Talk:Urdu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to the History of South Asia. For guidelines see WikiProject History of South Asia and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2

[edit] Some glaring factual inaccuracies

(1) The most concise, easiest definition of Urdu is: it is Hindi, augumented with a heavy Persian and Arabic influence - which occured during the Muslim Mughal rule in South Asia; the long, arduous definition of Urdu in this article's start actually applies to Hindi and not Urdu. However, it is a fact that most of those belonging to the Pakistan or Indian Muslim lobby like to fudge over deliberately such issues for various reasons of subtle historical rivalry rather than any reasons of academic merit. A few sentences below this definition, the writer him (or her) self acknowledges the fact that the main difference between Urdu and Hindi is the "imported" Arabic script in which Urdu is written!

(2) Neither Urdu or Hindi are spoken ANYWHERE in Afghanistan. This is a fallacy that is also deliberately promoted by some Urdu speakers for the same historical reasons described above. If it is indeed spoken there, a valid reference should be cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.30.129 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but I don't think you entirely understand the situation of Urdu relative to Hindi. Although they are, indeed, essentially the same language, neither is a form of the other. They're both basically artificial augmentations of the Khariboli dialect of the North Indian dialect continuum. Hindi's vocabulary is augmented by Sanskrit, Urdu's by Arabic and Persian. BovineBeast 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, but I think you've given a very POV statement yourself on Urdu and Hindi. I will completely agree with you if can state references but if not then I'm sure we can leave it at your POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apermal (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blacklisted site

I had to remove this: *[http://www.ishipress.com/wordlist.htm Hindi-{{Unicode|Urdū}}-Pashtu-English Word list:] Comparative list of 210 words in English, Hindi/{{Unicode|Urdū}}, and Pashtu/Pashto/Pukhtu

because it was on the spam blacklist. TimBentley (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.samsloan.com/wordlist.htm should work, if you want (for some reason ishipress.com is on the list, but not samsloan.com, even though they seem to be identical). TimBentley (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu translations?

hi,

I'm in a process of creating a uniform system of creating articles on political parties across wikipedias of different languages. I need help with Urdu translations, please contribute at User:Soman/Lang-Help-ur. --Soman 14:10, 26 اکتوبر 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Normalizing the transliteration of the name "Urdu"

This article uses both the forms "Urdu" and "Urdū". Shall we normalize the name as "Urdu" without the macron above the 'u' when referring to the name of the language? Sarayuparin 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that "Urdū" be normalized as "Urdu" in this article. We should drop the macron or use the technical transliterations for the other languages mentioned here: Arabic, Balochi, Brahui, Gujarati, Hindi, Hindko, Kashmiri, Pashto, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Siraiki, etc. etc. Sarayuparin 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(Just an observer here) I was actually noticing that the name of the language varies a lot in such way. Why is that? If you have to write the name of the language according to the language itself, there would be no "French", but only "français", or "português" for "Portuguese". The names should all be in English, no? After all, this is the English version of Wikipedia and most people who speak English won't know how to pronounce the macron.

[edit] Two issues

First: The warning for missing citations is probably appearing for some time. Especially the 'Footnotes' need attention

Second: This artcile is too long for a single page viewing and needs separation into more articles. --Islescape 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual population of Urdu Speakers

What's the actual population of native Urdu speakers the world over?? There are no completely reliable statistics available. The 61 million figure is quite doubtful, as the population of native Urdu speakers in India alone, is around 80 million, if we speak of today. I think there are more than 100 million native Urdu speakers in this world. Realton 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urdenglish?

Can anyone cite the use of "Urdenglish"? I ask because this term might just be a synonym of Hinglish. There may be reluctance amongst code-switching Urdu speakers to term this creole as "Hinglish" because of the perceived association with "Hindi". Realistically, though, the base language used in the creolization of Hindi or Urdu with English is in fact neither Hindi or Urdu, but the elemental "Hindustani" that serves as the foundation of both languages. Besides, the term "Urdenglish" sounds too contrived. Sarayuparin 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meharbani

The word means Thank you not Please as it is written on the page

It literally means "provision of love". Szhaider 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trying "too hard"

Indians take every opportunity to make Pakistani culture,history,idenity look invisible.In fact they try it so much that at times they try "too hard" and end up contradicting themselves.

I can give two examples:

1)Indians claim that Pakistan "did not exist" prior to 1947.At the same time they claim that Pakistan was always "a part" of India prior to 1947.The contradiction here is that how can something that doesnt exist be "a part" of something that does exist?

2)In regards to Urdu,which is more Pakistani than Indian since it can trace it's parent languages back to modern-day Iran,Turkey(which traces the origins of it's people and language all the way back to Mongolia),Arabia and west Punjab(Pakistan),indians claim that Urdu and Hindi are "the same" at the same time claiming that Urdu is parcially "made up" or "consisted" of Hindi.The contrdiction here,again is how can something that's equal to another be "made" or "parcially consisted" of that equal. Example:If X=Y.How can we say that X is "parcially consisted" of Y if we claim the two are equal or identical?Saying that Urdu is Hindi while saying Urdu is "parcially consisted" of Hindi doesnt make sense at all.Nadirali 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I strongly agree with this Proud Pakistani. Szhaider 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this Proud Pakistani too! All urdu should be removed from all India related articles. It shouldn't be there. It's totally Pakastani. It's matter of pride. How can these Indians think that urdu and hindi is the same. it boggles the mind. The arabs and the turks were liberators from buddhist and zohorastrian tyranny! jihad bil qalam must be waged immediately.--D-Boy 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

D-Boy, you keep or remove Urdu from India related articles, I simply don't care. Just keep your Hindi scripts away from Pakistani articles. This is Wikipedia. It should not be used for political warfare. Szhaider 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not your personal playground. Like it or not Pakistani history and culture is intertiwned with India's.--D-Boy 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure,just like Greek and Arab culture are intertwined regardless of linguistic cultural and historic differences.And a good idea too,wikiepdia is not your personal playground to continue stealing Pakistani history,culture and heritage for your own personal agendas.It's a place to share information,that is real matter-of-fact information,not spreading the same old indian pop-culture mythology that we are somehow "the same" people.Save it for your bollywood movie scripts,it doesn't belong hereNadirali 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Do you think that the Muslims in India are culturally Pakistani? Gizza^Chat ^© 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Muslims would have be able to speak,Balouchi,Sindhi,Pashtu,Panjabi,Kashmiri Urdu as well as practice the same culture as all the ethnic groups to call their culture the same as Pakistani.The point is there are Muslims all over the world consisting of diverse cultures.Sharing a commmon religion doesn't necessarily mean they have a single standard cultureNadirali 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

The whole point of monotheism is unity!--D-Boy 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Salaam Nadirali. You have an interesting view of things. Allow me to provide you with an academic viewpoint. In response to your first allegation: inidividuals are saying that the area in which Pakistan controls was a part of the area referred to as India/Hindostan. To the west of Hindostan was Khorasan, which encompassed Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Even before that, India (including present-day Pakistan) was ruled by/under the Mahajanapadas, Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, and finally the Britishers. Here are some images that might help who visualize the historical truths: Image:Ancient india.png, Image:Mauryan Empire Map.gif, Image:Guptaempire.GIF, Image:Mughals.gif, Image:India1760 1905.jpg. Contrary to your claims, the area referred to as India/Bharat/Hindostan was ruled under one state by/under various rulers/empires. Before the partition of India, Pakistan was considered to be a part of India/Bharat/Hindostan (one reason why it's called the partition of India). To nullify your second belief: Urdu is not a mongrel of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. Like other North Indian languages, Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language (i.e. languages descended from Sanskrit). Though Urdu has much Persio-Arabic lexicon, it is not related to Arabic (a Semitic language), and it is only distantly related to Persian (an Iranian language). Arabic lexicon has entered the Hindavi language via Persian, since Persian was the court, military, and literary language of certain parts of India for centuries due to Muslim invasions and the set up of Muslim dynastic rule. This language came to be known as Urdu (which literally means army). Hindi and Urdu actually developed as one language (Hindustani - the language of Hindostan - which I defined earlier in my explanation) based on khariboli. The primary difference is that today, Hindi is written in Devanagari, while Urdu in the Nastaliq style of the Perso-Arabic script. After the partition of India, the Government of India uprooted some of the Perso-Arabic words and replaced them with Sanskrit ones. To say Urdu is a Pakistani language (nationalistically) is infactual since the language developed around the Delhi region and had its literary centers in Delhi, Lucknow, Aligarh and Hyderabad. After the partition of India, the educated Muhajirs (many from Uttar Pradesh - my area) introduced this language to Pakistan. Even today, only 10,719,000 individuals in Pakistan are native speakers of Urdu while there are four times as many in India- 48,062,000. I wouldn't generalize about what a particular group of people thinks. Many Indians will agree that Hindi and Urdu are the same (an opinion linguists support) while some will regard them as separate languages. I'm sure you understand that much of this concerns social/religious factors as well. I'm glad I had the opportunity to discuss this with you as a mutual understanding between South Asians is extremely important today. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

weak knowledge All I have to say is your knowledge is weak and poor.I dont need you to tell me about the Muhajirs first of all,as my father is one.First off,your writing suggests that Pakistan existed after Ubek,Tajik,,Turkemen,(all created in 1992 after the collapse of the USSR)and Afghan.(???) Second of all,Urdu might have developed in what is today india but it's parent languages is where it's heritage lies.Sanscrit was spoken in Multan.Where is that?You wont need a map I'll tell you:its in Pakistan.

As for you "acadmic" vision of what you call "history",you seem to lack in it. The so called "partician of india" is my best example.A provincecalled Punjab gets divided into two states and you cry "India got divided".Syria and Turkey were under the rule of the Ottoman empire,so by your arguemnt,Turks and Syrians are "the same" or that "Syria got divded into two".

India is in fact a whole day YOUNGER than Pakistan as it was liberated a whole day later by the British.The so-called land of "India" was nothing but independant states before the arrival of the British.It only became "one"(against their will,which explains the sepratist movements all across "India" today.) when the British forced all of south asia to live as ONE COLONY. When they arrived,they used the term the ancient Greeks did to refer to south asia,but again the term meant NOTHING to the people of South Asia.

Coming back to Urdu,your arguemnt that because it was simply born in what is today India,it automatically becomes "Indian". Let's make a similar arguemnt.The modern Turkish language evolved and now is spoken in Turkey,a country geographically located in Europe.SO by your arguement,your saying that Turkish should automatically gain the status of a European language just because it happens to evolve into what it is today in Europe.-LOL Sorry but reference to the Indus is staying in Pakistan's history article.We Pakistanis take more pride in our heritage than you people realise.

Oh one last thing."educated Muhajirs"(???)I didnt know ALL muhajirs were educated.I wonder then,why 90% of Karachi(a predominantly Muhajir city)lives in poverty.Nadirali 01:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I think you'll be on the news one day....--D-Boy 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on most views, posted by Anupam. Yup they are almost the same languages and both hindus and muslims should contribute towards the progress of South Asia by burying their old disputes. Hindus have to accept and adopt Urdu as it's their language also.

As far as this user Nadir is concerned, I m shocked at his totally biased and negative thinking. Claiming himself as half muhajir ( by father's side, thus Urdu is not his mother lingo), he is trying to highjack the views of native Urdu speakers. I will not call myself a Muhajir as I m from the third generation. My grandparents were Muhajir though. I m a native Urdu speaker and I m very proud of it. This guy whose mother tongue is not Urdu is trying to malign our language and community in all ways. I respect his opinion though, as every one has the right of free speech, but he should observe some decency. For your kind info, Native urdu speakers (I will call Muhajirs as native Urdu speakers) are not in absolute majority in Karachi, they are around 60 pc of total population n also not 90 pc of karachi's population is poor.

As far as literacy rate is concerned, yup Urdu speakers have the highest literacy rate in Pakistan. Even biased but educated non-Urdu speakers of Pakistan believe in that. So plz dont show the squalid bias of yours towards native Urdu speakers and also your narrow minded and extremly conservative approach. Realton 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why have they not used their "leteracy" to help Pakistan?And by the way Urdu is my native language.60% is still majority.Anything that goes beyond 50% is majority.It's too bad you suport MQM idealogyNadirali 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Realton, thanks for your comments. I am very pleased to see a rational, intelligent, and peace-loving Wikipedian. It is indeed very sad to see the stereotype of Urdu as only a language of the Muslims, as Urdu is the language of both Pakistanis and Indians. I read your comments below and totally agree and am also proud to be a native Urdu speaker. Hindi and Urdu evolved from the the Prakrit based Apabhramsa language. Before the Partition of India, the de-persianized and de-sanskritized language was known as (and is still called) Hindustani and was advocated by Mahatma Gandhi. Despite the difference in the standard registers, it is nice to see that we have Pakistani serials, Bollywood movies, Pakistani bands, filmi songs, and most importantly - the Urdu/Hindi language spoken by the common person in Pakistan and India to hold the unity between the languages. Some people and organizations still promote Hindustani as the second most spoken language in the world. For example see some of these sources: infoplease, Tigerx, and several others classify them together when giving populations statistics of speakers. Not to mention, linguists count them together as one language. Thanks once again for sharing your views. I look forward to working with you here. Nadirali, I apologize if you misunderstood my entry. The modern-day countires of Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan were once collectively known as Khorasan. I think you missed my point regarding Pakistan and India. Please kindly reread lines 2-7 of my post and look at the references therin. The phrase Partition of India does not convey a bias: it is purely an academic term. Regarding the independence of the modern republics of India and Pakistan: Pakistan did not gain independence a full day before India. They both gained independence at midnight between the two days. Ocne again, for your unrefernence claim about forced coexistence, please re-read my entry. I will not address the rest of your arguments because they are based largely of unfactual opinions of my views. Also, why did you bring up the Indus River in this discussion? I did not even mention it. Realton, also an ethnic Muhajir, supports my fact on the education of Muhajirs. Please see this reference. Much of the poverty you mentioned is due to ethnic differences between Muhajirs and Sindhis or Muhajirs and Pathans. Another thing: the majority of Turkey is not located in Europe but in Asia. The Urdu language is an Indic one and belongs to all Indo-Aryans, not just Indians (or Pakistanis). Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. Like Realton, I respect, but do not agree with your views. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Anupam for seconding my opinion.You have made one mistake though, don call me Muhajir, Call me native Urdu speaker as I have already mentioned in my comments earlier. As far as this user Nadir is concerned, I don't think he is a native Urdu speaker. No native speaker is so much against his own linguistic group. He is definitely of other linguistic group, just posing as Urdu speaker and maligning our community. Also keep one thing in your mind guys that I am not a supporter of MQM, I am totally against this party.

I can define myself as pro Urdu speakers but anti-MQM. Also Native Urdu speakers have played the greatest role in the building and progress of this country. Infact Pakistan is in "working" condition just because of the sacrifices and hard work of Urdu speakers. Plz don repeat your disgusting MQM rhetoric again in this regard as not all of Urdu speakers( of Pakistan) are pro MQM, but yup they are pro-Pakistan and pro-Peace. Realton 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not true.That's only a myth shared by Muhajirs and not by the people of Pakistan.What "progress" do you speak of?Look at Karachi before now look at it.Have you even been to Pakistan?Look i don't have to be agree with you just because I'm half muhajir.The "partician" of "India" is a misleading term easily proven by facts:

There was never one united country known as "India" until augest 15th,1947.
Besides Punjab and Bangal,which other states/territories got divided?Just because a term has been promoted throught history,doesn't make it true.take the holocaust for example.Many Jews promote that term simply as of what Hitler did,when in reality,the word refers to any mass killing or extermination.

Another factual example is that Kazakhstan and Tajikistan were one country.The Soviet Union.The soviet union broke up,but it would be wrong to state that Tajikistan was "part" of Kazakhstan or to say that "Kazakhstan got divded" or make up so-called "academic" terms like "the partician of Kazakhstan". All these terms are made and promoted for political purposes,like the political purpose of diminishing Pakistan's culture,history and heritage.It's really the arguements of you two people.They are just mere illiusions arguing with what's reality.Consider it carefully as I'm basing my arguemnts on facts. Nadirali 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible improvements

I copyedited the introduction of the article. Please take a look and feel free to improve it further.

I think that article needs to be reorganized into a more standard/encyclopedic form, for instance see the section divisions used in French language, Japanese language. Comparing the article structure I don't think "Levels of Formality", "Politeness", "Urdu and Bollywood", "South Indian Urdu" and others need to be top-level sections (although their content should perhaps be retained). I also could not understand what the "Urdu Script" section (as opposed to the "Writing system" section) was meant to convey.

If that is an opinion shared by other editors here, I would be happy to take a stab at reorganizing the article structure. Abecedare 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for a common "Hindustani" language

I think there is a great need for amalgamation of Hindi and Urdu into a single language. Both are almost the same languages. Unfortunately Urdu has suffered a lot as it's termed as muslim's language by hindus but on the other hand they speak the same lingo. Hindi and Urdu are basically same but have different scripts. The language of common man in hindi speaking states of India ( like U.P, M.P and Delhi) is more Urdu than hindi.Same is the case with bollywood. There is a dire need to de-persianize and de-sanskritize these languages and a common vocabulary should be implemented.It's present day India where Urdu was born and flourished but now the same country is making complete mess of it. The hindustani language should be promoted as it's the second largest language of this world with more than 500 million native speakers.Realton 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On literary level, Urdu and Hindi are two completely different languages. An Urdu ‎speaker cannot convey complex analytical ideas to a Hindi speaker as vocabulary ‎becomes more complex and completely different. I personally had such an experience ‎and I had to use English as I had to explain every single word as if I was talking to a ‎child. In fact, Urdu although flourished in present day India was invented by ‎predominantly Muslim army of a Muslim King Babur. And that's why Urdu is still ‎considered a language of Muslims. Hindi or Hindustani is a more sansikratized form of ‎Urdu. Remove Persian from Urdu and Urdu is no more. Remove sanskrit from Hindi and Hindi is no more.‎ Szhaider 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

True.Hindi and Urdu carry furthur more differences than scripts and religious words.No doubt the languages do carry striking similarities,just as Hebrew and Arabic,but it would be short-sighted to classify them as "the same" language.As for uniting Hindi and Urdu?I don't see what purpose this serves.And why should this new Hindi-Urdu language be "Hindustani"?That would be like combining Persian and Arabic to create "Iranian" Nadirali 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

My friend, you should see the purpose. The political purpose of diminishing Pakistan's culture. [[User:|Szhaider]] 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see it.But we wont allow that to happen and as long as people like us are around,it wont happen.Nadirali 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

K--D-Boy 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Mr Szhaider views totally. The purpose of combining these two languages doesn't carry any negative aspirations. Also correct your history as Urdu was not invented by army of Babur, If that's the case then whats about the poetry of Amir Khusru, Who died centuries ago before Babur's invasion. Actually most narrow minded people start the same rhetoric of hindu and muslim identities. Urdu can be termed as islamic version of hindi. The language of western U.P and eastern haryana, i.e Khari boli is very similar to Urdu and is infact the base of Urdu. The hindi-Urdu conflict is just 150 years old. Most people just start conservative approach while posting their views but I respect your opinion though as my liberal and secular thinking binds me to do so. Regards Realton 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when has Urdu been a solely Pakistani ownership? India has more Native Urdu speakers than Pakistan. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit

Its really funny to see Arabic, Persian and Turkic mentioned as major influences on Urdu while leaving out the biggest influence of all, Sanskrit! For God's sake dont parade you servilke attitude towards Persians and Arabs on Wikipedia! When we say Hindi is Sanskritised Hindustani, we imply that its higher vocabulary is of Sanskrit origin, that doesnt take away the fact that Hindi and Urdu's basic vocabulary IS of Sanskritic origin. Thats why it is placed in Indo-Aryan languages language family. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As is Persian:}

Thanks for your comments. As a result of them, I included that Urdu was an Apabhramsha in the introduction. If you would like to make any additions, please feel free to do so. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision!

Referring to revision of 21:07, 29 November 2006 by Sarayuparin, I appreciate the enthusiasms but disagree with this particular change. If there is no political significance, then let's leave the order as it has been since 2004. If someone is really eager to contribute, there is enough room for improvement in the main text. --Islander 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "enthusiasms"; it's objectivity. What's wrong with alphabetical ordering? Look at English. Obviously, the language was spoken in the United Kingdom before Australia, Canada, and the United States, but the United Kingdom appears, appropriately, in alphabetical order in the list of countries where English is spoken. Alphabetical order is used for Arabic as well. Why not apply the same principle to Urdu? Just because the order has been "Pakistan, India" since 2004 is no justification not to change it to "India, Pakistan" now. So, what is the objective reason to leave it out of alphabetical order? Is it the size of the population of speakers in the respective country? If so, then should India (with 50 million Urdu speakers) not come before Pakistan (with its 11 million)? This appears to be the rationale for other South Asian languages that are spoken across contiguous borders or that are transnational; see the Punjabi article; the Bengali article (100 million in Bangladesh, 70 million in India); and the Kashmiri article (4.4 million in India, 105,000 in Pakistan). If there truly is no political significance, let us at least order the countries rationally, either by alphabetical order or size of population of speakers. I've already contributed to the article, now I'm just continuing to make improvements. I look forward to your comments. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Sarayuparin 00:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The aim for making you aware of the history was to imply that since 2004 many learned people must have gone through this Infobox and did not manage to interrupt it, for there must have been a reason. So let’s discuss the reason. We are talking here about the status of the language in a country and not the number of people (as they are indicated seperately in Infobox). So,

National languages of Pakistan are: Urdu and English
National languages of India are: Hindi and English (Urdu is official language of few state governments, and not of the central government, see Official languages of India)

Moreover,

Encyclopaedia Mauritiania titles Urdu - A Language of Pakistan.
Encarta Encyclopedia calls Urdu "national language of Pakistan...and an officially recognized state language in India."

Hence, ordering should naturally give preference to the country that gives the language a higher status. As in the case of Bengali you referred, according to the Infobox there, Bengali is:

Spoken in: Bangladesh, India and several others.
Official language of: Bangladesh, India, and Indian states of West Bengal and Tripura

Obviously the situation is that Bangla is the national language of Bangladesh, whereas it seems to have official status only in two Indian states.

All Arabic and English speaking countries have given the respective languages more or less the similar national status. And if you look harder, you will discover that in neither case of the 'Official language' column do the country names appear in any strict alphabetical order. In fact the countries with minority language populations appear later.

Even if I consider your suggestion of population ordering, Urdu seems to be spoken by around 5% of Indians (and is a minority language) whereas the ratio is higher in Pakistan (additionally, it is the lingua franca).

And lastly, I am surprised at your concern on alphabetising the countries whereas the Indian state names themselves do not appear in accordance with your proposed ‘rational’ order? Also your edit summary pleads to “...keep the states listed in the Infobox in alphabetical order.” Mind you Pakistan is an independent country! --Islander 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Islescape, for the explanation. Isn't Urdu spoken by only 8% of the Pakistani population? Does the higher status given to Urdu in Pakistan come from the government's support of it or can it be attributed to a more popular sentiment? If so, where: Balochistan and Sindh? Also, my use of states' refered to nations or countries, not administrative regions within these entities. The percentage of Urdu speakers in India is greater than 5%: the issue lies with the reporting of mother tongues in census records, speaker's own awareness of official classifications of languages they speak, and distinguishing 'dialect' variation. In any case, the justification of "higher prestige" in the listing of states (read: countries) is weak, but not significant enough to continue debating. Thank you for taking the time to give me your explanation. Sarayuparin 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify your political question for 'popular sentiments', please read through Section 1 (Speakers and geographic distribution) of Urdu article, which says: Urdū is used as the official language in all provinces of Pakistan. Next, according to definition at countries your use of the word ‘state’ is problematic when the group comprises both sets of dependent states and independent countries. As for the justification of priority, in all encyclopaedic entries (Encyclopaedia Mauritiania, Encarta, Britannica, etc.) on Urdu language, Pakistan is always mentioned first, followed by others due to obvious reasons. See for example, Encarta: Urdu, language spoken in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and parts of India,…--Islander 12:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence of Pashto on Urdu's Development

While it is undeniable that Urdu was born and grew under the influence of Sansikrit, Persian, Arabic and Turki, the same cannot be said about Pashto. The influence of the former category of languages on literary Urdu is manifest and clear. I don't think you can find of significant traces of Pashto's influence, if any traces at all, on pre-20th century Urdu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.207.51 (talk • contribs).

I agree with you. As a result, I removed the mention of Pashto on Urdu's influence. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mualla

I dont think Mualla means society , it means something like exalted or esteemed . I guess somebody confused Mualla with Muhalla. 203.170.71.58 14:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Mu`alla معله means 'exalted'. Sarayuparin 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox display is skewed

The Infobox display is skewed. The reason is the IPA notice that is set in a div on the right side of the table. Is there a way to fix this? When the Indic text notice was there, it appeared below the ISO codes. Can we do the same for the IPA notice? Sarayuparin 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a language sample

Could anyone who can read Urdu enter the first article of the Urdu version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and provide it with a transliteration and, if possible, even a word-to-word gloss? That would be very helpful for people not acquainted with the situation to understand the differences between Hindi and Urdu, as this sentence appears as a sample in the Hindi article. Thank you! --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I have created a sub-section "Sample Text" in "Examples" modeled on the Hindi sample. - Aslamt 15:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick action. The difference between the two texts is much bigger than I would have thought (cf. the differences between Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian in the same text). Is this due to the big differences in vocabulary, or are there just different formulations because of the translators' individual choices that would have been possible in the other language as well? --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 17:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry. Urdu and Hindi are standard registers of Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu (see diasystem). The colloquial vocabulary is the same. For example, Urdu speakers will call the language used in Bollywood films Urdu while Hindi speakers will call the language used in Bollywood films Hindi. However, the formal vocabulary (i.e. court language) from Hindi is borrowed from Sanskrit whereas the formal vocabulary from Urdu is borrowed from Persian. I feel that this link will be helpful to you in explaining the relationship. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know if you have any more questions. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample Texts

As of now, we have two sample texts in the article (here and here. Is it worth keeping both or should we delete one of them? Another idea involves moving the latter sample to the section on Urdu poetry. Any comments on this matter would be appreciated. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [[user talk. anupam, t

[edit] Number of speakers in Pakistan

According to The World Factbook of CIA, Pakistan's population is 165.8 million, and only 8% speak Urdu, which equals to about 13 million people. According to the article, 160 million Pakistanis speak Urdu. Quite a discrepancy here! I say, for me the trustworthiness of information I get from Wikipedia has just gone way down... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.184.142 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Read it again. It says native speakers. Only 13 million people may speak Urdu as a native toungue, but due to its status as a national language everyone can speak it.

Yes it is mother language for 13 million people in pakistan but virtually it is spoken almost by everyone as second language because it is the lingua france for the people of different regions of pakistan to communicate with one another.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/r/d/Talk%7EUrdu_80ca.html"