Urdu is not our language: Mahmood Khan Achakzai in PDM's Karachi gathering.

[xyxmt]

Its funny, Afghans here in Canada pretend to be Persian. Uchak Gaye should skip one step and directly become Persian.

 

[Al-zakir]

In my opinion, Urdu is the finest and most articulated language in sub continent.

 

[letsrock]

While not directly addressing the points raised in the original post, there are a few things that need to be addressed. Urdu is an Indo-Iranian language belonging to the Indo-Aryan family of Prakrits or in particular the Central Zone region of the Indo-Aryan linguistic continuum. Sanskrit itself is a member of the Indo-Aryan branch; a minor off shoot of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. Other members within this grouping would be the Kalash language, other Dardic languages, et cetera. Pashto belongs to the Eastern Iranic branch of the Indo-Iranian language family. The point being that these languages are related and constitute no more than regional morphological changes occurring over the natural course of time as mutually intelligible dialects evolve in to unintelligible ones.

In essence, this whole debates revolves around whether or not it is acceptable to speak a different form of your native tongue with blatant disregard to their shared origins. The Indo-Iranian tribes imposed their tongues on the locals and the varied and sometimes poor adoption on part of the indigenous resulted in grammatic and syntactic differences coupled with retention and evisceration of certain lexicons, which fuel the diversity of the linguistic spread. If any of you were to traverse back far enough, you would find that the speakers of Vedic Sanskrit would find the speakers of Avestan somewhat intelligible. An interesting fact here is that during the Indo-Iranian expansion, a branch of the Indo-Aryan speakers would travel westwards with the Iranic tribes and end up sandwiching themselves between the Egyptians, Hittites, & Assyrians. They were called Mitanni and their tongue is relatively mutually intelligible to Sanskrit.

In any case, Pakistan, which inculcates a chunk of the Indo-Iranian settlement zone shouldn't feel ashamed to speak any Indo-Iranian tongue, everyone of which retains shares an easily discernable link to a local dialect. Those of you that speak Urdu and Farsi for instance could attest to that. Another point that I feel needs to be highlighted is the fact that languages aren't colonial. Switching from the Sanskrit "mitar" to the Latin "mater" or the English "mother" doesn't imply enslavement. If anything, I would be uttering words originating from the same source and would remain attached to the speech of my forefathers. These were just some of my thoughts skimming through this thread.

Anyway, some of the viewers might enjoy the videos below because they add a contextual framework to this debate.

Language groups are a theory. Languages are real. And sanskrit is a "constructed" language. You cannot burden population with another language based on some theory they are related when for all plain practical purposes they are mutually unintelligible. As per your view pakistanis should have no objection with sanskrit as well.

 

[CT-9914 "Snoop"]

He is right, urdu have its root in uttar pradesh.

if your goal was triggering people's sentiments by stating facts you got it pretty well

In my opinion, Urdu is the finest and most articulated language in sub continent.

and since you haven't studied languages why does your opinion matter in the slightest?

 

[letsrock]

And Pakhto has science, medicine and engineering content in it? Please

Urdu is the language of Indian Muslims full stop. Without a national language you can’t have a nation. Just learn from Israel, they revived Hebrew to unify the nation which spoke diverse languages. In North America people come from diverse backgrounds and speak so many different languages, but in order to live in North America English is essential. How can that bald idiot Achakzai speak against Urdu? He is definitely a traitor and strict action has to be taken against him.

You are right Paktho doesnt. And I dont give a damn about Achakzai. Here is a situation - just look at it without emotion. You have millions of people barely literate and lacking rudimentary scientific knowledge. They need to be educated as fast as you can so the country can develop. you know that these people already speak well developed languages with scripts etc.

What is commonsense approach? would you invest in already existing languages and improve it to teach science and stuff. Or impose a completely new language on people and burden them with two things ?

Regarding national language and nation. It is imposition of urdu which split the nation once. I am ok with Urdu as political language but education must strictly be in local languages.

 

[PakShaheen79]

"Urdu Hamari Quomi Zuban Nahi Hai" (Urdu is not our national language) ... But Wait...
Isn't this sentence itself in Urdu?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Language groups are a theory. Languages are real. And sanskrit is a "constructed" language. You cannot burden population with another language based on some theory they are related when for all plain practical purposes they are mutually unintelligible. As per your view pakistanis should have no objection with sanskrit as well.

Sanskrit is not a reconstructed language. Your whole argument may be flushed down the toilet by that statement. Sanskrit is a natural human tongue that evolved over time from its previous iterations & naturally happens to be the language of the Vedic texts. It is an Indo-European tongue and preserves and shares features with other Indo-European tongues like ancient Greek and classical Latin. That happens to be the peer reviewed assertation of linguists. The fact that languages evolve over time can actually be observed through quick glimpses in to the linguistic evolution of most modern day languages. Think of the Medieval Latin speakers, all of whom believed that they spoke Latin would eventually discover that they could no longer comprehend classical Latin texts. On a similar note, being a theory has no implications on realism, especially when it is supported via deductive, historical, genetic & archeological evidence. The IE language theory may also be noted or strengthened through the shared pagan deities found among the old Indo-European speakers, but that's besides the point. There are so many eery similarities between the cognates of let's say ancient Greek, Latin, & Sanskrit coupled with shared grammatic and syntactic features that it would be impossible to deny that they sprung from a common source for any rational mind. The irrational view here would be that geographically dispersed populations ended up speaking similar tongues without any interaction, thereby nullifying cause and effect or the scientific method ingrained in the human mind. A modern example of the evolution of languages that has taken place right before our eyes after the birth of the Islamic religion would be Maltese, a daughter language of Arabic.

In any case, our population isn't being burdened by a foreign language belonging to some obscure language grouping. Urdu is an Indo-Iranian language and the speaker in the video whines about it in it. Besides, a federation of ethnic groups requires a lingua franca for synergizing its population towards sustainable development. If it isn't Urdu, then its bound to be something else, either way, the masses are free to pick their poison, but I hope that poison remains an IE tongue. Pakistanis shouldn't have an objection to Sanskrit, except that Sanskrit would be extremely difficult to impose on our masses given its complex grammar and syntax. Note that you're referring to people who by and large wouldn't even be able to explain Urdu's ergative case.

 

[letsrock]

Sanskrit is not a reconstructed language. Your whole argument may be flushed down the toilet by that statement. Sanskrit is a natural human tongue that evolved over time from its previous iterations & naturally happens to be the language of the Vedic texts. It is an Indo-European tongue and preserves and shares features with other Indo-European tongues like ancient Greek and classical Latin.

.

Are you sure ? it was a dead language which was bought to life by enterprising European scholars who captured some sounds from natives and then ascribed them meanings through "research" and speculation. I am not so impressed they are similar with greek and latin as the meanings to these sounds are being given by European scholars already familiar with those languages.

Anyway that is not even the crux of my argument and even less my "whole argument". My point is you cannot impose for what is all purposes a foreign, mutually unintelligible language based on some theory that in distant past they had common origin. As per science our ancestors are from Africa so you can stretch and argue that Bantu languages are also our shared languages. And why the hope that they will be an IE language ? what about those ancestors who made these languages mutually unintelligible by their own native tongues? are they "lesser" ancestors? And why not Arabic - after all nothing energizes pakistanis like Islam does. You can see that your arguments end up no where.

Just take a commonsense approach and respect people for what they speak and understand NOW.

 

[The Eagle]

Isn't he Afghan?

Indeed... what did you expect from such low life Pakistan hater? He doesn't accept current Pakistan and will never stop provoking people. He is one great example of ungrateful people.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Are you sure ? it was a dead language which was bought to life by enterprising European scholars who captured some sounds from natives and then ascribed them meanings through "research" and speculation. I am not so impressed they are similar with greek and latin as the meanings to these sounds are being given by European scholars already familiar with those languages.

Mate, I don't mean to offend you, but at this moment you aren't fit to discuss the origins of the Indo-European language family. That doesn't imply that you're incapable, it's just that its pretty obvious that you aren't well versed in this subject. European scholars aren't the only ones applying the scientific method to decipher and rejuvenate Sanskrit. Although, they were most certainly among the first to link it to the classics of Greece and Rome. Believe it or not, the field of linguistics encompasses a wide range of nationalities and methodologies grounded in the scientific method. Had their understanding of Sanskrit been incorrect, they wouldn't have ended up translating classical Sanskrit works and would have found their translation to be no more than mere gibberish on a probabalistic scale. I am not an expert in the rejuvenation of dead languages, but I can provide you an example of how lost linguistic knowledge may be rediscovered. For instance, the classical Latin "C" sound is known to us by the transliteration of Latin words in the Greek script, in which they end up recording the spoken word with a "k" letter. Since, transliteration is based on the perceived phonetic sounds, we can be reasonably certain that the ancient Latin speakers pronounced "C" as an emphatic sort of "K". Anyway, this is a lengthy discussion, which deviates from the core discussion.

Anyway that is not even the crux of my argument and even less my "whole argument". My point is you cannot impose for what is all purposes a foreign, mutually unintelligible language based on some theory that in distant past they had common origin.

I know that, but your introductory statment was nevertheless invalid. A reconstructed language in linguistics would be Proto-Indo-European & not a language that has been preserved and once spoken by humans. There is no imposition, haven't you heard of Article 25[A] of the 18th amendment in Pakistan's constitution? A number of steps have been taken to decentralize the educational curriculum as well as meet the needs of the provinces to preserve their existing tongues. However, Pakistan is administratively dysfunctional & any benefit at this point remains to be seen among future generations. Regardless, all Pakistanis are free to learn any language they accumulate an interest in, but the need for a lingua franca remains. If it isn't Urdu, they are free to choose as they please.

As per science our ancestors are from Africa so you can stretch and argue that Bantu languages are also our shared languages. And why the hope that they will be an IE language ? what about those ancestors who made these languages mutually unintelligible by their own native tongues? are they "lesser" ancestors? And why not Arabic - after all nothing energizes pakistanis like Islam does. You can see that your arguments end up no where.

Just take a commonsense approach and respect people for what they speak and understand NOW.

It is true that mankind originates from the same source, but that stretch is unwarranted. IE languages retain an aura of familiarity that can be observed by laymen. A trained eye can easily infer that another IE tongue is similar to his existing tongue and shares a common recent linguistic past in the sense that these tongues spread as a result of the domestication of the horse and the development of the chariot. Why on earth would I care about archaic languages and their familial relations when the development of my people in so far as I am concerned in the modern world can only be traced back to the old Indo Iranians and IE tribes, & going back further implies delving in to tongues distant enough to sound absolutely different? Interestingly, even Medieval European traders were able to note the similarities between their tongues and those spoken in the north western region of the Sub-Continent. There, however, is no relationship between the Indo-European and Bantu language family. If at some point, the Indo-Iranian branch were to become dissimilar to other IE tongues, you would find that most speakers of the former wouldn't feel an affinity to the latter. That is unlikely though because written languages and the spread of education increases linguistic conservatism. Note that I am not implying that all Indo-European speaking nations are one and the same or that any IE speaker is part and parcel of our nation, but that linguistic link remains and there is nothing anyone can do about that. You may also find it interesting that there are attempts to create new macro language groupings, but tracing linguistic evolution that far is more or less excruciatingly arduous. In any case, we have no idea what the ancestor of Proto-Indo-European was like so your point is moot. Interesting that you bring up those ancestors whose languages were replaced by Indo-European, when you have trouble accepting another Indo-Iranian language as a binding lingua franca. I knew your dissection would be an attempt at clutching at straws. You are free to discover their languages and acquire them if you have the capacity to do so. However, their languages died out due to their inability to compete with the expanding Indo-Iranians and they alone must bear the brunt of that development. Besides, how on Earth are we supposed to impose a new lingua franca at this point? That would be a Herculean task and a burden the State of Pakistan couldn't possibly bear.

Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam and all of you are free to acquire it, speak it, propagate it. Whatever you do as an individual does not concern me, but Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family, which is unrelated to the languages of our forefathers. That isn't meant to belittle Arabic whatsoever considering that it has an epic history of its own and was once the language of science and technology. Besides, it is our liturgical language and that applies to all Muslims. Moving on, nations often encounter natural encumbrances while attempting to preserve their linguistic heritage. Take Italy for example, modern Italian is based on the Italic Romance dialect that evolved in Tuscany. Hence, despite the existence of other dialects, unification necessitated a concerted effort on one. I fail to see why you can't perceive that the State of Pakistan is experiencing something similar and needs a linguistic binder. Has your common sense eluded that? A couple thousand years back, our forefathers may have been vociferously debating the need to preserve Sanskrit and Avestan, and yet vulgar Vedic Sanskrit evolved in to our current languages, which retain an aura of their roots. The result may be mutually unintelligible but these tongues are a natural evolution of the former, so why complain about learning another variant of them especially when it serves a needed purpose? After all, common sense dictates that languages evolve over time and so long as we speak tongues similar to our forefathers, we would have successfully capped our egotistical and nationalistic tendencies. Isn't that what the whiner in the video is attempting to do? I don't recall anyone forcing you to abandon your tongue or violating your freedom of will, and were someone to do that, you would find the masses at your side. In any case, you're free to do whatever you want. I couldn't care less if you were to adopt Amharic as your own native tongue.

 

[letsrock]

Mate, I don't mean to offend you, but at this moment you aren't fit to discuss the origins of the Indo-European language family. That doesn't imply that you're incapable, it's just that its pretty obvious that you aren't well versed in this subject. European scholars aren't the only ones applying the scientific method to decipher and rejuvenate Sanskrit. Although, they were most certainly among the first to link it to the classics of Greece and Rome. Believe it or not, the field of linguistics encompasses a wide range of nationalities and methodologies grounded in the scientific method. Had their understanding of Sanskrit been incorrect, they wouldn't have ended up translating classical Sanskrit works and would have found their translation to be no more than mere gibberish on a probabalistic scale. I am not an expert in the rejuvenation of dead languages, but I can provide you an example of how lost linguistic knowledge may be rediscovered. For instance, the classical Latin "C" sound is known to us by the transliteration of Latin words in the Greek script, in which they end up recording the spoken word with a "k" letter. Since, transliteration is based on the perceived phonetic sounds, we can be reasonably certain that the ancient Latin speakers pronounced "C" as an emphatic sort of "K". Anyway, this is a lengthy discussion, which deviates from the core discussion.



I know that, but your introductory statment was nevertheless invalid. A reconstructed language in linguistics would be Proto-Indo-European & not a language that has been preserved and once spoken by humans. There is no imposition, haven't you heard of Article 25[A] of the 18th amendment in Pakistan's constitution? A number of steps have been taken to decentralize the educational curriculum as well as meet the needs of the provinces to preserve their existing tongues. However, Pakistan is administratively dysfunctional & any benefit at this point remains to be seen among future generations. Regardless, all Pakistanis are free to learn any language they accumulate an interest in, but the need for a lingua franca remains. If it isn't Urdu, they are free to choose as they please.



It is true that mankind originates from the same source, but that stretch is unwarranted. IE languages retain an aura of familiarity that can be observed by laymen. A trained eye can easily infer that another IE tongue is similar to his existing tongue and shares a common recent linguistic past in the sense that these tongues spread as a result of the domestication of the horse and the development of the chariot. Why on earth would I care about archaic languages and their familial relations when the development of my people in so far as I am concerned in the modern world can only be traced back to the old Indo Iranians and IE tribes, & going back further implies delving in to tongues distant enough to sound absolutely different? Interestingly, even Medieval European traders were able to note the similarities between their tongues and those spoken in the north western region of the Sub-Continent. There, however, is no relationship between the Indo-European and Bantu language family. If at some point, the Indo-Iranian branch were to become dissimilar to other IE tongues, you would find that most speakers of the former wouldn't feel an affinity to the latter. That is unlikely though because written languages and the spread of education increases linguistic conservatism. Note that I am not implying that all Indo-European speaking nations are one and the same or that any IE speaker is part and parcel of our nation, but that linguistic link remains and there is nothing anyone can do about that. You may also find it interesting that there are attempts to create new macro language groupings, but tracing linguistic evolution that far is more or less excruciatingly arduous. In any case, we have no idea what the ancestor of Proto-Indo-European was like so your point is moot. Interesting that you bring up those ancestors whose languages were replaced by Indo-European, when you have trouble accepting another Indo-Iranian language as a binding lingua franca. I knew your dissection would be an attempt at clutching at straws. You are free to discover their languages and acquire them if you have the capacity to do so. However, their languages died out due to their inability to compete with the expanding Indo-Iranians and they alone must bear the brunt of that development. Besides, how on Earth are we supposed to impose a new lingua franca at this point? That would be a Herculean task and a burden the State of Pakistan couldn't possibly bear.

Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam and all of you are free to acquire it, speak it, propagate it. Whatever you do as an individual does not concern me, but Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family, which is unrelated to the languages of our forefathers. That isn't meant to belittle Arabic whatsoever considering that it has an epic history of its own and was once the language of science and technology. Besides, it is our liturgical language and that applies to all Muslims. Moving on, nations often encounter natural encumbrances while attempting to preserve their linguistic heritage. Take Italy for example, modern Italian is based on the Italic Romance dialect that evolved in Tuscany. Hence, despite the existence of other dialects, unification necessitated a concerted effort on one. I fail to see why you can't perceive that the State of Pakistan is experiencing something similar and needs a linguistic binder. Has your common sense eluded that? A couple thousand years back, our forefathers may have been vociferously debating the need to preserve Sanskrit and Avestan, and yet vulgar Vedic Sanskrit evolved in to our current languages, which retain an aura of their roots. The result may be mutually unintelligible but these tongues are a natural evolution of the former, so why complain about learning another variant of them especially when it serves a needed purpose? After all, common sense dictates that languages evolve over time and so long as we speak tongues similar to our forefathers, we would have successfully capped our egotistical and nationalistic tendencies. Isn't that what the whiner in the video is attempting to do? I don't recall anyone forcing you to abandon your tongue or violating your freedom of will, and were someone to do that, you would find the masses at your side. In any case, you're free to do whatever you want. I couldn't care less if you were to adopt Amharic as your own native tongue.

Lets keep sanskrit away at the moment. I probable read a factor over you - you are simply repeating the racist fascination for Sanskrit and its "glorious" literature among (mainly) german Indologists. But it unnecessarily derails the main thrust of the point. If you have time i recommend Urs App book "The birth of orientalism" to understand how that literature was "built".

I am not interested in that Pashtun whiner at all. The reasoning you are presenting for replacing a native tongue - no matter how many words will simply not pass muster in real life. Bengali is also an IE language but they were willing to die and kill rather than accept Urdu hegemony. That is how real world works.
Moreover languages are separate from dialects. Punjabi is not a dialect of urdu it is an independent language as simple as that.

Your idea of persuading people in to giving up their actual language in favor of "Lingua Franca" and then justifying it as not a big deal because they belong to same family sounds more like a salesman selling something rather than a person genuinely interested in welfare of people. People wont buy it.

Not only that - it is very self contradictory. If being related to a theoretical group of languages provides basis for common ancestry and nationality to an extent that you even have fond feelings for sanskrit itself then belonging to one language like Achakzai provides basis for even more common ancestry and nationality. You only end up validating Achakzai.

Just go easy on "national" language things. Just go with what works and what gives quicker results. And have a commonsensical respect for people and their languages. It aint so hard. There is too much association and emotional investment in to Urdu - tying it with religion, culture and with you even Sanskrit. Its not an advantage as you think. Remember Urdu came to pakistan after pakistan was formed not the other way around.

 

[Itachi]

Fair enough, you have your opinions, but just know that English is the only language TODAY that is universal and is borrowed from ALL languages.

It depends on your perspective....English is universal because it has been pushed down the throat of all non-English, like former colonies, etc.

Some time ago Arabic was "universal" and for a longer period of time too...before that someone could have said "Greek" was universal etc etc.

Today, Mandarin has the most users speaking it but English is widely known and understood. That can change too and will change.

 

[Gripen9]

It depends on your perspective....English is universal because it has been pushed down the throat of all non-English, like former colonies, etc.

Some time ago Arabic was "universal" and for a longer period of time too...before that someone could have said "Greek" was universal etc etc.

Today, Mandarin has the most users speaking it but English is widely known and understood. That can change too and will change.

Absolutely right. I hear that mandarin is being taught in Pakistani schools as we speak. Over a period of time, it may become the defacto Lingua Franca

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Lets keep sanskrit away at the moment. I probable read a factor over you - you are simply repeating the racist fascination for Sanskrit and its "glorious" literature among (mainly) german Indologists. But it unnecessarily derails the main thrust of the point. If you have time i recommend Urs App book "The birth of orientalism" to understand how that literature was "built".

What the hell are you talking about? Is this your final attempt at sounding capable of holding a discourse regarding the evolution of the Indo-Iranian branch of the IE languages? You choose to recommend a book and leave the topic at that? Hell, you didn't even bother to summarize the contents of the book & merely assume that my probable adherence by skimming through a book would be enough of a hamper to deter me from replying to you and consequently give you the pleasure of the last word? Learn to write coherent English, you live in a country where it dominates. Unfortunately for you, the modern Indo-European expansion theory remains the most coherent narrative on the spread of these languages. I know of the theories propagated by German linguists in the past and the world has returned to a variant similar to their version of events for the most part by assigning an urheimat to the Proto-Indo-European tongue. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the initial propagators of the theory had racist inclinations because their underlying motives are not grounds for the dismissal of the evidence.

As I said in a previous post, you've two choices, either accept the spread of the Indo-Iranians towards the Sub-Continent or rely on an outward migration theory. You've no choice but to choose one lest you choose to violate cause and effect by stating that languages with similar cognates, grammar and syntax were produced among unrelated populations as a product of chance. You're most likely inclined toward the out-of-India hypothesis, which unfortunately for you does not stand up to linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and even mythological evidence. I have had numerous discussions on this in the past and make no mistake, your aforementioned book can not debunk the insurmountable amount of evidence that has been peer reviewed by an array of experts from all parts of the world through mere accusations of racism. Orientalism is more of an attempt at portraying Eastern cultures as being regressive, & I can easily infer that in the linguistic case, someone like you would assume that the Europeans are attempting to belittle you by concluding that fair skinned foreigners imposed the IE languages on a declining Harappan and Dravidian people. What you conveniently forget is that as per the theory, the Pre-Indo-European populations of Europe were themselves assimilated in to the expansive Indo-European tribes. Case in point; Etruscan and Dorian. In any case, the Indo-Iranian tribes were fair skinned and you might as well get over it. The Tocharians, another group of Indo-European speakers living just north east of Kashmir were fair skinned Caucasoid tribes.

I am not interested in that Pashtun whiner at all. The reasoning you are presenting for replacing a native tongue - no matter how many words will simply not pass muster in real life. Bengali is also an IE language but they were willing to die and kill rather than accept Urdu hegemony. That is how real world works.

Where did I ask you to replace a native tongue? Don't put words in my mouth. Just because Pakistan needs a binding lingua franca doesn't imply that I desire a ban on Pashto or any other ethnic language. Actually, the number of cognates isn't the only factor deciding whether or not languages are related. English shares a larger lexical base with Latin than German, but it remains a Germanic language. Once again, you aren't fit to discuss this subject, and went so far as to suggest that Sanskrit is a reconstructed language. In real life, most Pakistanis speak Urdu and use it alongside their ethnic tongues as a lingua franca. Unfortunately, East Pakistan's case has a multitude of factors impacting it with language being an important piece of the puzzle. Remember that in our previous posts, we have been discussing Urdu from the contextual framework of contemporary Pakistanis. Bengali, an IE tongue, evolved among a different race on the fringes of the Indo-Aryan speaking world and would never be acceptable to West Pakistan possibly because the implication would have been that a dark skinned people have managed to impose their tongue on a lighter skinned people despite it originating from a similar source.

Besides, any group that adopts your tongue tends to leave traces of their former tongues in it and to purists that may be a concern. Egyptian Arabic for instance has words derived from Coptic. Maldivian Divehi is Indo-Aryan too, but sounds Dravidian or at least it did when I heard it. Urdu in particular is unburdened by those factors given its extensive Iranic, Indic, and Arabic borrowings. Besides, it originated next to our own geographical locality from the Prakrit dialects that stretched all the way to Punjab. If you really wanted to delve in to linguistic purity than even Urdu's loanwords could tarnish its purity in the eyes of nationalists. The only way around that is either removal or acceptance of a compromise. As in my previous post, I mentioned that the Italians had to adopt the Florentine dialect of the Tuscan language as the basis for a unified Italian language. It wasn't the most similar to Latin either, which would have been the Sardinian language, but it was one prestigious enough to be acceptable to most.

Moreover languages are separate from dialects. Punjabi is not a dialect of urdu it is an independent language as simple as that.

Where did I state that Punjabi is a dialect of Urdu? Are you retarded? Before Punjabi and Urdu evolved as separate languages, they existed on a dialectal continuum.

Your idea of persuading people in to giving up their actual language in favor of "Lingua Franca" and then justifying it as not a big deal because they belong to same family sounds more like a salesman selling something rather than a person genuinely interested in welfare of people. People wont buy it.

No, I haven't attempted to persuade people in to giving up their languages. You are free to continue to speak in your local dialects and I quoted Article 25[A] of the 18th amendment to that effect and that is something you conveniently ignored. I have no problems with government schools educating in local languages if that is what works best. That is for the masses to decide, but they must mandate the learning of an international lingua franca like English alongside it for obvious reasons. Your analogy of a salesman is flawed because I ain't attempting to shove something unnecessary down your throat. A unifying tongue is critical for any nation and if it isn't Urdu, it would have to be something else. The alternative is to force Pakistani kids to learn a range of provincial languages and no matter how optimistically you presume that to be a potential solution, it won't be something that Pakistan is capable of implementing. As I said, a tongue sharing the same heritage is the best compromise to satiate the egotistical and nationalistic tendencies of the masses. If not that, the only alternative would be to shove Sanskrit down everyone's throats given that that's the closest you get to an Indo-Iranian classic that was spoken by our fore-fathers.

Not only that - it is very self contradictory. If being related to a theoretical group of languages provides basis for common ancestry and nationality to an extent that you even have fond feelings for sanskrit itself then belonging to one language like Achakzai provides basis for even more common ancestry and nationality. You only end up validating Achakzai.

Nothing more self-contradictory than a guy claiming that eerily similar languages could sprout in different regions without sharing a common source, thereby nullifying cause and effect, while concomitantly espousing to be reasonable. Lets demystify this at this instance, a shared language family does not imply shared ancestry. The Indo-Iranian languages are spoken by loads of people unrelated to the original tribes. That however isn't the case for a ton of Pakistanis. What's wrong with having a fondness for Sanskrit? It's among the original tongues of my forefathers. So just because a point allegedly strengthens the views of the speaker in the original clip, as in belonging to the same ethnic group is more often than not indicative of similar ancestry, it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to avoid conceding to it? That's not how intellectual honesty works. Pashtuns are naturally more closely related to each other on a general basis, but nationality or nationhood pertains to a collective consciousness of having experienced a similar past coupled with cultural links strong enough to interweave the destinies of different communities such that they struggle to build a shared future. Pakistan is a multi ethnic society, get over it.

Just go easy on "national" language things. Just go with what works and what gives quicker results. And have a commonsensical respect for people and their languages. It aint so hard. There is too much association and emotional investment in to Urdu - tying it with religion, culture and with you even Sanskrit. Its not an advantage as you think. Remember Urdu came to pakistan after pakistan was formed not the other way around.

Hilariously, while you are quick to lecture, you are incapable of providing solutions to the dilemma. Lets suppose that Pakistan disbands the concept of a national tongue and no one residing within a province is capable of speaking the language found in another province. The question is, where do we go from there? If the ethnic groups converse in English then that would function as the binding lingua franca and as I implied earlier, I have no qualms with that. I haven't been disrespectful towards any tongue so for the last time, avoid the lecture and do not speak of common sense given your sophistical responses so far. I haven't tied Urdu to religion, take up your complaints to those that have. Islam has only one liturgical language and that is Arabic.

 

[letsrock]

What the hell are you talking about? Is this your final attempt at sounding capable of holding a discourse regarding the evolution of the Indo-Iranian branch of the IE languages? You choose to recommend a book and leave the topic at that? Hell, you didn't even bother to summarize the contents of the book & merely assume that my probable adherence by skimming through a book would be enough of a hamper to deter me from replying to you and consequently give you the pleasure of the last word? Learn to write coherent English, you live in a country where it dominates. Unfortunately for you, the modern Indo-European expansion theory remains the most coherent narrative on the spread of these languages. I know of the theories propagated by German linguists in the past and the world has returned to a variant similar to their version of events for the most part by assigning an urheimat to the Proto-Indo-European tongue. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the initial propagators of the theory had racist inclinations because their underlying motives are not grounds for the dismissal of the evidence.

As I said in a previous post, you've two choices, either accept the spread of the Indo-Iranians towards the Sub-Continent or rely on an outward migration theory. You've no choice but to choose one lest you choose to violate cause and effect by stating that languages with similar cognates, grammar and syntax were produced among unrelated populations as a product of chance. You're most likely inclined toward the out-of-India hypothesis, which unfortunately for you does not stand up to linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and even mythological evidence. I have had numerous discussions on this in the past and make no mistake, your aforementioned book can not debunk the insurmountable amount of evidence that has been peer reviewed by an array of experts from all parts of the world through mere accusations of racism. Orientalism is more of an attempt at portraying Eastern cultures as being regressive, & I can easily infer that in the linguistic case, someone like you would assume that the Europeans are attempting to belittle you by concluding that fair skinned foreigners imposed the IE languages on a declining Harappan and Dravidian people. What you conveniently forget is that as per the theory, the Pre-Indo-European populations of Europe were themselves assimilated in to the expansive Indo-European tribes. Case in point; Etruscan and Dorian. In any case, the Indo-Iranian tribes were fair skinned and you might as well get over it. The Tocharians, another group of Indo-European speakers living just north east of Kashmir were fair skinned Caucasoid tribes.



Where did I ask you to replace a native tongue? Don't put words in my mouth. Just because Pakistan needs a binding lingua franca doesn't imply that I desire a ban on Pashto or any other ethnic language. Actually, the number of cognates isn't the only factor deciding whether or not languages are related. English shares a larger lexical base with Latin than German, but it remains a Germanic language. Once again, you aren't fit to discuss this subject, and went so far as to suggest that Sanskrit is a reconstructed language. In real life, most Pakistanis speak Urdu and use it alongside their ethnic tongues as a lingua franca. Unfortunately, East Pakistan's case has a multitude of factors impacting it with language being an important piece of the puzzle. Remember that in our previous posts, we have been discussing Urdu from the contextual framework of contemporary Pakistanis. Bengali, an IE tongue, evolved among a different race on the fringes of the Indo-Aryan speaking world and would never be acceptable to West Pakistan possibly because the implication would have been that a dark skinned people have managed to impose their tongue on a lighter skinned people despite it originating from a similar source.

Besides, any group that adopts your tongue tends to leave traces of their former tongues in it and to purists that may be a concern. Egyptian Arabic for instance has words derived from Coptic. Maldivian Divehi is Indo-Aryan too, but sounds Dravidian or at least it did when I heard it. Urdu in particular is unburdened by those factors given its extensive Iranic, Indic, and Arabic borrowings. Besides, it originated next to our own geographical locality from the Prakrit dialects that stretched all the way to Punjab. If you really wanted to delve in to linguistic purity than even Urdu's loanwords could tarnish its purity in the eyes of nationalists. The only way around that is either removal or acceptance of a compromise. As in my previous post, I mentioned that the Italians had to adopt the Florentine dialect of the Tuscan language as the basis for a unified Italian language. It wasn't the most similar to Latin either, which would have been the Sardinian language, but it was one prestigious enough to be acceptable to most.



Where did I state that Punjabi is a dialect of Urdu? Are you retarded? Before Punjabi and Urdu evolved as separate languages, they existed on a dialectal continuum.



No, I haven't attempted to persuade people in to giving up their languages. You are free to continue to speak in your local dialects and I quoted Article 25[A] of the 18th amendment to that effect and that is something you conveniently ignored. I have no problems with government schools educating in local languages if that is what works best. That is for the masses to decide, but they must mandate the learning of an international lingua franca like English alongside it for obvious reasons. Your analogy of a salesman is flawed because I ain't attempting to shove something unnecessary down your throat. A unifying tongue is critical for any nation and if it isn't Urdu, it would have to be something else. The alternative is to force Pakistani kids to learn a range of provincial languages and no matter how optimistically you presume that to be a potential solution, it won't be something that Pakistan is capable of implementing. As I said, a tongue sharing the same heritage is the best compromise to satiate the egotistical and nationalistic tendencies of the masses. If not that, the only alternative would be to shove Sanskrit down everyone's throats given that that's the closest you get to an Indo-Iranian classic that was spoken by our fore-fathers.



Nothing more self-contradictory than a guy claiming that eerily similar languages could sprout in different regions without sharing a common source, thereby nullifying cause and effect, while concomitantly espousing to be reasonable. Lets demystify this at this instance, a shared language family does not imply shared ancestry. The Indo-Iranian languages are spoken by loads of people unrelated to the original tribes. That however isn't the case for a ton of Pakistanis. What's wrong with having a fondness for Sanskrit? It's among the original tongues of my forefathers. So just because a point allegedly strengthens the views of the speaker in the original clip, as in belonging to the same ethnic group is more often than not indicative of similar ancestry, it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to avoid conceding to it? That's not how intellectual honesty works. Pashtuns are naturally more closely related to each other on a general basis, but nationality or nationhood pertains to a collective consciousness of having experienced a similar past coupled with cultural links strong enough to interweave the destinies of different communities such that they struggle to build a shared future. Pakistan is a multi ethnic society, get over it.



Hilariously, while you are quick to lecture, you are incapable of providing solutions to the dilemma. Lets suppose that Pakistan disbands the concept of a national tongue and no one residing within a province is capable of speaking the language found in another province. The question is, where do we go from there? If the ethnic groups converse in English then that would function as the binding lingua franca and as I implied earlier, I have no qualms with that. I haven't been disrespectful towards any tongue so for the last time, avoid the lecture and do not speak of common sense given your sophistical responses so far. I haven't tied Urdu to religion, take up your complaints to those that have. Islam has only one liturgical language and that is Arabic.

oh wow - you are so full of yourself man. Just tone down will ya ? I referred the book of Urs App mainly on Sanskrit. I made it clear in my post. What you will find is the extremely dubious methods, the rampant fraud in creating entirely fictitious work of sanskrit literature by early Europeans with dubious motives (and they arent just racist some are weird like Voltaire). If you google some chapters are made public you can read.

And why you are bashing me with your theory on languages. It is just a theory. And it doesnt matter. Read it slowly - it.doesnt.matter - maybe a timepass bed time reading and thats about it. Only mentally off people will recommend policy making based on theories of what happened thousands of years ago. Why would you discount actual reality staring at you while burying your head in theories of what supposed to have happened thousands of years back?. Pakistani education teaches people in urdu medium and english medium - are the results of education satisfactory? - no matter which amendment there is no investment in local language schools. World wide scholars (and actual scholars worried about current problems not about stories of thousands of years back) all recommend teaching kids in mother tongue (which are also so called IE languages btw) at a population level - though individually if you have resources you can obtain education in any language.

But i am guessing you wont be bothered by results of it. And remember if bengali isnt acceptable because if the people are a tad too dark for you then why is urdu acceptable to pushtuns who are the lightest skinned in pakistan? Are not urdu native speakers the darkest in pakistan ?

In your previous posts you only referred to language group now you argue about not being too dark and god knows what - maybe the angle of nose next ?

Your theories and thoughts are a huge mess. I guess you want to bring some sort of unity in pakistan but having a noble motive is not a license for spouting nonsense. There are some good reasons in favor of Urdu but the ones you supply are the most horrible really.

you got to introspect a little at the direction you are taking if it is making you warm up to Sanskrit but spitting venom on pakistani like Ashakzai no matter how disagreeable he maybe.

There are several multi language countries like Switzerland, Canada managing their affairs. The current path is not sustainable.