Urdu hai jis kaa naam . . . part III

[Zafar]

Sorry, I forgot to cross-post the article last night. Here is it
again.

**********

Dear friends:

There response to this thread is so overwhelming that it has become
hard even to keep record of what is been said, much less answer the
questions raised. So the best strategy seems to be sticking with the
original format of the write-up and, if need be, answer the queries
later.

OTHER NAMES OF URDU
A brief overview of other names for modern Urdu:

ReKhta
The written language and, sometimes the Urdu ghazal. In fact, up till
mid eighteenth century, the Persian ghazal was called "Ghazal" whereas
the Urdu ghazal was called Rekhta. As Qaim Chandpuri (1722?-1794)
confirms:

Qaim maiN Ghazal-taur kiyaa ReKhta varna
ik baat lachar see ba-zaabaan e Deccani thee!

[Qaim, I raised the Rekhta (Urdu Ghazal) to the level of Ghazal
(Persian Ghazal)
Or else, it was just a vulgar form in the Deccani tongue!

Moreover, the Urdu Ghazal recitations were generally called
"MaraaKhtas", compared to "mushaa'iras" for the "Ghazal."
(Jamil Jalibi, 1987)

Deccani
The dialect spoken in the South.

Dehlvi
The ancient name used in the times of Amir Khusrau.

Hindustani
Some sporadic examples of the usage of this name by the natives can be
found but, by and large, the name was used by the Europeans and could
never catch on with the Indians.

All these names were occasionally employed but as we have seen, Hindi
was the most common name of Urdu. I've already provided sufficient
examples in the previous post, but let me quickly add one more here:

Some scholars consider the period 1750-1800 as the Golden Period of
Urdu poetry and I for one cannot agree more. The reason being that no
other era, before or after, has seen such plethora of great poets
living at the same time: Mir (generally considered the greatest ghazal
poet), Mir Dard (generally considered the greatest Sufi poet), Sauda
(generally considered the greatest qaseeda-gau and hijv-nigaar) and
Mir Hasan (generally considered the greatest masnavi-nigaar). Even the
comparatively "minor" poets of the time -- Mus'hafi, Aatish, Jur'at,
Inshaa, Qaa'im - dwarf the giants of other periods.

Now consider this: Sheikh Hamdani Mus'hafi (1750-1824), who is one of
the greatest Urdu poets of all time, wrote an important "tazkira" (a
memoir+anthology) of important Urdu poets in 1794. And what name did
he chose for this book? "Tazkira e Hindi GoyaaN," (A Tazkira of
*Hindi* Poets!)

This brings us back to the important question: How did the name got
changed from Hindi to Urdu?

FORT WILLIAM COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
When the British came to India, they found that the lingua franca of
India, regardless of religion, was Hindi - a local language with the
vocabulary enriched by Persian and Arabic and written in the
Perso-Arabic script. The British were surprised to see that because
they thought of Muslims and Hindus as two separate nations and in
their estimation, they ought to have separate lingoes. Writes John
Gilchrist, one of the founders of Fort William College at Calcutta:

"The Oriental Linguist"

[Hindustan] is chiefly inhabited by Hindoos and Moosalmans: whom we
may safely comprise, as well as their language, under the general,
conciliating, comprehensive term Hindoostanee, and which I have
adopted for the above and the following reasons.

This name of the country being modern, as well as the vernacular
tongue in question [Hindustani], no other appeared so appropriate as
it did to me, when I first engaged in the study and cultivation of the
language. That the natives and others call it also "Hindi", Indian,
from Hind, the ancient appellation of India, cannot be denied; but as
this is apt to be confounded with Hinduwee, Hindooee, Hindvee, the
derivative from Hindoo, I adhere to my original opinion, that we
should invariably discard all other denominations of the popular
speech of this country, including the unmeaning word Moors, and
substitute for them Hindoostanee, whether the people here constantly
do so or not: as they can hardly discriminate sufficiently, to observe
the use and propriety of such restrictions, even when pointed out to
them.

Hinduwee, I have treated as the exclusive property of the Hindus
alone; and have therefore, constantly applied it to the old language
of India, which prevailed before the Mooslaman invasion.
[1796]
(Cited in Shams ur Rahman Faruqi, 1999)

Look how superciliously Gilchrist treats the "natives", and goes on to
decide for them by which name they should call their mother tongue!
Two years later, in "The Oriental Linguist", Gilchrist confidently
predicted:

"the Hindoos will naturally lean to Hindwee, whiele the Moosulmans
will of course be more partial to Arabic and Persian; whence the two
styles arise."
(p 2, cited in Faruqi, 1999)

And in order to help develop the two "styles", Gilchrist joined Fort
William College, Calcutta.

This college was established to teach the British officials the
vernaculars. Since no prose texts of Urdu, the lingua franca of the
period, were available that could be used in the syllabus, the college
hired several authors to write new textbooks [It is said the Mir Taqi
Mir also appeared for an interview in Lucknow, but the interviewer
refused his on the grounds that the job was too paltry compared to his
status! (Personal communation with Dr. Gauhar Naushahi of the National
University of Modern Languages, Islamabad)]. This college was
abolished in 1853 after compling 147 book, 53 of which could not be
published (Dr. Sameeullah)

Mir Amman Dehlivi wrote "BaaGh o Bahaar" (Garden and Spring) in 1802
for the college, which has now considered a literary classic. Other
Urdu writers were Haidar BaKhsh Haidari (Aaaraa'ish e Mehfil), Kazim
Ali Jawan (Urdu translation of Shakuntala) and Bahadur Ali Hussaini,
etc.

Alongside Urdu (which the authorities of the College were bent upon
calling Hindustani instead of Hindi), the College also hired some
Devanagri experts, who started writing books in *Modern* Hindi, that
is, a language similar to Urdu but written in Devanagri and with a
heavy dose of Sanskrit words. Lallo Lalji in 1803 wrote the first
modern Hindi book, Prem Since Lallo Lal had no model before him, he
imitated the language of Mir Amman, deliberately avoiding Persian and
Arabic words. Writes Ramchandr Shukla:

If Lallu Lal didn't know Urdu, he would not have been that successful
in keeping the Pero-Arabic words out of Prem Sagar. So many of these
words had been intermixed in to day-to-day language that it they were
difficult to identify for somebody familiar only with Sanskrit-Hindi."

(Hindi Sahitiya kaa Itihaas", cited in Gyanchand Jain, 1981)

Another prominent New Hindi writer of the College was Sadal Mitr. Says
he:

"Gilchrist ne ... aik din aagyaa dee k adhiyaa tum Ramayun ko aisee
bolee meN karo jis meN Faris, Arabi na aave. tab se maiN is ko KhaRi
Boli meN karne lagaa."

Note that the moniker "KhaRi Boli" was also *invented* by Gilchrist,
in an attempt to translate the phrase "Sterling Tongue of India." The
year was 1798 and this is what he said:

"Shankuntalaa kaa doosraa tarjuma 'KhaRi Boli' yaa Hindustaan kee
Khaalis boli (sterling tongue of India) meN hai. Hindustani [that is,
Urdu] se muKhtalif ye sirf is baat meN hai k Arabi o Farsi kaa lafz
chhaanT liyaa jaataa hai."
(cited in Gyanchand Jain, 1981)

Notes FE Key in "A History of Hindi Literature" (1920),

"A literary language for Hindi speaking people which could command
itself more to Hindus was very desirable and the result was obtained
by taking Urdu and expelling from it words of Persian or Arabic origin
and substituting for the words of Sanskrit or Hindi origin." (Cited in
Farman Fateh Puri, 1978).

Similar theories have been put forth by other scholars:

"High Hindi is a book language evolved under the influence of the
English who induced native writers to compose works for general use in
a from of Hindustani in which all the words of Arabic and Persian
origin were omitted, Sanskrit words being employed in its place."
(William Frazer, A Literary History of India, 1893).

Dr. Tarachand reports in "A Problem of Hindustani", 1944:

"At Fort William College, Calcutta, which was established to teach
British Officers Indian Languages, besides other subjects, a number of
them were taken up for study. Among them were Braj+Urdu, as has been
indicated above was the language of poetry and did not lend itself
readily for the purposes of prose. Urdu, which was studied by both
Hindus and Muslims, was naturally the common language of India.
Unfortunately, the zeal of finding distinctions led the professors of
the college to encourage attempts to create a new type of Urdu from
which all Persian and Arabic words were removed and replaced by
Sanskrit words. This was done ostensibly to provide the Hindus a
language of their own. But the step had far-reaching consequences and
India is still suffering from this artificial bifurcation of tongues."

George Grierson, the head of the committee for the monumental "The
Linguistic Survey of India", writes in the foreword of a book of Lallu
Lal in 1896 (reconverted into English from an Urdu translation - I
hope I have not mangled the text too much -- cited in Gyanchand Jain,
1981):

"No such language existed in India before, so when Lallu Lal wrote
Prem Sagar, he was actually inventing an entirely new language."

And finally, the verdict by Suniti Kumar Chatterji, often considered
the father of Indian linguistics (again, reconverted from Urdu, cited
in Gyanchand Jain, 1981):

"Historically and linguistically, Urdu is not an Islamic form of Hindi
or Sankritized KhaRi Boli; the truth is to the contrary. Actually the
Hindus adopted the Persianized Hidustani, which came into being in the
royal court and its circles (we come across its beginning earlier in
the Deccani tongue and in the Southern Muslim states of Ahmed Nagar,
Bijapur and Golkonda). Since the Persian and the Arabic words were of
useless for them, they embraced the Devanagri script and Sanskritized
the language, shunning the alien vocabulary of Persian and Arabic . .
. The above-mentioned theory that the Sanskritized Hindi was fashioned
in the mode of Persianized Urdu was first proposed by Dr. Tarachand. I
was against it then but now I admit that Tarachand was right." (A
Polyglot Nation and Its Linguistics, 1973)

And now the big question whether these are different languages *now*.
And my humble opinion is, I don't think so! Various scholars have
written extensively written on the subject but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns." The reason being that the nouns-universe
of any living language is extremely volatile; nouns enter and leave at
a break-neck pace. On the other hand, the verbs stay fairly constant
and are accepted/modified/replaced/rejected over a much longer period
of time. Also, verbs are the most commonly used words in any language.
Let's see where modern Hindi and modern Urdu stand when viewed from
this point of view.

Stanislav Martynyuk's excellent study, A Statistical Approach to the
Debate on Urdu and Hindi
<http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:XQKNDYK8dXwJ:www.urdustudies.com/pdf/18/12amartynyukcolor.pdf+statistical+approach+urdustudies&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
has already been discussed. He took 441,153 Hindi words and 440,929
Urdu words from modern sources and conducted a frequency of occurrence
analysis. What he found out was that 70 out of 100 most common words
in both languages were the same. Here are the top 20 most common words
in Hindi and Urdu (in order of frequency of occurrence).

HINDI
ka hona meN ne karna ko se jana ki yah aur ve par kahna dena bhee
rahna naheeN ek keli'ye

URDU
ka hona meN karna ne aur se ko jana par keh dena yah kahna voh keli'ye
naheeN ek rahna jo

I guess this list prvides ample that these are the words of one and
the same language.

In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words. A very common
sentence:

HINDI
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.

URDU
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.

So see? One language, two scripts!

aadaab arz hai,

Zafar

[Afzal A. Khan]

Zafar wrote:


{I have deleted the third and final instalment of
this most excellent series}

Zafar

Zafar Saheb,

Thank you very much for the pains you have taken
in compiling such informative articles.

I am bound to say that the conclusions you have
arrived at may be regarded as something of an
anti-climax by many (if not most !) of your readers !
I have always believed that ANY opinion, expressed
by ANYONE, would hardly be considered as the final
verdict on this vexed issue.

There is a saying in Urdu (Hindi ? !), though the
language is nearer to Arabic (!), to the effect
that "GHalat-ul-'aam, faseeh-ul-kalaam". Apart from
the three important features delineated by me in one
of my posts (probably in response to what UVR Saheb
wrote), I think we should also take into account the
fact that millions and millions of people on the
sub-continent who speak, read and write Urdu strongly
believe that it is indeed a separate, distinct
language despite the commonality of verbs and other
conjunctions etc. There are few amongst these who
can also read and write Hindi (in the Devanagri
script). So, there is no need to interfere in this
belief of theirs. Similalry, if others (and these
may probably be more numerous) believe that Urdu
is nothing more than Hindi written in a different
script, they can also stick to that belief.

I suppose, like the "Hen & Egg" question, this issue
too seems incapable of a solution.


Afzal

[Zafar]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Zafar Saheb,
Thank you very much for the pains you have taken
in compiling such informative articles.
I am bound to say that the conclusions you have
arrived at may be regarded as something of an
anti-climax by many (if not most !) of your readers !
I have always believed that ANY opinion, expressed
by ANYONE, would hardly be considered as the final
verdict on this vexed issue.

You're 100% right Afzal saahib, and I'm no authority to give any such
decrees (I already made it clear at the beginning). What I did is to
look at the problem from philological and historical points of view. I
cannot understand why it should be an anti-climax because whatever I
said (after an -- you may call it -- intenstive study) is back by
strong support from a great many people, including eminent linguists
and historians of the two languages.

You're very also bang on target quoting the Arabic phrase (I remember
it as "Ghalatul 'aame faseehun") that a language is the property of
the masses: the authorities must not interfere in it. But the sad
thing is that authorities do interfere. For example, when the national
anthem of Pakistan was being written, "Urdu" words were deliberately
left out: it contains only a single Urdu word "kaa". On the other side
of the border, even the most common Prakrit words like raat, baarish,
biyaah, etc., -- that were in vogue for centuries and centuries --
have been replaced by raatri, varshaa and vivaah, respectively.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
There is a saying in Urdu (Hindi ? !), though the
language is nearer to Arabic (!), to the effect
that "GHalat-ul-'aam, faseeh-ul-kalaam". Apart from
the three important features delineated by me in one
of my posts (probably in response to what UVR Saheb
wrote), I think we should also take into account the
fact that millions and millions of people on the
sub-continent who speak, read and write Urdu strongly
believe that it is indeed a separate, distinct
language despite the commonality of verbs and other
conjunctions etc.

But the thing is, Afzal saahib, that when the grammar, verbs and other
parts of speech are the same, the languages are also the same!

And as far as Modern-Urdu-being-a-dialect-of-Modern-Hindi issue is
concerned, I bet the world has never seen a "dialect" with a
millennium of *literary* tradition. If this is a dialect, then I don't
know what a full blown language is!

Post by Afzal A. Khan
There are few amongst these who
can also read and write Hindi (in the Devanagri
script). So, there is no need to interfere in this
belief of theirs. Similalry, if others (and these
may probably be more numerous) believe that Urdu
is nothing more than Hindi written in a different
script, they can also stick to that belief.
I suppose, like the "Hen & Egg" question, this issue
too seems incapable of a solution.

But it's worth giving a shot, ain't it? :)

aadaab arz hai,

Zafar

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Zafar

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Zafar Saheb,
Thank you very much for the pains you have taken
in compiling such informative articles.
I am bound to say that the conclusions you have
arrived at may be regarded as something of an
anti-climax by many (if not most !) of your readers !
I have always believed that ANY opinion, expressed
by ANYONE, would hardly be considered as the final
verdict on this vexed issue.

You're 100% right Afzal saahib, and I'm no authority to give any such
decrees (I already made it clear at the beginning). What I did is to
look at the problem from philological and historical points of view. I
cannot understand why it should be an anti-climax because whatever I
said (after an -- you may call it -- intenstive study) is back by
strong support from a great many people, including eminent linguists
and historians of the two languages.
You're very also bang on target quoting the Arabic phrase (I remember
it as "Ghalatul 'aame faseehun") that a language is the property of
the masses: the authorities must not interfere in it. But the sad
thing is that authorities do interfere. For example, when the national
anthem of Pakistan was being written, "Urdu" words were deliberately
left out: it contains only a single Urdu word "kaa". On the other side
of the border, even the most common Prakrit words like raat, baarish,
biyaah, etc., -- that were in vogue for centuries and centuries --
have been replaced by raatri, varshaa and vivaah, respectively.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
There is a saying in Urdu (Hindi ? !), though the
language is nearer to Arabic (!), to the effect
that "GHalat-ul-'aam, faseeh-ul-kalaam". Apart from
the three important features delineated by me in one
of my posts (probably in response to what UVR Saheb
wrote), I think we should also take into account the
fact that millions and millions of people on the
sub-continent who speak, read and write Urdu strongly
believe that it is indeed a separate, distinct
language despite the commonality of verbs and other
conjunctions etc.

But the thing is, Afzal saahib, that when the grammar, verbs and other
parts of speech are the same, the languages are also the same!
And as far as Modern-Urdu-being-a-dialect-of-Modern-Hindi issue is
concerned, I bet the world has never seen a "dialect" with a
millennium of *literary* tradition. If this is a dialect, then I don't
know what a full blown language is!

Post by Afzal A. Khan
There are few amongst these who
can also read and write Hindi (in the Devanagri
script). So, there is no need to interfere in this
belief of theirs. Similalry, if others (and these
may probably be more numerous) believe that Urdu
is nothing more than Hindi written in a different
script, they can also stick to that belief.
I suppose, like the "Hen & Egg" question, this issue
too seems incapable of a solution.

But it's worth giving a shot, ain't it? :)
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar

Zafar Saheb,

This summing up has been almost as informative
as the original articles.

A few observations, en passant :

You have quoted an opinion (with which you are
wholeheartedly in agreement) that the period
1750-1800 was the "greatest", insofar as Urdu
poetry is concerned. There will be some (or
a few) at least who would tend to disagree.
I am one of them. Who can deny the greatness
of Meer or the pre-eminence of Mas~hafee ?
But the point is : Is the type of language
in vogue then and employed by poets of that
era commonly understood and spoken by the
Urdu masses today ? I daresay not. I think
this is the principal reason that Meer is not
given the honour and adulation that he truly
deserves. If we compare, in a numerical sense,
the number of ghazals of that half-century and
the one succeeding it that are found in Urdu
text-books (for Schools/Colleges), this point
should be obvious. Of course, I am absolutely
ignorant about the position in Pakistan, but
I expect you can give us an idea about that.
You have highlighted the greatness of the poets
of that era vis-a-vis qaseeda, hijv, masnawi and
Sufi poetry. It is my submission that these
genres of Urdu poetry do not occupy the same
pre-eminent importance in people's eyes as ghazal.

So much has been written about Ghalib and by such
eminent people that an insignificant person like
myself can hardly be expected to add anything to
it. But I believe that one of his greatest
achievements was the "turn" he gave to poetic
language. There was none before him who employed
the type of "liguistic" artistry that he did.
Even his contemporaries like Momin and Zauq,
great as they were, seem a wee bit "quaint" insofar
as their language is concerned. Ghalib's influence
prevails to this day. Why, even the language
being used by our ALUP poets like Irfan and
Sarwar Saahibaan is much closer to Ghalib's
style than, say, Mas~hafee, Insha or Meer !!
To quote an example , the first misrs of a
recent ghazal posted by Sarwar Saheb reads
as under :

KHirman-e-ummeed nazr-e-aah-e-sozaaN ho gaya

Iqbal too followed in the footsteps of Ghalib
--- perhaps even more so. And he is regarded
as probably the greatest Urdu poet of the
twentieth century --- at least in Pakistan. Let
me quote a sher by Iqbal which, incidentally,
is one of my favourite ones (by Iqbal, that is) :

Sateeza-kaar raha hai azal se ta imroz
CharaaGH-e-Mustafawee se sharaar-e-Bu'Lahabi

Apart from the historical nuance, how many people
today (on both parts of the border) would
readily understand this sher ? And how far
removed it is from, say, Mas~hafee's Urdu !

I was just dilating upon the revolution wrought by
Ghalib in poetic language. And yet, the language
employed by him and Iqbal can be called as nothing
but Urdu.

Same is the case with the National Anthem of
Pakistan. You may say that it contains just
one or two words of "Urdu". But try telling
that to your countrymen !! For 95 % of the
people who can read and write Urdu, it remains
an Urdu Anthem. Interestingly enough, even
the Indian Anthem's language is not considered
as Hindi. But this time, there may not be much
dispute about it.

When I said that your conclusions might be deemed
as something of a let-down or anti-climax, this
view centered on what exactly you meant as "Hindi".
You may opine that Urdu and Hindi are, for all
practical purposes, the same language --- but
the "Hindi" you have in mind may not be the
"Hindi" that most Hindi-wallahs in this time and
age have in mind. And probably, the same is the
case with "Urdu-philes".

Thanks again for all the pains you have taken.


Afzal

[Zafar]

janaab Afzal saahib:

Very sorry for this long delay in replying back. I was out of town.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
This summing up has been almost as informative
as the original articles.

[LOL, en passant, incidently, is a tricky chess move also :)]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
You have quoted an opinion (with which you are
wholeheartedly in agreement) that the period
1750-1800 was the "greatest", insofar as Urdu
poetry is concerned. There will be some (or
a few) at least who would tend to disagree.
I am one of them. Who can deny the greatness
of Meer or the pre-eminence of Mas~hafee ?
But the point is : Is the type of language
in vogue then and employed by poets of that
era commonly understood and spoken by the
Urdu masses today ? I daresay not. I think
this is the principal reason that Meer is not
given the honour and adulation that he truly
deserves. If we compare, in a numerical sense,
the number of ghazals of that half-century and
the one succeeding it that are found in Urdu
text-books (for Schools/Colleges), this point
should be obvious. Of course, I am absolutely
ignorant about the position in Pakistan, but
I expect you can give us an idea about that.
You have highlighted the greatness of the poets
of that era vis-a-vis qaseeda, hijv, masnawi and
Sufi poetry. It is my submission that these
genres of Urdu poetry do not occupy the same
pre-eminent importance in people's eyes as ghazal.

I cannot quite comprehend this argument. Language is a fluid medium
and it changes with the passage of time. In a hundred years or, by the
look of things, perhaps even earlier, the language will be alienated
as much as from today's speech as today's speech is divorced from the
18th century's. So should it make any difference to Ghalib's or
Iqbal's greatness? I reckon it's not Mir's or Mus'hafi's "fault" that
the language changed. The point is that how many people today
understand Shakespearean English? But this has not dented one bit the
Bard's reputation as one of the greatest writers of all ages.

You have mentioned college/school syllabi. Interestingly, I read the
specification of the "Golden Period of Urdu Literature" in a text book
of MA Urdu course of the Punjab University!

Post by Afzal A. Khan
So much has been written about Ghalib and by such
eminent people that an insignificant person like
myself can hardly be expected to add anything to
it. But I believe that one of his greatest
achievements was the "turn" he gave to poetic
language. There was none before him who employed
the type of "liguistic" artistry that he did.
Even his contemporaries like Momin and Zauq,
great as they were, seem a wee bit "quaint" insofar
as their language is concerned. Ghalib's influence
prevails to this day.

I guess there is a more or less general agreement about Mir being much
more skillful at the use of the language. By sheer numbers alone,
Mir's vocabulary is the most varied of all Urdu writers.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Why, even the language
being used by our ALUP poets like Irfan and
Sarwar Saahibaan is much closer to Ghalib's
style than, say, Mas~hafee, Insha or Meer !!
To quote an example , the first misrs of a
recent ghazal posted by Sarwar Saheb reads
KHirman-e-ummeed nazr-e-aah-e-sozaaN ho gaya

I'm sure you are not portraying these poets as "representatives" of
modern Urdu poetry idiom :) The thing is that the language has changed
a great deal after the "lisaanee tashkeelaat" movement of the 1960s
and today the use of izaafat is slowly but surely disappearing from
the literary language. Ali Muhammad Farshi's landmark nazm collection,
Aleena, for example, contains but a single izaafat! Recently, I have
had the chance of designing the title of a short story collection by
the name of "Faseel e Vaqt", but the author later changed his mind and
title to "Vaqt kee Faseel!" In fact, "fak e izaafat" (like
"adab-sitaara", or "dil-dariyaa" instead of "sitaara e adab" or "adab
kaa sitaara" and "dariyaa e dil" or "dil kaa dariyaa," respectively)
is very very popular these days.

I've talked to several upcoming poets and they all say that in order
to break free from cliche, izaafat has to be sacrificed!

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Iqbal too followed in the footsteps of Ghalib
--- perhaps even more so. And he is regarded
as probably the greatest Urdu poet of the
twentieth century --- at least in Pakistan. Let
me quote a sher by Iqbal which, incidentally,
Sateeza-kaar raha hai azal se ta imroz
CharaaGH-e-Mustafawee se sharaar-e-Bu'Lahabi

Iqbal is definitely the greatest Urdu poet (IMHO) of the 20th century,
but this she'er is not that original after all. Here is the "Lisaan ul
Ghaib," Hafiz Shirazi:

azeeN chaman gul e bai-Khaar kas nacheed, aare
chiraaGh e Mustafavee baa sharaar e Bu-Lahabeest!

[Please note that Abu-Lahab means the "father of flame," the nickname
given due to the fiery color (also temper?) of the man. Look at the
contrast of chiraagh e Mustafavee and sharaar e Bu-Lahabee! Absolutely
divine!]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Apart from the historical nuance, how many people
today (on both parts of the border) would
readily understand this sher ? And how far
removed it is from, say, Mas~hafee's Urdu !
I was just dilating upon the revolution wrought by
Ghalib in poetic language. And yet, the language
employed by him and Iqbal can be called as nothing
but Urdu.
Same is the case with the National Anthem of
Pakistan. You may say that it contains just
one or two words of "Urdu". But try telling
that to your countrymen !! For 95 % of the
people who can read and write Urdu, it remains
an Urdu Anthem. Interestingly enough, even
the Indian Anthem's language is not considered
as Hindi. But this time, there may not be much
dispute about it.

I ain't sure I'll announce this in a public rally :) But the thing is
that I don't see any "Urdu" in it. As has been argued, the grammar
marks a language what it is and there is no Urdu grammar here.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
When I said that your conclusions might be deemed
as something of a let-down or anti-climax, this
view centered on what exactly you meant as "Hindi".
You may opine that Urdu and Hindi are, for all
practical purposes, the same language --- but
the "Hindi" you have in mind may not be the
"Hindi" that most Hindi-wallahs in this time and
age have in mind. And probably, the same is the
case with "Urdu-philes".

This is precisely what I wanted to change. And from the overwhelmingly
encouraging response from the friends, I guess my efforts have not
gone totally in waste.

Zaf

[SPS22]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I think we should also take into account the
fact that millions and millions of people on the
sub-continent who speak, read and write Urdu strongly
believe that it is indeed a separate, distinct
language despite the commonality of verbs and other
conjunctions etc. There are few amongst these who
can also read and write Hindi (in the Devanagri
script). So, there is no need to interfere in this
belief of theirs.

It is far better to know the truth than live a myth, some would say.
The desire to know the truth and reality motivates us humans.

-sps

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by SPS22

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I think we should also take into account the
fact that millions and millions of people on the
sub-continent who speak, read and write Urdu strongly
believe that it is indeed a separate, distinct
language despite the commonality of verbs and other
conjunctions etc. There are few amongst these who
can also read and write Hindi (in the Devanagri
script). So, there is no need to interfere in this
belief of theirs.

It is far better to know the truth than live a myth, some would say.
The desire to know the truth and reality motivates us humans.
-sps

For those millions that I wrote about, this
belief (that Urdu is indeed a separate,
distinct language) IS the truth. And they
are humans too.


Afzal

[Surjit Singh]

Post by Zafar
So see? One language, two scripts!

Amazingly this is what Sushrut Vaidya said at the beginning of this
whole thead!

So, I propose that we declare the RMIM newsgroup discussion on this
subject closed.

Post by Zafar
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar

[Satish Kalra]

Post by Surjit Singh

Post by Zafar
So see? One language, two scripts!

Amazingly this is what Sushrut Vaidya said at the beginning of this
whole thead!
So, I propose that we declare the RMIM newsgroup discussion on this
subject closed.

Post by Zafar
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar

--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html

Prof. saahib:

You were wrong in saying that I didn't miss much, except that Zafar saahib
proved that Urdu and Hindi are the same language in two different scripts!
I sure did miss a lot of scholarly discussion by so many! To tell the
truth, I still haven't been able to go thru all the articles on the
thread(s),and will probably take another week to do so. But I can already
see the hard work put in by all, esp. Mr. Zafar. Thank you.

His conclusion is the same as was told to me when I was beginning to take
Urdu lessons back in the early 50's - Urdu is Hindi written in the Arabic
script, as told to me by my Urdu instructor.

The series has also broguht out the fact that there are a number of RMIM
lurkers who usually do not post, but regularly read it anyway. I wish they
participate on various discussions of music as well.

Happy Listenings.

Satish Kalra

[UVR]

Post by Zafar
So see? One language, two scripts!

Oh, d*mn! I was hoping you would draw the other conclusion!
Who will I spar with now? ;)

Accept my sincere congratulations (and thanks) on a series of
articles extremely well researched and well presented. But
then, one has come to expect no less from you, Zafar saahib.

Regards,
-UVR.

[Sushrut Vaidya]

Zafar Sahab,

My heartfelt congratulations for a very scholarly series of articles
that provided the scholarly liguistic analysis of the problem at hand.
Also my sincere aplogies for being late in congratulating. My only
excuse is that I wanted to wait until the series was over so that I
could also respond to its content.

Post by Zafar
but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns."

It is exactly this kind of 'Guiding Principles' that I was looking for
which un-initiated people like me do not know and get caught into
socio-political biases, un-equipped to defend ourselves, and end up
discarding the scientific truth for something far less valuable.

Post by Zafar
In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words.

Precisely. A language always gets influenced by the rulers. As you
aptly said in your post 'the language of the king is the king of
languages' (may be not an exact quote but the essence is the same). In
fact this might be the very reason why Persian-Arabic words came into
Hindi (of old times) in the first place.

As Mughals were replaced by the English, we have seen a tremendous
influx of English words into Hindi. English itself is no execption to
this rule with 25% of its vocabulary originating from French as a
result of two centuries of rule by French speaking people.

In any case, it was extremely rewarding to read your series and I
learned a great deal about the history of Hindi and the lingustic
arguments put forward by the scholarly community studying the subject.

As far as the socio-political side of this problem is concerned, IMHO,
As a single people that are already, divided on too many lines...we
should be making efforts to emphasize the similarities in us, rather
than finding differences that dont even exist!

One would hope that your research will help, God willing. Thanks for
sharing it.

Aadaab arz hai.

Sushrut

[Surjit Singh]

Post by Sushrut Vaidya

Post by Zafar
but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns."

It is exactly this kind of 'Guiding Principles' that I was looking for
which un-initiated people like me do not know and get caught into
socio-political biases, un-equipped to defend ourselves, and end up
discarding the scientific truth for something far less valuable.

I have been looking for a concept like linguistic "distance" or
linguistic "similarity" for ages (since 1969 at least). In statistics,
people use concepts like the Mahalanobis distance and the Bhattacharya
distance. These calculated numbers tell us the distance between two
statistical distributions at a glance.

Based on empirical studies of the various elements of 2 languages like
phonemes, morphemes, parts of speech, structure, syntheticity etc. it
should be possible to devise a distance measure (a handy number) that
will give an indication of the distance. This will answer questions
like: How far has Urdu traveled from Vedic Sanskrit? How far apart are
modern standard Marathi and Panjabi? How dissimilar are the Hindi used
by All India Radio and the Hindi spoken by Delhi Tongawallahs? Or, is
the Hindi used in Hindi movies a new language or just a variant of
modern Hindi/Urdu?

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find even a mention of such kind
of measure. Zafar saahib has indicated there is at least some thinking
along these lines. I wonder if there is concrete (read mathematical)
work on this idea.

If not, perhaps some trained theoretical physicist should get into the
act and create a new field, as usual. [Side remark: Professor Pathria
may not even remember this, but I do clearly. In the tea sessions of the
Physics Dept of the Panjab University, he and I used to discuss distance
measures between two people. We thought of using the scalar product of
vectors!]

[Sushrut Vaidya]

Zafar Sahab,

My heartfelt congratulations for a very scholarly series of articles
that provided the scholarly liguistic analysis of the problem at hand.
Also my sincere aplogies for being late in congratulating. My only
excuse is that I wanted to wait until the series was over so that I
could also respond to its content.

Post by Zafar
but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns."

It is exactly this kind of 'Guiding Principles' that I was looking for
which un-initiated people like me do not know and get caught into
socio-political biases, un-equipped to defend ourselves, and end up
discarding the scientific truth for something far less valuable.

Post by Zafar
In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words.

Precisely. A language always gets influenced by the rulers. As you
aptly said in your post 'the language of the king is the king of
languages' (may be not an exact quote but the essence is the same). In
fact this might be the very reason why Persian-Arabic words came into
Hindi (of old times) in the first place.

As Mughals were replaced by the English, we have seen a tremendous
influx of English words into Hindi. English itself is no execption to
this rule with 25% of its vocabulary originating from French as a
result of two centuries of rule by French speaking people.

In any case, it was extremely rewarding to read your series and I
learned a great deal about the history of Hindi and the lingustic
arguments put forward by the scholarly community studying the subject.

As far as the socio-political side of this problem is concerned, IMHO,
As a single people that are already, divided on too many lines...we
should be making efforts to emphasize the similarities in us, rather
than finding differences that dont even exist!

One would hope that your research will help, God willing. Thanks for
sharing it.

Aadaab arz hai.

Sushrut

[Yashowanto N. Ghosh]

Zafar saaHab, aadaab arz!

"dekhtaa kyaa hooN vo jaan e intizaar aa hee gaya"! Thanks a lot for
this instalment again---I learnt so much from it. ---

Post by Zafar
This brings us back to the important question: How did the name got
changed from Hindi to Urdu?
FORT WILLIAM COLLEGE, CALCUTTA

"Divide and rule"? We should have suspected as much...

I have been looking for examples in literature where the terms "Hindi"
and "Urdu" are treated as being different. Here are the opening lines
of Munshi Prem Chand's short story "Meree Pehlee Rachnaa":

us vaqt meree 'umr koee 13 saal kee rahee ho gee. Hindi
bilkul na jaantaa thaa. Urdu ke upanyaas paRhne-likhne
kaa unmaad thaa.

My conclusions:

1. According to Munshi Prem Chand, "Hindi" and "Urdu" are definitely
distinct entities.

2. At the time when Munshi Prem Chand was a teenager (i.e. the 1890's)
"Urdu" was probably commonly known, and "Hindi" was probably not.
_______________

A question---I remember you mentioning "Raanee Ketkee kee Kahaanee"
some time ago, and (from what you said about it) I think its language
should properly be called "Urdu without Persian words". How does it
compare with the language of Lallo Lalji, Sadal Mitr, et al? And with
the modern "Shuddh Hindi"? Did Insha use a lot of relatively rare
Sanskrit words in it?

Post by Zafar
And now the big question whether these are different languages *now*.
And my humble opinion is, I don't think so! Various scholars have
written extensively written on the subject but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns." The reason being that the nouns-universe
of any living language is extremely volatile; nouns enter and leave at
a break-neck pace. On the other hand, the verbs stay fairly constant
and are accepted/modified/replaced/rejected over a much longer period
of time. Also, verbs are the most commonly used words in any language.
Let's see where modern Hindi and modern Urdu stand when viewed from
this point of view.

A very good argument. But shouldn't we also look beyond vocabulary, i.e.
at grammar, usage, idiom...?

Post by Zafar
Stanislav Martynyuk's excellent study, A Statistical Approach to the
Debate on Urdu and Hindi
<http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:XQKNDYK8dXwJ:www.urdustudies.com/pdf/18/12amartynyukcolor.pdf+statistical+approach+urdustudies&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
has already been discussed. He took 441,153 Hindi words and 440,929
Urdu words from modern sources and conducted a frequency of occurrence
analysis. What he found out was that 70 out of 100 most common words
in both languages were the same. Here are the top 20 most common words
in Hindi and Urdu (in order of frequency of occurrence).
HINDI
ka hona meN ne karna ko se jana ki yah aur ve par kahna dena bhee
rahna naheeN ek keli'ye
URDU
ka hona meN karna ne aur se ko jana par keh dena yah kahna voh keli'ye
naheeN ek rahna jo
I guess this list prvides ample that these are the words of one and
the same language.

Yes, it does.

A comment about "ve" and "voh": In Hindi, "voh"="that" and "ve"="those";
in Urdu, "voh"="that/those", "ve" is not familiar to me. This is one of
the *very* few concrete differences that I can think of.

Post by Zafar
In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words. A very common
HINDI
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
URDU
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.

LOL!!

Thanks again (and congratulations!) for the fantastic series. You have
established your point very well.

With best regards,

Jasho

[Surma Bhopali]

***@eurdubazaar.com (Zafar) wrote in message news:...
Thanks you very much for the nice article. I have preserved it.

Post by Zafar
And now the big question whether these are different languages *now*.
And my humble opinion is, I don't think so! Various scholars have
written extensively written on the subject but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns." The reason being that the nouns-universe
of any living language is extremely volatile; nouns enter and leave...

This is a statement I have been looking for for ages. I have seen most
proponents of "Urdu is different from Hindi" theory putting forth
instances of countless nouns as evidence that the languages are
distinct. Nouns do form part of a language, but the backbone are
verbs. I always believed Urdu and Hindi share a common backbone.

I had attended a "Mushaira-cum-Kavi-Sammelan" here in Sydney. Among
other Hindi and Urdu speaking poets, we were fortunate to have a
famous Urdu poet[forgot the name as usual]. Despite frequent use of
Persian words I was able to comprehend her poetry though I can hardly
call myself an Urdu literate. That prompted me to think "how can one
understand a language he doesn't know". You provided the answer.
Thanks.

Post by Zafar
In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words. A very common
HINDI
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
URDU
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
So see? One language, two scripts!

Great conclusion. I understand your point is Hindi and Urdu are
basically one language and were even treated like one before the
British arrived. Does your article also conclude that it was British
who partitioned the language as they did with the geography?

Anyway, nice to see traces of unity among the forcibly divided lot.
Will we be able to faithfully sustain this lately discovered little
unity as well as we did the divisions?

[Sushil Sharma]

Post by Zafar
Sorry, I forgot to cross-post the article last night. Here is it
again.

Zafar Saaheb,

Aadaab. Your third and final post of this series, like the previous
two, was also scholarly and well written. Your efforts in this
series are truly commendable, praiseworthy, and in keeping with
the reputation you have earned on ALUP (and now on RMIM too)!

While I whole-heartedly, completely, "cent per cent" agree with the
conclusion you have drawn at the end of this series, about Hindi
and Urdu being linguistically not too different from each other,
there were a few observations/remarks/implicit arguments with which
I don't agree, in your essays, particularly in this final instalment.

Post by Zafar
All these names were occasionally employed but as we have seen, Hindi
was the most common name of Urdu.

Hindi, literally means the language of Hind, and as such was
used to denote the vernacular tongue (boli) spoken in north India,
predominantly by the muslim authors. Its not proven in your
articles whether we could refer to this vernacular tongue as "Urdu".
As we all know, the word "Hindu" was used for a long time, by
Muslim authors, to refer to the religion of India. This supposedly
Hindu populace didn't use this word till much later. In the same way,
the word "Hindi" was not common before the Muslim authors and was not
used by the non-muslim populace, till much later. We can't say
Hinduism
(whatever the word means) came into being as a result of the Muslim
immigration to India, and likewise, we can't say, Hindi as a language
came into being because of Muslim rulers or "in the royal court and
its
circles."

Post by Zafar
Now consider this: Sheikh Hamdani Mus'hafi (1750-1824), who is one of
the greatest Urdu poets of all time, wrote an important "tazkira" (a
memoir+anthology) of important Urdu poets in 1794. And what name did
he chose for this book? "Tazkira e Hindi GoyaaN," (A Tazkira of
*Hindi* Poets!)

I don't understand what one can deduce from the title of this
work, and why the exclaimation mark. To me, the title simply
means, "A 'tazkira' of Indian Poets" with Hindi being used in
the geographical sense to denote "Indian" instead of the name of the
language.

Post by Zafar
This brings us back to the important question: How did the name got
changed from Hindi to Urdu?
FORT WILLIAM COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
When the British came to India, they found that the lingua franca of
India, regardless of religion, was Hindi - a local language with the
vocabulary enriched by Persian and Arabic and written in the
Perso-Arabic script.

I have MAJOR objection to the way you end this sentence!!! Yes,
the lingua franca of India was Hindi, but how could you say this
was "enriched with Persian and Arabic" written in the Perso-Arabic
script. Only a particular section of the society spoke Hindi rich
in Persian and arabic words, and only that section knew the
Perso-Arabic
script. That section was in no way the majority of the Hindi speaking
people. A much larger section of the population spoke the same tongue
without a rich Persian Arabic content, and used Devanagari script.

I agree the term "KhaRi Boli" is relatively new, but that does not
imply that the vernacular it denotes, is also a recent (post-british)
phenomenon. I have read Achrya Ramchandra Shukla's "hindi sahitya
ka itihaas" and your posts made me reread some portions of it in
last few days. He might have had his shortcomings, but a major
portion of what he wrote, still remains valid, to me. He writes
(please excuse my poor and hasty translation):
"Demise of Mughal empire helped spread of Khari Boli. Western
cities like Delhi and Agra lost their wealth and new eastern cities
like Lucknow, Patna, Murshidabad, etc, rose to prominence.
As Urdu poets like Meer, Insha etc moved eastward to seek new
wealth, so did Hindu businessmen and traders who lived around
Delhi and Agra. Their speech Khari Boli, spread along with them.
It is well known that residents of fertile and peaceful lands
are not very entrepreneurial in trade, so these western traders
and businessmen soon gained pre-eminence in the eastern cities.
Thus, the business language of the eastern regions became Khari
Boli.
This Khari Boli was a true and natural spoken language of these
people, not the "urdu-e-mualla" of the Munshis and Mullahs. This
tongue has been continuously in use, in its primitive forms,
since old times, in the houses of the people who come from the
Western regions. So, the claims by some people that Khari Boli
was brought into existence through Muslims and that its original
form was Urdu [and R.C. Shukla means Urdu written in Perso-Arabic
script, when he uses the word in his Book - sushil] from which
a modern language of writing prose was derived simply by throwing
out the Arabic and Persian words, are founded in pure ignorance.
The reason for such claims is the fact that, by tradition, the
literature of this region was in verse, and the traditional
language for verse, in most of North India at that time was
Braj Bhasha, and Khari Boli was more of an ordinary day-to-day
speech, instead of the language used for literature, not employed
to create literature or poetry, just like other regional dialects
were being ignored for literary work around those times.
But not having been used for literary purposes does not mean
this language did not exist. Even before Urdu, Khari Boli was
present in its "deshi" form, and it is still present, in the
speech of the people. This was even used for literature, in
some instances, as has been shown before [in the book - sushil]."

There are numerous examples provided by historians of Hindi
literature, of ancient Hindi writings, right from late Apabhramsh
(10th century onwards), in the language of the the Naaths and
Siddhhas,
in the language of Prithviraj Raaso, Hammeer Raaso, Bisaldeo Raaso and
numerous other such works, in the language of Nirguna Bhakt poets like
Kabir (and several others), in Saguna Bhakt poets like Soordaas,
Tulasidas, Mira etc etc. Just look at the following lines from
Kabir:
"naa jaane teraa saahab kaisaa hai.
masajid bhiitar mullaa pukaare, kyaa saahib teraa baharaa hai?
chiu.NTii ke pag newar baaje, so bhi saahab sunataa hai.
pa.nDit hoya ke aasan maarai, la.mbii maalaa japataa hai.
a.tar tere kapaT-kataranii, so bhii sahab lakhataa hai.
uu.nchaa niichaa mahal banaayaa, gaharii ne.nva jamaataa hai.
..."

For those who might not realize, Kabir lived during 1399-1519 AD
(he is believed to have lived 120 years). The language of the example
I cited above, is Kabir's language - Hindi (written in Devanagari,
and not abounding in Arabic and Persian words!), at a time when
Mughal Empire was yet to be founded by the great grandfather of
Shahjehan who founded the Red-Fort, where the so called
"urdu-e-mualla"
was to be spoken centuries later. And that "urdu-e-mualla" is argued
to be fore-runner of the Hindi as we know it now! Either Kabirdas Ji
was truly prescient, or there is something wrong with claims
of the original language being "Hindi (meaning Urdu here), rich in
Persian and Arabic, written in Perso-Arabic script, and the modern
Hindi being simply derived from that (almost overnight) at Fort
Williams
College in Calcutta, at Gilchrist's behest.

Post by Zafar
Another prominent New Hindi writer of the College was Sadal Mitr.

I have always seen his name being written as "Sadal Mishra" (in
Devanagari Script), that is, "shra" instead of a "tr".

Post by Zafar
George Grierson, the head of the committee for the monumental "The
Linguistic Survey of India", writes in the foreword of a book of Lallu
Lal in 1896 (reconverted into English from an Urdu translation - I
hope I have not mangled the text too much -- cited in Gyanchand Jain,
Prem Sagar, he was actually inventing an entirely new language."

To me, this appears to be an academic equivalent of an "urban legend".
I am surprized that you quoted this here. Ram Chandra Shukla and
several other historians of Hindi, provide several (much older)
examples
of prose in Braj Bhaashaa and several other dialects. They even
provide much older examples of Hindi (and I don't mean a Perso-Arabic
style here) prose. For example, the quote R.C. Shukla gives from
Gang Kavi's (a court poet in Akbar's time) "chanda chhanda baranan kii
mahimaa", resembles a modern Hindi prose so closely that it will
surprise you. Ramaprasad Niranjani wrote Yogavashistha in
(non Perso-Arabic) Hindi 62 years before Sadal Mishra and Lalloo Lal,
and his language is nothing but modern Hindi prose. Pt Daulatram wrote
a Hindi translation of Jaina Padma Purana, in B.S. 1818. You must
have heard of "Rani Ketaki Ki Kahani" by Insha Allah Khan, and
Sukhsaagar (translation of the Bhagavata) by Munshi Sadasukh Lal. Both
of
these are examples of modern Hindi (non Perso-Arabic) prose, published
verifiably before Lalloo Lal's Prem Sagar, outside the direct
influence
of Fort W. College. Hindi (without Arabic and Persian words,
written in Devanagari, but modern Hindi in grammatical view) prose was
already coming into vogue on its own, before Lalloo Lal and Fort W
College.

IMHO, its not possible to change the language spoken and written
by millions of people, in a short span of time, just by publishing
a few books, funding a few colleges, even by adopting it as the
language of court and administration, unless that language is "their
own"
to the populace. If this was not the case, everyone would be speaking
Sanskrit when Muslims arrived in India, and everyone would be speaking
Persian when the British arrived, and finally everyone would just be
speaking English, in India, in roman alphabet, when the British left.
In any case, millions of people in India would not be speaking today
the
non-Perso-Arabic Hindi, and writing it in Devanagari script, if this
was "invented" by one Lalloo Lal whom an average Indian does not
know, merely 150 years back, at the orders of some British
educationist.

To summarize, IMHO there was a common literary language of India,
which
was called by various names, "bhaashaa" (for deshaj bhaashaa or desh
bhaashaa)
being one of them, and Hindi or Rekhta being names popularized by the
Muslim, which was suitably enriched by intermingling of several native
dialects as well as foreign languages like Arabic and Persian, which
was written by some people in Perso-Arabic script and the rest in
Devanagari script, and this langauge was later pushed into two
distinct directions, under active British influence. One direction
became
modern Urdu, written in Perso-Arabic script and adopted increasing
number of Persian and Arabic words and structures, and claimed
inheritance of the Rekhta tradition, inheritance of Meer, Ghalib and
all
other poets who wrote verses in Rekhta, in Perso-Arabic script.
The other direction became known as modern Hindi, written in
Devanagari, and it increasingly adopted Sanskrit words, and claimed
inheritance of the milleunium-old litearay tradition of poetry
written in ancient Avadhi, Braj, Rajasthani, Maithily etc, all of
which had natural affinity with Sanskrit and were written in
Devanagari script, since very long. While they were derived from
the same vernacular tongue of India, they claimed two distinct
literary traditions (one written in Perso-Arabic, the other in
Devanagari) as their literary history. While the historians of
modern Urdu literature have no compunction in claiming it to be
derived from ancient Hindi, they do not talk about Kabir, Meera,
Soor, Tulasi, Raheem, Rasakhan, Bihari, Jayasi, Mubaarak, Aalam (the
last
5 were Muslims who wrote in deshi "non-Perso-Arabic" Hindi). In the
same
vein, the historians of modern Hindi, while eager to claim it to be
the
natural descendant of the ancient Hindi, only grudgingly mention
Amir Khusro, and do not talk about Meer, Ghalib, Sauda, Mushafi,
even about Firaq and Chakbast (the last two being Hindu authors
who chose to write in Perso-Arabic "Urdu/Hindi"). We now have,
modern Hindi and modern Urdu, which are linguistically the same,
but with two distinct literary traditions, scripts and styles.
In short, an interesting paradox to the outsiders. I go back to
the upama/tashbeeh I used in my comments to your 2nd article
in this series, modern Hindi and modern Urdu are two stylistic
branches of the same linguistic tree. Perhaps, I should say,
flowers of two beautiful colors and two distinct fragrances, blooming
on the same branch. Let's not pluck any of these two flowers
to artificilly supplant it somewhere else where it won't belong,
just to spite the other flower on the same branch.

is paricharchaa me.n aapake atiiva shlaghaniiya eva.m bahumuulya
yogadaan ke liye aapako satasha.H saadhuvaad va haardik aabhaar!

Bhavadiiya,

Sushil

--

[Sushil Sharma]

Post by Sushil Sharma

Post by Zafar
Now consider this: Sheikh Hamdani Mus'hafi (1750-1824), who is one of
the greatest Urdu poets of all time, wrote an important "tazkira" (a
memoir+anthology) of important Urdu poets in 1794. And what name did
he chose for this book? "Tazkira e Hindi GoyaaN," (A Tazkira of
*Hindi* Poets!)

I don't understand what one can deduce from the title of this
work, and why the exclaimation mark. To me, the title simply
means, "A 'tazkira' of Indian Poets" with Hindi being used in
the geographical sense to denote "Indian" instead of the name of the
language.

Zafar saaheb,

When I read my own post a few minutes after posting it, I realized
I made a mistake in making the comment quoted above. Somehow, I didn't
notice that original title of the work cited by you said "hindigoyaaN",
and my comment was purely based on the translation you gave "A Tazkira
of Hindi Poets". When one reads this translated version of the title,
one may consider the word Hindi to have been used in the geographical
sense. However, the term "hindigoyaa.N" leaves no doubt that Hindi was
used here to denote a language. My apologies for this remark.

Thanks,
Sushil

[Sushil Sharma]

Post by Zafar
Sorry, I forgot to cross-post the article last night. Here is it
again.

Zafar Saaheb,

Aadaab. Your third and final post of this series, like the previous
two, was also scholarly and well written. Your efforts in this
series are truly commendable, praiseworthy, and in keeping with
the reputation you have earned on ALUP (and now on RMIM too)!

While I whole-heartedly, completely, "cent per cent" agree with the
conclusion you have drawn at the end of this series, about Hindi
and Urdu being linguistically not too different from each other,
there were a few observations/remarks/implicit arguments with which
I don't agree, in your essays, particularly in this final instalment.

Post by Zafar
All these names were occasionally employed but as we have seen, Hindi
was the most common name of Urdu.

Hindi, literally means the language of Hind, and as such was
used to denote the vernacular tongue (boli) spoken in north India,
predominantly by the muslim authors. Its not proven in your
articles whether we could refer to this vernacular tongue as "Urdu".
As we all know, the word "Hindu" was used for a long time, by
Muslim authors, to refer to the religion of India. This supposedly
Hindu populace didn't use this word till much later. In the same way,
the word "Hindi" was not common before the Muslim authors and was not
used by the non-muslim populace, till much later. We can't say
Hinduism
(whatever the word means) came into being as a result of the Muslim
immigration to India, and likewise, we can't say, Hindi as a language
came into being because of Muslim rulers or "in the royal court and
its
circles."

Post by Zafar
Now consider this: Sheikh Hamdani Mus'hafi (1750-1824), who is one of
the greatest Urdu poets of all time, wrote an important "tazkira" (a
memoir+anthology) of important Urdu poets in 1794. And what name did
he chose for this book? "Tazkira e Hindi GoyaaN," (A Tazkira of
*Hindi* Poets!)

I don't understand what one can deduce from the title of this
work, and why the exclaimation mark. To me, the title simply
means, "A 'tazkira' of Indian Poets" with Hindi being used in
the geographical sense to denote "Indian" instead of the name of the
language.

Post by Zafar
This brings us back to the important question: How did the name got
changed from Hindi to Urdu?
FORT WILLIAM COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
When the British came to India, they found that the lingua franca of
India, regardless of religion, was Hindi - a local language with the
vocabulary enriched by Persian and Arabic and written in the
Perso-Arabic script.

I have MAJOR objection to the way you end this sentence!!! Yes,
the lingua franca of India was Hindi, but how could you say this
was "enriched with Persian and Arabic" written in the Perso-Arabic
script. Only a particular section of the society spoke Hindi rich
in Persian and arabic words, and only that section knew the
Perso-Arabic
script. That section was in no way the majority of the Hindi speaking
people. A much larger section of the population spoke the same tongue
without a rich Persian Arabic content, and used Devanagari script.

I agree the term "KhaRi Boli" is relatively new, but that does not
imply that the vernacular it denotes, is also a recent (post-british)
phenomenon. I have read Achrya Ramchandra Shukla's "hindi sahitya
ka itihaas" and your posts made me reread some portions of it in
last few days. He might have had his shortcomings, but a major
portion of what he wrote, still remains valid, to me. He writes
(please excuse my poor and hasty translation):
"Demise of Mughal empire helped spread of Khari Boli. Western
cities like Delhi and Agra lost their wealth and new eastern cities
like Lucknow, Patna, Murshidabad, etc, rose to prominence.
As Urdu poets like Meer, Insha etc moved eastward to seek new
wealth, so did Hindu businessmen and traders who lived around
Delhi and Agra. Their speech Khari Boli, spread along with them.
It is well known that residents of fertile and peaceful lands
are not very entrepreneurial in trade, so these western traders
and businessmen soon gained pre-eminence in the eastern cities.
Thus, the business language of the eastern regions became Khari
Boli.
This Khari Boli was a true and natural spoken language of these
people, not the "urdu-e-mualla" of the Munshis and Mullahs. This
tongue has been continuously in use, in its primitive forms,
since old times, in the houses of the people who come from the
Western regions. So, the claims by some people that Khari Boli
was brought into existence through Muslims and that its original
form was Urdu [and R.C. Shukla means Urdu written in Perso-Arabic
script, when he uses the word in his Book - sushil] from which
a modern language of writing prose was derived simply by throwing
out the Arabic and Persian words, are founded in pure ignorance.
The reason for such claims is the fact that, by tradition, the
literature of this region was in verse, and the traditional
language for verse, in most of North India at that time was
Braj Bhasha, and Khari Boli was more of an ordinary day-to-day
speech, instead of the language used for literature, not employed
to create literature or poetry, just like other regional dialects
were being ignored for literary work around those times.
But not having been used for literary purposes does not mean
this language did not exist. Even before Urdu, Khari Boli was
present in its "deshi" form, and it is still present, in the
speech of the people. This was even used for literature, in
some instances, as has been shown before [in the book - sushil]."

There are numerous examples provided by historians of Hindi
literature, of ancient Hindi writings, right from late Apabhramsh
(10th century onwards), in the language of the the Naaths and
Siddhhas,
in the language of Prithviraj Raaso, Hammeer Raaso, Bisaldeo Raaso and
numerous other such works, in the language of Nirguna Bhakt poets like
Kabir (and several others), in Saguna Bhakt poets like Soordaas,
Tulasidas, Mira etc etc. Just look at the following lines from
Kabir:
"naa jaane teraa saahab kaisaa hai.
masajid bhiitar mullaa pukaare, kyaa saahib teraa baharaa hai?
chiu.NTii ke pag newar baaje, so bhi saahab sunataa hai.
pa.nDit hoya ke aasan maarai, la.mbii maalaa japataa hai.
a.tar tere kapaT-kataranii, so bhii sahab lakhataa hai.
uu.nchaa niichaa mahal banaayaa, gaharii ne.nva jamaataa hai.
..."

For those who might not realize, Kabir lived during 1399-1519 AD
(he is believed to have lived 120 years). The language of the example
I cited above, is Kabir's language - Hindi (written in Devanagari,
and not abounding in Arabic and Persian words!), at a time when
Mughal Empire was yet to be founded by the great grandfather of
Shahjehan who founded the Red-Fort, where the so called
"urdu-e-mualla"
was to be spoken centuries later. And that "urdu-e-mualla" is argued
to be fore-runner of the Hindi as we know it now! Either Kabirdas Ji
was truly prescient, or there is something wrong with claims
of the original language being "Hindi (meaning Urdu here), rich in
Persian and Arabic, written in Perso-Arabic script, and the modern
Hindi being simply derived from that (almost overnight) at Fort
Williams
College in Calcutta, at Gilchrist's behest.

Post by Zafar
Another prominent New Hindi writer of the College was Sadal Mitr.

I have always seen his name being written as "Sadal Mishra" (in
Devanagari Script), that is, "shra" instead of a "tr".

Post by Zafar
George Grierson, the head of the committee for the monumental "The
Linguistic Survey of India", writes in the foreword of a book of Lallu
Lal in 1896 (reconverted into English from an Urdu translation - I
hope I have not mangled the text too much -- cited in Gyanchand Jain,
Prem Sagar, he was actually inventing an entirely new language."

To me, this appears to be an academic equivalent of an "urban legend".
I am surprized that you quoted this here. Ram Chandra Shukla and
several other historians of Hindi, provide several (much older)
examples
of prose in Braj Bhaashaa and several other dialects. They even
provide much older examples of Hindi (and I don't mean a Perso-Arabic
style here) prose. For example, the quote R.C. Shukla gives from
Gang Kavi's (a court poet in Akbar's time) "chanda chhanda baranan kii
mahimaa", resembles a modern Hindi prose so closely that it will
surprise you. Ramaprasad Niranjani wrote Yogavashistha in
(non Perso-Arabic) Hindi 62 years before Sadal Mishra and Lalloo Lal,
and his language is nothing but modern Hindi prose. Pt Daulatram wrote
a Hindi translation of Jaina Padma Purana, in B.S. 1818. You must
have heard of "Rani Ketaki Ki Kahani" by Insha Allah Khan, and
Sukhsaagar (translation of the Bhagavata) by Munshi Sadasukh Lal. Both
of
these are examples of modern Hindi (non Perso-Arabic) prose, published
verifiably before Lalloo Lal's Prem Sagar, outside the direct
influence
of Fort W. College. Hindi (without Arabic and Persian words,
written in Devanagari, but modern Hindi in grammatical view) prose was
already coming into vogue on its own, before Lalloo Lal and Fort W
College.

IMHO, its not possible to change the language spoken and written
by millions of people, in a short span of time, just by publishing
a few books, funding a few colleges, even by adopting it as the
language of court and administration, unless that language is "their
own"
to the populace. If this was not the case, everyone would be speaking
Sanskrit when Muslims arrived in India, and everyone would be speaking
Persian when the British arrived, and finally everyone would just be
speaking English, in India, in roman alphabet, when the British left.
In any case, millions of people in India would not be speaking today
the
non-Perso-Arabic Hindi, and writing it in Devanagari script, if this
was "invented" by one Lalloo Lal whom an average Indian does not
know, merely 150 years back, at the orders of some British
educationist.

To summarize, IMHO there was a common literary language of India,
which
was called by various names, "bhaashaa" (for deshaj bhaashaa or desh
bhaashaa)
being one of them, and Hindi or Rekhta being names popularized by the
Muslim, which was suitably enriched by intermingling of several native
dialects as well as foreign languages like Arabic and Persian, which
was written by some people in Perso-Arabic script and the rest in
Devanagari script, and this langauge was later pushed into two
distinct directions, under active British influence. One direction
became
modern Urdu, written in Perso-Arabic script and adopted increasing
number of Persian and Arabic words and structures, and claimed
inheritance of the Rekhta tradition, inheritance of Meer, Ghalib and
all
other poets who wrote verses in Rekhta, in Perso-Arabic script.
The other direction became known as modern Hindi, written in
Devanagari, and it increasingly adopted Sanskrit words, and claimed
inheritance of the milleunium-old litearay tradition of poetry
written in ancient Avadhi, Braj, Rajasthani, Maithily etc, all of
which had natural affinity with Sanskrit and were written in
Devanagari script, since very long. While they were derived from
the same vernacular tongue of India, they claimed two distinct
literary traditions (one written in Perso-Arabic, the other in
Devanagari) as their literary history. While the historians of
modern Urdu literature have no compunction in claiming it to be
derived from ancient Hindi, they do not talk about Kabir, Meera,
Soor, Tulasi, Raheem, Rasakhan, Bihari, Jayasi, Mubaarak, Aalam (the
last
5 were Muslims who wrote in deshi "non-Perso-Arabic" Hindi). In the
same
vein, the historians of modern Hindi, while eager to claim it to be
the
natural descendant of the ancient Hindi, only grudgingly mention
Amir Khusro, and do not talk about Meer, Ghalib, Sauda, Mushafi,
even about Firaq and Chakbast (the last two being Hindu authors
who chose to write in Perso-Arabic "Urdu/Hindi"). We now have,
modern Hindi and modern Urdu, which are linguistically the same,
but with two distinct literary traditions, scripts and styles.
In short, an interesting paradox to the outsiders. I go back to
the upama/tashbeeh I used in my comments to your 2nd article
in this series, modern Hindi and modern Urdu are two stylistic
branches of the same linguistic tree. Perhaps, I should say,
flowers of two beautiful colors and two distinct fragrances, blooming
on the same branch. Let's not pluck any of these two flowers
to artificilly supplant it somewhere else where it won't belong,
just to spite the other flower on the same branch.

is paricharchaa me.n aapake atiiva shlaghaniiya eva.m bahumuulya
yogadaan ke liye aapako satasha.H saadhuvaad va haardik aabhaar!

Bhavadiiya,

Sushil

--

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Sushil Sharma

Post by Zafar
Sorry, I forgot to cross-post the article last night. Here is it
again.

Zafar Saaheb,
Aadaab. Your third and final post of this series, like the previous
two, was also scholarly and well written. Your efforts in this
series are truly commendable, praiseworthy, and in keeping with
the reputation you have earned on ALUP (and now on RMIM too)!
While I whole-heartedly, completely, "cent per cent" agree with the
conclusion you have drawn at the end of this series, about Hindi
and Urdu being linguistically not too different from each other,
there were a few observations/remarks/implicit arguments with which
I don't agree, in your essays, particularly in this final instalment.

Post by Zafar
All these names were occasionally employed but as we have seen, Hindi
was the most common name of Urdu.

Hindi, literally means the language of Hind, and as such was
used to denote the vernacular tongue (boli) spoken in north India,
predominantly by the muslim authors. Its not proven in your
articles whether we could refer to this vernacular tongue as "Urdu".
As we all know, the word "Hindu" was used for a long time, by
Muslim authors, to refer to the religion of India. This supposedly
Hindu populace didn't use this word till much later. In the same way,
the word "Hindi" was not common before the Muslim authors and was not
used by the non-muslim populace, till much later. We can't say
Hinduism
(whatever the word means) came into being as a result of the Muslim
immigration to India, and likewise, we can't say, Hindi as a language
came into being because of Muslim rulers or "in the royal court and
its
circles."

Post by Zafar
Now consider this: Sheikh Hamdani Mus'hafi (1750-1824), who is one of
the greatest Urdu poets of all time, wrote an important "tazkira" (a
memoir+anthology) of important Urdu poets in 1794. And what name did
he chose for this book? "Tazkira e Hindi GoyaaN," (A Tazkira of
*Hindi* Poets!)

I don't understand what one can deduce from the title of this
work, and why the exclaimation mark. To me, the title simply
means, "A 'tazkira' of Indian Poets" with Hindi being used in
the geographical sense to denote "Indian" instead of the name of the
language.

Post by Zafar
This brings us back to the important question: How did the name got
changed from Hindi to Urdu?
FORT WILLIAM COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
When the British came to India, they found that the lingua franca of
India, regardless of religion, was Hindi - a local language with the
vocabulary enriched by Persian and Arabic and written in the
Perso-Arabic script.

I have MAJOR objection to the way you end this sentence!!! Yes,
the lingua franca of India was Hindi, but how could you say this
was "enriched with Persian and Arabic" written in the Perso-Arabic
script. Only a particular section of the society spoke Hindi rich
in Persian and arabic words, and only that section knew the
Perso-Arabic
script. That section was in no way the majority of the Hindi speaking
people. A much larger section of the population spoke the same tongue
without a rich Persian Arabic content, and used Devanagari script.
I agree the term "KhaRi Boli" is relatively new, but that does not
imply that the vernacular it denotes, is also a recent (post-british)
phenomenon. I have read Achrya Ramchandra Shukla's "hindi sahitya
ka itihaas" and your posts made me reread some portions of it in
last few days. He might have had his shortcomings, but a major
portion of what he wrote, still remains valid, to me. He writes
"Demise of Mughal empire helped spread of Khari Boli. Western
cities like Delhi and Agra lost their wealth and new eastern cities
like Lucknow, Patna, Murshidabad, etc, rose to prominence.
As Urdu poets like Meer, Insha etc moved eastward to seek new
wealth, so did Hindu businessmen and traders who lived around
Delhi and Agra. Their speech Khari Boli, spread along with them.
It is well known that residents of fertile and peaceful lands
are not very entrepreneurial in trade, so these western traders
and businessmen soon gained pre-eminence in the eastern cities.
Thus, the business language of the eastern regions became Khari
Boli.
This Khari Boli was a true and natural spoken language of these
people, not the "urdu-e-mualla" of the Munshis and Mullahs. This
tongue has been continuously in use, in its primitive forms,
since old times, in the houses of the people who come from the
Western regions. So, the claims by some people that Khari Boli
was brought into existence through Muslims and that its original
form was Urdu [and R.C. Shukla means Urdu written in Perso-Arabic
script, when he uses the word in his Book - sushil] from which
a modern language of writing prose was derived simply by throwing
out the Arabic and Persian words, are founded in pure ignorance.
The reason for such claims is the fact that, by tradition, the
literature of this region was in verse, and the traditional
language for verse, in most of North India at that time was
Braj Bhasha, and Khari Boli was more of an ordinary day-to-day
speech, instead of the language used for literature, not employed
to create literature or poetry, just like other regional dialects
were being ignored for literary work around those times.
But not having been used for literary purposes does not mean
this language did not exist. Even before Urdu, Khari Boli was
present in its "deshi" form, and it is still present, in the
speech of the people. This was even used for literature, in
some instances, as has been shown before [in the book - sushil]."
There are numerous examples provided by historians of Hindi
literature, of ancient Hindi writings, right from late Apabhramsh
(10th century onwards), in the language of the the Naaths and
Siddhhas,
in the language of Prithviraj Raaso, Hammeer Raaso, Bisaldeo Raaso and
numerous other such works, in the language of Nirguna Bhakt poets like
Kabir (and several others), in Saguna Bhakt poets like Soordaas,
Tulasidas, Mira etc etc. Just look at the following lines from
"naa jaane teraa saahab kaisaa hai.
masajid bhiitar mullaa pukaare, kyaa saahib teraa baharaa hai?
chiu.NTii ke pag newar baaje, so bhi saahab sunataa hai.
pa.nDit hoya ke aasan maarai, la.mbii maalaa japataa hai.
a.tar tere kapaT-kataranii, so bhii sahab lakhataa hai.
uu.nchaa niichaa mahal banaayaa, gaharii ne.nva jamaataa hai.
..."
For those who might not realize, Kabir lived during 1399-1519 AD
(he is believed to have lived 120 years). The language of the example
I cited above, is Kabir's language - Hindi (written in Devanagari,
and not abounding in Arabic and Persian words!), at a time when
Mughal Empire was yet to be founded by the great grandfather of
Shahjehan who founded the Red-Fort, where the so called
"urdu-e-mualla"
was to be spoken centuries later. And that "urdu-e-mualla" is argued
to be fore-runner of the Hindi as we know it now! Either Kabirdas Ji
was truly prescient, or there is something wrong with claims
of the original language being "Hindi (meaning Urdu here), rich in
Persian and Arabic, written in Perso-Arabic script, and the modern
Hindi being simply derived from that (almost overnight) at Fort
Williams
College in Calcutta, at Gilchrist's behest.

Post by Zafar
Another prominent New Hindi writer of the College was Sadal Mitr.

I have always seen his name being written as "Sadal Mishra" (in
Devanagari Script), that is, "shra" instead of a "tr".

Post by Zafar
George Grierson, the head of the committee for the monumental "The
Linguistic Survey of India", writes in the foreword of a book of Lallu
Lal in 1896 (reconverted into English from an Urdu translation - I
hope I have not mangled the text too much -- cited in Gyanchand Jain,
Prem Sagar, he was actually inventing an entirely new language."

To me, this appears to be an academic equivalent of an "urban legend".
I am surprized that you quoted this here. Ram Chandra Shukla and
several other historians of Hindi, provide several (much older)
examples
of prose in Braj Bhaashaa and several other dialects. They even
provide much older examples of Hindi (and I don't mean a Perso-Arabic
style here) prose. For example, the quote R.C. Shukla gives from
Gang Kavi's (a court poet in Akbar's time) "chanda chhanda baranan kii
mahimaa", resembles a modern Hindi prose so closely that it will
surprise you. Ramaprasad Niranjani wrote Yogavashistha in
(non Perso-Arabic) Hindi 62 years before Sadal Mishra and Lalloo Lal,
a Hindi translation of Jaina Padma Purana, in B.S. 1818. You must
have heard of "Rani Ketaki Ki Kahani" by Insha Allah Khan, and
Sukhsaagar (translation of the Bhagavata) by Munshi Sadasukh Lal. Both
of
these are examples of modern Hindi (non Perso-Arabic) prose, published
verifiably before Lalloo Lal's Prem Sagar, outside the direct
influence
of Fort W. College. Hindi (without Arabic and Persian words,
written in Devanagari, but modern Hindi in grammatical view) prose was
already coming into vogue on its own, before Lalloo Lal and Fort W
College.
IMHO, its not possible to change the language spoken and written
by millions of people, in a short span of time, just by publishing
a few books, funding a few colleges, even by adopting it as the
language of court and administration, unless that language is "their
own"
to the populace. If this was not the case, everyone would be speaking
Sanskrit when Muslims arrived in India, and everyone would be speaking
Persian when the British arrived, and finally everyone would just be
speaking English, in India, in roman alphabet, when the British left.
In any case, millions of people in India would not be speaking today
the
non-Perso-Arabic Hindi, and writing it in Devanagari script, if this
was "invented" by one Lalloo Lal whom an average Indian does not
know, merely 150 years back, at the orders of some British
educationist.
To summarize, IMHO there was a common literary language of India,
which
was called by various names, "bhaashaa" (for deshaj bhaashaa or desh
bhaashaa)
being one of them, and Hindi or Rekhta being names popularized by the
Muslim, which was suitably enriched by intermingling of several native
dialects as well as foreign languages like Arabic and Persian, which
was written by some people in Perso-Arabic script and the rest in
Devanagari script, and this langauge was later pushed into two
distinct directions, under active British influence. One direction
became
modern Urdu, written in Perso-Arabic script and adopted increasing
number of Persian and Arabic words and structures, and claimed
inheritance of the Rekhta tradition, inheritance of Meer, Ghalib and
all
other poets who wrote verses in Rekhta, in Perso-Arabic script.
The other direction became known as modern Hindi, written in
Devanagari, and it increasingly adopted Sanskrit words, and claimed
inheritance of the milleunium-old litearay tradition of poetry
written in ancient Avadhi, Braj, Rajasthani, Maithily etc, all of
which had natural affinity with Sanskrit and were written in
Devanagari script, since very long. While they were derived from
the same vernacular tongue of India, they claimed two distinct
literary traditions (one written in Perso-Arabic, the other in
Devanagari) as their literary history. While the historians of
modern Urdu literature have no compunction in claiming it to be
derived from ancient Hindi, they do not talk about Kabir, Meera,
Soor, Tulasi, Raheem, Rasakhan, Bihari, Jayasi, Mubaarak, Aalam (the
last
5 were Muslims who wrote in deshi "non-Perso-Arabic" Hindi). In the
same
vein, the historians of modern Hindi, while eager to claim it to be
the
natural descendant of the ancient Hindi, only grudgingly mention
Amir Khusro, and do not talk about Meer, Ghalib, Sauda, Mushafi,
even about Firaq and Chakbast (the last two being Hindu authors
who chose to write in Perso-Arabic "Urdu/Hindi"). We now have,
modern Hindi and modern Urdu, which are linguistically the same,
but with two distinct literary traditions, scripts and styles.
In short, an interesting paradox to the outsiders. I go back to
the upama/tashbeeh I used in my comments to your 2nd article
in this series, modern Hindi and modern Urdu are two stylistic
branches of the same linguistic tree. Perhaps, I should say,
flowers of two beautiful colors and two distinct fragrances, blooming
on the same branch. Let's not pluck any of these two flowers
to artificilly supplant it somewhere else where it won't belong,
just to spite the other flower on the same branch.
is paricharchaa me.n aapake atiiva shlaghaniiya eva.m bahumuulya
yogadaan ke liye aapako satasha.H saadhuvaad va haardik aabhaar!
Bhavadiiya,
Sushil
--

Sharma Saheb,

There is a great deal of wisdom, insight and
erudition in what you write.

At the start of these threads, I (and others
too) had mentioned that this is an intractable
controversy and that there can be no final word
or verdict. People will continue to believe
what they want.

I would like to present my view about just one
point that you have made and that concerns the
"tazkira" written by Mas~hafee.

Actually, Mas~hafee was the compiler of as many
as three such anthologies :

1. 'Aqd-e-Suraiyya : This was completed around
1785 and deals only with poets writing in the
Farsi language.

2. "Tazkira-e-Hindi" : This was completed around
1795 and deals purely with Urdu poets.

3. "Riaz-ul-Fusaha" : This was completed around
1821 and sort of completes the Trilogy. It
contains biographies/poetry selection etc.
of about 325 poets, out of whom as many as
275 or so were Urdu poets and the rest were
poets writing in the Farsi language.

Mas~hafee died around 1825/26.

For the purposes of these threads, the "tazkira"
that needs to be considered is the second one,
which is known as "Tazkira-e-Hindi". I don't
quite know how it has been labelled as "Tazkira-e-
Hindi~goyaaN". Possibly, the name might have
undergone a change is some subsequent publication.

My main point is that the word "Hindi" in the
title refers to the language (call it Urdu or
ReKHta, whatever) employed by the poets. It
does not refer to the "nationality" of the poets,
nor does it refer to the Devanagri-script "Hindi"
that might be in use in certain areas of North
India. One can safely call it an anthology of
Urdu poets. To sum up, I don't think the word
"Hindi" was used in the title in a geographical
sense.

I agree substantially with what is stated in the
concluding paragrpah of your post : that modern
Urdu and modern Hindi are two stylistic branches
of the same linguistic tree.

This entire discussion has led to the revival
or re-statement of certain beliefs that, to my
mind, are "myths". But now is not the time to
take up these matters for discussion. Later maybe.



Afzal

[Sushil Sharma]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I would like to present my view about just one
point that you have made and that concerns the
"tazkira" written by Mas~hafee.
Actually, Mas~hafee was the compiler of as many
1. 'Aqd-e-Suraiyya : This was completed around
1785 and deals only with poets writing in the
Farsi language.
2. "Tazkira-e-Hindi" : This was completed around
1795 and deals purely with Urdu poets.
3. "Riaz-ul-Fusaha" : This was completed around
1821 and sort of completes the Trilogy. It
contains biographies/poetry selection etc.
of about 325 poets, out of whom as many as
275 or so were Urdu poets and the rest were
poets writing in the Farsi language.
Mas~hafee died around 1825/26.
For the purposes of these threads, the "tazkira"
that needs to be considered is the second one,
which is known as "Tazkira-e-Hindi". I don't
quite know how it has been labelled as "Tazkira-e-
Hindi~goyaaN". Possibly, the name might have
undergone a change is some subsequent publication.
My main point is that the word "Hindi" in the
title refers to the language (call it Urdu or
ReKHta, whatever) employed by the poets. It
does not refer to the "nationality" of the poets,
nor does it refer to the Devanagri-script "Hindi"
that might be in use in certain areas of North
India. One can safely call it an anthology of
Urdu poets. To sum up, I don't think the word
"Hindi" was used in the title in a geographical
sense.

Afzal Saheb,

Aadaab. I have not read the works of Mas~hafee that you cited,
but I agree with your comments. I realized that my comment on
the title of Mas~hafee's "tazkira" was ill-founded, soon after
posting it, and have also posted an apology for the same.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
This entire discussion has led to the revival
or re-statement of certain beliefs that, to my
mind, are "myths". But now is not the time to
take up these matters for discussion. Later maybe.

"dekhanaa taqariir kii lazzat ki jo usane kahaa
mai.nne yah jaanaa ki goyaa yah bhii mere dil me.n hai"

Very well said (by you), Sir.

Regards,
Sushil

[Nipun Shah]

Dear Zafar Saab and all other participants in this highly illuminative
thread,

Hearty thanks and congratulations to Zafar Saab for the beautifully
written 3-part essay on the current subject.

Please accept my apologies for jumping into the thread, when already
so many thoughts have been exchanged. But I couldn't resist, as
howmuchever detailed the discussion has been till now, I feel that one
important and distinctive aspect that goes into defining a language
IMHO has not been touched upon sufficiently. That aspect is: the
script.

In the main 3-part essay, it has been argued (as I understand it)
that: modern Hindi is simply the old "Hindi" (Urdu as we know it) but
minus the Persian-Arabic vocabulary, plus the Sanskrit equivalents of
those Persian-Arabic words, plus a replacement of Persian-Arabic
script by Devnaagri.

The above seems to be implying, that during the Islamic Imperial
period, a vast majority of people of North India used a language
written in Perso-Arabic script that we identify with Urdu nowadays.
This supposed implication, IMHO, sounds very misplaced. Do you mean to
say that Devnaagri script was not used at all in literary works during
those times ? Does it imply that in a span of 400-500 years the Mughal
rule was able to induce such a drastic change, that people completely
stopped using the Devnaagri script (which obviously must have been in
use before Islamic imperialism to notate the languages such as
Brajbhasha etc... which form the germ of current Hindi as well as
Urdu), and adopted the new Perso-Arabic script, added new Perso-Arabic
words and bingo... started calling it Hindi as prescribed by the
Mughal masters ?!!

I don't claim any scholarly background in the matters of languages and
their history, but my misgivings are purely based on how I interpreted
the ongoing discussion. Zafar Saab and other scholars, I would be
thankful if you could throw some light on the above points.

Aadaab aur Namashkaar,

Nipun

Post by Zafar
Sorry, I forgot to cross-post the article last night. Here is it
again.
**********
There response to this thread is so overwhelming that it has become
hard even to keep record of what is been said, much less answer the
questions raised. So the best strategy seems to be sticking with the
original format of the write-up and, if need be, answer the queries
later.
OTHER NAMES OF URDU
ReKhta
The written language and, sometimes the Urdu ghazal. In fact, up till
mid eighteenth century, the Persian ghazal was called "Ghazal" whereas
the Urdu ghazal was called Rekhta. As Qaim Chandpuri (1722?-1794)
Qaim maiN Ghazal-taur kiyaa ReKhta varna
ik baat lachar see ba-zaabaan e Deccani thee!
[Qaim, I raised the Rekhta (Urdu Ghazal) to the level of Ghazal
(Persian Ghazal)
Or else, it was just a vulgar form in the Deccani tongue!
Moreover, the Urdu Ghazal recitations were generally called
"MaraaKhtas", compared to "mushaa'iras" for the "Ghazal."
(Jamil Jalibi, 1987)
Deccani
The dialect spoken in the South.
Dehlvi
The ancient name used in the times of Amir Khusrau.
Hindustani
Some sporadic examples of the usage of this name by the natives can be
found but, by and large, the name was used by the Europeans and could
never catch on with the Indians.
All these names were occasionally employed but as we have seen, Hindi
was the most common name of Urdu. I've already provided sufficient
Some scholars consider the period 1750-1800 as the Golden Period of
Urdu poetry and I for one cannot agree more. The reason being that no
other era, before or after, has seen such plethora of great poets
living at the same time: Mir (generally considered the greatest ghazal
poet), Mir Dard (generally considered the greatest Sufi poet), Sauda
(generally considered the greatest qaseeda-gau and hijv-nigaar) and
Mir Hasan (generally considered the greatest masnavi-nigaar). Even the
comparatively "minor" poets of the time -- Mus'hafi, Aatish, Jur'at,
Inshaa, Qaa'im - dwarf the giants of other periods.
Now consider this: Sheikh Hamdani Mus'hafi (1750-1824), who is one of
the greatest Urdu poets of all time, wrote an important "tazkira" (a
memoir+anthology) of important Urdu poets in 1794. And what name did
he chose for this book? "Tazkira e Hindi GoyaaN," (A Tazkira of
*Hindi* Poets!)
This brings us back to the important question: How did the name got
changed from Hindi to Urdu?
FORT WILLIAM COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
When the British came to India, they found that the lingua franca of
India, regardless of religion, was Hindi - a local language with the
vocabulary enriched by Persian and Arabic and written in the
Perso-Arabic script. The British were surprised to see that because
they thought of Muslims and Hindus as two separate nations and in
their estimation, they ought to have separate lingoes. Writes John
"The Oriental Linguist"
[Hindustan] is chiefly inhabited by Hindoos and Moosalmans: whom we
may safely comprise, as well as their language, under the general,
conciliating, comprehensive term Hindoostanee, and which I have
adopted for the above and the following reasons.
This name of the country being modern, as well as the vernacular
tongue in question [Hindustani], no other appeared so appropriate as
it did to me, when I first engaged in the study and cultivation of the
language. That the natives and others call it also "Hindi", Indian,
from Hind, the ancient appellation of India, cannot be denied; but as
this is apt to be confounded with Hinduwee, Hindooee, Hindvee, the
derivative from Hindoo, I adhere to my original opinion, that we
should invariably discard all other denominations of the popular
speech of this country, including the unmeaning word Moors, and
substitute for them Hindoostanee, whether the people here constantly
do so or not: as they can hardly discriminate sufficiently, to observe
the use and propriety of such restrictions, even when pointed out to
them.
Hinduwee, I have treated as the exclusive property of the Hindus
alone; and have therefore, constantly applied it to the old language
of India, which prevailed before the Mooslaman invasion.
[1796]
(Cited in Shams ur Rahman Faruqi, 1999)
Look how superciliously Gilchrist treats the "natives", and goes on to
decide for them by which name they should call their mother tongue!
Two years later, in "The Oriental Linguist", Gilchrist confidently
"the Hindoos will naturally lean to Hindwee, whiele the Moosulmans
will of course be more partial to Arabic and Persian; whence the two
styles arise."
(p 2, cited in Faruqi, 1999)
And in order to help develop the two "styles", Gilchrist joined Fort
William College, Calcutta.
This college was established to teach the British officials the
vernaculars. Since no prose texts of Urdu, the lingua franca of the
period, were available that could be used in the syllabus, the college
hired several authors to write new textbooks [It is said the Mir Taqi
Mir also appeared for an interview in Lucknow, but the interviewer
refused his on the grounds that the job was too paltry compared to his
status! (Personal communation with Dr. Gauhar Naushahi of the National
University of Modern Languages, Islamabad)]. This college was
abolished in 1853 after compling 147 book, 53 of which could not be
published (Dr. Sameeullah)
Mir Amman Dehlivi wrote "BaaGh o Bahaar" (Garden and Spring) in 1802
for the college, which has now considered a literary classic. Other
Urdu writers were Haidar BaKhsh Haidari (Aaaraa'ish e Mehfil), Kazim
Ali Jawan (Urdu translation of Shakuntala) and Bahadur Ali Hussaini,
etc.
Alongside Urdu (which the authorities of the College were bent upon
calling Hindustani instead of Hindi), the College also hired some
Devanagri experts, who started writing books in *Modern* Hindi, that
is, a language similar to Urdu but written in Devanagri and with a
heavy dose of Sanskrit words. Lallo Lalji in 1803 wrote the first
modern Hindi book, Prem Since Lallo Lal had no model before him, he
imitated the language of Mir Amman, deliberately avoiding Persian and
If Lallu Lal didn't know Urdu, he would not have been that successful
in keeping the Pero-Arabic words out of Prem Sagar. So many of these
words had been intermixed in to day-to-day language that it they were
difficult to identify for somebody familiar only with Sanskrit-Hindi."
(Hindi Sahitiya kaa Itihaas", cited in Gyanchand Jain, 1981)
Another prominent New Hindi writer of the College was Sadal Mitr. Says
"Gilchrist ne ... aik din aagyaa dee k adhiyaa tum Ramayun ko aisee
bolee meN karo jis meN Faris, Arabi na aave. tab se maiN is ko KhaRi
Boli meN karne lagaa."
Note that the moniker "KhaRi Boli" was also *invented* by Gilchrist,
in an attempt to translate the phrase "Sterling Tongue of India." The
"Shankuntalaa kaa doosraa tarjuma 'KhaRi Boli' yaa Hindustaan kee
Khaalis boli (sterling tongue of India) meN hai. Hindustani [that is,
Urdu] se muKhtalif ye sirf is baat meN hai k Arabi o Farsi kaa lafz
chhaanT liyaa jaataa hai."
(cited in Gyanchand Jain, 1981)
Notes FE Key in "A History of Hindi Literature" (1920),
"A literary language for Hindi speaking people which could command
itself more to Hindus was very desirable and the result was obtained
by taking Urdu and expelling from it words of Persian or Arabic origin
and substituting for the words of Sanskrit or Hindi origin." (Cited in
Farman Fateh Puri, 1978).
"High Hindi is a book language evolved under the influence of the
English who induced native writers to compose works for general use in
a from of Hindustani in which all the words of Arabic and Persian
origin were omitted, Sanskrit words being employed in its place."
(William Frazer, A Literary History of India, 1893).
"At Fort William College, Calcutta, which was established to teach
British Officers Indian Languages, besides other subjects, a number of
them were taken up for study. Among them were Braj+Urdu, as has been
indicated above was the language of poetry and did not lend itself
readily for the purposes of prose. Urdu, which was studied by both
Hindus and Muslims, was naturally the common language of India.
Unfortunately, the zeal of finding distinctions led the professors of
the college to encourage attempts to create a new type of Urdu from
which all Persian and Arabic words were removed and replaced by
Sanskrit words. This was done ostensibly to provide the Hindus a
language of their own. But the step had far-reaching consequences and
India is still suffering from this artificial bifurcation of tongues."
George Grierson, the head of the committee for the monumental "The
Linguistic Survey of India", writes in the foreword of a book of Lallu
Lal in 1896 (reconverted into English from an Urdu translation - I
hope I have not mangled the text too much -- cited in Gyanchand Jain,
Prem Sagar, he was actually inventing an entirely new language."
And finally, the verdict by Suniti Kumar Chatterji, often considered
the father of Indian linguistics (again, reconverted from Urdu, cited
"Historically and linguistically, Urdu is not an Islamic form of Hindi
or Sankritized KhaRi Boli; the truth is to the contrary. Actually the
Hindus adopted the Persianized Hidustani, which came into being in the
royal court and its circles (we come across its beginning earlier in
the Deccani tongue and in the Southern Muslim states of Ahmed Nagar,
Bijapur and Golkonda). Since the Persian and the Arabic words were of
useless for them, they embraced the Devanagri script and Sanskritized
the language, shunning the alien vocabulary of Persian and Arabic . .
. The above-mentioned theory that the Sanskritized Hindi was fashioned
in the mode of Persianized Urdu was first proposed by Dr. Tarachand. I
was against it then but now I admit that Tarachand was right." (A
Polyglot Nation and Its Linguistics, 1973)
And now the big question whether these are different languages *now*.
And my humble opinion is, I don't think so! Various scholars have
written extensively written on the subject but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns." The reason being that the nouns-universe
of any living language is extremely volatile; nouns enter and leave at
a break-neck pace. On the other hand, the verbs stay fairly constant
and are accepted/modified/replaced/rejected over a much longer period
of time. Also, verbs are the most commonly used words in any language.
Let's see where modern Hindi and modern Urdu stand when viewed from
this point of view.
Stanislav Martynyuk's excellent study, A Statistical Approach to the
Debate on Urdu and Hindi
<http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:XQKNDYK8dXwJ:www.urdustudies.com/pdf/18/12amartynyukcolor.pdf+statistical+approach+urdustudies&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
has already been discussed. He took 441,153 Hindi words and 440,929
Urdu words from modern sources and conducted a frequency of occurrence
analysis. What he found out was that 70 out of 100 most common words
in both languages were the same. Here are the top 20 most common words
in Hindi and Urdu (in order of frequency of occurrence).
HINDI
ka hona meN ne karna ko se jana ki yah aur ve par kahna dena bhee
rahna naheeN ek keli'ye
URDU
ka hona meN karna ne aur se ko jana par keh dena yah kahna voh keli'ye
naheeN ek rahna jo
I guess this list prvides ample that these are the words of one and
the same language.
In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words. A very common
HINDI
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
URDU
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
So see? One language, two scripts!
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar

[Surma Bhopali]

[much stuff deleted for brevity]
In the main 3-part essay, it has been argued (as I understand it)
that: modern Hindi is simply the old "Hindi" (Urdu as we know it) but
minus the Persian-Arabic vocabulary, plus the Sanskrit equivalents of
those Persian-Arabic words, plus a replacement of Persian-Arabic
script by Devnaagri.
The above seems to be implying, that during the Islamic Imperial
period, a vast majority of people of North India used a language
written in Perso-Arabic script that we identify with Urdu nowadays.
This supposed implication, IMHO, sounds very misplaced. Do you mean to
say that Devnaagri script was not used at all in literary works during
those times ? Does it imply that in a span of 400-500 years the Mughal
rule was able to induce such a drastic change, that people completely
stopped using the Devnaagri script (which obviously must have been in
use before Islamic imperialism to notate the languages such as
Brajbhasha etc... which form the germ of current Hindi as well as
Urdu), and adopted the new Perso-Arabic script, added new Perso-Arabic
words and bingo... started calling it Hindi as prescribed by the
Mughal masters ?!!

Your post does bring up some interesting points. Thanks.

I think the OP's citation of George Grierson and Suniti Kumar
Chatterji led to some confusion as regards the existence of Hindi(as
we know it now) prior to British arrival. This found expression in
your as well as in Sushil Sharma's posts. I guess the implication of
the original post was that the writers of the newly created Hindi
literature (under British authority) *adopted* Devanagari as their
script. The word *adopted* itself means the script was in existence.
That script could well be in use before that but the British
officially put a stamp on the script as the script to be used for a
language Hindi that was devoid of the Persian influence and more close
to the language of the masses. I am no historian, but when exactly did
mass(public) started reading a written language? I don't think they
did so before the British or am I widely off the mark on this? So if
there was no public patronage, it is the ruler under whose patronage a
written language would survive/flourish. IMO that's where the
Devanagri script lost its sheen to be revived later under British
authority as claimed in the OP.

Nice discussion anyway. Thanks to all participants.

[Nipun Shah]

***@yahoo.co.in (Surma Bhopali) wrote in message

... snipped.....

Post by Surma Bhopali
I am no historian, but when exactly did
mass(public) started reading a written language? I don't think they
did so before the British or am I widely off the mark on this? So if
there was no public patronage, it is the ruler under whose patronage a
written language would survive/flourish. IMO that's where the
Devanagri script lost its sheen to be revived later under British
authority as claimed in the OP.

That's a very valid argument. Thanks for pointing it out.

Post by Surma Bhopali
Nice discussion anyway. Thanks to all participants.

Thanks to you too.

Regards
Nipun

[Zoya]

Post by Zafar
HINDI
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
URDU
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
So see? One language, two scripts!

Zaf Sahib,

kya kehne! yeh to bil_kul hamaarii bhaashaa hai!!!!

Seriously though, once again congratulations and thanks for posting
this series. vaise abhii maiN_ne saarii information ko fully absorb
nahiiN kiyaa hai, so is vaqt koii laMbaa chau.Daa tabsaraa nahiiN
karuuNgii.

Keep up the hard work,

_________________Zoya

[SPS22]

Post by Zafar
And now the big question whether these are different languages *now*.
And my humble opinion is, I don't think so! Various scholars have
written extensively written on the subject but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns."

Dear Zafar:

Thanks for a conclusion that agrees with mine. Incidently, your
explanation above about nouns versus verbs is interesting. Iranians I
meet cannot understand "Urdu" sentences even when they see a plethora
of nouns they do understand. "Hindi" speakers do understand the
"Urdu" sentences even if they do not understand the nouns quite well.

-Surinder

[Vijay]

Post by Zafar
There response to this thread is so overwhelming that it has become
hard even to keep record of what is been said, much less answer the
questions raised. So the best strategy seems to be sticking with the
original format of the write-up and, if need be, answer the queries
later.

Zafar Sahib: please accept my sincere thanks and congratulations on
your three part scholarly dissertation on this subject of Urdu v/s
Hindi. It has, however, left me in a state of disconnect and
dissonance. Whereas, intellectually I have followed and accepted your
thesis that Urdu and Hindi (in their modern form) are 'same language,
different script', it still hasn't quite hit home. In support of the
'Urdu is a distinct language' school, I would like to add some voices
from the Urdu literati:

1. Josh Maliih-aabaadi, in his famous ode to Urdu language:

'naddi ka moR, chashma-e-shiriiN ka zer-o-bam
chaadar shab-e-najoom kii, shabnam ka raKht-e-nam
motii kii aab, gul kii mehak, maah-e-nau-Kham

in sab ke imtezaaj se paida huui hai tu
kitne hasiiN ufak se havaida huii hai tu'

2. Sahir Ludhianvi, lamenting the suppresion of Urdu langugae in his
naz'm, 'Jasn-e-ghalib' on the Ghalib centenary:

'jis ehd-e-syasat neN, ik zinda zubaaN kuchlii
us ehd-e-syasat ko, marhoom ka gham kyoN ho
ghalbi jise kehte ho, urdu hii kaa shayar thaa
urdu pe sitam kar ke ghalib pe karam kyoN ho'

3. Daagh, as in the heading of your articles and

'nahiiN khel ai daagh, yaaroN se keh do
ke aati hai urdu zubaaN aate aate'

4. Anand Narayan Mulla, at his condescending best (?worst), and in a
somewhat questionable taste:

'kya samjh sakte haiN ghamaR, hindi aur urdu meN faraq
bhaNg ke kullaR kidhar, sehba ke paimaane kahaaN!'

5.Akiil Nomaani, commenting on the unfortunate association people make
between a langugae and religion:

'zul'm urdu pe bhii hota hai, aur is nisbat se
log urdu ko musalmaan smajh lete haiN'

6. Munshi Prem Chand, as posted by Jasho Sahib.

and there are many more who have alluded to Urdu as being a distinct
and separate langugage. As these are the masters of the langugae, one
should give due credence to their beliefs.

In poetry at least, both Hindi and Urdu evoke different feelings. Both
are beautiful and impressive but different. For instance, here is
Bacchan:

'mera to hota man nirbal, pat par hii ke hilkoroN se
jab maiN ekaaki pohaNchuuNga maNjhdaar, na jaane kyaa hoga
is paar priiye, madhuu hai tum ho, us paar na jaane kyaa hoga'

Brilliant (IMHO), but neither Bacchan, nor any one else will think of
this language as Urdu.

Now take a simple Urdu she'r:

dil-e-naadaaN, tujhe huua kyaa hai
aaKhir is dard kii davaa kyaa hai

Not much Arabic or Faarsii here and yet, most won't call it Hindi.

Sahir often changed the lyrics of his 'Urdu' poems for their 'Hindi
film' version. For example:

'sanaa-Khwaan-e-tasdiiq-e-mashrak kahaaN haiN' became
'jinheN naaz hai hind par voh kahaaN haiN'

And

'yeh tiirgii jo mirii ziis't kaa muqqadar hai' became
'yeh raNj-o gham kii siaahi jo dil pe chhaii hai'.

Is he simply changing from difficult to simpler Urdu or to the hybrid
language: that I prefer to call 'Hindustaani'?.

Once again, thanks for your hard work and time that you took to post
it here.


Regards,

Vijay Kumar

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Vijay

Post by Zafar
There response to this thread is so overwhelming that it has become
hard even to keep record of what is been said, much less answer the
questions raised. So the best strategy seems to be sticking with the
original format of the write-up and, if need be, answer the queries
later.

Zafar Sahib: please accept my sincere thanks and congratulations on
your three part scholarly dissertation on this subject of Urdu v/s
Hindi. It has, however, left me in a state of disconnect and
dissonance. Whereas, intellectually I have followed and accepted your
thesis that Urdu and Hindi (in their modern form) are 'same language,
different script', it still hasn't quite hit home. In support of the
'Urdu is a distinct language' school, I would like to add some voices
'naddi ka moR, chashma-e-shiriiN ka zer-o-bam
chaadar shab-e-najoom kii, shabnam ka raKht-e-nam
motii kii aab, gul kii mehak, maah-e-nau-Kham
in sab ke imtezaaj se paida huui hai tu
kitne hasiiN ufak se havaida huii hai tu'
2. Sahir Ludhianvi, lamenting the suppresion of Urdu langugae in his
'jis ehd-e-syasat neN, ik zinda zubaaN kuchlii
us ehd-e-syasat ko, marhoom ka gham kyoN ho
ghalbi jise kehte ho, urdu hii kaa shayar thaa
urdu pe sitam kar ke ghalib pe karam kyoN ho'
3. Daagh, as in the heading of your articles and
'nahiiN khel ai daagh, yaaroN se keh do
ke aati hai urdu zubaaN aate aate'
4. Anand Narayan Mulla, at his condescending best (?worst), and in a
'kya samjh sakte haiN ghamaR, hindi aur urdu meN faraq
bhaNg ke kullaR kidhar, sehba ke paimaane kahaaN!'
5.Akiil Nomaani, commenting on the unfortunate association people make
'zul'm urdu pe bhii hota hai, aur is nisbat se
log urdu ko musalmaan smajh lete haiN'
6. Munshi Prem Chand, as posted by Jasho Sahib.
and there are many more who have alluded to Urdu as being a distinct
and separate langugage. As these are the masters of the langugae, one
should give due credence to their beliefs.
In poetry at least, both Hindi and Urdu evoke different feelings. Both
are beautiful and impressive but different. For instance, here is
'mera to hota man nirbal, pat par hii ke hilkoroN se
jab maiN ekaaki pohaNchuuNga maNjhdaar, na jaane kyaa hoga
is paar priiye, madhuu hai tum ho, us paar na jaane kyaa hoga'
Brilliant (IMHO), but neither Bacchan, nor any one else will think of
this language as Urdu.
dil-e-naadaaN, tujhe huua kyaa hai
aaKhir is dard kii davaa kyaa hai
Not much Arabic or Faarsii here and yet, most won't call it Hindi.
Sahir often changed the lyrics of his 'Urdu' poems for their 'Hindi
'sanaa-Khwaan-e-tasdiiq-e-mashrak kahaaN haiN' became
'jinheN naaz hai hind par voh kahaaN haiN'
And
'yeh tiirgii jo mirii ziis't kaa muqqadar hai' became
'yeh raNj-o gham kii siaahi jo dil pe chhaii hai'.
Is he simply changing from difficult to simpler Urdu or to the hybrid
language: that I prefer to call 'Hindustaani'?.
Once again, thanks for your hard work and time that you took to post
it here.
Regards,
Vijay Kumar

You have made some very valid points and,
in a way, echoed my own thoughts.

The issue was first raised by Sushrut Vaidya
on the 14th September and, including the three
articles posted by Zafar Saheb, the entire
discussion has comprised (so far) more than a
hundred posts. My own "contribution" or
participation is "limited" to 19 posts !
I am citing these stats to illustrate the interest
this discussion has engendered.

It is of course churlish to say anything even
remotely critical about Zafar Saheb's posts.
But I feel (as I have pointed out in some of my
posts) that sufficient clarification has not been
furnished about the nature of the word "Hindi" (or
as I referred to it--"Hind-i") as mentioned in the
various sources cited from early Urdu-Persian
writers. I don't think the word in any way
signified purely "KhaRi Boli" or the language
used by the masses in the North Indian hinterland.
I feel the word, as used in these sources, was
with reference to the literary language (Urdu or
ReKHta) that was emerging around that time. In my
response to a post by Sushil Sharma Saheb, I have
mentioned the three anthologies compiled by the
Urdu poet Mas~hafee, the second of which is
entitled "Tazkira-e-Hindi". I think most (if not
all) poets included there wrote in Urdu or ReKHta
and in the Urdu script. There can be little justi-
fication, if any, in trying to link this word with
modern-day Hindi (the language we get to hear thru'
All India Radio and Doordarshan). It is no doubt
very instructive to delve into the past and learn
about the growth and evolution of these languages.
But I feel that the present generation (and even the
preceding two/three generations, for that matter)
are mainly interested in modern-day Urdu and modern -
day Hindi and the factors that make them (or do not
make them) different.

Here, as I have mentioned before, the distinctive
features that distinguish one from the other can be
summarized as (a) the script (b) the vocabulary and
(c) the grammar. Most people think of only the
first two features. It is my submission that the
the third factor has its importance too. The Urdu
Grammar is not merely the "KhaRi Boli" or "Bhasha"
grammar --- it also includes (to a significant
extent) elements from Arabic and Farsi grammar.
Anybody who is interested, can go through the
ALUP debates on 'izaafat" that provide an insight
into this aspect of Urdu grammar. The rules for
singular/plural words furnish another instance.

Taking all these factors into consideration, the
only logical conclusion, to my mind at least, is
that modern-day Urdu and modern-day Hindi are two
different languages. In this context, I liked the
metaphor used by Sushil Sharma Saheb that modern
Urdu and modern Hindi are two stylistic branches
of the same linguistic tree.

Zafar Saheb has opined that the Pakistani National
Anthem contains just one word of Urdu. This is of
course an extreme view. Even though the author
(the late Hafeez Jullundhary) knew Farsi quite well,
he could not be called a Farsi poet by any stretch
of imagination. It can be stated quite confidently
the ALL the words used there can be found in, say,
Iqbal's URDU kulliyaat ! And Iqbal was a very
eminent Farsi poet too. We sometimes lament about
the high content of Farsi in Ghalib's Urdu poetry.
Few realise that Ghalib was a great Farsi poet too,
and his Farsi poetic output is about 6 or 7 times
that of his Urdu poetry ! The acceptance or
rejection of a language (depending on its vocabulary
content) is decided by the people. It has been
stated, and quite correctly, that most of the
people inhabiting the North Indian hinterland spoke
a simple form of Indic language (call it KhaRi Boli,
Bhasha, whatever) even during the heyday of Muslim
rule. The question is, why didn't most of the
people speak Sanskrit ? I am certainly not an
expert in this field but I daresay that the underlying
reason may have been the comparative simplicity of
one as opposed to the complexity of the other.
Today, as during the last 150 years or so, most
Urdu-users continue to accept the modern version,
even though it may contain a great many words of
Farsi, Arabic and Turkish origin. So long as this
acceptance continues, there is little point in
questioning the jutification or validity of the
inclusion of these words.

I cannot quite understand how poets like Nirala
or Bachchan can be called Urdu poets. Also, I
cannot follow how Faiz or Ali Sardar Jaafri can
be called Hindi poets.

As far as the language of films is concerned, I
think that should be a separate topic for
discussion.

Lastly, I cannot understand this conflict at all.
Why should one group keep on disputing the issue
with the other ?


Afzal

[UVR]

[Nota bene: This is a long post. You have been notified.]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
[...]

Post by Vijay
In poetry at least, both Hindi and Urdu evoke different feelings. Both
are beautiful and impressive but different. For instance, here is
'mera to hota man nirbal, pat par hii ke hilkoroN se
jab maiN ekaaki pohaNchuuNga maNjhdaar, na jaane kyaa hoga
is paar priiye, madhuu hai tum ho, us paar na jaane kyaa hoga'
Brilliant (IMHO), but neither Bacchan, nor any one else will think of
this language as Urdu.
dil-e-naadaaN, tujhe huua kyaa hai
aaKhir is dard kii davaa kyaa hai
Not much Arabic or Faarsii here and yet, most won't call it Hindi.
Sahir often changed the lyrics of his 'Urdu' poems for their 'Hindi
'sanaa-Khwaan-e-tasdiiq-e-mashrak kahaaN haiN' became
'jinheN naaz hai hind par voh kahaaN haiN'
And
'yeh tiirgii jo mirii ziis't kaa muqqadar hai' became
'yeh raNj-o gham kii siaahi jo dil pe chhaii hai'.
Is he simply changing from difficult to simpler Urdu or to the hybrid
language: that I prefer to call 'Hindustaani'?.

You have made some very valid points and,
in a way, echoed my own thoughts.

I will not [cannot] dispute that Bachchan's verse sounds
(deliciously) different from Ghalib's amazing poetry, but
the mere fact that a particular paragraph of prose or foot
of verse *sounds* different from another is not sufficient
reason to classify them as belonging to two different languages.

Let us see why not. Which language would you say each of the
following paragraphs is in?

(1) ... consider a generic scenario of spontaneous breaking of
supersymmetry in the hidden sector within N=1 supersymmetric
orientifold compactifications of type II string theories with
D-branes that support semi-realistic chiral gauge theories.

(2) If g is a Riemannian metric with ergodic geodesic flow,
then it is homothetic with all metrics _g possessing the same
geodesics (regarded as unparameterized curves) with g.

(3) [...] bone conduction stimulates the basilar membrane
not only through the hydrodynamics of the scala vestibuli
and scala tympani, but also through osseous spiral lamina
vibrations.

Everybody and their neighbor says these are English sentences.
But I know English. I have read, write, hear and speak it daily.
I have even dreamt in English. Yet, I cannot understand any
of these three paragraphs 100%. As it is, I am, with respect
to these paragraphs, in the *SAME* position that Dr. Singh
claims to be in when he hears: "mulzam ko ta'azeeraat-e-hind
kii daf'a teen-sau-do ke taht qatl ke jurm kaa murtakib qaraar
diyaa jaataa hai aur 'umr qaid, baa_mashaqqat, kii sazaa sunaayi
jaati hai." :))

Then, what about this paragraph? --

ham last week ek friend ki housewarming ceremony meN gaye.
baahar bahut saari cars parked theeN, aur jab hamne doorbell
press kiya aur hamaare host ne answer kiya, to hamne dekha
ki already wahaan par 30-40 people pahuNche hue the, although
ham bilkul on-time the. door ke right-side wali wall ke paas,
floor par bahut saare gifts ek heap meN paRe hue the, jo
wahaan aaye hue guests ne unheN present kiye the.

Is this Hindi, Urdu or English?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Here, as I have mentioned before, the distinctive
features that distinguish one from the other can be
summarized as (a) the script (b) the vocabulary and
(c) the grammar. Most people think of only the
first two features. It is my submission that the
the third factor has its importance too.

I think the single most important factor that uniquely identi-
fies a language is its grammar. Not, as Zafar saahib so ably
pointed out, the "nouns" (=vocabulary). The above paragraphs
should serve as ample proof of the fact. To my mind, the
difference between the first set of three paragraphs is akin
to the difference between "pure Hindi" and "pure Urdu". Use
many words and phrases drawn directly from Sanskrit, and you're
told you're speaking Hindi. Use many words and phrases drawn
from Arabic and Persian, and you're told you're speaking Urdu.

Much has been made in this thread of the "uniqueness" of the
Perso-Indian Urdu script. However, the script of a language
is of negligible, if any, merit as an identifier of the
uniqueness of that language. Proof of this quite abundant in
the real world. I will provide just a few examples: observe
how many European languages use the Roman script. Consider
how Hindi and Marathi are written. Konkani speakers, I believe
(and correct me if I'm wrong, please) use several different
scripts to write their language -- Nagari, Kannada, Malayalam
and even Roman (English). And finally, what is the language
we use on ALUP? Urdu, or English?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
The Urdu Grammar is not merely the "KhaRi Boli"
or "Bhasha" grammar --- it also includes (to a
significant extent) elements from Arabic and Farsi
grammar. Anybody who is interested, can go through
ALUP debates on 'izaafat" that provide an insight
into this aspect of Urdu grammar. The rules for
singular/plural words furnish another instance.

There are two points here: (1) izaafat is a native part of
Urdu grammar (and not of Hindi), (2) there exist special
rules of pluralization in Urdu (but not in Hindi). Let us
address these one by one.

First, the plurals. You are most certainly referring to
word pairs like these: Khayaal/Khayaalaat, ishaara/ishaaraat
tahreer/tahaareer, kitaab/kutub, etc. I contend that these
pluralizations are not "native Urdu" at all! Rather, these
plurals are simply borrowed directly from the parent language
along with the singulars, and, inasmuch as that, the rules of
pluralization are not at all part of (native) Urdu grammar.
(That they are taught to students of Urdu as such is a matter
that needs to be addressed separately). My contention is
supported by the fact that each and every single one of these
Arabic/Persian plurals has an indigenous 'Hindi' equivalent:
Khayaal-Khayaal, ishaara-ishaare, tahreer-tahreereN, kitaab-
kitaabeN, etc. I do not know of any exception to this rule:
"every 'borrowed' plural in Urdu has an indigenous equivalent."
(If you do, would you kindly provide them, please?) Thus,
the native rules of pluralization of Urdu grammar are no
different from those of Hindi.

Second, the izaafat (X-e-Y) and atf (X-o-Y), which some say
have been assimilated into modern Urdu grammar. However,
given the fact that, at least in 'modern' Urdu, it is not at
all acceptable to conjoin words of non-Arabic/Persian origin
to form izaafat-s, is it really proper to say that izaafat
is a "native" rule of Urdu grammar? Isn't it simply a borrowed
rule that we use, much as Ms. Christie's Poirot uses uses
the phrases "c'est la vie", "tres bien" or "ne c'est pas" while
speaking English? If izaafat were really native to Urdu, why
is "raat-e-judaaii" not a legal compound, while "shab-e-furqat"
is (I won't even ask about "yaamini-e-virah" ;))? I know of no
other language that accords this kind of "second class citizen-
ship" to some of its own words. Do you? To my mind, at least,
the logical conclusion to draw seems to be that izaafats are
as much of a "foreign" (and I intend the word in the most non-
offensive/exclusionary manner possible) rule of grammar as
the component words themselves are. Inasmuch as which, it
wouldn't be improper to call the compounds themselves borrowed,
too. In other words, not only are "dil" and "naadaan" Persian,
but "dil-e-naadaan" is also. Thus, "dil-e-naadaaN tujhe
huaa kyaa hai" is just Urdu-with-a-Persian phrase or Hindi-
with-a-Persian phrase, depending on one's point of view.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier in this post:
use a language with a dominance of Arabic/Persian phrases, and
they say you're speaking Urdu. Use a language containing mostly
Sanskrit words and phrases, and they say you're speaking Hindi.
The underlying basic grammar that joins those phrases together
is one and the same.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Taking all these factors into consideration, the
only logical conclusion, to my mind at least, is
that modern-day Urdu and modern-day Hindi are two
different languages. In this context, I liked the
metaphor used by Sushil Sharma Saheb that modern
Urdu and modern Hindi are two stylistic branches
of the same linguistic tree.

And, due to my above observations, the only logical conclusion
to my mind at least, is that Urdu and Hindi are one language.

-UVR.

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by UVR
[Nota bene: This is a long post. You have been notified.]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
[...]

Post by Vijay
In poetry at least, both Hindi and Urdu evoke different feelings. Both
are beautiful and impressive but different. For instance, here is
'mera to hota man nirbal, pat par hii ke hilkoroN se
jab maiN ekaaki pohaNchuuNga maNjhdaar, na jaane kyaa hoga
is paar priiye, madhuu hai tum ho, us paar na jaane kyaa hoga'
Brilliant (IMHO), but neither Bacchan, nor any one else will think of
this language as Urdu.
dil-e-naadaaN, tujhe huua kyaa hai
aaKhir is dard kii davaa kyaa hai
Not much Arabic or Faarsii here and yet, most won't call it Hindi.
Sahir often changed the lyrics of his 'Urdu' poems for their 'Hindi
'sanaa-Khwaan-e-tasdiiq-e-mashrak kahaaN haiN' became
'jinheN naaz hai hind par voh kahaaN haiN'
And
'yeh tiirgii jo mirii ziis't kaa muqqadar hai' became
'yeh raNj-o gham kii siaahi jo dil pe chhaii hai'.
Is he simply changing from difficult to simpler Urdu or to the hybrid
language: that I prefer to call 'Hindustaani'?.

You have made some very valid points and,
in a way, echoed my own thoughts.

I will not [cannot] dispute that Bachchan's verse sounds
(deliciously) different from Ghalib's amazing poetry, but
the mere fact that a particular paragraph of prose or foot
of verse *sounds* different from another is not sufficient
reason to classify them as belonging to two different languages.
Let us see why not. Which language would you say each of the
following paragraphs is in?
(1) ... consider a generic scenario of spontaneous breaking of
supersymmetry in the hidden sector within N=1 supersymmetric
orientifold compactifications of type II string theories with
D-branes that support semi-realistic chiral gauge theories.
(2) If g is a Riemannian metric with ergodic geodesic flow,
then it is homothetic with all metrics _g possessing the same
geodesics (regarded as unparameterized curves) with g.
(3) [...] bone conduction stimulates the basilar membrane
not only through the hydrodynamics of the scala vestibuli
and scala tympani, but also through osseous spiral lamina
vibrations.
Everybody and their neighbor says these are English sentences.
But I know English. I have read, write, hear and speak it daily.
I have even dreamt in English. Yet, I cannot understand any
of these three paragraphs 100%. As it is, I am, with respect
to these paragraphs, in the *SAME* position that Dr. Singh
claims to be in when he hears: "mulzam ko ta'azeeraat-e-hind
kii daf'a teen-sau-do ke taht qatl ke jurm kaa murtakib qaraar
diyaa jaataa hai aur 'umr qaid, baa_mashaqqat, kii sazaa sunaayi
jaati hai." :))
Then, what about this paragraph? --
ham last week ek friend ki housewarming ceremony meN gaye.
baahar bahut saari cars parked theeN, aur jab hamne doorbell
press kiya aur hamaare host ne answer kiya, to hamne dekha
ki already wahaan par 30-40 people pahuNche hue the, although
ham bilkul on-time the. door ke right-side wali wall ke paas,
floor par bahut saare gifts ek heap meN paRe hue the, jo
wahaan aaye hue guests ne unheN present kiye the.
Is this Hindi, Urdu or English?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Here, as I have mentioned before, the distinctive
features that distinguish one from the other can be
summarized as (a) the script (b) the vocabulary and
(c) the grammar. Most people think of only the
first two features. It is my submission that the
the third factor has its importance too.

I think the single most important factor that uniquely identi-
fies a language is its grammar. Not, as Zafar saahib so ably
pointed out, the "nouns" (=vocabulary). The above paragraphs
should serve as ample proof of the fact. To my mind, the
difference between the first set of three paragraphs is akin
to the difference between "pure Hindi" and "pure Urdu". Use
many words and phrases drawn directly from Sanskrit, and you're
told you're speaking Hindi. Use many words and phrases drawn
from Arabic and Persian, and you're told you're speaking Urdu.
Much has been made in this thread of the "uniqueness" of the
Perso-Indian Urdu script. However, the script of a language
is of negligible, if any, merit as an identifier of the
uniqueness of that language. Proof of this quite abundant in
the real world. I will provide just a few examples: observe
how many European languages use the Roman script. Consider
how Hindi and Marathi are written. Konkani speakers, I believe
(and correct me if I'm wrong, please) use several different
scripts to write their language -- Nagari, Kannada, Malayalam
and even Roman (English). And finally, what is the language
we use on ALUP? Urdu, or English?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
The Urdu Grammar is not merely the "KhaRi Boli"
or "Bhasha" grammar --- it also includes (to a
significant extent) elements from Arabic and Farsi
grammar. Anybody who is interested, can go through
ALUP debates on 'izaafat" that provide an insight
into this aspect of Urdu grammar. The rules for
singular/plural words furnish another instance.

There are two points here: (1) izaafat is a native part of
Urdu grammar (and not of Hindi), (2) there exist special
rules of pluralization in Urdu (but not in Hindi). Let us
address these one by one.
First, the plurals. You are most certainly referring to
word pairs like these: Khayaal/Khayaalaat, ishaara/ishaaraat
tahreer/tahaareer, kitaab/kutub, etc. I contend that these
pluralizations are not "native Urdu" at all! Rather, these
plurals are simply borrowed directly from the parent language
along with the singulars, and, inasmuch as that, the rules of
pluralization are not at all part of (native) Urdu grammar.
(That they are taught to students of Urdu as such is a matter
that needs to be addressed separately). My contention is
supported by the fact that each and every single one of these
Khayaal-Khayaal, ishaara-ishaare, tahreer-tahreereN, kitaab-
"every 'borrowed' plural in Urdu has an indigenous equivalent."
(If you do, would you kindly provide them, please?) Thus,
the native rules of pluralization of Urdu grammar are no
different from those of Hindi.
Second, the izaafat (X-e-Y) and atf (X-o-Y), which some say
have been assimilated into modern Urdu grammar. However,
given the fact that, at least in 'modern' Urdu, it is not at
all acceptable to conjoin words of non-Arabic/Persian origin
to form izaafat-s, is it really proper to say that izaafat
is a "native" rule of Urdu grammar? Isn't it simply a borrowed
rule that we use, much as Ms. Christie's Poirot uses uses
the phrases "c'est la vie", "tres bien" or "ne c'est pas" while
speaking English? If izaafat were really native to Urdu, why
is "raat-e-judaaii" not a legal compound, while "shab-e-furqat"
is (I won't even ask about "yaamini-e-virah" ;))? I know of no
other language that accords this kind of "second class citizen-
ship" to some of its own words. Do you? To my mind, at least,
the logical conclusion to draw seems to be that izaafats are
as much of a "foreign" (and I intend the word in the most non-
offensive/exclusionary manner possible) rule of grammar as
the component words themselves are. Inasmuch as which, it
wouldn't be improper to call the compounds themselves borrowed,
too. In other words, not only are "dil" and "naadaan" Persian,
but "dil-e-naadaan" is also. Thus, "dil-e-naadaaN tujhe
huaa kyaa hai" is just Urdu-with-a-Persian phrase or Hindi-
with-a-Persian phrase, depending on one's point of view.
use a language with a dominance of Arabic/Persian phrases, and
they say you're speaking Urdu. Use a language containing mostly
Sanskrit words and phrases, and they say you're speaking Hindi.
The underlying basic grammar that joins those phrases together
is one and the same.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Taking all these factors into consideration, the
only logical conclusion, to my mind at least, is
that modern-day Urdu and modern-day Hindi are two
different languages. In this context, I liked the
metaphor used by Sushil Sharma Saheb that modern
Urdu and modern Hindi are two stylistic branches
of the same linguistic tree.

And, due to my above observations, the only logical conclusion
to my mind at least, is that Urdu and Hindi are one language.
-UVR.

I didn't feel like snipping any portion of
your post.

You have constantly used the expression
"native Urdu". I doubt whether there is anything
"native" about this beautiful language. I would
go so far as to submit that it is an entirely
"synthetic" language. And this feature also makes
it sort of unique. The rules of izaafat or
pluralization may be borrowed from other languages
but they are now as much a part of Urdu grammar
as of the grammar of the original languages.
"Tahreer" or "kitaab" is not originally a Hindi
word although Hindi-wallahs may be able to understand
it. We are so familiar with this second word that
few realize it to be an Arabic word. The Holy Quran
says : "Zaalik-al kitaab-a, la~raib-a feehe..."
{"Verily, this is the Book.."}.

You have quoted three paragraphs of technical
English. They are not meant or expected to be
understood by the average English-user. One can
easily put forward similar Urdu texts, dealing
with technical matters and an average Urdu-user
would be hard-put to follow their meaning. During
the twenties and thirties, certain Urdu scholars
began a movement to "translate" ordinary words from
other languages (mostly English) into highly
ornate Urdu. So "optimism" and "pessimism" got
translated into "tafaawul" and "tashaawum". This,
to my mind, was an exercise in linguistic "extremism".
I daresay an average Urdu-user would quite readily
understand "optimism" and "pessimism" wheareas he
would be most uncomfortable with the above "Urdu"
equivalents. Urdu has always thrived on assimilating
influences, rules of grammar and vocabulary from
other languages. Even other languages have been
following this path. The French now use the
expression "le sex appeal", even though the term
was not in (French) vogue, say, 40-45 years back.

By carrying on this discussion, maybe we are
flogging a dead horse. If it is the same language,
why isn't one group of people not using the "version"
which is replete with Sanskrit words and expressions ?
If it is the same language, why is one group of people
familiar with Nirala and Bachchan but not familiar
with Faiz and Ali Sardar Jaafri ? Why those who
regularly read "The Siasat" (Urdu newspaper from
Hyderabad) do not (and cannot) read, say, "Nai
Duniya" ?

Since Urdu has assimilated a lot of words/grammar
etc. from Farsi, it is correct and proper to refer
to "Dil-e-Naadaan" as an Urdu expression. It is
pedantic to call it "Urdu-with-a-Persian" phrase.
And, most certainly, it is not a "Hindi-with-a-
Persian" phrase.

Apart from the three distinguishing features that
I had mentioned in my posts, I had also referred
to "public acceptance" in according recognition
to Urdu as a separate and distinct language. We
have seen (and it has been explained with a great
many examples by Zafar Saheb) that when this new
language was evolving during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, anthologists like Meer and
Mas~hafee (whom we consider as Urdu poets today)
referred to it as "Hind-i", "Hindwi" and "ReKHta"
etc. Gradually, the language acquired the appellation
Urdu and today, "everbody and his neighbour" calls
it as Urdu. Nobody but nobody calls it as "ReKHta"
or anything else. The Indian Constitution recognizes
it as Urdu. The Pakistani Constituion does likewise.
In US newspapers, we sometimes come across this
Crossword clue : "The language of Pakistan". And the
answer (or solution) is "Urdu". Even then, if
someone feels that the framers of the two Consti-
tutions (and others) have thrown logic overboard, he
is certainly entitled to hold that opinion.



Afzal

[SPS22]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
If it is the same language, why is one group of people
familiar with Nirala and Bachchan but not familiar
with Faiz and Ali Sardar Jaafri ? Why those who
regularly read "The Siasat" (Urdu newspaper from
Hyderabad) do not (and cannot) read, say, "Nai
Duniya" ?

That is an extremely poor argument to support your case. People who
speak the same language can still be divided by other factors and
hence may reside in different emotional or intellectual planes.
Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis read totally different
literature. Does this imply the languages are different? No. It can
be explained easily by other factors (an International border in
between, for instance).

Post by Afzal A. Khan
If it is the same language,
why isn't one group of people not using the "version"
which is replete with Sanskrit words and expressions ?

Vocabulary can diverge for other reasons. We went to visit a
Pakistani Punjabi and he gushed "Bismillah ... Bismillah, khushamdeed,
tussi sadey kol ayae. Jee ayan noo." The Punjabi Sikhs is more
likely to say to borrow from his religious vocabulary. (This is not
to imply that religion is the sole difference; it could be just one
cause out of many.)

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Since Urdu has assimilated a lot of words/grammar
etc. from Farsi, it is correct and proper to refer
to "Dil-e-Naadaan" as an Urdu expression. It is
pedantic to call it "Urdu-with-a-Persian" phrase.
And, most certainly, it is not a "Hindi-with-a-
Persian" phrase.

This is a point I am not able to understand. Myself and others have
put this question in various forms to the Urdu-wallahs, but have
gotten no response so far. If "Urdu" can take the position that
"Dil-e-Naadan" is an Urdu expression while we know it originally came
from Persian, then why can't "Hindi" be allowed the privelege to
absorb Persian words?

This query goes to the heart of the the question that people like me
are trying to understand. Conventional wisdom of definition of Hindi
versus Urdu goes as either of the following two: (1) If vocabulary
sounds Sanskritized, it is Hindi; else it is Urdu. (2) If the
vocobulary sounds Persian or Arabic, it is Urdu, else it is Hindi.
(there is a slight difference in these two definitions).

Due to this understanding of what is Urdu and what is Hindi, people
here have given examples of usage of English words in "Hindi/Urdu".
They want to know if usage of English words now means that a new
language has been created. If no, why not? And also, why should then
usage of Persian/Arabic words automatically imply that language is not
Hindi? Why should Hindi not be allowed freedom to absorb Persian and
Arabic words. The Urdu advocates have not given a satisfactory
response to this.

Urdu-wallahs in this discussion have provided no tangible explanation.
I don't think statements like "... this sounds obviously Urdu ..." or
"... nobody would consider Ghalib to be a Hindi poet ..." or "no body
would consider Bachhan to be an Urdu poet" really answer anything.
These are circular arguments. Providing unintelligible dense "Urdu"
sentences as proof that Hindi and Urdu are different is not
satisfactory either (UVR provided examples of unintelligible dense
English, to refute it.).

Post by Afzal A. Khan
The Indian Constitution recognizes
it as Urdu. The Pakistani Constituion does likewise.
... Even then, if
someone feels that the framers of the two Consti-
tutions (and others) have thrown logic overboard, he
is certainly entitled to hold that opinion.

Constitution is a not a measure of truth, it merely reflects the myths
a nation holds. Indian constitution claims whole of Kashmir as part
of India, although the Indian tri-color flag has never ever flown on
half the state. Less said about the Pakistani constitution the better.

Regards to everyone. No offence intended.

-Surinder

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by SPS22

Post by Afzal A. Khan
If it is the same language, why is one group of people
familiar with Nirala and Bachchan but not familiar
with Faiz and Ali Sardar Jaafri ? Why those who
regularly read "The Siasat" (Urdu newspaper from
Hyderabad) do not (and cannot) read, say, "Nai
Duniya" ?

That is an extremely poor argument to support your case. People who
speak the same language can still be divided by other factors and
hence may reside in different emotional or intellectual planes.
Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis read totally different
literature. Does this imply the languages are different? No. It can
be explained easily by other factors (an International border in
between, for instance).

Post by Afzal A. Khan
If it is the same language,
why isn't one group of people not using the "version"
which is replete with Sanskrit words and expressions ?

Vocabulary can diverge for other reasons. We went to visit a
Pakistani Punjabi and he gushed "Bismillah ... Bismillah, khushamdeed,
tussi sadey kol ayae. Jee ayan noo." The Punjabi Sikhs is more
likely to say to borrow from his religious vocabulary. (This is not
to imply that religion is the sole difference; it could be just one
cause out of many.)

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Since Urdu has assimilated a lot of words/grammar
etc. from Farsi, it is correct and proper to refer
to "Dil-e-Naadaan" as an Urdu expression. It is
pedantic to call it "Urdu-with-a-Persian" phrase.
And, most certainly, it is not a "Hindi-with-a-
Persian" phrase.

This is a point I am not able to understand. Myself and others have
put this question in various forms to the Urdu-wallahs, but have
gotten no response so far. If "Urdu" can take the position that
"Dil-e-Naadan" is an Urdu expression while we know it originally came
from Persian, then why can't "Hindi" be allowed the privelege to
absorb Persian words?
This query goes to the heart of the the question that people like me
are trying to understand. Conventional wisdom of definition of Hindi
versus Urdu goes as either of the following two: (1) If vocabulary
sounds Sanskritized, it is Hindi; else it is Urdu. (2) If the
vocobulary sounds Persian or Arabic, it is Urdu, else it is Hindi.
(there is a slight difference in these two definitions).
Due to this understanding of what is Urdu and what is Hindi, people
here have given examples of usage of English words in "Hindi/Urdu".
They want to know if usage of English words now means that a new
language has been created. If no, why not? And also, why should then
usage of Persian/Arabic words automatically imply that language is not
Hindi? Why should Hindi not be allowed freedom to absorb Persian and
Arabic words. The Urdu advocates have not given a satisfactory
response to this.
Urdu-wallahs in this discussion have provided no tangible explanation.
I don't think statements like "... this sounds obviously Urdu ..." or
"... nobody would consider Ghalib to be a Hindi poet ..." or "no body
would consider Bachhan to be an Urdu poet" really answer anything.
These are circular arguments. Providing unintelligible dense "Urdu"
sentences as proof that Hindi and Urdu are different is not
satisfactory either (UVR provided examples of unintelligible dense
English, to refute it.).

Post by Afzal A. Khan
The Indian Constitution recognizes
it as Urdu. The Pakistani Constituion does likewise.
... Even then, if
someone feels that the framers of the two Consti-
tutions (and others) have thrown logic overboard, he
is certainly entitled to hold that opinion.

Constitution is a not a measure of truth, it merely reflects the myths
a nation holds. Indian constitution claims whole of Kashmir as part
of India, although the Indian tri-color flag has never ever flown on
half the state. Less said about the Pakistani constitution the better.
Regards to everyone. No offence intended.
-Surinder

I gave the example of a group of people reading
"The Siasat", and not reading (or not being able
to read), say, "Nai Duniya". I was referring to
a group of people living in one single Indian
city, viz. Hyderabad. I was not talking about
people spread across International Borders.
There is no need to import extraneous matters in
this discussion. The sole factor that sets apart
this group (i.e. Urdu-users) from others, who may
be reading "Nai Duniya", is that they consider the
other paper to be in a language other than their
own -- and possibly one which they may not be able
to understand or appreciate fully. And most house-
holds subscribe to just one newspaper. Also,
there has been no answer to the question as to
why those familiar with Nirala and Bachchan
are not familiar with Faiz and Ali Sardar Jaafri.

And, please, we are talking about Urdu and Hindi
--- not about Punjabi or even Bengali, for that
matter. A Sikh Punjabi or a Pakistani Punjabi may
speak the same language for all practical purposes.
People in Dacca and Calcutta, I daresay, speak
virtually the same language. We are talking about
Urdu and Hindi languages and not about people who
may be speaking the same language though they may
be divided by International Borders. Josh Maleeh-
abadi wrote in the same language when he was in India
and even after he went over to Pakistan. Firaq and
Faiz wrote in the same language (Urdu) even if they
lived in separate countries.

"Dil-e-Naadaan" : There is no question of Urdu
or Urdu-wallahs "taking such a position". It IS
the position. Urdu has assimilated vocabulary and
influences from other languages, including Faarsi.
So, if an expression like "Dil-e-Naadaan" has been
wholly incorporated in the Urdu language, that
shouldn't surprise anyone. Back in the fifties,
A. R. Kardar made a well-known film with this
title. Nobody complained or even commented as to
why he was using "Faarsi" for the title of his
film.

You ask : Why Hindi cannot be allowed the privilege
to absorb Persian words ? Pray, who has disallowed
it ? Who has tried to prevent Hindi from absorbing
Faarsi or Arabic words ? No one. Hindi-wallahs
are always most welcome to import such words and
phrases and write them in the Devanagri script.
The shoe is in fact on the other foot. There have
always been demands from the Hindi supporters that
Urdu should give up its "rasm-ul-KHat" or script.

In all such debates that have been raging for nearly
a century, the surprising thing seems to be that
the argument about Urdu/Hindi being the same language
always seems to be initiated or put forward by the
Hindi-supporters. I doubt whether any Urdu-wallah
has ever suggested that Hindi is nothing but another
form of Urdu, with the exception that it is written in
Devanagri and contains a great many Sanskrit words and
phrases.

I don't think the "definitions" of Urdu and Hindi
that you write about represent "conventional
wisdom". The "wisdom" lies in recognizing them
as separate, distinct languages. The differences
between the two have already been highlighted by
me and some others involved in this discussion.

The inclusion of English words in the two languages
occurs usually at the speaking level. I don't
think it happens when the two languages are written
in their respective scripts. Certain words of English
have already found a permanent place in Urdu. For
example, "Gandhiji kee zindagi ka mission yeh tha ...".
Due to frequent usage and consequent absorption, this
word is now readily undeerstood by an average Urdu -
user. It is quite possible that more and more such
words are absorbed by Urdu in the future. And if
people, i.e. Urdu-users, are prepared to accept these
words, the vocabulary of Urdu would be further
enriched.

Till about two years ago, most ALUPers used to post
their messages in English. But, in recent times,
due to persuasion from some Urdu-lovers, more and
more people have begun writing out their posts in
"Roman Urdu". Change is the hallmark of a living
language.

I don't understand why a particular non-issue is being
continuously harped on --- about Hindi not being
allowed to absorb Persian or Arabic words. I am
certain nobody has placed a "ban" on such a move.

Also, it is not clear what are "circular arguments".
If someone says : "Bachchan canot be regarded as
an Urdu poet", it is a clear enough statement. I
do not think anybody in this discussion has asserted
that Bachchan WAS an Urdu poet. And what is wrong
about a statement that "Ghalib was indubitably an
Urdu poet" ? I don't think anybody has opined (in
this discussion) that Ghalib was a Hindi poet.
With very very few exceptions (like Zafar Saheb
himself), there are two separate, distinct groups
of people --- those who read and enjoy Ghalib's
poetry and those who are aware of and interested
in Bachchan's poetry. And this fact really goes to
the heart of the matter --- that Urdu and Hindi are
two distinct, separate languages.

UVR's examples of "dense" English have already been
commented upon by me and some others. Such examples,
I respectfully submit, are not relevant in this
discussion. To the uninitiated (that is, those who
are not familiar with the specific field being
discussed in these examples), the three paragraphs
would sound as gibberish. On the other hand, those
who are actively involved in these respective fields
would readily understand what is being talked about.
Does it mean that the first group does NOT know
English and only the other group does ?

An average Urdu-user in Bombay, for instance, may
be a regular reader of Urdu neswpapers. But if one
goes to him and asks the meaning of words like
"kasaafat-e-izaafi" or "auraaq-e-tilaa~ee barq-numa",
he would be absolutely non-plussed. {The first word
means "Relative Density" and the second is the Urdu
equivalent of "Gold Leaf Electroscope"}. Will it be
proper to say that the aforementioned average person
is ignorant of Urdu ? Such examples have no place in
this discussion.

Lastly, your assertion that the (Indian)
Constitution reflects only the myths of the nation
is best left unanswered.


Afzal

[Surma Bhopali]

...... Also,
there has been no answer to the question as to
why those familiar with Nirala and Bachchan
are not familiar with Faiz and Ali Sardar Jaafri.

Is this completely true? Or are you talking about masses. Well, they
are not familiar with either of the four.

"Dil-e-Naadaan" : There is no question of Urdu
or Urdu-wallahs "taking such a position". It IS
the position. Urdu has assimilated vocabulary and
influences from other languages, including Faarsi.
So, if an expression like "Dil-e-Naadaan" has been
wholly incorporated in the Urdu language, that
shouldn't surprise anyone. Back in the fifties,
A. R. Kardar made a well-known film with this
title. Nobody complained or even commented as to
why he was using "Faarsi" for the title of his
film.

Nobody complained 'why he was using Urdu for the title of his Hindi
film'either.

You ask : Why Hindi cannot be allowed the privilege
to absorb Persian words ? Pray, who has disallowed
it ? Who has tried to prevent Hindi from absorbing
Faarsi or Arabic words ? No one. Hindi-wallahs
are always most welcome to import such words and
phrases and write them in the Devanagri script.

Hindi has imported even Persian words, usually(and quite logically)
via Urdu. Diffusion is more pronounced near contact-zone and it fades
away as one moves away inwards. It's very natural.

The shoe is in fact on the other foot. There have
always been demands from the Hindi supporters that
Urdu should give up its "rasm-ul-KHat" or script.

There are always extremists in both groups who will always shout
"jalaa ke raakh kar do...". Why care for them?

I don't think the "definitions" of Urdu and Hindi
that you write about represent "conventional
wisdom". The "wisdom" lies in recognizing them
as separate, distinct languages. The differences
between the two have already been highlighted by
me and some others involved in this discussion.

...and similarities highlighted very well by Zafar saahib. Are you
saying following what he said is going against "wisdom"? If that's the
case, I have to say:
****
I don't think the "definition" of "wisdom"
that you write about represents "conventional
wisdom". The "wisdom" lies in recognizing
everyone's "wisdom" as separate and distinct.
****

The inclusion of English words in the two languages
occurs usually at the speaking level. I don't
think it happens when the two languages are written
in their respective scripts.

That's a very important statement though it might lead to digression
from the original topic. In fact this distinction between *spoken* and
*written* language since historical times has a lot to do with both
Urdu and Hindi. As far as I understand, (written) Urdu arrived because
at that time(Mughal empire) the written language(Persian) was what a
majority did not speak and (written) Hindi arrived because the written
language (Sanskrit) was what a majority did not speak. And guess what,
in both the cases, the spoken language was Hindi (or Urdu) without the
buzzwords(Sanskrit[or Persian]).

We are bound to maintain this distinction between written and spoken
language (or in modern days "language of priviledged" and "language of
under-priviledged"). That works well for our psyche.:-)

UVR's examples of "dense" English have already been
commented upon by me and some others. Such examples,
I respectfully submit, are not relevant in this
discussion.

May I ask why are they irrelevant. Isn't the OP about Urdu and Hindi
from liguistics perspective. Then what is wrong in citing examples of
application of liguistics from other languages?

[SPS22]

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I gave the example of a group of people reading
"The Siasat", and not reading (or not being able
to read), say, "Nai Duniya". I was referring to
a group of people living in one single Indian
city, viz. Hyderabad. [...]
The sole factor that sets apart
this group (i.e. Urdu-users) from others, who may
be reading "Nai Duniya", is that they consider the
other paper to be in a language other than their
own

I do not see how the fact that people who live in the same Indian city
but read different newspapers prove that Hindi and Urdu are two
different languages? And even if we accept that the sole reason for
this is that "they consider" the two languages to be different, that
does not that prove that these languages are indeed unique. You are
merely telling us what we already know: There are many people in India
who consider Urdu and Hindi to be different languages.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Also,
there has been no answer to the question as to
why those familiar with Nirala and Bachchan
are not familiar with Faiz and Ali Sardar Jaafri.

First and foremost, there are peoople who are familiar with all the
above. Secondly, there are people like me who are not familiar with
any of the above. Does that mean that such people know neither "Hindi"
nor Urdu"? This adds nothing to figure out what is different about the
languages.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Josh Maleeh-
abadi wrote in the same language when he was in India
and even after he went over to Pakistan. Firaq and
Faiz wrote in the same language (Urdu) even if they
lived in separate countries.

OK. If they are using the same language, how does that shed light on
whether Hindi and Urdu are two different languages?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
"Dil-e-Naadaan" : There is no question of Urdu
or Urdu-wallahs "taking such a position". It IS
the position. Urdu has assimilated vocabulary and
influences from other languages, including Faarsi.
So, if an expression like "Dil-e-Naadaan" has been
wholly incorporated in the Urdu language, that
shouldn't surprise anyone.
You ask : Why Hindi cannot be allowed the privilege
to absorb Persian words ? Pray, who has disallowed
it ? Who has tried to prevent Hindi from absorbing
Faarsi or Arabic words ? No one.

You are contradicting yourself. I quote what you wrote in the previous
post:

"it is correct and proper to refer to "Dil-e-Naadaan" as an Urdu
expression. It is pedantic to call it "Urdu-with-a-Persian" phrase.
And, most certainly, it is not a "Hindi-with-a-Persian" phrase."

If Hindi can have the same privelege as Urdu to absorb Persian/Arabic
words, then one should be able to claim the following sentence to be
Hindi: "dil-e-naadaaN tujhe huaa kyaa hai" Dil-e-Naadaan would be a
correct and valid Hindi word; it would be pedantic (but still valid)
to call it "Hindi-with-a-Persian" phrase. But you state that is not
correct for Hindi, but it IS for Urdu.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
In all such debates that have been raging for nearly
a century, the surprising thing seems to be that
the argument about Urdu/Hindi being the same language
always seems to be initiated or put forward by the
Hindi-supporters. I doubt whether any Urdu-wallah
has ever suggested that Hindi is nothing but another
form of Urdu, with the exception that it is written in
Devanagri and contains a great many Sanskrit words and
phrases.

You are partially right. Hindi-wallas want to emphasize the
commanlity and Urdu-wallahs want to emphasize the difference. (I am
neither a Hindi-wallah nor a Urdu-wallah. I just want to discuss the
truth.) But you are wrong in the last sentence above. I have read
Pakistani Urdu-wallahs, when confronted with the puzzling question of
facing the same language but called Hindi, say tht Hindi is Urdu with
Devnagiri script. One that takes the cake is what I read sometime
back "Hindi is a dialect of Urdu."

Post by Afzal A. Khan
I don't understand why a particular non-issue is being
continuously harped on --- about Hindi not being
allowed to absorb Persian or Arabic words. I am
certain nobody has placed a "ban" on such a move.

Because if Hindi can claim Farsi/Arabic words, then what difference
remains between Urdu and Hindi?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Also, it is not clear what are "circular arguments".
If someone says : "Bachchan canot be regarded as
an Urdu poet", it is a clear enough statement. I
do not think anybody in this discussion has asserted
that Bachchan WAS an Urdu poet. And what is wrong
about a statement that "Ghalib was indubitably an
Urdu poet" ? I don't think anybody has opined (in
this discussion) that Ghalib was a Hindi poet.

The argument is curcular because it already assumes what it is trying
to prove in the first place. You are trying to prove that Urdu is not
Hindi. To prove this you are saying that Bacchhan (Ghalib) is not an
Urdu (Hindi) poet, which already assumes that these are different
languages.

Post by Afzal A. Khan
With very very few exceptions (like Zafar Saheb
himself), there are two separate, distinct groups
of people --- those who read and enjoy Ghalib's
poetry and those who are aware of and interested
in Bachchan's poetry.

There are two more categories you are missing out: those who
read/enjoy both Ghalib and Bachhan; those who read/enjoy neither.
Incidently these four groups encompass the whole humanity;
furthermore, this categorization does not answer if Urdu and Hindi are
separate languages.


Regards.
-Surinder

[Surjit Singh]

Post by UVR
baahar bahut saari cars parked theeN, aur jab hamne doorbell
press kiya aur hamaare host ne answer kiya, to hamne dekha
ki already wahaan par 30-40 people pahuNche hue the, although
ham bilkul on-time the. door ke right-side wali wall ke paas,
floor par bahut saare gifts ek heap meN paRe hue the, jo

cars? gifts?

Most such people say kaare.n, gifTe.n, karTane.n, vaine.n, kaarTe.n,
baaskaTe.n, kaarpaTe.n, garlo.n (or girl piiplo.n) ne buko.n ko riiD kiyaa

[Vijay]

Post by UVR
I think the single most important factor that uniquely identi-
fies a language is its grammar. Not, as Zafar saahib so ably
pointed out, the "nouns" (=vocabulary). The above paragraphs
should serve as ample proof of the fact. To my mind, the
difference between the first set of three paragraphs is akin
to the difference between "pure Hindi" and "pure Urdu". Use
many words and phrases drawn directly from Sanskrit, and you're
told you're speaking Hindi. Use many words and phrases drawn
from Arabic and Persian, and you're told you're speaking Urdu.

With respect, I think Zafar Sahib stated that it is the 'verb' and not
the 'noun' that is a stronger determinent/identifier of a langugae.

Let me try another experiment, based again on poetry.

Here is ghalib:

"hazaaroN Khaa'hisheN aisiiN ki har Khaa'hish pe dam nikle
bohat nikle mire armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle"

I think most Hindi speaking people will understand the words in this
couplet with relative ease as almost all the words are used in day to
day conversation, both in Hindi (and Panjabi). AND most will identify
the language as Urdu even though there is no preponderance of
Faarsi/Arabii vocabulary.

Now Neeraj, expressing somewhat similar thoughts. I have put two lines
to-gether that are out of order but do contrive to make a kind of a
matla:

"chaah to nikal saki na par umar nikal gaii
paaoN jab talak uthe, ki ziNdgi phisal gaii"

Again, most Urdu speaking people will understand the words and will
also identify the language as Hindi.

SO neither of these examples use extreme Faarsi/Arbii or Sanskrit and
yet, to a commom man, there is no mistaking the language of the two.

The point I want to make is that these two couplets can't be both in
"Hindi", nor can the both be in "Urdu". If indeed one wants to argue
that they are the same langugae, then I am afraid, we have to find a
different name for that language.


Regards,


Vijay Kumar

[Raj Kumar]

Post by Vijay
Let me try another experiment, based again on poetry.
"hazaaroN Khaa'hisheN aisiiN ki har Khaa'hish pe dam nikle
bohat nikle mire armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle"
I think most Hindi speaking people will understand the words in this
couplet with relative ease as almost all the words are used in day to
day conversation, both in Hindi (and Panjabi). AND most will identify
the language as Urdu even though there is no preponderance of
Faarsi/Arabii vocabulary.
Now Neeraj, expressing somewhat similar thoughts. I have put two lines
to-gether that are out of order but do contrive to make a kind of a
"chaah to nikal saki na par umar nikal gaii
paaoN jab talak uthe, ki ziNdgi phisal gaii"
Again, most Urdu speaking people will understand the words and will
also identify the language as Hindi.
SO neither of these examples use extreme Faarsi/Arbii or Sanskrit and
yet, to a commom man, there is no mistaking the language of the two.
The point I want to make is that these two couplets can't be both in
"Hindi", nor can the both be in "Urdu". If indeed one wants to argue
that they are the same langugae, then I am afraid, we have to find a
different name for that language.

Vijay Saahib:

maiN, is taveeeeeeel baihs se, abhi tak kinaara-kashi kiye hu'aa tha
magar aaj aap ke Khat ne mera "maun-barat" toR Daala! :-))

azeez-e-man, jo she'r aap ne Neeraj Saahib ka 'quote' kiyaa hai, us
she'r meiN (Khudaa jhooT na bulvaaye!) lafz 'umr' ko 'umar' kahaa
gayaa hai! mere nazdeek, bas yihi kaafi hai k maiN is she'r ko Urdu
kaa na kahooN --- bal-k Hindi kaa kahooN!

Thank you so much for this brutally "un-cut" gem! :-))

Raj Kumar

[Vijay]

Post by Raj Kumar
maiN, is taveeeeeeel baihs se, abhi tak kinaara-kashi kiye hu'aa tha
magar aaj aap ke Khat ne mera "maun-barat" toR Daala! :-))

bohat der kii mehrbaaN aate aate!

Raj Sahib, I for one have been waiting with great anticipation your
contribution. I thought you will have plenty to say on this matter.

Post by Raj Kumar
azeez-e-man, jo she'r aap ne Neeraj Saahib ka 'quote' kiyaa hai, us
she'r meiN (Khudaa jhooT na bulvaaye!) lafz 'umr' ko 'umar' kahaa
gayaa hai! mere nazdeek, bas yihi kaafi hai k maiN is she'r ko Urdu
kaa na kahooN --- bal-k Hindi kaa kahooN!

Although you have stated your views clearly enough, it would be nice
if you were to express your thoughts in greater detail and in your
inimitable style.

Lastly, re: the Neeraj couplet. I would hesitate to call it a she'r.
It is in fact two lines taken from a giit from a Hindi film 'naii umar
kii naii fasal' (umar, again, you will note). IMHO, it is an extremely
well written song. Another line from the same stanza:

"aaNkh (a)bhii khulii na thii, ki haai dhoop dhal gaii"

Regards,


Vijay Kumar

[Surma Bhopali]

Post by Vijay
Let me try another experiment, based again on poetry.
"hazaaroN Khaa'hisheN aisiiN ki har Khaa'hish pe dam nikle
bohat nikle mire armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle"
I think most Hindi speaking people will understand the words in this
couplet with relative ease as almost all the words are used in day to
day conversation, both in Hindi (and Panjabi). AND most will identify
the language as Urdu even though there is no preponderance of
Faarsi/Arabii vocabulary.
Now Neeraj, expressing somewhat similar thoughts. I have put two lines
to-gether that are out of order but do contrive to make a kind of a
"chaah to nikal saki na par umar nikal gaii
paaoN jab talak uthe, ki ziNdgi phisal gaii"
Again, most Urdu speaking people will understand the words and will
also identify the language as Hindi.
SO neither of these examples use extreme Faarsi/Arbii or Sanskrit and
yet, to a commom man, there is no mistaking the language of the two.
The point I want to make is that these two couplets can't be both in
"Hindi", nor can the both be in "Urdu".

From whatever I have been learnt from Zafar saahib's revelations, I
would say yes they are both Hindi and both Urdu with few scribbled
nouns. And a majority will disagree with me. Well, Zafar saahib has
told us something new and it will take ages for the majority to follow
(if they are willing to at all).

[Sudhir]

Shriman Vijay Kumar ji:

You are twisting the facts, to fit your arguments.

Neeraj's Karwan Guzar Gaya Goobar Dekhte Rahe

is certainly not a Hindi poem, Even the title was borrowed from
a Urdu Shair's famous ghazal.


Another RMIMers quoted Sahir's modification for Pyaasa

Jinhe Naaz Hai Hind Par Woh Kahan Hai


is still a Urdu Nazm




Sudhir

-------------------

Post by Vijay

Post by UVR
I think the single most important factor that uniquely identi-
fies a language is its grammar. Not, as Zafar saahib so ably
pointed out, the "nouns" (=vocabulary). The above paragraphs
should serve as ample proof of the fact. To my mind, the
difference between the first set of three paragraphs is akin
to the difference between "pure Hindi" and "pure Urdu". Use
many words and phrases drawn directly from Sanskrit, and you're
told you're speaking Hindi. Use many words and phrases drawn
from Arabic and Persian, and you're told you're speaking Urdu.

With respect, I think Zafar Sahib stated that it is the 'verb' and not
the 'noun' that is a stronger determinent/identifier of a langugae.
Let me try another experiment, based again on poetry.
"hazaaroN Khaa'hisheN aisiiN ki har Khaa'hish pe dam nikle
bohat nikle mire armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle"
I think most Hindi speaking people will understand the words in this
couplet with relative ease as almost all the words are used in day to
day conversation, both in Hindi (and Panjabi). AND most will identify
the language as Urdu even though there is no preponderance of
Faarsi/Arabii vocabulary.
Now Neeraj, expressing somewhat similar thoughts. I have put two lines
to-gether that are out of order but do contrive to make a kind of a
"chaah to nikal saki na par umar nikal gaii
paaoN jab talak uthe, ki ziNdgi phisal gaii"
Again, most Urdu speaking people will understand the words and will
also identify the language as Hindi.
SO neither of these examples use extreme Faarsi/Arbii or Sanskrit and
yet, to a commom man, there is no mistaking the language of the two.
The point I want to make is that these two couplets can't be both in
"Hindi", nor can the both be in "Urdu". If indeed one wants to argue
that they are the same langugae, then I am afraid, we have to find a
different name for that language.
Regards,
Vijay Kumar

[Vijay]

Post by Sudhir
You are twisting the facts, to fit your arguments.
Neeraj's Karwan Guzar Gaya Goobar Dekhte Rahe
is certainly not a Hindi poem, Even the title was borrowed from
a Urdu Shair's famous ghazal.

Well! it is a giit that is written in what most will call Hindi and
none Urdu. Just look at the opening two lines that I have posted
elsewhere:

"swapan jhare phool se, miit chubhe shool se" or pick up any other
line at random other than two or three I have included in my previous
posts. Here are a couple more:

"aur phir zehar bharii, gaaj aik veh girii
loot gya siNdhoor taar taar huui chunrii"

Would you call it Urdu?

Post by Sudhir
Another RMIMers quoted Sahir's modification for Pyaasa
Jinhe Naaz Hai Hind Par Woh Kahan Hai
is still a Urdu Nazm

It was only I who quoted the above. I will give you this one. I was
merely trying to make the point that Hindi film langugae is neither
purely Hindi nor Urdu and that it should perhaps be called Hindustani
(or something else for that matter). As, if it were Urdu, why would
Sahir need to change "snaKhwaan-e-tasdiiq-e-mashrik" to "jinheN naaz
hai Hind par"?

Regards,


Vijay Kumar

[Surjit Singh]

There is no such language as Hindi. It's all really Urdu.
As proof, I offer thousands of Urdu movies mis-labeled as Hindi movies and tens of thousands of
Urdu songs mis-labeled and Hindi songs. And yes, I am talking thro' my turban.

I have to talk thro' my turban, because I do not have a hat.
Talking through one's hat means ... look it up.

Post by Sudhir
You are twisting the facts, to fit your arguments.
Neeraj's Karwan Guzar Gaya Goobar Dekhte Rahe
is certainly not a Hindi poem, Even the title was borrowed from
a Urdu Shair's famous ghazal.

Well! it is a giit that is written in what most will call Hindi and
none Urdu. Just look at the opening two lines that I have posted
"swapan jhare phool se, miit chubhe shool se" or pick up any other
line at random other than two or three I have included in my previous
"aur phir zehar bharii, gaaj aik veh girii
loot gya siNdhoor taar taar huui chunrii"
Would you call it Urdu?

Post by Sudhir
Another RMIMers quoted Sahir's modification for Pyaasa
Jinhe Naaz Hai Hind Par Woh Kahan Hai
is still a Urdu Nazm

It was only I who quoted the above. I will give you this one. I was
merely trying to make the point that Hindi film langugae is neither
purely Hindi nor Urdu and that it should perhaps be called Hindustani
(or something else for that matter). As, if it were Urdu, why would
Sahir need to change "snaKhwaan-e-tasdiiq-e-mashrik" to "jinheN naaz
hai Hind par"?
Regards,
Vijay Kumar

[Afzal A. Khan]

Post by Surjit Singh

There is no such language as Hindi. It's all really Urdu.
As proof, I offer thousands of Urdu movies mis-labeled as Hindi movies and tens of thousands of
Urdu songs mis-labeled and Hindi songs. And yes, I am talking thro' my turban.

I have to talk thro' my turban, because I do not have a hat.
Talking through one's hat means ... look it up.

But, do you use a turban ? !!!


Afzal

[Surma Bhopali]

Post by UVR
[Nota bene: This is a long post. You have been notified.]
I will not [cannot] dispute that Bachchan's verse sounds
(deliciously) different from Ghalib's amazing poetry, but
the mere fact that a particular paragraph of prose or foot
of verse *sounds* different from another is not sufficient
reason to classify them as belonging to two different languages.
Let us see why not. Which language would you say each of the
following paragraphs is in?
(1) ... consider a generic scenario of spontaneous breaking of
supersymmetry in the hidden sector within N=1 supersymmetric
orientifold compactifications of type II string theories with
D-branes that support semi-realistic chiral gauge theories.
(2) If g is a Riemannian metric with ergodic geodesic flow,
then it is homothetic with all metrics _g possessing the same
geodesics (regarded as unparameterized curves) with g.
(3) [...] bone conduction stimulates the basilar membrane
not only through the hydrodynamics of the scala vestibuli
and scala tympani, but also through osseous spiral lamina
vibrations.
Everybody and their neighbor says these are English sentences.
But I know English. I have read, write, hear and speak it daily.
I have even dreamt in English. Yet, I cannot understand any
of these three paragraphs 100%. As it is, I am, with respect
to these paragraphs, in the *SAME* position that Dr. Singh
claims to be in when he hears: "mulzam ko ta'azeeraat-e-hind
kii daf'a teen-sau-do ke taht qatl ke jurm kaa murtakib qaraar
diyaa jaataa hai aur 'umr qaid, baa_mashaqqat, kii sazaa sunaayi
jaati hai." :))
Then, what about this paragraph? --
ham last week ek friend ki housewarming ceremony meN gaye.
baahar bahut saari cars parked theeN, aur jab hamne doorbell
press kiya aur hamaare host ne answer kiya, to hamne dekha
ki already wahaan par 30-40 people pahuNche hue the, although
ham bilkul on-time the. door ke right-side wali wall ke paas,
floor par bahut saare gifts ek heap meN paRe hue the, jo
wahaan aaye hue guests ne unheN present kiye the.
Is this Hindi, Urdu or English?

Post by Afzal A. Khan
Here, as I have mentioned before, the distinctive
features that distinguish one from the other can be
summarized as (a) the script (b) the vocabulary and
(c) the grammar. Most people think of only the
first two features. It is my submission that the
the third factor has its importance too.

With these examples you said what I too wanted to say, that mere
vocabulary and script does not make a language completely different.

Post by UVR
I think the single most important factor that uniquely identi-
fies a language is its grammar. Not, as Zafar saahib so ably
pointed out, the "nouns" (=vocabulary). The above paragraphs
should serve as ample proof of the fact. To my mind, the
difference between the first set of three paragraphs is akin
to the difference between "pure Hindi" and "pure Urdu". Use
many words and phrases drawn directly from Sanskrit, and you're
told you're speaking Hindi. Use many words and phrases drawn
from Arabic and Persian, and you're told you're speaking Urdu.

Agree. And as Zafar saahib pointed out nouns are volatile components
of a language. They come and go. I think the conclusion drawn by Zafar
saahib about equality of Hindi and Urdu is valid from a broad
perspective. It's like looking at how the two languages progressed
over hundreds of years from a 3D view and then passing a remark. The
discussion on dissimilarity in various threads as I see it is by
taking a cross-sectional view at a point of time(mostly present). I
think it is up to everyone's perception as to how he wants to see it
-- those looking for dissimilarities will find dissimilarities and
those paying attention to similarities will be happy too. But from a
broad perspective, Urdu and Hindi are much closer than any 2 different
languages.

But I am not sure if it is "sentence construction"[where verbs play a
major role] in particular that highlights the identicalness of two
languages or overall grammar as you mentioned. I think it is the
former. When you say "grammar", it makes things very broad and you
will start finding similarities in languages as different as Hindi and
English.

[rest deleted]

[SPS22]

Post by UVR
However, the script of a language
is of negligible, if any, merit as an identifier of the
uniqueness of that language. Proof of this quite abundant in
the real world. I will provide just a few examples: observe
how many European languages use the Roman script. Consider
how Hindi and Marathi are written.

UVR Ji. You are making a logical error here. Urdu advocates have said
that since script is different, then it implies language is different.
Which is not contradicted by your statement that different languages
can have same script. (Essentially A implies B, does not mean that B
implies A.) The Urdu-walla's argument *is* contradicted by a different
example: an example of same languages having different scripts. A
good example of this is Indian and Pakistani Punjabi; they are written
in different scripts but are not claimed to be different languages.
An even better example is the Turkish language. Turkish switched
script from Arabic to Roman some 50-70 years ago.

Post by UVR
If izaafat were really native to Urdu, why
is "raat-e-judaaii" not a legal compound, while "shab-e-furqat"
is (I won't even ask about "yaamini-e-virah" ;))? I know of no
other language that accords this kind of "second class citizen-
ship" to some of its own words. Do you? To my mind, at least,
the logical conclusion to draw seems to be that izaafats are
as much of a "foreign" ... Inasmuch as which, it
wouldn't be improper to call the compounds themselves borrowed,
too.
...
In other words, not only are "dil" and "naadaan" Persian,
but "dil-e-naadaan" is also. Thus, "dil-e-naadaaN tujhe
huaa kyaa hai" is just Urdu-with-a-Persian phrase or Hindi-
with-a-Persian phrase, depending on one's point of view.

I thought the above was very well written and well argued.

-Surinder

[Amit Malhotra]

Post by UVR
I will not [cannot] dispute that Bachchan's verse sounds
(deliciously) different from Ghalib's amazing poetry, but
the mere fact that a particular paragraph of prose or foot
of verse *sounds* different from another is not sufficient
reason to classify them as belonging to two different languages.
Let us see why not. Which language would you say each of the
following paragraphs is in?
(1) ... consider a generic scenario of spontaneous breaking of
supersymmetry in the hidden sector within N=1 supersymmetric
orientifold compactifications of type II string theories with
D-branes that support semi-realistic chiral gauge theories.
(2) If g is a Riemannian metric with ergodic geodesic flow,
then it is homothetic with all metrics _g possessing the same
geodesics (regarded as unparameterized curves) with g.
(3) [...] bone conduction stimulates the basilar membrane
not only through the hydrodynamics of the scala vestibuli
and scala tympani, but also through osseous spiral lamina
vibrations.

This was very ingenious UVR sahib, what you came up with here. I was
also confused after reading a bit of it. All three are INDEED
english, yah.. but why are you comparing URDU / HINDI which are
supposedly languages spoken by billions of ppl, to english by giving
us an example of specific academic lingo. Why would I want to learn
this part of English if I'm not interested in that academic section?
I would only learn this vocabulary if I was studying in this field ..
so i could understand what my collegues were saying. Right? A VERY
Small portion perhaps that forms my proffesional circle compared to
the population of a whole country?
What I am trying to say is, do you think someone who speaks Hindi the
way we speak in our TV news or the way we somewhat spoke in Ramayan
(The TV Serial) or the way my Hindi teacher used to speak, that
person, can manage to make herself/himself be understood EASILY in
Pakistan? (and no i'm not talking about colloquial language here, cuz
yah, that means we will all use english words). If you really really
believe that someone who speaks only THAT Pure Hindi, doesn't speak
english at all and will manage to be understood fairly easily in
Pakistan, I'll believe that these two are indeed the same languages.
Same goes for the other side.. send someone who speaks really pure
Khaalis Urdu and uses big Urdu words (no matter what their origin is,
Farsi, Arabic, or whatever) and can be understood fairly easy in a
city like .. not Delhi, lets take Mumbai (in non-muslim neighbourhood
hopefully)....
I just have hard time believing that there won't be a problem ..
just talking from experience.

Post by UVR
ham last week ek friend ki housewarming ceremony meN gaye.
baahar bahut saari cars parked theeN, aur jab hamne doorbell
press kiya aur hamaare host ne answer kiya, to hamne dekha
ki already wahaan par 30-40 people pahuNche hue the, although
ham bilkul on-time the. door ke right-side wali wall ke paas,
floor par bahut saare gifts ek heap meN paRe hue the, jo
wahaan aaye hue guests ne unheN present kiye the.
Is this Hindi, Urdu or English?

Perhaps colloquial hindi and urdu, but definitely Neither litterary
Hindi, nor litterary Urdu. I dont think any Gora (english speaking
gora only;) ) would understand that sentence, so no, not English.'

Post by UVR
pointed out, the "nouns" (=vocabulary). The above paragraphs
should serve as ample proof of the fact. To my mind, the
difference between the first set of three paragraphs is akin
to the difference between "pure Hindi" and "pure Urdu". Use
many words and phrases drawn directly from Sanskrit, and you're
told you're speaking Hindi. Use many words and phrases drawn
from Arabic and Persian, and you're told you're speaking Urdu.

and whats wrong with classifying them as two languages?
and why not, we do converse equally with nouns as we do with verbs,
dont we?
So in the language, what is the percentage of nouns vs verbs? If
verbs are same in both, then a person who speaks either, would
understand that percentage right? Consider this, I speak French, I
often understand about 25-30% of a spanish conversation!! Do the
similarities between Spanish, Italian French make them same language?
And there are TONS of similarities between these three languages,
thats why a person who speaks either one of them can very very very
easily learn the other ones, but will still have problems learning
Hindi lets say for argument sake and I know it was a weak argument
once again, but someone has to play the Devils adovcate bhai!!

Post by UVR
and even Roman (English). And finally, what is the language
we use on ALUP? Urdu, or English?

I would be in agreement with Surinder sahib here, a better example
would be to say, Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi, same language (Punjabi),
different scripts.

Post by UVR
use a language with a dominance of Arabic/Persian phrases, and
they say you're speaking Urdu. Use a language containing mostly
Sanskrit words and phrases, and they say you're speaking Hindi.
The underlying basic grammar that joins those phrases together
is one and the same.
And, due to my above observations, the only logical conclusion
to my mind at least, is that Urdu and Hindi are one language.

OK OK, you got me on your side :P what should we call this language?
Don't call it Urdu, Hindi speaking ppl will revolt man and there will
be riots all over!!! and please don't call it Hindi either, we will
have huge riots again! So should we keep on treating them as two
languages and just carry on lives as we are doing, even after being
enlightened here that they are both actually same language? :)

Honestly though, this whole topic covered by Zafar sahib has really
how should i say colloquially, baRhaaoing my pyaas to find out more
about the language that was there BEFORE something like "Urdu" came
along.. what an interesting topic really. I really want to see his
full references so i can read something if present in our libraries
here :D

Regards,

Amit Malhotra
p.s. qasam se 30 minaT lagaa kar ye likhii, aur phir bhi lagtaa hai k
kuchh bhii kaam ka na likh paayaa, ab jab likh hi dii hai, to post bhi
kar hii detaa huuN, shaayad kisi na kisii ko koi valid point dikh
jaaye ismeiN.. chalo, ummiid par duniyaa qaa'im hai..

[Sushrut Vaidya]

Post by Amit Malhotra
This was very ingenious UVR sahib, what you came up with here. I was
also confused after reading a bit of it. All three are INDEED
english, yah.. but why are you comparing URDU / HINDI which are
supposedly languages spoken by billions of ppl, to english by giving
us an example of specific academic lingo. Why would I want to learn
this part of English if I'm not interested in that academic section?
I would only learn this vocabulary if I was studying in this field ..
so i could understand what my collegues were saying. Right? A VERY
Small portion perhaps that forms my proffesional circle compared to
the population of a whole country?

The point is not that 'anyone speaking English must understand this'
but it is that "even though one does not understand the vocabulary in
a sentence (or even if it is completely borrowed from another source)
the language remains the same." In other words... vocabulary does not
define the language... its verbs and grammar do. We would be missing
the point if we start arguing about the specifics of the sentence.

Post by Amit Malhotra

Post by UVR
ham last week ek friend ki housewarming ceremony meN gaye.
baahar bahut saari cars parked theeN, aur jab hamne doorbell
press kiya aur hamaare host ne answer kiya, to hamne dekha
ki already wahaan par 30-40 people pahuNche hue the, although
ham bilkul on-time the. door ke right-side wali wall ke paas,
floor par bahut saare gifts ek heap meN paRe hue the, jo
wahaan aaye hue guests ne unheN present kiye the.
Is this Hindi, Urdu or English?

Perhaps colloquial hindi and urdu, but definitely Neither litterary
Hindi, nor litterary Urdu. I dont think any Gora (english speaking
gora only;) ) would understand that sentence, so no, not English.'

It is definitely not English... and not because a Gora would not
understand it... but because the grammar of the sentence is Hindi. And
that is precisiely WHY a gora would NOT understand it although he
might recongnize a number of English words.

I think your comment actually proves UVRs point better than the
original example did!

Post by Amit Malhotra
and whats wrong with classifying them as two languages?
and why not, we do converse equally with nouns as we do with verbs,
dont we?

Again, there is nothing wrong in calling it with two different names.
Our politicians do.. but that does not make it a SCIENTIFIC truth. I
think it is important that we realize this difference.

Being truly "Analytical" is not for everyone.. for an honest analysis
is like a good doctor... its going to tell you that you need a surgary
if you do... it does not think how you would feel after hearing that.

Post by Amit Malhotra
So in the language, what is the percentage of nouns vs verbs? If
verbs are same in both, then a person who speaks either, would
understand that percentage right? Consider this, I speak French, I
often understand about 25-30% of a spanish conversation!! Do the
similarities between Spanish, Italian French make them same language?

They don't.. because they have different grammar although they share a
lot of vocabulary!!

Post by Amit Malhotra

Post by UVR
and even Roman (English). And finally, what is the language
we use on ALUP? Urdu, or English?

I would be in agreement with Surinder sahib here, a better example
would be to say, Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi, same language (Punjabi),
different scripts.

Japanese has three scripts. Konkani as UVR mentioned is written in
multiple scripts... and we all write emails in many Indian languages
using Roman script.

Post by Amit Malhotra
OK OK, you got me on your side :P what should we call this language?
Don't call it Urdu, Hindi speaking ppl will revolt man and there will
be riots all over!!! and please don't call it Hindi either, we will
have huge riots again!

Before answering this we should decide whether we are looking for a
solution that will make everyone happy? or we are trying to find the
scientific truth of the matter. The first one is impossible. The
second one is possible!

Zafar saahb proved it beyond reasonable doubt that the original name
of the language was Hindi.

[Amit Malhotra]

***@eurdubazaar.com (Zafar) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

Zafar sahib,

sabse pahle to aapka bahut shukriyaa, apane bahut mehnat aur prem se
ye mazmoon taiyaar kiyaa hai, aur is se mere ilm meiN to bahut izaafaa
hua. shukriyaa.

(lafz-e-"prem" vaise upar likhe jumle meiN bahut ajeeb lag rahaa hai,
nahiiN? itne saare Farsi ke alfaaz aur beech meiN ik chhoTaa saa,
pyaaraa saa, hindi ka shabd :) ... vo kyaa hai na jab aapne kah hi
diyaa ke donoN zabaaneiN ek hi haiN.. to maine socha kyoN na donoN ke
alfaaz istemaal kar ke dekh louN ;-) )

acchaa ye to huaa mazaaq.. now serious topic:
just a few thoughts on this part of your series.. only cuz it contains

Post by Zafar
Hinduwee, I have treated as the exclusive property of the Hindus
alone; and have therefore, constantly applied it to the old language
of India, which prevailed before the Mooslaman invasion.
[1796]
(Cited in Shams ur Rahman Faruqi, 1999)
Alongside Urdu (which the authorities of the College were bent upon
calling Hindustani instead of Hindi), the College also hired some
Devanagri experts, who started writing books in *Modern* Hindi, that
is, a language similar to Urdu but written in Devanagri and with a
heavy dose of Sanskrit words. Lallo Lalji in 1803 wrote the first
modern Hindi book, Prem Since Lallo Lal had no model before him, he
imitated the language of Mir Amman, deliberately avoiding Persian and

This is something that I found very hard to swallow. I mean.. why say
it this way: "Modern Hindi, a language similar to Urdu but written in
Devanagri" ? I am still very unsure after reading everybody and every
comment here, what was the language of the natives at that time called
by the natives? It wasn't hindustani, it wasn't Khari boli, it wasn't
hinduvi or even Hindi because from your articles, most of these terms
were coined by that Brit.

Post by Zafar
If Lallu Lal didn't know Urdu, he would not have been that successful
in keeping the Pero-Arabic words out of Prem Sagar. So many of these
words had been intermixed in to day-to-day language that it they were
difficult to identify for somebody familiar only with Sanskrit-Hindi."

Someone said something about Lallu Lal also, and I also find it hard
to digest that a few writers managed to make the masses believe that
there were two different languages .. could be true, but still hard to
digest, wouldn't you say?

Post by Zafar
Another prominent New Hindi writer of the College was Sadal Mitr. Says
"Gilchrist ne ... aik din aagyaa dee k adhiyaa tum Ramayun ko aisee
bolee meN karo jis meN Faris, Arabi na aave. tab se maiN is ko KhaRi
Boli meN karne lagaa."

to kyaa is se pahle Ramayan aisii boli meiN thi jismeiN Farsi aur
Arabi ke alfaaz the??? but wasn't Ramayan written in Sanskrit? If it
was, what happened to Sanskrit in our history? When Panini wrote that
treaty of his on Sanskrit, he somewhat froze the evolution of
Sanskrit, describing it .. "perfect" or "complete" , but was the
public speaking Sanskrit at that point? Of course, with Ramayan in
Sanskrit, I am guessing ppl were able to read that and I'm also
guessing not everybody was able to read in those times, but when did
Sanskrit's grammar started changing to what became urdu grammar (the
language which you said is the same as Hindi but with more
Perso-arabic words), basically, where did the Urdu Grammar come from?
was there already a language being spoken which was derived from
Sanskrit and when the mughal invastion happened, the vocabulary of the
native language started getting richer in Perso-arabic words, but the
grammar remained the same, if that happened, then why call the
language "Urdu" which would obviously be a name that would be invented
then, or reKhtaa (where does this word come from?) or even "Hindi",
why not call it what it was called back then? And of course, it
wasn't Hindustani, nor Khari Boli .. because u showed that Gilchrist
invented these names.

Post by Zafar
"Shankuntalaa kaa doosraa tarjuma 'KhaRi Boli' yaa Hindustaan kee
Khaalis boli (sterling tongue of India) meN hai. Hindustani [that is,
Urdu] se muKhtalif ye sirf is baat meN hai k Arabi o Farsi kaa lafz
chhaanT liyaa jaataa hai."
(cited in Gyanchand Jain, 1981)

again... to Shakuntala kaa pahla tarjuma ek aisii zabaan meiN thaa
jismeiN arabi-o-farsi ke alfaaz bhaari taadaad meiN the.. aur jo
"original version" tha, vo to sanskrit meiN hi hoga.
Don't you think thats interesting to note? How did people recite it
to each other before the Mughal Invasion when Perso-arabic words were
not part of the vocabulary and which means, when the first translation
was not available? Did they do it in Sanskrit?

Post by Zafar
Prem Sagar, he was actually inventing an entirely new language."

That is DEFINITELY hard to swallow. I think its IMPOSSIBLE to assume
that NO such language existed in India before. If Urdu was mainly a
language full of Perso-Arabic words, it definitely TOOK the grammar
from something that existed here before, because the grammar is
certainly NOT Perso-Arabic from what we see. otherwise, I wouldn't
have any problems understanding Farsi or Arabic, haina? :)
so this comment seems really ignorant from the part of the author to
assume that no such language existed in India before. What could
probably be the case would be to, and just an assumption here, to give
back the language to the people by taking out the Perso-Arabic words,
which should not have been there in the first place.

Post by Zafar
. The above-mentioned theory that the Sanskritized Hindi was fashioned
in the mode of Persianized Urdu was first proposed by Dr. Tarachand. I
was against it then but now I admit that Tarachand was right." (A
Polyglot Nation and Its Linguistics, 1973)

and what mode was persianized urdu fashioned in??:)

Post by Zafar
And now the big question whether these are different languages *now*.
And my humble opinion is, I don't think so! Various scholars have
written extensively written on the subject but the simple linguistic
principle is that languages are evaluated, categorized and compared by
their "verbs", not "nouns." The reason being that the nouns-universe
of any living language is extremely volatile; nouns enter and leave at
a break-neck pace. On the other hand, the verbs stay fairly constant
and are accepted/modified/replaced/rejected over a much longer period
of time. Also, verbs are the most commonly used words in any language.
Let's see where modern Hindi and modern Urdu stand when viewed from
this point of view.

after saying all those things above, I'd have to say, you have me
almost convinced that Hindi and Urdu are the same languages, but I
still have hard time believing it. The only reason is: Yes, I
understand the grammar of Urdu, even though my mother tongue is Hindi.
I MAY understand the gist of a sentence because I understand the
grammar, but will I really understand the sentence if I have no clue
what words they are saying, the nouns etc. ..>??I still say the same,
i sit down and read an Urdu Newspaper, there are so many words that
are right away foreign to what I understand Hindi as. I sit down and
read the Hindi Newspaper, there are so many words that are foreign to
what I understand Urdu to be. Yet grammar remains the same, verbs are
quite similar, but what if I still can't get what the author is
saying, shall i consider myself to be really bad in my mother tongue
which is Hindi? :)

Post by Zafar
In any event, the nouns in both modern Hindi and Urdu, in both India
and Pakistan, are being replaced by English words. A very common
HINDI
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
URDU
Hamaaree responsibility hai k ham har situation meN apnee national
language use kareN aur foreign words ko avoid kareN.
So see? One language, two scripts!

this last touch was just perfect to support your conclusion :)
now my very little feeble argument, this is colloquial language right?
Hindi / Urdu, colloquialy may be same, similar, but litterary they
are very different from each other. bhai i have a lot of friends who
speak Hindi only, shudh hindi jise kahte haiN, vaisii hindi, unke
saamne maiN ghaltii se kabhi koi Urdu ka sh'er bol douN na, to vo
chakkar meiN paR jaate haiN! I know Surinder ji thinks of this as a
very weak argument, but it is none-the-less an argument. If languages
were same, wouldn't we understand the litterature easily? I mean, I
really understand our Hindi litterature with much more ease than I do
the Urdu litterature. Watching Ramayan on TV, the vocabulary rich of
Sanskrit, considered Hindi of course, play it in front of an Urdu
speaking Pakistani guy, and lets see how much of it would he
understand and then ask him if he thinks what he is listening to is
HIS language??


Regards,

Amit Malhotra

Post by Zafar
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar

[Zafar]

Dear Amit saahib:

[Sorry for the long delay; I was out of town on vacation]

I thank you and all other friends who wrote words of encouragement on
my posts. Many issues have been raised and many questions have been
asked. I'm replying to your queries but I'll try to incorporate other
issue as well.

I never said Hindi/Hinduvi was coined by that proud Brit. I remember
giving some examples of the usage of the terms from eras before Vasco
da Gama figured out how to reach India! :)

THE ORIGINS OF URDU (OLD HINDI):
Everybody "and his neighbor" knows that Urdu is a hybrid language and
was *born* after the invasion of the Perso-Arabic-speaking Muslims
when they had to interact with the native population. Right? Wrong! On
many accounts.

We see that Urdu is a totally independent language and apart from many
loan-words, it has nothing to do with Persian. The grammar has
remained almost entirely intact. The Persian izaafat - as elucidated
by UVR ji - can be easily regarded of as borrowed phrase and not
grammatical rule. No doubt there was a time when some writers did
employ the izaafat with Urdu words. For example:

"va'ada e kal" mat kar ai zaalim k tujh bin kal naheeN
[Shah Hatim]

Or more poignantly

chaaho k pee ke pag tale apnaa vatan karo [pag: paa'oN, foot]
avval apas ko ijz meN *naqsh e charan* karo! [apas ko: Khud ko, to
yourself]
[Wali Deccani]

But the fact remains that the trend could never catch on to become an
essential baggage of the language.

Some people also mention the method of pluralization of some
Perso-Arabic words in Urdu, like kitaab --> kutub; masjid -->
masaajid; manzil --> manaazil, etc. But the argument is ditto: the
local "Urdu" words are not allowed to be pluralized using this rule.
Just imagine bandar --> banaadir or mandir --> manaadir :)

But leaving grammar aside, Persian also could not affect some
fundamental nouns of Urdu like basic relationships (maaN, baap, beTaa,
beTee, bhaa'ee, behn, maamooN, naanaa, daadaa, chachaa and, even,
saas!), basic numbers (aik, do, teen, chaar, paanch, das, bees, sau,
etc.), important organs (aankh, naak, kaan, moonh, honT, haath,
Taang), and so on.

Also, according to Martynyuk's statistical article (referred to in
UHJKN-3), the 20 most frequent words in "written" Urdu language (which
-- according to my limited mathematical "skills" -- constitute about
38.4% of the entire Urdu corpus) do not contain a single Perso-Arabic
word!

This is sufficient to prove that Urdu was not "invented" by Muslims
and was already present in Delhi and adjoining areas at the time of
Qutubuddin Aybak's conquest of Delhi in 1193 (Gyanchand, 1984).

Now what was the name of that language, its characteristics, its
literature, etc. ... we don't know a thing. What we know is that this
language developed out of an Apabhramsa that was spoken in an area
stretching from Delhi to Meerut. It was formerly thought that this
Apabhramsa was the Sorseni Apabhramsa but this belief is now
thoroughly dispelled (for example, by Dr. Shaukat Sabzwari, 1987).

SOME PHILOLOGY
An over-simplified map of the course of development of modern IndoPak
languages:

Munda Languages (5000 BC to 3000 BC) --> Old Dravidian langauges (3000
to 1500 BC) --> Indo-Arian (before 1500 BC) --> Vedic Sanskrit/Old
Indo-Arian (1500 BC to 1000 BC) --> Classical Sanskrit/Mid Indo-Arian
(1000 BC to 500 BC) --> Prakrits (500 BC to AD) --> Apabhramsas (500
to 1000) --> Modern Languages (1000 to present)
(Adopted from Gyanchand, 1984; Faridkoti, 1972)

Prakrits were the vernaculars spoken before the Aryans (prak, before;
krit, made). We see that even before the Aryans, India was a thickly
populated country with great civilizations flourishing in various
parts of it. Amri-Nal civilization, for example, is 7000 years old,
whereas the great Moenjo-Daro-Harappa (which was the most advanced
civilization of the world at the time) prospered some 5000 years ago.
Obviously these people spoke diverse languages, which changed over the
centuries and were called Prakrits. Pali is one of such Prakrit while
the Ashokan Prakrit is another.

Apabhramsa (disfigured languages) were nothing but the advanced forms
of Prakrits. Subsequently, these Apabhramsas gave rise to modern
Indian languages. Sorseni Apabhramsa, for example, developed into
Braj, whereas Punjabi grew out of Peshachi Apabhramsa. As noted
before, the jury is still out to determine the "mother" Apabhramsa of
Urdu! (Gyanchand, 1981; Sabzwari, 1987)

CHIRIYAA LAA'EE CHAAVAL KAA DAANA
This brings us back to 1193 when the Sultans of the Slave Dynasty
chose Delhi as their capital. The above-mentioned unnamed
mother-of-Urdu Apabhramsa was spoken by the local populace -- which
evidently was in vast majority -- so the Muslims had to learn this
language in order to communicate with the locals (the same story was
repeated some seven centuries later with the British). What happened
in the 12th century was a copy of what was to unfold in the 19th: the
local language (the same in both cases) got influenced by the
"language of the king," and borrowed from it loan-words, keeping its
grammatical structure inert. But as no new language was created in the
19th century, no new language was generated in the 12th century as
well. [Please note that this does not imply that the language did not
change since, it certainly has, as all natural languages do].

The question is -- according to the popular belief -- If Urdu was
really created by the interaction of Muslims and the locals, why no
new language was produced in other parts of India - for example,
Punjab, Sindh and Bengal -- where a similar interaction had taken
place? Why not in the Sarhad province, where the entire
Pashtu-speaking population converted to Islam?

And the theory that Urdu is a mishmash of several languages: this
"theory" has been rebuked by many linguists, both Western and native,
but none more expressively than Dr. Sabzwari:

aik nazariya (theory) jise maiN Ghair-sanjeeda (non-serious) samajhtaa
hooN ye hai k Urdu khichRee hai: chiRiyaa laa'yee chaaval kaa daana,
chiRaa laayaa mong kaa daana, donoN ne mil kar khichRee pakaa'yee.
(1987)

The fact is that no living language of the world can be immune to
outside influences. Look at English: it has borrowed extensively from
languages from around the world -- including Urdu -- but nobody calls
it an amalgam of those languages. This borrowing occurred in many
other Indian languages as well. Take the example of Guru Granth
"Sahib", written in Punjabi -- a language generally not considered a
hodge-podge. Composed mostly in the early sixteenth century, the Guru
Granth contains 1343 Perso-Arabic words (counting one word once)!
Example:

Naanak "duniyaa" kaise ho'ee
"saalak" mat na rahio ko'ee
bhaa'ee bandhee heet chukaayaa
"duniyaa" kaaran "deen" ganvaayaa

and

"dil" darvaa'ee jo kare "darveshi" "dil" raas
"ishq" "muhabbat" Naankaa, lekhaa karte paas
(Jamil Jalibi, 1983)

WHAT THE HINDUS WERE SPEAKING/WRITING?
The same thing! Call it Old Hindi or Urdu. The point is that Muslims
did not bring this language with them from Iran, Turan or Khurasan.
They learned it here from the natives! Therefore, just as modern
heavily English-infused Urdu/Hindi cannot be dubbed as Christian; it's
misleading to call Urdu a Muslim language. I've already mentioned that
the British were surprised to see this language as the lingua franca
of the country.

The Nagri script was used but occasionally; modified Persian was the
preferred lipee for the lingo. The reason being that Persian was the
official language throughout India for the better of the millennium
(even in the non-Muslim states of Marathas in the South and Sikhs in
Punjab) and this was the official script. As far as I know, only in
1900 the (permissive, not exclusive) use of Nagri was allowed for the
first time as a courts script by the British (along with Persian
script). [It's another story that the original wording of the decree
"Nagri and Persian character" was later silently altered by the
Government of India as "Hindi and Urdu languages." (Alok Rai, 1995.
This article "Making a Difference: Hindi 1880-1930" is available
online at www.urdustudies.com/pdf/10/17making.pdf
<http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/10/17making.pdf>)]

There were hundreds of Hindus who were writing in Urdu but as Urdu was
beginning to be dubbed as a Muslim language towards the end of the
19th century, the Urdu (Muslim) literary historians started to remove
Hindu writers from Urdu canon; with the same thing happening in Hindi.
Ramchandra Shukla, for example, in his "Hindi Sahitiya kaa itihaas"
does not mention the 18th century Urdu poets (the fact notwithstanding
that they called their mode of expression Hindi). On the other hand,
Aab e Hayaat (1880), by far the most influential Urdu "tazkira,"
mentions only one Hindu poet, Diya Shankar ?Naseem' (1811-1844), and
that too as a footnote!

It's the fruit of this policy that today, the Urdu-wallahs are totally
unaware of such Urdu lexicographers as Ajay Chand Bhatnagar, who wrote
an Urdu dictionary in as early as 1550, Sarab Sikh ?Deevana'
(1728-1788), a polyglot "Ustaad" of Urdu and Tek Chand ?Bahar' (d
1766) whose dictionary is considered the most authentic Persian
dictionary. Other Urdu stalwarts like Budh Singh ?Qalandar', Kanji Mal
?Sabaa', Jaswant Singh ?Parwana', Brundaban ?Khush-gau', Kaliyan Singh
?Aashiq', Raja Kishan Das, Lala Ghanshyam Das ?Aasi' and many more
have been forgotten forever. Masters like Raja Ram Narayan ?MauzooN'
and Manoo Lal ?Saba' are remembered by only one she'er each:

GhazaalaaN tum to vaaqif ho kaho MajnooN ke marne kee
divaana mar gayaa aaKhir to veeraane pe kyaa guzree!

and

charKh ko kab ye saleeqa hai sitam-gaaree meN
ko'ee ma'ashooq hai is parda e zangaaree meN

*****

I'd like to conclude by invoking Alok Rai again:

"The point to note in all this is that each side is forced to deny
what both sides know - AND NEED TO KNOW - is the truth: that the
common people have, over the centuries, evolved a rich and various and
shared tongue. If there weren't ONE language at the heart of the
conflict, there would be no problem, [and] no need for strenuous
differentiating."

aadaab,

Zafar

[Surjit Singh]

Post by Zafar
"The point to note in all this is that each side is forced to deny
what both sides know - AND NEED TO KNOW - is the truth: that the
common people have, over the centuries, evolved a rich and various and
shared tongue. If there weren't ONE language at the heart of the
conflict, there would be no problem, [and] no need for strenuous
differentiating."

An interesting review of this book by Alok Rai (grandson of Munshi Prem
Chand) by Dawn is here

http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/24/fea.htm#2

Post by Zafar
aadaab,
Zafar

[Sudhir]

Zafar Saheb:

Can you please re-confirm the Shair's name for following couplet

GhazaalaaN tum to vaaqif ho kaho MajnooN ke marne kee
divaana mar gayaa aaKhir to veeraane pe kyaa guzree!


Is it 'MauzooN' or 'Saba'



I think there is some Hindi Film song (cann't remember which
one it is) , which has a para which is similar to this



Thanks

-------------------------------

Post by Zafar
Masters like Raja Ram Narayan ?MauzooN'
GhazaalaaN tum to vaaqif ho kaho MajnooN ke marne kee
divaana mar gayaa aaKhir to veeraane pe kyaa guzree!

[Zafar]

Post by Sudhir
Can you please re-confirm the Shair's name for following couplet
GhazaalaaN tum to vaaqif ho kaho MajnooN ke marne kee
divaana mar gayaa aaKhir to veeraane pe kyaa guzree!
Is it 'MauzooN' or 'Saba'

The she'er is by MauzooN and not the other guy, whose acutal taKhallus
is "Safa" not "Saba." The latter being a typo.

Mir Hassan has chronicled in his famous anthology that MauzooN
composed this she'er extemporaneously when he heard the news of the
defeat of Siraj ud Daula by the British at the battle of Plassey (I
guess in 1757).

Post by Sudhir
I think there is some Hindi Film song (cann't remember which
one it is) , which has a para which is similar to this

I've not heard that song but there is a Ghalib she'er (probably
inspired):

har ik makaan ko hai makeeN se sharaf, 'Asad'
MajooN jo mar gayaa hai to jangal udaas hai!

Zafar

[Sudhir]

It seems that the descendants of this 'GhazaalaaN' kept the family tradition.


One can see Majnu Shammi Kapoor 'Bahao Aansoo' before a pair of them,
on the inlay card of film, featuring his screen persona and Miss Laila.


Sudhir

--------------------------

Post by Zafar

Post by Sudhir
Can you please re-confirm the Shair's name for following couplet
GhazaalaaN tum to vaaqif ho kaho MajnooN ke marne kee
divaana mar gayaa aaKhir to veeraane pe kyaa guzree!

The she'er is by MauzooN and not the other guy, whose acutal taKhallus
is "Safa" not "Saba." The latter being a typo.
Zafar