Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Question "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    Hi,

    On the BBC website I saw these two headlines:
    India rebels free train captives
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4804070.stm
    and
    Indian rebels 'kill 13 villagers'
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4236876.stm


    Is there a difference between "India rebels"
    and "Indian rebels"? I am not able to see any difference.

    Talking about "India" vs "Indian", how about
    "China" vs "Chinese"? As I understand it,
    "China man" is considered derogatory (at least in the US).
    So, "He is a Chinese man" is preferable over
    "He is a China man". Is it right?

    Thanks
    Last edited by englishstudent; 14-Mar-2006 at 14:55.

  2. #2

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    "India Rebels" means rebels in India, but their nationality may not actually be Indian. For example they could be from Pakistan, but are rebels in India.

    "Indian Rebels" means that their nationality is Indian.

    I think that saying that someone is Chinese rather than a "China man" is a much better way of putting it. As you rightly said, China man is a derogatory term. There would be no difference in meaning, but the words present different interpretations. I'd hate to use a racist term but it's similar to how some (idiotic) people would call a black person a "nigger". Although they both refer to a person with dark skin, they are interpreted very differently.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Marathi
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: Nov 2005
    • Posts: 121
    #3

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    I have read both the news (both the links inserted by Englishstudent) and after reading Robbie's reply I am confused. Both of the news refer to rebels in Jharkhand state which is part of India and these rebels are very much Indian.

  3. #4

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    Quote Originally Posted by explorelang
    I have read both the news (both the links inserted by Englishstudent) and after reading Robbie's reply I am confused. Both of the news refer to rebels in Jharkhand state which is part of India and these rebels are very much Indian.
    I'm sorry for the confusion. "India Rebels" could indeed mean that the rebels are Indian in nationality, and that is what I would assume by reading the headline. However, as India is a country and not a nationality, it means that there are rebels in India. It doesn't specify what the nationality of the rebels is, so the rebels could be from Pakistan, for example.

  4. #5

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    Robbie, I understand the potential difference, although in this case
    the Maoists rebels seem to be Indians in both cases.
    However, since there are Maoists rebels in Nepal as well, it is
    theoretically possible that there are some Nepali Maoists in India. Thanks. :)

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Marathi
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: Nov 2005
    • Posts: 121
    #6

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    Maoist are people who believe in communism, started by Mao Zedong in China, they are active in Nebal as well but I think Nepali Maoist dont have any interest in Jharkhand, do they?


    • Join Date: Mar 2006
    • Posts: 13
    #7

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    [QUOTE=englishstudent]Hi,



    "India Rebels" = the country rebels or people of India rebel collectively speaking

    "Indian rebels" = a few rebels who are Indian

  5. #8

    Re: "India rebels" vs "Indian rebels"

    Quote Originally Posted by explorelang
    Maoist are people who believe in communism, started by Mao Zedong in China, they are active in Nebal as well but I think Nepali Maoist dont have any interest in Jharkhand, do they?
    I don't know if they do or not. Even if they don't, groups are known to aid/assist
    others subscribing to the same/similar ideology. It is another matter that the Indian Maoists
    may not be "real" Maoists because the Chinese Communists are not happy that
    the Indian Maoists are using Mao's name as they don't think there is anything common
    in their approach/philosophy. So it is possible that Indian Maoists and Nepali
    Maoists are not connected afterall, despite the similarity in names.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •