Talk:Urdu: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:02, 25 February 2020 editLargoplazo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers120,018 edits →Please no data dumps of POV text copied from elsewhere ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:05, 25 February 2020 edit undoFowler&fowler (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,045 edits →Please no data dumps of POV text copied from elsewhere: that was not what I was sayingNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:
	: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)		: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)
	::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)		::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)
			:::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)

Revision as of 23:05, 25 February 2020

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

South Asia High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan Top‑importance

	Pakistan portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: West Bengal / Bihar / Delhi / Jharkhand / Uttar Pradesh / Telangana High‑importance

This 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jharkhand.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Telangana.

This article was last assessed in March 2019.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Languages Top‑importance

	Language portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 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.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amarissaostmo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Umbereenbmirza, Sanakareem20.

Make it Clear: Mutual Intelligibility of Urdu with Hindi, but not Urdu with Arabic and Persian/Farsi

Dear all and To editor 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

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 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 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." Those who want to understand the concept of mutual intelligibility in more detail please refer to this source, last para on page to page 8 and separate language versus dialect and this.

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.

Discuss it here please.

Thanks Being.human (talk)

References

Distortions

Just dropping a note here because The Mirror Cracked reverted my tiny bit of clean-up. The problem with this page is not sourcing but distortion, the result being that the write-up is completely inconsistent and nonsensical.

For this particular sentence, there is no doubt that the Mughals "brought Persian" to India. But Persian had already been there for centuries before then. The very next sentence of the article mentions that. So, what is the point of this sentence? Please don't revert edits unless you know what you are doing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

"The other side of the divide came with the beginning of the Hindi movement in the 1860s when some Hindus began to assert that one could no longer be a good Hindu and an advocate of Urdu at the same time. This movement made deliberate changes in Khari Boli which eventually resulted in a highly Sanskritized Hindi. The split in the common trunk of Hindi and Urdu, Khari Boli, which began with the growth of one major branch, Persianized Urdu, now continued with the growth of another major branch, Sanskritized Hindi. The process of multi-symbol congruence now commenced in earnest and culminated in slogans such as 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan' whose creators saw no room for non-Hindi speakers and non-Hindus in Hindustan. We might go so as to call this process the 'Sanskritization of Urdu' or at least the 'Sanskritization of Khari Boli'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.255.108 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided reliable source for the claims. Secondly, this is an article on Urdu. So excessive discussion of Hindi would be off-topic and WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Zaban urdu mualla.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Urdu is not an Indian language

Urdu is origannnely Pakistani Better Knowledge (talk) 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. Largoplazo (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please no data dumps of POV text copied from elsewhere

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, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami, I hope you're enjoying Shrove Tuesday. I would be grateful if you could kindly have a look at the information 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, Anupam 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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 don't like it (the quotes help ensure verifiability too). User:Fowler&fowler, based on his comments here, wishes to argue that the development of the language should solely be attributed to Muslims (this is a communal 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 User:Kautilya3, User:RaviC, User:Gotitbro, and User:Fylindfotberserk so that they can offer their comments here as well. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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. Largoplazo (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see thissection of Talk:Hindustani language 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 Hindustani language lead? The text takes a flying leap from 769 AD and Old Hindi to 1920 and Gandhi. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories: