Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization and Colonial Rule
Aparna Pande April 19, 2007
#55 Posted by samar1982 on April 24, 2007 6:26:18 am
Re: # 54, rahul_capri,
See, languages basically are for communication and not for academic discussions which come much later. I have already gone through all this so there is no point in confronting it again on this board. My point is, whichever way you write, if the reader grasps it the purpose of language ends there. I have just to point out an anomaly. While Tulsidas, who is an Awadhi poet and is more difficult to understand, is taught and considered as Hindi poet, Ghalib and Mir, who are better understood throughout Hindi belt and in many parts of Punjab, Maharashtra and Gujrat, are not. My point is as simple as that. Academically too, Urdu and Hindi are considered direct heirs to Braj and Awadhi languages and for much of the earlier period treated as one and even called Hindvi, Rekhti, Hindustani. English, pursuing their own agenda, and their Indian associates, foolishly, broke this unity. Anyway, history can`t be altered but the fact remains that these are one and the same language written in two different scripts.
Don`t tell me about grammar being different in Urdu and Hindi. Many linguistics have proved it otherwise. As for, Sandhi/Samas in Hindi and something different construct in Urdu are concerned, I think it makes little difference. You can write Mughal-e-azam or Mughale azam and it does not matter much. Even many words in Hindi itself can be written in two/three ways. Ex: Sambandh.
Coincidentally, there is an article by Tariq Rahman in today`s Dawn which highlights my point further.
Samar
See, languages basically are for communication and not for academic discussions which come much later. I have already gone through all this so there is no point in confronting it again on this board. My point is, whichever way you write, if the reader grasps it the purpose of language ends there. I have just to point out an anomaly. While Tulsidas, who is an Awadhi poet and is more difficult to understand, is taught and considered as Hindi poet, Ghalib and Mir, who are better understood throughout Hindi belt and in many parts of Punjab, Maharashtra and Gujrat, are not. My point is as simple as that. Academically too, Urdu and Hindi are considered direct heirs to Braj and Awadhi languages and for much of the earlier period treated as one and even called Hindvi, Rekhti, Hindustani. English, pursuing their own agenda, and their Indian associates, foolishly, broke this unity. Anyway, history can`t be altered but the fact remains that these are one and the same language written in two different scripts.
Don`t tell me about grammar being different in Urdu and Hindi. Many linguistics have proved it otherwise. As for, Sandhi/Samas in Hindi and something different construct in Urdu are concerned, I think it makes little difference. You can write Mughal-e-azam or Mughale azam and it does not matter much. Even many words in Hindi itself can be written in two/three ways. Ex: Sambandh.
Coincidentally, there is an article by Tariq Rahman in today`s Dawn which highlights my point further.
Samar
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#56 Posted by rahul_capri on April 24, 2007 6:35:56 am
summer of 82,
``I think it makes little difference``
Poetry stretches the limit of what a language can do.And that ``small`` thing makes a WORLD of difference.We can agree to disagree.
Though your point about spoken Urdu/Hindi being ``almost`` similar is valid.
``I think it makes little difference``
Poetry stretches the limit of what a language can do.And that ``small`` thing makes a WORLD of difference.We can agree to disagree.
Though your point about spoken Urdu/Hindi being ``almost`` similar is valid.
#58 Posted by dost_mittar on April 24, 2007 6:52:49 pm
samar, rahul:
Here is a Pakistani`s take on the Urdu-Hindi topic, from today`s dawn.
The language of entertainment
By Dr Tariq Rahman
IN March 2007 I went to present a paper at a conference on Urdu at the University of Mumbai. I took this opportunity to interview script and dialogue writers, editors and directors about the language of Hindi films. Some Urdu literary figures like Quratul Ain Hyder have commented that Urdu has been hijacked and its name changed to Hindi in Bollywood.
Historians of the cinema have pointed out that beginning with the early success of ‘Alam Ara’, Urdu started dominating the cinema. A number of other films with Muslim dramatis personae and based on legends in the Islamic culture came to be made. The films were called Hindustani films, although, according to many people, this was actually Urdu.The British called it Hindustani and wrote it in both the Urdu and the Devanagari scripts. However, they used the Urdu script mostly. Though the censor board certified some films as being in Urdu, most considered to be in that language were given Hindi certificates. Even later, it was only rarely that a film got the Urdu certificate — Sohrab Moodi’s ‘Khoon Ka Khoon’ and ‘Pukar as well as Mahbub Khan’s ‘Al-Hilal’ and ‘Ailan’ did get it — but the language of the films which got Hindi certificates was also the same or, at least very similar.
Sometimes Urdu writers would maintain their script, and in their works the poems would appear in the form of the ghazal or rubai but these were are called Hindi ‘geet’ in the film. Famous singers such as Mukesh, Kishore, Rafi, Lata, Asha Bhosle, and Geeta Dutt did, and still do, reproduce flawless Urdu-Arabic sounds. The exceptions are singers and poets from Punjab who substitute ‘k’ for ‘q’ as, indeed, is the common practice in Pakistan.
My view is that the substitution of indigenous sounds for foreign (Arabic and Persian) ones is natural and one need not make so much fuss about it. However, the purists are always averse to such things and kick up a storm the moment one says anything as heterodox as that. The reason is that this particular pronunciation of Urdu, as well as its Persianised character, is an identity symbol of the ‘ashraf’ of north India which was mostly Muslim.
After the removal of Persian from its position of power by the British, this kind of Urdu became a social-class marker as well as a religious-identity marker of the ‘ashraf’ of this part of the world. That is why any infringement of the rules of pronunciation of Urdu is greeted with derision by the self-styled guardians of the language.
The idea that Bollywood films are all in Urdu and it is only for political reasons that they are said to be in Hindi is not entirely true as Javed Siddiqui, one of the great names of Bollywood, pointed out to me in a telephone interview. Hindi films are not all in the same language. They use different styles of speaking.
Some of them use Sanskritised Hindi in their titles, dialogues and even lyrics. Many use language appropriate for the occasion and the person. Thus, different characters draw upon different symbolic vocabularies — Muslims on Perso-Arabic ones in historical films and Hindus on Sanskritic ones — for distinctive authenticity.
Moreover, the argot of the Mumbai underworld — Bambaiya Hindi — is also used in some films as are dialects such as Bhojpuri. In short, only the language corresponding to Urdu, to the exclusion of other styles and varieties of the larger composite language Hindi-Urdu, are not used in Hindi films.
However, while the languages of Bollywood’s ‘Hindi’ movies is not always the language called ‘Urdu’ in Pakistan’s films, it is also true that it is not the Sanskritised Hindi of India’s officialdom. Thus, this language is closer to what used to be called Hindustani. In its commonly used form, it is almost identical to what Pakistanis call Urdu.
There are a few words which differ in Pakistani and Indian films. For instance, ‘vishwas/yaqeen’ are used in Bollywood whereas in Lollywood this is simply ‘yaqeen’. In the same way Bollywood uses ‘pariwar’ which in Lollywood is ‘khandaan’. These words are well-known, however, to film audiences on both sides of the border.
In general, notwithstanding some difficult Perso-Arabic words in Lollywood Urdu or Sanskritic ones in Bollywood Hindi, the language in general use is similar enough to be widely understood by audiences on both sides of the border. Thus those who celebrate the entertainment industry in South Asia including films, dramas, songs and jokes etc as the common linguistic legacy of the ancestor of Urdu and Hindi — call it by any name such as Hindustani, Hindi or Hindvi — have a point.
The name Urdu came to be used only in 1760 for this language but the names Rekhtah, Hindi, Hindvi, Dehlvi, Deccani and Gujri have been used ever since the 13th century if not earlier. Europeans had coined the names Indostan, Moors and the well-known Hindistani for it. But it is only the entertainment industry which uses this language, although, like everybody else, it calls it either Hindi or Urdu. It should be called Urdu-Hindi but that would not be politically correct.
The question as to why Bollywood chose a language, or a variety of a language, so close to what is called Urdu has been discussed by scholars. One of them, Mukul Kesavan of the Jamia Millia, argues that the roots of the Hindi cinema are in the Islamic culture of feudal, decadent, aristocratic Muslim centres of rule of which Lucknow is the best known archetype. The language of this culture, he argues, is Urdu.
Thus, Urdu, Awadh and the tawaif (courtesan) have been instrumental in shaping Hindi cinema as a whole and not just some “Muslim” component of it.
Others deny this. The people I interviewed, including such famous names as Javed Akhtar and Gulzar, said that it was Hindustani which was more easily understood than the other variants of this major language of north India. Javed Akhtar actually said it was Hindustani dipping towards the Urdu end of the language but Gulzar said this was easy Hindustani or folk Hindi.
Nadira Zaheer, wife of the famous Raj Babbar and daughter of the equally famous Sajjad Zaheer, told me she writes for the theatre in a language she calls Hindustani but which sounded mostly like Urdu to my ears. I was told that teachers are hired by actors to teach them the Urdu pronunciation. The biography of singers, such as Lata, also confirms this.
My own hypothesis is that the language of Bollywood dips towards the Urdu end, as does that of soap operas on TV and the street itself because this is the natural language of north Indian and Pakistani cities. It is popular because it is intelligible to more people than any other South Asian language and, therefore, it sells better than any other language.
The sellers of entertainment are aware of this and hence, wisely, do not get ensnared by ideology into using Sanskritised Hindi. Likewise, they do not use highly Persianised Urdu.
As it happens, ordinary Urdu spoken in Pakistani cities is very much like ordinary Hindi spoken in Indian cities. That is why the language of Bollywood is so close to the language of Lollywood. And that is precisely why officialdom, chauvinists and extremists on both sides want to deny the similarity of the commonly understood street language in north India and Pakistan and that this language — call it what you will — is closer to spoken Urdu in Pakistan than they wish to acknowledge.
Here is a Pakistani`s take on the Urdu-Hindi topic, from today`s dawn.
The language of entertainment
By Dr Tariq Rahman
IN March 2007 I went to present a paper at a conference on Urdu at the University of Mumbai. I took this opportunity to interview script and dialogue writers, editors and directors about the language of Hindi films. Some Urdu literary figures like Quratul Ain Hyder have commented that Urdu has been hijacked and its name changed to Hindi in Bollywood.
Historians of the cinema have pointed out that beginning with the early success of ‘Alam Ara’, Urdu started dominating the cinema. A number of other films with Muslim dramatis personae and based on legends in the Islamic culture came to be made. The films were called Hindustani films, although, according to many people, this was actually Urdu.The British called it Hindustani and wrote it in both the Urdu and the Devanagari scripts. However, they used the Urdu script mostly. Though the censor board certified some films as being in Urdu, most considered to be in that language were given Hindi certificates. Even later, it was only rarely that a film got the Urdu certificate — Sohrab Moodi’s ‘Khoon Ka Khoon’ and ‘Pukar as well as Mahbub Khan’s ‘Al-Hilal’ and ‘Ailan’ did get it — but the language of the films which got Hindi certificates was also the same or, at least very similar.
Sometimes Urdu writers would maintain their script, and in their works the poems would appear in the form of the ghazal or rubai but these were are called Hindi ‘geet’ in the film. Famous singers such as Mukesh, Kishore, Rafi, Lata, Asha Bhosle, and Geeta Dutt did, and still do, reproduce flawless Urdu-Arabic sounds. The exceptions are singers and poets from Punjab who substitute ‘k’ for ‘q’ as, indeed, is the common practice in Pakistan.
My view is that the substitution of indigenous sounds for foreign (Arabic and Persian) ones is natural and one need not make so much fuss about it. However, the purists are always averse to such things and kick up a storm the moment one says anything as heterodox as that. The reason is that this particular pronunciation of Urdu, as well as its Persianised character, is an identity symbol of the ‘ashraf’ of north India which was mostly Muslim.
After the removal of Persian from its position of power by the British, this kind of Urdu became a social-class marker as well as a religious-identity marker of the ‘ashraf’ of this part of the world. That is why any infringement of the rules of pronunciation of Urdu is greeted with derision by the self-styled guardians of the language.
The idea that Bollywood films are all in Urdu and it is only for political reasons that they are said to be in Hindi is not entirely true as Javed Siddiqui, one of the great names of Bollywood, pointed out to me in a telephone interview. Hindi films are not all in the same language. They use different styles of speaking.
Some of them use Sanskritised Hindi in their titles, dialogues and even lyrics. Many use language appropriate for the occasion and the person. Thus, different characters draw upon different symbolic vocabularies — Muslims on Perso-Arabic ones in historical films and Hindus on Sanskritic ones — for distinctive authenticity.
Moreover, the argot of the Mumbai underworld — Bambaiya Hindi — is also used in some films as are dialects such as Bhojpuri. In short, only the language corresponding to Urdu, to the exclusion of other styles and varieties of the larger composite language Hindi-Urdu, are not used in Hindi films.
However, while the languages of Bollywood’s ‘Hindi’ movies is not always the language called ‘Urdu’ in Pakistan’s films, it is also true that it is not the Sanskritised Hindi of India’s officialdom. Thus, this language is closer to what used to be called Hindustani. In its commonly used form, it is almost identical to what Pakistanis call Urdu.
There are a few words which differ in Pakistani and Indian films. For instance, ‘vishwas/yaqeen’ are used in Bollywood whereas in Lollywood this is simply ‘yaqeen’. In the same way Bollywood uses ‘pariwar’ which in Lollywood is ‘khandaan’. These words are well-known, however, to film audiences on both sides of the border.
In general, notwithstanding some difficult Perso-Arabic words in Lollywood Urdu or Sanskritic ones in Bollywood Hindi, the language in general use is similar enough to be widely understood by audiences on both sides of the border. Thus those who celebrate the entertainment industry in South Asia including films, dramas, songs and jokes etc as the common linguistic legacy of the ancestor of Urdu and Hindi — call it by any name such as Hindustani, Hindi or Hindvi — have a point.
The name Urdu came to be used only in 1760 for this language but the names Rekhtah, Hindi, Hindvi, Dehlvi, Deccani and Gujri have been used ever since the 13th century if not earlier. Europeans had coined the names Indostan, Moors and the well-known Hindistani for it. But it is only the entertainment industry which uses this language, although, like everybody else, it calls it either Hindi or Urdu. It should be called Urdu-Hindi but that would not be politically correct.
The question as to why Bollywood chose a language, or a variety of a language, so close to what is called Urdu has been discussed by scholars. One of them, Mukul Kesavan of the Jamia Millia, argues that the roots of the Hindi cinema are in the Islamic culture of feudal, decadent, aristocratic Muslim centres of rule of which Lucknow is the best known archetype. The language of this culture, he argues, is Urdu.
Thus, Urdu, Awadh and the tawaif (courtesan) have been instrumental in shaping Hindi cinema as a whole and not just some “Muslim” component of it.
Others deny this. The people I interviewed, including such famous names as Javed Akhtar and Gulzar, said that it was Hindustani which was more easily understood than the other variants of this major language of north India. Javed Akhtar actually said it was Hindustani dipping towards the Urdu end of the language but Gulzar said this was easy Hindustani or folk Hindi.
Nadira Zaheer, wife of the famous Raj Babbar and daughter of the equally famous Sajjad Zaheer, told me she writes for the theatre in a language she calls Hindustani but which sounded mostly like Urdu to my ears. I was told that teachers are hired by actors to teach them the Urdu pronunciation. The biography of singers, such as Lata, also confirms this.
My own hypothesis is that the language of Bollywood dips towards the Urdu end, as does that of soap operas on TV and the street itself because this is the natural language of north Indian and Pakistani cities. It is popular because it is intelligible to more people than any other South Asian language and, therefore, it sells better than any other language.
The sellers of entertainment are aware of this and hence, wisely, do not get ensnared by ideology into using Sanskritised Hindi. Likewise, they do not use highly Persianised Urdu.
As it happens, ordinary Urdu spoken in Pakistani cities is very much like ordinary Hindi spoken in Indian cities. That is why the language of Bollywood is so close to the language of Lollywood. And that is precisely why officialdom, chauvinists and extremists on both sides want to deny the similarity of the commonly understood street language in north India and Pakistan and that this language — call it what you will — is closer to spoken Urdu in Pakistan than they wish to acknowledge.
#59 Posted by rahul_capri on April 24, 2007 7:32:07 pm
dost-mittar-
``And that is precisely why officialdom, chauvinists and extremists on both sides want to deny the similarity of the commonly understood street language in north India and Pakistan and that this language — call it what you will — is closer to spoken Urdu in Pakistan than they wish to acknowledge.``
Even I am not denying this.Since my first post on this board ,I am specifically talking about urdu poetry .The whole point of my #52 was that due to Urdu not being taught in schools, Urdu literature is heading towards a slow but sure death.This is again , not a matter of script. Please read the article I posted in #54 .Urdu poetry has distinct characterstics to say Hindi poetry.It uses arabic words (which one can learn without education) , and arabic grammatical constructs (which one can not learn without formal education). To say that these two languages have same grammar is simplistic and wrong, I would even say criminal if you talk about poetry.
about the ``anomaly`` in samar1982`s #55, first of all I doubt people would understand Ghalib more than Tulsi, at least in UP. Tulsi is in course at different levels.Secondly,I am NOT talking about comprehension.I am talking about poets who can write like that.The modern Urdu poets from India like Nida Fazli(who writes pseudo profound bakwaas poetry like ``ab mai ration ki qataron me nazar aata hoon``) sound like lyricists of Hindi movies of today.
``And that is precisely why officialdom, chauvinists and extremists on both sides want to deny the similarity of the commonly understood street language in north India and Pakistan and that this language — call it what you will — is closer to spoken Urdu in Pakistan than they wish to acknowledge.``
Even I am not denying this.Since my first post on this board ,I am specifically talking about urdu poetry .The whole point of my #52 was that due to Urdu not being taught in schools, Urdu literature is heading towards a slow but sure death.This is again , not a matter of script. Please read the article I posted in #54 .Urdu poetry has distinct characterstics to say Hindi poetry.It uses arabic words (which one can learn without education) , and arabic grammatical constructs (which one can not learn without formal education). To say that these two languages have same grammar is simplistic and wrong, I would even say criminal if you talk about poetry.
about the ``anomaly`` in samar1982`s #55, first of all I doubt people would understand Ghalib more than Tulsi, at least in UP. Tulsi is in course at different levels.Secondly,I am NOT talking about comprehension.I am talking about poets who can write like that.The modern Urdu poets from India like Nida Fazli(who writes pseudo profound bakwaas poetry like ``ab mai ration ki qataron me nazar aata hoon``) sound like lyricists of Hindi movies of today.
#60 Posted by samar1982 on April 25, 2007 4:56:36 am
Re: # 59, rahul_capri,
``To say that these two languages have same grammar is simplistic and wrong, I would even say criminal if you talk about poetry.``
This crime has been committed by many Urdu/Hindi scholars and linguists of the past and have been suitably punished (and are being punished even today) by forces of `officialdom, chauvinists and extremists`. (re: Aab-e-Hayat by Mohammad Husain Azad, the first critic of Urdu language)
While there is no problem in `agreeing to disagree` I wish to do the opposite i.e. quote a portion of poem by one of the greatest poet of Modern Hindi literature.
Bhool-ghalti/aaj baithi hai jirahbakhtar pahankar/takhta par dil ke/chamakte hain khade hathiyar uske door tat/aankhen chilkati hain nukeele tez patthar see/khadi hain sar jhukaye/sab kataren/bezuban bebas salam main...
As for what you said about Nida, `I agree to agree` with you. In fact I don`t know much Urdu so quoted names of some popular Urdu poets. But you can`t deny, Shahryar is one of the `real`poets of Urdu language.
#56, dost-mittar,
The article is a real eyeopener for primary school students who want to know the facts about of Urdu/Hindi divide.
Samar
``To say that these two languages have same grammar is simplistic and wrong, I would even say criminal if you talk about poetry.``
This crime has been committed by many Urdu/Hindi scholars and linguists of the past and have been suitably punished (and are being punished even today) by forces of `officialdom, chauvinists and extremists`. (re: Aab-e-Hayat by Mohammad Husain Azad, the first critic of Urdu language)
While there is no problem in `agreeing to disagree` I wish to do the opposite i.e. quote a portion of poem by one of the greatest poet of Modern Hindi literature.
Bhool-ghalti/aaj baithi hai jirahbakhtar pahankar/takhta par dil ke/chamakte hain khade hathiyar uske door tat/aankhen chilkati hain nukeele tez patthar see/khadi hain sar jhukaye/sab kataren/bezuban bebas salam main...
As for what you said about Nida, `I agree to agree` with you. In fact I don`t know much Urdu so quoted names of some popular Urdu poets. But you can`t deny, Shahryar is one of the `real`poets of Urdu language.
#56, dost-mittar,
The article is a real eyeopener for primary school students who want to know the facts about of Urdu/Hindi divide.
Samar
#61 Posted by dost_mittar on April 25, 2007 6:51:58 am
samar/rahul:
I am not sure what you guys mean when you say that Hindi and Urdu have different grammars. If both of them are successors to the same language, hindvi or whatever, than when did the grammar of the two diverge?
I can readily see if grammar includes phonetics. Yes, Urdu has sounds like Ph (phool) and Gh (ghazal) which cannot be reproduced in devnagri without some trickery, but if you mean more than that, I would appreciate some concrete examples.
I am not sure what you guys mean when you say that Hindi and Urdu have different grammars. If both of them are successors to the same language, hindvi or whatever, than when did the grammar of the two diverge?
I can readily see if grammar includes phonetics. Yes, Urdu has sounds like Ph (phool) and Gh (ghazal) which cannot be reproduced in devnagri without some trickery, but if you mean more than that, I would appreciate some concrete examples.
#62 Posted by jang on April 25, 2007 7:12:06 am
#61 its very clear to me from content or subject matter (besides conjugation of adjectives) ...urdu poetry is about saki, maikhana, yearning etc couched in devition to god (lest the mullah gets upset). it tends to have most oblique references and celebrated sad ethos. hindi stuff is more direct, folksy, light-hearted and 50% of it being about khrishna and his gopis.
#63 Posted by samar1982 on April 25, 2007 7:12:17 am
Re: # 61, dost-mittar,
Ditto! I said both are the same language(s) written in two different scripts.
Samar
Ditto! I said both are the same language(s) written in two different scripts.
Samar
#64 Posted by rahul_capri on April 25, 2007 8:31:02 pm
Re: # 60
samar, The reason why I earlier said..``agree to disagree``, because we were talking through each other. You showed no sign that you wanted to talk about poetry in #55. Though poetry, as I said, stretches language and the poetry of today defines the language of tomorrow I would even say that it is bigger than language..anyhow..this is a digression.
The poetry that you have quoted..is it by Dushyant Kumar? and yes, I agree Shaharyar is a genuine poet.I like Bashir Badr as well.But 4-5 big names to show for 60 years post independence(There are many others, not so popular)? are not these exceptions pointing towards the obvious that Urdu is slowly withering away in the land of its birth..?
I gave you an example of how compound words are formed using ``e`` and ``o``.Ghalibs poetry is full of it.Its not something new that has come up in Urdu .I guess this construct has come from arabic persian,which is only natural because Urdu has borrowed many words from these languages .Pick up anything written by Faiz. Someone brought up in Hindi can understand it,but never write like that. The converse is also true.Someone brought up in Urdu can not write something like ``Ram Ki Shaktipooja`` for instance.
Sometimes I feel that this ``One language two scripts`` notion is more ideological than technical.So it is very difficult to unlearn. anyway....
samar, The reason why I earlier said..``agree to disagree``, because we were talking through each other. You showed no sign that you wanted to talk about poetry in #55. Though poetry, as I said, stretches language and the poetry of today defines the language of tomorrow I would even say that it is bigger than language..anyhow..this is a digression.
The poetry that you have quoted..is it by Dushyant Kumar? and yes, I agree Shaharyar is a genuine poet.I like Bashir Badr as well.But 4-5 big names to show for 60 years post independence(There are many others, not so popular)? are not these exceptions pointing towards the obvious that Urdu is slowly withering away in the land of its birth..?
I gave you an example of how compound words are formed using ``e`` and ``o``.Ghalibs poetry is full of it.Its not something new that has come up in Urdu .I guess this construct has come from arabic persian,which is only natural because Urdu has borrowed many words from these languages .Pick up anything written by Faiz. Someone brought up in Hindi can understand it,but never write like that. The converse is also true.Someone brought up in Urdu can not write something like ``Ram Ki Shaktipooja`` for instance.
Sometimes I feel that this ``One language two scripts`` notion is more ideological than technical.So it is very difficult to unlearn. anyway....
#65 Posted by rahul_capri on April 25, 2007 8:44:18 pm
Re: # 61
dost, i already gave one example --mughal-e-azam..How two words are combined to make a compound word..another type is hosh-o-hawas.In Hindi you have sandhi and samas.
Further in Urdu, you make antonyms by adding ``Na`` or ``Be`` or ``La`` .. Na-aashna , La-parwah , Be-Nazeer
In Hindi..you add ``a```` ..asambaddh , adharm ...
Can you say naadharm?or Besambaddh?
Someone who knows both these languages better can perhaps give more examples.
dost, i already gave one example --mughal-e-azam..How two words are combined to make a compound word..another type is hosh-o-hawas.In Hindi you have sandhi and samas.
Further in Urdu, you make antonyms by adding ``Na`` or ``Be`` or ``La`` .. Na-aashna , La-parwah , Be-Nazeer
In Hindi..you add ``a```` ..asambaddh , adharm ...
Can you say naadharm?or Besambaddh?
Someone who knows both these languages better can perhaps give more examples.
#66 Posted by rahul_capri on April 25, 2007 8:51:00 pm
Re: # 62
jang, yes thats correct,Hindi and Urdu poetry both in tone and subject matter have been different.Going into its reasons is another can of worms, though.
jang, yes thats correct,Hindi and Urdu poetry both in tone and subject matter have been different.Going into its reasons is another can of worms, though.
#67 Posted by khamy1 on April 25, 2007 9:38:11 pm
[Ditto! I said both are the same language(s) written in two different scripts.
Samar[- samer1982 #63.
...if you think they are the same language written differently then do me a favor and explain to us the meaning of this rare ghazal by a hindi poet shri josh malihabadi.
RizwaN ne sar-e-arsh ye di jaa ke duhaii
ay Khaliq-e-Israar-e-azal ramz-e-sarishti
jannat ki fizayeN haiN mukaddar kai din se
amada-e-ighlaam haiN hooroN se baheshti
ghilmanoN ke sifroN se lahoo behta hai paiham
kambakht ghisaRte haiN hareeri maiN voh khisti
kya kya maiN nasabnamay bataoon ke Khudawand
inn maiN koi rizvi, koi naqvi, koi chishti
Thanks in advance…;)
Samar[- samer1982 #63.
...if you think they are the same language written differently then do me a favor and explain to us the meaning of this rare ghazal by a hindi poet shri josh malihabadi.
RizwaN ne sar-e-arsh ye di jaa ke duhaii
ay Khaliq-e-Israar-e-azal ramz-e-sarishti
jannat ki fizayeN haiN mukaddar kai din se
amada-e-ighlaam haiN hooroN se baheshti
ghilmanoN ke sifroN se lahoo behta hai paiham
kambakht ghisaRte haiN hareeri maiN voh khisti
kya kya maiN nasabnamay bataoon ke Khudawand
inn maiN koi rizvi, koi naqvi, koi chishti
Thanks in advance…;)
#68 Posted by KaalChakra on April 25, 2007 10:42:24 pm
khamy1
You, cheat! :)
If someone picked any passage from, say, kamayani of Jaishankar Prasad, 90% of Hindi speakers couldn`t make head or tail of what on earth the poet was trying to say. So that proves little.
For a language that has been influenced by so many great cultural forces, over so long a period of time, we can only talk about a wide range, a continuum of expressions, vocabularies, and ideas. These stretch, naturally, from Arabian/Persian to indigenous and Sanskrit-based. The situation is almost identical to that in Hindustani classical music. Internally very very diverse, but not five different things.
Unless we argue that Urdu is basically and irreplaceably a Muslim language meant merely to express Islamic religious idiom (an argument made effectively by many), the Arabic/Persian component had to wither away after India became free. How could it be otherwise? But as a non-religious language of every day existence, of common secular discourse, it will bloom, taking on a more and more indigenous form. Poetry too will come, but in a new form: Indian urdu poetry will be very different from Arabic/Persian poetry of the past. An Indian might feel more at home writing about his girlfriend gayatri living in the gaon of gola gunj than about the ghilmans :). And he would draw more words and sensibilities from his connections to awadhi and brajbhasha than from Arabic and Persian languages and cultures.
Still, rahul may yet be right. He seems to know Urdu/Hindi language and literature better than I do.
By the way I could figure out most of Sri malihabadi, although not all. Had we been up against something like kamayani, I would have been in worse trouble :(
You, cheat! :)
If someone picked any passage from, say, kamayani of Jaishankar Prasad, 90% of Hindi speakers couldn`t make head or tail of what on earth the poet was trying to say. So that proves little.
For a language that has been influenced by so many great cultural forces, over so long a period of time, we can only talk about a wide range, a continuum of expressions, vocabularies, and ideas. These stretch, naturally, from Arabian/Persian to indigenous and Sanskrit-based. The situation is almost identical to that in Hindustani classical music. Internally very very diverse, but not five different things.
Unless we argue that Urdu is basically and irreplaceably a Muslim language meant merely to express Islamic religious idiom (an argument made effectively by many), the Arabic/Persian component had to wither away after India became free. How could it be otherwise? But as a non-religious language of every day existence, of common secular discourse, it will bloom, taking on a more and more indigenous form. Poetry too will come, but in a new form: Indian urdu poetry will be very different from Arabic/Persian poetry of the past. An Indian might feel more at home writing about his girlfriend gayatri living in the gaon of gola gunj than about the ghilmans :). And he would draw more words and sensibilities from his connections to awadhi and brajbhasha than from Arabic and Persian languages and cultures.
Still, rahul may yet be right. He seems to know Urdu/Hindi language and literature better than I do.
By the way I could figure out most of Sri malihabadi, although not all. Had we been up against something like kamayani, I would have been in worse trouble :(
#69 Posted by KaalChakra on April 25, 2007 10:46:28 pm
It should have been: ``He seems to know Urdu/Hindi language and literature MUCH better than I do.``
#70 Posted by samar1982 on April 25, 2007 11:27:57 pm
Re: # 64, rahul_capri,
First of all I will tell you that I too read a lot of poetry. I really love poetry. In #55 I discussed Urdu/Hindi and the language divide caused, as many have agreed, by Hindoo/Muslim revivalism during 19th and 20th century and by officialdom and politics after partition. This encouraged even poets like Jayshankar Prasad, Pant, Nirala and others to write Sanskritized Hindi and many Urdu poets wrote Urdu loaded with Persian. After 47 this started to change gradually and many modern Hindi poets used peoples language, so to say. You can call it Urdu, you can call it Hindi. The poem I have quoted is by Muktibodh, a Maharashtrian by birth, writing poetry in Hindi/Devnagri script and you can see for yourself the language he has written in, Urdu or Hindi. That is why I don`t agree with you that Urdu is whithering away in India. I is safe in the hands of the people and many Hindi/Urdu poets who write in easy, accessible to all language. Apart from Muktibodh, Samsher, Dushyant, Raghuvir Sahay, Dhumil (and Nida, Badr and many others) have used this language. Now, at least you should not deny the benefit of common script, though I am not against different scripts at all. As for the Faiz and Josh or Prasad and Pant are concerned both are equally difficult to understand only due to their Sanscritized or Persianized Hindi/Urdu. You have to consult dictionaries to understand both.
#65, Also, combination of words is not at all a problem. Laparwah (or La-parwah), Nalayak, Beqasoor, Lawaris, Nabaligh are most common words of Hindi language and any substitutes for Sanscritized words for these have been resisted by common people and these words are still in vogue in Hindi. So overall, Urdu/Hindi language is safe in the hands of common people and what you are worried about is Saudi script, which in my opinion, will die of its natural death in India. I think we should bother ourselves for our language and not for a foreign script.
Samar
First of all I will tell you that I too read a lot of poetry. I really love poetry. In #55 I discussed Urdu/Hindi and the language divide caused, as many have agreed, by Hindoo/Muslim revivalism during 19th and 20th century and by officialdom and politics after partition. This encouraged even poets like Jayshankar Prasad, Pant, Nirala and others to write Sanskritized Hindi and many Urdu poets wrote Urdu loaded with Persian. After 47 this started to change gradually and many modern Hindi poets used peoples language, so to say. You can call it Urdu, you can call it Hindi. The poem I have quoted is by Muktibodh, a Maharashtrian by birth, writing poetry in Hindi/Devnagri script and you can see for yourself the language he has written in, Urdu or Hindi. That is why I don`t agree with you that Urdu is whithering away in India. I is safe in the hands of the people and many Hindi/Urdu poets who write in easy, accessible to all language. Apart from Muktibodh, Samsher, Dushyant, Raghuvir Sahay, Dhumil (and Nida, Badr and many others) have used this language. Now, at least you should not deny the benefit of common script, though I am not against different scripts at all. As for the Faiz and Josh or Prasad and Pant are concerned both are equally difficult to understand only due to their Sanscritized or Persianized Hindi/Urdu. You have to consult dictionaries to understand both.
#65, Also, combination of words is not at all a problem. Laparwah (or La-parwah), Nalayak, Beqasoor, Lawaris, Nabaligh are most common words of Hindi language and any substitutes for Sanscritized words for these have been resisted by common people and these words are still in vogue in Hindi. So overall, Urdu/Hindi language is safe in the hands of common people and what you are worried about is Saudi script, which in my opinion, will die of its natural death in India. I think we should bother ourselves for our language and not for a foreign script.
Samar
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #131 muradbaig: you dont... Faith and Religion
- hamidm2: Re: # 144 alpha mian, ....... US Commando Strike in
- muradbaig: Re: # 122 Satya100. Please... Faith and Religion
- IKRAMSEHGAL: i think that the... US Commando Strike in
- jayp: Sadiq saab, Good that you... Dr Afia Siddiqui's Case
- jayp: Arjun 137, It was very... US Commando Strike in
- akcheema: Re: # 15; rabia the... Honor Killings in Babakot
- majumdar: Masadi sahib, through land reform... There is no ‘honour’
