Are "Educated" Indians Different From Americans & Europeans? A Case of Two Financial Journalists
Mr. Carla Quintannia is a veteran journalist with CNBC. Carla anchors Squawk Box, a daily three hour show that is often described as CNBC's franchise show. The buzz is that Carla is being groomed to become a future anchor of NBC's Evening News.
Mr. Krishna Guha has been a veteran journalist with the Financial Times. Krishna's last position with FT was US Chief Economics Editor. Today, Krishna serves as the Executive Vice President & Head of Communications for the NY Federal Reserve.
This is the story of how these two veteran journalists tell others to pronounce their first names.
Mr. Quintannia pronounces his name as Carl and not Carla. If people were to pronounce his first name as "Carla", we suppose Mr. Quintannia would correct them and ask them to pronounce his first name as Carl. He might even explain that Carla is a woman's name and Carl is a man's name. Our guess is that Mr. Quintannia would get testy if people continue addressing him as Carla rather than Carl.
Mr. Quintannia would be right. First names ending in the "a" sound are generally female. Look at the names of his own female colleagues, Rebecca, Maria, Melissa, Diana, Bertha, Amanda. No shortage of female names ending in the phonetic "aa" sound.
He would also be correct in pointing out that adding the "a" sound suffix to a masculine name turns it into a feminine name, like Carl to Carla. This is a characteristic of many European languages. In fact, in Russian, the convention applies to last names as well. Sharpov, Pavlov are masculine names. Add the "aa" sound suffix and you get the feminine Sharpova, Pavlova names.
Mr. Quintannia would be correct in admonishing us for spelling his name as Carla. We mean no disrespect to him. We did so here to make the next point.
That point is about the other man, Krishna Guha.The name Krishna pronounced with the "a" sound (like Carla) is a feminine name. Not just any feminine name, but the name of the most sensual woman in the universe during her time, a name that every Indian kid learns. Draupadi, the daughter of King Drupad, was a celestial gift to her father and she was called Krishna (pronounced like Carla).
The masculine name Krishn or Krishna (pronounced like Carl without the "a" sound suffix) is one of the two most revered names in India (the other being Ram). Some people think of Krishna as God, some as the Avatar of God on earth and some as a great human being. He is the one who composed and recited the "Bhagvat Geeta" (the words of God) in the Mahabharat. There is no one in India who does not know how to pronounce the masculine name Krishna (like Carl without the "a'" sound suffix).
In India, the addition of the "a" suffix also converts a masculine name to a feminine name - Neel to Neela, Veer to Veera, Lalit to Lalita, Megh to Megha, Arun to Aruna, Deep to Deepa, Susheel to Susheela, Sunand to Sunanda, Subhadra (the a is silent) to Subhadra (a pronounced like Carla) and so on. Names ending in the "a" sound are almost always feminine names, Anita, Anuya, Geeta, Manisha, Meena, Meera, Padma, Pratibha, Sheela, Surekha, the list goes on and on.
This is not surprising. All Indian & European languages are derived from the Indo-European language family and Sanskrut is the oldest living Indo-European language.
This brings us back to Mr. Guha. He is an erudite man and an accomplished journalist. He is no stranger to basics of Indian culture or the phonetic structure of Indo-European languages.
Yet, Mr. Guha allows people to call him by the feminine pronunciation, the phonetic "Krishnaa", rather than the masculine pronunciation. We checked CNBC videos for confirmation. We found a videoclip in which CNBC Anchors Sue Herera & Michelle Caruso-Cabrera call him by the feminine name Krishna (like Carla). To our recollection, neither has ever called Mr. Quintannia as Carla, though Michelle sometimes calls him by the diminutive Carlito. We also recall that Hank Paulson, the US Secretary of Treasury, once addressed Mr. Guha with the feminine "Krishnaa" pronunciation in a public press conference.
We decided to check how Mr. Guha prefers to be called himself. So we contacted his office at the NY Fed and spoke with a wonderful lady who answered the phone. When asked how he prefers his first name to be pronounced, she instantly answered Krishna with the "a" sound suffix like Carla.
So we have a case of two veteran successful men in the same field, Mr. Quintannia who probably demands to be called by his given masculine name Carl and Mr. Guha who prefers to be called by the feminine equivalent of his name as Krishna with the "a" sound suffix.
Inquiring minds usually want to know why. And ours is a highly inquisitive mind. We requested to speak with Mr. Guha and followed up with an email request for a conversation with him about the pronunciation of his first name. We have not heard from Mr. Guha or his office.
Mr. Guha is by now means alone. Many successful Indians allow their names to be feminized by Europeans and Americans. In fact, this feminization by Westerners has now become a phonetic ritual in Indian English. Even revered Indian names are now routinely pronounced in the feminized manner - Ganesh is pronounced as Ganesha, Shiv is pronounced as Shiva, Ram is pronounced as Rama. Addition of the feminine "a" sound suffix is also common for names of epics, witness Mahabharata, Ramayana, Purana.
If this were not enough, English speaking Indians in India now add the "a" suffix to almost any Indian word when speaking in English. For example, the Sanskrut word Rasik is pronounced in Indian English as the feminine Rasika and the plural is pronounced as Rasikas. We heard this horrible distortion on Bloomberg-UTV channel in Mumbai. The Mahabharat is the story of the Pandav and Kaurav brothers. In this newly degraded Indian-English, the plural becomes Pandavas & Kauravas.
This is not true of all Indians. If you call an Indian taxi driver by the feminine "Krishnaa" sound, you would get beaten up. Never call any Indian laborer, farmer, soldier or a "real" Indian by the feminine version of their first names. You would not be pleased with the response.
Today's India has a new category of people, people who call themselves "Educated" Indians. These self-described "Educated" Indians perceive themselves to be different than the ordinary Indian. They think of themselves as new Indians who can mix and socialize with Europeans & Americans.This has virtually become a new "caste" in India.
Membership in this caste requires their acceptance by the Europeans & Americans they know. So fit in with the western crowd, they mould themselves. Dress is the first change. The next step is language. This is why you see "Educated" Indians pronounce Indian names the way the British did and the way Europeans & Americans do today. If that means feminizing their own masculine names, so be it.
Some people who resent this feminization privately accept it publicly to fit into the new caste. As one such "educated" man said to us "What does it matter? I am not going to become a woman if they call me by a woman's name. So let it go. What to do if they are stupid?"
There is another factor at play here. "Educated" Indians don't like to be embarrassed, especially in public. They would just die if their English is publicly deemed to be of lower calibre than that of the British. This is why "educated" Indians strive to speak exactly the way the British speak. When you speak with call centers in India, you still hear old English phrases like " we will do the needful".
The practice of feminizing their names is getting so ingrained that many "educated" Indians don't even realize it. Now these "educated" Indians have begun using these feminized versions even when speaking Hindi. Some time ago, we attended a concert by an Indian Singer at the American Academy of Indian Classical Music in Manhattan. The Indian Singer said the words in Hindi and his Irish-American assistant translated into English. The Indian-American male singer used the anglicized feminine term Ganesha when speaking in Hindi. In stark contrast, his assistant, a lovely young Irish-American woman, spoke with perfect Sanskrut diction in English and pronounced the real name Ganesh. We guess an Irish-American woman did not feel the need to appear "educated" as the Indian-American man did.
The above is our attempt to come up with some answers, some analysis of why "educated" men of Indian origin willingly allow themselves to be addressed by feminine versions of their masculine names. If our readers can think of better answers, we would love to listen.
We began this article with the example of two veteran successful men, a Western man who insists being called by his given masculine name Carl and a man of Indian heritage who himself tells others to call him by the feminine version of his masculine name Krishna.
The sad reality is that this example is symptomatic of the difference between Western men and today's "educated" Indian men.
Send your feedback to editor@macroviewpoints.com
I am just trying to list names which are never pronounced by Indians or Westerners with an added "aa". Their names are never pronounced with an "aa" extension. Rajiv, Rajat, Deepak, Manish, Vilas, Vijay, Vishal, Mohan, Rohit, Dileep, Sanjay, Santosh, Sridhar. If you try, I am sure you can add many more to this list.
What is in these and such names that prevents their pronunciation with an added "aa"? Certainly not the "education" or the attitude of the bearers of these names. Since you have put up a hypotheses, you need to explain. Or, drop it.
Anand is never pronounced as Ananadaa but in Bengal it commonly becomes Anando- and it is an Indian name. Vivekanand is pronounced as Vivekanand(a) or even Vivekanando . Ram is pronounced as Rama in English when referring to the God but people with that name are rarely called Rama unless they are from South India. Ram-krinshn is pronounced as Ram(a)- Krishn(a). Neel or Anil or Sunil, is never pronounced as Neel(a) or Anila or Sunila- as example you use- but Neel(a)kanth(a) adds an "a". Another name Rajendr(a)is always pronounced with an "a" so is Shailendra. Bengalis always pronounce "Indr" as Indro. Subrat becomes Subrato. But a Pranav(b) does not become Pranabo. I think Krish(a) becomes Krishno.
In the Indian tradition (although not in terms of Sanskrit grammar), without reference to the West, there are names that are pronounced with a full "a" such as Krishn(a)and Indr(a). On the other there are names such as Deepak, Anil that do not end with a full (a).
You would be right to point out that names in the Indian religious tradition most often get spelled with an "aa". Ganesh becomes Ganesha. Hanuman become Hanumana. I suspect South Indian and possibly East Indian (Bengal, Odisha, Bihar, Assam) pronunciations of these names end either in an extended "aa" or in an "o".
I think your hypotheses is not correct. You are unnecessarily offending people. You will do well to withdraw the piece.
Reply to this
We appreciate the serious and thoughtful nature of the comment. We read it a few times to be sure we got it.
It seems this comment does not address the key issue we raised - "Educated" Indian men are willing to be addressed by the feminine version of their names but Western men are not. In fact, we do not know any other nationality that shows this willingness.
Europe shows the same diversity that India does regarding different versions of the same name. English John and Jack vs. French Jean & Jacques. But neither English men nor French men will accept being called Jeanne or Jacqueline.
Indian names extend beyond boundaries of India. Indian Abhijit becomes Thai Abhisit (current PM of Thailand) and Indian Suhart or Suharta (with silent "a" like Carl) becomes Suharto, ex-President of Indonesia). But you never hear of Abhijitaa or Suhartaa, the feminine versions used for men either in India, Thailand or Indonesia.
Indian society seems to grow in random, haphazard ways- just look at the growth of Mumbai's suburbs - no order, no standards, just sprawl. Indian English is developing the same way. In 63 years after independence, no Indian institution has stepped up to create the correct phonetic spellings in English script.
As far as phonetic syntax is concerned, French names spelled in English are impossible to pronounce until you learn how. The French correct people who mispronounce. Today, Americans consider it uncultured & rude to mispronounce French names. The Indians don't correct people who mispronounce Indian names. They don't because they are so concerned about offending Western people? Some day, we hope, Americans will feel uncultured or rude when they mispronounce Indian names. But, before that happens, Indian men need to shed their fear of offending Western mis-pronouncers.
We have no wish to offend anyone with our article. We humbly state our belief that it is the mis-pronouncer who gives offense and the Indian who tacitly accepts it perhaps gives greater offense.
Unfortunately, Indian people of different castes shout at each other; Indian people of one state hurl invectives against people of another Indian state. But all of them stay silent when a non-Indian, especially a Western person, gives offense. This Indian habit seems self-evident to us and should become evident to any one who has spent any time in India or with Indians outside India.
So in conclusion, we appreciate the erudite and thoughtful comment. We are deeply thankful to the Commenter.
But, in our humble opinion, the comment does not address our case of two journalists.
Editor
Reply to this
Your piece is centered around feminization of Indian names and your conclusion is that it is sympotmatic of the difference between Western and Indian men. I have pointed out that all Indian names are not feminized by Indians or Westerners.
The way the end of an Indian male name is pronounced changes a lot from region to region. Rama Rao is a common Telugu surname in which Rama is not converted to suit Western tastes and is not feminine either. I know several such Ramas who have never even been in touch with the West. In the South, you may find many such examples. So, is it possible that the hypotheses that a name becomes feminine if it ends in "aa" may be a Western-biased or a very Sanskrut-biased hypotheses since it cannot be generalized in a complete "Indian" context?
As an aside, you will be surprised to know that almost throughout North India the Devnagri akshar (not mool-akshar) "ka" is taught in schools as "kaa". In some regions of Rajasthan and in parts of Dilli it is also taught as "ke" (probably influenced by the Urdu be, te, se etc). So, most of the North and most of the South does not really follow Sanskrut rules of pronunciation with "va" routinely made into "ba" (Vihar is Bihar!), "sh" and "sa" are indistinguishable by habit. So as Indians, we are not "purists" by habit.
A larger point that Indians are tolerant of distortion of their names is, I think, largely correct. But then what is "pure" in the context of the "distorted" pronunciations? That Indians do not care for "pure" may be a very interesting "democratic" value that allows diversity beyond Sanskrut as the standard. On the downside, his also may be a part of our "sab chalta hai" attitude.
To come back to Carl vs Rama. What if Rama is the correct name that you are trying to fit into your belief of what is right? It is his name. He has a right to lengthen it, shorten it, or do whatever with it and as I have indicated, there is a category of Indian names that is never pronounced with an "aa" in the end. So, your hypotheses in Carl vs. Rama, that it is symptomatic is not quite correct. However, as I have granted, we are more tolerant of distortions and even accommodate to minimize these for "convenience". How far to accommodate is really an individual choice.
Reply to this
I have erred in writing Carl vs Rama instead of Carl vs Krishna in my second response. Will you please correct it?
This is some additional material.
It appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Quintanilla) that Mr. Carl was actually Carlos. If this is correct, has this Hispanic origin person has made an adjustment instead of sticking to his Hispanic identity. You seem to have spelled the name Carla in your original piece. A mistake?
In comparison, Krishna Guha (who is probably Krishno Guho to his grandma) has not made an adjustment at all!! Indian men - based on this one example- may come out ahead of the Carls or the Karls.
Reply to this
Is it possible that early translators of Hindi and/or Sanskrit into English were purists and wanted to preserve the Devnagri sound of letters ending with a ie k as ka, p as pa n as na, m as ma and so on? Thus Ram became Rama and Krishn became Krishna.They might not have realized that they were feminizing these names. After years of this practice perhaps this became a norm. This does not mean that this practice should continue. Linguistic scholars must make it a duty to take correctve actions and help stop this malpractice.
Regarding the mispronunciation of Indian names, I think, the tolerance varies from person to person and some names are really difficult to pronounce. A polite correction without feeling offended will go a long way in achieving the desired result.
Reply to this
rAmah (not rAm) is the proper *Sanskrit* pronounciation as is shiva (not shivA).
In *Sanskrit* many names end in "a" as in Karna, Drona, Bheeshma, Krishna (not Karan & Krishan which are North Indian vernacular versions) but if you end in "aa" it becomes feminine. Thus Vasantasenaa (one of the main characters in the play Mrichchakatikam by Shudraka) is feminine because of the aa ending where as surasena/devasena are masculine names.
Reply to this