Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

There used to be a section called § Sample text that seems to went missing in action under the pretense of being “bizarre.” Not all language articles have such sections, but they serve as convenient overview of how language looks and how it works in practice. The section was linked from a similar one at Hind § Sample text for comparison. What was wrong with it? –MwGamera (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@MwGamera: Thanks for bringing this up. No comment about the erratic edit summary, but basically, the Urdu text, and especially the IPA and the gloss were unsourced. Nothing should speak against reinsertion of the sample text with a good source (of which there are plenty for the text itself, e.g [1][2]). If you also can find a source for IPA and romanized/glossed text, that would be great. –Austronesier (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The UN Human Rights Charter is a difficult thing to parse. It says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Is this to be read, "All human beings are born free and (are born) equal in dignity and rights" (a form of ellipsis) or "All human beings are born (both) free and equal in (both) dignity and rights?" If the latter, what does it mean to be born free in dignity and rights?" ( Note: As many people were involved in its drafting, perhaps this latter meaning is what is meant; nonetheless, it is not easily understood.) The Hindi folks at whatever department of the Indian government which was given the job of the translation, have rendered it: "Within the purview of the topics of dignity and rights, every single human being is invested with inborn freedom and equality." (my translation) and have thereby gone with the latter interpretation. The road signs do a much better job of communicating the phrasing of a language than these convolutions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The Urdu is: تمام انسان آزاد اور حقوق و عزت کے اعتبار سے برابر پیدا ہوئے ہیں۔ The difficult words here are: حقوق (rights), عزت (respect, dignity) and اعتبار (consideration, reference, authority). I'd translate this literally as: "All humans are free-(born) and in the consideration of their rights and dignity equal-born" which clearly favors the first interpretation above. So you see the contrast in just two languages. And this has nothing to do with the nature of the languages but reflects how the translators have chosen to interpret the English. In this instance, the Urdu version is more accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want sample texts, grab something from any of the books of Ralph Russell, Christopher Shackle or Ruth Laila Schmidt listed above. The point of some kind of standardization in a universal text such as the UN Human Rights Charter becomes meaningless if the translators are interpreting the English differently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So I understand there are objections against inserting it back in any form similar to what it was. –MwGamera (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: One minor question, completely unrelated to this: do we have solid information about what would have been considered the most acceptable and respectable pronunciation of زبان in the late 18th century, zabān or zubān? The nice image in "Vocabulary" has a ḍammah, so obviously there's no other way of transliterating it in that context, but I'm curious about what would be most "correct" in historizing usage (Schmidt writes Zabān-e-Urdū-e-Muʻallā). –Austronesier (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Naim, in his book hosted at Frances Pritchett's Columbia site and Lelyveld in the Annual of Urdu Studies (separately) transliterate it as if a pesh (Persian and Urdu for the Arabic dammah) was being used. But these are not the late 18th-century features you are looking for.

As Urdu was heavily Persianized in the late 18th century, and as Persian did not change as much as Urdu did thereafter, one way to check could be to consult late-18th-century Persian English dictionaries. Richardson's published in 1777 seems to have zuban (column one) until you realize that "u" (in his romanization) is to be pronounced as in but, hut or nut (see Persian bus ("only," "enough") pronounced as in the English "bus" here). Johnson's 1852 dictionary allows both zabaan and zubaan (in the modern translit) column one, as does Steingass's Persian 1892 (see here) and Platt's Urdu 1880 (see here) which also mentions Pehlavi huzvan in the etymology, suggesting perhaps a more ancient ambiguity in the Persian pronunciation. My own vague sense is that zubaan is a concession made if one is being very formal, so it is apt for zubaan-e-Urdu-e-mua'lla (where the more formal and Persian -e- (izaafat) also appears).

I'll ask some experts and post here in the infirm future, but this is what I have now. I am supposed to be on vacation from WP. If I don't quit now, my wife will notice, and ask. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Should following line mentioned in the lead be amended

Dakhani, an older form used in the south, is now considered obsolete.

This is not a factual statement. The form of Urdu spoken in Hyderabad is quite distinct from Delhi and Lucknow. The Hindu describes Minisha Lamba and Boman Irani speaking Dakhani in Well Done Abba.^[1] TheNewsMinute says 12% people in Bengaluru speak Dakhani. Surely having this line as is not correct based on only one source.^[2] ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What is meant there is that Dakhini no longer constitutes a standard variety of Urdu. This should have been clarified both in the lead/WP article and in the source. Obviously, Dakhini has speakers, so it cannot be obsolete in the sense of a "dead language." Ethnologue categorizes it as no longer being sustained by formal institutions but spoken at the home and community and learned by children. Contrast that with Urdu, which is being sustained by formal institutions, outside of home and community. If Ruth Laila Schmidt, Emerita Professor of Urdu at the University of Oslo, and an expert on Dakhini says in her book, Urdu: An Essential Grammar, that there are three "standards" of Urdu, Delhi, Lucknow, and Karachi, then obviously Dakhini does not constitute a standard variety of Urdu. (We know that it has important points of difference from standard Urdu—it is influenced by Dravidian syntax). Perhaps it is best to remove that sentence about Dakhini being obsolete from the lead. In other words, there would be no mention of Dakhini in the lead.

Do you really think this was worth an RfC and a waste of community time? Could you not have made a simple talk page post? Your sources, btw, are unreliable. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• With better sources, it can be mentioned as a peripheral, yet thriving variety. Not having the awe-inspiring aura of a contemporary standard variety does not preclude it from being leadworthy. But ideally, the section "Dialects" needs to be expanded accordingly. Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Without significant coverage about Dakhini in one the following sections, a mention in the lead creates undue weight. –Austronesier (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert, and probably best not use either Indian or Pakistani English specifically as choosing one or the other could be inflammatory. 81.2.252.231 (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (Diff) TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The history and origins of Urdu may be more deep-rooted due to bias towards the Mongols. Initially the language may have been born in Mongolia, where nomadic tribes united under Genghis Khan. They subsequently invaded Central Asia, Khwarazm and Persia. The logistics required that army or Horde (Ordo in Mongolian) be stationed in conquered areas. The words from these regions were absorbed by the mongol hordes. Finding many of these languages far superior than their own and also a medium to communicate with the locals, many words were added to their own language. In addition to this many Turkic, Turk , Persian, and arabs became part of the mongol administration. Thus becoming an amalgam or Rekhta. After the collapse of the Mongol empire the different hordes became independent and under the rule of Timur in the 15th century the Ordo language was established in his areas of influence especially his capital. The formation of Moghulistan and the emergance of Babar, the language was brought to the subcontinent. After the conquest of Delhi the troops with Babar were spread arounf India but particularly northern and north eastern India. Here the local language was fused with Hindi and local forms of hidustani language. 39.44.235.234 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Austronesier (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Urdu language family is wrongly shown in the article. Actually most Indians are showing prejudice against Urdu History, instead of researching they just want to focus the term Hindustani which was coined by British later in 19th century. Here are the short language family according to Urdu historians and poets:

1. Hindavi during Amir Khusrau
2. Deccani
3. Rekhta
4. Urdu e Muaallah
5. Urdu

^[1] The evolution of Urdu was started as a Hindavi in 13th century, then it was brought to Deccan by Muslim rulers and then poets brought it back to Delhi and there it flourished in Turko-Mughal empire and finally emerged as an official language later on. MasterWikian (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The language family to which Urdu belongs is not an opinion. Please see the entry at Ethnologue's database. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

On the picture at the bottom under writing system, the caption reads "An English-Urdu bilingual sign at the archaeological site of Sirkap, near Taxila. The Urdu says: (right to left) دو سروں والے عفاب کی شبيہ والا مندر, dō sarōñ wālé u'qāb kī shabīh wāla mandir. "The temple with the image of the eagle with two heads." " The word "عفاب" should read "عقاب" with two dots to represent a Qaf. At the moment it reads "afab" instead of "aqab". 24.15.136.227 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected the spelling error. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Deccani seems to be listed as a dialect of Modern Urdu, but should it not be listed as an earlier form of Urdu? :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 14:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amarissaostmo. Peer reviewers: Umbereenbmirza, Sanakareem20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

He speaks very sweetly to lomov when the latter comes to his house 2405:205:7:65D2:9761:2D22:10CF:62CD (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ma bht gareeb hn mujha YouTube sa bht pyar ha love you YouTube 39.52.152.93 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently i stumbled upon this article and that is when i saw in population table that the population was at 30,000,000 million, I was shocked at this, not only was this non-informational but it could've been a result of a vandalism and it was mostly framed on a poor outdated PDF book, as a result i had replaced the population number to 15,000,000 as per 2017 census of Pakistan and the population on Muhajirs article and later on I added two Pakistani news articles, we should strive for factual content.
Thank you for understanding.
⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 18:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Urdu is also spoken in India. I suppose you didn't know that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Native to Pakistan not India 205.209.65.233 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Urdu has seen a surge of hate among the hinduvta extremist in India, where Urdu is only perceived as a 'Muslim Language'^[1] Sania118272 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear all and To editor Fowler&fowler:,

Urdu being a form of standard register of Hindustani, is mutually intelligible with Hindi as they share the grammar, construction, conjunctions ... and even the accent, they are linguistically same language even though "the large religious and political differences make much of the little linguistic differences (between Urdu and Hindi)", see reference ^[1]

An Introduction to Sociolinguistics By Ronald Wardhaugh, Janet M. Fuller, Wiley & Sons. 2015. pp30]. Hindi and Urdu are not mutually intelligible with Arabic or Persian. Even Hindi has loan words from English and writing Hindi in Latin script does not make it mutually intelligible with Latin, English or French. None of these four are mutually intelligible, all are from Indo-European family and last three use Latin script. Even Hindi is not mutually intelligible with Sanskrit from which it draws heavily and shares the Devnagri script with. In fact variations of Arabic, though they sue same nastaliq script, are not mutually intelligible with each other, let alone being mutually intelligible with Urdu. See this reference ^[2] The article mentions that Urdu draws from Hindi, Arabic and Persian. Article also makes it clear that Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, this needs to be made clear that urdu is not mutual intelligibility with Arabic and Persian.

It will also be useful to include the reason why Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi and not with Arabic and Persian. "two closely related and by and large mutually intelligible speech varieties may be considered separate languages if they are subject to separate institutionalisation contexts, e.g. official speech forms of different states and state institutions, or of different religious ethinic communities. Examples of such language paris are Norwegian and Swedish, Hindi and Urdu", see reference ^[3] The same source further clarifies that, "on the other hand, speech varieties that differ considerably in structure and are not always mutually intelligible, such as Moroccan Arabic, Yemeni Arabic and Lebanese Arabic."^[3] Those who want to understand the concept of mutual intelligibility in more detail please refer to this source, last para on page to page 8 and separate language versus dialect and this.

I suggest the following: 1. include the statement upfront (the current unofficial "exec summary" type section on top) that while Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi but not with other. 2. include a subheading in the article to discuss the mutual intelligibility of urdu with languages it borrows from. The central logic being that the "base" of Urdu is Khadiboli (Hindustani), and there are other toppings added to it including Hindi, Arabic, Persian and Chagatai, etc. Among those it is MI with Hindustani and not with the rest for the reasons mentioned above. The concept of Hindi and Urdu being two language could politically motivated but their mutual intelligibility is not subject to the political consideration but to linguistic considerations.

Discuss it here please.

Thanks Being.human (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

sir, why my addition has been reverted? Abirtel (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You will need a better source than a 1847 dictionary in support of the statement. It's from a time when the terms "Urdu" and "Hindi" just started to acquire their present meanings. So we cannot take his statement "The Urdú is seldom written in the Déb-nágarí (p. iv)" at face value. –Austronesier (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As Austronesier says, you need a more recent source. Also, the dictionary, which is available online, doesn't say that Urdu was written in the Devanagari script. Even if it did, it wouldn't count as a WP:RS.RegentsPark (comment) 21:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The use ethnicity section in this article does not seem valid. Urdu is a language that is spoken fluently throughout Pakistan and northern Indian and it is generally not associated with an ethnic group. An example would be Hindi, spoken fluently throughout northern India and is not associated with any ethnic group (and no ethnic group is mentioned in its Wikipedia article). Therefore, the ethnicity section should be removed from this article as it is quite misleading. Thanks :) PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That table does not make sense, the L1+L2 number (as stated in India) cannot be lower than just the L1 number of speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.79.110.116 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Who has ever called the Urdu language "Lashkari"? The citation given, gives no references for this – most likely WP:CIRCULAR. نعم البدل (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please change ethnicity text in the infobox from Urdu-speaking people to Hindustani Muslims as they are known locally in South Asia as Hindustani Muslims to distinguish them from other religious groups. 223.123.115.133 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why each individual nasal vowel is included when Hindustani phonology doesn't include them.

The orthography doesn't even give them separate letters. They're treated as vowels + nasalisation but not as separate phones. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: This one right here. btw every vowel can be nasal, the only exceptions are ɛ and ɔ. 178.120.22.167 (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am hoping someone who watches this article can come help with a recently-requested edit for this article. Someone has asserted that the romanized version of the Urdu title for this organization is not correct. Responding to the (now-closed) edit request is not possible without knowing how to read Urdu written in the Natsaliq script. I would appreciate someone with this ability to take a look and make a determination. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of listing every single nasal vowel, remove them, and add a note explaining that every vowel can be nasalised except for those cases where it isn't. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Question: I'm not certain I understand what you mean – isn't every vowel can be nasalised except for those cases where it isn't inherently true regardless of language? Tollens (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: See my previous edit on this talk page for context. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request as stale as it has gone over a month without anyone willing to review it. This sort of request would likely be reviewed faster if you specified the exact wikitext you want to change rather than forcing the reviewer to guess at it themselves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Does Urdu have same dialects as hindi or different? Kaiyr (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaiyr Same. Braj is described as a dialect of Urdu in Pakistan, and Haryanvi and Bihari are called Urdu by many just as they are called Hindi by many in India. Standard Urdu and Standard Hindi are the same dialect of the same dialect of the same language (Khari Boli). عُثمان (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Urdu language has a wide and diverse group of fluent speakers, just like Hindi. The article, Urdu-speaking people complicates things instead of being useful, as there is no ethnic or ethnolingusitic group of Urdu-speakers as they are wide spread diverse group of people with various ethnic and regional identities. I suggest the merger of Urdu-speaking people article into this article, its situation is exactly like Hindi's, whose speakers do not form an ethnic or regional identity as other neighbouring regions. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The merger has been completed and a new sub page has been added to this article. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I've reverted it. It can't be done unilaterally. An WP:RFC is needed or at least a consensus in the well-advertised talk page proposal and then a RM. It take at least a month if not more. You can't make a hurried post and merge the page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that Urdu speaking people most definitely see themselves as a coherent identity. 39.41.209.33 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They see themselves as Muslims, not Urdu speakers. Other than that they identify as Punjabis, Pashtuns, Balochis, etc. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Urdu speakers are called Muhajirs in Pakistan. عُثمان (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm restoring my version because of the following:

• Urdu is one of the Languages with legal status in India. The fact that its status is not exactly the same in India as it is in Pakistan is not a reason to exclude it.
• Flags don't belong in Info Boxes MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.
• Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu.
• Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
• A link to Languages of Pakistan is more appropriate than just Pakistan.

PepperBeast (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) And now, I'm restoring my version because of the following:

• Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
• Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is still not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu.
• The few links I removed were dead.

PepperBeast (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Urdu/Hindustani is a language a small minority people in Afghanistan might be fluent in due to being refugees in Pakistan and Bollywood; however, it is not an actual spoken language in Afghanistan.

Is there any WP:RS that Urdu is spoken in Afghanistan, not just understood? It does not belong to lede, and should be edited to be clear it’s not a spoken language like Dari Persian, Pashto, Uzbek, Turkmen and other languages of Afghanistan. 2600:1700:158F:A900:4158:88E6:ECAE:69DF (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ordu is first thought to be used around 1780 by a poet and a outsider saying in 1777 orduzabain is what ots called by locals. You don't see a word coined getting popular just in a while. Sources conflict, second source has more credibility because: 1. It's possible it came late into litrature Yaverjavid (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 See the Britannica version of Urdu [3]. The lead should be a summary of the body based on best available tertiary sources like Britannica. Your version is not only repetitive (this line already exists in the next para) but also removed crucial intro material from lead, which I see no valid reason to do so. There is no consensus for a change currently, which is why I'm restoring the longstanding version. Codenamewolf (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Codenamewolf, my version doesn't "remove crucial intro material" from the lead unless you are talking about the mention of Indo-Aryan language. That can be fixed easily:

Urdu is the standard variety of the Hindustani language within the Indo-Aryan language family written in the Perso-Arabic script.

And the repetition can simply be removed from the next paragraph. Pinging @Austronesier and @kwami for their opinions. PadFoot2008 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the first line is basically the standard (with the mention of within the Indo European languages family) and less cluttered as per Britannica. The standardised registered part already exists in the next para. Codenamewolf (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to keep it short right now, but will have more time for a detailed reply later.

I'm good with Anupam's addition. It's good and basic info and summarizes key points that are discussed in detail at the end of §Origins and in §Post-partition. Maybe it needs some copy-editing and could be interwoven with the preceding text in the same paragraph. Also, it's not redundant. Official status and the emergence of a vital literary language in the 18th century (after long centuries in the "shadow" of Persian) are two different things.

I disagree with the modification of the opening sentence by @PadFoot2008. First, it repeats the second paragraph; further, the analogy with BCD (Bosnian–Croatian–Serbian) is not helpful. We need to represent Urdu in the manner following the vast majority of reliable sources. This was part of previous discussions. Sure, Urdu is a standardised variety in the Hindi–Urdu gamut (btw, calling the latter "Hindustani" is not necessarily the preferred choice of the vast majority of reliable sources; that's another story). But this is not how most RS primarily characterize Urdu. In the first place, it's described as a language that is the national language of Pakistan etc. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Urdu is an official language in many Indian states as well as a scheduled language of the Indian Union, it is not just limited to Pakistan. And the second paragraph can be modified to remove the repetition. PadFoot2008 11:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not. The common convention for variants of pluricentric languages like Hindustani, Serbo-Croatian and Standard German, is to state in the lead that is a variant. See articles like Serbian language, Croatian language and Austrian German. Those are Indo-European languages as well. PadFoot2008 11:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the difference between Hindi and Urdu is equivalent to the difference between the BCS varieties or the Standard German of Germany and Austrian Standard German? Most sources will tell you a different story. Indonesian and Standard Malay come close, but still it is an entirely different case. Every case of languages/varieties that have been called "pluricentric" at some point require individual handling. –Austronesier (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, The vocabularies of (Standard) Hindi and Urdu match up pretty close. We aren't talking about formal Hindi and Urdu and their vocabulary, we are talking about standard Hindi and Urdu and their standard vocabularies. I am not saying that the case is similar to BSC or Austrian and German Standard German, just noting that they are varieties of pluricentric languages and are still considered to be so. PadFoot2008 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Urdu was widely written in Kaithi, Devanagree, Gurumukhi script.

Reference:

Dhir, Krishna Swaroop (2022). The wonder that is Urdu: a multidisciplinary analysis. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 139. ISBN 978-81-208-4301-1. Jabirttk351 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yaverjavid (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Add this template

Part of a series on the
Hindustani language
Hindi Urdu Regional or dialectal variants (Andaman Bihari Bombay Deccani Dhakaiya Hinglish Hyderabadi Judeo-Urdu Kauravi Rekhta Urdish)
History
Hindi–Urdu controversy Persian and Urdu Hindi literature Urdu literature Hindustani orthography
Grammar
Numerals Declension Verbs
Linguistic history
Vocabulary Kinship terms Phonological history
Accessibility
Hindi–Urdu transliteration Hindustani Braille Hindi Braille Urdu Braille Roman Hindi Roman Urdu Indo-Pakistani Sign Language

Dragonoid76 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed addition. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Add this template:

{{Hindustani_language}} 118.172.31.7 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge why edits has been omitted? Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The reference took information verbatim from Wikipedia, including edits I myself have made about the scripts. Doesn’t meet the criteria for a reference Foreverknowledge (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you did not check the reference. Mentioned citation very clearly mentioned this. Jabirttk351 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The cited reference took information from Wikipedia. Foreverknowledge (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay I understand. Jabirttk351 (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. –Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks. Jabirttk351 (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

AAzmat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.56.203.153 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The current description may not be to the liking of many Wikipedia users and readers because, Urdu has the status of national language and language of public communication (lingua franca) in Pakistan, where it is also the official language, along with English. And the educated population of Pakistan who took over the bureaucracy and finance department of Pakistan, etc. were Urdu speakers, who were Muhajirs. Also, Sir Syed, Liaquat Ali Khan, Ali brothers, etc. are considered important names in the history of Pakistan, all of them spoke Urdu as their mother tongue. Therefore, I request to change this description from "Language spoken in India and Pakistan" to "Language spoken in Pakistan and India" or "Language spoken chiefly in South Asia" so that the people reading it do not feel anything biased or unsatisfying, especially the population of India and Pakistan. Thank you very much. AlidPedian (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino Kindly answer me. I look forward to your reply. AlidPedian (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think changing the short description to "Language spoken chiefly in South Asia" would be good. Unfortunately, the article isn't letting me change it. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to perceive bias when they read the words "India and Pakistan" unless they have a huge chip on their shoulder. PepperBeast (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course we did, but the old-India-POV editors, unable to accept the reality

• that Urdu has declined markedly in its birthplace in India even among many educated Muslim families;
• that on the BBC Urdu website only 10% of the posters are from addresses in India, the rest no longer able to read the Urdu script, let alone write;
• that the only country in which Oxford University Press publishes books in Urdu (both pedagogic and literary) is Pakistan;
• that Bollywood songs with a few words of Urdu in the mix do not constitute Urdu;
• that the birthplace of a language does not produce mother's milk of the language;
• that the average person in Pakistan's whose mother tongue is not Urdu is nevertheless able to read, write, and speak Urdu with more skill that the average "Urdu speaker" in India;
• that in the 75 years since decolonization in South Asia, Pakistan has produced some great Urdu poets, witness, off the top of my head: Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ada Jafri, Zehra Nigah, Munir Niazi, Nasir Kazmi, Habib Jalib, Ahmad Faraz, Kishwar Naheed, Fahmida Riaz, and Iftikhar Arif, but India, sadly, has produced nothing that can match, only Bollywood songwriters such as Javed Akhtar or Gulzar whom Indians consider to be Urdu poets.

very determinedly never allowed us to change anything in this article and also in Hindustani language, a subterfuge employed in contempory India for expanding the definition of Urdu to include any pidgin-Hindi speaker in India.

PS I don't have a chip on my shoulder. Among other things I have written the FA India).

PPS It's not like I haven't tried. I've certainly collected more sources than anyone before or after. See:

• Talk:Urdu/Archive_12#Fowler&fowler's_references_from_1836_to_2019, sadly all for nought.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

PS Not that anything will change in this page's lead, but the Britannica article on Urdu begins: "Urdu language, member of the Indo-Aryan group within the Indo-European family of languages. Urdu is spoken as a first language by nearly 70 million people and as a second language by more than 100 million people, predominantly in Pakistan and India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

PPS The Oxford English Dictionary entry on Urdu, n. & adj. states: An Indo-Aryan language of northern South Asia (now esp. Pakistan), closely related to Hindi but written in a modified form of the Arabic script ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I've changed it to South Asia based on the discussion here. Fowler, the death of Urdu in India may be greatly exaggerated - despite the dearth of poets and the overall decline in the number of speakers. There are several Urdu newspapers for example and therefore, presumably, plenty of Urdu speakers. RegentsPark (comment) 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Very true, RP, about the newspapers. I've often wondered about that. They are probably read in Muslim neighborthoods, and to that extent, the ghettoization of Muslims in India has perhaps had a salutary effect, for sprinkled among the majority, the newspapers would not have survivived, let lone sprouted anew. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  And it is taught presumably widely if to few in the NCERT curriculum. See for example the textbooks from grades one through twelve.

  Perhaps there will be a rebirth, for the script is important in the language, perhaps more so than some other languages. A simple example is place names. In Urdu, the -abad constructions (abad=settled by) are usually two separate words: Feroze Abad, Farrukh Abad, Ghazi Abad, Faisal Abad, ... they give you a glimpse into a cultural history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, if you recall, we established a consensus version of the lede, in which you placed the information about Urdu being a Persianised register as the second sentence (see this diff). I have restored that wording though if you have again changed your mind, you must, per WP:BRD restore the version of the article before your edits until a new consensus is reached. I have added another reference that buttresses the non-disptued linguistic information. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 22:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Urdu is usually described as a language of South Asia or a language of India and Pakistan. Jieun Kiaer, Associate Professor in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford, describes the language as follows in the text Pragmatic Particles: Findings from Asian Languages (2020):

Urdu is a Persianized and standardized register of the Hindustani language. It is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and an official language of five states in India.

I have therefore moved the information about it being a dialect spoken in Nepal to the body of the article. I do not believe that there will be any objections to this, though if there are, please state them here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Anupam and RegentsPark:, I have moved the bit about Urdu being the "Persian register of the Hindustani language" from the lead paragraph where it stood out by its sheer incongruity, to the second paragraph, where it is thematically meaningful. I have also explained for the benefit of a ordinary reader what Hindustani language, also Hindi-Urdu, is, to give the paragraph some narrative coherence. I agree with Anupam that the Nepal bit is not lead-worthy, and thank them for moving it to a later section. Although I have not consciously removed anything, my edits seemed to have reduced the "bytes." Perhaps, unconsciously, I have removed a citation. If so, please restore it. But please don't put the "Persianized register" back in the lead paragraph, previous consensus or not, because it drew attention in a negative and entirely unmeaningful, way. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

PS I have also corrected "Western Uttar Pradesh" piped to "Ganga-Jumna doab" in the third paragraph. The doab, or the interfluve, or tongue of high ground between the Ganges and Yamuna river valleys, extends south to Allahabad. The spawning grounds of Urdu are very specific—what are today the districts of Meerut division in Western Uttar Pradesh, adjoining Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The lede looks significantly improved. Thanks for your efforts User:Fowler&fowler. Anupam^Talk 15:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I completely lacked scrutinty with this revert[4], since I only was triggered by the odd phrase "language member", but failed to see that I accidentally restored some recent changes to the opening sentence that I don't endorse at all. Of course, like the vast majority of good sources, we should open by saying that Urdu is a language, and put it into a classificatory framework ("...is an Indo-Aryan..."), say where it is natively sopken and mention it importance based on its status as a national language of Pakistan and as an official language in various Indian states. It is important to inform the reader about its special nature in relation to Hindi, but this comes second after the key facts in the first paragraph. So I agree with Anupam, the lead now looks much better with Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs)'s changes.

There is however one inaccuracy that needs to be tackled: "Urdu and Hindi share a common Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived vocabulary base...". We all know that Hindi and Urdu are identical twins that – so to speak – look alike in the bathroom and when sitting at the kitchen table, but become increasingly different the more formal they dress. However, the common base is not fully "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived", for instance, Hindi कुरसी, लेकिन and बाद belong to this very base and are not "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived". The shared pathways of Urdu and Hindi (even when the latter is understood in a wide sense) long postdates the Prakrit period: the literary language of Delhi and its Indo-Aryan siblings in the region underwent common Perso-Arabic influence, and also internally-driven changes in phonology and grammar that signficantly depart from the Prakrit past.

As a first remedy, I will add "predominantly" to "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived", but suggest to eventually replace it simply with "Urdu and Hindi share a common vocabulary base". We already know from the lead that Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language; we wouldn't say this if it didn't originate from a Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived base. –Austronesier (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That bit had been there from earlier and I did not change it, but I agree. Common words such as the ones you mention @Austronesier:, and others such as Urdu mayz, from Arabic (cf mesa), or kameez also from Arabic (cf chemise) are there in Urdu in good numbers. One could hazard the guess that as the Muslims brought the art of sewing clothes to the subcontinent many words associated with it would have come from Arabic or Persian. darzi, the Urdu/Hindi word for tailor is one such word. It would probably apply to words arisign from other Muslim-introduced technologies. Have to run, but thank you. Please go ahead and make the change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

... (later) Urdu script can sometimes, but not always, give a clue to the origin of words. Thus ba'd, the Urdu word for "after", which is written in Hindi as बाद as you stated, is however written in Urdu as بعد (with the Arabic ain) and not باد i.e. with a simple alif or aa after the b.

کرسی kursi, or chair, as you say, is from Arabic, though in this instant, the script alone does not give a clue.

ميز mez (table) is a different type of example, as there is no z sound in Sanskrit, ... and many Indo-Aryan languages. This is probably why the Indian prime minister who is a native Gujarati speaker is unable to pronounce آزادی, azadi (freedom), at least when he's not watching himself, preferring ajahadi instead.

دروازه darwaza, door, is from Persian, but کواڑ किवाड़ kiwāR, a less formal word for door is from Prakrit. The ड़ retroflex construction doesn't exist in Persian and Arabic, and a diacritic had to be added to the r or ر

Anyway I am carrying coals to Newcastle, so I better stop. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the addition of the word "predominantly" was a good move, given that certain Persian loanwords, such as those that User:Fowler&fowler cited, have become established in Hindi-Urdu. I believe that the mention of the Indic (Sanskritic/Prakritic) base is important as our readers might not necessarily know what an Indo-Aryan language is. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 16:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have deliberately chosen Hindi examples (even if this is the talk page for the Urdu article), to emphasize the absurdity of describing the common ground of Urdu and Hindi as solely "Sanskrit- and Prakrit-derived" and Urdu as a "Persiansized" register in one breath, which will potentially make an uninitiated reader believe that Urdu and Hindi parted ways before any "Persiansization" had taken place, and thus reinforce the ideological POV that Hindi is the autochthonous, primordially "pure" member of the pair, which is of course wrong. When Urdu and Hindi speakers meet on the common ground of low-brow discourse (the register of Hindi–Urdu that is occasionally called "Hindustani" by sociolinguists) their largely – apart from some shibboleths – indistinguishable speech will have quite many Perso-Arabic elements in it that had been accumulated in the many centuries before the creation of a modern Delhi-based "Hindi" in the 19th century. And that's regardless of their self-identification with "Hindi" or "Urdu", which generally manifests itself in the script, the target pronunciation of certain sounds and in lexcial choices in mid- to high-brow discourse (but only when people decide to not code-switch to English in such a context, as they often do) to the point of indeed producing two distinct literary languages. –Austronesier (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There's often a confusion between the writing system used to write Urdu, and the style that Urdu is written in. Nastaliq (like Shekasta) is a style of writing Urdu. It isn't a separate script.

• it adopted the Nastaleeq writing system
• ("the language of the exalted camp") written in Nastaʿlīq script
• The Urdu Nastaʿliq alphabet

The script used to write Urdu is called the Perso-Arabic script, or simply the Urdu alphabet. نعم البدل (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: Oh yes, please go ahead and fix it. That's an error based on an amateur understanding of the Perso-Arabic script that keeps on creeping into Urdu-related articles (note that the only source that actually talks about a "Nastaliq script" is a Lonely Planet language guide(!), a generally odd choice as a source for an encyclopaedia). –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Amendments made! نعم البدل (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler @Professor Penguino @Pepperbeast @RegentsPark Thanks for the consideration, I have also noticed that in the "Native to" section of the template, it says "India and Pakistan". I would also like to request that "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu Belt, and Deccan" be written here instead, because of the same reason, I provided in my previous request. Thanks once again. 💗 AlidPedian (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino @Fowler&fowler @RegentsPark @Pepperbeast Kindly respond. AlidPedian (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, what do you understand by "native to?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler If "Native to" refers here to the place where Urdu originated, then only India should be written here, because Urdu originated from there (the present-day Northern India, and not from the present-day Pakistan). Obviously, It is not the case. The article of Turkish language has multiple countries in this section. But if it refers to the places from where this language is flourishing and had significant development, then Pakistan should be written here first (along with India). Because if Modern Standard Urdu is the tenth most-spoken language in the world today, the main reason for this is because it is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, and also the significant number of Urdu-speakers, who stayed in India after the partition of India. And that is why I requested that it be written here as "Pakistan and India" or "Pakistan, Hindi-Urdu belt, and Deccan region." AlidPedian (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems "Native to" will become (no matter how you rephrase) a slightly different version of the next argument in the infobox, "Region."

So, unless there is consensus around, something very specific, such as the Muslim military encampments of northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar. (cf. the later, Mughal, "Zaban-e-Urdu-Mualla," language of the exalted camp), or if you want to go back further, viz to Amir Khusrow and list the region of Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah, Delhi, it is best to leave the "Native to" argument blank. What do you think @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this. As a matter of personal preference, I would leave it blank because languages (natural languages) don't suddenly arise out of nothing. However, if there are definitive sources then that's a different matter. RegentsPark (comment) 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would actually recommend listing the locations such as those that User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, including Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur in the "Native to" parameter. Students' Britannica India (2000) states:

Hindustani developed as lingua franca in the medieval ages in and around Delhi, Meerut and Saharanpur because of the interaction between the speakers of Khariboli (a dialect developed in this region out of Shauraseni Prakrit) and the speakers of Persian, Turkish, and various dialects of Arabic who migrated to North India. Initially it was known by various names such as Rekhta (mixed), Urdu (language of the camp) and Hindvi or Hindustani (language of Hindustan).

I see no reason to leave out this information as the native region of Urdu is well sourced. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That being said, if consensus is to leave it blank, I would not particularly push for this. I hope this helps. Anupam^Talk 22:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at {{Infobox language}} and it seems to me that the "native to" attribute refers to the places where it is spoken, not where it originated (see the list of countries listed in the Farsi example). In which case, South Asia would probably be the right entry. RegentsPark (comment) 01:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification User:RegentsPark! Feel free to change it to "South Asia". With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If my opinion is taken, I would also emphasize more on changing it to "South Asia", because even before the partition of India, the Urdu-language literature was flourishing not only in present-day India, but also in present-day Pakistan and present-day Bangladesh. The examples of this are Allama Muhammad Iqbal (the poet of Urdu, from Sialkot) and the Dhakaiya dialect of Urdu. AlidPedian (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have went ahead and made the change, while adding the aforementioned reference to the article. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 16:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You guys cant just change country names to region names because of political disputes and tensions. The source i cited mentions that Urdu is native to both Pakistan and India. 'Native to' means the language has linguistic roots in both India and Pakistan and originated from these two countries. 'Non-indigenous' as indicated on the source for example in the USA or Bangladesh means the language is not originally from the said countries and was introduced by later immigrants or in other words by later migration. South Asia is also not a country but a region in Asia. 'States' is another synonym for 'countries'. Many other wikipedia pages for languages spoken in countries with political tensions freely add the country names on their language infobox information. Removing Pakistan and India on the langusge infobox is not going to help solve political disputes or tensions or controversies between two countries and peoples on a wikipedia language information page. Readers should clearly know without direct or indirect bias that Urdu is native to both India and Pakistan, whike the region should be changed to South Asia since South Asia is not a country again. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler @Professor Penguino @Pepperbeast @Anupam please respond to my objection request and understand what I have said and if this reason is strong for you to change it back to 'Native to India and Pakistan'. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"South Asia" is fine and consensus developed here established this. The next parameter of the infobox ("Native to") already mentions Pakistan and India; duplicating the same information is redundant. If we are being precise, as User:Fowler&fowler mentioned, the "Native to" parameter would specify "northeastern Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Muradnagar". Anupam^Talk 14:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

where in the source (Ethnologue) does it mention native to 'northeastern Delhi, Grazia address, and Muradnagar'? Those would be 'locations'. India and Pakistan are countries so under the language entry it would be written as 'Native to' under the comments section. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cookiemonster1618 No one is editing the 'native to' section due to political conflicts. That's your idea, sir. And "South Asia" is completely fine here. As I mentioned earlier, Urdu has a dialect called Dhakaiya. And for your concern, Delhi and the surrounding areas are mentioned in the first reference. And thus the reader will obviously be aware of Urdu being native to India and Pakistan. AlidPedian (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)