# Hindi and Urdu pronunciation differences



## tonyspeed

When one is learning  Hindi, the common differences are pointed out:

1) People tend not to pronounce Gh, X, and q in Hindi, substituting instead g, kh, and k. (Not sure if this happens in colloquial Urdu as well)
So Ghariib in Urdu is gariib in Hindi. Xud in Urdu is usually khud in Hindi. qalam in  Urdu is kalam in Hindi.

2) In some Hindi-speaking areas, usually rural, people tend to replace z with j.
Therefore, zamiin becomes jamiin, and zaahir becomes jaahir.

On discussions on this board we have listed several more.

3) v/w at the end of a word when proceeded by a long vowel tends to be v according to many in Hindi, but in Urdu is o. i.e. pulaav, tanaav, and even dev would be pronounced pulaao, tanaao, and deo in Urdu by everyone.

 4) kih is never pronounced as ki in Urdu, but rather as keh where 'e' is shorter than normal. This extends to balki, taki, halaNki.

5) The retroflex Hindi sounds  N and SH are not pronounced in Urdu but are replaced by dental n and sh.

6) The Hindi vowel RI(RU) is not in Urdu.

7) In Urdu, any w that is the second part of a conjunct that begins a word becomes silent. Therefore, khwaab and khwaahish in Hindi become xaab and xaahish in Urdu.

Am I missing any?


----------



## lcfatima

In some dialects of Hindi and for some speakers of less educated and/or backgrounds, s and sh are allophones of the same phoneme. This is never the case for Pakistani native Urdu speakers, although I have observed some less educated native Indian Urdu speakers occasionally doing the s/sh switch.

In some dialects of Hindi and for some speakers of less educated and/or rural backgrounds f and ph are allophones of the same phoneme. This is never the case in Urdu with the exception of some isolated words such as fir/phir.



In my observation, many native Urdu speakers pronounce q as k colloquially but maintain gh and x.

I would note for number 2, there are some specific words where what would be /z/ in Urdu always appears as /j/ even when other words of Persio-Arabic origin would appear just the same as in Urdu by many speakers: hajmola, sabji, tej patta, and jeera are some that come to mind.

7 is prescriptive, but one will encounter lots of xwaab and xwaahish in colloquial speech.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> When one is learning  Hindi, the common differences are pointed out:
> 
> 1) People tend not to pronounce Gh, X, and q in Hindi, substituting instead g, kh, and k. (Not sure if this happens in colloquial Urdu as well)
> So Ghariib in Urdu is gariib in Hindi. Xud in Urdu is usually khud in Hindi. qalam in  Urdu is kalam in Hindi.
> 
> 2) In some Hindi-speaking areas, usually rural, people tend to replace z with j.
> Therefore, zamiin becomes jamiin, and zaahir becomes jaahir.
> 
> On discussions on this board we have listed several more.
> 
> 3) v/w at the end of a word when proceeded by a long vowel tends to be v according to many in Hindi, but in Urdu is o. i.e. pulaav, tanaav, and even dev would be pronounced pulaao, tanaao, and deo in Urdu by everyone.
> 
> 4) kih is never pronounced as ki in Urdu, but rather as keh where 'e' is shorter than normal. This extends to balki, taki, halaNki.
> 
> 5) The retroflex Hindi sounds  N and SH are not pronounced in hindi but are replaced by dental n and sh.
> 
> 6) The Hindi vowel RI(RU) is not in Urdu.
> 
> 7) In Urdu, any w that is the second part of a conjunct that begins a word becomes silent. Therefore, khwaab and khwaahish in Hindi become xaab and xaahish in Urdu.
> 
> Am I missing any?



Going by your numbering..

1) In Urdu x, Gh and q are all pronounced accurately by many Urdu speakers.The exception is q, which is often mispronounced as k by some speakers.

2) Here you could add the Urdu "f" pronounced as "ph" by some Hindi speakers.

3) You are essentially right but I don't think Hindi speakers would pronounce the dish called "pulaa'o" as "pulaav" with a final consonant. At the same time, I can not say if all Urdu speakers would pronounce dev as deo. If you were called Dev Anand, you would be called Dev Anand. deo seems to exist in special contexts.

4) Agreed. I remember reading somewhere that the Urdu "kih" (pronounced ke(h)), which in essence comes from Persian, was assigned "ki" to distinguish it from "ke".

5) I think you meant to write "Urdu" in place of "Hindi" here. 

6) Correct.

7) xvaab, xvaahish etc in Urdu are pronounced both as xvaab and xvaahish as well as xaab and xaahish. The pronunciation with the v is the older (and now dying) pronunciation. I am not sure if Hindi speakers invariably pronounce these with a v/w as you have indicated.

8) Words with 3ain are invariably pronounced with a long vowel in Hindi.

ba3d > baad (after)

shi3r > sher (couplet)

9) Words like "ziyaadah" in Urdu are written as "zyaadaa" in Hindi

10) final h in Urdu words such as "nishaanah", "saayah" are written as "nishaanaa" and "saayaa" in Hindi

11) Some words are written with a "'e" (hamzah + baRii ye) whereas in Hindi, there is a final y, as in in "gaa'e" (Urdu) "gaay" (Hindi) for cow.


----------



## tonyspeed

Thank you for those additions. 



lcfatima said:


> I would note for number 2, there are some specific words where what would be /z/ in Urdu always appears as /j/ even when other words of Persio-Arabic origin would appear just the same as in Urdu by many speakers: hajmola, sabji, tej patta, and jeera are some that come to mind.


 
If you mean that sabzi is always pronounced as sabji in Hindi, I think I would have to disagree on this point. As for the others, I am clueless.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> 9) Words like "ziyaadah" in Urdu are written as "zyaadaa" in Hindi.



Is another such word duniyaa vs dunyaa? Except in this case, dunyaa is Urdu.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> shi3r > sher (couplet)



I am not sure how this is spelled in Devanagari and I don't have a dictionary nearby. But are you sure that should be an 'e' as in lion/tiger?


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> In some dialects of Hindi and for some speakers of less educated and/or backgrounds, s and sh are allophones of the same phoneme. This is never the case for Pakistani native Urdu speakers, although I have observed some less educated native Indian Urdu speakers occasionally doing the s/sh switch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, this is never the case with Pakistani non-native Urdu speakers too. Which area of India do the native Urdu speakers do the s/sh switching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some dialects of Hindi and for some speakers of less educated and/or rural backgrounds f and ph are allophones of the same phoneme. This is never the case in Urdu with the exception of some isolated words such as fir/phir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did n't know Urdu speakers mix fir with phir. In Punjabi, it is certainly "fer" but even Pakistani Punjabis pronounce "phir" when speaking Urdu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation, many native Urdu speakers pronounce q as k colloquially but maintain gh and x.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting observation. I was led to believe that this is purely a non-native phenomenon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would note for number 2, there are some specific words where what would be /z/ in Urdu always appears as /j/ even when other words of Persio-Arabic origin would appear just the same as in Urdu by many speakers: hajmola, sabji, tej patta, and jeera are some that come to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find the inclusion of "sabjii" surprising. As for "hajmola", my understanding is that this is an Indian product advertised on Indian TV channels. So, if Urdu speakers are calling it "hajmola", then they are merely calling the product by its original name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7 is prescriptive, but one will encounter lots of xwaab and xwaahish in colloquial speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already commented on the xvaab/xaab variation.
Click to expand...


----------



## flyinfishjoe

What's interesting is that even though it's called Hajmola in English, there is clearly a _nuqtaa_ under the _ja_ on the Hindi packaging.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> When one is learning  Hindi, the common differences are pointed out:


  By whom?  





tonyspeed said:


> 1) People tend not to pronounce Gh, X, and q in Hindi, substituting instead g, kh, and k. (Not sure if this happens in colloquial Urdu as well) So Ghariib in Urdu is gariib in Hindi. Xud in Urdu is usually khud in Hindi. qalam in  Urdu is kalam in Hindi.


  Not necessarily.  





tonyspeed said:


> 2) In some Hindi-speaking areas, usually rural, people tend to replace z with j. Therefore, zamiin becomes jamiin, and zaahir becomes jaahir.


  It's not a question of rural vs. urban - the z to j shift is quite natural in Hindi, as Hindi is not all that z-heavy as Urdu is. However, not all Hindi speakers do that, and certainly not for all the concerned words. Meaning that the same speaker may say zaahir and jameen.  





tonyspeed said:


> 3) v/w at the end of a word when proceeded by a long vowel tends to be v according to many in Hindi, but in Urdu is o. i.e. pulaav, tanaav, and even dev would be pronounced pulaao, tanaao, and deo in Urdu by everyone.


  Who said that it is "v" in Hindi? The pronunciation is "pulaao" and "tanaao", regardless of Hindi or Urdu. Words like "dev" and "sev" don't fit the category.  





tonyspeed said:


> 4) kih is never pronounced as ki in Urdu, but rather as keh where 'e' is shorter than normal. This extends to balki, taki, halaNki.


  Not necessarily.  





tonyspeed said:


> 5) The retroflex Hindi sounds  N and SH are not pronounced in Urdu but are replaced by dental n and sh.


  Yes, I think so.  





tonyspeed said:


> 6) The Hindi vowel RI(RU) is not in Urdu.


  Yes.  





tonyspeed said:


> 7) In Urdu, any w that is the second part of a conjunct that begins a word becomes silent. Therefore, khwaab and khwaahish in Hindi become xaab and xaahish in Urdu.


  But does "khwaaja" (as in "Khwaaja Naseeruddin Hojaa") become "khaajaa" in Urdu? ("khaajaa" by the way is a namkeen item.) I have the impression I asked this one once before, though I don't recall the answer.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> By whom? .



I think the problem in general is how do we define the difference between Urdu and Hindi? When does Urdu stop and Hindi begin?
Is Amir Khan on Satyamev Jayate speaking Urdu or Hindi? What if someone speaks what is Urdu to me but Hindi to him?

So when we define Urdu vs Hindi, I am afraid we are drawing a line between the how the majority speak Hindustani in Pakistan vs how the majority speak Hindustani in India.
We then ignore the communities of self-proclaimed "Urdu speakers" scattered throughout India. 
It is hard to make rules for such things so we tend to try to ignore the "exceptions" as much as possible.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Is another such word duniyaa vs dunyaa? Except in this case, dunyaa is Urdu.



Yes. Other examples are "daryaa" (for Hindi dariyaa), "bunyaad" (for Hindi buniyaad), "faryaad" (for fariyaad).


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I am not sure how this is spelled in Devanagari and I don't have a dictionary nearby. But are you sure that should be an 'e' as in lion/tiger?



Yes, it is spelt शेर.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> So when we define Urdu vs Hindi, I am afraid we are drawing a line between the how the majority speak Hindustani in Pakistan vs how the majority speak Hindustani in India.



I'm utterly astonished to see Hindustani in the context of Pakistan. Maybe it is a misplacement as in the other thread where Qureshpor SaaHib commented?

In a lighter vein, I consider the ones who call the actor Aamir K_haan are likely to call it Hindi.


----------



## Alfaaz

> When one is learning Hindi, the common differences are pointed out:


I guess here we could also say that the differences observed by speakers/learners (as pointed out was criticized by a forum member above)...


> 1) People tend not to pronounce Gh, X, and q in Hindi, substituting instead g, kh, and k. (Not sure if this happens in colloquial Urdu as well)
> So Ghariib in Urdu is gariib in Hindi. Xud in Urdu is usually khud in Hindi. qalam in Urdu is kalam in Hindi.


Generally Agree! This seems to be correct overall considering media and social interaction. Of course there are exceptions like Hindi speakers who have been influenced by Urdu in some way (cultural or religious).....ghazal singing, Quranic recitation, etc.


> 2) In some Hindi-speaking areas, usually rural, people tend to replace z with j.
> Therefore, zamiin becomes jamiin, and zaahir becomes jaahir.


Yes this is also observed very often in Hindi (not only in rural areas), and would be considered wrong pronunciation in Urdu.


> 3) v/w at the end of a word when proceeded by a long vowel tends to be v according to many in Hindi, but in Urdu is o. i.e. pulaav, tanaav, and even dev would be pronounced pulaao, tanaao, and deo in Urdu by everyone.


Agree, except with dev.....most would know from media exposure that it is "dev" and would pronounce it as such. 


> 4) kih is never pronounced as ki in Urdu, but rather as keh where 'e' is shorter than normal. This extends to balki, taki, halaNki.


Agree! I also think it should probably be transliterated as "keh" rather than "kih", which sometimes confuses learners/students. You can listen to the Bachan family in Big B's Den repeatedly saying what sounds like کی or the kih transliteration. 


> 5) The retroflex Hindi sounds N and SH are not pronounced in Urdu but are replaced by dental n and sh.


Yes. Sorry, but can you provide an example again? (forgot which thread this was discussed in)


> 6) The Hindi vowel RI(RU) is not in Urdu.


Yes...? Can you provide an example?


> 7) In Urdu, any w that is the second part of a conjunct that begins a word becomes silent. Therefore, khwaab and khwaahish in Hindi become xaab and xaahish in Urdu.


True. You can hear both version though. 


> Am I missing any?


We also discussed diphthongs in a thread (maulavi, maut)...I guess one could say that (theoretically) Muslim...? Urdu speakers should pronounce these correctly, as it is one of the first lessons while reading an Arabic Qaidah from a Qaari/Qaariyah:  Kaho bachcho/bachchiyo! meem zabar waa'o = mau + jeem pesh waa'o daal = jood ---->  مَوجُود maujood Of couse, this would depend on if the Qaari/Qaariyah etc. is him/herself properly educated or not! 
There was also a comment in a thread long ago about (I guess we could call it) waa'o deletion....Hindi speakers pronouncing باوُجُود as baaujuud instead of baawujuud.


----------



## Abu Talha

greatbear said:


> tonyspeed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) In some Hindi-speaking areas, usually rural, people tend to replace z with j.
> Therefore, zamiin becomes jamiin, and zaahir becomes jaahir.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a question of rural vs. urban - the z to j shift is quite natural in Hindi, as Hindi is not all that z-heavy as Urdu is. However, not all Hindi speakers do that, and certainly not for all the concerned words. Meaning that the same speaker may say zaahir and jameen.
Click to expand...

 j seems to me a more basic sound than z (which is non-Indic as far as I know). Even in Urdu, one hears j replacing z in nicknames (raziyya -> rajjo) and also in baby-talk, just like one may hear "vewy" instead of "very" in English baby talk. I don't know, however, whether z is considered a more difficult sound for young children, like r in English.


----------



## Alfaaz

> Even in Urdu, one hears j replacing z in nicknames (raziyya -> rajjo)


Is it really rajjo in Urdu....(or is that the Punjabi pronunciation)? 
In an old Urdu movie, (I think, not 100% sure) I thought I heard Muhammad Ali marhoum pronounce it as razzo when speaking to Zeba SaaHibah...(whose name was Doctor Raziyyah in the movie); Also heard Waheed Murad marhoum use khusar for susar (which I think was mentioned in a thread by BP SaaHib).


----------



## Abu Talha

Alfaaz said:


> Is it really rajjo in Urdu....(or is that the Punjabi pronunciation)?


That's a good point. I don't know..


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> Is it really rajjo in Urdu....(or is that the Punjabi pronunciation)?
> ).


I don't think it should be used in Urdu.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Is it really rajjo in Urdu....(or is that the Punjabi pronunciation)?
> .



Perhaps, to both questions. "rajjo" should not be taken in the same vein as "jamiin" because the former is a term of endearment whereas the latter is not. Take a look at this, short and not so well written article about a certain "Rajjo Bii"'s possible tomb in Delhi.

http://knowledgepools.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/original-tomb-of-razia-sultan.html


----------



## BP.

greatbear said:


> ...But does "khwaaja" (as in "Khwaaja Naseeruddin Hojaa") become "khaajaa" in Urdu? ("khaajaa" by the way is a namkeen item.) I have the impression I asked this one once before, though I don't recall the answer.


Yes it might become xaajah (not khaajah/k.haajah), but xoaajah in others (as we often hear even if it is a popular mistake.


----------



## marrish

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Yes it might become xaajah (not khaajah/k.haajah), but xoaajah in others (as we often hear even if it is a popular mistake.


I agree, xaajah is very common and also correct (xwaajah too, and I prefer it this way). Would xawaajah be a possible variation?


----------



## BP.

It could be, but I can't saw I've heard it. People find the xwhard to articulate I think.

I think what you've pointed out is the same phenomenon as in xawaatiin<=>xoaatiin.


----------



## eskandar

QURESHPOR said:


> 8) Words with 3ain are invariably pronounced with a long vowel in Hindi.
> 
> ba3d > baad (after)
> 
> shi3r > sher (couplet)


Is this not the case in colloquial Urdu as well? I feel like I have heard Pakistani Urdu-speakers pronounce بعد as _baad_ and not as _ba'd_ or _ba3d_.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Perhaps, to both questions. "rajjo" should not be taken in the same vein as "jamiin" because the former is a term of endearment whereas the latter is not.



So what? Why shouldn't it be taken in the same vein? Endearment is not the issue here: why is "rajjo" the common term of endearment and not "razzo"? Abu Talha has a good point here: the "j" comes naturally to us. By the way, "rajjo" hasn't got anything to do with Punjabi pronunciation: it's common across India. Never heard a "razzo".


----------



## Alfaaz

eskandar said:
			
		

> Is this not the case in colloquial Urdu as well? I feel like I have heard Pakistani Urdu-speakers pronounce بعد as _baad_ and not as _ba'd_ or _ba3d_.


Yes and no; I guess it would depend on who the speaker is. For example, a street vendor of fruit or qulfi who might not be well educated would probably pronounce it as baad. (Note: The previous example is certainly not intended to discriminate against people based on occupation or financial status. It may be that a street vendor has brilliant pronunciation due to Urdu or Arabic training.)  On the other hand, a TV host would probably pronounce ba'ad with a slight a'iyn (obviously not as pronounced as in Arabic) in a statement like: 
_إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّـا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ ناظرین، خبر موصول ہوئی ہے کہ مہدی حسن انتقال فرما گئے ہیں / خالق حقیقی سے جا ملے  . بعد از نمازِ جمعہ  تدفین کر دی جائے گی / انکو سپرد خاک کر دیا جائے گا
Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un. Naazreen, khabar mausuul hu'ii hai keh Mahdi Hassan intiqaal farmaa gaye haiN / khaaliq-e-Haqeeqi se jaa mile. ba'ad az namaaz-e-juma'h tadfeen kar di jaa'e gi / unko supurd-e-khaak kar diya jaa'e ga.
_(Note: Again, it is not necessary that a TV host have brilliant pronunciation. S/he might speak worse than the street vendor. The examples above were just to portray a general contrast, and not to discriminate or present stereotypes against people based on occupation, etc.)

Examples of pronunciation of ba'ad in songs: YT Titles: 
Yeh jo halka halka saroor BY Nusrat Fatieh Ali Khan................... 5:06
noor jehan aakhri baat hai sahray kay phool .......................thoroughout the song "aakhri baat hai, ab baat na hogi shaa'id, aaj ke ba'ad mulaqaat na hogi shaa'id"
Shaam ke Baad Farhat Abbas.......................................probably not such a good example
Jab Bhi Aati Hai Teri Yaad - Mehdi Hassan .....................first line
MEHNAZ LIVE - MEHKI SHAAM SAAL KE BAAD
Neiyat-e-shoq bhar na jaye kahin (Noor Jahan)...............1:06 "aaj dekha hai tujhko der ke ba'ad, aaj ka din guzar na jaa'e kaheeN"

Baad:
faiz ahmad faiz: gulon mein rang: mehdi hassan فیض: گلوں میں رنگ: مہدی حسن ..................Farsi Ghazal on same tune....................Mehdi Hassan "Ghazal i farsi" خدا ترا به غم شوخی مبتلا نکند


----------



## eskandar

Thanks for your detailed answer! It makes sense that it would be pronounced 'properly' (prescriptively) by a TV host, and differently by common folks without the same level of education. My question is, how is it pronounced in casual speech by educated Pakistanis?

To give you an analogy, we have a similar situation in Persian (بعد is 'properly' pronounced with a hamze/glottal stop in the middle, but in colloquial speech it gets dropped entirely and is pronounced as simply _bad_). So if I am speaking in a formal situation (giving a lecture, say, or reciting poetry) I would pronounce it as _ba'd_ but when speaking casually with friends it would sound a little pretentious if I enunciated it that way. Is the situation similar with Urdu, or do educated Urduphones pronounce the glottal stop even in casual speech?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> So what? Why shouldn't it be taken in the same vein? Endearment is not the issue here: why is "rajjo" the common term of endearment and not "razzo"? Abu Talha has a good point here: the "j" comes naturally to us. By the way, "rajjo" hasn't got anything to do with Punjabi pronunciation: it's common across India. Never heard a "razzo".



Because for me "rajjo" is deliberate whereas "jamiin" is n't. It is as simple as this. For you "j" might come naturally but for us who have both "j" and "z" as part of their normal everyday speech repertoire (in Punjabi and Urdu), they are both equally natural.   I too have not heard "razzo"!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I agree, xaajah is very common and also correct (xwaajah too, and I prefer it this way). Would xawaajah be a possible variation?



"xavaajah" has probably come about as a result of taking the written "xvaa-" as a "xavaa-" confusing the Persian origin conjunct with the Arabic "xavaa-" as in "xavaazimii", "xavaatiin" (as BP has indicated) etc. Looking this word up in an Arabic dictionary, I just discovered that this is how it is pronounced in Arabic. This should not surprise us because Arabic does not have a "vaa'o ma3duulah". Coincidently, its plural is "xavaajaat"! (Sirs)


----------



## Qureshpor

flyinfishjoe said:


> What's interesting is that even though it's called Hajmola in English, there is clearly a _nuqtaa_ under the _ja_ on the Hindi packaging.



Its been a long while but if I remember correctly the word is pronounced as "hajmola" in the adverts. Regarding the nuqtah, most Urdu speakers in Pakistan would not be able to read the script and for this reason they would go by the spoken word. As a matter of interest, is this word a combination of "hazm" "haazimah" (words linked to digestion) and formula (faarmuulaa)?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> . Not necessarily. Yes.    But does "khwaaja" (as in "Khwaaja Naseeruddin Hojaa") become "khaajaa" in Urdu? ("khaajaa" by the way is a namkeen item.) I have the impression I asked this one once before, though I don't recall the answer.



Regarding tonyspeed SaaHib's point 4, I do agree that as far as Urdu speech is concerned کہ (kih)is never कि but as (keh) where the e is shorter than the e in ke (as in us ke paas). If one comes across Urdu speakers in Bollywood films pronouncing this as "कि" this would be due to Hindi influence.  کہ  is never कि in Urdu.

xvaajah in Urdu is pronounced as xvaajah as well as xaajah. (xavaajah has also been mentioned).


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> Is this not the case in colloquial Urdu as well? I feel like I have heard Pakistani Urdu-speakers pronounce بعد as _baad_ and not as _ba'd_ or _ba3d_.



No, we distinguish between "ai baad-i-sabaa zaraa aahistah chal" and "us ke ba3d vuh aa ga'e". We all know that the 3ain is not pronounced fully in normal speech but there is a slight "jirk" (or call it a slightly rising tone) when Urdu speakers pronounce "ba3d". Same applies for, "yih shi3r bahut ma3nii-xez hai" vs "yih sher chiRiyaa-ghar se bhaag niklaa hai".


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> j seems to me a more basic sound than z (which is non-Indic as far as I know).



Could you please elaborate on this? j is merely the voiced form of "ch" whereas "z" is the voiced form of "s". They are all basic as far as I can see.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Because for me "rajjo" is deliberate whereas "jamiin" is n't.



How so? Rather, "rajjo" is instinctive for me whereas "jamiin" is acquired: I say "zamiin" without even knowing from where does "z" come in Hindi/Urdu and where not, simply because that is what I've heard, and there are some others who say "jamiin" because that is the background they grew up in. But the instinctiveness of "rajjo" points out probably that "j" is very natural to Indic people and "z" is acquired. I don't understand in what sense you are saying "rajjo" to be deliberate.

By the way, though I think it's for the forum moderators to point this out to you, six consecutive posts in the same thread are a bit pain to read as against one- or two-post multi-part argument.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Could you please elaborate on this?


I meant that j seems to be part of a more basic phoneme set (more basic for Urdu/Hindi, not more basic absolutely). Just like Indic words are generally more basic than words borrowed from Persian, which are often higher register.

However, I don't insist upon this. It just occurred to me as an idea and I don't have anything to back this up.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> How so? Rather, "rajjo" is instinctive for me whereas "jamiin" is acquired: I say "zamiin" without even knowing from where does "z" come in Hindi/Urdu and where not, simply because that is what I've heard, and there are some others who say "jamiin" because that is the background they grew up in. But the instinctiveness of "rajjo" points out probably that "j" is very natural to Indic people and "z" is acquired. I don't understand in what sense you are saying "rajjo" to be deliberate.



If one person pronounces "zamiin" and another "jamiin" as a matter of course, then both persons are using instinctive/natural pronunciations. However, if when one knows that the name is "Raziyah" and calls that person "rajjo", then this is a deliberate act and not a natural utterance. I hope you are able to follow this simple logic.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> I meant that j seems to be part of a more basic phoneme set (more basic for Urdu/Hindi, not more basic absolutely). Just like Indic words are generally more basic than words borrowed from Persian, which are often higher register.
> 
> However, I don't insist upon this. It just occurred to me as an idea and I don't have anything to back this up.



I think by "basic" you mean that j belongs to the Indic set of consonants whereas z is a later addition. That is of course true but this addition goes back at least to the 7th century and in this period it has had plenty of time to become as "basic" as a "j".


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> "xavaajah" has probably come about as a result of taking the written "xvaa-" as a "xavaa-" confusing the Persian origin conjunct with the Arabic "xavaa-" as in "xavaazimii", "xavaatiin" (as BP has indicated) etc. Looking this word up in an Arabic dictionary, I just discovered that this is how it is pronounced in Arabic. This should not surprise us because Arabic does not have a "vaa'o ma3duulah". Coincidently, its plural is "xavaajaat"! (Sirs)


I'm confused. Are you saying that xaajah and xawaatiin are part of Arabic vocabulary?

Do you believe that xoaatiin is a correct pronunciation?
Thanks.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying that xaajah and xawaatiin are part of Arabic vocabulary?
> 
> Do you believe that xoaatiin is a correct pronunciation?
> Thanks.



Yes, xaatuun/xawaatiin and xawaajah/xawaajaat are part of the Arabic vocabulary.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> If one person pronounces "zamiin" and another "jamiin" as a matter of course, then both persons are using instinctive/natural pronunciations. However, if when one knows that the name is "Raziyah" and calls that person "rajjo", then this is a deliberate act and not a natural utterance. I hope you are able to follow this simple logic.



I don't think you follow my simple logic. Any utterance is deliberate, unless one is hallucinating. The point is why rajjo comes out naturally and not razzo, even though the full name is Raziyah? Maybe an innate propensity to recognize j as native, z as foreign?


----------



## lcfatima

I think you are right about sabzi/sabji. One does hear sabji and see sabji represented in English orthography extremely widely, though.

I have heard Muslim Urdu speakers from/in U.P. make s/sh switch. 

About kh vs X, I agree that many native Hindi speakers do say "x." 




> So when we define Urdu vs Hindi, I am afraid we are drawing a line between the how the majority speak Hindustani in Pakistan vs how the majority speak Hindustani in India.
> We then ignore the communities of self-proclaimed "Urdu speakers" scattered throughout India.
> It is hard to make rules for such things so we tend to try to ignore the "exceptions" as much as possible.



Tonyspeed makes a very important point. Not to mention that numerically there are more native Urdu speakers in India than in Pakistan, and Pakistan's native speaking Urdu population is only around 8%.


----------



## lcfatima

> I did n't know Urdu speakers mix fir with phir. In Punjabi, it is certainly "fer" but even Pakistani Punjabis pronounce "phir" when speaking Urdu.



I hear lots of fir all of the time colloquially, especially from Urdu speakers of Punjabi background.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I don't think you follow my simple logic. Any utterance is deliberate, unless one is hallucinating. The point is why rajjo comes out naturally and not razzo, even though the full name is Raziyah? Maybe an innate propensity to recognize j as native, z as foreign?



You must be one of a rare variety of people who possess a stick with both of its ends being "wrong". The reason why "Raziyah" does n't end up being "razzo" is because:-

1) When one speaks with affection with one's loved ones, be they children or adults, there is a tendency to change the consonants to their nearest counterparts. "melii jaan", "rajjo merii jaan"

2) The same principle applies when one is scorning some one.."us rajjo ne merii naak meN dam kar diyaa hai!

If you still don't follow, it's best you move onto something else.


----------



## hindiurdu

lcfatima said:


> I hear lots of fir all of the time colloquially, especially from Urdu speakers of Punjabi background.



In olden movies, you sometimes see Bengali natives saying 'fiir' instead of 'phir'. In modern day speech, ph and f seem to have become allophonic for many speakers with f aggressively replacing many ph's. This appears to be happening much more in India. phool → fool. I find this jarring, so notice this in modern Hindi movies. Is this being driven by some Marathi influence or something? Bombayites seem to do this more.

As an aside, I also see Marathi speakers replace jh with z. I think the Nagri symbol झ is pronounced z in Marathi (sometimes? usually? always? allophonically with jh?). Marathi speakers often transcribe तुझ as Tuza. YT for गंगू तारुण्य तुझ बेफाम (राम राम गंगाराम). They write माझा and then say maazaa. Of course, Kashmiris have a strong j → z tendency. maharaja → maharaza. pooja → pooza. I feel like some West UP people also share this, though I could be wrong. anjeer (fig) → anzeer. jaadugar → zaadugar. I have even seen saahab ji → saahab zi with Himachalis. also meri jaaniye → meri zaaniye, aj raati → az raati (YT Aese thare pawne himachali pahari nati(video)..Rakesh Thakur.mp4 at 0:34). There are even instances (found one on YT at Neeru Chali [Full Song] Dil Na Lana at 1:35) where s gets voiced into z - ohRni ezaDi, instead of ohRni esadi (also this song demonstrates the typical ch → ts Central Pahari thing). Given all this, I am not sure that z is really non-Indic. True, it could be non-Sanskritic, though who's to say that a situation similar to v/w hasn't always existed in practice? It does appear that j and z are allophonic sometimes, just like r and l are (pseudo-allophonic/fake-allophonic) for other groups. kaalaa → kaaraa, eg kaare, kaare naina. Actually even l and R, piipal (tree) → piipaR. You see women saying "munne laajaa" to their kids instead of "munne raajaa" because it is considered cuter. Also, 'alle kya baat ho gai' instead of the correct 'arre kyaa baat ho gai'.


----------



## tonyspeed

hindiurdu said:


> In olden movies, you sometimes see Bengali natives saying 'fiir' instead of 'phir'. In modern day speech, ph and f seem to have become allophonic for many speakers with f aggressively replacing many ph's. This appears to be happening much more in India. phool → fool. I find this jarring, so notice this in modern Hindi movies. Is this being driven by some Marathi influence or something? Bombayites seem to do this more.



No my friend. It's quite a disease. Mumbai rahanevale do this. Dehli rahanevale do this. Even Madhya Pradesh rahanevale do this. We have had extended discussions on this in other threads, trying to figure out who is the culprit:
Panjabi, Marathi, or English. At least the Urdu bolnewale haven't succumb to this yet.

Interesting is that the same thing happened during the Koine Greek period to that language.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> No my friend. It's quite a disease. Mumbai rahanevale do this. Dehli rahanevale do this. Even Madhya Pradesh rahanevale do this. We have had extended discussions on this in other threads, trying to figure out who is the culprit:
> Panjabi, Marathi, or English. At least the Urdu bolnewale haven't succumb to this yet.
> 
> Interesting is that the same thing happened during the Koine Greek period to that language.



Well Punjabis on the Pakistan side do not say "ful" for "phul" (flower)!


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> I think you are right about sabzi/sabji. One does hear sabji and see sabji represented in English orthography extremely widely, though.
> 
> I have heard Muslim Urdu speakers from/in U.P. make s/sh switch.
> 
> About kh vs X, I agree that many native Hindi speakers do say "x."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tonyspeed makes a very important point. Not to mention that numerically there are more native Urdu speakers in India than in Pakistan, and Pakistan's native speaking Urdu population is only around 8%.



What year's statistics is the figure 8% based on? What is the percentage of native Urdu speakers in India?


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> You must be one of a rare variety of people who possess a stick with both of its ends being "wrong". The reason why "Raziyah" does n't end up being "razzo" is because:-
> 
> 1) When one speaks with affection with one's loved ones, be they children or adults, there is a tendency to change the consonants to their nearest counterparts. "melii jaan", "rajjo merii jaan"
> 
> 2) The same principle applies when one is scorning some one.."us rajjo ne merii naak meN dam kar diyaa hai!
> 
> If you still don't follow, it's best you move onto something else.



Your arguments still don't make any sense: in that case, why not also "Rajiyah meri jaan" even if the name is otherwise "Raziyah"? After all, if for mere proximity the pronunciation of a consonant is changing in colloquial speech, it should happen always.
I would once again advise you to retain civil decorum and refrain from putting into your fantastic categories of people. Just stick to the point when you disagree: there's no need to attack members personally.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> What year's statistics is the figure 8% based on? What is the percentage of native Urdu speakers in India?



I think those numbers are from Wikipedia 





> There are between 60 and 70 million speakers of Urdu: there were 52  million in India per the 2001 census, some 6% of the population;[23] 13 million in Pakistan in 2008, or 8%;



It should be noted however that language choice is subject to variation in India based on political factors. Will a Muslim in India that speaks Hindi claim Urdu to boost the figures? It is not beyond the realm of possibility based
on the history of what happens with other languages.


----------



## BP.

lcfatima said:


> ...Not to mention that numerically there are more native Urdu speakers in India than in Pakistan, and Pakistan's native speaking Urdu population is only around 8%.


Although this needed to be said in QP sahib's 'native' thread, but here's good enough as any.

I feel it very unfair to those 92%, among which are prominent writers and poets of Urdu, to still not be allowed nativeness. Urdu isn't my exclusive club and I can't shut it off to people. It would be interesting to note that many of the so-called native speakers of Urdu in India (and the ones from parts of India) often spoke another, more local, language AND Urdu. My childhood buaa spoke Purbi in her village but Purbi-influenced Urdu with us, and yet would've counted today as a native in Urdu. In the same vein, your 92% have just the same right into this club, but it's their prerogative to excercise it.


----------



## lcfatima

Well, I thought we were referring to a prescriptive standard Urdu and Hindi here, and only elaborating on very common 'exceptions.' 

I agree very much with B.P.'s point on the native thread. I had a housemaid who was a native Urdu speaker from Bangalore. Her dialect had very specific and unique Bangalori Urdu characteristics, but her self-identity was centered on being Bangalori Urdu speaking, as opposed to being a Muslim who spoke native Kannada, or a Muslim Urdu speaking immigrant to Bangalore from U.P. or Bihar. From a purely linguistic perspective, her dialect is completely legitimate. But when judged for being "pure" and close to the standard, her Urdu would be mocked by purists (and was mocked by some of our neighbors, both Hindi and Urdu speakers). Interestingly, it was her grammar and lexical choices that were the most confusing, not her articulation of Urdu phonemes. Her X and gh were perfect, but her q had some slight frication. My own native Urdu speaking husband could barely understand her, and I often found my self translating things she said once I picked up the peculiarities of her dialect. She counts as a native Urdu speaker, but perhaps an ethnic Punjabi from Pakistan who does not speak Punjabi very well but is very fluent in standard Urdu would be wrongly discounted from some statistical survey based on ethnicity alone. It is a hairy issue. At the same time, outside of certain major cities and barring official contexts, Urdu is not at all the language of the vast majority of Pakistanis. They only hear it in the media and learn it in school, perhaps read in it daily as well. But for day to day communication, Urdu is not their language. I really don't think those people of the presumed 92% count as Urdu speakers, nor should they.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Although this needed to be said in QP sahib's 'native' thread, but here's good enough as any.
> 
> I feel it very unfair to those 92%, among which are prominent writers and poets of Urdu, to still not be allowed nativeness. Urdu isn't my exclusive club and I can't shut it off to people. It would be interesting to note that many of the so-called native speakers of Urdu in India (and the ones from parts of India) often spoke another, more local, language AND Urdu. My childhood buaa spoke Purbi in her village but Purbi-influenced Urdu with us, and yet would've counted today as a native in Urdu. In the same vein, your 92% have just the same right into this club, but it's their prerogative to excercise it.



Thank you. I only wish there were more people who thought on the same lines as you! For me, whilst the concept of a native speaker is a reality it is very divisive and does not help the cause of bringing people closer to each other. The focus needs to be more on the greater commonality than the differences. There will always be differences even amongst the speech of "native" speakers as you have indicated. So why concentrate on the differences in the "non-native" speech, as some people are prone to doing? What I have said applies to any language.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> At the same time, outside of certain major cities and barring official contexts, Urdu is not at all the language of the vast majority of Pakistanis. They only hear it in the media and learn it in school, perhaps read in it daily as well. But for day to day communication, Urdu is not their language. I really don't think those people of the presumed 92% count as Urdu speakers, nor should they.



By your logic, only 8% of Pakistanis are Urdu speakers! You have very conveniently placed the other 92% in a box where they hear Urdu being spoken, learn it at school, read it daily but speak their local language at home and away. But you also know that when they need to speak with people within their own language group, outside their language group (Sindhi/Pashto, Punjabi and other local languages) and with people like your husband, they would be able to speak with complete fluency. Why then are you excluding them from being Urdu speakers! Without wishing to start a debate, your judgement is extremely harsh*. With one stroke of the pen you have eliminated a huge chunk of the 92% of those people who have sacrificed their language for the cause of Urdu!

* "ham-navaa! maiN bhii ko'ii gul huuN kih xaamosh rahuuN?"


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> As a matter of interest, is this word a combination of "hazm" "haazimah" (words linked to digestion) and formula (faarmuulaa)?



Yes, it is.


----------



## Alfaaz

> huge chunk of the 92% of those people who have sacrificed their language for the cause of Urdu!


Don't mean to interrupt; I understand what you mean here, but would say that this could make Urdu sound like some sort of conquering evil dictator or villain. Urdu has been open to other languages and cultures (most of the time) just as other languages and cultures are to Urdu (most of the time). علاقائی languages should not be/shouldn't need to be sacrificed for Urdu, vice versa...
Kind of related (many might have already seen this): a clip where the oft-mentioned on this forum Iftikhaar Arif SaaHib briefly comments about Urdu as well as other languages with Anwar Maqsood and recites "The Twelfth Player" ; YT Title: _Noor Jahan Live Interview For Pakistan Television PTV _(starts at 33:54).


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> Don't mean to interrupt; I understand what you mean here, but would say that this could make Urdu sound like some sort of conquering evil dictator or villain.



Ask the Bangladeshis about that!


----------



## BP.

^They had Bengali on an equal footings with Urdu in 1952. But details of history and politics would go beyond what this forum is designed for so I'd rather drop it.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Don't mean to interrupt; I understand what you mean here, but would say that this could make Urdu sound like some sort of conquering evil dictator or villain.



My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with Urdu being a villain or a dictator. God forbid. My point was the part the province of Punjab has played in the cause of Urdu, Punjab being the only province where the local vernacular is not taught in schools. No outsider has forced Punjabis to take this path.


----------



## Alfaaz

greatbear said:
			
		

> Ask the Bangladeshis about that!


Which is why I had included the following ----> (most of the time) ; A language shouldn't be blamed for the actions of people. Urdu poets (like Naseer Turabi and Faraaz) of the time condemned what happened and some even strongly wrote against their own countrymen. That would be kind of like saying Hindi/Urdu/and even Punjabi to some extent are killing all the other Indian languages with the popularity and international recognition of Bollywood taking away the limelight for everyone else. 


			
				BelligerentPacifist said:
			
		

> ^They had Bengali on an equal footings with Urdu in 1952. But details of history and politics would go beyond what this forum is designed for so I'd rather drop it.


Agree. Language might have been an important issue in what happened, but there were many others which were larger (for example unjustly taking away resources like cotton) which in fact still seems to continue to happen--causing problems amongst some provinces--where language isn't really the issue and it's more a matter of equal resources and representation in politics. Then there were also political agendas, etc.

Setting history aside, the comment was to express that people (right now/in modern times) shouldn't "sacrifice" any language for another, unless they really want to! If they are sacrificing by will, is it the language's fault?

Edit: 





			
				QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> My point was the part the province of Punjab has played in the cause of Urdu, Punjab being the only province where the local vernacular is not taught in schools. No outsider has forced Punjabis to take this path.


 Thanks for the clarification. There is no doubt that all provinces have played a part in the "cause of Urdu".


----------



## lcfatima

QP: I am not discounting urban educated people who speak Urdu (and often English as well) as natives but perhaps have another language background at home, especially among the older generation, be it Memni, Punjabi, or any language of the numerous ethnic/ethnolinguistic groups who would commonly fit into that category of metropolitan Urdu speakers. I am thinking more of the masses of people who don't speak Urdu all that well at all. They are all over Pakistan, and just going by literacy, education, and rural vs urban numbers, they are likely a majority.

Many Pakistanis have a different view of the "sacrifice" for Urdu. Among urbanite Urdu speaking Punjabis, one often hears about "the death of Punjabi." My personal opinion about that is that Punjabi is very much alive colloquially outside of those very urban elite contexts where Urdu is a prestige language among privileged families. I have also heard and read rhetoric lamenting the loss of the mother tongue for the cause of Urdu. I have even heard more radical rhetoric from people of Pashtoon language background which is very anti-Urdu and associates Urdu with the imposition of an Indian-ish/Punjabi national identity instead of the native Pashtoon-Afghan identity that people with this agenda support.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> QP: I am not discounting urban educated people who speak Urdu (and often English as well) as natives but perhaps have another language background at home, especially among the older generation, be it Memni, Punjabi, or any language of the numerous ethnic/ethnolinguistic groups who would commonly fit into that category of metropolitan Urdu speakers. I am thinking more of the masses of people who don't speak Urdu all that well at all. They are all over Pakistan, and just going by literacy, education, and rural vs urban numbers, they are likely a majority.



Icfatima, I didn't live in a "teapot" nor amongst "urban educated" people. I have lived in rural Punjab and even in my childhood, education for both boys and girls was beginning to reach  the remotest areas. Four to five decades later the situation is totally different. Anywhere you go, the younger generation will be able to speak Urdu, perhaps not up to your level but still pretty good to talk to sociologists and any other "ologists". Their vocabulary in Urdu will be much more extensive than in Punjabi because they have n't read anything by the likes of Waris Shah, Bulleh Shah or Ghulam Farid. So, how you can discount these people who have studied Urdu as their first language throughout their schooling and beyond I find quite baffling.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Their vocabulary in Urdu will be much more extensive than in Punjabi because they have n't read anything by the likes of Waris Shah, Bulleh Shah or Ghulam Farid. So, how you can discount these people who have studied Urdu as their first language throughout their schooling and beyond I find quite baffling.



By that logic, most Indians are then native English speakers!


----------



## BP.

greatbear said:


> By that logic, most Indians are then native English speakers!


Aren't they? I thought many were.


----------



## lcfatima

QP: Many people may be extremely fluent, but fluent and native are not the same thing. 

I am not questioning your observations or life experience. You grew up in Pakistan and I am a foreigner. You win. You must be meeting vastly different people than I, though since you haven't heard so many people say "fir." I can only put forth that in my teapot I have also encountered many people who spoke to me in what is clearly non-native and often heavily accented and broken Urdu all over Pakistan, or, for example, spoke to me in Punjabi while I responded in Urdu because they could understand Urdu easily but did not feel comfortable producing it.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> QP: Many people may be extremely fluent, but fluent and native are not the same thing.
> 
> I am not questioning your observations or life experience. You grew up in Pakistan and I am a foreigner. You win. You must be meeting vastly different people than I, though since you haven't heard so many people say "fir." I can only put forth that in my teapot I have also encountered many people who spoke to me in what is clearly non-native and often heavily accented and broken Urdu all over Pakistan, or, for example, spoke to me in Punjabi while I responded in Urdu because they could understand Urdu easily but did not feel comfortable producing it.



Icfatiam: The discussion (between you and me) was whether the 92% (or whatever %age it might be) can be classed as Urdu speakers. Who is talking about being native or not? You have already provided a figure of 8% for the natives. It is the remaining unfortunate souls who, by your decree don't deserve to be called Urdu speakers, that I have an issue with you.

Now do you seriously expect all these non-natives to speak like natives without any trace of accent? Surely you did n't have Mirza Ghalib or Amir Mina'i's accent in mind when you were attempting to communicate with them, did you?. Because if you did, there are not many of those kind left, I assure you! Could it be that these "natives" were struggling to understand your accent? You appear to be obsessed with this "native" notion. There is life beyond this concept.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Icfatiam: The discussion (between you and me) was whether the 92% (or whatever %age it might be) can be classed as Urdu speakers. Who is talking about being native or not? You have already provided a figure of 8% for the natives. It is the remaining unfortunate souls who, by your decree don't deserve to be called Urdu speakers, that I have an issue with you.
> 
> Now do you seriously expect all these non-natives to speak like natives without any trace of accent? Surely you did n't have Mirza Ghalib or Amir Mina'i's accent in mind when you were attempting to communicate with them, did you?. Because if you did, there are not many of those kind left, I assure you! Could it be that these "natives" were struggling to understand your accent? You appear to be obsessed with this "native" notion. There is life beyond this concept.


The numbers in this discussion don't have any linguistic ground, I'm afraid. Believe me, there are crowds of folks who employ the ideas and the heritage of the Urdu language when they think, analyze and speak all the time. Even if a dialect or a different language is used to communicate with one's parents, all other mental activity tends to take place in Urdu.

Most probably we are not able to define any numbers so I will refrain from commenting on them. I consider the criteria which were applied to come to this proportions as ill-defined and interpolated with the notion of ethnic identification.


----------



## lcfatima

lcfatima: 





> Pakistan's _native speaking Urdu population_ is only around 8%.


 Yes, I was talking about who counts as a native speaker of Urdu, and not just an Urdu speaker, who could be Punjabi or Japanese for all I care. I have no idea what you were going on about if you thought that I was saying something else.



> Could it be that these "natives" were struggling to understand your accent?


 How kind of you to throw that barb at me since I am a non-native speaker. While my Urdu is very far from perfect, that was probably not the problem. 

I find the classifications of native versus non-native useful, though we have already discussed that these terms are problematic and that is understood when we use them. It may be a pet-peeve of yours, along with any mention of Punjabi-phone accents in Urdu, but you can't really prevent other people from using specific terms or discussing things which are within the scope of the forum.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> lcfatima: I find the classifications of native versus non-native useful, though we have already discussed that these terms are problematic and that is understood when we use them. It may be a pet-peeve of yours, along with any mention of Punjabi-phone accents in Urdu, but you can't really prevent other people from using specific terms or discussing things which are within the scope of the forum.



"Pet-peeve", you may say but one has to get one's facts right before posting stereotypical remarks. If something is blatantly true, I shall be the first to put my hands up and agree (see Punjabi: articulation of ق (post no.14. By the way, please accept my gratitude for mentioning that some native Urdu speakers ALSO mispronounce the qaaf) . On the occasions when such sweeping statements have been made by you and others at the expense of the Punjabi community,I have endeavoured to provide counter examples, as used in the spoken and written language of the best native Urdu speakers (Your Urdu regional :Maine post 20, post 92 (by marrish SaaHib). Another such example is your Hindi/Urdu: chahiye thread where in post 65 I have provided a rebuttal to remarks made in post 23. Now, if it is your favourite past time to flog the Punjabis whenever it pleases you (remember AaSaf from Paakastaan), then please don't be surprised if someone has an answer to your regular Punjabi centred outbursts.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> "Pet-peeve", you may say but one has to get one's facts right before posting stereotypical remarks.



I think lcfatima meant your native/non-native disgruntledness as your pet peeve, which you cannot deny, since we also have often differed over it.

Your opening line in post no. 60 itself is blatant rudeness: how can you expect anyone to take it? If someone disagrees with you, you are always quick to heap personal remarks upon that person: which only leads to deterioration of yet another thread.


----------



## greatbear

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Aren't they? I thought many were.



I don't think so. Many are fluent English speakers: that does not make them "native" English speakers. India isn't an Anglophone country.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> lcfatima:  Yes, I was talking about who counts as a native speaker of Urdu, and not just an Urdu speaker, who could be Punjabi or Japanese for all I care. I have no idea what you were going on about if you thought that I was saying something else.



Perhaps I have misunderstood you but in post 50 you state the following. 


> At the same time, outside of certain major cities and barring official contexts, Urdu is not at all the language of the vast majority of Pakistanis. They only hear it in the media and learn it in school, perhaps read in it daily as well. But for day to day communication, Urdu is not their language. I really don't think those people of the presumed 92% count as Urdu speakers, nor should they.



I take the meaning from the above that even if people hear Urdu in their environment, learn it from school age onwards, read it on a daily basis (and no doubt speak it too now and again), they are not Urdu speakers. If by your above statement you meant they are not "native Urdu speakers", then we have no disagreement.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I think lcfatima meant your native/non-native disgruntledness as your pet peeve, which you cannot deny, since we also have often differed over it.
> 
> Your opening line in post no. 60 itself is blatant rudeness: how can you expect anyone to take it? If someone disagrees with you, you are always quick to heap personal remarks upon that person: which only leads to deterioration of yet another thread.



First paragraph. Thank you for your explanation, but I don't need it, least from you!

Second paragraph. We have a saying in Urdu, "ulTaa chor kotvaal ko DaaNTe". Posts 55 and 61 are just two small examples of mischief-making. A recently closed thread: Hindi: द्विजगण का कलरव श्रवण करना ही रुचता था। is another recent example. The rest is there on the forum for everyone to see.


----------



## marrish

lcfatima said:


> I hear lots of fir all of the time colloquially, especially from Urdu speakers of Punjabi background.


Quite new to me, I must say! I think it is a very interesting observation; has anyone else heard it this way?


----------



## lcfatima

I already apologized to QP privately when he contacted me about that issue of picking on Punjabis, and took it to heart to be vigilant about not framing things in a way that may appear anti-Punjabi since then. I apologize again if I haven't done a good job on that. It was not my intention to offend. There are Punjabi ways of speaking Urdu (and Hindi), though, and I find them interesting to learn about and share about just as I do other dialects and ethnolects of Hindi/Urdu. Now I feel that Sher-e-Punjab is going to eat me if I mention Punjab again. These threads get very hostile and sometimes people who we respect and whose knowledge and contributions here are very valuable make fools of themselves showing bad tempers and making this learning environment a very negative place. I would ask that we all check ourselves on that, too.


----------



## marrish

I haven't noticed any hostility to people using "Punjabi" but rather a discussion on merit which more often than not used to prove the association of a phenomenon with Punjabi as plainly wrong. Any kind of frustration is comprehensible when one notices the same stereotypes which have been proven as baseless before. 

I don't know what Punjabi is doing in this thread. Above all, lcfatima has crossed the line with the language of her ambivalent post.


----------



## lcfatima

Marrish if you feel that way, report the post and let mods take care of it if necessary.


----------



## marrish

lcfatima said:


> Marrish if you feel that way, report the post and let mods take care of it if necessary.


Sorry, I should have done it indeed instead of commenting here. Actually this whole part of the thread is unnecessary in my opinion.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Posts 55 and 61 are just two small examples of mischief-making. A recently closed thread: Hindi: द्विजगण का कलरव श्रवण करना ही रुचता था। is another recent example. The rest is there on the forum for everyone to see.



I do acknowledge your old propensity of taking posts as mischief whenever they don't go down well with you. Post 55 makes a valid point if people are discussing whether Urdu has cornered other languages; post 61 is a very valid point in the context of the whole discussion. Your posts are also there for all the forum to see, indeed.

By the way, the thread started with pronunciation differences: where has it come!


----------

