Is “I” an alphabet or a letter?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
I have come across this sentence, "Modi understands only one alphabet, and that is the capital I", in the renowned Indian writer Dr. Shashi Tharoor's recently published book "The Paradoxical Prime Minister".
When I looked the word 'alphabet' up in dictionaries, I get the definition as 'a set of letters or symbols in a fixed order used to represent the basic set of speech sounds of a language, especially the set of letters from A to Z'. (Oxford Living Dictionaries)
So, is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?
word-usage indian-english word-substitution
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
|
show 14 more comments
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
I have come across this sentence, "Modi understands only one alphabet, and that is the capital I", in the renowned Indian writer Dr. Shashi Tharoor's recently published book "The Paradoxical Prime Minister".
When I looked the word 'alphabet' up in dictionaries, I get the definition as 'a set of letters or symbols in a fixed order used to represent the basic set of speech sounds of a language, especially the set of letters from A to Z'. (Oxford Living Dictionaries)
So, is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?
word-usage indian-english word-substitution
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
13
It's a letter of the alphabet. But of course you're dealing with political hyperbole, so strict definitions do not apply. (I suspect the intended meaning is that Modi's alphabet consists of only the single letter "I". Similar to Mr Trump.)
– Hot Licks
yesterday
4
@mahmudkoya It's not an alphabet used as the orthographic basis for the script of any natural language, no. But an "alphabet" can be any arbitrary series (including series of length 1 or even 0) of opaque symbols used to generate a language (natural or synthetic or mathematical or otherwise), given a context where we nominate it so. This is common in computer science contexts, for example. So "I" could be an alphabet, if we define it so, for some purpose.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
1
"is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?" No. OTOH, ""understands only one alphabet" is the correct phrasing. Think again. There's no confusion between an alphabet (set) and a letter (element of the set). Think deeper.
– Kris
yesterday
1
@Fattie Not at all. You disputed comments HotLicks and I made. You brought up another fact covered much earlier, more more prominently, and in much more detail by the toovoted and accepted answer. A fact which did not in any way invalidate the comments HotLicks and I made. You then proceeded to call them rubbish. All this, including picking this spat, were errors you made. When I pointed this out, you merely doubled down and repeated yourself. Which you’ve done again. So this will be my final comment in this thread. The comments HL and I made, and their upvotes, will stand for themselves.
– Dan Bron
3 hours ago
1
@Fattie For the record: Hot Licks' original comment is correct. The author is criticizing Prime Minister Modi with a turn of phrase; hyperbolic political rhetoric, accusing of being selfish. It's (arguably) still poor English, and (strictly speaking) doesn't quite make sense until you understand the British-Indian colloquialism you're referring to. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive and a perfect answer would make both points.
– tjt263
3 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
up vote
19
down vote
favorite
I have come across this sentence, "Modi understands only one alphabet, and that is the capital I", in the renowned Indian writer Dr. Shashi Tharoor's recently published book "The Paradoxical Prime Minister".
When I looked the word 'alphabet' up in dictionaries, I get the definition as 'a set of letters or symbols in a fixed order used to represent the basic set of speech sounds of a language, especially the set of letters from A to Z'. (Oxford Living Dictionaries)
So, is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?
word-usage indian-english word-substitution
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
I have come across this sentence, "Modi understands only one alphabet, and that is the capital I", in the renowned Indian writer Dr. Shashi Tharoor's recently published book "The Paradoxical Prime Minister".
When I looked the word 'alphabet' up in dictionaries, I get the definition as 'a set of letters or symbols in a fixed order used to represent the basic set of speech sounds of a language, especially the set of letters from A to Z'. (Oxford Living Dictionaries)
So, is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?
word-usage indian-english word-substitution
word-usage indian-english word-substitution
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
edited yesterday
V2Blast
13118
13118
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
asked yesterday
mahmud koya
6,7524724
6,7524724
13
It's a letter of the alphabet. But of course you're dealing with political hyperbole, so strict definitions do not apply. (I suspect the intended meaning is that Modi's alphabet consists of only the single letter "I". Similar to Mr Trump.)
– Hot Licks
yesterday
4
@mahmudkoya It's not an alphabet used as the orthographic basis for the script of any natural language, no. But an "alphabet" can be any arbitrary series (including series of length 1 or even 0) of opaque symbols used to generate a language (natural or synthetic or mathematical or otherwise), given a context where we nominate it so. This is common in computer science contexts, for example. So "I" could be an alphabet, if we define it so, for some purpose.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
1
"is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?" No. OTOH, ""understands only one alphabet" is the correct phrasing. Think again. There's no confusion between an alphabet (set) and a letter (element of the set). Think deeper.
– Kris
yesterday
1
@Fattie Not at all. You disputed comments HotLicks and I made. You brought up another fact covered much earlier, more more prominently, and in much more detail by the toovoted and accepted answer. A fact which did not in any way invalidate the comments HotLicks and I made. You then proceeded to call them rubbish. All this, including picking this spat, were errors you made. When I pointed this out, you merely doubled down and repeated yourself. Which you’ve done again. So this will be my final comment in this thread. The comments HL and I made, and their upvotes, will stand for themselves.
– Dan Bron
3 hours ago
1
@Fattie For the record: Hot Licks' original comment is correct. The author is criticizing Prime Minister Modi with a turn of phrase; hyperbolic political rhetoric, accusing of being selfish. It's (arguably) still poor English, and (strictly speaking) doesn't quite make sense until you understand the British-Indian colloquialism you're referring to. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive and a perfect answer would make both points.
– tjt263
3 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
13
It's a letter of the alphabet. But of course you're dealing with political hyperbole, so strict definitions do not apply. (I suspect the intended meaning is that Modi's alphabet consists of only the single letter "I". Similar to Mr Trump.)
– Hot Licks
yesterday
4
@mahmudkoya It's not an alphabet used as the orthographic basis for the script of any natural language, no. But an "alphabet" can be any arbitrary series (including series of length 1 or even 0) of opaque symbols used to generate a language (natural or synthetic or mathematical or otherwise), given a context where we nominate it so. This is common in computer science contexts, for example. So "I" could be an alphabet, if we define it so, for some purpose.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
1
"is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?" No. OTOH, ""understands only one alphabet" is the correct phrasing. Think again. There's no confusion between an alphabet (set) and a letter (element of the set). Think deeper.
– Kris
yesterday
1
@Fattie Not at all. You disputed comments HotLicks and I made. You brought up another fact covered much earlier, more more prominently, and in much more detail by the toovoted and accepted answer. A fact which did not in any way invalidate the comments HotLicks and I made. You then proceeded to call them rubbish. All this, including picking this spat, were errors you made. When I pointed this out, you merely doubled down and repeated yourself. Which you’ve done again. So this will be my final comment in this thread. The comments HL and I made, and their upvotes, will stand for themselves.
– Dan Bron
3 hours ago
1
@Fattie For the record: Hot Licks' original comment is correct. The author is criticizing Prime Minister Modi with a turn of phrase; hyperbolic political rhetoric, accusing of being selfish. It's (arguably) still poor English, and (strictly speaking) doesn't quite make sense until you understand the British-Indian colloquialism you're referring to. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive and a perfect answer would make both points.
– tjt263
3 hours ago
13
13
It's a letter of the alphabet. But of course you're dealing with political hyperbole, so strict definitions do not apply. (I suspect the intended meaning is that Modi's alphabet consists of only the single letter "I". Similar to Mr Trump.)
– Hot Licks
yesterday
It's a letter of the alphabet. But of course you're dealing with political hyperbole, so strict definitions do not apply. (I suspect the intended meaning is that Modi's alphabet consists of only the single letter "I". Similar to Mr Trump.)
– Hot Licks
yesterday
4
4
@mahmudkoya It's not an alphabet used as the orthographic basis for the script of any natural language, no. But an "alphabet" can be any arbitrary series (including series of length 1 or even 0) of opaque symbols used to generate a language (natural or synthetic or mathematical or otherwise), given a context where we nominate it so. This is common in computer science contexts, for example. So "I" could be an alphabet, if we define it so, for some purpose.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
@mahmudkoya It's not an alphabet used as the orthographic basis for the script of any natural language, no. But an "alphabet" can be any arbitrary series (including series of length 1 or even 0) of opaque symbols used to generate a language (natural or synthetic or mathematical or otherwise), given a context where we nominate it so. This is common in computer science contexts, for example. So "I" could be an alphabet, if we define it so, for some purpose.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
1
1
"is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?" No. OTOH, ""understands only one alphabet" is the correct phrasing. Think again. There's no confusion between an alphabet (set) and a letter (element of the set). Think deeper.
– Kris
yesterday
"is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?" No. OTOH, ""understands only one alphabet" is the correct phrasing. Think again. There's no confusion between an alphabet (set) and a letter (element of the set). Think deeper.
– Kris
yesterday
1
1
@Fattie Not at all. You disputed comments HotLicks and I made. You brought up another fact covered much earlier, more more prominently, and in much more detail by the toovoted and accepted answer. A fact which did not in any way invalidate the comments HotLicks and I made. You then proceeded to call them rubbish. All this, including picking this spat, were errors you made. When I pointed this out, you merely doubled down and repeated yourself. Which you’ve done again. So this will be my final comment in this thread. The comments HL and I made, and their upvotes, will stand for themselves.
– Dan Bron
3 hours ago
@Fattie Not at all. You disputed comments HotLicks and I made. You brought up another fact covered much earlier, more more prominently, and in much more detail by the toovoted and accepted answer. A fact which did not in any way invalidate the comments HotLicks and I made. You then proceeded to call them rubbish. All this, including picking this spat, were errors you made. When I pointed this out, you merely doubled down and repeated yourself. Which you’ve done again. So this will be my final comment in this thread. The comments HL and I made, and their upvotes, will stand for themselves.
– Dan Bron
3 hours ago
1
1
@Fattie For the record: Hot Licks' original comment is correct. The author is criticizing Prime Minister Modi with a turn of phrase; hyperbolic political rhetoric, accusing of being selfish. It's (arguably) still poor English, and (strictly speaking) doesn't quite make sense until you understand the British-Indian colloquialism you're referring to. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive and a perfect answer would make both points.
– tjt263
3 hours ago
@Fattie For the record: Hot Licks' original comment is correct. The author is criticizing Prime Minister Modi with a turn of phrase; hyperbolic political rhetoric, accusing of being selfish. It's (arguably) still poor English, and (strictly speaking) doesn't quite make sense until you understand the British-Indian colloquialism you're referring to. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive and a perfect answer would make both points.
– tjt263
3 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
In standard US and UK usage, an alphabet is a system or collection of letters, a letter being
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet. [AHD]
In Indian English, however, the word alphabet is sometimes used synonymously with letter, which is all that has happened here. A web search turns up innumerable examples, including sources one might expect to have a good level of English proficiency:
Of these students, only 22% managed to read their Hindi textbook while only 43% could read a paragraph, 14% could read a word, 13% could read only the alphabets and 8% could not even identify an alphabet. (The Wire)
Please enter the alphabets and numbers in the exact way as they are displayed without any space. (CAPTCHA for the Government of Nagaland)
Earlier in the month, the company had posted a beautiful time-lapse photo of a traffic junction, which is in the form of an alphabet 'X'… (International Business Times, India edition)
I had taken it on myself to teach them the English alphabets.… Every day after my farming chores were completed around 11 am, the children would sit on a “charpoy” … [t]hen for a couple of hours I taught them the alphabets from A to Z. (Column in the Free Press Journal)
India of course has many languages and several different alphabets, so the use of alphabet to mean letter may have arisen out of a lexical gap for distinguishing corresponding characters of different case:
Do not rush her into picking up all the alphabets by the end of the first week. Remember it is 26 new alphabets and 52 letters (both upper and lower case included), and that’s a lot for her little brain. (Magic Crate blog)
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
7
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
9
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
5
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
3
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
7
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
Technically, one letter could be an alphabet. By the definition you provided, an alphabet is a set of symbols or letters. This set could theoretically contain any number of letters.
- The Latin alphabet is a single set of 26 letters.
- The Greek alphabet is a single set of 24 letters.
- The Arabic alphabet (technically abjad) is a single set of 28 letters.
- The hypothetical alphabet in the sentence is a single set of 1
letter.
So while in the sentence it is used as a hyperbole to mean that the individual thinks only of himself, it's possible that the letter I could also be an alphabet in which it is the only letter.
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
5
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
1
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
2
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
2
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
Without any knowledge of this book or story it seems that it sounds more like a matter of speech, as an expression or opinion about the person Modi. I think you should not take this expression literally. I think the writer is saying that the person Modi is mostly concerned with himself and therefor is using this expression, meaning that his "alphabet" or all his talk/writing/opinion is about himself. I hope i make myself clear, english is not my native language.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
A "letter" does not provide as much context as an "alphabet" e.g. "e is the 5th letter" vs "e is the 5th alphabet".
The author could draw out on his views regarding Modi by stating - Modi ONLY understands the alphabet I (of all the alphabets).
So it is correct and in fact warranted in this case to convey the meaning.
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
In standard US and UK usage, an alphabet is a system or collection of letters, a letter being
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet. [AHD]
In Indian English, however, the word alphabet is sometimes used synonymously with letter, which is all that has happened here. A web search turns up innumerable examples, including sources one might expect to have a good level of English proficiency:
Of these students, only 22% managed to read their Hindi textbook while only 43% could read a paragraph, 14% could read a word, 13% could read only the alphabets and 8% could not even identify an alphabet. (The Wire)
Please enter the alphabets and numbers in the exact way as they are displayed without any space. (CAPTCHA for the Government of Nagaland)
Earlier in the month, the company had posted a beautiful time-lapse photo of a traffic junction, which is in the form of an alphabet 'X'… (International Business Times, India edition)
I had taken it on myself to teach them the English alphabets.… Every day after my farming chores were completed around 11 am, the children would sit on a “charpoy” … [t]hen for a couple of hours I taught them the alphabets from A to Z. (Column in the Free Press Journal)
India of course has many languages and several different alphabets, so the use of alphabet to mean letter may have arisen out of a lexical gap for distinguishing corresponding characters of different case:
Do not rush her into picking up all the alphabets by the end of the first week. Remember it is 26 new alphabets and 52 letters (both upper and lower case included), and that’s a lot for her little brain. (Magic Crate blog)
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
7
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
9
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
5
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
3
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
7
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
In standard US and UK usage, an alphabet is a system or collection of letters, a letter being
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet. [AHD]
In Indian English, however, the word alphabet is sometimes used synonymously with letter, which is all that has happened here. A web search turns up innumerable examples, including sources one might expect to have a good level of English proficiency:
Of these students, only 22% managed to read their Hindi textbook while only 43% could read a paragraph, 14% could read a word, 13% could read only the alphabets and 8% could not even identify an alphabet. (The Wire)
Please enter the alphabets and numbers in the exact way as they are displayed without any space. (CAPTCHA for the Government of Nagaland)
Earlier in the month, the company had posted a beautiful time-lapse photo of a traffic junction, which is in the form of an alphabet 'X'… (International Business Times, India edition)
I had taken it on myself to teach them the English alphabets.… Every day after my farming chores were completed around 11 am, the children would sit on a “charpoy” … [t]hen for a couple of hours I taught them the alphabets from A to Z. (Column in the Free Press Journal)
India of course has many languages and several different alphabets, so the use of alphabet to mean letter may have arisen out of a lexical gap for distinguishing corresponding characters of different case:
Do not rush her into picking up all the alphabets by the end of the first week. Remember it is 26 new alphabets and 52 letters (both upper and lower case included), and that’s a lot for her little brain. (Magic Crate blog)
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
7
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
9
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
5
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
3
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
7
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
up vote
67
down vote
accepted
In standard US and UK usage, an alphabet is a system or collection of letters, a letter being
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet. [AHD]
In Indian English, however, the word alphabet is sometimes used synonymously with letter, which is all that has happened here. A web search turns up innumerable examples, including sources one might expect to have a good level of English proficiency:
Of these students, only 22% managed to read their Hindi textbook while only 43% could read a paragraph, 14% could read a word, 13% could read only the alphabets and 8% could not even identify an alphabet. (The Wire)
Please enter the alphabets and numbers in the exact way as they are displayed without any space. (CAPTCHA for the Government of Nagaland)
Earlier in the month, the company had posted a beautiful time-lapse photo of a traffic junction, which is in the form of an alphabet 'X'… (International Business Times, India edition)
I had taken it on myself to teach them the English alphabets.… Every day after my farming chores were completed around 11 am, the children would sit on a “charpoy” … [t]hen for a couple of hours I taught them the alphabets from A to Z. (Column in the Free Press Journal)
India of course has many languages and several different alphabets, so the use of alphabet to mean letter may have arisen out of a lexical gap for distinguishing corresponding characters of different case:
Do not rush her into picking up all the alphabets by the end of the first week. Remember it is 26 new alphabets and 52 letters (both upper and lower case included), and that’s a lot for her little brain. (Magic Crate blog)
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
In standard US and UK usage, an alphabet is a system or collection of letters, a letter being
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet. [AHD]
In Indian English, however, the word alphabet is sometimes used synonymously with letter, which is all that has happened here. A web search turns up innumerable examples, including sources one might expect to have a good level of English proficiency:
Of these students, only 22% managed to read their Hindi textbook while only 43% could read a paragraph, 14% could read a word, 13% could read only the alphabets and 8% could not even identify an alphabet. (The Wire)
Please enter the alphabets and numbers in the exact way as they are displayed without any space. (CAPTCHA for the Government of Nagaland)
Earlier in the month, the company had posted a beautiful time-lapse photo of a traffic junction, which is in the form of an alphabet 'X'… (International Business Times, India edition)
I had taken it on myself to teach them the English alphabets.… Every day after my farming chores were completed around 11 am, the children would sit on a “charpoy” … [t]hen for a couple of hours I taught them the alphabets from A to Z. (Column in the Free Press Journal)
India of course has many languages and several different alphabets, so the use of alphabet to mean letter may have arisen out of a lexical gap for distinguishing corresponding characters of different case:
Do not rush her into picking up all the alphabets by the end of the first week. Remember it is 26 new alphabets and 52 letters (both upper and lower case included), and that’s a lot for her little brain. (Magic Crate blog)
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
answered yesterday
choster
36k1481132
36k1481132
7
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
9
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
5
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
3
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
7
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
7
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
9
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
5
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
3
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
7
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
7
7
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
So, a letter being called alphabet is an example of Indianism?
– mahmud koya
yesterday
9
9
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
@mahmudkoya Yes, I believe this usage originates from and is mostly used in South Asia, like good name or timepass; it seems like it is an ordinary usage there, but it would not be commonly understood or accepted, for example, in the Five Eyes countries.
– choster
yesterday
5
5
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
@DanBron In fairness, this question seems to have come up before, though it was asked less ably and as a consequence oerklens was stuck with guessing.
– choster
yesterday
3
3
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
yesterday
7
7
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
@Kris I might accept that interpretation if the line were something like Modi's alphabet has only one letter, and that is the capital I, or Modi understands only an alphabet of the capital I, but that is not in fact the case.
– choster
yesterday
|
show 12 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
Technically, one letter could be an alphabet. By the definition you provided, an alphabet is a set of symbols or letters. This set could theoretically contain any number of letters.
- The Latin alphabet is a single set of 26 letters.
- The Greek alphabet is a single set of 24 letters.
- The Arabic alphabet (technically abjad) is a single set of 28 letters.
- The hypothetical alphabet in the sentence is a single set of 1
letter.
So while in the sentence it is used as a hyperbole to mean that the individual thinks only of himself, it's possible that the letter I could also be an alphabet in which it is the only letter.
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
5
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
1
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
2
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
2
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
Technically, one letter could be an alphabet. By the definition you provided, an alphabet is a set of symbols or letters. This set could theoretically contain any number of letters.
- The Latin alphabet is a single set of 26 letters.
- The Greek alphabet is a single set of 24 letters.
- The Arabic alphabet (technically abjad) is a single set of 28 letters.
- The hypothetical alphabet in the sentence is a single set of 1
letter.
So while in the sentence it is used as a hyperbole to mean that the individual thinks only of himself, it's possible that the letter I could also be an alphabet in which it is the only letter.
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
5
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
1
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
2
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
2
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
Technically, one letter could be an alphabet. By the definition you provided, an alphabet is a set of symbols or letters. This set could theoretically contain any number of letters.
- The Latin alphabet is a single set of 26 letters.
- The Greek alphabet is a single set of 24 letters.
- The Arabic alphabet (technically abjad) is a single set of 28 letters.
- The hypothetical alphabet in the sentence is a single set of 1
letter.
So while in the sentence it is used as a hyperbole to mean that the individual thinks only of himself, it's possible that the letter I could also be an alphabet in which it is the only letter.
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Technically, one letter could be an alphabet. By the definition you provided, an alphabet is a set of symbols or letters. This set could theoretically contain any number of letters.
- The Latin alphabet is a single set of 26 letters.
- The Greek alphabet is a single set of 24 letters.
- The Arabic alphabet (technically abjad) is a single set of 28 letters.
- The hypothetical alphabet in the sentence is a single set of 1
letter.
So while in the sentence it is used as a hyperbole to mean that the individual thinks only of himself, it's possible that the letter I could also be an alphabet in which it is the only letter.
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
answered yesterday
Curious_Flyer
1875
1875
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Curious_Flyer is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
5
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
1
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
2
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
2
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
5
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
1
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
2
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
2
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
1
1
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
+1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
– mahmud koya
yesterday
5
5
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
This sounds nice in theory but I think the answer is rather more prosaic.
– choster
yesterday
1
1
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
Having read your answer, it certainly makes sense as you have it. I'm going to leave mine as is because I think it's a potential solution, though not perhaps the most accurate reflection in this instance!
– Curious_Flyer
yesterday
2
2
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
To be pedantic, Arabic script (and some Asian writing systems also) are not strictly speaking "alphabets" because they do not have symbols for every sound in the spoken language. For example written Arabic has no "letters" representing vowels - they are either omitted, or represented by marks over or under the consonant that precedes them. The technical term for this type of script is an abjad, not an alphabet.
– alephzero
yesterday
2
2
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
Well, the letter I is not the same as the set of letters containing exactly the letter I. Consider an analogy: a wallet containing only one coin is not the same thing as the coin alone without the wallet. I find the explanation that the text contains an Indianism (the word alphabet meaning letter) more convincing.
– Giorgio
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
Without any knowledge of this book or story it seems that it sounds more like a matter of speech, as an expression or opinion about the person Modi. I think you should not take this expression literally. I think the writer is saying that the person Modi is mostly concerned with himself and therefor is using this expression, meaning that his "alphabet" or all his talk/writing/opinion is about himself. I hope i make myself clear, english is not my native language.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Without any knowledge of this book or story it seems that it sounds more like a matter of speech, as an expression or opinion about the person Modi. I think you should not take this expression literally. I think the writer is saying that the person Modi is mostly concerned with himself and therefor is using this expression, meaning that his "alphabet" or all his talk/writing/opinion is about himself. I hope i make myself clear, english is not my native language.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Without any knowledge of this book or story it seems that it sounds more like a matter of speech, as an expression or opinion about the person Modi. I think you should not take this expression literally. I think the writer is saying that the person Modi is mostly concerned with himself and therefor is using this expression, meaning that his "alphabet" or all his talk/writing/opinion is about himself. I hope i make myself clear, english is not my native language.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Without any knowledge of this book or story it seems that it sounds more like a matter of speech, as an expression or opinion about the person Modi. I think you should not take this expression literally. I think the writer is saying that the person Modi is mostly concerned with himself and therefor is using this expression, meaning that his "alphabet" or all his talk/writing/opinion is about himself. I hope i make myself clear, english is not my native language.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
answered yesterday
Jaco
11
11
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jaco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
add a comment |
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
yesterday
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
18 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
This is utterly incorrect. It's nothing more than In.E. This completely trivial question should just be on the learners site.
– Fattie
11 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
A "letter" does not provide as much context as an "alphabet" e.g. "e is the 5th letter" vs "e is the 5th alphabet".
The author could draw out on his views regarding Modi by stating - Modi ONLY understands the alphabet I (of all the alphabets).
So it is correct and in fact warranted in this case to convey the meaning.
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
A "letter" does not provide as much context as an "alphabet" e.g. "e is the 5th letter" vs "e is the 5th alphabet".
The author could draw out on his views regarding Modi by stating - Modi ONLY understands the alphabet I (of all the alphabets).
So it is correct and in fact warranted in this case to convey the meaning.
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
A "letter" does not provide as much context as an "alphabet" e.g. "e is the 5th letter" vs "e is the 5th alphabet".
The author could draw out on his views regarding Modi by stating - Modi ONLY understands the alphabet I (of all the alphabets).
So it is correct and in fact warranted in this case to convey the meaning.
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
A "letter" does not provide as much context as an "alphabet" e.g. "e is the 5th letter" vs "e is the 5th alphabet".
The author could draw out on his views regarding Modi by stating - Modi ONLY understands the alphabet I (of all the alphabets).
So it is correct and in fact warranted in this case to convey the meaning.
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
answered yesterday
kSiddharth
112
112
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
kSiddharth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
add a comment |
3
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
3
3
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Just so you know, outside India, English speakers don’t and can’t use “alphabet” when they want to convey “letter”. It doesn’t have that meaning. And “e” is the 5th letter does mean, to most English speakers, what you phrasing as “the 5th alphabet”. The first is completely unambiguous and clear; the second would just confuse most people (like the original poster here was confused). Clarifying this difference between Indian English and the more common English is why the first answer has so many votes: the phrase was confusing and mysterious to most, and the answer solves the mystery.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
Now that I look at it with a fresh set of eyes, it does make sense to use the word letter. Good to know @Dan Bron
– kSiddharth
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473129%2fis-i-an-alphabet-or-a-letter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
13
It's a letter of the alphabet. But of course you're dealing with political hyperbole, so strict definitions do not apply. (I suspect the intended meaning is that Modi's alphabet consists of only the single letter "I". Similar to Mr Trump.)
– Hot Licks
yesterday
4
@mahmudkoya It's not an alphabet used as the orthographic basis for the script of any natural language, no. But an "alphabet" can be any arbitrary series (including series of length 1 or even 0) of opaque symbols used to generate a language (natural or synthetic or mathematical or otherwise), given a context where we nominate it so. This is common in computer science contexts, for example. So "I" could be an alphabet, if we define it so, for some purpose.
– Dan Bron
yesterday
1
"is it correct to call a letter an alphabet?" No. OTOH, ""understands only one alphabet" is the correct phrasing. Think again. There's no confusion between an alphabet (set) and a letter (element of the set). Think deeper.
– Kris
yesterday
1
@Fattie Not at all. You disputed comments HotLicks and I made. You brought up another fact covered much earlier, more more prominently, and in much more detail by the toovoted and accepted answer. A fact which did not in any way invalidate the comments HotLicks and I made. You then proceeded to call them rubbish. All this, including picking this spat, were errors you made. When I pointed this out, you merely doubled down and repeated yourself. Which you’ve done again. So this will be my final comment in this thread. The comments HL and I made, and their upvotes, will stand for themselves.
– Dan Bron
3 hours ago
1
@Fattie For the record: Hot Licks' original comment is correct. The author is criticizing Prime Minister Modi with a turn of phrase; hyperbolic political rhetoric, accusing of being selfish. It's (arguably) still poor English, and (strictly speaking) doesn't quite make sense until you understand the British-Indian colloquialism you're referring to. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive and a perfect answer would make both points.
– tjt263
3 hours ago