Misplaced Pages

Talk:Urdu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:24, 25 April 2020 editImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk | contribs)177 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2020← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:18, 5 January 2025 edit undoFylindfotberserk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers166,496 editsm Reverted edit by 103.120.70.219 (talk) to last version by PepperbeastTag: Rollback 
(951 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{afd-merged-from|Names of Urdu Language|Names of Urdu Language|25 March 2021}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=C}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject South Asia|class=C|importance=High}} {{WikiProject South Asia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=C|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject India|class=C|importance=high|bihar=yes|bihar-importance=high|jharkhand=yes|uttar=yes|telangana=yes|bengal=yes|delhi=yes|assess-date=March 2019}} {{WikiProject India|importance=high|bihar=yes|bihar-importance=high|jharkhand=yes|uttar=yes|telangana=yes|bengal=yes|delhi=yes|assess-date=March 2019}}
{{WikiProject Languages|class=C|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Languages|importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{Commonwealth English}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d) | algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Urdu/Archive %(counter)d | archive=Talk:Urdu/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=6 | counter=13
| maxarchivesize=75K | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 18: Line 17:
| minthreadstoarchive=1 | minthreadstoarchive=1
}} }}

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Harvard_Summer_School/Introduction_to_Linguistics_(Summer) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ], ] }}
{{Archives}} {{Archives}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki>
}}


== Current Description ==
==Make it Clear: Mutual Intelligibility of Urdu with Hindi, but not Urdu with Arabic and Persian/Farsi==
Dear all and {{To|Fowler&fowler}},

Urdu being a form of standard register of Hindustani, is mutually intelligible with Hindi as they share the grammar, construction, conjunctions ... and even the accent, they are linguistically same language even though "the large religious and political differences make much of the little linguistic differences (between Urdu and Hindi)", see reference <ref name=urduMU1></ref>

An Introduction to Sociolinguistics By Ronald Wardhaugh, Janet M. Fuller, Wiley & Sons. 2015. pp30]. Hindi and Urdu are not mutually intelligible with Arabic or Persian. Even Hindi has loan words from English and writing Hindi in Latin script does not make it mutually intelligible with Latin, English or French. None of these four are mutually intelligible, all are from Indo-European family and last three use Latin script. Even Hindi is not mutually intelligible with Sanskrit from which it draws heavily and shares the Devnagri script with. In fact variations of Arabic, though they sue same nastaliq script, are not mutually intelligible with each other, let alone being mutually intelligible with Urdu. See this reference <ref name=urduMU2></ref>
The article mentions that Urdu draws from Hindi, Arabic and Persian. Article also makes it clear that Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, this needs to be made clear that urdu is not mutual intelligibility with Arabic and Persian.

It will also be useful to include the reason why Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi and not with Arabic and Persian. "two closely related and by and large mutually intelligible speech varieties may be considered separate languages if they are subject to separate institutionalisation contexts, e.g. official speech forms of different states and state institutions, or of different religious ethinic communities. Examples of such language paris are Norwegian and Swedish, Hindi and Urdu", see reference <ref name=urduMU3></ref> The same source further clarifies that, "on the other hand, speech varieties that differ considerably in structure and are not always mutually intelligible, such as Moroccan Arabic, Yemeni Arabic and Lebanese Arabic."<ref name=urduMU3/>
Those who want to understand the concept of mutual intelligibility in more detail please refer to this and and .


The current description may not be to the liking of many Misplaced Pages users and readers because, Urdu has the status of national language and language of public communication (lingua franca) in Pakistan, where it is also the official language, along with English. And the educated population of Pakistan who took over the bureaucracy and finance department of Pakistan, etc. were Urdu speakers, who were ]. Also, Sir Syed, Liaquat Ali Khan, Ali brothers, etc. are considered important names in the history of Pakistan, all of them spoke Urdu as their mother tongue. Therefore, I request to change this description from "Language spoken in India and Pakistan" to "Language spoken in Pakistan and India" or "Language spoken chiefly in South Asia" so that the people reading it do not feel anything biased or unsatisfying, especially the population of India and Pakistan. Thank you very much. ] (]) 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
1. include the statement upfront (the current unofficial "exec summary" type section on top) that while Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi but not with other.
2. include a subheading in the article to discuss the mutual intelligibility of urdu with languages it borrows from. The central logic being that the "base" of Urdu is Khadiboli (Hindustani), and there are other toppings added to it including Hindi, Arabic, Persian and Chagatai, etc. Among those it is MI with Hindustani and not with the rest for the reasons mentioned above. The concept of Hindi and Urdu being two language could politically motivated but their mutual intelligibility is not subject to the political consideration but to linguistic considerations.


:@] Kindly answer me. I look forward to your reply. ] (]) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Discuss it here please.
::I think changing the short description to "Language spoken chiefly in South Asia" would be good. Unfortunately, the article isn't letting me change it. ] (]) 06:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:I doubt anyone is going to perceive bias when they read the words "India and Pakistan" unless they have a huge chip on their shoulder. ] ] 15:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course we did, but the old-India-POV editors, unable to accept the reality
::*that Urdu has declined markedly in its birthplace in India even among many educated Muslim families;
::*that on the BBC Urdu website only 10% of the posters are from addresses in India, the rest no longer able to read the Urdu script, let alone write;
::*that the only country in which Oxford University Press publishes books in Urdu (both pedagogic and literary) is Pakistan;
::*that Bollywood songs with a few words of Urdu in the mix do not constitute Urdu;
::*that the birthplace of a language does not produce mother's milk of the language;
::*that the average person in Pakistan's whose mother tongue is not Urdu is nevertheless able to read, write, and speak Urdu with more skill that the average "Urdu speaker" in India;
::*that in the 75 years since decolonization in South Asia, Pakistan has produced some great Urdu poets, witness, off the top of my head: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], but India, sadly, has produced nothing that can match, only Bollywood songwriters such as ] or ] whom Indians consider to be Urdu poets.
::very determinedly never allowed us to change anything in this article and also in ], a subterfuge employed in contempory India for expanding the definition of Urdu to include any pidgin-Hindi speaker in India.
::PS I don't have a chip on my shoulder. Among other things I have written the FA ]).
::PPS It's not like I haven't tried. I've certainly collected more sources than anyone before or after. See:
::*], sadly all for nought.
::]] 18:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::PS Not that anything will change in this page's lead, but the ''Britannica'' article on Urdu begins: "Urdu language, member of the Indo-Aryan group within the Indo-European family of languages. Urdu is spoken as a first language by nearly 70 million people and as a second language by more than 100 million people, predominantly in Pakistan and India." ]] 18:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::PPS The Oxford English Dictionary entry on states: An Indo-Aryan language of northern South Asia (now esp. Pakistan), closely related to Hindi but written in a modified form of the Arabic script ... ]] 18:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Note:''' I've changed it to South Asia based on the discussion here. Fowler, the death of Urdu in India may be greatly exaggerated - despite the dearth of poets and the overall decline in the number of speakers. There are several Urdu newspapers for example and therefore, presumably, plenty of Urdu speakers. ] <small>(])</small> 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks. Very true, RP, about the newspapers. I've often wondered about that. They are probably read in Muslim neighborthoods, and to that extent, the ghettoization of Muslims in India has perhaps had a salutary effect, for sprinkled among the majority, the newspapers would not have survivived, let lone sprouted anew. ]] 15:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::And it is taught presumably widely if to few in the NCERT curriculum. See for example the textbooks from .
*::Perhaps there will be a rebirth, for the script is important in the language, perhaps more so than some other languages. A simple example is place names. In Urdu, the -abad constructions (abad=settled by) are usually two separate words: Feroze Abad, Farrukh Abad, Ghazi Abad, Faisal Abad, ... they give you a glimpse into a cultural history. ]] 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:User:Fowler&fowler, if you recall, we established a consensus version of the lede, in which you placed the information about Urdu being a Persianised register as the second sentence (see ). I have restored that wording though if you have again changed your mind, you must, per ] restore the version of the article before your edits until a new consensus is reached. I have added another reference that buttresses the non-disptued linguistic information. Thanks for your understanding, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks
] (])


== Native to ==
{{Reflist-talk}}


@] @] @] @] Thanks for the consideration, I have also noticed that in the "Native to" section of the template, it says "India and Pakistan". I would also like to request that "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu Belt, and Deccan" be written here instead, because of the same reason, I provided in my previous request. Thanks once again. 💗 ] (]) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
== Urdu is not an Indian language ==
{{hat|reason=Misplaced Pages is ]. Pointless "discussion" started by a banned troll with the sole purpose of creating an argument. An equally big ] to ] and ] for taking the bait.}}
Urdu is origannnely Pakistani ] (]) 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
:Urdu was Urdu long before there was a Pakistan. Its speakers on the India side of the border didn't magically stop speaking it when the countries split, and Urdu is the native language of 50.8 million people in India today, three times as many as in Pakistan. ] (]) 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|Largoplazo}} The bit about the native language is only theoretically true. A large number of people, especially the young, in the Urdu heartland of UP in India, are no longer able to write in Urdu, mainly because Urdu language has not been taught in Government schools for nearly 70 years. Many have also lost not just the proper pronunciation ("talaffuz") of Urdu words, but also the words themselves in their functioning vocabulary. Yet, every ten years they write "Urdu speaker," in the Indian census. They are pretty much all Muslim, the census-exercise is a way of asserting their nearly lost language identity. In Pakistan, on the other hand, Urdu is universally taught. So, although most Pakistanis are second-language Urdu speakers, their Urdu ability stands far above the Indian average. ]] 01:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::It's almost as though you'd written that Americans don't really speak English because their pronunciation has changed so much with respect to the pronunciation used by Brits. (As though there were a single pronunciation within the U.K. or within the U.S., or as though the way people in the U.K. pronounce it themselves hasn't changed drastically over the centuries.) And&mdash;I'm pretty sure we call the colonial language that people in South Asia still speak today "English", though, heaven knows, their pronunciation is tremendously different from that descendants of the old colonists.) Or as though languages people speak aren't really languages, or aren't really *their* languages, if they don't also write them. ] (]) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::I apologize, I shouldn't have said "pronunciation." You are right. That's not important. But the Americans have not lost the vocabulary of American English. They have managed to produce ... lord knows ... since the Boston tea party ... off the top of my head ... from the ones I have read ... only Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper, Nathanial Hawthorne, Hermann Melville, Edgar Allan Poe, Mark Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Louisa May Alcott, Jack London, Willa Cather, Sinclair Lewis, John Dos Passos, William Faulkner, Earnest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Saul Bellow, Raymond Carver, Eudora Welty, Toni Morrison, and many more I'm forgetting ... The proper analogy would be if America had been annexed by the French in 1947, and if all English-language instruction had stopped in public schools. Only those Americans with parents wealthy enough to pay for either private schooling or parochial schooling would have received English-language instruction; the rest would have been learning only French. Eventually, America would stop being an English-speaking nation. (<small> Some old-timers around here shake their heads and say we didn't need help from the French; it is already happening.</small>) But you get the idea, something akin to that is happening in India and Urdu. The words, the collocations, the phrases, ... that make Urdu Urdu, and not Hindi, are gradually being lost by the (mostly Muslim) native Urdu speakers in India. There is encroachment by English as well, which most Indians, I imagine, see to be their ticket to higher education and professional success. The Urdu-speaking population is more likely to spend the extra money they have on, for instance, English-language tutoring than, say, Urdu instruction. But the decline of Urdu in India compared to Pakistan is a well-documented fact. ]] 03:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::But the 50.8 million figure is also a documented fact. Also, your French scenario happened in reality, in England, over the couple of centuries following 1066, yet the language has retained the name "English" since centuries before that. For what it's worth. ] (]) 19:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::It is documented only in the census figures. When the census officer comes to their homes one every ten years they routinely reply, "Urdu" to the question about "Mother tongue." No one tests their ability. The Norman conquest obviously didn't kill the language as there were few Normans and many more Saxons, and Britons. This is a 14% minority. ]] 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I wasn't aware that you aren't speaking the language you speak unless someone tests your ability. Who tested the ability of the English speakers in 12th century England to make sure they were still speaking English? I don't know what you mean about the Normans killing the language. After 300 years it was largely unrecognizable. Also, minorities speak the languages that the speak just as surely as majorities speak the languages that they speak. There, have I addressed your battery of widely dispersed arguments? ] (]) 00:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} Good, you won the argument. Congratulations on your wonderful knowledge. ]] 02:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{{hab}}


:@] @] @] @] Kindly respond. ] (]) 22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Please no data dumps of POV text copied from elsewhere ==
::Well, what do you understand by "native to?" ]] 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] If "Native to" refers here to the place where Urdu originated, then only India should be written here, because Urdu originated from there (the present-day Northern India, and not from the present-day Pakistan). Obviously, It is not the case. The article of ] has multiple countries in this section. But if it refers to the places from where this language is flourishing and had significant development, then Pakistan should be written here first (along with India). Because if Modern Standard Urdu is the tenth most-spoken language in the world today, the main reason for this is because it is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and also the significant number of Urdu-speakers, who stayed in India after the partition of India. And that is why I requested that it be written here as "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu belt, and Deccan region." ] (]) 14:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It seems "Native to" will become (no matter how you rephrase) a slightly different version of the next argument in the infobox, "Region."
::::So, unless there is consensus around, something very specific, such as the Muslim military encampments of northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar. (cf. the later, Mughal, "Zaban-e-Urdu-Mualla," language of the exalted camp), or if you want to go back further, viz to ] and list the region of ], Delhi, it is best to leave the "Native to" argument blank. What do you think {{re|RegentsPark}} ]] 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have no opinion on this. As a matter of personal preference, I would leave it blank because languages (natural languages) don't suddenly arise out of nothing. However, if there are definitive sources then that's a different matter. ] <small>(])</small> 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


I would actually recommend listing the locations such as those that User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, including Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur in the "Native to" parameter. ''Students' Britannica India'' (2000) states:
{{u|Anupam}} Please don't past copied POV text from elsewhere in the history of this article. I haven't looked at the history, but what you have added is not neutral reliable history. I have reverted your additions. Best regards, ]] 15:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
{{quotation|Hindustani developed as lingua franca in the medieval ages in and around Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur because of the interaction between the speakers of ''Khariboli'' (a dialect developed in this region out of Shauraseni Prakrit) and the speakers of Persian, Turkish, and various dialects of Arabic who migrated to North India. Initially it was known by various names such as ''Rekhta'' (mixed), ''Urdu'' (language of the camp) and ''Hindvi'' or ''Hindustani'' (language of Hindustan).}}
:], I hope you're enjoying Shrove Tuesday. I would be grateful if you could kindly have a look at the that User:Fowler&fowler removed. He claims it is not neutral, despite the multiple sources that buttress it. Thank you for your time and help. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I see no reason to leave out this information as the native region of Urdu is well sourced. Kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:That being said, if consensus is to leave it blank, I would not particularly push for this. I hope this helps. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I looked at {{tl|Infobox language}} and it seems to me that the "native to" attribute refers to the places where it is spoken, not where it originated (see the list of countries listed in the Farsi example). In which case, South Asia would probably be the right entry. ] <small>(])</small> 01:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the clarification ]! Feel free to change it to "South Asia". With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If my opinion is taken, I would also emphasize more on changing it to "South Asia", because even before the partition of India, the Urdu-language literature was flourishing not only in present-day India, but also in present-day Pakistan and present-day Bangladesh. The examples of this are Allama Muhammad Iqbal (the poet of Urdu, from ]) and the Dhakaiya dialect of Urdu. ] (]) 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have went ahead and made the change, while adding the aforementioned reference to the article. I hope this helps. Kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You guys cant just change country names to region names because of political disputes and tensions. The source i cited mentions that Urdu is native to both Pakistan and India. 'Native to' means the language has linguistic roots in both India and Pakistan and originated from these two countries. 'Non-indigenous' as indicated on the source for example in the USA or Bangladesh means the language is not originally from the said countries and was introduced by later immigrants or in other words by later migration. South Asia is also not a country but a region in Asia. 'States' is another synonym for 'countries'. Many other wikipedia pages for languages spoken in countries with political tensions freely add the country names on their language infobox information. Removing Pakistan and India on the langusge infobox is not going to help solve political disputes or tensions or controversies between two countries and peoples on a wikipedia language information page. Readers should clearly know without direct or indirect bias that Urdu is native to both India and Pakistan, whike the region should be changed to South Asia since South Asia is not a country again. Thank You. ] (]) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] @] @] @] please respond to my objection request and understand what I have said and if this reason is strong for you to change it back to 'Native to India and Pakistan'. Thank You. ] (]) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"South Asia" is fine and consensus developed here established this. The next parameter of the infobox ("Native to") already mentions Pakistan and India; duplicating the same information is redundant. If we are being precise, as User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, the "Native to" parameter would specify "northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar". ]<sup>]</sup> 14:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::where in the source (Ethnologue) does it mention native to 'northeastern Delhi, Grazia address, and Muradnagar'? Those would be 'locations'. India and Pakistan are countries so under the language entry it would be written as 'Native to' under the comments section. ] (]) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@] No one is editing the 'native to' section due to political conflicts. That's your idea, sir. And "South Asia" is completely fine here. As I mentioned earlier, Urdu has a dialect called Dhakaiya. And for your concern, Delhi and the surrounding areas are mentioned in the first reference. And thus the reader will obviously be aware of Urdu being native to India and Pakistan. ] (]) 15:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Nepal ==
I don't know the history, so I can't judge. Fowler, you need to say ''how'' it is unbalanced. Anupam, it is rather annoying for the reader to come across multiple quotes to justify routine claims. Normally we make the claims in our own words and simply cite them. — ] (]) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Urdu is usually described as a language of South Asia or a language of India and Pakistan. Jieun Kiaer, Associate Professor in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford, describes the language as follows in the text ''Pragmatic Particles: Findings from Asian Languages'' (2020):
:User:Kwamikagami, thank you for your reply. I understand your point about multiple quotes to justify routine claims; however, I use them so that editors can't simply remove well-sourced information becacuse they ] (the quotes help ensure ] too). User:Fowler&fowler, based on his comments , wishes to argue that the development of the language should solely be attributed to Muslims (this is a ] and revisionist POV). The academic and neutral perspective is that Urdu developed as a result of cultural contact between Muslims and Hindus in North India; during the time of Islamic administrative rule in India, the Hindi tongues of the Delhi area absorbed large amounts of Persian loanwords. I am pinging ], ], ], and ] so that they can offer their comments here as well. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
{{quotation|Urdu is a Persianized and standardized register of the Hindustani language. It is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and an official language of five states in India.}}
::It's unnecessary to overload the article with references and quotations in cases of disputes. You can present them here on the talk page rather than disrupting the experience of ordinary readers who aren't participants in the argument. ] (]) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I have therefore the information about it being a dialect spoken in Nepal to the body of the article. I do not believe that there will be any objections to this, though if there are, please state them here. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Please see ] and the section below. I'm saying rather that the languages of the Upper Doab became the base of a ''lingua franca'' only because of the Muslims; without them, without their empires centered in and around the upper Doab, they would have remained little-known vernaculars. But where do you find the word "Muslim" mentioned in the ] lead? The text takes a flying leap from 769 AD and Old Hindi to 1920 and Gandhi. ]] 23:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
::::I see that you have changed it to a grudging acknowledgement in more POV language, supported with more recondite cherry-picked sources. ]] 23:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::User:Fowler&fowler, are you sure about that? You can read the introduction again; it neutrally states: "During the period of Islamic administrative rule in India which resulted in the contact of Hindu and Muslim cultures, the Prakrit base of Old Hindi became enriched with loanwords from Persian, evolving into the present form of Hindustani." The words Islamic/Muslim are mentioned twice (and I was the one who added that information there). I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 23:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Of course I am. What poetry was there in Old Hindi and what script? You're talking like it was hunky dory, a perfectly rich language, to which were added a few Perso-Arabic words. No. It was a mostly illiterate vernacular culture, which the Muslims raised out of anonmity by mixing it with their language(s) and giving it a literature, and which was eventually copied by the Hindus in the late 19th century to create Standard Hindi. There would have been no Maithili Sharan Gupt, no Jaishankar Prasad, no Nirala, not even Premchand without the Muslim conquest of India and their privileging of Delhi as their capital (mostly). If the Muslims had made their capital in Calcutta, Hindustani would have been some variant of Bengali, and north India would very likely have been speaking Bengali with Perso-Arabic words. The original illiterate culture is only incidentally relevant. ]] 04:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Well, the "Muslims" didn't raise it. The British did. . -- ] (]) 05:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for sharing that source ]. There is helpful information in it that can be added to this article. Kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}That article is talking about Urdu instruction in Government schools, which by the way, was not limited to Muslims. In the United Provinces, Urdu, and sometimes and Persian, were routinely taught until 1947 in a very large proportion of schools. High schools in many large towns such as Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Muradnagar, Khoja, Aligargh, Eta, Etawah, Kanpur, Lucknow, Badayun, Bareili, Rae Bareili, Sitapur, Barabanki, Allahabad, ...., required students to take at least Urdu, and sometimes Persian as well.
But here are talking here about the variety of Hindi spoken in the region northeast of Delhi, extending roughly from Delhi to Muzaffarnagar, the heart of Khari boli speech. That language, supplemented with Persian vocabulary, had spread all over north India by the end of the 18th century because of the Muslims. It had been given a literature by the Muslims. (<small>Not prose, to be sure, for that grew out of the College of Fort William after 1800, when the British employed Urdu literateurs to write text-books (in prose obviously) for their civil servants, and to go on to creating a simplified Urdu standard, which they called Hindustani, in which the civil servants had to take exams. Urdu prose literature grew out of that. And eventually Hindi copied. </small>) We are talking about poetry, of Sauda, Mir, and Insha, ..., that had thrived in the 18th century in Urdu, not in Persian; the latter had stopped being a language of mushairas, qasidas, ghazals, ... after 1700 or thereabouts. There were even prose-poems, the Shahr Ashobs, for example, of Nazeer Akbarabadi, on Diwali, ] (see my example there), even the ]. (See a bigger list ).


So, again, summing up: the British chose the Khari boli Urdu because it has already become the ''lingua franca'' during Mughal rule, especially in the 18th century. Had the lingua franca been a Persianized Tamil, or -Bengali, you can bet your bottom dollar the College of Fort William would have produced the textbooks in those languages. But the point is that without the Muslims, without the accidents of geography that brought the Muslims to that region, these dialects would have remained obscure ones; their role is incidental. The Muslims however are not incidental. They would have created a lingua franca wherever their rule had established itself in India. ]] 16:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) :Dear {{re|Anupam|RegentsPark}}, I have moved the bit about Urdu being the "Persian register of the Hindustani language" from the lead paragraph where it stood out by its sheer incongruity, to the second paragraph, where it is thematically meaningful. I have also explained for the benefit of a ordinary reader what ], also ], is, to give the paragraph some narrative coherence. I agree with Anupam that the Nepal bit is not lead-worthy, and thank them for moving it to a later section. Although I have not consciously removed anything, my edits seemed to have reduced the "bytes." Perhaps, unconsciously, I have removed a citation. If so, please restore it. But please don't put the "Persianized register" back in the lead paragraph, previous consensus or not, because it drew attention in a negative and entirely unmeaningful, way. Best regards, ]] 14:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:PS I have also corrected "Western Uttar Pradesh" piped to "Ganga-Jumna doab" in the third paragraph. The doab, or the interfluve, or tongue of high ground between the Ganges and Yamuna river valleys, extends south to Allahabad. The spawning grounds of Urdu are very specific&mdash;what are today the districts of ] in ], adjoining Delhi. ]] 15:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
: is an example of Mir's poem on his cat Mohini. It is written in Khari boli Urdu. This is not the complete version, which I have somewhere. Anyway, note that though it has very common words, it also has some highly Persianized expressions. His other poems are even more Persianized, sometimes more even than Ghalib, whose poetry is highly Persianized. It runs counter to the POV in all these Hindi-Urdu articles that there was this simple colloquial language Hindi-Urdu, which split on the one hand into Persianized Urdu and on the other hand into Sanskritized Hindi. Urdu was highly Persianized long before 1800 and the College of Fort William. Hindi began to be Sanskritized only in the latter half of the 19th century; in other words, much later. There wasn't a split. There was a highly Persianized language Urdu, which was given a prose during a time when a simplified version of it was promoted by the British. Hindi literature, in Khari boli, then arose, and by the end of the 19th century, had be ramped up sufficiently to be on par with Urdu. Ralph Rusell has written about it, but I can't seem to find the paper. ]] 17:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::The lede looks significantly improved. Thanks for your efforts User:Fowler&fowler. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::PS I found it. It is . ] was Professor of Urdu at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and one of the foremost scholars of Urdu in the latter half of the 20th century. {{u|Austronesier}} had mentioned a textbook of his on Urdu. Here he is: <blockquote> People who would like to think that Prem Chand wrote Hindustani therefore assume that he did; and he didn’t. In the same way “fair-minded” opponents of excessively Sanskritized Hindi assume that there is a parallel excessively Persianized/Arabicized form of Urdu; and there isn’t. Urdu as written both in India and Pakistan is no more Persianized/Arabicized today than it ever was. Its Persianization, if one wants to use that term, was already accomplished when modern Hindi came into existence, and there is virtually no further scope for it.</blockquote> ]] 17:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
:::I completely lacked scrutinty with this revert, since I only was triggered by the odd phrase "language member", but failed to see that I accidentally restored some recent changes to the opening sentence that I don't endorse at all. Of course, like the vast majority of good sources, we should open by saying that Urdu is a ''language'', and put it into a classificatory framework ("...is an Indo-Aryan..."), say where it is natively sopken and mention it importance based on its status as a national language of Pakistan and as an official language in various Indian states. It is important to inform the reader about its special nature in relation to Hindi, but this comes second after the key facts in the first paragraph. So I agree with Anupam, the lead now looks much better with {{User|Fowler&amp;fowler}}'s changes.
* Urdu was formed as a result of Islamic contact with Hindus (Indians) in South Asia. I don't see any problems with the text that Fowler views as problematic when it's historically accurate. To try to attribute the development of Urdu to one religious community alone is grossly inaccurate. Urdu developed in India as a result of the mixing of two cultures. It was not wholly imported from outside. --] (]) 02:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
:::There is however one inaccuracy that needs to be tackled: "Urdu and Hindi share a common Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived vocabulary base...". We all know that Hindi and Urdu are identical twins that – so to speak – look alike in the bathroom and when sitting at the kitchen table, but become increasingly different the more formal they dress. However, the common base is not fully "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived", for instance, Hindi कुरसी, लेकिन and बाद belong to this very base and are not "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived". The shared pathways of Urdu and Hindi (even when the latter is understood in a wide sense) long postdates the Prakrit period: the literary language of Delhi and its Indo-Aryan siblings in the region underwent common Perso-Arabic influence, and also internally-driven changes in phonology and grammar that signficantly depart from the Prakrit past.
::Please read what I have written carefully. ]] 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
:::As a first remedy, I will add "predominantly" to "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived", but suggest to eventually replace it simply with "Urdu and Hindi share a common vocabulary base". We already know from the lead that Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language; we wouldn't say this if it didn't originate from a Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived base. –] (]) 12:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That bit had been there from earlier and I did not change it, but I agree. Common words such as the ones you mention {{re|Austronesier}}, and others such as Urdu mayz, from Arabic (cf ]), or kameez also from Arabic (cf ]) are there in Urdu in good numbers. One could hazard the guess that as the Muslims brought the art of sewing clothes to the subcontinent many words associated with it would have come from Arabic or Persian. ], the Urdu/Hindi word for tailor is one such word. It would probably apply to words arisign from other Muslim-introduced technologies. Have to run, but thank you. Please go ahead and make the change. ]] 13:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: ... (later) Urdu script can sometimes, but not always, give a clue to the origin of words. Thus ba'd, the Urdu word for "after", which is written in Hindi as बाद as you stated, is however written in Urdu as بعد (with the Arabic ain) and not باد i.e. with a simple alif or aa after the b.
:::::کرسی kursi, or chair, as you say, is from Arabic, though in this instant, the script alone does not give a clue.
:::::ميز mez (table) is a different type of example, as there is no z sound in Sanskrit, ... and many Indo-Aryan languages. This is probably why the Indian prime minister who is a native Gujarati speaker is unable to pronounce آزادی, azadi (freedom), at least when he's not watching himself, preferring ajahadi instead.
:::::دروازه darwaza, door, is from Persian, but کواڑ किवाड़ kiwāR, a less formal word for door is from Prakrit. The ड़ retroflex construction doesn't exist in Persian and Arabic, and a diacritic had to be added to the r or ر
:::::Anyway I am carrying coals to Newcastle, so I better stop. ]] 14:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think the addition of the word "predominantly" was a good move, given that certain Persian loanwords, such as those that User:Fowler&fowler cited, have become established in Hindi-Urdu. I believe that the mention of the Indic (Sanskritic/Prakritic) base is important as our readers might not necessarily know what an Indo-Aryan language is. Kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} I have deliberately chosen Hindi examples (even if this is the talk page for the Urdu article), to emphasize the absurdity of describing the common ground of Urdu and Hindi as solely "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived" and Urdu as a "Persiansized" register in one breath, which will potentially make an uninitiated reader believe that Urdu and Hindi parted ways before any "Persiansization" had taken place, and thus reinforce the ideological POV that Hindi is the autochthonous, primordially "pure" member of the pair, which is of course wrong. When Urdu and Hindi speakers meet on the common ground of low-brow discourse (the register of Hindi–Urdu that is occasionally called "Hindustani" by sociolinguists) their largely – apart from some shibboleths – indistinguishable speech will have quite many Perso-Arabic elements in it that had been accumulated in the many centuries before the creation of a modern Delhi-based "Hindi" in the 19th century. And that's regardless of their self-identification with "Hindi" or "Urdu", which generally manifests itself in the script, the target pronunciation of certain sounds and in lexcial choices in mid- to high-brow discourse (but only when people decide to ''not'' code-switch to English in such a context, as they often do) to the point of indeed producing two distinct literary languages. –] (]) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


==S-protection== == Nastaliq ==
It's clear that the content of this article is of much concern to various people who are very impetuous. Their edits harm the article and waste the time of responsible editors. I've therefore s-protected the article for one month. -- ] (]) 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


There's often a confusion between the writing system used to write Urdu, and the style that Urdu is written in. ] (like Shekasta) is a style of writing Urdu. It isn't a separate script.
== Mistake ==


* {{tq|it adopted the Nastaleeq writing system}}
In the Vocabulary part it is written “The phrase Zabān-i Urdū-yi Muʿallā ("the language of the exalted camp") written in Nastaʿlīq script.” but it shouldn't be Zabān (زَبان) rather Zubān (زُبان). 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* {{tq|("the language of the exalted camp") written in Nastaʿlīq script}}
* {{tq|The Urdu Nastaʿliq alphabet}}


The script used to write Urdu is called the Perso-Arabic script, or simply the ]. ] (]) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2020 ==
:{{re|نعم البدل}} Oh yes, please go ahead and fix it. That's an error based on an amateur understanding of the Perso-Arabic script that keeps on creeping into Urdu-related articles (note that the only source that actually talks about a "Nastaliq script" is a ''Lonely Planet'' language guide(!), a generally odd choice as a source for an <u>encyclopaedia</u>). –] (]) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Amendments made! ] (]) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== A request to enter another required information in the Post-Partition (History) section ==
{{edit extended-protected|Urdu|answered=yes}}
one category should be on the top.


In the section, History (Post-Partition), kindly include that in the early days of Pakistan, ] (]) played a significant role in managing the country's bureaucracy, finance department and other major institutions, and they also established banks there. And that the mother tongue of majority of the founding fathers of Pakistan was Urdu.
:You need to formulate a clear statement of exactly what you want to be done and why. ] (]) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


Personally, if I were to mention one thing, Dr. ] (a Pakistani-Canadian journalist and author) mentioned somewhere that ] gave Urdu the status of Pakistan's state language precisely because Urdu-speakers could run bureaucracy, finance departments, and more in Pakistan. (Although I have a YouTube link for the video, I don't have any reference for that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ppTVjgRJSi5DVYPi&v=JOllroCaLQg&feature=youtu.be)"
:I want to explain the statements clearly, hope you understand.


It is an important part of the history of Urdu in Pakistan.
::What statements do you want to explain, and how? ] (]) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


=== References ===
:First: Perso-Arabic is also called Nastaliq, and if it's a article for Urdu, so how can be Hindustani language category be on the top????, early forms are also Shauraseni Apabhramsa and persian, in first paragraph Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal, Delhi are added but Jammu and Kashmir is not added, and how it can use Indian English, it's spoken in Pakistan and Nepal too. Where did Faraz Ahmed's poetry come from between Ghalib's couplet? and many other, mistakes. -- <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
* <ref>{{Cite web |last=Nabbo |first=Habbo |date=2023-02-06 |title=Socio-economic Status of Muhajirs (2023) |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/624124272/Socio-economic-Status-of-Muhajirs-2023# |access-date=2023-02-06 |website=Scribd}}</ref>


* {{Cite book |last=Lieven |first=Anatol |title=Pakistan : a hard country |date=2011 |publisher=PublicAffairs |isbn=978-1-61039-021-7 |edition=1st |location=New York |oclc=710995260}}
:: Misplaced Pages is written based on ]. Please consult the policy pages posted on your talk page. -- ] (]) 21:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Thanks for pointing ] in the right direction, ]. That being said, the example of Faraz Ahmed's poetry in between Ghalib's couplet did seem random so I it. As for the reason why ] is not mentioned in the lede, Jammu & Kashmir is no longer a state, but a union territory. I have seen mixed articles about whether Urdu still retains its official status there (see and ). If you can provide a reliable source that demonstrates that Urdu is an official language of the union territory, I would be happy to add that in. Finally, removing the Indian English template and supplanting it with the Pakistani English template seems very trivial, but I wouldn't have any objection with also adding the Pakistani English template to the article, which I have . I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: I changed it to Commonwealth English. -- ] (]) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I agree with {{u|Kautilya3}} that your submission, {{u|ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist}} should be sourced. And I don't particularly care about which English the article is written in; they are all the same. On the other hand, the article has obvious flaws. This page and all Urdu-related pages have long been hijacked by people who can't shake the monkeys of "Hindustani language" bias off their backs, metaphorically speaking. They are all wrapped in a strange kind of India-related language chauvinism. The typical sentence has at least half a dozen citations, and sometimes more, most to people whose degree of notability in Urdu is yet to reach the realm of positive numbers. Alternatively, a sentence might be sourced to well-known authors who don't really say what the sentence is claiming. A notable example is the nonsensical page "Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb," which until I disabused the authors, was being translated as the ethos of the people who live in the region, the tongue of land, the ], between the two rivers, Ganges and Jamuna, i.e. the ]! (The expression means "mixed, composite, an alloy! It is applied to jewellery made with gold and silver; to lentils/daals made with arhar and urad") The tehzeeb was a 19th-century Indo-Muslim, not Hindu-Muslim, construct, long post-dating the development and refinement of Urdu, but still, doozies such as, "The contact of the Hindu and Muslim cultures during the period of Islamic administrative rule in India led to the development of Hindustani as a product of a composite Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb." plod on unconquerable. Other examples of are: "Gulzar, Javed Akhtar, Majrooh Sultanpuri, Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Ahmad Faraz, Jaun Elia, Rahat Indori and Waseem Barelvi are some famous and widely read Urdu poets. The reality here is that the Indian poets together do not have even half of the poetic heft of the three Pakistani poets, Faiz, Faraz, and Jaun Elia. And this is when large numbers of post-1947 Pakistani poets, such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], are left out, all because the reigning philosophy of the page is to assign equal notability to poetic effusions on both sides of the border. And so it goes, ..., a highly inaccurate article continues to perpetrate, or should I say inflict, untruths about Urdu. ]] 21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks, Fowler. I forgot about all these old arguments in the midst of coronafrenzy. Having just done a bit of clean-up on ], it occurs to me that your arguments about ] are similar to those that argue that ''Jai Shri Ram'' is a friendly greeting (and not a dogwhistle or battle cry). Language gets re-tooled all the time. -- ] (]) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 11:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for reading and understanding my statements, but you didn't response, that why Hindustani language's category is on the top?, although it's a article for Urdu, And if Urdu has an Hindustani language category, So, should be in Hindi article too. -- <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
:::::::: Please read the History section. ''Hindustani'' is the name being used for the language spoken around the Delhi area from the 12th century onwards. After the onset of the Delhi Sultanate, this language got mixed with Persian vocabulary and spread throughout the subcontinent. It was written in the Nastaliq script in Deccan, and the written language came back to Delhi in the <s>19th</s> 18th century and eventually came to be called Urdu.
:::::::: Fowler doesn't like calling this language ''Hindustani'', but I don't see a good alternative. (It was called ''Dahlavi'', ''Hindavi'', ''Hindi'' etc. during various time periods, but those terms are not used any more.)
:::::::: Frankly, you need to look at the ] that have been cited instead of raising quibbles on the talk page. -- ] (]) 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC) <small>corrected date. ] (]) 10:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC) </small>
:{{re|Kautilya3|Anupam}} You are in all likeliness engaging with the LTA abuser sami (]). Please stop serving the sock, the LTA has in the pushed for Urdu/Pakistan. Not to mention the article largely follows Indian English which shouldn't be arbitrarily changed/templates added unless relevant copyedits are done for the same. ] (]) 10:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|Kautilya3}} Language may get retooled, and "GJ-Tehzeeb" may now even be claimed by Hindu-nationalists who could be denying a more blatant nationalism by advertising a more rounded, plausible, but specious one. GJT then is a means of achieving greater, but determinedly limited, social acceptability. It is one thing to say that. It is quite another to say that Urdu is a byproduct of GJT, for the language, the highly Persianized version had long existed (as Ralph Russell and others have written) before the Indo-Muslim version of GJT arose in the United Provinces in the 19th-century, which was almost a century before Hindus in India coming from a wide range of political affiliations began to claim GJT as an affectation, a fantasy for an idealized past. When I summon up the energy, I will rewrite these articles, but for now, I am mostly venting at their poor state. ]] 12:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
::: I agree that the use of GJ-Tehzeeb on this page is a bit over the top. But on your substantive point, the "highly Persianized version" did not long exist. As per ], Persian and Dehlavi/Hindustani were separate languages in Delhi until about 1700. Then the Dakhini poet Wali arrived there and started mixing them. Subsequently there was an effort to throw out the native Indian words from Dehlavi/Hindustani and replace them with Persian words, a decisive step towards the development of Urdu. So Urdu was very much an eighteenth-century language. -- ] (]) 11:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::::FWIW, the narrative that "there was an effort to throw out the native Indian words" is too simply painted. There was a tendency for "over-refinement", similar to what happened in European Baroque-poetry, i.e. to detach the literary language as much as possibile from the "coarse" spoken language. Persian was the source of choice for creating this refined and stilted vocabulary, but what fell victim to it were both "native Indian words", but also older Persian (or Perso-Arabic) loans, which latter had been well-integrated into Dehlavi for centuries. Tariq Rahman's "From Hindi to Urdu" gives a good and AFAICS unbiased overview of that matter. –] (]) 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Kautilya3}}{{re|Austronesier}} By "long existed" above I meant "for a century or more." K3, Thanks for your sources. I will critique them at the RfC. My concern here is not the mixed colloquial speech of Delhi during the period 13th–late 16th/early 17th centuries, whatever you want to call it, Rekhta, Dehalvi, or Urdu, but about the next stage, ''i.e.'' the origins of formal Urdu. Please read ]'s introduction to the ''Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary'' ]. There is no dispute about Urdu formally beginning in the late 17th or early 18th century (Wali died in 1709). But the poets who began to use words of the mixed speech (Rekhta, Dehalvi, etc) had been writing in Persian—writing ghazals, marsias, qawwalis, nats, ... Their writings are all the record we have.
:::::In other words, Urdu was never Persianized from a mixed speech (as ] has remarked as well), as there was no tradition of written literature in the mixed speech; rather, the Indo-Muslim poets/elites of Delhi began to employ local vernacular words, expressions, idioms, and themes while preserving the common forms of Persian poetry or hagiography they had been using; they did this in part as a result of the trend set in Dakhani a little earlier. You can observe that common theme in the Misplaced Pages biographies of ], ], ], or even in the ] section of Muhammad Shah Rangila, the Mughal Emperor of the ''later Mughal period'' during whose reign Urdu became the court language of the Mughals. It may be—as Austronesier is quoting Tariq Rahman saying—that in this late 17th-century de-Persianization of Mughal court poetry and concurrent induction in it of local vernacular words, the poets/elite avoided the older Persian words already acclimatized in the vernacular/Dehlavi. If this is indeed the case, I would be highly surprised. (But, it is an interesting point that warrants looking at, I'll grant.)
:::::Summing up: "Modern Standard Urdu" therefore is a misnomer, as is the claim that Urdu and Hindi arose in the same way—one by absorbing Persian, the other by absorbing Sanskrit—an ahistorical POV. Urdu literature (for that is the evidence) emerged as a result of Indo-Muslim Persian literature being diluted by the admixture of vernacular/Dehlavi/Rehkta/Khari boli words and idioms. It was never undiluted thereafter in the form of a Persianization. ]] 18:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::PS I did locate a scholar of the early 18th-century transformation in Mughal Delhi, and to boot a scholar of Persian, whose book might be worth reading. The author seems fairly rigorous in his writing: {{citation|last=Keshavmurthy|first=Prashant|title=Persian Authorship and Canonicity in Late Mughal Delhi: Building an Ark|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dC5-CwAAQBAJ|year=2016|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-28795-7}} ]] 19:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::PPS He very recently did an English translation of the poem by ] about his cat ''Mohini'' that I've been talking about above. See ! He is an associate professor of Persian at McGill. ]] 19:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|To whom it may concern}} wilful ignorance is a choice, and a—momentary—blessing solely for the one who chooses it. The rant has been deleted, but has already been read, too. In any case, Tariq Rahman is an outstanding sociolinguist and as such ''perfectly'' equipped for a no-bullshit approach to the history of Urdu. –] (]) 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} You seem too smart—as discerned thus far on my dealings with you on Misplaced Pages—to fall for the fallacy that one person is ''perfectly'' equipped. Please tell me how he is perfectly equipped. What has he trained in? His PhD is in Pakistani English fiction. Later, he received a masters in Linguistics. His socio-politico-linguistic work has been on language politics in Pakistan, and the Urdu-English controversy there. But he is not a linguist of Hindi, Urdu, or Indo-Aryan, such as Masica or Cardona. He is not among the sociolinguists of South Asia written about in textbooks of sociolinguistics such as or ]; he is not a historian of pre-modern Islamic South Asia such as ]; he is not a Persianist, such as mentioned above or ; he is not a scholar of Urdu language or its literature such as , , ], ], ; he is not a grammarian of Urdu such as , he's not a scholar of Hindi such as , or , he is not a lexicographer of Hindi such as ]. How then is ''he'' perfectly equipped and how by implication, all the other scholars who have actually worked in these fields, whose reflections on Hindi and Urdu I have been collecting, are not? Please list 10 words of medieval Persian that had became acclimatized in Hindawi or Dehlavi, but were dropped in the 18th and 19th century Urdu because of the imperatives of political Islam. Please tell me when in the development of Urdu, the letter se (ث, pronounced in Persian and Arabic as the English voiceless dental fricative "th") and seen (س, pronounced as the English "s") come to have the same pronunciation, on account of the inability of South Asians (both Indo-Aryan speakers and Dravidian) to pronounce se. The same for the Persian ذ (dhaal, the voiced English dental fricative "th") also unavailable in Indo-Aryan/Dravidian speech, which is now pronounced in Urdu as the letter ز (ze/zayn pronounced as the English "z")? Conversely, when was "do-chashmi he" introduced in Urdu to accommodate the aspirated sounds of Indo-Aryan (bh, gh, kh, jh, dh)? That is the history of Urdu of interest, and not (for the 100th time) how Urdu was and is still really an Indian language, and its real name is Hindustani, it was really shaped by the Hindu speakers of Hindustani, only it is written in a weird script, a non-Hindustani one. Misplaced Pages is no longer in that nascent state of development in which authors who write grand and popular trade-paperback histories of fields that are outside their field of training can be considered reliable scholars. But the Hindi-Urdu related pages have not changed one whit since 2006 when Misplaced Pages ''was'' in its nascent state. ]] 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:At least I am "smart" enough not twist to around the words of my interlocutor in a red-herring fashion. To say that scholar A is perfectly equipped, does not imply nor induce that scholars B, C, D (ect.) are not. All of these sources deserve to be read—and understood. Apart from that I won't engange in a quiz game that conflates language, literature and orthography. Nor cater to ideological fluff. –] (]) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


:@] @] @] @] Kindly share your thoughts. ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Commonwealth English is better Urdu is not only spoken in India, it's also national official language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and in Nepal it's an recognized language, ok, my request is like sock, am i make statements to Urdu article, i only request to make statements, and if It does not inspect, that which English is article representing so China article can also written in American English. am i wrong?
::I have some information to the article regarding this, as requested. More information on the role the Muhajirs played in establishing Pakistan could be added to the articles about ] and the ]. Kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much, sir. You included the information on my request. I am very grateful to you. However, sir, what I meant was that it is necessary to provide this information as part of the history that in the early days of Pakistan, Urdu speakers (Muhaiirs) played a significant role in managing the country's bureaucracy, finance department, and other major institutions, and they also established banks in the country. And that the majority of the founding fathers of Pakistan were Urdu-speakers, this addition is very important, as it is an important part of the history of Urdu in Pakistan. Thank you very much, respected sir. 🥰 ] (]) 08:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Excess cites ==
:Please add that Urdu is an Persianised and Standardised Register of Hindustani language, not a dialect of Western Hindi, but yes, Hindustani language is the part of Western Hindi dialects, It is not necessary that if Urdu's parent, Hindustani is a part of Western Hindi dialects, then Urdu is also a part of it. Hindustani language is totally a part of Western Hindi, if it's excludes Urdu language. Urdu is only considered as standard register of Hindustani, central indo-aryan language, Indo-aryan language, indo-iranian language or indo-european language ] (]) 13:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


@]I removed excess cites because it was already tagged and an unsourced image. Trimmed words as well and removed an idiom because it belongs somewhere else not on the first para on origins. ] (]) 12:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], if Hindustani is the name being used for the language spoken around the Delhi area from the 12th century onwards. After the onset of the Delhi Sultanate, this language got mixed with Persian vocabulary and spread throughout the subcontinent. It was written in the Nastaliq script in Deccan, and the written language came back to Delhi in the 19th century and eventually came to be called Urdu. so it should be written on ] article, not to Urdu article. ] (]) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:: Please note that, it was 18th century, not 19th. I miswrote it earlier, but corrected it now.
:: The talk of Hindustani belongs on this page as well, because that is still the basic core of Urdu. That is what makes it possible for Indians and Pakistanis to understand each other, despite calling their languages by different names. -- ] (]) 10:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I have now quickly read Tariq Rahman's first three chapters. So littered are they with errors that I am incredulous that the book had the benefit of copyedits. He is unable to read Devanagari, relies on three people to do a translation, and still manages to have errors in the final version. The first three chapters have strings of speculation beginning with, "It appears that," all based on secondary sources, which include the likes of ''Hobson Jobson''. He simply does not have the background either in Indo-Aryan linguistics or historical linguistics to engage in such historical speculation. He background seems to be in modern multilingualism and sociolinguistics of Pakistan. He might be a useful source for more modern material, especially the 20th-century pre- and post-partition, but he is not for early-modern material. I did happen upon the following sentences in the first chapter: <blockquote> The terms Hindi-Urdu (or Urdu-Hindi) will be used for the ancestor of modern Hindi and Urdu which went by several names which will be mentioned later. It is also used for the language shared between urban Pakistan and north India—indeed—all major cities of South Asia—which goes by the name of 'Hindi' in the Bollywood films but used to be called 'Hindustani' before 1947."</blockquote> Had he remained the ''knight sans peur et sans reproche'' of the history of Urdu in my eyes, I would have used him to drive the final nail in the coffin of the name, ], but now I'm in a big dilemma. ]] 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
::::If you could you overcome your ''a priori'' aversion and read until chapter six, you would see that Tariq Rahman certainly rejects the Indian myth—propagated e.g. by Amrit Rai—that both Urdu and Hindi are some kind of artificial products of deliberate "Persianization" vs. "Sansktization" of poor innocent Hindustani. Indeed, by 1800, Literary Urdu had become very different and detached from the colloquial language, but the latter definitely still was Urdu just as well. The gap between these two registers (long before the creation of modern Hindi) was not a product of sectarianism, but elitism—a very natural thing all over the world in stratified civilizations. And it is ''this'' kind of sociolinguistic thinking that I find highly conclusive and appealing, regardless of whether TR draws on primary or secondary sources. –] (]) 14:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::OK, Very well put. I will read on. Elitism is a possible scenario. ]] 15:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


:Your explanation is a bit too vague and your edit summaries too brief for me to make sense of your edits. I defer to {{re|Anupam|Austronesier}} here. ]] 16:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:for this confusion, i have created the page named ], it's important for this confusion, so please, don't delete this page. - ] (]) 22:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


::User:Fowler&fowler, thank you for inviting me to the discussion. User:Axedd, the references (with quote parameters) are in place to ensure that anonymous IP editors and others do not not remove information that has been carefully worded over time. As such, please do not remove them. The image is relevant and does contain a reference; the body of the article discusses the development of Urdu in Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur, with it being refined in Lucknow. Thanks for your understanding, ]<sup>]</sup> 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:@]: you write that Hindustani is the name being used for the language spoken around the Delhi area from the 12th century onwards. After the onset of the Delhi Sultanate, this language got mixed with Persian vocabulary and spread throughout the subcontinent. It was written in the Nastaliq script in Deccan, and the written language came back to Delhi in the 18th century and eventually came to be called Urdu. I didn't see that on ] article. So please, add that statement to ] article. ] (]) 11:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
:::The whole of that area is not sourced though, hence making the image vague and meaningless.I might return later to this for now ] (]) 21:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with Anupam that it's good to have multiple sources here. The history of the language that came to be known as Urdu in the 18th century is complex and contentious. POVs of exclusive ownership or denial of Urdu's erstwhile status as a supra-communal literary language regularly get inserted here. Overcite can also be mended by ], a solution that I strongly prefer over throwing out high-quality sources like King's book. –] (]) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:18, 5 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urdu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Names of Urdu Language was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Urdu. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSouth Asia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconPakistan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia: West Bengal / Bihar / Delhi / Jharkhand / Uttar Pradesh / Telangana High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jharkhand.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Telangana.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2019.
WikiProject iconLanguages Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ]
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Current Description

The current description may not be to the liking of many Misplaced Pages users and readers because, Urdu has the status of national language and language of public communication (lingua franca) in Pakistan, where it is also the official language, along with English. And the educated population of Pakistan who took over the bureaucracy and finance department of Pakistan, etc. were Urdu speakers, who were Muhajirs. Also, Sir Syed, Liaquat Ali Khan, Ali brothers, etc. are considered important names in the history of Pakistan, all of them spoke Urdu as their mother tongue. Therefore, I request to change this description from "Language spoken in India and Pakistan" to "Language spoken in Pakistan and India" or "Language spoken chiefly in South Asia" so that the people reading it do not feel anything biased or unsatisfying, especially the population of India and Pakistan. Thank you very much. AlidPedian (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino Kindly answer me. I look forward to your reply. AlidPedian (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I think changing the short description to "Language spoken chiefly in South Asia" would be good. Unfortunately, the article isn't letting me change it. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I doubt anyone is going to perceive bias when they read the words "India and Pakistan" unless they have a huge chip on their shoulder. PepperBeast (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course we did, but the old-India-POV editors, unable to accept the reality
  • that Urdu has declined markedly in its birthplace in India even among many educated Muslim families;
  • that on the BBC Urdu website only 10% of the posters are from addresses in India, the rest no longer able to read the Urdu script, let alone write;
  • that the only country in which Oxford University Press publishes books in Urdu (both pedagogic and literary) is Pakistan;
  • that Bollywood songs with a few words of Urdu in the mix do not constitute Urdu;
  • that the birthplace of a language does not produce mother's milk of the language;
  • that the average person in Pakistan's whose mother tongue is not Urdu is nevertheless able to read, write, and speak Urdu with more skill that the average "Urdu speaker" in India;
  • that in the 75 years since decolonization in South Asia, Pakistan has produced some great Urdu poets, witness, off the top of my head: Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ada Jafri, Zehra Nigah, Munir Niazi, Nasir Kazmi, Habib Jalib, Ahmad Faraz, Kishwar Naheed, Fahmida Riaz, and Iftikhar Arif, but India, sadly, has produced nothing that can match, only Bollywood songwriters such as Javed Akhtar or Gulzar whom Indians consider to be Urdu poets.
very determinedly never allowed us to change anything in this article and also in Hindustani language, a subterfuge employed in contempory India for expanding the definition of Urdu to include any pidgin-Hindi speaker in India.
PS I don't have a chip on my shoulder. Among other things I have written the FA India).
PPS It's not like I haven't tried. I've certainly collected more sources than anyone before or after. See:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
PS Not that anything will change in this page's lead, but the Britannica article on Urdu begins: "Urdu language, member of the Indo-Aryan group within the Indo-European family of languages. Urdu is spoken as a first language by nearly 70 million people and as a second language by more than 100 million people, predominantly in Pakistan and India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
PPS The Oxford English Dictionary entry on Urdu, n. & adj. states: An Indo-Aryan language of northern South Asia (now esp. Pakistan), closely related to Hindi but written in a modified form of the Arabic script ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I've changed it to South Asia based on the discussion here. Fowler, the death of Urdu in India may be greatly exaggerated - despite the dearth of poets and the overall decline in the number of speakers. There are several Urdu newspapers for example and therefore, presumably, plenty of Urdu speakers. RegentsPark (comment) 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Very true, RP, about the newspapers. I've often wondered about that. They are probably read in Muslim neighborthoods, and to that extent, the ghettoization of Muslims in India has perhaps had a salutary effect, for sprinkled among the majority, the newspapers would not have survivived, let lone sprouted anew. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    And it is taught presumably widely if to few in the NCERT curriculum. See for example the textbooks from grades one through twelve.
    Perhaps there will be a rebirth, for the script is important in the language, perhaps more so than some other languages. A simple example is place names. In Urdu, the -abad constructions (abad=settled by) are usually two separate words: Feroze Abad, Farrukh Abad, Ghazi Abad, Faisal Abad, ... they give you a glimpse into a cultural history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler, if you recall, we established a consensus version of the lede, in which you placed the information about Urdu being a Persianised register as the second sentence (see this diff). I have restored that wording though if you have again changed your mind, you must, per WP:BRD restore the version of the article before your edits until a new consensus is reached. I have added another reference that buttresses the non-disptued linguistic information. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam 22:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Native to

@Fowler&fowler @Professor Penguino @Pepperbeast @RegentsPark Thanks for the consideration, I have also noticed that in the "Native to" section of the template, it says "India and Pakistan". I would also like to request that "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu Belt, and Deccan" be written here instead, because of the same reason, I provided in my previous request. Thanks once again. 💗 AlidPedian (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino @Fowler&fowler @RegentsPark @Pepperbeast Kindly respond. AlidPedian (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, what do you understand by "native to?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler If "Native to" refers here to the place where Urdu originated, then only India should be written here, because Urdu originated from there (the present-day Northern India, and not from the present-day Pakistan). Obviously, It is not the case. The article of Turkish language has multiple countries in this section. But if it refers to the places from where this language is flourishing and had significant development, then Pakistan should be written here first (along with India). Because if Modern Standard Urdu is the tenth most-spoken language in the world today, the main reason for this is because it is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and also the significant number of Urdu-speakers, who stayed in India after the partition of India. And that is why I requested that it be written here as "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu belt, and Deccan region." AlidPedian (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems "Native to" will become (no matter how you rephrase) a slightly different version of the next argument in the infobox, "Region."
So, unless there is consensus around, something very specific, such as the Muslim military encampments of northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar. (cf. the later, Mughal, "Zaban-e-Urdu-Mualla," language of the exalted camp), or if you want to go back further, viz to Amir Khusrow and list the region of Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah, Delhi, it is best to leave the "Native to" argument blank. What do you think @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this. As a matter of personal preference, I would leave it blank because languages (natural languages) don't suddenly arise out of nothing. However, if there are definitive sources then that's a different matter. RegentsPark (comment) 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would actually recommend listing the locations such as those that User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, including Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur in the "Native to" parameter. Students' Britannica India (2000) states:

Hindustani developed as lingua franca in the medieval ages in and around Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur because of the interaction between the speakers of Khariboli (a dialect developed in this region out of Shauraseni Prakrit) and the speakers of Persian, Turkish, and various dialects of Arabic who migrated to North India. Initially it was known by various names such as Rekhta (mixed), Urdu (language of the camp) and Hindvi or Hindustani (language of Hindustan).

I see no reason to leave out this information as the native region of Urdu is well sourced. Kind regards, Anupam 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That being said, if consensus is to leave it blank, I would not particularly push for this. I hope this helps. Anupam 22:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I looked at {{Infobox language}} and it seems to me that the "native to" attribute refers to the places where it is spoken, not where it originated (see the list of countries listed in the Farsi example). In which case, South Asia would probably be the right entry. RegentsPark (comment) 01:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification User:RegentsPark! Feel free to change it to "South Asia". With regards, Anupam 03:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
If my opinion is taken, I would also emphasize more on changing it to "South Asia", because even before the partition of India, the Urdu-language literature was flourishing not only in present-day India, but also in present-day Pakistan and present-day Bangladesh. The examples of this are Allama Muhammad Iqbal (the poet of Urdu, from Sialkot) and the Dhakaiya dialect of Urdu. AlidPedian (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I have went ahead and made the change, while adding the aforementioned reference to the article. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Anupam 16:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You guys cant just change country names to region names because of political disputes and tensions. The source i cited mentions that Urdu is native to both Pakistan and India. 'Native to' means the language has linguistic roots in both India and Pakistan and originated from these two countries. 'Non-indigenous' as indicated on the source for example in the USA or Bangladesh means the language is not originally from the said countries and was introduced by later immigrants or in other words by later migration. South Asia is also not a country but a region in Asia. 'States' is another synonym for 'countries'. Many other wikipedia pages for languages spoken in countries with political tensions freely add the country names on their language infobox information. Removing Pakistan and India on the langusge infobox is not going to help solve political disputes or tensions or controversies between two countries and peoples on a wikipedia language information page. Readers should clearly know without direct or indirect bias that Urdu is native to both India and Pakistan, whike the region should be changed to South Asia since South Asia is not a country again. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler @Professor Penguino @Pepperbeast @Anupam please respond to my objection request and understand what I have said and if this reason is strong for you to change it back to 'Native to India and Pakistan'. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
"South Asia" is fine and consensus developed here established this. The next parameter of the infobox ("Native to") already mentions Pakistan and India; duplicating the same information is redundant. If we are being precise, as User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, the "Native to" parameter would specify "northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar". Anupam 14:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
where in the source (Ethnologue) does it mention native to 'northeastern Delhi, Grazia address, and Muradnagar'? Those would be 'locations'. India and Pakistan are countries so under the language entry it would be written as 'Native to' under the comments section. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cookiemonster1618 No one is editing the 'native to' section due to political conflicts. That's your idea, sir. And "South Asia" is completely fine here. As I mentioned earlier, Urdu has a dialect called Dhakaiya. And for your concern, Delhi and the surrounding areas are mentioned in the first reference. And thus the reader will obviously be aware of Urdu being native to India and Pakistan. AlidPedian (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nepal

Urdu is usually described as a language of South Asia or a language of India and Pakistan. Jieun Kiaer, Associate Professor in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford, describes the language as follows in the text Pragmatic Particles: Findings from Asian Languages (2020):

Urdu is a Persianized and standardized register of the Hindustani language. It is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and an official language of five states in India.

I have therefore moved the information about it being a dialect spoken in Nepal to the body of the article. I do not believe that there will be any objections to this, though if there are, please state them here. Thanks, Anupam 22:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Anupam and RegentsPark:, I have moved the bit about Urdu being the "Persian register of the Hindustani language" from the lead paragraph where it stood out by its sheer incongruity, to the second paragraph, where it is thematically meaningful. I have also explained for the benefit of a ordinary reader what Hindustani language, also Hindi-Urdu, is, to give the paragraph some narrative coherence. I agree with Anupam that the Nepal bit is not lead-worthy, and thank them for moving it to a later section. Although I have not consciously removed anything, my edits seemed to have reduced the "bytes." Perhaps, unconsciously, I have removed a citation. If so, please restore it. But please don't put the "Persianized register" back in the lead paragraph, previous consensus or not, because it drew attention in a negative and entirely unmeaningful, way. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
PS I have also corrected "Western Uttar Pradesh" piped to "Ganga-Jumna doab" in the third paragraph. The doab, or the interfluve, or tongue of high ground between the Ganges and Yamuna river valleys, extends south to Allahabad. The spawning grounds of Urdu are very specific—what are today the districts of Meerut division in Western Uttar Pradesh, adjoining Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The lede looks significantly improved. Thanks for your efforts User:Fowler&fowler. Anupam 15:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I completely lacked scrutinty with this revert, since I only was triggered by the odd phrase "language member", but failed to see that I accidentally restored some recent changes to the opening sentence that I don't endorse at all. Of course, like the vast majority of good sources, we should open by saying that Urdu is a language, and put it into a classificatory framework ("...is an Indo-Aryan..."), say where it is natively sopken and mention it importance based on its status as a national language of Pakistan and as an official language in various Indian states. It is important to inform the reader about its special nature in relation to Hindi, but this comes second after the key facts in the first paragraph. So I agree with Anupam, the lead now looks much better with Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs)'s changes.
There is however one inaccuracy that needs to be tackled: "Urdu and Hindi share a common Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived vocabulary base...". We all know that Hindi and Urdu are identical twins that – so to speak – look alike in the bathroom and when sitting at the kitchen table, but become increasingly different the more formal they dress. However, the common base is not fully "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived", for instance, Hindi कुरसी, लेकिन and बाद belong to this very base and are not "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived". The shared pathways of Urdu and Hindi (even when the latter is understood in a wide sense) long postdates the Prakrit period: the literary language of Delhi and its Indo-Aryan siblings in the region underwent common Perso-Arabic influence, and also internally-driven changes in phonology and grammar that signficantly depart from the Prakrit past.
As a first remedy, I will add "predominantly" to "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived", but suggest to eventually replace it simply with "Urdu and Hindi share a common vocabulary base". We already know from the lead that Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language; we wouldn't say this if it didn't originate from a Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived base. –Austronesier (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
That bit had been there from earlier and I did not change it, but I agree. Common words such as the ones you mention @Austronesier:, and others such as Urdu mayz, from Arabic (cf mesa), or kameez also from Arabic (cf chemise) are there in Urdu in good numbers. One could hazard the guess that as the Muslims brought the art of sewing clothes to the subcontinent many words associated with it would have come from Arabic or Persian. darzi, the Urdu/Hindi word for tailor is one such word. It would probably apply to words arisign from other Muslim-introduced technologies. Have to run, but thank you. Please go ahead and make the change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
... (later) Urdu script can sometimes, but not always, give a clue to the origin of words. Thus ba'd, the Urdu word for "after", which is written in Hindi as बाद as you stated, is however written in Urdu as بعد (with the Arabic ain) and not باد i.e. with a simple alif or aa after the b.
کرسی kursi, or chair, as you say, is from Arabic, though in this instant, the script alone does not give a clue.
ميز mez (table) is a different type of example, as there is no z sound in Sanskrit, ... and many Indo-Aryan languages. This is probably why the Indian prime minister who is a native Gujarati speaker is unable to pronounce آزادی, azadi (freedom), at least when he's not watching himself, preferring ajahadi instead.
دروازه darwaza, door, is from Persian, but کواڑ किवाड़ kiwāR, a less formal word for door is from Prakrit. The ड़ retroflex construction doesn't exist in Persian and Arabic, and a diacritic had to be added to the r or ر
Anyway I am carrying coals to Newcastle, so I better stop. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the addition of the word "predominantly" was a good move, given that certain Persian loanwords, such as those that User:Fowler&fowler cited, have become established in Hindi-Urdu. I believe that the mention of the Indic (Sanskritic/Prakritic) base is important as our readers might not necessarily know what an Indo-Aryan language is. Kind regards, Anupam 16:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have deliberately chosen Hindi examples (even if this is the talk page for the Urdu article), to emphasize the absurdity of describing the common ground of Urdu and Hindi as solely "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived" and Urdu as a "Persiansized" register in one breath, which will potentially make an uninitiated reader believe that Urdu and Hindi parted ways before any "Persiansization" had taken place, and thus reinforce the ideological POV that Hindi is the autochthonous, primordially "pure" member of the pair, which is of course wrong. When Urdu and Hindi speakers meet on the common ground of low-brow discourse (the register of Hindi–Urdu that is occasionally called "Hindustani" by sociolinguists) their largely – apart from some shibboleths – indistinguishable speech will have quite many Perso-Arabic elements in it that had been accumulated in the many centuries before the creation of a modern Delhi-based "Hindi" in the 19th century. And that's regardless of their self-identification with "Hindi" or "Urdu", which generally manifests itself in the script, the target pronunciation of certain sounds and in lexcial choices in mid- to high-brow discourse (but only when people decide to not code-switch to English in such a context, as they often do) to the point of indeed producing two distinct literary languages. –Austronesier (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Nastaliq

There's often a confusion between the writing system used to write Urdu, and the style that Urdu is written in. Nastaliq (like Shekasta) is a style of writing Urdu. It isn't a separate script.

  • it adopted the Nastaleeq writing system
  • ("the language of the exalted camp") written in Nastaʿlīq script
  • The Urdu Nastaʿliq alphabet

The script used to write Urdu is called the Perso-Arabic script, or simply the Urdu alphabet. نعم البدل (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: Oh yes, please go ahead and fix it. That's an error based on an amateur understanding of the Perso-Arabic script that keeps on creeping into Urdu-related articles (note that the only source that actually talks about a "Nastaliq script" is a Lonely Planet language guide(!), a generally odd choice as a source for an encyclopaedia). –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Amendments made! نعم البدل (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

A request to enter another required information in the Post-Partition (History) section

In the section, History (Post-Partition), kindly include that in the early days of Pakistan, Urdu-speaking people (Muhaiirs) played a significant role in managing the country's bureaucracy, finance department and other major institutions, and they also established banks there. And that the mother tongue of majority of the founding fathers of Pakistan was Urdu.

Personally, if I were to mention one thing, Dr. Tarek Fatah (a Pakistani-Canadian journalist and author) mentioned somewhere that Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave Urdu the status of Pakistan's state language precisely because Urdu-speakers could run bureaucracy, finance departments, and more in Pakistan. (Although I have a YouTube link for the video, I don't have any reference for that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=ppTVjgRJSi5DVYPi&v=JOllroCaLQg&feature=youtu.be)"

It is an important part of the history of Urdu in Pakistan.

References

References

  1. Nabbo, Habbo (2023-02-06). "Socio-economic Status of Muhajirs (2023)". Scribd. Retrieved 2023-02-06.

AlidPedian (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anupam @Fowler&fowler @RegentsPark @Professor Penguino Kindly share your thoughts. AlidPedian (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I have added some information to the article regarding this, as requested. More information on the role the Muhajirs played in establishing Pakistan could be added to the articles about Muhajirs and the Pakistan Movement. Kind regards, Anupam 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much, sir. You included the information on my request. I am very grateful to you. However, sir, what I meant was that it is necessary to provide this information as part of the history that in the early days of Pakistan, Urdu speakers (Muhaiirs) played a significant role in managing the country's bureaucracy, finance department, and other major institutions, and they also established banks in the country. And that the majority of the founding fathers of Pakistan were Urdu-speakers, this addition is very important, as it is an important part of the history of Urdu in Pakistan. Thank you very much, respected sir. 🥰 AlidPedian (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Excess cites

@Fowler&fowlerI removed excess cites because it was already tagged and an unsourced image. Trimmed words as well and removed an idiom because it belongs somewhere else not on the first para on origins. Axedd (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Your explanation is a bit too vague and your edit summaries too brief for me to make sense of your edits. I defer to @Anupam and Austronesier: here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler, thank you for inviting me to the discussion. User:Axedd, the references (with quote parameters) are in place to ensure that anonymous IP editors and others do not not remove information that has been carefully worded over time. As such, please do not remove them. The image is relevant and does contain a reference; the body of the article discusses the development of Urdu in Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur, with it being refined in Lucknow. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The whole of that area is not sourced though, hence making the image vague and meaningless.I might return later to this for now Axedd (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Anupam that it's good to have multiple sources here. The history of the language that came to be known as Urdu in the 18th century is complex and contentious. POVs of exclusive ownership or denial of Urdu's erstwhile status as a supra-communal literary language regularly get inserted here. Overcite can also be mended by WP:CITEMERGE, a solution that I strongly prefer over throwing out high-quality sources like King's book. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: