Language can unite (Hindi - Urdu)

[rollindays]

I agree that both language have common origin and was infact the same language(Hindustani Language). But to say that Hindi didn't exist until 1950 is wrong. Hindustani language was known Hindwi, Hindavi and later on Zuban-e-Urdu.

You don't understand, there is no 'both' languages. The history we are talking about is Urdu, because colloquial Hindi/Hindustani does not have a separate, independent history from Urdu. We are talking about one language, & that is Urdu. Urdu was referred to as Hindvi by Khusro. Urdu also had other names, such as Lucknawi, Dakhnvi, Rekhta, Lashkari & others. Most Urdu poetry by Khusro (which he refers to as 'Hindvi') is incomprehensible to most Hindi speakers today, because the language spoken is Urdu.

Hindi Literature predates Urdu.

Hindi literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this is not the language spoken by most Indians in India today, this isn't colloquial Hindi/Hindustani. The link you sent me is not Hindi literature, but actually literature written in Avadhi and Brij Bhasha forms, which doesn't have Khari Boli in it, hence it is NOT Hindi. Urdu has a good portion of Avadhi and Brij Bhasha in it too. You've already admitted that there was Sanskritization of the language post 1950, which led to Hindi being formed. Even the Shudh Hindi/Hindi uses Khari Boli today, which means it isn't like the Avadhi and Brij Bhasha excerpts you referred to as 'Hindi literature'. Shudh Hindi/Hindi is a post 1950 creation by Sanskritizing Urdu, but still retaining much of its Khari Boli, making it different from the Avadhi & Brij Bhasha literature in the 1100s & before.

 

[Roybot]

You don't understand, there is no 'both' languages. The history we are talking about is Urdu, because colloquial Hindi/Hindustani does not have a separate, independent history from Urdu. We are talking about one language, & that is Urdu. Urdu was referred to as Hindvi by Khusro. Urdu also had other names, such as Lucknawi, Dakhnvi, Rekhta, Lashkari & others. Most Urdu poetry by Khusro (which he refers to as 'Hindvi') is incomprehensible to regular Hindi speakers, because the language spoken is Urdu.

Again, this is not the language spoken by most Indians in India today, this is not colloquial Hindi/Hindustani. The link you sent me is is not Hindi literature, but actually literature written in Avadhi and Brij Bhasha forms, which doesn't have Khari Boli in it, hence it is not Hindi. Urdu has a good portion of Avadhi and Brij Bhasha as well. You have already admitted that there was Sanskritization of the language post 1950.

Whats your point? Are you saying that there is no such thing as Hindi, and basically Hindi is Sanskritized form of Urdu?

Well I don't agree with that. If you take out the foreign script and foreign loan words from Urdu, what is left is Hindi. So it was Hindi(Avadhi/Brijbhasa) which was Persianized by Persian loan words first and once the Persianized Indians left so did their Persianized Urdu.

Persian vocabulary found its way into the Hindustani dialects of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, leading to a standard language known as Khariboli. Khariboli has four standardized registers: Standard Hindi, Urdu, Dakhini and Rekhta. Standard Hindi (also High Hindi, Nagari Hindi) is used as the lingua franca of Northern India (the Hindi belt)[citation needed], Urdu is the lingua franca of Pakistan, Dakhini is the historical literary dialect of the Deccan region, and Rekhta is a highly Persianized register of Urdu used in poetry[citation needed]. As in post-independence India Persian culture and vocabulary was strongly associated with outside influence in general and Islam in particular, Indian and Hindu nationalists developed a Sanskritized and de-Persianised register of Khariboli which they named shuddh Hindi (ie "pure" Hindi) whereas Urdu retained its extensive Persian heritage (as well as eclectic borrowings from Arabic and to a lesser extent, Sanskrit) as part of an unbroken continuum in its linguistic development. Both were made official languages of India.

 

[jinxeD_girl]

Are we still arguing on the same subject .. for the last 3 hours....

 

[rollindays]

Whats your point? Are you saying that there is no such thing as Hindi, and basically Hindi is Sanskritized form of Urdu?

Well I don't agree with that. If you take out the foreign script and foreign loan words from Urdu, what is left is Hindi. So it was Hindi(Avadhi/Brijbhasa) which was Persianized by Persian loan words first and once the Persianized Indians left so did their Persianized Urdu.

Yes, Hindi is basically a Sanskritized form of Urdu, created artificially in 1950 post independence India. Again, what you don't understand is that even the Shudh Hindi/Hindi uses plenty of Khari Boli today, which means the language isn't the Avadhi and Brij Bhasha excerpts you referred to as 'Hindi literature'. There is no one who speaks everyday Hindi like the Avadhi & Brij Bhasha excerpts you gave without any Khari Boli. Shudh Hindi/Hindi is a post 1950 creation by Sanskritizing Urdu, but still retaining much of its Khari Boli, making Shudh Hindi/Hindi different from the Avadhi & Brij Bhasha literature in the 1100s.

The thing is, there are two separate things: firstly there is Khari Boli, & secondly, there are the extra Persian/Arabic loanwords used as well in the language. For the creation of Shudh Hindi/Hindi in the 1950s, most of the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu were removed & replaced with Sanskrit ones, as well as some from the Khari Boli. But most of the Khari Boli was retained in Shudh Hindi/Hindi as well. No one speaks Hindi without Khari Boli in India today. Khari Boli is a part of Shudh Hindi/Hindi as well as Urdu/Hindustani. No one in India speaks the language without the Khari Boli component, whether it is the Shudh Hindi/Hindi speaker, or the Urdu/Hindustani speaker.

 

[Roybot]

Yes, Hindi is basically a Sanskritized form of Urdu, created artificially in 1950 post independence India. Again, what you don't understand is that even the Shudh Hindi/Hindi uses plenty of Khari Boli today, which means the language isn't the Avadhi and Brij Bhasha excerpts you referred to as 'Hindi literature'. There is no one who speaks everyday Hindi like the Avadhi & Brij Bhasha excerpts you gave without any Khari Boli. Shudh Hindi/Hindi is a post 1950 creation by Sanskritizing Urdu, but still retaining much of its Khari Boli, making Shudh Hindi/Hindi different from the Avadhi & Brij Bhasha literature in the 1100s.

Its not. Hindi is the modern form of dialects such as Brijbhasa and Avadhi of the Gangetic plain, just like English is the modern form of Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon Germanic dialects. Urdu is basically Hindi. Just cause Turkish is now written in Roman script doesn't make it a different language altogether, its still Turkish right.

The thing is, there is Khari Boli, & there are extra Persian/Arabic loanwords used as well in the language. For the creation of Shudh Hindi/Hindi in the 1950s, most of the Persian/Arabic loanwords from Urdu were removed & replaced with Sanskrit ones, as well as some from the Khari Boli. But most of the Khari Boli was retained in Shudh Hindi/Hindi as well. No one speaks Hindi without Khari Boli in India today. Khari Boli is a part of Shudh Hindi/Hindi as well as Urdu/Hindustani. No one in India speaks the language without the Khari Boli component, whether it is the Shudh Hindi/Hindi speaker, or the Urdu/Hindustani speaker.

There is no Persian/Arabic loanwords in Brijbhasa or Avadhi, and thats what the origin of Hindi language is.

 

[rollindays]

Its not. Hindi is the modern form of dialects such as Brijbhasa and Avadhi of the Gangetic plain, just like English is the modern form of Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon Germanic dialects. Urdu is basically Hindi. Just cause Turkish is now written in Roman script doesn't make it a different language altogether, its still Turkish right.

I'm not talking about the script here. You don't want to admit that current Shudh Hindi/Hindi is nothing like Brijbhasa and Avadhi, because Shudh Hindi/Hindi has plenty of Khari Boli, whereas Brijbhasa and Avadhi pre-date Khari Boli & have none of it. Hence, Hindi/Shudh Hindi is not the same the same as Brijbhasa and Avadhi. There is no Hindi/Shudh Hindi without any Khari Boli, & that is a simple fact. The only thing India did in 1950 post independence is remove the Persian/Arabic loanwords used in Hindustani/Urdu, as well as altered some of the Khari Boli (but not removed it), & created Hindi. But Hindi is not the same as Brijbhasa and Avadhi, & I have explained the reason for that in intensive detail.

There is no Persian/Arabic loanwords in Brijbhasa or Avadhi, and thats what the origin of Hindi language is.

Yes, there are no Persian/Arabic loanwords in Brijbhasa or Avadhi, or any Khari Boli either. Brijbhasa or Avadhi predate the Khari Boli as well, which is an integral component in the Hindi/Shudh Hindi spoken today, as well as Urdu/Hindustani. There are Brijbhasa & Avadhi influences in Urdu/Hindustani as well.

I agree with you that Brijbhasa & Avadhi are older than Urdu, but Hindi was only a 1950 'concoction' by India, & is not Brijbhasa & Avadhi, as it (Hindi) cannot do without the Khari Boli component.

 

[Roybot]

Again, you don't want to admit that current Shudh Hindi/Hindi is nothing like Brijbhasa and Avadhi, because Shudh Hindi/Hindi has plenty of Khari Boli, whereas Brijbhasa and Avadhi pre-date it & have none of that. Hence, Hindi/Shudh Hindi is not the same the same as Brijbhasa and Avadhi. There is no Hindi/Shudh Hindi without any Khari Boli, & that is a simple fact. The only thing India did in 1950 post independence is remove some of the Persian loanwords used in Hindustani/Urdu, as well as altered some of the Khari Boli (but not removed it), & created Hindi. But it is not the same as Brijbhasa and Avadhi, & I have explained the reason for that in intensive detail.


Yes, there are no Persian/Arabic loanwords in Brijbhasa or Avadhi, or any Khari Boli either. Brijbhasa or Avadhi predate the Khari Boli as well, which is an integral component in the Hindi/Shudh Hindi spoken today, as well as Urdu/Hindustani. There are Brijbhasa & Avadhi influences in Urdu/Hindustani as well.

I agree with you that Brijbhasa & Avadhi are older than Urdu, but Hindi was only a 1950 invention by India, & is not Brijbhasa & Avadhi, as it (Hindi) cannot do without the Khari Boli component.

Avadhi/Brijbhasa-->Khari Bholi--->Standard Hindi/Urdu. Both are Indian languages. Originating in the plains of Uttar Pradesh.

Khariboli is widely accepted to be the main dialectical precursor of the Hindi-Urdu prestige dialect, of which Standard Hindi and Urdu are official standard registers and literary styles.

 

[rollindays]

Avadhi/Brijbhasa-->Khari Bholi--->Standard Hindi/Urdu. Both are Indian languages. Originating in the plains of Uttar Pradesh.

Again, this isn't about India or Pakistan, this is about Urdu getting its rightful status, & not tarnishing its history like India has done to accommodate the 1950 created Hindi. I would like some kind of intellectual rebuttal for Post # 171, otherwise, it means that you don't have any counterargument.

 

[rollindays]

Avadhi/Brijbhasa-->Khari Bholi--->Standard Hindi/Urdu.

Just a slight difference:

Avadhi/Brijbhasa (900-1100)--->Khari Bholi (1100s)--->Urdu (1200)---->Hindi (1950)

 

[Roybot]

Again, this isn't about India or Pakistan, this is about Urdu getting its rightful status, & not tarnishing its history like India has done to accommodate the 1950 created Hindi.

No one has tarnished anything. Urdu is an official language of India.

Awadhi, Brij Bhasha(Khari Boli) and Hindi all written in Devanagri script, even by the Muslims of India, until the advent of Mughals who introduced the alien Persian script. So its Urdu the odd one out. Urdu is just Hindi written in Persian script.

Thats written by Malik Muhammed Jaisi in Awadhi. Tell me if it looks like Urdu/Hindi to you.

 

[rollindays]

No one has tarnished anything. Urdu is an official language of India.

Awadhi, Brij Bhasha(Khari Boli) and Hindi all written in Devanagri script, even by the Muslims of India, until the advent of Mughals who introduced the alien Persian script. So its Urdu the odd one out. Urdu is just Hindi written in Persian script.

Thats written by Malik Muhammed Jaisi in Awadhi. Tell me if it looks like Urdu/Hindi to you.

The script does not make the language, the way the sentences are structured basically does. Even though Urdu has a large amount of Persian & Arabic vocabulary, it is nothing like those two, & Persian/Arabic speakers cannot understand Urdu speakers (& vice versa). However, Indians do not have a problem understanding Pakistanis because, even though one might use more Persian/Arabic derived words than the other, who uses Sanskrit derived ones (& vice versa); the way the sentences are structured is the most important part of the language. Pakistanis read & write in the same script as Persians, but can understand very little from their language. Meaning the script is not important.

Hindi/Shudh Hindi is a 1950 artificial creation of India, by removing the Persian/Arabic loanwords with Sanskrit ones (without removing the Khari Boli, hence making it completely different from Awadhi & Brij Bhasha); by Sankritizing Urdu/Hindustani. The script doesn't have anything to do with the language used.

 

[rollindays]

No one has tarnished anything. Urdu is an official language of India.

Awadhi, Brij Bhasha(Khari Boli) and Hindi all written in Devanagri script, even by the Muslims of India, until the advent of Mughals who introduced the alien Persian script. So its Urdu the odd one out. Urdu is just Hindi written in Persian script.

Thats written by Malik Muhammed Jaisi in Awadhi. Tell me if it looks like Urdu/Hindi to you.

And also, Sanskrit Devanagari was not used in India for Urdu/Hindustani/even Hindi literary works prior to 1867, only for religious Hindu texts. And because of the limitations of the Sanskrit Devanagari script for representing Urdu/Hindustani works, dots were added on certain alphabets so that 'z' wouldn't be pronounced as 'j' for example. The Sanskrit Devanagari only bastardized the Urdu/Hindustani literary works, but the script did not change the language in 1867. The language was still Urdu in 1867. Hence, the new language Hindi was created in the 1950s, but not through the script. The script does not make or change the language. I hope I have made myself clear now.

 

[Roybot]

The script does not make the language, the way the sentences are structured basically does. Even though Urdu has a large amount of Persian & Arabic vocabulary, it is nothing like those two, & Persian/Arabic speakers cannot understand Urdu speakers (& vice versa). However, Indians do not have a problem understanding Pakistanis because, even though one might use more Persian/Arabic derived words than the other, who uses Sanskrit derived ones (& vice versa); the way the sentences are structured is the most important part of the language. Pakistanis read & write in the same script as Persians, but can understand very little from their language. Meaning the script is not important.

Hindi/Shudh Hindi is a 1950 artificial creation of India, by removing the Persian/Arabic loanwords with Sanskrit ones (without removing the Khari Boli, hence making it completely different from Awadhi & Brij Bhasha); by Sankritizing Urdu/Hindustani. The script doesn't have anything to do with the language used.

This argument is going no where.

Ok, the basic grammar and sentence structure of Hindi/Urdu originates from Sanskrit Awadhi/Brijbhasha(which constitutes towards Khari Boli). Agreed?

Awadhi, Brijbhasha, Sanskrit all written in Devanagari script, derived from Brahmi script agreed?

Hindi which is the modern form of these dialects uses Devanagari script agreed?

Now urdu, which uses loan words from Persian and Arabic and uses Persian script?

Now you decide if Urdu is the Persianized form of Hindi or not. Yes agreed there was no such language as Hindi back then, but there was "Hindawi" and "Hindustani" which was later know as Zaban-e-Urdu during the peak of Persianized Mughal Empire.

You take away the Persian script and the Persian words, Urdu is nothing but Hindi then. Yes there was a break in continuity of Khari Boli being written in Devanagari script, but thats changed now. If say 100 years down the line Turkey decides to revert to the Ottoman script would it be seen as a continuation of old Turkish language or not?

===============

And if you think Indians started using more Sanskrit words in Hindi after 1950 then you are mistaken. Heres a speech from 1948.

 

[MastanKhan]

who the fk cares where urdu originated, taj mehal was not built or designed by indians, so who the fk cares if indians dance on taj mehal and symbolise it with indian history, there are native urdu speakers in pakistan in large quantity and they were /are the one who are mostly contributing in urdu literature in the present age and whose ancestors who carried the pillers of this language, who the fk cares it UP is linked with urdu, all i know is hindi is taught in schools and those who claim to be urdu speakers cant even properly speak urdu, they speak n mix their hindi with urdu and cant even read or write urdu, except for those who are educated in a more traditional and islamic schools or madrassah and not the modern secular schools

Sir,

I had reported your post for vulgarity---but the mods thought otherwise of it----so I thought that I would complement you on your indecency----. A brand new member on this board and you take us so cheaply over here---have so much courage to use a profane language without any regard of consequences----.

Our board has seen new lows that were no there in the past---I would like to congratulate THE WEBMASTER --- THE ADMINS and THE MODS including my colleague ASIM AQUIL-----look how pathetic this site has become ---- where a newbie has the ballz to shove it right up our faces----I feel ashamed-----anybody else does!!!

 

[BJP*]

And also, Sanskrit Devanagari was not used in India for Urdu/Hindustani/even Hindi literary works prior to 1867, only for religious Hindu texts. And because of the limitations of the Sanskrit Devanagari script for representing Urdu/Hindustani works, dots were added on certain alphabets so that 'z' wouldn't be pronounced as 'j' for example. The Sanskrit Devanagari only bastardized the Urdu/Hindustani literary works, but the script did not change the language in 1867. The language was still Urdu in 1867. Hence, the new language Hindi was created in the 1950s, but not through the script. The script does not make or change the language. I hope I have made myself clear now.

If you are talking about official language, so yes... in 1867 official work are done in persian script(while language remain local) but all the general public literature were done in devenagri script. By 1940's devenagri script and original hindi language were on the verge of lost.
By Gods grace in the same decade India got Independence and started procedure of restoring the language and script, while pakistan continued with Urdu.

Now you tell me which one is older, simlpy stating Urdu as original is not going to help you. wonder why correct language history is not taught in pakistan