Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
I would say that the common Muslim convert of say 4 centuries years ago continued to use his native Sanskritic vocabulary. The profuse infusion of foreign vocabulary was largely limited to the aristocratic class and their hangers-on.
The fact of the matter is that Urdu can be, and in practice is very individual. Each individual, that is, defines his own version, as he/she speaks. When I speak to a Bihari, my Hindi takes on cadences and accents which are relaxed and flowing, and largely Sanskritic but with convenient words in Urdu included, with which both of us are perfectly comfortable. I am sometimes (not always) able to spot somebody from Siwan district, as a Muslim, from the mix he uses, the subtly greater portion of Persian words that he uses. In Lucknow, I am spotted as a gauche Bengali the moment I open my mouth and they hear my vowel sounds, forget about my vocabulary, which is there a source of mild mirth, though so eminently acceptable a few degrees further east. Further on, in Saharanpur, which I have been visiting these past few weeks, it is neither vowel nor vocabulary: those accursed people speak at 78 rpm (think of a Malayali speaking Malayalam, or Tamil, or Hindi, or English) and it is difficult to understand what has just been said. It doesn't help that the place is close to the meeting point of four states, UP, Uttarakhand, Haryana and HP, and traces of regional accent keep swirling around. By and large, it is the huge influence of Haryanvi/Rajasthani that scuppers us bhaiyas from the far east.
This is the place where one is forcefully made aware of the divide starting in Prakrit times a few centuries before Christ, more than a millennium before Islam, when Ardhamagadhi dominated the east, and the whole Gangetic plain, and Sauraseni was seen by Indian language teachers (wrongly) as a dialect of that.
Punjab was creating its own language and vocabulary even further removed than this split, based on Sauraseni, and first distinctly heard through Baba Farid in the 11th century; even in historical memory, Punjabi has been splitting into its locational dialects, and Hindko, Potohari or Potwari and Saraiki are today known as distinct languages, that were once considered dialects. I suspect that a similar process is taking place in the east, and Bengali is dividing into two, as the usages of our Bangladeshi linguistic kin become more and more settled at the popular level; it is only a matter of time before their spoken version finds its way into literary forms and supplants 'standard' Bengali.
But Urdu is still the language of convenience in north India and it is quite clear that only a handful of pedants and pundits will speak 'pure' unsullied Hindi replete with tatsam words, which come out sounding like the lady from the TV skit shown earlier in this thread. I say that Urdu is the language of convenience because every one who says 'intezar' instead of 'apeksha' has slipped off the tight and narrow path that is 'pure' Hindi, and is speaking Urdu, even if it is an Urdu with a vocabulary of one non-tatsam word. It is possible to use this very convenient vehicle because of its grammatical structure being one that people from Assam to the Punjab, and from Hyderabad to Kashmir, can comprehend and use in daily use.
As for the original question, how much Sanskrit and how much Persian, there are theoretically more than a billion answers to that question, considering that each individual effectively defines his or her own Urdu. Every day, every time he or she opens his or her mouth.
It is a BIG FALLACY to think of Urdu as the language of the Muslim invaders of the Sub Continent! I admit that I am beginning to forget the 'history of Urdu language' as taught to me in Karachi but I can vaguely remember (not going to Google) that Urdu evolved as way for the disparate groups of people in the Mughal army to communicate with each other. I am too ignorant to claim anything more than that!
My personal--very personal opinion-- opinion after interacting with Indians (in both India and north America), with the hub of Urdu in Pakistan (Karachi) is that Urdu is distinct language more beautiful than Hindi or Sanskrit even if heavily derived from both. The so-called influence of Indian movies is not new--there was a time in early Pakistan when even the television barely existed and so the Indian movies were powerful and dominant. But that did not let significant 'soft Indian power' to infiltrate Pakistanis.
Now, having said all that. I have to say that I find Sanskrit--especially the religious hymns--to be beautiful along the line of Latin, or Persian. The way the modern Indians speak 'Hindu' is grating to my earns. That is the 'SaDak Chap' (street talk) version of Urdu as we know in Karachi.
Again, another very effective summary. Much appreciated.