Indo Aryan Languages of South Asia

[SIPRA]

Kash aisa hota. Par mera khud ka thikana nahi hai. Meri naukri chali gayi hai aur mera yaha PDF pe ana band ho sakta hai due to money issues.

If you are not joking and what you are saying is true; then I pray that you get a very good job, in your chosen profession.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

If you are not joking and what you are saying is true; then I pray that you get a very good job, in your chosen profession.

It would be evidence that prayers/duas don't work every time.

- PRTP GWD

 

[SIPRA]

It would be evidence that prayers/duas don't work every time.

Prayer is a sort of filler of the gap or vacuum between our extremely limited and constrained comprehension of the existence and the unfathomable ultimate reality, which we totally fail to grasp.

"Dil mat ganwa, khabar na sahi, saer hi sahi
Ae bay dimagh, aaina tamsaal daar hae"
(Ghalib)

 

[Rafeh]

Urdu is marvel of PakCivilisation...which is in itself The Synthesis of the entire IslamicWorld.... so in essence Urdu is the Language of Muslims.... a proto UnifiedLanguage of the IslamicWorld.

From music to architecture ...from cloths to cusines... we brought Civilisation to Hindustan. Even the word Hindu is Ours....

The Heartland Pakistan is the inheritor of the Synthesis of at least 1000 years...and before that many mellania @Rafeh

Sanskrit is Ours....

Any Pakistani can speak Urdu .... and with a bit of education good Urdu... since it is OurNaturalLanuage.

So this is insulting to even have a thread that classifies OurLanguage to be Gangu.... and that hindi is a bastard version of Urdu. Period.

The discussion must be more about Urdu Dynamics, it is ability to absorb anything and Urdufy it... same as Pakistan... we Pakistanify everything/everyone... that is The Heartland!

Due to the presence of guests and other commitments I can’t write much but I will add the following.

Sanskrit is the language of Aryan people who arrived from Russian steppe and have largely nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of current Indian people. Whether they like it or not, accept it or not that is the reality. Majority of Indians are lower casts who have even by their own religious texts have nothing to do with “arya smajh”. Even higher casts largely do not have aryan genes.

Coming back, the only known truly large-scale Aryan settlements were established in Peshawar Valley, taxilla among other places in Punjab as well as northern areas in Kashmir. They also existed of course in Baluchistan. From Punjab these Aryans spread to Sindh.

ONLY a small number of priests settle down in India where they declared himself to be representative of various gods, a master race off course and started religious shrines and temples and where they enforced earlier versions of Sanskrit as the main religious language. They were largely fair in skin so that was probably basis of their rule. Overtime however these so called high casts started marrying/raping the local population and their future generation lost a lot of those aryan genes. Some high casts are made up that is whoever gets rich in india, moves to different area and declares themselves to be a “brahman” etc. (the so called fake high casts).

In short, daily forced use of Sanskrit gradually lead to Europeanization of the grammar of native Indian regional languages.

That is overwhelming majority of Indian people remain the same but only their language became Indo-Aryanized. In other words most Indians are native people of India speaking non-native versions of their earlier languages.

Some aryan derivatives such as Scythians, Kurdish people, Greek settlers etc, never even left Pakistan. Furthermore aryan Iranians continued to establish colonies and settlements on the other side of the Indus River both in Punjab, Sindh, and northern Pakistan/Kashmir etc. not to mention afghans being themselves related to Aryan people largely settled in places such as Multan, Kasur, Lahore etc, in other words Pakistan only.

The point is the only people who are the true owners of Sanskrit live in Pakistan, by large and by far. That's not a good thing either. There is NOTHING great about Sanskrit.

Of course Indian people are welcome to believe otherwise. Once again do note that haplogroup or ancestry testing has nothing to do with actual human genome.

In five or 10 years’ time frame, we will be able to have full human genome testing within our homes. That will definitely lead to the already obvious reality.

Which is while maybe 15% or so of Pakistanis may have some relationship to northern India, rest are collections of a large number of people outside of Pakistan, with having nothing to do at least racially with the vast majority of Indian people. Which makes no difference and should make no difference to indian identity. They themselves are mixture of difference races/ethnic groups.

In fact it would be seen that even within Pakistan most people are genetically distinct from each other. Though Pakistanis will still cluster closely together from genetic point of view.

The point is since urdu is is derived from Sanskrit as well as other aryan related languages such as Iranian, Pashto, Punjabi, sindhi (having their word roots) among others, it’s a language that was imposed upon Indian people rather than something that naturally belongs to them. Yes modern Arabs themselves are Eurasian people with Aryan genes gained from both southern Europeans as well as aryan migration from central Asia. Even Turkish people of modern Turkey have largely aryan genetics.

Unfortunately a lot of such research is only available in Russian, French and other non-English languages. Such research is "free from indian biases" since they do not include indian authers. Anyone who has friends speaking these languages should jointly search and understand more about this topic. I read and learn so much my whole life through self study and through interacting with others with the aim to just understand one question: who are these Pakistani people. I can’t remember where I read what. I leave it up to you to do your own research or wait for the full human genome mapping technologies that will enable an individual to test their genes at home. Meantime its pretty clear that Sanskrit has as little to do with general Indian population as English has to do with Pakistan.

Though india can accept it as part of their religious affiliations.

Furthermore that Sanskrit itself is derivative of earlier indo-iranian languages and a mixture of other closely related iranic/central asian languages and later transformed into its present form due to mixing of various other speakers of related/not related languages as various people came into contact with each other.

Aryans themselves were a clusters of large number of different people from euroasian region.

 

[k s ahmed]

v good post..
i made these graphics to teach students, the history of urdu, based on my research.

 

[Mrityunjay Rai]

Hindustani is the old name for Urdu when Muslims ruled Hindustan. Since, Hindustan no longer exists and the Muslim educated class had been wiped out or forced to flee to Pakistan by the British and Hindus, it no longer exists in India. Urdu in its true form is a dialect of Dari, which was the official language of the Dilli Sultanat, Ghaznavi, Ghori, and Mughal Empire. Afghanistan still speaks Dari as their main language today.

Hindi is a relatively recent language, being a manipulated version of the Urdu language where Arabic, Farsi/Dari, and Turkish words were removed to add archaic Sanskrit words and other words from South Indian languages or Bengali/Pali.



Totally wrong here, if you speak another Pakistani language like Pakistani Punjabi, Hindko, or Pukhto, you will realize just how close Pakistani Urdu is to those languages.

Common street language among poor and uneducated sounds Indian because of heavy influence of Bollywood, but if you listen to college professors, politicians, poets, and religious leaders, you can tell that true Urdu is unintelligible from its bastardized version, Hindi.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi here is speaking proper Urdu.

Yeh Hindi is manipulated version of Urdu
I think Prithviraj Raso was written in Arebic in 1149. I even don't want to mention great Amir Khusro's work.

v good post..
i made these graphics to teach students, the history of urdu, based on my research.
View attachment 596788 View attachment 596789

Your graphics is flawed seriously flawed.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

Urdu and Hindi are the same language, there's no debate about this. Very slight differences as Urdu has more loanwords from Farsi and Hindi from Sanskrit, but they are 95% the same.

I'm American with Pakistani roots interested in South Asian history, linguistics, and culture.

American with pakistani roots that focuses his work on india. I've seen your other "maps". Urdu and hindi are not the samething

Hindustani is the old name for Urdu when Muslims ruled Hindustan. Since, Hindustan no longer exists and the Muslim educated class had been wiped out or forced to flee to Pakistan by the British and Hindus, it no longer exists in India. Urdu in its true form is a dialect of Dari, which was the official language of the Dilli Sultanat, Ghaznavi, Ghori, and Mughal Empire. Afghanistan still speaks Dari as their main language today.

Hindi is a relatively recent language, being a manipulated version of the Urdu language where Arabic, Farsi/Dari, and Turkish words were removed to add archaic Sanskrit words and other words from South Indian languages or Bengali/Pali.



Totally wrong here, if you speak another Pakistani language like Pakistani Punjabi, Hindko, or Pukhto, you will realize just how close Pakistani Urdu is to those languages.

Common street language among poor and uneducated sounds Indian because of heavy influence of Bollywood, but if you listen to college professors, politicians, poets, and religious leaders, you can tell that true Urdu is unintelligible from its bastardized version, Hindi.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi here is speaking proper Urdu.

Hindustan? What country was called hindustan when we ruled it?

The mainstream Urdu we speak is not really Urdu. This confusion started when Hindustani-speaking Muhajirs migrated to Pakistan and referred to their language as Urdu.

If you read up on early Urdu literature, you will see just how different it is to 'our mainstream Urdu' to the extent that most Pakistanis would not even be able to understand it. Many cannot even understand the shairs of Allama Iqbal, let alone early Urdu literature. This has led to us terming original Urdu as 'formal Urdu' or 'Persianized Urdu'. Most Pakistanis even think that our national anthem is in Farsi.


Inaccurate comparison...

The British occupation of modern-day Pakistan lasted about 100 years, they did not mingle with the population and were viewed as hostile occupiers.

The Aryans on the other-hand were a full-scale migration into the Indus Region, that absorbed the Harrapan remnants to birth our core cultures and languages.


Prakrit Languages descend from Sanskrit, primarily as regional variants. Prakrit itself is a category for non-Sanskrit Indo-Aryan languages that naturally developed out of Sanskrit. Prakrit languages were distinct from each other in the same sense that Punjabi and Bengali is.

That's what I said

Don't know about Pukhto, but Punjabi is the closest one, followed by Sindhi..

Lots of loan words in urdu considering how old pakhto is

English takes vocabulary heavily from French, and Latin. That still doesn't mean that English is a romance language, it is still considered a Germanic language.

Urdu originated in central India. A pakhto speaker and an Urdu speaker can not communicate with each other. Therefore they're languages aren't mutually intelligible

We ruled over india for centuries pakhto was spoken in all major indian cities.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

but they are 95% the same.

If they are 95% same how come i cant understand the context of the talk when safronized hindi is being spoken..I mean bollywood hindi is very different which is more of a persianised hindi..and closer to Urdu and easily intelligible due to fewer sanskrit words however actual Hindi becomes un-intelligible depending upon the ratio of vocab being used..My honest opinion the level of intelligibility for Pakistanis falls to 50%(not 95%) or below if sanskritized Hindi (the actual Hindi langauge as per state)is spoken..

Regarding categorization there is no such category as 'Hindustani languages' Hindustani itself is a language .Urdu has different dialects just like any other language..Hindavi/Hindustani/Dehlvi are not the alternate names of Urdu but the other dialects..Just like its not correct to say that Potohari and Punjabi are same its not logical to say that Urdu and Hindustani are same..
But yes they all fall under the Indo-Aryan categoory of lingos..

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

v good post..
i made these graphics to teach students, the history of urdu, based on my research.
View attachment 596788 View attachment 596789

Hello, this is really inaccurate. I would love to fix it up for you if you would like.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Hello, this is really inaccurate. I would love to fix it up for you if you would like.

Start with the phonetics, it's hilarious.
And it'll be a waste of time. It's from facebook university of bullshitting history.

Take this for example. History is not a strong suit for em, apart from these fringes who essays BS, the thread is a good read.

Furthermore that Sanskrit itself is derivative of earlier indo-iranian languages

Sanskrit is the language of Aryan people who arrived from Russian steppe

Majority of Indians are lower casts who have even by their own religious texts have nothing to do with “arya smajh”

 

[Rafeh]

Start with the phonetics, it's hilarious.
And it'll be a waste of time. It's from facebook university of bullshitting history.

Take this for example. History is not a strong suit for em, apart from these fringes who essays BS, the thread is a good read.

aryan/arian or or people of ariana are from iran and west Pakistan along with Afghanistan as this regions was called ariana from which the name Iran came from as well as the word aryan also spelled as arian. Despite what hindu religious texts says this is a historic fact. Even Sanskrit is closely related to old iranian language avestan. They are both derived from proto-iranian languages. Hence they people who spoke them did not originated in india. On indians it was imposed by small number of aryan priests who migrated and ruled vast indian populations. Early Sanskrit was a derivative of pro-iranian languages at the end.

Show us what is history is then "wanna be the same as Pakistani people".

You call your vedic texts as source of history. We use modern research as source of history. Hence our history and your history will not agree.

Only in india term north india is equal to 2/3 of the country. in Rest of the world north usually means smaller area toward the north. Even central india is called north india, in an attempt to call "north india and central and pakistan same". Why not just call whole of india north india and lump whole of Pakistan with india.

Average indians would do everything to be what they are not, central or euroasians, Aryans, scythians and what not. There is nothing special about euroasians. They are just people. I mention them because Pakistan has them. Even I avoid the term for myself.

Don't bother replying. Keep living in your own dream land, where whole of south asia is the same that too up sri-lanka. Its just linguistic similarity (i.e. hindi-urdu) that creates this delusion of the sameness, and otherwise nothing is same in general.

Why don't you people just accept the truth and accept who you are. SO that we can live according to our religion and our culture and you according to yours. This way you will more of our respect.

indo-iranian, indo-eurpean, centra-asians, euroasian, aryans, indo-aryans, indo-germanic, or just Germanic these are all interachangeable terms, in this context.

They all mean the same here.

I really don't have time for this.

 

[k s ahmed]

Hello, this is really inaccurate. I would love to fix it up for you if you would like.

You can.mentiom here what needs to be corrected. It's based on my research and I am not a researcher or scholar.

M

Start with the phonetics, it's hilarious.
And it'll be a waste of time. It's from facebook university of bullshitting history.

Take this for example. History is not a strong suit for em, apart from these fringes who essays BS, the thread is a good read.

Mr chattra. I CREATED IT. After doing some research.

Due to the presence of guests and other commitments I can’t write much but I will add the following.

Sanskrit is the language of Aryan people who arrived from Russian steppe and have largely nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of current Indian people. Whether they like it or not, accept it or not that is the reality. Majority of Indians are lower casts who have even by their own religious texts have nothing to do with “arya smajh”. Even higher casts largely do not have aryan genes.

Coming back, the only known truly large-scale Aryan settlements were established in Peshawar Valley, taxilla among other places in Punjab as well as northern areas in Kashmir. They also existed of course in Baluchistan. From Punjab these Aryans spread to Sindh.

ONLY a small number of priests settle down in India where they declared himself to be representative of various gods, a master race off course and started religious shrines and temples and where they enforced earlier versions of Sanskrit as the main religious language. They were largely fair in skin so that was probably basis of their rule. Overtime however these so called high casts started marrying/raping the local population and their future generation lost a lot of those aryan genes. Some high casts are made up that is whoever gets rich in india, moves to different area and declares themselves to be a “brahman” etc. (the so called fake high casts).

In short, daily forced use of Sanskrit gradually lead to Europeanization of the grammar of native Indian regional languages.

That is overwhelming majority of Indian people remain the same but only their language became Indo-Aryanized. In other words most Indians are native people of India speaking non-native versions of their earlier languages.

Some aryan derivatives such as Scythians, Kurdish people, Greek settlers etc, never even left Pakistan. Furthermore aryan Iranians continued to establish colonies and settlements on the other side of the Indus River both in Punjab, Sindh, and northern Pakistan/Kashmir etc. not to mention afghans being themselves related to Aryan people largely settled in places such as Multan, Kasur, Lahore etc, in other words Pakistan only.

The point is the only people who are the true owners of Sanskrit live in Pakistan, by large and by far. That's not a good thing either. There is NOTHING great about Sanskrit.

Of course Indian people are welcome to believe otherwise. Once again do note that haplogroup or ancestry testing has nothing to do with actual human genome.

In five or 10 years’ time frame, we will be able to have full human genome testing within our homes. That will definitely lead to the already obvious reality.

Which is while maybe 15% or so of Pakistanis may have some relationship to northern India, rest are collections of a large number of people outside of Pakistan, with having nothing to do at least racially with the vast majority of Indian people. Which makes no difference and should make no difference to indian identity. They themselves are mixture of difference races/ethnic groups.

In fact it would be seen that even within Pakistan most people are genetically distinct from each other. Though Pakistanis will still cluster closely together from genetic point of view.

The point is since urdu is is derived from Sanskrit as well as other aryan related languages such as Iranian, Pashto, Punjabi, sindhi (having their word roots) among others, it’s a language that was imposed upon Indian people rather than something that naturally belongs to them. Yes modern Arabs themselves are Eurasian people with Aryan genes gained from both southern Europeans as well as aryan migration from central Asia. Even Turkish people of modern Turkey have largely aryan genetics.

Unfortunately a lot of such research is only available in Russian, French and other non-English languages. Such research is "free from indian biases" since they do not include indian authers. Anyone who has friends speaking these languages should jointly search and understand more about this topic. I read and learn so much my whole life through self study and through interacting with others with the aim to just understand one question: who are these Pakistani people. I can’t remember where I read what. I leave it up to you to do your own research or wait for the full human genome mapping technologies that will enable an individual to test their genes at home. Meantime its pretty clear that Sanskrit has as little to do with general Indian population as English has to do with Pakistan.

Though india can accept it as part of their religious affiliations.

Furthermore that Sanskrit itself is derivative of earlier indo-iranian languages and a mixture of other closely related iranic/central asian languages and later transformed into its present form due to mixing of various other speakers of related/not related languages as various people came into contact with each other.

Aryans themselves were a clusters of large number of different people from euroasian region.

You wrote a lot just to say central.asia is a predominant gene in South Indians. Which is quite correct.

 

[Rafeh]

You wrote a lot just to say central.asia is a predominant gene in South Indians. Which is quite correct.

I never said that. Kindly, You need to read that carefully..

Neither south indian nor north indian have predominant central asian genes.

ONLY Pakistanis do. In india only portions of punjabis, kashmiris do.

Even in indian punjab nearly half the population is dalit now or mix dalit-punjabis who settled in indian punjab. Dalits don't have central asian genes.

IN pakistani punjab some dalits do exists as well we call them "musali" etc . They are far fewer than found in indian punjab.

Rest of the india not bordering Pakistan, don't have central asian genes as the main components, since there was NEVER a proper large settlement of central asians in mainland india.

Central asians largely settled in Pakistan ONLY.

You are confusing haplogroup tests with genes. they are NOT the same. You can read my other post somewhere on what is the difference. There is NEVER been full genome study in south asia. Also there is no such things as "south asian" are the same.

North indian have vast southern india genes when south Indians settled in north india (They came in waves over long period). North indians also have asian, austroasiatic genes which Pakistanis DON'T since there was no such settlements in Pakistan, Ever.

Pakistanis and indians are NOT the same people. there is some overlap among some people (e.g punjabi on both sides, overlap between rajasthani and sindhi people) but largely indians are distinct from Pakistan.

They just wanna be same as Pakistanis since in their eyes Pakistanis are better looking people.

Also its pointless to reply to indians. They will continue to troll with their short "troll replies" with no substance.

 

[k s ahmed]

Is it because mughals settled in Punjab area ? If not then how it can be so strongly.asserted since people.move all.the time. What is special about Pakistan region and central Asia ?

Genes = haplohab or whatever you mentioned in your post

I.am.not.indian

I never said that. Kindly, You need to read that carefully..

Neither south indian nor north indian have predominant central asian genes.

ONLY Pakistanis do. In india only portions of punjabis, kashmiris do.

Even in indian punjab nearly half the population is dalit now or mix dalit-punjabis who settled in indian punjab. Dalits don't have central asian genes.

IN pakistani punjab some dalits do exists as well we call them "musali" etc . They are far fewer than found in indian punjab.

Rest of the india not bordering Pakistan, don't have central asian genes as the main components, since there was NEVER a proper large settlement of central asians in mainland india.

Central asians largely settled in Pakistan ONLY.

You are confusing haplogroup tests with genes. they are NOT the same. You can read my other post somewhere on what is the difference. There is NEVER been full genome study in south asia. Also there is no such things as "south asian" are the same.

North indian have vast southern india genes when south Indians settled in north india (They came in waves over long period). North indians also have asian, austroasiatic genes which Pakistanis DON'T since there was no such settlements in Pakistan, Ever.

Pakistanis and indians are NOT the same people. there is some overlap among some people (e.g punjabi on both sides, overlap between rajasthani and sindhi people) but largely indians are distinct from Pakistan.

They just wanna be same as Pakistanis since in their eyes Pakistanis are better looking people.

Also its pointless to reply to indians. They will continue to troll with their short "troll replies" with no substance.

 

[Rafeh]

Is it because mughals settled in Punjab area ? If not then how it can be so strongly.asserted since people.move all.the time. What is special about Pakistan region and central Asia ?

Genes = haplohab or whatever you mentioned in your post

I.am.not.indian

I was NOT saying you are indian. I was talking to the other indian person.

Aryans, scythians, afghans, etc. were all central asians. Its a long discussion we will have it some other time. Mughal were not that numerous to give punjabis central asian genes. Punabis are the central asians predominantly, some mixed with indigenous people of earlier times. I should have used euroasia term instead of central asia since modern Pakistanis mostly came from euroasian region which extends from centra asia to ukrain.