your point is defeated in your very first criterion. Hindi in its pure form is completely incomprehensible for me. For me to listen to media broadcasts where Hindi is presented in its true form (and not diluted to make it comprehensible for a linguistically diverse nation like India), broadcasts such as BBC Hindi and Doordarshan, is useless, because I do not understand 70 percent of what is said.
Conversely, if I speak Urdu as I speak in my home with my Hindi speaking coworkers, they are usually at odds to understand what Im on about.
I can honestly understand Punjabi and Hindko and even Arabic better than I can understand Hindi in its true form.
When I made that assertion, I was generally and empirically speaking i.e. I meant that to millions of Urdu-speaking (and Urdu-understanding ) viewers of Indian T.V. channels and movies, the Hindi language they hear is intelligible and has the same structural form as Urdu. On the contrary, only few thousand people may be finding the High Hindi on BBC and Door Darshan different than Urdu. Millions of people find Urdu and Hindi 100-99% similar than thousands of people who find this similarities.
In fact High Hindi can be considered a more sanskritized and less commonly spoken dialect of Hindi/Urdu. On the other hand, the dialect of Urdu/Hindi used in Indian movies is a popular and more commonly used dialect of Hindi with no difference with Urdu neither of vocabulary, nor of diction, and structure.
Ravage you have admitted that there exist two forms of Hindi; the pure and the impure. I have two comments to make here; first is that what you call the impure form is more popular because it is used, almost exclusively, by popular media and entertianment industry....the pure Hindi, on the other hand, seems to be the (sanskratized) official version of Hindi/Urdu being used for political reasons.
BBC is also using it for political reasons to acknowledge the distinct political identities of the two rival states.
The second comment I want to make is, usually that form language is considered pure that in use at popular and folkloric level.
And why are you ignoring dozens of Indian T.V. channels and the huge Indian film industry and picking only BBC and Dor Drashan? My point is if Hindi were any thing different from Urdu, the popular media and film industry of India wouldn't have been using Urdu.
i've already answered your point about popular media. any popular media that aims to be acceptable in places like madras, chennai, tamil nadu, lukhnow will need to limit the degree of Hindification involved in in the language. Thereby your suggestion that the fact that millions of people find the Hindi spoken in the popular media accessible is diluted by the fact that this is deliberately done.
Furthermore, the fact that there exist two variations of the language, one in its pure form, another in a form that is understandable to more people suggests our point instead of yours, that is that they are distinct languages, and that in order to be accessible to non native speakers, the language has to be made easier. And so those millions of Urdu/Tamil/Punjabi/Gujrati speakers are reached only by making the language more like what the millions may understand. Doesnt mean that because they can understand this deliberately stripped down Hindi their native languages of Urdu/Tamil/Punjabi/Gujrati are the same as Hindi :)
Your suggestion that there are two distinct BBC bulletins for political reasons is absurd. Even if the British had a particular interest in upholding the two nation theory for some reason, how about VOA then? Why does Door Darshan, the Indian national television of India interested in upholding distinct identities? Any media form dedicated to Hindi or Urdu language, whether print or broadcast, and not popular media, will necessarily be incomprehensible for speakers of the other language.
As far your repeatedly asserting that there is no difference in vocabulary, that I guess is your opinion, and while you're welcome to comment on it, you shouldnt presume to tell me, a native urdu speaker, what is and isnt part of Urdu vocabulary. I can go onto cite any number of words that you would never find in an Urdu lughat, but Im sure you already know that.
But don’t expect any of these lot to admit you’ve made some very valid points, instead of coming out of their comfort zones to admit the truth they would rather stick to their own make beleif versions because they are insecure the truth will threaten the integrity of their artifical nation, typical ‘bury head in sand’ Paki attitude.
That is so true, it’s high time Pakistan came to terms with the fact that people from NWFP/FATA, Balochestan and parts of Northern-Areas go in the ‘Iranian’ or Avestan group of ethnicities and Persian is more suited as their lingua franca whilst Hindustani (Urdu-Hindi) is only suited to the people of Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh and North India (and not to forget our European Rroma brethren) who are part of the ‘Indian/Indic’ or Sanskritic (more commonly known as ‘Desi’) group of ethnicities.
Who are you to determine what is suitable and what is not? Maybe a small dialect of Waziristan should have been the national language. Whatever. You have a language that is spoken by minorities as it is.
Be grateful that Punjabi isn't the national language - it would have created long-term resentment and a hinderance to national integration.
‘topic’? What was the topic? That the national language should be changed to Arabic, hmm..? I know. But it has very conveniently been changed to comparing two DIFFERENT languages of two DIFFERENT parts of the earth. URDU and HINDI. There is NO comparison and the topic was absolutely not to convince people that these two diferent languages are two names of the same language.
I know what this topic was initiated for. To reach a point where people will start to wonder why Urdu and how it has indian roots hence is same as the street language and then reaching a point bcz language is the same, people are the same too. And since there is no difference between URDU and HINDI hence there is no different between PAKISTANIS and HINDUS. This is the same years old dream of indians. The just want to be related to Pakistan, Pakistani people, Pakistani language and Pakistani SH!T in ANY way. Same old sick sh!t.
They can NEVER open their eyes to the REALITY which is that PAKISTAN is DIFFERENT from INDIA. The PRECISE REASON why it was made. Hence, PAKISTANIS are ALSO DIFFERENT than INDIANS. URDU is DIFFERENT than hindi. As someone mentioned above people with an IQ lower than 10 can only argue that these two are same.
Because for some reason, that stone-eyed identity-less idiot could not reach to this point from this original post. Cz the thread did not progress the way he wanted it to so there come the DINOSAUR to guide people on which direction to go. Then comes the stone-eyed idiot again, forgets about his original topic completely and joins hands with his friend to argue the none-sense, that is, URDU and HINDI are the same languages!!!
Wow! Will we ever understand their manipulative ways?!!!
They dare to spread this less than 10 IQ arguements cz they are hopeful that Pakistanis will get caught in discussing the non-sense.
I hope it's about time they know that their manipulative ways CANNOT survive with Pakistanis ANYMORE!!!
chel chabila babu.. r u serious???? i am a punjabi and speak and love urdu.. wots ur problem anyway.. Pakistan is for pakistanis and anyone who lives there is a Pakistani regardless of the language......ugghhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ravage, I am so sorry but your arguments that the media is limiting Hindification in language for acceptance in Southern India holds no water. How can this media alienate 400 millions speakers of North-Western India just to be to acceptable to 130 millions South Indian speakers of Dravidian languages? Further, how can they replace the Hindification in language with Urdification, which according to your own assertion, is a Muslim-identity marker ( and thus something comparatively farther beyond the comprehension and culture of South-Indianiares…) ?
Are popular media and entertainment industry using Muslim symbolism (Urdu as you claim) in Southern India to be acceptable to its inhabitants? How strong are the cultural, ethnic, and political affinities between Muslims and Tamils/Malyalams etc.?
The only expalanation of the attitude of popular media and film industry of India with regard to language may be that by selecting a form of Hindi indistinuishable from Urdu for their programs and films, the business planners are trying to expand the market for their products. They want their products to be acceptable to as wider a population as possible…to 400 millions North Indians, 70 millions South Indians, 30 millions Pakistani, few millions Bangla Deshis and so on.
Note that 400 millions Hindi speakers are the largest component of this market.
This form of Hindi is what popular Hindi is with no distinction from Urdu whatever.
The popular media and film industry are not driven by politics but rather business compulsions and profit-motive and are selecting a language the most popular and maximizing their profit.
And to make it easy for Tamils, Gujratis, Punjabis, etc., they are “Urdanizing” Hindi is what you want to suggest…and that also by estranging 400 millions Hindi speakers? This implies only two things:
The resulting Urdanized version of Hindi can be understood by 400 millions Hindi-speakers as well…and so this Urduized version is the popular form of Hindi…were this not the case, the Uduized version would have been incomprehensible to 400 millions Hindi speakers. The only conclusion that can be made from this is that, only the language spoken in Hindi movies of Bollywood is popular and colloquial Hindi and the highly Sanskritized form is High Hindi… This is also in accordance with the business logic for popular media which should select a language as culturally, pramatically, and sentimentally appealable to the target audience(including the 400 millions Hindi speakers) as possible…;
Tamil-speaking South Indianiars, Guhratis, Panjabis, etc. have more linguistic affinity with Urdu, the Muslim-identity marker as is claimed, than Hindi (Hindu-identity marker…). How can this be tenable?
About the highly Sanskritized form of Hindi (also called High Hindi, New Hindi, or Modern Hindi), one author, Rakesh Mohan Bhatt, says:
“The policy of Sanskritization resulted in a variety of Hindi which was far removed from everyday usage and became almost incomprehensible to the common man…Second the standardization process resulted in a diglossic split between literary New (High) Hindi and colloquial (low) Hindi”.
The political motives and psychological factors underlying this policy have been pointed to by Dr. Tariq Rahman:
"Perso-Arabic vocabulary and script were, after all, reminiscent of Muslim rule; thus from Hindu nationalist point of view, excessive Sanskritization was an anti-imperialist activity. Its major purpose was psychological: to make Hindus assert their Hindu identity while decolonizing their minds from notions of Muslim dominance. "
Nevertheless, this policy has failed as underlined by Rakesh Mohan Bhatt above and desmonstrated by the language-trend in the popular Indian/Pakistani media and entertainment industry. With passage of time de-Persianization/de-Arabization and de-Sanskritization would restore the old Hindustani, which K.K. Gandhi defined as:
“**that language which is generally spoken by Hindus and Musalmans of the North, whether written in Devanagri or Urdu” (Dr. Tariq Rahman) To this definition, Mualavi Abdul Haq of Anjuman-Taraqi-e-Urdu also agreed. **
The same political reason because two geopoltical entities are using the two versions as identity markers…and because programs in foreign languages are more for political motives than cultural…In future, it will be the popular media that will dominate…script is nothing but arbitrary symbols…what counts are, vocabulary, structure, and diction…etc.
As for my proficiency of Urdu, interaction with Urdu/Hindi speakers, observation, and reading, the base/root/common vocabulary is the same…the difference is in the hardly few hundred words that imply abstract notions. About this, one source says:
"According to linguists, Hindi and Urdu are the two styles of the same language…both have the same inflectional system and a common core of basic vocabulary; they differe in the learned or abstract words used and in the word order".
Moreover, motives of states are usually political not necessarliy in concordance with cultural realities. What about the Persian which was the language of the court during Muslim rule but was not a popular language?
What about Pakistan where Punjabi is the majority language but a minority language i.e. Urdu/Hindi is being patronized? My point is political compulsion is forcing Dor Darshan to retain the form of Hindi (Sanskrtized) not very popular.
