Talk:Hindustani language

Is this categorization really no longer used? Ethnologue still uses it: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=1103 -- JeLuF 21:57 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

It is used all the time, by people in India, Pakistan and anyone interested in the languages. Late response, yes, but nonetheless neccessary. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:11, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Move from Hindustani languages to Hindustani language 2 Science Article 3 Move to Hindustani 4 Compliments--and a question 5 Proposal 6 Relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani

Move from Hindustani languages to Hindustani language

For the overwhelmingly small number of people who are interested, there is only one language/dialect called Hindustani. It is a mix of Hindi and Urdu. The two languages are not referred to as 'Hindustani languages.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:25, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Science Article

"According to a recent Science magazine article, it is going to surpass English in the next 20 years, becoming the second most understood language in the world."

Any chance of a source? Sukh 23:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, according to Hindi, Hindi is already the second-most-spoken language. Removing. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:03, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Move to Hindustani

I very recently attempted to move this page to Hindustani, seeing as it is the term by which this language is most commonly referred to as. However there appears to be an existing page-history at Hindustani (which by the way is a redirect to here and is linked to from here as well) and so could not be moved. I'd be interested to know if there'd be any opposition to the move, seeing as I've brought it to the notice of an admin. - Phil R 14:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would oppose for a few reasons. First of all, Hindi and Urdu, and English and French, etc. are not referred to as Hindi language, Urdu language, English language, French language, etc. but the language article is still placed under that title. In the same way, Hindustani refers not only to the language but to "Indian," so someone might refer to singing Hindustani, as in North Indian classical music. Hindi-speakers say "main hindustani hoon" meaning "I'm Indian". Therefore, Hindustani language seems more meet, especially with the parallel protocol used for other languages. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:07, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mi'Lord.--iFaqeer 03:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Compliments--and a question

I have to compliment the writers and editors of this entry. It's the best description of the Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani situation I have seen.

Shouldn't we add a note about Gandhiji's Asaan Hindustani experiment? --iFaqeer 03:05, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you (I helped a lot on this page). Why don't you add something about it? I'm not familiar enough to do some factually accurate regarding that, though I do remember his comments about how Hindi (Prakrit-Sanskrit) and (Urdu) Perso-Arabic together, as Hindustani, was a sweet mix. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

We have the same kind of content here, at Urdu and one or two other places. In my opinion, actually, the note at Urdu is clearer and more detailed than the first para of this page.

I would like to propose that we copy/move a lot of the content under Urdu to this page and either replace that heading (and other instances of the content) with a Main entry link to this page, or copy the final text in both places.--iFaqeer 01:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

That would great. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani

This article presents an inaccurate relationship between these dialects/languages. Hindustani is not a "blend" or "mixture" of Hindi and Urdu. Rather, Hindi and Urdu are two versions of Hindustani. Hindustani (or Hindi-Urdu) is a language that is spoken in dozens of dialects across the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. The vast majority of these dialects are nonstandard dialects, and many of them are mutually unintelligible. These dialects include Khari-Boli, Marwari, Bhojpuri, Eastern Hindi, Western Hindi, etc. There are two principle standard dialects of Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu, these being Hindi and Urdu. Urdu is based on the dialect of the Delhi area and is heavily influenced by Persian. Hindi is based on the Khari-Boli dialect and is heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Another important dialect of Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu is the dialect spoken in Hindi films, which is largely based on the Bombaiya (Mumbai) dialect, which is heavily influenced by Marathi, Gujarati, and English. Acsenray 21:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. "Non-standard" might be what academics call them, but they are often what a person will speak all their lives. And Urdu and Hindi, in my opinion are now beyond where they can be considered just dialects. Again, I understand that a formal linguist might disagree, and that is partly why I don't fight to the death that characterization.

And personally, I think that considering "Hindustani" a real language or dialect is a misnomer. It is however, a useful construct in describing reality—but that's what I think it is, a construct that is useful in describing/capturing a rather fluid reality.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Nonstandard" simply means that it is not associated with a formal infrastructure, such as a published grammar and formal literature and government mandates that it be taught in schools. The phrase "just dialects" reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "dialect." You can't speak (or write) a language without employing a dialect of that language. Right now, we are writing in a standard dialect of English. That is, a formalized dialect of English that is supported by schools and textbooks. This might be overly scholarly analysis, but without it, you can't properly understand the relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani.

By describing Hindustani as a "mixture" or "blend" of Hindi and Urdu implies that you had Hindi in one place and Urdu in another and they met at some point and began mixing. (First of all, they both mostly began in the same general area of north central India, not far apart.) This is not the case. This view also implies that the dialects spoken across the subcontinent just combine various aspects of Hindi and Urdu to varying degrees. They do not. Each dialect of Hindustani is in and of itself a complete system of communication, with its own vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc. For the most part, all these aspects are similar enough to call them dialects of the same language, but there are plenty of differences that make several of these dialects mutually unintelligible.

There are a series of related dialects across the subcontinent. All these taken together comprise the Hindustani language. Hindi and Urdu are formal, scholarly, literate versions of this language that are supported by infrastructures. Acsenray 21:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This text from the Hindi article, I think, lends support to what I'm arguing here:

Linguists think of Hindi and Urdu as the same language, the difference being that Hindi is written in Devanagari and draws vocabulary from Sanskrit, while Urdu is written in Arabic script and draws on Persian and Arabic. The separation is largely a political one; before the partition of India into India and Pakistan, spoken Hindi and Urdu were considered the same language, Hindustani. Hindi and Urdu presently have four standard literary forms: Standard Hindi, Urdu, Dakkhini (Dakhini), and Rehkta. Dakhini is a dialect of Urdu from the Deccan region of south-central India, chiefly from Hyderabad, that uses fewer Persian or Arabic words. Rehkta is a form of Urdu used chiefly for poetry.

Acsenray 18:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That text was written in the late 20th/early 21st century and most probbaly by someone who either has never read any Urdu poetry or has an agenda. Or both. I have never heard "Rekhta" described as "a form of Urdu used chiefly for poetry" for example. And I am very involved with Urdu poetry. And I would love for someone to provide any documentation for "before the partition of India into India and Pakistan, spoken Hindi and Urdu were considered the same language, Hindustani". I know this might be a question from a non-linguist, but who considered it so? Did the natives say "I am speaking Hindustani?" Who? When? Where? Did Ghalib say "I write poetry in Urdu, but at home I speak Hindustani?" or "I write poetry in Urdu, but at home I speak Hindustani?"

On the other hand, if this is just a way for linguists to classify the "diasystem" or mix of languages and/or dialects, then let us say so. My own choice would be to say "Hindustani" is a word used by linguists and many Indians to describe ..."—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:43, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)