novel disciplinary technologies: Silence and Corporeal studies.
The author, as a member of linguist community, of this paper had tried decipher one song of Fakir Lalon Shah (1774–1890 A.D.), one of the line of which is like this “ When silence would swallow non-silence” by deploying various methods of Mandyukoponisad, Bhatrihari’s three stages of languages (baikhari, madhyma, pasyanti) and Abhinavagupta’s paravak. Different body-parts, according to Tantrika world-views, were also illustrated to understand silenceme. The author also incorporated Kabir (1440–1518 A.D.) and Dadu’s (1544–1603 A.D.) epistemological concepts of silenceme, which were beyond the periphery of ‘modern’ linguistics, though physicists are now interested to know the brain-function of such meditative states by using SPECT and PET scan as a part of their anatomo-bio-political agenda. The author ultimately proposed a new disciplinary technology, called “Silence Studies”. In this case, John Cage’s musical compositions deeply influenced the author.
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles
Of course one can design a restricted environment in which such control and such patterns…can be demonstrated, but there is no reason to suppose that any more is learned about the range of human potentialities by such methods than would be learned by observing humans in prison or an army- or in many a schoolroom.” (Chomsky, 1972:114)
The Crippled Creativity hypothesis
describes the correlation between empty linguistic organism and human malleability.
That is, linguistic creativity may be crippled by the outside sociality and
mental linguistic algorithm may be controlled by social rules.
This interface between psyche and society is called as Y -( psi or psycho-social) property.
These Y/psi-Property reasserts that the being is always in the being-in-the-(social)world as well as being-for-others.
It is a switch over from cognitive psychology to psychoanalysis.
Chomsky: Context free ideal creative speaking subject with zero History
Sed contra: Context-sensitive creative speaking corporeal with history….
(the term creative[in the Chomskyan sense of the term]is kept under erasure because creativity is a presence as well as an absence)
Prof. Noam Chomsky accepted/approved this hypothesis in personal correspondences.
NEOLOGISM: Crippled Creativity, Psi-properties.
NB: The following questions were posed in connection with Chomsky’s letter dated April 26, 1994:
1) “It is reasonable to suppose that just as intrinsic structures of mind underlie the development of cognitive structures, so a “species character” provides the framework for the growth of moral consciousness, cultural achievement, and even participation in a free and just community human needs and capacities will find their fullest expression in a society of free and creative producers…” (Chomsky: l976:133-34)
SED CONTRA: On the contrary, in case of NON- “free and just community”, what happens to the species character of human being? Or following Foucault, one may ask, “How has the concept of human nature functioned in our society?”
2) “Suppose that the social and material conditions that prevent free intellectual development were relieved….” (Chomsky: l976: 124)
SED CONTRA: What happens to “creativity”, if these social and material conditions that prevent free intellectual development are reigning in its full form by subjugating human nature?
3) “…. there must be continual struggle against authoritarian social forms that impose restrictions beyond those set by ‘the laws of nature’ “(Chomsky: 1976:133).
SED CONTRA: What happens to the victims of authoritarian oppression? What happen to their creativity?
When you were asking me, “What’re you doing?” I said, “Nothing.” This single word, ”nothing” , a supposed minimal “free” (Where lies the essential freedom of word? ) form, is not free at all—“nothing” ’s freedom was pervaded by “other” non-signs, nothingness, the unspoken or something unspeakable, the non-discursive sonority or unintended sounds (as in John Cage’s musical compositions or in Rauschenberg and Robert Ryman’s Minimalist paintings with almost white surfaces.)
There may be a strategic taxonomy of silenceme: cognitive silenceme, transcendental silenceme (as in case of seeking absolute silence and that is impossible!); Pathological silenceme (as in case of Foreclosure or Psychosis, the symbolic order is totally or partially rejected [instead of being repressed]; one’s Language Acquisition Device is not working due to the outside threat and violence); Creative silenceme ( as practiced by some Buddhists by non-internalizing the outside threat and violence.);Silenceme of conspiracy (the phrase “conspiracy of silence” was often used by Marx and Engels) etc. Thus, spoke Sartre: being silent does not entail that I am refusing to speak but it is a mode of keeping on speaking .
What will we, the linguist community, do with such so-called ambiguous category? In Linguistics, what will be our agenda now? May we take Wittgenstein or John Cage seriously? Alternatively, we may ignore the silent marginal “other” space in Linguistics: the silenceme!
The act of speaking (non-silence) is constrained, appropriated, approximated by the unspeakable/ unspoken spaces—so-called blank spaces are controlling the revealed speech. These blank spaces are emitting different meanings in different situations and non-signs were endowed with the supposed sign-ness. That is the de-sign of “silenceme” as it is de-sign-ated within the sign-ness. Silenceme is not absence of speaking, but it is a subjective “perception” of absence of speaking in relation to non-speaking.
Now I am trying to understand the pragmatics of silence by deploying an Indian philosophical tool called abhava or absence. In the Nyaya-Vaiseska (henceforth NV, Indian Logic) tradition, categories are distinguished based on their presence (bhava) and absence(abhava). They considered both the existence and non-existence as categories, which are subject to the knowledge or cognition by means of generic perception.
In case of relational absence, a qualifier qualifies a qualificand and by negating it we get an “absence of that qualifier” (which is another qualifier) qualifying the same qualificand, “this silent-space X is qualified by speaking-absence Y”. On the other hand, difference referred to “this is not silence” type of negation. Thus, absence of non-speaking-ness and difference from a silence are two distinguishable sub-categories of abhava.
These blank spaces may be perceived /cognized as a category called “absence” (absence is always designated in relation to something). One could perceive absence by assigning the absential qualifier/ counterpositive to the locus of empty locus/ referend, qualificand. Thus, the absence of speaking means perceiving the dyadic relations between two constructs: speaking and non-speaking in a certain locus. There is no absolute non-speaking silent zone—all silent zones are pervaded by the non-silence and vise versa, however, when, speaking/listening subject is perceiving something as “silence” is actually cognizing “absence” of stipulated non-silence in a locus. Thus, in the terminologies of NV, the speaking/listening subject perceives the “absence” of counterpositive (stipulated non-silence) in the locus of supposed/stipulated silence.
Pl. see ppt. at http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/debaprasadbandyo-1934452-pragmatics-silenceme/
How do we distinguish between error and non-error, when we are talking about normal and natural language? Well-formed syntagms are used as examples in the syntactic analysis. That is sanity. Let us suffer severe insanity to understand at least at the dream stage of madhyama. It is a pity that I cannot distinguish between sleeping and waking, sanity and insanity, normal and abnormal language…
This project problematizes the linguists’ dividing practice between “normal” well-formed sentences (Chomskian position) and ‘abnormal’ speaking/writing following Foucauldian path and taking cue from Indian philosophical concept of “khyati”. The problem-question is: ‘How do we know the differences between ‘norm’-al way of speaking and ‘ab’-normal way of speaking?’ Cartesian biolinguistics analyzed the algorithm of ‘normal’ ‘well-formed’ sentences only. This very construction of ‘natural language’ (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-‘natural’ madness or folly. This question might be elaborated further by taking cue from Indian Philosophy : how do we distinguish between error (khyati) and non-error (akhyati), when we are talking about normal and natural language? “Well-formed” syntagms are used as examples in the Chomskian syntactic analysis, where there is no scope for discursive paradigmatic recurrences. This theoretical question will be elaborated by the discourse analysis of an autobiographical account of Niranjan Bhowmik, a so-called marginalized man, who was ruthlessly categorized as ‘insane’
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles)
পরিচালনা: সুস্মিতা সিংহ. ক্যামেরা: সব্যসাচী বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়. সম্পাদনা: সুজাতাকুন্ডু. ব্যবস্থাপনা: অমিতাভ সেনগুপ্ত. প্রযোজনা: রূপকলাকেন্দ্র, পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকার
*For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles) listed below*
(বিস্তারিত আলোচনার জন্য নিচের নীল–রঙের শিরোনামগুলোতে মাউস ক্লিক করে হাইপারলিংকস খুলতে হবে)
(S)talker is searching the imagined boundaries. He was then searching linguistically movement-prone zones–where there was a need/demand/desire for monolingual state, (s)talker would be there. How did people identify themselves with their language? (S)talker was a bit confused as s/he could not find out the enumerated boundary of monolingual state anywhere in India. Even some people had cut a sorry figure to name their own language.
Under the hegemonic control of standard language within an imagined nation state, the capital-incentive language-Industry is proliferated by the introduction of electronic as well as print capitalism with the help of ideological state apparatuses. If “other” captive varieties’ (so-called dialect) the S/HS, revolt against the central Externalized Language and withdraw their affiliation from the abstract umbrella of the supposed monolingual nation state, the situation is observed as language movement. This is a case of mutual resemblance or anyonyopratibimba, where the dominated is reflecting on the images of the dominator; the dominating paradigm is followed and copied—all the state organs, ideological and repressive state apparatuses, are repeated in a form of reverse mimicry. Thus, svatva is not established, but is manifested in a form of self-other exchanges and reflections. Terrorist state perceives their own image in the bodies of the others; in case of language, that is the linguistic terrorism. On the other hand, Sagina Mahatos are forcefully elaborated and hierarchized by the norms of developmentalism and vulgar vanguardism. (S)talker wishes to call it, “Sagina Mahato Syndrome”. However, there is another side of the story, (S)talker had seen the barefoot pilgrims’ journey— pilgrims’ progress. They were communicating with each other, at the vyavaharika (practical or pragmatic) level, but surprisingly enough, they are maintaining their languages without using speed capitalist instruments. There is no question of identification of language as communication is more important. This pluriligualism needs no money-sign. (S)talker was associating his experiences with Gandhi’s Hind Svaraj.
NEOLOGISMS: iso-corporeal, Schrodinger’s cat problem in Archaeology, my-dentity or my-ness, linguistic terrorism, reverse mimicry, Sagina Mahato Syndrome, Language Managers, Language Police, Language Judges, Language Clerks(the corpus-collectors dedicated to defense industry including cryptography), Anti-grammar=GrammEr.
Swedish-Indian International Research Conference: LandPost: Language and Diversity in the Age of Post-Colonial GlocalMedialization Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore. Oct 15-17, 2014
Organizations: Central Institute of Indian Languages; Indian Council of Social Science Research, Center for Endangered Languages and Center for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of Hyderabad; Department of Linguistics, Aligarh Muslim University Download (.pptx)
French Translation: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2457511
What is language movement?
Under the hegemonic control of standard language within a nation state, the capital-incentive language-industry is proliferated by the introduction of electronic as well as print capitalism with the help of ideological state apparatuses. If “other” captive varieties’ Speaking /Hearing Subjects would revolt against the central externalized language and withdraw their affiliation from the abstract umbrella of the supposed monolingual nation state, the situation is observed as “language movement”.
It is a post-structural intervention in the realm of Bangla grammars (written in 19th. C. and in the first phase of 20th. C.) by deploying post-colonial irrationality. The work shows process of appropriation of grammatical discourse under the colonial rule in Bengal. Non-discursive formation (like colonialism, nationalism etc.) and the discursive formation of Bangla Grammar written under the colonial rule are correlated. The epistemological thresholds among vyaakarana, general grammar, philology, linguistics and their amalgamations are shown in a mimic and hybrid space.
Therefore, let us have an anti-grammar (=GrammEr)—a pedagogical praxis in unschooling.
Linear history of Bangla literature had overlapped with the “development” and “origin” of the Bangla language in the discourses of philologists and literary historians. Put why-question here as a connoisseur.
STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT
NEOLOGISM: Epistemological Amalgamation, allocurriculeme, n-glossia, anti-grammar= grammEr
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles)
COLOPHON: B. Ramakrishna Reddy, Probal Dasgupta
Speaking/Hearing Subject(S/HS) is desiring to be a machine:
Machine= f (S/HS)
Non-algorithmic zones of Speaking/Hearing Subject with n-nary options are annihilated. Meaning is solidified, condensed. Corpse of corpus is clerically explored. Binary machine does not understand what “understanding” is. Do we not consider Russell’s paradox or Godel’s theorem here or are making fun with non-biodegradable and disposable ostentatious talking toys?
The status of COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS is questioned here from four perspectives: from the standpoints of (a) Philosophy of science, (b) Natural Science (mismatch between human Cognitive domain and machine algorithms) (c) Social Science (Plurilingual Planning), (d) Algocentricism (in contrast with post-formal subjective and substantive task of Linguistics). These problems are summarized as follows:
THERE IS NOTHING CALLED “PEN-PAPER-CARD LINGUISTICS”
IF COMPUTER MANIPULATES LINGUISTIC DATA THROUGH THE “PEN-PAPER-CARD” METHOD
IS IT JUSTIFIED TO LABEL IT AS A SEPARATE DISCIPLINE?
WHAT IS THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF CORPUS LINGUISTICS???
MATCHING CONDITION BETWEEN “HUMAN COGNITIVE DOMAIN”
[Identity in Difference between computer and human being]
[a] RUSSELL’S PARADOX
GODEL’S/ CHURCH’S THEOREM
[b] PROBLEM RAISED BY PENROSE (1990,1994)
SEARLE’S CHINESE ROOM PUZZLE
[C] COMPUTER’S HALTING PROBLEM
[d] FUZZINESS OF NATURAL LANGUAGE
[e] POST- FORMAL APPROACH THAT DENIES ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES PROPOSED BY STRUCTURALISTS
Metamathematical algorithmic procedural rules ignore the non-algorithmic constitutive rules (?) of human cognition.
PLURILINGUAL LANGUAGE PLANNING
ELECTRONIC CAPITALIST INTERVENTION IN LANGUAGES
THE EMPIRE OF HYPER-REAL, Simulation……..
NEOLOGISMS: Algocentric Discourse, Electronic Capitalism
TWO INSTANCES OF NON-COMPUTABILITY
(1) FUZZY NUMERALS
One thing is certain that meaning is uncertain. What a paradox! Aporia! Invented numerals are fuzzy—indeterminacy prevails. An ostentatious toy was made—a fuzzy game. (S)talker tried to depict some non-deterministic and uncertain phenomena revealed in the expressions of numerals by Bangla speakers. The points of arguments are as follows:
This prototypical nature of fuzzy numerals cannot be handled in computational framework or even in the Logical Form. The first set of data deals with idiomatic expressions like:
The second problem may be termed as “one is not equal to one” problem. A rule of “one deletion” was proposed by Probal Dasgupta (1987).
5 dokanduTo shop-two-classifier.
Obviously, “one” is deleted in 6. However, Dasgupta mentioned that ‘one deletion’ is not true in the cases like
However, there are some pragmatic cases where such expressions like 9 is possible. The Speaking subject’s perception may still be “one” in those cases– it is ‘one’ as a mass body. Of course, this is not a deterministic physical ‘one’, but one as a whole. When any Bangla speaker says,
bring “Bring water from the fridge.”,
his/her intention is to refer “one bottle of water”. Therefore, ‘one” is there in the D-structure, but it is a fuzzy one. The concept of this fuzzy “one” may be further illustrated in the following movement- transformations, where deterministic numeral expressions are changed to non-deterministic Determiner Phrases:
11.a) paMcTa five-classifier (definite)
11.b) goTa paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one “more or less five “
12.a) paMcjon five-classifier (definite)
12.b) jona paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one “more or less five “
13.a) paMckhana five-classifier
13.b) khan paMcek ,classifier( indef. ) five-one “more or less five “
14.a) paMc Hajar “five thousand”
14.b) Hajar paMcek thousand five-one. “more or less five thousand”
15.a) paMc lakh, five lacs
15.b) lakh paMcek lacs five-one “more or less five lacs”
Examples like 11-15 show those deterministic expressions in (a) and non-deterministic expressions in (b). Compared to (a), examples in (b) show the fronting of classifiers with subsequent morphophonemic change and an addition of /ek/ “one” to the specific numeral x. This one is not deterministic +-1, but this “one” has a range more or less than +- 1.
These Bangla numeral expressions show the world-views of the community concerned with a special reference to their psychophysical way of looking at things (perception) and ways of making order of things (understanding). Therefore, it is a hermeneutic problem that involves the relative gap between human perception and understanding in relation to their habitat. The range of +-1 is different in different persons belonging to different socio-economic classes or even it may be different in a single person in different psychosocial context. A game had been developed by his engineering students
(2) PERCEPTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL TIME
Perceptual time is supplemented by grammatical tense. Do we need to deploy tensor calculus here? That is ridiculous. Let us watch the watch in the time of eco-enemy technocratic society guided by technical rationality.
There are different types of time, (a) technological time as it is followed by watching the watch by selecting a norm (GMT); (b) grammatical time as it is revealed in the textbooks of Grammar; (c) perceptual time as it is perceived by the speaking subjects of a given speech community; (d) Scientific time as it is calculated by the locus of the perceived by deploying Tensor Calculus. The author showed that the prescriptions of grammatical time do not match with the perceptual time of different communities. The author argued that the tenses and aspects as categorized in the Bangla prescriptive grammars ignore the perceptions of the construct “time” by the speakers of the imagined community “Bangla” as the conjugational paradigm in the Bangla grammar book is the mimicry of English prescriptive grammatical paradigms, e.g.,
I your house tomorrow go present continuous
“ I am going to your house tomorrow”
I you dative yesterday road locative see present perfect
“I have seen you on the road yesterday.”
In the case of 1, all the Bengali-speaking informants perceived /jacchi/ as future tense (I will go..) and in the case of 2, /dekhechi/ is perceived as past tense (I saw) instead of prescribed “present perfect” (which is traditionally used to denote “immediate past), though prescriptive grammar categorically put an imperative for not using “present perfect” in the sense of past (cf. Chattopadhyay, 1939: 322). It is matter of wonder that there is no linguistic work so far on the perceptual time in Bangla.
This paper also concentrated on the semiotics of time in Cinema or particularly on the concept of time in the hyper-real, real (as it is symbolized) and in the ir-real. The author compared the difference between “reel” time and “real” time at the moment of perceiving hyper-real. As the author has dealt with the subjective perceptions of time in different locus and contexts by different individuals of different imagined communities, it is concluded that there is no generalized objective parameters for the historical a priori, “time”.
ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS NARRATIVE
Algorithms are used to simulate intonation:MUSICKING AND SPEAKING: DIFFERaNCE (SEGMENTING THE SUPRASEGMENTALS) Download (.pdf)
In the beginning of my career, I dare to ask Chomsky all about this man-machine equation; about impossibility of Artificial Intelligence; about his algocentric discourse that follows machine algorithm(especially the use of the term ‘computation’); about his model-theoretic approaches….
His answers are as follows:
For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles)
DigiArt: Akhar Bandyopadhyay
০১৩। “আপনি কি কমিউনিস্ট?” শ্রয়ণ বার্ষিক সংখ্যা (৯-১০ পাতা). কলকাতা।
শ্রয়ণ-এর সম্পাদক প্রশ্ন করেছিলেন বেশ কয়েকজনকে,”আপনি কি কমিউনিস্ট?” তারই প্রত্যুত্তরে এই বয়ান!
2001. মৌসল/ মিসাইল পর্বের পার ডিলিরিয়াম. (Delirium After Missile Massacre or Moushal Parva). Kolkata: CPIML District Committee. ( ৩০-৩৩ পাতা)