# Urdu/Hindi: dehlii vs dillii



## UrduMedium

There seem to be two clear camps on this word/city-name. I grew up listening to it as _dillii _in conversations around me. However, in much of printed matter in Urdu you would find _dehlii_. Yet again, in much of poetry I believe _dillii _is more prevalent. For example, Mir's famous _misra3_, _dillii jo ik shahr thaa aalam meN intixaab, _and the famous _hanooz dillii duur ast _ ...

In Karachi, you find both names. From my unscientific survey, _dehlii _is more common use by the "_dehliwaalas" _of Karachi (aka Punjabi Suadagaran-e-Dehli). 

Curious which of these is the older term? Also how the other one came about? How each relates to the English _Delhi_?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> There seem to be two clear camps on this word/city-name. I grew up listening to it as _dillii _in conversations around me. However, in much of printed matter in Urdu you would find _dehlii_. Yet again, in much of poetry I believe _dillii _is more prevalent. For example, Mir's famous _misra3_, _dillii jo ik shahr thaa aalam meN intixaab, _and the famous _hanooz dillii duur ast _...
> 
> In Karachi, you find both names. From my unscientific survey, _dehlii _is more common use by the "_dehliwaalas" _of Karachi (aka Punjabi Suadagaran-e-Dehli).
> 
> Curious which of these is the older term? Also how the other one came about? How each relates to the English _Delhi_?




I would suggest that "dillii" is the oldest form and "dihlii/dehlii" is the Persianised form as in هنوز *دهلی دور است* and ہنوز *دہلی دور* 
*است*۔ although ہنوز *دلی دور است *is also found. Dehli is of course the Anglicised format.

Here is an example from xutuut-i-Ghalib of dihlii.

bha'ii kyaa puuchhte ho? kyaa likhuuN? *dihlii *kii hastii munHasir ka’ii haNgaamoN pih hai;*qal3ah*,chaaNdnii chauk, har roz majma3 jaami3 masjid kaa,har hafte sair jamnaa ke pul kii, har saal melaa phuul vaaloN kaa. yih paaNchoN baateN ab nahiiN, phir kaho *dihlii* kahaaN? haaN, ko'ii shahr is naam kaa Hindustaan meN thaa!

Here are a few examples of *dillii*.

shikavaa-e-aablah abhii se 'Meer' 
hai pyaare hanoz *dillii *duur 


dillii ke nah the kuuche auraaq-i-musavvir the 
jo shakl nazar aa'ii tasviir nazar aa'ii. 

[Meer Taqi Meer] 

thaa 'Zauq' pahale *dillii* meN Panjaab kaa saa husn 
par ab vo paanii kahate haiN Multaan bah gayaa 

[Zauq]

sar-i-aaGhaaz-i-mausam meN andhe haiN ham 
kih *dillii *ko chhoReN, lohaaruu ko jaa'eN 

[Ghalib]

roz-afzuuN Husn kaa har daur ik sayyaarah hai 
hai dabistaaN Lakhnau, *dillii *agar gahvaarah hai 

[Saif Lakhnavii]

ham *dillii* bhii ho aaye haiN, Lahore bhii ghuume, 
ai yaar! magar terii galii terii galii hai!!!! 

[Bashir Badr]

bulbul-i-*dillii *ne baaNdhaa is chaman meN aashiyaaN 
ham-navaa haiN sab 3anaadil baaGh-i-hastii ke jahaaN 

[Iqbal]


And some examples of *dehlii

*tazkarah-e-*dehlii*-e-marhoom ka ai dost na chheR 
nah sunaa jaayegaa ham se yeh fasaanah hargiz

uTh ga’e saaqii jo the maixaanah xaalii rah gayaa
yaadgaar-i-bazm-i-*dihlii* ek Haalii rah gayaa

[Hali]

un kii roz-i-vafaat *dehlii *meN 
yahii mazkuur dostaan men tha

[Meer Mahdi Majrooh]

*dehlii *hai aaj bazm-e-SulaimaaN banii hu'ii
rashk-e-na3eem rashk-e-paristaaN banii hu'ii 

[Taalib Banaarsi]

zameen-e-Paak hamaare jigar kaa tukRa hai 
hameN 3azeez hai *dihlii*-o-Lakhnaoo ki tarah

[Ali Sardar Ja’fari]

I have not had time to adjust these quotes fully to suit my transcription system but I am sure everyone should be able to make out the couplets.


----------



## UrduMedium

Thank you, QP saahab for your valuable insight, and for all the excellent examples. The one from _xutuut-i-Ghalib_ that mentions both _dehlii/dihlii _and _dillii _is probably the most telling.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Thank you, QP saahab for your valuable insight, and for all the excellent examples. The one from _xutuut-i-Ghalib_ that mentions both _dehlii/dihlii _and _dillii _is probably the most telling.



UM SaaHib, I have found a more accurate (and fuller) quote from Ghalib's xutuut which I had posted earlier in the forum. This shows "dihlii" only which seems more logical. I have amended the original post. On hindsight, I ought to have left it as it was and posted the fuller quote here. But, never mind. Hindsight is great but...


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> UM SaaHib, I have found a more accurate (and fuller) quote from Ghalib's xutuut which I had posted earlier in the forum. This shows "dihlii" only which seems more logical. I have amended the original post. On hindsight, I ought to have left it as it was and posted the fuller quote here. But, never mind. Hindsight is great but...


Understood. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## UrduMedium

Just happened to be browsing Altaf Husain Hali's Yadgar-e-Ghalib's _diibaachah_. Right in the first paragraph he used the word _daarul-xilaafah-e-dihlii_. Then in the second paragraph, he quickly switches to _dillii_ and uses it twice in the same para. See here for the actual text from the 1897 publication.

Just reading through it a few times, it seemed to me that he used the name _dihlii _when referring to the official name of the capital, likely influenced by the Persianised form of the name. But then in general references he switches to _dillii _instead. Even beyond the _diibaachah_, I found several mentions of _dillii_. Not a comprehensive scan by any means. Its a 400+ page book!


----------



## flyinfishjoe

I think देहली is used in Sanskrit to refer to Delhi. In Kannada, we use ದೆಹಲಿ _dehali _and ನವದೆಹಲಿ _navadehali_ which I believe comes from the Sanskrit usage. As for Hindi, दिल्ली _dillii_ of course is the common term.

BTW, I have heard both 'hanooz dehli dur ast' and 'hanooz dilli dur ast'


----------



## Qureshpor

flyinfishjoe said:


> I think देहली is used in Sanskrit to refer to Delhi. In Kannada, we use ದೆಹಲಿ _dehali _and ನವದೆಹಲಿ _navadehali_ which I believe comes from the Sanskrit usage. As for Hindi, दिल्ली _dillii_ of course is the common term.
> 
> BTW, I have heard both 'hanooz dehli dur ast' and 'hanooz dilli dur ast'



It would be interesting to see if there is an "h" in the Sanskrit word for "dihlii/dehlii" from actual texts. On the other hand, it would also be interesting to see how "dillii" lost its "h" or how "dihlii/dehlii" gained this consonant.

Going back to UP's post re: yaadgaar-i-Ghalib, does anyone know any Urdu poet hailing from this place called "X dillavii" as opposed to "X dihlavii/dehlavii"?

Regarding "hanuuz", I would utter it as "hanoz" as per Talat Mahmood's singing one of Mirza Ghalib's Ghazals.


----------



## UrduMedium

flyinfishjoe said:


> I think देहली is used in Sanskrit to refer to Delhi. In Kannada, we use ದೆಹಲಿ _dehali _and ನವದೆಹಲಿ _navadehali_ which I believe comes from the Sanskrit usage. As for Hindi, दिल्ली _dillii_ of course is the common term.
> 
> BTW, I have heard both 'hanooz dehli dur ast' and 'hanooz dilli dur ast'



Thank you for this very helpful insight, FFJ saahab. This may provide the basis for why the Persianized version chose _dihlii _over _dillii_.


----------



## UrduMedium

UrduMedium said:


> Just happened to be browsing Altaf Husain Hali's Yadgar-e-Ghalib's _diibaachah_. Right in the first paragraph he used the word _daarul-xilaafah-e-dihlii_. Then in the second paragraph, he quickly switches to _dillii_ and uses it twice in the same para. See here for the actual text from the 1897 publication.
> 
> Just reading through it a few times, it seemed to me that he used the name _dihlii _when referring to the official name of the capital, likely influenced by the Persianised form of the name. But then in general references he switches to _dillii _instead. Even beyond the _diibaachah_, I found several mentions of _dillii_. Not a comprehensive scan by any means. Its a 400+ page book!


Did a bit more scanning of Yadgar-e-Ghallib ... I see a clear pattern emerge. For normal descriptive numerous references to the city's name, Hali uses _dillii_, pretty consistently in the pages I scanned. However, whenever, either there is an official name involved, or a Farsi-style _izaafat _used, he switches to _dihlii_. 

Examples of the latter:

_fatH-i-dihlii_, page 12
_xuun-i-dihlii_, page 24
_ahl-i-dihlii_, page 27
_dihlii college*_, page 28

*Side note. Likely inspiration for the name of Delhi College in Karachi, it seems to me.


----------



## UrduMedium

flyinfishjoe said:


> I think देहली is used in Sanskrit to refer to Delhi. In Kannada, we use ದೆಹಲಿ _dehali _and ನವದೆಹಲಿ _navadehali_ which I believe comes from the Sanskrit usage. As for Hindi, दिल्ली _dillii_ of course is the common term.
> 
> BTW, I have heard both 'hanooz dehli dur ast' and 'hanooz dilli dur ast'



Here's a _forum post_ affirming your statement about देहली (_dehali_) coming from Sanskrit, meaning threshold (similar to Persian dahliiz), also providing possible historical evolution of the name. Seems quite plausible, but would be nice to corroborate it from a more substantive source.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Here's a _forum post_ affirming your statement about देहली (_dehali_) coming from Sanskrit, meaning threshold (similar to Persian dahliiz), also providing possible historical evolution of the name. Seems quite plausible, but would be nice to corroborate it from a more substantive source.



Here are quotes from Platts. 

H دهلي दिहली_dihlī_, _de__̌__hlī_, दहेली_dahlī_, prop. n. The city of Dehli, the metropolis of Hindūstān (under the Mohammadan rule; see _dillī_; and _dahal_).

P دهليز _dahlīz_, _de__̌__hlīz_ (=S. देहली;—A. _dihlīz_, fr. the Pers.), s.f. Threshold; portico, entrance hall, vestibule:—_dahlīz jhā__ṅ__knā_, v.n.=_dahlīz la__ṅ__gnā_:—_dahlīz-kā kuttā_, s.m. The dog of the porch, house-dog;—a hanger-on, parasite:—_dahlīz khundlānā_, s.m. _lit_. 'Treading the threshold'; a ceremonial visit paid by a young man about to be married to the parents of his intended bride:—_dahlīz la__ṅ__gnā_ (-_kī_), To cross the threshold (of), to pay a visit (to).

H دلی दिल्ली_dillī_, prop. n. The city of Dillī or Dehlī (also callcd Shāhjahānābād;—the ancient Hastināpur; cf. S. _dilī-pa_):—_dillī-wāl_, _dillī-wālā_, s.m. A native, or an inhabitant, of Dillī.

H دهل दहल _*dahal*_ (v.n. fr. _dahalnā_, q.v.), s.f. Shaking tremulously, shaking, trembling, quaking, tremor; fear, apprehension, dread;—shifting sand, quicksand, &c. (=_daldal_). (The name of Dahlī or Dehlī is said to be derived from this word; the ground on which the city was built being so loose and infirm that tent-pins could not be fixed in it.)


----------



## Faylasoof

When it comes to etymology of names almost anything goes! There is no evidence presented for the suggestions made in the forum entitled “Etymology of the word Delhi (Dehli)” linked above (post # 11). 

Many theories abound as to how the city got its name (and whether it was originally _dehlii_ or _dillii_) and the question remains unanswered. Ultimately the weight of evidence _may_ point towards the former.  This Wiki article on the city mentions some of the theories under the section “Etymology and idioms”. You can take your pick!

We need to look at sources earlier than the Urdu poets since these poets are of a the 18th -19th centuries and later. The city (and its name _dehlii_) is much older. I haven’t had the time to look at our ancient Indic sources but a reliable foreign source is Ibn Batuta the 14th century traveller from Tangiers. 

In his famous _riHlaat_ (travels), entitled تحفة النظار في غرائب الأمصار وعجائب الأسفار‎ _A Gift for Observers of the Wonders of Cities and Marvels of Travelling_ - better known as رحلة ابن بطوطة _The journey of Ibn Batuta_ - he mentions many cities in India but foremost amongst them is _dehlii_ (*دھلی*) where he spent quite some time. Repeatedly he mentions _dehlii _and never _dillii_ as the name used by locals. For example his long section on the city is called ذکر وصف مدینہ دھلی _A description of the city of Dehli (_*دھلی*_)_. 

I shall look further into his and other works of an earlier period when I get the time.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you Faylasoof SaaHib for introducing Ibn Batuta into the discussions. Al-Beruni preceded Ibn-Batuta by around 400 years. I wonder if "dehlii" is mentioned anywhere in his writings when he was travelling in India. It would also be useful if older citations of the name of this city could be found in the works of Sanskrit writers


----------



## Qureshpor

A few more examples:

marsiyah-i-*dihlii* (Mirza DaaGh Dihlavii)

falak-i-zamiin-o-malaa'ik, janaab thii *dillii*
bahisht-o-xuld meN bhii intixaab thii *dillii*
javaab kaahe ko thaa laa-javaab thii *dillii*
magar xayaal se dekhaa to xvaab thii *dillii
*
*dihlii*-i-marHuum (Hali)

tazkirah-i-*dihlii*-i-marHuum ai dost nah chheR
nah sunaa jaa'e gaa ham se yih fasaanah hargiz
....

kabhii ai 3ilm-0-hunar ghar thaa tumhaaraa *dillii
*ham ko bhuule ho to ghar bhuul nah jaanaa hargiz

jalvah-i-*dihlii*-darbaar (Akbar Ilahabaadii)

sar meN shauq kaa saudaa dekhaa
*dihlii* ko ham ne bhii jaa dekhaa


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> tazkarah-i-*dihlii*-i-marHuum ai dost nah chheR
> nah sunaa jaa'e gaa ham se yih fasaanah hargiz


Qureshpor SaaHib, is  _tazkarah_ a typo or did you for some reasons mean to write it this way?

And first and foremost, thank you for these references!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> A few more examples:
> 
> marsiyah-i-*dihlii* (Mirza DaaGh Dihlavii)
> 
> falak-i-zamiin-o-malaa'ik, janaab thii *dillii*
> bahisht-o-xuld meN bhii intixaab thii *dillii*
> javaab kaahe ko thaa laa-javaab thii *dillii*
> magar xayaal se dekhaa to xvaab thii *dillii
> *
> *dihlii*-i-marHuum (Hali)
> 
> tazkirah-i-*dihlii*-i-marHuum ai dost nah chheR
> nah sunaa jaa'e gaa ham se yih fasaanah hargiz
> ....
> 
> kabhii ai 3ilm-0-hunar ghar thaa tumhaaraa *dillii
> *ham ko bhuule ho to ghar bhuul nah jaanaa hargiz
> 
> jalvah-i-*dihlii*-darbaar (Akbar Ilahabaadii)
> 
> sar meN shauq kaa saudaa dekhaa
> *dihlii* ko ham ne bhii jaa dekhaa



Thanks QP saahab for the above. 

All three examples seem to confirm the earlier observation that in _izaafat _it is always _dihlii_, indicating more of a Persianised preference for the city's name. Without _izaafat _or official names, seems like it is mostly _dillii_, but _dihlii _also used in such context.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, is  _tazkarah_ a typo or did you for some reasons mean to write it this way?
> 
> And first and foremost, thank you for these references!



Yes, it was a typo. Thank you for pointing out the error. I shall amend my post and I hope UM saaHib will also change my quote incorporated in his reply.


----------



## Qureshpor

Couple of ash3aar from a marsiyah by Hali on Ghalib's passing away.

thiiN to *dillii* meN us kii baateN thiiN
le chaleN vatan ko ab kyaa sauGhaat

us ke marne se mar ga'ii *dillii*
xvaajah noshah thaa aur shahr baraat


----------



## urdustan

Interesting topic.  Hobson Jobson discusses this and provides some valuable quotes.

DELHI , n.p. The famous capital of the great Moghuls, in the latter years of that family; and the seat under various names of many preceding  dynasties, going back into ages of which we have no distinct record. _Dillī_ is, according to Cunningham, the old Hindu form of the name; _Dihlī_ is that used by Mahommedans. According  to _Panjab Notes and Queries_ (ii. 117 _seq.), Dilpat_ is traditionally the name of the Dillī of Prithvī Rāj. _Dil_ is an old Hindi word for an eminence; and this is probably the etymology of _Dilpat_ and _Dilli._ The second quotation  from Correa curiously illustrates the looseness of his geography. [The name has become unpleasantly familiar in connection with the so-called '_Delhi boil_,' a form of Oriental sore, similar to Biskra Button, Aleppo Evil, Lahore or Multan Sore (see _Delhi Gazetteer_, 15, note).] 

1205. -- (Muhammad Ghori marched) "to- wards *Dehli* (may God preserve its prosperity,  and perpetuate its splendour!), which is among the chief (mother) cities of Hind."  -- _Hasan Nizāmi_, in _Elliot_, ii. 216.
 c. 1321.  --  "Hanc terram (Tana, near Bombay) regunt Sarraceni, nunc subjacentes dal *dili*. . . . Audiens ipse imperator dol *Dali* . . . misit et ordinavit ut ipse Lomelic  penitus caperetur. . . ." -- _Fr. Odoric._ See _Cathay_, &c., App., pp. v. and x.
 c. 1330. -- "*Dillī* . . . a certain traveller relates that the brick-built walls of this great city are loftier than the walls of Hamath; it stands in a plain on a soil of mingled stones and sand. At the distance of a parasang  runs a great river, not so big, however, as Euphrates." -- _Abulfeda_, in _Gildemeister_, 189 _seq._
 c. 1334. -- "The wall that surrounds *Dihlī* has no equal. . . . The city of *Dihlī* has 28 gates . . ." &c. -- _Ibn Batuta_, iii. 147 _seqq._
 c. 1375. -- The _Carta Catalana_ of the French Library shows _ciutat de_ *Dilli* and also _Lo Rey Dilli_, with this rubric below it: "_Aci esta un soldã gran e podaros molt rich. Aquest soldã ha_ DCC _orifans e_ C _millia homens à cavall sot lo seu imperi. Ha encora paons sens nombre_. . . ."
 1459. -- Fra Mauro's great map at Venice shows *Deli* _cittade grandissima_, and the rubrick _Questa cittade nobilissima zà dominava  tuto el paese del_ *Deli* _over India Prima._
 1516. -- "This king of *Dely* confines with Tatars, and has taken many lands from the King of Cambay; and from the King of  
    Dacan, his servants and captains with many of his people, took much, and afterwards in time they revolted, and set themselves up as kings." -- _Barbosa_, p. 100.
 1533. -- "And this kingdom to which the Badur proceeded was called the *Dely*; it was very great, but it was all disturbed by wars and the risings of one party against another, because the King was dead, and the sons were fighting with each other for the sovereignty." -- _Correa_, iii. 506.
 " "This Kingdom of *Dely* is the greatest that is to be seen in those parts, for one point that it holds is in Persia, and the other is in contact with the Loochoos (_os Lequios_) beyond China." -- _Ibid._ iii. 572.
 c. 1568. -- "About sixteen yeeres past this King (of Cuttack), with his Kingdome,  were destroyed by the King of Pattane,  which was also King of the greatest part of Bengala . . . but this tyrant enioyed his Kingdome but a small time, but was conquered by another tyrant, which was the great Mogol King of Agra, *Delly*, and of all Cambaia." -- _Caesar Frederike_ in _Hakl._ ii. 358.
 1611. -- "On the left hand is seene the car- kasse of old *Dely*, called the nine castles and fiftie-two gates, now inhabited onely by _Googers_. . . . The city is 2c betweene Gate and Gate, begirt with a strong wall, but much ruinate. . . ." -- _W. Finch_, in _Purchas_, i. 430.


----------



## Dib

Interestingly, at the New Delhi railway station, the signboards read "naI dillI" in Hindi and "na'I dihlI" in Urdu.


----------



## Wolverine9

flyinfishjoe said:


> I think देहली is used in Sanskrit to refer to Delhi. In Kannada, we use ದೆಹಲಿ _dehali _and ನವದೆಹಲಿ _navadehali_ which I believe comes from the Sanskrit usage. As for Hindi, दिल्ली _dillii_ of course is the common term.



_dehalii _(देहली) in Sanskrit means 'threshold' (cognate to Persian _dehliiz _دهلیز) but doesn't refer to the city of Delhi.  The Kannada term is probably borrowed from Urdu or Indo-Persian, since much of southern India was once ruled by the nizaams.


----------



## mundiya

#20: The site is called "tilpat" and not "dilpat", so I don't believe it has a connection to the name Delhi.

Delhi originates from "Dhillii", which was the name of the city during the Rajput era as recently analysed Apabhramsha documents indicate.

In 1132 AD, Vibudha Shriidhara writes in his _PaasaNaahachariu_:

हरियाणए देसे असंखगाम, गामियण जणि अणवरथ काम|
परचक्क विहट्टणु सिरिसंघट्टणु, जो सुरव इणा परिगणियं|
रिउ रुहिरावट्टणु बिउलु पवट्टणु, *ढिल्ली *नामेण जि भणियं|

 "There are countless villages in Haryana  country. The villagers there work hard. They don't accept domination of  others, and are experts in making the blood of their enemies flow.  Indra himself praises this country. The capital of this country is  Dhilli."

This also shows that use of the name Haryana is quite  ancient.  So, it seems "Dhillii" was modified to "dillii" and "dehlii"  because Persian doesn't have Dh, with the latter form preferred in  Persianised contexts.  I won't rule out Dhillii -> dillii/dehlii  occurring through a natural evolution, but I don't know if there is a  precedent for a Dh -> d in Indic languages.  There is an interesting  parallel to this in Dhol -> (Persian) dohol.


----------



## urdustan

Thank you for that.  In Urdu I feel it is mostly "dehlii".  I don't think there is Dh>>d either.


----------



## marrish

It's wonderful you have access to Apabhramsha documents which have been recently discovered, mundiya jii. A big thank you.


----------



## mundiya

^You're both very welcome. 



			
				mundiya said:
			
		

> There is an interesting  parallel to this in Dhol -> (Persian) dohol.



I  forgot to mention this before.  Dhillii  -> dehlii not only has Dh -> d  but also the insertion of a medial "h" to replace the aspiration, in the same manner as Dhol -> dohol.  It's always interesting to notice patterns.



UrduMedium said:


> There seem to be two clear camps on this word/city-name. I grew up listening to it as _dillii _in conversations around me. However, in much of printed matter in Urdu you would find _dehlii_.



I think the "dillii" pronunciation may have gained more currency in Urdu in the last few decades.  An old Urdu grammar book I was reading mentioned that "dehlii" was the usual word amongst Urdu speakers in Pakistan and India, and "dillii" amongst Hindi speakers.  From my observation, this is still largely the case.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Thank you for the Dhillii --> dihlii insight.  Very interesting. 

dillii has been around in written Urdu for some time too. As in 'dillii jo ik sheher thaa aalam meN intikhaab .." from Mir. 'dehlii' seems to be the persianized version and can be used with persian/arabic grammatical constructs like izaafat. For example, salaatiin-i-dehlii. You wouldn't find dillii in such a construct.


----------



## marrish

From the same Miir Taqii Miir:

مرثیے دل کے کئی کہہ کے دیئے لوگوں کو
*شہرِ دلّی* میں ہے سب پاس نشانی اس کی

_marsiye dil ke ka'ii kah ke diye logoN ko
*shahr-e-dillii* meN hae sab paas nishaanii us kii_​


----------



## mundiya

UrduMedium said:


> ^ Thank you for the Dhillii --> dihlii insight.  Very interesting.
> 
> dillii has been around in written Urdu for some time too. As in 'dillii jo ik sheher thaa aalam meN intikhaab .." from Mir. 'dehlii' seems to be the persianized version and can be used with persian/arabic grammatical constructs like izaafat. For example, salaatiin-i-dehlii. You wouldn't find dillii in such a construct.



You're very welcome.

Yes, that is true.  But "dehlii" has been the preferred form in official/governmental Urdu writing.




marrish said:


> From the same Miir Taqii Miir:
> 
> مرثیے دل کے کئی کہہ کے دیئے لوگوں کو
> *شہرِ دلّی* میں ہے سب پاس نشانی اس کی
> 
> _marsiye dil ke ka'ii kah ke diye logoN ko
> *shahr-e-dillii* meN hae sab paas nishaanii us kii_​



It's interesting that he used an izaafat with "dillii".  Looks like an exception to the rule.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> [...]It's interesting that he used an izaafat with "dillii".  Looks like an exception to the rule.


No, it is not an exception to the rule. Any place name can have an izaafat.

ai aab-i-rod-i-gaNgaa vuh din haiN yaad tujh ko
utraa tere kinaare jab kaarvaaN hamaaraa

Allamah Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938)


----------



## marrish

^ Also, not looking to far away, the one you quoted in your post No. 2:

bulbul-i-*dillii *ne baaNdhaa is chaman meN aashiyaaN 
ham-navaa haiN sab 3anaadil baaGh-i-hastii ke jahaaN 

[Iqbal]


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> [..]I  forgot to mention this before.  Dhillii  -> dehlii not only has Dh -> d  but also the insertion of a medial "h" to replace the aspiration, in the same manner as Dhol -> dohol.  It's always interesting to notice patterns.
> 
> I think the "dillii" pronunciation may have gained more currency in Urdu in the last few decades.  An old Urdu grammar book I was reading mentioned that "dehlii" was the usual word amongst Urdu speakers in Pakistan and India, and "dillii" amongst Hindi speakers.  From my observation, this is still largely the case.


 It would be beneficial to have an etymological insight, perhaps from Dib Jii and fdb SaaHib. I have often wondered if Dhol and duhul are connected.

I don't believe this is quite true. The use of "dillii" in both speech and writing is very old. You will find "dillii" in the speech of Urdu speakers much more frequent than dehlii. You will hear so and so is a "dillii vaalaa" or they are "dillii vaale" etc.


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> It would be beneficial to have an etymological insight, perhaps from Dib Jii and fdb SaaHib. I have often wondered if Dhol and duhul are connected.



That is what fdb saahab has already said (on a thread in which you posted). 




> You will find "dillii" in the speech of Urdu speakers much more frequent than dehlii.



That may be true in some places now, but maybe not 50 years ago.  Also I believe the statement only applied to native Urdu speakers.  Among those in India, "dehlii" is used more frequently in my estimation.  This is supported by official Urdu writing predominantly using "dehllii".  UM saahab has provided a similar observation for those of Delhi origin in Karachi.




UrduMedium said:


> From my unscientific survey, _dehlii _is more common use by the "_dehliwaalas" _of Karachi (aka Punjabi Suadagaran-e-Dehli).


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> No, it is not an exception to the rule. Any place name can have an izaafat.



I see.  So, in the example from UM saahab: salaatiin-i-dehlii can also be salaatiin-i-dillii, but people choose not to use the latter construct.


----------



## Qureshpor

# Post 33  Not that it is of any significance to me, the frequency of dehlii vs dillii uttered and written by native Urdu speakers and the so called "official writings" (vs Hindi speakers use of dillii only) would need to be determined by some academic study. Neither our personal perceptions nor "unscientific" surveys can replace this study.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> I see.  So, in the example from UM saahab: salaatiin-i-dehlii can also be salaatiin-i-dillii, but people choose not to use the latter construct.


Well, as dehlii and dillii are names of a place (used by Urdu speakers, the frequency of usage of either yet to be determined), the choice in an izaafat construction is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> (vs Hindi speakers use of dillii only)



This is not true.  Some Hindi speakers do use "dehlii" (also in writing), but "dillii" is much more common in all forms of speech and writing.  I guess we will need to await a study to confirm this too.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> This is not true.  Some Hindi speakers do use "dehlii" (also in writing), but "dillii" is much more common in all forms of speech and writing.  I guess we will need to await a study to confirm this too.


My mistake. I thought you had said Hindi speakers use dillii only.


----------



## UrduMedium

Just to clarify I put "dehliwalas" in quotes and specified that I am referring to a specific group (_aka Punjabi Suadagaran-e-Dehli).
_
This group by no means represents all the dilliwalas let alone all native Urdu speakers. 



Qureshpor said:


> # Post 33  Not that it is of any significance to me, the frequency of dehlii vs dillii uttered and written by native Urdu speakers and the so called "official writings" (vs Hindi speakers use of dillii only) would need to be determined by some academic study. Neither our personal perceptions nor "unscientific" surveys can replace this study.


----------



## marrish

mundiya said:


> It's interesting that he used an izaafat with "dillii".  Looks like an exception to the rule.


The rule is not to use common nouns or adjectives other than originally Persian in an izafat construction but proper names and especially names of cities are exempt. mahaaraajaa-e-kaanpuur etc. is a commonplace. It would be very stupid to use the Persian form of a proper name just to fit it into this form.

daryaa-e-gaNgaa.
walii-e-raampuur (Ghalib) etc etc.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Also see post 30 please.


----------



## marrish

Right, it is almost a copy/paste. You are right, I should have read the thread deeper into time. Anyway I am very happy that I added my post so that people can see that there are two (and more I hope) independent opinions which are scientifical and they agree! You told us about the Ganges and I about some cities. Personal names are also good e.g. janaab-e-mundiya or Hazarat-e-Durgaa Devi.


----------



## nawaab

Any chance the city name is derived from dil (heart) or is it folk etymology?


----------



## desi4life

nawaab said:


> Any chance the city name is derived from dil (heart) or is it folk etymology?



No, it's folk etymology because the city's name predates the arrival of Persian speakers to the city, which rules out a Persian origin for the name.


----------



## desi4life

hindiurdu said:
			
		

> ... Verbatim:
> 
> "_A reproduction of the inscription has neither appeared in print, nor have scholars, save one, ever questioned Cunningham's transliteration. Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni reported the inscription to read Sammat Dhilli 1109 Amgapala vadi. 20 Admittedly, Sahni's transliteration, like Cunningham's, is unscientific, but there is no avoiding the issue of the different spellings Dihali/Dhilli and bahi/vadi.......the spelling Dihali may be an illiterate attempt at *Ḍhilli, the spelling which occurs for the first time in the Pasanahacariu and which is attested in later contexts, also with the pleonastic suffix -ka.*_"
> 
> It's pure speculation and Cohen is fully transparent about it. He is calling ALL readings unscientific.



I've decided to enter this discussion.  He is calling the two different readings of the inscription unscientific.   What's undebatable is the part I've highlighted in bold.  The toponym _Ḍhillī _is attested from documents predating the Delhi Sultanate.  Other than the uncertain reading by Cunningham, there is no evidence for the toponym _Dihlī _in any document until the time of the Sultanate.  Therefore, the evidence for early attestation is clearly in favor of _Ḍhillī.  _Besides, the title of the paper is "An early attestation of the toponym Ḍhillī" not "An early attestation of the toponym Dihlī".  In addition, while you are quoting this 1989 paper, you are ignoring the more recent paper from 2010, which only mentions _Ḍhillī _and is titled "On Jaina Apabhraṃśa  praśastis".  It is important because a lot can happen in 21 years to make the possibility of _Dihlī _even more unlikely_._



			
				hindiurdu said:
			
		

> "_The etymology of the word DhillT cannot be conclusively settled from the available data. If Cunningham's reading, Dihali, is correct, the etyma dehali 'threshold' and dehudl/dehudd(h)i 'mound, threshold' are of possible interest._"



"_If Cunningham's reading, Dihali, is correct..." _makes it clear that it's a hypothetical.  There is no other evidence for it.  I'm not saying he is necessarily wrong, but this is the same Cunningham who made the following claim (see post 20):

"_Dillī_ is, according to Cunningham, the old Hindu form of the name; _Dihlī_ is that used by Mahommedans."



			
				hindiurdu said:
			
		

> All I've been saying is that there is a strong case to be made for Dehliiz > Delhi and I want to make it.



You are supposing the city had a Persian name before Persian speakers ever controlled the city.  That doesn't make any sense.  Remember, _Ḍhillī _was already attested before the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate.  If the origin of the name were _Dehlīz_, then one would expect to find this word for the city's name in early Persian documents.  However, the earliest quotation provided in Hobson Jobson (see post 20 again) from 1205 indicates the name as _Dehlī _not _Dehlīz_.  I don't believe _Dehlīz _was ever used for the city's name.  This suggests _Dehlī _is not the corrupted form of _Dehlīz _as you are asserting. Instead, _Dehlī _is the Persianized form of the native name for the city.  I think any rational person would agree with that.  It also explains why _Dehlī _(Persianized word) is more common in Urdu than in Hindi.



			
				hindiurdu said:
			
		

> And:
> "_That the name of a capital city would be derived from a word meaning 'loose' is, of course, unlikely. The reference to the historically factual succession of the Cauhan and Pathan as rulers of Delhi identifies the account as a popular story dated substantially later than the suzerainty of the Tomara._"



I agree with you in doubting "loose" as an etymology.  However, _Ḍhillī _as the original name doesn't necessarily mean a connection to the word "loose".  See Turner here.  Of particular importance are possible connections to the following words.  Note the alternation of the initial consonant _ḍh~ḍ~d, _which suggests if the etymology is to be found here that _Ḍhillī _and _Dillī _may have both been original variant pronunciations of the city's name.
_



			H. ḍīl m. ʻ lump, ploughed land ʼ
H. ḍel m. ʻ lump, ploughed land ʼ
B. ḍhil ʻ lump, clod, stone ʼ
H. ḍhallā m. ʻ lump of clay, clod ʼ
N. ḍil ʻ ridge, bank ʼ
M. ḍhelā m. ʻ dry spot in a river ʼ
H. dil f. ʻ small eminence, site of an old village ʼ
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## hindiurdu

marrish said:


> The rule is not to use common nouns or adjectives other than originally Persian in an izafat construction but proper names and especially names of cities are exempt. mahaaraajaa-e-kaanpuur etc. is a commonplace. It would be very stupid to use the Persian form of a proper name just to fit it into this form.
> 
> daryaa-e-gaNgaa.
> walii-e-raampuur (Ghalib) etc etc.



True, but I have heard ruud-e-gang also.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> I think any rational person would agree with that.



The last discussion got shut down precisely because things like this were said. I disagree with you but am reluctant to engage if this is how it's going to go.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:
			
		

> Also, I note how carefully you have skirted my direct question on whether you are a linguist. You are clearly not. So it would also behoove you to stop grandstanding and lecturing others on how linguistics is or is not to be done when you're challenged. Learn to have your arguments stand on their own without this "just trust me" attitude.



As a general principle, I usually don’t respond to personal questions or comments such as this, but since you’re jumping to conclusions I will clarify that I’ve studied linguistics, though it's not my profession.  Getting back to the topic, I pretty much agree with desi4life’s remarks about the etymology of Delhi, and I will leave it at that.


----------



## hindiurdu

First, I have not noticed an actual divergence in Urdu vs Hindi speakers when it comes to saying dilli or dehlii. What I have seen is that older people from West UP and Delhi say dehlii while people from Haryana tend to say dilli. There are other such names too. Mehraulii become Merrolii and Shaah Daaraa > Shahaadraa > Shaddraa. All three are examples of the classic Haryana/Punjab tendency to de-aspirate and geminate. They do this with many, many words. Some will make people here wince. dehaatii > de'aattii. kahaanii > k'aaṇṇii.

Second, as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong - with facts, not emotions), there are no reliable references to Delhi that actually predate the invasions of Ghazni (1000 - 1020 AD). Meanwhile, we also know that Jayapal Janjua ruled from Laghman to Sirhind (literally on the border of Haryana) from 964 - 1001 AD. He was a neighbor of Sebuktegin (Mahmud's father) and of Mahmud after him. The contention that there was no Persian influence in the region at that time sounds impossible when the dynasty ruling about 4 districts from Delhi (and only two from UP) is called Kabul _Shahi_ and includes a chunk of Eastern Afghanistan. Also, didn't Prithviraj Chauhan himself rename Lal Kot to _Qila_ Rai Pithora? Vibudh Shridhar was 1120-1170 approximately. Note that Amir Khusro was already born in UP - to the east of Delhi - by 1253, ie within a hundred years of the author of these Prashastis. BTW I specifically referenced elements of the 2010 paper (On Jaina Apabhramsa Prashastis). Also, look at his citation of Anangapal - जहिं असिवर तोडिय रिउ कवालु, णरणाहु पसिद्धउ अणंगवालु । वलभर कम्पाविउ णायरायु, माणिणियण मणसंजनीय ।। - Aṇangvaalu. He has turned a dental into a retroflex. Just saying.

More to come


----------



## desi4life

hindiurdu said:


> Also, look at his citation of Anangapal - जहिं असिवर तोडिय रिउ कवालु, णरणाहु पसिद्धउ अणंगवालु । वलभर कम्पाविउ णायरायु, माणिणियण मणसंजनीय ।। - Aṇangvaalu. He has turned a dental into a retroflex. Just saying.



Interchange between dental and retroflex N is commonplace between Sanskrit, the Prakrits, and the modern languages.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> Interchange between dental and retroflex N is commonplace between Sanskrit, the Prakrits, and the modern languages.



True. So is l > r > R > D (kaalaa > kaaraa > kaaRaa > kaaDaa). Darna (to be afraid) > DaDna in Rajasthani. And Sindhi has t > T. d > D doesn't seem far-fetched either. Also, I am reminded of a friend from Karnataka who says HinDi for Hindi. Wasn't Jainism really big in Karnataka?


----------



## desi4life

Yes, but Vibudh Shridhar wasn't from Karnataka or Sindh.  Plus, current pronunciation tendencies in those regions don't indicate how things were 900 years ago.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> Yes, but Vibudh Shridhar wasn't from Karnataka or Sindh.  Plus, current pronunciation tendencies in those regions don't indicate how things were 900 years ago.



That was sort of the point, actually. That tendencies could have moved around. The current region of UP does NOT have a n > ṇ tendency. The place that does is also the place that geminates and de-aspirates: Haryana. If anything, this bolsters the idea that dehlii > Dilli. The Haryanvis of today do not do d > D but, as you noted, tendencies morph.


----------



## desi4life

Sure, but you're forgetting this is a Prakrit/Apabramsha document.  The Western Hindi dialects of UP and Haryana (i.e. Khari Boli, Braj Bhasha, Haryanvi, Kannauji, etc.) are all from the same Prakrit/Apabhramsha.  So any n > ṇ, d > D, germination, or de-aspiration tendencies current today don't apply to Vibudh's Shridhar's time because those dialects hadn't yet emerged or diverged from one another.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> Sure, but you're forgetting this is a Prakrit/Apabramsha document.  The Western Hindi dialects of UP and Haryana (i.e. Khari Boli, Braj Bhasha, Haryanvi, Kannauji, etc.) are all from the same Prakrit/Apabhramsha.  So any n > ṇ, d > D, germination, or de-aspiration tendencies current today don't apply to Vibudh's Shridhar's time because those dialects hadn't yet emerged or diverged from one another.



This does not seem to fit with the timeline. Amir Khusro was composing in language that is perfectly comprehensible to us within 100 years of Vibudh Shridhar (_Khusrau darya prem ka, ulti wa ki dhaar, Jo utra so doob gaya, jo dooba so paar_.) - he even seems to switch dialects depending on what he is writing (_Chhap tilak sab cheeni ray mosay naina milaikay, Prem bhatee ka madhva pilaikay, Matvali kar leeni ray mosay naina milaikay_ - distinctly Braj + Awadhi, which is sort of where he was from). How could these not have diverged by then? Meanwhile, Baba Farid (1180-1266) was already writing Punjabi poetry, which is perfectly comprehensible to Punjabis today, though it feels archaic (_Kaale maiDe kapRe, kaalaa maiDa vais, gunaahiN bhariyaaN maiN phiraaN, lok kehen darvaish_). What you're saying would require that an already entrenched Punjabi language riddled with Persian words coexisted right next to a more-or-less undifferentiated Apabhramsha with no Persian, which subsequently somehow dialected into multiple streams within a hundred years. Doesn't add-up at all. What is much more likely is that Vibudh Shridhar was dialectically influenced and so were others. He is a religious poet and, like the religious writers of today, probably used stilted language to conform to whatever tradition he felt comfortable with. That's where my Karnataka thought came from (it is speculative, of course). I mean we know that the Jains were prolific writers and churned out novels and other stuff to promote their faith. Varangacharita for example (out of Karnataka, 600-800AD period).


----------



## desi4life

Well, no work attributed to Amir Khusro or Baba Farid can be securely dated to that time period.  Many scholars believe they are later compositions.  To give you another example, even if you look at languages 500 years ago and compare them to today, there are changes in sounds.  Languages don't stay stagnant.  The point being, you can't use such arguments to support dehlii>dillii, Dhillii>dillii or any other combination because there are too many variables at play.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> Well, no work attributed to Amir Khusro or Baba Farid can be securely dated to that time period.  Many scholars believe they are later compositions.  To give you another example, even if you look at languages 500 years ago and compare them to today, there are changes in sounds.  Languages don't stay stagnant.  The point being, you can't use such arguments to support dehlii>dillii, Dhillii>dillii or any other combination because there are too many variables at play.



This is ten times more true of religious-oriented texts, where making revisions and then squelching the idea that revisions were made is very typical. The overall case is definitely inclined for dehlii in my opinion. Vibudh Shridhar is way too late in the day, his works might have been modified (your point), Persian was obviously influencing the local language already (including in the name Qila Rai Pithora itself), multiple other examples of CehCii > CeCCii in the area, examples of retroflexion of palatals (especially for one who might be so disposed such as Shridhar might have been), the pillar saying Dehali, non-occurrence of any mention of Delhi prior to the Ghaznavi raids, lack of scholarly explanation for the term Dhilli. Dhilli hinges on a couple of pieces of evidence while dehlii has so many corroborating factors. Obviously, I wouldn't call it air-tight. It will probably never be. I could be wrong but it seems pretty unlikely. I am open to hearing any additional evidence.


----------



## desi4life

My point was regarding dental and retroflex N, which is a different scenario. I don't think there is any evidence of Persian deh-/dih- becoming Dhi- in Prakrit.  Instead, there is evidence for the opposite scenario.  As someone mentioned, Sanskrit/Prakrit Dhola is dohol in Persian.

Regarding Qila Rai Pithora, isn't that the name given to the site at a later period?  I didn't interpret it to mean it was called that during Prithvi Raj's time.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> My point was regarding dental and retroflex N, which is a different scenario. I don't think there is any evidence of Persian deh-/dih- becoming Dhi- in Prakrit.  Instead, there is evidence for the opposite scenario.  As someone mentioned, Sanskrit/Prakrit Dhola is dohol in Persian.



Doesn't make sense to me. Dh (Hindi) > d-h (Persian) is inevitable - but in Iran and Afghanistan, not India. This is actually a great example, right here. Dhol became dohol in Persian, but _it stayed Dhol in India_. Similarly, if it was Dhilli, it would likely have stayed Dhilli. There was no reason on earth it would have changed for the entire population from D to d.



desi4life said:


> Regarding Qila Rai Pithora, isn't that the name given to the site at a later period?  I didn't interpret it to mean it was called that during Prithvi Raj's time.



Reference after reference says he did. It is not a later name. In fact, the name Qila Rai Pithora ONLY makes sense with the Qila in front of it. Note that it is explicitly not Kot Rai Pithora. He specifically renamed it from Lal Kot to Qila Rai Pithora. Not just that, even in Prithviraj Raso - "हरषत अनंद मन मँह हुलस, लै जु *महल* भीतर गइय। पंजर अनूप नग मनि जटित, सो तिहि मँह रष्षत भइय॥" Mahal = Palace, as Persian as can be. Also note that nowhere is Dhilli mentioned here by Prithviraj Chauhan or by Chand Birdai or anyone else. Prithvirajraso is fanciful and fudges facts but his contemporaneous-ness with Prithviraj is undisputed afaik.


----------



## desi4life

hindiurdu said:


> Doesn't make sense to me. Dh (Hindi) > d-h (Persian) is inevitable - but in Iran and Afghanistan, not India.



Persian was spoken in India too. Furthermore, as the capital city, Delhi was a center of Persian culture. Therefore, Dh in Dhillii > d-h in dihlii is certainly plausible.



> Similarly, if it was Dhilli, it would likely have stayed Dhilli.



Documents show that it was Dhillii at one time.



> There was no reason on earth it would have changed for the entire population from D to d.



Possible reasons have already been given...



mundiya said:


> So, it seems "Dhillii" was modified to "dillii" and "dehlii"  because Persian doesn't have Dh, with the latter form preferred in  Persianised contexts.





desi4life said:


> However, _Ḍhillī _as the original name doesn't necessarily mean a connection to the word "loose".  See Turner here.  Of particular importance are possible connections to the following words.  Note the alternation of the initial consonant _ḍh~ḍ~d, _which suggests if the etymology is to be found here that _Ḍhillī _and _Dillī _may have both been original variant pronunciations of the city's name.


........



> Also note that nowhere is Dhilli mentioned here by Prithviraj Chauhan or by Chand Birdai or anyone else. Prithvirajraso is fanciful and fudges facts but his contemporaneous-ness with Prithviraj is undisputed afaik.



Prithvirajraso is from a few centuries after Prithviraj.

.........

On a side note, we clearly have different views, so there's no reason to continue the dialogue.


----------



## nizamuddin

*Delhi* (/ˈdɛli/, Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪ɪlliː]_*Dilli*_), officially the *National Capital Territory of Delhi*, is the Capital territory of India. It has a population of about 11 million and a metropolitan population of about 16.3 million, making it the second most populous city and second most populous urban agglomeration in India. Such is the nature of urban expansion in Delhi that its growth has expanded beyond the NCT to incorporate towns in neighbouring states and at its largest extent can count a population of about 25 million residents as of 2014.


----------



## hindiurdu

desi4life said:


> On a side note, we clearly have different views, so there's no reason to continue the dialogue.



Let's halt for now. I am sure more research on this will happen and then we'll have more to talk or argue about. Nice chatting with you. Cheers.


----------



## Wolverine9

Given the speculative nature of the discussion about the etymology of Delhi, it is important to focus on the facts. This will especially benefit those taking a cursory glance at the thread.

*Facts*

1.  The oldest attested name for the city of Delhi is "Dhillii" dating to the Rajput era in the 12th century.

2. The etymology of "Dhillii" is unknown.


Everything else is speculation.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> Given the speculative nature of the discussion about the etymology of Delhi, it is important to focus on the facts. This will especially benefit those taking a cursory glance at the thread.
> 
> *Facts*
> 
> 1.  The oldest attested name for the city of Delhi is "Dhillii" dating to the Rajput era in the 12th century.
> 
> 2. The etymology of "Dhillii" is unknown.



I dispute #1 as stated. The name of a location which may or may not be Delhi, and which is on the opposite bank of the river Yamuna from what is attested in the same source as Haryana, is attested by a religious writer who has extensively converted one other dental to a retroflex, to be Dhilli. This is purely factual - no opinion involved at all.

A very different thing


----------



## Wolverine9

^ That is speculation, though.  No article is doubting whether "Dhillii" refers to Delhi or not.  Only you are.   Secondly, you are assuming that the boundaries of Haryana and Delhi were the same then as they are now.  That is more speculation.  Thirdly, you are assuming that he "converted" a sound, as if it's wrong.  You can't apply the phonetics of Sanskrit to the phonetics of the language in which he was writing.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> ^ That is speculation, though.  No article is doubting whether "Dhillii" refers to Delhi or not.  Only you are.   Secondly, you are assuming that the boundaries of Haryana and Delhi were the same then as they are now.  That is more speculation.  Thirdly, you are assuming that he "converted" a sound, as if it's wrong.  You can't apply the phonetics of Sanskrit to the phonetics of the language in which he was writing.



If you cannot apply the phonetics of Sanskrit, then we're pretty open already, aren't we? It could in fact be dhilli he is saying, not Dhilli. And you're assuming Haryana extended into today's UP, which is also speculative at best - especially given that the traditional borders have so often run along the Yamuna (eg Hastinapur). And we already know that Vibudh Shridhar was wrong, or spoke fancifully, in some really basic facts, eg the country was NOT ruled by Anangapala II. That king ruled in the previous century.

But we're getting sucked back into the discussion where we're restating things. So, okay, I hear your opinion. And you've heard mine. I do not think that this question of origin of the name seems to be that exciting to most people, so I wouldn't say that there is somehow a big body of literature that clinches it one way, for now. Most people seems fine just echoing what they're hearing. Raja Dhillu, Dihliz, Dhilli - whatever.


----------



## Wolverine9

> And you're assuming Haryana extended into today's UP, which is also speculative at best



I pointed out _your _assumption about the boundaries but didn't make one of my own.  It's speculation to assume anything about the state's boundaries or the course of the Yamuna in the 12th century.



> especially given that the traditional borders have so often run along the Yamuna (eg Hastinapur).



As far as I know, this is factually incorrect because Hastinapur is along (or nearby) the Ganga not the Yamuna. A change in the course of a river wouldn't be that extreme.



> But we're getting sucked back into the discussion where we're restating things.



I agree.



> So, okay, I hear your opinion.



I listed facts not opinions.  Fact #1, which you're disputing, is proven in the articles. For example, the articles mention the fort and iron pillar and provide direct statements that confirm Dhillii is the city of Delhi. I guess we should stop the discussion when we can't even agree on a fact being a fact.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> I pointed out _your _assumption about the boundaries but didn't make one of my own.  It's speculation to assume anything about the state's boundaries in the 12th century.  It's also speculative to make assumptions about the course of the Yamuna in the 12th century.  The course of rivers can change.
> 
> As far as I know, this is factually incorrect because Hastinapur is along (or nearby) the Ganga not the Yamuna.



Okay, this is not factually incorrect, Wolverine Ji and in fact can be an interesting discussion area entirely separately from the Delhi name question. Some background is needed. Here, Hastinapur is meant in the historic sense. The Yamuna has often been a natural frontier of sorts between two kinds of cultures and often kingdoms. Culturally, Delhi belongs largely to the Haryana zone, except for the "new" settlement of Shahjahanabad. Haryana has traditionally always considered itself centered between the mythic Saraswati (which some people think is Ghaggar - no personal opinions on this, just relaying what I hear) and the Yamuna. As you know "doabs" is how North Indians and Punjabi Pakistanis often derive their historic regional affiliations. Colloquially, West UP vs Haryana is the division of the Hastinapur culture and the Haryana culture. I don't know why they call it Hastinapur. Maybe because that was the limit of the Hastinapur kingdom and the Pandavas supposedly crossed the Yamuna into virgin land to establish their new kingdom? Though even that doesn't fully make sense because the combined area supposedly belonged to the Kurus, hence Kurukshetra, which is in Haryana. The Kuru-rashtra proper is in the Ganga-Jamuna Doab. Then there is Kuru-kshetra and Kuru-jangal. References: "Harsha and his times", "Ancient Kurukshetra: Studies in Historical and Cultural Geography", "Haryana: Studies in History and Culture", "Panjab University Research Bulletin". Hastinapur is the capital of Kuru-rashtra and the entire core Kuru kingdom is often just called "Hastinapur." Haryana in some sense is the "not-Hastinapur" area in the other Doab. I guess we could call it the difference between Rohilkhand and Haryana. To me, saying that Delhi is on the opposite bank as Haryana is important. It jars against some deep-rooted notions of what Delhi and Haryana are, held by lots of people in this region. I don't think it makes sense to talk about the river changing course. The Yamuna is definitely not on the other side of Qila Rai Pithora / Lal Kot than it was before! Could Vibudh have a different notion of Haryana? Possible, and I conceded the possibility, only noting that accepting this means accepting that some part of the historical Hastinapur area would have had to be in this definition of Haryana. Might not mean much to you but it will mean a heckuva lot to many people from this region.



Wolverine9 said:


> I listed facts not opinions.  Fact #1, which you're disputing, is proven in the articles.  I guess we should stop the discussion when we can't even agree on a fact being a fact.



I do not consider this a proven fact by any means. According to the same paper, Anangapal II is claimed to be the king by Vibudh in the same segment, which the paper itself disputes (and which, in fact, simply cannot be true). But yes, let's stop here.

PS: Was trying to read more of the second reference above ("Ancient Kurukshetra: Studies in Historical and Cultural Geography") and this was so much on point that I had to call it out: "_Raychaudhuri restricts the Kurus proper to the district around Hastinapura. Pargiter calls it the middle region between Ganga and Yamuna with capitals at Hastinapura and Khandavaprastha or Indraprastha. Being unfamiliar with the geography of the area Pargiter did not realise the contradiction involved in the location of a country between Ganga and Yamuna and of its capital outside the doab on the west bank of the Yamuna._" Seems like he wasn't the first or the last to make mistakes like this.


----------



## nawaab

hindiurdu said:


> I do not consider this a proven fact by any means. According to the same paper, Anangapal II is claimed to be the king by Vibudh in the same segment, which the paper itself disputes (and which, in fact, simply cannot be true). But yes, let's stop here.



I read the paper, but at the risk of joining the discussion too late, I just have one comment.  The author's modus operandi is that Dhillii refers to Delhi, and he provides an explanation for the claim about Anangapal as king.  By disagreeing with this identification of Dhillii and Delhi, you are in effect disagreeing with the author, right?


----------



## hindiurdu

nawaab said:


> I read the paper, but at the risk of joining the discussion too late, I just have one comment.  The author's modus operandi is that Dhillii refers to Delhi, and he provides an explanation for the claim about Anangapal as king.  By disagreeing with this identification of Dhillii and Delhi, you are in effect disagreeing with the author, right?



I don't want to go circular on this because people just restate positions. You're specifically asking for my position, so I will give it. Eva De Clercq's 2010 paper "On Jaina Apabhramśa Praśastis" seems to basically echo Richard Cohen's work and gives him credit. His 1989 paper "An Early Attestation of the Toponym Ḍhilli" itself clarifies that there is uncertainty on whether the name is Dihli or Ḍhilli. Note that they all point to some basic issues in Vibudh Shridhar's पासणाह चरिउ, including being confused on the King's non-contemporaneous-ness but also on simply not mentioning Lal Kot at all, which is odd. To answer your exact question: (a) I do not know if Vibudh Shridhar meant Delhi by Dhilli and (b) even if he did, I do not know if he was actually rendering it correctly as pronounced at that time. He's off on multiple things it seems like to me.


----------



## nawaab

hindiurdu said:


> I don't want to go circular on this because people just restate positions. You're specifically asking for my position, so I will give it. Eva De Clercq's 2010 paper "On Jaina Apabhramśa Praśastis" seems to basically echo Richard Cohen's work and gives him credit. His 1989 paper "An Early Attestation of the Toponym Ḍhilli" itself clarifies that there is uncertainty on whether the name is Dihli or Ḍhilli. Note that they all point to some basic issues in Vibudh Shridhar's पासणाह चरिउ, including being confused on the King's non-contemporaneous-ness but also on simply not mentioning Lal Kot at all, which is odd. To answer your exact question: (a) I do not know if Vibudh Shridhar meant Delhi by Dhilli and (b) even if he did, I do not know if he was actually rendering it correctly as pronounced at that time. He's off on multiple things it seems like to me.



Thank you for your answer.  The uncertainty about the reading Dihli or Ḍhilli is for one inscription, so we of course can't draw conclusions on it.  But in the papers, the authors are using Ḍhilli to mean Delhi on the basis of Shridhar and other writers and inscriptions.  The authors state that Ḍhilli refers to Delhi, and your point (a) clarifies you would disagree with them.  I've listed some examples where they identify Ḍhilli as Delhi:

"THE PASANAHACARIU IS A HAGIOGRAPHY of the twenty-third Jaina tirthankara, Parsvanatha. It was written in Delhi in A.D. 1132 by the Agravala Digambara poet, Sridhara."

"A number of passages in the Pasanahacariu are of historical interest, especially regarding the history of pre-Islamic Delhi and the Tomara dynasty."

"There are two Cauhana inscriptions which allude to the fact that Vigraharaja IV (also called Visaladeva) held sway over the territory between the Vindhyas and the Himalayas, and had captured Ḍhillika (Delhi) and Asika (Hansi)."

"The Pāsaṇāhacariu appears to contain the earliest attestation in literature of the region Haryana (hariyāṇae, 1.2.14) and Delhi (ḍhillī , 1.2.15). The description of the fort (1.3), identified as Lāl Koṭ, north of Mehrauli, agrees with the findings of archeologists."

Note: I'm not asking you any follow-up questions or encouraging you to restate your examples and positions.  The authors discussed all relevant aspects but still deduced from the evidence that Ḍhilli is Delhi.


----------



## hindiurdu

^Laughing about this. Okay, you could just write to them and invite them to participate on this forum. They have email and might be interested in opining directly. Just a thought.


----------



## nawaab

^ The quotes I listed speak for themselves.  If you're not satisfied, then you're welcome to extend an invitation.


----------



## hindiurdu

^Distortion and selective.

"By the time of Sridhara, Anangapala II must have been somewhat of a legendary figure. Sridhara credits him with having cut off the head of the enemy, and having crushed and destroyed the Hammira. The title Hammira is almost certainly an Indian corruption of the Arabic amir 'a commander or noble', and it is an historical fact that the Yamini rulers of Ghazni used the title. It is entirely possible that Anangapala II dealt successfully with a Pathan threat to his kingdom, led by the contemporary Ghazni ruler, Zahir-ud-daulah Ibrahim (1059-99), the grandson of Mahmud."

"Although the name Lal Kot is not used in the Pasanahacariu, enough documentation exists to be fairly certain that indeed the fort built by Anangapala I was known by this name."

He's using and distorting an Arabic word, Indianizing it. He is retroflexing dentals. He doesn't even know the prevalent name of the city, Lal Kot. He gets the name of the current king wrong. He is a religious scholar. He gets the wrong bank of Haryana from what is currently understood. The authors clearly surface all these things. They NEVER claim that Dhilli is the original name as far as I can see. All they say is "Dhilli" appears here. The first paper is more circumspect in asserting Dhilli = Delhi. The second paper bases itself on the first and just assumes Dhilli = Delhi, though it is tangential to that paper.

So yeah, I'd say you're speculating a LOT here.


----------



## nawaab

hindiurdu said:


> ^Distortion and selective.
> [...]
> He's using and distorting an Arabic word, Indianizing it. He is retroflexing dentals. He doesn't even know the prevalent name of the city, Lal Kot. He gets the name of the current king wrong. He is a religious scholar. He gets the wrong bank of Haryana from what is currently understood. The authors clearly surface all these things. They NEVER claim that Dhilli is the original name as far as I can see. All they say is "Dhilli" appears here. The first paper is more circumspect in asserting Dhilli = Delhi. The second paper bases itself on the first and just assumes Dhilli = Delhi, though it is tangential to that paper.
> 
> So yeah, I'd say you're speculating a LOT here.



Isn't that what you've been doing?  It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The fourth quote I listed is from the 2010 paper and is a pretty big statement:

"The Pāsaṇāhacariu appears to contain the earliest attestation in literature of the region Haryana (hariyāṇae, 1.2.14) and Delhi (ḍhillī , 1.2.15). The description of the fort (1.3), identified as Lāl Koṭ, north of Mehrauli, agrees with the findings of archeologists."

The first three quotes I listed are all from the 1989 paper:

"THE PASANAHACARIU IS A HAGIOGRAPHY of the twenty-third Jaina tirthankara, Parsvanatha. It was written in Delhi in A.D. 1132 by the Agravala Digambara poet, Sridhara."

"A number of passages in the Pasanahacariu are of historical interest, especially regarding the history of pre-Islamic Delhi and the Tomara dynasty."

"There are two Cauhana inscriptions which allude to the fact that Vigraharaja IV (also called Visaladeva) held sway over the territory between the Vindhyas and the Himalayas, and had captured Ḍhillika (Delhi) and Asika (Hansi)."

The Pasanahacariu discusses Ḍhilli, yet Cohen wrote Delhi in the first two quotes.  From these and the even more obvious third quote about the inscriptions, it's clear that Cohen (like De Clercq) is stating Ḍhilli = Delhi.

Does Cohen speculate that Ḍhilli is a city other than Delhi? No.
Does he speculate that Ḍhilli is a corruption of a Persian/Arabic word just because Hammira is? No.
Does he speculate that Aṇangvaalu is supposed to be with a dental in Shridhar's language and that Shridhar converted it to a retroflex? No.
Does he doubt Ḍhilli = Delhi because of the current king's name or the river bank? No.
Does he doubt that the fort described is a place other than Lal Kot? No.
Would he even discuss the landmarks or people associated with Delhi if he didn't believe Ḍhilli = Delhi? No.

Granted, there is no claim about Ḍhilli being the original name. Only about Ḍhilli being the earliest attested name that's currently known. But it's YOU, not Cohen or De Clercq, who has the above doubts and wild speculations because Ḍhilli = Delhi doesn't fit your personal theory.


----------



## hindiurdu

nawaab said:


> Granted, there is no claim about Ḍhilli being the original name.



Bingo and finished. Thank you very much!


----------



## nawaab

hindiurdu said:


> Bingo and finished. Thank you very much!



I never made that claim either.  There is no way of knowing at present what the city's name was before Shridhar's use of Ḍhilli for Delhi in 1132 AD.  The issue is you're disputing the following sentence in bold: "Granted, there is no claim about Ḍhilli being the original name. *Only about Ḍhilli being the earliest attested name that's currently known.*" Not only that, you're also disputing the obvious Ḍhilli = Delhi!


----------



## cherine

Moderator reminder to all:

As stated in the rules, this forum promotes learning in "an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone". If you cannot maintain a serious and respectful tone towards other foreros, even when you disagree with them, then please abstain from posting.

Thanks,
Cherine
Moderator


----------

