This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) at 10:45, 24 April 2020 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2020: corrected date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:45, 24 April 2020 by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2020: corrected date)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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  |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Commonwealth English
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.
 Archives | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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
- Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India. Bernard Bate. Columbia University Press.2010.pp.14 isbn=0231519400
- Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India. Bernard Bate. Columbia University Press. Pp.14
- ^ Romani in Britain: The Afterlife of a Language: The Afterlife of a Language. Yaron Matras. Edinburgh University Press. 2010.Pp.5
Urdu is not an Indian language
| Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Pointless "discussion" started by a banned troll with the sole purpose of creating an argument. An equally big trout smack to Largoplazo and Fowler&fowler for taking the bait. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Urdu is origannnely Pakistani Better Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 11 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)
- I see that you have changed it to a grudging acknowledgement in more POV language, supported with more recondite cherry-picked sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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, Anupam 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the "Muslims" didn't raise it. The British did. . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing that source User:Kautilya3. There is helpful information in it that can be added to this article. Kind regards, Anupam 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the "Muslims" didn't raise it. The British did. . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:03, 26 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 26 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, Anupam 23:18, 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 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)
- 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)
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. (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. ) 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, Raksha Bandhan (see my example there), even the Agra famine of 1837–38. (See a bigger list here).
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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Here 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- PS I found it. It is here. Ralph Russell 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. Austronesier had mentioned a textbook of his on Urdu. Here he is:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)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.
- PS I found it. It is here. Ralph Russell 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. Austronesier had mentioned a textbook of his on Urdu. Here he is:
- 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. --RaviC (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please read what I have written carefully. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
S-protection
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. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Mistake
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by א. א. אינסטלציה (talk • contribs)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
one category should be on the top.
- You need to formulate a clear statement of exactly what you want to be done and why. Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I want to explain the statements clearly, hope you understand.
- What statements do you want to explain, and how? Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk • contribs)
- Misplaced Pages is written based on reliable sources. Please consult the policy pages posted on your talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing User:ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist in the right direction, User:Kautilya3. That being said, the example of Faraz Ahmed's poetry in between Ghalib's couplet did seem random so I removed it. As for the reason why Jammu & Kashmir 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 Exhibit A and Exhibit B). 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 done. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 21:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I changed it to Commonwealth English. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Kautilya3 that your submission, 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 interfluve, between the two rivers, Ganges and Jamuna, i.e. the Doab! (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 Nasir Kazmi, Munir Niazi, Ada Jafri, Zehra Nigah, Kishwar Naheed, Fahmida Riaz, Iftikhar Arif, 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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 Jai Shri Ram, it occurs to me that your arguments about Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Kautilya3 that your submission, 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 interfluve, between the two rivers, Ganges and Jamuna, i.e. the Doab! (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 Nasir Kazmi, Munir Niazi, Ada Jafri, Zehra Nigah, Kishwar Naheed, Fahmida Riaz, Iftikhar Arif, 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I changed it to Commonwealth English. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing User:ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist in the right direction, User:Kautilya3. That being said, the example of Faraz Ahmed's poetry in between Ghalib's couplet did seem random so I removed it. As for the reason why Jammu & Kashmir 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 Exhibit A and Exhibit B). 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 done. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 21:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is written based on reliable sources. Please consult the policy pages posted on your talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2020 (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. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk • contribs)
- 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
19th18th 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 reliable sources that have been cited instead of raising quibbles on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC) corrected date. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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
- 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. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk • contribs)
- @Kautilya3 and Anupam: You are in all likeliness engaging with the LTA abuser sami (WP:LTA/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. Gotitbro (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- @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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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 Talk:Hindustani language/Archive 3#Some sources and quotes, 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 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. –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:@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 R. S. McGregor's introduction to the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary here. 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.
- 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. –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 22 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 Talk:Hindustani language/Archive 3#Some sources and quotes, 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- In other words, Urdu was never Persianized from a mixed speech (as Ralph Russell 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 Wali Muhammad Wali, Siraj-ud-Din Ali Khan Arzu, Shah Mubarak Abroo, or even in the Cultural development 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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: Keshavmurthy, Prashant (2016), Persian Authorship and Canonicity in Late Mughal Delhi: Building an Ark, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-28795-7 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- PPS He very recently did an English translation of the poem by Mir Taqi Mir about his cat Mohini that I've been talking about above. See here! He is an associate professor of Persian at McGill. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @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. –Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- PPS He very recently did an English translation of the poem by Mir Taqi Mir about his cat Mohini that I've been talking about above. See here! He is an associate professor of Persian at McGill. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 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: Keshavmurthy, Prashant (2016), Persian Authorship and Canonicity in Late Mughal Delhi: Building an Ark, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-28795-7 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
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 Lachman Khubchandani or Ashok Ramchandra Kelkar; he is not a historian of pre-modern Islamic South Asia such as Muzaffar Alam; he is not a Persianist, such as Keshavmurthy mentioned above or Sunil Sharma; he is not a scholar of Urdu language or its literature such as Christopher Shackle, Frances Pritchett, C. M. Naim, Ralph Russell, Anne Marie Schimmel; he is not a grammarian of Urdu such as Ruth Laila Schmidt, he's not a scholar of Hindi such as Michael Shapiro, or Francesca Orsini, he is not a lexicographer of Hindi such as R. S. McGregor. 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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. –Austronesier (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (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?
- 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 ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3, 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 Hindustani language article, not to Urdu article. ImMuslimandimnotaterrorist (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class South Asia articles
- High-importance South Asia articles
- South Asia articles
- C-Class Pakistan articles
- Top-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- C-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of High-importance
- C-Class West Bengal articles
- Unknown-importance West Bengal articles
- C-Class West Bengal articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject West Bengal articles
- C-Class Bihar articles
- High-importance Bihar articles
- C-Class Bihar articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Bihar articles
- C-Class Delhi articles
- Unknown-importance Delhi articles
- C-Class Delhi articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Delhi articles
- C-Class Jharkhand articles
- Unknown-importance Jharkhand articles
- C-Class Jharkhand articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Jharkhand articles
- C-Class Uttar Pradesh articles
- Unknown-importance Uttar Pradesh articles
- C-Class Uttar Pradesh articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Uttar Pradesh articles
- C-Class Telangana articles
- Unknown-importance Telangana articles
- C-Class Telangana articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Telangana articles
- WikiProject India articles
- C-Class language articles
- Top-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles