Talk:Urdu

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Blacklisted site

I had to remove this: *[http://www.ishipress.com/wordlist.htm Hindi-{{Unicode|Urdū}}-Pashtu-English Word list:] Comparative list of 210 words in English, Hindi/{{Unicode|Urdū}}, and Pashtu/Pashto/Pukhtu

because it was on the spam blacklist. TimBentley (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.samsloan.com/wordlist.htm should work, if you want (for some reason ishipress.com is on the list, but not samsloan.com, even though they seem to be identical). TimBentley (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Urdu translations?

hi,

I'm in a process of creating a uniform system of creating articles on political parties across wikipedias of different languages. I need help with Urdu translations, please contribute at User:Soman/Lang-Help-ur. --Soman 14:10, 26 اکتوبر 2006 (UTC)

Normalizing the transliteration of the name "Urdu"

This article uses both the forms "Urdu" and "Urdū". Shall we normalize the name as "Urdu" without the macron above the 'u' when referring to the name of the language? Sarayuparin 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Two issues

First: The warning for missing citations is probably appearing for some time. Especially the 'Footnotes' need attention

Second: This artcile is too long for a single page viewing and needs separation into more articles. --Islescape 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual population of Urdu Speakers

What's the actual population of native Urdu speakers the world over?? There are no completely reliable statistics available. The 61 million figure is quite doubtful, as the population of native Urdu speakers in India alone, is around 80 million, if we speak of today. I think there are more than 100 million native Urdu speakers in this world. Realton 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Urdenglish?

Can anyone cite the use of "Urdenglish"? I ask because this term might just be a synonym of Hinglish. There may be reluctance amongst code-switching Urdu speakers to term this creole as "Hinglish" because of the perceived association with "Hindi". Realistically, though, the base language used in the creolization of Hindi or Urdu with English is in fact neither Hindi or Urdu, but the elemental "Hindustani" that serves as the foundation of both languages. Besides, the term "Urdenglish" sounds too contrived. Sarayuparin 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Meharbani

The word means Thank you not Please as it is written on the page

It literally means "provision of love". Szhaider 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

trying "too hard"

Indians take every opportunity to make Pakistani culture,history,idenity look invisible.In fact they try it so much that at times they try "too hard" and end up contradicting themselves.

I can give two examples:

1)Indians claim that Pakistan "did not exist" prior to 1947.At the same time they claim that Pakistan was always "a part" of India prior to 1947.The contradiction here is that how can something that doesnt exist be "a part" of something that does exist?

2)In regards to Urdu,which is more Pakistani than Indian since it can trace it's parent languages back to modern-day Iran,Turkey(which traces the origins of it's people and language all the way back to Mongolia),Arabia and west Punjab(Pakistan),indians claim that Urdu and Hindi are "the same" at the same time claiming that Urdu is parcially "made up" or "consisted" of Hindi.The contrdiction here,again is how can something that's equal to another be "made" or "parcially consisted" of that equal. Example:If X=Y.How can we say that X is "parcially consisted" of Y if we claim the two are equal or identical?Saying that Urdu is Hindi while saying Urdu is "parcially consisted" of Hindi doesnt make sense at all.Nadirali 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I strongly agree with this Proud Pakistani. Szhaider 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this Proud Pakistani too! All urdu should be removed from all India related articles. It shouldn't be there. It's totally Pakastani. It's matter of pride. How can these Indians think that urdu and hindi is the same. it boggles the mind. The arabs and the turks were liberators from buddhist and zohorastrian tyranny! jihad bil qalam must be waged immediately.--D-Boy 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

D-Boy, you keep or remove Urdu from India related articles, I simply don't care. Just keep your Hindi scripts away from Pakistani articles. This is Wikipedia. It should not be used for political warfare. Szhaider 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not your personal playground. Like it or not Pakistani history and culture is intertiwned with India's.--D-Boy 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure,just like Greek and Arab culture are intertwined regardless of linguistic cultural and historic differences.And a good idea too,wikiepdia is not your personal playground to continue stealing Pakistani history,culture and heritage for your own personal agendas.It's a place to share information,that is real matter-of-fact information,not spreading the same old indian pop-culture mythology that we are somehow "the same" people.Save it for your bollywood movie scripts,it doesn't belong hereNadirali 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Do you think that the Muslims in India are culturally Pakistani? Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Muslims would have be able to speak,Balouchi,Sindhi,Pashtu,Panjabi,Kashmiri Urdu as well as practice the same culture as all the ethnic groups to call their culture the same as Pakistani.The point is there are Muslims all over the world consisting of diverse cultures.Sharing a commmon religion doesn't necessarily mean they have a single standard cultureNadirali 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

The whole point of monotheism is unity!--D-Boy 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Salaam Nadirali. You have an interesting view of things. Allow me to provide you with an academic viewpoint. In response to your first allegation: inidividuals are saying that the area in which Pakistan controls was a part of the area referred to as India/Hindostan. To the west of Hindostan was Khorasan, which encompassed Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Even before that, India (including present-day Pakistan) was ruled by/under the Mahajanapadas, Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, and finally the Britishers. Here are some images that might help who visualize the historical truths: Image:Ancient india.png, Image:Mauryan Empire Map.gif, Image:Guptaempire.GIF, Image:Mughals.gif, Image:India1760 1905.jpg. Contrary to your claims, the area referred to as India/Bharat/Hindostan was ruled under one state by/under various rulers/empires. Before the partition of India, Pakistan was considered to be a part of India/Bharat/Hindostan (one reason why it's called the partition of India). To nullify your second belief: Urdu is not a mongrel of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. Like other North Indian languages, Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language (i.e. languages descended from Sanskrit). Though Urdu has much Persio-Arabic lexicon, it is not related to Arabic (a Semitic language), and it is only distantly related to Persian (an Iranian language). Arabic lexicon has entered the Hindavi language via Persian, since Persian was the court, military, and literary language of certain parts of India for centuries due to Muslim invasions and the set up of Muslim dynastic rule. This language came to be known as Urdu (which literally means army). Hindi and Urdu actually developed as one language (Hindustani - the language of Hindostan - which I defined earlier in my explanation) based on khariboli. The primary difference is that today, Hindi is written in Devanagari, while Urdu in the Nastaliq style of the Perso-Arabic script. After the partition of India, the Government of India uprooted some of the Perso-Arabic words and replaced them with Sanskrit ones. To say Urdu is a Pakistani language (nationalistically) is infactual since the language developed around the Delhi region and had its literary centers in Delhi, Lucknow, Aligarh and Hyderabad. After the partition of India, the educated Muhajirs (many from Uttar Pradesh - my area) introduced this language to Pakistan. Even today, only 10,719,000 individuals in Pakistan are native speakers of Urdu while there are four times as many in India- 48,062,000. I wouldn't generalize about what a particular group of people thinks. Many Indians will agree that Hindi and Urdu are the same (an opinion linguists support) while some will regard them as separate languages. I'm sure you understand that much of this concerns social/religious factors as well. I'm glad I had the opportunity to discuss this with you as a mutual understanding between South Asians is extremely important today. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

weak knowledge All I have to say is your knowledge is weak and poor.I dont need you to tell me about the Muhajirs first of all,as my father is one.First off,your writing suggests that Pakistan existed after Ubek,Tajik,,Turkemen,(all created in 1992 after the collapse of the USSR)and Afghan.(???) Second of all,Urdu might have developed in what is today india but it's parent languages is where it's heritage lies.Sanscrit was spoken in Multan.Where is that?You wont need a map I'll tell you:its in Pakistan.

As for you "acadmic" vision of what you call "history",you seem to lack in it. The so called "partician of india" is my best example.A provincecalled Punjab gets divided into two states and you cry "India got divided".Syria and Turkey were under the rule of the Ottoman empire,so by your arguemnt,Turks and Syrians are "the same" or that "Syria got divded into two".

India is in fact a whole day YOUNGER than Pakistan as it was liberated a whole day later by the British.The so-called land of "India" was nothing but independant states before the arrival of the British.It only became "one"(against their will,which explains the sepratist movements all across "India" today.) when the British forced all of south asia to live as ONE COLONY. When they arrived,they used the term the ancient Greeks did to refer to south asia,but again the term meant NOTHING to the people of South Asia.

Coming back to Urdu,your arguemnt that because it was simply born in what is today India,it automatically becomes "Indian". Let's make a similar arguemnt.The modern Turkish language evolved and now is spoken in Turkey,a country geographically located in Europe.SO by your arguement,your saying that Turkish should automatically gain the status of a European language just because it happens to evolve into what it is today in Europe.-LOL Sorry but reference to the Indus is staying in Pakistan's history article and if you do happen to tamper with it,you're asking for trouble.

We Pakistanis take more pride in our heritage than you Indians realise.

Oh one last thing."educated Muhajirs"(???)I didnt know ALL muhajirs were educated.I wonder then,why 90% of Karachi(a predominantly Muhajir city)lives in poverty.Nadirali 01:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I think you'll be on the news one day....--D-Boy 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on most views, posted by Anupam. Yup they are almost the same languages and both hindus and muslims should contribute towards the progress of South Asia by burying their old disputes. Hindus have to accept and adopt Urdu as it's their language also.

As far as this user Nadir is concerned, I m shocked at his totally biased and negative thinking. Claiming himself as half muhajir ( by father's side, thus Urdu is not his mother lingo), he is trying to highjack the views of native Urdu speakers. I will not call myself a Muhajir as I m from the third generation. My grandparents were Muhajir though. I m a native Urdu speaker and I m very proud of it. This guy whose mother tongue is not Urdu is trying to malign our language and community in all ways. I respect his opinion though, as every one has the right of free speech, but he should observe some decency. For your kind info, Native urdu speakers (I will call Muhajirs as native Urdu speakers) are not in absolute majority in Karachi, they are around 60 pc of total population n also not 90 pc of karachi's population is poor.

As far as literacy rate is concerned, yup Urdu speakers have the highest literacy rate in Pakistan. Even biased but educated non-Urdu speakers of Pakistan believe in that. So plz dont show the squalid bias of yours towards native Urdu speakers and also your narrow minded and extremly conservative approach. Realton 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible improvements

I copyedited the introduction of the article. Please take a look and feel free to improve it further.

I think that article needs to be reorganized into a more standard/encyclopedic form, for instance see the section divisions used in French language, Japanese language. Comparing the article structure I don't think "Levels of Formality", "Politeness", "Urdu and Bollywood", "South Indian Urdu" and others need to be top-level sections (although their content should perhaps be retained). I also could not understand what the "Urdu Script" section (as opposed to the "Writing system" section) was meant to convey.

If that is an opinion shared by other editors here, I would be happy to take a stab at reorganizing the article structure. Abecedare 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for a common "Hindustani" language

I think there is a great need for amalgamation of Hindi and Urdu into a single language. Both are almost the same languages. Unfortunately Urdu has suffered a lot as it's termed as muslim's language by hindus but on the other hand they speak the same lingo. Hindi and Urdu are basically same but have different scripts. The language of common man in hindi speaking states of India ( like U.P, M.P and Delhi) is more Urdu than hindi.Same is the case with bollywood. There is a dire need to de-persianize and de-sanskritize these languages and a common vocabulary should be implemented.It's present day India where Urdu was born and flourished but now the same country is making complete mess of it. The hindustani language should be promoted as it's the second largest language of this world with more than 500 million native speakers.Realton 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On literary level, Urdu and Hindi are two completely different languages. An Urdu ‎speaker cannot convey complex analytical ideas to a Hindi speaker as vocabulary ‎becomes more complex and completely different. I personally had such an experience ‎and I had to use English as I had to explain every single word as if I was talking to a ‎child. In fact, Urdu although flourished in present day India was invented by ‎predominantly Muslim army of a Muslim King Babur. And that's why Urdu is still ‎considered a language of Muslims. Hindi or Hindustani is a more sansikratized form of ‎Urdu. Remove Persian from Urdu and Urdu is no more. Remove sanskrit from Hindi and Hindi is no more.‎ Szhaider 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

True.Hindi and Urdu carry furthur more differences than scripts and religious words.No doubt the languages do carry striking similarities,just as Hebrew and Arabic,but it would be short-sighted to classify them as "the same" language.As for uniting Hindi and Urdu?I don't see what purpose this serves.And why should this new Hindi-Urdu language be "Hindustani"?That would be like combining Persian and Arabic to create "Iranian" Nadirali 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

My friend, you should see the purpose. The political purpose of diminishing Pakistan's culture. [[User:|Szhaider]] 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see it.But we wont allow that to happen and as long as people like us are around,it wont happen.Nadirali 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

K--D-Boy 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Mr Szhaider views totally. The purpose of combining these two languages doesn't carry any negative aspirations. Also correct your history as Urdu was not invented by army of Babur, If that's the case then whats about the poetry of Amir Khusru, Who died centuries ago before Babur's invasion. Actually most narrow minded people start the same rhetoric of hindu and muslim identities. Urdu can be termed as islamic version of hindi. The language of western U.P and eastern haryana, i.e Khari boli is very similar to Urdu and is infact the base of Urdu. The hindi-Urdu conflict is just 150 years old. Most people just start conservative approach while posting their views but I respect your opinion though as my liberal and secular thinking binds me to do so. Regards Realton 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when has Urdu been a solely Pakistani ownership? India has more Native Urdu speakers than Pakistan.File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Its really funny to see Arabic, Persian and Turkic mentioned as major influences on Urdu while leaving out the biggest influence of all, Sanskrit! For god's sake dont parade you servilke attitude towards Persians and Arabs on Wikipedia! When we say Hindi is Sanskritised Hindustani, we imply that its higher vocabulary is of Sanskrit origin, that doesnt take away the fact that Hindi and Urdu's basic vocabulary IS of Sanskritic origin. Thats why it is placed in Indo-Aryan languages language family. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision!

Referring to revision of 21:07, 29 November 2006 by Sarayuparin, I appreciate the enthusiasms but disagree with this particular change. If there is no political significance, then let's leave the order as it has been since 2004. If someone is really eager to contribute, there is enough room for improvement in the main text. --Islander 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "enthusiasms"; it's objectivity. What's wrong with alphabetical ordering? Look at English. Obviously, the language was spoken in the United Kingdom before Australia, Canada, and the United States, but the United Kingdom appears, appropriately, in alphabetical order in the list of countries where English is spoken. Alphabetical order is used for Arabic as well. Why not apply the same principle to Urdu? Just because the order has been "Pakistan, India" since 2004 is no justification not to change it to "India, Pakistan" now. So, what is the objective reason to leave it out of alphabetical order? Is it the size of the population of speakers in the respective country? If so, then should India (with 50 million Urdu speakers) not come before Pakistan (with its 11 million)? This appears to be the rationale for other South Asian languages that are spoken across contiguous borders or that are transnational; see the Punjabi article; the Bengali article (100 million in Bangladesh, 70 million in India); and the Kashmiri article (4.4 million in India, 105,000 in Pakistan). If there truly is no political significance, let us at least order the countries rationally, either by alphabetical order or size of population of speakers. I've already contributed to the article, now I'm just continuing to make improvements. I look forward to your comments. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Sarayuparin 00:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)