Jump to content

Talk:Hindi/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Hindi is not the only Official language of India, but it is one of the official languages of India. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

official in Fiji

Hindi is an official language of Fiji and should be added to the "Official language in" section, the Hindi variety of Fiji Hindi is official there. Constitution of Fiji also recognized Hindi as one of its official language and calls it Hindi only. Fiji hindi is close to Awadhi dialect of Hindi which is also counted as Hindi. Dinesh smita (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Check this and go through this. Seems there is a difference between this Hindi and "Fiji Hindi". The Fiji Hindi article has official language status mentioned in it though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity

In the infobox section of ethnicity, currently "No ethnicity" is given. So I am going to put "Hindustani people (historically)", unless someone objects. As the article Hindustani people clarifies, the word was used more frequently in the previous centuries, hence the addition of "(historically)". Khestwol (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should contain info about modern populations. Besides, the older version was reliably sourced. I've reverted to it. Better to have a discussion first. Let more people join. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
As a compromise, probably we should mention both, i.e. no specific ethnicity, followed by Hindustani people (historically) in the next line? Khestwol (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hindustani also includes Urdu, besides in my opinion, Hindustani people can be used in the Hindustani language article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

search engine result vandalism

The preview text of this page on Google Search has been vandalized with the text: "Billionaire King Bengalis are World's Number 1 Richest Whitest Number 1 educated Peoples in ..." - see screenshot: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19A4rW_b-0mvtVEuSlWi62-CLzdxX-4lb - I lack the technical skills to fix this but just wanted to bring it to the attention of someone who can. Pstarbuck (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not West Bengal

The official language of West Bengal is Bengali, not Hindi. An edit is needed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.142.22 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bill has been passed to included Hindi as one of the additional official languages of West Bengal, which has been sourced in the article. I'll edit to reflect that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hindi is also spoken in Fiji

Hindi is also a language in Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheeraj789 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Fiji Hindi is already mentioned in this article. Largoplazo (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is also Fiji Hindi

Also spoken in Fiji Better Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The article for that is Fiji Hindi.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
And it's already mentioned in this article. Largoplazo (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Urdu a dialect of Hindi

Please, add that urdu is a dialect of hindi, because or belongs to central indo-aryan languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogstar (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid that's a misunderstanding. Urdu is not a dialect of Hindi as treated in this article (= Standard Hindi). Hindustani/Hindi–Urdu are derived from Khari Boli, which belongs to a wider group of dialects called "Western Hindi". This terminology may be confusing, but has a long tradition (>100yrs) among linguists. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

Change below Region--> Northern, Eastern, Western and Central India (Hindi Belt) 

to

Region--> Northern, Eastern, Western and Central India (Hindi Belt),All Metro cities of India 134.192.250.3 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hindi (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Classical Sanskrit came before prakrit ?

In the early forms section, it states that Sauraseni Prakrit descended from classical sanskrit. This is wrong. Prakrit came before Sanskrit , not the other way around. This is a bogus classification. Please refer to this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts Bodhiupasaka (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked is about first written records known for a language; not about the order in which languages appeared.
Sanskrit was confirmed earlier than prakrits. That said, I am certain that prakrits existed in parallel and most folks across the Subcontinent did not use the highly codified language of literature and law in their daily lives. — kashmīrī TALK 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the link where it proves that 'Classical sanskrit' came before any Prakrit ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Bodhiupasaka, Nobody says that it came before. Once again, please pay close attention to the wording: written records of Sanskrit are earlier than written records of prakrits. — kashmīrī TALK 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that a language that was 'synthesised' by Panini for writing down scriptures has a recorded attestation date that is much later than a language like Prakrit that was first spoken and not written ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Odd? No. This is long-standing scholarly consensus, check e.g. Colin P. Masica (1991), The Indo-Aryan Languages, Cambridge University Press, pp. 50–55. If you have a WP:reliable source that says otherwise, present it here, so we can see if turns out to be useful to improve the article. Otherwise, WP:NOTFORUM. –Austronesier (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

So you have no proof that Classical Sanskrit came before Prakrit(Middle Indo Aryan), so is my initial post on this thread, invalid ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we still going to pretend that Classical Sanskrit came before Sauraseni Prakrit ? It makes no chronological sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhiupasaka (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bodhiupasaka: Lol where does anyone claim that? Vedic Sanskrit certainly came earlier, and that is Sanskrit too. AryamanA (talk, contribs) 22:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that Vedic Sanskrit came before Prakrit. I said classical sanskrit did not come before Prakrit. It is not a claim, genius. It is a fact . Read the first link I have given in the thread. Think before you type. Panini , the creator of Classical Sanskrit never referred to language of Vedas as vedic Sanskrit. He referred to it in his Ashtadyayi as Chandas or metrical language. Sanskrit means refined language while prakrit means source or old language, and that too ironically in Sanskrit. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Must include Hindi name of india "भारत"

The name "INDIA" was a sign of colonial hangover, and was not authentically reflecting the cultural heritage of the country.

The name "भारत" (BHARAT) would justify the hard fought freedom by our "ancestors".

This name has caused "injury" to the public resulting in "loss of identity and ethos as inheritors of the hard-won freedom from foreign rule".

This name given by west was not authentically reflecting the cultural heritage of the country.But name "India" was not authentically reflecting the cultural heritage of the country.But name "Bharat/भारत" like world use in the past to represent india. And it is name use by some kings in past.

In Indian consitution PART 1(Under The Union and it's territories) state that "Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States". Nc941998 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Hindi, not India, so discussing the name of the country is off-topic. In English (including English as spoken by people from India), the country is called India. Wikipedia articles aren't a forum for appeasing historical grievances, regardless of the justification for those grievances. Largoplazo (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In english INDIA is also called BHARAT in Indian constitution.

In Indian consitution PART 1(Under The Union and it's territories) state that "Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States".

On hearing Of petetion SUPREME COURT(High Authorty of India) also said this on petition to change name India .Supreme court say that "India is already called Bharat in the Constitution.”

Nc941998 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

And it's still off-topic. –Austronesier (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"India has 28 states" and "The most populous city in India is Mumbai" are also facts—and also not relevant to this article. Largoplazo (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hindi

The heading should be Hindi language instead of Hindi . George Mishra (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Why? For best results, be sure you take the guidelines for naming articles at WP:NCLANG and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC into account in your response. Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting small help

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hindi history section

The user “Keep your city clean” made some edits in the history section. I did a general cleanup of the edits but wanted to discuss if the statement “Modern High Hindi was developed from Urdu”, which that user inserted into the history section, should be retained. It’s from an old source (1996) and the statement seems to be an oversimplification of the history. Although modern Urdu did come before modern Hindi and influenced its development, it doesn’t take into account newer research such as Nagari Rekhta and other aspects of the Hindi-Urdu continuum discussed by scholars like Imre Bangha that led to modern Hindi. I also noticed most of the edits that user has made in other articles have gotten reverted so he/she might be a sock puppet. What is your view on this @Austronesier, Kautilya3, Uanfala, and Gotitbro:? Foreverknowledge (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge: That it no doubt a sock of WP:LTA/SAMI, any new/recent account or IP making Urdu POVPUSH or nonsensical edits to articles, infoboxes, categories etc. is most likely him. Don't waste your time engaging with these IPs (see the LTA for a list IPs used)/socks and feed them; revert them, report them to SPI and ask for page protections to heavily affected pages. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
And the sock was just blocked. I have reverted the edits and other contentious names in the lead which were originally added to the Urdu article by the sock and were repeated here by another contentious editor. Gotitbro (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The source does say it. I would regard that as the Urdu scholars' POV. If you can find a better description of "modern high Hindi" from Bangha, you can use it. Otherwise, just get rid of it. This will be a never-ending debate otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Foreverknowledge: There are a lot of things that can be improved in the pages Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani language and History of Hindustani. There is so much criss-crossing and contradictive information scattered in these pages. But the impetus should come from observations and discussions among us "regulars", and not by sock input. The disruption by that crank LTA actually keeps us from doing progress. And FWIW, as with so many things in this complex topic, the statement "Modern High Hindi was developed from Urdu" is correct if understood in the right historical and terminological context, but can be just as wrong if we do not specify this context and leave the reader believing that they can retroactively apply their modern perception of Hindi and Urdu to past stages in the history of Hindi–Urdu. –Austronesier (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

Some links are dead and are not working anymore and these are needed to be removed immediately. Jayantjain001 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Language Map used in Infobox

The map mentioned in infobox represent a very partial picture of the country. Majority in states like Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, etc. don't have Standard Hindi as their first language. They are of languages which are wrongly classified as dialects of Hindi (in term s of linguistics). Most of these languages are under consideration to be declared under Eight Schedule of the Constitution. You can yourself check the census data as well as proposed lanaguges for eight schedule under MHA. Kindly remove that map and stop its usage altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik9hil (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

ping Uanfala , why do we have this map in infobox? As per you, this shouldn't have been here at all! Hindi is not the language of Himachal or Uttarakhand & yet that wrong map is used. It creates a very wrong impression, don't you think?

Extremely disappointed by the unresponsive people here. You are simply Hindi bigots! Nik9hil (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, all people on the planet who didn't see your comment or didn't consider themselves competent to weigh in on it or didn't treat it as a priority while they were reading it because they had other things going on in their lives are inherently Hindi bigots!
Read WP:AGF and learn not to reach for insults and accusations as your response to mundane events. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Being a US citizen and resident whose ancestry is purely European and who has never been anywhere in Asia, and who is generally interested in languages, I have zero reason to be a "Hindi bigot". So I am not being a "Hindi bigot" when I point out the sources used at Himachal Pradesh#Languages and Uttarakhand#Languages to show that Hindi is the majority language (89.1%) in Himachal Pradesh[1] and is spoken natively by 43% of the people in Uttarakhand,[2] where it's also the lingua franca.
You say "check the census data". Is that not what I just did? From what sources of census data are you reaching a different conclusion? Largoplazo (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I would apologise for my previous statement. I believe in collective development. I don't want to hurt anyone.
My conclusions were form the fact what comes under Hindi. I being a speaker of these languages cannot & do not agree with my language being dialect of Hindi. There have been attempts by people to completely separate it from Hindi. Hindi can be pretty much concluded as lingua franca for Maharashtra & other states too, yet we find their native languages being mentioned. When you put out that map showing the Hindi as the our language, that definitely hurts the native interest. This come only from that. I would again apoogise as I didn't intend to hurt anyone & I would never would. Nik9hil (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Marathi is by far the majority language in Maharashtra, the native language of some 70% of its speakers, so it isn't comparable to a state where the census data says a majority speak Hindi and a state where the census data say 43% do, followed by a language spoken by only 23%. The census report (you are the one who said to look at the census) to which I linked groups nearly 60 speeches under the one scheduled language Hindi. We need to approach this based on what reliable sources say. If other reliable sources classify these speech variants in different manners, then deciding how to reconcile them in the article is a proper topic for discussion here on the talk page, just as we would have to discuss how to handle sources that say dosas are sandwiches with sources that say they aren't. Largoplazo (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
If you will actually breakdown the Hindi count, you will be surprised to find out that a lot of Himachal's languages are simply classified as dialects of Hindi. But that doesn't mean Hindi is native language here. Te reason I pointed out Maharashtra is that people here can largely speak both Marathi & Hindi & report Marathi as their mother tongue. People in Himachal similarly report Pahari languages in majority as their mother tongue not standard Hindi. This is the point I want to highlight & present in front of you all. I would request you on what sources would you consider reliable. As for all these languages have their respective language code. They belong to Western Pahari group of languages under Indo-Aryan group. I had a pie chart which clearly showed the majority of these languages but it was removed from a page (based on census). I don't think it is right in any manner to consider languages of different branch than that of Hindi as dialect of Hindi. Doing so creates a lot of confusion among the masses who would think it is just a variation of it when it is clearly not. As for the government, they too have proposed for recognition under MHA India. Nik9hil (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Having said this, the second map too continues on this assumption. I would request you to check the same map for standard Hindi count. You will notice an instant lose many regions right away. Nik9hil (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
It is also wrong to say that people reported their mother tongue as 'Hindi'. You should know how Census happens in India. They would ask you your language, & you would say it. Registering that, they will then play around with it as they please. No where in this process does one says that their mother tongue is Hindi, it is the system which does this disastrous classification. I can see no one is replying for a quite a time now. Hopefully I am not ignored like I was earlier. Nik9hil (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Very unprofessional response by @Largoplazo: who jumped to calling themselves a "Hindi bigot" despite no such accusation being levelled at them. No wonder new editors are scared away from Wikipedia.
Anyway, @Nik9hil: I've uploaded a map of the district-level self-reported Hindi speakers in the 2011 census and put that instead. The Census definition of the Hindi macrolanguage is extremely broad, but they do provide the figures for self-reported speakers too. We need to be careful about equating state to language in the Indian context, it ignores the existence of non-official minority languages and results in very misleading maps like the one that was there before. This new map includes population proportions so is hopefully of higher quality. AryamanA (talk, contribs) 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@AryamanA: FYI, editing Wikipedia is not my profession. Besides that, I was really confused about why you were jumping on me about my remarks until I noticed that User:Nik9hil removed their comment that I'd been responding to, leaving you without the context necessary to understand what I was talking about. While I accepted Nik9hil's apology and truly appreciate the good faith behind their removal of their remark, see WP:REDACTED, which points out (precisely to avoid situations like this!) that once someone has responded to one's talk page contributions, if one chooses to delete or substantively edit them, they should leave the original text in place but strike it out using markup. (Insertions may be indicated as such with markup as well.) Since it's unfair to leave me in the position of having my words taken out of context, subjecting me to criticism, I've restored Nik9hil's text but also struck it through. Largoplazo (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: Ah, I see, yes that was unwarranted and now I understand the context. Apologies for jumping to conclusions. Well, I hope my edit is acceptable to both of you, and I hope you have a good day on the Internet :) AryamanA (talk, contribs) 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I again would apologize for that statement. Excuse me for not being under the right state of mind. I am happy that someone did respond to my comments in the right spirit. I have my faith restored here. Nik9hil (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

I THINK THE PAGE Should change the derivation of hindi to the roots of sanskrit, giving ti similar ties to the german language. Misrap354 (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Besides which, I can't tell what "giving ti [sic] similar ties to the german language" means. German doesn't have roots in Sanskrit. Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Did Hindi really descend from Classical Sanskrit ?

I'm not sure why someone deleted the previous thread with the same topic which also went properly unanswered, so I'll try to present the concern again. How can a language such as Classical Sanskrit that itself was synthesized from Vedic and restricted to use by the priestly class end up becoming the ancestor of Hindi when there was no probability of Classical Sanskrit changing to Hindi given the fact that it was a language that was largely used by the priestly class and other religious clergy and was mostly unknown to the ordinary masses and it was never spoken by them in order for the same language to evolve to Hindi ? Even there is no guarantee that Hindi Or any prakritic language descended from vedic, since it is greatly contested by scholars.

And what exactly is vedic 'sanskrit' ? Sanskrit(classical sanskrit) is the language that was refined by Panini from Vedic(thats why its called Sanskrit which means 'refined' in the same language), which he referred to as Chandas(Vedic) in his ashtadhyayi and the same name for the vedic language is attested even in Non brahmanical texts such as the Tipitaka(Cullavagga). There is no mention of 'vedic sanskrit' in any historical manuscript. By stating the existence of a language such as 'Vedic sanskrit', does that mean that there was an even older language that is not even mentioned in the wiki article from which vedic sanskrit was synthesized or refined ? Why else would it be called a form of sanskrit other than the fact that it was 'refined' from an older preexisting language? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, Hindi did not descent from Classical Sanskrit. The infobox is wrong. I hope some of the regular editors will fix it.
Hindi as well as all other north-Indian languages were descendants of Prakrits ("Middle Indo-Aryan languages"), which were in turn descendants of the Old Indo-Aryan languages, of which "Vedic Sanskrit" is a prime example. The infobox should only refer to language families, not any kind of "Sanskrit". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Exactly, you're right, I'm not sure why someone deleted the previous thread of mine that was trying to highlight the same concern. Even it is questionable to say that Hindi descended from Vedic as well since there are scholars who do not agree that Vedic is an ancestor of Prakrit, "It follows that Vedic and Prakrit are sister dialects instead of being related as mother to daughter. " Source:https://archive.org/details/jstor-3087594

That infobox is a reflection religio-linguistic centrism that will only serve to mislead readers.

Bodhiupasaka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The section was archived by a vicious bot (Talk:Hindi/Archive_7#Classical Sanskrit came before prakrit ?). The paper which you cite is from 1912. The modern mainstream view (as correctly described by Kautilya3) is that Vedic and Classical Sanskrit are the only documented representatives of the Old Indo-Aryan stage, whereas the various Prakrits represent Middle Indo-Aryan. Nevertheless, Vedic and Classical Sanskrit are not necessarily the direct Old Indo-Aryan ancestor of all Prakrits. In family terms, Vedic and Classical Sanskrit are "aunts/uncles". Following Kautilya3's suggestion I will fix the infobox, but since the exact Old Indo-Aryan ancestor of Śaurasenī Prakrit is undocumented, I will leave the Old Indo-Aryan level blank. If a fellow editor thinks that a blanket entry "Old Indo-Aryan" would do, I won't oppose. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware the article is from 1912, but question is , has there been any recent paper that has completely refuted the 1912 article and indisputably proved that 'all prakrits' are 'definitely' 'descendants of 'vedic' ? Yes , I am aware that vedic is one of the oldest documented old Indo aryan languages, can't say the same for sanskrit (it's written attestation date supercedes that of Prakrit(there's a wiki article on languages by first attested/written accounts). Regardless, the fact many languages died out before they even had a written script, shows that the first written dates of a language cannot necessarily determine that language to be older than another language that has no script. Speaking of scripts, is there any vedic language scripture that was written in Brahmi, the ancestor of all Indian scripts ? Why is it mostly written in Devanagari that is a late descendant of Brahmi ? Even many prakrits were written in Brahmi, before vedic was written down in any script. This, of course calls to question whether vedic is really one of the oldest documented indo aryan languages. Anyway thank you for your timely response and action. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And are you sure that classical sanskrit represents old indo aryan ?, especially since it was the brainchild of a grammarian named Panini who lived in the same period when Middle indo aryan languages were spoken ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

>>> Hindi (Devanagari: हिन्दी, IAST/ISO 15919: Hindī), or more precisely Modern Standard Hindi (Devanagari: मानक हिन्दी, IAST/ISO 15919: Mānak Hindī),[*] is an Indo-Aryan language spoken chiefly in India.

The language "X" in general should never be described as "more precisely Modern Standard X".

The article should not exclude the language as spoken or written in ancient or classical times, or as spoken colloquially by people who do not adhere so closely to school-book rules of grammar, or to an arbitrary modern standardized dialect of it.

Also, please explain the distinction between "Hindi" and "Hindu" when referring to the people(s), language(s), and/or religion(s) of India. justinacolmena (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Austronesier (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Modern day Hindi sounds just like urdu

Hindi was officially formed around 1960. You can’t say that modern day Hindi comes from devangiri or sanskirat or pratrik. It uses some devangiri words but mostly it’s Urdu. Urdu has been around from centuries. It used to be called Hindustani, the word Hindu has Persian origins. The Islamic conquerors looked at Indian people and named them Hindu. They created/Hindustani which was later named Urdu in 18th century. It’s not factual to completely undermine Urdu and instead torque around to pretend Hindi is more ancient and has sanskirat origins when it sounds nothing like sanskirat. It’s also wrong to say Urdu was derived from Hindi. HistoricScientificJournal (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? What do you suppose the Indians were speaking before the "Islamic conquerors" came to conquer? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If the article does indeed claim that Urdu is derived from Hindi, then it must rectified. Neither is urdu derived from Hindi nor the other way around. Both are derived from Hindustani which is an Indo aryan language and its ancestors existed in the Indian subcontinent much before the Islamic invasion. Hindi 'sounds like Urdu' because both languages are from the same lexical and grammatical base. The only difference is the script and loan words used.

And no doubt that Hindu is of Persian origin. But that word was first used by Zoroastrians in Persia to refer to a geographical entity(Sindhu).

I don't think the article claims Hindi is derived from sanskrit, if it does, then that must be rectified as well. "The Islamic conquerors", only named the non muslims living by the banks of the Sindhu River as Hindus. There was no India or Indians at that time. And you claim Hindi 'officially' formed in 1960 ? Where did you get this information ? , given the fact the first agitation against Hindi imposition took place in Tamil Nadu in 1937 ! Hindi pretty much existed before Indian independence. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the "Internet" subsection of the "media" subsection, could someone link the word "film" to "Hindi film" (which redirects to Bollywood) instead of just the generic film article? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Problematic statements

The history section of the wiki article reads: "Like other Indo-Aryan languages, Hindi is a direct descendant of an early form of Vedic Sanskrit, through Sauraseni Prakrit and Śauraseni Apabhraṃśa (from Sanskrit apabhraṃśa "corrupt"), which emerged in the 7th century CE". The reference for it has been archived and not properly functioning while there is scholarly evidence that suggests the opposite to the mentioned statements, which is why these statements also do not agree with what is written in the infoboxes and such . Please rectify this. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Add the following at the end of 2nd para of lede: 

World Hindi Secretariat (WHS) is an international organisation of countries and regions where Hindi is first language. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2021 (2)

Add the following at the end of 1st para in lede 

India has been trying to get 129 votes at UN to make Hindi an official language of UN.[1] 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done Run n Fly (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "India Trying to Get 129 Votes to Get Hindi as UN Language: Sushma Swaraj". Archived from the original on 20 April 2016. Retrieved 15 June 2016.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Hindi is not the official language of India 49.207.203.61 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Existing claim is well sourced. Melmann 07:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Art

Change the think Vivek dixit bina (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Please add another language ‘pahari’ 2409:4054:105:EAF:54B8:D2FC:42F4:5A21 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Kpddg (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalineem. Peer reviewers: Teresay017.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022

Hi all,

in the main section/lead, can the sentence "is an Indo-Aryan language spoken chiefly in the North and Central India." be changed to "is an Indo-Aryan language spoken chiefly in North and Central India." (without the "the") - since there is no need for "the" here.

Thank you, 98.179.127.59 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

Respected Sir, I recently edited a few Indo-Aryan pages, in which I added "Vedic Sanskrit" as the ancestor of all Indo-Aryan languages. So I want to do the same with Hindi, kindly accept my request, very pleased. Thank you! Arkam Knight (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to add "Vedic Sanskrit" as the ancestor of Hindi. Thank you! Arkam Knight (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

https://www.inhindi.co.in https://www.inhindi.co.in 2409:4052:982:D371:0:0:475:60A0 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Sarangbsr (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi is not a direct descendant of Sanskrit or any Indian Language. Instead, it is a dialect of Hindustani Language, which itself is direct descendant of Persian Language. Therefore it is requested to not to create false belief of Hindi being a direct descendent of Sanskrit and of even, being a full fledged language Sarangbsr (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi is a direct descendant of Persian Language Sarangbsr (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi is not a direct descendant of Sanskrit. There is no relation between Sanskrit and Hindi/Urdu(Collectively Hindustani Language). Sarangbsr (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi/Urdu (Collectively One and only language called Hindustani) didn't used to exist 200 years ago. Also, Hindi contains only 20% of Sanskrit Vocabulary. Also It is requested to watch the Video on Hindustani Language from the YouTube Channel named LangFocus. Sarangbsr (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

youtu.be/vxSd7p1i_TA Sarangbsr (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi and Sanskrit have nothing to do with morality or origin. Hindi did not originate from Sanskrit. Khariboli dialect of Hindustani language has been given the name Hindi , which was influenced by Sanskrit language but not was a direct descendent of Sanskrit Language Sarangbsr (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How Manak Hindi has Persian or Arabic words?

Please give us 10 words where Manak Hindi has Persian/Arabic words exclusively. Otherwise please remove the Persian influence. @Foreverknowledge: Yeshehat (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Try looking through the pages of a standard Hindi-English dictionary. You will be pleasantly surprised to see hundreds of Persian/Arabic words included! Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

The article says:
"As a linguistic variety, Hindi is the fourth most-spoken first language in the world, after Mandarin, Spanish and English. Hindi alongside Urdu as Hindustani is the third most-spoken language in the world, after Mandarin and English."
The second sentence contradicts the first one. If Hindustani is the third most-spoken first language, it comes after Mandarin and Spanish according to the first sentence. 2A02:A210:2145:7E00:8460:741C:F98:73F1 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
After reading the sentences a few more times, the source of confusion becomes clear. The first sentence is about L1 speakers. The second sentence is about L1 + L2 speakers. Please reformulate the sentences to make them understandable at first reading (by a layman).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits by User:PadFoot2008

User:PadFoot2008 has removed the number of Hindi speakers from the infobox and has been reverted per WP:BRD. He still obstinately continues to revert despite being warned. Even A Geolinguistic Handbook, published in 1985, recorded the number of Hindi speakers as being over 220 million at that time. User:PadFoot2008's edits constitute original research in subtracting figures he found in order to make a conclusion he desires. I am pinging linguist User:Austronesier to this discussion in order to monitor these problematic edits. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the article lead again. It says modern standard Hindi. If you were a linguist or at least had some experience editing articles related to Indo-Aryan languages, you'd know, that the Indian consensus doesn't record speakers of Modern Standard Hindi. The figures get conflated with speakers of Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, etc, which are different but related languages. The figures might do good in the Central Indo-Aryan languages. Requesting @Austronesier for comment. PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Anupam is an experienced editor with a thorough knowledge of WP policies and certainly experienced with IA related topics, so there is no need to be patronizing. We all know that census figures are problematic since language attitudes of speakers will result in certain languages to be overcounted (Hindi, Sanskrit and other prestige languages), and others to be undercounted (local vernaculars without a modern literary standard). But we can't do tenuous arithmetics here to fix this (unless we cite reliable source which exactly do that). The long-standing version of the infobox is sufficiently explicit about the overcounting. For more details, we need reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Why can't we just remove the figures altogether? We know the figures are inflated. It's like providing the figures for the population of the entire European Union in population of Hungary and then saying in brackets the figures include non-Hungarians too. I know that reliable sources probably do not exist (I would list them in future if I find them), but there is no need to provide incorrect figures. The figures might do good in Hindi Belt, but not in this page about Standard Hindi. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
If you see the official census sources, there is a group − Hindi languages, which includes languages like Pahadi, Garwali, Awadhi, Magahi, etc as well as Hindi. In Wikipedia, the second one is used for calculating the total number of Standard Hindi speakers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The second one? What's the second one? PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This, for example, is the 2011 census report of "Population by mother tongue in the state of Gujarat". The languages are arranged in groups written in bold - ASSAMESE, BENGALI, BODO, DOGRI, GUJARATI, HINDI, KANNADA, etc. Within each group, there are languages that are considered part of the group. GUJARATI has Gujarati, Pattani, Saurashtra/Saurashtri and Others. HINDI has languages ranging from Awadhi to Hindi to Surjapuri (and Others). HINDI group has a total number of '4264868' speakers in Gujarat, which includes all the 'hindi languages', but only has '3670047' of "Hindi" speakers. What I'm saying is, we use the number of speakers described as 'Hindi' within the HINDI group as the number of standard Hindi speakers ('3670047') and not of the whole group. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the Indian census counting Awadhi, Bhojpuri and other langauges. But as mentioned in this article itself and other articles like Bhojpuri language, the census counts what people say without confirming it, resulting in the results possibly getting inflated due to illiteracy and people not realising what their language is actually called. Look at this file about UP mother tongue census, do you really think out of the 187 million total arbitrary "Hindi group" speaking population, "160 million" speak "[Standard] Hindi"? Just think about it. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Austronesier, thank you for your kind words. User:PadFoot2008, I am a leading author of articles pertaining to Indo-Aryan languages and peoples, but I will forgive your ignorance as you are a relatively new editor. The Government of India lists the total number of Hindi speakers as being 615 million, with the United Nations exploring the possibility of its inclusion as an official language. This is much greater than the deflated figures you are proposing. AnupamTalk 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
These are L2 figures (otherwise you wouldn't get that many English or French speakers), so only of secondary relevance for this discussion here (L2 figures are of course relevant as such). –Austronesier (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologise for earlier having misjudged you, @Anupam. As you said, I am in fact relatively new to this section of Wikipedia. Anyways 615 million, as @Austronesier said, are L2 figures and thus not completely relevant here. The discussion is about the native speakers (L1) of Standard Hindi, which we don't seem to have any reliable source for as I explained earlier. I don't have a problem with L2 speakers, which are probably correct. Only the L1 figures are problematic (for reasons I've stated above), and thus can't be included. Once again, I suggest we altogether remove the L1 figures. PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
If we replace L1 speakers with "Total Speakers", I would have no issue with it. AnupamTalk 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I've set label to Total Speakers (instead of native speakers) and removed "L1 speakers". PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Given the replacement, however, the "Total Speakers" number (for the whole world, not just India) should reflect this figure, 615 million. AnupamTalk 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008, Anupam, and Austronesier: In the region we have Western UP and Delhi, and for the total number of speakers we have 615 million, including L2 and possibly people speaking related languages. I don't get it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The region is supposed to be the region where native speakers are. The figure includes L2 speakers and non-Hindi (but self-reported) speakers too not just from India but from outside India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Bhojpuri

Can we please accept that Bhojpuri is NOT a Hindi language, it's an Eastern Indo-Aryan language that belongs to the Bihari family? There's not even a debate on this. It's simply lumped in with "Hindi" for the sake of convenience. As an encyclopaedia, I don't understand why it's listed as a "dialect" of Hindi in the opening of the article! Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The general consensus appears to be against moving these pages (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

– The current article name is an ambiguous one, with the word Hindi referring to both the standard register of Hindustani and the group of languages in Central Indo-Aryan languages. In addition, Hindi could also refer to the languages of the Hindi belt. The new article name would be less confusing and more WP:PRECISE. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The proposal would work if "Hindi language" indeed meant "Modern Standard Hindi" (MSH) only, and other readings of "Hindi" were something different from a language (e.g. a language group, in which we could have "Hindi languages" for this reading). But this is not the case: according to one common definition "Hindi (language)", primarily refers to "Modern Standard Hindi", the literary language that was shaped in the 19th century as a vehicle of Hindu identity against the long-standing tradition of Urdu, and this is also what we present in this article. But for many people (in fact hundreds of millions of people), "Hindi (language)" also refers to a wider bundle of language varieties. According to this significant POV, these varieties are considered dialects of a more broadly defined Hindi language, even though linguists (and local language activists) generally treat these varieties as distinct languages. Consequently, "Hindi language" is just as precise or imprecise as simple "Hindi".
Finally, most readers looking up for "Hindi" are looking for the language, regardless of whether they use "Hindi" strictly to refer to MSH, or to the wider bundle of language varieties. This makes the language (sensu stricto or sensu lato) the primary topic, in which case a natural disambiguator is unnecessary. –Austronesier (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Then should I change my proposal to Modern Standard Hindi? The current article title is still definitely going to cause confusion to many readers. Not all readers are aware of the the different implications of teh term. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
"Modern Standard Hindi" has become some kind of default introductory characterization in texts about Hindi, but is rarely used as primary term. We find things like:

Hindi, the official language, is a standardized form of language that is also referred to as Modern Standard Hindi...
— Kachru (2006), Hindi

...the official and general written language [...] is Hindi, sometimes called Modern Standard Hindi...
— Masica (1991), The Indo-Aryan languages

But "Modern Standard Hindi" is rarely used as the primary denominator. In Google Scholar, there are only 12 sources that have "Modern Standard Hindi" in the title[3]. This is of course a direct corollary of the fact that for many scholars (Indian and non-Indian alike), usage of the term "Hindi" should be restricted to the modern literary language. (Btw, here's an exemplary source for the above-mentioned opposite POV[4]). –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a case of WP:COMMONNAME, but rather a case of WP:PRECISION. This article is about the Hindi language or the Modern Standard Hindi, and must thus should be distinguished from the Hindi languages. You are very experienced in this field and I think you would understand that "Hindi and it's varities" isn't really a thing, and rather Hindi is just a language similiar to Awadhi or Bundeli which too are languages related to but not varieties of the Hindi language. You provided two sources stating that per linguistic classification, Modern Standard Hindi and Hindi language are roughly the same thing. I do not see why this page shouldn't be moved. There do exist the Hindi language and the Hindi languages, but not Urdu languages, Latin languages, etc. Thus, this article move seems important. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
You assert that it's about PRECISION rather than COMMONNAME, without giving a reason why, let alone why it should outweigh the other four WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability, Naturalness, Concision, and Consistency, all of which point to "Hindi". Oppose. Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 1 / Oppose 2- Second one is the primary redirect.
— Akshadév™ 💬 16:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's the third or fourth-most spoken language in the world. I think it probably is the primary topic for its base name. At worst, make this a concept dab; however, I think you really only need to just link the article for the varied languages that are related to it in a hatnote. Red Slash 06:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing could be more confusing than forcing readers to decide if they meant the standard register or a group of related dialects before getting to an article. Srnec (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hindi in UAE

According to The Hindu, Hindi was declared as the third court language in the UAE – is there a more reliable source, as I couldn't find anything in International English Media, or Arabic Media. نعم البدل (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hindu language" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hindu language has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 1 § Hindu language until a consensus is reached. Isla (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi

Please add this citation in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi#Independent_India section, where the book "A Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi" is mentioned, as it shows the first edition being published in 1958: https://archive.org/details/page1-converted-compressed/page/n1/mode/2up

 Done -Lemonaka‎ 02:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Arabic loanwords

@Word0151 for further reading on this topic: https://www.iranchamber.com/literature/articles/persian_language.php

— Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rolando 1208 Do you still want to include the section? Word0151 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Rolando 1208 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you give your rationale? Word0151 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
They are Arabic words used in Hindi. Loaned via Persian, as the article says. I even removed the direct borrowings part as I don't know of any sources that list them. Rolando 1208 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
How do you like it now, i have removed the table but added a line. The table is pointless, since the words are borrowed directly from Persian. Word0151 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
i think is should have done the edit after consensus, but i have already made it. Word0151 (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not pointless. Even if they were borrowed from Persian they're still Arabic words. Since they're Arabic words they should be listed.
Please undo your edit, I don't agree with the change. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
They are Hindi words, borrowed from Persian, borrowed from Arabic words. There are many french words borrowed into English and then find a way into Hindi. So are you going to create a table saying 'french words in Hindi'. Word0151 (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
People who read the English Wikipedia are more likely to know that English borrows from French and Latin. However they're less likely to know about words that Hindi and Arabic have in common, as Hindi is an unfamiliar language for non-South Asians. The Arabic table provides encyclopedic value.
I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this, the article explicitly said that they were loaned via Persian. No one has erased that important detail. Rolando 1208 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There's two things I don't get. Why would you add a table for Arabic loanwords without having one for borrowings from Persian? And how can we mention Arabic and Chagatai in one breath as ultimate sources of Hindi–Urdu words? I have tried a tweak that might be acceptable for both of you. –Austronesier (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I actually didn't notice. I think both languages should have tables. It looks better and more organised. Such a shame to just throw away a table that someone put effort into making. It just doesn't feel right. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Many sources actually speak of "Perso-Arabic" vocabulary in Hindi–Urdu. Maybe we can rename the section accordignly and present a table with exemplary loanwords from Persian and add a colummn which says "ultimately from Arabic" for each entry where it applies. Btw, for क़ानून qānūn, it would actually be "ultimately from Greek" :) –Austronesier (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. Oftentimes it's hard to tell them apart. Unless you look up each individual word's etymology. It seems to me though, that words with क़ (and maybe ग़) are always Arabic.
On a sidenote, why "Modern" Standard? Was Hindi standardised before the 19th century? Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
We agree that virtually all Arabic words in Hindi–Urdu were borrowed from Persian. Some of them even underwent a shift of meaning in Persian, and naturally, Hindi–Urdu uses the term with Persian semantics (a classical example is ग़ुलाम ġulām 'servant' < غُلَام 'boy'; also: 'boy-servant'). Should we really put Persian loanwords with an Arabic etymology into an independent subsection? On a fist glance, it creates the impression that Hindi got these words straight from Arabic. I'll leave the table as is, but remove the section header. You should also consider using adequate sources. This is not an obscure topic, so it is not hard to find high-quality scholarly sources for every statement that is relevant to this article. –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Why was Modern Standard Hindi edited to just Standard Hindi ?

Isn't the movement to depersianize and de-arabize Hindustani/Urdu to standardize present-day Hindi a recent one 2 centuries ago in the modern era? https://jsis.washington.edu/southasia/publication/a-primer-of-modern-standard-hindi/

Before this attempt, Hindi colloquially referred to local languages of the northern subcontinent, as opposed to Hindustani/Urdu, the main widely adopted variety originating from Delhi's Khariboli. 115.97.61.20 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, Khariboli-based literary Hindi has a relatively recent history. This is why many of our sources cited in the article (e.g. Shapiro 2003, Kachru 2006, Masica 1991) explicitly use the term Modern Standard Hindi. The removal of "Modern" happened a few days ago because the entire phrase does not match with मानक हिन्दी ('Standard Hindi'). That's no reason however to go against common usage in reliable sources. I'll restore it. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Austronesier The issue I have with this term it's that it implies that there was an "Old Standard Hindi".
It also seems inconsistent with all other languages. I've never heard or seen: Modern Standard English, Modern Standard German, Modern Standard Thai, Modern Standard Tagalog.
Are Hindi and Urdu the only languages that were standardised recently and that's why they get this special treatment? Wasn't for example English standardised relatively recently to align some meanings? Like how in international usage billion means 10^9 when before this alignment they always meant 10^12. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
You have already answered the question: I've never heard or seen: Modern Standard English, Modern Standard German, Modern Standard Thai, Modern Standard Tagalog. Whereas as multiple reliable sources (including gold standard sources for Indo-Aryan linguistics such as Masica or Cardona) do use "Modern Standard Hindi". Note also that there were earlier literary languages in the gamut of Indo-Aryan varieties commonly called "Hindi", albeit not Khariboli-based. –Austronesier (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and Urdu has a much older continious literary history. That's why you will hardly find "Modern Standard Urdu" in high-quality reliable sources, and that is also why we don't use "Modern Standard ..." in the Urdu article. –Austronesier (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't get how that's an issue today. Considering we refer to, say, Braj as Braj and not Standard Hindi.
It seems inconsistent with all the other languages. With all the other articles, the fact that they're modern is always implied. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Austronesier consider this article, Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. None of these varieties are called "Modern Standard", even though they were standardised last century. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
As a rule, we certainly do align our articles for consistency, but only if this is supported by reliable sources. So if you find sources using the "Modern Standard" label applied to these languages with the same prevalence and frequency as in the case of Modern Standard Hindi, we might consider to add it there too. –Austronesier (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Then again, we don't have to quote the sources verbatim 100% of the time. It'd be better to just call it "Standard" so that it aligns with all the other languages. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This not about "quoting". It's about following established terminology. –Austronesier (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Woah woah woah. I made one revert during the whole day, you're calling that edit warring, seriously? Rolando 1208 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Third opinion (from someone "with no dog in the fight"): "As a rule, we certainly do align our articles for consistency, but only if this is supported by reliable sources" is generally correct. The question really comes down to whether the attested use of "Modern Standard Hindi" in the RS on this topic is the dominant usage in quality source material (in English), or whether it's just one of two or more common terms for the modern language, including the simpler "Modern Hindi". If the shorter term is in about equal or even prevailing use, then using it would be both more concise and more consistent, plus not have the problem of perhaps implying an "Old" and "Middle" Standard Hindi. But if "Modern Standard Hindi" is usually used and the shorter "Standard Hindi" is usually avoided (for different sorts of potential ambiguity reasons Austronesier mentioned), then WP is not in a position to impose the short term here just because we like consistent naming patterns; that would be at least skirting the edge of WP:OR.
In short, this clearly just comes down to doing a survey of the appropriate source material to see what term dominates in the actually relevant and relaible sources. A really rudimentary Google Scholar search [5] is showing a lot of usage of the short phrase, but there are many false positives like "modern Hindi poetry", "modern Hindi theatre", etc., referring to the applied usage in the contemporary time period, not a language name, even when the keyword "language" is explicitly included, so it would have to be winnowed down with successive - terms, and then after that a good sampling of the works would need to be looked at for linguistics relevance, publication reputability, etc. I think that would be more productive than the two of you just arguing back and forth in an "I just know it should be this way" manner. :-) PS: This would be distinct from a WP:COMMONNAME analysis for an article title, in which all sources we'd generally consider reliable would be included, including things like newspapers, since article titles are about meeting reader expections; here, we care much more about field-specific source usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Dogless editor #2, here. Pretty much agreeing with SMcCandlish here down the line, but he doesn't go far enough. Analyzing the result of the linked query, for example, is not *only* about looking for false positives like "modern Hindi poetry". you also need to check the context of the expressions to see if they are referring to the same thing. In result #3, what is modern referring to in this snippet:

a veritable who's who of modern Hindi authors Maithilisharan Gupta, Nirala

Are they writers of Modern Hindi, or are they contemporary authors writing in Hindi? If the latter, then this cannot be counted as one tally for the shorter name. Does the lack of a capital 'M' mean it's probably the latter? These are questions that need to be asked when evaluating search result data.
Result #9 for that query is entitled, "Introduction: The Study of Pre-Modern Hindi Literature", and if you look only at search hit counts, this will add one more to the tally for 'Modern Hindi" even though it is precisely the opposite. Finally, two- and three-word phrases for items in many fields are systematically reduced to one- and two-word phrases in books and articles about the item, once the formal, longer name has been introduced and defined. Books search result #3 for "Space shuttle" is "NASA Space Shuttle: 40th Anniversary" (#1 has no preview; #2 is for small children), and in running txt, refers mostly to the book topic as shuttle, not space shuttle:
the shuttle's resusability, the shuttle would become a one-size-fits-all..., only one objective for the shuttle program, received a boost from the shuttle, heat-resistant tiles for the shuttle's wings, the first non-US astronaut to fly on a shuttle, The shuttle program probably achieved..., searched for a shuttle configuration that could be afforded, parts that make up a shuttle, test a shuttle's ability to glide, telescope had been designed for servicing by shuttle astronauts, a shuttle based on lifting body concepts;
Need I go on? This overwhelming number of uses of shuttle rather than always having space shuttle does *not* mean that the COMMONNAME of this vehi○le is "the shuttle"; the common name is the Space shuttle, and all the other usages are shorter equivalents that are all understood in context. You can see the same thing happening at Wikipedia's article for Delta Shuttle, and even at the one-word article Shuttlecock. In all three of these articles, hits for the word shuttle outweigh those of the formal term, but are not evidence that the common name for the item in question is the shorter one, they are merely indicators that nobody wants to repeat a 2- or 3-word formal name for an object constantly throughout an article or book once the context is clear, and the superior numbers of the short phrase compared to the longer, formal name do not mean that the shorter, more frequent phrase is the common name for the item.
Long story short: like SMcC said, it's about actual usage in sources, not about consistency which plays second fiddle, and because it is a multi-word phrase, I'd pay a whole lot more attention to book, chapter, and article titles, than to mere counts in the running text, which I would predict would skew towards the abbreviated term, as seen in the Space Shuttle example, without implying that the shorter term is the common name for the language. Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish and Mathglot: Thank you for your input and especially for bringing "Modern Hindi" into the discussion as a third hitherto undiscussed option (and the one with the highest potential to yield false positives). Obviously, only a survey of the appropriate source material (as mentioned by SMcCandlish) can bring objective guidance into this matter. So far I have been content with pointing to existing reliable sources which use "Modern Standard Hindi" whereas no source for "Standard Hindi" has been brought forward. But there's one lesson I've from from similar discussions in RMs: don't rely on the OP's failure to objectively support their claim; that doesn't disprove anything and they might be right after all. I'll come back when I've done a survey. @SMcCandlish: Your help will be highly appreciated then lest I might technically misinterpret Ngram Viewer results again. –Austronesier (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are you so stubborn in hiding देवनागरी?

@PadFoot2008 your last argument doesn't even hold any weight. Urdu is not an exonym either but it does show its native script. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rolando 1208, then you or I can fix it at Urdu as well. And I am not trying to hide the Devanagari script. It is there in the infobox. Per convention and there is no need to clutter the lead. PadFoot2008 16:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
A convention that you made up bhai. Btw it's not cluttered. Almost every language article shows the native script without hiding it. Don't change things unnecessarily. Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, this convention you refer to doesn't seem to exist, PadFood2008. I just looked at Tamil language, Gujarati language, Assamese language, Konkani language, Dogri language, Korean language, Georgian language, Armenian language, Serbian language, and Greek language, and they all show the native names, in the native scripts and with transliterations, in the first sentence, not embedded in a footnote. I have seen an extended footnote when the treatment of the subject's name in other languages goes on at length and becomes a distraction, but that isn't the case here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright, maybe you're correct. I had thought that as it is a convention on most articles, it would also be a convention on language-related articles. PadFoot2008 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus

Hindi was written in Nastaliq script. Can we add this infobox. Abirtel (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? The article body doesn't say this; without that, it would be inappropriate to have it in the infobox. Largoplazo (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This page already held this portion
///Major Hindustani writers continued to refer to their tongue as Hindi or Hindavi till the early of 19th century.
As Mirza Galib says in his Qādir Nāma written in Nastaliq script:
नेवला रासू है और ताऊस मोर,
कब्क को हिन्दी में कहते हैं चकोर
Nevla is rasu (mongoose) and Taus is mor (peacock),
Kabk is uttered as Chakor (Ptarmigan) in Hindi////
If it does not satisfy you then
///From the 13th century until ::the end of the 18th century; the ::language now known as Urdu was ::called Hindi,[28] Hindavi, ::Hindustani,[33] ///
This portion surely meet that ::criterion.
So it is quite clear that,Hindi ::was written in Nastaliq till the ::beginning of the 20th century.
We can surely add this. Abirtel (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Mirza Ghalib wrote in Urdu.
The Hindi that this article is about is the language variety that's called "Hindi" today. The article about the greater language that encompasses both of what today are known as "Hindi" and "Urdu" is Hindustani language.
Further, if Salman Rushdie were to write a novel in English but with using the Devanagari script, that wouldn't justify asserting in the article on English language that English "is written in" or "has been written in" Devanagari. An acceptable source would have to actually say that English is/has been written using Devanagari. It wouldn't suffice for you to show one example of someone doing it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
If mirza galib said he is writing in Hindi in nastaliq then we have no right today to say that Galib is a Urdu poet!
As Urdu was identified as Hindi, Hindavi, Hindustani simultaneously till the starting of the 20th century
So we can surely say that Hindi was written in nastaliq till the starting of 20th century.
Now what will be your position if anyone says that Urdu was written in devanagari before 1900s.
See this https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=jVx6EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA139&dq=hindi+writing+in.nastaliq&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX5ITz9PGGAxVBSWwGHS5_AFgQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=hindi%20writing%20in.nastaliq&f=false Abirtel (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Reiterating what Austronesier said below, but indented: That name may have been used at the time for the variety in which Ghalib wrote, but that isn't what the term is used to mean today, and this article is about the variety that the term is used for today. Just as we aren't going to write here about turkeys in Anatolia even though Turks call the turkey "hindi". Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
////Just as we aren't going to write here about turkeys in Anatolia even though Turks call the turkey "hindi".////
Turks now call turkey turkiye. Before that during initial ottoman time turkey was called "Rome".
Why Hindi was called Hindi?
Hindi means people of Hindiyyah/Hindia/India which was an official name of Mughal empire in Arabic.
Persian speaking world knew that empire as Hindustan.
So the language Hindi and oHindustani happened to be the same tongue.
Urdu means royal camp, court of Delhi. Initially Urdu aka Royal camp was run by persian tongue. Slowly Hindi replaced the persian. After 1837, Hindi became the only Urdu Zuban as the use of Persian come to an end. hence hindi was called Urdu Zuban.
During 1780, Hindi was being used as official tongue along with Persian.
Technically Before 1780, Urdu means Persian only.
///but that isn't what the term is used to mean today///
Yea that is why Nastaliq now happens to be historical script. Abirtel (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
You're confusing "script used historically for what's called 'Hindi' today", which is false, with "script used for something that historically was called 'Hindi'", which is true but "something that historically was called 'Hindi'" is not what this article's about. Largoplazo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Then why the page have shown the infos of kaithi, mahajani and landa as historic script of use? Abirtel (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
A quote from Mirza Ghalib shouldn't even be used here. It's deceptive to say "in the Nastaliq script", when actually it's not Hindi in Nastaliq, it's Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
First of all, Nastaʿlīq isn't a script, it's a calligraphic style of the Perso-Arabic script. Also, you need to distinguish between words and things. The language commonly known as "Urdu" since the 18th century, was known by several other names before, including "Hindi". But that's not Hindi as understood since the 19th century. This article is about the modern standard language that was consciously developed as a literary alternative of Urdu which saw its roots in the literary tradition of the sister languages of Khariboli (such as Awadhi and Braj) and which from the beginning was designed to be written in a Brahmic script (Devanagari, also Kaithi). –Austronesier (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Even in 1757,
Hindi was written in Nastaliq.
"Tarikh e gharabi تاریخِ غاریبی
Logo ko jab khul batave,
Hindi main keh kar samjhave."
So it is clear that Hindi is historically written in Nastaliq style of Perso-Arabic writing system. Abirtel (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Austronesier
///
But that's not Hindi as understood since the 19th century.///
Galib's Qadir Nama was written in 1862. So ....
But the title of the page is about Hindi, not Modern Standered Hindi. So this info must be added.
You are requested to procede for consensus as you have mentioned earlier.
Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Means I have to agree with you by all means even if you haven't even presented one single secondary source which says that Modern Standard Hindi was written in Urdu, nor a secondary source which says that Ghalib's work were written in "Hindi"? No. –Austronesier (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, MSH does not deny the historic legacy of Hindi.
let me provide a secondary source about Ghalib's Hindi.
Ghalib wrote in Perso-Arabic script which is used to write modern Urdu, but often called his language "Hindi"; one of his works was titled Ode-e-Hindi (Urdu: عود هندی, lit. 'Perfume of Hindi').[1]
Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Because Hindi was one of the earlier names for Urdu, like Hindustani. Hindi, in that context, doesn't actually refer to the modern, Sanskritanised register of Hindustani. نعم البدل (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Then in that case, Historic Hindi or تاریخی ہندی page should be created. Because Not only in Ghalib, but also Emperor Aurangzeb himself declared his tongue is Hindvi, Emperor Shah Alam said his tongue is Hindi.
Meer taqi meer said his tongue is Hindi.
Even Allama iqbal have said his tongue is Hindi in the first decade of 20th century.
Moreover modern Indian scholarship unanimously agreed Hindi was written in nastaliq style of perso-Arabic system. Like Omkar nath kaul. Reference have already mentioned. @Austronesier
@نعم البدل
@Largoplazo Abirtel (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we get it. Five hundred seven-nine thousand scholars all agree that a family of language varieties that a hundred years ago was considered "Hindi" was often written in Arabic script. I think all of us here agree with that. But we understand, and have explained to you, while you continue to ignore, that the people who were using that script spoke a variety of that language that today is not called Hindi, and this article isn't about that variety.
Then in that case, Historic Hindi or تاریخی ہندی page should be created. When you wrote that, it looked like you were starting to get the point, but then you lost it. But we have that article: Hindustani language, which covers the broader language that includes the varieties that we, today, call "Hindi" and "Urdu". Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
But that Hindustani is different from what we are discussing about. We are discussing about Hindi which was solely written on Nastaliq style of Perso-Arabic system, is different from Modern Hindi and Urdu. As Hindustani is a broad term comprising multiple dialects with scripts.
@Austronesier Abirtel (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
No, it isn't different. Hindustani is at the level of generality you need to be at to be able to claim that it has been written in both Nastaliq and Devanagari. It has multiple varieties. The variety that the Nastaliq writer were using is the one that today is called "Urdu", which was and is a subset of Hindustani. What today is called Hindi is also a subset of Hindustani, one that's written in Devanagari. Largoplazo (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yea. You are refering about Hindustani (which comprises multiple dialects and scripts) and it's modern registers after 1947.
But I am referring about a group of literatures which was written mentioning as Hindi; as well as solely written in Nastaliq style of Perso-Arabic system from at least 16th Century to the end of the 19th Century.
Your mentioned articles are not about that Hindi ہندی at all.
That is why we need a separate article on Historic Hindi.
@Largoplazo Abirtel (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Below I wrote about making the same argument over and over, which you're continuing to do. It's time for me to move on to the corresponding point of continuing to argue with the same person who fails to recognize the flaws in their arguments. I'm done. Largoplazo (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Making the same argument over and over after the flaw in it (that this article is not about the language that, back then, was referred to by the same name) has already been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people is not how one gains consensus. It does have the merit of being a waste of your own, as well as everyone else's, time, if that's your goal. Largoplazo (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Omkar Nath Koul (2008). Modern Hindi Grammar. Dunwoody. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-931546-06-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindi/Archive_7&oldid=1254530962"