Read on Twitter
the reason i disagree with this thread is because "earl grey" is used here to assume "earl grey tea" when "earl grey latte" exists. the ambiguity that& #39;s argued to exist for chai exists for other teas as well, except folks also often say "chai tea" to refer to "chai latte" here. https://twitter.com/Miandre/status/1330654457432981505">https://twitter.com/Miandre/s...
one of the things that bothers me is the argument, "we already have words for those." and you have to ask, who& #39;s "we"? why is it "naan bread" but not "baguette bread"? baguette is a word from a foreign language as well that& #39;s a specific bread, like naan. https://twitter.com/Miandre/status/1330654453024755712?s=20">https://twitter.com/Miandre/s...
it& #39;s completely true that chai and naan aren& #39;t 1:1 translations of tea and bread, but they& #39;re specific *types* of tea and bread. personally i think it makes sense to add the term "bread" but it& #39;s *still* redundant. e.g., "roti bread", "ciabatta bread", etc.
we do hear people say things like "focaccia bread" and "sourdough bread" but it sounds redundant to us... because it is, and that& #39;s the same with "naan bread". just as you can say "focaccia" and "sourdough" alone, you can say "naan" alone.
the privilege given to *european* loan words in OP& #39;s thread that allows them to be used on their own without the supergroup modifier, whereas *asian* loan words are argued to require the modifier is frankly... well, you know
just as "naan" isn& #39;t exactly "bread", "sourdough", "focaccia", "bagette", etc. aren& #39;t either. they& #39;re all *specific* types of bread. what OP has said about naan you could say about these other breads. and yet how come the argument isn& #39;t that those breads "require" adding "bread"?
i& #39;m jumping in to this just because i have some odd focus on teas, & my tea co-conspirator happens to also have a degree in linguistics, like OP. the tea arguments that are employed sound really fishy, because something having a latte form doesn& #39;t mean "tea" needs to be specifed
but anyways, personally, while i agree with OP& #39;s thread that language changes and evolves as it& #39;s adopted (or stolen) from other languages, we need to ask *why* these changes come about. what are the politics of these choices? our choice of words is in itself a politic
random aside, the specific example of "chai tea" and "chai latte" from OP& #39;s thread amuses me, because the main issue is that starbucks has a menu item called a "chai tea latte". this is what popularized the term. but OP simultaneously argues for and against this term
anyways, if you order an earl grey in a cafe, you& #39;re not going to suddenly get an earl grey latte. the same with chai. also, while earl grey is a specific tea made from bergamot with a specific oxidation process, there is no one, singular & #39;chai tea& #39;...
but also, i& #39;m sad that the original thread mentions 茶 (cha, or tea in chinese), but repeatedly pushes that & #39;chai is not synonymous with tea& #39; when in india, it... literally is? and they... literally speak english in india, where this is valid? so, once again, i ask, "who& #39;s we?"
just a reminder that countries other than the US, UK, & Australia (where OP is from) use english. there& #39;s a certain type of privilege OP gives to white-spoken english in her thread that disqualifies the validity of & #39;chai& #39; meaning & #39;tea& #39; in india, where english is an official lang.
