# Urdu: Muhaajir مهاجر



## UrduMedium

As many of you probably know people who migrated from what is India now to Pakistan around the time of the partition of Subcontinent, are either called Muhaajir (immigrants), or "Urdu-speaking". Both terms are problematic. Muhaajir is inaccurate after the first generation, plus the term naturally alienates people from the land where they live. Many people who are called Muhaajir do not like the term for these reasons. On the other hand, "Urdu-speaking", while accurate in meaning, is not an Urdu word/term. I wonder if we can come up with a more representative and elegant-sounding Urdu name for the demographic. Even just for the sake of brainstorming. Here's a few candidates:

Urdugo (not sure what the plural will be, urdugoyan?)
Urduwan (on the pattern of Farsiwan used in Afghanistan to refer to Farsi-speakers).
Urdumand

Suggestions?


----------



## Alfaaz

Interesting question! There is also the term (not sure if it is considered derogatory) bhaiye....?


> "Urdu-speaking", while accurate in meaning,


I would partially disagree! While the term has come to mean "person/people who speak Urdu as their native/mother tongue/language", couldn't it be used for any person who speaks Urdu or any other language for that matter? Maybe, I'm thinking too critically about the English words...


> Urdugo (not sure what the plural will be, urdugoyan?)
> Urduwan (on the pattern of Farsiwan used in Afghanistan to refer to Farsi-speakers).
> Urdumand


Similarly (as stated above for the English term), couldn't anyone (Balochi, Pathaan, Sindhi, Punjabi, Saraiki, etc.) be labeled as an Urdugo...? 


> Suggestions?


The above could definitely work (and seem to be even used sometimes) if the phrase "Urdu-speaking" is considered to mean "native Urdu speaker"....but is there an equivalent for "native" in Urdu that could be used...?

Maybe: paidaishi Urdugo....? (probably doesn't make sense)


----------



## UrduMedium

Thanks for your comments, Alfaaz saahib/a. Yes bhayyie is derogatory. A "term" (not word) typically specifies a name for a group, without blocking it off from others. Like a dhobi is a term reserved for someone who has the profession of washing clothes. Now one could argue that anyone who washes clothes also qualifies as a dhobi. The latter fact does not take anything away from the term dhobi being a professional identity. Ethnic identities are similar.

Paidaishi Urdugo is too long, in my humble view. For a term to take off it should be easy to say, meaningful, and expandable (urdumand to Urdumandana, e.g.).


----------



## Alfaaz

> Yes bhayyie is derogatory.


Thanks for the clarification! 


> A "term" (not word) typically specifies a name for a group, without blocking it off from others. Like a dhobi is a term reserved for someone who has the profession of washing clothes. Now one could argue that anyone who washes clothes also qualifies as a dhobi. The latter fact does not take anything away from the term dhobi being a professional identity. Ethnic identities are similar.


I agree...maybe I was being too nitpicky....good example!

Edit: This probably won't make sense either, but could Ahl/Ahliyaan-e-Urdu work (like Ahl-e-Kitaab, People of the Book)? 



> expandable (urdumand to Urdumandana, e.g.).


Interesting and creative! (so _Urdumandana_ would be an adjective...?)


----------



## panjabigator

> I wonder if we can come up with a more representative and elegant-sounding Urdu name for the demographic



"Elegant" is quite subjective and I imagine that any other choice would come with many similar problems. Is there a need to distinguish between the descendants of those who migrated from India and are Urdu speaking from those who families did not migrate but now choose to speak Urdu? And what of the others who might count as "muhaajir" in the displacement sense of the word but are Punjabi speaking and, therefore, "blend-in" with other Punjabi speakers?

I've always found "ahl-e-zabaan" the best. For me, it refers to particular kind of Urdu and community that was uprooted from the subcontinent at Partition. Just my two cents.


----------



## Alfaaz

> Is there a need to distinguish between the descendants of those who migrated from India and are Urdu speaking from those who families did not migrate but now choose to speak Urdu?


PG, that doesn't seem to be the issue and/or motive....rather what would Urdu speakers in general (whether from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, or anywhere else in the world) be called....

(This might lead to comments/debate about the difference between language and ethnicity, but) 

For all the others, we seem to have words describing the speakers: PanjaabiyoN, SindhiyoN, BalochiyoN, PakhtoonoN, SaraikiyoN, BengaliyoN....but Urdu (probably) doesn't have such a term......UrduooN....or maybe UrdiyoN.....? 

Even for Hindi, there seems to be a similar problem: HinduooN--- but that now generally describes those who follow the religion. 

Could this perhaps be because Urdu speakers weren't/haven't been considered an (separate) "ethnic group" (as others have).....? Or maybe could it be due to the "universality" (in terms of South East Asia) of Urdu and it kind of "belonging" to "everyone"......?


----------



## BP.

panjabigator said:


> ...I've always found "ahl-e-zabaan" the best. For me, it refers to particular kind of Urdu and community that was uprooted from the subcontinent at Partition. Just my two cents.


ahl of which zabaan? Everybody's got a zabaan!



Alfaaz said:


> ...There is also the term (...) bhaiye....?...


!!!


----------



## Qureshpor

mbasit said:


> As many of you probably know people who migrated from what is India now to Pakistan around the time of the partition of Subcontinent, are either called Muhaajir (immigrants), or "Urdu-speaking". Both terms are problematic. Muhaajir is inaccurate after the first generation, plus the term naturally alienates people from the land where they live. Many people who are called Muhaajir do not like the term for these reasons. On the other hand, "Urdu-speaking", while accurate in meaning, is not an Urdu word/term. I wonder if we can come up with a more representative and elegant-sounding Urdu name for the demographic. Even just for the sake of brainstorming. Here's a few candidates:
> 
> Urdugo (not sure what the plural will be, urdugoyan?)
> Urduwan (on the pattern of Farsiwan used in Afghanistan to refer to Farsi-speakers).
> Urdumand
> Suggestions?




Basit SaaHib, your question is interesting, thought provoking and at the same time of great importance. I have often thought about this very issue and I am glad you have started a thread on the subject.

Having read other friends' responses it is obvious that clearly defined parameters are necessary in order to formulate the most suitable term that is accurate and acceptable for the community in question. Let us look at some of the issues at hand.

1) muhaajir

As has been made clear by your good self and others, this is far from being a suitable term. It has negative connotations and it is not accurate because one can not be a "muhaajir" on a permanent basis. "muhaajirs" have been Punjabi and Bengali and others. So, it is ambiguous. It is unfortunate that a section of people from the Urdu speaking community chose to include this word in the name of their political organisation but this is history now. However the term has got stuck whether we like it or not. And I detest it.

2) Urdu-Speaking (Urdu-go)

Once again the question is this. What do we mean by Urdu-go(yaan)? People who speak Urdu and this would of course include people whose mother-tongue is not Urdu. Even if your mother tongue is Urdu, you can be of different ethnicities. Josh Maleehabadi was a pathan in ethnic terms. Ziya Muhyiddin is a Punjab born Urdu speaker (I know he hails from Layallpur, now Faisalabad in Pakistan but I am not 100% certain if he was born of an Urdu speaking family). So are we talking about people whose mother tongue is Urdu whatever their ethnicity or a people originating in a particular geographical location?

3) ahl-i-zabaan

This term is/was the usual literary term for Urdu speaking people. But, as BP has indicated, everyone is an ahl-i-zabaan. It is just the "zabaan" that is different. This term, as far as I know, was linked to mother tongue Persian poets who had migrated to Mughal India to escape religious persecution during the Safavid reign. They saw themselves superior to the Indian "faarsii-daan"s and there was a lot of prejudice and anti "Indian Persian" feeling emanating from them. Unfortunately, even our Mirza Ghalib aligned himself with this thought process considering that he was not a "native Persian" speaker notwithstanding his great love and knowledge of the language.

magar aanaan kih Paarsii daanand
ham bariiN 3ahd-o-paimaanand

kih zih ahl-i-zabaan nabuud Qatiil*
hargiz az Isfahan nabuud Qatiil*

* Qatiil was a well known Indian poet writing in Persian.

Here is a translation from the late Professor A. Bausani.

"Those who really know Persian all agree in saying that Qatiil is not a native speaker of that language (ahl-i-zabaan); he certainly is not from Isfahan, and therefore one can not rely on him or follow his example. This language is the specific tongue of the Iranians, difficult for us but easy and natural for them: Dehli and Lucknow are not in Persia..."

Needless to say, one does detect this kind of prejudice from some "native" speakers even on this forum but it has to be said that this is not a phenomenon restricted to a particular language. It is just part of human nature I suppose.

Please take a look at this thread/post too.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2161667&highlight=Urdu+lab-o-lahjah

4) Geographical Distribution/Ethnicity

Do Urdu speakers have one ethnicity? Of course not. Urdu speakers come from a very wide geographical area, for example, Rajasthan (Tonk, Jaipur, Ajmer), UP (United Provinces/Uttar Pradesh), Bihar, CP (Central Provinces..Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra), Andra Pradesh and Gujarat. This list is not comprehensive.

In short, please define your parameters a bit more carefully and we shall do our best to come up with something that is befitting.


----------



## UrduMedium

panjabigator said:


> "Elegant" is quite subjective and I imagine that any other choice would come with many similar problems. Is there a need to distinguish between the descendants of those who migrated from India and are Urdu speaking from those who families did not migrate but now choose to speak Urdu? And what of the others who might count as "muhaajir" in the displacement sense of the word but are Punjabi speaking and, therefore, "blend-in" with other Punjabi speakers?
> 
> I've always found "ahl-e-zabaan" the best. For me, it refers to particular kind of Urdu and community that was uprooted from the subcontinent at Partition. Just my two cents.



As I said, any such term cannot be exclusionary. Meaning if someone wants to call someone Urdu-speaking today, who can object to it? More, the merrier. Same is true for the term Muhaajir. Afghan Muhaajirs of the 1980s were indeed called just that. So no one has an exclusive hold on the term. For example, the term Kurd refers to ethnic Kurd population of the Middle East. Arguably, an Arab, Turk, or Iranian who speaks Kurdish, can claim to be Kurd too. But in reality why would he when he already has a strong ethnic identity of his own. But if some Arab insists on being called a Kurd, who are we to stop them. So the point is that these are practical situations not academic. Hope that clarifies my rationale.


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> ...
> Needless to say, one does detect this kind of prejudice from some  "native" speakers even on this forum but it has to be said that this is  not a phenomenon restricted to a particular language. It is just part of  human nature I suppose.
> 
> Please take a look at this thread/post too.
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2161667&highlight=Urdu+lab-o-lahjah
> ...


For the percentage that might have come from me, I apologize.

I understand that that saying "WE such in such manner" can be seen, as has been once on this forum if I remember, as invalidating the other, but we can't really do without this kind of description. The trick for the reader could be not try to imagine what isn't being said.





QURESHPOR said:


> ...It is unfortunate that *a section of* people from the Urdu speaking community chose to include this word in the name of their political organisation but this is history now...


Thank you. Many people don't elucidate the distinction.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Basit SaaHib, your question is interesting, thought provoking and at the same time of great importance. I have often thought about this very issue and I am glad you have started a thread on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your detailed comment, QP saahib. First off, I wanted this to be a strictly linguistic exchange. But it seems some of the socio-political-cultural discussion is inevitable. My suggestion (and attempt) is to keep that to the minimum, if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having read other friends' responses it is obvious that clearly defined parameters are necessary in order to formulate the most suitable term that is accurate and acceptable for the community in question. Let us look at some of the issues at hand.
> 
> 1) muhaajir
> 
> As has been made clear by your good self and others, this is far from being a suitable term. It has negative connotations and it is not accurate because one can not be a "muhaajir" on a permanent basis. "muhaajirs" have been Punjabi and Bengali and others. So, it is ambiguous. It is unfortunate that a section of people from the Urdu speaking community chose to include this word in the name of their political organisation but this is history now. However the term has got stuck whether we like it or not. And I detest it.
> 
> 2) Urdu-Speaking (Urdu-go)
> 
> Once again the question is this. What do we mean by Urdu-go(yaan)? People who speak Urdu and this would of course include people whose mother-tongue is not Urdu. Even if your mother tongue is Urdu, you can be of different ethnicities. Josh Maleehabadi was a pathan in ethnic terms. Ziya Muhyiddin is a Punjab born Urdu speaker (I know he hails from Layallpur, now Faisalabad in Pakistan but I am not 100% certain if he was born of an Urdu speaking family). So are we talking about people whose mother tongue is Urdu whatever their ethnicity or a people originating in a particular geographical location?
> 
> 3) ahl-i-zabaan
> 
> This term is/was the usual literary term for Urdu speaking people. But, as BP has indicated, everyone is an ahl-i-zabaan. It is just the "zabaan" that is different. This term, as far as I know, was linked to mother tongue Persian poets who had migrated to Mughal India to escape religious persecution during the Safavid reign. They saw themselves superior to the Indian "faarsii-daan"s and there was a lot of prejudice and anti "Indian Persian" feeling emanating from them. Unfortunately, even our Mirza Ghalib aligned himself with this thought process considering that he was not a "native Persian" speaker notwithstanding his great love and knowledge of the language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me most of the above discussion is academic. The reality as I see is this: a large number of people emigrated to a new land they made their home. The new country already had strong existing ethnic demographics. The society/media rightly called newcomers Muhaajirs. I don't think the term was driven out of pride, but more out of circumstance. For good or bad, the term gave an identity to the new demographic, in contrast to five or six other demographics that existed in the country. The so called Muhaajirs were of diverse backgrounds, as QP saahib indicates. However, in the new environment they were all viewed as belonging to the new demographic by the natives and that combined most such immigrants under one ethnic label. So this demographic is real, it is not academic. I know ethnic Pathan families from UP who settled back in Peshawar after the partition, with their kids speaking flawless Pashto for last fifty years, yet their Urdu-speaking label survives, not because they are fighting to retain it, but because the surrounding society sees it as such. That is neither good nor bad. And certainly not our topic of discussion. It is more of a cultural identity and they tend to very nuanced and complex. I have no comment on their virtue or vice.
> 
> My exercise is simple, one of coining a term that can gain currency if it is representative, easy to use and expandable. Because the current choices are lacking in one or more of these areas.
Click to expand...


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> It is unfortunate that a section of people from the Urdu speaking community chose to include this word in the name of their political organisation but this is history now. However the term has got stuck whether we like it or not. And I detest it.



As I already said, I have problem with the term too. However, just for the record, this was not the only political party to have an ethnic label as part of their name. Also, they officially dropped it from their name in 1997 replacing Muhaajir with Muttahida (united), and declared their supporters Urdu-speaking Sindhis. Just by way of clarification ... trying to stay away from the political angle as that will distract us from my thread 

Let's take it as an exercise in creative istilaah-kari, shall we? . So far we have

-Urdugo
-Urduwan
-Urdumand
-Urdi
-Ahle-Urdu

Did I miss any? I suggest to add the following:

-Nae Sindhii
-Ursindhii / Urindhii (contraction of Urdu-speaking Sindhis). Of course these two limits the geo scope to Sindh.
-Urduwalle (Urduwalla)
-Urdujan ("native" Urdu speakers)


----------



## Qureshpor

I still need some guidance.

1) Should this term be for "mother tongue" Urdu speakers? In this case supposing one has Punjabi/Paxtuun/Sindhi/Martian parents but they decide to bring up their child speaking Urdu. Would this child come under the title of a "mother tongue" speaker?

2) Are you looking for a term for Urdu speaking peoples who migrated from various parts of India, irrespective of their ethnic or geographical background?

3) Do the people need to be differentiated from those Urdu speakers who live in various parts of India, irrespective of their geography or ethnicity?

4) Are you looking for a term for anyone who happens to speak Urdu as their first language, irrespective of who they are, where they have originated from and where they are destined to?


----------



## Qureshpor

mbasit said:


> As I already said, I have problem with the term too. However, just for the record, this was not the only political party to have an ethnic label as part of their name. Also, they officially dropped it from their name in 1997 replacing Muhaajir with Muttahida (united), and declared their supporters Urdu-speaking Sindhis. Just by way of clarification ... trying to stay away from the political angle as that will distract us from my thread




Mine was a subtle hint and your expansion has gone against your declared objective/s. I shall make one small comment and then we shall speak no more on this aspect. "muhaajir" is NOT an ethnicity!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> I still need some guidance.
> 
> 1) Should this term be for "mother tongue" Urdu speakers? In this case supposing one has Punjabi/Paxtuun/Sindhi/Martian parents but they decide to bring up their child speaking Urdu. Would this child come under the title of a "mother tongue" speaker?
> 
> Since we are proposing an "organic" bottom-up growth of the term, and not legislating, it should be open to anyone who wants to adopt it.
> 
> 2) Are you looking for a term for Urdu speaking peoples who migrated from various parts of India, irrespective of their ethnic or geographical background?
> 
> From my viewpoint, the primary audience is whoever is known as Urdu-speaking or Muhaajir. But again, why exclude anyone who wants to associate with the name. Like if someone from Balochistan wants to call him/her Urdu-speaking, why should I or anyone have a problem with it?
> 
> 3) Do the people need to be differentiated from those Urdu speakers who live in various parts of India, irrespective of their geography or ethnicity?
> 
> Not the primary audience but just like anyone they can use it if they like. One thing for sure they are not Muhaajir, though. But to me this is all academic because I am not out to create a new demographic, just fix the name given to it
> 
> 4) Are you looking for a term for anyone who happens to speak Urdu as their first language, irrespective of who they are, where they have originated from and where they are destined to?
> 
> Yes, why not. Its one big happy family  See answers 1-3 above.


----------



## Alfaaz

> Mine was a subtle hint and your expansion has gone against your declared objective/s. I shall make one small comment and then we shall speak no more on this aspect. "muhaajir" is NOT an ethnicity!


This is the problem I was trying to point out: 


> PG, that doesn't seem to be the issue and/or motive....rather what would Urdu speakers in general (whether from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, or anywhere else in the world) be called....
> 
> (This might lead to comments/debate about the difference between language and ethnicity, but)
> 
> For all the others, we seem to have words describing the speakers: PanjaabiyoN, SindhiyoN, BalochiyoN, PakhtoonoN, SaraikiyoN, BengaliyoN....but Urdu (probably) doesn't have such a term......UrduooN....or maybe UrdiyoN.....?
> 
> Even for Hindi, there seems to be a similar problem: HinduooN--- but that now generally describes those who follow the religion.
> 
> Could this perhaps be because Urdu speakers weren't/haven't been considered an (separate) "ethnic group" (as others have).....? Or maybe could it be due to the "universality" (in terms of South East Asia) of Urdu and it kind of "belonging" to "everyone"......?


Almost all the other languages have descriptive names due to them being linked to ethnic group...but Urdu seems to be left out (especially in the case of Pakistan, as almost everyone regardless of what their mother tongue is seems to own and love Urdu just as much as they do their mother tongue...as it has been made the quomi zabaan!) But this seems to leave out those who are "pure" Urdu-speaking....



> Did I miss any?


How about these wild ones?
میں اردون / اردوئی ہوں! 
اردونوں / اردوئوں کی ثقافت!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Mine was a subtle hint and your expansion has gone against your declared objective/s. I shall make one small comment and then we shall speak no more on this aspect. "muhaajir" is NOT an ethnicity!



Fair criticism. I perhaps "clarified" too long. I have no problem debating the socio-political-cultural aspects of this. Only doing so in this forum and thread. I would imagine we would agree about 95%  Agreed it is not an ethnicity. Let's just go with demographic if that's more acceptable.


----------



## UrduMedium

Alfaaz said:


> How about these wild ones?
> میں اردون / اردوئی ہوں!
> اردونوں / اردوئوں کی ثقافت!



Just realized from your post I have not been spelling my suggestions phonetically .. Here's an update..

-Urduugo
-Urduuwaan
-Urduumand
-Urdii (_Alfaaz_)
-Ehle-Urduu (_Alfaaz_)
-Urduui (_Alfaaz_)
-Urduun (_Alfaaz_)
-Nae Sindhii
-Ursindhii / Urindhii (contraction of Urdu-speaking Sindhis). Of course these two limits the geo scope to Sindh.
-Urduuwalle/Urduwalla
-Urduujan ("native" Urdu speakers, -jan not -jaan)


----------



## Alfaaz

> -Nae Sindhii
> -Ursindhii / Urindhii (contraction of Urdu-speaking Sindhis). Of course these two limits the geo scope to Sindh.



If I may suggest, these two may be describing only a certain group/part of Urdu speakers, not Urdu speakers as a whole...Also, Nae Sindhii sounds like they are inhabitants/residents of a new province named Nayaa Sindh; New Yorkers---New York! (if I have read the transliteration "Nae" correctly, that is)


----------



## BP.

mbasit sahib your cacophony of suggestions must've taken you some effort to come up with, but I don't think they can be commented on till we have some consensus on the basic questions post 13 poses. At least I don't have good answers.


----------



## marrish

Thank you BP SaaHib for pointing out to the post #13 - I am sure no lingustic exercise can go further without the clarification what the OP in reality is asking for.


----------



## UrduMedium

Tough crowd here. I'm thinking I would have gotten much better mileage by just asking for translations of the term "Urdu-speaking"  I have failed to explain a simple idea. 

PS: BTW, post #15 answered post #13


----------



## marrish

mbasit said:


> Tough crowd here. I'm thinking I would have gotten much better mileage by just asking for translations of the term "Urdu-speaking"  I have failed to explain a simple idea.
> 
> PS: BTW, post #15 answered post #13


How the folks identified as 'Urdu-speaking' call themselves? What they feel?


----------



## Qureshpor

Basit SaaHib, I have given and am continuing to give considerable thought to this matter. As has been suggested by marrish SaaHib, it is important to see how the Urdu speaking communities themselves perceive their community at large. So, what I am about to write is a sincere and humble effort. Please do not be offended in any way if it sounds ridiculous to anyone on the forum. I do believe that whatever term anyone of us here comes up with, within the forum or outside it, needs to be a dignified term befitting the people for which it is coined for. 

Now, generally we have "-ii" ending words which reflect ethnic communities but this is not always the case..

Punjabi, MaraaThii etc but Paxtuun/PaThaan etc as well. So, in this post, I shall suggest both types.

The construction "buud-o-baash" means "residence/existence/(someone's) society..". So, I am going to take the "baash" from here and give the wider Urdu speaking community as *"Urdu-baashii"*

*"Urdu-baashii" *is therefore that community that owes its existence to Urdu, lives and breathes Urdu etc. It is an easy term. One could link it to "baashindah" as well.

We also have a tribe called "qizil-baash" or "qazal-baash" which means "Red-Head/Cap". So, *"Urdu-baash"* could be considered as a "united tribe" of all Urdu speaking communities.

More to come..watch this space!


----------



## tonyspeed

_samaaj-e-urduu_ ? <-- my humble attempt


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Basit SaaHib, I have given and am continuing to give considerable thought to this matter. As has been suggested by marrish SaaHib, it is important to see how the Urdu speaking communities themselves perceive their community at large. So, what I am about to write is a sincere and humble effort. Please do not be offended in any way if it sounds ridiculous to anyone on the forum. I do believe that whatever term anyone of us here comes up with, within the forum or outside it, needs to be a dignified term befitting the people for which it is coined for.
> 
> Now, generally we have "-ii" ending words which reflect ethnic communities but this is not always the case..
> 
> Punjabi, MaraaThii etc but Paxtuun/PaThaan etc as well. So, in this post, I shall suggest both types.
> 
> The construction "buud-o-baash" means "residence/existence/(someone's) society..". So, I am going to take the "baash" from here and give the wider Urdu speaking community as *"Urdu-baashii"*
> 
> *"Urdu-baashii" *is therefore that community that owes its existence to Urdu, lives and breathes Urdu etc. It is an easy term. One could link it to "baashindah" as well.
> 
> We also have a tribe called "qizil-baash" or "qazal-baash" which means "Red-Head/Cap". So, *"Urdu-baash"* could be considered as a "united tribe" of all Urdu speaking communities.
> 
> More to come..watch this space!



On a lighter tone, Hindi speakers would use ''*urduu-bhaashii*'' - correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> _samaaj-e-urduu_ ? <-- my humble attempt


Interesting. _samaaj_ means society.
As a side note, I wouldn't have used the izaafat here.


----------



## Qureshpor

By all accounts (and leaving aside Professor Sherani's monumental research), the "gaRh" of Urdu was the Delhi area and its environs where khaRii-bolii was the regional language. In its polished and refined state it became to be known as "zabaan-i-Urdu-i-mu3alaa" or more simply "The Language of the Exalted Court" (and its environs of course), the court being the one in the "Red Fort" at Shahjahanabad (puraanii Dillii). Gradually the language started to be called "Urdu" when in reality "Urdu" was the place name.

People of "Nazareth" are "Nazarites" and in Urdu they are called "Nasraanii". By this place association and in the case of Urdu "place of birth" association, I propose the community of people who speak Urdu as their language to be known henceforth as "Urdaanii".

So, after (possibly thumbs down for *Urdu-baash/Urdu-baashii*), my second attempt is "*Urdaanii*".

Edit: I forgot to mention that this word connects the community with both India (Urd-) and Pakistaan (-aanii).


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> By all accounts (and leaving aside Professor Sherani's monumental research), the "gaRh" of Urdu was the Delhi area and its environs where khaRii-bolii was the regional language. In its polished and refined state it became to be known as "zabaan-i-Urdu-i-mu3alaa" or more simply "The Language of the Exalted Court" (and its environs of course), the court being the one in the "Red Fort" at Shahjahanabad (puraanii Dillii). Gradually the language started to be called "Urdu" when in reality "Urdu" was the place name.
> 
> People of "Nazareth" are "Nazarites" and in Urdu they are called "Nasraanii". By this place association and in the case of Urdu "place of birth" association, I propose the community of people who speak Urdu as their language to be known henceforth as "Urdaanii".
> 
> So, after (possibly thumbs down for *Urdu-baash/Urdu-baashii*), my second attempt is "*Urdaanii*".



Thank you, QP saahib. Good to see your and others' creative juices going on this. I actually think both Urdu-baash and Urdaanii are excellent suggestions. The are representative (meaningful,  not picked out of a hat), easy to utter, and linguistically malleable (in taking various grammatical forms). And I love the way you have given the justification/etymological rationale. Much of it can go straight to a dictionary [with credits to you], once one of these names gains currency!! (OK I'm pipe dreaming!! .


----------



## UrduMedium

tonyspeed said:


> _samaaj-e-urduu_ ? <-- my humble attempt



Thank you Tony Saahib. I agree with marrish saahib that use of izafat here may not be a good idea. From my observation, it can significantly reduce the 'malleability' of the word. Furthermore, Samaaj sounds more like an identity of a society, like Aryaa Samaaj, which becomes problematic when applied to an individual. Also, it may connote that somehow, people belonging to this group may belong to a society different from the one now they live in. Just my quick reaction. Thanks for your valuable input.


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> ... As has been suggested by marrish SaaHib, it is important to see how the Urdu speaking communities themselves perceive their community at large....


Once again you've shown your smarts by using 'communities' instead of 'community', and as I see it exactly therein lies the reason why they/we won't be able to unite on one appellation.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Once again you've shown your smarts by using 'communities' instead of 'community', and as I see it exactly therein lies the reason why they/we won't be able to unite on one appellation.



BP SaaHib, I would be interested to hear your and Faylasoof SaaHib's views. I am just thinking out aloud of course as part of an academic exercise. I do think, even with the best and the sincerest original intentions, "muhaajir" is not an accurate description since it can be and has been applied to other communities. "Urdi" sounded good but there is the month of "Urdibehisht" which is shortened to "Urdi".

I have n't given up yet. I might still unite all the Urdu speaking communities under one manner. You can then make me an "honourary" member even if I am disqualified for other reasons!


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> ...
> I have n't given up yet. I might still unite all the Urdu speaking communities under one manner. You can then make me an "honourary" member even if I am disqualified for other reasons!



Your inclusion would be subject to the answer to your question 1 and to an extent 4:



QURESHPOR said:


> ...
> 1) Should this term be for "mother tongue" Urdu speakers? In this case  supposing one has Punjabi/Paxtuun/Sindhi/Martian parents but they decide  to bring up their child speaking Urdu. Would this child come under the  title of a "mother tongue" speaker?
> ...
> 4) Are you looking for a term for anyone who happens to speak Urdu as  their first language, irrespective of who they are, where they have  originated from and where they are destined to?


and ultimately mine is too! The question is, how far back do we have to go to qualify for this set of people?

I don't have an answer.


----------



## UrduMedium

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Your inclusion would be subject to the answer to your question 1 and to an extent 4:





> Originally Posted by *QURESHPOR*
> 
> 
> ...
> 1) Should this term be for "mother tongue" Urdu speakers? In this case supposing one has Punjabi/Paxtuun/Sindhi/Martian parents but they decide to bring up their child speaking Urdu. Would this child come under the title of a "mother tongue" speaker?
> ...
> 4) Are you looking for a term for anyone who happens to speak Urdu as their first language, irrespective of who they are, where they have originated from and where they are destined to?



The answers to these questions in my view (as shared in post #15) are 1) Yes/Yes, and 2) Yes.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> *[...]*
> Now, generally we have "-ii" ending words which reflect ethnic communities but this is not always the case..
> 
> Punjabi, MaraaThii etc but Paxtuun/PaThaan etc as well. *[...]*


The difficult part here is that these ethnic proper names didn't originate from a language but from a region or tribe, so it seems to me. Besides, _maraaThii_ (people) were earlier _maraaThaa_. Subsequently the proper name denoting the ethnicity came to be the same as the name of the language. Following this suite, I would propose _urduvii_ as one of the possibilities.


----------



## BP.

mbasit said:


> The answers to these questions in my view (as shared in post #15) are 1) Yes/Yes, and 2) Yes.


I'd just consider anybody a native speaker if they do themselves.

A new question would be what to do with someone who doesn't consider themselves native speakers but are better at the language than one? Their input does help the language evolve, and they should be historically acknowledged.


----------



## UrduMedium

BelligerentPacifist said:


> *I'd just consider anybody a native speaker if they do themselves.*
> 
> A new question would be what to do with someone who doesn't consider themselves native speakers but are better at the language than one? Their input does help the language evolve, and they should be historically acknowledged.



*Since we are not conferring an honor, no need for historical anything. But if you like, I have no issue*. 

BP Saahib- Respectfully, I am copying my original answers (from post #15) below for your convenience. Nothing new from my side or anoyone else (including you, sir) has been added to these. I was hoping we got beyond this needless repetition ...



> 1) Should this term be for "mother tongue" Urdu speakers? In this case supposing one has Punjabi/Paxtuun/Sindhi/Martian parents but they decide to bring up their child speaking Urdu. Would this child come under the title of a "mother tongue" speaker?
> 
> Since we are proposing an "organic" bottom-up growth of the term, and not legislating, *it should be open to anyone who wants to adopt it*.
> 
> 2) Are you looking for a term for Urdu speaking peoples who migrated from various parts of India, irrespective of their ethnic or geographical background?
> 
> From my viewpoint, the primary audience is whoever is known as Urdu-speaking or Muhaajir. *But again, why exclude anyone who wants to associate with the name. Like if someone from Balochistan wants to call him/her Urdu-speaking, why should I or anyone have a problem with it?*
> 
> 3) Do the people need to be differentiated from those Urdu speakers who live in various parts of India, irrespective of their geography or ethnicity?
> 
> Not the primary audience but just like anyone they can use it if they like. One thing for sure they are not Muhaajir, though. But to me this is all academic because I am not out to create a new demographic, just fix the name given to it
> 
> 4) Are you looking for a term for anyone who happens to speak Urdu as their first language, irrespective of who they are, where they have originated from and where they are destined to?
> 
> *Yes, why not*. Its one big happy family  See answers 1-3 above.


----------



## Qureshpor

Some assistence from "Urdu-daans" please. 

One can say that there are/were four main centres where Urdu grew and prospered.

1) In the heartlands of Delhi [Shahjahanabad being the nucleus and the last dynasty being muGhal/Shahjahani

2) From the north it went southwards into the Deccan (Bijapur and Golconda).. 3aadil-shaahii sultaanii dynasty 

3) In the state of Hyderabad, the 'aasaf-jaahii nizaamii dynasty

4) In Awadh/Bihar, the dynasty being "navaabii"

Now, if someone could put the highlighted words in a bag and say abracadabra, we might get an all embracing name worthy of all Urdu speaking communities. What do you think?

On the same sort of pattern as "Punjabi/Sindhi/Bengali", we could have..

The Shah-jaahii people

The Jaah-shaahii people

The Shah-navaabii people

The Shah-nizaamii people

The Shahnavaanii people...


----------



## UrduMedium

Interesting thought and suggestion, QP saahib. You intention is laudable. However, I feel whatever comes out from the _faloodah _of the four identities is likely to sound so artificial that few people may relate to it. Plus an average Urdu-speaking person in the street (in our generation) probably cannot even name these four pedigrees, let alone feel part of them. Just my humble feedback. 

The names we have so far sound pretty good to me. I wrote earlier to Jang Group with our proposals on Load Shedding and other recent translations. Let's see if anyone bothers to read and respond from there. If there's interest we can ask them to look at this thread as well. 

At least in Pakistan, no one controls the language like the media, and within the media, no one like Jang group with their print and TV powerhouses. If they latch on to something new, the people are likely to follow. That's the nature of the Big Media in the modern world!


----------



## BP.

UrduMedium said:


> ..._faloodah..._


muzhdah baad, we finally found our word!

In case ^ isn't too well accepted, we could try ibn ul pakistan, on the pattern of ibnus sabiil and ibnul waqt.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Some assistence from "Urdu-daans" please.
> 
> One can say that there are/were four main centres where Urdu grew and prospered.
> 
> 1) In the heartlands of Delhi [Shahjahanabad being the nucleus and the last dynasty being muGhal/Shahjahani
> 
> 2) From the north it went southwards into the Deccan (Bijapur and Golconda).. 3aadil-shaahii sultaanii dynasty
> 
> 3) In the state of Hyderabad, the 'aasaf-jaahii nizaamii dynasty
> 
> 4) In Awadh/Bihar, the dynasty being "navaabii"


  Just to remind you that if you point out that Urdu was centred around Shahjahanbad, Old Delhi, in western UP then equally you need to modify your point no. 4 and say that it was Lucknow that became the centre of Urdu in the eastern region. This is a fact whether anyone likes it or not. The two schools of Urdu that have come to be recognised in the north were _dabistaan-e-dehlii_ and _dabistaan-e-lakhnau_. There were never was such terms as _nawaabii _Urdu!

On a general note, while I too would like to commend valiant efforts to come up with a label for Urdugoyaan who migrated to Pakistan, the terms listed above are, IMHO, not meaningful! Urdu was never restricted to either a single geographical region or an ethnic or communal group. So to start to assign it to a particular group would be a mistake. Having said this, many in Pakistan do refer to these people as "_muhaajir_" / "_Urdu speaking_" (in English) / "_urduu bolne waale_" or "_urduu goyaan_" (in Urdu). The implication being that Urdu is their mother tongue and the fact that they happen to constitute only about 10 % of the population of that country. The rest of the 90% learn the language (in whatever form in school) but have as an identity their own mother tongue as represented by the four major provinces, and the fifth if you include Kashmir, which also has its own language though many there too speak Urdu.

Besides, as we are talking about an event (i.e. inqisaam / baTwaaraa / partition) that happened not that long ago, these Urdu speaking migrants are also referred in Pakistan by some as "UP waale". I've heard this too.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Just to remind you that if you point out that Urdu was centred around Shahjahanbad, Old Delhi, in western UP then equally you need to modify your point no. 4 and say that it was Lucknow that became the centre of Urdu in the eastern region. This is a fact whether anyone likes it or not. The two schools of Urdu that have come to be recognised in the north were _dabistaan-e-dehlii_ and _dabistaan-e-lakhnau_. There were never was such terms as _nawaabii _Urdu!
> 
> On a general note, while I too would like to commend valiant efforts to come up with a label for Urdugoyaan who migrated to Pakistan, the terms listed above are, IMHO, not meaningful! Urdu was never restricted to either a single geographical region or an ethnic or communal group. So to start to assign it to a particular group would be a mistake. Having said this, many in Pakistan do refer to these people as "_muhaajir_" / "_Urdu speaking_" (in English) / "_urduu bolne waale_" or "_urduu goyaan_" (in Urdu). The implication being that Urdu is their mother tongue and the fact that they happen to constitute only about 10 % of the population of that country. The rest of the 90% learn the language (in whatever form in school) but have as an identity their own mother tongue as represented by the four major provinces, and the fifth if you include Kashmir, which also has its own language though many there too speak Urdu.
> 
> Besides, as we are talking about an event (i.e. inqisaam / baTwaaraa / partition) that happened not that long ago, these Urdu speaking migrants are also referred in Pakistan by some as "UP waale". I've heard this too.



Faylasoof SaaHib, as far as I have been able to understand, the purpose of this "exercise" is to come up with a name for Urdu speaking peoples of the Subcontinent that is both dignified and appropriate. It is not to promote one speech community over another nor to look down on any one section of the community.

I have indeed used the term "navaabii" in this thread and once before (in inverted commas "nawaabii Urdu") in another thread. There the implication was not that there is a language known as "nawaabii Urdu" but merely to suggest the highest quality of Urdu that one would expect a "Nawab" of Lukhnau to speak. On this occasion I have used "navaabii" to contrast with "nizaamii", "Sultaanii" and "muGhal/Shahjahani" on the one hand and terms like "shaah" and "jaah" on the other. My suggestion was to use these terms as the building blocks of a word that would be comprehensive and all-embracing so that no community would be excluded. So, the fact that I have mentioned four main geographical areas in itself should indicate that I am not assigning Urdu to one area or one community. As to the matter "liking or not liking" one "dabistaan", the concept is totally irrelevant for the purposes of this exercise. This does not mean that I do not see the very important part "dabistaan-i-Lakhnau" has played in the development of Urdu.

I am well aware of the term "UP vaale" (and "CP vaale") but UP/CP are English terms and we are looking for something befitting in Urdu. Besides, this term only covers one community and leaves out everybody else.

Anyway, to use the old phrase.."Back to the drawing board".

For a speech community, one normally thinks of a land/state/country/province, then people in that region and finally the language these people speak.

England/English/English
Bengal/Bengali/Bengali
Saudi Arabia/Arab/Arabic
Brazil/Brazillian/Portuguese
Mexico/Mexican/Spanish

In terms of Urdu, as I have been clear in my post, we do not have a single piece of territory which one can assign to the language. So, I am going to "invent" this concept. We have such terms like "Iran-zamiin", so..

*Urdu-zamiin* (the land where Urdu is spoken, be it areas of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh)

*Urd-aani *(People of whatever ethnic background who see themselves as Urdu speakers)

*Urdu *(the Urdu language, in all its manifestations from East to West, and from North to South)

I think Urdaanii is an easy term. It does not look (so) artificial as we have "3ibraanii, "nasraanii", "insaanii", "nafsaanii" etc already existing in Urdu. 

Whilst Punjabis, maraaThiis, Tamils and the like are associated to their particular regions, Urdaanis are associated with the whole of "Urduzamiin". 

Iqbal's "har mulk mulk-i-maast kih mulk-i-xudaa-i-maast" is quite apt for Urdaaniis!


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> ....
> I have indeed used the term "navaabii" in this thread and once before (in inverted commas "nawaabii Urdu") in another thread. There the implication was not that there is a language known as "nawaabii Urdu" but merely to suggest the highest quality of Urdu that one would expect a "Nawab" of Lukhnau to speak. On this occasion I have used "navaabii" to contrast with "nizaamii", "Sultaanii" and "muGhal/Shahjahani" on the one hand and terms like "shaah" and "jaah" on the other. My suggestion was to use these terms as the building blocks of a word that would be comprehensive and all-embracing so that no community would be excluded. So, the fact that I have mentioned four main geographical areas in itself should indicate that I am not assigning Urdu to one area or one community. As to the matter "liking or not liking" one "dabistaan", the concept is totally irrelevant for the purposes of this exercise. This does not mean that I do not see the very important part "dabistaan-i-Lakhnau" has played in the development of Urdu.


 I can understand your logic but the term "navaabii" has both positive _and_ negative meanings, so I'd avoid it! I do disagree with you that _dabistaan_ is irrelevant! This is a standard term used to discuss the different schools of Urdu and there is nothing irrelevant about this! If anything, the terms you have coined have, I'm afraid, no real meaning! 

While the _lakhnavii _aristocracy did indeed promote the best form of Urdu - and ket us not forget the begamaat-e-lakhnau, some of the best speakers of chaste Urdu - this class alone was not responsible for the growth, expansion, popularity and purity of the language. We had plenty of poets and writers who did thier bit, and while some poets / writers were indeed from the upper class, most were not. One reason why good Urdu permeated to even the lowest class. Not only have I this from my elders who noticed even _T-hele waale_ (street hawkers) speaking fine Urdu then (i.e. over sixty odd years ago) but I met two gentlemen who came to study in Lucknow before partition. Both were from  Punjab and they too were suitably impressed by the level of Urdu being spoken by shop keepers, cooks, gardeners etc. leave alone _daarooghah_s and _muSaaHibiin_. I don’t think _nawaabii urdu_ is the right term! 


QURESHPOR said:


> .....
> For a speech community, one normally thinks of a land/state/country/province, then people in that region and finally the language these people speak.
> 
> England/English/English
> Bengal/Bengali/Bengali
> Saudi Arabia/Arab/Arabic
> Brazil/Brazillian/Portuguese
> Mexico/Mexican/Spanish
> 
> In terms of Urdu, as I have been clear in my post, we do not have a single piece of territory which one can assign to the language. So, I am going to "invent" this concept. We have such terms like "Iran-zamiin", so..


 All the above are to do with nations / nation states /ancestral tribes and hence languages of people native to these places. I'm sure we all agree that Urdu-based terms such as these do not satisfy these conditions as there never was any Urdu-speaking nation, state, tribe ( Angles, as you know, is the derived name of a Germanic tribe which gave the English - people and language- its name). Iran zamiin is a very ancient idea that the Persian speaking people have identified with mainly the Pars (Fars in Arabic, borrowed later by both Persophones and Urduphones) province. 


QURESHPOR said:


> *Urdu-zamiin* (the land where Urdu is spoken, be it areas of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh)
> 
> *Urd-aani *(People of whatever ethnic background who see themselves as Urdu speakers)
> 
> *Urdu *(the Urdu language, in all its manifestations from East to West, and from North to South)
> 
> I think Urdaanii is an easy term. It does not look (so) artificial as we have "3ibraanii, "nasraanii", "insaanii", "nafsaanii" etc already existing in Urdu.
> 
> Whilst Punjabis, maraaThiis, Tamils and the like are associated to their particular regions, _*Urdaanis*_ are associated with the whole of "_*Urduzamiin*_".
> 
> Iqbal's "har mulk mulk-i-maast kih mulk-i-xudaa-i-maast" is quite apt for Urdaaniis!


 I think we can all say that _*Urduzamiin*_ has been moving around - and not by plate tectonics - so there is no area as such. Besides, how is _*" Urdaanii*_ _(People of whatever ethnic background who see themselves as Urdu speakers)_" different from _*Urdugoyaan*_!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> I can understand your logic but the term "navaabii" has both positive _and_ negative meanings, so I'd avoid it! I do disagree with you that _dabistaan_ is irrelevant! This is a standard term used to discuss the different schools of Urdu and there is nothing irrelevant about this! If anything, the terms you have coined have, I'm afraid, no real meaning!
> 
> While the _lakhnavii _aristocracy did indeed promote the best form of Urdu - and ket us not forget the begamaat-e-lakhnau, some of the best speakers of chaste Urdu - this class alone was not responsible for the growth, expansion, popularity and purity of the language. We had plenty of poets and writers who did thier bit, and while some poets / writers were indeed from the upper class, most were not. One reason why good Urdu permeated to even the lowest class. Not only have I this from my elders who noticed even _T-hele waale_ (street hawkers) speaking fine Urdu then (i.e. over sixty odd years ago) but I met two gentlemen who came to study in Lucknow before partition. Both were from  Punjab and they too were suitably impressed by the level of Urdu being spoken by shop keepers, cooks, gardeners etc. leave alone _daarooghah_s and _muSaaHibiin_. I don’t think _nawaabii urdu_ is the right term!
> 
> All the above are to do with nations / nation states /ancestral tribes and hence languages of people native to these places. I'm sure we all agree that Urdu-based terms such as these do not satisfy these conditions as there never was any Urdu-speaking nation, state, tribe ( Angles, as you know, is the derived name of a Germanic tribe which gave the English - people and language- its name). Iran zamiin is a very ancient idea that the Persian speaking people have identified with mainly the Pars (Fars in Arabic, borrowed later by both Persophones and Urduphones) province.
> I think we can all say that _*Urduzamiin*_ has been moving around - and not by plate tectonics - so there is no area as such.
> 
> Besides, how is _*" Urdaanii*_ _(People of whatever ethnic background who see themselves as Urdu speakers)_" different from _*Urdugoyaan*_!




Faylaoof SaaHib. I respect you for a number of reasons amongst them being your extensive knowledge in a great number of languages and your tireless commitment to people such as me on this forum who are here to learn from experts such as you. But, occasionally you must feel what Ghalib went through when he said..

yaa rab nah vuh samjhe haiN nah samjheN ge mirii baat
de aur tuu dil un ko jo nah de mujh ko zabaaN aur!

And I am going through the same feeling too! The initiator of this thread asked for suggestions for a word that could replace the term "muhaajir/urdu-speaking/urdu bolne vaale" etc. It was merely an experiment to collect various people's ideas and thoughts. No more. If anything suggested appears meaningless or stupid, then so be it. It is not being forced down anyone's throat.

You know that as far as the muGhals are concerned, they were invariably kings or "shaahs". In the province of "Awadh", there were "navaabs" in existence. In Bijapor and Golconda there were the "sultaans". For Hyderabad we have various "nizaams". I thought of using the "dynasties" (shaahii/navaabii/sultaanii/nizaamii) to coin a word. That is all!

The very notion that Urdu speaking peoples do not form one clearly defined ethnic community is what led me to think of "Urduzamiin". This term is of course fictitious and what else can it be? Because of its vague nature, I believe it can cover any area within the Subcontinent where Urdu speakers dwell.

"Urdaanii" is different from "Urdu-goyaan" in several respects.

1) Urdu-goyaan just means Urdu speakers and I don't see how this is in anyway different from Esperanto-goyaan or any other language-goyaan. I don't think it imparts the "feel" for a community.

2) Whilst "Urdaanii" is artificial, it has "Urd" as its foundation and it does resemble real words such as "Nasraanii" or "3ibraanii". Other examples that come to mind are words such as "ruuHaanii", "nuuraanii". (leaving aside Pakistani and Hindustani of course!)

3) It fits in well with other ethnicities of the region..all mainly ending in -ii

dil ko durraaniyoN ne luuT liyaa
diin ko afGhaaniyoN ne luuT liyaa
raat Ghazal sunaa ke Ghaalib kii
ham ko UrdaaniyoN ne luuT liyaa


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Faylaoof SaaHib. I respect you for a number of reasons amongst them being your extensive knowledge in a great number of languages and your tireless commitment to people such as me on this forum who are here to learn from experts such as you. But, occasionally you must feel what Ghalib went through when he said..
> 
> yaa rab nah vuh samjhe haiN nah samjheN ge mirii baat
> de aur tuu dil un ko jo nah de mujh ko zabaaN aur!
> 
> And I am going through the same feeling too! The initiator of this thread asked for suggestions for a word that could replace the term "muhaajir/urdu-speaking/urdu bolne vaale" etc. It was merely an experiment to collect various people's ideas and thoughts. No more. If anything suggested appears meaningless or stupid, then so be it. It is not being forced down anyone's throat.
> 
> You know that as far as the muGhals are concerned, they were invariably kings or "shaahs". In the province of "Awadh", there were "navaabs" in existence. In Bijapor and Golconda there were the "sultaans". For Hyderabad we have various "nizaams". I thought of using the "dynasties" (shaahii/navaabii/sultaanii/nizaamii) to coin a word. That is all!
> 
> The very notion that Urdu speaking peoples do not form one clearly defined ethnic community is what led me to think of "Urduzamiin". This term is of course fictitious and what else can it be? Because of its vague nature, I believe it can cover any area within the Subcontinent where Urdu speakers dwell.
> 
> "Urdaanii" is different from "Urdu-goyaan" in several respects.
> 
> 1) Urdu-goyaan just means Urdu speakers and I don't see how this is in anyway different from Esperanto-goyaan or any other language-goyaan. I don't think it imparts the "feel" for a community.
> 
> 2) Whilst "Urdaanii" is artificial, it has "Urd" as its foundation and it does resemble real words such as "Nasraanii" or "3ibraanii". Other examples that come to mind are words such as "ruuHaanii", "nuuraanii". (leaving aside Pakistani and Hindustani of course!)
> 
> 3) It fits in well with other ethnicities of the region..all mainly ending in -ii
> 
> dil ko durraaniyoN ne luuT liyaa
> diin ko afGhaaniyoN ne luuT liyaa
> raat Ghazal sunaa ke Ghaalib kii
> ham ko UrdaaniyoN ne luuT liyaa


 Thanks once again for your clarification QP SaaHiB! I've already expressed my opinions and not much left to add here. I would however make one correction - a factual one at that - which is that Ghazi-ud-Din Haider declared himself the King of Awadh in 1818 and henceforth the rulers were called _*shaahaan-e-awadh*_, _not_ _nawwabiin-e-awadh_. The term _nawwabiin_ was then reserved for the _nawaabs / nawwaabs_ (great and small) and the _rajas _[ a term which included Muslims, not just Hindus] who attended his court. Here is more on *Ghazi-ud-Din Haider.* He even issued coins under his own name!

The flowering of Urdu literature in Lucknow was therefore during the _*shaahi*_ _*period*,_not _nawaabii / nawwaabii _period!


----------



## UrduMedium

Thinking more about this off an on, I am drawn to an early name that did not get much attention or discussion. And that term is _Urduumand_. -_mand _suffix is from Farsi and adds the meaning of _possessing, having, be endowed with, belonging to_, etc., to the noun. So this way it is a fairly accurate and non-controversial description of the people in question (Urdu-speaking, Muhajir/Mohajir of Pakistan). Another reason I like this name, it uses a well-known suffix that is familiar to the ears of whoever speaks Urdu. Something that many of the other names do not have, due to their _newness_. Yet another reason is that the -mand suffix is almost always used to convey something positive. Words such as _hoshmand, jur'atmand, danishmand, niyazmand, sihatmand,_ come to mind. So the outward appearance of the name is very positive. 

In summary, it is easy to say, is very malleable (Urduumandaanah, Urduumandi, etc), positive in meaning, familiar sounding, and accurate.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Thinking more about this off an on, I am drawn to an early name that did not get much attention or discussion. And that term is _Urduumand_. -_mand _suffix is from Farsi and adds the meaning of _possessing, having, be endowed with, belonging to_, etc., to the noun. So this way it is a fairly accurate and non-controversial description of the people in question. Another reason I like this name, it uses a well-known suffix that is familiar to the ears of whoever speaks Urdu. Something that many of the other names do not have, due to their _newness_. Yet another reason is that the -mand suffix is almost always used to convey something positive. Words such as _hoshmand, jur'atmand, danishmand, niyazmand, sihatmand,_ come to mind. So the outward appearance of the name is very positive.
> 
> In summary, it is easy to say, is very malleable (Urduumandaanah, Urduumandi, etc), positive in meaning, familiar sounding, and accurate.




This is of course a very personal thing. For me "Urdumand" does not point to a people but to the abstract notion. You are right in saying that the -mand suffix has very positive connotations. Looking through Platts I found only two with a  negative sense, "aaz-mand" (covetouus/greedy) and "kasal-mand" (sick/ailing/indisposed...)

Urdu-niZaad/Urdu-tabaar/Urdu-nasab/Urdu-asiil/Urdu-zaad/Urdu-sirisht...just a few more.-


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> This is of course a very personal thing. For me "Urdumand" does not point to a people but to the abstract notion. You are right in saying that the -mand suffix has very positive connotations. Looking through Platts I found only two with a  negative sense, "aaz-mand" (covetouus/greedy) and "kasal-mand" (sick/ailing/indisposed...)
> 
> Urdu-niZaad/Urdu-tabaar/Urdu-nasab/Urdu-asiil/*Urdu-zaad*/Urdu-sirisht...just a few more.-



*Urduuzaad* appears to be a very sensible suggestion. It is connected with the idea of being a ''native'' and ''born 

into'' and as such, it could be used to denote a people.


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> *Urduuzaad* appears to be a very sensible suggestion. It is connected with the idea of being a ''native'' and ''born
> 
> into'' and as such, it could be used to denote a people.


I agree Urduuzaad seems to convey the message as well. However, it has two issues. -_zaad _suffix has a tendency to be associated with gender. So it could lead to confusion whether a woman is _Urduuzaad _or _Urduuzaadii_. Secondly, the -_zaad _suffix is very amenable to be morphed into negative names, like _haraam-zaade_, _nawaab-zaade_ (sarcastic use), and so on. -_mand _somehow has managed to remain mostly wholesome, and it is gender-neutral.


----------



## marrish

All of them are artificial, that means not familiar to the addresees. The only good one, which encompasses all the aspects of the ethnos and language is _urduu-waale_. It is so simple also;.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I agree Urduuzaad seems to convey the message as well. However, it has two issues. -_zaad _suffix has a tendency to be associated with gender. So it could lead to confusion whether a woman is _Urduuzaad _or _Urduuzaadii_. Secondly, the -_zaad _suffix is very amenable to be morphed into negative names, like _haraam-zaade_, _nawaab-zaade_ (sarcastic use), and so on. -_mand _somehow has managed to remain mostly wholesome, and it is gender-neutral.



You make valid points regarding the suffix "-zaad". How about "zaad-Urdu"?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> You make valid points regarding the suffix "-zaad". How about "zaad-Urdu"?


 Sorry, again it is personal- _zaad-urduu_ does not pass my phonetic test. 



marrish said:


> All of them are artificial, that means not familiar to the addresees. The only good one, which encompasses all the aspects of the ethnos and language is _urduu-waale_. It is so simple also;.



I do like Urduuwalle, as pointed by marrish saahab. One issue is that this term is already used and reusing it for a new purpose as a demographic identity will be harder. Secondly -_walla _suffix varies too much when such variation is not needed. A person (singular) may be _urduuwalla_, but in sentence sometimes people will change to _urduuwall*e *_(urduuwalle ne ...). Such variation is not good branding/identity management. Vowel ending are sometimes problematic in this manner. Perhaps dropping the final vowel and sticking to *urduuwaal *will solve the issues I identified.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Sorry, again it is personal- _zaad-urduu_ does not pass my phonetic test.



Fair point. But, I shall keep coming up with suggestions until "Urdu-mand" is removed from the picture!


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> Sorry, again it is personal- _zaad-urduu_ does not pass my phonetic test.
> 
> I do like Urduuwalle, as pointed by marrish saahab. One issue is that this term is already used and reusing it for a new purpose as a demographic identity will be harder. Secondly -_walla _suffix varies too much when such variation is not needed. A person (singular) may be _urduuwalla_, but in sentence sometimes people will change to _urduuwall*e *_(urduuwalle ne ...). Such variation is not good branding/identity management. Vowel ending are sometimes problematic in this manner. Perhaps dropping the final vowel and sticking to *urduuwaal *will solve the issues I identified.



_*urduuwaal*_ sounds like a name of a town somewhere in Punjab!

I wouldn't see the inflecting nature of _urduu-waalaa_ as a problem, this is just the nature of the language. There are other languages which have more flourishing declensions. After all, other ethnic brands are inflected in plural, viz. _sindhiyoN ne paThaanoN ko dekhaa, _or even in the singular, _kashmiirii ne hazaare* se kahaa.

*I've heard it a couple of times but I'm not sure whether it should be inflected._


----------



## marrish

Maybe _urdu-saaNs_?


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> All of them are artificial, that means not familiar to the addresees. The only good one, which encompasses all the aspects of the ethnos and language is *urduu-waale*. It is so simple also;.


marrish SaaHib, _*urdu-waale*_? Sounds a bit odd. Perhaps because I'm used to these:


Faylasoof said:


> .... Having said this, many in Pakistan do refer to these people as "_muhaajir_" / "_Urdu speaking_" (in English) / "*urduu bolne waale*" or "*urduu goyaan*" (in Urdu). ...Besides, as we are talking about an event (i.e. inqisaam / baTwaaraa / partition) that happened not that long ago, these Urdu speaking migrants are also referred in Pakistan by some as "UP waale". I've heard this too.


 Both "*urduu bolne waale*" and "*urduu goyaan*" are already standard usage and convey the right meaning so why all these fancy new terms like "_*urdu-zaad*"_ / _*urdu-mand*" / "*urduu-waale*"_?


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> I do like _*Urduuwalle*_, as pointed by marrish saahab. .... Secondly -*walla *suffix varies too much when such variation is not needed. A person (singular) may be _urduuwalla_, but in sentence sometimes people will change to _urduuwall*e *_(urduuwalle ne ...). Such variation is not good branding/identity management. Vowel ending are sometimes problematic in this manner. Perhaps dropping the final vowel and sticking to *urduuwaal *will solve the issues I identified.


 Could you explain to me what are these: -*walla / -walle *? These are not used in Urdu!


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> Could you explain to me what are these: -*walla / -walle *? These are not used in Urdu!



Sorry, that was typo on my part. I meant *waalaa *and *waale. *In normal writing _waalaa _is often spelled _walla, _as in surnames Allahwalla, Poonawalla, and so on. That likely affected my transliteration


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> Sorry, that was typo on my part. I meant *waalaa *and *waale. In normal writing waalaa is often spelled walla, *as in surnames Allahwalla, Poonawalla, and so on. That likely affected my transliteration


 I understand you meant to write _*waalaa*_ and _*waale*_! 

_A__ll these *walla / walle*__ are a misspelling and certainly not normal for me! As you know they give the wrong idea of the letter *laam* having a *shaddah*, which of course it doesn't! 

_I do happen to know the reason for the misspelled Allahwalla and Poonawalla etc., instead of Allahwaala(a) / Allahwala and Poonawala / Poonawaalaa etc. but we can give all that a miss!


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> I do happen to know the reason for the misspelled Allahwalla and Poonawalla etc., instead of Allahwaala(a) / Allahwala and Poonawala / Poonawaalaa etc. but we can give all that a miss!



Could you please let the cat out the bag, it is very interesting!


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> marrish SaaHib, _*urdu-waale*_? Sounds a bit odd. Perhaps because I'm used to these:
> Both "*urduu bolne waale*" and "*urduu goyaan*" are already standard usage and convey the right meaning so why all these fancy new terms like "_*urdu-zaad*"_ / _*urdu-mand*" / "*urduu-waale*"_?


Faylasoof SaaHib, I agree, Urdu-waale doesn't sound nice although I heard some people use it.

In a recent thread, you mentioned Pandit Anand Gulzar SaaHib, a pakka dehlavii, ahl-e-zabaan and Urdu poet. I happened to listen to one of this respectable gentleman's Ghazal, but because of restriction on the number of verses and YT links, I shall cite two verses which are relevant here:

_aa'o, hameN dekho, na'e *Urdu-zaado*!
Urdu ke muballiGh haiN mujaahid haiN ham!
_


----------



## Qureshpor

^ It seems janaab-i-Gulzar SaaHib has "borrowed" my suggestion without even the slightest acknowledgement!


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, I agree, Urdu-waale doesn't sound nice although I heard some people use it.
> 
> In a recent thread, you mentioned Pandit Anand Gulzar SaaHib, a pakka dehlavii, ahl-e-zabaan and Urdu poet. I happened to listen to one of this respectable gentleman's Ghazal, but because of restriction on the number of verses and YT links, I shall cite two verses which are relevant here:
> 
> _aa'o, hameN dekho, na'e *Urdu-zaado*!
> Urdu ke muballiGh haiN mujaahid haiN ham!
> _


  I remember this one marrish SaaHib! My feeling is that he might initially have wanted to use another word combination with _-zaado_ instead of _Urdu-zaado_ as a reprimand but chose this to be polite! I shall of course refrain from mentioning the other here as it would be rude! I'm sure you can read my mind! 

I still prefer _urduu-go_ / _goyaan_. May be because we've come to use it. Poetry of course makes certain demands and perhaps _na'e_ _urduu-goyaan_ may not suit very well.

BTW, please also listen to his long (1 hr.) interview with Obaid Siddiqui.


----------



## Faylasoof

Now here is a _thaqiil _term I've come up with: _*urduu-naaTiq*_ (s.) / -_*naaTiqiin*_ (pl.) ! I don't think we did this.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Now here is a _thaqiil _term I've come up with: _*urduu-naaTiq*_ (s.) / -_*naaTiqiin*_ (pl.) ! I don't think we did this.


Faylasoof SaaHib, I know your choice would be "Urdu-goyaan" but a kind qaazii could slip someone like me through to this community. However, even on my best day with my luck soaring high, no one will give me the slightest chance to be counted amongst the Urdu-zaad!


----------



## remember98765

What was the conclusion of this interesting discussion ? In my opinion the word Urdu should be used both for the name of the language and for the name of its speakers. Thus I would say that I speak Urdu and and I would also say that I am an Urdu person.


----------



## remember98765

The situation that Urdu faces, namely of being a language without a land, is not unique. Swahili, in East Africa, I understand, is in the same position.


----------



## Sheikh_14

In Punjab when we want to accord respect we call them ahl e zabaan out of reverence over the fact that they are the standard bearers of the national language. BTW what does ahliyaan mean i know ahl is people is ahliyaan just a double pluralisation that is common in Urdu? Btw would you guys pronunce ahl is it is written or as ehl? For instance although the original word is aham for important many people pronounce it as ehem. Aham however, is one of the few words in which many people are reverting to its original pronunciation. I have never come across anyone pronuncing ahl as ahl instead of ehl thus far.


----------



## Qureshpor

remember98765 said:


> What was the conclusion of this interesting discussion ? In my opinion the word Urdu should be used both for the name of the language and for the name of its speakers. Thus I would say that I speak Urdu and and I would also say that I am an Urdu person.


Unfortunately, we did not reach a consensus. Unfortunately, the word "Urdu" does not lend itself easily to plural and adjective formation.


----------



## littlepond

remember98765 said:


> Thus I would say that I speak Urdu and and I would also say that I am an Urdu person.



"Persons" (people) are defined by their ethnicities, not languages! It is not possible to have "Urdu persons" or "Hindi persons"! If an Indian speaks English, even if as his sole language, he does not become an "English person"!


----------



## Jashn

That's not really true. In my country, people are categorized by language, i.e., either you are an anglophone or a francophone, and it makes an important cultural difference, in addition to a linguistic one. Ethnicity is also an important marker of identity, but how could we say language isn't when it's the vehicle that expresses culture to begin with? And Urdu is famous for its associated culture. If you look to my neck of the woods, there are many francophones of Irish heritage, but they are fully French-Canadian/Québécois in a cultural sense, and aside from their Irish family names, you wouldn't really be able to distinguish them from people of French heritage. It wouldn't make sense to categorize them according to their ethnic heritage, their linguistic/cultural identity is more important.

The basic point that someone may define themselves by Urdu language and culture seems valid to me, the problem is only the terminology (the original problem of the thread seems to remain unresolved). An "Urdu person" as a term is not comparable to "English person" because there is no such thing as an ethnic Urdu person, is there? Whereas there is such a thing as an ethnic English person. Wherever language has spread across ethnic groups and created a composite culture, it seems valid to define those people by their language group, should they wish to do so, since the language and associated culture *is* a huge marker of their identity.


----------



## littlepond

^ Language of course is a very important marker of identity, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. In post no. 67, an "Urdu person" was mentioned, not an "Urduphone": that's a big difference! There is no such thing as an Urdu person.

In addition, classifying speakers as Urdu or Hindi speakers itself, introducing some kind of imaginary binary opposition between them, has worked to the detriment of Urdu register itself (and of Hindi register, to a lesser extent), so this issue is more complex and of a different kind than, say, that of the Québéc Francophones.


----------

