User talk:Happytime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk to me

History function[edit]

You do realise that Wikipedia has a history function? When you remove someone's comments they are still stored on the server. As much as you try, you will not be able to get rid of them once they have been committed! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Sukh, I have tried explaining this to you over and over again but you don't listen. If I were to talk to you over a message service, we could have a discussion. I would give you a word and then give you the Urdu and Hindi equivalent. I could spend some time on this, if you are willing to and if it would have a peaceful outcome. If you don't want to or if my attempts to talk reason will be of no use, then just tell me before hand.

I also suggest making a page called Modern day Hindi/Urdu in which I believe we could agree upon.-------------Happytime

Before I begin let me clarify one thing. The onus is on YOU to disprove existing points in the article or prove your additional points.
Nobody is disputing that higher Hindi/Urdu are different. The fact is that the language spoken in Northern India is neither of these higher forms. What I have issue with is that you are removing all trace of this fact and pretending as if higher Hindi/Urdu is the norm - it's not.
Modern day Hindi/Urdu is EXACTLY what these pages should be about. Maybe instead you should consider writing a section called "Sanskritised Hindi" and "Persianised Urdu"? The fact that you say "I also suggest making a page called Modern day Hindi/Urdu in which I believe we could agree upon." means that you agree with me that what you are writing about is not the common language spoken in North India/Pakistan.
Why are you editing the Sikhism page by removing the bit about reincarnation? Why are you making such large, unsupported edits to Khalistan? I haven't seen you discuss any of these issues properly.
I honestly believe you have no wish to discuss these issues in a scholarly manner. However, if you do, I am more than happy to converse with you. But remember, the onus is on YOU to discuss these controversial changes fully in talk pages before editing the main page. If what you are adding isn't in dispute, then it's a different thing altogether — but these issues ARE in dispute. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is comment deletion on talk pages futile, but it just makes you look bad - like you must silence your critics because you don't have arguments. It certainly doesn't earn you any friends.

Surely you have reasons for believing what you do. What are they? If you engage us in good faith, and provide some references for your assertions, we would be willing to discuss it like rational people. I can't imagine you don't find the current situation a colossal waste of time, conducting multiple revert wars with more than one user over several different pages. There's a better way to handle these disputes. It doesn't have to be this way. --skoosh (háblame) 23:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi/Urdu[edit]

I've added subsection headings and moved some comments to keep the subtopics reasonably organized. skoosh (háblame) 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start of by saying I am quite pleased at Skoosh's trying to begin an intelligble discussion, this way at least one can explain in a rational manner. I am going to supply my response to the question/statement directly after it, it is easier to keep track this way.--Happytime (talk · contribs)

Comparison and contrast[edit]

Let's try another tack. I think we can all agree that:

  1. Formal Hindi and formal Urdu are not mutually intelligible, due to vocabulary.
  2. Hindi and Urdu share a common grammar.
  3. Hindi and Urdu also share a common core vocabulary - the basic words that most often occur, like "father", "mother", "is", "walk", "ten", and so on.
  4. People who speak Hindi and people who speak Urdu can understand each other without any difficulty when engaged in everyday conversation. --skoosh (háblame)
I disagree on the third part. I'll supply direct examples: For Hindi these words are father: Bapu/piTA/utpAddka, mother: mAta/jaDa/mA.n, walk: chaal/Tahlana. In Urdu these words are father: walid/padr, mother:maadr/walda, walk: gardish/pyaadaru/rahraft --Happytime (talk · contribs)
Bap, maņ, and čalnā are all Urdu words and are taught as such (see Teach Yourself Urdu, David Matthews and Mohamed Kasim Dalvi, 1999). Unfortunately, other than walid and walida, the rest of these words are a mystery to me, and I don't have access to a dedicated dictionary. In any case, plenty of other words in the core vocabulary are identical, such as pronouns, the numbers, the word is, and so on. --skoosh (háblame) 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we differ on questions of:

  1. Language ancestry: What is/are the immediate ancestor(s) of Hindi and Urdu, respectively?
  2. Language definition: What constitutes "real" Hindi, or "real" Urdu? Is the language that people speak in ordinary life, that they themselves regard to be either Hindi or Urdu, actually not "real" Hindi or Urdu?
  3. Language identity over time: When did "real" Hindi (the kind that Urdu-speakers can't understand) begin? When did "real" Urdu (the kind that Hindi-speakers can't understand) begin?
  4. Standard vs. nonstandard dialects: Is a standard version the "proper" version of a language? Or is it just another dialect that happens to have greater social prestige, for whatever reason? --skoosh (háblame)
The ancestor, indeed the main tongue at present is Hindustani. See [1].
The real Hindi and real Urdu is a relatively modern concept. My understanding is that the formal division is a modern development -- although the script and vocabularies have been separate much longer. A Muslim in India may claim they speak Urdu and a Hindu may claim they speak Hindi, even when they both speak the same language. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Hindi and Urdu[edit]

I noticed your latest comment on Talk:Hindi: Urdu and Hindi are complete different tongues when spoken at a scholarly level and if they were used at a spoken level. The problem is that in the present time these languages aren't used in everyday language.

I am quite curious, since I'm not a native speaker of either, if there is any way for a Hindi-speaker to, let's say, order a cup of tea, or ask about the price of a shirt, in such a way (i.e. using "proper" Hindi) that an Urdu-speaker would not be able to understand her, or vice versa. Can you give us an example of such an utterance? --skoosh (háblame)

  • this is best responded to by how it is said in Hindi: Chaya ka kaTora maangna. In Urdu it is said: Jaam-qahwa farmeyish/khwastn. --Happytime (talk · contribs)
What Happytime fails to remind you is that a "Urdu speaker" in Pakistan is considerbly more likely to say the Hindi version. Although we should involve WiseSabre in this discussion because he knows a lot more about Urdu than I :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loanwords and language histories[edit]

I also noticed another comment on the same talk page from an anonymous user, to wit: ... because you hear people speak a certain language doesn't necessarily mean they are using the language in its original form. You may not understand this if you are someone overseas in India now, but if someone is speaking ebonics it doesn't represent proper English. Although I see one's point that if that is all they hear on the streets they may be fooled into believing it is English.

This shows a misunderstanding of how linguists regard language variation, as well as an unfamiliarity with the history of the English language. African American Vernacular English (AAVE), as it is technically known, is in fact a variety of English, albeit what is known as a "nonstandard" one. This designation is purely descriptive, not prescriptive; it is simply a sociolinguistic term to indicate a dialect's relative social prestige. It is not a judgment call on the part of linguists as to what is or is not a "proper" or "correct" way of speaking. Taking such a position represents a POV that linguistics as a field has long abandoned. --skoosh (háblame)

  • There has been a misunderstanding, proper means that it isn't in the original form. It may have been said wrong. You are right about this point, one shouldn't say a certain language is correct and the other is not. Proper means that it is the language that is called English (not a variant). Another example, there are words such as Klaplutz and other Hebrew words that have been used alongside English. This doesn't make these words English.--Happytime (talk · contribs)
Actually, it's well-known among linguists that languages often adopt words from other tongues as their own, and English is far from an exception. If by klaplutz* you mean kaput, that word is originally German, not Hebrew, and may have entered the English lexicon through Yiddish (though not necessarily; there were plenty of German immigrants in the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries). It is also regarded by English-speakers (in North America, at least) as an English word, not a foreign one; it does not serve as a marker of the speaker's ethnicity, nor is it associated with things of a foreign nature. Several words from Hindustani have also made it into ordinary English speech, and have been used long enough to lose any hint of foreignness or even nonstandardness, e.g. pundit, juggernaut, and thug. This is not even taking into account all the words that English borrowed from French (practically every word ending in -tude or -tion), and from Latin and Greek directly. Suffice it to say that most English words are loanwords from other languages, and most of them are now considered fully English words regardless. --skoosh (háblame) 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the idea that Modern Standard English represents an "original" English is just not accurate. Middle English — the English of Chaucer, spoken in the 14th century CE — differs markedly from contemporary standard English, both in prescription and practice, including in the use of double negatives, so stigmatized in English-speaking areas today. Also, the gradual evolution of languages has ensured that there is no "original" English that bears any resemblance to the contemporary dialects spoken today, least of all standard English. There is an ancestral relationship, but in all other respects, Old English and Modern Standard English are as different from each other as they are from Modern German. A standard English-speaker would have severe difficulty understanding a speech read in Old English. --skoosh (háblame)

  • This example is different from the Hindi-Urdu issue. If someone well-writ in English were to read an book in older English, they would be able to understand it well. They make students read the work of Shakespeare (Hamlet, Romeo&Juliet, etc.) and other old English books in American highschools. The vocabulary has remained intact. The pronouns ; thee thou may be a problem for a few.
Erm this is not true. I know plenty of people that would be flummoxed by the writings of Shakespeare. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope my explanation proved my point. I have a good amount of knowledge about both these languages. You can analyze yourself the difference by the transliterations provided. I wouldn't be so enthusiastic if I didn't believe my claims to be true. If someone were to go on the english page and type in for a greeting in English "wudddup Dawg", I'm sure it would infuriate the English scholars. Please consider my explanation. Thank you---HT
The late 16th/early 17th-century English of Shakespeare is Elizabethan English, or Early Modern English, not Middle English. Even Chaucer, an example of late Middle English, is fairly opaque to contemporary readers even in comparison with Shakespeare (who himself is not exactly transparent upon first exposure to a contemporary reader). Even for an educated English-speaker, to learn how to read Middle English, and especially Old English, is to learn another language entirely (it would be comparable to learning Dutch or German). Old English and Modern English do not share a common grammar; they are not mutually intelligible; they certainly cannot be confused with each other. In short, they are not the same language. I bring this up only to challenge the notion of a "pure", "original" contemporary standard language. Such languages are not "pure" and not like their original ancestors.
"Waddup dawg" is English, just not standard English. Wikipedia articles are written in one of several standard English dialects, which is why that would get edited out if used in an article's text. However, if someone attempted to edit English language so as to state or imply that African American Vernacular English was not "real" English, that would get reverted as POV and counter to the consensus of most linguists. And that's not even getting into the fact that "waddup dawg" evinces a different grammar from standard English, and is thus a more extreme example of dialect divergence than Hindi is versus Urdu; is "kyā āpko kaise heņ?" Hindi or Urdu? A Hindi-speaker would say it's Hindi; an Urdu-speaker would say it's Urdu. There are no words considered slang in that sentence, or nonstandard grammar, yet both speakers not only understand that sentence, but recognize it as their own language. This is why linguists consider Hindi and Urdu to be dialects of the same language (Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu); they have, if anything, more in common than many English dialects do. --skoosh (háblame) 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi and Urdu in their sociopolitical context[edit]

  • I'd also like to note that not everyone in India speaks Hindi and not everyone in Pakistan speaks Urdu. Pakistan has many, many immigrant people who were originally from India and spoke Hindi. Many people in their city of Karachi can speak better Hindi than can native Indians. Just thought I would add this, its not political, its about the language.--Happytime (talk · contribs)
As to the point about who speaks Hindi and Urdu: let's not beat around the bush here. Hindi is associated with Hindus and Hinduism. Urdu is associated with Muslims and Islam. Yes, not every Hindi-speaker is Hindu, nor is every Urdu-speaker Muslim. However, those are the religious identities with which each dialect is respectively associated. By extension, Urdu is associated with Pakistan (it is, after all, officially an Islamic Republic) and Hindu nationalists in India have advanced the notion of Hindutva with some success over the last 15 years. So this discussion does not take place in a political vacuum. Also, I've been to Pakistan, and pretty much all of those people who emigrated from India after Partition would tell you that they speak Urdu, not Hindi (see Talk:Pakistan#Hindi?). That is a point of ethnoreligious pride. We have to be able to see beyond these communalist POVs and recognize the linguistic reality, as so many linguists, and Wikipedians, already have. --skoosh (háblame) 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things to think about. I look forward to an intelligent, reasoned response. --skoosh (háblame) 00:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put: The separation of Hindi and Urdu vocabularies and the standardisation of the tongues was a way of creating a national identity in India and Pakistan. And it was a way to separate religious groups. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu's official language status[edit]

Hey pal i duuno wat ur problem.. Who r u trying to fool... You keep changing Official Language Status of Urdu. Then u go on to discredit Urdu/Hindi relationship. The basic vocabulary of Hindi and Urdu is SAME. Check articles from other credible sources like Encarta et al. All you'll manage to do is to discredit Wikipedia. AMbroodEY 10:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambroodey, I would like to inform you that THE official/national lanugaes of India are Hindi and English. You would not know what I am trying to explain if you haven't studied Urdu or Hindi. If one's only source of knowledge about these languages (what they perceive) is Bollywood movies and seeing a Pakistani and Indian talk to each other in a language other than one's own, then that is no way to say they are the same. There are many Pakistanis who speak Hindi and some Indian's who can speak Urdu. What you often hear in the streets of Britain, is better called Hindustani or a mix. This would encompass Hindi, Urdu, and English all in one. You would see some words said in Urdu, some said in Hindi, and others replaced by English. There can be a separate page for this language (modernslang). -------------Happytime
Hindi and English are the official languages of the national government, but in addition, there are 22 other languages given national recognition as scheduled languages. See List of national languages of India for details. I described Urdu in all my edits as "a scheduled national language of India." I think this most neutrally and accurately describes its official status there. --skoosh (háblame) 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Happytime&oldid=60305657"