# Hindi-Urdu: What is "shuddh"?



## greatbear

In this thread, in post 15, marrish came up with a smug (and unwarranted, IMO) conclusion that the word "ruchi" is "shuddh": so that left me pondering over what is this so-called "shuddh Hindi"! If someone would say "gatiimaan honaa" as "shuddh", I could understand; if I were to use the word "antevaasii" for a boarding student, I can understand; but here, for a word that is not only very colloquial but also a very common name of girls, when this "shuddh" adjective was used, it left me perplexed. I would of course like marrish to explain why or how did he come up with this idea, but I would also like to open the debate to a larger question: what constitutes "shuddh" Hindi for the people here, especially some of the Urdu speakers who have some kind of issues with it (it seems ....).

Yesterday, I was talking to a Hindi speaker (background: science researcher settled in US since a long time; origins of central India, remains in close touch with Indian culture and thought), who used the word "lagbhag" (लगभग), meaning "quite, almost, nearly, approximately". I myself use "takriiban", so it was interesting and a pleasure for me to hear a word that I know very well but don't use. Then I wondered if some of the people here would classify that as well "shuddh": just because maybe Urdu speakers don't use it (or don't use it that much)? It seems to be recent trend on this forum.

Both "lagbhag" and "ruchi" are commonly used words in Hindi (and _the_ words in Gujarati, i.e. both of them first-choice words in Gujarati); both are not that much used in Indian soaps and soaps-like news (from which some learners like tonyspeed try to infer what is shuddh and what is not, which is a very wrong way IMO), and both are widespread not just colloquially in one particular region but across India. So ... what's "shuddh" about them? And ... what the heck is anyway this _shuddh_?


----------



## Wolverine9

I'd say most of the words in Platts signified by _S (Sanskrit)_ would be considered "shuddh" since those exact forms were not in common usage until after Hindi was standardized in the 19th century.  Note: I said most, but obviously not all.  Some Sanskrit words have of course been used in common speech for a long, long time.  Conversely, those represented by _H (Hindi or, perhaps more properly, Hindustani)_ represent what have been the common colloquial forms.  Many of these forms have been replaced by their shuddh equivalents in the last two centuries.  I don't know about _ruchi_.  It is a Sanskrit word but I'm not sure when it entered into colloquial usage; however, _lagbhag _is not shuddh.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Wolverine9, you have summed up the situation pretty well. This subject was discussed in detail in the thread "shuddhataa: The Purity of Hindi" more than a year ago. Post 52 is an attempt to summarise the thread and there was agreement expressed in post 54. I don't see the point of going round circles, covering the same ground once again and wasting precious time.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2250606&highlight=shuddhataa


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> In this thread, in post 15, marrish came up with a smug (and unwarranted, IMO) conclusion that the word "ruchi" is "shuddh": so that left me pondering over what is this so-called "shuddh Hindi"! [...] I would of course like marrish to explain why or how did he come up with this idea, but I would also like to open the debate to a larger question: what constitutes "shuddh" Hindi for the people here, especially some of the Urdu speakers who have some kind of issues with it (it seems ....).


One needs to do one's homework first rather than being involved in casting aspersions on other people.
Actually, in the post you linked here, I was summarizing what Qureshpor and tonyspeed said, I'm positive you couldn't have forgotten so quickly that the discussion started from the posts of these gentlemen, and I expressed my opinion on the issue (which was not concerning your question ''What is _shuddh?''_).

As a matter of fact, it was not I who brought _shuddh_ into the discussion.


> Yesterday, I was talking to a Hindi speaker (background: science researcher settled in US since a long time; origins of central India, remains in close touch with Indian culture and thought), who used the word "lagbhag" (लगभग), meaning "quite, almost, nearly, approximately". I myself use "takriiban", so it was interesting and a pleasure for me to hear a word that I know very well but don't use. Then I wondered if some of the people here would classify that as well "shuddh": just because maybe Urdu speakers don't use it (or don't use it that much)? It seems to be recent trend on this forum.


This is interesting information, thank you for sharing.

As Wolverine9 indicated, _lagbhag_ is by no means a Sanskrit loan-word (_tatsam_), and surprise, surprise, it is used in Urdu as well, besides تقریباً _taqriiban_. I believe the recent trend in this forum has been the use of denomination ''High Hindi'' or ''Modern Hindi'' by the Urdu speakers.


> Both "lagbhag" and "ruchi" are commonly used words in Hindi (and _the_ words in Gujarati, i.e. both of them first-choice words in Gujarati); both are not that much used in Indian soaps and soaps-like news (from which some learners like tonyspeed try to infer what is shuddh and what is not, which is a very wrong way IMO), and both are widespread not just colloquially in one particular region but across India. So ... what's "shuddh" about them? And ... what the heck is anyway this _shuddh_?


Probably you have misunderstood me: please consult the thread where ''_ruchi_'' was discussed first:
*
Hindi-Urdu: to express interest*

It was I who was the first one to recognize this word and to offer a bit of explanation. My words were:

"*It is a Hindi word* which is by the way not shared by Urdu, and *it is completely legitimate in Hindi*."

Can you see any ''shuddh''? Did I seem to have any issues with it? I just informed the original poster that it was not an Urdu word. Have I said it was shuddh Hindi because it was not used in Urdu?

The next reaction is perhaps more relevant to this thread:





tonyspeed said:


> Funnily enough, after years of Hindi study, I have never heard this word before, only dilchaspii. It might be *pure Hindi*, but it does not seem to be used colloquially.


_shuddh Hindi _translates to ''pure Hindi'', am I right?

- I answered: "[...]It does seem to be used, also colloquially:...''

greatbear, you commented on this with the following words:


greatbear said:


> Both "ruchii" and "dilchaspii" are commonly used words in Hindi (as long as the speaker isn't saying "interest"). "Ruchii" is far more common in speech than "dilchaspii" - the former also carries the nuance of a more serious interest in something as opposed to mere "dilchaspii". This is merely from a Hindi point of view.


- I said: I agree with gb.
... and tonyspeed said in response to my ''It does seem to be used, also colloquially'': 


tonyspeed said:


> Maybe it has to do with the sources. Do they ever say ruchi in movies or on TV?
> I have never heard it from these mediums. As a habit, *I tend not to read shuddh Hindi which is where it seems to be most prevalent.* Doing an internet search, both seem to be fairly commonly used, with ruchi slightly winning out in print mediums (but this could be because ruchi is also a name whereas dilchaspii is not).


Dear friends, does it seem justified that precisely my person is being associated with the issue of ''shuddh'' or ''pure'' Hindi? I don't believe in the notion of ''purity'' in the context of any language; in the same way I never use the name ''_xaaliS Urdu! - _pure Urdu''.

OK, now the facts being put right, let me just say that the term ''shuddh Hindi'' is a way of referring to a special style or register of this language *by* its users. It has come about by purge, to the extent of being ridiculous, of the words originating in Persian and Arabic and, overindulging in words (not only nouns, which is illustrated at the end of this post), that are called ''*tatsam*'' (almost unchanged Sanskrit loan-words, as they are), at the cost of ''_*tadbhav*_'' (Prakritic) and ''*desii*'' vocabulary. This is the language that is the official language of the government of the Republic of India (just have a look at any publication or official website, here an extract for those who really don't know what is being discussed:
http://commerce.gov.in/hindisite/antidumping/Format_anti_circumvention_invetigation.pdf

"अपवंचनरोधी जांच हेतु सीमाशुल्क टैरिफ (पाटित वस्तुओं का अभिज्ञान, उन पर पाटनरोधी शुल्क का निर्धारण एवं संग्रहण तथा क्षति निर्धारण) नियमावली _apvaNchanrodhii jaaNch hetu siimaashulk Tairiph (paaTit vastuoN kaa abhigyaan, un par paaTanrodhii shulk kaa nirdhaaraNR evaM saNgrahaNR tathaa kSHati nirdhaaraN) niyamaavalii_"- 

...one _tadbhav_ noun, _kaa, un par_, one English 'tariff'' (seems as if English has been equalized with Sanskrit in terms of the criterion of ''shuddhataa''), the rest ''pure'' _tatsam, _including such basic parts of speech like particles (_evaM, tathaa_) and pospositions (_hetu_).


----------



## tonyspeed

To some  extent  I agree with  Wolv ji.  Shuddh are  words  chosen  from  Sanskrit  to  replace extant and  popular  words  of  Persian  and  English  origin.  But  to  me,  Shuddh is  also an  attitude  that  certain  words  can  be  purer and  better and  more  correct  than  others.  When  a Hindi  speaker  says ,'don't  use  that  word.  It  is  Urdu' but  that  word  is  commonly  used,  this  is  the  philosophy  behind  shudh.  That  there  is  gandagii in  our  colloquial  speech  and  we  have  to  clean  it  out  and  eradicate  it.  It  is  ethnic  cleansing  with  language.  

Many  words  originally  considered  shuddh or  written  language  have  become nativised.  So that  they  are  no  longer  purely  shuddh.  Ruchi may  be  one  such  word  or  not.  I don't think  we  have  a good  idea  as  to  what  the  common  vocabulary  was  in  India in  the  1800s or early 1900s and  some  things there were no  words  for.  I don't  think  we  can  only  rely  on  the  origin  to  label  a word  shuddh,  a mistake  I made  when  I started learning  Hindi. It  is  only  a clue.  For  instance  dhyaan will  be  labeled Sanskrit  but  no  one  will  argue  that  it  is  shuddh speech.  

That  being  said,  I view  formal  or  book language  devoid  of  Persian as  shuddh.  This  form  of  shuddh in  my  opinion  is  dying and  never  was  successful.  Someone  just  told  me,  'no one uses  Dhanyavad in  India anymore'.  I don't  have  anything  against  Dhanyavad  but  it  was  heartening  that  the  language  nazis failed.  Language  in  India  is  growing  organically  and  the  artificial  shuddh grafts have  only  enriched  the language,  not  destroyed  it  fully.  But  I do  feel  harm  has been done,  maybe  mistakenly.  

When  someone  says  'ke through'  as opposed to 'ke  zariye'  or  'ke dwaaraa'  could  it  be  because  of  the  Urdu vs  Hindi  fight? There are  several  other  such  English  words  that  have  replaced  perfectly  good  words  like  gift  for  bhenT or  tohfaa.  Could  this  not  be  because  people  did not want to skew  their  language  and mark it as either  'Urdu'  or  Standard  Hindi. Has English gained ascendancy  partly due to the battle between  shuddh and  'Urdu'?  Quite possibly,  to  some  extent.  In any case,  Shuddh Hindi  as  an  attitude  is  dying or dead.  Even  the  news media  and  polititians are  giving it  up.  It's  one  last  haunt  maybe the language of  gurus and religious type figures. But  I would not know to  what  extent  that  continues.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear;13080312
Both "lagbhag" and "ruchi" are commonly used words in Hindi (and [I said:
			
		

> the[/I] words in Gujarati, i.e. both of them first-choice words in Gujarati); both are not that much used in Indian soaps and soaps-like news



I have heard lagbhag in serials before. There is a Panjabi fellow in Chidiyaghar that always says "lagbhag te almost" as his tag line.

It is actually takriban that used to strike me not as Hindi but Urdu, but as I heard it more on the news I began to use it more. Now I rarely use lagbhag, possibly because the flow is not as smooth.


----------



## UrduMedium

tonyspeed said:


> ...
> 
> When  someone  says  'ke through'  as opposed to 'ke  zariye'  or  'ke dwaaraa'  could  it  be  because  of  the  Urdu vs  Hindi  fight? There are  several  other  such  English  words  that  have  replaced  perfectly  good  words  like  gift  for  bhenT or  tohfaa.  Could  this  not  be  because  people  did not want to skew  their  language  and mark it as either  'Urdu'  or  Standard  Hindi. Has English gained ascendancy  partly due to the battle between  shuddh and  'Urdu'?  Quite possibly,  to  some  extent.  In any case,  Shuddh Hindi  as  an  attitude  is  dying or dead.  Even  the  news media  and  polititians are  giving it  up.  It's  one  last  haunt  maybe the language of  gurus and religious type figures. But  I would not know to  what  extent  that  continues.



I think this phenomenon is simpler than finding the middle ground between Urdu and shuddh. The same exact phenomenon took place in Pakistan (replacing perfectly fine Urdu words by English equivalents), where no such Urdu/shuddh rivalry was present. I think couple of factors influencing this trend are: 

a) English's being a marker of social status. So more use of English words is considered a sign of upward social mobility.
b) some of the English words are easier or equally easy on the tongue than the Urdu equivalents (time/waqt, class/jamaat, pen/qalam, etc). This is why words like armpit which are longer/harder to say than baGhal do not take currency. 
c) some names/ideas are only accurately expressed with English words (e.g. hikmat-e-3amali doesn't quite capture strategy, or writ and mandate may not have an Urdu word equivalents). 
d) In the case of Urdu, it has always been open to accept foreign words in prose. I was shocked to see the number of English words used in few pages of Hali's Yadgar-e-Ghalib that I browsed through. Deputy (Molvi) Nazeer Ahmed seems to use them freely as well.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> When  someone  says  'ke through'  as opposed to 'ke  zariye'  or  'ke dwaaraa'  could  it  be  because  of ...


Yes, you are right. ke thruu is used in ''Urdu'' as well. May I ask a question? Is the Urdu word in Hindi spelt ''_ke zar*i*__ye_'' or ''_ke zar*ii*ye_''? I just don't know.


----------



## Wolverine9

Hindi: ke zariye

Urdu: ke ẕarīʻe


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> Hindi: ke zariye
> 
> Urdu: ke ẕarīʻe


Thanks that you have helped me on this. It seems as if a part of the long ii, together with the consonant 3ayn, has formed part of ''ya'' in Hindi.


----------



## greatbear

Judging from most of the responses above, it seems that if a word has derived from Sanskrit, or taken whole rather from it, that is deemed to belong to a kind of Hindi that was promoted after a certain period but otherwise wasn't there, which people here have been calling "shuddh Hindi", is that it?

Because if that is the conclusion, then it beats me what were we using for words like "dhyaan" (as pointed out), "yogaa", "charitr", "adhikaar", "siNhaasan" (and "aasan"), "aatmaa", "grihaNR" (as in taking; also as in eclipse), "surya" and thousands of other words? I think we were using these. (Awadhi is one of the bases of modern Hindi.) In addition, tonyspeed has also got some wrong information: in Rajasthan, it will be difficult to hear a "shukriyaa" or even a "thank you", but it is "dhanyvaad" that rules - even in the remotest hinterlands - I don't think that all these promotion strategies are responsible for that.

Going by post 5's definition of "shuddh", though, the above words can't be "shuddh": as "yogaa" was always yogaa, now even in English. If that is the case, then how can "ruchi" be shuddh, I wonder? Since, after all, which other word can take place of "ruchii"? "dilchaspii"? "shauk"? I don't think so. As I said before, "dilchaspii" means not some serious interest of something; as for "shauk", it is usually used pejoratively in the sense of "lat" (as in "usko tambaaku kaa shauk hai/lag gayaa hai") - whereas "ruchi" is used rather in the sense of "usko saNgeet meN bohat ruchi hai". Which Persian-Arabic-derived word has "ruchi" replaced? Is that word already extinct?

As for response to marrish, thanks a lot for establishing the chronology, though you have certainly missed out some posts that could have done it better - but that's maybe because now those posts are deleted by the moderators and you couldn't access them. Anyway, tonyspeed was merely hypothesizing on whether the word is shuddh (acc. to his defn. of "shuddh"; cf. post 5 of this thread) because he hadn't heard it in the media he accesses; it was only you who came up with the (sudden) conclusion that it is.

Meanwhile, tonyspeed says that one does not know for sure what was the colloquial usages prior to the early 1900s or 1800s: so if one doesn't know that, how does one judge a word to be "shuddh" (as per post 5 definition) or not? As is evident from examples like "aasan" and "yogaa", origins of a word do not serve here. After all, "va" is also shuddh Hindi: and it's origin is not Sanskrit! I thought something well established in colloquial usages since the times of ones fathers and grandfathers would be exempt from the "accusation" of being "shuddh": but apparently that is not the case.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> When  someone  says  'ke through'  as opposed to 'ke  zariye'  or  'ke dwaaraa'  could  it  be  because  of  the  Urdu vs  Hindi  fight? There are  several  other  such  English  words  that  have  replaced  perfectly  good  words  like  gift  for  bhenT or  tohfaa.  Could  this  not  be  because  people  did not want to skew  their  language  and mark it as either  'Urdu'  or  Standard  Hindi. Has English gained ascendancy  partly due to the battle between  shuddh and  'Urdu'?  Quite possibly,  to  some  extent.



UM has already responded to this point, but I will add my 2 paise, essentially saying the same thing as UM.

India was colonised by the British: English was seen to be the marker of belonging to a social elite, and thus using English words became a fashion, and so on. However, that is not really the situation in modern India. Now English is everywhere: we go to English-medium schools, read English newspapers, and often we know the English word but we don't know the Hindi or Urdu word for it (esp. for technical words, as UM mentioned). In addition, English does have a much more extensive vocabulary than any other language in the world: when we can be precise, why to be blurry?

There has never been any awareness of the kind to use an English word just to avoid saying a shuddh or Urdu word. People who use shuddh Hindi are proud of it; people who use heavily Persianized Hindi/Urdu are proud of it. People who use English words everywhere are proud of it. Languages in a colonised country are often "khichdi" (like what happens in Puerto Rico as well): we are all living with khichdis, some have cooked them well and others not so well. But everyone is happy with his or her own.

For me, Shuddh Hindi is not some "nazi" movement: it's just another register of Hindi, which does give me pleasure when I hear it at times, simply because I like the "sounds". Similarly, there are many other Indians who don't use any shuddh variants themselves but who do like hearing shuddh Hindi now and then: simply because it is human tendency to love rarity, if expressed beautifully. If we were to talk only in poetry, then it would lose its charm. Poetry has its charm because it is NOT prose. In other words, poetry is valuable for it is rare and the not of everyday prose: it liberates.


----------



## Wolverine9

No, not every Sanskrit word is confined to shuddh Hindi.  As I mentioned in post #2, some have been a part of common speech for a long, long time, including some of the ones you mentioned.  However, _suurya_, for instance, is shuddh because the colloquial form is _suuraj_. Others only underwent minimal changes from Sanskrit to Hindi but have now been restored to their original Sanskrit form.  For example, as Platts shows, the Sanskrit _dhyaan _was _dhiyaan_ in Hindi.


----------



## greatbear

^ I would say "suurya" to be high register Hindi, not shuddh as per definition given in post 5: simply because I don't think "suurya" came about post some promotion of Sanskrit-derived Hindi. It was always there, but not colloquial: as you say, the colloquial word has been "suuraj" (also a common male name). It is important to distinguish between high-register Hindi that has always existed and the "promoted" so-called shuddh Hindi, IMO, at least for the sake of this argument.

Meanwhile, I don't know where did Platts base his data on, but in places like Bihar and eastern UP, even today you find "dhiyaan": however, the Hindi word was "dhyaan" always, I believe, as the word is one of those belonging to Hindu philosophy ("darshan"), and most of those words remained intact.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> ...Going by post 5's definition of "shuddh", though, the above words can't be "shuddh": as "yogaa" was always yogaa, now even in English...


_yogaa_??? Is it Hindi? What does it mean?


----------



## greatbear

^ Very surprised that you don't know the phenomenon for which the world is going crazy. For your benefit from your beloved Platts:

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:1:4571.platts


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> ^ Very surprised that you don't know the phenomenon for which the world is going crazy. For your benefit from your beloved Platts:
> 
> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:1:4571.platts


Be reassured that I know very much about _S __يوگ __योग__ *yoga*, vulg. *yog*, jog,_ very well, but not योगा *yogaa*, which seems as if it were a ''re-borrowing'' from English.


----------



## greatbear

^ It has nothing to do with English. The colloquial pronunciation has always been "yogaa" for meditation and "yog" for union. Just like "dev" becomes "devaa" as well: it's a usual habit to add "aa" at the end for several words.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> ^ I would say "suurya" to be high register Hindi, not shuddh as per definition given in post 5: simply because I don't think "suurya" came about post some promotion of Sanskrit-derived Hindi. It was always there, but not colloquial: as you say, the colloquial word has been "suuraj" (also a common male name). It is important to distinguish between high-register Hindi that has always existed and the "promoted" so-called shuddh Hindi, IMO, at least for the sake of this argument.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't know where did Platts base his data on, but in places like Bihar and eastern UP, even today you find "dhiyaan": however, the Hindi word was "dhyaan" always, I believe, as the word is one of those belonging to Hindu philosophy ("darshan"), and most of those words remained intact.



In the Prakrit languages of North India y tends to become j, conjuncts tended to be broken, and the terminating 'a' was demphasized. So that suurya -> suurayaa -> suuray --> suuraj.

This y->j information is found in "Grammar of the Hindi Language" by Samuel Kellogg. 

Suurya is Sanskrit full-stop. We have adopted it into Hindi as an alternative to the colloquial form.


As far as Shuddh goes, I have already explained by position that no one word is shuddh. Shuddh can only be described as an overall kind of speech, where the intention is to eradicate all Persian, (sometimes) English and (sometimes) Prakrit forms.


----------



## Wolverine9

I haven't seen _yogaa _listed in any Hindi dictionary; only _yog_.  I think _yogaa _would just be the Anglicized way of saying it, similar to _kaarmaa _instead of _karm_.  _devaa _is derived from _devataa_.


----------



## marrish

Yesterday I read a Hindi short story written by Pandey Bechan Sharma 'Ugra'. This author is the very same person from whose work a particular sentence became the topic of discussion in one of the threads initiated by our PG SaaHib. The kind of language employed by the author baffled native Hindi speakers to such an extent that ''birds'' were perceived to be ''Brahmins''! Interested parties can access this thread through this link:* Hindi: द्विजगण का कलरव श्रवण करना ही रुचता था। *

*The short story is entitled ''खुदाराम KhudaRam'' - a very meaningful title, by the way!
It spans only 13 pages. You can read the whole text here (23 Hindi kahaaniyaaN –Saahitya Academy (Academy of Literature).On a couple of pages I found a number of references to the recently discussed threads. For your reading pleasure, I am going to post appropriate quotations. 

Please consider how the Hindi epithet ''_shuddh Hindii_'', which is after all not English but Hindi, is used in a Hindi literary text and what its context is.

‘‘कहो मियाँ इनायत अली, आज इधर कैसे ?’’
‘‘आप ही की सेवा में कुछ निवेदन करने आया हूँ।’’
शर्माजी ने चश्मा उतार लिया। उसे कुरते के कोने से साफ़ करने के बाद पुनः नाक पर चढ़ाते-चढ़ाते बोले-
‘‘भाई, इनायत, *बड़ी शुद्ध हिन्दी बोलते हो* ?’’
‘‘जी हाँ, शर्माजी, मैं *बहुत शुद्ध हिन्दी बोल सकता हूँ*।* इसका कारण यही है कि मेरी नसों में बहुत शुद्ध  हिन्दू रक्त बह रहा है*। समाज ने ज़बर्दस्ती मेरे पिता को मुसलमान होने के लिए विवश किया, नहीं तो आज मैं भी उतना ही हिन्दू होता जितने आप या कोई भी दूसरा हिन्दुत्व का अभिमानी। ख़ैर मुझे आपसे कुछ कहना है....!’’
‘‘कहिए, क्या आज्ञा है ?’’
‘‘मैं पुनः हिन्दू होना चाहता हूँ ।’’

Transliteration:

''kaho miyaaN Inaayat Alii, aaj idhar kaise?''
''aaphii kii sevaa meN kuchh nivedan karne aayaa huuN''
Sharmaajii ne chashmaa utaar liyaa. use kurte ke kone se saaf karne ke baad punah: naak par chaRhaate-chaRhaate bole-
''bhaaii, Inaayat, *baRii shuddh hindii bolte ho?*''
''jii haaN Sharmaajii, *maiN bahut shuddh hindii bol saktaa huuN. iskaa kaaraNR yahii hai ki merii nasoN meN bahut shuddh hinduu rakt bah rahaa hai.* samaaj ne zabardastii mere pitaa ko musalmaan hone ke lie vivash kiyaa, nahiiN to aaj maiN bhii utnaa hii hinduu hotaa jitne aap yaa koii bhii duusraa *hindutva kaa abhimaanii*. xair, mujhe aapse kuchh kahnaa hai...!''
''kahie, kyaa aagyaa hai?''
''maiN punah: hinduu honaa chaahtaa huuN''.
****************************************************

एक महाशय बोले-‘‘ऋषि दयानन्द की किरपा होगी तो हमारे वे सब बिछड़े भाई एक न एक दिन फिर अपने आर्य धरम में चले आयेंगे।* इन्हें ज़रूर शुद्ध कीजिए*।’’
ek mahaashay bole- ''riSHi dayaanand kii kirpaa hogii to hamaare ve sab bichhRe bhaaii ek na ek din phir apne aarya dharam meN chale aayeNge. *inheN zaruur shuddh kiijie*.

*(you can see that the word _ruchi_ which was the incentive to create this thread can be found here in the form of a verb _ruchnaa_).


(Background: Inayat Ali is a second-generation Muslim whose father, a Hindu, was deemed ''*mlechchh*'' and forced by his community to renounce his faith and embrace Islam as a consequence of him having a Muslim lady servant who cooked his food and brought water from a well. Now his son wishes to convert to Hinduism.)


----------



## greatbear

^ The verb "ruchnaa" isn't being discussed here, anyway: that's a word hardly used, shuddh or non-shuddh, even in literature, and almost never in speech. Your objectives are suspect, marrish.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Suurya is Sanskrit full-stop. We have adopted it into Hindi as an alternative to the colloquial form.



How did you arrive at your full stops and the conclusion that it is not Hindi? I wonder about those people bearing very common names like "Surya Pratap": do their acquaintances go to Sanskrit scholars to find out the meaning of their names...


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> How did you arrive at your full stops and the conclusion that it is not Hindi? I wonder about those people bearing very common names like "Surya Pratap": do their acquaintances go to Sanskrit scholars to find out the meaning of their names...




But such names are very universal across various language communities. Case in point "Aishwariya". Her name is definitely not intended to be Hindi, but it is Sanskrit.


----------



## greatbear

^ But "aishwary" is a very commonly used word, too! "veh aajkal baRa aishwary meN jee rahaa hai" is a very common phrase: the Hindi meaning is more "luxury" rather than "wealth". Just because something comes from Sanskrit does not mean that it is outdated or used only after some shuddhikaran movement or whatsoever: words like "aishwary" and "sury" have been part of the culture and spoken language since a long time. The existence of a colloquial register (e.g., "suraj" for sun, or "chaand" for "chandr"/moon) does not mean the former weren't used/comprehended/recognised.

Most Hindu first names, with a very few exceptions, are commonly understood and used words in Hindi.


----------



## greatbear

Wolverine9 said:


> I haven't seen _yogaa _listed in any Hindi dictionary; only _yog_.  I think _yogaa _would just be the Anglicized way of saying it, similar to _kaarmaa _instead of _karm_.  _devaa _is derived from _devataa_.



"yogaa" is the usual pronunciation, Wolverine; dictionaries will of course only give "yog" - another instance of TS's book vs. spoken. There are plenty of both audio and written examples on the Net of "yogaa". For the sake of completeness:

This link has its own perspective on calling "yog" as "yogaa" - I don't agree with the author, but what it does establish is the widespread practice of the "yogaa" pronunciation (note that in the sense of "union", the pron. remains "yog").


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> ^ The verb "ruchnaa" isn't being discussed here, anyway: that's a word hardly used, shuddh or non-shuddh, even in literature, and almost never in speech. Your objectives are suspect, marrish.


OK, I agree that it is hardly ever used. It was just a footnote information which I gave and you reacted only to this while the body of my post remains unanswered! Can you offer your opinion with regard to my stance? Are my objectives suspect when I try to answer the question ''what is shuddh'' because you happen to have focused on ''ruchnaa''? I don't know about your motives behind chosing not to answer my post and side-tracking the discussion to ''ruchnaa'' but, most certainly my contributions to the thread are as genuine as they come.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> "yogaa" is the usual pronunciation, Wolverine; dictionaries will of course only give "yog" - another instance of TS's book vs. spoken. There are plenty of both audio and written examples on the Net of "yogaa". For the sake of completeness:
> 
> This link has its own perspective on calling "yog" as "yogaa" - I don't agree with the author, but what it does establish is the widespread practice of the "yogaa" pronunciation (note that in the sense of "union", the pron. remains "yog").



I don't agree with your explanation. I know _yoga_ is the Sanskrit pronunciation but ''_yogaa_'' is wrong as it is a re-borrowing from English, as far as I know. You mentioned audio examples. Can you provide a few?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> ... while the body of my post remains unanswered! Can you offer your opinion with regard to my stance? Are my objectives suspect when I try to answer the question ''what is shuddh'' because you happen to have focused on ''ruchnaa''? I don't know about your motives behind chosing not to answer my post and side-tracking the discussion to ''ruchnaa'' but, most certainly my contributions to the thread are as genuine as they come.



They might certainly be genuine but don't always make sense or try to take the discussion off-topic. I couldn't make much sense of your remaining post: you are quoting a certain Hindi prose piece which has the words "shuddh Hindi" in it ... so? At the most, you are trying to claim that those who espouse Hindutva go for "shuddh" Hindi: ok, that is nothing new. That does not make "shuddh Hindi" some kind of jaundiced thing, just because the Hindutva people are using it, just as swastik is not cast out simply because Hitler used it wrongly.

We are trying to determine "what's shuddh", to remind you of the discussion. Does this story help? I don't think so. You think so? Ok, then explain why.


----------



## marrish

^I can only waste my time to explain the obvious after you have responded to my request for audio examples for ''_yogaa_'' in Hindi.


----------



## greatbear

^ Maybe you don't know, marrish, but I've rarely access to YouTube (something that most other forum members know). You can watch the numerous TV channels of India: news, etc., and I am sure you will find many examples of "yogaa" in them.

Meanwhile, you have in fact wasted the time of others in this thread so far, having not provided anything concrete to say, but rather now petulantly trying to make it even some "yogaa"-centric discussion.


----------



## Qureshpor

Here is how the word "shuddh" and "shuddh Hindi" have been defined by one of the members of this Forum. That thread is "closed awaiting moderation" whenever PG SaaHib gets a moment!

"Speaking for myself, I've no idea what such a term could mean with respect to any living language. Any "shuddh" language sounds obnoxious to me! A language keeps taking words from here and there, and that is how it lives and that is how it manifests that it is still breathing: different people and different communities will have different registers and different ways of expression, and the more they are the richer the language is."

If some of the members could have found a Sanskrit-derived word for "saabun," in one of your threads, QP, they would call it "shuddh" Hindi; that's simply my idea of the term. Though in such cases it would more be unnatural or obsolete or pretentious (depends!) Hindi for me!"


----------



## greatbear

^ You are quoting me, but adding nothing new. All the frequenters on this forum know that I do not favour this rigid divide between Urdu and Hindi that the likes of you prefer - the higher registers of both languages are quite divorced from each other, but the normal spoken language - which can also be called Hindustani (not at all synonymous with Urdu) - by most Indians and Pakistanis (with of course variances in word choices) isn't so ... divided by the forward slash marks that marrish would have us believe.

The term "shuddh" is something that I don't recognise, and I can only laugh as always at all these FWC stories. The Indian government may write things in some unnatural fashion, but we hardly care; however, when people, apparently those who haven't had the chance of interacting with the length and breadth of India, begin thinking that words like "ruchi" or "aishwary" got into fashion only post FWC, there's a serious misinformation campaign going on.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> [...] but I would also like to open the debate to a larger question: what constitutes "shuddh" Hindi for the people here ..[..]


Another explanation of what constitutes "shuddh".


tonyspeed said:


> 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.


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> Here is how the word "shuddh" and"shuddh Hindi" have been defined by one of the members of this Forum.That thread is "closed awaiting moderation" whenever PG SaaHib gets a moment!
> 
> "Speaking for myself, I've no idea what such a term could mean with respect to any living language. *Any "shuddh" language sounds obnoxious to me*! A language keeps taking words from here and there, and that is how it lives and that is how it manifests that it is still breathing: different people and different communities will have different registers and different ways of expression, and the more they are the richer the language is."
> 
> If some of the members could have found a Sanskrit-derived word for "saabun," in one of your threads, QP, they would call it "shuddh" Hindi; that's simply my idea of the term. Though in such cases it would more be unnatural or obsolete or pretentious (depends!) Hindi for me!"


 23/09/11 and 25/11/2011


greatbear said:


> [...] But we are talking Hindi. And I am myself one of those "shuddh Hindi" speakers often - *"shuddh Hindi" is something sacrosanct to us* and not something constructed in the 1800s as some would have you believe. When we speak words like "charitr", "sanskhipt" and "sookshm", we are not speaking neologisms - *it is a beautiful, poetic and elegant language to us, this shuddh Hindi*.[...]


 26/10/2012


greatbear said:


> ^ You are quoting me, but adding nothing new. All the frequenters on this forum know that I do not favour this rigid divide between Urdu and Hindi that the likes of you prefer - the higher registers of both languages are quite divorced from each other, but the normal spoken language - [...]
> 
> *The term "shuddh" is something that I don't recognise*, and I can only laugh as always at all these FWC stories.


 22/03/2013

Well, can anyone make a head or tail of this?

1) The writer is not aware what this term (shuddh) could mean with respect to any living language. In fact he finds the very idea of shuddh "obnoxious"!

2) With regard to Hindi, it is that variety of language in which one would expect to find Sanskrit equivalents of words of Arabic and Persian origins (e.g a Sanskrit equivalent of saabun)

3) The writer often counts himself as a "shuddh Hindi" speaker, shuddh Hindi being sacrosanct to Hindi speakers and is a "beautiful, poetic and elegant language".

4) The writer does not recognise the term "shuddh" at all!


----------



## greatbear

^ Ever thought of entering politics? Or, worse, journalism, where you will have the utmost liberty to misquote people out of context, dear QP? If not, you should, right now!

What you have forgotten, my dear QP, is that in all the quotes you have assembled from me, so painstakingly (I hope you are not doing a thesis on me, or on TS for that matter), the word "shuddh" is in scare quotes _always_. People who are a part of this forum understand what I was saying where, just as people do understand now your brainwashing tactics and your lack of respect to almost all the members on this forum, shown not least by way of indirect barbs, unnecessary threads created just for the sake of trying to humiliate someone, and lack of answering whenever you don't have an answer.


----------



## Qureshpor

Here is a sample of "shuddh Hindi" from Urdu, Hindi aur Hindustani by Prem Chand (1934). It has been transcribed into Roman by Rajiv Chakravarti SaaHib.

"desh meiN aise aadmiyoN ki sankhyaa kam naheeN hai jo Urdu aur Hindi ki alag alag aur svatantr unnati aur vikaas ke maarg meiN baadhak naheeN hona chaahte. unhoN ne yeh maan liya hai k. aarambh meiN in donoN ke svaroopoN meiN chaahe jo kuchch ektaa aur samaantaa rahi ho, lekin phir bhi is samay donoN ki donoN jis raaste par jaa rahi haiN, use dekhte hue in donoN meiN mel aur ektaa honaa asambhav hi hai. pratyek bhaashaa ki ek praakr_tik pravr_tti hoti hai. Urdu kaa Faarsi aur Arabi ke saath svaabhaavik sambandh hai. unki yeh pravr_tti ham kisi shakti se rok naheeN sake. phir in donoN ko aapas meiN milaane ka prayatn kar ke ham kyoN vyarth in donoN ko haani pahuNchaaveN? 

yadi Urdu aur hindi donoN apne aapko apne janm_sthaan aur prachaar kshetr tak hi parimit rakheN to hameN inki vr_ddhi aur vikaas ke sambandh meiN koi aapatti na ho. Banglaa, Marathi, Gujarati, Tamil, Telgu* aur KannaD* aadi praanteey bhaashaaoN ke sambandh meiN hameN kisi prakaarki chinta naheeN hai. unheN adhikaar hai k. ve apne andar chaahe jitni Sanskr_t, arabi yaa Latin aadi bharti chaleN. un bhashaaoN ke lekhak aadi svayaM hi is baat ka nirNay kar sakte haiN; parantu Urdu aur Hindi ki baat in sab se alag hai. yahaaN to donoN ko Bhaaratvarsh ki raashTreey bhaashaa kahlaane ka daava karti haiN. parantu ve apne vyaktigat roop meiN raashTreey aavashshyaktaaoN kee poorti naheeN kar sakeeN aur isi lilye saNyakt roop meiN svayaM hi unkaa saNyog aur mel aarambh ho gayaa. aur donoN ka voh sam_milit svaroop utpann ho gaya jise ham bahut Theek taur par Hindustaani zabaan kahte haiN. vaastavik baat to yeh hai k. Bhaaratvarsh ki raashTreey bhaashaa na to voh Urdu hi ho sakti hai jo Arabi aur Farsi ke aprachalit tathaa kaThin shabdoN ke bhaar se ladi rahti hai aur na voh Hindi hi ho sakti hai jo Sanskr_t ke kaThin shabdoN se ladi hui hoti hai. yadi in donoN bhaashaaoN ke paksh_paati aur samarthak aamne-saame khaRe ho kar apni saahityik bhaashaaoN meiN baateN kareN to shaayad ek doosre ka kuchch bhi matlab na samajh sakeN. hamaari raashTreey bhaasha to vohi ho sakti hai jis ka aadhaar sarva-saamaanya bodh_gamyata ho - jise sab log sahaj meiN samajh sakeN. voh is baat ki kyoN parvaah karne lagi(!) k. amuk shabd is liye chhoR diya jaana chaahiye k. voh Faarsi, Arabi athvaa Sanskr_t ka hai? voh to keval yeh maandaND apne saamne rakhti hai k.jan_saadhaaraN yeh shabd samajh sakte haiN yaa naheeN? yaa jan_saadhaaraN meiN Hindu, Musalmaan, Punjaabi, Bangaali, MaharaasTreey aur Gujarati sabhi sam_milit haiN. yadi koi shabd yaa muhaavra yaa paaribhaashik shabd jan_saadhaaraN meiN prachalit hai to phir voh is baat ki parvaah naheeN karti k. voh kahaaN se niklaa hai aur kahaaN se aaya hai. aur yehi Hindustaani hai. aur jis prakaar angrezoN ki bhaashaa Angrezi, Jaapaan ki bhaashaa Jaapaani, Iran ki Irani aur Cheen ki Cheeni hai, usi prakaar Hindustaan ki raashTreey bhaashaa ko isi taur par Hindustaani na kah kar keval Hind kaheN to iski bhaashaa Hindi kah sakte haiN. lekin yahaaN ki bhaashaa ko Urdu to kisi prakaar kahaa hi naheeN jaa sakta, jab tak ham Hindustaan ko Urdustaan na kahne lageN, jo ab kisi prakaar sambhav hi naheeN hai. praacheen kaal ke log yahaaN ki bhaashaa ko Hindi hi kahte the."


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> ^ You are quoting me, but adding nothing new. All the frequenters on this forum know that I do not favour this rigid divide between Urdu and Hindi that the likes of you prefer - the higher registers of both languages are quite divorced from each other, but the normal spoken language - which can also be called Hindustani (not at all synonymous with Urdu) - by most Indians and Pakistanis (with of course variances in word choices) isn't so ... divided by the forward slash marks that marrish would have us believe.



See Woveine9's # Posts 80 and 82 in "Origins of the Division" thread.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2140277&page=4&highlight=Origins+of+the+Division


----------



## Qureshpor

One more for Post 35. From the thread "Good Day Good night", in reply to post 12 (which I have quoted in Post 35 of this thread), I add..


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. I am not suggesting an absolute absence of these characteristics but, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!


And this is the reply (contained in Post 67 of the "Best way to learn Hindustani thread".

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1586560&page=4


greatbear said:


> (here) [...] 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_.[...] *For me, shuddh Hindi is poetic and elegant*; [...]


Context for all quotes in Post 35 can easily be obtained by typing a small section from it in the search field. If this proves difficult for any one, I can help in posting links to threads with post numbers.


----------



## marrish

^ The threads and the concerned posts can be easily consulted by clicking on the button next to the poster's name inside the quotes.


----------



## Chhaatr

"Ruchii", "lagbhag" etc are definitely not shuddh Hindi but Hindi in the letters that you receive from Govt Depts and what you find on their websites certainly is.  I'm irritated (I won't say ashamed) to admit I don't understand it even though I'm a native speaker who has written three exams of 3 hrs each in this subject in my 12th standard!


----------



## Wolverine9

It's ironic that Premchand appears to be in favor of Hindustani, yet is writing in a nearly shuddh Hindi.


----------



## Qureshpor

Extremely ironic, considering that he was one of the top Urdu short story and novel writers before he turned his hand to Hindi. I would need a dictionary for a good number of words used by him in this short piece.


----------



## marrish

In my opinion there is no irony whatsoever because Premchand, being an accomplished writer and having both best Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi at his disposal, could chose which language he used for a particular piece. If the aim of writing was the ideas to be read and understood by a specific kind of readers, the choice of language he did, according to the developments at that time, doesn't appear to be questionable.


----------



## jakubisek

greatbear said:


> "va" is also shuddh Hindi: and it's origin is not Sanskrit!


If you mean vaa  used as "or", that is pure (śuddh  Sanskrit


----------



## marrish

jakubisek said:


> If you mean vaa  used as "or", that is pure (śuddh  Sanskrit


I'm sure he doesn't. He means _va_ as ''_aur_'' not ''or''- similar, aren't they?. This is shuddh faarsii.

You might find this thread interesting:  Hindi: व


----------



## jakubisek

marrish said:


> I'm sure he doesn't. He means _va_ as ''_aur_'' not ''or'' (...) This is shuddh faarsii.


  I see! Stupid me ...     Rather shuddh Arabic, then , if we _should_ be really _shuddh  _(also similar, aren¨t they  )


----------



## Wolverine9

marrish said:


> This is shuddh faarsii.



_va _= Arabic; _-o-_ = Farsi (MP _ud_)


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> _va _= Arabic; _-o-_ = Farsi (MP _ud_)


This may or may not be true but please see posts 12 and 14 of this thread.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2187529&highlight=va+Arabic


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> _va _= Arabic; _-o-_ = Farsi (MP _ud_)


A rather brief post. I don't know how to answer. Arabic is wa by the way and I don't agree. Persian and Urdu and Hindi can also be pronounced as ''va''. See the posts in the attached thread. Perhaps it is better not to prolong this thread and post in the thread on topic instead.

Afghan speakers of Persian articulate it as ''wa''.


----------



## marrish

jakubisek said:


> I see! Stupid me ...     Rather shuddh Arabic, then , if we _should_ be really _shuddh  _(also similar, aren¨t they  )


I'd stay by shuddh faarsii then!


----------



## Wolverine9

_va _vs. _wa _is not my point.  That's just a variation in transcription or pronunciation.  I meant that the Arabic _wa _is the source of its use in Persian, Urdu, and Hindi.  It was either borrowed in Persian directly from Arabic (more likely) or through Aramaic via Middle Persian (which transcribed _ud _as _w _in the Aramaic-based alphabet).  _va/wa_ "and" has no IE etymology but it's well established in Semitic.  _va _and _-o-_ have been conflated in Farsi but originally they were distinct words,with the latter deriving from MP _ud _(Av. & Skt. _uta-_), which is of IE origin.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Could you please add this post to the other thread so that anyone wishing to respond to this can do so.


----------

