# Hindi/Urdu: chai



## greatbear

Inspired from Faylasoof's terming "parvarish" as a "borrowing" into Urdu/Hindi from Persian, and many similar comments from a couple of Urdu-speaking members here.

Would you call the _word_ "chai" (which means tea, if you didn't know) a Chinese borrowing into Hindi/Urdu? For how many centuries and millennia would members here keep calling a word "borrowing"? Studying etymology is another thing, but a "borrowing" IMO is something else: when we say "car" in Hindi, it's an English borrowing (right now; maybe I wouldn't call it so two centuries later if it is the ubiquitous word) and "gaaRii" is a Hindi word. "Chai" = "car" for who all here?


----------



## Qureshpor

As far as Urdu is concerned, the word for tea is "chaa'e". 

It is fair to say that when someone uses the term "borrowing" from language x for a word, the implication quite clearly is that its immediate origins are language x. No one of course has any intention of returning the "borrowed" word to its "owner". One uses borrowing for simplicity. Etymology is much more than just saying word y comes from language x.

Having said all this, it is also not improper to think that these borrowed words are part of the language in which they find daily usage. Words such as "botal" and "kaar" are, for all intent and purposes, Urdu and Hindi words but if someone asked about the path they have taken to arrive in the wordbank of Urdu and Hindi, there is no harm in saying they are English language borrowings. And same applies for "chaa'e", a Chinese borrowing. Perhaps there is a better word to fit this situation. 

There are people who have indicated in this forum that Urdu script is not "indigenous" (or even foreign) to the Subcontinent. Strangely, the same kind of remark is not made concerning the Roman/Latin alphabet! By the logic we are employing above, Urdu alphabet has been used in the Subcontinent for more than a millenium and the Latin for around 4-5 centuries. For me this is long enough for them to considered "indigenous". But if someone wished to trace its path, it would no doubt pass through modern day Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran and ultimately to the Arabian peninsula.

Faylasoof SaaHib would have been more accurate if he had said "parvarish had come into Hindi via Urdu from Persian", not forgetting the etymology of Hind/Hindi and the fact that Urdu itself has been known as Hindi and Hindavi, amongst other names. But, perhaps, there might have been a risk in a breach of the peace taking place in making this assertion.


----------



## tonyspeed

Borrowing is the wrong term in my opinion. Borrowing implies lack of ownership. The correct term would be originates. No one says we borrowed the words colour and beauty from French. No one says we borrowed the word alligator from Spanish. 

The normal way to get new words in any language is to use already existing words. This idea of inventing and concocting words is quite an abnormal idea. 

And I feel that the only reason we still talk of "borrowed" words in Hindi/Urdu is completely political. It is a very bad habit learned to segregate Hindi and Urdu in the minds of the population, instead of allowing them to blend into an homogenous language. Do English speakers have any idea where the words they use come from (other than many the people unfortunate enough to study Latin)?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib would have been more accurate if he had said "parvarish  had come into Hindi via Urdu from Persian", not forgetting the  etymology of Hind/Hindi and the fact that Urdu itself has been known as  Hindi and Hindavi, amongst other names. But, perhaps, there might have  been a risk in a breach of the peace taking place in making this  assertion.




Making statements such as the one you are referencing are inflamatory in my opinion as it makes it seem that Urdu predates Hindi when really it does not. Hindi and Urdu are coextant languages that came out of the same couldron of "primoridal stew" we call Hindustani at the same time. Making a statement such as "parvarish came into Standard Hindi through Urdu" would be correct if it were true (Since Standard Hindi is a post 1800 invention), but it is not because we would not use paravarish in Standard Hindi, only in common Hindi.


The only difference between common Hindi and Urdu is that Hindi continued to absorb 'tasama' words from Sanskrit via Standard Hindi and add it to the already extant mixed vocabulary as time progressed, whereas Urdu did not.


----------



## marrish

A loanword or a borrowed word has been well established terms used to denote words which originate from other language that are integrated into the receiving language.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Making statements such as the one you are referencing are inflammatory in my opinion as it makes it seem that Urdu predates Hindi when really it does not. Hindi and Urdu are coextant languages that came out of the same couldron of "primoridal stew" we call Hindustani at the same time. Making a statement such as "parvarish came into Standard Hindi through Urdu" would be correct if it were true (Since Standard Hindi is a post 1800 invention), but it is not because we would not use paravarish in Standard Hindi, only in common Hindi.



Is that you talking, Tony SaaHib? The very person who wrote in a recent thread, "Everyday Hindi is not shuddh. It is the language nazis only that try to make it shuddh"! Am *I* making an inflammatory Statement? It appears,Tony SaaHib, that you have taken no notice of what Dr. Tara Chand, Dr. R.S. McGregor, Suniti Kumar Chatterji and Shamsu Rahman Faruqi have been saying. It is also quite apparent that you have taken no heed of the body of evidence provided in this forum in the form of grammar books which clearly equate the so called "Hindustani" with Urdu. The latest example I provided is copied in the "Division" thread, the book being " "A vocabulary of technical terms used in elementary school books, Hindustani-English (1879)".

Now, let me remind you what the scholars have said about Urdu pre-dating Hindi. If you have McGregor's "The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary" Oxford University Press, then please read its "Introduction" where you will find him writing, "Urdu, an earlier specialisation than Hindi...". 

From Urdu Literary Culture: The Syncretic Tradition (Faruqi)...

"The Urdu-Hindi controversy was given a new twist in the first half of the twentieth century by claiming that Urdu was in fact nothing but a style (shaili) of Hindi. this implied that Modern Hindi was anterior to Urdu, with the further implication that Urdu was a comparatively late, and perhaps British inspired, arrival on the Indian linguistic scene. The boot was in fact on the other leg... Modern Hindi was a style (shaili) of Urdu. Sunil Kumar Chatterji, the greatest modern Indian linguist confirmed this:

Linguistically, it is quite correct to say that Hindi and Urdu are two forms or styles of the same Khadi-Boli Hindustani of Delhi. Urdu is not the modified, Muslimised form of what nowadays passes as Hindi, i.e., Sanskritised Khadi Boli. It is rather the other way about: Persianized Hindustani as it developed in the Mughal court circles during the eighteenth century (before that we find it  in the Dakni speech of the Deccan...), ...was taken up by the Hindus...they adopted or revived the native Nagri and began to use a highly Sanskritic vocabulary...and thus they created the literary Hindi of today, round about 1800, mainly in Calcutta".

Chatterji's view was a newer version of the thesis advanced by Dr. Tara Chand, to the effect that: They [the "Hindi" authors at the College of Fort William] found a way out by adopting the language of Mir amman, [Sher Ali] Afsos, and others by excising Arabic/Persian words from it, replacing them with those of Sanskrit and Hindi [Braj etc]. Thus within a space of less than ten years, two new languages...were decked out and presented [before the public] at the behest of the foreigner... Both were look alikes in form and structure, but their faces were turned away from each other..and from that day to this, we are wondering directionless, on two paths". 

It matters not to me whether "parvarish" is in "Standard Hindi" or "Common Hindi". The fact is that according to one source, its occurrence is attested in a work of Urdu entitled "Kalimatu_lHaqaa'iq" dated 1582. Leaving "parvarish" aside, every single Persian and Arabic word in any form of Hindi can be traced back to Urdu and no where else.

I shall leave further quotes for another time and occasion.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> The normal way to get new words in any language is to use already existing words. This idea of inventing and concocting words is quite an abnormal idea.
> 
> And I feel that the only reason we still talk of "borrowed" words in Hindi/Urdu is completely political. It is a very bad habit learned to segregate Hindi and Urdu in the minds of the population, instead of allowing them to blend into an homogeneous language. Do English speakers have any idea where the words they use come from (other than many the people unfortunate enough to study Latin)?



If this were the case, we would still be speaking Chaucer's language with no modern Greek/Latin derived scientific and technical vocabulary.

I think if you were to learn the Urdu alphabet and read what constitutes Urdu, then you will have a fairly good idea about where Urdu stands in comparison with Hindi.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Inspired from Faylasoof's terming "parvarish" as a "borrowing" into Urdu/Hindi from Persian, and many similar comments from a couple of Urdu-speaking members here.
> 
> Would you call the _word_ "chai" (which means tea, if you didn't know) a Chinese borrowing into Hindi/Urdu? For how many centuries and millennia would members here keep calling a word "borrowing"? Studying etymology is another thing, but a "borrowing" IMO is something else: when we say "car" in Hindi, it's an English borrowing (right now; maybe I wouldn't call it so two centuries later if it is the ubiquitous word) and "gaaRii" is a Hindi word. "Chai" = "car" for who all here?


I would rather say that it is the Persian loanword in Urdu, coming originally from Mandarin.


----------



## greatbear

@marrish: Why would you call "chai" as a Persian loanword, when Chinese* itself has "cha" as tea?! An obsession with seeing everything as Perso-Arabic, maybe?

@tonyspeed: I completely agree with his views. I also consider those statements as inflammatory, particularly since the discussed thread wasn't even concerned about the etymology of words. And, "via Urdu into Hind" doesn't hold at all: both are coextant _registers._

@QP: No one is talking about that literary Hindi of the post-1800s: didn't tonyspeed make it clear already? In another thread, you made the assertion that Hindustani is same as Urdu, yet failed to reply to my pertinent examples of words that have existed since much before the 1800s in Hindustani/Hindi. And both of us know how we say "chai/chaa'e";** I don't see how transliteration is a matter of debate here, unless you wish to score some brownie points by such irrelevant side-tracking of the issue.

EDITS:
*To be more precise, Cantonese.
**I was simply using the famous spelling for an Indian chai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masala_chai . You could also go to any Indian or Pakistani joint in even Europe and see "chai" as a menu item, meaning the typical milk-and-sugar tea typical to the Indian subcontinent.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> If this were the case, we would still be speaking Chaucer's language with no modern Greek/Latin derived scientific and technical vocabulary.



Why to go to modern technical vocabulary? Chaucer's English itself had many and many words from Latin and French roots: which is the point being made. Today, "chai" is a Hindi word; if I were to ask a question about the understandability of "chai" to a Hindi speaker, it would be a very odd post which would start talking about the Chinese "borrowing" that it is. Go to the English forum: when one asks about a word like "nation", to take an example, some other user does not jump in with (the useless-in-the-context bit of) information that "nation" is a borrowing from French.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> @marrish: *Why* would you call "chai" as a Persian loanword, when Chinese* itself has "cha" as tea?! An *obsession* with seeing everything as Perso-Arabic, maybe?


First of all, let me fix your attention on the fact that I have answered the question which is specified in the OP. If my contribution doesn't meet your expectations, there is no need to attack me personally because I stick to the facts.

Your allusion at my address can be called inflammatory and strange!

The word in question didn't come into Urdu and Hindi directly but via Persian. This is what one might call an "audit trail". Beyond that it is probably Chinese but there may still be other language(s) in between. Same logic applies to words of Persian/Arabic origin into Hindi. They didn't come into Hindi directly but, as Faruqi quoting Sunil Kumar Chatterji and Dr. Tara Chand shows, they are from Urdu.

Look at the Wikipedia link which you have yourself submitted. It states what I said, that this word came from Persian!

According to Mr. Jules Bloch, the author of La formation de la Langue Marathe:  

_Lallu Lal, under the inspiration of Dr. Gilchrist, changed all that by writing the famous Prem Sagar, whose prose portions are on the whole Urdu, from which *Persian* words have been throughout replaced by Indo-Aryan words. . . . The new dialect gave a lingua franca to the Hindus...
_
It seems that the creators of Hindi were preoccupied with the Persian and Arabic origin of existing words.


> @QP: No one is talking about that literary Hindi of the post-1800s: didn't tonyspeed make it clear already? In another thread, you made the assertion that Hindustani is same as Urdu, yet failed to reply to my pertinent examples of words that have existed since much before the 1800s in Hindustani/Hindi. And both of us know how we say "chai/chaa'e";** I don't see how transliteration is a matter of debate here, unless you wish to score some brownie points by such irrelevant side-tracking of the issue.


 Please, do remind me which words you refer to, I'll try to assist you, sticking to the facts.
There is no question of transliteration here since this word *is pronounced chaa'e* in Urdu. In Hindi it is *pronounced* differently! No need to be oversensitive and emotional where members do their best to provide factual information.


> EDITS:
> *To be more precise, Cantonese.
> **I was simply using the famous spelling for an Indian chai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masala_chai . You could also go to any Indian or Pakistani joint in even Europe and see "chai" as a menu item, meaning the typical milk-and-sugar tea typical to the Indian subcontinent.


Well, this doesn't matter here but the word came from Mandarin into Persian. From Cantonese and others into other languages (like Dutch).


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Look at the Wikipedia link which you have yourself submitted. It states what I said, that this word came from Persian!





I did see that, but considering that India and China have been trading with each other since millennia, besides ancient cultural links, it doesn't seem likely to me. Especially considering that the beverage itself originated in the Sino-Indian region.



marrish said:


> It seems that the creators of Hindi were preoccupied with the Persian and Arabic origin of existing words.



There were no "creators" of Hindi; maybe Urdu had some? I don't even understand what does your cited author mean by "Indo-Aryan" - what a funny term indeed!




marrish said:


> Please, do remind me which words you refer to, I'll try to assist you, sticking to the facts.



I think my question was addressed to QP: have you started acting as his mouthpiece? Don't take it as a personal attack yet again: I was reminding QP of an answer he should have made, but you are asking for some memory assistance, instead.



marrish said:


> There is no question of transliteration here since this word *is pronounced chaa'e* in Urdu. In Hindi it is *pronounced* differently! No need to be oversensitive and emotional where members do their best to provide factual information.



Really? The pronunciation is different? That's quite a big news to me. Incredible!


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> I did see that, but considering that India and China have been trading with each other since millennia, besides ancient cultural links, it doesn't seem likely to me. Especially considering that the beverage itself originated in the Sino-Indian region.


Drinking tea was propagated by the British in India.


> There were no "creators" of Hindi; maybe Urdu had some? I don't even understand what does your cited author mean by "Indo-Aryan" - what a funny term indeed!


Well, if you had bothered to read my post properly, you would have noticed that my use of ''creators'' is merely repeating what the renowned Indian linguists, Dr. Sunil Kumar Chatterji has said. I will highlight the words to facilitate your reading. By the way, he is not the only one who has used words such as ''created'', ''artificial'', ''invented'' or similar words regarding this unnatural process in bringing about Modern Hindi. With regard to your comment on Urdu, I shall comment on it at the end after you have had time to digest what various scholars have said about Modern Hindi. 

1. Dr. Sunil Kumar Chatterji, A Polyglot Nation, and its Linguistic problems vis-à-vis National Integration, Mumbai, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Research Centre, 1973, pp 50-54:

"Persianized Hindustani as it developed in the Mughal court circles during the eighteenth century (before that we find it in the Dakni speech of the Deccan...), ...was taken up by the Hindus...they adopted or revived the native Nagri and began to use a highly Sanskritic vocabulary...and thus they *created *the literary Hindi of today, round about 1800, mainly in Calcutta".

2. Dr. Tara Chand, In Hindustani, A collection of Urdu talks broadcast from All India Radio, Delhi, in 1939 and published in Maktaba Jami’a, New Delhi, n.d, (circa 1940), pp 11-12

"They [the "Hindi" authors at the College of Fort William] found a way out by adopting the language of Mir Amman, [Sher Ali] Afsos, and others by* excising Arabic/Persian words from it, replacing them with those of Sanskrit and Hindi [Braj etc]*. Thus within a space of less than ten years, two new languages[...]were decked out and presented [before the public] at the behest of the foreigner... Both were look alikes in form and structure, but their faces were turned away from each other...and from that day to this, we are wandering directionless, on two paths".

3. Dr. Tara Chand, The Problem of Hindustani 1944

"Among them were Braj and Urdu. Braj, as has been indicated above, was the language of poetry, and did not lend itself readily for the purposes of prose. Urdu, which was studied by both Hindus and Muslims, was naturally selected as the common language of India. Unfortunately the zeal for finding distinctions led the professors of the College to encourage attempts to *create* a new type of Urdu, from which all Persian and Arabic words were removed and replaced by Sanskrit words. This was done ostensibly to provide the Hindus with a language of their own. But the step had far-reaching consequences, and India is still suffering from this *artificial bifurcation* of tongues.

Modern Hindi was till then unknown, for no literature existed in it. It was at this time that it began to be employed for literary purposes. The professors of the college encouraged Lallooji Lal and other teachers to compose books in the language used by the Urdu writers; but to substitute Sanskritic words (tatsama) for Persian and Arabic words. Thus the *new style was born *which was considered specially suited to the requirements of the Hindus, and the Christian missionaries gave a fillip to it by translating the Bible in it."

4. Mr. F. E. Keay, the author of A History of Hindi Literature, Heritage of India series

"Urdu however, had a vocabulary borrowed largely from the Persian and Arabic languages, which were specially connected with Muhammadanism. A literary language for Hindi-speaking people which could commend itself more to Hindus was very desirable, and the result was obtained by taking Urdu and *expelling from it words of Persian and Arabic origin*, and substituting for them words of Sanskrit or Hindi origin."

He may have made a mistake in his choice of the word ''Indo-Aryan'' in this context but the important thing that I wanted you and others to note is yet another person talking about the deliberate process of uprooting Persian/Arabic words and transplanting them with Sanskrit words. By the way, I find your sentence above much ''funnier''. Perhaps it needs to be taken to the English forum for some quick remedy!


> I think my question was addressed to QP: have you started acting as his mouthpiece? Don't take it as a personal attack yet again: I was reminding QP of an answer he should have made, but you are asking for some memory assistance, instead.


Asking me not to take it as a personal attack it doesn't change the character of your words. Words like ''chor'' and ''kotvaal'' come to mind. Would you like me to present you with some evidence? You mentioned that QP failed to answer your questions so I thought I could assist you with your questions, but it seems the answers are not desirable.

Returning to your comment about Urdu:

_Khari Boli or Hindustani has two literary forms. The earlier form, called Hindi by its users, and now known as Urdu, has a continuous history from the 14th century to the present day. _(Dr. Tara Chand)

A short essay about it can be consulted here: http://www.virginia.edu/mesa/Events/...the%20Urdu.pdf

So the conclusion is that Urdu has had an array of its creators, those having been the people of pen for the last seven centuries.



> Really? The pronunciation is different? That's quite a big news to me. Incredible!


You're welcome.


----------



## greatbear

We haven't been discussing "modern" Hindi, so most of the post above is irrelevant to the thread. I advise you to understand what is being discussed before launching on these unnecessary side-tracks.
Why don't you take my sentences wherever you want to? Who's preventing you? You really seem to relish going off-topic.
If I will need assistance from you or someone else, I will let you know. Till then, something that I address specifically to QP has to be answered by him, not by you or someone else. Got it?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> If you have McGregor's "The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary" Oxford University Press, then please read its "Introduction" where you will find him writing, "Urdu, an earlier specialisation than Hindi...".






QURESHPOR said:


> "Urdu, an earlier specialisation than Hindi..."



It is interesting that you left off the most pertinent part of this quote: "Urdu, an ealier specialisation than Hindi, *of the mixed speech of the Delhi Area*".  Urdu, in this context, is perceived as an addition to the already  existing mixed speech of Delhi which had many alternate names, including  Ordu and Hindvi. He is here speaking of the literary register of the language  only. 

So when it comes to defining the terms Urdu and Hindi, it  is essential to note whether or not we are talking about the literary or  the colloquial registers. Urdu and Hindi on a colloquial register do  not predate each other, but literary, administrative Urdu arguably  predates literary Hindi (if one only considers Khari Boli and not any  other "dialect"). 

So is parvarish of the literary register only?  If so, colloquial Hindi has borrowed from literary Urdu. If parvarish  was used by the common man in everyday speech, then this is not the  case.


But to tie this all back to the original subject, usage of the word borrowing can reach rediculous levels. How far should we go? Can we say that British English borrows from American English? And why did we now group Braj as different from Hindi, only to differentiate it from Urdu when now-a-days many people see Braj as a part of Hindi? If I first hear a word from my neighbour, did I now borrow the word from him? Should I not use it when I am done or should I go and seek out a more "native" word that I will concoct myself as soon as I get spare time?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> It is interesting that you left off the most pertinent part of this quote: "Urdu, an ealier specialisation than Hindi, *of the mixed speech of the Delhi Area*".  Urdu, in this context, is perceived as an addition to the already  existing mixed speech of Delhi which had many alternate names, including  Ordu and Hindvi. He is here speaking of the literary register of the language  only.
> 
> So when it comes to defining the terms Urdu and Hindi, it  is essential to note whether or not we are talking about the literary or  the colloquial registers. Urdu and Hindi on a colloquial register do  not predate each other, but literary, administrative Urdu arguably  predates literary Hindi (if one only considers Khari Boli and not any  other "dialect").
> 
> So is parvarish of the literary register only?  If so, colloquial Hindi has borrowed from literary Urdu. If parvarish  was used by the common man in everyday speech, then this is not the  case.
> 
> But to tie this all back to the original subject, usage of the word borrowing can reach rediculous levels. How far should we go? Can we say that British English borrows from American English? And why did we now group Braj as different from Hindi, only to differentiate it from Urdu when now-a-days many people see Braj as a part of Hindi? If I first hear a word from my neighbour, did I now borrow the word from him? Should I not use it when I am done or should I go and seek out a more "native" word that I will concoct myself as soon as I get spare time?



Tony SaaHib. I only quoted the part that was relevant to demonstrate that Urdu was of much older vintage than Modern Hindi. Your remark, if I am not mistaken, seems to insinuate that it was a deliberate act on my part of concealing the full facts. Even what you have quoted is incomplete. Let me quote the whole sentence in question so that it is clear as broad daylight for everyone to see.

"..Urdu, an earlier specialisation than Hindi of a mixed speech of the Delhi area which had gained currency as a lingua franca, had arisen broadly because of an increasing artificiality in the use of Persian for literary and other formal purposes in Indo-Muslim circles during the later Mughal period..."

The sentence is quite clear. R.S. McGregor, once a lecturer in Hindi at Cambridge University and author of several works on Hindi language and literature including "Hindi-English Dictionary" and "Outline of Hindi Grammar" is saying that in the final stages of its evolution, the language that became to be known as Urdu, displaced Persian as the court language. It was a language *spoken* in the Delhi area and was composed of "*mixed speech*". What this of course signifies is that it was KhaRii-Bolii with mainly Perso-Arabic influence as well as vocabulary from Turkish, English and Portuguese etc. [Think of Urdu as biryani, with the base ingredient being Baasmati rice (khaRii-Bolii) and rest of the ingredients being infused over a long period of time in diverse Indian geographical locations.]

Prior to it taking Urdu as its final name, it was known as Hindi, Hindvi, Dehlavi, Dakkani, Gojri and Hindustani. McGregor is *not *saying that Urdu was only one of several languages spoken around the Delhi area!*

Indeed it is essential to be clear about the parameters. Prior to Modern Hindi's conception, it had no colloquial predecessor. Had there been one, Hindi would have had its own literature and there would not have been the need to remove the existing spices from the already prepared biryani and add one spice in large quantity over a brief space of time! What is common between the two "registers" is the Basmati rice (KhaRii-Bolii) and nothing else. 

*When "parvarish" was used by the common people, it was part of the "biryani". Braj, Awadhi, Bhojpuri etc are of course conveniently lumped together with Hindi but everyone knows that Urdu and Hindi have KhaRii-Bolii as their base and not any of the above languages.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Braj, Awadhi, Bhojpuri etc are of course conveniently lumped together with Hindi but everyone knows that Urdu and Hindi have KhaRii-Bolii as their base and not any of the above languages.



Just as Dakhani is lumped with Urdu, when even the basic tenses are different between the two!


----------

