Talk:Saraiki language

[[Can people please sign their comments so we know who is talking, ~~~~ produces your name and time. Billlion 20:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC) ]]

Dispute about linguistic group

I moved the following that seemed to be a discussion from before teh beginning of the article.

kjhkkjhkjhkjhk

Saraiki is defin initly not a Munda language. It is clearly an Indo-Aryan language as can be judged by the great amount of mutual intellingibility between Saraiki and Punjabi and Urdu and Hindi and Hindko and Sindhi.

Can someone provide some references to verify or contradict these claims? Billlion 21:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was an old thesis of English linguists that SIRAIKI is an INDO_ ARYAN language ,but new research does not support it

Pakistani linguists claims that Urdu is not indo_aryan language ,but it belongs withit dravidian group. Dr Sohail Bukhri in his book "URDU KI ZUBAN" says that urdu is dravidian language . Ain-ul-Haq supports this thesis in his several writtings . A famous awarded articles is Wadi-isindh mein Drawari zabanoon ke baqiat

Asif khan says in his book "Punjabi da pichhokar" that Punjabi is not Indo-aryan language

When the language Urdu and punjabi languages are not Aryans then why Siraiki, the mother of these languages ,is Aryan language

Munda tribes were first inhabitants of INDUS VALLEY . Siraiki is language of this valley . There are several same words in Mudari and Siraiki language with same meanings ,also several name of villages are same with same traditions.My thesis is that indian Aryan languages are Munda Dravidian based languages'therefore their phonolgy is different from indo-european and Indo-Iranian languages.We call them Aryan languages but not like other other Aryan languages.--Rasoolpuri (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?? Siraki is "mother" of Urdu & Punjabi??? Wrong. Sanskrit is the mother of all modern Indo-Aryan languages. And no one buys Dr Sohoail Bkhari's work. He claims Urdu & hindi to be the language of the subcontinent when anyone farmiliar with South Asia know this to be false.

And his claims have no grammatical evidence. Urdu does not combine suffication with root words, a feature found in Altaic, Uralic and Dravidian languages. Infact there is common lexical and grammatical evidence linking these three families. Urdu having Turkic influence may then show some common features vocabulary with dravidian for this reason only. But in the end linguists worldwide dont buy Dr Sohail's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

oh and nobody knows the original language of the indus valley. And here people are claiming it to be munda. Please stop the propaganda. --99.227.90.213 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Indeed it is not complete page .One should complete it.

---

Did some clean up of the article.

Origin of language

Siraiki is an old language of Indus valley ,now spoken in centeral Pakistan.It is presumed that this language is an Indo-iranian language related with Aryan languages family .It is idea of the English Linguists. I think it is not correct .Siraiki is oldest than Aryan languages .When Aryan reached in this area several Dravidian and Munda languages were being spoken here. When we study about vocabulary of Siraiki language ,we find sixty percent words of Dravidians and Munda languages in Siraiki language .Besides it phonetic system of Siraiki language is different form Aryan languages. Perhaps you know that now several linguists of Pakistan are admitting this idea like Ain-ul-Haq Faridkoti etc This Area (Centeral Pakistan) is the place of south Asia where history started its journy.When man reached here from East Africa,he was speaking the earliest language of human beings and it is the origin of Proto-Siraiki(PS) It is admitted fact that man started cultivation in this area on the bank of Sindhu,and till earliest words about cultivation are with same sounds in Siraiki language like Hala(Mandari) and Hal in Siraiki Several caste of Munda tribes like KHOL are living in Siraiki and Sindhi lands with the same name of Kehal First city of this area is JalilPur in district Khanewal. It is oldest city than Harappa and Moenjodaro. Therefore i may say that Siraiki language and civilization are the oldest language and civilization of the world ,and concept of Indo-Iranian about Siraiki is not correct. User:Rasoolpuri

That's useful info, please feel free to incorporate this in the article, but please don't delete the stuff in curly brackets at the bottom this time, and also plese keep it encylocpedic, eg its not appropriate to write 'I think' in an encyclopedia article. Remember you can put in links to other articles where appropriate. Please have another go. Billlion 19:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Munda?

I'm sorry, I do not understand exactly how one edits on Wikipedia. I also am no expert on linguistics. But (forgive me if this sounds pretencious)as a Hindko Saraiki Punjabi Urdu speaker (my father is from Bahawalpur, my mother is from Abbotabad/Mansehra), Who grew up in Dhaka (World Bank brat) and is now studying Ottoman history in Paris (I also speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Ottoman Turkish and English, French, Spanish and Chinese)

I have to say that if Saraiki and Urdu have Munda Dravidian heritage, then so do all North indian languages such as Bengali, Orissa, Gujarati. I have never heard any of these languages ever considered anything but Indo-Aryan languages.

I mean the link between our North Indian languages and Sanskrit is undeniable. Is Sanskrit a Munda language too? Maybe it is, I don't know, but I am very very suspicious of such a claim.

As a Pakistani I am only too familiar with our amateur historian/linguists who base many of their well intentioned theories on Victorian amateuer historans and their own intuition. While they are wonderful people who show a great love of learning these theories they come up with our usually just ridiculous twaddle. I fear that this is the case with the Saraiki Munda thesis.Just because Saraiki has some munda words doesn't make it Dravidian. I mean Urdu is full of Arabic phrases, that doesn't mean its a Semetic language.And finally to justify the unbelievably pretencious rant of my first paragraph, I say that as a speaker of languages in the Sino-Tibetan, Altaic, Semetic, and Indo-European language families I have a sense of whats related and what is not. And Urdu is closer to say Slovenian than Tamil. But this is just my own uneducated opinion.Mundari language Before reaching Dravidians in indus valley( if they reached here from outside of this valley)there were living Austro_asiatic tribes .Once they had spread all over south asia .Munda tibes were of one of them .Munda tribes started a pre_dravidians civilization in this area.After birth of dravidians in this area as some writers say they devoloped famous indus civilization .Aryans reached here too late.There was strong tradion of culture,religion ,languages etc. They did not accept Aryan .There was a long fight between old habitants of indus valley and new commers as we may read in Rig Veda .Most tribes of Aryans were pushed to north India and with them some Munda tribes reached there .when Dravidians went to Balochistan and south India Several tribes mixed each other in indus valley .They were Aryans ,dravidians,and munda tribes .They adopted creeds ,traditions and languages of each others .Now it was a mixed language,and culture .It was not language of PIE.This was a language based on local languages of Indus valley.There were several different from PIE. There was different vocablary and there was different names of villages and diffenence tradtions from aryans .A grammar expert Panini was upset from this situation .He purify his language in the name of sanskrit .When we study of present languages of Pakistan like Siraiki .sindhi .and also Urdu and Punjabi .Its grammer is different from vedic language .These languages are based on that old languages which were being spoken in Indus valley .It is possible that one don't call these languages Munda language family ,but it is new theory that these languages are not Aryans.It is also being claimed that sanskrit itself is influenced with these languages . MUNDARI was main language language which was being spoken in indus valley during the period of Mundas .Therefore we may find several words of that Mundaris which are living now for from indus vally in th state of Jhar Khand .Although it is very different language from that proto_ mundari which was being spoken in the area of Indus valley .Bengali etc are Aryian languages because Aryans were pushed in to that area.I don't say that some words change the origin of a language as you say like Arabic words in Urdu ,but there is different matter due to differet sounds ,grammer and old dictionary .It is a new thesis from Indian and Pakistani linguists--They say that this english thesis is based on some confusions or vested interests.If some one wants to say these languages as Aryan language.I have no objection --Rasoolpuri (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The change in Spelling

There are currently two spellings for Seraiki on Wikipedia. There is consensus amongst Seraiki intellectuals on the official spellings as SERAIKI and not Siraiki. All Wikipedia entries should be modified accordingly. (Bloach 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Dear Baloch, owing to which grounds "Seraiki intellectuals in your words" agreed on Saraiki language name as Seraiki.Sevra (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article states that there are a mere 20000 speakers of the Seraiki language in India.

I encourage readers to analyze this statement.

At the time of partition of the country, when Hindus constituted between 40 and 60% of the population of the regions in Sindhi, Punjab and the Siaraiki region, the majority of the Hindus migrated to India, while a substantial population migrated to the UK and other countries.

How then can we say that there are only 20,000 Seraikis in India?

We are aware that in Delhi alone, there are about 2,500,000 Seraiki families, most of who identify themselves as Punjabis. Many of their children do not speak the language or have only heard it at home. Seraiki is getting assimilated or replaced by Punabi and Hindi, which of course is not an issue, neither social nor political for the Hindu Seraiki in India today. There are localities like Gujranwala town, Mianwali Nagar and others that are named after respective towns the "refugees" came from.

Apart from this group of the Seraiki diaspora, there are several cities and villages in the Indian Punjab, where the Seraikis settled. Rohtak for one, is virtually a resettlement of the Seraikis. Then there is a large population of Seraikis in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Madras/ Chennai and Indore, as also in several cities in Uttar Pradesh and Madya Pradhesh. Bangalore, my city, has at least 200 Multani families.

There might be 2 reasons for there being little information about the Seraiki Hindus.

1. Most Seraikis know themselves to be Multani, and not Seraiki, in India. They are unaware of the developments in Pakistan, both from the linguistic as well as the political spheres. Seraiki as a nomenclature was popularized much later, after partition. The word Seraiki was not very well known amont the migrants, who were largely uneducated or were exposed to newer education systems when they arrived in India. Although "Seraiki" used to identify the language in schools of the Seraiki system in pre-partition Pakistan, it was only known to those either the Seraiki elite or to those that attended Seraiki schools.

2. For various reasons, most Multanis in India identify themselves as Punjabi. Obviously our culture, customs and family names are common with the Punjabis, and Multanis may be considered a sub-group with the Punjabi nation, or perhaps the other way round (Multani as a language predates Punjabi and Sindhi,and may be considered the mother of the two).

The concept of Seraikistan would be welcome to most Multanis, who, like their Sindhi brothers, have no land to call their own. Although we have all the rights a citizen of India might have, we have no right on the land that speaks our language and culture. We are not allowed access to our cities and villages, have no right to buy property or live in our own country.

The idea of a Seraiki Nation is welcome and policy makers and people involved in the Seraiki movement must take cognizance of the large Seraiki diaspora in India and abroad to mobilize support and resources

Thanks.Siraikistan is very impartant issue for Pakistani Siraikis but not for Siraiki refugees of India .They should merge themselves in the nationalty in wich they are living .About Siraiki spellings your should read next section(Below) --Rasoolpuri (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

¬¬¬¬

Correct spelling

Siraiki is from sindhi word Siro it means head(sir-sindhi-siraiki-upper side of Sindh "Siraiki belt")therefore correct spellings of Siraiki are Siraiki not seraiki or Saraiki .No organization has status to change spelling of any language.From begining these spellings are being used .Grierson .Shackle .Wagha and other famous linguists used these spellings .Other spellings are confusing for students and research scholars .If we search about Siraiki through Google in the name Siraiki we shall find thousnd pages but in the name of Seraiki or Saraiki there are not so much pages --Rasoolpuri (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Saraiki speakers could set up organization to regulate their language, or Saraiki social and political leaders could call a special congress to adopt a standard spelling. Your next claim is nonsense: the confusion is in reality, scholars have to contend with this reality. Your claim about the results of Google searches is totally untrue. Hurmata (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

R.F. Burton (before Grierson and Shackle) actually first reported that the Saraiki language name is derived from the Sindhi word "Siro". Grierson and Shackle just believed in their predecessors. Remember Burton did not provide any local reference and I am pretty sure that he tried to drive the name in the pattern of the derivation of Sindhi dialects names as "Vicholi", the dialect spoken in the central part, is derived from the word "Vicholo". Had the Saraiki language name derived from the Sindhi word "Siro" the name would be simply "Siroi". Burton's mistake produced a lot of ambiguity that Grierson has discussed in his famous work. Shackle has declared that etymology unverified as it cannot linguistically be authenticated. A.H Dani theory about Saraiki language name derivation is widely accepted in which he says that the Saraiki language name "Sauviraki" originated from the word "Sauvira" by adding adjectival suufix -ki to it that later became Saraiki.Sevra (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Afghan Hindus and Wikipedias reliable source policy

The Web site, afghanhindu.info does not qualify as a verifiable source, one whose articles are published with editorial control. Several Web pages cited from this Web site in the article and other Wikipedia articles on Indo-Aryan languages give no sources whatsoever. They give every evidence of being original research (see WP:OR). At least one of these pages claims the byline "Rasoolpur", a contributor to at least one Indo-Aryan article I came across today. Of course, I do not deny that Afghan Hindus exist, and I expect it is true that among them are speakers of Hindi-Urdu, Multani, and Punjabi. But we need a reliable source to cite. Moreover, the reliable source should give accurate information. I have just last week discussed the great invalidity of Ethnologue regarding Punjabi and Saraiki on this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Hurmata (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, yes there are other sources that indicate the prescence of Afghan Hindus in Kandahar. Please read the following two sources: source 1 as well as source 2. Also, please do not remove information without discussion. If ethnologue mentions the geographic distribution of Indian Multani speakers, there is no problem with including them in this article, despite the fact that they may seem to be a small number in light of India's population. Why would India's film industry bother to produce a film in Saraiki if the community was insignificant as you claim? I will readd this information and it should not be removed without discussion. Finally, I included Multani in the lead of the article because it is an alternate name for Saraiki. Please read the following quote:

“ The language was earlier called Multani but since it was spoken in many other districts like Bahawalpur, besides Multan, it was decided to restore its ancient name, Siraiki (source 4). ”

Ethnologue also states that an alternate name for the language is Multani. From my understanding, calling the language Siraiki is in vogue as of late and was not the case at the time of the partition of British India. Prior to that event, the language as a whole was termed Multani (source 5). I am open to discussing the issue with you, however and will not reinclude Multani in the lead for now. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on whether to include the term in the lead. I hope this helps. Thanks for your understanding. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Anupam says they are open to discussion, yet has not even acknowledged most of the objections I have raised at various times while editing this article, including under this heading. Anupam shows poor judgement in evaluating sources and persists in relying on inadequate sources. For example, the single paragraph from an old edition of Britannica is vague and scanty. Anupam also ignores the notice that has been given of the critique of Ethnologue at the project pages of WikiProject:Languages. Anupam insists on relying exclusively on Ethnologue, disregarding more authoritative sources (linguists specializing in Indo-Aryan languages and in Saraiki itself). Anupam gives hints of bias by trying to exclude sources that are not evangelical Christian (Ethnologue is an evangelizing Christian organization). Hurmata (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One recent editor made a crude error that combines historical inaccuracy with incorrect English: "the Punjab Province". This confuses the historical term "the Punjab" with "Punjab Province" (which might also be called "the Province of Punjab"). "The Punjab" is now split between India and Pakistan. Hurmata (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How could I discuss the issue with you when you did not respond to my comment until now? Your deletion of content because you personally do not like Encyclopædia Britannica and Ethnologue is absurd when both sources are used widely across Wikipedia. Besides, the information you deleted was buttressed by official census figures. Also, please do not change the name Derawali to Derawal. The former is the name of the language and the latter is the name of the ethnic group who speaks it. I am restoring the deleted (referenced) information and it should not be deleted until further discussion takes place. Also, I have replied to your queries in the paragraph above, yet I have not received any replies to the points I brought up in the previous paragraph. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is the place to compare sources for validity and sophistication. You refuse to discuss the quality of your sources. You even refuse to defend those that I have objected do not meet the minimal standards of WP. Britannica does meet the minimal standards, but you seem not to notice that the meager passage you cite from "Britannica" does not contain the information you cite it for, AND it's a century old. You are just playing a game of "find references" without caring about whether the quality is good or bad.

Your reply is deceitful because I was the first to pose objections, that means it was for you to respond to me. You still have not responded to the bulk of the objections put to you, especially those that invoke basic WP policies. My objections are detailed, your replies are not. Also, how many questions have you put to me? Only one, and it is superficial: "why would India make a film in Saraiki if Saraiki was insignificant?" This is a poor argument for two reasons. (1) 70,000 people is an insignificant number in India no matter what, this is an obvious point but not obvious to you. (2) Tens of thousands of films are made in India, one film is nothing. Hurmata (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed every single one of your queries; perhaps it is in your interest to reread the comments. Encyclopædia Britannica clearly addresses the issue of Hindus in Kandahar:

“ the Hindus who inhabit Afghanistan...settled in the neighbourhood Kandahar ”

.

The source you question (that I do not) confirms the presence of this community in Kandahar. Also, don't you find it ironic that Afghan Hindus are termed Hindki, which has also been used interchangeably with Saraiki? Even though this source may be of poor quality, it still confirms the presence of Kandahari speaking Hindus. I find it surprising that you expect a multitude of scholarly sources to be extant about a small community in Afghanistan. As far as I am concerned, I feel this amount of information is sufficient to mention the Kandahari as a dialect of Saraiki. Also your deletion of the dialects of Saraiki that are spoken in India is abhorrent. If Ethnologue's article on Saraiki, which is less than 100 words, bothers to mention the regions of India in which Indian Saraiki speakers are concentrated, is it that much of a hassle to include them in a 1000 word Wikipedia article? This information should stay and should not be removed. Also, what you label a "Wikipedia standard" is your personal opinion on Ethnologue, which you described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Your comment does not set established Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article on Ethnologue itself states that the editor of the Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America said "is indispensable for any reference shelf on the languages of the world." Have you considered the fact that your lone book may have inaccurate information? Quae cum ita sint, it is evident that Ethnologue is a reliable source. Your distrust in it because it is Christian only reflects your bias against Christianity. Do you also discredit the academics at Northwestern University because it is a historically Christian (Methodist) University? Regarding the Derawal/Derawali issue, Ethnolugue, with academic and vernacular sourcing from Rensch, Calvin R., Calinda E. Hallberg, and Clare F. O’Leary. 1992. and Saraiki-Urdu-Angrezi bol chal = Conversational Saraiki, Urdu, English. 2005. respectively calls the dialect Derawali which is also in accordance with Indo-Aryan (Indic) morphology. An independent Pakistani source also states that the dialect is called Derawali. Please do not delete Wikilinks to this article as well as the articles of other dialects such as Jāng(a)lī. I hope this helps. Thanks. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Some advice about reporting on language use among Afghan Hindus. Within this Talk page heading and its subheading as well, I have already discussed at length Anupam's inability to do simple fact finding and exercise even simple critical judgement as to sources. But there are many capable editors. Now, Wikipedia already has an article on Hinduism in Afghanistan. If one were to report on Afghan Hindus in this article on Saraiki language, what would one include? Population, languages spoken, number of speakers of each language, and a sentence or two on how they got to Afghanistan. Anonymous sources are unacceptable under WP:RS and WP:V (a fact that Anupam seems unwilling to inform him/herself about). But in about just 10 minutes of Googling, I found that there are adequate references for some of this information. However, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to the facts among the different sources. Even three sources that Anupam wanted to use contradict each other. One of his anonymous sources notes (in broken English) that almost all the Afghan Hindus have fled Afghanistan in the last 20 years! Anupam's references also contradict each other as to whether all the Afghan Hindus are Multani in origin or have various origins in the Subcontinent. Other sources prove that the Afghan Hindus were NOT all Multani; even one of Anupam's anonymous sources agrees with this. Hurmata (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Point by point reply to the final statement of Anupam from 31 August 2008

Below, I have included Anupam's entire statement with its words in the order they appeared in. I have divided it into the points raised and I have numbered them. In general, Anupam fails to make discussion, s/he just cites authorities and engages in quote grubbing. In Anupam's statements we see ignorance of linguistics, of history, of Wikipedia policies, and even of sources cited by Anupam. For example, Ethnologue gathers much of its information on population figures and language classification from sources other than itself -- just like us Wikipedians. Anupam is incapable of a genuine discussion, in which one addresses other people's arguments and offers arguments of one's own.

• (1)The source you question (that I do not) confirms the presence of this community in Kandahar.

• (2)Also, don't you find it ironic that Afghan Hindus are termed Hindki, which has also been used interchangeably with Saraiki?

Anumpam is mistaken. "Hindko" and "Hindki" have over the centuries been used mostly to refer to dialects spoken to the north of what are lately called Saraiki. If these "Hind" terms have been used to designate some (some, not all) of the Saraiki dialects, this is of no significance.

• (3)Even though this source may be of poor quality, it still confirms the presence of Kandahari speaking Hindus. I find it surprising that you expect a multitude of scholarly sources to be extant about a small community in Afghanistan. As far as I am concerned, I feel this amount of information is sufficient to mention the Kandahari as a dialect of Saraiki.

Anupam does not understand that it is Wikipedia (not me) that requires (not expects) that there be at least one (not many) scholarly sources to support statements made in a WP article. (Incidentally, the word "extant" is not appropriate in this context.) Regarding Anupam's points (1) and (3) above, they disregard Wikipedia policy WP:RS (specifically to its discussion of the concepts of self publishing and editorial control). Neither "source" has a publisher nor a publication title! The material at the Afghan Hindu Web site doesn't even name an author. That Anupam would claim these to be reliable sources shows an utter lack of judgement. Anupam is academically not ready to be editing Wikipedia. As to (1), there might be multiple Hindu communities in Kandahar, speaking different Indo-Aryan languages. As to (3) specifically, there are two further objections. (a) This page does not even contain the information Anupam cites it for! Anupam is referring to the photocopy of a paragraph of which only a small portion is translated. No year or even century is claimed for this photocopied page. The words do not touch on Hindu topics, so Anupam's claim that "it still confirms the presence of ... Hindus" is baseless. There are no population figures are given for the Multani speakers in Kandahar or for Hindus in Kandahar. (b) Its author, Rasoolpuri, who has contributed to this article, is a crackpot whose irrational claims on the history and classification of Saraiki even Anupam has not supported. Elsewhere at the Web site, Rasoolpuri proclaims "We will get Siraikistan!", which is an expression of a secessionist desire that I am confident is uncommon among Saraiki speakers. Anupam shows huge incompetence by relying this Web page.

(Postscript on 26 Sept 2008) I see the need to retract one thing I wrote in the preceding paragraph. The phrase "We will get Siraikistan" almost certainly does not refer to a movement to create an independent country. Rather, it almost certainly refers to a desire that Saraikistan be made its own province within Pakistan. Saraikistan (meaning the territory of the Saraiki language) is presently a part of Punjab Province. The existence of this provincehood movement was actually known to me before I wrote the old comment, but the knowledge had slipped my mind. I regret the error. Hurmata (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• (4)Also your deletion of the dialects of Saraiki that are spoken in India is abhorrent. If Ethnologue's article on Saraiki, which is less than 100 words, bothers to mention the regions of India in which Indian Saraiki speakers are concentrated, is it that much of a hassle to include them in a 1000 word Wikipedia article? This information should stay and should not be removed.

Anupam is a liar, I have retained the mention of Multani being spoken in India. Aside from that, I again refer Anupam to the policy, WP:WEIGHT. At least twice I pointed out the uselessness of giving a long list of cities in India where a total of about 70,000 people of a certain group live. Anupam refuses to address this objection by offering a substantial argument in defense of the list.

• (5)Also, what you label a "Wikipedia standard" is your personal opinion on Ethnologue, which you described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Your comment does not set established Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article on Ethnologue itself states that the editor of the Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America said "is indispensable for any reference shelf on the languages of the world." Have you considered the fact that your lone book may have inaccurate information? Quae cum ita sint, it is evident that Ethnologue is a reliable source.

Anupam is a liar, I did not include Ethnologue in the remark about WP standards (I wrote, "You even refuse to defend those that I have objected do not meet the minimal standards of WP"); that remark had to with the Web sites kcm.co.uk (now defunct), afghanhindu, and siraiki.20fr (the latter two are mentioned in Anupam's points (1) and (3) above). Aside from that, by quoting generic praises, Anupam avoids offering specific arguments and addressing my arguments specifically (Anupam only acknowledges that I made some arguments, but does not try to refute them). In a new heading below, I will summarize what is wrong with Ethnologue's claims about the Saraiki and Punjabi languages. Anupam makes a point of saying something in Latin, which hardly anybody here would understand; this shows your odd judgement about things. The sentence in Latin is not one of the standard fixed expressions that any English speaking college graduate would be expected to know. When you brandish sentences in Latin that even academically sophisticated people wouldn't known, it usually means you're a Roman Catholic zealot.

• (6)Your distrust in it because it is Christian only reflects your bias against Christianity. Do you also discredit the academics at Northwestern University because it is a historically Christian (Methodist) University?

I do not show such a bias. It is Anupam who shows a bias by citing one Christian source, "Bethany World Prayer Center", which has no visible expertise on the Saraiki language and did not offer any author names or publisher names, and by ignoring the news that Ethnologue doesn't know what it's talking about. The most likely reason for one to stubbornly cite incompetent sources is that one has a bias.

Postscript. I forgot to mention that I didn't know why Anupam brought up Northwestern University. If any of the scholars whose research is cited in this article ever had appointments at Northwestern, I am not aware of it. Hurmata (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• (7)Regarding the Derawal/Derawali issue, Ethnolugue, with academic and vernacular sourcing from Rensch, Calvin R., Calinda E. Hallberg, and Clare F. O’Leary. 1992. and Saraiki-Urdu-Angrezi bol chal = Conversational Saraiki, Urdu, English. 2005. respectively calls the dialect Derawali which is also in accordance with Indo-Aryan (Indic) morphology. An independent Pakistani source also states that the dialect is called Derawali. Please do not delete Wikilinks to this article as well as the articles of other dialects such as Jāng(a)lī.

Then they too can be cited along with Masica 1991. Anupam just doesn't understand, out of a general ignorance of linguistics, that Masica is the most authoritative general reference.

Hurmata (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, one of Anupam's two references under point (7) above does not check out! The PDF for this document is linked at http://www.ethnologue.com/show_work.asp?id=32846, the document is Rensch, Hallberg, and O'Leary 1992. The text strings "Derawal" and "Derawali" do not occur in it! Hurmata (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have called attention more than once to Anupam's failure to engage in substantial debate. This user, whose command of the grammar is really quite good, limits him/herself to terse, formulaic statements. It occurs to me now that perhaps one big reason for this may be a limited English vocabulary. Perhaps there are just a lot of things this user doesn't know how to say, and what little they do write here, maybe they spend hours researching and polishing it. Another possibility is that Anupam does not have easy access to libraries which have a good selection of academic literature on topics covered in this article. Hurmata (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The kind of language Saraiki is

In my opinion, the characteristic of standard literary "Saraiki" as a recent invention is its most distinctive characteristic. Indeed, the name was not adopted by the native speakers as the umbrella term for the members dialects until the 1960s! This is made clear by the linguist Shackle, in academic literature I have cited in the article. Shackle is the leading nonnative scholar of Saraiki, having written a reference grammar of it, which is mentioned under Further reading. Hurmata (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, even Ethnologue -- which some editors have relied heavily on -- says, "A new literary language based on south Lahnda dialects, especially Multani and Bahawalpuri". This is at the info page that a previous editor linked to under External links. Hurmata (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Saraiki or Multani?

Multani is obviously but one dialect of Saraiki. I don't think there's even an editor who disagrees with this. Therefore, it is not proper not to provide the native script for "Saraiki", yet provide it for "Multani". Indeed, until just a couple of days ago, "Saraiki" was given in Arabic script and Gurmukhi script, and this had already been done before I started contributing to this article. Hurmata (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anupam,who is from India according to the user page, seems to be showing an unjustified favoritism toward the prevalence of Multani dialect in India. Not only is there the matter of the scripts as just described, but there are several other pieces of the article, like the use of the heading, "Dialects of Saraiki/Multani". This description is objectionable for two reasons: the population of Multani speakers in India is not even 1/2 of one percent of all Saraiki speakers; and "Multani" is not another name for Saraiki, it's a dialect of Saraiki. Now, if it were the case that the 56,000 speakers in India don't really all speak the Multani dialect, that would be worth reporting. But even then, they're all speakers of the living dialects that are the basis of Saraiki. Hurmata (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the use of listing 6 or 8 cities in India where Multani people have settled, when the total number of these Indian Multanis is just 56,000. This is 56,000 out of 14 million speakers of all Saraiki dialects and out of one billion residents in India. Hurmata (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Loss of Multani/Saraiki Speaker's in India

The language is primarily known as Multani in India as Saraiki name was adopted post partition. My family is from DG Khan and Maternal family from Jampur (Distt Rajanpur), but our spoken language is known as Multani in India.

After the partition Hindus from now Pakistan migrated to India. Most of these Hindus including those from Saraiki speaking areas settled in urban settlements. Major settlements being in - the towns of Gurgaon, Faridabad, Palwal, Rohtak near Delhi, Meerut in UP, Sangroor, Sirsa, Firozepur in Punjab (Later Punjab and Haryana). In Delhi these migrant refugees got scattered all over the city (though there are some concentrations in Lajpat Nagar Double Story, Derawal Nagar, Multan Nagar in West Delhi.

As this population settled in Urban areas, the newer generations interacted more with local language speaking neighbours, classmates, the use of Multani / Saraiki has dwindled in India. Communities from common native places organise get togethers annually. Two such gatherings, I am aware of are from residents of Jampur, where over 1000+ families meet every year and Derawal biradri (from DG Khan and DI Khan) conventions about 1500-1800 families participate. But the proceedings are conducted in Hindi, very few items are presented in Multani (Saraiki). Therefore, there are fewer speakers of Multani (Saraiki) in the younger generation in India and count of Sariaki speakers is likely to drop further due to intermingling and marriages across the linguistic communities. Therefore, in the next census even lower number of Indians will report Multani / Saraiki as their mother-tongue Ntuteja (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dialects

Ḍerawal is spelled with Ḍ, not with D. This kind of sound shift is common in Saraiki, according to Grierson. Hurmata (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the Bethany World Prayer Center Web site a reliable source under WP:RS?

http://kcm.co.uk. Please explain. Hurmata (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ḍerawal" vs. "Ḍerawali"

Ḍerawal is used by Masica 1991. I agree it is odd in the context of Indo-Aryan linguistics to use a language name that doesn't end in -i, but this author consistently does so, therefore it is probably deliberate. Unless an editor has special expertise in this field, they have no grounds to modify this spelling. One editor has shown unfamiliarity with WP standards by doing just that, and by changing the Ḍ to D -- perhaps there are dialects in which this name has D, but by the reference, there are some dialects where it has Ḍ instead! Masica 1991 is the definitive survey of its field for our time. It contains a large appendix devoted solely to language and dialect names, most of which end in -i. So again, there is probably a good reason why the author did not use Ḍerawali. If you have strong, published evidence that other linguists or some local people in these parts of Pakistan use Ḍerawali, or even that Masica was absent minded, the procedure to follow is to cite those references in the WP article in addition to the present sources. Hurmata (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue and languages of Pakistani Punjab

Ethnologue is plain ignorant in this area, so the Reliable Source policy, WP:RS is not sufficient. If the New York Times simply gets the capital of some obscure country wrong, you can't use that misinformation and yell, "reliable source"! You could use the misinformation and accompany it with the correct information from another reliable source, but that usually would be pointless, no?

Ethnologue for Pakistan reports that 60 million people speak "Panjabi, Western" and that "'Lahnda' is a name given earlier for Western Panjabi". This is bullshit, no linguist has ever said this. Grierson, the very linguist who established the use of the term Lahnda in 1919, wrote then that "western Punjabi", a designation which he was proposing to replace with "Lahnda", consisted of dialects spoken NORTH and WEST of the dialects which are now spoken by those 60 million people (their population was much less in 1919). We're dealing here with what is now the eastern half of Punjab province of Pakistan, whose metropolis is Lahore. Everybody has agreed for the last century that the dialects on either side of what is now the border between Pakistan and India are all "Punjabi" (and in particular -- as reported in the article -- the Pakistani city of Lahore and the Indian city of Amritsar, just 40 miles away, are both in the territory of the Majhi dialect group within the Punjabi language). Pakistan has over 60 million Punjabi (or Panjabi) speakers and 18-20 million Saraiki speakers (up from the 13 million that Ethnologue reports, using the spelling "Seraiki"). It is Saraiki which is the same as (Grierson's) "Lahnda", it is Saraiki that used to be called "western Punjabi" a century ago (in fact, Grierson's designation for the Saraiki dialects was "southern Lahnda"). An encyclopedia (a knowledge compendium) should not cite gross misinformation, no matter the source. That is why Wikipedia must avoid Ethnologue's total misquotation of the linguistic literature specifically when it comes to the Saraiki and Punjabi languages. Hurmata (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A fresh point. Ethnologue's entry for Seraiki, at http://www.ethnologue.org/show_language.asp?code=skr, lists Bahawalpuri, Multani, among "Alternate names" for Seraiki. Yet it goes on to say, "May be intelligible with Bahawalpuri". Quite possibly this is a typo, that they meant to use some other name. The significance is, don't assume that Ethnologue is free of editing errors. Hurmata (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anupam has stridently defended citing Ethnologue. Certainly, Ethnologue has merit, and they certainly try to be exhaustive. One of the points of information Anupam has so keenly wanted to insert is that there are Multani speakers in Afghanistan. How, then, has it escaped Anupam's notice that Ethnologue does not acknowledge the presence of the Saraiki speaking community in that country (under "Multani" or any other designation)?! I am alluding to their Afghanistan page. That page does acknowledge the presence of a Punjabi speaking community (the linguistics world at large calls it Punjabi -- Ethnologue, as explained above, erroneously calls this language "Western Panjabi", see their Pakistan page)! But never mind Ethnologue, I am convinced there actually was a community of Multani speakers in Afghanistan -- until very recently, they are reported to have fled the Taliban almost 100 percent of them. Hurmata (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Careless insertion about the Sindhi language

The article already said that Saraiki dialects are "very similar to Punjabi dialects which are spoken to their northeast". Some overzealous anonymous editor added "Sindhi": "very similar to Sindhi and Punjabi dialects which are spoken to their northeast". There are two things wrong with this edit. First, relative to Saraiki speaking lands, Sindhi speaking lands are in the opposite direction from where the Punjabi speaking lands are. Second, the new edit (which I have deleted) seems to overstate the similarity between Saraiki and Sindhi. It is understood that Sindhi, Saraiki, and Punjabi are quite similar to one another. At the same time, Saraiki was traditionally lumped with Punjabi and not lumped with Sindhi. This suggests that Saraiki resembles Sindhi less than it resembles Punjabi. Please take note that elsewhere in the article, the close resemblance between Saraiki and Sindhi is openly acknowledged. Hurmata (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Saraiki is closer linguistically to Punjabi than it is to Sindhi. I also agree with the innaccuracies of Ethnologue where they divide the Punjabi dialects into West and East from the geo-political boundaries of India and Pakistan. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are both right or wrong, to a Punjabi speaker, Saraiki seems to be very similar to Sindhi. Whereas to a Sindhi speaker it seems very much like Punjabi. As, there are similarities in vocabulary among the three languages and there are difference. We can debate the same till the cows come homeNtuteja (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Saraiki language template

If you are a native speaker of Saraiki then you can help translate this template into your own language:

skrThis user speaks Saraiki.

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Saraiki Speaking Areas :-

Ten districts in Sindh, 5 districts in Baluchistan, Seven distracts in punjab as per Pakistan Census 1998, Pakistan , three distracts from KPK Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan, and two agencies are saraiki speaking area.LanguageXpert (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Saraiki people claim that Twenty one distracts in punjab, Pakistan , two distracts from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan and two agencies are are saraiki speaking area.

• see this map of Saraikistan.

• Bahawalnagar
• Bahawalpur
• Bhakkar
• Chiniot
• Dera Ghazi Khan
• Dera Ismail Khan
• Jhang
• Khanewal
• Khushab
• Layyah
• Lodhran
• Mianwali
• Multan
• Muzaffargarh
• Okara
• Pakpattan
• Rahim Yar Khan
• Rajanpur
• Sahiwal
• Sargodha
• Tank
• Toba Tek Singh
• Vehari
• Frontier Region Tank
• Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan

See area and Population of Saraikisan.

These distracts are also Saraiki

• Chakwal
• Hafizabad
• Mandi Bahauddin

Saraiki is spoken in India, United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan also. Saraiki is second largest language in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with more than 2.5M. In United Kingdom. Saraiki is spoken by 400,000. In Canada, China, South Africa and United States saraiki is also spoken.