I was recently adviced not to drop PS (post scripts) and enlist the shortcomings in my article. Well, its obvious how well that advice worked for me because instead of editing and redacting all my articles I am posting a new article on that same matter itself. But coming back to the topic of the day. Do we really need to bluff and keep avoiding the fact that there might be some shortcoming left in anything linked to us or for that matter, us itself. Donkey on seeing predator may close his eyes and may fool himself that he is safe. But is he not at the mercy of that predator. It doesn't matter whatever the outcome is but would it not be best to atleast put up decent fight against all odds. My point being, in this case, the articles I write might be flawed in grammar and vocabulary for that matter because I can't find time to edit and revise the written article. First editions of novels, even by great authors are filled with flaws even after and with time those flaws a
Language is a tool to communicate. But with changing times it has become more than just a tool for expression. I personally believe that "Language must be a tool for communicating our thoughts expressions and whatever we want to convey rather than being a medium to judge standards." Its the weakness of that nation either in past or present, which gives English such an important status, and to support my argument I can very well state the examples of nations that take pride in usage of their aboriginal language. They too might be judging the standards of the ones they meet but then that parameter wont be based on usage of a foreign language. Its really a matter to ponder over as too why would someone near you laugh if you use proper hindi vocabulary and would take you for an entertainer rather than a nation lover. This is not just the case with Hindi its with all the countries which are psyched and driven by the phile for this foreign language to an extent that many