Separating Urdu from Sanskrit

Separating Urdu from Sanskrit

Pakistani intellectuals have been looking for the roots of their separate identity in the remote past for the last two decades. They are not satisfied with the two-nation theory propounded by Allama Iqbal, according to which religion was the basis of nationhood and accordingly the Hindus and Muslims of the Indian sub-continent were separate nations.
They go deeper. They want to show that Pakistan and its culture has its roots in the prehistoric eras.They believe that the Indus and the Gangetic valleys have always been home to separate civilizations. Being the heir to the Indus valley civilization, Pakistan is a geographic entity whose roots go back to time immemorial.

Many intellectuals have taken pains to substantiate this theory. Professor Qudrat Ullah Fatmi, to my knowledge, was the first to write a book on it. Aenul Haq Faridkoti and Prof. Mohammad Asif followed him. However, Aitazaz Ashan’s book titled Sindh Saga carries the best and long drawn out exposition of this concept. Now Khalid Hasan Qadiri has joined this group of theoreticians. In one of his articles published in the current issue of the monthly Al-Ma 'arif of Lahore under the title of ‘Rough notes on Urdu’ he has come up with the claim that the Urdu language has nothing to do with Sanskrit and that its roots are far deeper than this language of the gods and goddesses.

Hitherto, the generally held belief has been that Urdu came into being as a result of social contacts between the Muslims who came to India during the middle ages and the native population. So the language was taken to be a cross-breed of Turko-Persian-Arabic vocables with the local dialects. This is, in a nutshell, the view held by such eminent linguists as G.A. Griesson and Sir Charles Lyall, to mention only two. This theory presupposed that these dialects themselves were based upon, or rather were a by-product of Sanskrit.

Khalid Hasan Qadiri want us to understand that the situation is not as simple or straight forward as it seems or is presented. One has to go very far back in history or rather to prehistory, and turnover many strata of periods of time.

Going back in history, he reaches the conclusion that Urdu has its roots in the languages of the Munda tribes who were the inhabitants of the Indus Valley in pre-Dravidian periods. This view is supposed to be based on the latest excavations of Amri, Nal, Roper, Rajasthan and Kathyawar.

In this way we are led to belive that the Urdu language has a very well-defined and clear-cut grammar, absolutely different from Sanskrit in every respect. The very basic philosophy governing the grammatical structure of these two languages is totally different. And by any stretch of imagination one cannot state Urdu to have emanated from the sacred language of the Hindus. Grammatically speaking Urdu owes nothing to Sanskrit. Hence it cannot be grouped with the Aryan language either. It clearly belongs to some non-Aryan group of languages. And this view is supposed to give us us some solace.

Short stories now, novel later

Azra Butt is not the Razia Butt of yore but she holds her in great esteem and acknowledges to have learnt a lot from Razia’s novels. She aspires to become a novelist. At present she is writing stories. Her maiden collection of Urdu short stories has recently been published. Entitled Ana key More Pay, the collection has reached the readers with accolades of literary pundits, including those who are known to be prisoners of their own ego and are not in the habit of praising others. They include Munir Niazi in addition to A Hameed and Mustansar Hussain Tarar.

Azra Butt usually writes on social issues. Her stories sensitively depict various aspects of our social life and the good thing is that she keeps herself from turning into a cynical reformer. She is a brave woman who has the courage to accept and describe life as it is.

She writes plays as well and recently directed a few stage dramas and music shows. She has dedicated her collection of short stories to those ‘who learn from their sorrows and teach others through words. They are the beauty of our world.’

Remembering Farooq Qureshi

Mohammad Farooq Qureshi passed away in Lahore in the first week of December. He was a left-winger who wrote a number of books on various aspects of the history and movement of Pakistan and tried to remove misunderstandings created by some authors. He had his own point of view regarding this movement and presented it in books and articles. In addition to dozens of newspaper articles, he wrote at least four books on the Maulana and Bacha Khan including Maulana Azad and the Politics of the Nationalist Muslims, Azad in Prison and Pushotoon Nation and Bach Khan.

Qureshi, who was born in Amritsar and migrated to Lahore at the time of Partition had been associated with leftist parties all his life. He remained general secretary of the Awami Nation Party and National Democratic Party. As a committed political worker he worked for the supremacy of law and promotion of democratic values and was consequently jailed many times.

Mohammad Farooq Qureshi had not been keeping good health for the last two years. Nevertheless, he did not like to miss the weekly meetings of like-minded friends held at the Fiction House, a publishing house of Lahore known for its liberal publications. Other friends included Dr. Mubarak Ali, Rashid Malik, Tahir Kamran, Prof. Zahoor Chaudry, Mushtaq Ammad and a few others. They are all writers with varying interests ranging from history and music to philosophy and literature. We admired Qureshi and enjoyed his presence. And now we miss him.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2001-weekly/nos-23-12-2001/lit.htm#4

Well, One Of Pakistan’s pet obssession is to proove that it is not 50 year old

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

So they would do anything. Maybe they will claim Sanskrit is a corrupt form of Urdu as an alternative theory or something

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

.

[This message has been edited by cool down (edited December 24, 2001).]

if you think pakistan is 50 years old then you are nothing but dumb.
here I will proove the age of your country.

for your information here I will show difference between Hindustan and bharat.

The founder of HINDUSTAN: Zaheer-ud-din Muhammad babar.

The founder of BHARAT: ghandhi

*now take a while and think you are hindustani or bharti??
you are a bharti not hindustani.

*now think how old is bharat?
54 years

54 year before pakistan got independence.but the land of Pakistan was always and people of pakistan were always. And any history that belong to Pakistan, is the history of pakistan. even in pre historic time.

history of pakistan beging when first human settled in the areas of pakistan.

for instance:
columbus discovered america. when we read history of america we start with first civilization in the land of americas. even there were no white peope at that time. but we read , In 250 B.C in america this incident happen.

when we read hitory of middle east we say, first civilization was started in iraq. but we know, there was no country named iraq at that time.

when we read history of india, we read ashoka rule. there was no bharat at that time.

History of Pakistan:

history of pakistan begin when first human sattled in the areas in Pakistan.

[This message has been edited by cool down (edited January 02, 2002).]

Instead of calling India ,one should call Indian Sub Continent which contains Nepal,Bangladesh ,Pakistan & Bharat

Hindu indians are Hindians & muslims in India are muslims of bharat.


Bik Gaya Jo Woh Kharidar Nahi Ho Sakta

Indo-European Languages, the most widely spoken family of languages in the world, containing the following subfamilies: Albanian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic (including the Romance languages), Slavic, and two extinct subfamilies, Anatolian (including Hittite) and Tocharian. About 1.6 billion people speak Indo-European languages today.

Establishment of the Family

Proof that these highly diverse languages are members of a single family was largely accumulated during a 50-year period around the turn of the 19th century. The extensive Sanskrit and ancient Greek literatures (older than those of any other Indo-European language except the then-undeciphered Hittite) preserved characteristics of the basic Indo-European forms and pointed to the existence of a common parent language. By 1800 the close relationship between Sanskrit, ancient Greek, and Latin had been demonstrated. Hindu grammarians had systematically classified the formative elements of their ancient language. To their studies were added extensive grammatical and phonetic comparisons of European languages. Further studies led to specific conclusions about the sounds and grammar of the assumed parent language (called Proto-Indo-European), the reconstruction of that hypothetical language, and estimates about when it began to break up into separate languages. (By 2000 BC, for example, Greek, Hittite, and Sanskrit were distinct languages, but the differences among them are such that the original tongue must have been fairly unified about a millennium earlier, or about 3000 BC.) The decipherment of Hittite texts (identified as Indo-European in 1915) and the discovery of Tocharian in the 1890s (spoken in medieval Eastern Turkistan, and identified as Indo-European in 1908) added new insights into the development of the family and the probable character of Proto-Indo-European.

The early Indo-European studies established many principles basic to comparative linguistics. One of the most important of these was that the sounds of related languages correspond to one another in predictable ways under specified conditions (see Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law for examples). According to one such pattern, in some Indo-European subfamilies—Albanian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, and (partially) Baltic—certain presumed q sounds of Proto-Indo-European became sibilants such as s and ß (an sh sound). The common example of this pattern is the Avestan (ancient Iranian) word satem (“100”), as opposed to the Latin word centum (“100,” pronounced “kentum”). Formerly, the Indo-European languages were routinely characterized as belonging either to a Western (centum) or an Eastern (satem) division. Most linguists, however, no longer automatically divide the family in two in this way, partly because they wish to avoid implying that the family underwent an early split into two major branches, and partly because this trait, although prominent, is only one of several significant patterns that cut across different subfamilies.

Evolution

In general the evolution of the Indo-European languages displays a progressive decay of inflection. Thus, Proto-Indo-European seems to have been highly inflected, as are ancient languages such as Sanskrit, Avestan, and classical Greek; in contrast, comparatively modern languages, such as English, French, and Persian, have moved toward an analytic system (using prepositional phrases and auxiliary verbs). In large part the decay of inflection was a result of the loss of the final syllables of many words over time, so that modern Indo-European words are often much shorter than the ancestral Proto-Indo-European words. Many languages also developed new forms and grammatical distinctions. Changes in the meanings of individual words have been extensive.

Ancient Culture

The original meanings of only a limited number of hypothetical Proto-Indo-European words can be stated with much certainty; derivatives of these words occur with consistent meanings in most Indo-European languages. This small vocabulary suggests a New Stone Age or perhaps an early metal-using culture with farmers and domestic animals. The identity and location of this culture have been the object of much speculation. Archaeological discoveries in the 1960s, however, suggest the prehistoric Kurgan culture. Located in the steppes west of the Ural Mountains between 5000 and 3000 BC, this culture had diffused as far as eastern Europe and northern Iran by about 2000 BC. ["Knowing" Words in Indo-European Languages](http://www.levity.com/mavericks/indo.htm

%between% )

Rvizk

You are talkingof ancient CLASSICAL languages from which ALL modern languages evolved.

Modern languages beconme very developed as Bengali b/c of higher preoccupation with written words in the form of writers & readers relative numbers based on literary % of that group.

Urdu ,Hiondi ,All indian languages are DERIVED frommclassical languAAGES & instead of being detrimental to borrow it is smart to add words tfrom other languages like developed ones.


door ke dhol suhawan

Familiarity breeds Contempt

[quote]
Originally posted by H.Roshan:
**Instead of calling India ,one should call Indian Sub Continent which contains Nepal,Bangladesh ,Pakistan & Bharat

Hindu indians are Hindians & muslims in India are muslims of bharat.

**
[/quote]

yes thats worth thinking and the language which is spoken in hindi films or the urban class here in bombay was called hindustani which is a mix of urdu and hindi

****rviks*********

I didn't understand what is the purpose of article you have posted? if you think in your article term india means bharat then you are wrong. check out birth places of language. first languages were develped in "South Asia", in Middle East and in Africa.

In which place first languge was develped in South asia?

that place is located in Pakistan. and all archeologists are agree.

instead of calling indo-european, we must call South Asian-European (in this way we will found exact place).

In old books term india is used for all land that is other side of hamala. bhutan, nepal, pakistan, bangla desh, sri lanka and some others are included.

In old books we will read budha was born in india. In moderen books we will read budha was born in nepal.

In moderen times, we are aware, India is used only for the land of bharat. And the whole region is called South Asia.

[This message has been edited by cool down (edited January 02, 2002).]

the word india comes from sindh? that is in pakistan.pakistan and northindia shares
same linguistic history compared to dravidian
which is compltly different from north and
pakistan.

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
the word india comes from sindh?
[/quote]

no Mr., as long as I know word india comes from europe.

And people of pakistan never used this name. In british india they were struggling for independance and after independace they used word "PAKISTAN" for their country.

[quote]
Originally posted by cool down:
**
no Mr., as long as I know word india comes from europe.

And people of pakistan never used this name. In british india they were struggling for independance and after independace they used word "PAKISTAN" for their country. **
[/quote]

mr cool down, origin of 'hind', 'india' etc. is likely to be sindh. pak is of course a modern name.

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:

mr cool down, origin of 'hind', 'india' etc. is likely to be sindh. pak is of course a modern name.
[/quote]

my purpose to explain term india was to tell you, indo european languages doesn't means languages of india and europe. it means languages of South asia and europe.

hinudstan was started in the areas that are now pakistan. later other countries like marwar, gujrat, rajputana were added in hindustan. I am agree.

If you think english people translated hindustan to india. may be it is true.

but, it is also truth english people called sri lankans, bhutanise, nepalis and native americans also indians.

In modern days word india is used only for bharat and word indian represents people of bharat and native americans.
I think every body know this.

now keep in mind in english, sometimes, You will found word Hindustan. but you will never found word bharat in english or other european or american languages. word india is used for bharat.

[This message has been edited by cool down (edited January 07, 2002).]

I can’t say anything about hindi or urdu cause i have no idea whatsoever
But i love the Bambaiya language

kyako hindi urdu ke peeche dimag ki dahi kar raha hai…

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif