# Persian, Urdu, Hindi: native



## Alfaaz

(Not sure if this is a repeated question...there are over 400 threads with "native"!)
*
Inspired by:* Urdu: Ethnic identity- Muhaajir, Urdu-speaking, or new name? 

*Background:* In English, the phrases native language or mother tongue are often used to describe the language that a person might have learned growing up as child from parents, that his/her family associates themselves with, and the person him/herself (primarily) associates with...

Urdu (and more likely Persian also-from which the words are derived) uses: مادری زبان and مقامی زبان ; maadari zubaan could translate to "mother tongue/language" while maqaami zubaan could be "local language"...but not really "native language"....?

*Questions:* What words/phrases could be used for the following uses of "native": 

_Native (inhabitant):_ پیدائشی / ملکی / وطنی / مقامی ----- باشندہ / شہری /ساکن / اہل / باشی ......?
_Native language: _پیدائشی زبان / لسان ............?
_Native _________speaker:_ پیدائشی ______گو .......? or اہلِ اردو/ فارسی ?

Are there any words that convey the idea of being "born" into a land or language?


----------



## searcher123

In modern Persian:

_Native (inhabitant): _١. محلي ٢.اهلِ ٣. مقيمِ ٤.قومي ٥. مادري ٦. ذاتي ٨. طبيعي ٩. اصيل
_Native language:_ زبان مادري
_Native _________speaker:_ سخنگوي بومي زبان______ا


----------



## tonyspeed

Alfaaz said:


> Are there any words that convey the idea of being "born" into a land or language?



I think this is obvious, but as you know Hindi uses the term: desi and as an adjective deshi.
There is also another term: mool navaasii, original inhabitant.

Now as for the original native inhabitants of India, they are called aadivaasii.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I think this is obvious, but as you know Hindi uses the term: desi and as an adjective deshi.
> There is also another term: mool navaasii, original inhabitant.
> 
> Now as for the original native inhabitants of India, they are called aadivaasii.



De we know who they were/are? Which language did/do they speak?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> De we know who they were/are? Which language did/do they speak?



http://www.acpp.org/uappeals/bground/Adivasis%20in%20SIndia.htm#INTRODUCTION


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I think this is obvious, but as you know Hindi uses the term: desi and as an adjective deshi.
> There is also another term: mool navaasii, original inhabitant.
> 
> Now as for the original native inhabitants of India, they are called aadivaasii.



Aadivaasiis are the tribal inhabitants; the word "indigenous people" as applied to Indian tribals is a misnomer, and QP's question is very much valid: do we know who are the original inhabitants of India? If someone claims to know, I would be surprised to know.
In addition, your cited link (which seems a very stupid paper to me, to put it bluntly) only talks about aadivaasis of "south" India, whereas all over India there are aadivaasis. Would you call the aadivaasis of Madhya Pradesh as the original inhabitants of India, too, considering that there are some tribes that exhibit non-Dravidian features?


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I think this is obvious, but as you know Hindi uses the term: desi and as an adjective deshi.



"Desi" (which is the adjective, not "deshi" - modern English has the noun "desi" as well, from where now the word exists as a popular noun as well) means "indigenous" and not "native": there is a difference between the two. A second-generation Indian-American is a native American but not an indigenous American.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> I think this is obvious, but as you know Hindi uses the term: desi and as an adjective deshi.
> There is also another term: mool navaasii, original inhabitant.
> 
> Now as for the original native inhabitants of India, they are called aadivaasii.


As a side note, I hope you don't mind, it is _nivaasii_, navaasii being 89.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> do we know who are the original inhabitants of India? If someone claims to know, I would be surprised to know.



Here we go again. In a similar way, how do we know Hindi evolved from Sanskrit? How do we know the North Indian languages are really related to the European languages and it's not just a coincidence?
How do we know what we've never experienced OR done the research ourselves (I'm not talking about reading books - primary sources)? 
In fact, how do we know we have a brain, if you've never split open your head? People make claims all the time based on research.
NOONE knows 100% if they are actually true. Especially when emotions and religious bigotry fervour stand between the facts and the brain.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Here we go again. In a similar way, how do we know Hindi evolved from Sanskrit? How do we know the North Indian languages are really related to the European languages and it's not just a coincidence?
> How do we know what we've never experienced? In fact, how do we know we have a brain, if you've never split open your head? People make claims all the time based on research.
> NOONE knows 100% if they are actually true.



We know things to be true when they can be proven; research simply means theories being tested out. It's a fact, not my invention, that there are several theories about the original inhabitants of India, and in the end no one knows the truth. To compare it with linguistic relations, which are easily researchable, is foolish: the only thing that gives clue about history of peoples is their genetic pools, and not only vast swathes of population have their gene pools still untested, but also many tribes are no more, which could have been crucial links in the gene story, in our story.

By the way, you may like to read: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-storycivilisation/321109/ 
(and watch _The Story of India_, if you've already not done so).
In a nutshell, much research remains to be done before arriving at conclusions.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> We know things to be true when they can be proven; research simply means theories being tested out. It's a fact, not my invention, that there are several theories about the original inhabitants of India, and in the end no one knows the truth. To compare it with linguistic relations, which are easily researchable, *is foolish*: the only thing that gives clue about history of peoples is their genetic pools, and not only vast swathes of population have their gene pools still untested, but also many tribes are no more, which could have been crucial links in the gene story, in our story.
> 
> By the way, you may like to read: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-storycivilisation/321109/
> (and watch *The Story of India*, if you've already not done so).
> In a nutshell, much research remains to be done before arriving at conclusions.



I think you would not evoke such strong reactions on this board if you chose your words to be a bit less demeaning.

The Story of India also supports the Aryan migration theory (the details are arguable) that has wreaked much havoc in the sub-continent. But the fairness-cream companies are happy I'm sure.
Any DVD that only presents 1/2 of the argument as absolute fact raises flags in my mind.

I love the DNA "evidence" though. But just a caution that sometimes evidence can be skewed to fit the theory. I'm sure some poor soul thought this first: "They're black so they must be from Africa!"


----------



## greatbear

I don't think you're getting the pictue, tonyspeed! You talk about research and you are trying to conveniently ignore what research has said just to keep up your arguments, which if it is your intention, then there is no purpose of pursuing the argument.
The question is that of a misnomer: when we talk about the Aborigines of Australia or the Native Americans, then we are talking of populations almost extinct, which were mass-murdered by the invaders, settlers, colonisers (whatever name you prefer), and hence the term "indigenous people" arises. In the case of India, even if there were several invasions at various points of the Indian history, till at least the last one of Babur (the Mughals), the gene pool in India has remained largely constant, and it is because of this that Michael Wood in his commendable documentary "The Story of India" says that India is the unique land where "all human pasts are still alive". If indigenous people there be, then all Indians or almost all are indigenous, all of us are aadivaasis: unless you go to Andaman and Nicobar, maybe, you will find most Indians descendants from those whom you are calling as indigenous. We all are aadivaasis then: the roots of India lie deep, which no attempt of colonising it has been able to shake. In a nutshell, India has always colonised the coloniser, by fascinating him, by drawing him into her embrace.
This is no wishful, romantic painting: this is fact and research, which you seem to be so fond of but so unwilling to accept yet. That the Indian gene pool is amazingly consistent is something borne out by several DNA testings.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> *Questions:* What words/phrases could be used for the following uses of "native":
> 
> _Native (inhabitant):_ پیدائشی / ملکی / وطنی / مقامی ----- باشندہ / شہری /ساکن / اہل / باشی ......?
> _Native language: _پیدائشی زبان / لسان ............?
> _Native _________speaker:_ پیدائشی ______گو .......? or اہلِ اردو/ فارسی ?
> 
> Are there any words that convey the idea of being "born" into a land or language?



1) Native (inhabitant): "baashindah" is probably the most common. 

2) Native (language): maadarii (zabaan)

3) Native (speaker): ahl-i-zabaan

4) Born into the language/land: We have "zaad-buum" for "birth place" or "native land". Similarly we have "shah-zaadah" which means "born of a king" i.e prince. So, why not "*buum-zaad"* (born to the land), and hence "native"


----------



## tonyspeed

platts:

S ديشي देशी _deśī_ (f. -_inī_),  = S ديشيه देशीय _deśīya_ (f. -_ā_), adj. Of or belonging to a country, native, indigenous, local, provincial;—_deśī_, s.m. A native of a country (see _desī_).

H ديسي देसी _desī_ (i.q. _deśī_, q.v.), adj. Of or belonging to  a country, native, indigenous; home-made; local; provincial;—s.m. Native of a country.

The version by way of Prakit is desii. The version by way of tatsama is deshii.


----------



## souminwé

QURESHPOR said:


> De we know who they were/are? Which language did/do they speak?



They're often Munda speakers. There's some great research on early Sanskrit and the influence of Munda (foreign influence in the Rg Veda, excluding pre-India loans, is largely Burushaski and Munda), I do encourage you to seek it!

Technically Burusho folks would be considered "aadivaasii" as well, but they are 1) now in Pakistan and 2) aren't people's picture of the "typical" aadivaasii.


----------



## marrish

souminwé said:


> They're often Munda speakers. There's some great research on early Sanskrit and the influence of Munda (foreign influence in the Rg Veda, excluding pre-India loans, is largely Burushaski and Munda), I do encourage you to seek it!
> 
> Technically Burusho folks would be considered "aadivaasii" as well, but they are 1) now in Pakistan and 2) aren't people's picture of the "typical" aadivaasii.


Wow, this is amazing! Can you please suggest any reference?


----------



## souminwé

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501b.txt 

That one's annoying to read because it's in text format

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Lingsit.pdf

And the Vedic substratum page on Wiki is pretty decent.

Some aadivaasi languages: Santali, Nihali, Mundari (all Munda)


----------



## marrish

Many thanks, souminwé SaaHib!


----------

