Talk:Hindustani language

Categorization

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

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

(I realy respect india but they should work on their old history dont make islamic culture and Ordu (Urdu) as indian language kindly do not mix thing's up.. and dont try to change history of Urdu and there is nothing called hindustabi?????)

Move from Hindustani languages to Hindustani language

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

Science Article

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

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

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

Move to Hindustani

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

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

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

Interesting input by Lord Surya. However I would like to point out something here. The term "Hindustan" and "Hindustani", that comes from it, mainly came via the Mughals. They referred to the region between Punjab and Bengal as "Hindustan". Even to this day in Bengal, "Hindustani" means someone from upper Gangetic plains, i.e. UP, Bihar or Haryana ONLY, while only Bharatiya is used for "Indian". The identity of this region is not very well-defined like most other regions of India. The ordinary Hindi speaker might refer to himself as a Hindustani, but that doesn't mean it is a universal term.

However this still does not mean that there should be no article by that name. I think that there can be. But there you must give these explanations, and do not keep the name as "Hindustani people" but just as "Hindustani". Or discuss all this here itself, that could be a good option too. Btw who is taking care of this article. I would like to contribute. Maquahuitl —Preceding comment was added at 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Hindustani. Hindavi and Khariboli should stay as they are. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Compliments--and a question

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

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

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

Hindustani as a term for a proper standard language was only a 'proposed' mix by Gandhi. As a term it has been used for Urdu, for a set of people(s), for Hindi, etc. Maquahuitl —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

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

Relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acsenray 18:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

before the partition of India into India and Pakistan, spoken Hindi and Urdu were considered the same language, Hindustani

Let me put this in a better way. Not just "before partition", but in fact the further you go back, the terms Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani were used for the same language. Even I am also a beginner in this area, but there are two things I know for sure- one, that Bengalis refer, generally, to both as 'Hindustani', or at least did so quite generally in the past. The term was also used for the set of people speaking that language. The second, Allama Iqbal uses the word "Hindi" in one of his poems where there is absolutely no chance he could have referred to the modern Sanskritised standard of Hindi, so that proves that Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani were all used for the same language in different times in the past. Maquahuitl —Preceding comment was added at 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

this article seems to be as much about Hindi as Hindustani

This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems that the content of this article doesn't match the title, or at least how the word 'Hindustani' is used in English.

For a good hundred years before Partition, 'Hindustani' meant the language of the Muslim conquerors of India. That is, Urdu. The words Hindustani and Urdu were synonymous.

The name 'Hindi', on the other hand, was used for the dialect chain between Panjab and Bengal. (Including Gurkhali, which today is considered the separate language Nepali, now that the original Nepali has been renamed Newari.)

At Partition, Pakistan based its official language on a standardized form of Urdu/Hindustani, and called this 'Urdu'. (I believe it was based on Rekhta, but I may be wrong there. Rekhta was the extremely Persianized form of Urdu found in the court, whence its common association with poetry.)

Kwami, This is absurd. In Urdu poetry itself it refers to the language as URDU back a few centuries ago. It was never called Hindustani by anybody except ignorants.--JusticeLaw 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The OED is absurd? Of course Urdu refers to itself as Urdu. I'm not denying that. As for it "never" being called Hindustani, I think the OED demonstrates that it was consistantly called both Urdu and Hindustani, at least in English - and, after all, this is an English encyclopedia. kwami 20:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That is, since Partition, the terms 'Urdu' and 'Hindustani' were no longer synonymous: 'Urdu' meant specifically standard Urdu, whereas Hindustani meant colloquial Urdu, including less Persianized dialects such as the Dakhini of Hyderabad.

India also based its national language on the Urdu/Hindustani lingua franca. Specifically, on the local dialect of Delhi, called 'Khari Boli' when referring to Hindu speakers, which by that time was Persianized (much the way the English of London was Frenchified after the Norman conquest) and essentially the same language as the Delhi variant of Urdu/Hindustani. This was de-Persianized and Sanskritized, and the new standard was then called "Hindi".

WHAT!! based on Khari Boli??? no common person even knows what that is. Urdu is much older than that. What people call Khari Boli is a derivative of both Urdu and Hindi. You got to be kidding.--JusticeLaw 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read it again. I said standard Hindi, not Urdu, is based on Khariboli. That is, India chose Khariboli as the basis for its national language, Sanskritized it, and refered to the result as "Hindi". (I could easily be wrong here, as I don't have much info for the origin of standard Hindi, but that doesn't seem to be what you're objecting to.) kwami 20:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So now 'Hindi' means two things: the broader dialect chain, as well as the standardized register of Urdu/Khari Boli which is the national language of India. This distinction is completely confused in Wikipedia.

I can't answer for how the terms are used in Hindi or Urdu, but the OED is a pretty good indication of how they've been used in English, whether in Britain or South Asia. Here's their definitions:

• Hindustani, a. and n.: The language of the Muslim conquerors of Hindustan, being a form of Hindi with a large admixture of Arabic, Persian, and other foreign elements; also called Urdū, i.e. zabān-i-urdū language of the camp, sc. of the Mogul conquerors. It later became a kind of lingua franca over all India, varying greatly in its vocabulary according to the locality and local language.
• Hindi, a. and n.: The great Aryan vernacular language of Northern India, spoken (with numerous dialects) from the frontiers of Bengal to those of the Panjāb and Sindh, and from the Himālaya Mountains to the Nerbudda.

It comes into contact on the N.W. and W. with Panjābī, Sindhī, and Gujarātī, on the S. with Marāthī, on the S.E. with Orīya, on the E. with Bengālī, sister Aryan languages, and on the N. with Nepālī (which some make merely a dialect of Hindī).

• Urdu, n. and a.: Formerly, = HINDUSTANI; in recent use distinguished from Hindustani (the lingua franca) and designated as the official language of Pakistan.

1847 W. YATES Hindustani Dict. Pref., The Hindustaní or Urdú is peculiarly the language of the Muhammadan population of Hindústán.

These citations seem to be derived from one of trivial knowledge of the history and an bigotted racist at that. Muhammadan population of Hindustan??--JusticeLaw 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What's bigotted about it? And the quotes are from material that was considered knowledgeable at the time. But trivial knowledge or not (and racist or not, for that matter), it's one of several quotes that demonstrate that the words 'Hindustani' and 'Urdu' were synonymous in English until the partition of India. Here is a man writing a "Hindustani" dictionary, and he refers to the language as "Hindustani or Urdu". kwami 20:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There are, of course, other citations; I picked this one to show that there is a long history of use.

It seems to me that this article should be about Urdu/Khari Boli, and how this were standardized into the national languages now called 'Hindi' and 'Urdu', and not about the dialect chain that is the traditional used of the word 'Hindi'.

I see no reason to consider, for example, Bihari to be part of Hindustani. Ethnologue supports this view. Here is how they define standard Hindi:

Formal vocabulary is borrowed from Sanskrit, de-Persianized, de-Arabicized. Literary Hindi, or Hindi-Urdu, has four varieties: Hindi (High Hindi, Nagari Hindi, Literary Hindi, Standard Hindi); Urdu; Dakhini; Rekhta.

This Ethnologue 15 classification of both standard Hindi and standard Urdu is Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Central zone, Western Hindi, Hindustani.

Also, it says that Languages and dialects in the Western Hindi group are Hindustani, Haryanvi, Braj Bhasha, Kanauji, Bundeli. That is, languages like Bihari, Chhattisgarhi, and Kanauji are 'Hindi' in the broad sense, but not Hindustani.

kwami 19:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

More quotes:

From Webster's 3rd International Dictionary (considered the best US dictionary),

hindustani: Hindi Hindūstānī, from Persian Hindūstān "India"

1. Hindi, Urdu, and various vernacular dialects of northern India comprising a group of which literary Hindi and Urdu are considered diverse written forms.

2. The dialect of Delhi and the region to the northeast of Delhi.

Robert (considered the best French dictionary) defines ourdou as a "forme islamisée de l'hindoustani" (an Islamicized form of Hindustani).

Katzner, in The Languages of the World, says,

The basis of both languages [literary Hindi and Urdu] is actually Hindustani, the colloquial form of speech that served as a lingua franca of much of India for more than four centuries.

[this is pretty much the conception of Urdu below]

[Standard] Hindi was originally a variety of Hindustani spoken in the area of New Delhi. Its development into a national language had its beginnings in the colonial period, when the British began to cultivate it as a standard among government officials.

Urdu by origin is a dialect of Hindi [here used in the broad sense] spoken for centuries in the neighborhood of Delhi. In the 16th century, when India fell under Moslem domination, a large number of Persian, Arabic, and Turkish words entered the language via the military camps and marketplaces of Delhi. [...] In time it came to be called Urdu [...] and after further Moslem conquest became the lingua franca over much of the Indian subcontinent.

Here are some more quotes from the OED (the greatest dictionary in English), for those who don't have access,

• 1878 Robert N. CUST Mod. Langs. E. Ind. 47 Hindustáni or Urdu is not a territorial Dialect, but a Lingua-franca... It can scarcely be said correctly, that it is the common Language of any one District, though freely spoken by many classes.
• 1801 COLEBROOKE in Asiat. Res. VII. 220 The language which forms the ground-work of modern Hindustání, and..is known by the appellation of Hindí or Hindeví.
• 1857 MONIER WILLIAMS Sanskrit Gram. Introd. 22 Out of them [patois modifications of Sanskrit] arose Hindí (termed Hindústání or Urdú, when mixed with Persian and Arabic words), Maráthí, and Gujaráthí.

kwami 07:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Although it doesn't use the word 'Hindustani', using instead the expression 'this common language' (meaning the common parent of Hindi and Urdu), this is what the Compendium of the World's Languages (George Campbell, 1991, vol II, p. 1425) has to say:

Phonologically and morphologically, Urdu and Hindi are virtually one and the same language. [...]

Historically, this common language derives from the Khaŗī Bōlī group of dialects centred on Uttar Pradesh and the Delhi area, which served as a lingua franca between the local population and the Moslem invaders from the west. Through the Middle Ages, this lingua franca – known as zabān-e-urdū, the 'language of the camp/army' – gradually consolidated its position as the main inter-regional language of north India: a tribute, in a way, to the stability created by the Mughal dynasty. From being no more than a colloquial, it was able to graduate to the status of a literary language, used, along with Persian, in the Moslem courts (sixteenth to eighteenth centuries). Given the cultural affiliations of these courts, it is not surprising to find that large numbers of Arabic and Persian words entered the lexicon. From the late eighteenth century onwards the Farsi–Hindustani of the Mughal courts and their entourages is known simply as Urdu.

In other words, Farsi–Urdu, especially of the southern Indian courts, where it was known as rextā 'mixed', was a somewhat artificial product, whose specialized vocabulary hardly reached the Khaŗī Bōlī-speaking masses. In the late eighteenth century Hindu writers and scholars, noursihed on native Indian tradition, rather than on Arabo-Persian culture, began to use Khaŗī Bōlī ('Hindustani') as a medium for literary expression in terms of Sanskrit–Hindu culture. This development had two corollaries: the use of the Devanagari script instead of the Arabic, and recourse to Sanskrit for lexical enrichment. By the mid-nineteenth century Hariścandra could use 'Hindi' as an effective and well-equiped vehicle for creative writing in the modern sense: that is, not simply as a vessel for the decanting of received tradition. Urdu and Hindi are, thus, cultural polarizations emanating from a common linguistic core.

Kwami, Please read this citation someone provided, it goes against your claim.--JusticeLaw 16:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Justice. You mean the Campbell excerpt above? I provided that. I think it's basically compatible with what I wrote in the article, but it does have some new information, or at least is looking at things from a different angle. If I'd seen it earlier, I might have worded my edits differently. I know that what I wrote isn't complete, and there are things I don't understand - for example, what was the position of Hindustani/Urdu in the Mughal court, if the official language was Persian? how did it obtain its position? and Hindustani, as a lingua franca based on Khari Boli, may have meant somewhat different things in different places - what was the conception of Hindustani/Khariboli/Urdu over the centuries? But I do think it's an improvement over what we had before. I keep hoping someone who knows what they're doing will come along and really do a good job with this article, but until then it's up to us poor ignorant slobs to do the best we can. kwami 23:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

hi. i'm not exactly clear on what the point of contention is here. is it that the term Hindustani was never used to refer to Urdu? or that Hindustani should not have been used to refer to Urdu (even though it was)? or is it the term Hindustani is simply offense? peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think the idea is that Hindi and Urdu are completely separate languages, and that Hindustani is a mixture of the two. But Urdu being called Hindustani also seems to be questioned. Harprit, JusticeLaw, and StephenCox (who might not be three separate individuals) object to the classification of Urdu as Hindustani, insisting on deleting any layers of classification below Indic. kwami 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized the problem here. We are defining this term as it was used by different people at different times. You are defining it as to what the English perceived it as. I am defining it as to what the Mughals and modern people of the Indian subcontinent perceive it as. I believe it is only proper to add all three viewpoints, see article.--JusticeLaw 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the right direction. A couple points, though:

• I don't believe that the Moghuls used the word Hindustani to refer to Indian languages in general. Rather, they used it to refer to the Indian language - that is, the one they used for local communication, the lingua franca. (The word 'Urdu' was not used for a couple more centuries.)
• You're still presenting Hindustani in the modern sense as a mixture of Hindi and Urdu. This may be popular perception (the 'neutral' language of Bollywood, as you point out, is frequently referred to as Hindustani, though there are arguments about that too), and it is good to include that, but it is factually wrong. Hindustani is not a 'mix', except in the sense of being a mix (rexta) of Hindi and Persian. Modern standard Hindi and Urdu are different standardizations of Hindustani/Urdu/Khariboli/Rexta (whichever you want to call it). If popular perception has it the other way around, that is because nationalistic propaganda has obscured the history of the languages.

kwami 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the Moghuls did use Hindustani to refer to the languages of Hindustan, as they were invaders who entered speaking persian. I was sure to note that 'in modern times' that what Hindustani is referred to. You are take the rexta concept out of its context. In responding to your last sentece: regardless of the way you see it, it is what it is.--JusticeLaw 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What sources do you have for this assertion re the Moghuls? Can you cite a published book or article, or give a link to a website? Zora 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Justice, "it is what it is" doesn't get us anywhere if you don't provide evidence for what "it is". In your compromise version, the article starts out with how "linguists" use the term, and linguists use the term to mean a language of which both standard Hindi and standard Urdu are official registers. I would say "that is what it is". Many people believe that Hindustani is a mixed language, and this should be given its due, but there doesn't seem to be any linguistic validity to that belief. At any rate, I've never seen any evidence for it, and I've seen plenty that contradicts it. kwami 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It still seems like the article explains that Everyone called Urdu Hindustani at all times. Take a look at the revisions.--JusticeLaw 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC) I also fixed a sentence, didn't seem to flow right--JusticeLaw 01:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Justice, you're not fixing the flow of sentences. You're now claiming that the English invented the word Urdu, and that the Moghuls only called it Hindustani. Maybe so, but please provide some evidence. kwami 04:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

more sources

hi. since the revert-dancing has been going on for a while now. i am providing some more information from another source. hopefully it will help/clarify/etc.

the source is:

• Asher, R. E. (1994). Hindi. In Asher (Ed.) (pp. 1547-1549).
• Asher, R. E. (Ed.). (1994). The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-0803-5943-4.
• Dua, H. R. (1994a). Hindustani. In Asher (Ed.) (pp. 1554).
• Dua, H. R. (1994b). Urdu. In Asher (Ed.) (pp. 4863-4864).

at any rate, please enjoy! – ishwar  (speak) 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(H. R. Dua is at the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, India, in case anyone is interested.) – ishwar  (speak) 00:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindi

".... An assessment of the number of its speakers is dependent on the criteria of definition accepted. As early as 1875 the number was estimated at between 60 and 70 million (Kellog 1893: xi). An estimate made in the late 1980s (Bhatia 1987: 9) puts the worldwide figure of those speaking it either as a first or as a second language at 600 million—though this figure also includes speakers of Urdu. The home of Hindi is India, where it is the official language for interstate communication.... The 1981 Census of India records 264,189,057 Hindi speakers, a figure which does not include the 35 million speakers of Urdu.

"Hindi is a member of the Indo-Aryan sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages. The New Indo-Aryan languages, which cover most of the northern part of the Pakistan/India/Bangladesh continent, and which include Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, and Marathi, took on their own separate identity within the period 1000-1200 AD. Hindi is based on a mixed speech of the Delhi region known as Khaṛī bolī. Apart from its special status in the Republic of India, Hindi is the official language of six of the northern states—Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. In these states it is the language of education. While there are many native speakers of modern standard Hindi, the effect of its use as a medium of instruction is in the majority of cases a diglossic situation, with standard Hindi as the ‘H’ component. Herein lies part of the difficulty of assessing the total number of speakers, in that it is debatable in some instances whether the ‘L’ component, the mother tongue, is a dialect of Hindi or a different language. The customary feature of a dialect continuum and the fact the literacy among adults in this language area does not exceed 50 percent add to the problematic nature of the question. The recognition of Urdu, which also has Khaṛī bolī as its base, as a separate language is founded essentially on two factors: (1) while Hindi is written in the Devanagari script, Urdu uses the Perso-Arabic writing system; (2) Urdu has drawn widely on Persian and Arabic for its loanword vocabulary, while Hindi (although it also uses much Persian and Arabic vocabulary) typically turns to Sanskrit." (Asher 1994:1547-1548)

Hindustani

"Hindustani is a Central Indo-Aryan language based on Khari Boli (khaṛi boli), the language formerly spoken in the region surrounding Delhi. Until the 1950s the term, with the alternative ‘vernacular Hindustani’ was widely used to refer to the colloquial form common to Hindi and Urdu. For some it was to be distinguished from Hindi and Urdu as well as from Bazaar Hindustani. The latter term was often used for a simplified form of Hindustani or a variety which showed interference from local languages in contact situations in different regions.

"Mahatma Gandhi promoted the use of Hindustani to resolve the Hindi-Urdu controversy during the Indian independence movement and to this end established the Hindustani Prachar Sabha in 1942. Used as a generic term for the classification of mother tongues in the Indian Census since 1891, Hindustani was returned by 10.67 percent of speakers in Uttar Pradesh in 1951. However, with the recognition of Hindi and Urdu as distinct national languages, Hindustani speakers practically disappeared in the 1961 census, only 123,200 being recorded. Interestingly, figures provided by UNESCO for speakers of the world’s twelve major languages in 1989 give 412,314,100 for Hindustani (made up of 364m ‘real’ and 48m ‘potential’ speakers), a total no doubt resulting from the use of the term Hindustani to cover both Hindi and Urdu." (Dua 1994a: 1554)

Urdu

"Urdu is one of the Indo-Aryan languages and is widely spoken all over India. It is the official language of Jammu and Kashmir and the second official language of three Indian states, besides being the official national language of Pakistan. There are 35,323,282 speakers of Urdu in India, according to the census of 1981.

"1. Origin and Development

"Urdu is basically derived from the Western Apabhramsa. But it also included in its early formative period dialect forms of Braj Bhasha, Hariani (=Bangaru), vernacular Hindustani and even sometimes Panjabi and Rajasthani. It contained Perso-Arabic elements as a result of interaction between Muslim and Hindu cultures. The vernacular Hindustani element of Urdu gradually became stronger Khari Boli emerged as a basic source for the future development of Urdu. According to Grahame Bailey (quoted by Rai 1984) the word Urdu was first used for the language in a couplet in 1776 by the poet Mashafi (1750-1824).

"Early specimens of Urdu are found in Amir Khusro (1236-1324) and some other poets. However, there are no long and connected specimens of the language from 1200 to 1650 for reconstructing its continuous history, except Bikat Kahani by Afzal which appeared 300 years after Khusro (Chatterji 1960: 199).

"The Urdu language spread south with the Muslim rulers and common people in the early fourteenth century because of historical and political factors. It flourished as a literary language popularly known as Dakani or Delhavi till almost at the end of the seventeeth century. Dakani has been claimed both as Dakani Hindi and as Dakani Urdu (or old Urdu) by the protagonist of Hindi and Urdu respectively. It is now considered to be a dialect of Urdu.

"By the early eighteenth century, Urdu emerged as a distinct variety from Hindi with the increasing Persianization of vocabulary in Wali’s poetry. The recognition of Persian as an official and court language during Shahjahan’s reign strengthened this trend. Three factors played a major role in this process. First, Dakani literature was written in Perso-Arabic script, which according to Chatterji (1960: 207) ‘fixed the orientation of language.’ Second, in the middle of the eighteenth century some stalwarts such as Khan Arzu, Shah Hatim and Mazhar Janejanan made conscious efforts to weed out the Braj Bhasha or indigenous Hindi elements and to incorporate Perso-Arabic words. Finally, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, prose began to be written in the emergent Khari Boli. The two important earliest works in Urdu prose are the Bhagh-o-Bahar of Mir Amman (1804) and Khirad Afroz of Hafizuddin Ahmed (1803-15).

"The independence movement in India was marked by intense political mobilization and consolidation of Urdu as a national language. Several factors played a key role in this process: the Hindi movement, use of Sanskritized Khari Boli, formation of respective language aassociations for Hindi and Urdu, and development of Hindi and Muslim revivalism. The divergence between Hindi and Urdu became politically too sensitive for the languages to be unified under the banner of Hindustani as promoted by Gandhi (Dua 1992).

"2. Linguistic Features

"It is generally recognized that Urdu and Hindi are two languages distinguished more on socio-political and cultural grounds than in terms of linguistic features. However, some phonological, morphological and lexical characteristics are typical of Urdu. At the phonological level, the uvular /q/ and the fricatives /f, z, x, ɣ/ are marked phonemes of Urdu. Similarly Urdu shows distinctive phonological rules in the distribution of vowels, semivowels, schwa deletion, and syllabic structure in relation to words of Sanskrit and/or Perso-Arabic origin. Urdu also shows typical features of aspiration and nasalization (see Kelkar 1968; Narang and Becker 1971; Ohala 1972).

"At the morphological level the distinctiveness of Urdu is clearly marked in derivation, with prefixes and suffixes of Perso-Arabic origin and typical consonant word-formation. Similarly, in the case of Perso-Arabic words, the categories of number and gender show marked features.

"While it is generally accepted that Hindi and Urdu are characterized by Sanskritized and Persianized vocabulary respectively, the nature and scope of lexical difference is much more complex than is realized. As there is no comprehensive study based on a large representative sample, both of spoken and of written varieties belonging to different forms of literature, it is difficult to determine the precise degree of lexical distinctiveness of the Urdu lexicon. However, there is no doubt that the Perso-Arabic sources of vocabulary and processes of word-formation lend a distinctive character to the Urdu lexicon and render its phonological system complex (Dua 1992).

"Linguistically, Urdu may not be very different from Hindi, but it has developed an extremely rich and distinct literary tradition. Not only has it produced a galaxy of poets, critics, and fiction and prose writers, but it is also distinguished by specific literary genres such as ghazal.

"The Perso-Arabic script is significant as a symbol of identity. It is unique in the sense that it represents three phonological layers: the indigenous layer of Indo-Aryan, and the borrowed layers of Semitic and Indo-Iranian. Though the Urdu writing system is marked by duplicated and triplicated letters, by deficiency of vocalic symbols, and by irregular spelling, all of which make learning difficult, it is considered to be fully functional.

"3. Sociolinguistic Context

"Both in Pakistan and India Urdu is currently undergoing rapid processes of codification and standardization. Not only government agencies but also language associations, research organizations, and even individual scholars and writers are involved in different language planning activities such as development of technical terminology, preparation of dictionaries and standard grammars, production of scientific technical literature, and university level textbooks (Khan 1969). Though it is difficult to determine the impact of the processes of codification and standardization on language change and their implications for the divergence of Urdu from Hindi, there is no doubt that Urdu has become a vigorous medium of expression for Muslim thought and culture, and a potent symbol of identity for the sociocultural and political mobilization of its speakers." (Dua 1994b:4863-4864)

Thanks for that, Ish! kwami 03:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Largely redundant, but now a bit better

Please see Talk:Hindustani grammar as a reference for this topic. Many individuals have stated their opinions about this issue on that talk page. Thank you.

I see no value in repeating so much material from the Hindi article. Much of it is a direct copy and if included here, should always be really, so it essentially amounts to a fork and failure to organize material properly. For example, there is no value in repeating the grammar section here. There is no wide agreement on the meaning of the word Hindustani, instead it is used in varying ways by different writers. That makes much of the material now in this article innapropriate. Instead it should focus on the various meanings assigned to the term and the various issues surounding it. The other sections, especially 'Hindustānī outside South Asia', 'Vocabulary', 'Grammar', 'Common difficulties faced in learning Hindustānī', and 'Hinglish' add no value. - Taxman ^Talk 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is staying as per the reasongs listed in the Talk:Hindustani grammar article. Thanks. AbdulQadir 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is continued on the Hindustani grammar article. However, the majority thus far support keeping this article. Cheers! Ahmed27 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the arguments I've made here. Nowhere did I say this article should be deleted. Please consider what I've written and provide evidence for why you feel differently. - Taxman ^Talk 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See the dictionary and OED definitions in the above discussions. This is what this article is based on: the Hindustani language. Wikipedia will mantain this NPOV policy and will discuss the academic meaning in this article (and the common meaning of the term). However, if you would like, you can add a section on the "various meanings assigned to the term". The other sections which you claim "add no value" are very relevant here. It is important to know the usage of 'Hindustani outside South Asia as it has a singificant number of speakers outside South Asia. The other sections are as equally important because they address the statistics and usage of the language. Note: this article not only refers to the standard registers of Hindustani, Hindi & Urdu, but to Fijian Hindustani, Caribbean Hindustani, Sarnami Hindustani, and other nonstandard dialects considered to be Hindustani. Another reason for the information sharing is the close relation of Hindustani, Urdu, and Hindi. --Zulfikkur 04:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion there has come to a consensus that that should be one grammar article but that does not end the discussion here. Please do not change section headings to reflect your view. From a review of the available sources, I do not believe there is support for Hindustani being a third, separate language. The sources either refer to Hindustani being an umbrella term for all of Hindi and Urdu and related dialects, or as only the common speech that would be understood by all speakers of those dialects with the specialized, formal vocab removed. Yes, Fiji does officially call their language Hindustani, but that doesn't make it a separate language. It only means that they call their language that. As mentioned above, I believe the sources available support discussing the different uses of the term Hindustani, but not discussing it as if it is a separate language. That doesn't really mean the article needs to be scrapped, just refocused so it is consistent throughout with the two main uses of the term. As before, if you feel different, please back up your view with sources. Not just one, but what many sources use. - Taxman ^Talk 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion of the Hindustani grammar page (Talk:Hindustani grammar), it seemed like most individuals supported keeping these sections which you want to remove. Not only Fiji calls the language Hindustani, but so does Suriname and Guyana. Individuals from those countires could be unfamiliar with the names Hindi and Urdu. Also, most reference sources will not tell you what you call 'the second main use of the term.' Most refernce sources call it a language or a dialect of Hindi. According to the Standard College Dictionary, the definition of Urdu is as follows: A variey of Hindustani spoken in India, containing many Persian and Arabic elements and written in a Persian-Arabic script: the official language of Pakistan. I told you to look at the multiple referneces above for support as well. If you want to include a section on the minor usages of the term, you are more than welcome to. As of now, I think we should keep the sections. And also, since the Grammar sections on Hindi and Urdu appear to be the same, why not complain there? Those articles are long enough as it is. Since Urdu and Hindi are variants of Hindustani, I think this page deserves its own sections. Also note that the Grammar section you tried to remove is a lead in for the main page: Hindi-Urdu grammar. It's like that for all of the pages: Hindustani, Urdu, and Hindi. They are just lead ins, not main articles. If you feel differently, please back up your view with sources and do not revert unless you have discussed your position here with others. But as I said earlier, it seems like we had a consensus on the Talk:Hindustani grammar page to keep them. Zulfikkur 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To justify treating Hindustani as a language, there would have to be sources that treat it as a third individual language. There really aren't. Sources either describe Hindi and Urdu, or just lump it all under Hindustani. That's just a convenient container term, not a third language. There is plenty of evidence to support Hindi and Urdu as separate languages deserving separate articles treating them as a language. Not that all sources agree, but enough do to support that position. There isn't substantial evidence to treat Hindustani as a third distinct language and that is what would be needed. Ethnologue is a widely discredited source, especially when it comes to deciding what is a language and what isn't. And I didn't remove the lead in for the main page Hindi-Urdu grammar, I just made it shorter to not be so overly redundant. There's still a link to the main article. I really don't understand why people don't see the problem with repeating the same text three times, requiring three times the work to update it. - Taxman ^Talk 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, who says Hindustani need to be treated as a completely separate language in order to contain a Grammar section? The fact that it encompasses two major languages and several nonstandard dialects gives this article a right to have a Grammar section. The short section would be relevant to those who consider themselves speakers of Hindustani, the general term for Hindi and Urdu together. Each grammar 'lead in' on Hindustani, Hindi, and Urdu has been modified to suit that particular page. Over time (and from what we can see know), Wikipedians will alter these Grammar sections to suit the page it is in. It seems like the 'grammar' section and 'common difficulties' section are the only ones that are similar. Because these are relevant and just lead ins, I think we should keep them. Also, it seems like most people here still rely on Ethnologue to determine what is a language and what is not. The American Heritage® Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary both call Hindustani a language. We should keep these. Jdas07 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to left. Because repeating the grammar section is treating it as a separate language. And dictionaries are descriptive of a term, they will include that definition even if it is not a distinct language because it is used as an umbrella term, not because it is a separate language. And an encyclopedia is different. - Taxman ^Talk 01:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to Hindustani as a language. In fact, the article is titled "Hindustani language". Columbia does as well. It even gives statistics such as number of speakers in the world, etc. World Book's dictionary also refers to it as a language. Either way, having a lead in/summary to go to the main page will not hurt. Jdas07 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument has been rehashed! Keeping the Grammar Section ameliorates the quality of article. If someone lands on the article and is inquiring about Hindustani grammar, they will get a small overview. As Jdas07 said, people have already modified the sections enough that they are not the same anymore. They are adapted to suit the current page. From the discussion on Talk:Hindustani grammar, it seemed like most people involved in the discussion supported keeping the section. Thanks. Ahmed27 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, they're nearly word for word identical with a find and replace done for the names. Remember, I substantially wrote it, so I can recognize when it's the same. But if people think it's fine to repeat the same thing and triple the maintenance, so be it. I'm sure you'll all be happy not to hear from me on it. But this article still isn't consistent about it's topic and properly considering the varying use of the term Hindustani over time. - Taxman ^Talk 03:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As per this discussion, would anybody who has some knowledge in this area be interested in creating a section on the Hindustani language article entitled: "Various meanings assigned to the term"? This article deals with the language but maybe it would make things more clearer if someone wrote a section on this. Zulfikkur 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindustaninames.png image in Introduction of the Article (Spelling)

Hindustani written in the Urdu script in the Hindustaninames.png image placed in the introduction of the article is spelled incorrectly (the first letter). The correct spelling should read ہندوستانی

Could an expert who knows who to correct this problem please do so? Thanks --Zulfikkur 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whizkidravi took care of this issue today ([1]). Thanks Whizkidravi. Jdas07 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindustani and Mahatma Gandhi

I was contemplating over this subject recently and I think it would be a good idea to mention Mahatma Gandhi's advocation for Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) as India's proposed national language. Could someone who has more background in this area write about this (and maybe some more history of Hindustānī ) in the history section of this page? Jdas07 05:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a scintillating idea. iFaqeer requested this earlier in this page. Someone who has more information on this topic should indeed mention this. Ahmed27 01:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I will write it; I have Gandhi's "Mere Sapanon ka Bharat"(My dream India) where he mentions his preference for the national language. Can someone tell me where do to write it? Maquahuitl 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

History of term Hindustani

What is the basis for this statement:

Originally the term Hindustānī ("of the land of the Hindus") was the name given by the Turco-Persian Mogul conquerors of India to Khaṛībolī, the local form of Hindī at their capital, Delhi, and nearby cities.

To the best of my knowledge the term used was always "Hindi" of "Hindavi", even after the emergence of the term "Urdu" whe the Delhi Fort was built.

To the best of my knowledge, term "Hindustani" was introduced in the British period.--Vikramsingh 18:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed list, added link

We already have a list of popular Bollywood films -- which could use some work by the way, it's light on films before the 1990s. There's no point in bludgeoning readers with a long list of names here when they could go to a list that is, I think, more reader-friendly. Zora 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

need words

Can someone come up with good examples of ʈ, ɖ, ɽ in Hindi/Urdu words that Brits and Yanks might be familiar with, to illustrate the examples at Help:IPA pronunciation key? Thanks. kwami 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you must take examples from Indian English rather than Hindi/Urdu. One of the three gives it from IE, and for one of them [R] there can be no example I guess.

How can we know what Brits and Yanks would be familiar with. Maquahuitl 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hindi or Urdu words with these sounds that have entered the English language, and are more widespread than just Indian English, like ठग 'thug', साड़ी 'sari'. I can't think of one with /ɖ/. kwami (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Different languages

Khari boli and Hindustani are different languages.Vocablary of these languages are also very different .Don't merge this language in Khari.Rasoolpuri (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree (see comment in Khariboli/Hindustani section below). --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindi/Standard Hindi/Khariboli/Urdu etc

I think that there is a lot of confusion regarding the Hindi, Standard Hindi, Khariboli and Urdu articles. Some of the information is duplicated across pages. In other cases the information is contradictory. For instance is Khariboli a dialect of Hindi or is Hindi a dialect of khaiboli??? It is really confusing. Can't we work on all Hindi/Urdu related articles in a phased , consensual and proper manner. Rather than duplicate the same info across 3 -4 articles I would suggest this:

1. Let all common features of Hindi and Urdu be put on the Hindustani Page.
2. The Hindi and Urdu articles should only contain information relevant to that particular language.
3. Let us create a seperate workgroup to maintain all Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani related pages. This will avod confusion.

Kya bolti tu??? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Khariboli is the standard dialect of Hindi, where here 'Hindi' is understood as a group of languages.

There is already a separate workgroup for it. Go to India page and try to find it. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DPac: Re: Khari boli a dialect of Hindi: see: Talk:Khari boli —Wiki Wikardo 15:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think D'Souza sahab means a workgroup comprising editors of both Hindi and the Urdu articles. I wouldn't mind taking part in such a venture. --Zaindy^٨٧ 09:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think its a great idea to form joint working group focusing on Hindustani, Urdu, Hindi and various dialects of Hindi e.g. Awadhi, Maithali, etc. I'll also like to be part of it.

- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Good to know that some responses are comming in. I know there is a workgroup for Indian related articles and another workgroup for Pakistan related topics, but I strongly feel that this group of articles deserves a seperate workgroup in order to co-ordianate the articles better. This way we can avoid conflicting information or duplicate info and edit wars. Lets wait for a few more editors to respond. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there’s a suggestion to move the Hindi and Urdu section in Hindi to its own Hindi and Urdu article. The talk page there doesn’t have nothing about that specific section yet, and the last comment is suggesting folks come here, so I’ma comment on this talk page ’cause it also touches on issues being discussed.

It’s a really excellent section, but it goes too in depth to really fit into the Hindi article, and says main section: Hindi-Urdu controversy, which is little more than a stub. I think the section belongs here. In fact, there may be some duplicate information between it and the Hindustani article. I propose severely reducing the length of the section as it stands at Hindi and integrating the majority of the content with this article, where it fits much better. —Wiki Wikardo 15:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu controversy is a specific event, and though has relevance to but does not capture the entire Hindi-Urdu dichotomy. Maquahuitl^talk! 11:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, that’s why I’m sayin’ that section from Hindi should go here and/or maybe Hindi-Urdu controversy should be integrated into Hindustani language, too. Or else fleshed out. —Wiki Wikardo 18:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Maquahuitl^talk! 07:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I too think that the section should be splitted to the article Hindi-Urdu controversy --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

*lol* No! :) The section in Hindi doesn’t really have anything to do with the Hindi-Urdu controversy of the 1800s at all. It’s more about the evolution of and distinction between the two, which is why I think it belongs here. Hindi-Urdu controversy should maybe go here, too, unless somebody wants to lengthen that stub. —Wiki Wikardo 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Khariboli and Hindustani

I know the relation of Standard Hindi to Urdu and their relation to Khariboli (standardised registers of it), and its relation as a Hindi language, but there is one more question that I have: isn't Hindustani another name for Khariboli? Because I've seen both described as the same thing. Thanks. YoshiroShin (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Khariboli is full-fledged language in itself, and is also known as Kauravi. Its "refined" version is the basis of the grammar for the literary registers Hindi and Urdu, and the same with a balanced vocabulary and the spoken register, is called Hindustani. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So, Hindustani is a "refined" form of Khariboli? What does that mean? YoshiroShin (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put the word refined in quotes because it depends on perception and as per public perception, it is 'refined'. What it means is that the grammar of standard Hindi-Urdu is not the same as, but pretty close to, the vernacular Khariboli. The grammar of the standard language has changed over the period of Urdu from the time of the Mughals and Modern Hindi from the second phase of the British rule, especially because of the effects of Eastern Hindi. However I seriously doubt if there would be studies on the vernacular grammar. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hindustani and Khariboli are non-identical. There are many constructions used in Khari that would be considered incorrect or "country" in Hindustani. I think this is what Maquahuitl is referring to with his "refined" point. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNNcaxiaz8Y (from Baqra Qishton Pey, a Pakistani play wildly popular across Northern India and Pakistan) - the language is basically Hindustani (Urdu-Hindi) with a couple of lines in Khari thrown in at 2:15-2:20 for comedic effect. This is tough to describe, but Khari also has a different lilt. Hindustani is "flatter" but Khari varies speed and tone much more based on part-of-speech. Inexactly, you could think of Khari as a country form of Hindustani. Of all the dialects of Hindi floating around, Khari's probably the closest to Hindustani. But, if you speak Hindustani, no one will say you're speaking Khari and vice-versa. When it is spoken at speed, Khari can be tough to understand completely for non-native speakers of Hindustani, who otherwise understand Hindustani perfectly. I suspect there are also some vocabulary differences. This is anecdotal, but Khari may have more/different Persian content in it. Khari speakers will say "Election mat larey, haar javega. Teri pusht na hai." where a Hindustani speaker will say "Election mat lar, haar jaega. Tujhe himayat kam hai." They're just different. Please don't merge them. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, friend. The entire confusion is because of the fact that academic circles, whether those of Hindi or of Urdu, have dubbed the standard dialect as "KhaRiboli", and that was done to distinguish it from the other languages commonly called as "Hindi"s, like Awadhi and Braj Bhasha. Some linguists however, like Rahul Sankrityayan, have therefore used the term Kauravi for the native language to resolve the confusion. The natively-speaking people themselves call this language Khariboli, though. And yes there are vocabulary differences too, but I doubt if there will be "more" Persian content in it.

Are you from India or Pakistan? It is really incredible that you understand this difference if you are from Pakistan. I have lived in the natively speaking region for 12 years. :)Maquahuitl^talk! 14:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Three languages

I think there are now three languages.One Hindustani -This is amixed (hybrid) language of public.Second is Hindi .It is a litrary or Indian official language with Sanskrit words and Urdu is an other litrary or pakistani official language with the huge burden of Arabic and persian language.--Rasoolpuri (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not three languages but three standards. Maquahuitl^talk! 05:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is one parent tongue, Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu. That is the original language. Hindi is a subset of it and Urdu is another subset of it. Getting people to speak Hindi or Urdu is mostly about telling them which words NOT to use rather than which words to use. Getting to these standards is more about censorship than about creativity. Of course, having people speaking the standards is like telling English-speakers not to use Saxon or Norman words, i.e. basically impossible, which is why Hindi-Urdu isn't going away despite the billions of government dollars and ideological straining that has been put into it. Watch this video from TED Pakistan (Who's afraid of Urdish and Urdi - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl4xppek2gY). Tariq Rehman explains it well. It also explains why the Hindi and Urdu sections of Wikipedia are stunted. They follow the standards. If it was in natural Hindi-Urdu, the content would explode in size. This is also why anyone that actually needs a commercial audience or wants to make money in North India or Pakistan uses Hindi-Urdu, not Standard Hindi or Standard Urdu. --Hunnjazal (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Urdu is historically a synonym for Hindustani, is it not? Wouldn't only Modern Standard Urdu be a subset? — kwami (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Accurately speaking, that is absolutely correct. Zealots use Hindi as shorthand for "Standard Hindi" ("Shuddh Hindi") and Urdu for "Standard Urdu". --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous discussion, I tagged Khariboli as needing expert attention. Are there two lects called Khariboli, Kauravi and Hindustani, or just one?--perhaps, was Hindustani/Urdu based first on Braj Bhasa, and then on Kauravi, without ever completely merging with Kauravi/Khariboli, so that the two lects remain distinct? If so, the line in the lede "the basis of the officially approved versions of Hindi (Standard Hindi) and Urdu, which are grammatically identical to Khariboli" would seem to be inaccurate.

The Masica chapter clarifies a lot, but I get the feeling I'm still missing something. Should we maybe create a separate article for Kauravi, so that we're clear when we're speaking of Khariboli = High Hindi/Urdu, and when we mean Khariboli = Kauravi/Country Hindi? — kwami (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Khariboli usually refers to a country dialect. The lede's assertion of "identical grammar" is definitely incorrect. In standard-HU you would say "Main nahin jaaoonga" while in Khariboli you would say "Main jaane ka na hoon." Khari is not completely intelligible to non-HU natives who otherwise speak HU, while HU natives experience it to be a dialectical variation. Something akin to Southern American English for non-English natives who otherwise comprehend Standard American English. Kaurvi should have a page to itself as it is yet a distinct dialect afaik - it's a halfway between Khari and Haryanvi. Hindustani, Hindi and Urdu usually refer to High HU, and are distinct from any of these dialects. All major languages of N India & Pakistan (and probably most other places) are like this, eg Punjabi whose high version is based closely on Majhi but isn't identical to it. People who speak Ambarsaria-Lahori, which is really what Majhi is have variances from standard Punjabi. Kashmiri has Maraz, Kamraz and Yamraz (plus a host of others like Kishtawari, etc). Literary/standard Kashmiri is Yamraz influences, but Yamraz isn't identical to it. In all these cases it is a "based most closely on, but not identical to" relationship. BTW Punjabi natives don't even blink when they hear Hindko, for instance - they perceive it as a completely comprehensible regional variant. For non-Punjabis who speak/understand standard Punjabi, it can feel like an unknown tongue. HU, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi speakers raised outside the subcontinent who have learned the standard versions run into the same issue. Braj Bhasha is also a distinct dialect. Khusro used it a lot. It's part of the HU-continuum and comprehensible but definitely distinct from standard HU. I have no analysis on this handy, but standard HU feels closer to Khari than to Braj. Example -

Braj - "Main nahin maakhan khayo"

Khari - "Maine makkhan na khaya"

HU/Hindustani - "Maine makkhan nahin khaya"

Haryanvi - "Manne makkhan na khaya"

That's just a small example. You can easily tell the difference in recordings. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So there are two Khari Bolis, then: upper-crust Delhi dialect, and country dialect ... or maybe three, since Khari Boli is also Kaurvi? Maybe we shouldn't use the name at all, if it's that ambiguous? — kwami (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Confused by this. Kaurvi, Khari Boli and Modern H-U are three different things. Khari Boli is the name of a specific dialect ("Boli" means dialect in Hindi-Urdu). Kaurvi afaik is a recently coined name for the Saharanpur-Meerut dialect (used to just be called Saharanpuri, don't know what the specific reasons are to coin this new name but it seems to have taken hold in linguistics). The coverage of HU or Punjabi or Kashmiri dialects on Wikipedia is a complete hash, so I don't even know where (or if) to start.

Not just responding to your question, but flagging the need to discuss evolution better in this article: It is a forensic activity for linguists to figure out how modern HU got to be what it is. What was the base dialect? Kaurvi? Khari? Braj? Was there no one base dialect? There are arguments each way that should be captured somewhere. In old Hindi-Urdu writings, you see significant dialectical differences between writers. The past 800 years seem to have been a process of ever-increasing standardization. Modern HU seems to have congealed pretty completely about 300 odd years ago. Think the wildly varying spellings in English of 1650 and the convergence over time and you'll get a sense of this. Today, Khari, Kaurvi, Haryanvi, Rajasthani, etc speakers take pride in their dialects and produce some works in them - but all acknowledge the common modern standard. The one big exception was Maithili, which really is poorly intelligible to many native-HUs. The 2001 census (http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement5.htm) excludes them from Hindi. There are 422M Hindi + 51M Urdu speakers in India as of 2001, that split driven pretty much by religious affiliation more than anything else (it tracks percentages by region, actually). As far as standard Hindi and standard Urdu go, the number (not tracked by the census) will be a tiny fraction of this. Maybe a few thousand people for each. Similar to the few thousand for Sanskrit. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One of our refs above notes that Kaurvi speakers call their dialect Khari Boli, but that the author prefers to reserve that term for the upper-class Delhi lect of which MSHindi and Urdu arose as literary styles. So by his usage, Hindustani = MSHindi = Urdu = Khari Boli(1) as one dialect/language, and Kaurvi = Khari Boli(2) as another. And wasn't Braj also called Khari Boli when it was the standard? I'm not sure it's wise to call any lect "Standard Dialect" unless usage is completely ossified, and in this case it would appear that it's not. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are all over the place because definitions have been evolving over time. Braj is distinct. If it was called Khari also that must have been a long time ago. Khari was considered to prevail between Awadhi and Haryanvi, i.e. Bijnor, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Yamunanagar. No longer. Linguists broke this zone into two. Now, the western part of this zone is called Kaurvi-speaking. They used to say "the Khari of Saharanpur is different." Now they say "Saharanpur speaks Kaurvi, not Khari." MS H-U has been ossified for 200 years and been different from Khari and Braj both for that period. MS H-U is identical in all urban areas across the HU-zone, whether it is Jaipur in Rajasthan or Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh or Delhi or Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh or Karachi in Pakistan. It is actually the only H-U dialect taught in schools and has been for 150-200 years. No one learns Khari at school anymore than they learn Appalachian English or Yorkshire English in school, although all HU-speakers learn samples of many of these dialects in classic poetry pieces at school (Surdas for Braj, Kanhaiyalal for Rajasthani, Tulsidas for Awadhi, Maithilisharan Gupt for Khari, etc).

Unfortunately, I myself don't feel the inclination to go in and clean all this up because I intend to focus on some other articles I have in mind for a while. A good article on Kaurvi would note "xyz are the characteristics of this dialect; xyz is the reason linguists are treating it as distinct; xyz are some linguists disputing that it is distinct from Khari; xyz are the reasons that some linguists are saying MS H-U is closer to Kaurvi than to Khari; xyz are some sample texts in Kaurvi." Ditto for Braj, Khari, Kannauji, Awadhi, etc. Part of the reason this is all seeing lack of progress on Wikipedia is that this is literally a zero-emotion issue for HU-speakers. Dialects are just uninteresting to the vast majority of them. They are viewed as quaint and archaic things that people get rid of as soon as they are educated. They are frequently mocked in HindiUrdu-TV in both India and Pakistan. They are also slowly shrinking and dying - I was going to say "as MS HU replaces them" but that is not accurate, because actually English is replacing them for literate people. Kids of Khari background in Bijnor frequently speak no Khari. They parents speak Khari to them and they speak MS HU back. Ditto for Kaurvi/Saharanpuri. The parents are in a sense bilingual (dialect + MS-HU) and come from many generations of such bilingualism. The kids are bilingual in MS-HU and English. --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the observation "English is replacing ... ", this is not happening to dialects but to entire languages (espicially in Metros and commercial hubs), e.g. in Bangalore you will find kids replying in English in response to Kannada/Dakhini conversation, same is the case at other places also. But that does'nt means languages/dialect are going to be completely dead any soon. There are people (aged 20s & 30s) who are quite fluent in their dialects in urban space and most of the peoplee in small cities, towns, villages, etc still speak their dialect and are not that fluent in MS-H-U, atleast in my native region of Awadh, Lucknow is different because it is capital and has now a blended linguo-cultural heritage bit as soon as you leave city to suburbs you'll feel the difference, people rarely will be speaking MS-H-U and a person speaking MS-H-U may be well understood but will not be replied back in same standard as locals do not use MS-H-U in day-t-day use and are not conversant in it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, afaik, in short the history of Hindi/Urdu goes as follows - it was born somewhere in the region North of Delhi about 800 years ago, and at that time the differences between Khariboli and Punjabi wouldn't have been as much as they are today. This is exactly the reason why the linguistic core of HU is still considered to be this region. However, the important point to be noted is that the rural dialects kept on evolving till today's date, whilst Hindi was being groomed in the urban areas and then later in the courts. That led to its divergence from the country lects. It was stabilised in Delhi and Agra. Here, it probably lost the geminating tendencies of Khariboli and Haryanvi ('Upar' for 'above' instead of 'uppar'; 'pIchE' for 'behind', instead of 'picchE'). These tendencies are no doubt not native to Khariboli and are typical only of Braj Bhasha and Awadhi. And Kauravi is nothing but a term used by the linguist Rahul Sankrityayan and probably a few others to emphasise this divergence of Standard HU from the native Khariboli by referring to the latter by this name. It's not a third entity as suggested by Hunnjazal. And Braj was never called Khariboli, and in fact, Braj residents used this very term 'Khariboli' to emphasise the difference between their own language and those of the Muslims (in those times).

Then it seems that our friend Hunnjazal is totally ignorant of the dynamism of dialects and the challenge that dynamic cultural identities, globalisation, and regional diaspora (within India) is putting up in front of Standard Hindi. The Bhojpuri diaspora in India from Eastern UP and Bihar has almost set the stage for Bhojpuri to be recognised. In Rajasthan, Marwari speakers have long been campaigning for their language to be recognised but have been held back by people of other regions who feel that they would be dominated by Marwaris. Haryanvi folk music is hugely popular. In fact, the availability of technology has boosted the cause of folk singers and made the folk songs available to the public.

Having said this, I still don't disagree with what Hunnjazal has said, because what he has described are the dynamics opposite to these. English is taking over Indian languages including Hindi, Hindi is taking over other Indian languages and its so-called 'dialects' in such a complicated manner that all aspects need to be discussed. Any single view would give a unidimensional and over-simplified picture of the changes currently occuring. Maquahuitl^talk! 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)