Jump to content

Talk:Hindustani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

merge?

[edit]

merge! Redheylin (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with both Hindustan and Hindustani language. Maquahuitltalk! 04:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge with Hindustani language, as that article has linguistic aspects that deserve separate consideration. Radagast (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hindustani by itself has separate aspects- nationality, music, language, etc. All should be discussed under one article. Maquahuitltalk! 05:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hindustani is a vast subject and needs to have its own article. The result would be a utterly cluttered article. Hindustan is a land while Hindustani is a language / culture. It would be like merging China (land) with everything Chinese (language, culture etc.). Not practical.  S3000  ? 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan then would just be a one line article. If that is being done then there is no point in having that article. Maquahuitltalk! 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: 'Hindustan' was and still remains important in the Indian subcontinent as a popular word for the land 'India'. If intention of Wikipedia is to be an importance knowledge resouce, Hindustan should be an independent article, in my humble opinion. But info in it should be NPOV, give past history in one para or two and should admit that the present usage of the word may die away with time for various reasons, which may also be mentioned. So the last word is Oppose! Further, Hindustani should be an independent article and it should concentrate on the 'language' of this name. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article on Hindustani language, and one on the classical music. I simply don't understand what is the point in this separate article about Hindustani. In fact I am even skeptical about an article on the language.Maquahuitltalk! 10:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Maquahuitl, I see that this 'merge/keep' discussion is ON in quite a few articles, in fact in too many India/Pakistan related topics, unfortunately. My intention is to have Wikipedia as an easily accessible knowledge resource on all topics of relevance to past and present, but in an NPOV language, away from any nationalistic or other negative ramifications. How to achieve this, I leave to wiser contributors than me. What ever consensus is reached, should be honoured, I feel.Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani → Hindustani (disambiguation), so that this title can become a rd to Hindi-Urdu (primary topic), with a hatnote placed there. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. It's not a common usage in English. When people say "Hindustani", they almost always mean the language. When they mean the music, they qualify it as "Hindustani music", etc. When someone types just "Hindustani" into the search box, they're looking for the language and should be directed there. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 January 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 02:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– In our article Hindustan, we single out two uses of the adjective 'Hindustani' for mention: the ethnic and the linguistic. However, for only one of these, the linguistic one, do we bother with an article (Hindustani language) -- Hindustani people is just a redirect to 'Hindustan'. Thus the language article functions as the primary topic. Also, although it's a bit difficult to compare, because both uses usually are worded simply as 'Hindustani', Ngram[1] shows that 'Hindustani language' is far more common than 'Hindustani people'. Thus 'Hindustani' should redirect to 'Hindustani language' (with a hat note to the dab page, of course). — kwami (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: this request has been relisted a 2nd time because another page move was added to the request on this date. This request should not be closed until at least seven days after this date. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Support per nom. The previous RM on this had some rather confused arguments, so let's avoid them this time. There's one encyclopedic topic here, the language. "Hindustani people" isn't an ethnicity, but just means "people from Hindustan" (i.e., it's like "Texans" or "people from Salamanca"), and isn't a common usage in English. Other adjectival uses (for music, cuisine, etc.) are naturally disambiguated in English ("Hindustani music", etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support the move. -Sattvic7 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per Google. If the language is primary however it should be under just "Hindustani" per WP:NCL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not a question of language vs. people (there's no such thing as "Hindustani people"), but of languages (several of them) vs. general adjective vs. music style. Most uses of the term "Hindustani" are probably instances of the adjective referring to Hindustan. The musical sense should not be ruled out either: Hindustani music is one of two major types of Indian classical music, and the term regularly comes up in various phrases like "Hindustani raga" or "Hindustani khayal". Even if we restrict ourselves to the language, the extensive ongoing discussions at Talk:Hindustani language show that the use of the term as a name for that language has been on the wane for more than half a century, so even the status of that article as the primary topic for "Hindustani language" is not out of the question: I woudn't be surprised if most current uses of the language name are in reference to either Caribbean Hindustani or Fiji Hindi. – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But people aren't going to misunderstand the single word 'Hindustani' to mean the food or the music. You have more of a point about the Caribbean and Fijian languages, though those are so named because they are identified with the primary Hindistani language. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, when people see Hindustani used as a noun, of course they won't usually (mis)understand it to be anything but the language (or one of the languages). But my point was that the term is most commonly used as an adjective and not a noun, and in those cases it won't refer to the language very often. Of course, nominal uses count for more in deciding topic structure - after all, articles are normally titled using nouns and readers probably preferentially use nouns when searching - but adjectives are used nonetheless so they have some relevance here. Enough, in my opinion, to neutralise any claims for primary topic status. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A disambiguation which must reflect as such in the title. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Accesscrawl: this vote doesn't make much sense - disambiguation pages don't have "(disambiguation)" in the name if there is no primary topic, they reside at the base name. For example Georgia or New York. The question asked here, therefore, is whether Hindustani language is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or whether there is no primary topic. Do you have a view on that? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that, however my comment still stands. Hindustani is popularly a reference to the language and many reliable sources refer it as 'Hindustani' than 'Hindustani language'. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MALPLACED. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the idea, this page to be moved so the language article could be moved here. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will add that to this request. The RMCD bot will then place its notification tag at the top of the language article. That notification should be in place for at least seven days before this request can be closed. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything malformed with the request: it's arguing that the language is the primary topic for "Hindustani" and if successful, the dab page will be moved to Hindustani (disambiguation) allowing for Hindustani to be retargeted to the article about the language as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I don't think extending this RM to include a proposal to move the language article is a good idea. – Uanfala (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be the first in this survey to argue for a primary redirect. The nom has stated that this page should be moved to make way for a rename of the language article to the base name. That has been done. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A primary redirect is precisely what the nominator was arguing in his nomination (see its last sentence). – Uanfala (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then the nom stated just above: Yes, that was the idea, this page to be moved so the language article could be moved here. To me, that means that the nom has changed their position and rather than redirect this page, move the language page to this title as the primary topic (per the guideline). So the nom proposed a primary redirect and then you are the first within the survey to argue for it. We'll see how it turns out. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were saying the request was malformed because Hindustani language wasn't being moved too. So, sure, let's move both (and maybe it was late when I responded); we can always move the language article back afterwards. But if it's not necessary to move both, let's stick to one thing at a time. The main thing is that when someone enters 'Hindustani' they arrive at the language article rather than the dab page. Whether the language article is at Hindustani or Hindustani language is secondary (and I don't really care). — kwami (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. And thank you for clarifying! PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I quote from C. M. Naim, "For some other Muslim intellectuals, however, Hindustani stood for a linguistic variety rival to their own Urdu as it allegedly contained a disproportionate percentage of what they regarded as “Hindi/Hindu” elements. To sum up, in the early decades of the 20th century, the word Hindustan and its derived adjective were contested semantic-fields." To this I would like to add: "The only difference, in the early 21st-century, is that most linguists of South Asia, consider "Hindustani," when applied to a language, to be also obsolete." See here; expand the box.

(Please do not reply between my paragraphs)

For 150 years, from 1800 to 1947, the expression "Hindustani language" was used for a simplified version of Hindi-Urdu promoted by the British, in which all British civil servants in India were required to take an exam. It is this "Hindustani" that the Muslim intellectual is disparaging in Naim's quote. A Google books search of "Hindustani language" brings up 29,600 results (click on "Tool" to see number of results). If you restrict the search to before 1947, when the British left India, you get 21,300 results. In other words, approximately only 1 in 4 are books published after the British left. If you examine those 8, 380 results, you will see that many, of not most, are still references to the British years, or to Hindustani spoken in Suriname, the Caribbean, Fiji, or Mauritius. See here (The first one is in fact a reference to Gilchrist, 1796). All this does nothing but lend credence to Michael Fisher's pronouncement that "Hindustani" applied to a language in India is "obsolete."

(Please do not reply in between my paragraphs)

For those who say, "Well, the name of the language is just "Hindustani," not "Hindustani language," I say: "Hindustani" is an adjective, can apply to Hindustani classical music, Hindustani cooking, the people of Hindustan (that is the primary meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary, and the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary). In that last meaning it features in the lyrics of the most famous of Bollywood songs Mere Joota Hai Japani (My shoe is Japani, My pants are Inglistani, On my head I wear a red Roosi hat, but ... still ... my heart is Hindustani), heard not just by millions in India, but also in the Soviet Union, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, which won the actor Raj Kapoor an Order of Lenin, and garnered on his death a person letter from Mrs Gorbachev to his widow reminiscing about the song. Do you really think he meant, "My heart is an obsolete dumbed down colloquial Hindi-Urdu?"

(Please do not reply between my paragraphs)

Anyway, if you want evidence, here it is: in the 21st-century, in Google Scholar among articles in Linguistics there are 61 articles have been published which mention the word "Hindustani", but not "Hindi-Urdu," "music," "Caribbean," "Surinami," "Fijian". In that same 21-century, among articles in same Lingistics there are 425 articles that use "Hindi-Urdu" but not "Hindustani," or "music," "Caribbean, ... What does that tell you? That by a ratio 425/61== 7 to 1 scholars prefer "Hindi-Urdu" to "Hindustani!' But Wikipedians in their high wisdom do not want to redirect Hindustani language to Hindi-Urdu (in fact, in their even higher wisdom, they already have the latter redirecting to the former), they want to redirect Hindustani language to Hindustani. This is a sad, sad, saga. The people such as I who know the two languages at a reasonable level of functioning (i.e. I do not know Hindi as well as many Indians, and I don't know Urdu as well as most Pakistanis, but I likely know both better than most) are helpless in the face of linguists, who I respect for their wide knowledge of linguistics, but who, if I may say so, are generalizing these particular languages, and even more so, generalizing the cultures that spawned these languages. I'm sure my interlocutors are going to say, "No, no, Hindustani is not Hindi-Urdu, but colloquial Hindi-Urdu heard in the bazaar on a sunny Saturday afternoon in November ... " Yeah, right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously Why was this page move not advertised at WT:INDIA and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my bad. WikiProjects are not as a rule notified of move requests; however, relisters often make those notifications, and I did not do so in this case. Thank you for picking up and running with the ball that I dropped. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (coming here from WP:India). My own understanding of the words and opinion matches with the comments made by Uanfala and User:Fowler&fowler. There is hardly anything left for me to add to what has already been said by them. regards.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like Fowler&fowler should propose a move of Hindustani language to Hindi–Urdu, then – without sarcastic nonsense besmirching other editors and their "high wisdom" in a "sad sad saga" that does not actually exist. What there is, is previous WP:RM discussion at Talk:Hindustani language/Archive 2#Requested move that F&f doesn't like the outcome of. This RM is not a place to relitigate that. While that move still represents consensus, this RM should not attempt to second-guess it. The proposal here to move Hindustani language to Hindustani, and the Hindustani disambiguation page to Hindustani (disambiguation) is entirely sound, under WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If F&f or you want to re-make a case that the real WP:COMMONNAME for the language (or dialect continuum) is really Hindi–Urdu (or Hindi/Urdu, Urdu–Hindi, etc.), that's a different discussion, and from past history of several move-related threads at the language page, I am doubtful that move would result. It's not actually clear that these are the same topic at all; "Hindustani" appears to refer to a specific and perhaps somewhat artificial or a least creolized lingua franca dialect, while "Hindi–Urdu" appears to refer to an actual dialect continuum of first-language speakers or even a language subfamily, depending on which sources you are looking at. Attempting to equte these appears to be a WP:OR, though it is possible to cover them at the same article, if written clearly. (I'm actually reminded of the Ulster Scots dialects and Mid-Ulster English; they intergrade, and reliable sources do not all agree on how to define them, yet we some how manage to present a coherent encyclopedic picture for our readers, including of the real-world lack of consensus about them.) The fact that current linguistics journal articles are more interested in publishing about the continuum/subfamily tells us nothing about the name of the lingua franca. To the extent that the lingua franca and/or the continuum/subfamily have forked or bi-concretized into two standardized variants, we already have stand-alone articles on them at Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Uanfala's comment. Even solely in the linguistic sense, "Hindustani" is ambiguous, and beyond this there is of course Hindustani music as the main contester for also being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wouldn't go as far as Fowler&fowler though (no, I don't mean nonsense- and besmirching-wise, that's inimitable anyway); "Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani" is not English, and at least in common usage, "Hindustani" is not an adjective that freely combines with any noun. Most of our readers will not understand what a "Hindustani heart" refers to. A Google scholar search only yields 6 hits[2] ;) –Austronesier (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: I wasn't aware of that page move discussion. I was away from WP at the time. Anyway, I too am worrying about where, in what linguistic category, this lingua franca fits, lies, or sits. In the hierarchies of the influential Indian sociolinguist Ashok Kelkar, Hindi-Urdu is not a dialect continuum of first language speakers; rather, it is "a full gamut of styles" (see here)). Let us accept his categories for now. Obviously, then, "Hindustani" is not formalized highbrow. It is mostly not formalized middlebrow (FM), as most Hindi-speakers will have a hard time comprehending an Urdu newspaper written in Roman or Devanagari. Is it casual middlebrow (CM)? Is it casual lowbrow (CL). In my view the lingua franca is an artificial construct, probaly the language heard when CMers of H/U speak to CLers of U/H. As far as I'm aware, there is no corpus of CM or CL (beyond a rudimentary one mentioned somewhere in that link above.) No book has been written on "Hindustani grammar," or "Hindustani phonology" since 1947, beyond the inevitable exception, that is, that proves the rule. What then are we doing in these "Hindustani"-related articles? If the grammar and phonology of Hindi and Urdu are the same, then obviously Hindi-Urdu phonology and Hindi-Urdu grammar would be far more transparent titles. As for Hindustani orthography what is that? All it has is a left-adjusted guard of honor of the two scripts. I know a few linguists of South Asia. Neither they, nor any SAsian (CLer or CMer) I've ever heard, have said, "I speak Hindustani," or asked, "Do you speak Hindustani?" So, summing up, a gamut of Hindustani articles have been written, many more gamuts than Kelkar's. I'm very preplexed by these gamuts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • I suppose I can go along with all that. It still leaves open the question of how we properly cover the lingua franca and the continuum/subfamily (or whatever it really is), and under what terms. I will consider myself out-argued on the main RM question, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Although it is off-topic here, let me muse a bit about this. Actually, the best term to capture the whole contemporary complex is not "dialect continuum", because of relatively little horizontal variation on a quite large area, but rather a "two-branched register continuum" based on two communalects. The basilects are virtually identical, although minimal communalectal differences exist (Fowler&fowler mentioned elsewhere that he can distinguish between Urdu and Hindi even when kids are talking). Going up the register continuum all the way to the acrolects (Modern Standard Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi), the choice of vocabulary and pronunciation of certain sounds (based on "target acrolect") increasingly renders the registers clearly distinguishable, and also increasingly mutually unintelligible. So its a V-shaped continuum, with a very narrow tip at the bottom. (This is quite the opposite of the "inverted" V of English in most areas, where coexisting dialects/regiolects/communalects merge into a single acrolect.) "Hindi" and "Urdu" are the two register continuum branches, while "Hindustani" in the narrow sense is the bottom level. Additionally, there was the historical pre-partition vision of turning the largely uniform bottom into a third, neutral branch "Hindustani" with a full functional acrolect, a vision that is still invoked by some Indians, especially in the face of "Partition 2.0".
(Fowler&fowler's description of deliberate "dumbing-down" in "inter-branch" communication is btw a very insteresting topic, I hope they will unearth some scholarly descriptions of the socilinguistics of Hindi–Urdu interaction.)
Currently, we call the whole V-shaped complex "Hindustani language" in a broad sweep here in WP, which is contested by (Fowler&fowler in the talk page there with challenging arguments (ranging from partially absurd to highly conclusive, but always powerful); but that's a different story. –Austronesier (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the overview. I think that does give us a reasonably clear idea where to go with this. That's kind of almost a draft of a lead.  :-) As for the socio-linguistic situation, I'm tempted to say "This reminds me of ...", but each quasi-analogy I'm coming up with actually fails to be directly analogous in one way or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's basically the same as what Kelkar writes (cited above by F&f [3]), just without the rather arbitrary discrete reference points. –Austronesier (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Austronesier, children do not speak Hindi and Urdu differently; if they did, native Urdu speaking children wouldn't prefer to watch Hindi cartoons (see Exhibit A & Exhibit B). I can confirm this as a native speaker with ancestry from both India and Pakistan. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anupam: Austronesier didn't exactly say children speak Hindi and Urdu differently; he said I (F&f) can tell the differences between Hindi and Urdu even in children's speech. Well that is true, becoming apparent upon listening to children fairly quickly. The vocabulary of kinship names, for example: Abbu, Ammi/Ammu, Baji, Khala, Chacha, ... is somewhat different in Urdu. The last one, for example, is not written or pronounced Chächa (चाचा, چاچا) by Urdu speakers, as stated in the page Hindustani kinship terms, but چچا Chɘcha.
As for your evidence, why are you citing English language newspapers? The rich deracinated South Asians who use a little English here and there in their Urdu are to be found everywhere, even in the Urdu heartland of Awadh: hear Exhibit C :) ; but then in the same town of Jalalpur—across the tracks—are also kids who call their father's younger brother, and by implication, all older men چچا Chɘcha. Hear evidence at 3:49, 4:54, and 5:49 in Exhibit D What are the chances that kids growing up hearing such songs in the public square, in this case on Mohurram, are going to be speaking the same Urdu as those in Exhibit C? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fowler&fowler, the word for uncle has two different pronounciations chāchā (चाचा, چاچا) and chachā (चचा, چچا) in both Hindi and Urdu; please see Exhibit E and Exhibit F to confirm this. The pronounciation of certain words varies depending on what locality is in; ultimately though, they are the same word and are derived in the same way. As such, the Hindi-Urdu kinship terms article is correct, though the second spelling should certainly be added. In most parts of South Asia, though the word for market is spelled as بازار, it is actually pronounced as if it were بزار. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is not correct, Anupam. Neither source is reliable.
  • 1. C. M. Naim's Introductory Urdu (Volume Two) [Chicago]: South Asia Language & Area Center, University of Chicago 1999, says on page 310 that paternal uncle and paternal aunt are chachaa and chachii (c=ch).
  • 2 (Not available online) Urdu For All: An Introduction to the Urdu Script by India's National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language, New Delhi, 2013. On page 33, it has chachaa (in the Urdu spelling I have given above.)
  • 3 See Matthews, David; Dalvi, Mohamed Kasim (2015), Complete Urdu (Learn Urdu with Teach Yourself), Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 35–, ISBN 978-1-4736-0257-1 on page 35. Matthews taught Urdu at SOAS for 40 years, retiring as professor of Urdu. He was awarded Sitara-e-Imtiaz by the Government of Pakistan. He was the keynote speaker at a conference on Amir Khusrow at the Aligarh Muslim University, see here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fowler&fowler, sorry but it is unreasonable to argue that Platt's Dictionary is incorrect; it even corroborates what I stated above, stating "ćaććā or ćaćā, the more com. forms". I had already mentioned to you that there is more than one form of the word with its usage depending on locality. As such, the term, along with the references, has been added to the article. Cheers, AnupamTalk 14:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anupam: At the same DSAL University of Chicago web site from which you have cited above, it say Platts is (see here): Platts, John T. (John Thompson). A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English. London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1884. (It is not a dictionary of "Hindustani," and, besides, it is 135 years old.)
And below that it says, "This site honors Professor C. M. Naim's scholarly contributions to Urdu language and literature."
I have shown you above a page from Naim's famous book, used around the world, and reprinted by India's National Council for the Promotion of the Urdu Language. It says "cacā" for Uncle
In addition I have cited two more books, one by David Matthews, who taught Urdu at SOAS, London. Here are two more books, as well as Google Translate:
  • 4 A book by Ralph Russell, professor of Urdu at SOAS before Matthews (and noted earlier by Austronesier):Russell, Ralph (April 2001), A New Course in Urdu and Spoken Hindi for Learners in Britain: An Outline Grammar and Common Usage, Extramural Division, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, p. 154, ISBN 978-0-7286-0085-0 which says on p 154 (viewable on Amazon, but not on Google Books) :"8. cǝca-zad – 'uncle born'. Your cǝca is your father's younger brother. There are many words for 'uncle' – one each for each kind. You'll find them listed in Part II of this Course."
  • 5 Ruth Laila Schmidt, Prof of Urdu, University of Oslo: Schmidt, Ruth Laila (2005), Urdu: An Essential Grammar, Routledge, p. 300, ISBN 1-134-71320-7, which says: "bas cacā jān āp kī duā cāhiē bilkul ṭhīk chal rahā hai ("It's going just fine uncle dear, with your prayer.)
  • 6 Finally, consider Google translate: English (Uncle) to Urdu is چچا You can hear the pronunciation on the audio icon: it is chəchā. Whereas English (uncle) to Hindi is is चाचा pronounced chācha.
  • @Kwamikagami, Austronesier, Uanfala, SMcCandlish, Johnbod, and Gotitbro: There has to be some overall (intellectual) fairness here. I can't very well keep citing the best modern sources to make the point that it is not just in the literary or formal registers that Urdu and Hindi are a little different, that there are ordinary everyday words—such as kinship terms (in the above instance "a father's younger brother")—whose spelling and pronunciation can be different and the differences begin to show in the conversations of children. Are these mutually intelligible? They probably are among language communities that have some contact with each other, and probably not among those that don't. But we can't make a Hindustani kinship terms page to be some kind of set theoretic union of Hindi and Urdu, and to explain away the differences (which are no longer ones of literary registers) to be those of religions, not languages. Look, I understand that this is not the right forum for my concerns, but the right forum, Hindustani kinship terms gets no visitors, at least none that have the kind of knowledge my interlocutors do here. I see this as a general trend. I offer good reasons cited to good sources. Whether or not I make any edits, I'm snowed under with scrapings from the bottom of the barrel, if I can mix my metaphors here a little. So, like I've already pleaded, there has to be some sense of fair play on Wikipedia; otherwise, what is the point of these discussions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fowler&fowler, linguists consider Hindi and Urdu to be one language; your political positions will not dictate how Wikipedia articles will be written and citing a different pronunciation of one word to split an article is ridiculous (even still, I have provided the most reliable sources to show that this is a pronunciation variation). It would be like having a separate article for American English business terms and British English business terms simply because Americans prefer to use the word elevator over the word lift that the Britons use to describe the same thing when most other colloquial language is the same. Let us pretend for a moment that we are in an alternate reality and that chachá and cháchá are completely two different words with different derivations as you claim (rather than different pronunciations of the same word in reality) and then consider the following sentence, which in English, translates to "I am going to the store with my uncle":
Maiṉ chachá ke sát dukán já rahá hooṉ.
Maiṉ cháchá ke sát dukán já rahá hooṉ.
Which one of these sentences is Hindi? Which one of these sentences is Urdu? Does the pronunciation of one word make Hindi and Urdu completely two different languages and do we need to split an article about Hindi-Urdu kinship terms over this minute difference? Will a Hindi speaker not understand both sentences? Will an Urdu speaker not understand both sentences? User:Fowler&fowler, this is an issue that is no longer up for debate; your position with respect to the Hindustani language that is representative of South Asian communal politics is not supported by a single editor on the Hindustani language talk page (see Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit I); cherry-picking sources with walls of text to prove a point when a consensus of academics describes Hindi and Urdu as standardized registers of the same language is not helpful. I suggest that you drop the WP:STICK and focus your efforts elsewhere. Since you have pinged User:SMcCandlish, User:Johnbod and User:Uanfala, I am going to share with them the same introductory video that others have found to be helpful so that they can understand what is going on here. AnupamTalk 14:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anupam: This discussion has already attained a certain depth. Can we agree to stick to RS, more sepcifically to peer-reviewed academic sources? Op-eds, Youtube videos (sorry, this also goes to Fowler&fowler) are not the kind of material we expect to see here. And btw, this is off-topic, and belongs to our discussion in Talk:Hindustani language (I am myself to blame too for discussing here trivia only peripherally related to the RM). –Austronesier (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Austronesier, certainly. I used these simple links and explanations in the above paragraph to debunk the political argument being made and to provide observers with a brief primer regarding the subject. The talk page of the Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) article contains an entire section called "Linguistic definition of Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu)" that is filled with academic sources that buttress the same. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be called "Hindi and Urdu" or some variation of that "Hindi and Urdu spoken language," "similarities between Hindi and Urdu", or "relationship between Hindi and Urdu". The term "Hindustani" belongs in the intro, since it's commonly used, but not the title. I think the best term to use in the page name is "Hindi and Urdu" because.

  • The names Hindi and Urdu are far more recognisable to most English speakers than Hindustani.
  • It seems the most diplomatic and unbiased since whether they count as one language is controversial.
  • native speakers don't usually call it Hindustani, including when speaking in fluent articulate English.
  • as far as I recall, Hindustani more specifically refers to a (shared) ancestor or the language(s)?
  • Who goes first in Hindi Urdu is a bit fraught but Hindi first is justified by both number of speakers and alphabetical order. (I tend to call it Urdu-Hindi, but the reverse order is more justifiable.)
  • It gives a neater page URL than a hyphen or slash would if we called it Hindi-Urdu or Urdu/Hindi

Irtapil (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Irtapil: Thank you for your concise comments. Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Hindustani language. The discussion is stuck and also bludgeoned, a fresh voice will always be welcome. –Austronesier (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Austronesier "Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Hindustani language. The discussion is stuck and also bludgeoned, a fresh voice will always be welcome." I thought i already had? or did i go on link adventure and end up only here?
Cha-cha is one of only of only a dozen words of Urdu that i know so far, so i can't say anything about the language as a whole (i came here because i'm trying to learn Urdu and it's history, and i've ended up contributing a lot because i figure when i can't find something here i should share what i find elsewhere rather than hoarding it in my private study notes). But a vowel shift in a kinship term only gets you as far as "accent" not language, at most that would indicate different dialects. Kids in the USA say and write "mom", whereas in English that's "mum", and there's also variants like "mummy". But much as i joke that "mom" is not "English" (i'm Australian, but we pretty much speak and spell UK English), realistically i think people in the USA are speaking the same language as me. (The only way i have heard it said is chah-chah, with the same vowel twice, from a Pakistani feminist who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is currently living in Canada, so possibly not the most typical accent... and in reference to a very controversial picture book, which i think is adorable, but which i'm reluctant to link in case it causes a storm.) Irtapil (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil: Well, I referred to the discussion about "Hindustani" vs. "Hindi–Urdu" in Talk:Hindustani language. I know you had commented about the wrong caption of the Naskh image. –Austronesier (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment with respect to accents, User:Irtapil, as do reliable sources. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 16:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm fine with making Hindustani redirect to Hindustani language with a hatnote, but not to renaming Hindustani language to Hindustani. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindustani&oldid=1089874919"