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?










share|improve this question




















  • 12




    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










  • @HotLicks, Thank you. The intended meaning may be different and I'm not much concerned about it. I'm looking for the correct usage of the word alphabet, and as you said, a letter cannot be called an alphabet, right? That's what I want to know. Thanks again!
    – mahmud koya
    yesterday






  • 2




    @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
    13 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?










share|improve this question




















  • 12




    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










  • @HotLicks, Thank you. The intended meaning may be different and I'm not much concerned about it. I'm looking for the correct usage of the word alphabet, and as you said, a letter cannot be called an alphabet, right? That's what I want to know. Thanks again!
    – mahmud koya
    yesterday






  • 2




    @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
    13 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?










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






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

6,7494724




6,7494724








  • 12




    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










  • @HotLicks, Thank you. The intended meaning may be different and I'm not much concerned about it. I'm looking for the correct usage of the word alphabet, and as you said, a letter cannot be called an alphabet, right? That's what I want to know. Thanks again!
    – mahmud koya
    yesterday






  • 2




    @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
    13 hours ago














  • 12




    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










  • @HotLicks, Thank you. The intended meaning may be different and I'm not much concerned about it. I'm looking for the correct usage of the word alphabet, and as you said, a letter cannot be called an alphabet, right? That's what I want to know. Thanks again!
    – mahmud koya
    yesterday






  • 2




    @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
    13 hours ago








12




12




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












@HotLicks, Thank you. The intended meaning may be different and I'm not much concerned about it. I'm looking for the correct usage of the word alphabet, and as you said, a letter cannot be called an alphabet, right? That's what I want to know. Thanks again!
– mahmud koya
yesterday




@HotLicks, Thank you. The intended meaning may be different and I'm not much concerned about it. I'm looking for the correct usage of the word alphabet, and as you said, a letter cannot be called an alphabet, right? That's what I want to know. Thanks again!
– mahmud koya
yesterday




2




2




@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
13 hours ago




"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
13 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
55
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



















  • 6




    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






  • 2




    I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
    – Edheldil
    11 hours ago






  • 5




    @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
    9 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








  • 3




    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












  • @alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
    – Ruslan
    2 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
    13 hours ago










  • @Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
    – barbecue
    1 hour 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
    9 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
    6 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
55
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



















  • 6




    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






  • 2




    I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
    – Edheldil
    11 hours ago






  • 5




    @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
    9 hours ago















up vote
55
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



















  • 6




    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






  • 2




    I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
    – Edheldil
    11 hours ago






  • 5




    @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
    9 hours ago













up vote
55
down vote



accepted







up vote
55
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

35.8k1481132




35.8k1481132








  • 6




    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






  • 2




    I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
    – Edheldil
    11 hours ago






  • 5




    @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
    9 hours ago














  • 6




    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






  • 2




    I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
    – Edheldil
    11 hours ago






  • 5




    @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
    9 hours ago








6




6




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




2




2




I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
11 hours ago




I understod the sentence as "Modi's alphabet consists only of the capital I letter" .... which works well too, I think.
– Edheldil
11 hours ago




5




5




@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
9 hours ago




@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
9 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








  • 3




    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












  • @alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
    – Ruslan
    2 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








  • 3




    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












  • @alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
    – Ruslan
    2 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 10 hours ago





















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

1795




1795




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








  • 3




    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












  • @alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
    – Ruslan
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    +1 Good interpretation and it makes sense. Thanks!
    – mahmud koya
    yesterday








  • 3




    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












  • @alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
    – Ruslan
    2 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






3




3




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














@alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
– Ruslan
2 hours ago




@alephzero how different is English in this sense when it doesn't have a special symbol for e.g. /ʒ/ sound, despite having words containing it (pleasure, vision etc.)?
– Ruslan
2 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
    13 hours ago










  • @Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
    – barbecue
    1 hour 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
    13 hours ago










  • @Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
    – barbecue
    1 hour 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 14 hours ago









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
    13 hours ago










  • @Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
    – barbecue
    1 hour ago


















  • That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
    – Kris
    13 hours ago










  • @Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
    – barbecue
    1 hour ago
















That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
13 hours ago




That's the whole point, sort of. However, this is a comment. Not an answer.
– Kris
13 hours ago












@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
1 hour ago




@Kris I disagree, this answer provides a context for the phrase that makes sense.
– barbecue
1 hour 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
    9 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
    6 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
    9 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
    6 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 10 hours ago





















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 10 hours ago









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
    9 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
    6 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
    9 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
    6 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
9 hours ago




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
9 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
6 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
6 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

Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt