Language desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 11

Urdu, Arabic and Farsi

How similar are these 3 languages. I just found they use the same writing scripts. How similar are they? Just curious to know little.

Learnerktm 03:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"How similar" is a subjective question and the answer will vary depending on your criteria for similarity. That said, we can tell you that Urdu and Farsi are both Indo-European languages and are grouped together in the Indo-Iranian sub-family while Arabic is classified in a completely unrelated family, the Afro-Asiatic languages. Arabic has influenced Farsi, though, and Farsi has, in turn, influenced the development of Urdu. Reading the linked articles may help you find the answer you are looking for.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not directly answer the question (which was basically answered by William in any case) but if you want a bit more on the influence of Arabic and Farsi on Urdu I recommend the first part of of Christopher Shackle and Rupert Snell "Hindi and Urdu since 1800: A Common Reader" (originally published by SOAS, not sure of the date). The second part is a reader in Urdu and Hindi. I've read (although I can't recall where, maybe it is from Shackle and Snell) that about 50% of the vocabulary in an Urdu dictionary is of Arabic origin. Those are mostly learned words but there are also a few very common words such as لیکن / लेकिन lekin (=but, however) and others. This does not mean that in a typical Urdu text you will find a 50% proportion of Arabic words since native Urdu words are much more common. (Cf. the percentages of French and native Anglo-Saxon words in an English dictionary vs a typical English text). Also, the way Farsi is pronounced in India and Pakistan (when singing or reciting poetry in Farsi for example) uses Urdu phonology (except for typical native Urdu sounds like the retroflex consonants) which may make it sound superficially more similar to Urdu than if it was pronounced with the actual native Farsi pronunciation. Basemetal 10:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Persian speaker and I can almost fully understand Pakistan's national anthem. Urdu and Persian have a lot of common words. Although the grammar is different, there are still similarities. Urdu is more similar to Persian than Arabic, since both of them are Indo-European languages and Urdu was highly under Persian influence. The majority of Arabic loanwords in Urdu are actually loaned indirectly from Persian, not from Arabic. This makes Urdu and Persian even more close, because the meaning of many Arabic loanwords in Persian have been changed and this change in the meaning has been reflected in Urdu. For example, بحث means "search" in Arabic, but in Persian and Urdu, it means "debate" or "discuss". Contradict to popular beliefs, there are almost no Turkic loanword in Urdu. Urdu uses a modified Perso-Arabic alphabet.

Arabic and Persian have also many common words, but as I said, you should be a bit careful because those words may have different meanings. The script is almost the same, but Persian alphabet has four more letters. Other than that, there is no similarity between Arabic and Persian and these two language are from two different worlds. -- Kouhi (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the small number of Turkic loanwords in Urdu you're right of course. One of the few is the name of the language itself (wikt:Urdu), which is cognate to wikt:horde. I find that funny. Another is the origin of our word wikt:coolie. There's probably a few more but I can't think of them at the moment. One borrowing from Turkic which is not a word is the -ci suffix (pron. chi) that serves to form a few names of occupations such as baavarci (=cook). I'm not sure but I don't think it is widely used in Urdu, but it corresponds to the Turkish suffix -ji which is extremely widely used in Turkish. Since in all those cases the borrowing was thru Farsi you may not even be aware those are in fact of Turkic origin. Basemetal 13:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here is a list of all Turkic loanwords in Urdu. There are at most only 24 Turkic loanwords. Persian also has few Turkic loanwords. The -chi suffix is of Turkic origin as you mentioned, but most likely, it is also borrowed indirectly from Persian, though it is not a widely-used suffix (-gar is more common in Persian). -- Kouhi (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English Language: WHOM and WERE

He is described as a tall, confident and intelligent man whose English is limited, but WHOM still manages to express himself clearly, using few words.

This is correct use of "Whom", right? I've been arguing with someone about it. I believe that whom is more used in written speech than oral speech, but that both whom and who can be used in this sentence.

So now I ask native English speakers your take on it.

And here's another:

It was all a ruse, meant to make the village seem fantastic and welcoming to all, in order to attract as many tourists as possible from the west. Ewan WERE simply going to be their pawn, a means to an end, and he had failed to grasp the situation until they told him.

Were is correct, yes? 84.211.184.66 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. "Who" is correct in the first example and "was" in the second. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):No, both are incorrect. "Who" is used for the subject ("who still manages ...")

"Were" would be a subjunctive, but it sounds wrong here where you are just making a statement. Dbfirs 08:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a rule of thumb: In an indicative statement, every "whom" must be followed by a subject (e.g. "I met a man whom she knows", as opposed to "I met a man who knows"). In an interrogative statement, every "whom" must be followed by an auxiliary word - followed by a subject (e.g. "Whom did it annoy?", as opposed to "who did it?").

Additionally, every "he were" must follow a subjunctive word, like "if".

However, you are right in that all of this is seldom used in speech (if at all, excluding in a theater or in an oral quotation from an academic article, and the like). HOTmag (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... except when the word order is reversed, as in "Were Ewan simply going to be their pawn, a means to an end, they would have told him by now." (This is equivalent to "If Ewan were ...") I agree with HOTmag that usage of "whom" and the subjunctive are becoming less common in informal usage. Dbfirs 11:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you write "except", as if my rule has any exceptions? I think it doesn't. Let me quote it again: "Every he were, must follow a subjunctive word, like if ". It seems like you meant "unless" (instead of: "except when"), didn't you? HOTmag (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, HOTmag, that isn't true. You don't necessarily need an "if" to use the past subjunctive (the present subjunctive is another matter entirely, by the way). It just has to be a counterfactual situation. I wish he were more careful has no "if", and is just fine.

As for the other one, it's more obscure and literary, but I think there are counterexamples to that too — English does occasionally use OVS word order. I'd try something like I follow the man whom fear the gods (that is, "whom the gods fear"). It's not normal everyday speech, but you can work out what it means. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, what "isn't true"? Have I ever written the phrase "he were" necessarily needs an "if"? I've only written it needs a "subjunctive word", and I've also added an example ("like if"). In your example, the subjunctive word is "wish", so I can't see why you think what I've written "isn't true". As for "whom": Please notice that I presented no general rule, but rather presented a "rule of thumb", and I can't see why you think - your second counterexample which is inapplicable in the regular SVO word order - has anything to do with my "rule of thumb" that refers to the regular speech. HOTmag (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I admit I missed "subjunctive word" the first time I read it. However there is no standard English grammatical category called "subjunctive word", and you didn't define it.

As a "rule of thumb", I agree you can defend both propositions, subject to saying what a "subjunctive word" is. But then you claimed something much stronger, namely that the rule had no exceptions. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice, that when I wrote that "my rule" had no exceptions, I was referring to the second rule (about the subjunctive issue), rather than to my rule of thumb (about "whom"). As for what I meant by "subjunctive word": Well, I was sure everybody could understand what I meant. I meant a word (e.g. if, wish, and likewise) which makes the reader understand that the statement is in the subjunctive mood. HOTmag (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words your rule, which knows no exception, is as follows: "After a word that "makes the reader understand that the statement is in the subjunctive mood", you may use the subjunctive mood". What a clever and useful rule. We have reached levels of chutzpah that have managed to move even my usual placid self. Basemetal 09:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're not correctly quoting my rule, which (let me remind you) was as follows: "Every he were, must follow a subjunctive word ". Period. Later, I also explained what I'd meant by "subjunctive word", that is "a word (e.g. if, wish, and likewise) which makes the reader understand that the statement is in the subjunctive mood". So, you may now read my rule as follows: "Every he were must follow a word (e.g. if, wish, and likewise) which makes the reader understand that the statement is in the subjunctive mood". I appreciate your placid self, and I hope you appreciate my placid self as well. HOTmag (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time in recent weeks (see Comma question) when you, a non-native speaker of English (no native speaker would ever write "I think it doesn't") have incorrectly taken another editor to task for their English. For your information, "except when" is absolutely fine, and means the same as "unless" in this context. --Viennese Waltz 12:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your first comment: This is the second time in recent weeks when I can't understand what you are talking about (Btw you haven't responded to my responses ibid.).

As for your second comment (about the "except for "): Of course I disagree: Adding the words "except when " to a statement, means the statement wouldn't be correct without the addition (it's correct, except when so and so - in which case the statement is incorrect). However, my statement (about "he were ") is always correct and has no exceptions, so one can't use the words "except when " as if the sentence had exceptions, and that's why I don't agree to your comment that "except when " is "absolutely fine ". As for "unless ": I don't claim it must be different from "except when ", but sometimes (not always) one can use "unless " in a slightly different meaning, e.g. "If you come late you will be punished, unless you arrive on time, and then you won't be punished ". HOTmag (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Viennese Waltz says that no native speaker would ever write "I think it doesn't". I certainly would, in the other user's context Why did you write "except", as if my rule has any exceptions? I think it doesn't. Or, almost interchangeably but with slightly different emphasis, I could say "I don't think it does". Maybe the difference is that Viennese Waltz is British and I'm American. Loraof (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have said as if my rule had any exceptions if I believed it didn't, and I'd have said this is the second time that not this is the second time when but let me quickly get out of here

. If find these threads about minute points of English usage to be possibly the most tedious at the RD. But carry on... Basemetal 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were I able to go back in time, I would not have used the word "except" but would have explained my point more clearly and carefully. Apologies for causing all this! Dbfirs 22:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it ain't your fault Dbfirs. Nor is it anyone's fault. These threads are doomed. It's a curse. And btw, I'd have said I don't agree with your comment not I don't agree to your comment but who cares

. See ya. Basemetal 23:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your guess seems reasonable, because the Brits say "the rule hasn't (any) exceptions" - so they also say "I think it hasn't ", while Viennese Waltz - who is probably a Brit - is probably not familiar enough with American English. However, in my (American) variety of English, I say "the rule doesn't have (any) exceptions", and that's why I wrote "I think it doesn't " (rather than "hasn't "). Anyways, thanks to Loraof's hypothesis, I now know that Viennese Waltz is (probably) a Brit, so I can understand their comment. HOTmag (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any easy test for when to use "whom" without needing to know any of the grammar technicalities: If the answer to a "who/whom" question can be "him" then "whom" is correct, if the answer is "he" use "who" in the question. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's example is a relative whom rather than an interrogative whom, but the same principle applies: you can't promote the subordinate clause to "Him still manages...." —Tamfang (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think were is correct here? —Tamfang (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: HOTMag is quite incorrect about accusative and subjunctive not being current in speech ("seldom used in speech (if at all)"). It's certainly not universal, but many speakers are still careful in using them. -- Elphion (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to stir the pot, but I concur with Elphion. As a 60-y-o native BrE speaker, I regularly use both in speech, in both workplace and social contexts: I may be in a minority, but I'm certainly not alone. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that British English speakers use it more than American English speakers do, and adults use it more than younger speakers do. However, in my (American) environment, I seldom hear: "the man whom I saw ". Instead, I usually hear "the man I saw ". Additionally, I seldom hear "If he were late he would...". Instead, I hear: "If he was late he would...". HOTmag (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a 58 year-old native BrE speaker, I would have to say that the word "whom" is very rarely heard, at least in my unexalted social circles and wasn't heard much in my childhood either. I do use it in formal written contexts (even sometimes on these pages) but not in informal notes. Use of "were" in the context described by User:HOTmag above is much more common. Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]