Opinion Untranslatable words inducted into Oxford English Dictionary highlights fluidity of languages

For those unfamiliar with its particular trajectory, the range of affectations that the Bengali word “nyaka” conveys has always been particularly challenging to translate into other languages. Or, take for instance, the Malayalam word “adipoli”. Its English equivalent — “awesome” — does not hold a candle to the flourish of the original. “Nyaka” or “adipoli” might not feature among them, but 42 untranslatable terms from various languages have recently found a home in the Oxford English Dictionary, a hat-tip to both the idiosyncrasies of languages and the beauty of linguistic fluidity. Among the dictionary’s picks are the Tagalog word “gigil”, now a fixture in Philippine English, and other words of Asian origin, such as the Malay expression “alamak”. The former implies a reaction to overweening cuteness, the latter can convey anything from surprise to shock.

The phenomenon of “lexical borrowing”, where words, roots and sounds from one language seamlessly integrate into another, reinforces a process as old as language itself. Ancient civilisations, whether through trade, war, or migration, exchanged words as readily as goods. Sanskrit found its way into languages from the Persian Empire to Southeast Asia; Latin infused modern European languages with its syntax and vocabulary. From the French “restaurant” to the Arabic “alcohol”, English owes much of its vast lexicon to the Normans, the Vikings, and other influences, including from its colonies.

Advertisement

In several countries, including in India, there is, of late, an insistence on the “purity” of language, or culture for that matter. This puritanism ignores the thriving history of linguistic exchange. Far from diluting a language, every borrowed word is an invitation to understand a new facet of human experience, a window into the lived realities of different cultures. To resist them is to stifle the very forces that have driven the evolution of language. The real tragedy, then, lies not in linguistic borrowing, but in the false belief that any culture or language can remain unchanged in a world that is, and always has been, in constant flux.