Talk:Hindustani language/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Hindustani language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Proposal to change to Common Era notation

Trivial, but since it requires consensus to change: I propose we change the article to use Common Era notation instead of Dionysian notation for consistency with other India-related articles. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as there hasn't been any opposition to this for about 2 months now, I will be going ahead with the change. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Object this is much less familiar to a wide South Asian readership, & there are plenty of other India-related articles that use BC/AD. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: this is much less familiar to a wide South Asian readership sources? Getsnoopy (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a talk page. I think Indian schools, exam crammer textbooks and newspapers still generally use it, & people have asked on Indian-related talk pages what on earth CE means. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Johnbod here. There is no need to change the established convention here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam and Johnbod: I should point out that the point about people being unfamiliar with it is easily solvable by linking it to the appropriate page, as many pages do; after all, that is quite literally the entire purpose of Wikipedia: educating people about things which are unfamiliar to them. It's strange that people would ask especially on India-related talk pages about what BCE/CE mean given that they're fairly ubiquitous throughout the India-related subset of articles on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That is probably because the Hindutva fundamentalists do not want to see Jesus Christ's name, even as part of an acronym. Should we really go there? I am glad somebody objected. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Although, I have disagreed with @Getsnoopy: elsewhere on WP, I generally agree with him here. (Whether I would change a precedent in an article over an issue in which MOS:NUM takes no sides is a different matter.) The articles India and Pakistan do use only BCE and CE. One resolution would be to remove "AD" and "CE". "1299–1526" by itself always means AD/CE. ( I haven't checked, but it would be remarkable if "BC/BCE" occurred in an article of a New Indo-Aryan language.) As for newspapers in India and Pakistan, Pakistan would obviously come first as its history is older. The major Pakistani English language newspaper, Dawn (founded 1942) uses both notations (see here and here). The Nation (founded 1982) also uses both (see here and here). As for India, the triumvirate of major old English language newspapers, the Times of India (founded 1838), Statesman (founded 1875), and The Hindu (founded 1878) use both conventions (see Times of India (BCE/CE and BC/AD); Statesman BCE/CE and BC/AD; and The Hindu BCE/CE and BC/AD). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, did you miswrite the statement “As for newspapers in India and Pakistan, Pakistan would obviously come first as its history is older.”? The oldest English newspaper you cited from what is now Pakistan is from 1942, and the oldest from what is now India is from 1838. Otherwise I agree that the common era system is widely used and would be acceptable in this article. Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Let it go buddy. We all get a bit nutty in the old age. He means the Indus Valley Civilisation. If Pakistan gives up Muhammad bin Qasim and owns up to the IVC, we can all celebrate! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I hope you realize that Common Era notation is really common in articles on WP, even in articles which have nothing to do with India. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge: Not the history of its newspapers, but the History of Pakistan, i.e. the history of the region that underlies the country. All things being equal, Pakistan's newspapers, therefore, have the opportunity to cover a greater range of history, especially the BCE era, with an intimate knowledge of sites—beginning with Mehrgarh (ca 7000 BCE), Nausharo, and Pirak on to the Indus Valley Civilisation (Mohenjo Daro (South Asia's first UNESCO World Heritage site), Harappa, Ganeriwala), to the early Buddhist sites of Taxila and Takht-i-Bahi . India's don't really go back further than Ajanta and Sanchi at the very end of the first millennium BCE. To be sure, there is an orally transmitted—and prolific—Vedic Period, some of which first arose in what is now Pakistan, and its descendants in Epic Sanskrit, but because in India it has become the part of the modern religion, Hinduism, which imagines itself to be timeless, it is hardly ever dated much in Indian newspapers. The India-POV, therefore, engages in oneupmanship in any topic related to dating, leaving its footprint even in WP articles in which it has no knowledge, only fantasy. The Pakistan-POV, the official anyway, until recently, had paid attention to history only after the arrival of Islam, but their pre-Islamic sites have all survived, in part because they farmed out their investigations to western archaeologists (Jean-François Jarrige, Mortimer Wheeler, Raymond Allchin, Bridget Allchin, George F. Dales, J. Mark Kenoyer, and Rita P. Wright to name a few) To some extent, the same is true of this page: any third jamaat (grade/standard) student in an Urdu-medium school in Pakistan or India (I have the text-books) would know more Urdu (and hence Hindustani) than that displayed in the average edit on this page, but those with knowledge don't bother, in part because they are outnumbered, tired, outwitted and in some instances because of their own stupidities, blocked.) The endless POV of this page continues, the NPOV hopes invested in one or two third-party editors. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

ɲ or n

There is Devanagari script page where readers can know the grapheme's historical pronunciation in Sanskrit. This is writing system; we are complicating things for readers by keeping non existent sound. Since when did we start writing phonetic value instead of phonemes even while it is not. Only phonemes are ought to be mentioned there? Not allophone. Also, keep pharyngilized ħ, ʕ or other pharyngilized sounds corresponding to original Arabic script for Urdu eventually turning the section ugly. Nobody pronounces the character the palatal way not even while adjacent to /tʃ/ /dʒ/; I speak and have been hearing Hindustani which means I am almost a native speaker of the language. What do you say on this? Kushalpok01 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the source (Kachru 2006) is about Hindi, not about the "historical pronunciation in Sanskrit". Even if the sound [ɲ] (Kachru: "a palatal nasal that occurs in medial homorganic clusters") is non-phonemic, it is the standard realization of the grapheme ञ. –Austronesier (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

^ This. Also, if by "nobody", you mean the myriad people (including myself) who pronounce the consonant cluster properly, then that claim clearly becomes untrue. Anecdotal evidence is not a sufficient basis to make changes on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there are in fact some inconsistences in the information presented in the Devanagari chart and the Urdu alphabet chart. Let me try to elaborate in some detail.

It seems to me that one can associate at least three things to a grapheme under the name "standard realization of the grapheme." These are: (1) the "pronunciation-in-isolation," ie, the way the grapheme is pronounced when it is encountered in isolation (eg, the realization of the English grapheme H as /ˈeɪtʃ/ in American English), (2) the "synchronic phoneme," ie, the (dia)phoneme that the grapheme is typically associated with in the language in consideration, and (3) the "etymological phoneme," ie, the (dia)phoneme associated to the grapheme in a source/ancestral language. (I'm making up the terms "pronunciation-in-isolation," "synchronic phoneme" and "etymological phoneme," but hopefully it's clear from my descriptions what I mean.)

I think we'd probably all agree that the Urdu alphabet chart presents information about "pronunciations-in-isolation" and "synchronic phonemes" --- for instance, it mentions that the grapheme ہ is pronounced "choṭī he" in isolation, and that it is associated to the "synchronic phoneme" /h ~ ɦ/. There is no information in this chart about the "etymological phonemes" vis-à-vis Persian and/or Arabic. In the Devanagari chart, I think we can all agree that associating the symbol ɲ to the grapheme ञ is information about the "etymological phoneme" vis-à-vis Sanskrit. I think we can also agree that it is not information about (1) --- the pronunciation of the grapheme ञ in isolation might vary between [ɲə] and [nə] depending on the speaker, but it would not be pronounced vowel-less in isolation.

This leads to a question about whether associating the IPA symbol ɲ to the grapheme ञ is information about the "synchronic phoneme." Different analyses are possible, but I'd like to point out that ɲ is not listed as a phoneme of the language on our page on Hindustani phonology. One might argue that this makes /n/ an "archiphoneme" rather than a phoneme, but this is nonetheless the analysis we've taken on the page on Hindustani phonology. So, for the sake of consistency, then, we should treat ɲ not as a phoneme of the language, but rather as an allophone which occurs in medial homorganic clusters.

In other words, the Devanagari chart on this page is not presenting information about the "synchronic phoneme." We thus have a situation where the Devanagari chart is presenting information about the "etymological phoneme," while the Urdu alphabet chart is presenting information about pronunciations-in-isolation and "synchronic phonemes." This seems to me to be a legitimate inconsistency. While I'm at it, I'd also like to point out that much of the above also holds for the association of the IPA symbol ʂ to the grapheme ष in the Devanagari chart.

My proposed solution would be to simply have more informative charts. For instance, we might have a chart for Devanagari and a chart for the Urdu alphabet, with the same set of columns. This common set of columns might be: "Grapheme" (containing just the grapheme), "Name of grapheme" (containing the pronunciation-in-isolation), "Phonemic realization" (containing IPA symbols of associated "synchronic phonemes"), and finally a "Notes" column (which is where we might indicate that the grapheme ञ occurs only in medial homorganic clusters and is then realized by the phone [ɲ], or other useful information). I'd be happy to do this. EmptyStardust (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Object of three references [10][3][4]

I'm perplexed by the references [10][3][4] which are:

<ref name="NCSU-Hindustani">{{Cite web|url = http://sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/fl/faculty/taj/hindi/abturdu.htm|title = About Hindi-Urdu|publisher = [[North Carolina State University]]|access-date = 9 August 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090815023328/http://sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/fl/faculty/taj/hindi/abturdu.htm|archive-date = 15 August 2009|df = dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="Grierson"/><ref name="Ray2011">{{cite book|last1=Ray|first1=Aniruddha|title=The Varied Facets of History: Essays in Honour of Aniruddha Ray|date=2011|publisher=Primus Books|isbn=978-93-80607-16-0|language=en|quote=There was the ''Hindustani Dictionary'' of Fallon published in 1879; and two years later (1881), John J. Platts produced his ''Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English'', which implied that Hindi and Urdu were literary forms of a single language. More recently, Christopher R. King in his ''One Language, Two Scripts'' (1994) has presented the late history of the single spoken language in two forms, with the clarity and detail that the subject deserves.}}</ref> is the ''[[lingua franca]]'' of [[North India|Northern India]] and [[Pakistan]];<ref name="siddiqi1994"/><ref name="Ashmore1961"/>

in the middle of the first sentence. The text up to that point says: "Hindustani (/ˌhɪndʊˈstɑːni/; Devanagari: हिंदुस्तानी,[1][b] Hindustānī, / Perso-Arabic:[a] ہندوستانی‎, Hindūstānī, lit. 'of Hindustan')" So what are they references for? For the literal meaning "of Hindustan?" For I don't see anything else that needs referencing. But they don't say anything about that or any other literal meaning. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References [11] [12]

[11]: A 1994 University of Wisconsin PhD thesis manuscript (i.e. an unpublished one) is being cited for Hindustani being the lingua franca of India and Pakistan. See here
[12] A 1961 article in Britannica by Harry Ashmore (a journalist who later in life became editor-in-chief of Britannica) is being cited for the same, and is quoted in the following words, "The everyday speech of well over 50,000,000 persons of all communities in the north of India and in West Pakistan is the expression of a common language, Hindustani." What was the name of the article in the 1961 Britannica? Did Ashmore write this, or was he just mentioned routinely as editors often are; if the latter who wrote it?

Either way, why are such sources being used in the first sentence of the lead? Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, both Encylopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are meant to give a neutral overview of various subjects. Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article on a topic should be similar to that written in Encylopedia Britannica, which is an authoritative compilation that has historically been widely used throughout the world. If you have an additional source that says the same thing, feel free to replace the one in the lede, though you can keep the Encylopedia Britannica reference where it is elsewhere in the article. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 23:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I will replace it with the latest Britannica page on the "Hindustani language," which was last revised in 2018. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Dialect continuum

Both in the lead and the main body, Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) is described as a "dialect continuum." Tariq Rahman (p. 99) is cited. But he says, "These language-planning processes led to the splitting of a language (Hindi-Urdu) into modern Persianized and Arabicized Urdu at one extreme and modern Sanskritized Hindi at the other. Between the two ends is a continuum which veers towards one end or the other according to the speaker, the occasion and the environment. " A dialect continuum on the other hand is something very specific:

From one academic source: "The notion of dialect continuum has typically been used to refer to the distribution of dialects of a language across a geographic area: the micro-differences between adjacent dialects do not impede mutual comprehension, but speakers of dialects at opposite ends of the continuum or dialect chain may have substantial difficulty understanding each other."

Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible in their colloquial, everyday, garden-variety forms, but they are not part of a dialect continuum in a geographical sense. Indo-Aryan languages on the other hand (together) might be. You could start in Bengal and end in Khyber Pass along a path on which at every stop the surrounding villages speak in mutually comprehensible dialects. @Austronesier: Perhaps you can shed some light on this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Yes, Rahman's use of "continuum" is wrongly equated with the technical term "dialect continuum". A dialect continuum is stretched out horizontally in space, and Dehlavi-derived Hindi–Urdu (formerly and sometimes still known as Hindustani) is itself indeed one reference point in a dialect continuum that comprises much of the Indo-Aryan speech area. On the other hand, Rahman refers to a register continuum, that extends vertically from the common colloquial base to the two distinct literary standards, and also to the continuum of (theoretically) infinite possibilities of stylistic cross-over between the two standards. I am not sure, but maybe we can replace as a first aid "dialect continuum" with "stylistic continuum" or something similar that faithfully paraphrases Rahman's actual point (which IMO is worth keeping).

This page has suffered long from being composed like a patchwork of citation clippings, many just here to prove a point (e.g. Hindustani is one language and nothing else; it is called "Hindustani" and nothing else; also my own lead-heavy edit about the mainstream view about the emergence of Hindustani as a distinct lect; etc. etc.). The botched use of a good source (like "dialect continuum" sourced to Rahman) is symptomatic, like many other things pointed out in your recently added comment sections. –Austronesier (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I like your very eloquent description, "Rahman refers to a register continuum, that extends vertically from the common colloquial base to the two distinct literary standards, and also to the continuum of (theoretically) infinite possibilities of stylistic cross-over between the two standards." Why don't you come up with a brief description that uses "stylistic continuum" as well as what I have just quoted from you, only maybe explain more for a novice reader? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I'll think of a nice and digestible way to put it. The argument itself should be uncontroversial even for the different POVs espoused here in H/U-related topics. –Austronesier (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The long list of ancestral names

Do we really want to topload the lead with a long list of ancestral names? After the first sentence, we have,

"Ancestors of the language were known as: Hindui, Hindavi, Zabān-e Hind (transl. 'Language of India'), Zabān-e Hindustan (transl. 'Language of Hindustan'), Hindustan ki boli (transl. 'Language of Hindustan'), Rekhta, and Hindi.[11][17] Its regional dialects became known as Zabān-e Dakhani in southern India, Zabān-e Gujari (transl. 'Language of Gujars') in Gujarat, and as Zabān-e Dehlavi or Urdu around Delhi."

I fear it will put off the average curious but nonexpert reader. I propose that the paragraph be moved toward the end of the lead. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Several of these do not even appear in the rest of the text, but only the lead. Another option (the better one) would be to move this part to "History" and only leave the most significant ones in the lead, like Hindavi. But as a first measure, moving this down within the lead is a good idea. –Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Another option that can be considered is to footnote the alternative names. I'm impartial to either of these options so you can do what you will with regard to this list. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks, @Anupam: that is a very good point. I'm thinking the paragraph could be split into two. The first one, " Ancestors of the language were known as: Hindui, ... and Hindi." could be footnoted after the sentence: "It is an Indo-Aryan language, deriving its base primarily from the Western Hindi dialect of Delhi, also known as Khariboli."

And the second one, "Its regional dialects became known as Zabān-e Dakhani in southern India, ... Zabān-e Dehlavi or Urdu around Delhi." could be footnoted after, "Hindustani is a pluricentric language, best characterised as a dialect continuum with two standardised registers: Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu." (which Austronesier will modify as he explains below). How does that sound? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Have at it! Anupam^Talk 00:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hindustan azad mulk ho"

Interesting lanaguage in Nehru's Constituent Assembly speech. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In English, those couple of sentences would read: "What foundation principles are there in this resolution? First: That India be an independent country." He is using the subjunctive case. Ho = be.

What is more impressive though is his near-perfect enunciation of both Perso-Arabic words (maqsad (مقصد), not maksad; qism (قسم) not kisam; Gaur (غور), not gaur; ba'Z (بعض) i.e. "some" not "baaj"; paiGaam (پيغم), not paigaam; dimaaG (دماغ), not dimaag; aaKhir ( آخر), not aakhir or akheer; taaqat (طاقت), not taakat, ... and so forth but also mindful that it is "shakl (شکل) not shaql," in the manner of some who overdo the Urduesque speech.). Also note his Hindi ghoshRna, not ghoshna. There is no political leader around today with that ability, not to mention his near-native English speech. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

This edit request to Hindustani language has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the intro, please add that it is an Indo-Aryan language. 208.127.190.114 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Already done In the second paragraph, It is an Indo-Aryan language, deriving its base primarily from the Western Hindi dialect of Delhi, also known as Khariboli ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Translation issue

Sample text section says

Devanagari: यह कितने का है?
Urdu: یہ کتنے کا ہے؟
Romanisation: Yah kitnē kā hai?
English: How much is it?

I dont think this is sourced, but anyway, the English translation is wrong. It must be "For how much is it?" >>> Extorc.talk 12:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No - "For how much is it?" is just not idiomatic English, and so a wrong translation. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

And a literal translation would be Yeh (this) kitne (how or how much) ka (of) hai (is), i.e. This how much of is, i.e. How much of (money) is this? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Either way, it is not "it" but "this" to be contrasted with "Vo/Vah kitne ka hai" "How much is that?" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Excessive citations

The article currently contains 75 citations by the end of #History for a straightforward subject, each accompanied by a lengthy quote -- the article is barely editable, and the prose suffers from too much repetition. I implore anyone in the know to attempt a cleanup. Switching to {{sfn}} may help reduce clutter. No such user (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@No such user: Absolutely. It's a fucking joke. Just for the infobox and lede, the citation count already goes up to 43. Many sources are poor, mostly added to prove a point which is often trivial and easily supported by academic quality sources. But apparently, everything gets contested here unless supported by cite/quote bombs. Have a look at the various discussions in the archive. Monstrous. Some aspects are indeed controversial (starting from the page title) and need to be elaborated, but in many cases, controversies are fought out here by proxy, instead of being presented based on non-partisan secondary/tertiary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)