What's new

Hindustan is not India

I don't really think 'Hindustan' extended beyond Bihar.

@Tergon18

That was impressive, but it is difficult to imagine what you think occupied the space that you have assigned to Hindustani, eight centuries ago (that would put us in the thirteenth century). We already know that the intermediate space was occupied by Suraseni Prakrit, just as our eastern languages, including the one I share with the Bangladeshis, including Maithil, Nepali, Oriya, Assamese, and the dialect in Tripura, were originated in Magadhi Prakrit. Suraseni Prakrit spawned Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati and Marathi, Sindhi, and logically (never thought of this or followed it up) Konkani as well. So what happened to the Yamuna Ganges Doab? Were they (bless the thought) mercifully silent till they burst into speech at the point of a Shamsher?

Well, basically different Prakrits including Sauraseni from which it descended from as you have mentioned. But that's not what I was arguing about. And I think, in this context, it's rather pointless to delve into the deep history of the (Hindustani) language, given that most of it's developement into the present form took place in the last seven hundred years, being written in the Perso-Arabic Nastaliq script with Persian and Arabic terms being used for higher vocabulary as compared to the 19th century Hindi form.

As for the other Indo-Aryan languages, most linguists have made linguistic zones/sub-classifications for them, which are present in all other Indo-European, and other language families as well e.g Eastern Iranian, Western Germanic, Northern Semitic etc.

Punjabi, Sindhi and Dogri are part of the North-Western zone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages#Northwestern_Zone

Major_Indo-Aryan_languages.png

https://www.britannica.com/topic/In...cteristics-of-the-modern-Indo-Aryan-languages

Anyway, this was I what I was talking about.
English purged of Latin, Greek and French words, using only Old Germanic/Anglo Saxon words, 19th century Hindi-style, albeit same Latin script. An account of the Battle of the Somme. Its called 'Anglish'.

"One of of the many and tangled grounds that World War I began was that Dutchland overran Belgland. Britland was bound by fordrawing to shield the land. Like rikebonds across Eveland drew in all the greatstronglands one by one. It may have begun with thehighkilling of High-Earl Franz Ferdinand in Serbland, but that was only the spark that set the world on fire.

The Somme was the ea in Frankrike that Edward III hadthwarsed only before the Clash of Crécy. The bit has had a great deal of British blood soaking into its earth over the yearhundreds, but never more than on the first day of the Clash of the Somme, Lithemonth 1, 1916.

Before the British landmight strode into the shackleguntracks Christ-thwarsing the clashfield, Heratower Lord Douglass Haig had behested eight days of gunwarish shelling. This had not been shown to be booming battleway over the last two years and it did not on that day. One flaw was that the shelling had to stop to let theBondsmen to go on, so as soon as it stopped, theDutchmen knew the onrush was coming and made theirforegearings. They had hard, deep bunkers of brickstuckand wood that withstood the shelling truly well indeed. Their pricked-wire fields were also still okay after the shells stopped.

At 7:28 in the morning, the British landmight blew up twobig stillblasters, then three smaller ones near theDutchlandish lines. The plan was likely to frighten thefoe, but instead, they were a last showing of the onrush.

The slaughter began at 7:30, when the British war-menrose up out of their gravets and tried to thwarse 800 yards of in the face of shacklegun fire. A few did make it to the Dutchlandish front line in the first wave before they were cut down. There were 60,000 British woundedand 19,000 dead. A whole kithend fell on one morning, making it the worst grimming in British landmightish yore. Who can say what their lives would have meant and done had they lived?"


How does it sound? :laugh:

This seems to be the British conception of Hindustan. Sir Charles Roe, writing in the 19th century:

"A meridian through the town of Sirhind roughly divides Punjab proper from Hindustan and the Punjabi language from the Hindustani language".

http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/cust3..htm

This is repeated by Horace Arthur Rose, writing in 1911 here:

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=-aw3hRAX_DgC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=a+meridian+through+the+town+of+sirhind&source=bl&ots=mXjCN9aZ50&sig=Vm8aAeCwh07kh53FR3iSpZ5LmHM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGxfbvsInQAhXIVxoKHdcBB8sQ6AEIGTAB#v=onepage&q=a meridian through the town of sirhind&f=false

The Sutlej River, roughly, seems to be the western boundary. It seems as if it was synonymous with the Gangetic Cow Belt.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

" Traditionally, Hindustani or Hindavi identity is primarily linguistic with Hindustanis or Hindavis being those who have the Hindustani language (Hindi/Urdu) and in a broader sense a variety of Hindi as their primary language, mainly residing in the present-day Indian States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Haryana,Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,Uttarakhand.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]"
 
.
Well, basically different Prakrits including Sauraseni from which it descended from as you have mentioned. But that's not what I was arguing about. And I think, in this context, it's rather pointless to delve into the deep history of the (Hindustani) language, given that most of it's developement into the present form took place in the last seven hundred years, being written in the Perso-Arabic Nastaliq script with Persian and Arabic terms being used for higher vocabulary as compared to the 19th century Hindi form.

As for the other Indo-Aryan languages, most linguists have made linguistic zones/sub-classifications for them, which are present in all other Indo-European, and other language families as well e.g Eastern Iranian, Western Germanic, Northern Semitic etc.

Punjabi, Sindhi and Dogri are part of the North-Western zone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages#Northwestern_Zone

Major_Indo-Aryan_languages.png

https://www.britannica.com/topic/In...cteristics-of-the-modern-Indo-Aryan-languages

Anyway, this was I what I was talking about.
English purged of Latin, Greek and French words, using only Old Germanic/Anglo Saxon words, 19th century Hindi-style, albeit same Latin script. An account of the Battle of the Somme. Its called 'Anglish'.

"One of of the many and tangled grounds that World War I began was that Dutchland overran Belgland. Britland was bound by fordrawing to shield the land. Like rikebonds across Eveland drew in all the greatstronglands one by one. It may have begun with thehighkilling of High-Earl Franz Ferdinand in Serbland, but that was only the spark that set the world on fire.

The Somme was the ea in Frankrike that Edward III hadthwarsed only before the Clash of Crécy. The bit has had a great deal of British blood soaking into its earth over the yearhundreds, but never more than on the first day of the Clash of the Somme, Lithemonth 1, 1916.

Before the British landmight strode into the shackleguntracks Christ-thwarsing the clashfield, Heratower Lord Douglass Haig had behested eight days of gunwarish shelling. This had not been shown to be booming battleway over the last two years and it did not on that day. One flaw was that the shelling had to stop to let theBondsmen to go on, so as soon as it stopped, theDutchmen knew the onrush was coming and made theirforegearings. They had hard, deep bunkers of brickstuckand wood that withstood the shelling truly well indeed. Their pricked-wire fields were also still okay after the shells stopped.

At 7:28 in the morning, the British landmight blew up twobig stillblasters, then three smaller ones near theDutchlandish lines. The plan was likely to frighten thefoe, but instead, they were a last showing of the onrush.

The slaughter began at 7:30, when the British war-menrose up out of their gravets and tried to thwarse 800 yards of in the face of shacklegun fire. A few did make it to the Dutchlandish front line in the first wave before they were cut down. There were 60,000 British woundedand 19,000 dead. A whole kithend fell on one morning, making it the worst grimming in British landmightish yore. Who can say what their lives would have meant and done had they lived?"


How does it sound? :laugh:

This seems to be the British conception of Hindustan. Sir Charles Roe, writing in the 19th century:

"A meridian through the town of Sirhind roughly divides Punjab proper from Hindustan and the Punjabi language from the Hindustani language".

http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/cust3..htm

This is repeated by Horace Arthur Rose, writing in 1911 here:

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=-aw3hRAX_DgC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=a+meridian+through+the+town+of+sirhind&source=bl&ots=mXjCN9aZ50&sig=Vm8aAeCwh07kh53FR3iSpZ5LmHM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGxfbvsInQAhXIVxoKHdcBB8sQ6AEIGTAB#v=onepage&q=a meridian through the town of sirhind&f=false

The Sutlej River, roughly, seems to be the western boundary. It seems as if it was synonymous with the Gangetic Cow Belt.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

" Traditionally, Hindustani or Hindavi identity is primarily linguistic with Hindustanis or Hindavis being those who have the Hindustani language (Hindi/Urdu) and in a broader sense a variety of Hindi as their primary language, mainly residing in the present-day Indian States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Haryana,Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,Uttarakhand.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]"

I am glad to have made your acquaintance.
 
. .
Do you even know how Hindi was formed?
Urdu and Hindustani are synonymous with one another...both terms are intertwined. Hindi is a bastardisation of Urdu. In the late 1880s, north Indian Hindu nationalists were fed up with Urdu/Hindustani becoming the dominant language. After the failed 1857 War of Independence, the British banned Persian...this led to the explosion of Urdu/Hindustani. This language was written using the Persian-Urdu alphabet. From 1857 to the 1880s, Urdu became the most spoken and written language in British India.

The north Indian Hindus didn't like that...they saw Urdu with its Persian script as being an "invading" language. So in the 1880s, they came up with "Hindi"...they took all the Persian based words in Urdu and replaced them with Sanskrit words and changed the script from Persian alphabet to Devanagari. This resulted in the formation of Hindi....which is basically Sanskritised Urdu written in Devangari script. This is the reason why Hindi sounds so unnatural.

It's no different from Croatian-Serbian language dispute. The original Balkan language was written in Acrylic as Serbian language is today. The Croats in an attempt to differentiate themselves from there Serb enemies took the language, and changed the script to Roman...and called it "Croatian".

The same thing happened with Urdu to Hindi.
I Disagree,

Hindi descended from Sanskrit > Prakrit> Hindi. (Same sentence formation grammar etc.)

And Urdu is Hindi/ Prakrit/ Hindustani with different nouns/ vocab. Sentence structure, grammar, is exactly same.

Structure comes before vocab, so Urdu is like Hindi (sentence structure, grammer) +- some vocab
 
.
This may be a confusion for Pakistanis.

We are Indians. Or Bharatvasis.

But after the failure of tahreef e reshmi rumaal and 1917 when RSS was born things changed.
Muslim League was formed in 1906. RSS was formed in 1926. Jinnah's neo Islamist calls were in no way influenced by the RSS. In fact, he barely mentioned them even. RSS was irrelevant then.
 
.
I Disagree,

Hindi descended from Sanskrit > Prakrit> Hindi. (Same sentence formation grammar etc.)

And Urdu is Hindi/ Prakrit/ Hindustani with different nouns/ vocab. Sentence structure, grammar, is exactly same.

Structure comes before vocab, so Urdu is like Hindi (sentence structure, grammer) +- some vocab

Please read the previous two pages of this thread, I have addressed your point.
 
.
Please read the previous two pages of this thread, I have addressed your point.

I agree that Urdu evolved during last 800 years with contribution form different invaders. But it was vocab from different cultures, and structure grammar from Hindi / Sanskrit / Prakrit

Hindi term was coined later but base structure/ grammar was there long before invasions in subcontinent (or oigin of Urdu)
 
.
Yes Hindustan includes portion of latin america as well especially southern chile, since Hindustan existed even before tectonic plates movements created continents. I hope US recognizes this reality one day that it was too part of Hindustan before the advent of humanity.
 
.
I agree that Urdu evolved during last 800 years with contribution form different invaders. But it was vocab from different cultures, and structure grammar from Hindi / Sanskrit / Prakrit

Hindi term was coined later but base structure/ grammar was there long before invasions in subcontinent (or oigin of Urdu)

Again, I would tell you to refer back to previous pages in the thread, you are making the same argument which already has been addressed. Its pointless to repeat the same thing over and over again.
 
.
I Disagree,

Hindi descended from Sanskrit > Prakrit> Hindi. (Same sentence formation grammar etc.)

And Urdu is Hindi/ Prakrit/ Hindustani with different nouns/ vocab. Sentence structure, grammar, is exactly same.

Structure comes before vocab, so Urdu is like Hindi (sentence structure, grammer) +- some vocab


Heh, heh, heh.....go through @Tergon18 's posts carefully. Don't jump in; wait to pull up your swimming trunks first. Your, umm, slip is showing.

I don't agree with him entirely, but he has a complete grip on the subject. He can be dislodged only by very convincing counter-arguments, and a deep knowledge of the subject, if he can be dislodged at all.

Yes Hindustan includes portion of latin america as well especially southern chile, since Hindustan existed even before tectonic plates movements created continents. I hope US recognizes this reality one day that it was too part of Hindustan before the advent of humanity.


Please stay out of this. I can't hear myself sleep.
 
.
Heh, heh, heh.....go through @Tergon18 's posts carefully. Don't jump in; wait to pull up your swimming trunks first. Your, umm, slip is showing.

I don't agree with him entirely, but he has a complete grip on the subject. He can be dislodged only by very convincing counter-arguments, and a deep knowledge of the subject, if he can be dislodged at all.




Please stay out of this. I can't hear myself sleep.

I Agree with him that term (Hindi) was coined in last 100-200 years.
But Hindi structure/ grammar was present (descended from Sanskrit or in layman terms : Easy Sanskrit for common people) on which Persian, Arabic, Turkic vocab was introduced to come up with Udru.

He might have diff opinion :P
 
.
I Agree with him that term (Hindi) was coined in last 100-200 years.
But Hindi structure/ grammar was present (descended from Sanskrit or in layman terms : Easy Sanskrit for common people) on which Persian, Arabic, Turkic vocab was introduced to come up with Udru.

He might have diff opinion :P

I don't think he said anything different.

His basic point of departure from the conventional narration seems to be that a prototypical descendant of Sauraseni Prakrit, spoken in different dialects across the expanse from Sirhind to Bihar and between Nepal and the Vindhyas (Aryavarta in the classical description) was mingled with exotics and formed something more or less coherent and comprehensible throughout most of this expanse. Without losing its dialectal varieties, of course. The foreign influence actually pushed those earlier proto-Hindustanis (to follow his model without quibble for the sake of the argument) closer together, by offering the common cement of common terms in those exotics - Pushto and Persian and Turkic, even some strong admixture of Arabic.

He postulates - this is the fascinating part - that this more-or-less common lingua franca then started rarefying into culturally determined 'high languages', into Hindi and Urdu. I presume that he supposes that that is why Hindustani is intelligible across Aryavarta, whereas Hindi and Urdu have coalesced around culturally chauvinist poles, taking on an artificial distinction as a result.

@Tergon18 please let me know if this is your paradigm.
 
.
I Agree with him that term (Hindi) was coined in last 100-200 years.
But Hindi structure/ grammar was present (descended from Sanskrit or in layman terms : Easy Sanskrit for common people) on which Persian, Arabic, Turkic vocab was introduced to come up with Udru.

He might have diff opinion :P


Urdu wasn't just created overnight by a random guy on a whim, deliberately infusing other languages into Sanskrit to create a new language for Muslims (the Indian narrative).

It developed naturally like all other languages do - different languages fusing to form a new language is how MOST (if not ALL) languages have evolved into unique new languages.

Same goes for Sanskrit and proto-Indo European. They descended from combinations of other ancient languages.

New languages are nurtured by literary contributions while it evolves for centuries, slowly drifting from its roots and becoming a language in its own right. Like English is neither French nor German; it's now considered a separate language.
 
Last edited:
.
Urdu wasn't just created overnight by a random guy on a whim, deliberately infusing other languages into Sanskrit to create a new language for Muslims (the Indian narrative).

It developed naturally like all other languages do - different languages fusing to form a new language is how MOST (if not ALL) languages have evolved into unique new languages.

Same goes for Sanskrit and proto-Indo European. They descended from combinations of other ancient languages.

New languages are nurtured by literary contributions while it evolves for centuries, slowly drifting from its roots and becoming a language in its own right. Like English is neither French nor German; it's now considered a separate language.
I never said it was developed overnight, It took centuries, vocabs from different languages were included.
All I said was grammar, structure, vocab existed. In course of few centuries words were included / removed influenced from near by languages.

Anyways not interested in dragging it more, already repeated many times
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom