4 ms·

> I've literally heard native Indonesians refer to their language as just "bahasa", though admittedly those same speakers told me off for doing it myself The s

> I've literally heard native Indonesians refer to their language as just "bahasa", though admittedly those same speakers told me off for doing it myself The second part could be indicative of this being usage only acceptable for 'insiders' to employ, and the first part could mean but does not have to mean that outsiders / speakers of other languages / in other countries could and should use those very words. For example, in an American context one often hears "this country" to mean the USA, but that cannot be transported into contexts based outside the USA. Similarly, there's 우리나라 /uri nara/ lit. 'our country' > "Korea" in Korean but you wouldn't say "I'm flying to Urinara" or "I'm flying to Our Country" when you're about to board a plane to Seoul. In Japanese and Taiwan, the Japanese language and the Chinese language are often referred to as 國語 lit. 'national language' > "Japanese" or "Chinese" (depending on the language used). Of course you can't normally say "我不會講國語" in Chinese to mean "I don't speak Japanese" except when the context is clear and the listener can be expected that 國語 may mean Japanese in Japanese. So Indonesians using "bahasa" in Indonesian doesn't necessarily license using that word in English.

elefanten 5y ago
This doesn’t make sense. If the word/phrase expresses a relative relationship to it’s user, then that works on a per user basis. Eg- Non-Americans can say “this country” about their own countries. If the word/phrase is a generic term in a given language, it often ends up having fixed context —- eg “la Raza” as used by Latin American communities. Besides, the original commenter denied it’s used at all. Gp implies otherwise. Broadly speaking, this whole business of trying to “own” words on an identity basis is poisonous, corrosive and an abuse of the tool of language.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  If a word is widely understood to have the meaning "our language", it's precisely its context-sensitivity that makes it wrong for a non-speaker to use that word to refer to the language, because he/she is not part of the "us". Thinking otherwise is basically telling the native speakers that you, as an ignorant ousider, know better than them how their language and its nuances work.
  - elefanten 5y ago
    I agree that a possessive concept shouldn’t be used as a generic. I’m sure mistakes of that nature are made all the time by non-speakers of various languages. Neither person in the discussion above claimed bahasa means “our language”. The positions were “bahasa=language(generic)” vs “bahasa=also colloquially used to mean Indonesian”. It was your assertion/conjecture that it actually means “our language”. The (seemingly) native speaker posting the original comment did not make a similar claim.
tombh 5y ago
That's a good point. Now that I think about it, the Indonesians from whom I heard "bahasa" were actually also native Javanese speakers. Bahasa Indonesia is of course a lingua franca, and an increasingly imposing one for minority languages, so maybe that could be a possible source for your point that there are different connotations for insiders and outsiders. I didn't get your point about "this country". The only thing I know is how it's inappropriate outside the USA, or in a global context, to use America to mean the USA, as of course the rest of the Americas also exist.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  The OP's point was that even if you're American, using the phrase "this country" to refer to the US, when you're actually outside the US, is wrong, unlike, say "my country" or "our country". Similarly, it seems "bahasa" is inherently context-sensitive, like saying "our language", which is wrong if the speaker doesn't actually speak the language.
  - tombh 5y ago
    Thanks. Though I still don't understand, it just seems non-sensical to use "this country" when you're outside the country in question, likes it's just a fundamental error of grammar. Can you give me a specific example?
    - Sharlin 5y ago
      Yes, it's non-sensical, just like it's non-sensical to use a word that basically means "our language" when it's not actually a language that you speak. (Not a grammatical error though, but rather a semantic error, a dangling reference as it were!) Let's say you don't speak German but keep hearing Germany referred to as "Vaterland" in the media. You might deduce that the word "Vaterland" is synonymous with Germany, and start using it yourself to refer to the country, but that would be wrong, because the word (without additional context) simply means "homeland", typically the speaker's homeland, whatever country that is.
      - 5y ago

elefanten 5y ago

This doesn’t make sense. If the word/phrase expresses a relative relationship to it’s user, then that works on a per user basis. Eg- Non-Americans can say “this country” about their own countries. If the word/phrase is a generic term in a given language, it often ends up having fixed context —- eg “la Raza” as used by Latin American communities. Besides, the original commenter denied it’s used at all. Gp implies otherwise. Broadly speaking, this whole business of trying to “own” words on an identity basis is poisonous, corrosive and an abuse of the tool of language.

Sharlin 5y ago
If a word is widely understood to have the meaning "our language", it's precisely its context-sensitivity that makes it wrong for a non-speaker to use that word to refer to the language, because he/she is not part of the "us". Thinking otherwise is basically telling the native speakers that you, as an ignorant ousider, know better than them how their language and its nuances work.
- elefanten 5y ago
  I agree that a possessive concept shouldn’t be used as a generic. I’m sure mistakes of that nature are made all the time by non-speakers of various languages. Neither person in the discussion above claimed bahasa means “our language”. The positions were “bahasa=language(generic)” vs “bahasa=also colloquially used to mean Indonesian”. It was your assertion/conjecture that it actually means “our language”. The (seemingly) native speaker posting the original comment did not make a similar claim.

tombh 5y ago

That's a good point. Now that I think about it, the Indonesians from whom I heard "bahasa" were actually also native Javanese speakers. Bahasa Indonesia is of course a lingua franca, and an increasingly imposing one for minority languages, so maybe that could be a possible source for your point that there are different connotations for insiders and outsiders. I didn't get your point about "this country". The only thing I know is how it's inappropriate outside the USA, or in a global context, to use America to mean the USA, as of course the rest of the Americas also exist.

Sharlin 5y ago
The OP's point was that even if you're American, using the phrase "this country" to refer to the US, when you're actually outside the US, is wrong, unlike, say "my country" or "our country". Similarly, it seems "bahasa" is inherently context-sensitive, like saying "our language", which is wrong if the speaker doesn't actually speak the language.
- tombh 5y ago
  Thanks. Though I still don't understand, it just seems non-sensical to use "this country" when you're outside the country in question, likes it's just a fundamental error of grammar. Can you give me a specific example?
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    Yes, it's non-sensical, just like it's non-sensical to use a word that basically means "our language" when it's not actually a language that you speak. (Not a grammatical error though, but rather a semantic error, a dangling reference as it were!) Let's say you don't speak German but keep hearing Germany referred to as "Vaterland" in the media. You might deduce that the word "Vaterland" is synonymous with Germany, and start using it yourself to refer to the country, but that would be wrong, because the word (without additional context) simply means "homeland", typically the speaker's homeland, whatever country that is.
    - 5y ago