@Sanabil
Seriously, do you really think 90% of Urdu is Arabic?
This is a fascinating thread, not least because of the variety and complexity of roots and influences which contributors have had in mind. Whether rightly or wrongly, this is important, as it gives us an insight into how our view of a subject is determined by factors other than the facts on hand.
Even Farsi is hardly related to Arabic when it comes to Grammar and sentence structure.
It is not related at all, and I am not sure why you are hesitant about putting it more strongly than by saying that one is 'hardly related' to the other. It is amply clear by this point of the thread that you have a significant understanding of the subject, and your following words, after all, do tend to increase that impression, rather than decrease it.
Arabic and Hebrew come from a similar origin and are part of semitic language tree.
That says it all.
Farsi did not come with only Persian speakers who happened to be muslims. There were ancient trade routes always present. And a large number of Zorastrians who spoke Farsi moved to Western India mainly around Sindh and Gujarat. These languages continue to have an influence of Persian words even today
I am more than a little perplexed about your intentions in making these statements. It drives the discussion in a retrograde direction.
While Farsi/Dari/Sanskrit all come from the Indo-Aryan family tree.
Farsi and Dardi do not, repeat, do not come the Indo-Aryan family tree; they come from the Indo-Iranian family tree.
Again I am uneasy. Why are you emphasising this admixture so greatly? That is not to say that there was no admixture; there was admixture at various stages, when the original tribes were in close proximity in Central Asia, thereafter when the Persian Empire under the Achaemenids expanded eastward into the Indus Valley, and of course, from that point onwards, continuously throughout the rest of recorded history.
What is the point? I ask in perplexity, in no way with the slightest hostility. What is the point?
Mixture of these languages was happening well before Afghans, Central Asians and Iranians became Muslims.
Most certainly. I sense a defensive position being built, but against what or whom or why is not perfectly clear.
Infact Farsi just like Latin can see word origins in Sanskrit itself. Linguists divide the Indo-European origin of languages into two main trees in the subcontinent: Indo-iranic language that led to Prakrit, Avesta and Persian. While the Indic tree which led to Sanskrit and various. You can see Prakrit inscriptions all the way in Afghanistan as well.
With respect, for the first time, this seems to be slightly off the rails, from my point of view. You stated that Indo-Iranian (not Indo-Iranic, surely) was the root language for Prakrit, Avestan and Persian, and the Indo-Aryan (which you have called 'Indic', for unknown reasons) contained Sanskrit and various. My reading leads me in a different direction.
The Indo-European languages divided into two, all right, but not in the sub-continent, before that, before even coming to Central Asia, probably in the space between Black and Aral Seas. By the time it came to Central Asia, to the steppes around the Aral Sea, the division between Indo-European (represented by Greek-Armenian-Celtic-Italic) and Indo-Iranian had occurred, there was no Indo-European element left (the Tocharians arguably travelled to their ultimate homeland from the Black Sea - Aral Sea region on a route NORTH of the Aral Sea).
One branch, Indo-European, went west and divided on the way into several languages, each travelling to their respective destinations, with their vectors, the groups and tribes who spoke those languages, as one language at first, as several, as they progressed through their paths over the centuries.
The other branch, Indo-Iranian, split into two around 2000 BC or slightly later on the steppelands around the Aral Sea. There has been some discussion about the correspondence between these linguistic groups and the material culture of the BMAC region.
Indo-Iranian became the root for Old Iranian, in several dialects, including the eastern. It is thought that Avestan was more or less equivalent to the eastern dialect of Old Iranian. It seems more and more clear that the Avestan group of people, the religion that Zoroaster preached, and their locus was different from that of the other Iranian Aryans; so, for instance, the Medes, slightly to the west of the Avestans, spoke a version of Old Iranian called Old Median, and the Persians, lying furthest west, spoke another version of Old Iranian called Old Persian.
It is important to note the relationships between these language groups, confusing though they may be. We have Old Iranian right on top, the oldest, which developed into accents, and slowly matured through those accents into variants, called Avestan, Old Median and Old Persian respectively. Further development of Persian and its variants was through descent from Old Persian.
Coming to the other branch in the Indo-Iranian fork, the Indo-Aryan, the oldest language version within that branch was Vedic Sanskrit, most accurately a variant and not an accent, being seemingly uniform over its population. It is not very good practice to call it Sanskrit, since that name has a lot of nuances within Sanskrit, which external linguists are not always sensitive to. Vedic Sanskrit in its original form was almost identical with Avestan=eastern Old Iranian; there is reason to believe that these two languages were closer to each than Old Median to either, or Old Persian to other cognate branches.
By sometime around 500 BC, Panini, sitting in Taxila, had codified the Vedic language; from its earlier rude vigour, it became a serious, refined language with well-described rules and a grammar that was a linguistic, scientific and computer programming marvel in itself, incorporating impossibly advanced concepts, in the form of Classical Sanskrit.
Classical Sanskrit does not include Vedic Sanskrit, or the old cognate language of eastern Old Iranian Avestan; it was the
severely disciplined, fully understood version of the rude, rough, roistering language of the bards, singing their hymns to the high gods, who were, at that moment, even as the bards, priests and chanting minstrels sang, being driven from their august positions by Zoroastrian doctrine, and were to suffer the ignominy of being reduced to the losing faction, the Daivas.
Sanskrit of course means the polished tongue. This was the language of the High Priests, the Kings, and the Aryan war-band. But women and social inferiors spoke a similar but not identical tongue, full of 'slips and mistakes, and if you want to hear it, and how society spoke, try reading any Kalidasa play. In Sakuntala, for instance, an excited maiden friend of the young lady bursts in, shouting,"Hola, hola, Soundolay!" This was apabhramsa, a falling away, a fall in standards, equivalent to a military mess serving a meal without a butter-knife for the butter dish. It was this that was Prakrit.
I find it difficult to understand how Prakrit, derived from Classical Sanskrit, derived from Vedic Sanskrit, which more or less coincides with the Indo-Aryan fork of the P-I-E language tree, is counted by you along with Avestan and Old Persian, whereas Sanskrit is clubbed together with others. What other languages happen to be the possible candidates?
Almost all international and neutral linguistics schools teach standard Hindi-Urdu as the same language or classify it under Hindustani.
The Arabs and Persians would add Y or YA at the end to define the language or ethin origin of a geographical place.
So people of Arab speak Arabi, similarly, people of Fars or Pars (in present day Iran) speak Farsi. And people India are called Hindi and spoke Hindvi or Hindi. hence Amir Khusrau's characterization of the couplets. But that of course did not mean that Amir Khusrau was writing a present day version of sanskritised Hindi. It was a version of standard Hindi/Urdu or Hindustani written in Nastaliq script.
There was, and is, no such animal called standard Hindi/Urdu or Hindustani, of course; it was just the state that western Prakrit, or Khadi Boli was in at the time.
Anotehr analogy to better understand is that although English has Latin word origins and French word origins in its vocabulary. It still has its own distinct sentence structure and grammar.
You may try to derive a different language by removing say latin origin words and use as much of French origin words as possible and call it a different name. While have another language by removing all French origin words and use as many as latin words as possible and come up with a different language.
Just because some use the french rendezvous or a Latin commune in the same sentence structure to refer to the same thing i.e. to meet doesn't make them different languages. Both words are part of the English vocabulary and the English language is richer for that.
I wish you had chosen a different example. Both French words and Latin words are essentially loan words into English, whose early structure was quite purely Germanic, Old English, to be precise.
Adding to the confusion is that French itself is a Romance language derived from Latin.
No, it would really have been better to have chosen to compare French or Latin against Old English.
Just an observation.
So just because you use Pita or Walid in the same sentence structure to refer to your Baap or Father doesn't make it a different language. To say that what someone is speaking is not Hindi but Urdu or the other way around is ill founded when the sentence structure is the same.
Like I mentioned before, the Acid test is speak to an Arabic or Persian speaker in Urdu and see how much they understand. Similarly if a Hindi speaker would speak to someone who only spoke Sanskrit, they would have the same problem.
Precisement!
. Patanjali (2nd century bce), for instance, identified Prakrit words such as gavi and goni as apabhramsha of the Sanskrit word go.
, bro im studying arabic right now, and no doubt Urdu especially the pure Urdu has many borrowed words but that number is no way close to 90%.
