how much of Urdu is Sanskrit based and persian based?

[neokautilya2]

defiantly more than you. Most northern pakistanis actually have a lot more indo european genes, you can just look at their faces and tell that. Most indians have native south indians genes, again you easily tell that by looking at them

kyu bhai face cream laga k gore ban k aaoge kya..... we are eagerly waiting for the proof????

 

[Rig Vedic]

Re Ikshwakus - besides the Ramayana and Mahabharata we also have the Jain literature. The 23rd Tirthankara, Parsvanath, is dated to around 877 BC, and as per Jain literature, their earlier Tirthankaras were from the Ikshwaku clan.

Buddhist texts also say that the ancestors of the Buddha were Ikshwakus (see e.g. Mahavamsa).

 

[jandk]

I have you moron, you look exactly the same as other indians and not dardic people lol. You are part of the Dravidian race yet you are so ashamed of it

Btw how are kashmiri pandits dravidian?? they are kashmiri. Kashmiri = dardic race. Your madrassa background is showing.
And dravidian is not a race... Dravidians too are a caucasoid people who adapted dark skin because of the climate. Don't confuse dravidian with tribals.

 

[INDIC]

so do u have aryan genes???

Hey will even declare Turk, Arabs and Mongols as Aryans

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

That's because he only has a "Indo European" face, he probably forgot to borrow a brain .

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Languages branch from one another, so one language can have many off-spring. There are several larger families that lead to smaller and smaller families that lead out to the languages still surviving today and some estimate that there are 6,900 languages still alive today

Languages can change based on patterned shifts in sounds (phonological changes), based on changes in sentence structure (syntactic changes), and based on the addition of new words, whether borrowed from other languages or created by that language (e.g. ‘to text someone&#8217. All of these changes have occurred at some point in the past to make Urdu the language it is today.

Urdu was structurally similar to Delhi’s Hindustani dialect but it contained a great deal of Persian and Turkic vocabulary along with some words of Arabic origin. Another difference is that Urdu is written in the Arabic alphabet instead of in the Indian Devanagari alphabet. Standardization of the Urdu language took place during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. During this period the formal forms of Urdu and Hindi began to diverge. Hindi was considered the language of Hindus. Words of Persian, Turkic or Arabic origin were deliberately removed from the language. Words from Sanskrit, the language of ancient Hindu religious texts, were added. Urdu, on the other hand, came to be considered a Muslim language. Urdu borrowed more heavily on Persian and Arabic and attempts were made to minimize Sanskrit influences. The political division between the two countries helped to facilitate further divergence between formal and literary Urdu and Hindi. Everyday spoken Urdu and Hindi, however, are intelligible with one another.

The development of formal Urdu and Hindi as separate languages was carried out deliberately in the nineteenth century as part of attempts by Muslims and Hindus to emphasize their distinct identities. The architects of formal Urdu deliberately adopted more Persian and Arabic words. The architects of Hindi on the other hand, tried to purge the Persian, Turkic and Arabic words that had entered everyday Hindustani speech as a result of centuries of contact with people who spoke these languages. The political division of Pakistan and India has helped to facilitate the development of separate literature and formal linguistic rules for Urdu and Hindi. In everyday speech, however, Urdu and Hindi still resemble each other so closely that some argue that they are a single language.

Source of this post : http://www.helium.com/items/2105705-the-origins-of-the-urdu-language

 

[Bang Galore]

As per legends recorded around 900 BC (Mahabharata), they were preeminent. Also in the Ramayana, which is older than the Mahabharata.

The Rg veda speaks of a time much before 900 BCE. So obviously the Ikshwakus were not mentioned.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Rg veda speaks of a time much before 900 BCE. So obviously the Ikshwakus were not mentioned.

Nothing "obvious" that some particular clan would be mentioned or not mentioned. It may well be that the text itself focuses on some clans and some geographical areas (in this case the Puru clan, settled on the banks of the Saraswati), regardless of the preeminence other contemporary clans in other areas.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Standardization of the Urdu language took place during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. During this period the formal forms of Urdu and Hindi began to diverge. Hindi was considered the language of Hindus. Words of Persian, Turkic or Arabic origin were deliberately removed from the language. Words from Sanskrit, the language of ancient Hindu religious texts, were added. Urdu, on the other hand, came to be considered a Muslim language. Urdu borrowed more heavily on Persian and Arabic and attempts were made to minimize Sanskrit influences.

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.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Languages branch from one another, so one language can have many off-spring. There are several larger families that lead to smaller and smaller families that lead out to the languages still surviving today and some estimate that there are 6,900 languages still alive today

Languages can change based on patterned shifts in sounds (phonological changes), based on changes in sentence structure (syntactic changes), and based on the addition of new words, whether borrowed from other languages or created by that language (e.g. ‘to text someone’). All of these changes have occurred at some point in the past to make Urdu the language it is today.

Urdu was structurally similar to Delhi’s Hindustani dialect but it contained a great deal of Persian and Turkic vocabulary along with some words of Arabic origin. Another difference is that Urdu is written in the Arabic alphabet instead of in the Indian Devanagari alphabet. Standardization of the Urdu language took place during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. During this period the formal forms of Urdu and Hindi began to diverge. Hindi was considered the language of Hindus. Words of Persian, Turkic or Arabic origin were deliberately removed from the language. Words from Sanskrit, the language of ancient Hindu religious texts, were added. Urdu, on the other hand, came to be considered a Muslim language. Urdu borrowed more heavily on Persian and Arabic and attempts were made to minimize Sanskrit influences. The political division between the two countries helped to facilitate further divergence between formal and literary Urdu and Hindi. Everyday spoken Urdu and Hindi, however, are intelligible with one another.

The development of formal Urdu and Hindi as separate languages was carried out deliberately in the nineteenth century as part of attempts by Muslims and Hindus to emphasize their distinct identities. The architects of formal Urdu deliberately adopted more Persian and Arabic words. The architects of Hindi on the other hand, tried to purge the Persian, Turkic and Arabic words that had entered everyday Hindustani speech as a result of centuries of contact with people who spoke these languages. The political division of Pakistan and India has helped to facilitate the development of separate literature and formal linguistic rules for Urdu and Hindi. In everyday speech, however, Urdu and Hindi still resemble each other so closely that some argue that they are a single language.

Source of this post : The origins of the Urdu language - by Jerome Carter - Helium

At the end of it all, this portion in bold really sums it up.

 

[Meengla]

Well we learned in school Chand/Suraj.
However, Urdu is a very versatile language.
It depends on the user and what they want to do with it.
Allama Iqbal had the literary command of a Master.
In some of his poems he uses Suraj, and in some he uses Aftab.
Urdu has always in my opinion been an evolving language.
Even english words have been incorporated.

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.

 

[neokautilya2]

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.

nice post...........

 

[jandk]

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.

The sadak chap language is not hindi. that's just slang. pure hindi is heard on hindi news, doordarshan etc...

 

[Bang Galore]

Nothing "obvious" that some particular clan would be mentioned or not mentioned. It may well be that the text itself focuses on some clans and some geographical areas, regardless of the preeminence other contemporary clans in other areas.

Was just playing around because of the timeline mentioned by you. You are correct, the Ikshwakus were a prominent tribe during the Rg vedic period. However, as you mentioned they were the "Solar race", the Rg veda concerns itself with the "Lunar race" of the Ailas (Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus and Purus) and does not concern itself with the second most important dynasty of the Rg veda, the Ikshwakus. The word is mentioned once in the Rg veda but only while referring to the sun. A tribe of the Ikshwakus, the Trksis is mentioned twice more but that too only because of help rendered to the Purus. It is only the Ailas & more specifically the Purus that the Rg veda is concerned with.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Was just playing around because of the timeline mentioned by you. You are correct, the Ikshwakus were a prominent tribe during the Rg vedic period. However, as you mentioned they were the "Solar race", the Rg veda concerns itself with the "Lunar race" of the Ailas (Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus and Purus) and does not concern itself with the second most important dynasty of the Rg veda, the Ikshwakus. The word is mentioned once in the Rg veda but only while referring to the sun. A tribe of the Ikshwakus, the Trksis is mentioned twice more but that too only because of help rendered to the Purus. It is only the Ailas & more specifically the Purus that the Rg veda is concerned with.

Thanks, I had not heard of the Rig Vedic Triksi-Ikshwakus.