Print Page | Close Window

Urdu / Hindi, How Similar?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Linguistics
Forum Description: Discuss linguistics: the study of languages
Moderators: gcle2003, King John
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25149
Printed Date: 01-Dec-2020 at 12:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Urdu / Hindi, How Similar?
Posted By: Cryptic
Subject: Urdu / Hindi, How Similar?
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 18:57
I got is a debate with some co-workers about the following questions....
 
- How similar are Udru and Hindi in general? 
- How similar are the two languages when spoken by educated people who are not using slang, rural dialects or have strong local accents?



Replies:
Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 19:36
1) Quite similar. Generally you can follow each other quite well, BUT
 
2) The script for Urdu is Persian, while the script for Hindi is dev nagri. Completely different. Also Urdu has a lot of Persian words (in fact any Persian word is ex officio an Urdu word) while Hindi has many more sansikrit words. With the result at the formal end of the scale, they are many differences with each other.
 
 
Quote
This explains it well.
 
The most major difference between Urdu and Hindi is that Urdu is written in the Nastaliq font of the modified Arabic script while Hindi is written in the Devnagari script.

Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani are all segments on a long lingusitic chain. At one end is a heavily Persianized language which is written in the Nastaliq font and in a modified Arabic script. At the other end is a heavily Sanskritized language which is written in the Devanagari form. The progression from one to the other is continuous and slow. The basic grammatic structure is the same. The words are replaced either by more Sanskritized or more Persianized forms. Urdu forms the segment of the chain more towards the Persian side and Hindi forms the segment of the chain more towards the Sanskrit side. The langugage generally spoken in northern South Asia is basically half way between the two extremes and represents Hindustani.

Despite this the casual spoken language is similar an in some cases not distinguishable. For example it is said that Indian movies are made in Hindi. But the language used in many of these movies is exactly the language used by Urdu speakers in Pakistan. On the other hand Pakistani TV Dramas are said to be made in Urdu. But the language used in many of these dramas is exactly the language used by Hindi speakers in India.

As the language gets more formal the difference between these two languages starts to become clearer. In more serious speech and writing the Sanskritization or Persianization will become more pronounced. The languages used in newscasts, encyclopaedia articles and courtrooms become very heavily Sanskritized or Persianized and may be nearly unintelligible to speakers from the other languages.

So Urdu speakers in will find their own language in the Hindi cinema but they will not be able to understand newscasts from Hindi channels. On the other hand Indian Hindi speakers will find their own language in Urdu TV dramas but will not be able to understand newscasts from Urdu channels.
http://www.translation-services-usa.com/languages/urdu.shtml - http://www.translation-services-usa.com/languages/urdu.shtml


 


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 19:39

It is more complicated than that, but gives a good over view



-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 22:33
^
Thanks,  I was definelty wrong in assuming that formal Urdu would have more in common with formal Hindi than the every day usages of the two languages.


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2008 at 04:29
Actually its the complete opposite. And they have diverted a lot over the last 60 years. In the '48 War, every soldier knew Hindi, in 1999 in Kargil, Hindi speakers had to be attached to each  battalions.
 
Right now I am watching speechs on indpendence day festivities, Indians could not follow it. I can't follow theres when it comes tommorrow (15th).


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 13:25

Urdu and Hindhi both came from the Hebrew. Both display the same alphabet design, phonation sounds, and ancient word meanings as the Hebrew. The Arabic writings, which first emerged in 350 CE, adds cirvatures, while the Hindhi adds a top line to form and seperate words.

Some scholars say the oral arabic was an admixture of various Arabian languages, such as Aramaic and other ancient languages. But this view has many limitations: the Arab race itself is relatively new, namely 2,500 years, which means its language was formed at most between 2300 and 2500 years ago, from an admix of those languages which lasted to that time. Aramaic did survive, and it is spoken by some peoples today, and clearly it is different from Arabic, and more representative of the Hebrew.

 
Best way is to check the alphabets of all the three languages, including their sounds and word meanings. The first cntact of Hebrews with India has been evidenced, and dates to some 2700 years, when Persia invaded parts of the Indian continent; at this time, the Hebrew was a full fledged advanced alphabetical language, with numerous books written. there were no Indian or Urdu books around. Hebrew predates Persian, which got its alphabeticals from the Hebrew.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 14:42
Confused

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 15:43
Take the word MAN for example. This is Adam in Hebrew, Adami in Hindhi. There are 100s of 1000s of such similarities in these two languages. How did this happen? This is answered by determining which language came first.

-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: evilbu
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 18:57

Quote Despite this the casual spoken language is similar an in some cases not distinguishable. For example it is said that Indian movies are made in Hindi. But the language used in many of these movies is exactly the language used by Urdu speakers in Pakistan. On the other hand Pakistani TV Dramas are said to be made in Urdu. But the language used in many of these dramas is exactly the language used by Hindi speakers in India.


I used to go have a pizza sometimes in a restaurant run by Pakistanis, and they would play these weird Bollywood musicals on their television.
But isn't it true that Indian actors have to speak a somewhat modified form of Hindi (avoiding very characteristic words) to reach a public as broad as possible (including Pakistanis)


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2008 at 02:31
Quote   to reach a public as broad as possible (including Pakistanis)
 
 
Pakistanis are more Indians than Pakistanis - a new contrived nation carved out of the Indian sub-continent some 60 years old. Their background culture, despite the different religion, is Indian, and these Muslims are different from Muslims in other countries by this fact. Urdu also is Indian, spoken by Indian muslims with Islamic words. A prominant Indian Muslim actor, for example, is more Indian than Muslim, and his culture, being one of tolerance and able to interact with all peoples, will be at odds in a purely muslim country.
 
The Indian muslims used to be very blended with others in India, making them as different from other muslims - but this has changed the past few decades because of the Arab regimes establishing Madarassas which have poisoned Muslim minds in India - a premise which will never be acknowledged, but evident from the terrorist attacks in this most hospitable nation to Muslims.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2008 at 23:56
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

Quote   to reach a public as broad as possible (including Pakistanis)
 
 
Pakistanis are more Indians than Pakistanis - a new contrived nation carved out of the Indian sub-continent some 60 years old. Their background culture, despite the different religion, is Indian, and these Muslims are different from Muslims in other countries by this fact. Urdu also is Indian, spoken by Indian muslims with Islamic words. A prominant Indian Muslim actor, for example, is more Indian than Muslim, and his culture, being one of tolerance and able to interact with all peoples, will be at odds in a purely muslim country.
 
The Indian muslims used to be very blended with others in India, making them as different from other muslims - but this has changed the past few decades because of the Arab regimes establishing Madarassas which have poisoned Muslim minds in India - a premise which will never be acknowledged, but evident from the terrorist attacks in this most hospitable nation to Muslims.


What in Gods name are you talking about? Wacko

Pakistanis have a distinct identity. Punjabi Muslims, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baluchis make up this identity. These regions have been Muslim for more than 1000 years.
There is no 'Indian' identity to speak of. India itself has dozens of ethnic groups and cultures, so what do you mean by us being 'carved' out of India?
You might want to use the term Colonial India.

Yes there are similarities between North Indians and Pakistanis, and if you want to speak of South Asian Muslim culture, i.e Mughal Muslim culture, then its very much what Pakistanis follow today along with their regional culture and languages.

Please dont make absurd analogies about Pakistan belonging to Indians, because its nonsensical and can be considered offensive by people who have an idea of what they are talking about.



-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 05:45
Quote Urdu also is Indian, spoken by Indian muslims with Islamic words
 
I agree that Indian muslims are different from other muslims, and this is due to the Indian cultural impacts, which has been history's most tolerent and generous peoples. However, urdu is not from Islamic words but from Hebrew words. You will find it nigh impossible to state any urdu word which is not traceable to the Hebrew. Consider words such as YAD [remembrence], ADMI [man], REHEGA [wait/pause]: these are not Islamic words, and there is literally 1000s of such words. My point is the historical thread is different from what is widely believed.
 
Quote Punjabi Muslims, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baluchis make up this identity. These regions have been Muslim for more than 1000 years.
 
Islam was alien and foreign in this region, invading India around the 17th Century, and conducted mass murder and enforced conversions. While such is the nature of human history in most other nations also, your own notion of Pakistanis being more indian than indians, says that Pakistanis are different from other muslims because it retains an indian, not an Isamic, base culture. The Sindhis and Punjabis are Indian - meaning not Islamic in culture and nature. The situation of a peaceful Islamic-Hindu osmosis has been changed in the last few decades, because of the Arab influence and its penetrations via Madarassas, which cause negative teachings to otherwise Indian muslims with a more Indian influenced peaceful nature. I would say the same if Indians sent clerics to islamic states preaching poisonous doctrines against Muslims. 
 
The point here is, if India has been so generous to muslims, and still experiences widespread terrorism and demands for more Indian lands - there is little hope for peace elsewhere. It would be better if Pakistan and Bangladesh were restored back to India, which in turn is the only guarantee for muslims to again live in a peaceful, non-racist culture, as opposed to the demand for Kashmir, inculcated by the doctrine of conquering the world and making it islamic by force. The reason behind states like Kashmir being demanded, by virtue of its muslim population growing, is a result of the non-reciprocal state of affairs: Muslims can immigrate to India and become citizens and built mosqies in every corner - while the same is denied to Indians in Islamic lands. This is a one way traffic of lands, caused by a lack of reciprocity on the muslim side. Where will this end - if not in existential wars?
 
Quote Please dont make absurd analogies about Pakistan belonging to Indians, because its nonsensical and can be considered offensive by people who have an idea of what they are talking about.
 
This is a factual statement, not non-sensical. India is one of the oldest nations, while islam is a recent new one. Pakistan belongs to India, and was taken away by a corruption between Briton and the Arab regimes installed by Briton. There is no question that muslims could have lived under Indian rule with great rights and peace - there was no need to create Pakistan. Why should a nation such as India loose a third of her lands for being generous and hospitable to Muslims? This is not the case in islamic states, where anyone wanting to follow another religion is killed, and there is no possibility for Indians to acquire islamic lands. Conversion must be by example - not by force and negative teachings against a nation which was so generous to Muslims.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 19:04
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

 
Quote Punjabi Muslims, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baluchis make up this identity. These regions have been Muslim for more than 1000 years.
 
Islam was alien and foreign in this region, invading India around the 17th Century, and conducted mass murder and enforced conversions. While such is the nature of human history in most other nations also, your own notion of Pakistanis being more indian than indians, says that Pakistanis are different from other muslims because it retains an indian, not an Isamic, base culture. The Sindhis and Punjabis are Indian - meaning not Islamic in culture and nature. The situation of a peaceful Islamic-Hindu osmosis has been changed in the last few decades, because of the Arab influence and its penetrations via Madarassas, which cause negative teachings to otherwise Indian muslims with a more Indian influenced peaceful nature. I would say the same if Indians sent clerics to islamic states preaching poisonous doctrines against Muslims. 
 
The point here is, if India has been so generous to muslims, and still experiences widespread terrorism and demands for more Indian lands - there is little hope for peace elsewhere. It would be better if Pakistan and Bangladesh were restored back to India, which in turn is the only guarantee for muslims to again live in a peaceful, non-racist culture, as opposed to the demand for Kashmir, inculcated by the doctrine of conquering the world and making it islamic by force. The reason behind states like Kashmir being demanded, by virtue of its muslim population growing, is a result of the non-reciprocal state of affairs: Muslims can immigrate to India and become citizens and built mosqies in every corner - while the same is denied to Indians in Islamic lands. This is a one way traffic of lands, caused by a lack of reciprocity on the muslim side. Where will this end - if not in existential wars?

 
Quote Please dont make absurd analogies about Pakistan belonging to Indians, because its nonsensical and can be considered offensive by people who have an idea of what they are talking about.
 
This is a factual statement, not non-sensical. India is one of the oldest nations, while islam is a recent new one. Pakistan belongs to India, and was taken away by a corruption between Briton and the Arab regimes installed by Briton. There is no question that muslims could have lived under Indian rule with great rights and peace - there was no need to create Pakistan. Why should a nation such as India loose a third of her lands for being generous and hospitable to Muslims? This is not the case in islamic states, where anyone wanting to follow another religion is killed, and there is no possibility for Indians to acquire islamic lands. Conversion must be by example - not by force and negative teachings against a nation which was so generous to Muslims.


Seriously, your statements are incredibly ridiculous. "Indian land"? So modern Indians have more rights to Pakistani land than the Natives of that land?

Sindhis and Punjabis are not 'Indian'. These people have ALWAYS lived in Sindh and Punjab. The land belongs to them. They are the natives. How in Gods name did you interpret that as Sindh and Punjab belonging to Indians?
Converting to Islam doesnt mean they gave up the rights to their ancestral lands.

What do Sindhis and Punjabis have in common with Assamese? South Indians?
What is this 'India' you speak off? Colonial India I bet?

Islam came to the region almsot 1300 years ago. not 17th century. Look up Muhamad bin Qasim for more information. This just proves to me that you came here to rant, and you really dont seem to know many facts.

Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris, They can go where ever they want. Once again, you are mindlessly promoting Indian ownership over the natives of a region.

If you knew the history of the region you would know that the term 'India' is derrived from the Indus River. A river which runs though Kashmir, Western Punjab and Sindh. The modern country India stole this name after the partition. Once again, read up your history as Jinnah was very astonished by this act.
The people of Pakistan never stole any land from anybody. They were the natives to begin with. You seem to have a great deal of love for Colonial India, and you seem to think modern India and Colonial India is the same thing. Apart from the name, there is not much else in common.

Colonial India included Burma and Bhutan. Why dont you harass them to 'return your Indian land'?
Colonial India was run by British people, not Indians.
Colonial India used to be countless of states before the British came. look up the provinces of Indian and Pakistan. So much for your 'Indian land'.


You seem to have an issue with Muslims. First I would suggest actually reading history books, then come and insult me with proper backed up arguments.

jesus...


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 19:25
Whether 'Pakistanis' are 'Indians' or not, whether someone stole someone's name or not, who Kashmir should belong to, have nothing at all to do with linguistics and I'll delete any more posts along those lines from the thread, or close it completely (It's remiss of me not to have done this already.) 
 
The question of similarity between Urdu and Hindi is a legitimate and interesting linguistic topic, and I won't let the thread get hi-jacked.
 
On the appropriate topic the suggestion that either Urdu or Hindi developed from Hebrew is nonsensical.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2008 at 00:41
Deleted in accordance with previous warning.
gcle2003


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2008 at 00:52
Quote
 
On the appropriate topic the suggestion that either Urdu or Hindi developed from Hebrew is nonsensical.
 

 
 
Yes, the topic went off track, which resulted from incorrect assumptions of a pointed factor.
 
The issue whether the Hindi is similar to Urdu, or to the precedent Hebrew, from which the Urdu and Arabic owe its alphabeticals to, if seen as nonsensical, should be explained and evidenced. Otherwise a correct understanding of the topic is not attained and it becomes a nonsensical [dis-historical] conclusion.
 
I also point out, the Hebrews made incursions numerous times in the Indian sub-continent [via the Persians, Alexander, and in NW India after the Roman destruction], with an alphabetical writings and language already centuries old, and this was many centuries prior to the Arab race existing. This historical truth has been largely supressed - but thank goodness for the net!


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2008 at 01:37
Hebrew is completely unrelated to Urdu except in one way, it, like Arabic is a semetic language, and Arabic has lent many words to Urdu.

The Urdu alphabet is based on the Farsi, which is based on the Arabic. The arabic evolved on its own accord but I believe is a descendent of Sumerian.

Iam, you need to seriously read some history before you become the laughing stock of the forum.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Some
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 11:55
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

Quote
 
On the appropriate topic the suggestion that either Urdu or Hindi developed from Hebrew is nonsensical.
 

 
 
Yes, the topic went off track, which resulted from incorrect assumptions of a pointed factor.
 
The issue whether the Hindi is similar to Urdu, or to the precedent Hebrew, from which the Urdu and Arabic owe its alphabeticals to, if seen as nonsensical, should be explained and evidenced. Otherwise a correct understanding of the topic is not attained and it becomes a nonsensical [dis-historical] conclusion.
 
I also point out, the Hebrews made incursions numerous times in the Indian sub-continent [via the Persians, Alexander, and in NW India after the Roman destruction], with an alphabetical writings and language already centuries old, and this was many centuries prior to the Arab race existing. This historical truth has been largely supressed - but thank goodness for the net!
 
Urdur and Hindi are indp-european langauges and both decend from Sanskrit and are part of the indo-iranian langauges of the IE languages.


Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2008 at 00:56
Originally posted by evilbu evilbu wrote:


I used to go have a pizza sometimes in a restaurant run by Pakistanis, and they would play these weird Bollywood musicals on their television.
But isn't it true that Indian actors have to speak a somewhat modified form of Hindi (avoiding very characteristic words) to reach a public as broad as possible (including Pakistanis)

I don't think it's done that way by design.  Usually the dialogue is in a vernacular dialect appropriate to the characters.  These naturally lie between the extremes of scholarly Urdu and Hindi and are intelligible to speakers of both.  That said, there are still many discernable variations in the dialogue.  Some characters speak a more Hindi-ized dialect if they're Hindu holy men or whatever or they'll tweak up the Urdu if they're singing a ghazal.

Besides, with the overacting and lack of subtlety in most Bollywood movies, you don't have to understand the language to figure out what's going onLOL.  This is why they're even popular in places like Ghana and St. Lucia where the people couldn't possibly know what's being said.

The main difference between most variations of Hindi and Urdu is vocabulary.  The grammar mostly stays the same.  The only significant difference I've noticed is in the rules for pluralization.  Scholarly Urdu pluralizes like Arabic, scholarly Hindi like Sanskrit.  You can often Urdu-ize a Hindi sentence by replacing the Sanskrit derived nouns and adjectives with Persian derived ones and vice versa.  



-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly


Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2008 at 01:00
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Hebrew is completely unrelated to Urdu except in one way, it, like Arabic is a semetic language, and Arabic has lent many words to Urdu.

The Urdu alphabet is based on the Farsi, which is based on the Arabic. The arabic evolved on its own accord but I believe is a descendent of Sumerian.

Iam, you need to seriously read some history before you become the laughing stock of the forum.

I think the popular theory is that they're both derived from Aramaic.  Arabic as a direct descendant and Devanagri as a development of Brahmi which is thought to be inspired by Aramaic.  



-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly


Posted By: PakistaniShaheen
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 23:23
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

Quote   to reach a public as broad as possible (including Pakistanis)
 
 
Pakistanis are more Indians than Pakistanis - a new contrived nation carved out of the Indian sub-continent some 60 years old. Their background culture, despite the different religion, is Indian, and these Muslims are different from Muslims in other countries by this fact. Urdu also is Indian, spoken by Indian muslims with Islamic words. A prominant Indian Muslim actor, for example, is more Indian than Muslim, and his culture, being one of tolerance and able to interact with all peoples, will be at odds in a purely muslim country.
 
The Indian muslims used to be very blended with others in India, making them as different from other muslims - but this has changed the past few decades because of the Arab regimes establishing Madarassas which have poisoned Muslim minds in India - a premise which will never be acknowledged, but evident from the terrorist attacks in this most hospitable nation to Muslims.
 
Please do not use this thread to stirr another indian-Pakistani arguement.
 
It's well known indians call alot of cultures and nations "indian"
The imginary "greater indian" spanned all the way into central asia which is nonsense and has is not something this thread is about.
 
The topic of this thread is how Hindi and Urdu are similar. Both belong to the Indo-European family. Where did you get the Hebrew connection from??? Hebrew is a semitic language, a subbranch of Afro-Asiatic.
How can you get 2 indo-European languages from an Afro-Asiatic language???


-------------
http://pakhub.info">


Posted By: PakistaniShaheen
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 23:33

Also another thing to add is that Urdu is not an "indian" language. There is no such thing as an "indian" language. The languages of india are divided into several unrelated families, most notebly dravidian, indo-European and Sino-Tibetian. All completely unrelated.

To call a language "indian" is to call a language "Soviet" No such thing

Many languages were spoken in the former USSR, grouped into several unrelated families; all unrelated.



-------------
http://pakhub.info">


Posted By: PakistaniShaheen
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 01:35
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

I got is a debate with some co-workers about the following questions....
 
- How similar are Udru and Hindi in general? 
- How similar are the two languages when spoken by educated people who are not using slang, rural dialects or have strong local accents?
 
Simple. As similar as Serbian and Croatian. Different scripts, plus hindi also has some questionable Dravidian influences.
 
But if you wanna go into their origines then like all Indo-European languages, Hindi & Urdu originate somewhere between the black sea and the Baltaic region
 
A simplified chart of the Indo-European family sums it up:
http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iefamily.gif">


-------------
http://pakhub.info">


Posted By: PakistaniShaheen
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 01:47
Originally posted by jayeshks jayeshks wrote:

I think the popular theory is that they're both derived from Aramaic.  Arabic as a direct descendant and Devanagri as a development of Brahmi which is thought to be inspired by Aramaic.  
A chart of the Semitic family just to clear up some misconceptions:
http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=semitictree.jpg">


-------------
http://pakhub.info">



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net