# Urdu: English-influenced Urdu



## seitt

Greetings,

I'm going to have to be careful here as I don't want to carry over assumptions from one culture to another. However, according to my information, Hindi is virtually a dead language as people have taken mixing it with English to extremes. And, certainly, that is the impression I get from Bollywood movies. So, for example, “Light switch off karo” etc. etc.

Has the same process happened with Urdu in Pakistan? If so, what is the actual term you use for Urdu that has been inundated with English, please?

Cf. ‘Franglais’, the French word for French that has been vitiated with English.

All the best, and many thanks,

Simon


----------



## Alfaaz

Interesting (and somewhat confusing/complicated) question! It is all subjective, depending on one's surroundings/mahaul. _*Everything presented below is a generalization (and there can be multiple answers): 
*_
First of all there are a few kinds/groups/labels you might hear about: burgers and bun-kabaabs. 



Burgers: as you might have guessed are the usually those that might be obsessed with speaking English (and also adopting Western culture) even if it's broken and grammatically wrong! These people are usually from the "elite" (but not necessarily, many can be from the "middle" or "lower" class safaidposh-es who try to act "English") and might have gone to English medium schools, or even studied abroad. 


Subclass: Even if they haven't studied abroad or even gone to English medium schools or vice versa, and speak Urdu fluently, some may feel compelled to "act" as if they are not able to understand what you're saying in Urdu, because it's "cool"...


Bun-Kabaabs: these are usually the typical "desis" (keep in mind that the term is/can also be applied to those who do a bad job at "acting English"). Either by choice or due to limited resources!
 

People somewhere in the middle: these are the kind who wouldn't mind using English, Urdu, (or any other language for that matter); they would use "Turn the light on " or "kamra roshan kardo/charaga kardo" or "light on/off kardo" with almost equal frequency...

Now if you look past all these superficial groupins presented above, Urdu seems to be going pretty well not only in Southeast Asia, but also amongst non-resident Urdu speakers. This birngs up another issue, of whether or not parents/elders/the previous generation pass their cultural heritage on to their children. 

Some would say: "Why do you need to learn Urdu/Punjabi/Sindhi/Balochi/Saraiki/Farsi/Arabi/Hindi, etc.? It's of no use in the "real world!"

Others would say: "You should learn the language of your elders to keep the culture alive, be connected to you "roots", and to become enriched with knowledge!"

And still others would say: "It doesn't really matter! Do whatever you please..."

In media, if you tune in to PTV for example, or programs on poetry, religion, cultural documentaries, tributes to personalities of the past, etc. you would mostly find chaste Urdu with very limited use of English (only for the things like technology, science, for which equivalents might not exist)

On the other hand, if you watch a youth channel with rock music, you may find a lot more English (but would probably not be as much as in Hindi media...)

It seems that even now in Urdu media, even the younger generation, higher register words are used and understood (and not replaced by English equivalents)...

*Having said all this and going back to the original question mentioning Hindi: (as said for Urdu above) it depends on which section of society/media you observe in HINDI as does for Urdu... 
*

*The Hindi samachaar is packed with pure Hindi (sometimes alot of which Urdu speakers might not understand due to Sanskrit origins of words) and doesn't use as much English as Bollywood might be using right now....*
As to there being a specific term for Urdu sprinkled with English, nothing special comes to mind right now...


----------



## Alfaaz

Just noticed a few errors/typos and for some reason the edit function isn't working! 

*Some more clarification: *(a whole essay could probably be written on this topic)
Just because a person is a "burger" or rich/elite does certainly not mean that s/he would not be able to speak Urdu properly or English properly, or would feel ashamed of speaking one language over the other! Same goes for the "bun-kababs", they don't have to be "horrible" English speakers or "wonderful" Urdu speakers! 

The people somewhere in the middle (like the above also) may have different preferences: some might consider it fine to mix more than one language; others would like to maintain "purity" of each language. 

Invent a term (there is Spanglish and Hinglish),  so for Urdu it could probably be: "Urglish" or "Englu"


----------



## seitt

Wow, many thanks - most enlightening.

What do you mean by samachaar, please? Perhaps 'samaachaar' (समाचार/سماچار)? My dictionary gives this as meaning 'news', but perhaps you mean 'media' rather than 'news' here?


----------



## greatbear

seitt said:


> I'm going to have to be careful here as I don't want to carry over assumptions from one culture to another. However, according to my information, Hindi is virtually a dead language as people have taken mixing it with English to extremes. And, certainly, that is the impression I get from Bollywood movies. So, for example, “Light switch off karo” etc. etc.



That depends on how you view languages to be: I would say that if Hindi had kept on with those same sentences, then it is a dead language! English itself is replete with French words, easily around 40% of its vocabulary by some estimates coming from Old French; do you think English is a dead language because of it? I think English is a richer language by virtue of its multiple absorptions, by virtue of its superbabsorbent capability. If Hindi is demonstrating such a capability - and indeed it has, first incorporating many Persian and Arabic words and now English ones - then in my opinion it is indeed a very living language, just like English is.
"Light switch off karo" is an elegant example of code-switching to me, and there's nothing dead or alive, right or wrong to me about it. It makes Hindi richer, it makes it evolve rather than being static.


----------



## seitt

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence. Upon reading through what I had written, I realize now that I wasn’t careful enough in distinguishing my own views from the views of my source.

So, let me state categorically: I do not see Hindi as a dead language.


----------



## greatbear

seitt said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence. Upon reading through what I had written, I realize now that I wasn’t careful enough in distinguishing my own views from the views of my source.
> 
> So, let me state categorically: I do not see Hindi as a dead language.



Sorry, maybe I didn't read your original post carefully; you did mention "according to my information". However, as you also said that you have the same impression when you encounter phrases like "light switch off karo" in Hindi cinema, I am curious to know why do you take such phrases as examples of the death of a language? My stance on this issue is clear: I only think it makes the language richer. But my question now is why don't you think so, if you don't?


----------



## tonyspeed

I would tell anyone to be careful about judging a language based on a sub-set of the population. In any urban centre from a former colony you are bound to hear more mixture of the colonizer's language
into the native language. Far from the urban centres I don't think this would be the case. 

Another thing to think about is that vocabulary has to come from somewhere. Usually this is the point of first contact! Why is it that the word for government in Hindi (and other Indo-Aryan languages) is Persian: sarkaar ? Whereas the word for king and kingdom is not (raaj and raajya). Why is the word for market also Persian: baazaar ? The same process happens with technology coming from the Western world.


----------



## Alfaaz

> What do you mean by samachaar, please? Perhaps 'samaachaar' (समाचार/سماچار)? My dictionary gives this as meaning 'news', but perhaps you mean 'media' rather than 'news' here?



Yes, by samaachaar, I mean news (or in Urdu خبریں / اخبار - the Arabic plural _akhbaar_ is usually used for _newspaper_ while the plural formed by the Hindi method is used for _news_, _khabrein_)! Even in this part of the media you'll find great diversity. Some of the TV channels mostly use "pure/shudh Hindi" (like TV Asia), while others (Aaj Tak) might use many Urdu (Arabic/Persian) words that might be more common than the Hindi equivalents. 

Bollywood has always had considerable influence of Urdu, especially in song lyrics, and still continues to do so due to it being considered a poetic language (which might and often does offend other languages). Now this of course would lead to another debate (about whether Urdu should be considered a separate language or it is just "Hindi sprinkled with a bunch of Persian and Arabic words"; People who consider themselves to be "Urdu speakers" would probably go with the first opinion, while "Hindi speakers" would probably lean towards the latter (some even saying that since the Urdu words are used with such frequency, they have "become Hindi"/are also Hindi words now; to avoid (political and/or religious) conflict, it is often therefore called Hindustani; of course many would have problems with this title as well, saying that it is just a "way to not call the language being used in films/movies Urdu"--everyone cannot be pleased). 

You can search Hindi vs. Urdu, etc. in Google and finds lots of material and debates about this issue......in addition to the influence of English on both languages!


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I would tell anyone to be careful about judging a language based on a sub-set of the population. In any urban centre from a former colony you are bound to hear more mixture of the colonizer's language
> into the native language. Far from the urban centres I don't think this would be the case.
> 
> Another thing to think about is that vocabulary has to come from somewhere. Usually this is the point of first contact! Why is it that the word for government in Hindi (and other Indo-Aryan languages) is Persian: sarkaar ? Whereas the word for king and kingdom is not (raaj and raajya). Why is the word for market also Persian: baazaar ? The same process happens with technology coming from the Western world.



Your points have no sense, I find. In Gujarati, "raaj" is used much more for government than "sarkaar": interestingly, Gujarat has the highest proportion of Parsis (who came from Persia, fleeing from Muslim persecution, and settled in India) in India.
Also, why is "government" not a first point of contact and why is a state? In addition, everyone is a colonizer: the people who spoke Sanskrit also came from Central Asia and the people who speak Dravidian languages also came from Africa. Who according to you is not a colonizer?


----------



## Alfaaz

I would partially agree with what greatbear has said! If one adds/borrows terms and words from other languages that do not exist in his/her own language (science, technology, medicine, etc.), then that could be viewed as enhancing and enriching a language. On the other hand, if one is just substituting words of one language with words from another, that doesn't seem like enrichment. It actually seems like "partial death", as those words would slowly go out of use and be replaced by the foreign words-those that already exist and are thriving in another language...

For example, Urdu uses سورج "suraj" (سنسکرت الاصل لفظ 'سوریہ' سے ماخوذ/derived from Sanskrit word "surya") and شمس "shams" (Arabic) and آفتاب/خورشید "aaftaab"/"khursheed" (Persian) all for the English word "sun." All the words represent different cultures and influences on Urdu (including the English word "sun"). Could it represent enrichening of the language to replace the four Hindi, Persian, Arabic derived words with just the English word?

_In my opinion_, there is nothing wrong with incorporating foreign words into a language so long as it does not cause the already existing words to completely fall out of use and be replaced with just the foreign word. Also it shouldn't be done just under the impression that English (or any other language) is a "cool" language (Hey, look at me! I can speak English or _______!), an attitude that unfortunately many people might have when using English (or any other language that doesn't have any apparent connection to Urdu/Hindi) words.


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> For example, Urdu uses  سورج "suraj" (سنسکرت الاصل لفظ 'سوریہ' سے ماخوذ/derived from Sanskrit word "surya") and شمس "shams" (Arabic)  and آفتاب/خورشید "aaftaab"/"khursheed" (Persian) all for the English word "sun." All the words represent different cultures and influences on Urdu (including the English word "sun"). Could it represent enrichening of the language to replace the four Hindi, Persian, Arabic derived words with just the English word?



Of course, I agree with you, and mostly all words keep existing: because many people have the tendency to sound more impressive by using rarer words. Thus, mostly, all the influences keep living. In English, one has both "country" and "nation": has one fallen out of use? No. Sometimes, however, words do fall out of use, but so do new words also keep getting coined with times. Leave a language to its speakers rather than to its purists and its grammarians, who would only throttle a language just so as to preen and dance thereafter on its dead body.


----------



## Faylasoof

seitt said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence. Upon reading through what I had written, I realize now that I wasn’t careful enough in distinguishing my own views from the views of my source.
> 
> So, let me state categorically: _I do not see Hindi as a dead language._


 _You are correct! Hindi is not a dead language!!_


seitt said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I'm going to have to be careful here as I don't want to carry over  assumptions from one culture to another. However, according to my  information, Hindi is virtually a dead language as people have taken  mixing it with English to extremes. And, certainly, that is the  impression I get from Bollywood movies. So, for example, “_Light switch  off karo_” etc. etc.
> 
> Has the same process happened with Urdu in Pakistan? If so, what is the  actual term you use for Urdu that has been inundated with English,  please?
> 
> Cf. ‘Franglais’, the French word for French that has been vitiated with English.
> 
> All the best, and many thanks,
> 
> Simon


 _I'm afraid this is neither Urdu-Hindi nor English, and IMHO it isn't elegant__! _There are plenty of ways we have of saying this is in Urdu and Hindi - I mean Colloquial Hindi, not just official, shuddh Hindi.
_battii / bijlii band karo / kar do 

battii / bijlii gull karo / kar do 

battii / bijlii bujhaa'o / bujhaa'o do

_These are pretty standard expressions.

Both Urdu and Colloquial Hindi have undergone / are undergoing change on the home ground due principally to what one may call "de-standardisation" (a colleague of mine calls it 'linguistic confusion'), most obviously following India’s partition though the trend started much earlier. 

Once 'Hindustani', which is just middle register Urdu (i.e. Urdu with a very large overlap with Hindi, I mean Colloquial Hindi) had become the _lingua franca_ of much of northern India but a combination of political events and social upheavals brought an end to what had become a stable dialect. This dialect was itself a product of massive borrowing into its ancestral dialect called _khaRii bolii_, with words and expressions coming from languages like _Braj_, _Hiryanvi_, _Rajistani_, _Kannauji_  earlier on, followed by big influx of words from _Persian_, _Arabic_, some _Turkish_, _Portuguese / French_ and _English_. (Urdu just is a late name for a very old dialect that has been called, Hindi / Hindavi_ / _Reekhtah in the past).

So Urdu-Colloquial Hindi has expanded its vocabulary under the influence of many languages but there are 2-3 important differences now from earlier times:

1) The rate of foreign word (I mean English) borrowing and the lack of any attempt to give them a local linguistic colour unlike what once was standard practice. This is due primarily to no. (2), below,  
2) The dissolution of established urban centres of native Urduphones, as was the case with Old Delhi (_dabistaan-e-dilli / dehlii_ = The Delhi School) and Lucknow (_dabistaan-e-lakhnau_ = The Lucknow School). The Delhi School is effectively dead and the Lucknow School is on its last legs!
3) Shifting of urban centres of Urdu to non-native Urdu areas (in Pakistan) combined with very poor Urdu language teaching on both sides of the border, with India leading the way.

Of course formal Urdu is still around in both India and Pakistan and it is still borrowing from many languages (some control exercised by official bodies in both India and Paksitan) and you’ll hear good Urdu spoken by some but many, esp. the younger generation, speak a slang which is riddled with English words because they lack sometimes even a basic Urdu vocabulary! This speech is neither Urdu nor English but well on its way to becoming something of a ‘creol’ if stabilised (definition of creol: a stable natural language developed from the mixing of parent languages). Your example above is one such form because it is neither Urdu-Hindi nor English but a mixture of parent languages.


----------



## Alfaaz

Again I would partially agree (with greatbear, haven't read the post by Faylasoof)! Many of the people of the "new/younger" generation are not aware of many words that Urdu/Hindi carry due to the fact that they use English substitutes. Now these people would more likely pass on the English infused forms of Urdu or Hindi to the next generation, which would be at a loss...and it could be that overtime it leads to the "death" of a language due to so much hybridization, kind of like is told of Latin splitting/evolving into the five romance language due to not having a set or standards or rules...

"mujhe my gaRi fix karvane ke liye so much paise spend karna pare" sounds kind of odd (like the speaker is at a loss of words/beginner in Urdu/Hindi)....


----------



## Alfaaz

Would mostly agree with Faylasoof's post and would like to mention something that seems somewhat ironic: while (as stated by Faylasoof) the standard of teaching has declined in the SE Asia, it is interesting to note that there are many great programs teaching Urdu and Hindi in the rest of the world (non-Urdu speaking)! Reminds one of the saying that "Darzi ka apna pohncha hamesha phatta hota hai..."- the tailor's own clothes (pahoncha-cuff of trousers) are always ripped/torn/in rags/a bad state...


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Your points have no sense, I find. In Gujarati, "raaj" is used much more for government than "sarkaar": interestingly, Gujarat has the highest proportion of Parsis (who came from Persia, fleeing from Muslim persecution, and settled in India) in India.
> Also, why is "government" not a first point of contact and why is a state? In addition, everyone is a colonizer: the people who spoke Sanskrit also came from Central Asia and the people who speak Dravidian languages also came from Africa. Who according to you is not a colonizer?



Greatbear, I would request that you stop attacking my every post just because you don't agree. I realise I have upset you in the past with my post which said I do not particularly like Shuddh Hindi but it's time for you to drop the pettiness.

I am speaking about the former British colonies. If you travel to them you will find what I am saying is true. You will find many commonalities amongst them.

From a quick online search:

Nepali
सरकार (p. 618)  [ sarakāra ]   , pr. sarkaar, 1. NOM. His Majesty, a term of respect  for the King of Nepal and the Royal Family of Nepal; corresponding in  level of politeness to the _baksinu_-class of verbs: _sarkaarbaaTa pradhaan mantrilaai hukum baksiyo_, His Majesty has given an order to the Prime Minister.  2. NOM. a) government: _sarkaarle deskaa samassyaamaathi bicaar garcha_, the government takes care of the problems of the country.  Cf. राष्ट्र raaṣTra; See also राज raaja.  b) state: _sarkaar pramukh_, head of state.

Gujarati
*government*  સરકાર

*governmental*   સરકારી

Bengali
government 


সরকার


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> Would mostly agree with Faylasoof's post and would like to mention something that seems somewhat ironic: while (as stated by Faylasoof) the standard of teaching has declined in the SE Asia, it is interesting to note that there are many great programs teaching Urdu and Hindi in the rest of the world (non-Urdu speaking)! Reminds one of the saying that "Darzi ka apna pohncha hamesha phatta hota hai..."- the tailor's own clothes (pahoncha-cuff of trousers) are always ripped/torn/in rags/a bad state...



And another: "Ghar ki murgi daal baraabar"


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Greatbear, I would request that you stop attacking my every post just because you don't agree. I realise I have upset you in the past with my post which said I do not particularly like Shuddh Hindi but it's time for you to drop the pettiness.
> 
> I am speaking about the former British colonies. If you travel to them you will find what I am saying is true.



I am not "attacking" your posts on account of any past disagreements: you mention "Indo-Aryan languages" in one sweeping statement and I don't think you know all of them; I merely point out to you an example from a widely spoken Indo-Aryan language, Gujarati, where "raaj" and "sarkaar" are interchangeable, with both used to mean "government".


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> I am not "attacking" your posts on account of any past disagreements: you mention "Indo-Aryan languages" in one sweeping statement and I don't think you know all of them; I merely point out to you an example from a widely spoken Indo-Aryan language, Gujarati, where "raaj" and "sarkaar" are interchangeable, with both used to mean "government".



That is also the case in Hindi. Raj is interchangeable with government, but it is not necessarily the "word of choice".


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> That is also the case in Hindi. Raj is interchangeable with government, but it is not necessarily the "word of choice".



Of course, since "raaj" actually means "reign" while "sarkaar" means government: in Gujarati, however, "raaj" has equal preference as "sarkaar" when it comes to "government".
Also, by what logic is a government first point of contact and reign not? Could you please elaborate?


----------

