In <1...@niktow.canisius.edu> sal...@niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) writes:
>Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, >the language of the Mongols. I am a member of the Society for Creative >Anachronism where everybody pretends to be someone who might have lived in >the middle ages and researches their persona. >We have a woman in our local group who wants to be a Mongol. She has chosen >the name Cori Ghora. She says that "cor" means thief, "-i" is a feminine >ending, and "ghora" means horse. She has no documentation for the name other >than a primer of the Urdu language. We need answers to a few questions. >1.) Is Urdu the language of the Mongols?
You're 2000 miles wide of the mark, buddy. The Urdu language originates from India. Its creation is attributed to the Mughals (also spelt Mogal, and pronounced as in the phrase "movie mogal"). It originated from the Deccan plain, and is directly based upon the dialect of Indo-European that was spoken in the city of Lucknow. Hence the original urdu poets are known as Dakkhani (as in Deccan) poets. This dialect was developed under the auspices of the mughal emperor Shah Jahan - the king who had the Taj Mahal built for his beloved wife.
>2.) Do the words translate what she says they do?
The words "Cori Ghora" (pronounced "ChoRee GhoRda) translate to: "Stolen Horse".
>3.) Is the grammatical construction correct?
The grammatical construction is correct, but it means "Stolen Horse" !
>4.) Is this the type of name Mongols would use?
No, probably Amerindians would use such a name, but definitely not the Mughals.
Typical Mughal/Persian/Indian female names are very beautiful, e.g.:
>Documentation, or a pointer towards it, would be greatly appreciated. Please >send e-mail as I normally don't read this group. adTHANKSvance.
OK, I'll e-mail you an Urdu Dictionary. I'll e-mail the dictionary to anyone else that wants it.
While we're on the subject the Hindi and Urdu languages are almost identical, except for the fact that Hindi is written in Devanagri script and Urdu is written in Arabic/Persian script. This difference is due to the nationalistic tendencies of the rulers of India and Pakistan. After independence, from the British in 1947, the Indians decided to write the language known as "Hindustani" in the Devanagri script, the ancient script in which Sanskrit is written.
A similar thing happened in the U.S. during the middle of the last century, when the Americans to emphasize the fact that they indeed spoke a separate language from the British, decided to introduced American spellings. Nevertheless I would say that the two dialects of english are very similar, and are becoming more so.
> - David
Peace - Tariq --
Tariq Hamid Internet: tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Department of Computer Science JANET: tar...@uk.ac.qmw.dcs Queen Mary & Westfield College Mile End Road Telephone: +44 71-975 5245 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: +44 81-980 6533
In <1...@niktow.canisius.edu> sal...@niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) writes:
>Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, >the language of the Mongols. I am a member of the Society for Creative >Anachronism where everybody pretends to be someone who might have lived in >the middle ages and researches their persona. >We have a woman in our local group who wants to be a Mongol. She has chosen >the name Cori Ghora. She says that "cor" means thief, "-i" is a feminine >ending, and "ghora" means horse. She has no documentation for the name other >than a primer of the Urdu language. We need answers to a few questions. >1.) Is Urdu the language of the Mongols?
You're 2000 miles wide of the mark, buddy. The Urdu language originates from India. Its creation is attributed to the Mughals (also spelt Mogal, and pronounced as in the phrase "movie mogal"). It originated from the Deccan plain, and is directly based upon the dialect of Indo-European that was spoken in the city of Lucknow. Hence the original urdu poets are known as Dakkhani (as in Deccan) poets. This dialect was developed under the auspices of the mughal emperor Shah Jahan - the king who had the Taj Mahal built for his beloved wife.
>2.) Do the words translate what she says they do?
The words "Cori Ghora" (pronounced "ChoRee GhoRda) translate to: "Stolen Horse".
>3.) Is the grammatical construction correct?
The grammatical construction is correct, but it means "Stolen Horse" !
>4.) Is this the type of name Mongols would use?
No, probably Amerindians would use such a name, but definitely not the Mughals.
Typical Mughal/Persian/Indian female names are very beautiful, e.g.:
>Documentation, or a pointer towards it, would be greatly appreciated. Please >send e-mail as I normally don't read this group. adTHANKSvance.
OK, I'll e-mail you an Urdu Dictionary. I'll e-mail the dictionary to anyone else that wants it.
While we're on the subject the Hindi and Urdu languages are almost identical, except for the fact that Hindi is written in Devanagri script and Urdu is written in Arabic/Persian script. This difference is due to the nationalistic tendencies of the rulers of India and Pakistan. After independence, from the British in 1947, the Indians decided to write the language known as "Hindustani" in the Devanagri script, the ancient script in which Sanskrit is written.
A similar thing happened in the U.S. during the middle of the last century, when the Americans to emphasize the fact that they indeed spoke a separate language from the British, decided to introduced American spellings. Nevertheless I would say that the two dialects of english are very similar, and are becoming more so.
> - David
Peace - Tariq
--
Tariq Hamid Internet: tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Department of Computer Science JANET: tar...@uk.ac.qmw.dcs Queen Mary & Westfield College Mile End Road Telephone: +44 71-975 5245 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: +44 81-980 6533
In article <1992Dec19.172133.18...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes:
This difference is due to the nationalistic tendencies of the rulers of India and Pakistan. After independence, from the British in 1947, the Indians decided to write the language known as "Hindustani" in the Devanagri script, the ancient script in which Sanskrit is written.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Hindi had been a written language -- written in Devanagari -- since the 12th century.
Hindi and Urdu are closely related, I know, the first being influenced by Sanskrit and the latter by Farsi and Arabic. Hindustani is supposed to be a language which is neutral between them, but its linguistic status (rather than its political status) is unclear to me. -- John O'Neil "Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own -- who does not now and then become the victim of such delusions?" -- Paul Feyerabend
Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, the language of the Mongols. I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism where everybody pretends to be someone who might have lived in the middle ages and researches their persona.
We have a woman in our local group who wants to be a Mongol. She has chosen the name Cori Ghora. She says that "cor" means thief, "-i" is a feminine ending, and "ghora" means horse. She has no documentation for the name other than a primer of the Urdu language. We need answers to a few questions.
1.) Is Urdu the language of the Mongols? 2.) Do the words translate what she says they do? 3.) Is the grammatical construction correct? 4.) Is this the type of name Mongols would use?
Documentation, or a pointer towards it, would be greatly appreciated. Please send e-mail as I normally don't read this group. adTHANKSvance.
- David
Disclaimer : A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers. Internet : sal...@niktow.cs.canisius.edu USnail-net : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street, Buffalo, New York 14212-2029
>In article <1992Dec19.172133.18...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes: > This difference is due to the nationalistic > tendencies of the rulers of India and Pakistan. After independence, from the > British in 1947, the Indians decided to write the language known as > "Hindustani" in the Devanagri script, the ancient script in which Sanskrit > is written. >Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Hindi had been a >written language -- written in Devanagari -- since the 12th century. >Hindi and Urdu are closely related, I know, the first being influenced >by Sanskrit and the latter by Farsi and Arabic. Hindustani is >supposed to be a language which is neutral between them, but its >linguistic status (rather than its political status) is unclear to me. >-- >John O'Neil >"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own -- who does not now > and then become the victim of such delusions?" > -- Paul Feyerabend
It all depends on how history is interpreted. Hindi and Urdu are both directly based upon a dialect of indo-european that was spoken in Lucknow (circa 1700 A.D.).
And yes I do agree that Urdu is this language with Farsi etc tacked on, and Hindi is this language with Sanskrit tacked on. Unfortunately the distinction between Urdu and Hindi is not so clear cut, since there are a large number of Farsi (, etc) words that appear in Hindi, and a very large number of Sanskriti words that appear in Urdu. As to what this base dialect is to be called is a matter of debate. I admit that to call it "Hindustani" is too much of a generalization as this is a later development.
Now for the good bit. Many of my friends who have learnt Hindi at school in India are baffled by many Hindi texts with big Sanskrit words in them. And I am talking about highly educated people here. Similarly some words in Urdu are difficult to interpret (since they have been artificially introduced from Farsi (, etc)).
Nevertheless after 1947, there has been a concerted attempt to exaggerate these differences. This is ironic because a lot of "Hindi" literature is based on and in "Urdu" literature.
We can end up getting caught up in a debate similar to that raging in alt.usage.english, where there is this pretentious nutter going out of his way to state that the language the Americans speak is not English.
(Remember that a counter argument can be supported by the language spoken in "Hindi" movies, and also by the language spoken by Hindu/Urdu speakers).
C'est la vie,
tariq --
Tariq Hamid Internet: tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Department of Computer Science JANET: tar...@uk.ac.qmw.dcs Queen Mary & Westfield College Mile End Road Telephone: +44 71-975 5245 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: +44 81-980 6533
tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes: > While we're on the subject the Hindi and Urdu languages are almost identical, > except for the fact that Hindi is written in Devanagri script and Urdu is > written in Arabic/Persian script. This difference is due to the nationalistic > tendencies of the rulers of India and Pakistan. After independence, from the > British in 1947, the Indians decided to write the language known as > "Hindustani" in the Devanagri script, the ancient script in which Sanskrit is > written.
I've heard there is another difference - the Urdu-speaking people use more words of Persian/Arabian origin than the Hindi-speaking people. The latter, it is said, do not only use the Indian word rather than the other one (if there are synonyms) but even revive old Sanskrit words in order to have "words of their own" and to not have to use the "foreign" ones...
Is this right? Or is it just another rumor spread by my (indeed very small) "Teach Yourself Hindustani" book?
Julia 8-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Julia Simon
|> A similar thing happened in the U.S. during the middle of the last century, |> when the Americans to emphasize the fact that they indeed spoke a separate |> language from the British, decided to introduced American spellings. |> Nevertheless I would say that the two dialects of english are very similar, |> and are becoming more so.
What evidence is there for the theory that British and American English are becoming more similar? I have the impression that the languages are today more distinct than they were at the time of Edgar Allan Poe, but obviously I am talking about the written languages, not the spoken languages.
In <1992Dec21.162522.8...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> et...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Edmund Grimley-Evans) writes:
>|> A similar thing happened in the U.S. during the middle of the last century, >|> when the Americans to emphasize the fact that they indeed spoke a separate >|> language from the British, decided to introduced American spellings. >|> Nevertheless I would say that the two dialects of english are very similar, >|> and are becoming more so. >What evidence is there for the theory that British and American English are >becoming more similar? I have the impression that the languages are today more >distinct than they were at the time of Edgar Allan Poe, but obviously I am >talking about the written languages, not the spoken languages.
The world media system. For instance the English spoken in the U.S.A would have split in various sub-languages if it were not for televison and radio [ref: BBC2 Horizon programme about "The Origin of Language", shown about 8 months ago]. The same applies to media interaction between the U.S. and the U.K. e.g. TV Shows, pop-songs (except for Michael Jackson ones :).
Peace, tariq --
Tariq Hamid Internet: tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Department of Computer Science JANET: tar...@uk.ac.qmw.dcs Queen Mary & Westfield College Mile End Road Telephone: +44 71-975 5245 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: +44 81-980 6533
In article <1h4ao3INN...@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de> si...@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon) writes: >I've heard [...] the Urdu-speaking people use more >words of Persian/Arabian origin than the Hindi-speaking people. [...] >Is this right? Or is it just another rumor spread by my (indeed very small) >"Teach Yourself Hindustani" book?
It is true, particularly regarding the written languages. Written Hindi is stuffed with Sanskrit words, while written Urdu hardly contains any.
Spoken Hindi uses a good deal more words of Persian/Arabic origin, which brings it closer to Urdu.
-- `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow Ivan A Derzhanski (i...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; i...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu) Gospel) * Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
>>What evidence is there for the theory that British and American English are >>becoming more similar? I have the impression that the languages are today more >>distinct than they were at the time of Edgar Allan Poe, but obviously I am >>talking about the written languages, not the spoken languages.
>The world media system. For instance the English spoken in the U.S.A would >have split in various sub-languages if it were not for televison and radio
In only 300+ years? That would be a pretty amazing rate of divergence, for dialects that are, after all, still spoken in a geogrphically contiguous area. This suggestion is just not realistic.
> The same applies to media interaction between the U.S. >and the U.K. e.g. TV Shows, pop-songs (except for Michael Jackson ones :).
It is conceivable that this might have some conservative effect on divergence with respect to the "standard" dialects of the two countries, though I don't know of any empirical research supporting the claim. It certainly does not have any such effect on the divergence of vernacular dialects either across the Atlantic or on either side of it. These continue to diverge as they always have. -- Scott DeLancey delan...@darkwing.uoregon.edu Department of Linguistics University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403, USA
|> >>What evidence is there for the theory that British and American English are |> >>becoming more similar? ... ... |> >The world media system. For instance the English spoken in the U.S.A would |> >have split in various sub-languages if it were not for televison and radio ...
Actually, I believe that at least some studies suggest that American English dialects are continuing to diverge. As far as the influence of the broadcast media, it is generally evident what the geographical origins of all but the best announcers are. Announcers do have to shift toward a "standard" usage (whose nature is not well understood), but they are seldom successful in eliminating all traces. Some eliminate virtually nothing, sportscasters and weather announcers in particular. I suspect that the main centripetal force in American English is not broadcasting, but migration. Americans, at least certain classes, move around quite a bit.
>In <1...@niktow.canisius.edu> sal...@niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) writes: >>Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, >>the language of the Mongols. I am a member of the Society for Creative >>Anachronism where everybody pretends to be someone who might have lived in >>the middle ages and researches their persona.
to which Tariq Hamid replies:
>You're 2000 miles wide of the mark, buddy. The Urdu language originates from >India.
I think David Salley merely confused "Urdu" and "Ordos". The latter is indeed dialect of Mongolian. So, Ordos is want you want, David. Actually, I think that for your purposes, *any* dialect of Mongolian would do just as nicely. If someone in your Society for Creative Anachronism knows Russian, you're in luck: there are Mongolian handbooks galore published in Russia. Otherwise, dig into your local university's library, crossing fingers.
In <1992Dec23.014814.20...@trl.oz.au> j...@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>>In <1...@niktow.canisius.edu> sal...@niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) writes: >>>Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, >>>the language of the Mongols. I am a member of the Society for Creative >>>Anachronism where everybody pretends to be someone who might have lived in >>>the middle ages and researches their persona. >to which Tariq Hamid replies: >>You're 2000 miles wide of the mark, buddy. The Urdu language originates from >>India. >I think David Salley merely confused "Urdu" and "Ordos". The latter is indeed >dialect of Mongolian. So, Ordos is want you want, David. Actually, I think >that for your purposes, *any* dialect of Mongolian would do just as nicely. >If someone in your Society for Creative Anachronism knows Russian, you're >in luck: there are Mongolian handbooks galore published in Russia. Otherwise, >dig into your local university's library, crossing fingers.
In addition to stating that he wanted to know about Urdu, David Salley also referred to the phrase "Cori Ghora" (pronounced "ChoRee GhoRda") , which means "stolen horse" in Urdu. Any suggestions for what it might mean in Ordos ? :)
: >In <1...@niktow.canisius.edu> sal...@niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) writes: : >>Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, : >>the language of the Mongols. : : I think David Salley merely confused "Urdu" and "Ordos". The latter is indeed : dialect of Mongolian. So, Ordos is want you want, David.
*I* think he confused "Mongols" and "Moguls".
What's Urdu for flea, anyway? That should tell us. -- Fr. John Woolley (j...@evolving.com); vastly enthusiastic about Augustine, Austen, babies, Bach, backgammon, baseball, beer, the Bible, Botticelli, Burke, Chesterton, Dante, Dixieland, hardboiled, Hitchcock, Dr Johnson, Latin, Mozart, Shakespeare/de Vere, St Teresa, Tolkien, Trollope, Fats Waller, and Washington
In article <1992Dec23.163017.84...@evolving.com>, j...@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes: |> : >>Greetings! I am looking for someone who can answer a few questions on Urdu, |> : >>the language of the Mongols. |> : |> : I think David Salley merely confused "Urdu" and "Ordos". The latter is indeed |> : dialect of Mongolian. So, Ordos is want you want, David. |> |> *I* think he confused "Mongols" and "Moguls".
`Mogul' is a variant of `Mongol'. The Moguls considered themselves to be heirs of the Mongol royal line. Conceivably the words `Ordos' and `Urdu' are related, too, though I am unable to verify that. The languages, of course, are completely different in affiliation. I expect this is why Stolen Horse referred to the language as Mongol in the first place.
In article <9...@fs3.cam.nist.gov>, koo...@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.163017.84...@evolving.com>, j...@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes: > `Mogul' is a variant of `Mongol'. The Moguls considered themselves > to be heirs of the Mongol royal line. Conceivably the words `Ordos' > and `Urdu' are related, too, though I am unable to verify that. The > languages, of course, are completely different in affiliation. I
I had always thought that the word `Urdu' was completely Indo-European in origin, since I remember reading that `urdu', meaning `army', was related to the English word `horde' (and now that I think about it, probably to the German word `Heer' as well....)
-- Jeremy Bierbach Georgetown University bierb...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
bierb...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes: > I had always thought that the word `Urdu' was completely >Indo-European in origin, since I remember reading that `urdu', meaning >`army', was related to the English word `horde' (and now that I think >about it, probably to the German word `Heer' as well....)
I think the standard explanation for `horde' and `urdu' is: borrowed from Turkish `ordu' (army). On the other hand, German `Heer', Gothic `harjis', Lit. `k~arias' (army) looks completely unrelated.
In article <1992Dec21.171713.13...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes: >In <1992Dec21.162522.8...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> et...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Edmund Grimley-Evans) writes: >>What evidence is there for the theory that British and American English are >>becoming more similar? I have the impression that the languages are today more >>distinct than they were at the time of Edgar Allan Poe, but obviously I am >>talking about the written languages, not the spoken languages. >The world media system. For instance the English spoken in the U.S.A would >have split in various sub-languages if it were not for televison and radio
This seems to me to be an explanation in search if a phenomenon. The first poster was asking what evidence there is that British and American English *are* becoming more similar, and Mr. Hamid explains *why* they are. But are they? It's not clear.
The notion that the influence of mass media leads to the levelling of dialectal differences has been around for a while (I seem to recall Bloomfield weighing in on it, though I don't remember which side he was on), and there's any amount of anecdotal evidence in favor--and worse, it's plausible, and often superficial accounts take plausibility as a substitute for fact. But--ignoring the fact that we don't have a very good metric of "similarity" between dialects--I haven't seen any real systematic empirical research establishing it. I think we can assume that there's lexical borrowing between the two, but that's about it. Phonologically I don't see much convergence (listen to an average American doing an impression of a "British accent" some time :); morphosyntactically the differences are marginal already.
The fact is, there are two standard languages recognized by all speakers of BritE and AmE, and I would suppose each group is influenced mostly by its own standard, not the other group's. I could imagine pervasive levelling to each standard (though I don't know if that's really happening), but I can't imagine American English becoming assimilated to the British standard or vice versa. Does anyone have any real evidence?
-- Rod Johnson * r...@caen.engin.umich.edu * (313) 764-3103
"What I do doesn't happen in a warehouse" --Jim Dickinson
In article <9...@fs3.cam.nist.gov> koo...@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) writes:
> `Mogul' is a variant of `Mongol'. The Moguls considered themselves > to be heirs of the Mongol royal line. Conceivably the words `Ordos' > and `Urdu' are related, too, though I am unable to verify that. The > languages, of course, are completely different in affiliation. I > expect this is why Stolen Horse referred to the language as Mongol > in the first place.
Mogul is a variant of Mongol but in this case it's one of mistaken identity. Moguls were Turkic not Mongol. In the Central Asian tradition, it became kind of fashionable for all rulers to claim descent from Genghis Khan. There is some controversy about him; whether he was a Mongolized Turk or if he just claimed descent from the old traditional rulers.
The word Urdu, like the word horde is derived from Ordu, which is Turkish for 'army'. I don't know what it means in Mongolian although it could have been either borrowed into Turkic from Mongolian or vice versa. It's also possible that the words Orda (or Ordos) and Ordu are not related and are distinct. --
In article <1992Dec24.015639.2...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> bierb...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes: >In article <9...@fs3.cam.nist.gov>, koo...@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) writes: >> In article <1992Dec23.163017.84...@evolving.com>, j...@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes: >> `Mogul' is a variant of `Mongol'. The Moguls considered themselves >> to be heirs of the Mongol royal line. Conceivably the words `Ordos' >> and `Urdu' are related, too, though I am unable to verify that. The >> languages, of course, are completely different in affiliation. I
> I had always thought that the word `Urdu' was completely >Indo-European in origin, since I remember reading that `urdu', meaning >`army', was related to the English word `horde' (and now that I think >about it, probably to the German word `Heer' as well....)
I don't know whether the word is Turkic or Mongolian but it is hard to make such distinctions anyway. The word Urdu and horde both come from the Turko-Mongolian ordu, meaning army.
As a kid I did wonder why the state Altin Ordu -- Golden Army was called Golden Horde...
In article <1992Dec19.172133.18...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, tariqh@dcs (Tariq Hamid) writes: >In <1...@niktow.canisius.edu> sal...@niktow.canisius.edu (David Salley) writes: >>1.) Is Urdu the language of the Mongols?
>You're 2000 miles wide of the mark, buddy. The Urdu language originates from >India. Its creation is attributed to the Mughals (also spelt Mogal, and >pronounced as in the phrase "movie mogal"). It originated from the Deccan >plain, and is directly based upon the dialect of Indo-European that was spoken >in the city of Lucknow. Hence the original urdu poets are known as Dakkhani >(as in Deccan) poets. This dialect was developed under the auspices of the >mughal emperor Shah Jahan - the king who had the Taj Mahal built for his >beloved wife.
Your time line is distorted a great deal. By the time of the Indo-Iranian invasion of India, the Indo-European language had evolved into a number of mutually non-intelligible languages, just as, in a similar stretch of time, the Indic dialects of the first millenium (the Prakrits) have developed into the modern Indo-Aryan languages, or early Latin has developed into the modern Romance languages. -- Rich Alderson 'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.' --J. R. R. Tolkien, alder...@leland.stanford.edu _The Lost Road_
In article <1h4ao3INN...@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de>, simon@fsinfo (Julia Simon) writes: >tar...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes: >>While we're on the subject the Hindi and Urdu languages are almost identical, >>except for the fact that Hindi is written in Devanagri script and Urdu is >>written in Arabic/Persian script. This difference is due to the nationalistic >>tendencies of the rulers of India and Pakistan. After independence, from the >>British in 1947, the Indians decided to write the language known as >>"Hindustani" in the Devanagri script, the ancient script in which Sanskrit is >>written.
>I've heard there is another difference - the Urdu-speaking people use more >words of Persian/Arabian origin than the Hindi-speaking people. The latter, it >is said, do not only use the Indian word rather than the other one (if there >are synonyms) but even revive old Sanskrit words in order to have "words of >their own" and to not have to use the "foreign" ones...
>Is this right? Or is it just another rumor spread by my (indeed very small) >"Teach Yourself Hindustani" book?
This is the theory. In general, it works about like German, where in the official version one is supposed to use words like "Flugzeugfahrer", but instead one uses words like "Pilot". :-) -- Rich Alderson 'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.' --J. R. R. Tolkien, alder...@leland.stanford.edu _The Lost Road_
In article <ONEIL.92Dec19163...@husc10.harvard.edu>, oneil@husc10 (John O'Neil) writes: >Hindi and Urdu are closely related, I know, the first being influenced by >Sanskrit and the latter by Farsi and Arabic. Hindustani is supposed to be a >language which is neutral between them, but its linguistic status (rather than >its political status) is unclear to me.
It was an attempt at a neutral *name* for the language spoken by Hindus and Moslems, and called variously Hindi and Urdu depending on dialect and writing system.
It is more a political statement than a linguistic definition. -- Rich Alderson 'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.' --J. R. R. Tolkien, alder...@leland.stanford.edu _The Lost Road_
