Talk:Hindi

Why are you so stubborn in hiding देवनागरी?

@PadFoot2008 your last argument doesn't even hold any weight. Urdu is not an exonym either but it does show its native script. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rolando 1208, then you or I can fix it at Urdu as well. And I am not trying to hide the Devanagari script. It is there in the infobox. Per convention and there is no need to clutter the lead. PadFoot2008 16:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

A convention that you made up bhai. Btw it's not cluttered. Almost every language article shows the native script without hiding it. Don't change things unnecessarily. Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, this convention you refer to doesn't seem to exist, PadFood2008. I just looked at Tamil language, Gujarati language, Assamese language, Konkani language, Dogri language, Korean language, Georgian language, Armenian language, Serbian language, and Greek language, and they all show the native names, in the native scripts and with transliterations, in the first sentence, not embedded in a footnote. I have seen an extended footnote when the treatment of the subject's name in other languages goes on at length and becomes a distraction, but that isn't the case here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, maybe you're correct. I had thought that as it is a convention on most articles, it would also be a convention on language-related articles. PadFoot2008 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus

Hindi was written in Nastaliq script. Can we add this infobox. Abirtel (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? The article body doesn't say this; without that, it would be inappropriate to have it in the infobox. Largoplazo (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This page already held this portion

///Major Hindustani writers continued to refer to their tongue as Hindi or Hindavi till the early of 19th century.

As Mirza Galib says in his Qādir Nāma written in Nastaliq script:

नेवला रासू है और ताऊस मोर,

कब्क को हिन्दी में कहते हैं चकोर

Nevla is rasu (mongoose) and Taus is mor (peacock),

Kabk is uttered as Chakor (Ptarmigan) in Hindi////

If it does not satisfy you then

///From the 13th century until ::the end of the 18th century; the ::language now known as Urdu was ::called Hindi,[28] Hindavi, ::Hindustani,[33] ///

This portion surely meet that ::criterion.

So it is quite clear that,Hindi ::was written in Nastaliq till the ::beginning of the 20th century.

We can surely add this. Abirtel (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Mirza Ghalib wrote in Urdu.

The Hindi that this article is about is the language variety that's called "Hindi" today. The article about the greater language that encompasses both of what today are known as "Hindi" and "Urdu" is Hindustani language.

Further, if Salman Rushdie were to write a novel in English but with using the Devanagari script, that wouldn't justify asserting in the article on English language that English "is written in" or "has been written in" Devanagari. An acceptable source would have to actually say that English is/has been written using Devanagari. It wouldn't suffice for you to show one example of someone doing it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If mirza galib said he is writing in Hindi in nastaliq then we have no right today to say that Galib is a Urdu poet!

As Urdu was identified as Hindi, Hindavi, Hindustani simultaneously till the starting of the 20th century

So we can surely say that Hindi was written in nastaliq till the starting of 20th century.

Now what will be your position if anyone says that Urdu was written in devanagari before 1900s.

See this https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=jVx6EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA139&dq=hindi+writing+in.nastaliq&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX5ITz9PGGAxVBSWwGHS5_AFgQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=hindi%20writing%20in.nastaliq&f=false Abirtel (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reiterating what Austronesier said below, but indented: That name may have been used at the time for the variety in which Ghalib wrote, but that isn't what the term is used to mean today, and this article is about the variety that the term is used for today. Just as we aren't going to write here about turkeys in Anatolia even though Turks call the turkey "hindi". Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

////Just as we aren't going to write here about turkeys in Anatolia even though Turks call the turkey "hindi".////

Turks now call turkey turkiye. Before that during initial ottoman time turkey was called "Rome".

Why Hindi was called Hindi?

Hindi means people of Hindiyyah/Hindia/India which was an official name of Mughal empire in Arabic.

Persian speaking world knew that empire as Hindustan.

So the language Hindi and oHindustani happened to be the same tongue.

Urdu means royal camp, court of Delhi. Initially Urdu aka Royal camp was run by persian tongue. Slowly Hindi replaced the persian. After 1837, Hindi became the only Urdu Zuban as the use of Persian come to an end. hence hindi was called Urdu Zuban.

During 1780, Hindi was being used as official tongue along with Persian.

Technically Before 1780, Urdu means Persian only.

///but that isn't what the term is used to mean today///

Yea that is why Nastaliq now happens to be historical script. Abirtel (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You're confusing "script used historically for what's called 'Hindi' today", which is false, with "script used for something that historically was called 'Hindi'", which is true but "something that historically was called 'Hindi'" is not what this article's about. Largoplazo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Then why the page have shown the infos of kaithi, mahajani and landa as historic script of use? Abirtel (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A quote from Mirza Ghalib shouldn't even be used here. It's deceptive to say "in the Nastaliq script", when actually it's not Hindi in Nastaliq, it's Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Nastaʿlīq isn't a script, it's a calligraphic style of the Perso-Arabic script. Also, you need to distinguish between words and things. The language commonly known as "Urdu" since the 18th century, was known by several other names before, including "Hindi". But that's not Hindi as understood since the 19th century. This article is about the modern standard language that was consciously developed as a literary alternative of Urdu which saw its roots in the literary tradition of the sister languages of Khariboli (such as Awadhi and Braj) and which from the beginning was designed to be written in a Brahmic script (Devanagari, also Kaithi). –Austronesier (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even in 1757,

Hindi was written in Nastaliq.

"Tarikh e gharabi تاریخِ غاریبی

Logo ko jab khul batave,

Hindi main keh kar samjhave."

So it is clear that Hindi is historically written in Nastaliq style of Perso-Arabic writing system. Abirtel (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier

///

But that's not Hindi as understood since the 19th century.///

Galib's Qadir Nama was written in 1862. So ....

But the title of the page is about Hindi, not Modern Standered Hindi. So this info must be added.

You are requested to procede for consensus as you have mentioned earlier.

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Means I have to agree with you by all means even if you haven't even presented one single secondary source which says that Modern Standard Hindi was written in Urdu, nor a secondary source which says that Ghalib's work were written in "Hindi"? No. –Austronesier (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, MSH does not deny the historic legacy of Hindi.

let me provide a secondary source about Ghalib's Hindi.

Ghalib wrote in Perso-Arabic script which is used to write modern Urdu, but often called his language "Hindi"; one of his works was titled Ode-e-Hindi (Urdu: عود هندی, lit. 'Perfume of Hindi').

Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Because Hindi was one of the earlier names for Urdu, like Hindustani. Hindi, in that context, doesn't actually refer to the modern, Sanskritanised register of Hindustani. نعم البدل (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then in that case, Historic Hindi or تاریخی ہندی page should be created. Because Not only in Ghalib, but also Emperor Aurangzeb himself declared his tongue is Hindvi, Emperor Shah Alam said his tongue is Hindi.

Meer taqi meer said his tongue is Hindi.

Even Allama iqbal have said his tongue is Hindi in the first decade of 20th century.

Moreover modern Indian scholarship unanimously agreed Hindi was written in nastaliq style of perso-Arabic system. Like Omkar nath kaul. Reference have already mentioned. @Austronesier

@نعم البدل

@Largoplazo Abirtel (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we get it. Five hundred seven-nine thousand scholars all agree that a family of language varieties that a hundred years ago was considered "Hindi" was often written in Arabic script. I think all of us here agree with that. But we understand, and have explained to you, while you continue to ignore, that the people who were using that script spoke a variety of that language that today is not called Hindi, and this article isn't about that variety.

Then in that case, Historic Hindi or تاریخی ہندی page should be created. When you wrote that, it looked like you were starting to get the point, but then you lost it. But we have that article: Hindustani language, which covers the broader language that includes the varieties that we, today, call "Hindi" and "Urdu". Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

But that Hindustani is different from what we are discussing about. We are discussing about Hindi which was solely written on Nastaliq style of Perso-Arabic system, is different from Modern Hindi and Urdu. As Hindustani is a broad term comprising multiple dialects with scripts.

@Austronesier Abirtel (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't different. Hindustani is at the level of generality you need to be at to be able to claim that it has been written in both Nastaliq and Devanagari. It has multiple varieties. The variety that the Nastaliq writer were using is the one that today is called "Urdu", which was and is a subset of Hindustani. What today is called Hindi is also a subset of Hindustani, one that's written in Devanagari. Largoplazo (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yea. You are refering about Hindustani (which comprises multiple dialects and scripts) and it's modern registers after 1947.

But I am referring about a group of literatures which was written mentioning as Hindi; as well as solely written in Nastaliq style of Perso-Arabic system from at least 16th Century to the end of the 19th Century.

Your mentioned articles are not about that Hindi ہندی at all.

That is why we need a separate article on Historic Hindi.

@Largoplazo Abirtel (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Below I wrote about making the same argument over and over, which you're continuing to do. It's time for me to move on to the corresponding point of continuing to argue with the same person who fails to recognize the flaws in their arguments. I'm done. Largoplazo (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Making the same argument over and over after the flaw in it (that this article is not about the language that, back then, was referred to by the same name) has already been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people is not how one gains consensus. It does have the merit of being a waste of your own, as well as everyone else's, time, if that's your goal. Largoplazo (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Mirza Ghalib quote

@PadFoot2008: I understand the quote is under the "Hindustani" section, but this Hindustani section is found under the "Hindi" article.

It's important to note, as I've skimmed through the edit history of this section, several quotes by renowned Urdu writers had been included here initially (rev on 27 May 2023), as this section was actually included to clearly ambiguity of the names (ie. "Hindi" an old name for Urdu vs Hindi – the modern vernacular). However this section, which was evidently about Urdu, subtly became 'Hindustani', turned into 'Hindustani' – the ancestor of 'Hindi', yet the Urdu quotes remained.

Even if you were to use the quotes here, why say "in the Nastaliq script", and then proceed to include the quote in transliteration? That implies that 1. the quote is relevant to Modern Hindi, and 2. Modern Hindi is/was written in the "Nastaliq script", neither of which is true.

This has clearly caused confusion, hence the discussion above. نعم البدل (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rev by User:Word0151 on 15th August 2023. نعم البدل (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل, The language prior to the Hindi-Urdu controversy was known by multiple names, including Hindustani, Urdu, Hindavi and Hindi. Today, that language and stage is referred to as Hindustani. Urdu now refers to the post-partition language written in Perso-Arabic while Hindi now refers to the post-partition language developed in Devanagari. Both Hindi and Urdu are old names for what is now called Hindustani. However, I've no objection to the removal of that quote if it could create confusion. PadFoot (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: The quote has been removed by @Largoplazo: but I don't get why we're censoring the word "Urdu" and replacing it with "Hindustani in the the Perso-Arabic script" (rev). The entire point was that the language which was once, historically, called "Hindi", is now "Urdu", not "Hindustani in the Perso-Arabic script". Urdu was also known as "Hindustani", but not the modern vernacular "Hindi". A layman doesn't know what "Hindustani in the Perso-Arabic script" is, but they will know what "Urdu" is. نعم البدل (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed it altogether, as I noted in my edit summary, when I finally actually read the quote and saw that it made no sense for it to be there, even before getting into squabbles over terminology and scripts. Between the sentence Major Hindustani writers continued to refer to their tongue as Hindi or Hindavi till the early of 19th century and a paragraph about the scholarly work of John Gilchrist was wedged a piece of trivia about a guy once writing down down the equivalents in one language for another language's words for "mongoose", "peacock", and "ptarmigan". It doesn't exactly fit the context or the flow. Largoplazo (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Apologies, I shouldn't have really pinged you, I thought you had perhaps removed it because of my discussion. I'm not disputing your removal of the quote, I agree with it, it wasn't relevant here. My issue is that Urdu is being subtly replaced with "Hindustani in the Perso-Arabic script". نعم البدل (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's OK, I wasn't taking you the wrong way, I was just piggy-backing on what you'd written to explain in the ongoing discussion what I'd previous consigned to a series of edit summaries. Largoplazo (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I figured out how to mention Ghalib in a way that actually fits the context. I've added "For example, poet Mirza Ghalib, in his work Qādir Nāma, refers to the language as "Hindi"." In other words, making the point directly, rather than listing two lines of prose in Devanagari and English, digressing into the phrase about Nastaliq without actually presenting the original Nastaliq text, and using boldfacing in hopes that the reader would notice that that one word that would otherwise have been completely obscured by the entirely of it was the actual point. Largoplazo (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Because Hindustani and Urdu are different. Hindi and Urdu refered to the same language prior to the Hindi-Urdu controversy in the twentieth century, which is now refered to as Hindustani by linguists. Only after the Hindi-Urdu controversy did Hindustani evolved into two standard registers — Hindi and Urdu. Using these terms (either 'Hindi' or 'Urdu') to refer to the pre-controversy language is incorrect and anachronistic and appears a bit POV-pushy to me. PadFoot (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Boats were boats, castles were castles, dinosaurs were dinosaurs long before those names for them existed. If someone spoke or wrote in what today is called Urdu, then it was Urdu. Largoplazo (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: In the "pre-controversy era", the language that is now known as Urdu, was known as "Hindi", "Hindustani", "Delhvi", "Lahori" whatever. They are not different. Just because the name "Hindustani" now refers to something else (ie. Hindi-Urdu cluster), does not negate that Urdu, was indeed known as Hindustani and anyone speaking "Hindustani" or "Hindi" historically was in fact speaking what is now known as "Urdu", not "Hindustani in the Perso-Arab script".

• appears a bit POV-pushy to me. – Let's not go there, because the matter of the fact is that "Urdu" has been removed several times (for which I've included revs), not added, and instead replaced with a blocky phrase like "Hindustani in the Perso-Arabic script", just to avoid even mentioning it. نعم البدل (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Urdu (and Hindi) is now used to refer to the last stage of the development of Hindustani, i.e., post-partition of India. The language now known as Urdu (as well as the language now known as Hindi), was formed only in twentieth century. The prior stage is referred to as Hindustani, while the stage even before it referred to as Old Hindi. Any other usage of both Hindi and Urdu will be anachronistic as well as a POV push. PadFoot (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: The name "Urdu" for what you call the 'Hindustani language' has been attested at least in the 18th century. That is itself disproves you. You have pushed your views on all three articles Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani language, by subtly trying to remove the name "Urdu" and replacing it with "Hindustani". THAT is a POV push. نعم البدل (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Any other usage of both Hindi and Urdu will be anachronistic as well as a POV push – Gatekeeping, might I add. نعم البدل (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Urdu (and Hindi) is now used to refer to the last stage of the development of Hindustani, i.e., post-partition of India. The language now known as Urdu (as well as the language now known as Hindi), was formed only in twentieth century. This is with all due respect not just POV but patent nonsense. The modern standard form of Hindi was deliberately developed in the 19th century, whereas Urdu has a continuous history that long predates the time when it first came to be known as "Urdu", basically back to Amir Khusrau. There is a legitimate POV in some literature that prefers to use "Urdu" only from the 18th century onward when an elitist literary language emerged that aimed to make it as "refined" (in contemporary eyes) as Persian by the massive use of learned Perso-Arabic borrowings and dispreferred use of words not felt to be "refined" (including both tatsama and tadbhava Indo-Aryan words, but also words of Perso-Arabic origin); in such a POV (which is also largely followed in Wikipedia articles), the earlier language is called "Hindustani" or "Hindvi/Hindavi". But note that this just a terminological convention. The language remained the same, only the limits of its high-brow register were extended to levels not seen before (i.e. pre-18th century).

Post-independence regulators certainly have had some impact in vocabulary building and vocabulary preferences, but haven't turned Urdu and Hindi into different languages.

Finally, hardly any linguist calls Hindi–Urdu "Hindustani" nowadays. As a cover term for the structural linguistic identity of Hindi and Urdu, it is obsolescent and artificially kept alive through Wikipedia. –Austronesier (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Prior to being called Urdu, the language was called Hindi, Hindavi, Hindustani and a gazillion other terms. Even after the term "Urdu" was invented, it was used interchangeably with these words. The modern-day meaning of the word "Urdu" is basically using that language in the Perso-Arabic script. Modern Standard Hindi was developed from the same language by Sanskritising it and writing it in Devanagari script. So using the term "Urdu" in its modern sense to refer to the language before "Urdu" began to be used specifically to refer to the language written in the Perso-Arabic script is anachronistic. Urdu and Hindi are the same language, Urdu is written specifically in the Perso-Arabic script and MS Hindi has a Sanskritised vocabulary and written specifically in Devanagari script. During that time, Urdu and Hindi were synonymous, with the above difference not existing, thus there is no reason why Urdu must be used there; Hindustani being neutral in its implication, should be used. PadFoot (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Also @نعم البدل, I've not edited the Hindustani language article. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008:

• Even after the term "Urdu" was invented – That's not an argument, nor is it even relevant. The point was the language that previously went by the names of 'Hindi', 'Hindustani' is now known as "Urdu", and it is the popular name for that language that everyone understands. As I've mentioned, this has already caused confused in the discussion above. Not even Hindi-Urdu speakers know what "Hindustani" is, let alone actually employ or associate with such a name/language, let alone trying to further complicate things by trying to hyperactively replace "Urdu" with "Hindustani [in the Perso-Arab script]" to readers.
• thus there is no reason why Urdu must be used there; Hindustani being neutral in its implication – Because "Hindustani" has multiple meanings, one of them is the modern sense which the Hindi-Urdu cluster. The other is the historical name for Urdu. The latter is now obsolete. Using Hindustani implies that the text is talking about something other than Urdu, which is not the case. Even the Hindustani language article doesn't make it clear, what it's actually supposed to be about, it's a mess.

For instance (bearing in mind the is the Hindi article):

Major Hindustani writers continued to refer to their tongue as Hindi or Hindavi till the early of 19th century implies that the "Hindustani writers", such as Mirza Ghalib, associated with 'Modern Hindi', and not "Urdu", when actually it's the opposite. Not only that, the reference uses the name "Urdu", not Hindustani. So why the push? نعم البدل (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل, "Not even Hindi-Urdu speakers know what "Hindustani" is, let alone actually employ or associate with such a name/language" that's a complete made-up assumption of yours. Also as @Austronesier stated, Urdu and Hindi are not different languages and have never been separate languages. They are the same thing, written in different scripts (with MS Hindi having more Sanskrit words it its vocabulary). This is the modern meaning of Urdu before which both had the same meaning. Using the term Urdu in its modern sense to refer to its historical usage would be anachronistic and a gross muddling up of history. "implies that the "Hindustani writers", such as Mirza Ghalib, associated with 'Modern Hindi', and not "Urdu"" I never referred to MS Hindi. I was talking about the name 'Hindi' and 'Urdu' being used for Hindustani prior to the development of their special meanings. Lastly, nothing about the Hindustani language seems to me to be a mess. It is about the language while the articles Urdu and Hindi are about its two official standard varities written in two different scripts and one employing more Sanskrit words. PadFoot (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Also @Austronesier and @نعم البدل, as a sidenote: I am fully aware that modern-day Urdu and Hindustani are the same language, I never disputed that. However in its modern day sense, Urdu is specifically associated with the Perso-Arabic script and not the language, rather a standardised register in the script. Thus it's usage would be anachronistic. "Hindustani" has multiple meanings, one of them is the modern sense which the Hindi-Urdu cluster" — it's unclear what you mean here. Hindustani (in the article) refers to the single language that is officially called "Urdu" and "MS Hindi". PadFoot (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008:

• This is the modern meaning of Urdu before which both had the same meaning. Using the term Urdu in its modern sense to refer to its historical usage would be anachronistic and a gross muddling up of history. – Put aside everything for a moment. The references, modern references, which are referring to the 'Hindustani period' literally call it Urdu. If it says Urdu, then there is absolutely no need to substitute the name with "Hindustani", otherwise all it seems like is you are purposely censoring the name "Urdu". نعم البدل (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I can provide references calling it "Hindustani" or even "Hindi". There's no reason for you to assume that all references unanimously use "Urdu". PadFoot (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The existing references are sufficient, and they label it "Urdu", not "Hindustani". Now you wish to bring other references to justify censoring the name "Urdu"?

If you understand that Hindustani is the same as Urdu, then keep it as Urdu – because that is what is "specifically" being referred to as here, and ambiguous, and clearly it only seems to be you who wants to avoid using it, when everybody else is fine with. Your point about it being 'anachronistic' is a bit superficial, considering the name itself has been used for at least three centuries now. No one uses the name "Hindustani" or "Hindi" to refer to "Urdu".

And yes, at all the points where you have attempted to censor the name "Urdu", the corresponding references have indeed used "Urdu" not "Hindustani". نعم البدل (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

My point was that there are references calling the language Hindi, Hindustani, as well as a variety of other names. Hindustani is not same as Urdu. Urdu in its modern sense refers specifically to the Hindustani language written in the Perso-Arabic script. This distinction didn't exist earlier and thus the specific use of "Urdu" makes it anachronistic. The name had been since three centuries to refer to the Hindustani language regardless of script used, until its standardisation in the Perso-Arabic script. This modern usage shouldn't be applied to the historical language to prevent anachronism. PadFoot (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Again, you are not here to dictate the references, which call it Urdu. So leave it as Urdu, not Hindustani. You are making that part up yourself. As I said you are the only person to have an issue with that. It is not "anachronism".

Urdu in its modern sense refers specifically to the Hindustani language written in the Perso-Arabic script. Urdu IS Hindustani, Hindi etc. Not just "Hindustani in the Perso-Arab script". There is a reason why Hindustani history typically comes under "Urdu", and it is the same reason why it was mentioned that writers like Mirza Ghalib continued calling their language "Hindi", "Hindustani", despite this new standard that was set, called Modern Hindi, despite speaking that Urdu language. نعم البدل (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل, just because something has been incorrect for a while, doesn't mean that it's automatically correct now. What you are basically trying to say here is that you shall not allow the addition of any sources that oppose your POV, but only allow the sources you wish to retain and better serve your own POV. You should understand that Urdu and Hindi neither are, nor ever have been "languages". Even Austronesier agreed with that. They are the standard registers of the same language (which is called Hindustani). And if you think that "Urdu" if written in Devanagari script will still be called Urdu, then you are completely unaware of what Urdu is. Urdu is Hindustani in the Perso-Arabic script specifically. Urdu is not a language. Besides the topic history of Hindustani has its own article and the history of the language is mentioned in the history sections of both Hindi and Urdu, not just Urdu. PadFoot (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Query

@Foreverknowledge

Sir, My last change does not contradict the agreed narrative. Then how my particular change is not sensed? Jabirttk351 (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It was ungrammatical. Largoplazo (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In addition to being ungrammatical it also doesn’t make sense. Hindustani has had various related meanings over time. Hindustani has meant: a) the Khariboli lingua franca, b) Urdu, and c) modern Hindi. This section is discussing the development of Hindustani/Khariboli lingua franca to Hindi. @Jabirttk351 You appear to be discussing Hindustani as a synonym for Urdu which doesn’t make sense in the context of this article. Foreverknowledge (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge ////Hindustani or Hindavi had a grammar like Modern Hindi and the script is like Modern Urdu. This same language was started to refer as Urdu when Emperor of Hindostan, Shah Alam II popularised it in Shahr-e-Urdu-e-Mualla-e-Shahjahanabad (Modern day Old Delhi) by speaking it informally in his royal court. As a result Hindi/Hindavi/Hindustani synonymously was called Zuban-e Urdu-e mualla-e-Shahjahanabad or Zuban-e-Urdu. ////

So Hindustani/Hindavi/Hindi was called Urdu long before Modern register Urdu. Jabirttk351 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Urdu as a language name appeared in the 1770s which is when the modern register of Urdu was developing. In addition, Modern Hindi and Urdu share the same grammar, while the script used for Hindustani has been Devanagari, Perso-Arabic, and several others. So what you are saying is ungrammatical and doesn’t make sense at all. Foreverknowledge (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge Here is the thing.

According to own identification of Emperor Shah Alam II, that tongue was Hindi, not Urdu as we solely identify today.

The first Quran translation of Urdu was done around 1828. But that translation mentions that it was being done in Hindi.

So the conclusion you've provided is not actually 100% right.

If you take the bible translation of 1842 in Hindustani language, then it is easy to conclude Hindustani register was written only in Perso-Arabic. Jabirttk351 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The name Hindi was previously used for any Indian language, including Hindustani (from which modern Urdu and modern Hindi emerged). It was also a name for modern Urdu itself during the 18th-19th centuries. As for Hindustani, some chose to write it in Perso-Arabic script, some chose Devanagari. I can point out many examples of Hindustani written in Devanagari. Language and script were not closely intertwined in pre-modern times. One of the sources you cited says: “Hindavi/Hindustani, written in Perso-Arabic script, came to be called Urdu, and when written in Devnagari, it became Hindi.” Foreverknowledge (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be repetetive, so I just link to an earlier comment of mine (in reaction to a different claim, but also applicable here):[1]. The clumsy phrasing introduced by @Jabirttk351 is little helpful as it insinuates different things instead of just two different terms for the same thing. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it’s a clumsy phrasing and is little helpful. For your linked comment, I agree with parts of it. I can get into the details of that if it becomes relevant here. Foreverknowledge (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge

///“Hindavi/Hindustani, written in Perso-Arabic script, came to be called Urdu, and when written in Devnagari, it became Hindi.”///

That is around 1900. Even in 1862 Mirza Ghalib says his tongue is Hindi. In 1903 Allama iqbal have said his tongue is Hindi. So Hindustani, Hindi and Urdu were synonymous prior to register Urdu and Hindi.

///As for Hindustani, some chose to write it in Perso-Arabic script, some chose Devanagari///

Here is the thing there was no unified devaNagree prior to Fort William of British East India company. Earlier Devanagre was known to Kashi Nagree script. There were various types of Nagree scripts. In Bihar, Eastern UP local tongue was written in Kaithi. In Maharastra local tongue was for Modi script. So Bhojpuri written in Kaithi, Awadhi written in kashi nagree, Marathi written in Modi script. So the lingua franca Hindustani/Hindi/Hindwi/Dihlawi of Khadi-boli (Urdu) was never written in any other scripts other than Perso-Arabic.

Modern Hindi is the result of throwing out Arabic and Persian vocabularies from Original Hindi/Hindavi/Hindustani/Urdu. Jabirttk351 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What you have written is demonstrably false. Urdu already emerged as a register by the 18th century and Hindi by the 19th century. This was all before Alama Iqbal. The nomenclature had not fully settled into place. His might be the sole example of Hindi used as a name for Urdu in the 20th century.

Devanagari has a long continuous use of around 1000 years. Kaithi, Modi, etc. are related scripts.They are considered Nagari scripts because they all descend from a script called Nagari that was in use during the 1st millennium A.D. Hindustani has been written in Devanagari and various other scripts besides Perso-Arabic. This is a fact. Foreverknowledge (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge

////What you have written is demonstrably false. Urdu already emerged as a register by the 18th century and Hindi by the 19th century.////

In 18th century Urdu register has emerged on not by on Urdu name but on Hindi name. Look at Tarikh e Gharibi of 1757

-logo ko jab khul batave,

Hindi main keh kar samjhave."

So Hindi/Hindustani/Hindwi existed long before Sanskritized pilot project Hindi of Fort William. What I am trying to say that Urdu under the name Hindi/Hindustani/Hindwi predated to Neo Brahmanic Hindi.

///Devanagari has a long continuous use of around 1000 years.///

Devanagari of British era and Devanagari of Modern India are not same at all. Recently "झ" letter has been changed. In 1950s अ, आ, ण, ख letters have been borrowed from Siddhant lipi to Replace similar letter of Sharda lipi in Devanagari.

Any language or script even is a result of CONTINUATION of it's historic past. No dout Hindustani/Urdu has the same. But the thing is we should not attribute any term to the past when that term was not used in that respective people.

Like: Amir khusroo himself used Hindavi term to identify his language and Pandit Tulsi Dwivedi, a contemporary of Samrat Akbar used Braj and Awadhi terms to identify his tongue. But today Amir khusroo has become "Urdu" poet (which he did not heard) and Pandit Tulsi Dwivedi has become Hindi poet (which he did not claim). So the whole modern narrative is factually ahistorical. Jabirttk351 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed edits, three users have already opposed your changes so you don’t have a consensus. But to address your comments for hopefully the last time:

-Urdu as a language name emerged around the 1770s, first used by the poet Mushafi.

-Hindi/Hindustani/Hindvi (the lingua franca from which modern Urdu and modern Hindi emerged) has been used since roughly the 12th-13th centuries.

-Modern Urdu (which was also variously referred to as Hindi/Hindustani/Hindvi) has been used since the 18th century.

-Modern Hindi (which was also variously referred to as Hindi/Hindustani/Hindvi) has been used since the 19th century.

-Let’s stick to accepted nomenclature instead of coining new terms (“Neo Brahmanic Hindi”) based on your personal whim.

-Both sets of variant characters have been used in Devanagari for centuries. In the 20th century, one set was declared the standard and the other fell out of use. Secondly, modification of a few characters or declaring one as standard doesn’t make it a new script. Characters have been modified in the Roman script used for English over time but it’s still the same script. Nun Ghunna was added relatively recently to Urdu (not found in Platts for example) but that doesn’t make it a different script. Same is true for Devanagari.

-Here is an enlightening article for you to read about the history of Hindustani/Hindavi in various scripts including Devanagari and Perso-Arabic. Foreverknowledge (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't talk about one thing while changing the name we use for it constantly depending on which decade or century we're referring to at the moment or the usage of each respective historical person we're referencing. There are even many peoples/languages we can't talk about using the names given to them by the peoples/speakers themselves because we don't know what those names were. The article should consistenly use the terminology of today.

Aside from that, this has become repetitive. It might be a good idea to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Largoplazo (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

"Hi-IN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hi-IN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 27 § Hi-IN until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 01:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)