Talk:Caribbean Hindustani

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2021 and 31 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MCuratolo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Status in Trinidad

Moin Largoplazo,
the figures used in the article are 22 years old. I checked with the linguistics dpt at UWI; they have no better figures. The language is dead. It's just a bit hard to find evidence for that since no field research has been done since then. I sourced the secondary education curriculum and rephrased a bit, hope that's acceptable. Shouldst thou have current figures - all hail to you. I gave up.
Kind regards, Grueslayer 16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Moin moin. Unknown to whom? If there are current speakers, then they certainly know about it, so "unknown" just isn't a helpful way of describing the situation.

Further, your personal analysis is faulty, since many languages remain in use despite not being the language taught in the schools. After all, was Trinidadian Bhojpuri ever taught in the schools? I'm supposing it wasn't, yet it was spoken in Trinidad and Tobago for generations, no?

That you specified that the data we have that's known is from 1996 is enough. You don't need to be explicit about not having current data, especially not when it leads you to try drawing conclusions in the article to explain that situation. WP:OR applies. Largoplazo (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've got a point of course, but let me put it like this: There's two facts: The number of speakers in 1996, and the lack of figures for today. There's a source for fact 1, and fact 2 means that one can't claim that there is anyone still speaking the language. I may be clumsy in phrasing this, so if you have a more elegant wording at hand I would appreciate it. The old wording was plain wrong though. Kind regards, Grueslayer 17:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we just leave it at "... in 1996 ..." and let the fact that it hasn't been updated speak for itself. If that leaves it looking out-of-date, well, it is out of date, but without more recent info there is no imperative for us to make it look like there is. I propose removing the last sentence. Largoplazo (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kind regards, Grueslayer 19:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Written Caribbean Hindustani

@Arimaboss: You have added some information about the scripts used. Do we actually have sources that support the claim that Caribbean Hindustani is indeed written using these scripts? As far as I can see, and as is sourced for Sarnami, speakers traditionally have used Standard Hindi (in Devanagari) and Urdu (in Perso-Arabic) in writing, while the actual spoken Bhojpuri-derived vernacular has become a written language only for a couple of decades, using the Latin script. –Austronesier (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Sarnami / Surinamese Hindustani be its own article?

It appears that in both Dutch and French Sarnami is given its own article. Given that Sarnami is the most spoken dialect, with the most information already available, should a separate article be created or perhaps translated from the Dutch? Ourdou (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ourdou: I think it's better to expand the section here first based on the sources in the Dutch page (but with inline citations!). We can then still decide whether to split it out. Note that ISO calls [hns] "Caribbean Hindustani", while Ethnologue calls it "Sarnami Hindustani". This one of the things we have to match carefully when splitting out Sarnami. –Austronesier (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)