Talk:Urdu/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Sample text

There used to be a section called § Sample text that seems to went missing in action under the pretense of being “bizarre.” Not all language articles have such sections, but they serve as convenient overview of how language looks and how it works in practice. The section was linked from a similar one at Hind § Sample text for comparison. What was wrong with it? –MwGamera (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@MwGamera: Thanks for bringing this up. No comment about the erratic edit summary, but basically, the Urdu text, and especially the IPA and the gloss were unsourced. Nothing should speak against reinsertion of the sample text with a good source (of which there are plenty for the text itself, e.g [1][2]). If you also can find a source for IPA and romanized/glossed text, that would be great. –Austronesier (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The UN Human Rights Charter is a difficult thing to parse. It says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Is this to be read, "All human beings are born free and (are born) equal in dignity and rights" (a form of ellipsis) or "All human beings are born (both) free and equal in (both) dignity and rights?" If the latter, what does it mean to be born free in dignity and rights?" ( Note: As many people were involved in its drafting, perhaps this latter meaning is what is meant; nonetheless, it is not easily understood.) The Hindi folks at whatever department of the Indian government which was given the job of the translation, have rendered it: "Within the purview of the topics of dignity and rights, every single human being is invested with inborn freedom and equality." (my translation) and have thereby gone with the latter interpretation. The road signs do a much better job of communicating the phrasing of a language than these convolutions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The Urdu is: تمام انسان آزاد اور حقوق و عزت کے اعتبار سے برابر پیدا ہوئے ہیں۔ The difficult words here are: حقوق (rights), عزت (respect, dignity) and اعتبار (consideration, reference, authority). I'd translate this literally as: "All humans are free-(born) and in the consideration of their rights and dignity equal-born" which clearly favors the first interpretation above. So you see the contrast in just two languages. And this has nothing to do with the nature of the languages but reflects how the translators have chosen to interpret the English. In this instance, the Urdu version is more accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want sample texts, grab something from any of the books of Ralph Russell, Christopher Shackle or Ruth Laila Schmidt listed above. The point of some kind of standardization in a universal text such as the UN Human Rights Charter becomes meaningless if the translators are interpreting the English differently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So I understand there are objections against inserting it back in any form similar to what it was. –MwGamera (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: One minor question, completely unrelated to this: do we have solid information about what would have been considered the most acceptable and respectable pronunciation of زبان in the late 18th century, zabān or zubān? The nice image in "Vocabulary" has a ḍammah, so obviously there's no other way of transliterating it in that context, but I'm curious about what would be most "correct" in historizing usage (Schmidt writes Zabān-e-Urdū-e-Muʻallā). –Austronesier (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Naim, in his book hosted at Frances Pritchett's Columbia site and Lelyveld in the Annual of Urdu Studies (separately) transliterate it as if a pesh (Persian and Urdu for the Arabic dammah) was being used. But these are not the late 18th-century features you are looking for.

As Urdu was heavily Persianized in the late 18th century, and as Persian did not change as much as Urdu did thereafter, one way to check could be to consult late-18th-century Persian English dictionaries. Richardson's published in 1777 seems to have zuban (column one) until you realize that "u" (in his romanization) is to be pronounced as in but, hut or nut (see Persian bus ("only," "enough") pronounced as in the English "bus" here). Johnson's 1852 dictionary allows both zabaan and zubaan (in the modern translit) column one, as does Steingass's Persian 1892 (see here) and Platt's Urdu 1880 (see here) which also mentions Pehlavi huzvan in the etymology, suggesting perhaps a more ancient ambiguity in the Persian pronunciation. My own vague sense is that zubaan is a concession made if one is being very formal, so it is apt for zubaan-e-Urdu-e-mua'lla (where the more formal and Persian -e- (izaafat) also appears).

I'll ask some experts and post here in the infirm future, but this is what I have now. I am supposed to be on vacation from WP. If I don't quit now, my wife will notice, and ask. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC for mention of Dakhani in the lead

Should following line mentioned in the lead be amended

Dakhani, an older form used in the south, is now considered obsolete.

This is not a factual statement. The form of Urdu spoken in Hyderabad is quite distinct from Delhi and Lucknow. The Hindu describes Minisha Lamba and Boman Irani speaking Dakhani in Well Done Abba. TheNewsMinute says 12% people in Bengaluru speak Dakhani. Surely having this line as is not correct based on only one source. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

What is meant there is that Dakhini no longer constitutes a standard variety of Urdu. This should have been clarified both in the lead/WP article and in the source. Obviously, Dakhini has speakers, so it cannot be obsolete in the sense of a "dead language." Ethnologue categorizes it as no longer being sustained by formal institutions but spoken at the home and community and learned by children. Contrast that with Urdu, which is being sustained by formal institutions, outside of home and community. If Ruth Laila Schmidt, Emerita Professor of Urdu at the University of Oslo, and an expert on Dakhini says in her book, Urdu: An Essential Grammar, that there are three "standards" of Urdu, Delhi, Lucknow, and Karachi, then obviously Dakhini does not constitute a standard variety of Urdu. (We know that it has important points of difference from standard Urdu—it is influenced by Dravidian syntax). Perhaps it is best to remove that sentence about Dakhini being obsolete from the lead. In other words, there would be no mention of Dakhini in the lead.

Do you really think this was worth an RfC and a waste of community time? Could you not have made a simple talk page post? Your sources, btw, are unreliable. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• With better sources, it can be mentioned as a peripheral, yet thriving variety. Not having the awe-inspiring aura of a contemporary standard variety does not preclude it from being leadworthy. But ideally, the section "Dialects" needs to be expanded accordingly. Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Without significant coverage about Dakhini in one the following sections, a mention in the lead creates undue weight. –Austronesier (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert, and probably best not use either Indian or Pakistani English specifically as choosing one or the other could be inflammatory. 81.2.252.231 (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (Diff) TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

The history and origins of Urdu may be more deep-rooted due to bias towards the Mongols. Initially the language may have been born in Mongolia, where nomadic tribes united under Genghis Khan. They subsequently invaded Central Asia, Khwarazm and Persia. The logistics required that army or Horde (Ordo in Mongolian) be stationed in conquered areas. The words from these regions were absorbed by the mongol hordes. Finding many of these languages far superior than their own and also a medium to communicate with the locals, many words were added to their own language. In addition to this many Turkic, Turk , Persian, and arabs became part of the mongol administration. Thus becoming an amalgam or Rekhta. After the collapse of the Mongol empire the different hordes became independent and under the rule of Timur in the 15th century the Ordo language was established in his areas of influence especially his capital. The formation of Moghulistan and the emergance of Babar, the language was brought to the subcontinent. After the conquest of Delhi the troops with Babar were spread arounf India but particularly northern and north eastern India. Here the local language was fused with Hindi and local forms of hidustani language. 39.44.235.234 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Austronesier (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Language Family

Urdu language family is wrongly shown in the article. Actually most Indians are showing prejudice against Urdu History, instead of researching they just want to focus the term Hindustani which was coined by British later in 19th century. Here are the short language family according to Urdu historians and poets:

1. Hindavi during Amir Khusrau
2. Deccani
3. Rekhta
4. Urdu e Muaallah
5. Urdu

The evolution of Urdu was started as a Hindavi in 13th century, then it was brought to Deccan by Muslim rulers and then poets brought it back to Delhi and there it flourished in Turko-Mughal empire and finally emerged as an official language later on. MasterWikian (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The language family to which Urdu belongs is not an opinion. Please see the entry at Ethnologue's database. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

On the picture at the bottom under writing system, the caption reads "An English-Urdu bilingual sign at the archaeological site of Sirkap, near Taxila. The Urdu says: (right to left) دو سروں والے عفاب کی شبيہ والا مندر, dō sarōñ wālé u'qāb kī shabīh wāla mandir. "The temple with the image of the eagle with two heads." " The word "عفاب" should read "عقاب" with two dots to represent a Qaf. At the moment it reads "afab" instead of "aqab". 24.15.136.227 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected the spelling error. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Early Forms of Urdu

Deccani seems to be listed as a dialect of Modern Urdu, but should it not be listed as an earlier form of Urdu? :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 14:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amarissaostmo. Peer reviewers: Umbereenbmirza, Sanakareem20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

English sentence meaning in urdu

He speaks very sweetly to lomov when the latter comes to his house 2405:205:7:65D2:9761:2D22:10CF:62CD (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ma bht mehnat krta hn plzz meri help kra

Ma bht gareeb hn mujha YouTube sa bht pyar ha love you YouTube 39.52.152.93 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Urdu people, please stop population bias

Apparently i stumbled upon this article and that is when i saw in population table that the population was at 30,000,000 million, I was shocked at this, not only was this non-informational but it could've been a result of a vandalism and it was mostly framed on a poor outdated PDF book, as a result i had replaced the population number to 15,000,000 as per 2017 census of Pakistan and the population on Muhajirs article and later on I added two Pakistani news articles, we should strive for factual content.
Thank you for understanding.
⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 18:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Urdu is also spoken in India. I suppose you didn't know that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023

Native to Pakistan not India 205.209.65.233 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

Urdu has seen a surge of hate among the hinduvta extremist in India, where Urdu is only perceived as a 'Muslim Language' Sania118272 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Make it Clear: Mutual Intelligibility of Urdu with Hindi, but not Urdu with Arabic and Persian/Farsi

Dear all and To editor Fowler&fowler:,

Urdu being a form of standard register of Hindustani, is mutually intelligible with Hindi as they share the grammar, construction, conjunctions ... and even the accent, they are linguistically same language even though "the large religious and political differences make much of the little linguistic differences (between Urdu and Hindi)", see reference

An Introduction to Sociolinguistics By Ronald Wardhaugh, Janet M. Fuller, Wiley & Sons. 2015. pp30]. Hindi and Urdu are not mutually intelligible with Arabic or Persian. Even Hindi has loan words from English and writing Hindi in Latin script does not make it mutually intelligible with Latin, English or French. None of these four are mutually intelligible, all are from Indo-European family and last three use Latin script. Even Hindi is not mutually intelligible with Sanskrit from which it draws heavily and shares the Devnagri script with. In fact variations of Arabic, though they sue same nastaliq script, are not mutually intelligible with each other, let alone being mutually intelligible with Urdu. See this reference The article mentions that Urdu draws from Hindi, Arabic and Persian. Article also makes it clear that Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, this needs to be made clear that urdu is not mutual intelligibility with Arabic and Persian.

It will also be useful to include the reason why Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi and not with Arabic and Persian. "two closely related and by and large mutually intelligible speech varieties may be considered separate languages if they are subject to separate institutionalisation contexts, e.g. official speech forms of different states and state institutions, or of different religious ethinic communities. Examples of such language paris are Norwegian and Swedish, Hindi and Urdu", see reference The same source further clarifies that, "on the other hand, speech varieties that differ considerably in structure and are not always mutually intelligible, such as Moroccan Arabic, Yemeni Arabic and Lebanese Arabic." Those who want to understand the concept of mutual intelligibility in more detail please refer to this source, last para on page to page 8 and separate language versus dialect and this.

I suggest the following: 1. include the statement upfront (the current unofficial "exec summary" type section on top) that while Urdu is mutually intelligible with Hindi but not with other. 2. include a subheading in the article to discuss the mutual intelligibility of urdu with languages it borrows from. The central logic being that the "base" of Urdu is Khadiboli (Hindustani), and there are other toppings added to it including Hindi, Arabic, Persian and Chagatai, etc. Among those it is MI with Hindustani and not with the rest for the reasons mentioned above. The concept of Hindi and Urdu being two language could politically motivated but their mutual intelligibility is not subject to the political consideration but to linguistic considerations.

Discuss it here please.

Thanks Being.human (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Query

sir, why my addition has been reverted? Abirtel (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You will need a better source than a 1847 dictionary in support of the statement. It's from a time when the terms "Urdu" and "Hindi" just started to acquire their present meanings. So we cannot take his statement "The Urdú is seldom written in the Déb-nágarí (p. iv)" at face value. –Austronesier (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As Austronesier says, you need a more recent source. Also, the dictionary, which is available online, doesn't say that Urdu was written in the Devanagari script. Even if it did, it wouldn't count as a WP:RS.RegentsPark (comment) 21:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity section

The use ethnicity section in this article does not seem valid. Urdu is a language that is spoken fluently throughout Pakistan and northern Indian and it is generally not associated with an ethnic group. An example would be Hindi, spoken fluently throughout northern India and is not associated with any ethnic group (and no ethnic group is mentioned in its Wikipedia article). Therefore, the ethnicity section should be removed from this article as it is quite misleading. Thanks :) PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Table about the number of speakers by country

That table does not make sense, the L1+L2 number (as stated in India) cannot be lower than just the L1 number of speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.79.110.116 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lashkari

Who has ever called the Urdu language "Lashkari"? The citation given, gives no references for this – most likely WP:CIRCULAR. نعم البدل (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

Please change ethnicity text in the infobox from Urdu-speaking people to Hindustani Muslims as they are known locally in South Asia as Hindustani Muslims to distinguish them from other religious groups. 223.123.115.133 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Phonology

I'm confused as to why each individual nasal vowel is included when Hindustani phonology doesn't include them.

The orthography doesn't even give them separate letters. They're treated as vowels + nasalisation but not as separate phones. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: This one right here. btw every vowel can be nasal, the only exceptions are ɛ and ɔ. 178.120.22.167 (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for assistance at Inter-Services Intelligence

Hello. I am hoping someone who watches this article can come help with a recently-requested edit for this article. Someone has asserted that the romanized version of the Urdu title for this organization is not correct. Responding to the (now-closed) edit request is not possible without knowing how to read Urdu written in the Natsaliq script. I would appreciate someone with this ability to take a look and make a determination. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Instead of listing every single nasal vowel, remove them, and add a note explaining that every vowel can be nasalised except for those cases where it isn't. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Question: I'm not certain I understand what you mean – isn't every vowel can be nasalised except for those cases where it isn't inherently true regardless of language? Tollens (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: See my previous edit on this talk page for context. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request as stale as it has gone over a month without anyone willing to review it. This sort of request would likely be reviewed faster if you specified the exact wikitext you want to change rather than forcing the reviewer to guess at it themselves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Dialects

Does Urdu have same dialects as hindi or different? Kaiyr (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kaiyr Same. Braj is described as a dialect of Urdu in Pakistan, and Haryanvi and Bihari are called Urdu by many just as they are called Hindi by many in India. Standard Urdu and Standard Hindi are the same dialect of the same dialect of the same language (Khari Boli). عُثمان (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Merger of the article into main Urdu article

The Urdu language has a wide and diverse group of fluent speakers, just like Hindi. The article, Urdu-speaking people complicates things instead of being useful, as there is no ethnic or ethnolingusitic group of Urdu-speakers as they are wide spread diverse group of people with various ethnic and regional identities. I suggest the merger of Urdu-speaking people article into this article, its situation is exactly like Hindi's, whose speakers do not form an ethnic or regional identity as other neighbouring regions. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The merger has been completed and a new sub page has been added to this article. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I've reverted it. It can't be done unilaterally. An WP:RFC is needed or at least a consensus in the well-advertised talk page proposal and then a RM. It take at least a month if not more. You can't make a hurried post and merge the page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that Urdu speaking people most definitely see themselves as a coherent identity. 39.41.209.33 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They see themselves as Muslims, not Urdu speakers. Other than that they identify as Punjabis, Pashtuns, Balochis, etc. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Urdu speakers are called Muhajirs in Pakistan. عُثمان (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I'm restoring my version because of the following:

• Urdu is one of the Languages with legal status in India. The fact that its status is not exactly the same in India as it is in Pakistan is not a reason to exclude it.
• Flags don't belong in Info Boxes MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.
• Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu.
• Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
• A link to Languages of Pakistan is more appropriate than just Pakistan.

PepperBeast (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) And now, I'm restoring my version because of the following:

• Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
• Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is still not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu.
• The few links I removed were dead.

PepperBeast (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Any WP:RS regarding Urdu being spoken in Afghanistan?

Urdu/Hindustani is a language a small minority people in Afghanistan might be fluent in due to being refugees in Pakistan and Bollywood; however, it is not an actual spoken language in Afghanistan.

Is there any WP:RS that Urdu is spoken in Afghanistan, not just understood? It does not belong to lede, and should be edited to be clear it’s not a spoken language like Dari Persian, Pashto, Uzbek, Turkmen and other languages of Afghanistan. 2600:1700:158F:A900:4158:88E6:ECAE:69DF (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am seeing an absolute conflict between two parts....

Ordu is first thought to be used around 1780 by a poet and a outsider saying in 1777 orduzabain is what ots called by locals. You don't see a word coined getting popular just in a while. Sources conflict, second source has more credibility because: 1. It's possible it came late into litrature Yaverjavid (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

June

@PadFoot2008 See the Britannica version of Urdu [3]. The lead should be a summary of the body based on best available tertiary sources like Britannica. Your version is not only repetitive (this line already exists in the next para) but also removed crucial intro material from lead, which I see no valid reason to do so. There is no consensus for a change currently, which is why I'm restoring the longstanding version. Codenamewolf (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Codenamewolf, my version doesn't "remove crucial intro material" from the lead unless you are talking about the mention of Indo-Aryan language. That can be fixed easily:

Urdu is the standard variety of the Hindustani language within the Indo-Aryan language family written in the Perso-Arabic script.

And the repetition can simply be removed from the next paragraph. Pinging @Austronesier and @kwami for their opinions. PadFoot2008 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the first line is basically the standard (with the mention of within the Indo European languages family) and less cluttered as per Britannica. The standardised registered part already exists in the next para. Codenamewolf (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to keep it short right now, but will have more time for a detailed reply later.

I'm good with Anupam's addition. It's good and basic info and summarizes key points that are discussed in detail at the end of §Origins and in §Post-partition. Maybe it needs some copy-editing and could be interwoven with the preceding text in the same paragraph. Also, it's not redundant. Official status and the emergence of a vital literary language in the 18th century (after long centuries in the "shadow" of Persian) are two different things.

I disagree with the modification of the opening sentence by @PadFoot2008. First, it repeats the second paragraph; further, the analogy with BCD (Bosnian–Croatian–Serbian) is not helpful. We need to represent Urdu in the manner following the vast majority of reliable sources. This was part of previous discussions. Sure, Urdu is a standardised variety in the Hindi–Urdu gamut (btw, calling the latter "Hindustani" is not necessarily the preferred choice of the vast majority of reliable sources; that's another story). But this is not how most RS primarily characterize Urdu. In the first place, it's described as a language that is the national language of Pakistan etc. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Urdu is an official language in many Indian states as well as a scheduled language of the Indian Union, it is not just limited to Pakistan. And the second paragraph can be modified to remove the repetition. PadFoot2008 11:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not. The common convention for variants of pluricentric languages like Hindustani, Serbo-Croatian and Standard German, is to state in the lead that is a variant. See articles like Serbian language, Croatian language and Austrian German. Those are Indo-European languages as well. PadFoot2008 11:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the difference between Hindi and Urdu is equivalent to the difference between the BCS varieties or the Standard German of Germany and Austrian Standard German? Most sources will tell you a different story. Indonesian and Standard Malay come close, but still it is an entirely different case. Every case of languages/varieties that have been called "pluricentric" at some point require individual handling. –Austronesier (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier, The vocabularies of (Standard) Hindi and Urdu match up pretty close. We aren't talking about formal Hindi and Urdu and their vocabulary, we are talking about standard Hindi and Urdu and their standard vocabularies. I am not saying that the case is similar to BSC or Austrian and German Standard German, just noting that they are varieties of pluricentric languages and are still considered to be so. PadFoot2008 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Historical script for Urdu

Urdu was widely written in Kaithi, Devanagree, Gurumukhi script.

Reference:

Dhir, Krishna Swaroop (2022). The wonder that is Urdu: a multidisciplinary analysis. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 139. ISBN 978-81-208-4301-1. Jabirttk351 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)