# Best way to learn Hindustani: Learn Urdu or Hindi?



## bjoleniacz

Hi,
I am trying to learn the language that real people use in the Hindi Belt in Northern India to talk to their families and buy things at the market.  From what I have read, this language is called Hindustani, while Hindi is actually a more formal language taught in school.  I have read that Hindustani has more Persian words than Sanskrit words and is closer to Urdu than it is to Modern Standard Hindi.  This seems to be the case with Bollywood movies as well, which I have read are closer to Urdu in their language than to Suddh Hindi, and sometimes have whole songs in Urdu.  So my question is this:  If I want to be able to talk to people in the Hindi Belt and understand them, is it better for me to learn Urdu, or Hindi?  It seems like Urdu would be the better option, so I don't waste my time learning tons of Sanskrit vocabulary that nobody uses.  I already know how to write and read in Devanagari so that is not an issue.

Shukriya!


----------



## BP.

Honestly if you need to use the language to just find your way through things, you don't need to worry about learning _shudh _language. Learning proper Urdu would be just as hard as leaning purist Hindi. When you're learning vocabulary, my suggestion would be to always pick the simpler word to memorize, regardless of its origins in either Urdu or Hindi.


----------



## bjoleniacz

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Honestly if you need to use the language to just find your way through things, you don't need to worry about learning _shudh _language. Learning proper Urdu would be just as hard as leaning purist Hindi. When you're learning vocabulary, my suggestion would be to always pick the simpler word to memorize, regardless of its origins in either Urdu or Hindi.



I guess my question is whether I should be spending my time on a Teach Yourself Urdu course or on a Teach Yourself Hindi course.  Which would have the most useful vocabulary base?


----------



## panjabigator

I'd like to reiterate BP's comments above, but if you're confused about which book to use (out of those two), I'd suggest Snell's Teach Yourself Hindi.  The font is much more friendlier (The TYU font is not beginner friendly and quite tiny) and the text has been used successfully by many learners.  The book does however have its share of problems... 

 David Mathew's book is also good, and maybe you can use it in conjunction if you can balance both scripts.

PG


----------



## Faylasoof

I have all of these which I used to teach some people:

*Teach Yourself Urdu Complete Course by David Matthews, Mohamed Kasim Dalvi* 

ISBN-10: 0071420193 
ISBN-13: 978-0071420198

*Colloquial Urdu: The Complete Course for Beginners *

 Tej K. Bhatia

ISBN-10: 0415135400 
ISBN-13: 978-0415135405

*Urdu: An Essential Grammar (Routledge Grammars) *

 Ruth Schmidt (Author) 

ISBN-10: 0415163811 
ISBN-13: 978-0415163811

I also have this:

*Colloquial Hindi: The Complete Course for Beginners *

~ Tej Bhatia

  ISBN-10: 0415419565 
  ISBN-13: 978-0415419567

Most come with 1 or 2 CDs. 

_I also have an old edition of Snell's Hindi._

The font issue can be a problem for the Urdu learner except for Schmidt’s Essentials of Urdu Grammar. Font very clear here.

I’m not a fan of the _noorii nasta’liiq_ script (the font used almost everywhere) and much prefer n_asx / naskh_ (used in Arabic books) but I don’t know of any “new” Urdu books that uses that. _My old Platt’s “A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language” uses nasx – printed in India._ 
Recently, an addition has been made to this collection by the reprinting of _A Grammar of the Urdu or Hindustani Language by John Dowson._

ISBN-10: 1113153261 
ISBN-13: 978-1113153265

The old copy I have of Dobson also uses the _nasx_ font. Don't know about the new edition.


----------



## tamah

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Honestly if you need to use the language to just find your way through things, you don't need to worry about learning _shudh _language. Learning proper Urdu would be just as hard as leaning purist Hindi. When you're learning vocabulary, my suggestion would be to always pick the simpler word to memorize, regardless of its origins in either Urdu or Hindi.


----------



## teaboy

The everyday Urdu I learned in Pakistan serves quite well in India, but much of the Hindi I learned at university is not useful in Pakistan.  And whenever I speak Urdu in India, people say, "Oh! you speak Hindi!"   Whereas the Sanskritized stuff will just get baffled looks in Pakistan.

Therefore, I think that Urdu is more useful, because it works on both sides of the border.  

Look at it this way: the language of Bollywood and romance and poetry is more Urdu than shuddh Hindi.  

I mean honestly, how many people, except for pandits in Varanasi, go around saying _tatha_ instead of _aur_?


----------



## teaboy

Faylasoof said:


> I have all of these which I used to teach some people:
> 
> *Teach Yourself Urdu Complete Course by David Matthews, Mohamed Kasim Dalvi*
> 
> ISBN-10: 0071420193
> ISBN-13: 978-0071420198
> 
> *Colloquial Urdu: The Complete Course for Beginners *
> 
> Tej K. Bhatia
> 
> ISBN-10: 0415135400
> ISBN-13: 978-0415135405
> 
> *Urdu: An Essential Grammar (Routledge Grammars) *
> 
> Ruth Schmidt (Author)
> 
> ISBN-10: 0415163811
> ISBN-13: 978-0415163811
> 
> I also have this:
> 
> *Colloquial Hindi: The Complete Course for Beginners *
> 
> ~ Tej Bhatia
> 
>   ISBN-10: 0415419565
>   ISBN-13: 978-0415419567
> 
> Most come with 1 or 2 CDs.
> 
> _I also have an old edition of Snell's Hindi._
> 
> The font issue can be a problem for the Urdu learner except for Schmidt’s Essentials of Urdu Grammar. Font very clear here.
> 
> I’m not a fan of the _noorii nasta’liiq_ script (the font used almost everywhere) and much prefer n_asx / naskh_ (used in Arabic books) but I don’t know of any “new” Urdu books that uses that. _My old Platt’s “A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language” uses nasx – printed in India._
> Recently, an addition has been made to this collection by the reprinting of _A Grammar of the Urdu or Hindustani Language by John Dowson._
> 
> ISBN-10: 1113153261
> ISBN-13: 978-1113153265
> 
> The old copy I have of Dobson also uses the _nasx_ font. Don't know about the new edition.



Have you tried using Nafees Nastaleeq? It's a free download and so beautiful and easy to read.  http://www.crulp.org/software/localization/Fonts/nafeesNastaleeq.html


----------



## BP.

Thanks teaboy. nasta3liiq and even more so naskh are too Arabic for my taste. I like this nafees nastaliiq. Well I'd be naturally biased towards it: it was developed at my university! The CRULP team is doing a good job indeed.


----------



## Faylasoof

Yes, thanks I know about this and much prefer it to the font being used in _nearly_ all of the books I mention above. If this were to be used insted then the font issue would melt away. 

There is only one Urdu-Hindi course I know that has no script issues at all - it is _Romanised_!

*A new course in Urdu and spoken Hindi for learners in Britain, Volume 1 By Ralph Russell. Link. 
*
(I met him. Great teacher, good friend.)


----------



## JaiHind

bjoleniacz said:


> Hi,
> I am trying to learn the language that real people use in the Hindi Belt in Northern India to talk to their families and buy things at the market.  From what I have read, this language is called Hindustani, while Hindi is actually a more formal language taught in school...  I already know how to write and read in Devanagari so that is not an issue.



In Hindi belt, you can use Hindi and hence learn it if you are not comfortable in the language. Learning Urdu won't be practically necessary because most Urdu speakers in India know Hindi but most Hindi speakers don't know Urdu. Hence for your purpose, you can only concentrate on Hindi. 

Also, don't get confused with Bollywood movies with their lyrics which have so many Urdu words. Most Indians don't understand meaning of all those Urdu words but still sing those songs. So movies are no reference places if you want to do conversations in India.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> In Hindi belt, you can use Hindi and hence learn it if you are not comfortable in the language. Learning Urdu won't be practically necessary because most Urdu speakers in India know Hindi but most Hindi speakers don't know Urdu. Hence for your purpose, you can only concentrate on Hindi.
> 
> Also, don't get confused with Bollywood movies with their lyrics which have so many Urdu words. Most Indians don't understand meaning of all those Urdu words but still sing those songs. So movies are no reference places if you want to do conversations in India.



Strange logic! So, the best thing Bollywood film makers could do is to make the films in Hindi so that all Hindi speakers can understand everything in them. Urdu speakers (by your logic) would know Hindi anyway, so they will be able to enjoy them equally. As for speakers of rest of the languages, they too will probably know Hindi, just like Urdu speakers.


----------



## greatbear

The logic is not strange, as I have also said earlier: Indian filmmakers target audiences in Islamic countries, too, and hence the language used in songs is much more Urdu than something often comprehensible in India. This was much truer earlier: now, the language of films and songs is coming more to what is actually spoken (listen to recent movie Barfi's songs, as example: excellent lyrics, sheer poetry as well as complete understandability).

To answer the original question, Hindi and Urdu are simply two registers of the same language, Hindustani, so as long as you do not immerse yourself in too much Persian/Arabic-derived or Sanskrit-derived words, you should be fine and easily understood by most Hindi-Urdu speakers.


----------



## marrish

There is no simpler way to learn Hindustani than to learn Hindustani!


----------



## marrish

bjoleniacz said:


> Hi,
> I am trying to learn the language that real people use in the Hindi Belt in Northern India to talk to their families and buy things at the market.  From what I have read, this language is called Hindustani, while Hindi is actually a more formal language taught in school.  I have read that Hindustani has more Persian words than Sanskrit words and is closer to Urdu than it is to Modern Standard Hindi.  This seems to be the case with Bollywood movies as well, which I have read are closer to Urdu in their language than to Suddh Hindi, and sometimes have whole songs in Urdu.  So my question is this:  If I want to be able to talk to people in the Hindi Belt and understand them, is it better for me to learn Urdu, or Hindi?  It seems like Urdu would be the better option, so I don't waste my time learning tons of Sanskrit vocabulary that nobody uses.  I already know how to write and read in Devanagari so that is not an issue.
> 
> Shukriya!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greatbear said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the original question, Hindi and Urdu are simply two registers of the same language, Hindustani, so as long as you do not immerse yourself in too much Persian/Arabic-derived or Sanskrit-derived words, you should be fine and easily understood by most Hindi-Urdu speakers.
Click to expand...


With regard to the truth about what Urdu and what Hindi is, please look at this thread, especially the works by Tara Chand and Faruqi: posts# 4 and 17
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2140277


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> The logic is not strange, as I have also said earlier: Indian filmmakers target audiences in Islamic countries, too, and hence the language used in songs is much more Urdu than something often comprehensible in India. This was much truer earlier: now, the language of films and songs is coming more to what is actually spoken (listen to recent movie Barfi's songs, as example: excellent lyrics, sheer poetry as well as complete understandability).


Do I understand the presented logic correctly that the songs or dialogues are (more) Urdu so that they can be understood in islamic countries? Is the consequence of this reasoning that Indian filmmakers use Urdu to gain popularity in the islamic countries, risking incomprehension in India?


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> Do I understand the presented logic correctly that the songs or dialogues are (more) Urdu so that they can be understood in islamic countries? Is the consequence of this reasoning that Indian filmmakers use Urdu to gain popularity in the islamic countries, risking incomprehension in India?



Songs are definitely more Urdu than movie dialogue, tending to use higher-level Urdu words that are not common in colloquial Hindi. Also, this should be a non-issue really. The movies do contain Sanskrit-based Hindi too! I have heard it, but as in reality, it is used from time to time by most speakers.


----------



## Alfaaz

tonyspeed said:
			
		

> Songs are definitely more Urdu than movie dialogue, tending to use higher-level Urdu words that are not common in colloquial Hindi.


Agree, even in modern cinema...for example, in the songs of the movie quoted by greatbear one finds the following Urdu words:
برفی (barfi) ، اعلٰی (a'alaa) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، گم صم (gum-Sum) ، خرافات (xuraafaat) ، مولا (maulaa) ، پلک (palak) ، دل (dil) ، اف (uff)
آوارگی (aawaragi)، بیکار (bekaar) ، حالات (Haalaat) ، غلطی (ghalati) 
آشیاں (aashiyaaN) ، خوشی (xushi) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، دیواریں (deewaaroN) ، پردے (parde) ، مستی (masti) ، مہینے (maheene) ، خرچہ (xarchah) ، ترانے (taraane) ، زمین (zameen)
خاموشی (xaamoshi) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، خواہشیں (xaahisheN) ، زبان (zabaan) ، گفتگو (guftugu) ، جستجو (justuju)
دل مجبور (dil-e-majboor) ، راس (raas) ، مکمل (mukammal) ، باقی (baaqi) ، یاد (yaad) ، قسمت (qismat) ، منظور (manzoor) ، راس (raas) ، بدستور (badastuur) ، مسلسل (musalsal) ، راہ (raah) ، قبول (qubuul) ، میسّر (muyassar)
رستوں (rastoN) ، المست (almast) ، پہچانی (pehchaani) ، راہوں (raahoN) ، خیال (xayaal) ، زندگی (zindagi) ، نشے (nashe) ، تلاش (talaash) ، باغیچوں (baaGheechoN) ، فرصت (furSat) ، فضاؤں (fazaa'oN) ، ہواؤں (hawaa'on) ، حال (Haal) 
شروع (shuru'u) ، خیال (xayaal) ، جواں (jawaaN) ، خوابوں (xaaboN)
مست (mast) ، زبردست (zabardast) ، بطخ (battax) ، مصالح (maSaalaH) ، نیست و نابود (nist-o-naaboud)
Of course, many of these are even used (perhaps more than the Hindi/shudh variety) and considered part of colloquial Hindi. Most movies probably wouldn't have dialogues like (from GT): "tum mere hirde meiN reh te/ti ho" , "mujhse truti hoga'i" , "meri sthiti buri hai" , "jo upalabdh hai woh svikaar karo. dusre ki akaanksha chhoRo"


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> Agree, even in modern cinema...for example, in the songs of the movie quoted by greatbear one finds the following Urdu words:
> برفی (barfi) ، اعلٰی (a'alaa) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، گم صم (gum-Sum) ، خرافات (xuraafaat) ، مولا (maulaa) ، پلک (palak) ، دل (dil) ، اف (uff)
> آوارگی (aawaragi)، بیکار (bekaar) ، حالات (Haalaat) ، غلطی (ghalati)
> آشیاں (aashiyaaN) ، خوشی (xushi) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، دیواریں (deewaaroN) ، پردے (parde) ، مستی (masti) ، مہینے (maheene) ، خرچہ (xarchah) ، ترانے (taraane) ، زمین (zameen)
> خاموشی (xaamoshi) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، خواہشیں (xaahisheN) ، زبان (zabaan) ، گفتگو (guftugu) ، جستجو (justuju)
> دل مجبور (dil-e-majboor) ، راس (raas) ، مکمل (mukammal) ، باقی (baaqi) ، یاد (yaad) ، قسمت (qismat) ، منظور (manzoor) ، راس (raas) ، بدستور (badastuur) ، مسلسل (musalsal) ، راہ (raah) ، قبول (qubuul) ، میسّر (muyassar)
> رستوں (rastoN) ، المست (almast) ، پہچانی (pehchaani) ، راہوں (raahoN) ، خیال (xayaal) ، زندگی (zindagi) ، نشے (nashe) ، تلاش (talaash) ، باغیچوں (baaGheechoN) ، فرصت (furSat) ، فضاؤں (fazaa'oN) ، ہواؤں (hawaa'on) ، حال (Haal)
> شروع (shuru'u) ، خیال (xayaal) ، جواں (jawaaN) ، خوابوں (xaaboN)
> مست (mast) ، زبردست (zabardast) ، بطخ (battax) ، مصالح (maSaalaH) ، نیست و نابود (nist-o-naaboud)
> Of course, many of these are even used (perhaps more than the Hindi/shudh variety) and considered part of colloquial Hindi.



They are not just "considered" part of colloquial Hindi, Alfaaz, but every one of those words is very much Hindi (and also Urdu). It is words like "anjuman" that are getting rarer as finally Hindi filmmakers are coming of age: people are now seeing what they want, not whatever is available to them. Modern-day Hindi films are refreshing not just because of better stories better told, but also for having dialogues closer to what Indian speakers actually speak.


----------



## Faylasoof

Alfaaz said:


> Agree, even in modern cinema...for example, in the songs of the movie quoted by greatbear one finds the following Urdu words:
> برفی (barfi) ، اعلٰی (a'alaa) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، گم صم (gum-Sum) ، خرافات (xuraafaat) ، مولا (maulaa) ، پلک (palak) ، دل (dil) ، اف (uff) .....
> ……….
> شروع (shuru'u) ، خیال (xayaal) ، جواں (jawaaN) ، خوابوں (xaaboN)
> مست (mast) ، زبردست (zabardast) ، بطخ (battax) ، مصالح (maSaalaH) ، نیست و نابود (nist-o-naaboud)
> Of course, many of these are even used (perhaps more than the Hindi/shudh variety) and considered part of colloquial Hindi. Most movies probably wouldn't have dialogues like (from GT): "tum mere hirde meiN reh te/ti ho" , "mujhse truti hoga'i" , "meri sthiti buri hai" , "jo upalabdh hai woh svikaar karo. dusre ki akaanksha chhoRo"



True enough, Alfaaz SaaHib! These words are not only used in films and Indian dramas -both with a wide audience and appeal- but also in common parlance, i.e. colloquial Hindi.


----------



## tonyspeed

Alfaaz said:


> Agree, even in modern cinema...for example, in the songs of the movie quoted by greatbear one finds the following Urdu words:
> برفی (barfi) ، اعلٰی (a'alaa) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، گم صم (gum-Sum) ، خرافات (xuraafaat) ، مولا (maulaa) ، پلک (palak) ، دل (dil) ، اف (uff)
> آوارگی (aawaragi)، بیکار (bekaar) ، حالات (Haalaat) ، غلطی (ghalati)
> آشیاں (aashiyaaN) ، خوشی (xushi) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، دیواریں (deewaaroN) ، پردے (parde) ، مستی (masti) ، مہینے (maheene) ، خرچہ (xarchah) ، ترانے (taraane) ، زمین (zameen)
> خاموشی (xaamoshi) ، خوابوں (xaaboN) ، خواہشیں (xaahisheN) ، زبان (zabaan) ، گفتگو (guftugu) ، جستجو (justuju)
> دل مجبور (dil-e-majboor) ، راس (raas) ، مکمل (mukammal) ، باقی (baaqi) ، یاد (yaad) ، قسمت (qismat) ، منظور (manzoor) ، راس (raas) ، بدستور (badastuur) ، مسلسل (musalsal) ، راہ (raah) ، قبول (qubuul) ، میسّر (muyassar)
> رستوں (rastoN) ، المست (almast) ، پہچانی (pehchaani) ، راہوں (raahoN) ، خیال (xayaal) ، زندگی (zindagi) ، نشے (nashe) ، تلاش (talaash) ، باغیچوں (baaGheechoN) ، فرصت (furSat) ، فضاؤں (fazaa'oN) ، ہواؤں (hawaa'on) ، حال (Haal)
> شروع (shuru'u) ، خیال (xayaal) ، جواں (jawaaN) ، خوابوں (xaaboN)
> مست (mast) ، زبردست (zabardast) ، بطخ (battax) ، مصالح (maSaalaH) ، نیست و نابود (nist-o-naaboud)
> Of course, many of these are even used (perhaps more than the Hindi/shudh variety) and considered part of colloquial Hindi. Most movies probably wouldn't have dialogues like (from GT): "tum mere hirde meiN reh te/ti ho" , "mujhse truti hoga'i" , "meri sthiti buri hai" , "jo upalabdh hai woh svikaar karo. dusre ki akaanksha chhoRo"



I think you have a be a little more understanding of what Hindi is. Most of the words, if not all, are equally as much Hindi as they are Urdu. It is easier to say what is not Urdu than what is not Hindi. Notice, you had to give the qualifier shuddh above. Everyday Hindi is not shuddh. It is the language nazis only that try to make it shuddh. 

Hindi is a mixed language drawing from many sources. Shuddh Hindi is mainly found in books, and even less-so now-a-days when it has become more acceptable to write in normal Hindi as well. The difference between Urdu and Hindi in my mind is that in Hindi we can go from saying dil to hRiday. We can go from saying zameen to dhartii or bhoomii. We can go from saying raah to raste to maarg to saDak. We can go from saying zindagii to jiivan.  We can go from saying xwaahish to icChaa. We can go from saying xushii to sukh. We can go from saying zabaan to jiibh or zabaan to bhaashaa. It makes no difference at the end of the day. Speaking Hindi gives one a certain freedom to choose words from Persian or Sanskrit based on context, in whatever way the mind fancies and based on the occasion and context.

Therefore, if Urdu and Shuddh Hindi were circles in a Venn Diagram, they would overlap to some extent on the edges. And then everyday Hindi would be a circle overlapping both Urdu and Literary Hindi shifted more in the direction Urdu circle, but varying from speaker to speaker.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I think you have a be a little more understanding of what Hindi is. Most of the words, if not all, are equally as much Hindi as they are Urdu.
> [...]
> Hindi is a mixed language drawing from many sources. Shuddh Hindi is mainly found in books, and even less-so now-a-days when it has become more acceptable to write in normal Hindi as well. The difference between Urdu and Hindi in my mind is that in Hindi we can go from saying dil to hRiday. We can go from saying zameen to dhartii or bhoomii. We can go from saying raah to raste to maarg to saDak. We can go from saying zindagii to jiivan.  We can go from saying xwaahish to icChaa. We can go from saying xushii to sukh. We can go from saying zabaan to jiibh or zabaan to bhaashaa. It makes no difference at the end of the day. Speaking Hindi gives one a certain freedom to choose words from Persian or Sanskrit based on context, in whatever way the mind fancies and based on the occasion and context.
> 
> Therefore, if Urdu and Shuddh Hindi were circles in a Venn Diagram, they would overlap to some extent on the edges. And then everyday Hindi would be a circle overlapping both Urdu and Literary Hindi shifted more in the direction Urdu circle, but varying from speaker to speaker.



 Well said!


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> *I think you have [to] be a little more understanding of what Hindi is. Most of the words, if not all, are equally as much Hindi as they are Urdu.* *It is easier to say what is not Urdu than what is not Hindi.* Notice, you had to give the qualifier shuddh above. Everyday Hindi is not shuddh. It is the language nazis only that try to make it shuddh.
> 
> Hindi is a mixed language drawing from many sources. Shuddh Hindi is mainly found in books, and even less-so now-a-days when it has become more acceptable to write in normal Hindi as well. The difference between Urdu and Hindi in my mind is that in Hindi we can go from saying dil to hRiday. We can go from saying zameen to dhartii or bhoomii. We can go from saying raah to raste to maarg to saDak. We can go from saying zindagii to jiivan.  We can go from saying xwaahish to icChaa. We can go from saying xushii to sukh. We can go from saying zabaan to jiibh or zabaan to bhaashaa. It makes no difference at the end of the day. Speaking Hindi gives one a certain freedom to choose words from Persian or Sanskrit based on context, in whatever way the mind fancies and based on the occasion and context.



*Thank you Tony. I think that seems to depend on whether it suits the argument of the speaker to accept an Urdu word to be a constituent part of Hindi or not. You will remember a number of threads where people have used such words as "plebeian" "oddities", "far from elegant" to describe a number of Urdu words which, I would say, exist within the Hindi fold.*

*I find it difficult to accept an average Hindi speaker using a3laa, xuraafaat, aashiyaaN, taraanah, justujuu, guftuguu, musalsal, badastuur, dil-i-majbuur, baaGhiichah (note the Gh please), fazaa, nest-o-naabuud and even maulaa! If these are being used, it is a good thing.
*
These words are most certainly used in Urdu too. What is often not in Urdu are direct Sanskrit borrowings. 

For bhuumi, in Urdu the word buum is used but this is very literary


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> *Thank you Tony. I think that seems to depend on whether it suits the argument of the speaker to accept an Urdu word to be a constituent part of Hindi or not. You will remember a number of threads where people have used such words as "plebeian" "oddities", "far from elegant" to describe a number of Urdu words which, I would say, exist within the Hindi fold.*
> 
> *I find it difficult to accept an average Hindi speaker using a3laa, xuraafaat, aashiyaaN, taraanah, justujuu, guftuguu, musalsal, badastuur, dil-i-majbuur, baaGhiichah (note the Gh please), fazaa, nest-o-naabuud and even maulaa! If these are being used, it is a good thing.
> *



The same misnomers have also been applied to Sanskrit-derived words in many threads: so that's neither here nor there. The problem is that some people generalize what they feel personally: so if someone finds an Urdu word elegant or inelegant, he proclaims that that is so, whereas finding elegance in something is subjective and not objective. As far as I am concerned, no language has some inbred elegance about it!

And to be more precise, in Alfaaz's quite long list, I recognize only 2 words that are not much used in Hindi: musalsal and muyassar. The rest are very, very common: words like "khuraafaat" are used in everyday speech. And no, one doesn't need to note the "Gh": because "bagiichaa" is probably an even more frequently occurring word than the Gh version, etc. - and is a valid word (maybe not in Urdu, but the thread doesn't discuss Urdu exclusively). As tonyspeed said, Hindi draws from many sources and hence speaking it gives one a certain freedom.


----------



## Faylasoof

tonyspeed said:


> I think you have a be a little more understanding of what Hindi is. Most of the words, if not all, are equally as much Hindi as they are Urdu. It is easier to say what is not Urdu than what is not Hindi. Notice, you had to give the qualifier shuddh above. Everyday Hindi is not shuddh. It is the language nazis only that try to make it shuddh.


 I think part of the issue throughout discussions like these is the term Hindi itself. Not only do we use it for a dialect of KhaRii Bolii as it developed into Hindvi / Hindustani / Urdu, but also as a generic term to include other languages like Awadhi (which I’m familiar with), Bhojpuri (or its Purbi dialect often heard in qawwalis), Braj (sadly completely over run by our language since the end of the 18th century -also heard in qawwalis), Haryanvi etc. Some even include Maithli in this mix! With Awadhi and Bhojpuri speakers now re-asserting their position in the linguistic kaleidoscope of South Asia many speakers of these languages I meet are resentful the way they have been lumped with us Urdu-Hindi speakers!  I wonder at the wisdom of those linguists who started classifying diverse languages under a single umbrella term. 

I agree, but we’ve already discussed this endless number of times! Colloquial Hindi is virtually the same as Urdu, pronunciation of some words being a point sometimes we might disagree on but that too depends on whether we are talking about an educated person or not. This has been elaborated often enough in various threads and one only has to read teaching grammars to see that aprt from the idenetical syntax we share a large stock of vocabulary. A good starting point is Rupert Snell's work. So when people here ask what is a Hindi equivalent of a certain word, they are looking for an alternative to a word(s) already used commonly in Urdu. This may or may not turn out to be shuddh Hindi. Also, I do believe there is a genuiness to the question. 

I’d rather you hadn’t put it in such strong terms! 


tonyspeed said:


> Hindi is a mixed language drawing from many sources. Shuddh Hindi is mainly found in books, and even less-so now-a-days when it has become more acceptable to write in normal Hindi as well. The difference between Urdu and Hindi in my mind is that in Hindi we can go from saying dil to hRiday. We can go from saying zameen to dhartii or bhoomii. We can go from saying raah to raste to maarg to saDak. We can go from saying zindagii to jiivan.  We can go from saying xwaahish to icChaa. We can go from saying xushii to sukh. We can go from saying zabaan to jiibh or zabaan to bhaashaa. It makes no difference at the end of the day. Speaking Hindi gives one a certain freedom to choose words from Persian or Sanskrit based on context, in whatever way the mind fancies and based on the occasion and context.


 As to your examples, allow me to give parallel examples from Urdu. We  can go from dil to qalb to fu’aad (highly literary); from zamiin to  dhartii to arDh to bhuumii (yes we do use it!); from raah / rah to  raastah to saRak (and I think you mean this as per the transliteration  rules many of us are using here) to xayaaban to shaari3; from zindagii,  to Hayaat to jiivan ( we use this too); from xaahish to tamannaa to  aarzuu to chaah to muraad; from xushii to xurramii to shaadmaani to  inbisaaT to sukh (this too is used); from zabaan to lisaan to bhaashaa  to bolii to lughat (thought he latter is also used for ‘dictionary’);  from tuzuk to qaanuun to qaa’idah to dastuur. I hope you are now  convinced that Urdu is a thoroughly mixed language using all this is required from Prakrit, Persian Sanskrit, Arabic, Turkish, and not forgetting words borrowed from European languages esp. English! This too has been  mentioned ad nauseam!


tonyspeed said:


> Therefore, if Urdu and Shuddh Hindi were circles in a Venn Diagram, they would overlap to some extent on the edges. And then everyday Hindi would be a circle overlapping both Urdu and Literary Hindi shifted more in the direction Urdu circle, but varying from speaker to speaker.


 I'd like to see this Venn diagram one day I hope! Agreed! It does depend on someone's background, but on the whole the biggest overlap might still be between Urdu and Colloquial Hindi... and there is a history behind that!


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> ....And no, one doesn't need to note the "Gh": because "bagiichaa" is probably an even more frequently occurring word than the Gh version, etc. - and is a valid word (maybe not in Urdu, but the thread doesn't discuss Urdu exclusively). As tonyspeed said, Hindi draws from many sources and hence speaking it gives one a certain freedom.


 I'm sorry but I disagree!  As I show above in my reply, and as has been mentioned endless number of times, Urdu as it developed from KhaRii Bolii borrowed left, right and centre. We have plenty of freedom in our vocabulary! 
As to your point about the pronunciation of "bagiichaa" being more frequent than "baaGhiichah" (one can ignore the extra 'a' and 'h' at the end - the latter is only an issue of orthography), this is due entirely to the prevalence of uneducated pronunciation. Both UP and Bihar, the area of interest here, have high levels of illiteracy. 
I checked! Even Shabdkosh, the online Hindi lexicon, has बाग़ _baaGh_, बग़ीचा _baGhiichaa_ and बग़ल _baGhal_, using the ग़ Gh (Ghayn). As I mentioned, this was a late addition to the traditional Hindi syllabary and under Urdu influence. The same happened for ‘z’, ‘q’ and ‘f’ sounds. All later additions and all part of educated pronunciation of Colloquial Hindi, though I agree with the fact that the uneducated pronunciaiton using ग 'g' here would be more frequently heard for the reason already mentioned.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> ....
> *I find it difficult to accept an average Hindi speaker using a3laa, xuraafaat, aashiyaaN, taraanah, justujuu, guftuguu, musalsal, badastuur, dil-i-majbuur, baaGhiichah (note the Gh please), fazaa, nest-o-naabuud and even maulaa! If these are being used, it is a good thing.
> *
> These words are most certainly used in Urdu too. What is often not in Urdu are direct Sanskrit borrowings.
> 
> For bhuumi, in Urdu the word buum is used but this is very literary


 QP SaaHib, we do have some words which are direct Sanskrit borrowings. We even have a few threads that mention this and as for _bhuumii_ we do have it in Urdu. Well at least the expanded Urdu vocabulary.

As regards your list above, Hindiphones would use these although the number used and the pronunciation would vary a lot depending on the level of education or kind of training they have. So a3laa commonly becomes aalaa; xuraafaat becomes khuraafaat (change from 'x' - a fricative - to 'kh' aspirated) etc. You also note certain vowel changes like _f*a*zaa_ becoming _f*i*zaa_... and maulaa if not popular earlier certainly is now after some famous songs from various movies. Songs like 'maulaa mere maulaa' (with Abhishek Bachchaan) and 'maulaa maulaa' ( from _aawaarapan_, with Imran Hashmi - song in Punjabi). All on the net.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> There is no simpler way to learn Hindustani than to learn Hindustani!


 Precisely, marrish SaaHib! Just to add to what I said in post #5 almost three years ago, here are links to some more books of interest on the topic concerned. In a sense the most interesting being towards the end though others I find useful too when looking at how the language was being used then, including orthography. For example ‘baRii ye’ is not seen until much later.

A grammar of the Urdu or Hindustani language by John Dowson(1908)

An introduction to the Hindustani language : comprising a grammar, and a vocabulary, English and Hindustani : also short stories and dialogues, short stories in Persian and Nagari characters (1845) by John Shakespear

Hindustani manual (1918)  by Douglas Craven Phillott
قابل ِ عفو  ہے   ہماری   خطا 
كہ ہے بے عیب صرف ذات ِ خدا

The syntax and idioms of Hindustani : or, progressive exercises in translation, with notes and directions and vocabularies (1890) by    Simon Matthews Edwin Kempson, 1831-1894

Hindustani grammar self-taught. In four parts. 3d ed., by Carl Albert Thimm, rev. by Shams'ul 'Ulama Sayyid 'Ali Bilgrami (1916)

Simplified grammar of Hindūstānī, Persian and Arabic (1882) by Edward Henry Palmer, 1840-1882

The Hindustani language (1917) by William Hooper

Hindústáni as it ought to be spoken (1900) by John Tweedie.

The modern Hindustani scholar; or, The Pucca Munshi (1919) by Munshi Thakardass Pahwa, Qualified Hindustani Instructor. 
The front page has this invocation:
اس كوشش ِ ناچیز كو پروردگار
اپنی  زحمت  سے  بنا  دے  یادگار 

A grammar of the Hindustani language, in the Oriental and roman character, with numerous copper-plate illustrations of the Persian and Devanagari systems of alphabetic writing by Duncan Forbes


There are of course two more classics:

A Grammar of the Urdu Or Hindustani Language in Its Romanized Character by George Small

… and,
A grammar of the Hindūstānī or Urdū language by John Thompson Platts


_*But true delights have been these*_:  

1)  *The earliest Hindustani grammar*

“Hindustani grammar was first recorded by Joan Josua Ketelaar and his notes have been preserved in three manuscripts. The most complete manuscript is kept at Utrecht University Library. It is partly thanks to his recording of Hindustani grammar that Ketelaar is famous among researchers today – not bad going for someone who was accused of attempted murder and theft.”

“ …. Ketelaar’s grammar was written in Agra, and we know that Ketelaar was there in 1696 and 1697, in the company of Isaac van der Hoeven, who copied the Hague manuscript in Lucknow in 1698. Karel Bostoen (1992, 120 note 27) therefore concludes that it was evidently then that Ketelaar’s Urdu grammar was written. It focuses on 'Hindustan ki boli' as spoken in de (_sic_.) area of Agra, Delhi and Lahore by the elite (Gautam & Schokker 2008). The differences between the three manuscripts can be explained by the fact that Ketelaar reworked his grammar. As a result, minor additions and changes can be found in successive copies. However, Isaac van der Hoeven and Gideon Boudaan also left things out that they did not consider important, such as the poem, which is only found in Ms. 1478.” 

[I note that the name of Bahadur Shah I (_bahaadur shah-e-awwal_) has been misspelt!]

2)* Phonology of Delhi Urdu by Zia Rauf*

Shipra, 1 jan. 1997 - 175 pagina's
The Book, Phonology Of Delhi Urdu, Presents An Explanatory Phonological Analysis Of Delhi Urdu (Also Called Kharkhandari Urdu) As Spoken In The Vicinity Of Jama Masjid, Delhi. The Analysis Is Carried Out In The Theoretical Framework Of Columbia School Of Linguistics. A Motivated Rational In Terms Of The Phonological Principles Of Columbia School, Is Provided For The Asymmetries Observed In The Makeup Of The Phonological Units (Phonemes) And Their Distribution In The Word, In Delhi Urdu.

3) *A manual of the Hindustani language, as spoken in southern India (1887)*


----------



## JaiHind

For the topic, Urdu in India is by and large language used by Muslims only or used in Muslims dominated localities. If you are planning to live in those localities then only you should learn Urdu. Or else Hindi would be just enough for you to communicate with all.


----------



## greatbear

And yet, I am sure, JH, that you yourself use Urdu all the time. I even would classify "Hind" in your nick as Urdu!


----------



## JaiHind

No dear. I use English most of the time (in my posts). And some Hindi. 

If you want to know where from the word "Hindu" come from, we have other threads. It has come from the Sanskrit word "Sindhu". "Hindi" means "belonging to Hindus". What is your point? Do you say the word "Sindhu" is a Urdu one? 

Urdu is a hybrid language and has borrowed from a lot of other languages including Sanskrit. For example, the word "Pakistan" has come from Sanskrit because the word "Stan" is basically a variation of "Sthaan" meaning "place" in Sanskrit. What say?


----------



## greatbear

I have no wish to argue with you, JH: as soon as you use the word "ki", "paanii" or "kursii", you are using Urdu! Don't tell me you manage to say frame a Hindi sentence without using "ki".


----------



## JaiHind

Ok, so you have made many conclusions quite easily it seems. Of course all these are Hindi words. 

Hindi has borrowed many words from other languages and many words have origins in other languages. But today, all these words are Hindi words and you should not suggest that "these are not Hindi words". Right? 

Let us not discuss about either the two languages (there may be separate threads for that) or on individual words you cited (there may be separate threads too). 

You can comment on what I said: today Urdu is used by Indian Muslims or in regions dominated by Muslims alone. And hence, if one wants to communicate in North India in general, Hindi is the language to go with, not Urdu unless one extensively has to communicate with Muslims only.


----------



## greatbear

JaiHind said:


> Ok, so you have made many conclusions quite easily it seems. Of course all these are Hindi words.
> 
> Hindi has borrowed many words from other languages and many words have origins in other languages. But today, all these words are Hindi words and you should not suggest that "these are not Hindi words". Right?



I am not saying that these are not Hindi words - what I am saying is that I am tired of some Urdu and Hindi members' attempts here to make rigid distinctions between Urdu and Hindi, which are two different registers of the same language, not two different languages. I can easily understand a Pakistani speaker and the Pakistani speaker can easily understand me: so we are actually speaking the same language, except that the Pakistani speaker's choice of word might be "shauhar" where mine might be "patii". Yes, at a higher level, they may be mutually incomprehensible, but words ranging from zameen to khuraafaat are not higher level.
And Hindi hasn't "borrowed", to correct you: Hindi has _originated _from various sources, chiefly Persian and Prakrit.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> You can comment on what I said: today Urdu is used by Indian Muslims or in regions dominated by Muslims alone. And hence, if one wants to communicate in North India in general, Hindi is the language to go with, not Urdu unless one extensively has to communicate with Muslims only.


I would suggest that this is a gross form of disinformation because amongst Urdu speakers there are people of all sorts of religious persuasions..Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and other faith communities as well as atheists, agnostics and communists. It would be equally wrong to say that Hindi is spoken by Hindus.


----------



## JaiHind

greatbear said:


> I am not saying that these are not Hindi words - what I am saying is that I am tired of some Urdu and Hindi members' attempts here to make rigid distinctions between Urdu and Hindi, which are two different registers of the same language, not two different languages. I can easily understand a Pakistani speaker and the Pakistani speaker can easily understand me: so we are actually speaking the same language, except that the Pakistani speaker's choice of word might be "shauhar" where mine might be "patii". Yes, at a higher level, they may be mutually incomprehensible, but words ranging from zameen to khuraafaat are not higher level.
> And Hindi hasn't "borrowed", to correct you: Hindi has _originated _from various sources, chiefly Persian and Prakrit.



Good one. I appreciate your reply and by and large agree with what you say... Thanks for explaining for the benefit of others also.


----------



## JaiHind

QURESHPOR said:


> I would suggest that this is a gross form of disinformation because amongst Urdu speakers there are people of all sorts of religious persuasions..Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and other faith communities as well as atheists, agnostics and communists. It would be equally wrong to say that Hindi is spoken by Hindus.



Hindi is spoken in India by all groups, there is no doubt on that. 

I agree that some people from even Hindus, Jains and Buddhists could be speaking Urdu or Persian or Arabic, but "in general" and "today", Urdu has become the language of Muslims in India and people "identify" Urdu with "Muslims". Such "generalization" is not "wrong" if you ask resident Indians. Please note my words in inverted commas. I stand by what I said. 

And why I said it? Because I wanted to be "on the topic". If one has to reside in North India and one has to choose one language, it should be Hindi (unless one has to spend substantial time amongst Muslims). You can ask anyone from India, even Urdu speakers, and they will agree with it. So let us not make it a point of saying Urdu is inferior to Hindi. No, that is not my intention. I want to be honest and I don't want to "mislead" anyone who is not pretty aware of India or Indians. 

It will be misleading in my opinion that if one has to learn one language to live in North India then he or she should learn Urdu. Correct and honest suggestion would be to - learn Hindi.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> No dear. I use English most of the time (in my posts). And some Hindi.
> 
> If you want to know where from the word "Hindu" come from, we have other threads. It has come from the Sanskrit word "Sindhu". "Hindi" means "belonging to Hindus".
> 
> Urdu is a hybrid language and has borrowed from a lot of other languages including Sanskrit. For example, the word "Pakistan" has come from Sanskrit because the word "Stan" is basically a variation of "Sthaan" meaning "place" in Sanskrit. What say?


I believe you need to re-check your definition of "Hindi"! It means one of two things.

1) Pertaing to Hind/India = Indian

2) (Language) pertaining to Hind = Hindi (as opposed to Arabic/Persian/Turlish)

Regarding the etymology of Pakistan.

paak is Persian for pure. And istaan means "land", again from Persian. Granted sthaan and istaan have the same meaning but this should not surprise us because of the Indo-Iranian language link. As for "paak", does it exist in Sanskrit?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Regarding the etymology of Pakistan.
> 
> paak is Persian for pure. And istaan means "land", again from Persian. Granted sthaan and istaan have the same meaning but this should not surprise us because of the Indo-Iranian language link. As for "paak", does it exist in Sanskrit?


Apologies for chiming in, there is a word in Sanskrit which is cognate with PU _paak_, here Platts:

P پاك _pāk (*=S. पावक paavaka**), adj. Pure, clear, clean, holy, spotless, blameless, innocent, free (from,-se), undefiled, unpolluted, immaculate, fair.
* my transliteration_


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Apologies for chiming in, there is a word in Sanskrit which is cognate with PU _paak_, here Platts:
> 
> P پاك _pāk (*=S. पावक paavaka**), adj. Pure, clear, clean, holy, spotless, blameless, innocent, free (from,-se), undefiled, unpolluted, immaculate, fair.
> * my transliteration_



Thank you marrish SaaHib. But we all know that the country is called Pakistan (Paakistaan) and not paavakasthaan!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you marrish SaaHib. But we all know that the country is called Pakistan (Paakistaan) and not paavakasthaan!


QED.


----------



## bjoleniacz

It seems obvious to me from this discussion that Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani is a *language continuum* with two extremes.  On one end is an extremely Persianized language which uses Persian grammar constructions and even uses Persian/Arabic vocabulary which would have to be looked up in a Persian, not Urdu, dictionary.  On the other end is a Sanskritized language which uses Sanskrit grammar constructions and uses words which only a Sanskrit speaker would understand.  Somewhere in between is the division between nastaliq and Devanagari writing.  My theory is that people who write in Nasataliq say they speak Urdu and people who write in Devanagari say they speak Hindi.  This usually lines up with religious orientation: Muslims write in Nastaliq and Hindus write in Devanagari.  However, in the middle of the continuum, which I would locate geographically in India, the language is more Persian than Sanskrit, and would be called Urdu if the judgment was purely based on the Persian/Sanskrit ratio.  However, Hindus write this language in Devanagari and call it Hindi.  However, at the end of the day, it is a solidified trade language which has more than two dimensions and includes many dialects and other languages, and speakers who are 1. Neither Hindu nor Muslim
and/or
2.  Cannot read or write/can read and write both Nagari and Nastaliq.


----------



## Qureshpor

bjoleniacz said:


> It seems obvious to me from this discussion that Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani is a *language continuum* with two extremes.  On one end is an extremely Persianized language which uses Persian grammar constructions and even uses Persian/Arabic vocabulary which would have to be looked up in a Persian, not Urdu, dictionary.


This business about extreme Persianisation of Urdu is a fallacy. The truth is that the language is no more Persianised now than it was 200 years ago. And most certainly, you can find all Persian and Arabic words in any good Urdu dictionary! See what Ralph Russell has to say about this "extreme Persianisation".

Some Notes on Hindi and Urdu: Ralph Russell  http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/11/19somenotes.pdf

It might be worth your while to read (at least) pages 3-4 of the article listed below to give you an insight into the link between Urdu and Modern Hindi. It won't hurt others to do the same either.

Urdu Literary Culture: The Syncretic Tradition Shamsur Rahman Faruqi

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/srf/srf_symcretism_2008.pdf

If you wish to learn a bit more about this topic, then take a look at these two small books at your leisure.

Early Urdu Literary Culture and History-Shamsur Rahman Faruqi

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/srf/earlyurdu/srf_earlyurdu.html

The Problem of Hindustani – Tara Chand

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/tarachand/tarachand.html


----------



## marrish

I am very well aware of judgements which indicate progressing Persianization of Urdu with regard to Pakistan. I understand what are the reasons for this but I hold different views on this matter. Since living languages evolve naturally along with the rise or change in the surroundings in which we live in. The ideas and even material objects a language deals with evolve with the societies that use them to describe their world. For Urdu, it has been Persian AND Arabic which serves as the granary for roots words and expressions. It is equally substantial to add immidiately that the grammar and the extensive stock of Indic vocabulary, with the exception of Old Indic, has always been and continues to lend itself graciously to be formed into new shapes by the users of the language. I agree with QP that Urdu contains no more Persian substratum than 200 years ago because this vocabulary is the heritage of the language and its culture - spoken word, poetry and other writings. I can assure those who might wish to put a question about it, that there are thousands of words that Urdu does not share with Persian as there are also words in which the Persian-derived words would be unrecognizable to the majority of Persian speakers.

If we speak of the geographical differences in the areas where Urdu is spoken, any difference between Pakistani or Indian Urdu if any, is neglectible whatsoever. If we take the measure of time, I had once the chance to have a look at different glossaries prepared by the _Anjuman-e-taraqqii-e-Urdu Dehli_ just before the time of independence, that contained new words and ideas, and the degree of saturation with Persian words and constructions was comparably higher than at present. What I've been observing is the gradual pauperization of the Urdu language which is to be attributed to the level and model of education and the constant influence of English (200? 300? years).

I'd rather say that the Urdu language as has been used by its speakers in the past decades is largely de-Persianized in favour of English imagery and lexical elements.

I forgot to add that Devanagari is not counterpart to _nasta3liiq_ - the latter is a name of typographic or style of writing. It can be compared with Chinese script and other script in, let's say, Arial or Times New Roman. The letters that constitute the script for Urdu are no more no less than the Urdu alphabet, like the script Hindi uses is called the Hindi alphabet or Devanagari.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> This business about extreme Persianisation of Urdu is a fallacy.



Not all scholars agree with you. 

*Hindi and Urdu Since 1800: A Common Reader
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/104range.pdf *

quote: "The style of most Urdu writing in Pakistan all too accurately reflects the bombastically Persianized register of the official media"  (p.18)

Urdu and Hindi have been in flux since inception to well after 200 years before today.
Saying that Urdu was no less Persianised 200 years ago means very little as there were styles of Urdu that used highly 
Persianised language in existence back then as well, which was normal since Persian was the court language, and those
used to such language would have no doubt incorporated it into their writings. However, this does not mean that this language 
was widely used, understood, or represented the average Urdu speaker/reader.

Urdu was still in a standardisation process 200 years ago. There was not just one style of Urdu. Some were more Persianised than others.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Not all scholars agree with you.
> 
> *Hindi and Urdu Since 1800: A Common Reader
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/104range.pdf *
> 
> quote: "The style of most Urdu writing in Pakistan all too accurately reflects the bombastically Persianized register of the official media"  (p.18)
> 
> Urdu and Hindi have been in flux since inception to well after 200 years before today.
> Saying that Urdu was no less Persianised 200 years ago means very little as there were styles of Urdu that used highly
> Persianised language in existence back then as well, which was normal since Persian was the court language, and those
> used to such language would have no doubt incorporated it into their writings. However, this does not mean that this language
> was widely used, understood, or represented the average Urdu speaker/reader.
> 
> Urdu was still in a standardisation process 200 years ago. There was not just one style of Urdu. Some were more Persianised than others.



Of course, people such as Snell/Shackle have their views and so do others like Russell. Someone who flicks through the pages of Sauda or Ghalib (including Ghalib's prose) will very quickly realise how rich these people's language was. I assure you, most Urdu readers will not be able to fathom the vocabulary of these and other authors of this period. Further more, Urdu certainly had crystallised into a literary language long before 200 years from now. Even at Fort William College, it was Mir Amman, Sher Ali Afsos and others' works that formed the basis for the newly created Hindi there. I wish you and others could read Urdu for your selves and then you will not need someone like me to tell you about the type of language then and now. This oft-repeated formula of extreme Persianisation is a red herring and nothing else!


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Of course, people such as Snell/Shackle have their views and so do others like Russell. Someone who flicks through the pages of Sauda or Ghalib (including Ghalib's prose) will very quickly realise how rich these people's language was. I assure you, most Urdu readers will not be able to fathom the vocabulary of these and other authors of this period.



If most Urdu readers will not be able to fathom the vocabulary of these authors, then we aren't certainly talking of one Urdu, and you have been till now claiming that Urdu has been always the same except for some modern loanwords from English! Nor are we talking of the "richness" of these people's language. In that case, then Acharya Chatursen Shastri is the best example of how rich a Sanskrit-based Hindi can be - so leave alone your subjective opinions please.


----------



## bjoleniacz

marrish said:


> I forgot to add that Devanagari is not counterpart to _nasta3liiq_ - the latter is a name of typographic or style of writing. It can be compared with Chinese script and other script in, let's say, Arial or Times New Roman. The letters that constitute the script for Urdu are no more no less than the Urdu alphabet, like the script Hindi uses is called the Hindi alphabet or Devanagari.



I disagree strongly.  Times New Roman is a _typeface_- that is, a form of the alphabet used in printing presses.  Nastaliq is a _script_- a form of Arabic _handwriting._  One of Urdu's major problems in the computer age has been the fact that it is historically written and read in the Nastaliq script. (Why include the letter _3ayin_ in the transcription?  _3ayin_ is not pronounced in Urdu.)  It is very difficult to print or display diagonal text in newspapers, magazines, and on computers, so Urdu speakers have had to adapt their language and use the horizontal Arabic script instead of Nastaliq.  This is because Nastaliq is a script which is extremely hard to convert to a successful typeface.  However, as a learner of Arabic, I can tell you that Nastaliq is a different form of the Arabic script entirely, which is still extremely difficult for me to read.  The letters are closely related in form and the rules governing their ligatures, but are still as different and unique as Hindi and Urdu are from each other.  

In the same way, Devanagari is a _script._  The Devanagari script is used for Hindi, Sanskrit, and several other languages, so the Hindi alphabet and the Sanskrit alphabet are different, but are both written using Devanagari characters.  Devanagari is _not_ a typeface, and it is also not an alphabet.  And while Nastaliq belongs to the larger family of Arabic scripts, it is still a script/form of writing in its own right which one has to study and learn to read independently of the horizontal Arabic script.  

So, to answer the question, "Which script is Urdu written in?", one could answer "the Arabic script," which covers both the diagonal _nastaliiq_ Urdu is traditionally written in, and the horizontal Arabic script used now since the dawn of computers.  However, a more accurate answer, to me, would be that Urdu is written in the Nastaliq script, which has been adapted for printing and computers to the horizontal Arabic script.


----------



## bjoleniacz

In fact, I would say that at the end of the day, the difference between Hindi and Urdu is that Hindi is just a Hindustani dialect written in Devanagari, while Urdu is a Hindustani dialect written in an Arabic script, most likely Nastaliq.  Nastaliq is not easily written on the computer.  So Urdu speakers, rather than using the more computer friendly Devanagari script for their language, which they associate with Hinduism, use the horizontal Arabic Naskh script, which is more closely related to Nastaliq.  In this way, the clear "difference" between the "two" languages is maintained in the written form by the alphabet used to write it down.  The Muslims write Hindustani in the alphabet of the Qur'an and call it Urdu, and use Persian and Arabic to fill in gaps in vocabulary, while Hindus write Hindustani in an Indic alphabet and call it Hindi, even though it they are using the Persianized/Arabicized "Urdu" language on the street instead of the Sanskritized forms of the "language Nazis."  

So, to answer my own question which I asked several years ago, it is probably more useful to learn Urdu from a book than to learn Hindi from a book.  The best book to learn Hindi to communicate in India would be one that teaches a form of "Urdu" written in the Devanagari script, since it is much easier to learn new vocabulary in Devanagari, which represents the vowels.  Short of finding this, it would be better to just learn Urdu than to learn "textbook Hindi."  However, I have a feeling "Teach Yourself Hindi" , which I bought 8 years ago, teaches Urdu-ish Hindustani more than "schoolbook Hindi" or Modern Standard Hindi.

Also important are greetings.  Urdu speakers will say "Salam aleykum" while Hindi speakers will say "Namaste,"  and Urdu speakers use many of the typical Muslim interjections from Arabic in exclamations, blessings, curses, and wishes, which comprise a good portion of daily speech, while Hindi speakers use Hindu forms of exclaiming, blessing, cursing, and wishing.


----------



## bjoleniacz

So, my final thesis on the difference between Urdu and Hindi:

Both use the grammar and vocabulary of a trade language derived chiefly from Pakrit, Persian (as well as Arabic loans into Persian), and English.  This trade language can be called "Hindustani."  When a Muslim speaks it and writes it down in an Arabic script, it is called Urdu.  He/she worships one god and follows Qur'anic principles and culturally Muslim forms of greeting, blessing, cursing, wishing, and defering to authority.  When a Hindu speaks it and writes it down in Devanagari, it is called Hindi.  He/she worships many gods and follows Vedic and various cultic and culturally Hindu mannerisms of greeting, blessing, cursing, wishing, and defering to authority.  The religion of the speaker is the largest factor of whether the spoken language of the person is called Hindi or Urdu.  If they walk up to you and say, "Salaam aleykum," and stand in a culturally Muslim way, perhaps with their hand over their heart, they are speaking Urdu.  If you ask them to write something down for you, they will do it because the Qur'an tells them to help the needy, and they will write it down in the Nastaliq script.  If they bless or curse you, they will bless or curse you by Allah.
If they say "Namaste" with their hands folded in front of their chest, they are speaking Hindi.  If you ask them to write something for you, they will do it because of their particular sutra or path, or personal life philosophy, and will write it in Devanagari.  If they bless or curse you, they will do it by a particular Hindu god or demon.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ My advice to you would be to leave religion out altogether as well as your theories and concentrate on learning the language, whichever you finally decide to learn.


----------



## greatbear

Bjoleniacz, though your conclusion about Hindi and Urdu being basically Hindustani is quite right, I would also request you to leave religion completely out: this is not a forum to discuss religions, and you have a long way to go, judging from your remarks, to understand them.


----------



## BP.

bjoleniacz said:


> In fact, I would say that at the end of the day, the difference between Hindi and Urdu is that Hindi is just a Hindustani dialect written in Devanagari, while Urdu is a Hindustani dialect written in an Arabic script, most likely Nastaliq. ...


A large corpus of contemporary Urdu literature is written in Deonagarii, esp. in India.


----------



## Faylasoof

BelligerentPacifist said:


> A large corpus of contemporary Urdu literature is written in Deonagarii, esp. in India.


 I agree with you BP SaaHib! This is indeed what we notice.


----------



## marrish

bjoleniacz said:


> I disagree strongly.  Times New Roman is a _typeface_- that is, a form of the alphabet used in printing presses.  Nastaliq is a _script_- a form of Arabic _handwriting._  One of Urdu's major problems in the computer age has been the fact that it is historically written and read in the Nastaliq script. (Why include the letter _3ayin_ in the transcription?  _3ayin_ is not pronounced in Urdu.)  It is very difficult to print or display diagonal text in newspapers, magazines, and on computers, so Urdu speakers have had to adapt their language and use the horizontal Arabic script instead of Nastaliq.  This is because Nastaliq is a script which is extremely hard to convert to a successful typeface.  However, as a learner of Arabic, I can tell you that Nastaliq is a different form of the Arabic script entirely, which is still extremely difficult for me to read.  The letters are closely related in form and the rules governing their ligatures, but are still as different and unique as Hindi and Urdu are from each other.
> 
> In the same way, Devanagari is a _script._  The Devanagari script is used for Hindi, Sanskrit, and several other languages, so the Hindi alphabet and the Sanskrit alphabet are different, but are both written using Devanagari characters.  Devanagari is _not_ a typeface, and it is also not an alphabet.  And while Nastaliq belongs to the larger family of Arabic scripts, it is still a script/form of writing in its own right which one has to study and learn to read independently of the horizontal Arabic script.
> 
> So, to answer the question, "Which script is Urdu written in?", one could answer "the Arabic script," which covers both the diagonal _nastaliiq_ Urdu is traditionally written in, and the horizontal Arabic script used now since the dawn of computers.  However, a more accurate answer, to me, would be that Urdu is written in the Nastaliq script, which has been adapted for printing and computers to the horizontal Arabic script.



bjoleniacz, I can follow your train of thought but I don't agree with your postulates. Yes, TNR is a typeface, but _nasta3liiq_ is no different! Infact the computer age has advanced to the point that it is for me equally easy to type Urdu in the Urdu script in the _nasta3liiq_ FONT as it is to type English or even easier because the number of keyboard strokes needed to type Urdu is less. Please note that there are tens of thousand websites that use the Urdu script in the _nasta3liiq_ style. Of course _nasta3liiq_ is also written with a pen on paper, as you correctly have suggested, but I thought we are dealing with publishing issues.

At the moment, I'm not aware of any Urdu newspaper which is published in other typeset than _nasta3liiq_.

I don't agree with you that 3ayn is not pronounced in Urdu and the reason to include it is simple: I use transliteration not phonetic transcription. But even if I used the latter, 3ayn would still be included therein, because in the Urdu I know, _3ayn_ is pronounced.

Let me reiterate, nasta3liiq is not a script but a calligraphic or typographic style.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> I forgot to add that Devanagari is not counterpart to _nasta3liiq_ - the latter is a name of typographic or style of writing. It can be compared with Chinese script and other *script *in, let's say, Arial or Times New Roman. The letters that constitute the script for Urdu are no more no less than the Urdu alphabet, like the script Hindi uses is called the Hindi alphabet or Devanagari.



The problem in what you said is highlighted above, marrish. Devanagari is a script, Chinese is a language written in several different scripts (Chinese is not a script!), whereas Arial and Times New Roman are fonts (typefaces in typesetters' language). You seem to have obfuscated all three into one: to arrive at god knows where. Naastaaliiq, I agree, is simply a font/typeface for Arabic script.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> The problem in what you said is highlighted above, marrish. Devanagari is a script, Chinese is a language written in several different scripts (Chinese is not a script!), whereas Arial and Times New Roman are fonts (typefaces in typesetters' language). You seem to have obfuscated all three into one: to arrive at god knows where. Naastaaliiq, I agree, is simply a font/typeface for Arabic script.


You appear not to have read my post attentively enough, greatbear. 

Your scope of highlighting is also not wide enough as my example, as I have clearly stated, pertains to *other script in Arial or Times New Roman = *a script, e.g. Cyrillic or Greek or Latin *in* a typographic font like Arial or _cursive_. Can you follow it now?

Yes, *nasta3liiq *(too many ''a's'' in your denomination) is a font/typeface for Arabic, but also Persian, Punjabi, Kashmiri and Urdu script. Actually it is used the least for Arabic.

To reiterate what has been already said, pairing Devanagari with ''Nastaliq'' is equal to pairing any other script (like Devanagari, Chinese (any of them), Japanese (any of them) etc. etc.) to cursive or Arial.


----------



## greatbear

Thanks for the clarifications, marrish; it was only your unclear wording (after all, how can Chinese be written in Times New Roman?) that made your meaning seem something else than what it now seems to be. Now I understand what you mean; thanks.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Thanks for the clarifications, marrish; it was only your unclear wording (after all, how can Chinese be written in Times New Roman?) that made your meaning seem something else than what it now seems to be. Now I understand what you mean; thanks.


You are welcome.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Not all scholars agree with you.
> 
> *Hindi and Urdu Since 1800: A Common Reader
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/104range.pdf *
> 
> quote: "The style of most Urdu writing in Pakistan all too accurately reflects the bombastically Persianized register of the official media"  (p.18)



Tony SaaHib, please take a look at the book below, entitled "A vocabulary of technical terms used in elementary school books, Hindustani-English (1879)".

http://archive.org/stream/vocabularyoftech00lahouoft#page/n5/mode/2up

Fortunately, all the terms have Roman transliteration too. My purpose in bringing this to your and other Hindi speakers' and Urdu speakers' notice is twofold.

1) To show that the term Hindustani was nothing but another name for Urdu. I hope this is clear as daylight for everyone to see when one flicks through the pages of this little book.

2) To expose the inaccuracy of Snell and Shackle's statement above. Just see how much of the language you can understand! The language used in the "official media" of Pakistan does not come anywhere near the type of language given in this book.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> 1) To show that the term Hindustani was nothing but another name for Urdu. I hope this is clear as day light for everyone to see when one flicks through the pages of this little book.



To which language then words like "dhanyavaad", "drshTii" and "chakr" belong to? They certainly aren't Urdu words nor words that were not existent in Hindustan earlier.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> To which language then words like "dhanyavaad", "drshTii" and "chakr" belong to? They certainly aren't Urdu words nor words that were not existent in Hindustan earlier.


I might have missed these words in the fine print or between the lines. Could you please direct me to where they are?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> I might have missed these words in the fine print or between the lines. Could you please direct me to where they are?



I do not understand your query: what do you mean by "where they are"?


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> I do not understand your query: what do you mean by "where they are"?


I had the impression that your post 61 was in response to a bit about the publication on Hindustani terms mentioned in post 60. It is obvious you were mentioning some words from that publication, weren't you? On which page can I find these words?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> I had the impression that your post 61 was in response to a bit about the publication on Hindustani terms mentioned in post 60. It is obvious you were mentioning some words from that publication, weren't you? On which page can I find these words?



I was not citing that publication, so you had the wrong impression.


----------



## Qureshpor

A large chunk of my post in the "Hindi/Urdu: Use of the Bindi" thread concerned "Hindustani". I am reproducing the relevant part in this thread.



QURESHPOR said:


> Now, coming to what is meant by "Hindustani", and further to my posts (33 & 51) in the "Hindi-Urdu: Origin of the Division" thread and Faylasoof SaaHib's post (no. 28) and mine no. 60) in the thread "Best way to learn Hindustani: Learn Urdu or Hindi?", I would like to draw readers' attention to page 186 (last para) and page 187 (first para). He is quoting Shri. R.V.Dhulekar, a Hindi stalwart and an MP from UP addressing Maulana Hifzur Rahman, indirectly, and I quote..
> 
> Today if you speak for *Hindustani*, it will not be heard. You will be misrepresented, you will be misunderstood and therefore my honest advice to Maulana Hifzur Rahman is that he should wait for two or three years and he will find that he will have his *Urdu language*...
> 
> Alok Rai then adds, "In his mind Urdu and Hindustani are identical". Who is this man (Dhulekar) and what does he know about Urdu? To answer this question, it is best to continue with the quote. This, you will find in CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA DEBATES (PROCEEDINGS) - VOLUME IX, dated Tuesday, 13th September 1949
> 
> http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol9p33.html
> 
> *Shri R. V. Dhulekar:* I am very happy at the thought that I have spoken the mind of my honourable Friend the Prime Minister. Certainly if their efforts had succeeded, whatever they said, or whatever the Father of the Nation said had succeeded, no person could have been happier than myself. Do not conceive for a moment that I am a communal-minded man. When I oppose *Hindustani* I do so, not on account of my lack of love for those people, but because of my love and affection for them, the honest love that an honest man has for his brethren. Today if you speak for *Hindustani*, it will not be heard. You will be misrepresented, you will be misunderstood and therefore my honest advice to Maulana Hifzur Rahman is that he should wait for two or three years and he will find that he will have his *Urdu language*, he will have his Persian script; but today let him not try to oppose this, because our nation. the nation which has undergone so many sufferings is not in a mood to hear him.I have heard him, I appreciate him and I know how he feels. I am myself a Persian scholar and I have read Urdu and I have loved it. I can say that I have written more in Persian and Urdu than my Friend Maulana Hifzur Rahman..
> 
> If this still is n't sufficient proof that Hindustani is nothing but Urdu, perhaps this copy of the bible printed in 1878 (in Roman) might be helpful.
> 
> http://archive.org/stream/01TheNewT...dia/UrduNewTestamentInjil-01#page/n1/mode/2up


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> All the time that I have been associated with this forum, no Hindi  speaker has presented anything of the “beauty, poetic characteristics or  elegance” of their language, either through their own pieces of writing  or literary quotes.


 (here)

That's because I have to again  remind you that Hindi speakers are few in number on this forum,  unfortunately, and in fact I am the only one who regularly particpates  here. I have also told you before that I don't read Hindi or Urdu  literature, out of personal preference. However, while that precludes me  from quoting from any work, you could read Acharya Chatursen Shastri's  "Chanakya" - if you want to get a glimpse of Hindi's beauty, poetry or  elegance.

Beauty and poetry need not be _quotable_,  meanwhile. You have quoted many fine couplets from Urdu, but it has not  made me feel Urdu as an elegant language. It is a subjective thing. When  I use "shuddh" Hindi terms, they uplift me: not because they were used  by XYZ, but because they have something inherent to them _for me_. UM once  discussed this phenomenon in a thread he had started. You might feel the  same about shuddh Urdu. There is nothing inherently elegant about any  language: but to many of its speakers, there is. _For me_, shuddh Hindi is  poetic and elegant; English is sophisticated and beautiful; French is subtle and  emotional; Italian is musical. You may have completely different preferences, of course.

Every person is different and perceives the world in a different way: there are no rules that apply to all. Neither does some purist's position or some literature qualify or prove anything. Every person has a song in his heart, a joy in words and their rhythms in her mind: they are not the capital of some particular language.


----------



## Qureshpor

If a language matter concerning grammar, idioms or general usage is being discussed, one tries to illustrate one's argument with quotes from someone who is considered an authority on the language. One does not have qualities such as beauty or elegance in mind but if these qualities are within the illustration then that is a bonus. If any Hindi speakers feel that Acharya Chatursen Shastri 's "Chanakya" abounds in such features then it is up to Hindi speakers to bring them to our notice when they are explaining words like "Ghaban" or "saarii/saaRii/saaRhii" or phrases such as "buraa manaanaa" and so on and so forth. There must be at least one Hindi speaker on this planet who reads Hindi literature and is able to quote from Hindi literature.

I totally agree that concepts such as beauty, elegance and what is poetic or not are very subjective and what one person finds as elegant, another may find it quite the opposite. My own idea for what is elegant, beautiful or down right poetic transcends boundaries of a particular language. I will say "wah wah kyaa baat hai", whether it is English, Punjabi, Urdu,  Persian or Arabic, Hindi or any other language. When I hear bhajans written by Madhukar Rajasthani and sung by Mohammed Rafi, it touches the very chords in my heart. But we are talking about this forum. We can only go by what is being presented (or not as the case may be). The pudding has to be presented to its connoisseurs so that they can put it to proof/test. An Urdu poet (daaGh) expressed this in the following words.

3uzr* aane meN bhii hai paas bulaate bhii nahiiN
baa3is-i-tark-i-mulaaqaat** bataate bhii nahiiN
xuub pardah hai kih chilman se lage baiThe haiN
saaf chhupte bhii nahiiN saamne aate bhii nahiiN

Here is what a few people have said regarding Urdu, with my emphasis where shown. I won't quote Anand Narayan "Mulla"'s infamous shi3r on Urdu and Hindi this time. Interested parties can search under the word "bhang".

"Throughout these centuries, Hindi (Persianized Hindustani), and not Modern Hindi (Sanskritized Hindustani), was the _lingua franca_ of India, and *the speech of polite society*, whether Hindu or Muslim. So [as] late as 1871, Bharatendu Harishchandra stated in the preface of his book on the origin of the Agarwal community, 'the speech of the Agarwals, of all their men and women, is Khari Boli or Urdu (_in ki boli stri aur purush sab ki, khari boli arthat Urdu hai_). What was true of the Agarwal community was equally true of the other communities of Northern India." Dr. Tara Chand

“There is nothing surprising in this, for till nearly the close of the 19th century, Urdu was recognized by most Hindus as their own language. Hindu poets and prose writers used Urdu as the vehicle of their thought, and many among the educated Hindus in North India read Urdu books both for information and for *aesthetic satisfaction*..." Dr. Tara Chand

vuh yaar hai jo *xushbuu* kii taraH
ho jis kii zabaaN *Urdu* kii taraH

Sampooran Singh Kalra "Gulzaar"

agarchih maiN gunahgaar huuN, meraa mazhab Urdu hai. KhaRii-Bolii ko shaa'istagii, shustagii jo dii hai, vuh Urdu ne dii hai. maiN aise nahiiN kahtaa kih 3imaaratoN meN 3imaarat Taj Mahal hai to zabaanoN meN zabaan Urdu hai.

Padam Bhushan, Professor Gopi Chand Narang

* excuse

** cause for cancelling the meeting


----------



## greatbear

Your sources really need some education! Agarwals are spread from Rajasthan and Haryana to Bengal: they all speak khari bolii? They certainly don't speak Urdu meanwhile, except a few residing in Lucknow. How ridiculous a notion, isn't it, to imagine a Rajasthani from the deserts of Jaisalmer speaking khari boli?

In the meanwhile, whatever those parties have said about Urdu is completely irrelevant: because if they felt Urdu to be elegant, that's them. That doesn't mean that it should start seeming elegant to every person on the planet, or their readers. A kind of dictatorship they are indulging in, maybe? Or, maybe it's like when a celebrity endorses some biscuit: so others also start eating that biscuit? Ha, ha.

Meanwhile, who is denying the value of all your puddings? You probably didn't read parts of my post. I do not read Hindi - or Urdu - literature, and even if I did, I am not fond of quoting things. There doesn't seem to be any other Hindi speaker here, except JaiHind at times (who though I don't know is Marathi native speaker or Hindi). Yes, the absence of Hindi speakers here is deplorable, as at least they could counter some of the preposterous theories promoted here, all in the name of some dictionaries and grammar lexicons, disregarding people's actual speech and language.


----------



## Qureshpor

If I were ill, I would take heed of what my doctor says. He/she would have spent at leat 5 years in a medical school and a few more after that to begin his/her professional career. Similarly if we are discussing evolution, Darwin and his successors would be quoted, in various fields of Physics it would be Newton and in Statistical Mechanics I would have no hesitation in quoting my friend Raj Kumar Pathria, also known as Raj Kumar "Qais", as he is also a well known Urdu poet. So, quoting people who have spent years studying and researching language matters falls under the same category. It is no good coming up with  views with nothing to substantiate them except thin air. Those friends who can look at this dispassionately would agree that Tara Chand, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, Professor Alok Rai,  Professor Ralph Russell, Dr. Stuart McGregor and others know a thing or two about Urdu and Hindi and their history. 

Bharatendu Harishchandra (1850-1885) is the one who has talked about Agarwals in the preface to his book. He was a man of letters who knew Urdu, Hindi, Persian and Sanskrit.The link here provides short biographical details and I can not help but quote the first sentence from this, for it , for the umpteenth time backs what I and others have been saying and which to some is part of "...preposterous theories..." perhaps should we say "bitter truths". So here is another pill, which I hope is not so bitter to swallow. (Hindi and Urdu Since 1800: A Common Reader by Christopher Shackle and Rupert Snell

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/305harishcandra.pdf

"Despite the *artificial* boost given to KhaRii-Bolii Hindi by the activities at Fort William College, little real advance in its use had been achieved by the mid-nineteenth century..." 

Interested parties can read the rest using the link provided which mentions that Bharatendu Harishchandra composed some verse in Braj too. People's actual speech is what writers of short stories, novels, grammar books and lexicons employ. But only of those people who are able to string a sentence together correctly.


----------



## greatbear

The issue is, QP, that you have the same set of scholars to keep falling back upon: you can of course keep the company of these enlightened people as many times as you want, but some of us aren't convinced by these, and if you are citing them, then it is surely not to convince yourself of something?

There are no qualms about Bharatendu Harishchandra; the qualms are about those who have done nothing else but to quote people out of context and come up with their Fort William theories. Agarwals are spread from Rajasthan to Bengal in sizeable quantities - that's a fact, which none of your quotations can help to eliminate. All of them speaking kharii bolii (forget Urdu) is a ridiculous piece of imagination and false scholarship.


----------



## Qureshpor

^


> Those friends who can look at this dispassionately would agree that Tara Chand, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, Professor Alok Rai, Professor Ralph Russell, Dr. Stuart McGregor and others know a thing or two about Urdu and Hindi and their history.



There seems to me a lot of variety in the scholars I have quoted. And regarding keeping company, unfortunately a number of them are no longer with us but I do know three of them and have kept company with one. Here is a fuller list.

1) Dr. Tara Chand, M.A. D.Phil (Oxon)- The Problem of Hindustani-1944

2) Sri. R.V.Dhulekar-MP, Indian Parliament- Constituent Assembly of India Debates-1949

3) Professor Suniti Kumar Chatterji- University of Calcutta-A Polyglot Nation-1973

4) Professor Christopher Shackle- School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

5) Professor Rupert Snell -The Hindi-Urdu Flagship, University of Texas

Hindi and Urdu since 1800- A common Reader-Christopher Shackle/Rupert Snell-1990

6) Dr. Stuart McGregor-Reader in Hindi, Cambridge University-The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary 1993

7) Christopher. R. King-One Language Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in Nineteenth Century North India-1994

8) Professor Ralph Russell-School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London-Some Notes on Hindi and Urdu 1996

9) Robert. D. King-University of Texas-The poisonous potency of script-1996

10) Professor Alok Rai-Department of English, Delhi University-Hindi Nationalism: 2001

11) Shamsur Rahman Faruqi M.A. Allahabad University

Early Urdu Literary Culture and History (OUP 2001)

Urdu Literary Culture: The Syncretic Tradition  (2008)

12) Professor Gopi Chand Narang -University of Delhi

I believe Tonyspeed SaaHib has quoted from "Language of whose camp" by Professor Mehr Afshan Faruqi.  Works of a dozen if not more of British authors who have composed Hindustani (Urdu) grammars and translated the Bible into this language have already been cited. (My post 33 of the “Division” thread , Faylasoof SaaHib’s post 28 in the "Best way to learn Hindustani" thread and marrish SaaHib post 13 of the "Chai" thread) This is not an exhaustive list of all the scholars that I have quoted but this will do for the time being. Whether all this convinces any particular individuals  or not, matters not!


----------



## tonyspeed

Most Native Indians I have talked to beleive Urdu is the poetic and beautiful language. This is due to its use in poetry.  I would suspect that someone not exposed to Urdu poetry and couplets at an early age might have a different perception.

Shuddh Hindi, in my opinion is not poetic or elegant.   I would describe it as extremely powerful, expressive and yet complex - a bit like English.  

And Fort William is not a theory. It is a well accepted fact. If we start dismissing well documented and accepted facts, we might was well rewrite the rest of history too, which politcial propagandists often try to do.


----------



## Qureshpor

^
mandir, masjid, yih mai-xaane
ko'ii yih maane, ko'ii vuh maane
sab tere haiN jaanaaN kaashaane
ko'ii yih maane, ko'ii vuh maane

ik hone kaa tere qaa'il hai
inkaar pih ko'ii maa'il hai
asliyyat lekin tuu jaane
ko'ii yih maane, ko'ii vuh maane

ik xalq meN shaamil kartaa hai
ik sab se akelaa rahtaa hai
haiN donoN tere mastaane
ko'ii yih maane, ko'ii vuh maane

sab haiN jab 3aashiq tumhaare naam ke
kyoN yih jhagRe haiN RaHiim-o-Raam ke


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> And Fort William is not a theory. It is a well accepted fact. If we start dismissing well documented and accepted facts, we might was well rewrite the rest of history too, which politcial propagandists often try to do.



I think some of the members here are concerned with confusing facts with theories. A simple thing to do would be to answer my question in post 73 of the thread located here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2140277&page=4 
It isn't the first time that I've raised that question.


----------



## gagun

http://www.indianmirror.com/languages/images/urdu-lmap.jpg


----------

