Talk:Hindi

Devanāgarī script for the words 'Sarang' and 'Sagar Pawan'

This may not be relevant to this article, but I have no other option but to ask somebody who knows the language to insert the Devanāgarī script besides the words Sarang and Sagar Pawan in their respective pages. Your assistance shall be appreciated. --S3000 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I left comments on one on the talk page (one source gives सारङ्ग, but I think it should be सारंग), and I added the devanagari for the other. Incidentally the best place for questions like this is the language reference desk, but I can't fault you for not knowing that existed. - Taxman ^Talk 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Taxman, I'll just use what you think it is (i.e. सारंग) for Sarang. In future I'll make use of the language reference desk as you have suggested. --S3000 (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

सारङ्ग and सारंग are equally correct realizations: one uses the Devanagari symbol ङ् for the velar nasal while the other uses anusvara for the same purpose. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The former is not used, as the letter ङ has been totally replaced by the anusvAr in Hindi. I am reverting the word to the latter with a copy of this comment. Maquahuitl (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

move?

Because of all the mix up over what "Hindi" means, I propose that we move the part of this article that deals with the national language of India to Standard Hindi, which is now a redirect to Khariboli, and move the rest to Hindi languages. Much of the argument as to, say, the relationship of Hindi and Urdu founders on confusing these two uses of the term "Hindi". For parallel organization elsewhere in Wikipedia, see Chinese language(s), Mandarin (linguistics), Standard Mandarin, Cantonese (linguistics), Standard Cantonese, Standard Arabic, etc. —kwami (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With no response after 5 days, I made the move. kwami (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely oppose. "Standard Hindi" doesn't exist in the slightest as a term/concept outside of linguistic descriptions. Nowadays overwhelmingly and conclusively "Hindi" = Standard Hindi/Khari Boli anyway. From personal experience (Arabic-speaking friends) I can say that this is totally unlike the example you offered of Standard Arabic, where there is a clear (awareness of a) distinction between a neutral/taught Arabic and a regional Arabic (Egyptian, Sudanese, etc.). The current division of Hindi and Hindi languages is fine, and the facts concerning Standard Hindi vs whatever can be noted within the articles, rather than (unduly) govern such page titling. Tuncrypt (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And I saw your post pretty much the day you posted it, but I was too lazy to act. lol Tuncrypt (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a new introduction that I had saved a while back, intending on eventually editing it in —

Hindi, in its broadest definition, constitutes a dialect continuum spoken across north and central India, bounded linguistically by other members of the Indo-Aryan language family such as Punjabi, Sindhi, and Gujarati in the northwest, Nepali in north, Bengali in the east, Oriya in the southeast, and Marathi in the south.

More narrowly, Hindi may refer to Modern Standard Hindi, a standardized register of the emerged standard dialect known as Khari Boli (transl. “standing tongue”). Modern Standard Hindi is widely taught and variably spoken all over the modern Republic of India. It is one of the 22 official languages of India and is used, along with English, for central government administrative purposes. It stands as a major medium for broadcast, literature, and film, and is promulgated as a national language for India through the efforts of the central Indian government and various organizations.

Modern Standard Hindi (or simply, Hindi) is contrasted with Urdu, another standardized register of Khari Boli, which is the official language of Pakistan, and also is among the 22 official languages of India. Their linguistic relationship aside, on a sociocultural basis they have come to be held as separate languages, drawing from and written in different religioculturally-affiliated literature and scripts.

Barring a discussion on the dialectology and demographics of Hindi, this article will be primarily concerned with a description of Modern Standard Hindi.

Cool? Tuncrypt (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is potential here, but for now, the confusion has just become worse. "Standard Hindi" is in fact Khariboli. If we are going to distinguish Hindi languages and Standard Hindi, Khariboli will need to be merged into "Standard Hindi". This is a possibility, although any passing Indian editor will be bound to fiddle with the "total speakers" slot, because the official Indian census of 1991, and presumably also 2001, calls "Hindi" what we currently have under Hindi languages. The 2011 census will probably change this approach (but, WP:CRYSTAL). dab (�) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why khari boli needs to merged with anything (barring size considerations). To be completely accurate, MSH is a modern, standardized, and developed form of khari boli; a separate page for khari boli could chart its history and ascendancy prior to this occurrence, which the page happens to do right now anyway. Tuncrypt (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

true. let's see. we have:

• Hindustani (all dialects) and Hindi languages (all dialects) -- these two appear to have the same scope and should be merged
• Khariboli equals standard Urdu plus Standard Hindi: do we need it, or can it just disambiguate between the two?
• Hindi (shockingly, now a disambiguation page; this is bad, because lots of articles link there. I believe Hindi should redirect to Standard Hindi, and the disambiguation page now at Hindi should be moved to Hindi (disambiguation))

--dab (�) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Hindi / Hindi languages / Khari boli / Hindustani division we've had all along is fine and accurate, with improvements and increases called for within, with there being no need for such new divisions as Standard Hindi or Hindi (disambiguation).

However the one place where I believe change is warranted is the Hindustani page. It needs a major reorientation from inaccurately being a page about some language to being a page about a term with various language-related meanings and applications. I have come across at least 5 such meanings, which is what the page should be outlining and going over:

1. "Hindustani" = Khari boli, as a grammatical core and frame.
2. "Hindustani" = Urdu, during the British era, prior to Urdu's conscientious and concerted hyper-Persianization.
3. "Hindustani" = nowadays the colloquial, mutually intelligable base of and between Hindi and Urdu.
4. "Hindustani" = a potential standardized/developed language advocated by Gandhi/Nehru, with the characteristic of choosing equitably between Persian/Urdu and Sanskrit/Hindi for Hindu-Muslim neutrality/unity.
5. "Hindustani" = a name used by west Indian peoples and governments and what not for the (often eastern) Hindi (dialects) they speak.

Tuncrypt (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the Hindustani issue. What's there now is totally confusing the issue acting as if it is a specific language. - Taxman ^Talk 15:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

well, whatever we do, we need to make things clear to the reader. It took me about half an hour's research on half a dozen articles to get an idea of how things stand. We need to have a clear definition and a reference to the wider context of "Hindi languages" right at the top of each of these articles. If we do that, it doesn't really matter that much how exactly we'll end up dividing the topic into separate articles. dab (�) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that last sentence. The way we name articles and divide topics is just as much a part of our encyclopedic aims as what's written in those articles and on those topics. Anyway, on the level of groupings and namings, I find the scheme we've had of Hindi / Hindi languages (/ Khari boli / Hindustani) to be correct, conferring with ground realities and scholarly realities, so what I'm asking for are reverts to kwami's re-categorizing edits (Standard Hindi, Hindi disamb). I regret not responding to his initial query quickly enough. Regarding content, certainly your calls for clarity are well-founded and fall true. As for my assessment, it is that, despite the shortcomings of the Hindi-nexus of articles (lack of sources, refinement), in the matter of relating the difference between Standard Hindi vs Hindi languages it has been actually adequately clear, and potentially even clearer with additions such as the intro I posted (fitting in with kwami's warranted intentions). The missing link remains however Hindustani, which is that which does need rewriting and clarification as I mentioned before. Tuncrypt (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't address how Khariboli should be treated, since I don't know the term. However, Hindustani is clearly not the same as the Hindi dialect continuum. TC seems to have it right with his disambiguation. (BTW, if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the British who used Hindustani and Urdu more or less synonymously, but the Moghuls as well.)

It did bother me that thousands of articles now link to a disambiguation page, but when I skimmed through them, it appeared that a substantial number refer to "Hindi" in the broad sense, and therefore it would not have been appropriate to direct them to MSH.

If we move MSH back to Hindi, I think we need a clarification at the top ('this article discusses MSH. For the broader sense of "Hindi", see Hindi languages.'). We will also have to constantly police the population figure in the face of people sputtering with fury over how we're trying to destroy India. I've been in that situation with Turkish, French, and a few other languages, and believe me, it's not fun. It will be much easier if we redirect Hindi to Standard Hindi as Dab suggested. That may not be a term on people's lips, but neither is Standard Cantonese. It will, however, make the distinction blindingly obvious to all readers, which is a good thing for an encyclopedia.

If we do end up with a Hindi (disambiguation) page, should we keep my comment that in Bollywood "Hindi" is often effectively Urdu? Dab deleted that for a list of Hindi dialects.

So, if we don't stick with the current setup, I agree with TC on Hindustani, with Dab on the redirect, and have no defensible position on Khariboli. kwami (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I just wanted to say something about the term "Hindustani". The fact that it was used by Mughal to represent Urdu is irrelevant, since at that time the difference between Urdu and Hindi was not too much. As a common term, Hindustani refers to Hindi (the one we all speak, I don't know khari boli or Standard or ...). Hindustani is a different breed if talking about linguistics. ref

PS: Just wanted to inform :)Jahilia (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The first suggestion that I have is that the title of the article Hindustani should be edited. It is no language (agree with Tuncrypt here inspite of my duel with him), but rather a linguistic diasystem, and moreover the phrase "Hindi-Urdu diasystem" is also used. Furthermore, the term also means "Indian" in the so-called Hindi states of India, thus complicating issues. And lastly, I am sure few people, especially people outside India, might be entering the term expecting something on Hindustani classical music. So Hindustani itself needs a disambiguation, as: Hindustani classical music and Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) diasystem(on the pattern of the titles for the grammar and other pages) or perhaps just Hindustani if we want to do justice to the word being used for Indian, and then in that article we might discuss the linguistic usage and the non-linguistic usage separately. Hindustani as an "in-between" between Hindi and Urdu might be in use among academic circles but is entirely absent in popular consciousness.

2. I don't have an extremely strong position on Khariboli either, except for the fact that I am sure that it is not something different from Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani etc. The term is used more by non-khariboli speakers to clarify the difference between their dialect and the official dialect, usually in formal settings or even otherwise. I can only give the suggestion that in the article on standard Hindi, we can give the clarifications as: Standard Hindi (also known as Modern Standard Hindi, Shuddha Hindi or Khariboli Hindi) or something on that lines.

3. Lastly, currently the article History of the Hindi language is pretty misleading, as it gives a history of the Hindi languages and not of Khariboli Hindi/Urdu alone. (Moreover there are other rather strong claims, which I leave aside as that is not in the scope of this discussion) I think we should change the title to "History of Khariboli" and in that we can cover the historical patterns in the usage of the different terms- Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani, Rekhta, etc. Even Rekhta is nothing different from Urdu, however I am not very sure on the usage of this term, and if someone can give me a reference where it is said that it meant something different from Urdu, I would be glad. Maquahuitl (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to know if I can try working on non-khariboli dialects and start working on them (and thereby avoid making any "contributions" so as to avoid controversies). So for that, can there be boxes titled 'Topics related to the Awadhi language' and so on? I mean, I really don't hope that I do that and then some heavyweight of wikipedia overwrites or deletes that box saying that 'Awadhi is not a language' or perhaps with some other excuse. Maquahuitl (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Awadhi is a "language" or a "dialect", whether people will accept the box depends on if the value it adds to the article outweighs the clutter. Too many boxes defeats the entire purpose of helping with navigation. But that's a formatting issue, and one which I don't have much of an opinion on. Any factual information you add will be a welcome contribution. (And more facts, if well referenced, help reduce controversy.) kwami (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is a bloody mess. Seriously, moving an article this basic just because no one responded in a few days? I don't mean to be rude, but wow, that's a pretty shocking move and I don't see the benefit. On a specific note, the article at the location Hindi should never be a redirect because that is by far the most common term that anyone will come to for information about anything relating to Hindi. Beyond that, I'll have to spend some time on this to even be able to come up with a way to make this less of a mess. - Taxman ^Talk 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Hindi" is by far the most common, but it is not a unitary concept. For example, the census information used by English-language almanacs for "Hindi" did not match the content of the article. No matter how you clearly you separate them, someone who uses the word differently will come along and mix them up again. When the titles of the articles are clear, people are less likely to be confused. An example is Standard Mandarin: the most common name for the language is "Chinese". However, in Wikipedia we distinguish Chinese (all languages, similar to Indic) from Mandarin (northern Chinese, similar to Hindi languages) from Standard Mandarin. That results in cleaner articles. kwami (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

this has been a problem for some time. Now at least the problem is out in the open. I was shocked by kwami's move at first too, but on reflection, it becomes clear that while "Hindi" is a very common term, it cannot be predicted whether the incoming link intends Standard Hindi or Hindi languages. The disambiguation page forces people to stop and think which they are referring to. If we want to redirect Hindi to either, the next step is to consider, in depth, which meaning is the more common, and then place a clear disambiguation note at the top of the redirect target. There are three possibilities:

1. keep the disambiguation page
2. redirect to Standard Hindi
3. redirect to Hindi languages

I have no preference here, but this is what needs to be decided next. Kwami's move was useful because it now enforces this debate. dab (�) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You both make good points, it just took a bit to sink in. The biggest problem is having such a basic and central word "Hindi" not be the location of an actual article. Since the Chinese example was brought up, why not structure the pages similarly. Chinese language starts with "Chinese or the Sinitic language(s) (汉语/漢語, pinyin: Hànyǔ; 中文, pinyin: Zhōngwén) can be considered a language or a language family and is ...". In Chinese, that's a bit of a controversial concept, whereas in Hindi it's not. A very large variety of sources use the unqualified word Hindi to mean the language including various dialects while a very much smaller number use it to mean the standard Hindi. The situation in Hindi is also simpler because there is a higher degree of mutual intelligibility. Nearly every dialect of Hindi is mutually intelligible to a high degree (even including some languages such as Panjabi that are classified as separate languages partly due to other reasons such as literary history). This lends evidence to the idea that the location Hindi should carry the general concept and Standard Hindi should be there, where it is at. In other words, there are not other languages called Hindi that are mutually unintelligible as there is in Chinese. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

With what I've already said, and with Taxman's recent additions, I'm posting to reiterate my "old-ist" position. The former/original setup was fine, with no need for any Hindi (disambiguation) or Standard Hindi (note kwami, that even in your efforts to clarify, a mistake was made: the common/correct linguistic moniker happens to be "Modern Standard Hindi"). All that was needed was a decisive and clear introductory paragraph on the Hindi page defining the MSH/continuum matter and outlining the article's intent regarding it. Please change it back to what it used to be. Tuncrypt (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxman's idea seems to be that Hindi languages should be moved to Hindi, with MSH remaining separate. (I considered using the title Modern Standard Hindi, but Standard Hindi was more in line with other language articles. Either works for me.) Tuncrypt's idea seems to be to move MSH to Hindi, with Hindi languages remaining separate. 'Back to what it used to be' is neither: the Hindi article was a mishmash of MSH plus Hindi Belt dialects, sometimes claiming to be one, sometimes the other. That's the problem I had with having 'Hindi' for a main article: I've tried cleaning it up numerous times over the past few years, and it always ends up a mishmash again. If by 'Hindi' we mean the Hindi Belt, we can't claim Hindi is the national language of India; if by 'Hindi' we mean MSH, we can't claim the population figures of the 1991 census. Whichever way we go, someone will come along and try to make it both. kwami (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe "back to what it used to be" was not the rightest of things to say, because yeah, there wasn't actually much wrong in your rearranging of content (unlike your rearrangement of titles and divisions). So yes, my position is as you stated it: pages of "Hindi" (=MSH) and "Hindi languages". Tuncrypt (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standard Hindi" doesn't suit as an article title; there's no entity like that. It's the term 'Hindi' which is being used in two senses. The common person seeking something on 'Hindi' is most probably seeking something on the standard dialect, except for the fact that he is also assuming that 'Hindi languages' are covered under 'Hindi'. Therefore just a disclaimer at the top of the title, as is now the case, is fine. However I don't find much utility of 'Hindi (disambiguation)' as the Hindi languages would be referred to by their own names rather than plainly Hindi, if referred individually. Maquahuitl (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

it is correct that "Hindi" is the term used in both senses, which is precisely why we are having this debate. It is also for this reason that neither article should reside at Hindi. We can keep it as a redirect, as is currently the case, but it is best to keep both articles, Hindi languages and Standard Hindi, at unambiguously titled locations. If you argue that "Standard Hindi" is unacceptable, we will need to think of a bracketed title, such as "Hindi (standard dialect)". There is a real need for disambiguation and source of confusion here, and we need to lay out our article as unambiguously as possible. dab (�) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps

I've made maps to illustrate the difference between "Hindi" and "Hindi" at a glance:

• 
  Hindi (Central zone dialects)
• 
  "Hindi languages"

dab (�) 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The left one is a narrower definition of Hindi, but it isn't Khariboli: It includes Kannauji, Chhattisgarhi, and Awadhi, which are sometimes considered separate languages, as well as Braj and Haryanvi which are almost never considered separate languages, but are not Khariboli dialect. I think both should go in the Hindi languages article, as different conceptions of what extra-Khariboli Hindi is. kwami (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to contrast the two, you might consider adding Nepali to the broader definition. kwami (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

you are right. this is a problem we haven't addressed yet: "Hindi" may mean:

1. "Hindi" as used in the 1991 Indian census (the right map above)
2. "Hindi" as used by the OUP Atlas of South Asia (the left map above), i.e. Western Hindi plus Eastern Hindi
3. "Hindi" as used by SIL Ethnologue (Khariboli, Standard Hindi)

what are we going to do about this? Threefold disambiguation?

--dab (�) 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a reference to the source is a good idea. However, "Hindi" isn't a genealogical node in any classification I've seen. Per Ethnologue, at least, Rajasthani, which we exclude from the left map, is Central Zone (and so are Gujarati, Panjabi, and Romani), but Awadhi and Chhattisgarhi, which we do include, are not. I think it would be best to title the maps the way you did your bullet points: wider (census) vs. narrower (OUP). Both are more than one language by some Indian standards: Awadhi and Chhattisgarhi have their own literatures, which some say makes them their own languages, but they don't have their own scripts, which others say makes them dialects of Hindi. (Nepali escapes this criterion by having its own country.) kwami (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, but this doesn't solve our problem: how many articles on "Hindi" do we need, and what will be the scope of each? dab (�) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

btw, Awadhi and Chhattisgarhi are Central zone according to SIL. They are East Central zone, which should be a sub-node of Central zone, but the ethnologue tree seems broken there. In my understanding, "Western Hindi" is West Central zone and "Eastern Hindi" is East Central zone. Thus, the "narrow" Hindi is within West Central, "intermediate" Hindi is within Central, and only the "wide" Hindi spans Central, Northern and Eastern zones -- which is a stupid artefact of the Indian census, which had to make Hindi five times the size of the second largest language hook or crook, I can only assume for political reasons. dab (�) 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense, actually, but do you have a ref? We don't want to claim SIL as our reference if it isn't: Not only does the main tree shown east-central as being outside central, but so do all the languages involved, and this is true of both the 14th and 15th editions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if SIL made this error (they've done worse elsewhere), but it would be nice to be sure.

As far as how many articles we need, I think two is fine. We'd have a dozen if we considered every definition of Hindi separately, so I think MSH vs. generic Hindi is enough, and within the latter we can clarify different uses of the term. kwami (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fwiiw, de-wiki has

In diesem zentralindischen Gebiet wird eine Reihe von nah verwandten, teils auch als Hindi-Dialekte klassifizierten Regionalsprachen gesprochen. Diese unterteilen sich in zwei Gruppen, „West-Hindi“ oder west-zentralindisch (Haryani, Braj-Kanauji, Bundeli) und „Ost-Hindi“ oder ost-zentralindisch (Awadhi, Bagheli, Chhattisgarhi).

i.e. they equate "West Central" = "Western Hindi" and "East Central" = "Eastern Hindi". I think that genetic considerations (such as, is the East Central a sub-node or a sister node of Central) are moot here. These are simply geographical groupings that are being used 'as if' they were phylogenetic for lack of any better approach. dab (�) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It's not clear in that paragraph, but the classification of the Indic languages overall follows Ernst Kausen (2006). Shall we adopt that classification and abandon SIL? Kausen is more recent, but more importantly probably also more coherent. SIL really isn't very reliable. (In their Khoisan classification, some of the "languages" don't even exist.) If we go that route, we can redirect Central Zone to Hindi languages. kwami (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

dab, your addition of the map is wrong, but you sort of realized in your reply to kwami. There are three relevant divisions:

1. Modern Standard Hindi (Narrow) - for which there can't really be a map anyway; rather what'd be noted is that it formed in and around Delhi and that A) politically/formally/culturally it has been elevated to where it has been elevated and that B) mother-tongue-ically it has diffused throughout the heartlands of other dialect zones (due to A, very much so since independence).
2. Hindi languages (Broad) - the map you created; Eastern and Western Hindi groupings; it'd go on Hindi languages.
3. Hindi languages (Ultra-Broad) - the second map you created; WH + EH + Bihari + Rajasthani (and maybe Bhili) + Non-Nepali Pahari (that is, Western and Central); it'd be a second map for Hindi languages.

Tuncrypt (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I hope that my opposition to the renaming ('Standard Hindi') isn't forgotten. I plan on getting back to you guys, reiterating the points I've already made, articulating new ones that have come to me as of recent, and of course, educating myself more on this matter. I think we all should heed that last point, because at this point there is a level of cluelessness in the air, which'll hopefully get rectified on the part of us all, but which also entails this case being one that may not be closed for a very long time. Tuncrypt (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding maps, check the discussion I had with user:Zakuragi here and here. What's good is that that can be the definite map for Indo-Aryan, Hindi, etc.– improving over and replacing that which we've had. Tuncrypt (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So, Tuncrypt, you are saying we need three articles? If the map you removed isn't appropriate here, which is the article where it is (where do we discuss the "Broad" Hindi)? dab (�) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Man I just told you. The two maps'd go on Hindi languages. No need for three articles, they're just wranglings over the same thing. Tuncrypt (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't 'broad' somehow a subset of 'broader'? If different linguistic classifications put different sets of languages under "Hindi languages" then doesn't it suffice to discuss the same in the concerned article? Maquahuitl (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

sure. "narrow" is a subset of "broad" is a subset of "ultra-broad". We are free to discuss it in one, two or three articles as long we keep clear on this. I see the following solution emerging:

1. Hindi languages (encompassing the redirects Hindi dialects, Western Hindi, Eastern Hindi), the grand total of 337 million speakers (1991).
2. Standard Hindi, {{mergefrom}} Khariboli, the standard register which is (almost) no-one's native language (comparable to Queen's English).

if we compare this to Queen's English (narrow), British English (broad) and Anglic languages (ultra-broad), where do we redirect "Hindi" now? To the standard register or to the dialect group? Ethnologue says:

Hindi (Khariboli) has four varieties: Hindi (High Hindi, Nagari Hindi, Literary Hindi, Standard Hindi); Urdu; Dakhini; Rekhta.

The problem is with the population figures: strictly speaking, a standard language has no native speakers, you learn the standard register at school (hence, Standard English or Standard German give no "native speakers" figures). But "Standard Hindi" (Khariboli) is listed as the native language of 180 million Indians in 1991. Does this, or does it not, include all speakers of Western Hindi dialects?

dab (�) 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those'd be actual native speakers of MSH. A hundred years ago not many people spoke it natively, but since independence that has certainly changed. Tuncrypt (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually standard Hindi(and Urdu) is not "narrow", it is just a single point in the continuum(Hindi and Urdu being two faces of the point, which is Khariboli). Your two-article solution is alright, and I support it. However I don't agree that Khariboli should be merged with Hindi, because if Hindi, then why not Urdu. Khariboli and Hindustani both talk about the 'base' on which Hindi and Urdu as literary forms are developed(the former as used by the common man and the latter by the linguist), and I am not sure how they require separate articles. At least the word 'language' should not be there(in the title) in the article on Hindustani.

Also, I don't agree with the parallel you gave, of this case, with English and Anglic languages. As far as I know, Queen's English or Received Pronunciation is more or less just an accent. Moreover, Anglic languages are a proper unit(i.e. a compact unit) in the Indo-European family. But "Hindi languages" is not a technically correct term, as the constituent languages covered under the term have descended from different branches and therefore the term lacks integrity. Hence, I am sorry to say but we have deal with the case of Hindi independently.

Lastly, I have some issues on the statement quoted from Ethnologue:

1. Is or is not Rekhta anything different from Urdu? Is it just not another historical name for Urdu?

2. I don't understand how Khariboli itself has 'varieties'(except in the two forms of Hindi and Urdu of course, but those are literary forms). Khariboli is just a point in the spectrum. Dakkhini might be, in the eyes of a layman, a dialect of Urdu, but the reality is that Dakkhini is a Southern Zone language, and must therefore be dealt as a special case, as it has nothing to do with Khariboli.

Maquahuitl (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, yes, I know, the Anglic analogy only carries so far. The point is that here we have an article ostensibly about a standard language, categorized in Category:Standard languages. This is, as you say, a point in a spectrum, which is precisely what we mean by "narrow" (it doesn't get any narrower than that). Yet we give a number of 240 million native speakers, which are in fact the speakers of Western Hindi dialects taken together (still rather narrow, but not a 'point'). This need not be a problem. It is the same with categorizing languages everywhere. We just would do well to treat this in a way compatible with our other 'standard language' articles: these do not have "language infoboxes" and no native speakers are claimed for them. The present solution isn't so bad, but I trust you see the problem. As I understand it, khari boli is just the term for "standard language". Urdu, Rekhta, Dakkhini and Literary Hindi are cited by ethnologue as four different standards, all called khari boli because they are or were used as the standard literary dialect by some people at some point. dab (�) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"At the beginning of the twentieth century, and even as late as the 1950s and 1960s, it was generally the case that there existed few genuine native speakers of Khari boli. [...] There are now tens of millions of people, including many living in geographical areas which would have been thought of as the heartlands of Braj, Avadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. whose native language is some variety of MSH." (Shapiro 2003:256). Tuncrypt (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

excellent quote, we should use it. Although the "some variety of MSH" defeats your point about MSH being a single point in a spectrum. "some variety of MSH" will still be largely equivalent to "Western Hindi dialects". dab (�) 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several Western Hindi dialects- which ones are you talking about? I mean, are you considering the creoles formed by Standard Hindi due to diffusion in non-native areas(which in my view is justified) or considering native dialects like Braj Bhasha or perhaps Bundeli which are Western too(which in my view should not be the case)? Next, 'khariboli' doesn't mean 'standard language'. It means, literally "standing dialect". Here 'standing' is an attribute given to this dialect on the basis that this dialect is somewhat rougher and blunt, generally by the people to the immediate East. Therefore, Dakhni is no variant of khariboli and is never referred to as such. It isn't a modern phenomenon at all. It is a medieval creole formed due to the rule of Northern Muslims in Hyderabad. Ethnologue reports Dakhni(anglicised Deccani) to be in the Southern zone. Had it been a Western Hindi dialect it would have been in the Central Zone. Its association with Urdu/Hindi is only and only because of its association with Muslims. And as far as Rekhta is concerned, Ethnologue doesn't count Rekhta as anything distinct from Urdu. More inputs on it will be appreciated.Maquahuitl (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

what in the world are you going on about Tuncrypt (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have difficulties imagining that the prestige dialect is called "standing" in the sense of ... "blunt"? You are right in that we need to disambiguate dcc from Dakhni khariboli. dab (�) 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It became the prestige dialect only because of circumstances(read political and social activism). Maquahuitl (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well, it's not a problem, If you have a source confirming your claim of the etymology of khariboli, we'll be ever so glad to include it. dab (�) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a paper which mentions the etymology as an end-note. I hope it is sufficient. Maquahuitl (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

your paper confirms that khari boli means "standing speech". I cannot see any discussion of what we are supposed to understand by "standing". I tended to assume "standing" is being used in the sense of "established, fixed, standard", because it is, after all, the standardized register derived from the prestige dialect used at the court of the Delhi Sultanate in the High to Late Middle Ages. Correct me if this is wrong, but I cannot see anything contradicting this in the link you gave. dab (�) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that khari boli means "standing language" in the sense of "blunt" or "rough" came primarily from a few Urdu professors in the 1930s. As Bailey discusses in his 1936 piece in Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, "standing" in this context probably signifies "current", rather than "blunt". He also goes on to discuss where the idea that it meant "blunt" or "rustic" might have come from. See Bailey, T. Grahame (1936), "Does Khaṛī Bolī Mean Nothing More than Rustic Speech?", Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 8 (2/3): 363–371 -- Arvind (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving on to the more general issue, King (1994) provides a very useful summary of the various meanings with which the terms "Hindi" and "Hindustani" are used. I'll quote the entire paragraph on Hindi:

"Hindi has at least four distinct meanings, some of which we have already encountered. First, writers have used the term for several centuries to denote all the spoken dialects of the Hindi regional area, i.e., Braj Bhasha, Avadhi, Bhojpuri, Khari Boli and other regional standards as well as village dialects. 'Hindi' in this sense appears frequently in general discussion of India's major languages. Second, 'Hindi' can refer to 'Hindi-heritage literature', i.e., the literary traditions of regional tandards such as Braj Bhasha and Avadhi. This usage occurs frequently in histories of Hindi literature and the polemical writings of Hindi publicists. These same writings often use the term in a third sense to mean 'high Hindi', i.e., highly Sanskritised Khari Boli Hindi. A fourth usage, the vaguest of the lot, implies simply 'that which is not Urdu'. This usage appears in many sources, especially in the vernacular press during the Hindi-Urdu controversy of the nineteenth century." (p. 195)

It seems to me that Hindi itself should be principally about the first of these meanings, because that is the meaning in which the term is most commonly used (as King himself points out in this quote). This'd have the advantage of also giving room to cover the other meanings - including but not limited to Modern Standard Hindi - in summary style in the article on Hindi. The article on the current written standard for Hindi should, of course, be under Modern Standard Hindi.

On the wider question of where we deal with the issue of the relationship between Hindi and Urdu generally, it seems to me that the article for that is Khariboli, because that's the dialect on which both Hindi and Urdu are built is Khariboli. I don't think Hindustani is the right place, because Hindustani - unlike Khariboli - has other meanings as well. Quoting King again:

"Hindustani has two distinct meanings: this term can refer either to Urdu, or to a style of Khari Boli which uses the Nagari or the Urdu script and avoids excess use of Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian words. British writers often use the first sense, while some Indian writers, notably Mahatma Gandhi, use the second." (p. 195)

And, in point of fact, the latter is the principal meaning of 'Hindustani' today - i.e., an envisioned third standard of writing Khariboli, rather than something that encompasses all standards of Khariboli. It might even be worth thinking about whether common articles such as Hindi-Urdu grammar, Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) word etymology, Hindustani orthography and so on could simply be moved to Khariboli grammar, Khariboli orthography, and so on. -- Arvind (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He also goes on to discuss where the idea that it meant "blunt" or "rustic" might have come from.

It could be possible that the word was interpreted in both the ways. I am unable to find any online references about the 'blunt' thing; my interpretation was based on the fact that most of the early Hindi litterateurs believed the same and were initially reluctant to write in the same based on the perceived 'harshness' of khariboli.

On the meanings given by King, I would just say that several of such overlapping meanings can be given. However only two are important- Hindi as a point in the dialect spectrum, and Hindi as a band. Most of the other meanings are derived from either of the two. (A possible third one, though, means 'Indian', but is defunct).

I too believe that the page on Hindustani should just be titled 'Hindustani' where we can discuss all possible interpretations of the same. However I don't agree with the last part, i.e. replacing 'Hindi-Urdu' with 'Khariboli', as the former is more common within linguists while explaining the grammar, etc. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

three articles after all?

alright, in light of the complexity of this, I think we do need a Hindi article after all. Much like Greek language or German language, it will be the main article for all the issues involved. Then we can have Standard Hindi for the literary language (much like Katharevousa or Standard German), and we can have Hindi languages=Hindi dialects, much like German dialects or Greek dialects. Treating this in just two articles is flawed, and not in line with Wikipedia practice with other pluricentric languages. dab (�) 07:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion is better than three-fold splitting on the lines of 'narrow', 'broad' and 'broader'. However I doubt that we can write much on the main Hindi article apart from a lead section and some treatment of the history of the term. Maquahuitl (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well, the main Hindi article will be in WP:SS, and will include a "History" section (where the stubby History of Hindi might be merged to). dab (�) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to again look into the issue of 'Standard Hindi' vs 'Hindi languages' in the article on history. The current article on History of Hindi discusses all Hindi languages simultaneously, probably confusing the reader. History of the Urdu language is another article, and even more nonsensical than the former one. No matter what pairs of parallel articles Hindi and Urdu might have, but surely they share a common history. Maquahuitl (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

all the more reason to merge them and clean them up. dab (�) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I have tried to implement this. I hope I have improved the situation. This needs further work in any case. Presently, we have:

1. Hindi: the WP:SS super-article dedicated to the entire topic we have been debating here
2. Modern Standard Hindi, the standard language as defined by the Central Hindi Directorate
3. Hindi dialects=Hindi languages: the wide (North-Central India) linguistic approach (dialect group)
4. Khariboli, on the (narrow) group of (Delhi region) dialects/registers
5. Hindustani -- what will we do with this?
6. Hindavi -- pretty much a dictdef, merge into History of Hindustani?
7. Hindi and Urdu (Hindi-Urdu controversy) should be about the Hindi vs. Urdu dichotomy specifically

dab (�) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree and support. The article will have short summaries on the different senses in which the word is used, etc.
2. I support, but I don't agree with the title. It should be either 'Hindi (standard)' or 'Standard Hindi' or something like that, and surely "modern" is not needed. If this title itself is 'standard' in some sense, then it is alright.
3. This article is also fine.

For (4), (5) and (6), there should be only one title.

7. "Hindi and Urdu" issue is something different from "Hindi-Urdu controversy" which was a specific event in the British times. Obviously that has spun off the controversy that continues till date, but that in itself was a specific event.

8. Finally, on history. Again we will face the same problem of Hindi vs Hindi languages. Here I suggest that we do away with Hindi languages totally, and present an article titled "History of Hindi-Urdu". Histories of specific languages among the "Hindi languages" should be dealt separately. Rationale: We are forced to have a "Hindi languages" article due to reasons largely political, but as far as their histories are concerned, we are more or less not restricted by the present situation. Maquahuitl^talk! 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please dissolve Category:'Dialects of Hindustani' and Category:'Dialects of Urdu' and rename Category:'Dialects of Hindi' to Category:'Hindi languages'. Maquahuitl^talk! 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response; I'm gonna comment on all this eventually, most likely next week. I've had a lot of work and writing this stuff out takes me a ridiculously long time. Tuncrypt (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the categories, including :Central Indo-Aryan languages, though I left Cat:Urdu for Dakhni and Rekhta. Quite a few of the Central category were not actually Central, such as Marathi, and others redundantly enter the hierarchy at multiple levels, but I didn't try to clean up the memberships of the categories. kwami (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will try to take care of that. However, if any category needs to be merged or deleted, I will contact you. Maquahuitl^talk! 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Language infobox

The language infobox should be moved to Modern Standard Hindi. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What infobox and why? Tuncrypt (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox at Hindi, since 'Hindi' is ambiguous but the infobox is not. kwami (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

we don't have an infobox template for standard languages. The language infobox should be at the article on the language in the widest sense, not the standard language (German language not Standard German or German dialects; Hindi, not Standard Hindi or Hindi dialects). dab (𒁳) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to decide what 'Hindi' means. There is no single definition in the article, and the infobox contradicted itself. kwami (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

why? we should not "decide" anything, we should merely report all notable opinions. Hindi is "the language" of central north India. What exactly is meant by "the language" is the subject of various opinions and definitions, which we need to place alongside one another. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't have the population figures for one thing and the classification, writing system, and official status for something else. We do have to decide something there. kwami (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the populating figures are given as a wide range, both for "wide" and "narrow" Hindi. We cannot make this simpler than it really is. The article on "Hindi" is on all aspects of "Hindi", that's its entire point. It can state that Standard Hindi is an official language, and it can also state that the Indian census includes a large range of dialects under the name of "Hindi". I don't see the problem (i.e. I can see that it is a problem, but the problem is out there in the real world, it is not our problem). The infobox gives no classification more narrow than "Indo-Aryan", which is obviously correct. This is rather similar to Swiss German, which is given the classification of "Alemannic", but not more narrow, because the term groups dialects paraphylletically. dab (𒁳) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the info box after my previous posting. I'd objected because it had Hindi as a subset of Khariboli, spoken only in India, and written only with nagari, but yet equated it with the 1991 census. kwami (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying soon. I just want to say that these issues are not relevant to what I said. I just said that Modern Standard Hindi as the title of the article goes, has an unambiguous classification. However, this SS-type Hindi article talks of all possible meanings of the term 'Hindi'(it was supposed to anyway) , and therefore having a language infobox doesn't make much sense, and certainly not when you cannot narrow it down beyond "Indo-Aryan" so as to not contradict any of the different definitions. Even if it had been an unambiguous sub-group within Indo-Aryan there would have been a case but it is not even a sub-group.Maquahuitl^talk! 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the widest sense it is a subgroup of Indic in the infobox. Whether it's a legitimate genealogical node or not depends on which classification you follow, but that's true for a lot of languages. kwami (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps Hindi can have that box as well. But the one on Modern Standard Hindi should have one for sure, since it is anyway more unambiguous than Hindi.Maquahuitl^talk! 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I do not understand your point. What does ambiguity does have to do with it? Standard German is also less ambiguous than "German", yet the infobox is at the latter, not the former article. Same for Standard Arabic vs. "Arabic" (a macrolanguage). We do not have an infobox designed for standard languages. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry... if there are consistency/convention issues then it's alright. Forget what I said. Maquahuitl^talk! 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

well, I note that Literary Arabic does have an infobox. But I have misgivings about that. We are free to decide to introduce a "standard language" infobox, but it should probably be a template different from {{Infobox Language}}. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Merge

It is my opinion that this article should be merged with Hindi because most of the information on this article is applicable to the Hindi article. A section on that article could be used to describe "Modern Standard Hindi," which is the standardized version of the language sponsored by the Government of India. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, until you actually do it. Then the article turns into an absolute mess, because people start fighting over what 'Hindi' means. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I too used to support having just 2 articles. But then I realised that the biggest problem that we faced was that of choosing the one to which we would redirect 'Hindi'. I think that the present system is alright. However I don't think that the infobox on the Hindi article makes much sense. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hindi/Standard Hindi/Khariboli/Urdu etc

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

"Modern"

I assume that the convoluted lead was a result of the long discussion on what to name the article. The choice of "Modern Standard Hindi" seems rather unfortunate, though, since there's no indication that there is any other "Standard Hindi" to disambiguate from. I moved the article and cleaned up the lead since I can't see any indication that the addition of "Modern" is necessary. It's certainly not used in any other article on a standardized form of a language.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

UDHR example is wrong...

According to this page [1] the first sentence should be "सभी मनुष्यों को गौरव और अधिकारों के मामले में जन्मजात स्वतन्त्रता और समानता प्राप्त है।" Please make the appropriate changes. YoshiroShin (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)