Talk:Hindustani language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South America / Suriname (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Suriname.
 

Transliteration issues[edit]

So it seems that the transliteration for the sample text is rather strange: neither follow any one standard, established transliteration convention, even though the Urdu claims to follow ALA, which it actually does not. I know a key issue we want to preserve is that the same phoneme in Hindi and Urdu don't get transliterated differently, which is a result of pretty much all transliteration schemes of Hindi-Urdu; Platt's dictionary on the DDSA website, the ALA, etc. How should we proceed in making Hindi transliteration and Urdu transliteration consistent with each other? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 09:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the transliterations to conform to established standards (IAST for Hindi, ALA-LC for Urdu). The way I see it, the use of the transliteration is by far for the script and not for the actual underlying sounds. IPA should be enough for it; however, if someone wants to propose a more unified transliteration that's one-to-one from source grapheme to Roman grapheme, I'd be all for it. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 10:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Basawala, this makes no sense because IAST is wrong for Hindi. It is like using an key to Polish pronunciation and applying it to English words. Makes no sense. A totally analogous example: translating for script will turn "Enough" to एनुघ ("ai-nu-ggh"). Hindi does not use Devanagari purely phonetically whereas classical Sanskrit does. Just to take a tiny example: ṣ does not even *exist* in Hindi as a sound. The same deal with ṃ for anusvar. Following IAST here makes zero sense so I am reversing it. Please allow some time for discussion before making these changes. My recommendation if you really want to use a ref for this is to simply resort to using a Hindi dictionary that romanizes pronunciations. Should be easy enough. Could just use Chaturvedi which is online at Chicago, e.g. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:5437.caturvedi (मनुष्य mānushy). --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, some speakers do maintain a phonemic difference with retroflex sh, and dotted m is used to indicate nasality. And, you completely missed my point. I'm not talking about phonemic representation of the language but transliteration of the script. IAST makes perfect sense for transliteration Devanagari script, just as ALA-LC in transliterating Perso-Arabic script. Differentiating graphemes that may be the same underlying phoneme is appropriate in transliterations; you're confusing this with phonemic transcriptions. IPA is enough for phonemic/phonetic representation. For now, I'm removing the transliteration- it needs to be either academic and consistent, or not be there at all. We simply can't use an OR transcription that has no basis in standardized conventions, nor a specific dictionary's idiosyncratic transliteration that may not represent each grapheme. Let's get more input before we add back the transliteration. Thanks, ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree w Basawala. Pronunciation is irrelevant: transliteration is about the alphabet. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree for one simple reason. This article is about Hindi and Urdu, not Sanskritic Nagri and Perso-Arabic. The purpose of the section is to take two formalized Hindi and Urdu texts and contrast their vocabularies, not the alphabet. Your statement that "transliteration is about the alphabet" supports my position completely. This section is NOT about the alphabet. It is explicitly about the vocabulary. It would totally serve its purpose even if both sentences were written purely in Roman script. However, even if it were for the alphabet, you are still totally wrong because the alphabet transliteration with IAST itself is wrong. IAST is the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration, not Hindi. Therefore it does bizarre things like taking an identical word like bhaichara and represent it as bhai-cara in Hindi vs bhai-chara in Urdu in the same section. Basically, either delete the section or transliterate like it would be spoken by actual Hindi and Urdu speakers *and* transliterated by actual Hindi and Urdu sources, not some Sanskrit conversion. It is not convention to indicate nasality with dotted m in Hindi. I am yet to see a single Hindi-English dictionary do this. Also, which Hindi speakers (not Sanskrit) maintain this distinction of retroflex sh? This is patently and provably untrue (important: not saying you're deliberately stating untruth and no disrespect to you is implied by this statement): Allied Chambers transliterated Hindi-Hindi-English dictionary: "The retroflex sibilant ष has lost its identity in modern Hindi and is invariably pronounced as the palatal sibilant श." Also please do not misapprehend my objection here. I have zero objection to grapheme transliteration, but use a Hindi transliteration scheme for Hindi (actually you will most likely oppose a grapheme transliteration scheme, especially with nasals, but we may get to that later :-). You cannot use a Polish transliteration scheme for English, and you cannot use Sanskrit for Hindi. IAST is invalid. I am fine to leave IPA there, but not fine to put in things which are just plain wrong in both practice and convention for both transliteration and pronunciation. Additionally, you're way off on your OR contention. In fact precisely the reverse is provably true. using IAST for Hindi is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH => Hindi uses Devanagri. Sanskrit uses Devanagri. Sanskrit uses IAST. Synthesis: Hindi uses IAST. It is precisely for stuff like this that WP:SYNTH exists. If anything, this is OR on your part. Transliterating a word based on a solid Hindi-English dictionary absolutely is *not* OR.
In summary and directly but politely: you're proved wrong on transliteration and you're proved wrong on pronunciation. I hate to say it but you're putting in incorrect stuff on a topic that is clearly beyond your zone of expertise, based on concepts imported from a different area that do not apply here. Moreover your level of confidence clearly exceeds your scope of knowledge here. That is a recipe for inadvertent WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I recommend you recuse yourself. However, this is only an appeal to your own better judgment based on what I am seeing here. If you continue to participate, of course, I will engage with you. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Separately, I also realize that there should be an article on Hindi-Urdu transliteration in Wikipedia. I'll put it on my list to work on. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hunnjazal, please assume good faith. No one needs to "recuse themself". First of all, IAST (or if you prefer a more modern scheme that is basically the same such as NLK or ISO 15919) is meant to be a transliteration for "all Indic scripts." Devanagari is an Indic script. As I have said before, IPA is for phonetic/phonemic transcription, and IAST/NLK/ISO 15919/ALA-LC for script transliteration, which does not need to have anything to do with the underlying phonemes and does not have to be consistent for Hindi in Devanagari and Urdu in Perso-Arabic, whatever consistent means. Let's get more input on this. I would like to see the academic transliteration added back on; it's important to have those alongside non-Latin scripts. (Also, "Hindi-Urdu transliteration" is problematic because transliteration is defined for writing systems, not languages.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 08:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I *am* assuming good faith - I do not doubt your intent to do the right thing for a second. All I was pointed out is that I am seeing a risk of you unwittingly sliding into OR/SYNTH. In which reliable ref does it say that IAST is a good mechanism for Hindi transliteration? ISO 15919 itself says "IAST is not a standard as no formally approved document exists for it but a convention developed in Europe for the transliteration of Sanskrit rather than that of Indic scripts." First, this section is a discussion of *vocabulary* (i.e. language) and not script. You're missing the entire point of the section. If an identical word is rendered one way in the Hindi transliteration and a different way in the Urdu transliteration, it looks like a different word. That creates an incorrect impression of vocabulary difference when in fact there is none. So, what this should be is transcription and not transliteration: this is what will permit genuine vocabulary comparison. You said it best yourself: "Hindi-Urdu transliteration" is problematic because transliteration is defined for writing systems, not languages. Precisely. This section of the article is about comparing the languages, not the writing systems. Second, even with transliteration, you're still wrong: the Hunterian system is the system used by the Government of India and the Central Hindi Directorate, the body that defines Standard Hindi. It is the nationally approved system and if we are going to be dogmatic about transliteration, that is the system we must follow. I will substantiate with references if you want. Even the UN itself says it - "(on ISO 15919) There is no evidence of the use of the system either in India or in international cartographic products ... The Hunterian system is the actually used national system of romanization in India." I noticed that you didnt respond to the ष/श issue. On nasals, the reason Hunterian works is obvious. Labial and dental nasals are distinct, but Hindi doesn't require writers to make the distinction in notation. So, संबंध mixes them. It is saṃbaṇdh. If you don't do this, you end up with sambamdh or sanbandh, which are both wrong. Note that संबन्ध, सम्बंध and सम्बन्ध are all legitimate ways to write this word. Your proposal would take the same word written in perfectly legit ways in Hindi using the same script and render it unpredictably in Roman. This doesn't appear nutty to you at all? It is one of the reasons Sanskrit transliteration is DOA in Hindi. Devnagri used by Hindi is a distinct script in some ways than Devnagri used by Sanskrit. You cannot apply the same transliteration rules to both. This automatically means that if a transliteration scheme is complete and works for Sanskrit, it is guaranteed not to work for Hindi without a solid set of Hindi-specific exceptions. BTW you're already violating grapheme equivalence with schwa syncope. --Hunnjazal (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Addition: I looked deeper into ISO 15919 and it correctly disambiguates the nasals too in its strict option:
a) Anusvara before a stop or class nasal is transliterated as the class nasal: n before k, kh, g, gh, ṅ; ñ before c, ch, j, jh, ñ; ṇ before ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ; n before t, th, d, dh, n; m before p, ph, b, bh, m.
b) Anusvara and candrabindu representing vowel nasalization are transliterated as a tilde above the transliterated vowel. In the case of the digraphs ai, au, the tilde is attached to the second vowel (aĩ, aũ). Note that candrabindu reduces to a dot after a vowel extending above the line.
Even in ALA/LC -
Anusvara is transliterated ṃ in Hindi and ◌̃ in Marathi, except ṅ before k, kh, g, gh, ṅ; n̄ before c, ch, j, jh, ñ; ṇ before ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ, ṛa, ṛha; n before t, th, d, dh, n; m before p, ph, b, bh, m.
Candrabindu is transliterated m̐ , except n̐ before ka, kha, ga, gha, ṅa, ca, cha, ja, jha, ña, ṭa, ṭha, ḍa, ḍha, ṇa, ṛa, ṛha, ta, tha, da, dha, na.
Both *exactly* in line with what I want. However, because of the possibility of false consensus between us leading to unnecessary debate down the line, I want to hew pretty closely to the standards-based approach, which can be backed by the official entity that defines Standard Hindi. We must use the official Hunterian method if you're insistent on transliterating without using good refs (ie dictionaries). This kind of thing is precisely why I was suggesting, with great respect, that you recuse yourself in this one case. It appears that you have good knowledge in one sphere and are somehow confident it applies to another sphere. Even for the best-meaning person, this opens real possibilities for inadvertent SYNTH and OR. It is leading you to make assertions like "some speakers do maintain a phonemic difference with retroflex sh." I have no doubt that you can build up knowledge here and contribute effectively, but it will take some educating yourself about Hindi. You're hi-2 and I am at hi-5, so there is a gap here, which I am constantly substantiating with refs (not simply my word). Why don't you take that time and come back when you're ready? Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and I am not going anywhere. We'll all still be here. Please do not take any of this to imply personal disparagement. I value your involvement in Wikipedia and even our interaction here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please be a bit more civil. First of all, please don't boast your Hindi-5 template my Hindi-2; these are personal claims on our respective UPs and don't mean much. Our discussion is about transliteration, not about retroflex s versus postalveolar sh, which isn't quite the topic in question. (I never disagreed with you that they are pronounced the same and treated as one phoneme by most Standard Hindi speakers, the argument was about transliterating it according to the script distinction.) I have said all I have to say on the topic of transliteration, and can only furthermore point you to my previous comments on the matter and WP:MOSIN#Formal_transliteration / WP:Indic transliteration scheme. As before, we're just waiting for other users to add their inputs, if possible. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I am being civil & I didn't flag 2 vs 5 to boast in any way but to make an entirely different point. I don't see any feedback from anyone there. I agree with WP:Indic transliteration scheme totally - use primary transliteration - the primary transliteration scheme for Hindi is Hunterian and for every single word I will show you three-fourths more refs that agree with my version than with yours. Every Hindi-English dictionary will agree with me and the vast majority of literature references will agree with me. Let's use it by all means. Agreed? This could be a very easy resolution indeed. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, let's be civil. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 07:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Mystifying and very unfair. Is it your definition of civil that I must agree with you? We have a disagreement. You pointed at an article that lays down guidelines for transliteration. I delved into it and it completely backs my approach. When I looked into ISO 15919 details, that backed my approach on nasals as well. I looked into transliteration standards for Hindi and Hunterian, and that backed my approach too. I flagged a systemic pattern I saw in your approach: application of Sanskrit rules to Hindi (retroflex sh, etc), which is quite common actually. There is nothing evil about it: Sanskrit phonology and script use is much better covered in English-language literature than Hindi. Because they share a script which is assumed to create a grapheme-phoneme equivalence (i.e. be phonetic), some folks graft the script portions of Sanskrit on to Hindi and it works 80% of the time, but fails 20% of the time. It's like Dutch being taught with a German orientation. It happens, but someone who knows Dutch will see errors in it. Flagging them is important. This isn't some ego-trip for me - it is just a side-effect of me knowing more in this one area. BTW I have already said that with time anyone can get there, there is nothing magical about it - and I even told you I am willing to wait while you look into this more and come back better armed with info. You called this boasting. I think I have to ask you at this point to assume good faith. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion: Pronunciation is irrelevant, because we already provide that. No need to do it twice IMO. That is, it doesn't matter that Hindi nagari is less phonemic than Sanskrit. We do want to convey how the scripts are composed, and the way to do that is transliteration. But we have two different scripts for parallel texts, so the way to illustrate them is to transliterate them consistently. Thus IMO we should have transliteration schemes that use the same values for equivalent Nagari and Urdu letters. We don't seem to have much info on Urdu transliteration on WP. Why, exactly, would s.t. like ISO 15919 not be appropriate for Urdu? (I don't see the extra Urdu consonants in there, but then that would mean it's not sufficient for Hindi either.) — kwami (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This would work fine too. I am okay with using ISO 15919 properly with matching transliteration for Urdu. It makes sense. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Any transliteration for Hindi automatically doesn't work for Urdu when there are Perso-Arabic loanword-specific graphemes. If we're having an orthographic transliteration for Hindi in Devanagari that differentiates <श>, <ष> we then need an orthographic transliteration for Urdu that differentiates the multiple orthographic variants of /z/, /t/, /s/, etc, which ALA-LC achieves to do. ISO 15919 doesn't work for Urdu because it's defined for "Indic" scripts and explicitly excludes Perso-Arabic derived scripts. My reasoning is that providing non-Latin orthography necessitates a precise and scientific Romanization of that text, although I'm open to other opinions. Either we have grapheme-preserving transliterations, or simply phonemic/phonetic transcription, in IPA and possibly another system. If so, this is something that can be elaborated for future purposes in a Manual of Style for a combined Hindi-Urdu phonemic transcription. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Then it is not appropriate to use to compare the languages. This section compares languages, not scripts. The point of this section would work even if you wrote the Urdu in Nagri. The point is that formalized vocabulary in the two languages diverges. If you use different transliteration schemes, you create an apples vs oranges comparison and defeat the point of the section. I oppose it. Can you explain why transliteration of graphemes is crucial in comparing word vocabulary? It is mystifying. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course we need to distinguish all of the letters of the Urdu alphabet. That goes without saying. We could just go with the IPA, and that would suffice for comparing the languages. However, we do generally provide transliteration for foreign scripts. It would be nice if the two transliterations were comparable. Perhaps that's not possible, but if it is, it may be a good idea for Hindi and Urdu transliteration in general. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to "transliterate" Urdu directly using ISO15919 would be impossible, as the scheme specifically excludes non-Indic scripts. However, transliterating the Urdu written in Nagari would be fine for the sake of comparison, but not for the sake of transliteration a foreign script in itself. We need a script-faithful transliteration like in Bengali language#Sample_text for sure (whether or not it has anything to do with phonemicity, and Bengali transliteration sure doesn't), and we can also have another Romanization that serves to compare the Hindi and Urdu text, if you don't think IPA is enough. However, I think the issue of NPOV arises if we have the Urdu text's various transliterations depend on conventions for Indic scripts, while not vice versa for the Hindi text. If comparison were the goal, we should transliterate both the sample Hindi and Urdu into the opposite language's script, and provide two transliterations using both conventions. (I have a slight problem with the sample text section providing a Nagari transcription of Urdu but not vice versa, but that's a different matter.) The compromise solution, IMO, would be to do things along the lines of what has been done for Bengali on Wikipedia; on most Bengali-language related articles (like above) and such as Jana gana mana, there exists both a script-faithful transliteration and a phonemic transcription that was agreed upon in Wikipedia. We could do the same with Hindi-Urdu; use an established script-faithful transliteration and agree upon a standard phonemic transcription ourselves, if we can't find an existing one. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both texts should be presented in both scripts. I'll do that right now. In fact this is exactly how cross-script books are presented in Hindi and Urdu. It is simply rendered in the original script on one side of the page and the transliterated word is on the other side of the page. Identical text & wording on the two sides in the two different scripts. Asking again: why is transliteration of graphemes is crucial in comparing word vocabulary? --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more formal transliteration seems like a totally incorrect thing to do in comparing (or even just discussing) Hindi-Urdu vocabulary. It has a distorting effect. Here's another word - معملا - it is Arabic-origin (and is ironically present in the Formal Hindi declaration and not the Formal Urdu one). Hindi-Urdu speakers pronounce it two different ways with equal validity. Mamla or Mu'amla. Because Nagri renders this two different ways, both spellings are common in Nagri: मामला and मुआमला. A grapheme mapping will show معملا as something like ma'amla, which is wrong because the pesh has simply been customarily skipped. The Nagri would become māmalā (Sanskrit style) or māmlā (with correct schwa deletion) or muāmlā. A perfectly normal word, identical in both registers, shows up differently. Formal transcription makes zero sense here and actually presents falsehood to readers for vocabulary comparison. Based on this approach, you could take Hindi written in Nagri and Hindi written in Roman and compare their vocabulary and say, hey these are distinct languages. I now oppose the use of differing transcription techniques applied to Indic situations to compare languages. You can use them to compare scripts but it is the wrong tool for comparing languages. I am going to propose modifying WP:Indic transliteration scheme to ensure this doesn't happen. --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've understood, but the point of transliteration as well as the definition is for the purposes of representing orthography. WP:Indic transliteration scheme will never serve to represent transcription of languages. I'll restate my example with Bengali; look at Bengali language#Sample text. The transliteration has nothing to do with the actual language's sounds. I understand why you're opposed to script-faithful transliteration, but it follows that if you present a non-Latin script, no matter if your main goal is to present a language (because you can do so only using IPA or another phonemic transcription standard), it makes sense to give a faithful presentation of what the script actually maps to, using Latin script. I think that's a statement most would agree on, in general; however, it can't be a statement that rules with an iron fist. In addition, I'm trying to create a standard Hindi-Urdu unified phonemic transcription at User:Basawala/Sandbox (without yet discussing where it should be used, for now); any input is welcome. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 07:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually do understand your point, but it doesn't apply here. The purpose of this section is to compare vocabulary and not orthography. Everyone knows the orthography of Perso-Arabic and Nagri is completely different. What's the point there? What I am proposing in WP:Indic transliteration scheme is that anytime two Indic languages like Hindi and Urdu are compared for vocabulary differences, a transcription scheme that covers both be employed. Hunterian, with diacritic additions perhaps, does this nicely. This is true for transcription as well. I am actually not opposed to script-faithful transliteration. It has its place but this isn't it unless it is applicable to both renderings of a language such that the goal of the section isn't defeated. Definitely happy to participate in your attempt to define a unified standard, but need to put aside some time for it. The Bengali transliteration is fine but is non-analogous because you aren't comparing Bengali to anything. What if we were comparing Bengali and Sylheti but used ISO for Bengali and Hunterian for Sylheti to compare words in Bengali and Sylheti? That would make no sense because the languages would look much more divergent than they actually are. It would confound that section. Same deal here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How can Hindi-Urdu be a single language?[edit]

"Hindi-Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language" this implies reference to a single language so it's sensible to name it Hindustani instead of putting two other names —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.68.85 (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The name Hindustani is not neutral as previously mentioned in the discussion that it means "Indian" while India happens not to be the only major country speaking the language as well as the religious cultural bases. Hindi-Urdu would be a more neutral collective word for the two mutually intelligible languages. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindustani is not the old name of Urdu, rather it was Gandhi's idea to promote the two types of scripts of Hindi & Urdu as a single language to rule out the disputes to avoid this fact adding to the separatism and partition for a united Hindustan. This word still might have been used before for both the languages, but the fact remains that Urdu was a separately evolved language from Hindi. Even though so many words have merged into both languages, but so have so many words from so many other languages merged in to Urdu. Urdu it self was a naturally evolved lingua franca. Also in the current form, the modern Urdu is the national language of Pakistan. Calling it Hindustani, which actually translates to Indian is self conflicting. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a single abstand language, with two standard/official/literary forms. The compound form is common for similar reasons to "Serbo-Croatian". In the vernacular, it is irrelevant whether people call the language "Hindi" or "Urdu" or "Hindustani", since they can't tell them apart.
"Hindustani" is a Persian and Urdu word. In English alone it's attested from the year 1616, perhaps a few years before Gandhi used it!
Hindustani: "The language of the Muslim conquerors of Hindustan, being a form of Hindi with a large admixture of Arabic, Persian, and other foreign elements; also called Urdū."
kwami (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I already said that the word was not new when Gandhi used it, but the way it relates to modern day Urdu is self conflicting. People who speak can tell apart the differences in the language. Hindustani it self being a Persian/Urdu word is still a reasonable reference to the country India while the language is spoken in not only that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Now you're saying it's acceptable to call it Hindustani? — kwami (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it's a reference to a single modern day country which creates a bias to the name. It is not acceptable (although it is one of the names given to "Hindi-Urdu") because of the reference or prejudice it gives. And that's what my edit pointed out, it didn't say that Hindustani is not a given word for it. The purpose of the first edit was neutrality of the article to all the Hindi-Urdu speakers in India & Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are your references? Sorry, we go by references, not the contrary opinion of everyone who drops by the article. "Not acceptable" is just another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate reason for an edit.
It's not a reference to a single modern-day country. It's a reference to "Hindustan", which is as much Pakistan and Bangladesh as it is Bharat. Next you'll be telling us we can't call Undu and Sindhi "Indic languages" because that's offensive, and that we have to rename the Indo-European language family "Bengal-European".
"Neutrality" doesn't mean "what I agree with". — kwami (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan is not Hindustan, that's where you are wrong. Hindustan is just used by the Indians when they refer to the part of South Asia.

References:

India and Partition

Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies

Pakistan - The Problem of India

Peoples of South Asia

lTopGunl (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That explains why the history of Pakistan article starts in 1947. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts change with time. The partition did take place. History of Pakistan doesn't start with 1947, it starts with the advent of Islam to the Indo-Pak area, 1947 is the year of partition. Since India and Pakistan are two separate nations now, creation of bias is still relevant. Hindustan still does not refer to the country Pakistan in anyway. The whole area might have been called India/British India/Hindustan once, but to keep it up to date, Pakistan is a separate nation. That was the whole point of partition. I suppose my references were enough to support the point on difference of Hindustan & Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's still OR to claim that the name Hindustani is therefore "biased" or oppresses Muslims. Opinion and fact are different things. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Should I assume that the starting of your comment from 'but' means there is an agreement on the difference of Hindustan & Pakistan?

It might have appeared to you as my opinion on the first edit (even after tagging of another article) but the current references are not outdoor research. They state facts. Oppression by just calling Hindi-Urdu as Hindustani might be an overrated word, but a significant bias is there in the obvious.

Unless you have references to any Pakistani news article/book/official website stating Hindustani as a current accepted name for the joint reference to Hindi-Urdu as lingua franca this would either be based on Indian side references (which is a bias) or based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you would say. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Pakistan is obviously within Hindustan. A 'fact', as you like to say. And I never said Hindustani was the 'current accepted name', I only said that your opinion on 'oppression' is not fact but opinion. — kwami (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you would read the articles about Pakistan's independence, all of them mention that Pakistan separated from India/Bharat/Hindustan. Right, so if Hindustani is not a current accepted name (in Pakistan), and is being used from references from a single side there is a reasonable claim of bias (which is not an opinion). To prove that it was not an opinion but a fact, I gave the references about the partition, which all mention, Pakistan separated from India as a sovereign state which is not sub categorized in Hindustan. But before all the debate, I think you should decide to stick to a single point weather Pakistan is Hindustan or is it within Hindustan (both of which you have mentioned in two separate posts above without giving any reference to a single one). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that your refs "prove" that the word Hindustani (the historical Muslim name for Urdu) is "biased against Muslims". Yet your sources never mention the word at all. What you're engaged in is original research and synthesis, both of which are specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. You might also want to read "Truth". — kwami (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My references disproved your claims of Pakistan being a part of Hindustan (which you have claimed above 2-3 times). You were definitely wrong there. Now that's what my claim was, it induces a bias to name a combined two regional languages by the name of a single region. My references did not directly say that Hindustani is/is-not a language name used in history by any Muslim. I gave them to signify the bias and to show that there are no references that say that modern day Pakistan calls Urdu a part of Hindustani. Did you give any references to prove that? My references prove that the region has now been separated even in ethnic definition, How can you apply any claims that say "a muslim ruler once used the word hindustani for the languages." As yet you too have not given a single reference that says that Pakistan read National Language Authority of Pakistan says that Urdu is a part of Hindustani. So until you prove that, all you are saying are on bases of references from the once unified India or the current country India. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't disprove anything I actually said, only things you imagine I said. But that's irrelevant, as it's not the issue. Again, read original research,synthesis, and Truth, so you will know what is needed to edit a WP article. (And as for your latest claim, that if I'm tired of this stupid argument your POV is therefore correct, well, there's no polite way to put it.) — kwami (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, i quote one of the instances you claimed it (where I rest my case as far as this claim of yours is concerned):

"It's a reference to "Hindustan", which is as much Pakistan and Bangladesh as it is Bharat."

The one polite way to put it is a silent consensus since you are kind of tired of the 'nonsense' & unwilling to participate anymore (which certainly doesn't mean that you can keep on reverting and yet not be willing to comment on the talk).

I think we should resort to WP: RFC--lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's up to you. But I've waited several days for you to provide evidence supporting this "dispute", and you have provided none. So I'm removing the tag. Come back when you have something substantial to say. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided sufficient links for any sane person to know that there is a bias when you name multiple languages spoken over a wide area on the name of a certain region and then further claim it to be one region. You on other hand have not provided a single reference that Pakistani language authority recognizes the given name. Do not remove the tag unless decided by consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. Get a source that actually supports your claims, or go away and play with your toes. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Unless you are interested in playing with my toes, you should not comment here if you are incapable of debating. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I read through the above dispute, in which I was not involved, and here are my conclusions from it:
lTopGunl repeatedly inserted a non-referenced claim that the name "Hindustani" is not as neutral as Hindi-Urdu. kwami deleted it, since is wasn't referenced and seemed just personal opinion. At the end of the above discussion, lTopGunl asked kwami to provide a reference that Pakistani language authority recognizes the name "Hindustani". This is turning the burden of proof on the wrong side. Hindustani is a traditional name in English for this language, so it certainly has to be mentioned in the article. If a claim of its non-neutrality is to appear in the article, it has to be referenced; the absence of such a claim does not need reference.
So the article in its current form follows Wikipedia policies, whereas the changes proposed by lTopGunl did not. Therefore I now remove the POV tag. Marcos (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly given enough references to prove that Pakistan is not a part of Hindustan. It separated from the Hindustan/India in 1947. So any language status has to be recognized by its own language authority. Hindustani is the name given in english to hindi variants spoken in India. It is technically wrong to claim a name on a language (urdu in this case) as a part of another language (even though it might be mutually intelligible). The burden of proof always was on the side giving a name. For the reason that Pakistan is a separate country with a different (even though similar) traditions to Hindustan. (As you said you didn't see any references from me, you need to read the discussion again since you clearly missed those links above.) Also, I am still waiting for any references to prove that modern urdu is known as a sub class of Hindustani in Pakistan (there isn't any reference given that even the modern english speakers call the Pakistani urdu as Hindustani).

As for the tag removal, see Wikipedia:Consensus. Do not remove the tag from the article until there's a consensus. Let the discussion continue instead of just editing the article after giving your opinion like kwami. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcos judged that there was consensus. Consensus is informed by sources, and since you haven't provided any sources, your opinion is irrelevant when determining consensus. Please don't edit war. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While claiming a name for a language, the burden of proof lies on you. The word hindustani was never accepted by the pakistani language authority nor does it classify urdu by this name.

Ahmed, S. (1990). Library Muqtadra Qaumi Zaban: An Introduction. Pakistan Library Bulletin. Vol. 21 (3-4). Sept-Dec.

Aziz, T. (1987). Urdu type Machine kay kaleedi Takhtay, Muqtadra Qaumi Zaban, Islamabad. (in Urdu)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Language_Authority

The references given on above wikipedia page confirm that the Pakistan's National Language Authority encourages the promotion of urdu on levels distant to hindustani. Even mentioning hindustani separately makes it a different language in this context. Also I've given sufficient links in the discussion if you would scroll up, you certainly can't assume Pakistan as a part of Hindustan and imply the languages to be the same.

http://www.nla.gov.pk/ (National Language Authority website of Pakistan) has no indication of hindustani given in it.

Yes consensus is made by sources, but again.., where are your sources?

There's a purpose of the POV tag. So that more users can contribute to discussion. Marcos clearly missed my previous references as he indicated in his post. Let him read it again. Also, it would be better if we don't push a speedy consensus on just three people and not a single reference from your side. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he didn't miss your references. You don't have any references that address the issue. You have failed to demonstrate a reason for tagging the article except WP:Idontlikeit, which isn't a valid reason. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then you need to check the links I gave again. And you haven't given a single source by the way. The burden of proof is on the first claim (that of classifying urdu under the hindustani tag). Even then I have given the official & literary links to justify my point. You even claimed Pakistan as a part of Hindustan, which itself tells your lack of knowledge/understanding on the topic or the bias you have. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now the edit war is over a POV tag. What is POV? This is ridiculous, TopGun, there's nothing at all POV here. There's nothing but scientific fact that can be easily verified. The POV tag seems incredibly unwarranted. As far as I can tell from your interminable diatribe, you object to including the term "Hindustani" as one of the alternate names of this article. Really? Is that what you're wasting our time with? Well, live with it. There are sources which use "Hindustani" as an alternate name for Hindi-Urdu. If we were trying to make that the article's title, then you would have an argument to make. But fighting including it as one of the alternate names is just petty silliness. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To start with, I have been asking for those 'easily verifiable' sources (from the Pakistani literature or language authority in this case as taking them just from the Indian side would be POV). If you go back to previous edits this edit war started with kwami removing my edit which indicated that this alternate name is used by Indian side only (which actually is an addition to the information given by the article). I have definately have no issues with hindustani being an alternate name (as far as it is properly referenced or indicated who uses it since the article starts with mentioning these two countries while there is no citation about Pakistan using this name), but kwami here in reply to that (other than repetitive reverts) started to claim Pakistan as a part of Hindustan as well. That is actually petty silliness. I would suggest that it should be mentioned in brackets like I did before. Because as far as Pakistan is concerned, the language is not hindustani. If that is not a POV issue, what is it? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one iota what the government of Pakistan thinks. It is what the scientific linguistic community thinks. If there were some dispute within the linguistic community about whether or not "Hindustani" is a legitimate alternate name for Hindi-Urdu, then you would have a point. Governmental decrees don't affect linguistics at all. Not one bit. Sources that use "Hindustani" as an alternate name for Hindi-Urdu: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. While I have posted Google Books links to all but the first two of these sources, I actually own the books and use the Google Books links just for convenience. These should be quite sufficient to demonstrate that linguists recognize "Hindustani" as a legitimate alternate name for Hindi-Urdu. --Taivo (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

All of your links indicate references/books by non-Pakistani authors. If you want to take it that way, none from the Pakistani linguistic or scientific community calls it hindustani. There's no official or literary sources from Pakistan. Thats called POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe that you think science is politically based. At this point, you have zero scientific evidence, only political assertions. The worldwide linguistic community accepts "Hindustani" as an alternate name for Hindi-Urdu. If you think that linguistics is politically-based, then you have no place editing any articles on language. I've provided rock-solid scientific evidence that the worldwide linguistic community accepts "Hindustani" as an alternate name for Hindi-Urdu. The case is closed, sir. --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article places the language in that manner. Its first sentence being it is used in North India and Pakistan when no one in Pakistan calls it hindustani. In the same paragraph, its self contradicting to say that hindustani (literally: of hindustan) is spoken in Pakistan. It is not a political assertion. Your 'rock solid' citations have POV issue. I am still waiting for a source from a native (read Pakistani) author. Otherwise its trivial that authors from another community will have their own POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Only a tiny minority of English's native speakers are from England. It's where the name of the language comes from, it doesn't reflect the provenance of its speakers. Is it contradictory to say that English is spoken in the United States of America? Further, this section begins with a question about how Hindi and Urdu can be one language; discussion over the name probably belongs elsewhere. Matt Keefe (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So you are asserting that the international scientific community is POV? That simply proves that you are not interested in science. I have nothing more to say to you, sir. You have violated WP:3RR and have been reported for edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Internation scientific community includes authors form Pakistan. Its POV if none of them mentioned what you claim. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Hindostee"?[edit]

I have redirected "Hindostee" here (an archaic rendering?) Please alter if incorrect. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I’m certain that’s supposed to be Hindostanee. —Wiki Wikardo 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I will redirect that here. And although it's usually used for the language, there are occasional other uses (Hindostanee clubs, women). — kwami (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hindustani[edit]

Shouldn't the name be Hindustani not Hindi-Urdu. Hindi & Urdu are dialects of Hindustani not Hindi-Urdu, it would actually make more sense if the name is Hindustani, if you check most of the other wikipedia languages the name is Hindustani, the same should also happen here. Rani Patel (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think "Hindi-Urdu" is more common usage. — kwami (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Though there is this:

The court said that the Constituent Assembly while discussing the Language Formula noticed the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights, which recommended the formula as per which, “Hindustani, written either in Devanagari or the Persian script at the option of the citizen, shall, as the national language, be the first official language of the Union. English shall be the second official language for such period as the Union may, by law, determine.”[10]

kwami (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But the most common name (indeed the almost universally used name) in linguistic literature in English is "Hindi-Urdu". "Hindustani" has a colonial feel to it. In all my linguistic reading, I don't believe I ever even saw "Hindustani" until I got to Wikipedia. I was somewhat shocked to see that colonial usage here. Per WP:COMMONNAME this is "Hindi-Urdu". --Taivo (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The name is commonly used in the context of Bollywood films, since those are intended to bridge the divide, and are as popular in Pakistan as they are in India. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How is "Hindi-Urdu" the name you are giving to the language that Hindi and Urdu register from? Hindi-Urdu is the term used when cant decide between both the languages so we call it "Hindi-Urdu" but that is not what Hindustani is. I don't believe I ever even saw that "Hindi-Urdu" is a language until I got to Wikipedia. How can you deny this even when most of the other languages have Hindustani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoniaSingh04 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. "Hindi-Urdu" is the most commonly used name for this language in scientific linguistic texts. Hindi-Urdu is therefore the term we use in Wikipedia for this node, and "Hindustani" redirects to Hindi-Urdu. --Taivo (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, some people never saw 'Hindustani' until coming here, and some never saw 'Hind-Urdu'. It depends on what you read. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2006) has articles on Hindustani, Hindi, and Urdu. The latter two are the modern standards; the former the language across its history. They mention that Kelkar (1968) feels that Hindustani went out with the establishment of the standardized registers, but themselves describe "Hindustani proper" (as a third variety) as basic Khari Boli with only those Persian and Sanskrit words which have been fully assimilated; the say that "in its spoken colloquial form, it is used for communication by a large number of speakers in India, Pakistan, and other parts of the world. It may therefore be considered, according to Chatterji (1960), as one of the great languages of the world." There are then three other forms: local Hindustani of NW India that is influenced by Haryani, Rajasthani, etc.; Bazaar Hindustani in markets across India; and Dakhini. (The author of the Hindustani and Urdu articles, BTW, is Indian, at the Central Institute of Indian Languages in Mysore.[11] He evidently does not feel it's a colonial term.) "Hindi-Urdu" tends to refer to the two standards taken together, though that varies too, sometimes meaning all of the Hindi languages. It may be the more common term, but I think in a case like the info-box classification, where we wish to be clear that we don't mean Standard Hindi + Standard Urdu and that we're covering the entire history of the language, then "Hindustani" may be the more felicitous term. — kwami (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the sources I've looked at today, "Hindi-Urdu" refers to the language that comprises the two standards and "Hindustani" is broader in scope. That seems to be the implication of your comment as well. --Taivo (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Updating the number of total speakers of Hindi-Urdu[edit]

The source (BBC) which gives the total number of Hindi-Urdu speakers 490 million is outdated: it is from 2006 and it is a dead link. If you go to the same BBC source and check their website on Hindi (1) it gives you 545 million speakers, and 100 million speakers for Urdu (2). So the total number of Hindi-Urdu speakers now (2012) is about 645 million people, which makes sense as both India's and Pakistan's population has grown rapidly recently and more people has learnt the language as the popular second language. 64.189.101.117 (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the wrong Hindi. Rajasthani isn't a dialect of Hindustani. — kwami (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not the 'wrong' Hindi. The source doesn't say that Rajasthani is a dialect of Hindi; the source says that Hindi is also spoken in Rajasthan in India. 64.189.101.117 (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Lots of people say Rajasthani is a dialect of Hindi. The source says Hindi is the "main language" of Rajasthan. That means Rajasthani. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The total number of speakers of Rajasthani is about 20 million. Rajasthan's population is about 70 million. It's not the main language of Rajasthan. 64.189.101.46 (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I read through the whole source of BBC and it says that "Hindi has hundreds of dialects...". Now, this makes it clear that the source talks about Hindi in the broader sense, and not about Standard Hindi. You were right.
What makes the issue confusing is that many sources - including BBC and the Indian Government - use the word 'Hindi' to refer to all the varieties of Hindi and not specifically to Standard Hindi. To avoid ambiguity and further confusions I suggest renaming the article to "Standard Hindi-Urdu" or "Standard Hindi and Urdu". 64.189.101.46 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There's no such thing. There are two standards for Hindustani, Standard Urdu and Manak Hindi.
BTW, the numbers in the UCLA ref make no sense. There are 180M speakers of "Hindi" in India, and 500M world-wide. So there are 320M outside India? Where? I suspect that they confused numbers for Khari Boli and for Central Zone Indic, which means whoever wrote that page didn't know what they were doing. Better just to use their refs directly. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I checked the UCLA source, and I agree, 320M native speakers outside of India just doesn't make sense.
As for the move, I would support it to "Hindustani". As others pointed it out before, it would be a more appropriate name. As you said it is commonly used in the context of Bollywood movies and other sources. In contrast to Taivo, I do not feel it has a colonial feel at all. The term Hindustani is actually in common usage by reliable sources Oxford Dictionary (Hindi-Urdu is not even defined), and even the sources currently used in this article refer to Hindustani and not Hindi-Urdu. Plus, the term Hindustani avoids the ambiguity that 'Hindi' many times used to refer to all the varieties of Hindi, and not only to standard Hindi. 64.189.101.99 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To be fair, "Hindustani" sometimes shares in that ambiguity, though much less commonly. If you want to propose the move, I'll support it, though I suspect the opposition might be vociferous. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --regentspark (comment) 03:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hindi-UrduHindustani language – This page should be named "Hindustani language" as reliable sources have been provided on this page, I do not see how there is a "colonial feel" towards Hindustani and I do not see how "Hindi-Urdu" can be the name of the language which they are registers of. The most practical name is "Hindustani" and it should be used here in the English Wikipedia too as you can see most of the interwiki languages have it as "Hindustani". --SoniaSingh04 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Per comments above, "Hindi-Urdu" is specifically the collective name of the two national standards. "Hindustani" includes the entire history of the language (that's where the colonial feel comes in, from before the modern standards were established, though it's older than the colonial era) as well as the modern colloquial. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - George Abraham Grierson in his book Western Hindi, Linguistic Survey of India. says,
pg. 3, "The earliest date which Yule gives of the use of the word ' Hindostani ' is 1616 ..."
pg. 44, 45 & 46, "It (literary Hindostani) has several recognised varieties, amongst which may be mentioned Urdu, Rekhta, Dakhini, and Hindi.
pg. 46 & 47,"We may now define the three main varieties of Hindustani as follows :— Hindostani primarily the language of the Upper Gangetic Doab, is also the lingua franca of India, capable of being written in both Persian and Deva-nagari characters, and without purism, avoiding alike the excessive use of either Persian or Sanskrit words when employed for literature. The name ' Urdu ' can then be confined to that special variety of Hindostani in which Persian words are of frequent occurrence, and which hence can only be written in the Persian character, and, similarly, ' Hindi ' can be confined to the form of Hindustani in which Sanskrit words abound, and which hence can only bo written in the Deva-nagari character. These are the definitions which were proposed by the late Mr. Growse, and they have the advantage of being intelligible, while at the same time they do not overlap. Hitherto, all the three words have been very loosely employed. Finally, I use ' Eastern Hindi ' to connote the group of intermediate dialects of which Awadhi is the chief, and ' Western Hindi ' to connote the group of dialects of which Braj Bhakha and Hindustani (in its different phases) are the best known."
"As a literary language, the earliest specimens of Hindustani are in Urdu, or rather Rekhta, for they were poetical works."
So, Hindusatni is older & is superset of Hindi-Urdu.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment. Fijian Hindustani is not the same language as what is being described as "Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu" here. Fijian Hindustani is a variety of Awadhi. So your comment is baseless, Faizhaider. --Taivo (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - The constitution of Fiji nowhere says 'Fijian Hindustani' it just mentions 'Hindustani', the term 'Fiji Hindi' too is not mentioned in it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be relevant if Fiji had introduced Hindustani as a foreign language in Fiji, but they haven't. They obviously mean the Hindustani in Fiji, which is not Hindustani. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
"Fijian Hindustani" is what linguists call the language to distinguish it from "Indian" Hindustani. On Fiji, they only say "Hindustani", which is not Hindi, but Awadhi. --Taivo (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Hindustani, Hindi, Urdu[edit]

The medieval language was historically called Hindavi, Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani by the people of that time period, with the term Urdu being the last to come to prominence (around 1780). The terms Urdu and Hindi both need to be mentioned in order to avoid confusion with the present day standardized forms of each, and because Hindustani is and was an umbrella term encompassing both since the 19th century. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

He's talking about the hat note at the top. This article covers medieval Urdu, whereas Modern Standard Urdu is at Urdu. Do we need to extend the hat note for medieval Doabi Hindi vs Modern Standard Hindi?

(@ Foreverknowledge, I reverted you again. This article is not about the historical language, but about the language as a whole. Also, while it's been a while since I reviewed the sources, I don't recall "Hindi" as being historically prominent, and your source for it doesn't seem very reliable, as they get their history mixed up.) — kwami (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of claiming a source doesn't seem reliable, you should substantiate your claim instead of randomly reverting edits without any proof of your own. Since you don't seem interested in doing your own research, I can refer you to many other sources that corroborate my statements, but I feel that it will be of no use to you. In any case, please don't revert my edits about the transliteration. You've already done that twice without any rhyme or reason. There is nothing debatable about it. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I'm a tad befuddled by this article. For example, the article says "commonly known as Hindi-Urdu". Never having heard that term being commonly used, I looked for references in the article and find that there are only two that use the term. One is a dead link [12] to something that looks like a personal non-peer reviewed web page. The second is to a generic book on languages that can hardly claim to know what any particular language is commonly known as (I'll check the book itself in a bit). My suggestion is to remove the Hindu-Urdu term entirely from the article. About linking to Hindi from the hat note, this is what Britannica says "However, the religious difference proved intractable, and with partition Hindustani was split into two distinct (if closely related) official languages, Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan. Despite this division, many basic terms, such as the names of the parts of the human body and of relatives, pronouns, numerals, postpositions, and verbs, are the same in both Sanskritized Hindi and Persianized Urdu." Seems reasonable to me. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Dua references, it appears that the author is using the term Hindi-Urdu to indicate the divergence of Hindustanti/Hindawi into Hindi and Urdu, rather than as a synonym for Hindustani. I'm going to remove the commonly referred to as "Hindi-Urdu" unless there is a citation to that commonality or reference. --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I've commonly seen "the Hindi-Urdu language" for Hindustani (though, as with most languages, it's hard to tell if they mean just the official registers or not, and in some cases it clearly does mean just that: see my comment in the move discussion above), and we used to have this article at that name. I do think we need "Hindi-Urdu" bolded somewhere in the lead. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Hindi should be linked in the hat note. When I first read the hat note, my initial reaction was: "Doesn't Hindustani most commonly refer to the middle form of speech between Hindi and Urdu?" I'm sure it could be confusing to other readers too. The British themselves used the term inconsistently. Although many used Hindustani to simply mean Urdu, there were others (e.g. the famed John Gilchrist) who used Hindustani as an all-encompassing term to mean Persianized Khari Boli (i.e. Urdu), non-Persianized Khari Boli (i.e. Hindi), and the preferred middle form of speech. There were others still (e.g. Grierson) who defined it specifically as the middle form of speech, distinct from Urdu and Hindi. This latter usage was also used by Indian nationalists such as Gandhi and Nehru, who advocated the use of Hindustani in speech and writing instead of Urdu and Hindi, and this is the meaning by which Hindustani is still known today by native speakers. Then there were some Indian writers who used Hindustani to specifically mean Hindi (presumably because both terms mean "Indian")and not Urdu or a middle form of speech. Keep in mind all of these different uses of Hindustani were in vogue before independence and thus are "historical" definitions. Based on the inconsistent, imprecise, and often confusing usage of Hindustani, I think it would be best to also include Hindi in the hat note. Otherwise, readers may consider it a confusing oddity if only Urdu is mentioned. --BallerY2K (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How's that? — kwami (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? --BallerY2K (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it. --BallerY2K (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete this article[edit]

This article should be deleted and the relevant information should be transferred to the Hindi and Urdu articles. Not for political reasons either. Hindustani is an archaic term, which Colin Masica in one of the links posted here mentions that it's seldom used. And that was in 1991, so imagine how uncommon it is now. Most people in India just say they are speaking Hindi. Partition pretty much killed the use of Hindustani in a linguistic sense. Notably, the census of India stopped recording Hindustani as an actual language after 1971 because of only a handful of people using the term to refer to their language. Its mainly used in India in a national sense as a synonym to Bhaaratiya or Indian. In Pakistan the term is not used at all for language and is only used in reference to India or Indians. Most of the links quoted in this talk page use Hindustani in quotes indicating they are following Grierson's definition. Otherwise they generally use Hindi-Urdu. I propose Hindustani language should just go to the disambiguation page which would have a note saying this was a historic name for the Hindi-Urdu language and is not current anymore and refer readers to the Hindi and Urdu articles. Use of Hindustani in a language sense in other Wikipedia articles should be changed to Hindi or Urdu whichever is more appropriate for the situation. I think it is irresponsible that Wikipedia uses Hindustani so rampantly when no one else uses it even a fraction of the amount. I'm concerned that readers will go up to Indians or Pakistanis and ask them how they say such and such term in Hindustani, especially if they are visiting either country. Most Indians would chuckle and think the person is being too old-fashioned or politically correct, while Pakistanis would be outraged. --ShahDuniya (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. Articles are not about terms or names, but about concepts. What term natives use is utterly irrelevant. --JorisvS (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this concept can be illustrated in better ways that are more consistent with academic usage and linguistics rather than the use of the imprecise Hindustani, which by all accounts is outdated. By the way, I don't appreciate your rude response. --ShahDuniya (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It is blatant POV to refer people either Hindi or Urdu, because structurally these constitute a single language, which is the topic of this article. The lead describes the differences between the terms as well as usage of the term. --JorisvS (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not just change the article's name to Hindi-Urdu? That would better reflect the usage in academia and alleviate concerns about the misuse of Hindustani. It seems the article was called Hindi-Urdu at one time but was changed to Hindustani for some reason. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now we're talking. Hindi and Urdu are two standardized registers of the same language. From the lead: taking Hindi and Urdu together gives "Hindi-Urdu", which does not necessarily mean the entire language of which Hindi and Urdu are part. There are also dialects that differ somewhat from Hindi and Urdu in their own way (and then I'm not talking about the Hindi languages, which are not part of the language that subsumes Hindi and Urdu). So what to call it? Hindi-Urdu? But that neglects the non-standard dialects. What's so wrong with "Hindustani"? --JorisvS (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Devanagari from lede[edit]

@Foreverknowledge: I have no grudge against Devanagari... The link I gave you was a revert of my addition of Devanagari in the lede of a non-film article by another user. Please improve your judging qualities to decide on relevance. The established consensus is removal of Indic scripts from ALL ledes. —ШαмıQ @ 08:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That article had nothing to do with language. It was about India's independence day. India has many official languages, thus I understand the concern of only giving giving Hindi in the lede of that article. This article is about Hindustani, which pertains to both Hindi and Urdu. Thus both scripts should be given in the lead. I see no "consensus" that you speak of. Let's see what the opinions of others are about this. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The reason for that decision was the petty fights of everybody trying add their own language to the lead, until it becomes a mess. That's not generally a problem with language articles themselves, as it's obvious which language is relevant. Take a look, and you'll see that most major Indic languages have the autonym in its script in the lead. The worst it gets is Punjabi language, and that's not too bad. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like Nagri should be deleted from the Punjabi article. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hindustani? Never heard of it.[edit]

Absolutely nobody in Pakistan/Bangladesh/Afghanistan calls Urdu, Hindustani. This is blatant POV/Original research. The term was popularized by Ghandi as an attempt to bridge communities. Its not the formal name for the language. Should we perhaps accept that there is no bridge between Hindi and Urdu? It might be very hard for certain people to accept this but Hindu-Urdu differences are based on religion.--Xinjao (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Everybody accepts that, and that is of course the bridge: One language, divided by religion, like Serbian and Croatian. Which name would you prefer, "Urdu"? I think that would be even more problematic, though it's technically correct. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use "Hindavi" instead of the rarely used name Hindustani that was apparently never used before Gandhi and the British Raj? Because "Hindavi" is definitely more common -- it has been in use by BOTH Muslims and Hindus since the birth of the language in North India, and recorded by Amir Khusrow in the 13th century CE. Khestwol (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
But is it widely used in English sources? That is the criterion for naming articles in en.wikipedia (see WP:MOSNAME), not what somebody else calls it, even the people who speak it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
"Hindustani" is extremely common, and has been since the Moghul Empire. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea about changing the article's name to Hindi-Urdu and also change all other references to Hindustani language on Wikipedia to Hindi-Urdu. Hindi-Urdu is the usual term used by scholars. The article on Serbo-Croatian is called Serbo-Croatian not Yugoslavian, so why should the Hindi-Urdu article have an outdated title? There are articles already on other types of Hindustani such as Caribbean Hindustani so those topics would be addressed in their respective articles. --ShahDuniya (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It used to be at Hindi-Urdu, but we moved it here as this is the more accurate name. Hindi-Urdu is the standard form of Hindustani. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why "Hindustani" is the more accurate name. The standard forms are Hindi and Urdu, each of which has separate articles. So an article called "Hindi-Urdu" can collectively discuss Hindi and Urdu historically in both their standard and nonstandard forms such as bazar speech. "Hindustani" in the forms of Fiji Hindustani or Caribbean Hindustani are not based on Khari Boli so they are distinct, and they also have their own articles. The use of "Hindustani" as the article name also makes the blurb at the top look very clumsy. It requires the mentioning of Standard Hindi, Standard Urdu, Fiji Hindustani, and I don't see it right now but also Caribbean Hindustani. Otherwise it could be confusing to first time readers what is meant by "Hindustani". This problem would be solved by renaming the article "Hindi-Urdu" because it would be crystal clear to everyone that the article is about the two languages as a whole. And you wouldn't have so many people on this talk page wondering why the article is called Hindustani and raising objections to it. In addition if you visit language forums where professional linguists and other experts post, they ridicule Wikipedia for using words like Hindustani for the language when it fell into disuse after the partition of India, more than 65 years ago. I would think that respectability of articles should be important to Wikipedia editors and contributors. --ShahDuniya (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if the article is renamed to Hindi-Urdu. It depends on the consensus, though. From a quick glance it does seem like most people are in favor of renaming the article. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It was at Hindi-Urdu. We had a discussion and agreed to move it to Hindustani as being more accurate. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The term Hindustani is the older name for Urdu. Hindustani is an adjective derived from "Hindustan" name region of the rivers and did not have a religious meaning to it. You are right Hindi and Urdu are 2 different dialects. Both languages have independent articles on wikipedia. However, urdu retains much of the Perso-Arabic vocabulary whereas Hindi came out of reducing the Perso-Arabic influence and instead adopted Sanskrit words, most which technically did not exist in the language. Although Hindustani's syntax, morphology is based on Sanskrit it's vocab is mostly persian, arabic, sanskrit and possibly chagatai turkic. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiji Hindi or Fiji Hindustani is based on Khariboli with Awadhi, Bhojpuri influence, you can listen to some videos of Fiji Hindi on youtube. Ashok4himself (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Letter झ़(झ with a dot) don't exists in Devanagari script[edit]

In the writing system section झ़ is being shows (झ with a dot below the letter), such letter don't exists in Devanagari alphabet used for Hindi. Please remove it from the chart. Ashok4himself (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Ashok4himself, झ़ certainly exists in the Hindi alphabet and is used in words like अझ़दहा (azhadha), meaning dragon. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No, in Hindi the word is अजदहा/अज़दहा (azdahaa). Here is a reference[1]. You have listed the Urdu form, which is azhdahaa. Searching Google books provides a good indication of Hindi usage, and अझ़दहा shows zero results. In Hindi, the characters झ़ or श़ (with dots) exist in theory to represent English loanwords like "television". However, they are rarely if ever used, with ज almost always used instead. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hindi and Urdu" Lack of Sources[edit]

Would appreciate if there were some sources cited, most of it seems like stuff that brainwashed parents tell their kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.54.16 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:3853.dasahindi