# Urdu/Hindi: From Prakrit to Sanskrit (?)



## Qureshpor

There are many Urdu words which can be paired with Hindi words as in the examples below.

barkhaa/varshaa (rain)

baras/varsh (year)

des/desh (country)

rut/rtu (season)

basant/vasant (spring)

bichaar/vichaar (thought)

raat/raatri (night)

Members of the forum will no doubt be able to think of many many more such pairs. Does this "going to the past" for modern Hindi serve a special purpose? Does this impart new meanings to at least some of the words or is this process merely an exercise in nostalgia?


----------



## souminwé

Well, in the case of _bichaar _and_ basant_, I would assume the speaker is pronouncing them incorrectly. 
_Bichaar _and_ basant_ themselves seem too unchanged to be fully Prakritic, and are more likely to have been loaned from Sanskrit during the Prakritic period (compare modern _suuraj_ with really old Hindi _suur_). The newer versions with /v/ are a sort of correction.

_barkha-varsha, baras-varsh 
_
These are weird pairs. Though the Hindi equivalents are more natural to use, I think they're more poetic (particularly _barkha_, less so _baras_) and don't pop up too often in formal writing other than belles-lettres. _Varsh_ and _varsha _seldom appear in conversation. The usage of _varsh_ in literature is comparable to a Latin abbreviation used in English like _cf._ or _et al._ which are otherwise not conversational. _Barkha-varsha_ are like the English pair rain-pluvial. Appropriate usage is mainly compounds and neologisms.

_raat-raatri_ are similar to above, in the sense that _raat_ is the _de facto_ word and_ raatri_ appears in compounds and neologisms (_Mahaashivraatri _is the only time I've heard it spoken). 

_rut_- well, perhaps I'm wrong but this word is entirely poetic to me. It's already been supplanted by _mausam _and_ fasl;_ _rtu _is your standard non-Perso-Arabic option.

Of course some Hindi publications like to throw_ raatri _and _varsha_ around as if that's normal, but thankfully they're now trending toward using Sanskritic loans effectively and not just copiously.


----------



## Qureshpor

Here are a few examples of the use of these words in Urdu.

jaaRaa hai ab nah garmii, mausam *basant *kaa hai
dunyaa *basant* kii hai, 3aalam *basant* kaa hai

daaNtoN kaa kyaa karuuN *bichaar
*TuuTe phuuTe aur ujaaR

*barkhaa* barse chhat par maiN tere sapne dekhuuN 
barf gire parbat par, maiN tere sapne dekhuuN 

*baras* pandrah yaa kih solah kaa sin 
javaanii kii raateN muraadoN ke din 

dil DhuuNDtaa hai phir vahii furst, kih *raat* din
baiThe raheN tasavvur-i-jaanaaN kiye hu’e

kyaa sochte ho, ab phuuloN kii *rut* biit ga'ii, *rut* biit ga'ii 
vuh raat ga'ii, vuh baat ga'ii, vuh riit ga'ii, *rut* biit ga'ii

O *des* se aane vaale bataa
kis Haal meN haiN yaaraan-i-vatan
aavaarah-i-Ghurbat ko bhii sunaa
kis rang meN hai kan3aan-i-vatan
vuh baagh-i-vatan, firdaus-i-vatan
vuh sarv-i-vatan raiHaan-i-vatan
O *des* se aane vaale bataa


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Does this "going to the past" for modern Hindi serve a special purpose?



The root purpose of both the Devanagari alphabet and the Sanskritisation of Hindi is to create a lost language that was "suitable" for Hindus to use. This was the presumption on which the entire movement took place, as if Hindus are not capable themselves of choosing how they should speak. 

We must also take into account that this was an age in which Europeans themselves were fascinated with the idea of the Aryan culture and of the languages that were then deemed Indo-European languages. It was flattering to them to know that a great civilisation like India was linked to them all along, like some long-lost cousins that had lost their way. Of course, Persian and Arabic and the religion they are tied to were seen as very un-European, in fact the two cultures had been at loggerheads for quite some time - the Crusades, the Moors, the Ottomon Empire and Greece. So of course Europeans saw the whole culture kind of like a fungus that keeps spreading, destroying cultures in its wake. So European scholars would have been quite over-joyed to create a language closer to the Indo-European roots, aka more Sanskrit.


As we get closer to Partition, the Sanskritisation takes on a new dynamic in that it supposedly links Hindi with the surrounding languages, which have already gone through a period of Sanskritisation, including the Non-Sanskrit based Dravidian languages of the south. And if surrounding areas see familiar words then it will be easier for them to learn the national tongue, which is true. Of course the problem is all of North India has to relearn their own language.

So one can say that this Sanskritisation was really tied to the idea of Hindutva - Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan and Indo-European.

That's my take on history. I'm sure some will beg to differ.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> That's my take on history. I'm sure some will beg to differ.



I think most here on this forum are cognizant by now of your conspiratorial views about everything, and most Hindi speakers will differ, not just beg to differ. By the way, the languages you're talking about are still deemed Indo-European languages. It wasn't about any flattering: go study French and Italian, and you will find the surprising amount of cousins with Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, etc., in those languages. It's a fact.


----------



## tonyspeed

I found a new example recently: aas - aashaa. Did not realise how this came about until now.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I found a new example recently: aas - aashaa. Did not realise how this came about until now.



There are many many more of course. A few more examples.

aasraa, sakat (shakti), muurat (muurti), bas (vasha), daras (as in daras dikhaanaa)..


----------



## panjabigator

din/divas
raaj/raajy

Punjabi(nit)/nitya



> So one can say that this Sanskritisation was really tied to the idea of Hindutva - Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan and Indo-European.



Alok Rai, Vasudha Dalmia, and tons of other scholars have also written a bunch on this topic. I think we already have a thread on this somewhere.


----------



## tonyspeed

I was reading the book "Hindi Prayog" by "[FONT=Arial  size=]Ram  Chandra verma" (2003). In it it says "kisii samay hamaare desh kaa saaraa  saahitya sanskrit meN likhaa jaataa thaa. par saahitya kii bhaashaa sab  logoN ke nitya ke vyavahaar kii bhaashaa nahiiN ho saktii...saadhaaran  bol-chaal kii bhaashaa praakrit kahalaatii thii"[/FONT] which is  approximately : At one time all literature was written in sanskrit. But  the language of literature is not able to remain the used language  forever. The common spoken language was called Praakrit.

Can  anyone confirm this statement? For as far as I have read, Praakrit was  in writing before Sanskrit ever was. It confuses me how one can write  such inaccuracies in a Hindi usage book, or maybe I don't know something they do..


----------



## marrish

Hi,

Besides the question above, I'd like to discuss what Prakrit means, is and what meaning it has as a word in usage (in Urdu and Hindi).

Over the years the term has been loosely used by many here on the forum, I must have used it too in order to refer to things like noun declination pattern, like kitaabeN is "Prakrit/prakrit" plural, kutub being Arabic plural and kitaab_haa Persian one. 

Speaking of which, we can't just say "Hindi" plural or "Urdu" plural.

Recently this topic was signalized in a couple of posts. Prakrit has been overused I presume?


----------



## Dib

The basic linguistic history is actually pretty simple, but for whatever reason, it is not understood widely enough.

We can start the journey loosely around 1000 BCE in North-Western India/Eastern Pakistan for our purpose. The language here was what linguists term Old Indo-Aryan. Its literary variant is *now* called (late) Vedic Sanskrit. Writing was most likely not used in this culture. There was already a vast body of literature, but it was oral.

In the next 500-600 years or so, the language had already reached Bengal to the East and Deccan to the South. However, the spoken dialects far from the North-Western heartland had diverged quite a bit from the literary language of the Vedic literature. This is what linguists term early Middle Indo-Aryan. However, the scholarly as well as orthodox priestly classes were still trying to maintain the old standards of the Vedas in the literary and formal language. However, not all grammatical intricacies of the Vedic could be maintained, and the vocabulary had also evolved, but the sound-system was essentially preserved in the formal speech. A standardization of this formal language takes place at this point in the hands of Pāṇini et al, which would remain remarkably stable for the next 2 millenia, and acquire the name Sanskrit a few centuries later. But to Pāṇini it is still simply bhāṣā (=speech < bhāṣ- = to speak) as opposed to chandas (~sacred text), i.e. the Vedic texts. The informal colloquial dialects (i.e. early Middle IA), in the meantime, already feel quite different, especially in the East. They start to find two important formal uses, viz. in heterodox religious movements (e.g. Buddhism), and slightly later in imperial edicts to pass instructions to the masses. These latter ones are the oldest proven samples of *writing* in Indo-Aryan languages. These various early MIA languages/dialects are *now* known as Pali (Pali's exact history is a bit more convoluted though) and Ashokan Prakrits (the ones used in the edicts of Emperor Ashoka), but I am not aware of any contemporary names for them.

Let's fast forward another 1000 years (i.e. 500 CE). The spoken Middle Indo-Aryan dialects have been evolving naturally, and diverging across Northern subcontinent. Certain idealized versions of these languages are being used in poetry and drama already, and as a medium of literature they are called Prakrit (prākṛta in Sanskrit means "natural"). The Old Indo-Aryan formal language, as standardized by Pāṇini, etc. a millenium ago is also being used vigorously in literature and polite educated speech, and is called Sanskrit (saṃskṛta in Sanskrit means "refined/constructed") in opposition to the Prakrits. In essence, however, this Sanskrit is same as what Pāṇini had called bhāṣā (=speech). This is also what we now call *Classical* Sanskrit, in opposition to Vedic Sanskrit, i.e. what Pāṇini had called chandas.

Another 600-700 years later (i.e. roughly coinciding with the beginning of Turkic/Afghan conquests), the colloquial Indo-Aryan dialects have evolved further into what are considered the oldest forms of the New Indo-Aryan languages like Hindi, etc.

-----

So, Prakrit, properly speaking should refer to the form of Middle Indo-Aryan spoken roughly in the 1st millenium CE, especially in its first half.


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> There are many Urdu words which can be paired with Hindi words as in the examples below.
> 
> barkhaa/varshaa (rain)
> 
> baras/varsh (year)
> 
> des/desh (country)
> 
> rut/rtu (season)
> 
> basant/vasant (spring)
> 
> bichaar/vichaar (thought)
> 
> raat/raatri (night)
> 
> Members of the forum will no doubt be able to think of many many more such pairs. Does this "going to the past" for modern Hindi serve a special purpose? Does this impart new meanings to at least some of the words or is this process merely an exercise in nostalgia?



The words in the left column aren’t “Urdu words”. They are Hindi words too and can be more common in Hindi than in Urdu. The words in the right column are unmodified loanwords from Sanskrit that serve a similar purpose in Hindi that Persian/Arabic loanwords serve in Urdu.



souminwé said:


> Well, in the case of _bichaar _and_ basant_, I would assume the speaker is pronouncing them incorrectly.



That would be a wrong assumption. "basant", for example, is more common in speech than "vasant" in my experience.



marrish said:


> Over the years the term has been loosely used by many here on the forum, I must have used it too in order to refer to things like noun declination pattern, like kitaabeN is "Prakrit/prakrit" plural, kutub being Arabic plural and kitaab_haa Persian one.
> 
> Speaking of which, we can't just say "Hindi" plural or "Urdu" plural.



Dib has addressed the other aspects of your post very well, so I'll just focus on this point. It's fine to say Hindi plural because Hindi doesn't use the Sanskrit method of plurals, and only in rare cases Persian and Arabic ones. For Urdu that won't work because there are numerous Persian and Arabic plurals.


----------



## tarkshya

Are there non-IE substrates in Prakrits?


----------



## tonyspeed

It would seem there is a level of religious nostalgia. Recently, the city Gurgaon's name has been changed to Gurugram. Both mean exactly the same thing, but graam is Sanskrit and gaaoN (gaaNw) is Hindi. Caste politics also may come into play as Sanskrit is historically linked with the Brahmin caste. The caste link has been suggested by some both in the history in the formation of modern Hindi and the current political climate in India.


----------



## mundiya

tonyspeed said:


> Recently, the city Gurgaon's name has been changed to Gurugram. Both mean exactly the same thing,



There is a difference in meaning. Gurgaon means village of jaggery (guR-gaaNw), and Gurugram means village of the guru (Acharya Drona of Mahabharata).


----------



## mundiya

tarkshya said:


> Are there non-IE substrates in Prakrits?



Yes, there are.


----------



## marrish

mundiya said:


> Dib has addressed the other aspects of your post very well, so I'll just focus on this point. It's fine to say Hindi plural because Hindi doesn't use the Sanskrit method of plurals, and only in rare cases Persian and Arabic ones. For Urdu that won't work because there are numerous Persian and Arabic plurals.


I understand. In this thread there was a plural method in the phrase in Hindi which could be said "Sanskrit" - although not according to Sanskrit declination in any way.

Hindi: द्विजगण का कलरव श्रवण करना ही रुचता था।


----------



## tonyspeed

mundiya said:


> There is a difference in meaning. Gurgaon means village of jaggery (guR-gaaNw), and Gurugram means village of the guru (Acharya Drona of Mahabharata).



That would be गुड़गांव NOT  गुरगांव.

H گڙ *गुड़* _guṛ_ [Prk. गुडो; S. गुडः], s.m. Raw or coarse sugar

Note, also gur is a shortening of guru. H گر गुर _gur_, s.m.=گرو _guru_, q.v.:—_gur-bhāʼī_ = _guru-bhāʼī_.

Same as in Panjabi gurdwara.

Edit: on second look it seems that there is a confusion as to the correct pronunciation of this city! Some spell it one way, some another. This page spells it both ways in one news article: गुरगांव: रॉयल क्लब में नाबालिगों की नशा पार्टी, पुलिस ने किया गिरफ्तार  However, on street-signs it seems to be universally गुड़गांव.


----------



## mundiya

tonyspeed said:


> That would be गुड़गांव NOT  गुरगांव.



The correct name in Hindi is गुड़गांव (गुड़गाँव). The Wikipedia link for गुरगांव is in the Newari language.



> Edit: on second look it seems that there is a confusion as to the correct pronunciation of this city! Some spell it one way, some another. This page spells it both ways in one news article: गुरगांव: रॉयल क्लब में नाबालिगों की नशा पार्टी, पुलिस ने किया गिरफ्तार  However, on street-signs it seems to be universally गुड़गांव.



Confusion aside, the official spelling is गुड़गांव (गुड़गाँव). This is also the far more common spelling and pronunciation.


----------



## tarkshya

I have lived in this town briefly, and I can vouch that the local pronunciation is indeed गुड़गाँव (guRgaoN).

However, what is interesting to me is that if the original/Sanskritized name of the town was really guru-graam, then it is a rare example of a 'r' turning into a retroflex flap 'R'. (र -> ड़). This is what I jokingly call Sindhi-speech. (recall the common Sindhi stereotype mouthing (अड़े बाबा) 

Jokes aside, is any one aware of such (र -> ड़) transition in other words? To me, the political establishment's ingenious theory of guru-graam sounds plain bunkum.


----------



## mundiya

tarkshya said:


> Jokes aside, is any one aware of such (र -> ड़) transition in other words?



Yes, it occurs in other words.


----------



## tonyspeed

tarkshya said:


> Jokes aside, is any one aware of such (र -> ड़) transition in other words?



I am familiar with R->r as in the case of saaRii and saarii but not the reverse.


----------



## marrish

mundiya said:


> The words in the left column aren’t “Urdu words”. They are Hindi words too and can be more common in Hindi than in Urdu. The words in the right column are unmodified loanwords from Sanskrit that serve a similar purpose in Hindi that Persian/Arabic loanwords serve in Urdu.


While agreeing with the section in blue, adding to it that "literary or uncommon Persian/Arabic loanwords serve in Urdu", I disagree with the first sentence. While r.tu and varSh are Hindi, but not Urdu, rut and baras to the contrary are Urdu.


----------



## mundiya

marrish said:


> rut and baras to the contrary are Urdu.



My point is that they are also Hindi. The OP erroneously implies otherwise.


----------



## urdustan

raat and baras are common in Urdu. I've never heard barkhaa, rut, sakat, and muurat used by Urdu speakers. And mulk, bahaar, xayaal are many times more frequent in Urdu than des, basant, bichaar.


----------



## cherine

Dear all,

The thread has moved in several directions, with the recent posts mixing the general topic of Prakrit/Sanskrit/Urdu/Hindi, to the discussion of particular examples here and there, which makes it multi-topic and quite a confusing read. So, we have to close it and invite you to re-read the forum rules, and to open a thread for each word or word pair you may be interested in discussing.

Regards,
Cherine
Moderator


----------

