Language can unite (Hindi - Urdu)

[venu309]

What I've concluded from the posts I've read in this thread is that the language which we speak (i.e. the one used in Bollywood films) & which we call Hindi, is the same as the one Pakistanis call Urdu (except maybe for a few different words here & there).
Anyway what is the problem in that? We will both continue to speak the same language but will call it by whatever name we like. That way both of us are happy to have our own independent languages.

 

[Roybot]

What I've concluded from the posts I've read in this thread is that the language which we speak (i.e. the one used in Bollywood films) & which we call Hindi, is the same as the one Pakistanis call Urdu (except maybe for a few different words here & there).
Anyway what is the problem in that? We will both continue to speak the same language but will call it by whatever name we like. That way both of us are happy to have our own independent languages.

Its not. The language spoken in Bollywood is straight out of Hindi belt. Songs is where you see the urdu influence, that too only some songs.

 

[rollindays]

What I've concluded from the posts I've read in this thread is that the language which we speak (i.e. the one used in Bollywood films) & which we call Hindi, is the same as the one Pakistanis call Urdu (except maybe for a few different words here & there).
Anyway what is the problem in that? We will both continue to speak the same language but will call it by whatever name we like. That way both of us are happy to have our own independent languages.

Its not. The language spoken in Bollywood is straight out of Hindi belt.

The language is Urdu, there is no language called Hindustani (it's a politically correct term for Urdu), & Hindi is a post 1950 creation of the Indian government, which they accomplished by Sankritizing Urdu, removing its Persian/Arabic loanwords, & replacing them with Sanskrit based terms.

Hindustani/colloquial Hindi has no independent history from Urdu.For example: most people in India use Kitab (book – from Arabic) instead of “pushtak” (Sanskrit), and “admi” (man) rather than “purush” (Sanskrit). Hindus in 1867 translated all the Urdu works from Nastaliq to Sanskrit Devanagari, & called it Hindi. But it was Urdu still, not Hindi. It's not about what you label the language, but how much Urdu has been bastardized in India using Sanskrit Devanagari (besides Lucknow & Delhi), pronouncing pareshan as 'pare-Saan', 'ghaib' as 'GH-aib', 'baaqi' as 'baaKi', 'khaas' as 'KH-aas', 'phir' as 'F-ir', 'zabaan' as 'J-abaan'.

 

[jinxeD_girl]

What Pakistani and Indians speak in general is a mixture of Hindi and Urdu. If you want to listen Hindi in Bollywood films then watch old Hindi Mythological films or listen to songs by poets who write in Hindi like Narendra Sharma. For the most part... I am not able to understand those Hindi songs like "Upar gagan vashal" etc.. And if you want to listen Urdu in Bollywood films then watch Bollywood Muslim Socials like Pakeezah, Razia Sultana and especially Bollywood muslim socials from 40s and 50s etc. One of the reasons Razia Sultana flopped was because it used deep Urdu which flew over the heads of most Indians.

 

[Roybot]

The language is Urdu, there is no language called Hindustani (it's a politically correct term for Urdu), & Hindi is a post 1950 creation of the Indian government, which they accomplished by Sankritizing Urdu, removing its Persian/Arabic loanwords, & replacing them with Sanskrit based terms.

Hindustani/colloquial Hindi has no independent history from Urdu.For example: most people in India use Kitab (book – from Arabic) instead of “pushtak” (Sanskrit), and “admi” (man) rather than “purush” (Sanskrit). Hindus in 1867 translated all the Urdu works from Nastaliq to Sanskrit Devanagari, & called it Hindi. But it was Urdu still, not Hindi.

There was no Urdu either, both are derived from Khariboli, one has more Sanskrit words the other Persian.

And Really couple of words? Cause there are no Sanskrit words in Urdu?

Whats the name of your days in Urdu?

 

[rollindays]

There was no Urdu either, both are derived from Khariboli, one has more Sanskrit words the other Persian.

And Really couple of words? Cause there are no Sanskrit words in Urdu?

Whats the name of your days in Urdu?

peer - Monday
mangal - Tuesday
budh - Wednesday
jumraat - Thursday
jumma - Friday
hafta - Saturday
itwar - Sunday

I suggest you read the indepth explanation on Post# 126 about the history of Urdu over the centuries, whereas the artificial invention of Hindi post 1950.

It's not about what you label the language, but how much Urdu has been bastardized in India using Sanskrit Devanagari (besides Lucknow & Delhi), pronouncing pareshan as 'pare-Saan', 'ghaib' as 'GH-aib', 'baaqi' as 'baaKi', 'khaas' as 'KH-aas', 'phir' as 'F-ir', 'zabaan' as 'J-abaan'.

 

[rollindays]

There was no Urdu either, both are derived from Khariboli, one has more Sanskrit words the other Persian.

And Really couple of words? Cause there are no Sanskrit words in Urdu?

Whats the name of your days in Urdu?

Urdu has a substantial portion of Sanskrit in it. The loanwords are Persian/Arabic derived. But I've explained why that is on Post #126, giving you historical evidence, how Urdu evolved over a few centuries. Hindi is a post 1950 invention, & has no independent history from Urdu prior to the 1950s.

And it's not a couple of words, almost all of the colloquial Hindi/Hindustani today is identical to Urdu, because it is Urdu; not Hindi. Almost all the loanwords used in 'colloquial Hindi' are Arabic/Persian, which is Urdu. Most Indians in India do not understand Hindi, or speak it, because it is a post 1950 invention.

 

[Roybot]

peer - Monday
mangal - Tuesday- Derived from Mangalvar
budh - WednesdayDerived from Budhvar
jumraat - Thursday
jumma - Friday
hafta - Saturday
itwar - Sunday

Apart from that I have heard Pakistanis use Somvar and Sanichar(Shanivar). Point being that Urdu borrows from Sanskrit too.

I suggest you read the indepth explanation on Post# 126 about the history of Urdu over the centuries, whereas the artificial invention of Hindi post 1950.

It's not about what you label the language, but how much Urdu has been bastardized in India using Sanskrit Devanagari (besides Lucknow & Delhi), pronouncing pareshan as 'pare-Saan', 'ghaib' as 'GH-aib', 'baaqi' as 'baaKi', 'khaas' as 'KH-aas', 'phir' as 'F-ir', 'zabaan' as 'J-abaan'.

Not this again. First the "J" and "z" sound, thats because there is no "z" sound in our script.

Like the scripts of all languages, the Devnagari script too works with a finite set of sounds, and so many sounds that occur in foreign languages cannot be represented in Devanagari. Two common sounds of English that cannot be represented in Hindi are the "z" sound as in zoo, dizzy, etc., and the "o" sound as in doctor. The closest sound in Hindi for "z" is the consonant ज(j), which is often used to indicate the "z" sound. Sometimes a dot is added below it (ज&#2364 to distinguish it from the normal ज(j) sound. For the "o" sound a new vowel has recently been added to the alphabet of Devanagari, which looks like this - ऑ. However, these symbols are as yet not universally understood and should be sparingly used. The recommended practice is to adjust the pronunciation of foreign sounds to fit into the normal set of sounds available in the Devanagari script. So instead of writing ऑस्ट्रिय (Austria) or ज़ांबिया (Zambia) one should write आस्ट्रिया or जांबिया.

English to Hindi Translation

As for the rest of the examples you gave, that depends on the influence of the local language. Anyone from Delhi, UP or Madhya Pradesh would never say "paresaan". Its Pareshaan for us too.

Tiny differences in pronunciation/accent is no big deal. I have heard the chaste Urdu of Punjabi, Sindhi and Seriaki speakers of Pakistan too.

So don't talk about bastardization, cause if I start giving you examples it will lead to your "bizzti"

 

[rollindays]

Apart from that I have heard Pakistanis use Somvar and Sanichar(Shanivar). Point being that Urdu borrows from Sanskrit too.

You didn't get my point. Urdu has a substantial amount of Sanskrit derived terms in it, & most of the loanwords are taken from Arabic/Persian. The colloquial Hindi/Hindustani does the same, because it is actually Urdu. I suggest you read Urdu poetry from 1200 onwards, & you will see what I have said is correct. But Hindi is a creation of the 1950s, because it artificially removed the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu, & replaced them with Sanskrit ones, to form Hindi. That is how Hindi was formed. As a result, most of India today speaks Urdu, & almost no one can speak or understand Hindi.

As for the rest of the examples you gave, that depends on the influence of the local language. Anyone from Delhi, UP or Madhya Pradesh would never say "paresaan". Its Pareshaan for us too.

Tiny differences in pronunciation/accent is no big deal. I have heard the chaste Urdu of Punjabi, Sindhi and Seriaki speakers of Pakistan too.

The average Pakistani speaks Urdu a lot better than the average Indian. Most Indians (particularly in the South, & even in the North in places like Gujarat) do not even speak colloquial Hindi/Urdu, as they speak their local languages; besides the people in Lucknow & Delhi of course. Almost every Pakistani speaks Urdu, & that too better than Indians.

 

[Roybot]

You didn't get my point. Urdu has a substantial amount of Sanskrit derived terms in it, & most of the loanwords are taken from Arabic/Persian.

Loan words alone does not make a language. The basic sentence structure and grammar for Urdu/Hindi is derived from common Avadhi and Brijbhasha(spoken primarily in what is now known as Hindi belt).

The colloquial Hindi/Hindustani does the same, because it is actually Urdu. I suggest you read Urdu poetry from 1200 onwards, & you will see what I have said is correct. But Hindi is a creation of the 1950s, because it artificially removed the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu, & replaced them with Sanskrit ones, to form Hindi. That is how Hindi was formed. As a result, most of India today speaks Urdu, & almost no one can speak or understand Hindi.

That is not true. To me Hindi and Urdu were basically the same language. After partition Urdu become more persian and Hindi more Sanskrit. As simple as that. But the basic grammar and sentence structure came from Avadhi and Brajbhasa( from Uttar Pradesh)

The language went by several names over the years: Hindawi or Hindī, "[language] of India"; Dehlavi "of Delhi"; Hindustani, "of Hindustan"; and Zaban-e-Urdu, "the language of the [army] camp", or perhaps "of the market", from which came the current name of Urdu around the year 1800.

The average Pakistani speaks Urdu a lot better than the average Indian. Most Indians (particularly in the South, & even in the North in places like Gujarat) do not even speak colloquial Hindi/Urdu, as they speak their local languages; besides the people in Lucknow & Delhi of course. Almost every Pakistani speaks Urdu, & that too better than Indians.

Its not just Lucknow and Delhi. Anyone whose mother tongue is Hindi is proficient in Hindi and have perfect accent/pronunciation. As for South Indians or Gujaratis speaking perfect Hindi/Urdu, why should they? Its not their language. Do your Pathans speak perfect Urdu? Or Baloch? Or Sindhi? or the Seriaki speakers? No they don't, not unless they are educated.

I have had this argument before on this forum, so I ll just post couple of my posts from the old thread.

 

[Roybot]

I have had this argument before on this forum, so I ll just post couple of my posts from the old thread.
========================================================================
http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/97239-x-rated-r-d-9.html

funny thread. And you guys talk like you pronounce everything properly. For instance its Be izzati its not "bisti" as every other Pakistani pronounce it as. First time I heard someone say "bisti" I took me good 2 minutes to figure out what the person was trying to say.

Bhai Lucknow aakar kabhi aise Urdu naa bolna.

Not all Indians speak hindi/urdu with that accent! Come visit UP someday. There are lot of regional languages in India and their pronunciation gets affected cause of the regional languages. American "haRbour" and Australian "habour". But they are still speaking English right?

For instance Bengalis instead of saying "Bhai" will say "Vai". Its no big deal. Its like how, a lot of people from both Punjabs can't pronounce, "Sk`", School becomes Sakool, scooter becomes sakooter, straw becomes satraw, sprite becomes saprite. Am not making this shyte up, I have heard people pronounce words like that

Pakistanis on the other hand make quite big mistakes in Urdu, and I mean its your lingua franca! Its Dilchasp not Dilchast! I kid you not I must have heard at least 10 Pakistanis say Dilchast!

That was never the point of this thread thread though was it? Point was and I quote," Over a period it has intrigued me as to why in some Indian version of the English dialect, the letter "D" is used in the place of the letter "R"."

Firstly "R" is replaced by "D" not by everyone, and even when it is, its only when writing Hindi/Urdu in Roman script and not speaking. The OP wanted to make it look like that this is only something Hindi speakers/ Indians do, when its clearly evident from the videos I posted that, the same thing goes for Pakistani Urdu speakers too. "R" is still pronounced as a "R" when being spoken in Hindi/ Indian Urdu. And once again not every Indian pronounce "z" as "j". Many do I know, reason behind that being there is no "Z" sound in Hindi devnagri script. For example "Zebra" is written as ज़ेबरा, see the little dot under the first letter, thats the only thing differentiating between "J" and a "Z" sound, so I wouldn't blame Hindi speakers for omitting that little detail.

And trust me I don't need to ask anyone, I am from UP. Hindi/Urdu is the only language we speak. Awadhi and Brij Bhasa heavily contributes to Urdu/Hindi. So if you want to hear pure Hindi/Urdu go speak to a person from UP or some parts of Bihar. Agreed they will use a bit less Persian words, but their pronunciation is definitely better than any common Urdu speaker in Pakistan. I have reiterated few times already, accent is due the influence of regional language, just like how common Balochs, Sindhis, Punjabis and Pashtuns speak Urdu in a weird way, Indians from non Hindi belt speak it with different accent. If you give me a day I can make a list of at least 100 Urdu words which the Pakistanis pronounce wrongly. I mean its "Mulk" not "Mulak".

And then we had another Pakistani guy come here and say oh why Indians use, "lakh" and "crores" for numbers instead of millions and billions. Ab Pakistani itne angrez ho gayen hain kya? Aap nahin use karte "lakhs" and "crores"?

The purpose of language is to communicate with people. And it does the job quite well irrespective of the accent its spoken in. Just how many people speak Queen's English or Ghalib or Iqbals Urdu? Be honest to yourself and tell me if every Pakistani speaks Urdu like Faiz? Aise beauty ka kya faida jab windjammer jaise insaan "Chod" likha dekh kar khil khila uthte hain. Height of perversion

Friends and fellow استہزا کنان (how do you say that in English?) of Indians' pronunciations,

We old-school Urdugoan too mispronounce Hindi words in ways that would leave them pulling their hair out. New guys who've been fed on a daily dose of bwood will not, fortunately or not! A few examples:

Our pronunciation Their real pronunciation
mandar ...............................mandir
sansikrat..............................sanskrit
barhaman.............................brahmin
panDat............................... panDit
siri lanka...............................shri lanka
etc

and the forum favorite:
bhaarati...............................bhaaratya, however this one's simply a matter of different linguistic conventions.

 

[rollindays]

double post

 

[rollindays]

I have had this argument before on this forum, so I ll just post couple of my posts from the old thread.
========================================================================
http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/97239-x-rated-r-d-9.html

I pronounce Mandir as Mandir, Sanskrit as Sanskrit, Brahmin as Brahmin, Pandit as Pandit, & Sri Lanka as "Shri-Lanka" (like "Shri" Krishna). My mom is from Karachi, dad from Lahore by the way. That person is making a completely baseless generalization. That's like saying all South Indians are black as night.

 

[rollindays]

Loan words alone does not make a language. The basic sentence structure and grammar for Urdu/Hindi is derived from common Avadhi and Brajbhasha(spoken primarily in what is now know as Hindi belt).

It doesn't, which is why I said Urdu comprises of a huge amount of Sanskrit derived, & many other Persian/Arabic loanwords. If Urdu had replaced Sanskrit derived words, & replaced them with more Persian/Arabic derived words; it would sounds like Farsi. And Rekhta Urdu, which Ghalib used sounds like that (Rekhta or Persianized Urdu, unlike the Sanskritized Urdu/Hindi, is NOT a post independence creation. It was used by Ghalib & others for hundreds of years). My point is, regular Urdu does not sound like Farsi/Arabic, & is not understandable to them (or vice versa); because for the most part, Urdu isn't like Farsi & Arabic. You don't understand the gist of my argument: I am admitting that Urdu has a major Sanskrit influence in it, but it came & developed naturally over the centuries. Read this sentence carefully, & understand what I am trying to say: Hindustani/colloquial Hindi has no separate, independent history (from Urdu); because we are not talking about the history of two 'similar' languages over the centuries, we're talking about the history of one language: which is Urdu. Hindi is a language that was artificially created post 1950s, by removing not just Arabic/Persian loanwords, but most Arabic/Persian words in general; making it in a way 'similar' (or completely different) to Rekhta Urdu. Just like Rekhta Urdu was an artificial creation in the 1500s, so is Hindi post 1950. The reason why there was such an outburst in 1867, during the Hindi-Urdu controversy was because Hindus in Bihar & other Indian states converted Urdu works in Nastaliq into Sanskrit Devangari, & had termed the language Hindi, even though it was in reality Urdu.

That is not true. To me Hindi and Urdu were basically the same language. After partition Urdu become more persian and Hindi more Sanskrit. As simple as that. But the basic grammar and sentence structure came from Avadhi and Brajbhasa( from Uttar Pradesh)

Urdu became Persianized at the time of Rekhta Urdu, in the 1500s. But that does not mean that the language developed in the early 1200s in the Delhi Sultanate isn't Urdu. Urdu was developed in many 'centers': Dakhnvi Urdu was used in Hyderabad Deccan, Lakhnavi/Rekhta Urdu was used in Lucknow, Lahore was an important center for the development of Urdu as well. All these dialects of Urdu were different, but the language created on the outskirts of Delhi in the early 1200s was nothing like Rekhta Urdu. Urdu had many different names: it was called Hindvi by Khusro, Lashkari, Delhvi, Dakhnvi, Rekhta etc. All of these were Urdu. And my point is that even the Rekhta/Persianized (an artificial dialect of) Urdu went through refinement for hundreds of years, you see all kinds of poetry using Rekhta Urdu; whereas Hindi is a creation post 1950, & hasn't been used over the centuries, & isn't refined like Rekhta Urdu. That is the basic gist of the argument, I hope you understand it now.

 

[Roybot]

It doesn't, which is why I said Urdu comprises of a huge amount of Sanskrit derived, & many other Persian/Arabic loanwords. If Urdu had replaced Sanskrit derived words, & replaced them with more Persian/Arabic derived words; it would sounds like Farsi. And Rekhta Urdu, which Ghalib used sounds like that. My point is, regular Urdu does not sound like Farsi/Arabic, & is not understandable to them (or vice versa); because for the most part, Urdu isn't like Farsi & Arabic. You don't understand the gist of my argument: I am admitting that Urdu has a major Sanskrit influence in it, but it came & developed naturally over the centuries.

Read this sentence carefully, & understand what I am trying to say: Hindustani/colloquial Hindi has no separate, independent history (from Urdu); because we are not talking about the history of two 'similar' languages over the centuries, we're talking about the history of one language: which is Urdu. Hindi is a language that was artificially created post 1950s, by removing not just Arabic/Persian loanwords, but most Arabic/Persian words in general; making it in a way 'similar' (or completely different) to Rekhta Urdu. Just like Rekhta Urdu was an artificial creation in the 1500s, so is Hindi post 1950.

I agree that both language have common origin and was infact the same language(Hindustani Language). But to say that Hindi didn't exist until 1950 is wrong. Hindustani language was known Hindwi, Hindavi and later on Zuban-e-Urdu.

Urdu became Persianized at the time of Rekhta Urdu, in the 1500s. But that does not mean that the language developed in the early 1200s in the Delhi Sultanate isn't Urdu. Urdu was developed in many 'centers': Dakhnvi Urdu was used in Hyderabad Deccan, Lakhnavi/Rekhta Urdu was used in Lucknow, Lahore was an important center for the development of Urdu as well. All these dialects of Urdu were different, but the language created on the outskirts of Delhi in the early 1200s was nothing like Rekhta Urdu. My point is, that even Rekhta/Persianized (an artificial dialect of) Urdu went through refinement for hundreds of years, you see all kinds of poetry using Rekhta Urdu; whereas Hindi is a creation post 1950, & hasn't been used in literature over the centuries, & isn't refined like Rekhta Urdu.

Hindi Literature predates Urdu.

Hindi literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia