Talk:Hindustani

Hindustani

@Foreverknowledge: You need to provide a quote of where the term 'Hindustani' has been used to refer to the Hindi language in the English language. The reference doesn't really cover it – please see Use–mention distinction. نعم البدل (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do so for Urdu as well. Foreverknowledge (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge: – Not really needed since. Sky is blue. It's well known that Hindustani referred to the Urdu language. You can refer to the "A Grammar of the Hindustani Language" by John Shakespear or any of the many books written by other English-Hindustani scholars which referred to the Urdu language when they used the term "Hindustani", not Modern Standard Hindi. نعم البدل (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Shakespear’s grammar states the terms Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani to be synonyms and includes Perso-Arabic script and Devanagari as does his Hindustani-English dictionary, which also has some Sanskritic terms. Fallon’s Hindustani-English dictionary differentiates between Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani and also includes both scripts. Therefore, you can’t conclude they are exclusively using the term Hindustani for what is called Urdu today. Foreverknowledge (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge:

• Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani – Yes ... for the language that is now goes by the name of Urdu, not Modern Hindi. I'm well aware of his dictionary because I refer to it on a daily basis 😅. However, going back to the original point, Hindustani is a historical term / name for the Urdu language – but not Modern Hindi, which is a fact.
• Therefore, you can’t conclude they are exclusively using the term Hindustani for what is called Urdu today Erhm yes you can. The name Urdu has been attested in 1717, so it was definitely in use towards the end of the 17th Century. Modern Hindi didn't start to take shape until the 19th century, and became popular towards the start of the 20th Century. Until then, the names Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani were all synonymous for the language that is now known as Urdu. Hence, when the English used the term 'Hindustani' it referred to the Urdu language. نعم البدل (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

However, going back to the original point, Hindustani is a historical term / name for the Urdu language – but not Modern Hindi, which is a fact.

-The source I referenced contradicts your opinion, which is obviously not a fact.

The name Urdu has been attested in 1717

-No, it has been attested since the 1770s.

Modern Hindi didn't start to take shape until the 19th century, and became popular towards the start of the 20th Century. Until then, the names Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani were all synonymous for the language that is now known as Urdu. Hence, when the English used the term 'Hindustani' it referred to the Urdu language.

-Hindustani also referred to the lingua franca from which Urdu and Hindi are derived, and also as a composite term for Urdu and Hindi together as used by Gilchrist for example. And Hindustani was even used as a synonym for modern Hindi per the reference I cited. Foreverknowledge (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge:

• The source I referenced contradicts your opinion, which is obviously not a fact.
• And Hindustani was even used as a synonym for modern Hindi per the reference I cited

– And again to your reference, I refer you to Use–mention distinction. Your reference says it was, it doesn't actually use it independently. You also might want to read your reference carefully:

• It appears to me that a dispassionate study of the origin and growth of Modern Hindi (Sanskritized Hindustani) can lead only to one conclusion: namely, that the language is only 135 years old, and perhaps not even that.
• The earlier form, called Hindi by its users, and now known as Urdu, has a continuous history from the 14th century to the present day

So please clarify at what point it time, do you believe the term 'Hindustani' referred to Modern Hindi before it was even set? Or what period would you classify Hindustani as? You've given no quotes for it either, or are you mixing it up with the fact that Hindi-Urdu are now grouped as 'Hindustani', which is one of the senses already mentioned in this English lemma. That doesn't negate the fact that Hindustani is also an old name for Urdu (but not Modern Hindi!) Other than that, I can only sense bad-faith edits – because you also erased the Urdu sense.

• No, it has been attested since the 1770s. – as per {{R:ur:UDB|w=24917}} (see here) the term Urdu for the Hindustani/Urdu language was attested in 1717, with a quote included, and you should also try to read the definition of the term Urdu in the UDB Urdu dictionary.
• Hindustani also referred to the lingua franca from which Urdu and Hindi are derived, and also as a composite term for Urdu and Hindi – like I said, the former is already mentioned, and I dispute the last bit – only Urdu, not Hindi.

نعم البدل (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So please clarify at what point it time, do you believe the term 'Hindustani' referred to Modern Hindi before it was even set? Or what period would you classify Hindustani as?

-The source is from 1944, so sometime prior to 1944 some authors used the term Hindustani for modern Hindi

That doesn't negate the fact that Hindustani is also an old name for Urdu (but not Modern Hindi!) Other than that, I can only sense bad-faith edits – because you also erased the Urdu sense.

-Please don’t make unfounded accusations. I erased the Urdu sense because no quotes were provided for it - same reason you erased the Hindi sense. And I had thought a credible source is sufficient for a definition, which is what I provided.

the term Urdu for the Hindustani/Urdu language was attested in 1717,

-Per SR Faruqi, the term Urdu didn’t mean the Urdu language until the 1770s at the earliest.

like I said, the former is already mentioned, and I dispute the last bit – only Urdu, not Hindi.

-The first definition of Hindustani mentions both Hindi and Urdu, which again contradicts your view. And Gilchrist’s Hindustani department, using the example I mentioned, included both Hindi and Urdu with works such as Prem Saagar (modern Hindi), Bagh o Bahar (Urdu), and various others. Foreverknowledge (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge:

• -The source is from 1944, so sometime prior to 1944 some authors used the term Hindustani for modern Hindi You need to give two dates. At what point in history was the term 'Hindustani' was used to refer to Modern Hindi (but not Urdu, like you claim), because so far – you've been unable to give any quotes. Your own references evidently don't support you. It's quite clear that Hindustani is an old name for Urdu – which you have removed out of spite, because the Hindi sense which you added has been disputed.
• -Please don’t make unfounded accusations. I erased the Urdu sense because no quotes were provided for it - same reason you erased the Hindi sense. – So it was out of spite that you removed the Urdu sense? Either reinstate it, or I will only assume bad-faith. No one else is disputing that Urdu was called Hindustani, in both Urdu and English. Your reference isn't sufficient.

I don't really have the time or mood to discuss this. نعم البدل (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to give two dates. At what point in history was the term 'Hindustani' was used to refer to Modern Hindi (but not Urdu, like you claim), because so far – you've been unable to give any quotes. Your own references evidently don't support you.

-You have not provided any quotes either. The reference supports that Hindustani was used as a name for modern Hindi. It says that quite clearly. This discussion is not about the antiquity or lack of antiquity of Hindi or Urdu. Both Hindi and Urdu existed in the period of discussion here.

So it was out of spite that you removed the Urdu sense? Either reinstate it, or I will only assume bad-faith.

-Not out of spite. I don’t want a double standard to be applied here. If you are questioning the Hindi sense, despite the credible reference, and are asking for a quote, that same standard should also be applied to the Urdu sense. Otherwise I will assume bad faith on your part.

I don't really have the time or mood to discuss this.

- Neither do I. We gave not reached a consensus so no point in continuing this. Foreverknowledge (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge:

• Otherwise I will assume bad faith on your part. – Funny. Let's review the facts.
• You have not provided any quotes either. – Because the onus isn't on me. The Urdu sense isn't disputed by anyone but you and you have removed this previously before it was reinstated by @Theknightwho – and now you have proceeded to add another meaning related to Modern Hindi which doesn't even make sense! The Urdu sense is well established – that's not the point of contention. The point of contention is the Hindi sense.
• The reference supports that Hindustani was used as a name for modern Hindi – and when I asked you to elaborate, you failed to do so? It clearly doesn't. At what point did Hindustani ever refer to solely Modern Hindi in English, before the Modern Hindi standard was even set? The reason why the Urdu sense is there, is because Hindustani is an obsolete for Urdu, not Hindi. It was only after the Hindi-Urdu split, that "Hindustani" referred to Hindi-Urdu.

I don't know how much clearer it can get!

• Not out of spite. I don’t want a double standard to be applied here – So why didn't you open up a discussion and maintain status quo, which was with the Urdu sense but not the Hindi sense? You removed it precisely because the Hindi sense was disputed. Even after I've asked you to reinstate it, you haven't. That is edit warring. نعم البدل (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As for your quote, here @Foreverknowledge:

• His time was wholly occupied in teaching Bengalee of which he was a perfect master, and in learning Hindoostanee or Urdu, to which he had not paid particular attention before. [1] نعم البدل (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The point of contention is the Hindi sense.

-No one is disputing the Hindi sense other than you. It was in the article for many months before you began objecting to it.

It clearly doesn't.

-The reference says “The name Hindustani has been used for Khari Boli. It has also been used as a synonym for Urdu by many writers, and for Modern Hindi by some.” It can’t get any clearer than that.

It was only after the Hindi-Urdu split, that "Hindustani" referred to Hindi-Urdu.

-Hindustani referred to the lingua franca that developed into the modern forms of Urdu and Hindi, and is thus retroactively also called Hindi-Urdu.

So why didn't you open up a discussion and maintain status quo, which was with the Urdu sense but not the Hindi sense?

-The status quo for many months was the Urdu sense and Hindi sense. You removed the Hindi sense without discussion and have not reinstated it despite a credible reference.

We are not going to reach a consensus between the two of us. Let’s wait for other contributors to give their opinion. I’m pinging a few frequent contributors: @AryamanA @Gotitbro @Pulimaiyi Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If we are talking about English usage specifically, the British applied it to both the languages in the form a vernacular speech not distinguished by religious practioners. Interestingly even Urdu dictionaries do not apply this label to their language (e.g. Rekhta, Urdu Dictionary Board, Qureshi [all of them noting it to be a vulgar form of Urdu accomodating Sanskrit words i.e. Hindi-Urdu]). Platts specifically notes "The language of Hindūstān (the term is mistakenly applied by many to Urdū generally)."

It appears tendentious then to include a definition specifically pertaining to Urdu when we already mention Hindi-Urdu. Note: Hindi was also sometimes used as a name for Urdu but never gained currency as both it [and Hindustani] were not exclusive to the courtly language but rather applied to all languages of northern-central India. The names which stuck for Urdu were obviously Urdu itself and Lashkari and also Rekhta.

I am content with a mention Hindi-Urdu. Any expansion further [for Urdu] will have to show the weight of normative usage, and corollarily so for Hindi, Hindavi etc. Gotitbro (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro::

• If we are talking about English usage specifically – In this case, yes, but the discussion was regarding Hindustani to mean Modern Hindi in the English language.
• the British applied it to both the languages in the form a vernacular speech not distinguished by religious practitioners – Not really. Before Modern Hindi, Hindus that spoke "Hindustani" used the same Perso-Arab vocabulary that is continued to be used in Urdu today, but rarely in Modern Hindi.
• Interestingly even Urdu dictionaries do not apply this label to their language – Rekhta's definition of words vary between the different languages. In English, it does not mention specifically "The Urdu language", yet it does acknowledge that it has been used for the Urdu language (taken from Platts), yet that same definition isn't given in the Hindi translation, but in the Urdu definition, it specifically mentions murād : urdū zubān ., ie. "Meaning: Urdu language". The other definition given is the combined Hindi-Urdu sense. I mean, if Platts has mentioned that it is used for the Urdu language, mistakingly or knowingly – surely that warrants the Urdu sense. I have also provided a quote in English, from a book above, that same book has continued using the term "Hindustani" throughout the book.
• Note: Hindi was also sometimes used as a name for Urdu but never gained currency as both it [and Hindustani] – I'm not sure about the English sense, but Hindi was definitely used for the Urdu language in Urdu. I've come across several Urdu books which have referred to Urdu as 'Hindi'.

نعم البدل (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• were obviously Urdu itself and Lashkari – Lashkari is the one that I find hard to believe. I have yet to come across an actually quote which has used that term to refer to Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I meant in the sense that it is generally used for Urdu now [the usage may or not trace beyond the 19th/20th-century but I do not think it is hard to imagine its vernacular currency especially among the lascars whose speech perhaps was not particularly noted down but that usage as pertains to Urdu may have passed on]. Gotitbro (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

British usage: If we are referring the colonial-era dictionaries (either Hindi, Urdu or Hindi-Urdu) and other works the term is specifically applied to the colloquial speech distinct from Urdu. The usage in Urdu itself may have sometimes encompassed it exclusively, but that is not generally the case for English-language works [perhaps Urdu works as well broadly speaking?]. We should also be avoiding the OR of how the usage may retroactively now apply.

Platts provides a hint to its usage for Urdu [may or may not be referring to English usage], but we would need to show actual usage i.e. not dictionaries or descriptive works about the language itself. And if shown to be so, historical and proscribed labels should follow. But as of now, the weight for such a definition is not there (POV concerns also withstanding). Gotitbro (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge::

• -No one is disputing the Hindi sense other than you. It was in the article for many months before you began objecting to it.
• The status quo for many months was the Urdu sense and Hindi sense – I didn't deny that, but what was the accepted revision before that? The one that included the Urdu sense, because you admitted that you only removed that sense because the Hindi sense was disputed.
• -The reference says “The name Hindustani has been used for Khari Boli. It has also been used as a synonym for Urdu by many writers, and for Modern Hindi by some.” It can’t get any clearer than that. – a general statement which only mentions, not uses. It's also not a dictionary of any kind.

نعم البدل (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't deny that, but what was the accepted revision before that?

-You first added the Urdu sense as a definition in June, which I contested a month later in July. That is hardly a status quo situation. Both the Hindi sense and Urdu sense were in the definitions for almost 4 months until you objected. That is much more of a status quo.

you admitted that you only removed that sense because the Hindi sense was disputed.

-I said a double standard should not be applied. When a reference says Hindustani was used as a name for Urdu, and was also used as a name for modern Hindi, then either include both senses or omit both and just go with Hindi-Urdu.

Before Modern Hindi, Hindus that spoke "Hindustani" used the same Perso-Arab vocabulary that is continued to be used in Urdu today, but rarely in Modern Hindi.

-Before modern Hindi, the Hindustani used by Hindus did include more Perso-Arab vocabulary than is typical in modern Hindi, but also included more Sanskritic vocabulary than is the case in modern Urdu. In addition, that Hindustani didn’t have the grammatical standardization that Urdu and Hindi have, was often written in the Devanagari script, and unless the person was educated in Persian/Urdu, the Perso-Arab sounds were nativized similar to what takes place in current Hindi speech. So it’s fallacy to say that Hindustani was the same as Urdu. Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Foreverknowledge: @Svartava has found references for the term Hindustani being used exclusively for Hindi and has added them to the entry. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 06:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava, Pulimaiyi: – Thank you! That was what I was after! نعم البدل (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)