Talk:Khariboli dialect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
WikiProject India  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Addded Hindi Devanagari and Urdu Naskh. A mention here should be made that the historical Khariboli is considered by many linguists to be the common ancestor of modern Hindi and Urdu - especially as that subject can become so contentious and devolve into nationalistic rants. Khiradtalk 02:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

anyone opposing its merger with hindi[edit]

is there anyone opposing this page's merger with Hindi. as for a fact, when discovery channel launched its operations in india, it used khariboli for its Hindi channel, and it didnt called the language khari boli, it simply called it discovery channel in HINDI. nids 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think most people oppose merging it. Khariboli is a distinct dialect, different from braj basha, and awadhi that some people consider were previous standard dialects of Hindi. Khari boli has a unique history and usage that is different from the language hindi which some scholars speak of as a dialect continuum or a collection of dialects. Khari boli is just one of those. - Taxman Talk 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

if u think that khariboli is a different dialect of hindi, than for ur knowledge, the page on Hindi on this wikipedia, mentions that everything that it talks about hindi, (from grammer to diction) is for khari boli and it does not cover other dialects. u can check the official view in Indian constitution too. it too mentions khari boli to be the proper hindi, rest being dialects.

nids 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, standard Hindi was defined to be that of the Khari boli dailect plus a few modifications. That doesn't mean Hindi=Khari boli. Hindi is Khari boli plus other dialiects under the definition most linguists use for Hindi. Thus Khari boli is worth discussing as it's own unique features. We certainly don't need to duplicate material from Hindi, just describe it as a dialect that was chosen as the official one. - Taxman Talk 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i think it shall be better if we merge Khari boli with Hindi and define other dialects as different. officially and grammatically, shudhh hindi is no different from Khari boli. all its unique features can be discussed in Hindi. there is no need to duplicate material here, and this page can be altoghether deleted. nids 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't duplicating much of anything from Hindi. There is no space in the Hindi article for all this detail on Khari boli, so therefore it doesn't make sense to merge in. As I've already said, and you're conveniently sidestepping, Hindi is a broader term and does not mean the same thing as Khari boli. Khari boli and Shudha Hindi are nearly the same thing, but in general the term Hindi includes other dialects too. - Taxman Talk 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for this article. Khariboli and Hindustani are one and the same thing. Hindi and Urdu are two different things, if not languages, and separate articles for them is justified. But khariboli is not different from Hindustani, since the term can be used with respect to Hindi as well as with respect to Urdu. However we can put extra names in the other articles, for example, Hindi(also called High Hindi, Shuddha Hindi, Khariboli Hindi,...) and so on. Maquahuitl (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this page needs to be merged, as it is suitably small and basically accurate, knowing its place and relation to the construct Hindi. Tuncrypt (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the original proposal, definitely NO. Khariboli is just one Hindi language - it's like asking to merge Mandarin into Chinese, or Italian into Romance. Now, merging Khariboli and Hindustani is a different matter, which I don't feel strongly about either way, but it would mean that all the POV nonsense that people fight over in Hindustani would then affect the information now under Khariboli as well. kwami (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
kwami, that’s the best argument against merging I have heard so far; probably the best I will ever hear.
You know, when the Discovery Channel started in English, they used General American and just called it “English,” not “American English.” Odd. —Wiki Wikardo 15:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should have two "Hindi" articles: Standard Hindi vs. something like Hindi dialects, just as we do Standard Cantonese, Standard Mandarin, etc. vs. Cantonese (linguistics) and Mandarin (linguistics). kwami (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Every major modern language has many dialects but one standard dialect. Italian is based on the Tuscan dialect (which has its own article). Standard Spanish came from dialects of the Northern region. The two de facto standard dialects in English are Received pronunciation (British) and General American) but there are plenty of other dialects. The standard/official dialect should have a separate page to the main language article. For example, we can't talk about poems written in Brij Bhasha and Awadhi in the Khariboli literature section whereas we can in the Hindi article. GizzaDiscuss © 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the difference between Italian and the set of languages considered under "Hindi" is that the set of Italian dialects would probably be having a recent common origin but the Hindi languages don't have a recent common origin, and if you try to go back in time other standardised languages merge with it too. As far as literature is concerned, it's a pretty messed up article as present. It should make clear what it is discussing- literature of all Hindi languages as a whole or just of the Khariboli dialect(which would make it converge towards Urdu literature).Maquahuitltalk! 14:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


does the scope of this article, or does it not, include Urdu? If it does, its scope is identical with Hindustani (merge there), if it does not, its scope is identical with that of Standard Hindi (merge there). If we are not sure which is the case, prehaps this should be a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be merged with Hindustani. Both Hindi and Urdu, as literary and/or official forms are based on this dialect. Merging with either Standard Hindi or with Urdu would be unfair. The word Khariboli is used more in colloquial speech, whereas Hindustani is more popular with the linguists, and in fact even that has declined slightly in popularity to give way to the hyphenated term "Hindi-Urdu". However we are faced with the problem of doing justice to each of these terms and at the same time, not duplicating information in the process. Maquahuitltalk! 11:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Four varieties[edit]

I strongly contest the claim made in the article about the four "varities" of Khariboli. What is that nonsense? Khariboli itself is a specific dialect. How can it have four varieties? Maquahuitltalk! 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Registers of a language are real. See: One can speak American English with a General American accent and still speak it in different registers. I am no expert on Hindi, but the statement seems logical enough from a linguistic standpoint. LaRoza (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Hindi and at the same time sufficiently versed in linguistics. As far as I remember the last time I saw the article it used the word "varieties" instead of "registers". That was total nonsense because "variety" can perhaps only mean "dialect", something which is not possible in the sense mentioned. Currently with "registers", yes the statement is logical from a linguistic point of view but is factually incorrect. A register is the literary or official formalisation of a language after a particular dialect with its grammar, case system, etc. has been decided upon. Only MSH and Urdu share the dialect. Dakkhini is based upon a totally different dialect and Rekhta is not a formal register anywhere. Rekhta was a historical form of Urdu and not a contemporary register of Khariboli. Maquahuitltalk! 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindi/Standard Hindi/Khariboli/Urdu etc[edit]

Request editors of this article to comment on this message:Talk:Hindustani language#Hindi/Standard Hindi/Khariboli/Urdu etc --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect opener[edit]

Kwami and Mauqua, this is just incorrect. You're totally using one linguist's *proposal* and basing the article on that. That proposal is *not* widely accepted. This is Khari Boli - (get past the singing voice and listen to the words). It is absolutely not the prestige MS H-U dialect. Sankrityayan had suggested that Khari be redefined to be the dialect of Delhi environs (strict environs, not Northwest UP generally) and what is western Khari now be called Kauravi. "Kaurvi" was a brand new term, so it has no meaning other than the one Sankrityayan gave it in the 1960s. Khari is a centuries old word, often juxtaposed with so-called "Pari" (lying down) Hindi. One guy cannot redefine it and his idea simply hasn't caught on. It's fine to mention his proposal, but that can't become the one definition of Khari here. I am definitely going to modify this article because it is wrong as it stands. Maqua, I am afraid you are misleading Kwami by conflating distinct terms. I also see above in this discussion page that your understanding of Khari and Hindustani has evolved over time, but it hasn't evolved to catch-up to where things actually stand. Historically: Khari has overgermination and Pari does not. Khari is more Persianized than Pari. Khari is northern West UP, Pari is southern West UP. Kaurvi as a word didn't exist until Sankrityayan made it up.--Hunnjazal (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? What exactly is incorrect and how do you plan to rectify it?Maquahuitltalk! 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Already have rectified it. Happy to discuss. Bottomline: it is not okay to take one person's proposal, which has only *partially* been accepted by *some* academicians, and base the Wikipedia definition of a thousand-year old language/dialect on it. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I should clarify another thing for you both because it is apparent you have a misconception here (and I realized I have been coopted into this by being loose about what exactly "Delhi environs" are): the native language of Delhi's countryside environs (i.e. all of Delhi except the urban island of Shahjehanabad) is actually what Sankrityayan would call "Kaurvi," not MS-HU. It is only in urban Shahjehanabad (Old Delhi) that the old elite spoke MS-HU. If you go to Nangloi, the dialect is Kaurvi (i.e. what everyone except Sankrityayan called Khari). Basically, visualize this: you have Shahjehanabad as an MS-HU-speaking island immersed in a Kauravi sea, and you have Lucknow as another MS-HU-speaking island immersed in an Awadhi sea. In effect, Sankrityayan tried to reappropriate the name "Khari" to apply it to the MS-HU dialect. It would have been a nice short moniker for it, I admit, were it not already used by millions of people for hundreds of years for something different. MS-HU dialect, though more Khari than Awadhi, shares features of both Khari and Awadhi, and ironically Eastern Khari is closer to MS-HU dialect than the Khari of Delhi region, which really makes even greater nonsense of Sankrityayan's proposal on Khari. Lucknow and Delhi elites have been marrying each other for centuries and it would not at all be surprising that this was how Khari transformed to MS-HU. I hope I do not offend you here but Sankrityayan - though he may have written a book or two on grammar and been a brilliant writer, thinker, Marxist, whatever - was not a linguist and made a bit of a botch here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In effect, Sankrityayan tried to reappropriate the name "Khari" to apply it to the MS-HU dialect.
Don't blame a single person for that. The reason for that was in the East (Eastern UP, and to some extent even Awadhi-speaking Central UP), standard HU was (and still is, to some extent) referred to be the term 'Khariboli'. To make the distinction between standard register and the native rural language of N.Western UP (of which you have given examples in the article) he used this term. Let's not discuss about whether Sankrityayan was a linguist or not, because in those times people did not have dedicated professions as they have today.
Anyway, if you believe that there are genuine differences between Khari and Kauravi, you need to explain them using a different article and not just mention the fact. Maquahuitltalk! 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I won't blame one person for it as long as we don't center the article on his proposal. Maybe I will create an article on Kauravi later. I think it needs some map building and more research into the precise characteristics of Western Khari (stuff that isn't facetious like "it's more like Punjabi than xyz is" cause obviously that's going to be true because it is geographically proximate). --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Masica makes the same point. Should we move this article to Dehlavi or Delhi dialect? — kwami (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delhi districts
Khari-Dehlavi-Kauravi Venn diagram
No. We should create a new article called Dehlavi Hindi. Dehlavi (or Dehlvi, which is how people actually say it) is the Hindi of Shahjehanabad (that urban island I was referring to). It is different from Khariboli and actually very close to the modern standard dialect. Dehlavi appears to be a mix of mainly Khari and Awadhi (though closer to the former). People in the older days used to contrast it exactly like this, though the term Dehlvi for language has more-or-less fallen into disuse because it is so very close to MS Hindi-Urdu. Please don't lump Khari and Dehlvi together. The examples in this article for Khari would be wrong for Dehlvi. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but in the lede of this article we say that Khariboli is Dehlavi. That's the problem I'm having. I have no objection to describing "Kaurvi" in this article, but if we do, shouldn't we stop saying that it's the basis of HU? Or is there a three-way distinction between "Kaurvi", Khariboli, and Dehlavi? I guess I still don't get it.
That is, should this article be about,
(a) the dialects NW of Delhi, whose speakers call them Khariboli, but which are not the basis of HU;
(b) the dialect of Delhi, whose upper-class register formed the basis of HU;
(c) both of the above;
(d) a third lect, intermediate between "Kaurvi" and Dehlavi.
We're currently doing (c), but the article seems confused as to whether that is really its scope. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article doesn't even mention Dehlavi, so I don't know what you are referring to. It certainly doesn't say Khari is Dehlavi. Maybe you're conflating Delhi and Dehlavi-speaking areas, which would be totally incorrect. There are two Delhis - the state and the city. See the Delhi state district map here. You see the small North and Central districts? That's the old Dehlavi-speaking urban part. New Delhi is the new urban part, and is MS-HU speaking. Everything else is natively Khari/Kauravi speaking. The relationship between Khari, Kauravi and Dehlavi is best shown with a Venn diagram. They are three distinct things. The confusion comes because Dehlavi (and MS-HU) are largely based on Khari, as you can see. But they are not the same thing at all. This is the exact point Masica makes. There are specific misunderstandings in your list, which bear some clarification -
(a) The dialects NW and NE of Delhi are both Khariboli. Urban Delhi is an island in a Khariboli sea. A bit further NW, Khariboli fades into Haryanvi.
(b) The dialect of Old Urban Delhi is/was Dehlavi. This is close to MS-HU. The population of Old Urban Delhi was affiliated with the Imperial power, so automatically is "upper crust." This is NOT Khari, but Khari is the closest of all dialects to this dialect (see Venn diagram).
(c) The Khari article should be about Khari and make a simple mention of the fact that sometimes MS-HU is academically lumped into Khari because that's the dialect it is closest to. It already does that, so no change needed.
(d) "Kauravi" is a subset of Khari, so it's not meaningful to talk about Khari being an intermediate lect between Kauravi and anything. In an article about Kauravi, you could say that Kauravi is the lect of Khari that is the closest to Haryanvi.
You're making a mistake in thinking that Dehlavi is the upper crust dialect that emerged from the general language of Delhi. It's not. It is a blended dialect that emerged in a population that had two major centers: Lucknow (far to the east - outside Khari areas) and Old Urban Delhi. Kauravi surrounds Dehlavi but is not the closest form of Khari to Dehlavi. Eastern Khari is. This should not be shocking. It's just like British English: The Queen's English is not closest to the original London dialect - it is closer to the East Midlands dialect. Old Urban Delhi's population is distinct from that of the areas of Delhi surrounding it, so do not think that somehow there is an upper crust Dehlavi-speaking group on top of a Khari/Kauravi-speaking lower class. These two groups are disconnected. One didn't emerge from the other. Dehlavi speakers are an elite drawn from all over the place specifically dedicated to serving the Imperial power and located in the North district and Central district of Delhi, i.e. actually a small part of Delhi state. Maqua should get this immediately: Lucknow is similar - there is Lakhnavi, which is dialectically very close to MS-HU and Dehlavi, surrounded by Awadhi. Lakhnavi is not upper-crust Awadhi anymore than Dehlavi is upper-crust Khari/Kauravi. Just to make this crystal clear -
(a)TRUE: A largely urban elite group spoke Dehlavi in Delhi.
(b)TRUE: A largely rural non-elite group speaks Khari/"Kauravi" in Delhi.
(c)FALSE: Dehlavi speakers are an upper crust group of "Kauravi" speakers speaking an elite form of "Kauravi."

--Hunnjazal (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding correctly, Delhavi is the dialect that emerged among the immigrants of Delhi, with a largely Khari base, but with other influences as well, whereas rural Khari does not have these other influences. Delhavi and Lakhnavi are essentially the same--they emerged jointly? Or maybe Lakhnavi is based on Awadhi, but with the same sorts of influences that produced Delhavi (and vice versa), so that they converged? Either way, HU is based on them, so it would be correct to say that HU derives from Khari historically. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is correct to say that Dehlavi emerged among immigrants of Delhi (see note 1 below) with a largely Khari base but with other influences as well. I cannot honestly say that rural Khari has not received influences also because there are known variations in the Khari area. Eastern variants neighbor Awadhi and were probably influenced by it, which is probably why Eastern Khari resembles Dehlavi more than Dehlavi's immediately-neighboring Khari. Western Khari variants were probably influenced by Haryanvi (see the Saharanpuri example in the article). There is one "pinch zone" where in 2 districts the language switches from Khari (Yamunanagar) to Haryanvi (East Ambala district) to Eastern Punjabi (Western Ambala district). Who's to say what's influencing what in this area. Next, Lakhnavi is actually closer to Khari than to its surrounding Awadhi. Lakhnavi and Dehlavi are dialectically very, very, very close. The major notable feature of Lakhnavi is a larger use of Persian vocabulary ("over-ornate" is a charge made against it). It could be that Lakhnavi and Dehlavi were once distinct and converged over time - it's possible, but I do not know for sure. By about 1800, they had already pretty much converged. Agha Hasan Amanat wrote Inder Sabha in 1853 in Lucknow, and any MS-HU speaker would find the language almost identical to MS-HU with some "personality" (I had coincidentally put a sample in Chaubola). His patron prince, Wajid Ali Shah, himself wrote a famous Babul song in Awadhi - and the two dialects (Lakhnavi and Awadhi) were already radically different by then. There is one other town I haven't mentioned - Agra, which was a major Mughal center, and could have been part of the mix. Agra is in the Braj zone, but also close to the Khari area. However, Agra never had the large, deep-rooted urban elite that Lucknow and Delhi developed.
Note 1 - "Immigrants to Delhi" will be understood by most people today to be the massive post-1947 influx. Here, we are referring to the previous wave. Also, there must have been a local component that got urbanized along with the immigrants back then. Basically, the Dehlavi set is the residents of the Shahjehanabad urban settlement, many of whom certainly were immigrants. Shahjehanabad was founded in 1639, so those folks now think of themselves as the original Delhi natives and the post-1947 immigrants as the newcomers.
Note 2 - Small nit. It is Dehlavi rather than Delhavi because Delhi is actually called Dehli (DAYH-LEE) in Dehlavi. Dehlavi literally means "of Dehli," so if we create an article on it, we should call it Dehlavi Hindi-Urdu or Dehlavi dialect or something.
Note 3 - I realized something I said here might be confusing to you. Khari (rural Khari) may be influenced by other dialects as I noted, but this influence is definitely MUCH smaller than the degree to which MS-HU/Dehlavi/Lakhnavi were influenced. It's just that I cannot say that there was absolutely zero influence and definitely want to be precise. I don't think there's any human dialect or language that is completely influence free from its neighbors. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've got it. The Moghul court set up in Delhi (and secondarily Lucknow), bringing in fresh foreign influences to what would otherwise have been just another Khariboli area. (Granted that languages are always mixing, except on Sentinel Island.) AFAIK a syncreistic Hindustani had already developed among the court, but once the move to Delhi was made, it was relexified on a Khari base. (Maybe because Lucknow was secondary, the Awadhi influence was less than the Khari? But that's not important here.) I'll try to reword changes I may have made to other articles to reflect this; I think I may have been inaccurate in my edits. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great. I will try to create articles on Kauravi and Dehlavi dialects when I can get my hands on some good references. It will take some work. Of course, stubs could be created anytime. --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I made a couple remedial adjustments to history of Hindustani. Could be better, but been busy.
I don't know how important a separate Kauravi or Dehlavi article would be. The former could be a paragraph in this article, and the latter in the HU or History of HU articles. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
True, that would work too. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lakhnavi and Dehlavi[edit]

Hunnjazal, you should have clarified that you were talking about the Dehlavi-Lakhnavi dichotomy of Urdu (rather, pre-Sanskritic Hindi) times. Otherwise one would naturally assume that 'Dehlavi' would mean Delhi's dialect. It still means that, however the term is not a toponym, speaking contemporarily, as it might seem prima facie.
Even I was beginning to feel that the Dehlavi-Lakhnavi dichotomy has not been discussed on Wikipedia anywhere. However, the terms should be qualified by Urdu and Urdu alone as it is not very relevant with the word 'Hindi', irrespective of the fact the latter term might have been used to qualify these historical toponyms, the point being that we need to avoid confusion with today's implications of the term 'Hindi'.
Next, we need to steer clear of statements like "MS-HU" is based on Khari or something similar. The reality is that while (Northern) Urdu is duo-centric with Dehlavi and Lakhnavi, MSH itself is based primarily on Urdu with some Khari influences here and there. I am not sure about the differences between Dehlavi and Lakhnavi in detail, therefore I can't comment with surity on whether MSH is based on one particular Urdu or the other, but one thing is for sure and that is MSH is only indirectly linked to Khari and not directly. The two have diverged quite far apart. (One thing that comes to my mind is the usage of 3P Pl. vE in MSH, which probably is used by neither of the two Urdus and comes from Khari. The 2P fut. hon. imp. forms khA_iyE, jA_iYE etc. are not native to Khari - they are imports possibly from Awadhi via Lakhnavi Urdu. In native Khari, these forms could actually be identified with the non-honorific, i.e. a person who could be addressed using 'tU'!!) Therefore, we need to dehyphenate H-U here and use the specific registers.
I don't agree that H and U are distinct in this way, though I agree completely that MS-HU is not identical to Khari. As for being based primarily or not on Khari, I think the consensus among linguists is that MS-HU owes most to Khari. And it is true that while Khari and MS-HU sound distinct when you hear only the two of them, when you hear a collection such as (khari, ms-hu, awadhi, braj, rajasthani), MS-HU does sound more like Khari rather than any other dialect. Lakhnavi and Dehlavi are pretty darned close. I agree that there are small differences, but they seem to be mostly usage-based. Can you think of any meaty structural differences? I can't. The -iye thing is true, but it is only stuff like this. In Dehlavi, you would say "Aap aao" or "Aap aiye." They are both respectful speech. In Lakhnavi, you would say "Aap aiye" only - "Aap aao" seems disrespectful. However, you *would* say "Tum aao" in Lakhnavi, and it would just be fine for intermediate speech.
Next, I probably don't agree much with the fact that Dehlavi is Awadhi influenced Khari. Agreed that two important power centres of Mughals in the North were Delhi and Lucknow, and nobles from Lucknow could have carried over Awadhi influences to Delhi. However, Agra and Aligarh were important as well and both are in the heart of Braj. I don't understand why Agra should be treated so lowly. Even besides all this, the most important part is that Braj touches Delhi (Awadhi does not) - Faridabad is definitely Braj-speaking and so is Bulandsheher. Therefore, it is likely that in the venn diagram, it would have been Braj which combined with Khari would have given rise to Dehlavi (Actually this venn diagram model is not appropriate, and we should use the strata model used in linguistics. From my limited understanding, the neutral HU has Khari as the lowest substrate, Braj as the second and Arabic-superstrated Persian as the third. Dehlavi shouldn't feature any Awadhi anywhere, while Lakhnavi should have an Awadhi substrate at the second-level, or maybe both Braj and Awadhi at the 2nd and 3rd levels - I am not sure. MSH further has a fourth-level Sanskrit superstrate on top of a cherry-picked skeleton made up of Lakhnavi, Dehlavi and Khari. The latest superstrate would be English for both MSH and MSU.
MS-HU is evolving, of course. I'm not mocking Agra or saying that Braj didn't influence MS-HU. I don't agree that Dehlavi isn't Awadhi influenced. It is (your own example -iye is definitely not from either Khari or Braj, yet it is found in all four of Awadhi, Dehlavi, Lakhnavi and MS-HU). Faridabad is not Braj-speaking! But this is but a quibble: after Palwal, Braj definitely begins and by Kosi (Kosi Kalan), you are definitely in Braj. If you go to Kosi town, you will hear people speaking Braj - though it still is Khari-inflected, i.e. slightly different from the Braj of Mathura. But that is irrelevant to the main point: in dialectical terms MS-HU is first Khari, then a combination of other things, including Awadhi. I cannot say which is closer to MS-HU, Braj or Awadhi, but it certainly seems that nonnative MS-HU speakers have an easier time understanding Tulsi than Surdas. I have nothing against Agra, but it is just ... smaller and, even though the Mughals called it home for a bit, never had the kind of patronage and power that Lucknow and Delhi had. This is obvious in everything. Look at the long line of poets and writers who lived in Delhi/Shahjehanabad and Lucknow. Quickly, without thinking, name 3 from Agra. See my point? Hyderabad formed its own influential urban dialect because Hyderabad, like Delhi and Lucknow, had an elite for a sustained period of time. BTW even that dialect is closer to Khari rather than to any other HU-dialect. Wealth and political power maintained for centuries has a way of influencing languages in this way. Agra was a blip.
Lastly, I am still not clear about the variety of Khari that is called Kauravi. Does the upper Doab (Haridwar to Ghaziabad) speak Kauravi, but the non-Doabi areas of NW UP, viz. Rampur, Moradabad, Bijnaur, etc. speak Khari? I think that there just might be a difference in the languages of these two areas - I have lived in the region for a sufficient time to have felt this, but I don't have anything concrete to substantiate this.
There is little question that all these areas are Khari-speaking. It kind of makes sense also - the same tribes and castes (e.g. Gujjar, Jat, Tyagi) inhabit this entire zone and there's a tonne of intermarriage across it. The Western belt of this zone that speaks "Kauravi" - Yamunanagar/Saharanpur is the Western edge of this rather than Haridwar. Maybe this is Haryanvi-influenced Khari - that could be (makes sense if it were), and certainly Khari fades into Haryanvi west of this area. Khari-speakers know the difference and acknowledge the fact that the folks from Meerut and Saharanpur speak a bit differently.
Just to sum up : articles about Dehlavi and Lakhnavi Urdus (or perhaps a single article treating both) are definitely required. Kauravi needs to be treated separately if there is even one good reference and the confusion resolved. It would talk mostly tangetially to the whole whirlpool surrounding the HU mess and thereby avoid it more or less. Khari should be treated well and its role in providing the initial base for Urdu and later for MSH besides its rural character, all needs to be discussed. History of Hindustani again is a very important article - it will have to discuss everything from Hindavi to Rekhta and Dakkhini to MSH. I believe that once this article builds a solid base, treating all these different articles should be easy. Maquahuitltalk! 19:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
All these dialects are rural, really. I think that's just another way of saying that the rural areas and smaller towns have escaped the standardization pressures that (eventually) resulted in MS-HU. Smaller towns like Mathura (Braj) or Meerut (Khari) definitely speak their dialects. Meerut people (or even smaller towns like Pilakhua or Sardhana or Babugarh) speak Khari all the time to each other and switch to MS-HU when speaking to outsiders. I have nothing against creating these articles. But if they're made we need to put some effort and research into them. It is not easy to find solid refs comparing Dehlavi and Lakhnavi. This is why I was recusing myself from them earlier. I'll get around to it at some point, just not now. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that H and U are distinct in this way, though I agree completely that MS-HU is not identical to Khari.
How can one not treat Hindi and Urdu differentially here is something that I can't understand. Urdu had more or less stabilised by the time of the 1857 revolt and had established schools in Dehlavi and Lakhnavi. The Khari core had long been buried under Braj/Awadhi and Persian superstrates, but still it formed the lowest substrate. Hindi at that time was another term for Urdu itself. MSH sprang up suddenly by the end of the 19th century and had a ready-to-use Urdu grammar. Therefore, Khari is not that relevant when it comes to the question about the origin of MSH grammar skeleton. We can say that Urdu is built on a Khari core, but for MSH, even though it too is built on a Khari core, it's indirect and an assertion on the line would be slightly misleading.
Can you think of any meaty structural differences?
As I have already clarified, I don't know about the differences in detail, but I agree that I don't expect the differences to be "meaty". Still, give me some time. I'll try to find out whatever I can.
MS-HU is evolving, of course. I'm not mocking Agra or saying that Braj didn't influence MS-HU. I don't agree that Dehlavi isn't Awadhi influenced.
Urdu, as commonly said, evolved by the interaction between local village-folk and the military officers. How is it possible that Braj not play a more significant role than Awadhi when at least the initial urban centre was Delhi, and obviously only Braj can be more relevant there? Most of the books that I have read, usually talk about the influence of Braj's phonology given the fact that the bazaar in which Urdu might have taken birth would have been Braj speaking, not Awadhi speaking. Awadhi could have come into the picture only later, when Lucknow was established as a Mughal base. Also, don't fall into the trap of trying to judge linguistic influence by looking at authors and poets. Poetry and literature development depends on a lot of factors and circumstances, and concluding that a particular dialect influenced more because more literature was developed in the area could be misled. Moreover, my point was that Braj was the significant influence not because of Agra, but because of the fact that Braj is adjacent to Khari while Awadhi is not.
But if they're made we need to put some effort and research into them. It is not easy to find solid refs comparing Dehlavi and Lakhnavi.
I believe that we need to put exceptional effort into the development of the article History of Hindustani, which is like a high-level summary. Once it is in place, the individual articles could be expanded rather easily. Otherwise, the expansion is a bit directionless and we often go around in circles. Maquahuitltalk! 07:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so there are several issues with this -
(a)MSH is a construct that used the ready-made grammar of Urdu is your assertion. I agree. But that still means that MSH is dialectically identical to MS-Urdu. This is why the dialect is fine to call MS-HU. It's based on Khari. What difference does it make, dialectically-speaking, whether MSH springs from Urdu or not? I see none.
(b)Delhi is clearly a Khari region, *absolutely* NOT a Braj region. Gurgaon, south of Delhi speaks Western Khari. Mahipalpur, a village in the south of Delhi state/nct, speaks Khari. There ain't no Braj there. There is overgemination galore. Sarak (road) is Sarrak. Darwaza (door) is Darr-wazza. Kitna (how many) is Kitta. Police is Pullis. No one says "Kaam karna parat hai," which is totally what you would get in Kosi. In Gurgaon, it is "Kaam karna parey hai." Very, very Khari. So, it is not surprising that MS-HU would be primarily Khari based. Agra just didn't have this kind of influence. It was the capital for how long? About a century, maybe? Delhi Saltanat and Mughal Shahiya in Delhi was many times longer than that. Agra was founded in 1504. The Mamluks started in Delhi 300 years before that, and the Mughals were in Delhi for 200+ years after the founding of Shahjehanabad in 1630s. There is just no comparison.
(c)I think this foreign contact with local thing was probably a factor early in the process (pre-1400), but after that Rekhta had a life of its own. By 1400, Persian/Turkish and Arabic words were everywhere in Hindi-Urdu. Even Tulsi couldn't help using them in Hindu-religious literature in Awadhi (kaun so sankat mor gharib ko, jo tumso nahin jaat hain taro -- Hanuman Chalisa). This is why MS-H and MS-U have failed. They are negative ideologies, based on purging words from a living language. An impossible dream. The French government hasn't been able to get rid of le weekend, no matter how hard it tries. How much harder is it to purge words that have been in currency for ~800 years? The governments are dreaming, and so are Hindi-Urdu zealots. This is precisely why the Hindi and Urdu sections of Wikipeda are dead zones. They are partially incomprehensible to normal HU-speakers. Khari, Awadhi, Braj, Rajasthani were all around before the MS-HU dialect developed. The question is how did it develop? I think it is reasonable to assume that Khari had a great deal to do with it. Braj and Awadhi did too, but Khari was clearly prime. Yes, of course, we must acknowledge that Khari is quite different objectively from MS-HU, but I am agreeing with you on that. The question you are posing is "Of Awadhi and Braj, which influenced MS-HU more?" My objective answer is 'I don't know. They both clearly did, and MS-HU feels significantly closer to Awadhi than to Braj, but beyond that I can't say." Lucknow was an influence many times bigger than Agra, you will agree. HU-speakers all sing the praises of Lucknow culture and Delhi culture, in songs and poems and literature. When have you last heard Agra culture being celebrated? There is "Wohi hai zamin, wohi aasmaan, magar ye wo Dilli ki galiyan Kahan?" or "Ye Lakhnau ki sarzamin, ye lakhnau ki sarzamin." Can you name one song about Agra? Just one?
(d)Every dialect has a Hindi flavor and an Urdu flavor, depending on Persianization/Sanskritization. Every northern language has this btw - Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi - take your pick. Hindi-vs-Urdu is a conscious political decision, not a cultural one. People consciously choose to identify with one or the other. Muslim Awadhi speakers say they're Urdu speakers. Hindu Awadhi speakers say they are Hindi speakers. Often what differs culturally is frequency of word usage, and not so much actual use-vs-nonuse of words. This is why Urdu speaking Pakistanis can comprehend Sanskritized Doordarshan almost as much as so-called Hindi-speaking Indians (may of whom also have a hard time understanding all of it). Even on Wikipedia, except for a few people (you, me, Kwami, maybe Faiz), no one gives two hoots about the dialects. But tweak Hindi-Urdu articles the "wrong" way ideologically and see what happens. Seriously, look at this from - "विकिपीडिया सभी विषयों पर प्रामाणिक और उपयोग, परिवर्तन व पुनर्वितरण के लिये स्वतन्त्र विश्वकोष बनाने का एक बहुभाषीय प्रकल्प है। यह यथासम्भव निष्पक्ष दृष्टिकोण वाली सूचना प्रसारित करने के लिये कृतसंकल्प है।" How many "Hindi" speakers will understand this? Seriously: प्रकल्प? कृतसंकल्प? पुनर्वितरण? Whatever this language is, it is Dead-on-Arrival (population-adjusted). I can show you similar things in the Urdu version.
(e)Please feel free to put in exceptional effort on Kauravi and Dehlavi. My assessment is that this is a hard task to do in a way that verifiably respects WP:NOR.
--Hunnjazal (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)