Language can unite (Hindi - Urdu)

[Thorough Pro]

---

---

Day of a common Pakistani begins with TEA OF ASSAM And ends with watching INDIAN TV PROGRAMS.

You have an absured logic. By that same loginc you people should start calling yourselves Arabs because Indai is the largest consumer of Arab Oil, but if you started calling yourselvs Arab, Arabs might stop selling oil to you, afteralll no one wants to be disgrased.

Pakistan does not import tea from Assam, We have much better taste and are the largest importers of Kenyaian tea.

Onlya minor % of Pakistanis watch Indian programs even less then the number of Indias watching Pakisttani programs.

[ThunderCat]

Partition of India was greatest blunder in history of mankind.

GB

Typical of Indians to depict pro-Indian Muhajirs as self-hating Pakistanis.

[ThunderCat]

Thats what am saying man,Hardcore hinduism comes from Uttar Pradesh and Urdu also comes from the same place.They have always co-existed.

So,it is all inter-mixed,it is not easy to separate it and even more so these days with youtube and everything is aamne saamne.

It is like how a punjabi villager in the pind happens to speak all languages in punjabi only even if u teach him.

So,it is not going to be easy.

Hinduism is an English invention the term itself is relatively new. Urdu originated by the Mughals who derived it from Sanskrit which originated on the Eurasian steppes along the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, so I don't see anything "Indian" about it except for a few borrowed consonants from dravidian languages.

Enough said.

[ThunderCat]

I consider Hindi a mix of sanskrit and Urdu.. there.. Urdu itself a mixture..
So languages can unite, but at the same time.. they also tend to destroy the culture of the other.
front. SAD.

OK this misconception has to be corrected. Firstly Urdu is not an "admixture" every language borrows vocabulary from another language. Arabic itself borrowed from Sanskrit, Phoenician and others, but it's not called an "admixture." And as for languages "uniting" that has probably never happened.
You cannot mingle two grammatically distinct languages because their structures do not correspond. Take for example English and German, two closely related languages but too far apart grammatically to be able to combine.

You have to understand like all other sciences, linguistics is a complicated study. A language is like the genetics of a species, unable to breed with a separate language due to vast genetic distance. Hope that clears it up.

[kingkobra]

Hinduism is an English invention the term itself is relatively new. Urdu originated by the Mughals who derived it from Sanskrit which originated on the Eurasian steppes along the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, so I don't see anything "Indian" about it except for a few borrowed consonants from dravidian languages.

Enough said.

there is no other language in this world that is as perfect and grammatically superior as sanskrit..sanskrit is not derived from any language friend..for it to be derived from some other language means that language has to be better than sanskrit..and i do not see any such language around world.

[rollindays]

There is nothing to unite in Hindi-Urdu. Hindi is a post 1947 creation, an artificial creation of post independence India, by removing the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu. Hindi has no independent history for itself from Urdu. Urdu evolved in the early 1200s from the Delhi Sultanate, & then rose to other centers in Lucknow, Hyderabad & Lahore etc. These 3 centers played an important role in the development of Urdu over the years. Before the invasion, the Awadhi, Braj dialects, Khari Boli were spoken in the Indian subcontinent.

When the invaders invaded India, their Turkic/Mongol lingual roots, along with the Persian dialect (they came through Persia to the Indian subcontinent), along with their Muslim Arabic roots amalgamated with the local Awadhi, Braj dialects, Khari Boli; & gave birth to Urdu. Which is why Urdu has a much larger influence from 'local dialects', but not as much from Persian & Arabic. As these invaders interacted with the locals there (who spoke Khari Boli, Awadhi & Braj dialects), & then the language evolved, with the "local influence of India more prominent than the Mongol/Turkic/Persian/Arabic influences of the invaders"; which resulted in the evolution of Urdu in the 1200s.

Urdu was known as Hindvi by Khusro in the 1300s, it was also given other names such as Delhvi (Delhi), Dakhani (Hyderabad), Rekhta (Lucknow) etc. Urdu evolved fast, & displaced Persian as the language of the courts. The language called 'Hindvi' by Khusro in the 1300s resembles the Urdu of today, just go back & read Khusro's poetry as well as the poets from his time, & before him. It had a lot of Persian/Arabic loanwords with a lot of Sanskrit based terms. Sanskritized Devanagari was used for religious Hindu scripts prior to 1867. In 1867, the Hindi-Urdu controversy arose, where the Hindus in Bihar & other states converted the Nastaliq text of Urdu, & called it Hindi.

Post 1947 independence, that was when Hindi was manufactured in India, by removing all the Arabic & Persian loanwords, & replaced them with Sanskrit ones. Hindi is an artificial invention post 1947 in India, there was no language called Hindi before that in India. It was Urdu, but in 1867, was converted into from Nastaliq to Sanskrit Devanagari text, & called Hindi. But it was still Urdu.

[Subramanian]

Hinduism is an English invention the term itself is relatively new. Urdu originated by the Mughals who derived it from Sanskrit which originated on the Eurasian steppes along the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, so I don't see anything "Indian" about it except for a few borrowed consonants from dravidian languages.

Enough said.

I think you believe the western listerature on the subcontinent too much.

Eurasian steppes and all is too way back man,they r just research articles.Iran is the proper place.People came down from Iran and started the show.

English invented bollocks.Hinduism is an inward looking religion which never went outside to market itself.People were contented to live inside the territory and live peacefully.

English just saw what was there and interpreted it.Thats why despite ruling us for such a longtime,80% of the sub-continent especially south india is still largely hindu.

Islam and other book religions are marketing religions where they go around converting people and advertise their faith.You are only born a hindu and conversions happen only these days and they too are renunciation of other faiths to realise the independence of your spirituality.

There is nothing called a dravidian languages.Those languages came into existence only as late as 1100/1200.

Before that it was all a loose dialect and people had no clue about the religion/language/spirituality of even the neighbouring and only information was word of mouth.

It was absolute paganism at its best.Laid back people,sedentary lifestyle and that was common all throughout.

Thats why even today we live in peace amidst differences and you guys fight even if you are quite similar.

[Subramanian]

There is nothing to unite in Hindi-Urdu. Hindi is a post 1947 creation, an artificial creation of post independence India, by removing the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu. Hindi has no independent history for itself from Urdu. Urdu evolved in the early 1200s from the Delhi Sultanate, & then rose to other centers in Lucknow, Hyderabad & Lahore etc. These 3 centers played an important role in the development of Urdu over the years. Before the invasion, the Awadhi, Braj dialects, Khari Boli were spoken in the Indian subcontinent.

When the invaders invaded India, their Turkic/Mongol lingual roots, along with the Persian dialect (they came through Persia to the Indian subcontinent), along with their Muslim Arabic roots amalgamated with the local Awadhi, Braj dialects, Khari Boli; & gave birth to Urdu. Which is why Urdu has a much larger influence from 'local dialects', but not as much from Persian & Arabic. As these invaders interacted with the locals there (who spoke Khari Boli, Awadhi & Braj dialects), & then the language evolved, with the "local influence of India more prominent than the Mongol/Turkic/Persian/Arabic influences of the invaders"; which resulted in the evolution of Urdu in the 1200s.

Urdu was known as Hindvi by Khusro in the 1300s, it was also given other names such as Delhvi (Delhi), Dakhani (Hyderabad), Rekhta (Lucknow) etc. Urdu evolved fast, & displaced Persian as the language of the courts. The language called 'Hindvi' by Khusro in the 1300s resembles the Urdu of today, just go back & read Khusro's poetry as well as the poets from his time, & before him. It had a lot of Persian/Arabic loanwords with a lot of Sanskrit based terms. Sanskritized Devanagari was used for religious Hindu scripts prior to 1867. In 1867, the Hindi-Urdu controversy arose, where the Hindus in Bihar & other states converted the Nastaliq text of Urdu, & called it Hindi.

Post 1947 independence, that was when Hindi was manufactured in India, by removing all the Arabic & Persian loanwords, & replaced them with Sanskrit ones. Hindi is an artificial invention post 1947 in India, there was no language called Hindi before that in India. It was Urdu, but in 1867, was converted into from Nastaliq to Sanskrit Devanagari text, & called Hindi. But it was still Urdu.

There is everything to unite.because all this history is meaningless as these foriegn people,language,customs,food,traditions are all already highly integrated into the subcontinent.

History matters jack and this is like saying blood produced yesterday in the bone marrow is different from the one produced today.Yes,it is but how do u segregate them.

[pmukherjee]

There is nothing to unite in Hindi-Urdu. Hindi is a post 1947 creation, an artificial creation of post independence India, by removing the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu. Hindi has no independent history for itself from Urdu. Urdu evolved in the early 1200s from the Delhi Sultanate, & then rose to other centers in Lucknow, Hyderabad & Lahore etc. These 3 centers played an important role in the development of Urdu over the years. Before the invasion, the Awadhi, Braj dialects, Khari Boli were spoken in the Indian subcontinent.

When the invaders invaded India, their Turkic/Mongol lingual roots, along with the Persian dialect (they came through Persia to the Indian subcontinent), along with their Muslim Arabic roots amalgamated with the local Awadhi, Braj dialects, Khari Boli; & gave birth to Urdu. Which is why Urdu has a much larger influence from 'local dialects', but not as much from Persian & Arabic. As these invaders interacted with the locals there (who spoke Khari Boli, Awadhi & Braj dialects), & then the language evolved, with the "local influence of India more prominent than the Mongol/Turkic/Persian/Arabic influences of the invaders"; which resulted in the evolution of Urdu in the 1200s.

Urdu was known as Hindvi by Khusro in the 1300s, it was also given other names such as Delhvi (Delhi), Dakhani (Hyderabad), Rekhta (Lucknow) etc. Urdu evolved fast, & displaced Persian as the language of the courts. The language called 'Hindvi' by Khusro in the 1300s resembles the Urdu of today, just go back & read Khusro's poetry as well as the poets from his time, & before him. It had a lot of Persian/Arabic loanwords with a lot of Sanskrit based terms. Sanskritized Devanagari was used for religious Hindu scripts prior to 1867. In 1867, the Hindi-Urdu controversy arose, where the Hindus in Bihar & other states converted the Nastaliq text of Urdu, & called it Hindi.

Post 1947 independence, that was when Hindi was manufactured in India, by removing all the Arabic & Persian loanwords, & replaced them with Sanskrit ones. Hindi is an artificial invention post 1947 in India, there was no language called Hindi before that in India. It was Urdu, but in 1867, was converted into from Nastaliq to Sanskrit Devanagari text, & called Hindi. But it was still Urdu.

Hindi or Standard Hindi is derived from the Hindustani language which itself was derived from Khariboli. Khariboli was the language of Delhi and surrounding parts of Western UP. Urdu is also a derivative of Khariboli and Hindustani. Hindi and Urdu are what in linguistic terms called Mutual intelligible, that is, "speakers of different but related languages can readily understand each other without intentional study or extraordinary effort."
You are right about the sanskritization of Hindi post 1950 when Hindi in the Devanagari script was made the official language of functioning of the Indian Central Government in 1950.
Yes, there is nothing to unite in Hindi-Urdu. Urdu is your national language. Hindi is our official language and is spoken by a very large section of our population. Urdu (with all its Arabic and Persian tit bits) is also spoken in many parts of India. Urdu poetry has had a very profound influence in the Hindi film industry (many of our great lyricists and song writers were Urdu poets) and so has influenced the popular culture in India. The point of the article to my mind, however, was not that the similarities in the two languages should unite the two nations but that linguistically and culturally Indians and Pakistanis have more in common with each other than they have with say Ukrainians or Portuguese.

[rollindays]

Hindi or Standard Hindi is derived from the Hindustani language which itself was derived from Khariboli. Khariboli was the language of Delhi and surrounding parts of Western UP. Urdu is also a derivative of Khariboli and Hindustani. Hindi and Urdu are what in linguistic terms called Mutual intelligible, that is, "speakers of different but related languages can readily understand each other without intentional study or extraordinary effort."
You are right about the sanskritization of Hindi post 1950 when Hindi in the Devanagari script was made the official language of functioning of the Indian Central Government in 1950.
Yes, there is nothing to unite in Hindi-Urdu. Urdu is your national language. Hindi is our official language and is spoken by a very large section of our population. Urdu (with all its Arabic and Persian tit bits) is also spoken in many parts of India. Urdu poetry has had a very profound influence in the Hindi film industry (many of our great lyricists and song writers were Urdu poets) and so has influenced the popular culture in India. The point of the article to my mind, however, was not that the similarities in the two languages should unite the two nations but that linguistically and culturally Indians and Pakistanis have more in common with each other than they have with say Ukrainians or Portuguese.

There is no language known as Hindustani, it is a politically correct word for Urdu in India. There is no independent history for Hindustani from Urdu. Hindi only came into existence in the post 1950s in India, with the Sanskritization of Urdu, by removing its Persian & Arabic loanwords. Urdu took hundreds & hundreds to evolve & refine itself, whereas Hindi is a post 1950 creation, an artificial concoction. Hindus in 1867 translated all the Urdu works from Nastaliq to Sanskrit Devanagari, & called it Hindi. But it was Urdu still, not Hindi. Hindi only came into existence post 1950s. This is not about Pakistan or India, but Urdu being given its rightful status, not being referred as the 'Madrassah' language in India.

[jayron]

I think you believe the western listerature on the subcontinent too much.

Eurasian steppes and all is too way back man,they r just research articles.Iran is the proper place.People came down from Iran and started the show.

English invented bollocks.Hinduism is an inward looking religion which never went outside to market itself.People were contented to live inside the territory and live peacefully.

English just saw what was there and interpreted it.Thats why despite ruling us for such a longtime,80% of the sub-continent especially south india is still largely hindu.

Islam and other book religions are marketing religions where they go around converting people and advertise their faith.You are only born a hindu and conversions happen only these days and they too are renunciation of other faiths to realise the independence of your spirituality.

There is nothing called a dravidian languages.Those languages came into existence only as late as 1100/1200.

Before that it was all a loose dialect and people had no clue about the religion/language/spirituality of even the neighbouring and only information was word of mouth.

It was absolute paganism at its best.Laid back people,sedentary lifestyle and that was common all throughout.

Thats why even today we live in peace amidst differences and you guys fight even if you are quite similar.

I am surprised at your ignorance of Tamil Language's history being a Tamil yourself (I believe??) .

History of Tamil:

As a Dravidian language, Tamil descends from Proto-Dravidian. Linguistic reconstruction suggests that Proto-Dravidian was spoken around the third millennium BC, possibly in the region around the lower Godavari river basin in peninsular India. The material evidence suggests that the speakers of Proto-Dravidian were the culture associated with the Neolithic complexes of South India.[29] The next phase in the reconstructed proto-history of Tamil is Proto-South Dravidian. The linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-South Dravidian was spoken around the middle of the second millennium BC, and that proto-Tamil emerged around the 3rd century BC. The earliest epigraphic attestations of Tamil are generally taken to have been written shortly thereafter.[30] Among Indian languages, Tamil has the most ancient non-Sanskritised Indian literature.[31]
Scholars categorise the attested history of the language into three periods, Old Tamil (300 BCE – 700 CE), Middle Tamil (700–1600) and Modern Tamil (1600–present).

[rollindays]

The language used in Bollywood is primarily Urdu as well, although they call it Hindi or Hindustani.

For example: Bollywood movies, & most people in India use Kitab (book – from the Arabic) instead of “pushtak”, and “admi” (man) rather than “purush”. There are numerous examples such as these ones.

[jayron]

The language used in Bollywood is primarily Urdu as well, although they call it Hindi or Hindustani.

For example: Bollywood movies, & most people in India use Kitab (book – from the Arabic) instead of “pushtak”, and “admi” (man) rather than “purush”. There are numerous examples such as these ones.

I don't see the point of your argument.. Most of the people who migrated from the subcontinent pre independence do not call the language Urdu but Hindustani. Ex. Indians in Mauritius , Guyana, West Indies etc. Hindustani was a more colloquial version of Urdu, with less Arab and Persian words.

[pmukherjee]

The language used in Bollywood is primarily Urdu as well, although they call it Hindi or Hindustani.

For example: Bollywood movies, & most people in India use Kitab (book – from the Arabic) instead of “pushtak”, and “admi” (man) rather than “purush”. There are numerous examples such as these ones.

Rollin, kitab and admi are part of our every day vocabulary. You call it Urdu, to us it is Hindi. Yes, pustak and purush are also Hindi. Both are equally acceptable except perhaps while writing high caliber literature. Hindi or Urdu, how does it matter? It is our language, what we speak. Very few Indians outside of literary circles speak the pure sanskritised Hindi of pustak or Purush and then it is only those schooled in Pure Hindi. For 95% of Hindi speakers it is kitab and admi.

I have already accepted that there has been deliberate sanskritisation of Hindi post 1950. So you need not continue to harp on it. I shall not go into the justification or the lack thereof for such endeavor, but for the large section of Hindi speakers, the Arabic or Persian words used by our fore fathers continue to be in use duly absorbed into the language. In fact many English words also have made their way into common usage.

Hindi is not a new language. It is a new name given to an old language in use in Delhi and UP, a derivative of Khariboli. In its original and 'impure' form it is called Hindustani and it uses a large number of Arabic, Persian, Turkic and Sanskrit words and yes now English too. All that happened post 1950 was that the Sanskrit component was increased. It also has a close relation to Braj, Avadhi and Maithili languages spoken in other parts of UP, Bihar and MP.

Addressing your concern, only a fool or an ignorant calls Urdu the language of Madrassas. Urdu is one of the official languages of India.
Standard Hindi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hindi-Urdu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Subramanian]

---

---

I am surprised at your ignorance of Tamil Language's history being a Tamil yourself (I believe??) .

History of Tamil:

As a Dravidian language, Tamil descends from Proto-Dravidian. Linguistic reconstruction suggests that Proto-Dravidian was spoken around the third millennium BC, possibly in the region around the lower Godavari river basin in peninsular India. The material evidence suggests that the speakers of Proto-Dravidian were the culture associated with the Neolithic complexes of South India.[29] The next phase in the reconstructed proto-history of Tamil is Proto-South Dravidian. The linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-South Dravidian was spoken around the middle of the second millennium BC, and that proto-Tamil emerged around the 3rd century BC. The earliest epigraphic attestations of Tamil are generally taken to have been written shortly thereafter.[30] Among Indian languages, Tamil has the most ancient non-Sanskritised Indian literature.[31]
Scholars categorise the attested history of the language into three periods, Old Tamil (300 BCE – 700 CE), Middle Tamil (700–1600) and Modern Tamil (1600–present).

All that is true man but 3rd century is a very longtime ago.Ever since people starting moving in from the north,things have been highly integrated.

This different tamil that you are talking about was a pure form which existed long ago,now the purest form of tamizh is spoken in Northern Srilanka,Southern Kerala and southernmost districts of Tamizhnadu,namely Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli.

It has changed so much and you go to every border TN-Kerala,Kerala-Karnataka,Kar-AP,AP-TN and all these u ll find mixed slang,both languages sound like the other.This is the case.

The original prototype is long gone and now all the languages are strongly interconnected with a lot of sanskrit influence.Malayalam is a perfect mix,Kannada and Telugu are way more sanskritized and Tamil is heavily sanskritized but not phonetically.It sounds different.

The one spoken in Northern Srilanka is the purest.

The linguistic division that we have now is hardly effective.Infact linguistically even Maharshtra would rather figure in south india rather than the north.

This is why i said,loosely defined linguistic barriers due to the lack of heavy physical barriers like mountains or seas is a great uniter and no religious,spiritual economic divide can stop that.