Eye-rollingly obnoxious? I've literally heard native Indonesians refer to their language as just "bahasa", though admittedly those same speakers told me off for doing it myself. So whilst I agree "bahasa" has a commonly incorrect usage I don't think it is due to the typical "White Ignorance". I mean at least the author actually went to the effort of learning a non-European language right?

It's like "literally" in English has _changed_ its meaning. Yeah of course it originally meant non-figuratively, but it is clear to all that value language as a medium of communication (rather than a measure of intellectual status) that it now has another meaning as an intensifier.

> I've literally heard native Indonesians refer to their language as just "bahasa", though admittedly those same speakers told me off for doing it myself

The second part could be indicative of this being usage only acceptable for 'insiders' to employ, and the first part could mean but does not have to mean that outsiders / speakers of other languages / in other countries could and should use those very words. For example, in an American context one often hears "this country" to mean the USA, but that cannot be transported into contexts based outside the USA. Similarly, there's 우리나라 /uri nara/ lit. 'our country' > "Korea" in Korean but you wouldn't say "I'm flying to Urinara" or "I'm flying to Our Country" when you're about to board a plane to Seoul. In Japanese and Taiwan, the Japanese language and the Chinese language are often referred to as 國語 lit. 'national language' > "Japanese" or "Chinese" (depending on the language used). Of course you can't normally say "我不會講國語" in Chinese to mean "I don't speak Japanese" except when the context is clear and the listener can be expected that 國語 may mean Japanese in Japanese.

So Indonesians using "bahasa" in Indonesian doesn't necessarily license using that word in English.

That's a good point. Now that I think about it, the Indonesians from whom I heard "bahasa" were actually also native Javanese speakers. Bahasa Indonesia is of course a lingua franca, and an increasingly imposing one for minority languages, so maybe that could be a possible source for your point that there are different connotations for insiders and outsiders.

I didn't get your point about "this country". The only thing I know is how it's inappropriate outside the USA, or in a global context, to use America to mean the USA, as of course the rest of the Americas also exist.

The OP's point was that even if you're American, using the phrase "this country" to refer to the US, when you're actually outside the US, is wrong, unlike, say "my country" or "our country". Similarly, it seems "bahasa" is inherently context-sensitive, like saying "our language", which is wrong if the speaker doesn't actually speak the language.

Thanks. Though I still don't understand, it just seems non-sensical to use "this country" when you're outside the country in question, likes it's just a fundamental error of grammar. Can you give me a specific example?

Yes, it's non-sensical, just like it's non-sensical to use a word that basically means "our language" when it's not actually a language that you speak. (Not a grammatical error though, but rather a semantic error, a dangling reference as it were!)

Let's say you don't speak German but keep hearing Germany referred to as "Vaterland" in the media. You might deduce that the word "Vaterland" is synonymous with Germany, and start using it yourself to refer to the country, but that would be wrong, because the word (without additional context) simply means "homeland", typically the speaker's homeland, whatever country that is.

Ahhh, great thanks, I was just overthinking it then

This doesn’t make sense. If the word/phrase expresses a relative relationship to it’s user, then that works on a per user basis. Eg- Non-Americans can say “this country” about their own countries. If the word/phrase is a generic term in a given language, it often ends up having fixed context —- eg “la Raza” as used by Latin American communities.

Besides, the original commenter denied it’s used at all. Gp implies otherwise.

Broadly speaking, this whole business of trying to “own” words on an identity basis is poisonous, corrosive and an abuse of the tool of language.

If a word is widely understood to have the meaning "our language", it's precisely its context-sensitivity that makes it wrong for a non-speaker to use that word to refer to the language, because he/she is not part of the "us". Thinking otherwise is basically telling the native speakers that you, as an ignorant ousider, know better than them how their language and its nuances work.

I agree that a possessive concept shouldn’t be used as a generic. I’m sure mistakes of that nature are made all the time by non-speakers of various languages.

Neither person in the discussion above claimed bahasa means “our language”. The positions were “bahasa=language(generic)” vs “bahasa=also colloquially used to mean Indonesian”.

It was your assertion/conjecture that it actually means “our language”. The (seemingly) native speaker posting the original comment did not make a similar claim.

Interesting. It’s similar to the use of the word “chai” in the US. It originally means tea, but in the US it is used to mean a specific blend/preparation (usually masala), so they say “I’ll have a chai tea”, which literally means “I’ll have a tea tea”.

See also: ATM machine, PIN number

"built on NT Technology" :)

carne asada grilled steak burrito for me

To heavy for my taste, I'll have the ahi tuna.

I thought masala meant spice mix?

Spiced tea is a bit more specific than tea tea, but not much more

And don't forget Bahasa Malaysia