Urdu hai jis kaa naam . . .
Zafar
and Hindi. Since I had been working on the origins and development of
Urdu for a long time, I thought I might share a few things in two or
three posts.
Warning: The reader might find some of the material quite extraneous
but I guess many things have been pointed out for the first time. Due
to the obvious restrictions of the discussion board, many things that
would normally have belonged to footnotes and insets, have to be
incorporated in the article.
I have confined myself only to the name of the language.
********************
URDU HAI JIS KAA NAAM . . .
An unimaginable terror burst out of the Altai steppe in the early 13th
century, rocking the foundations of the civilization. Inspired by the
brutal genius of Genghis Khan, the Mongols were a whirlwind of death
and destruction. Like dominoes, kingdom after kingdom, state after
state and city after city fell to them; in a matter of a few decades,
razing, torching, slaying and pillaging, they held sway from Beijing
to Volga to form the largest contiguous empire in the history of
mankind.
Before the reader starts wondering what all this has to do with Urdu,
let me quickly add here that this cataclysmic upheaval of the world
disseminated the "Urdu" across the known globe. But first, some
background etymology.
It has become almost a gospel that the word Urdu, meaning a "lashkar"
or army, is of Turkish origin. This article to intended to add a
little to this universal belief. For starters, let me offer a rather
wild speculation: Urdu may have been derived from a Sanskrit word!
Actually, there is a word in ancient Turkish, "urta", meaning the
center or core. This word latter changed into "ordu" and came to be
used as a palace or a capital. Now the Sanskrit word "hridai" -- heart
-- is curiously close to both "urta" and "ordu" not only phonetically
but also in meaning. I humbly suggest that the words "urta" or "ordu"
may have been derived by the Central Asian nomads either Sanskrit
hridai or a pre-Sanskrit language root. [If you are wondering that the
Central Asia is too far away from India for this exchange to take
place, consider this: most of the pre-Islamic Turkish texts deal with
Buddhism. (Erkan Turkman, 1987)]. Moreover, the Sanskrit root "ur"
also means heart (Brajmohan Kaifi, 1966), which further supports our
case.
Now we focus on the transmission of the word. The oldest extant sample
of written Turkish is found on a monument in Mongolia, called the
Kul-Tegin Inscriptions. This monument was erected in 732 in the memory
of a king of the same name by his brother. Written in the Gokturk
script, there are 66 lines in 13 columns on all three faces of the 12
feet high triangular column (in case you are curious, here is an
English translation <<http://penguin.pearson.swarthmore.edu/~scrist1/ling52_spring2002/sherblom_woodard_mrowicki/Orkhon.html>
The thing relevant for us here is that the inscriptions contain the
word both "ordu" and "ortu" several times. The glossary given in the
above-mentioned website defines the word as:
ordu
kaghan's residence, capital (kaghan, king; "Khaaqaan" in Persian)
ortu
middle, central part
Three and a half centuries later, Yusuf Khas Hajib uses the word in
two senses in his book about statecraft Kutadgu Bilig (The Blessed
Wisdom, 1072. This monumental work is available online). Translations
from an Urdu version:
1.
Every city, country and "urdu" had a different name for this book.
[Dr. Erkan of the Saljuk University, Turkey, states that here urdu
means a palace but IMHO, it could be a capital also]
2.
[They] were the inhabitants of another "urdu" [city].
3.
The world is like a prison; don't fall in love with it. Yearn for the
bigger "urdu" and country so that you're in peace. [According to Dr.
Erkan, palace, but could be city/capital again]
4.
Death has devastated many "urdus" and countries [cities].
(Dr. Erkan Turkman, 1987).
Many people might not be familiar with the way the word Urdu has been
used in Kutadgu Bilig, but it is interesting to note that there is a
province in Turkey with the name Ordu and, gasp, the capital of this
province is also called Ordu! Situated along the Black Sea amid lush
green mountains, this is one lovely place. [May I suggest that ALUP
holds its next meet in this city? : ))]
There are many other examples of Urdu cities as well: the Mongolian
name of Kashgar (a Chinese city along the Pakistani border) was "Urdu
qand." There was another city called "Urdu Baleegh", which later came
to be known as "Korakoram" (Shirani, 1929).
BACK TO THE MONGOLS
Since there was a lot of intermixing between the Turk nomads and the
Mongols during the first millennium (as you can judge by the presence
of the Kul-Tegin in Mongolia), the Mongols borrowed the word from
Turkish (belonging to the Altaic group of languages, Turkish and the
Mongolian are close kins), and used it chiefly as "palace." Modern
Mongol dictionaries describe the word as "ordo" (plural ordos) and
mean a palace (For example,
<http://laurencio.webz.cz/mongolxel/classical/>)
[Look how the word is written in the unique Mongol script. I bet this
is the only script where not only the sentences but the words also are
formed from top to bottom]
The place where the remains of Genghis Khan were preserved is called
Ordos and is considered as one of the most sacred places of the
Mongols. (Oyunbilig, 1997). But since the Mongol were a nomadic people
and spent their lives in tents, the word came to be used as a "camp"
or "tent".
In 1235, Ogodei Khan, the successor of Genghis, dispatched a special
army on a mission to Europe under the command of Batu Khan, the
grandson of Genghis Khan. In a matter of a few years the Mongols
overran Russia, Poland and Hungary. During the whole campaign Batu
Khan used a dazzlingly embroidered golden tent, due to which the whole
camp came to be known as Altun Ordu (Altun, Mongolian for golden).
Batu established an empire in the Eastern Europe in 1241, which lasted
till the fifteenth century. During the same time the word Ordu entered
many European languages: becoming "orda" in the old Ukranian and
Italian, morphing into "horda" in Polish and Spanish, transforming
into "hord in Swiss and, marching farther westward, finally entered
English in 1555 and French in 1559 as "horde". Richard Eden's "Decades
of the New World" is the first English book to use the word. The Altun
Ordu is now generally referred to as the Golden Horde!
(<http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/wwwboard/messages41/14531.html>)
Similar Ordus (tents) are still in vogue in Mongolia and are called a
"ger" [ghar?] nowadays. An excerpt from National Geographic:
Somewhere out there, you will also see a ger, as Mongols call their
round tent. We stopped at one to ask for hot water for tea. A woman
named Gunga [Ganga?] hospitably put a kettle on her stove.
I asked if she wouldn't rather live in a house. "You can't move a
house," she answered, as if that were all that mattered. "You can't
take it here and"-gesturing with her hands-"here and here." To me,
Gunga's home looked pretty permanent, with beds and chests, even
pictures on the felt walls. But she told me that she and her family
had moved three times that year to find good pastures for their
animals. To collapse a ger takes only an hour or so. (Mike Edwards,
1996)
When the Mongols settled down in Persia, the word found its way into
Persian. The oldest book containing the word is believed to be
"JahaaN-Kushaa" by Alauddin Ata (Shirani, 1929).
BACK TO INDIA
Although some intermittent pre-Mughal examples of the usage of the
word urdu do exit but there is evidence that the texts might have been
tampered with later. However, the word was definitely in vogue during
Babur's reign (1526-30) and he used it himself in his autobiography,
"Tuzk e Babari." During the era of Akbar the Great (1556-1605), we
come across the word most of the times in phrases like "urdu e
mu'alla", "urdu e uliyaa", "urdu e hazrat", "urdu e buzurg" and, even,
"urdu e lashkar!" All these terms mean "royal encampment." (Shirani,
1929)
In "Aaeen e Akbari", 1593, the official chronicle of Akbar's life and
deeds, the distinguished scholar Abu ul Fazl has described one of the
imperial encampments, "Urdu e Zafar QareeN" in great detail. Some
excerpts:
A plain, 1530-yard long tract was selected for the royal residence and
the harem. The foremost is the "gulaal baaR", a fortress-like,
foldable, wooden quarters, measuring 100 by 100 yards. South to it is
the court with 54 sections, each measuring 14 by 24 yards. In the
center is a two-story wooden palace where the king prays at mornings.
Women of the palace cannot enter this place without permission. Next
to it are 24 wooden "rowties" (quadrangular tents), each of 10 by 6
yards, where the women of the royal family live … In the center is the
great court, made of wood, measuring 150 by 150 yards. One thousand
servants install it. It has 72 doors and has the seating arrangements
for 10,000 people. Here the courtiers and the military officers meet
the king.
This movable city, which is spread on several miles, is Akbar's Urdu e
Zafar Qareen. (Shirani 1929).
Fredrick Augustus documents in "The Emperor Akbar" (I used an English
translation; the original is in German):
Each encampment such as has been described required for its transport
100 elephants, 500 camels, 400 carts and 100 bearers . . . One
thousand tent pitchers were employed, 500 pioneers, 100 water
carriers, 50 carpenters, tent makers and torch-bearers, 30
cord-wainers and 150 sweepers. (Augustus, 1885)
This Urdu had even a mobile mint, also called Urdu e Zafar QareeN.
This mobile mint was in use in Jahangir's and Shah Jahan's time also
and was called just Urdu. (Shirani 1929). Numerous coins from each
period are extant on which "zarb e Urdu e Zafar QareeN" (struck in
Urdu e Zafar QareeN) is inscribed. Some of these are enlisted in
online catalogs as well, such as here
<http://www215.pair.com/sacoins/public_html/mughal/mughal_9_akb.html>
(Look closely for the name of the mint on the 12th and the 13th pairs
of coins.)
DILLI JO AIK SHEHR THAA!
Apart from Babar, the earlier Mughal kings did not like Delhi much,
ditching it in favor of Agra, Fatehpur Sikri or Lahore. Akbar the
Great - who spent more time in Lahore than in any other city - had
never set foot on Delhi's soil; in fact, the closest he ever got to
Delhi was Panipat, some 80 miles away! It was Shah Jahan who got tired
of both Lahore and Agra and ordered his engineers to select a place
between the two for a new city. They chose a tract adjacent to Delhi
on the bank of the Yamuna River and after a decade of extensive
construction work, this new city, christened Shahjahanabad, was made
the official capital. The date was April 18, 1648. Some of the
important structures constructed here were the Red Fort, Jamia Masjid,
Bagh e Hayat Bakhsh, Imtiaz Mahal and a two-story covered bazaar.
(Shah Jahan Nama, 1660)
Shortly after the settling of the king in the new capital, the Red
Fort and its surroundings, and later the whole of Shahjahanabad come
to be known as "Urdu e Mu'alla" and sometimes, just "Urdu". For
example, Khan e Aarzoo, the illustrious linguist and the "ustaad" of a
whole generation of poets, including Mir, Mir Dard and Sauda (by the
way, he was also the step-uncle of Mir Taqi Mir), writes in his
dictionary Navaadir e Alfaaz (1747-52), under the headword "chhanel":
"We, who belong to Hind and live in Urdu e Mu'alla, are not familiar
with this word." (Navaadir e Alfaaz, 214)
Similarly, he writes in another book, Mismir (1752):
"And thus it is proven that the language of Urdu is the standard
language. The Persian of the same place is reliable . . . the poets of
various cities of every country, like Khaqani of Shurvan, Nizami of
Ganja, Sinai of Ghazni and Khusrau of Delhi used to write in this
standard language. And this language is none other than the language
of the Urdu."
Two things are clear from this excerpt:
1. Urdu is used not as a metonym of a language, but for the city of
Shahjahanabad.
2. Khan e Aarzoo says that the language of Shahjahanabad is Persian!
This means that as late as mid-eighteenth century, the phrase zabaan e
Urdu e Mu'alla [Shahjahanabad] is being used for Persian! But again,
this again is not surprising as we see that Persian was the official
language of India throughout the Mughal rule.
Even in early nineteenth century, Insha ullah Khan Insha and Mirza
Qateel write in "Dariyaa e Lataafat" (1807):
"The residents of Murshidabad and Azeemabad (Patna), in their own
estimation, are competent Urdu speakers and regard their own city as
the "Urdu." (Tr. by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, 1999.)
Very obviously, by "Urdu" the authors mean Shahjahanabad. The language
Urdu in those times was called Hindi . . . but more about it in the
next post.
SUMMARY
1. Urdu is a Turkish word which might have been derived from Sanskrit.
2. The word, across centuries and continents, assumed many meanings
and evolved along many line.
3. One course that is relevant to this article can be depicted as:
Heart --> Center --> Palace --> Capital --> City --> Encampment -->
Tent --> Encampment --> City --> Language
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
Afzal A. Khan
Zafar wrote:
> A very interesting debate is going on on both RMIM and ALUP about Urdu
> and Hindi. Since I had been working on the origins and development of
> Urdu for a long time, I thought I might share a few things in two or
> three posts.
>
> Warning: The reader might find some of the material quite extraneous
> but I guess many things have been pointed out for the first time. Due
> to the obvious restrictions of the discussion board, many things that
> would normally have belonged to footnotes and insets, have to be
> incorporated in the article.
>
> I have confined myself only to the name of the language.
>
>
> SUMMARY
> 1. Urdu is a Turkish word which might have been derived from Sanskrit.
>
> 2. The word, across centuries and continents, assumed many meanings
> and evolved along many line.
>
> 3. One course that is relevant to this article can be depicted as:
>
> Heart --> Center --> Palace --> Capital --> City --> Encampment -->
> Tent --> Encampment --> City --> Language
>
> aadaab arz hai,
>
> Zafar
{I have deleted most of the text of this
excellent article}
We should all be grateful to Zafar Saheb for
this painstakingly-researched and most illuminating
article on the origin of the word "Urdu".
The principal theme of the "thread" is whether
Urdu can justifiably be deemed as a language
apart and distinct from Hindi. Needless to add,
this is a very emotive issue.
I hope Zafar Saheb, in subsequent articles (as
promised by him), will throw some light on this
question. Also, it was an excellent idea to
start a fresh thread.
Afzal
Surjit Singh
> A very interesting debate is going on on both RMIM and ALUP about Urdu
> and Hindi. Since I had been working on the origins and development of
> Urdu for a long time, I thought I might share a few things in two or
> three posts.
>
> Warning: The reader might find some of the material quite extraneous
> but I guess many things have been pointed out for the first time. Due
> to the obvious restrictions of the discussion board, many things that
> would normally have belonged to footnotes and insets, have to be
> incorporated in the article.
Excellent post about the name, but can you please give us the punchline
now? Are urdu and hindi 2 or one? And don't say it depends!
> Zafar
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
Afzal A. Khan
Surjit Singh wrote:
Whatever be the "punch-line" (assuming there
is one), is it going to be the last word on the
subject ? I don't think that his opinion will
be accepted like a judicial verdict. Never-
theless, we can all benefit from his erudition
and scholarly research. And I for one am sure
that he will bring to our notice certain details
("arguments" may not be the proper word) that
will throw new light on this vexed issue.
In the previous (or, should I say, the original)
thread, Surinder-ji put forward quite a few
arguments that clearly indicated his line of
thinking, but there was no definitive "final
verdict" (even if it was just his own opinion).
The puch-line was missing.
Afzal
Surjit Singh
>
> Whatever be the "punch-line" (assuming there
> is one), is it going to be the last word on the
> subject ? I don't think that his opinion will
> be accepted like a judicial verdict. Never-
> theless, we can all benefit from his erudition
> and scholarly research. And I for one am sure
> that he will bring to our notice certain details
> ("arguments" may not be the proper word) that
> will throw new light on this vexed issue.
>
> In the previous (or, should I say, the original)
> thread, Surinder-ji put forward quite a few
> arguments that clearly indicated his line of
> thinking, but there was no definitive "final
> verdict" (even if it was just his own opinion).
> The puch-line was missing.
Surinder made it very clear and I quote:
"The fact of the matter is
that these are not really different independent languages. The time
scale and geographical isolation required to create a new language is
simply not present in the case of Urdu. Quite honestly, Urdu is
merely Hindi with a generous sprinkling of Persian and Arabic words."
BTW, I strongly disagree with Surinder. They are 2 different languages
as different as Hindi and Panjabi, for example.
More later.
>
>
> Afzal
Loony Tunes
"Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bm511v$ip4en$1...@ID-159547.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> BTW, I strongly disagree with Surinder. They are 2 different languages
> as different as Hindi and Panjabi, for example.
Would Avadhi and Bhojpuri be different languages too.. or ..are they
dialects of Hindi.?
-k
Surjit Singh
> "Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bm511v$ip4en$1...@ID-159547.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>BTW, I strongly disagree with Surinder. They are 2 different languages
>>as different as Hindi and Panjabi, for example.
>
>
> Would Avadhi and Bhojpuri be different languages too.. or ..are they
> dialects of Hindi.?
I don't know enough about these 2 (and many other like them) to form an
opinion. What do Avadhi and Bhojpuri (mother-tonguers or) speakers
think? I am sure there are some on RMIM!
Interestingly, people who do not consider these 2 as separate languages
generally think of them as dialects of Hindi! I have not read or heard
anybody claiming that they are dialects of Urdu, tho' somebody probably
has.
Afzal A. Khan
Surjit Singh wrote:
I think Bhojpuri is widely understood and spoken
in Eastern U.P. and Bihar. Many of these people
are, additionally, "practitioners" of Urdu, in the
sense that they can read Urdu script as well.
Afzal
Surma Bhopali
> "Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bm511v$ip4en$1...@ID-159547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > BTW, I strongly disagree with Surinder. They are 2 different languages
> > as different as Hindi and Panjabi, for example.
>
> Would Avadhi and Bhojpuri be different languages too.. or ..are they
> dialects of Hindi.?
>
Amit Malhotra
>
> URDU HAI JIS KAA NAAM . . .
>
>
> SUMMARY
> 1. Urdu is a Turkish word which might have been derived from Sanskrit.
>
> 2. The word, across centuries and continents, assumed many meanings
> and evolved along many line.
>
> 3. One course that is relevant to this article can be depicted as:
>
> Heart --> Center --> Palace --> Capital --> City --> Encampment -->
> Tent --> Encampment --> City --> Language
>
> aadaab arz hai,
>
> Zafar
Zafar sahib,
thank you very much for taking part in that discussion, I was hoping
someone like you would come in and tell us what a lot of us want to
hear but in an academic manner. This article was extremely
interesting and very enlightening. The information in this article
probably relies on a lot of sources, after you are done with your
whole series of articles , would you kindly put all your sources there
as well, your whole bibliography and your references. It would be
interesting to be able to give the articles in this series a more
academic look by citing the complete information for your sources and
your references.
I, for one, will be eagerly waiting the next article in this series,
this one was just amazing and very interesting to read.
Thank you very much for taking the time to post all this.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
UVR
>
> Excellent post about the name, but can you please give us the punchline
> now? Are urdu and hindi 2 or one? And don't say it depends!
He *did* give the 'punchline'. He wrote, and I quote:
>Zafar wrote:
>> The language Urdu in those times was called Hindi . . . but more
>> about it in the next post.
The operative phrase, I'm sure, is "*in those times*. So,
clearly, it *does* depend!
BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't thank Zafar saahib for his
article. Thank you, Zaf. ji.
-UVR.
Surjit Singh
OK. May be he did. And the answer will be, it depends. Oh well!
Coming back to my contention that Hindi movies are Urdu movies. Let us
take the court scenes. These are always full of words/phrases like
taaziiraat-e-hind, haalaat ko madd-e-nazar rakhate huye, dafaa 302,
qaanuun ki ruu se, muvaqqil, qaatil, muddaii, gavaaho.n ke byaanaat,
jirah, and the "topper" mebaraan-e-jury [WHAT THE HECK? on many levels,
this phrase drips (no pours) of irony and everything else], need I go on?
And these words are not gone yet. I have heard them in recent movies.
Why do they still have these words? Because many dialog (and lyrics
writers) are from my uncle's generation (born in the 30s) and they were
taught Urdu as the primary language. In Pepsu, around 1954 or so, it
became compulsory to pass an exam in Hindi to matriculate. My uncle had
to do it! I can still picture the poor guy practicing Devanagari script
like a child! So, Gulzar, Javed and Qadar (2 pick just 3 examples)
probably never learnt Hindi formally.
>
> -UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR wrote:
I could be wrong but what Zafar Saheb meant by
the word "Hindi" was something like "of Hind",
i.e. "of India" or "Indianese". I am coining this
last word to distinguish it from a simple "Indian"
as the latter would be applicable to the people
also. In some books, the word used is "Hind~wi",
that also means the same thing i.e. "of Hind".
I don't think this word "Hindi" (as referred to
in the above article) refers to any well-recognized,
well-established, widely-known and widely-spoken
specific language viz. "Hindi" as we call this
language today. After all, Persian, Turkish and
Arabic languages, though used as court languages
or the language of religious scriptures, had their
roots in foreign soil, whereas the new language
that had evolved as the language of the masses, was
"Indian" or "Hindi" ("Hind~wi") in its roots. I
feel there is a need to recognize this sense of the
term and not equate it with the modern or present-day
language that is called "Hindi".
Afzal
Irfan 'Abid'
> and Hindi. Since I had been working on the origins and development of
> Urdu for a long time, I thought I might share a few things in two or
> three posts.
>
> Warning: The reader might find some of the material quite extraneous
> but I guess many things have been pointed out for the first time. Due
> to the obvious restrictions of the discussion board, many things that
> would normally have belonged to footnotes and insets, have to be
> incorporated in the article.
>
> I have confined myself only to the name of the language.
>
> ********************
>
> URDU HAI JIS KAA NAAM . . .
>
> aadaab arz hai,
>
> Zafar
Zafar Sb, aadaab arz hai!
is mahnat.talab aur maaluumaatii mazmuun ke liye mubaarakbaad dene
vaaloN kii saf meN Khaaksaat bhii khaRaa hai. qubuul farmaaiye!
niyaazmand,
Irfan :Abid:
UVR
>
> UVR wrote:
>
>>>Zafar wrote:
>>>
>>>>The language Urdu in those times was called Hindi . . . but more
>>>>about it in the next post.
>>
>>The operative phrase, I'm sure, is "*in those times*. So,
>>clearly, it *does* depend!
>
> the word "Hindi" was something like "of Hind",
No, I think he meant, simply, that the word "Hindi" was used to
refer to name of the language.
> i.e. "of India" or "Indianese". I am coining this
> last word to distinguish it from a simple "Indian"
> as the latter would be applicable to the people
> also. In some books, the word used is "Hind~wi"
> that also means the same thing i.e. "of Hind".
Of course. But is it really necessary to coin a new word here?
Isn't this is how we name (not all, but) most other languages?
Arabic: of Arabia. Persian: of Persia. All these words double
up as the name of peoples as well as their language. Nobody
gets confused with the phrase "the language Bengali", do they?
> I don't think this word "Hindi" (as referred to
> in the above article) refers to any well-recognized,
> well-established, widely-known and widely-spoken
> specific language viz. "Hindi" as we call this
> language today. [...]
> I feel there is a need to recognize this sense of the
> term and not equate it with the modern or present-day
> language that is called "Hindi".
Quite. This is what I meant by saying "it depends." If what
we call Hindi today is (most likely) not the same language
known as Hindi in those days, isn't it possible that what we
call Urdu today is also not the language known as [whatever]
in those days?
As for exactly when the language named "Hindi" came to be
known as Urdu, whe[n/ther] it diverged from the language(s)
known (*THESE days*) as Hindi (and Urdu) are, therefore,
important questions, which Zafar sb. will hopefully address
in posts to come. Also, whether the language known (today)
as Hindi is any different from the language known (today)
as Urdu.
In my opinion, these last stated was the question that the
original thread on the difference between Hindi and Urdu
sought to ask; Zafar saahib has not really addressed that
question. It's also the question that Dr. Singh is trying
his best to focus this entire discussion on. Perhaps he
needs to try harder. Or be patient. Or both. :P
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
Surjit Singh wrote:
>
>
> Coming back to my contention that Hindi movies are Urdu movies. Let us
> take the court scenes. These are always full of words/phrases like
>
> taaziiraat-e-hind, haalaat ko madd-e-nazar rakhate huye, dafaa 302,
> qaanuun ki ruu se, muvaqqil, qaatil, muddaii, gavaaho.n ke byaanaat,
> jirah, and the "topper" mebaraan-e-jury [WHAT THE HECK? on many levels,
> this phrase drips (no pours) of irony and everything else], need I go on?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
> http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
To set the record straight, the word is
"mo~akkil", meaning "client". If "mebaraan"
is not a typo, the word is "membaraan" ---
simply the Urdu plural of the English word
"member". Since the jury system has been
given up, we no longer see (rather hear) this
"topper".
For historical and commercial reasons, Urdu has
had a far longer innings in the film industry
than modern-day Hindi, hence the experience
Surjit Singh has written about. In earlier
days, even the letters (when shown on screen)
used to be in Urdu script. In "Devdas", for
instance. In "Mahal" (1950 ?), the policeman
records the FIR in Urdu.
Till recently (and perhaps even now), new
aspirants trying to enter films made special
efforts and engaged tutors to learn Urdu.
Lastly, my own experience or experiment. This
question has been the subject of discussion for
at least 50/60 years. Once, a friend of mine
again broached the subject. It was August 1963.
On the 15th August, the Prime Minister (Pandit
Nehru) gave the usual speech from the ramparts
of the Red Fort. I took a note-book and started
writing down distinctly Urdu words and phrases
as they poured forth from Panditji's lips.
I was hard put to write these down quickly
enough and, by the end of the speech, I had three
sheafs of paper. And then I showed them to my
friend. He was dumbfounded. It was the last
Independence Day speech given by Panditji and,
in a way, it signalled the end of an era in more
senses than one. Haven't heard the PM's speech
in recent times, but I am sure if I do, it would
be my turn (to be dumbfounded !).
I recall another instance. In 1969, Ghalib's
death centenary was observed throughout the
country. In Bombay too, a symposium was
organized at Birla Hall. The Chief Organizer
was I. K. Gujral (Minister of Information &
Broadcasting at the time). Indira Gandhi came
to the function for a while and gave a brief
speech. Talking about the elegance of Urdu and
Ghalib's poetic genius, she pointed towards
Gujral and remarked "Aaj kal aap ke radio se jo
KHabreN nashr hoti haiN, woh to maiN bhee samajh
naheeN paati". The comment was greeted by amused
laughter from the audience and a sheepish grin
from Gujral. The comment may have been true
enough but I strongly suspect that the motivation
was strictly political. Indira was a past master
at manipulating people's emotions......
Afzal
Surjit Singh
>
>
> To set the record straight, the word is
> "mo~akkil", meaning "client". If "mebaraan"
Thanks. I should learn Urdu Itrans!
> is not a typo, the word is "membaraan" ---
Sorry. Was a typo.
> simply the Urdu plural of the English word
> "member". Since the jury system has been
> given up, we no longer see (rather hear) this
> "topper".
We saw juries in the movies for a long long time (perhaps still see in
some) after the jury system was abolished.
>
> Afzal
UVR
Afzal A. Khan wrote:
>
> UVR wrote:
>
>>> Zafar wrote:
>>>
>>>> The language Urdu in those times was called Hindi . . . but more
>>>> about it in the next post.
>>
>>
>> The operative phrase, I'm sure, is "*in those times*. So,
>> clearly, it *does* depend!
>
> I could be wrong but what Zafar Saheb meant by
> the word "Hindi" was something like "of Hind",
No, I think he meant, simply, that the word "Hindi" was used to
refer to name of the language.
> i.e. "of India" or "Indianese". I am coining this
> last word to distinguish it from a simple "Indian"
> as the latter would be applicable to the people
> also. In some books, the word used is "Hind~wi"
> that also means the same thing i.e. "of Hind".
Of course. But is it really necessary to coin a new word here?
Isn't this how we name (not all, but) most other languages?
Arabic: of Arabia. Persian: of Persia. All these words double
as the name of peoples as well as their language. Nobody gets
confused with the phrase "the language Bengali", do they?
> I don't think this word "Hindi" (as referred to
> in the above article) refers to any well-recognized,
> well-established, widely-known and widely-spoken
> specific language viz. "Hindi" as we call this
> language today. [...]
> I feel there is a need to recognize this sense of the
> term and not equate it with the modern or present-day
> language that is called "Hindi".
Quite. This is what I meant by saying "it depends." If what
we call Hindi today is (most likely) not the same language
known as Hindi in those days, isn't it possible that what we
call Urdu today is also not the language known as [whatever]
in those days?
As for exactly when the language named "Hindi" came to be
known as Urdu, whe[n/ther] it diverged from the language(s)
known (*THESE days*) as Hindi (and Urdu) are, therefore,
important questions, which Zafar sb. will hopefully address
in posts to come. Also, whether the language known (today)
as Hindi is any different from the language known (today)
as Urdu.
In my opinion, this last stated was the question that the
Srinivas Ganti
that have same meaning...
H:Varsha
U:Baarish
H:Sapnaa
U:Kvaab
H:Sach
U:Haqeeqat
H:Samachar
U:Khabar
H: Subah
U:Sehar
H: Sukh / Dukh
U: Kushi / Gam
sg.
Surjit Singh
> [Reposting with some terrible typos rectified]
>
> In my opinion, this last stated was the question that the
> original thread on the difference between Hindi and Urdu
> sought to ask; Zafar saahib has not really addressed that
> question. It's also the question that Dr. Singh is trying
That is a larger question; people may never agree on the answer to that.
I will be quite happy if people concede my much smaller point that, by
and large, the language used in most Hindi movies was, for a long time
and still possibly is, really Urdu.
> his best to focus this entire discussion on. Perhaps he
> needs to try harder. Or be patient. Or both. :P
>
> -UVR.
>
--
Afzal A. Khan
UVR wrote:
"Indianese" vs. "Indian" :
I have no problem with "Indian", so long as
the meaning is clear. As far as "Hind-i" is
concerned, I was referring to the grammatical
construct. Zafar Saheb was no doubt referring
to the new language that had been introduced
in that era, but I thought it was essential to
clarify the context in which this word {"Hind-i"}
came to be coined. Often enough, participants
in this perennial debate seize upon this word
and (in their mind and arguments) try to equate
it with the specific language known today as "Hindi".
Such a linkage, to my mind, is fallacious.
As you have pointed out, words like "Arabic" and
"Persian" or "Farsi" referred to languages linked
with other countries. IMHO, this word "Hind-i"
was coined with the object of distinguishing the
new language and pinpointing its local (or Indian)
origin.
I think you have put forward this postulate :
"if what we call Hindi today is not the same
language known as "Hindi" in those days, it is
also possible that what we call Urdu today is also
not the language known as ("whatever") in those
days". You have also said that the earlier part
of the postulate is "most likely".
In this connection, what I would like to submit
is that the second part of the postulate is not
quite relevant to the present discussion.
Languages keep on evolving over time. The kind
of English (particularly American English) that
we use today is not quite the same as the
language that was used even 50/60 years back.
In these (earlier) times, the language, again
IMHO, was much simpler. Today, it is far more
complex. The kind of English that was used in
the times of James I and Charles I was quite
different than the language used, say, around
1900.
The operative part here would be the first
portion of your postulate : Whether today's
Hindi is (or is not) the same language known
as "Hind-i" in those days. My "punchline"
would be a simple "No".
And we seem to be neglecting a very important
distinguishing feature of the Urdu language ---
its script. In a way, this script is unique.
It is not exactly correct to call it the Arabic
script or even the Farsi script (IMHO). The
Urdu script happens to include a few letters and
sounds that are not used in either Arabic or
Farsi. (The "g" sound as in "gardish" is not
there in Arabic, though it is there in Farsi.
Similarly, the "p" sound as in "posheeda".
The "r" and "d" sounds as in "pahaaR" and
"Darpok" are not there in Farsi, nor in Arabic).
One has to take all these features into consider-
ation. The script, which is unique to the Urdu
language. The vocabulary which is borrowed from
different languages and quite heavily from Farsi
and Arabic. The grammar which relies on the
KhaRi Boli (or whatever -- to use your delightful
expression) and also on Arabic/Farsi grammar.
After taking into account all these features, one
can then make a comparison with modern Hindi and
arrive at "whatever" conclusion one's mind
dictates.
I would also like to pose another question,
which I am not at all competent to answer. It
concerns the evolution of what we call "Hindi"
today. What was it like in its earlier
"avatars" ? Since when it began to be called
"Hindi" ? Who were the principal men of letters
who wrote poetry and novels etc. and the time -
period when that was done ?
Afzal
Zafar
> someone like you would come in and tell us what a lot of us want to
> hear but in an academic manner. This article was extremely
> interesting and very enlightening. The information in this article
> probably relies on a lot of sources, after you are done with your
> whole series of articles , would you kindly put all your sources there
> as well, your whole bibliography and your references. It would be
> interesting to be able to give the articles in this series a more
> academic look by citing the complete information for your sources and
> your references.
Dear Amit sahib:
I'm glad that you liked the post. You are very right in saying that
the information is based on many sources and I DID give all those
references in the post as meticulously as I could! The names in
parentheses are the authors, followed by the year of publication of
the book.
If, however, you want the book names and page numbers also, that too
can be arranged. But, better still, why not wait for the article to
published somewhere, for example, on my own website
www.eUrduBazaar.com? :) The added bonus there will be that I'll
include the picture of Genghis Khan as well. :))
Zaf
Afzal A. Khan
Srinivas Ganti wrote:
I am sorry but I don't think this list is
quite representative of the difference
between the two languages. "Subah" is
very definitely an Urdu word. I suppose
the Hindi equivalent would be "prahtakaal"
or something like that. Even other words
like "sach","sukh" and "dukh" are commonly
used (spoken as also written) in Urdu.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Surjit Singh wrote:
But, in order to do that, they should first
concede that Urdu is in fact a separate,
distinct language !
Afzal
Surjit Singh
>
> But, in order to do that, they should first
> concede that Urdu is in fact a separate,
> distinct language !
>
If you believe that, then let me change my sentence as follows to narrow
down the point even further:
I will be quite happy if people concede my even smaller point that, by
and large, the language used in most Hindi movies was, for a long time
and still possibly is, not Hindi.
>
> Afzal
Srinivas Ganti
>"Afzal A. Khan" <il_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F86FDB9...@yahoo.com...
> I am sorry but I don't think this list is
> quite representative of the difference
> between the two languages. "Subah" is
> very definitely an Urdu word. I suppose
> the Hindi equivalent would be "prahtakaal"
> or something like that. Even other words
> like "sach","sukh" and "dukh" are commonly
> used (spoken as also written) in Urdu.
Another word for morning in Shudh Hindi is "bhor".
sg.
Surma Bhopali
>
> That is a larger question; people may never agree on the answer to that.
>
> I will be quite happy if people concede my much smaller point that, by
> and large, the language used in most Hindi movies was, for a long time
> and still possibly is, really Urdu.
>
IMO is "Hindi Film Language"(HFL). It has no doubt drawn from various
sources -- Hindi and Urdu being the major contributors. So much has
been the use of this HFL in movies that it almost became a lingua
franca. Believe it or not, this HF is a world of its own. We all live
in this world sometime or the other. Some prefer to spend more time
there than others. This world has its own language for different
purposes and they are unique. Take for example language used in an HF
village. It's unique. You may say it draws heavily from eastern UP or
any other region but still it's much different from the actual
language that people use in their daily lives. Same is true for
language used in any other scenes. Dialogues like "kaan khol ke sun
lo" seem so common in HF parlance, but I haven't heard anyone utter
this under any circumstances. Now that there are some film-makers who
tend to depict real-life as it is in films and there are people whose
spoken language is influenced heavily by filmi dialogues is a
different matter.
Afzal A. Khan
Surjit Singh wrote:
If you call them "Hindi" movies and then claim
that the language used there was not Hindi,
people would dub this as something of an
oxymoron !
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Srinivas Ganti wrote:
"Bhor" is no doubt Hindi, but not all that
"shudh" (read gaaRhi !). Maybe "prabhat" ?
Afzal
Vinay
If you see the list of Hindi and Urdu words posted by Srinivas, it's
not difficult to see what it's pointing to. Almost all the words in
the list are valid Hindi words. Also as Afzal ji pointed out, most can
also be called Urdu words as well. It was clearly not a good list to
show the differences of the languages. But yet, whereas to show the
difference I would have chosen other examples (e.g.:
pradhaanmantrii/vazeer-e-aazam as you yourself mentioned or, some
literary terms), the fact is that the words used in Hindi films are
similar in nature and complexity to the ones Srinivas mentioned. And
these words are very much valid Hindi words. Interestingly, this also
points to the fact that while on some levels the both are or at least
look like same language, on many others they are not. And it also
means that the language as we see spoken in Hindi films has every
justification to be called Hindi.
As we know, all Hindi words can be categorized in one of the four
kinds: tatsam - words borrowed from Sanskrit in their original form,
tadbhav - words of Sanskrit origin which have changed their form,
deshi or deshaj - indigenous words or words coming from 'local'
dialects, videshi - words loaned from foreign languages including
English, Arabic, Persian (words of Arabic and Persian origin are
considered loaned from Urdu for all practical purposes, by many Hindi
grammarians). Now vocabulary of a language is an always-evolving thing
and Hindi like any other language is including new words in its
dictionaries and usage almost all the time. Over a long period Hindi
vocabulary has accumulated a heapful of words from Urdu (in turn from
Arabic/Perisan) as it has done from many other languages such as
English. And the many words (most, if not all, which appear in Hindi
movies) which may look like Urdu to you are very much considered a
part of the bHindi world. Whether it be ishq, mohabbat, aashiqii or,
qatl and qaatil.
So when almost every word that are used in Hindi films is a Hindi
word, the grammar of the speech is Hindi, why should they NOT be
called Hindi Films?
The examples that you gave of Court language is in fact a very special
one. I understand from my limited knowledge that courts in India have
been using highly persianized vocabulary since the times when the
proceedings were done entriely in Persian. No wonder that most of the
technical terms got assimilated into local language and have become a
part of Hindi now. The words and phrases that are used in their
current form such as muqadamaa, vakeel, muvakkil (not Urdu 'mo~akkil'
as Afzal ji pointed, but as it is written in Hindi) and even words
with izaafat like taajiraate-hind are all Hindi words now. They have
been and are being used everyday in Hindi literature, Hindi magazines,
Hindi newspapers, and Hindi dictionaries since a long long time.
If there's one field of Hindi films where Urdu usage have been more
dominant, it is the lyric writing. I think this is some place where
the writer is specifically thinking in Urdu terms many times. Many a
songs in Hindi films are actually written according to rules of Urdu
poetry structures such as ghazal and use Urdu grammar (where it is
distinctively different from Hindi grammar. e.g.: use of izaafat,
rules for pluralization etc.) and also use Urdu words which are not
accepted in the standard Hindi. A big reason for this IMO is/was that
some of the most prolific and influential lyricists of Hindi films
were primarily Urdu shaayars. However, even these writers in most
cases tried to keep away from using terms and usage that can strictly
be called only Urdu, especially if the situation of the movie did not
demand so.
While I agree to you in that technically some of the movies can be
passed as Urdu and many can get a two-language certificate, I cannot
agree to your assumption that "the language used in most Hindi movies
was, for a long time and still possibly is, really Urdu." In my
opinion, except for some special movies where the subject demanded the
use of Urdu, most movies made by the Hindi film industry can safely be
called Hindi films and in fact in most cases nothing else but only
Hindi.
Regards,
Vinay
Surjit Singh <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bm6taf$io510$1...@ID-159547.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Afzal A. Khan
Vinay wrote:
Surjit-ji,
Ab Vinay-ji aur un ke jaise doosre vyaktee
aap ka parastaav sweekaar karne se virodh
prakat kar rahe haiN to phir mera sujhaav
yeh hai ke aap inheN Hindi ke ek vikhyaat
Maha-Kavi kee yeh paNktiyaaN sunaa deN :
Yaarab woh na samjhe haiN na samjheNge miree baat
De aur dil unko jo na de mujh ko zabaaN aur
Afzal
Zafar
muhtarim Irfan saahib:
shukr hai ko'yee AL*U*P vaalaa bhee is mas'ale par bolaa. varna to
maiN ye kehne vaalaa thaa k
kyaa bul-'ajabee, bul-'ajabee, bul-'ajabee hai!
aap ke kalimaat e tehseen o taa'eed ke li'ye shukriya.
Zaf
Zafar
dheeraj mahaaraaj, dheeraj. I guess I've discussed the old name of
Urdu issue in UHJKN-2. The difference between modern Hindi and modern
Urdu, and why the names changed, and whether they are separate
languages -- all IM*H*O -- will be discussed in part-3, which would
also be the last episode.
And oh, thanks for thanking me:
"Zafar" Khushee se mire haath paa'oN phool ga'ye! :)
Zaf
Afzal A. Khan
Zafar wrote:
> UVR <u...@usa.net> wrote in message >
>
> dheeraj mahaaraaj, dheeraj. I guess I've discussed the old name of
> Urdu issue in UHJKN-2. The difference between modern Hindi and modern
> Urdu, and why the names changed, and whether they are separate
> languages -- all IM*H*O -- will be discussed in part-3, which would
> also be the last episode.
>
> And oh, thanks for thanking me:
>
> "Zafar" Khushee se mire haath paa'oN phool ga'ye! :)
>
> Zaf
Zafar Saheb,
Doosra misra hazaf kar jaaiyye !!
Shaayad is liye bhee ke teesri qist bhee jald mukammal ho jaaye.
Afzal
Amit Malhotra
> muhtarim Irfan saahib:
>
> shukr hai ko'yee AL*U*P vaalaa bhee is mas'ale par bolaa. varna to
> maiN ye kehne vaalaa thaa k
>
> kyaa bul-'ajabee, bul-'ajabee, bul-'ajabee hai!
>
> aap ke kalimaat e tehseen o taa'eed ke li'ye shukriya.
>
> Zaf
Zafar Sahib,
yuuN to aap Irfan sahib se baat kar raheiN haiN, magar maiN ne sochaa
ke aapko bataa hi douN k maiN bhi bilku ALUP vaalaa hii huuN :P lol...
aur maiN ne to KABBBBBBBBBBB ka bol diyaa :D
Regards
Amit Malhotra
Amit Malhotra
> Dear Amit sahib:
>
> I'm glad that you liked the post. You are very right in saying that
> the information is based on many sources and I DID give all those
> references in the post as meticulously as I could! The names in
> parentheses are the authors, followed by the year of publication of
> the book.
>
> If, however, you want the book names and page numbers also, that too
> can be arranged. But, better still, why not wait for the article to
> published somewhere, for example, on my own website
> www.eUrduBazaar.com? :) The added bonus there will be that I'll
> include the picture of Genghis Khan as well. :))
>
> Zaf
Zafar sahib, javaab ka bahut bahut shukriya. maiN aapki website par
is mazmooN ke chhapne ka intezaar to kar hi louNga, aur uske liya
aapka pahle se hii shukriyaa adaa bhi kar detaa huuN. vaise agar
aapke liye zyadah zehmat na ho, to aap ALUP/RMIM kii tariiKhii
dastaavezaat ke liye apne maaKhaz (plural?) kaa is silsile kii aaKhiri
qist meiN havaalaa de deiN, to sab ke liye kaafii faaydemand baat ho
saktii hai, hai na? :) jahaaN tak merii baat hai, maiN to aapki
website par ye mazmooN paRhne zaroor jaaouNgaa, agar dubaaraa se
paRhne ke liye nahiiN, to kam-az-kam Genghis Khan kii tasveer hii
dekhne .. lol
ek baar phir, itna behtareen mazmooN pesh karne ke liye aapka bahut
shukriyaa.. aur dekhiye na, aapke is mazmooN se kitni halchal ho gaii
hai ALUP/RMIM meiN ...
aadaab,
Amit Malhotra
UVR
>
> muhtarim Irfan saahib:
>
> shukr hai ko'yee AL*U*P vaalaa bhee is mas'ale par bolaa.
>
> varna to maiN ye kehne vaalaa thaa k
>
> kyaa bul-'ajabee, bul-'ajabee, bul-'ajabee hai!
>
> aap ke kalimaat e tehseen o taa'eed ke li'ye shukriya.
>
> Zaf
yeh kyaa, Zaf miyaaN? ek hi 'vaar' meN Afzal sb ki itni
"insulate" kar Daali? laa-Haula-vilaa... Ghalat baat hai,
naa?! mausoof se ma'afi maaNgne kaa muqaam hai. chaliye,
kaan pakaRiye!
aur haaN, Urdu ke muta'alliq, ham se bhi sunaa jaa chukaa
hai, k --
*us* ke ik jaaN-nisaar _ham_ bhi haiN
-UVR.
PS: Amit-ji apni wakaalat Khud pesh kar chuke hain.
Zafar
ajee hazzat, lagtaa hai aap phir meree baat samajhne se chook ga'ye :)
ALUPers se meree muraad *shudh* ALUPers thee, ya'anee vo as'haab jo
sirf ALUP yaa doosre "Urdu" forums par likhte hoN. jahaaN tak Afzal
saahib aur Amit saahib kaa savaal hai to vo RMIM par bhee likhte rehte
haiN. ye qazee'ya bhee vuheeN se shuru' huvaa thaa aur is par donoN
saahibaan -- ba-shamool aap ke -- shareek e guftugoo hote rehte the.
yehee vajh thee k maiN ne mazkoora farq malhooz e Khaatir rakhaa.
jahaaN tak "aap" kaa savaal hai, aap to haiN hee "Khaaqaan e Ordu" :)
so aap ko in chhoTee chhoTee baatoN se kyaa farq paRtaa hai? hehehe
Zaf
SPS22
>
> Coming back to my contention that Hindi movies are Urdu movies. Let us
> take the court scenes. These are always full of words/phrases like
>
> taaziiraat-e-hind, haalaat ko madd-e-nazar rakhate huye, dafaa 302,
> qaanuun ki ruu se, muvaqqil, qaatil, muddaii, gavaaho.n ke byaanaat,
If the usage of Farsi words in the above sentence cause it to be
labelled as Urdu, and not Hindi, then what language would the
following court-scene sentences be?
"Your honor, Inspecter xyz ney FIR mey yeh saaf saaf record kiya kiya
hai ki Mister abc raat ko car sey lift lekar train mey baithey."
"Judge sahib, ...."
"I object, mee laaard [my lord]."
and the ubiquitious: "Order order"
-Surinder
SPS22
> If you believe that, then let me change my sentence as follows to narrow
> down the point even further:
>
> I will be quite happy if people concede my even smaller point that, by
> and large, the language used in most Hindi movies was, for a long time
> and still possibly is, not Hindi.
I would be happy to concede if saw the reasoning. I would ask the
question: If the language is not Hindi, then what is it? Or you could
first explain that what *is* Hindi, and then it is a simple task to
see that the language is not Hindi.
-Surinder
SPS22
Whay call them Urdu words. Why not call them Farsi or Arabic words?
-surinder
Abhay Phadnis
(snip)
> I recall another instance. In 1969, Ghalib's
> death centenary was observed throughout the
> country. In Bombay too, a symposium was
> organized at Birla Hall. The Chief Organizer
> was I. K. Gujral (Minister of Information &
> Broadcasting at the time). Indira Gandhi came
> to the function for a while and gave a brief
> speech. Talking about the elegance of Urdu and
> Ghalib's poetic genius, she pointed towards
> Gujral and remarked "Aaj kal aap ke radio se jo
> KHabreN nashr hoti haiN, woh to maiN bhee samajh
> naheeN paati". The comment was greeted by amused
Reminds me of Amita Malik's suggestion that, given the textbook-ish Hindi
used in DD News, the newscasters should start by saying, "ab samaachaar me.n
hi.ndii suniye"!!
Warm regards,
Abhay
> laughter from the audience and a sheepish grin
> from Gujral. The comment may have been true
> enough but I strongly suspect that the motivation
> was strictly political. Indira was a past master
> at manipulating people's emotions......
>
>
> Afzal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>