Is “I” an alphabet or a letter?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
19
down vote

favorite
1












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







share|improve this question




















  • 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



















up vote
19
down vote

favorite
1












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







share|improve this question




















  • 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















up vote
19
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
19
down vote

favorite
1






1





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







share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









V2Blast

13118




13118










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
















  • 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












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)







share|improve this answer



















  • 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


















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.






share|improve this answer










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


















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.






share|improve this answer








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


















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.






share|improve this answer










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











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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

























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)







share|improve this answer



















  • 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















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)







share|improve this answer



















  • 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













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)







share|improve this answer














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)








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























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














  • 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












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.






share|improve this answer










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















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.






share|improve this answer










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













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.






share|improve this answer










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.







share|improve this answer










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.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday





















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




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














  • 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










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.






share|improve this answer








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















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.






share|improve this answer








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













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.






share|improve this answer








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.







share|improve this answer








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.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






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




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


















  • 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










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.






share|improve this answer










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















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.






share|improve this answer










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













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.






share|improve this answer










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.







share|improve this answer










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.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday





















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




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














  • 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


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







-

Popular posts from this blog

數位音樂下載

Image
數位音樂下載 為非以「實體」方式來販賣音樂的相關產品，而使用數位格式如mp3、AAC等文件格式來進行銷售販賣的一种音乐产业形式。著名的數位音樂下載服務商有iTunes Store、RecoChoku、Google Play音乐和微软Zune等。数字音乐下载在二十一世纪初一度风靡全球， [1] [2] 使得传统唱片产业走向衰落，但其自身也在2010年代流媒体音乐服务如Apple Music、Spotify等的挤压下迅速失去市场份额。 [3] [4] 数字音乐下载有便于携带、传播迅速、制作简单成本低等优点，与流媒体音乐相比也能更好保障音乐人权益； [5] 但它同时很可能带来侵犯版权和滥用的情形， [6] 也给音乐产业带来了诸多不利影响。数字音乐下载为音乐人和乐迷提供了更加便捷直接的交流渠道，也一定程度上推动了网络音乐人的出现和独立音乐的迅速发展。 [7] 目录 1 历史 1.1 技术积淀（1987-2000） 1.2 出现与兴起（2000-2004） 1.3 唱片市场的颠覆者（2004-2007） 1.4 巅峰和衰落（2005-2013） 1.5 摇摇欲坠的现状与不可预知的明天（2014至今） 2 主要文件格式 2.1 PCM编码格式 2.1.1 WAV 2.1.2 APE 2.1.3 FLAC 2.2 苹果推出的无损文件格式 2.2.1 AIFF 2.2.2 ALAC 2.3 有损压缩格式 2.3.1 MP3 2.3.2 AAC 3 主要市场 3.1 iTunes Store 3.2 Google Play音乐商店 3.3 亚马逊音乐商店 3.4 部分其他音乐商店 4 影响与评价 4.1 对音乐产业的影响 4.2 对科技行业的影响 4.3 正面评价 4.4 负面评价 4.4.1 侵权问题 4.4.2 经营模式不明晰 4.4.3 不适应移动时代 4.5 文化现象 5 延伸阅读 6 参考资料 历史 苹果iTunes+iPod的软硬件搭配让数字音...
Read more

When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

Image
2 I don't know why balance of the address is 0. when can this situation? etherscan balances share | improve this question asked yesterday Ru Hi Ru Hi 11 1 New contributor Ru Hi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  ...
Read more

格利澤436b

Image
格利泽436b 太陽系外行星 太陽系外行星列表 艺术家笔下的格利泽436b 母恆星 母恆星 Gliese 436 星座 獅子座 赤經 ( α ) 11 h  42 m  11.0941 s [1] 赤緯 ( δ ) +26° 42′ 23.652″ [1] 距離 33.4 ly (10.2 pc) 光譜類型 M2.5 V [1] 軌道參數 半长轴 ( a ) 0.0291±0.0004 [2] AU 軌道離心率 ( e ) 0.150±0.012 [2] 公轉週期 ( P ) 2.643904±0.000005 [3] d (0.00723849 y) 軌道傾角 ( i ) 85.8 +0.21 −0.25 [3] ° 角距 ( θ ) 2.794 mas 近星點時間 ( T 0 ) 2,451,551.716 ±0.01 JD 半振幅 ( K ) 18.68±0.8 m/s 物理性质 质量 ( m ) 22.2±1.0 [2] M ⊕ 半徑 ( r ) 4.327±0.183 [2] [4] R ⊕ 密度 ( ρ ) 1.51 g cm -3 表面重力 ( g ) 1.18 g 溫度 ( T ) 712±36 [2] K 發現 發現時間 2004 發現者 巴特勒、沃格特、 馬西 et al. 發現方法 徑向速度、凌日法 發現地點 美國加利福尼亞州 發表論文 出版 其他名稱 Ross 905 b, GJ 436 b, [5] LTT 13213 b, GCTP 2704.10 b, LHS 310, AC+27:28217 b, Vyssotsky 616 b, HIP 57087 b, GEN# +9.80120068 b, LP 319-75 b, G 121-7 b, LSPM J1142+2642 b, 1RXS J114211.9+264328 b, ASCC 683818 b, G 147-68 b, UCAC2 41198281 b, BP...
Read more