Talk:Urdu/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Biased information?

Previously discussed at Taivo’s talk page. Copied over from there. Meant for Kwami, Taivo and Faizan.

Thanks a lot for telling me my weak points here, but please let me clarify my position. As to the phrase ‘great quality of assimilation’, I do not think ‘great’ would be an unjust peacock term. Please see my explanation below:

• The first thing is that I entered that phrase exactly as found in a printed material.
• The next thing is that Urdu does have that great property. That is so, because Urdu can be considered to be a made-up languge, just like Esperanto; the difference lying in the fact that Esperanto was made by one man, but Urdu was made by a whole nation. This means that it has no words of its own! Almost all the vocabulary is borrowed. Excepting a small figure, the rest all are borrowed. I divide the sources of borrowing into two types for better understanding (for long-established words in Urdu, when English terms were not extensively used):

1. Eastern (Hindi aka Sankrit/Prakrit, etc.)
2. Western (Muslim aka Arabic/Persian/Turkish, etc.)

Almost all the conjunctions, prepositions, interjections and pronouns derive from Eastern sources, with a few being from Persian. But the verbs, nouns and all other determiners form an open set and you can use them from almost any language, provided the addressee knows that word from the lending language already. Let us take an example. Consider the synonyms of the word ‘shade’ available in Urdu:

a. The most often used: sāyah —Persian

b. šēḋ —English

c. chā'ōⁿ —Eastern (Hindi)

d. The seldom used: ẓill —Arabic

So you see, these 4 synonyms were there just because of the property of assimilation.  There are many words like these who have two to four synonyms just because of borrowings from other languages.

Now as you know, the famous news channels try to avoid foreign words as much as possible and the people who come up there are chosen for their proper language, but still, recently when the 8-magnitude earthquake struck Iran, the seismologist on a news channel said:

“Is earthquake (arthku'ēk) kā focus (fōkas), Earth (Arth) kī surface (sarfēs) sē 123.45 (I do not remember the figure) kilometre (kilōmītar) kī depth pē thā.”

I do not think you would feel any difficulty in understanding this sentence (It reads “The focus of this earhquake was at a depth of 123.45 km from the surface of the Earth.”) But still, if an Urdu listener knows the meanings of the English words used here, the person would not find this sentence odd at all! Hope this justifies my statement that Urdu, in spite of being poor in terms of native vocabulary, is quite a vocabulary-rich language, just because of borrowing. This borrowing actually begins with someone using a foreign (Usually belonging to Eastern, Western or English source) word and it slowly gains popularity and becomes a well-established word in Urdu, which ultimately finds its way to the dictionaries and becomes an accepted one. Take another example. I read a discussion on the talk page of an administrator on the Urdu Wikipedia, in which one admin. said that a one-word alternative to rollback in Urdu was required. The other admin. suggested a multitude of alternatives from both Eastern and Western sources. And they finally chose ‘istarjeʿ’, an Arabic word and it is quite common there now. Many new words in Urdu are coined by borrowing this way.

Concluding this, I would like to say to you gentlemen that my words atleast regarding assimilation were not completely just POV cheer-leading and atleast required a mention in the lead and a subsection in the article below. Hope I am clear. Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It was never a "Biased" info and that reason given by the reverter was not correct, I support the inclusion of the added info in the lower sections, do it. Faizan -Let's talk! 14:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec):Urdu is not a "made up" language, it is a natural human language that evolved from earlier forms just like every other human language.  Just reading your comments shows that you should not be editing the linguistic content of this article until you understand the science of basic historical and descriptive linguistics.  You might be quite qualified to edit other aspects of Urdu life and culture, but your linguistic understanding is quite limited, and in some respects non-existent.  Commenting on your preceding suggestions alone would require me to give you a fundamental education in linguistic science.  Yes, Urdu has borrowed words, but so does every other language in the world--some less, some more.  That doesn't make Urdu a "made-up language" and it doesn't mean that Urdu "doesn't have any words of its own".  Those are two of the most unscientific, silly comments I've seen in a long time in Wikipedia.  They are utterly and completely false and you will find no reliable linguistic source that makes those claims.  Urdu is one of the two standard registers of Hindustani (the other being Hindi), which is a natural human language developed from prior forms going ultimately back to Sanskrit.  Your comments about an Urdu speaker and comparing an Urdu sentence to a word-for-word English sentence are simply childish in terms of linguistic science.  I'm sorry to be blunt, but you don't seem to know any actual linguistics in a scientific sense.  What you think you know are unscientific children's tales told to make Urdu speakers think that Urdu and Hindi are somehow radically different languages.  Sorry, but none of your edits are acceptable if this is the level of linguistic understanding that you exhibit.  --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not follow Faizan Al-Badri's bad advice.  He is pushing an edit war which will get you blocked or banned from Wikipedia.  You must build a consensus for anything you do in the article.  But in order to do that, you need to listen to the actual linguists here and follow their advice.  --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a personal Attack! You ought to "comment on the content, instead of the user", as per WP:PA, so should it be considered a violation of the rules, dear Taivo? The matter is open for a discussion, and no one can pose authority here, as an expert, the matter should be decided with community consensus, instead of Personal Attacks. Faizan -Let's talk! 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You said "do it". It seems like you were egging him on to reinstate his changes without consensus. — Lfdder (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Taivo hit the nail on the head, but just to comment on this one (minor) thing:

"Today, its stock of words has crossed the figure of 400,000."

I wonder how they've come to that figure. Did they count words with different meanings individually for each meaning? Did they count inflected words? Did they count compounds? Did they count borrowed scientific terminology? You can see how easily any attempt to count words in a language falls apart.

You've confused a language's lexicon with everything "language". You're confused about the origin of Urdu. You're confused about linguistic typology and taxonomy. You've confused standard register with constructed languages and creoles. You should read all of those pages to get a better understanding of linguistics, and why your changes aren't appropriate. — Lfdder (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@Lfdder I had discussed with him on his тαlк and I had asked him to improve it, add further references,etc, get community consensus, and then add it, do I had to explain him the same thing here again? Even if I was indulging him in a war, do PA become justified then? Faizan -Let's talk! 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not constructive. There's a place to report PAs if you think that's what it was. — Lfdder (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack consists of "You are stupid."  Saying that you have given bad advice is not a personal attack.  --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that wasn't meant to be in reply to me. — Lfdder (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, I should have prefaced my comment with "Faizan" :) --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

---

For my Sir Taivo:

Well, thanks a lot for criticising me! I have no objection to that. I think it is his right and it is my duty to listen to him. So now, I have come to know that my way of convincing was not sound. That is a fact that I am not a expert and do not know how to quote good examples, but you still deny the fact that Urdu did not develop naturally like other languages. It developed in the Mughal army, where different peoples could not understand each other; So, for easier communication they ‘created’ this language. Hence the name ‘Urdu’, meaning ‘Army’ (Ask any Persian). What do you say about this? Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 16:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken, Syed. Urdu developed exactly like other languages. It was not "created". It evolved in an unbroken line naturally from previous languages going back to Sanskrit, Proto-Indo-European, and beyond to the plains of East Africa. It is not a mixed language, nor is it a creole, nor is it anything other than a register of the Hindustani language that borrowed a lot of Arabic and Persian words. In that regard, it is similar to English, which is a Low German language that borrowed a lot of French words. Urdu is not "special" in any linguistic sense. That's my point. Your fundamental understanding of the nature of Urdu is flawed and unscientific. That's the problem. And that's why your edits are unacceptable. --Taivo (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There must be something in your point, that is final. What we are told and what we read says that it did not develop naturally. I will need some time to research on the point and arrive to some conclusion the scientific way. Thank you very very much for telling me this thing. I think the discussion is closed from my side. Will revive this only when I find something appropriate relating to this. Bye! Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Every standardized language is to some extent artificial, in the sense that it is standardized. This is true of German, French, Russian, Indonesian, Japanese, etc etc. Modern Standard Urdu is somewhat unusual in the degree to which religion plays a role, but its base is just as natural as the bases of any of those other standardized languages. That's the only way Urdu is in any sense "artificial". What you're talking about goes further back, to the establishment of Urdu as a lingua franca of the Moghul Empire. Really, though, even if the details are unique to each language, this is a common pattern with imperial languages. Persian and Chagatai Turkish went through much the same process. Urdu grew upward from a "commoner" (vulgar) language, rather than being imposed from above as the language of the elite, but then so did English. None of these are considered artificial. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe one has to be very clear about the very definition of the word language.

How are languages born? They take years to develope as a means of communication between any "two" parties involved. Raw material is already around as the common lexicon, which is used in the hope to get the message across. Jargon used in a ship etc. Even new meanings are given. It was under the sultanate period, not under the Moghuls, Urdu Lisan starts taking shape. i.e. something that occured a few hundred years earlier. I have a "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language"(1989). It lists more than 90 languages from where words are borrowed. Majority of the words originate in other laguages than English. I agee some of the critics have flayed earlier commentaors. They could have gone easy. BTW the word in Persian for "Army" is "Sipah".Abikan 22:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abikan (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

I want to add some more information about urdu language please give me edit request... Gamma+ (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

request to change the number of speaker

Indian govt source said that there are 80.06 million people speaks Urdu in India.while around 94% Pakistanis can speak and understand Urdu so the total number of speakers should be mention more than 200 millions but this article mentioned only 68 million--Baltistani (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

So nowhere does in those PDFs does the word Urdu is mentioned. How do you know the numbers are for Urdu speakers? Twitteristhebest (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Bulk removal of recently-added content about phonology and code switching

Phonology of a language is certainly most relevant to the language, although it sometimes has its own separate article on Wikipedia when articles about languages get big. In addition, I'm sure it would be hard to argue that Urdu has the exact same phonology as Hindi or Hindustani in general, so, even if the current content happened to match it, that was obviously preliminary and subject to amelioration.

I am also confused by the argument that the section about code switching didn't concern "Urdu" but "Urdu speakers"; of course it concerns Urdu speakers, by being a register of Urdu (or a combination of Urdu and other languages), and linguists generally give such pidgins the same stature as any other dialect.

I oppose this removal although I see it has already been reverted; I strongly believe the content fits. LjL (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Urdu is not a language. It is either A) a modern standard form of Hindustani (which is what this article is about), or B) Hindustani spoken by muslims, more or less (but certainly not a coherent set of dialects based on linguistic characteristics). In an article on Modern Standard Urdu (MSU) (i.e. this article), a large table is not the best way to present information with minor points specific to MSU to readers, but instead only the points where it is different from other varieties, especially Modern Standard Hindi. Code switching between something that is Urdu and something that is a mixture of Urdu and something else is not information on Urdu itself (after all, it's not Urdu, is it?). --JorisvS (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing the phonology portion completely doesn't help. That section nicely shows the phonemes in MSU (or as spoken by Muslims). What's wrong with that? It removes Sanskrit-imported phonemes from Hindi and only has things actually relevant to Urdu. Code-switching by native Urdu speakers with English (and Govt. endorsement for it) is definitely important. If English speakers in England begin code-switching with let's say, French and the Govt. patronises it, it is similarly relevant to English as well. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite certainly, Urdu with English influences in it is Urdu and belongs to the article if it is a widespread phenomenon. You seem to have a very narrow definition of the topic a Wikipedia article should cover, but that's not how the vast majority of Wikipedia article about languages (or other topics) work. Material that is very related to the topic at hand is covered, even when it touches on other topics as well. LjL (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If the English start code switching, that should be noted at English people, not English language, because it is not related to the language, but is about (the behavior of) the people.

It seems I'm talking to a wall: Urdu is not like the language articles here because it is not a separate language (whichever way you define it). Hence the presentation should be different. The problem with the current presentation of the phonology is that it does not indicate at all what the differences are with other forms of Hindustani. --JorisvS (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The way English people speak affects English language. It isn't an abstract entity. People changing the way they speak = directly affecting the language they are speaking. Remember the Norman conquest? Similarly Urdu speakers changing the way they speak and write Urdu (Urdish) is directly affecting Urdu itself.

And, the phonology portion only has things unique to Urdu. Like /q/, /x/, /ɣ/, /ʒ/, etc. It doesn't have to discuss the differences with Hindi because we're not discussing Hindustani. Like how the vocabulary portion doesn't discuss the differences with Hindi. This article is about the standardized register of Hindustani spoken by mostly Muslims and should discuss the things that are unique to it. The phonology and vocabulary (especially the phonology) is a dead giveaway as to whether a speaker is of Hindi or Urdu. Hence what is considered the phonology of Urdu must be there in an article about Urdu. What you're saying is kinda similar to this: Since American English isn't a separate language, it's phonology must not be listed. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't know what to reply about the thing where English code-switching should belong to English people instead of English language... I simply find that concept ridiculous, as I do for Urdu.

As for Urdu not being a "real language", that's kind of your opinion: standards for languages count as languages or at least as dialects or standardized versions of dialects, and they deserve a phonology just as much as every other speech form. If you are unhappy with how little the article currently emphasizes the difference between Urdu phonology and the phonologies of other related dialects or standards, then add to it. LjL (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wamiq: You're confusing language evolution, which happens gradually, mostly over multiple generations, with code switching, something individual speakers do.

@Wamiq and LjL: It's OK for there to be something on the phonology, regardless of how one construes what Urdu is. However, linguistically, (Modern Standard) Urdu is not a language separate from (Modern Standard) Hindi, but together with Hindi and other speech varieties constitute a single language, which is called Hindustani. Because the phonologies of varieties so closely related that they compose a single language are so similar, readers will typically be most interested in the differences, i.e. here where Urdu is different from an average Hindustani or specifically Hindi. For the commonalities, the reader can (and should, see WP:CFORK) be referred to the phonology section on the article about the entire language, instead of duplicating that content. Not telling the reader what the differences are and instead requiring them to put in a low of effort to find that out themselves is unencyclopedic.

@Wamiq and LjL: When code switching, individuals choose what they speak in a given context. The different forms of what they speak have different characteristics. Everyone code-switches to some extent, and typically, this is between slightly different registers that are identifiably part of the same language, in which case such information does belong at the language page. However, if the code switching is between something that is clearly part of a certain language (here: Urdu) and something that is clearly a mixture of that certain language and another language, then this is no longer that certain language, but simply a mixture of those languages. In an article on that certain language, a mixture of that with another language is off-topic. --JorisvS (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: The phonology of Urdu appears to be different enough from that of Hindi because of (however artificial) phonemes not, for instance, present in Hindi as they are of Persian derivation. WP:CFORK simply does not apply because here is not a case of (I quote the "this page in a nutshell" box) "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject", since there is no "stance" to be taken, it's just a matter of Urdu phonology being different from Hindi phonology. If you want the differences between Urdu and Hindi phonology to be more prominently highlighted than they are now you can, as I said, do it yourself (you can't expect to force others to add content, surely). As to code-switching, for other languages this seems to be tackled by having a separate article about the common code-switching mixtures (Spanglish and so on) and linking them in the "See also" sections, so feel free to do this if you want, for what I'm concerned. LjL (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If many of them are artificial, which "phonemes" are actually used by "Urdu" speakers, then? That would be an even more important piece of information to present to readers. The point is that it is just redundant information. It means most of the information is presented twice where it only needs to be presented once.

As for the code switching, that would work, but that does not make the information less off-topic until then. --JorisvS (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline. But once again, you can't expect other people to do the work you think is required for you. Feel free, as I said, to make the code-switching material into a separate stub and link it through "See also". As to the rest, I simply don't share your view (which, again, is not really corroborated by WP:CFORK): I think that if someone is coming to the Urdu article, a reasonable expectation is that they want to directly read about facts on Urdu without being redirected elsewhere and then interpolate the differences. LjL (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually advocating that they shouldn't have to find out the differences themselves! --JorisvS (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed (so add the differences!), but I'm additionally advocating that they shouldn't have to find out the complete phonology (common Hindustani modulo differences) by themselves (chasing different articles and then putting things together) either. LjL (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Differences in phonology can be added for sure. Will try when I have time. About code switching, OK, I can try making it into a stub out of this article and just linking back/adding see also. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: BTW, I made the vowel table from scratch. It wasn't a simple copy-paste. There isn't such a table on the Hindustani phonology page. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of speakers in the infobox

@Kwamikagami:, may I know what's your rationale in removing the official census data for India from the infobox, and considering some other sources unreliable? I wouldn't say sticking with 1999 data just because it comes from Ethnologue is sound, either. I can see that the Indian census data are already elsewhere, but the point of an infobox is repeating data in a condensed form. Deciding that only native/second speakers from a given country - and not another - are represented in the info seems completely arbitrary. LjL (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We already have an estimate from 2007 that incorporates the 2001 census data. The 1999 data is for L2 speakers. Your source for total speakers failed confirmation, and the sources for the L1 figure in India just repeat the census figure -- what do we need three of them for? — kwami (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, all I know is that before your edits, the figures included speakers in India, then they only mentioned Pakistan. That doesn't make sense to me since there are actually more Urdu (native?) speakers in India than in Pakistan. LjL (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The link for 193M is bad. But it claims that there are more L1 and L2 speakers in Pakistan than there are people in Pakistan. Which Pakistani animals speak Urdu? There aren't that many pet parrots. Are they counting dogs? And can I take it that there is no-one in Pakistan who is not fluent in Urdu? Really, there are no monolinguals in Pakistan, not even anyone who speaks Urdu poorly?
• The first ref for the 50M in India is a newsarticle and so not RS. Presumably it just repeats the census figure and so isn't needed.
• The authors of the second ref, Prasad and Virk, can't even read the census table. If they can't do that, they're presumably incompetent and shouldn't be accepted as a RS. Regardless, they just repeat the census figure and so, like the first source, are redundant.
• The third source is the Indian census, but it fails verification. It says there are 51M native speakers in India, not total speakers. It might be reasonable to put that figure under native speakers. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I misread the sources and claims that were left after your edit, and took Ethnologue as the source being used to make an outdated claim about total native speakers. But it's just being used for Pakistan second language speakers, so I guess everything's okay. I agree there must be something wrong with the 193M figure, although I think it is in the citation given, I just checked it and I could load it... provided quotes. LjL (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you agree that the figure is bad, we shouldn't use it! And it is very misleading to use the L1 figure as an L2 figure. I could say there are "at least" four speakers of Urdu in India, and I would be correct, but it would not be appropriate to say that. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

True, but since 50m is not 4, it would show, together with 65m, that, in fact, most of the native speakers are in India. Otherwise, seeing "65m native" and then "a ton L2 in Pakistan" (but no reference to L2 elsewhere) may make a reader think "oh, so everyone's in Pakistan". Anyway you realize I wasn't the one bringing back all the potentially spurious sources, right? I only added quotes from them. LjL (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Kwami but the claim that there are 193M Urdu-speakers in Pakistan is ridiculous, not only because of it being more than the total population of the country, but also because there are lots of people in Pakistan who as their first language speak other languages than Urdu (Punjabi is the largest/most widely spoken language in Pakistan, and Pashto the second largest; see Languages of Pakistan where Urdu is listed as being spoken by 8% of the population...) and have very little contact with Urdu and Urdu-speakers, and thus have no reason to learn the language, other than perhaps a few simple phrases. Being the official language doesn't automagically make everyone speak it. Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I don't disagree with that. LjL (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I tracked down the spuriously precise figure of 193,238,868. It's an estimate of the population of Pakistan, found i.a. in the 2014 World Almanac and Book of Facts. So it isn't an estimate for the number of speakers at all. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

How's that? I added that 80% of native speakers live in India, which should give the reader a better impression of the situation. (Per the Ethnologue figures it's 80.4%, but of course the stats aren't that precise.) I used a %age so we're not comparing an Ethn. figure for India with a NE figure for the total. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. How about we shorten it to "(80% in India)", or is that confusing? The "of which" thing sounds long and pompous inside an infobox. LjL (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. That would be better. It sounded long and pompous when I wrote it. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain Urdu dictionaries

Khazna-e muhawart; or, Urdu idioms https://archive.org/details/khaznaemuhawarto00philuoft

Romanized School Dictionary: English and Urdu By Calcutta School-Book Society https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ew_AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Dictionary, Hindustani & English: Accompanied by a Reversed ..., Volume 1 By Duncan Forbes https://books.google.com/books?id=rrkIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=rrkIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA803#v=onepage&q&f=false

A smaller Hindustani and English dictionary By Duncan Forbes https://books.google.com/books?id=WfYCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Dictionary of Oordoo and English By Joseph T. Thompson https://books.google.com/books?id=HiAVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

An English and Oordoo Dictionary: In Roman Characters By Joseph T. Thompson https://books.google.com/books?id=jjoYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

An Eng.-Hind. vocabulary of 3000 words for higher standard and proficiency candidates, or, "The right word in the right place" https://archive.org/details/enghindvocabular00philrich

A dictionary, Hindustání and English https://archive.org/details/dictionaryhindus00yateuoft

A dictionary, Hindustani and English, and English and Hindustani, the latter being entirely new https://archive.org/details/dictionaryhindus00shak

John Shakespear A Dictionary, Hindustani and English http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/shakespear/

Hindoostanee philology; comprising a dictionary, English and Hindoostanee; with a grammatical introduction https://archive.org/details/hindoostaneephil00gilcrich

The modern Hindustani scholar; or, The Pucca Munshi https://archive.org/details/modernhindustani00pahwuoft

Hindustani manual https://archive.org/details/hindustanimanual00philiala

Hindustani stumbling-blocks; being difficult points in the syntax and idiom of Hindustani explained and exemplified https://archive.org/details/hindustanistumbl00philuoft

A grammar of the Urdu or Hindustani language https://archive.org/details/grammarofurduorh00dowsiala

A grammar of the Urdu or Hindustani language in its romanized character https://archive.org/details/grammarofurduorh00smalrich

A Concise Grammar of the Hindústání Language: To which are Added, Selections ... By Edward Backhouse Eastwick https://books.google.com/books?id=11EIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=11EIAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Orientalist's Grammatical Vade-mecum: Being an Easy Introduction to the ... By Alexander Faulkner https://books.google.com/books?id=frgOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Grammar of the Hindūstānī Language: In the Oriental and Roman Character ... By Duncan Forbes https://books.google.com/books?id=sFQIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Grammar of the Hindustani Language By John Shakespear https://books.google.com/books?id=_lbRAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Urdu self-instructor or Ataliq--i-Urdu https://archive.org/details/urduselfinstruct00laiquoft

The book of Psalms : the translation of this is from the Hebrew tongue into the Urdu language https://archive.org/details/bookofpsalmstran00waug

The New Testament ... in the Hindustání language https://archive.org/details/newtestamentinhi00calc

The Student's practical dictionary containing English words ... https://archive.org/details/studentspractica00prasuoft Internet Archive The Student's practical dictionary containing English words with English and Urdu meanings and Hindustani words with English meanings together with a list of ... The Student's practical dictionary containing English words ... https://archive.org/details/studentspractica00lalaiala Internet Archive The Student's practical dictionary containing English words with English & Urdu meanings together with a list of Latin and Greek words and phrases with their ... Full text of "The Student's practical dictionary containing ... https://archive.org/.../studentspractica00prasuoft/students... Internet Archive Full text of "The Student's practical dictionary containing English words with English and Urdu meanings and Hindustani words with English meanings together ... https://archive.org/stream/studentspractica00prasuoft/studentspractica00prasuoft_djvu.txt

Catalog Record: The Student's practical dictionary ... catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007674364 The Student's Romanised practical dictionary; Hindustání-English and ... The Student's practical dictionary containing English words with English & Urdu ... http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007674364

The Student's Practical Dictionary of Idioms, Phrases and ... https://books.google.com/books?id=YNVTCy0NN98C 1904 - ‎English language A. P. The Student's Practical Dictionary— Containing (¡) English Words with English and Urdu meanings and (ii) Urdu Words with English meanings, in Persian ... https://books.google.com/books?id=YNVTCy0NN98C&pg=PA620&lpg=PA620

The Student's practical dictionary containing English words ... www.amazon.com › ... › Language Instruction › Arabic Amazon.com, Inc. The Student's practical dictionary containing English words with English and Urdu meanings and Hindustani words with English meanings - Kindle edition by ... http://www.amazon.com/Students-practical-dictionary-containing-Hindustani-ebook/dp/B00PUP0U0U

The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English ... www.mcblainbooks.com/.../the-students-practical-dictionary-containing-... The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English & Urdu Meanings and Hindustani Words with English Meaning, together with a List of Latin and Greek ... http://www.mcblainbooks.com/pages/books/34487/the-students-practical-dictionary-containing-english-urdu-meanings-and-hindustani-words-with

The student's practical dictionary containing English words ... trove.nla.gov.au/work/6646410National Library of Australia The student's practical dictionary containing English words with English and Urdu meanings : together with a list of Latin and Greek words and phrases with their ... http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/6646410

A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English. dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/platts/ University of Chicago A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English includes Perso-Arabic, Devanagari and roman alphabets. In order to display the non-roman characters a ...

A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/platts/

A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English - Isites ...

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic977535.files/new-platts.pdf

A dictionary of urdū classical hindī and english https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0766192318 John T. Platts

https://books.google.com/books?id=6BTHRBL5IEIC

Urdu Dictionary Online Translation LEXILOGOS >>

http://www.lexilogos.com/english/urdu_dictionary.htm

Urdu Dictionary Online Translation LEXILOGOS >> www.lexilogos.com/english/urdu_dictionary.htm Urdu English Dictionary Online Translation, Language, Grammar. ... Student's practical dictionary containing English words with English and Urdu meanings, ...

A Dictionary in Hindi and English - Page i https://books.google.com/books?id=MBIYAAAAYAAJ

English and Urdu Dictionary, Romanized https://books.google.com/books?id=xY8xAAAAMAAJ 1877 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Romanized school dictionary: English and Urdu https://books.google.com/books?id=V1UWAAAAYAAJ Calcutta School-Book Society - 1861 - ‎Read - ‎More editions The Roman-Urdu Journal: To Advocate the Use of the Roman ... https://books.google.com/books?id=LyIJAAAAQAAJ 1880 - ‎Read - ‎More editions A portable dictionary of the kind has long been wanted. The smaller Forbes is only Urdu and English. There were indeed several small English and Urdu Dictionaries — published in this country — before the appearance of the one just issued, ... A Dictionary in Hindi and English - Page i https://books.google.com/books?id=MBIYAAAAYAAJ Joseph Thomas Thompson - 1884 - ‎Read - ‎More editions A Hindi Dictionary, therefore, remained a Desideratum still, aa the other works adverted to, only afford assistance to the Oriental Student, in the Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Sanskrit, Bengali, and Marhatta languages respectively, and not in Hindi ... A School Dictionary, English and Marâthî - Page vii https://books.google.com/books?id=llTpAAAAMAAJ Krishna Raghunatha Shastri Talekara - 1892 - ‎Read - ‎More editions The necessity having long been felt of an English and Marâthî School Dictionary, — that is to say, a Dictionary ... This work was first intended to contain only those words which were given in the English and Urdu Dictionary, but as the Compiler ... The Royal Dictionary: In Two Parts, English and ... - Page 613 https://books.google.com/books?id=orI9AQAAMAAJ 1893 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Do. Do. Mund-ul Atfal Talim-ul-Atfal Hidayat-ul-Atfal Urdu 1st Book by Dr. Parker Do. 2nd Do. Do. Do. Roman DIGTIONARIES. Special Reduction :Peoples Dictionaries English and Roman English and Hindi Dictionary, 12as. reduced to Urdu ... A dictionary of Oordoo and English https://books.google.com/books?id=HiAVAAAAYAAJ Joseph T. Thompson - 1838 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Romanized School Dictionary, english and urdu https://books.google.com/books?id=oJRFAAAAcAAJ 1852 - ‎Read Catalogue - Volume 1, Issue 2 - Page 363 https://books.google.com/books?id=nlg-AQAAMAAJ National Library (India). - 1908 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Guide to Legal Translations; or a collection of words and phrases used in the translation of legal papers from Urdu into English. Benarcs ... A Complete Dictionary of the terms used by Cifininal Tribes in the Punjab [in English and Urdu]. Lahore ... Author-catalogue of printed books in European languages. ... - Page 363 https://books.google.com/books?id=XTA1AQAAMAAJ Calcutta. Imperial library, ‎John Macfarlane, ‎Harinath De - 1908 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Guide to Legal Translations; or a collection of words and phrases used in the translation of legal papers from Urdu into English. Benarea ... A Complete Dictionary of the terms used by Criminal Tribes in the Punjab [in English and Urdu]. Lahore ...

Urdu-English and English-Urdu dictionary https://books.google.com/books?id=9lJgAAAAMAAJ John Shakespear - 1969 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions English and Urdu Dictionary, Romanized https://books.google.com/books?id=xY8xAAAAMAAJ 1877 - ‎Read - ‎More editions

Students Practical Dictionary: Containing English Words ... https://books.google.com/books?id=c2y-jgEACAAJ 1960 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions The Student's Practical Dictionary of Idioms, Phrases and ... https://books.google.com/books?id=YNVTCy0NN98C 1904 - ‎Read New Style Student's Practical Dictionary: English-Urdu https://books.google.com/books?id=a0krHAAACAAJ 195? - ‎No preview The Student's Practical Dictionary, Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=XSgjNQEACAAJ 1934 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=8sgOnQEACAAJ 1959 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=ojXptgAACAAJ No preview The Student's Practical Dictionary: Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=4-v5NAEACAAJ 1913 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=bXR7jgEACAAJ Rama-Narayana Lala - 1927 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=GVZHmwEACAAJ 1907 - ‎No preview The Student's Practical Dictionary Containing English ... https://books.google.com/books?id=qnqanQEACAAJ No preview - ‎More editions

Full text of "A dictionary of Oordoo and English" https://archive.org/.../adictionaryoord00presgoog_djvu.txtInternet Archive &c. &e. THE OORDOO AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY, ON A NEW PLAN, IS GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED BY HIS OBLIGED HUMBLE SERVANT, THE COMPILER. https://archive.org/stream/adictionaryoord00presgoog/adictionaryoord00presgoog_djvu.txt A Dictionary of Oordoo and English - Joseph T. Thompson ... https://books.google.com/.../A_Dictionary_of_Oordoo_and_...Google Books https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Dictionary_of_Oordoo_and_English.html?id=HiAVAAAAYAAJ A dictionary in Oordoo and English: compiled from the best authorities, and ... Joseph T. Thompson Full view - 1838. Common terms and phrases. Amazon.com: An English and Oordoo School Dictionary, in ... www.amazon.com/English-Oordoo.../0554520672 Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon.com: An English and Oordoo School Dictionary, in Roman Characters (Large Print Edition) (Urdu Edition) (9780554520674): Joseph T. Thompson: ... An English and Oordoo School Dictionary, in Roman ... http://www.amazon.com/English-Oordoo-Dictionary-Characters-Edition/dp/0554520672 https://books.google.com/books?id=QNE9AAAAYAAJ Joseph T. Thompson - 1841 SCHOOL. DICTIONARY. ABE А В J R e i u u у ee oo oo ou d d g t/h all set in so much by steal g.i j.l soon mount deal (soft, dental) gum (i guttural) k A *A я r t í w ... A Dictionary of Oordoo and English - Page 535 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com/books?id=HiAVAAAAYAAJ Joseph T. Thompson - 1838 - ‎Urdu language Joseph T. Thompson. n o oo OJ? OJJ r t a w y y zh bo* so too good our (liarsli palatick) (soft dental) but write you mj pleasure a ch d e ee g gh i k kh. Tuhy-yopr ... A Dictionary in Oordoo and English - Page 547 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com/books?id=kynQ4fx6XOgC Joseph T. Thompson - 1838 Joseph T. Thompson. n bo* 00 too Off good OU our (harsh palatick) (soft dental) U but w write y you y pleasure Tur-tur-dna, Oljjy 7r?7TfT*n v. n. To trickle, to drop ...

An English and Oordoo Dictionary, in Roman Characters ... www.peterharrington.co.uk/.../an-english-and-oordoo-dictionary-in-rom... Octavo. Original sage green pebble-grained cloth, title gilt to spine. Light marginal browning, cloth somewhat spotted, bookplate of the library of Baptis. http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/rare-books/dictionaries-encyclopedias/an-english-and-oordoo-dictionary-in-roman-characters/ Catalog Record: An English and Oordoo school dictionary ... catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009733092 An English and Oordoo school dictionary, in Roman characters: with the accentuation of the Oordoo words calculated to facilitate their pronunciation by ... http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009733092 Catalog Record: A dictionary of Oordoo and English | Hathi ... catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009732792 A dictionary of Oordoo and English, comp. from the best authorities, and arranged according to the order of the English alphabet. By J. T. Thompson. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009732792

A dictionary in Oordoo and English https://books.google.com/books?id=kynQ4fx6XOgC Joseph T. Thompson - 1838 - ‎Read - ‎More editions An English and Oordoo dictionary, in roman characters: ... https://books.google.com/books?id=LJ4VAAAAYAAJ Joseph T. Thompson - 1845 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Outlines of Amharic: Containing an English, Oordoo and ... https://books.google.com/books?id=VlMIAAAAQAAJ 1867 - ‎Read - ‎More editions An English and Oordoo Dictionary, in Roman Characters: ... https://books.google.com/books?id=LJ4VAAAAYAAJ 1845 - ‎Read The liberal patronage extended to the previous editions of the English and Oordoo Dictionary by the European Community, and by Heads of Colleges and Seminaries of learning in India, while it calls for the warmest thanks of the Author, has ... An English and Oordoo School Dictionary, in Roman ... https://books.google.com/books?id=QNE9AAAAYAAJ Joseph T. Thompson - 1841 - ‎Read - ‎More editions It will be perceived that the work has been denominated an English and Oordoo, rather than, a Hindoostanee Dictionary ; the reason for which is, that the latter term signifies a native of Hindoostan, and as an adjective is applicable to its ... The Ikhwan-oos-suffa: Translated from the Original Oordoo ... https://books.google.com/books?id=I8EIAAAAQAAJ Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʼ, ‎Thomas Philip Manuel, ‎Ikrām ʻAlī - 1860 - ‎Read - ‎More editions English and Oordoo dictionary: in Roman characters https://books.google.com/books?id=jjoYAAAAYAAJ Joseph T. Thompson - 1852 - ‎Read - ‎More editions Fables in Oordoo: for the use of schools https://books.google.com/books?id=RGA... - Translate this page 1819 - ‎Read - ‎More editions https://books.google.com/books?id=RGA-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover An English and Oordoo School Dictionary, in Roman Characters https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0554520656 Joseph T. Thompson - 2008 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions This is a pre-1923 historical reproduction that was curated for quality. Quality assurance was conducted on each of these books in an attempt to remove books with imperfections introduced by the digitization process. https://books.google.com/books?id=oISccOgxi2UC Outlines of Amharic: Containing an English, Oordoo and ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1294936166 Carolus Henricus Blumhardt - 2015 - ‎No preview - ‎More editions This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. https://books.google.com/books?id=yJ9QrgEACAAJ

Hindustani self-taught by the natural method with phonetic pronunciation https://archive.org/details/cu31924051543035

Rajmaan (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Urdu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140317141109/http://www.geotauaisay.com/importance-urdu.html to http://www.geotauaisay.com/importance-urdu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Link seems to work now. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

ITS URDU not URD

2.107.74.160 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And that's why we call it Urdu, so no problem and nothing to change. Jeppiz (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

an unusual and exciting, typically hazardous, experience or activity.

Listen to me folks: CALM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK, I'm done! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.40.23 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you. I really feel better. I think I'll go to bed now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

States

@Mar4d: According to the article there are 52m Urdu speakers in India and 10m in Pakistan. I am not sure on what basis you are claiming that Pakistan is primary for Urdu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure why it says 10 million. It must be only referring to the Muhajir, in which case the stat is outdated and unreliable (because it excludes all other Urdu speakers). By primary, I'm referring to the fact that it's the national and official language of Pakistan, while in India it is mainly a regional language concentrated to some Northern states. Logically, Pakistan comes first. Mar4d (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Aah. Now I see why it's 10 million. It is from the 1998 census, for Muhajirs. The total speakers are 94 million as of 1999. Still outdated, but numerically more than 52m in the 2001 Indian census [1]. Mar4d (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

94 million is for L2, second language. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"Hindu backlash"

This statement seems unnecessarily inflammatory and unsourced: "This triggered a Hindu backlash in northwestern India, which argued that the language should be written in the native Devanagari script. Thus a new literary register, called "Hindi", replaced traditional Hindustani as the official language of Bihar in 1881"

From a factual PoV, Devanagari had existed and was being used for various dialects of Hindustani for many centuries by 1881. (For citations see the Devanagari article.) I believe the "return" of use of Devanagari for the Khadi boli (the Hindustani dialect in Delhi from which both standard Hindi and Urdu are derived) was simply because Muslim rulers, and hence state patronage for the Perso-Arabic script disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramod.s (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Placing Urdu below Hindustani

I don't find placing Urdu below Hindustani on the table correct. It makes it appear as a 'derivative' of Hindustani; when actually Urdu is Hindustani. More specifically it's a form of it, not a derivative.

Either we should put Urdu in brackets next to Hindustani, which I prefer. Or remove Urdu from the table all together. And we shoul do the same with the Hindi article. Placing it in brackets, not below.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Northern Indian subcontinent"

"Urdu is historically associated with the Muslims of the northern Indian subcontinent"

I think, this formulation can be perceived as vague. Wouldn't it better be changed to "the Muslims of the north of the Indian subcontinent"? Of course, any competent reader won't take northern Indian subcontinent as opposed to a hypothetical southern Indian subcontinent, or take northern as an epithet (for example, northern lands of Sahara in the context of Congo), but still. Thoughts?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the writing system section

Currently, I think the writing system section looks a bit unwieldy. I plan to move some of it to Urdu alphabet, and put sample text in its own section, perhaps replacing the phrases section. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 06:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Khariboli is a derivative of Hindustani??

I thought it was the other way around. How do i fix the table? To editor Fowler&fowler:, can you please check it and tell me if it needs fixing? I am unfamiliar with the coding of the info template.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Khariboli dialect it is correct the way it is. You might be thinking of Standard Hindustani which is derived from Khariboli. Have a look at the article and let us know if that clears it up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Richard-of-Earth: you mean it's not a derivative of Hindustani, but a dialect within it. OK it makes more sense.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am glad it is cleared up for you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu Controversy and Islam

The Hindi-Urdu controversy is briefly mentioned in the "Origin" section and a link is provided under "See Also". I think this controversy is imperative in differentiating Urdu from Hindi and should be mentioned briefly in the main section along with a link to the "Hindi-Urdu Controversy" page on wikipedia. My understanding is that the tension between Islam and Hinduism became the main differentiator between Hindi and Urdu. For this reason, it would help to have a section specifically devoted to the interchange between Islam and Urdu as well as a mention of the creation of Pakistan. Amarissaostmo (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)amarissaostmo

Cultural Identity and Islam

1- The article is the perfect length. It covers not too much or too little information. It's short and sweet. The structure is clear and easy to see. The Last sentence sums up the article perfectly. The content is not bias ore leaning more towards one side in any way. The article is perfectly very neutral.

2- There isn't a clear lead. The articles goes directly into the first topic regarding India. India and Hindi overshadow the main subject : Urdu. Reduce some of the details regarding India for some about more basics of Urdu and how it is similar to India or fits in. Separate the the ending of the article from the paragraph regarding Pakistan. the amount of citations in the first paragraph is far more than those in the second paragraph. add more of Pakistan's citations.

3- The number one thing to focus on is adding some citations to the section about Pakistan to create a more balanced article.

4- While reading you article, I realized I have way too many sections I am trying to talk about. Your article is a reminder that more isn't always better. Sanakareem20 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On the need for citations (or not)

We read:

Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between Urdu and Hindi speakers in India and Pakistan, as well as estimating the number of people for whom Urdu is a second language, the estimated number of speakers is uncertain and controversial.^{[citation needed]}

The "citation needed" flag was added in this edit by one among several usernames of this person.

So, the claims are:

1. It's difficult to "[distinguish] between Urdu and Hindi speakers in India and Pakistan"
2. It's difficult to "[estimate] the number of people for whom Urdu is a second language"
3. "the estimated number of speakers [of Urdu] is uncertain and controversial"
4. Numbers 1 and 2 above are causes of number 3.

Do we really need reliable sources for any of these? Is it disputed by anyone who's dispassionate and at least moderately informed?

(I write not as an aggrieved/lazy contributor. I don't recall ever contributing to this article. And I'm happy to add "citation needed" flags elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Urdu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915130644/http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/14.1_Rahman.pdf to http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/14.1_Rahman.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507200338/http://jkgad.nic.in/statutory/Rules-Costitution-of-J%26K.pdf to http://jkgad.nic.in/statutory/Rules-Costitution-of-J%26K.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103095430/http://mesa.ucdavis.edu/academics/languages-1/hindu-urdu to http://mesa.ucdavis.edu/academics/languages-1/hindu-urdu
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111145027/http://india_resource.tripod.com/Urdu.html to http://india_resource.tripod.com/Urdu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Clean-up

I am going to clean up this page a bit because I find too ideological and political rather than informative. If I make any mistakes, please give me a shout. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• An example of what I call a "political" statement is this in the lead: Urdu is mutually intelligible with Standard Hindi. A lay reader is going to wonder, if they are the same language why wouldn't they be "mutually intelligible"? The cited source says:

Finally, the concept of diglossia, especially when compared with bilingualism, as Fishman does, hides the fact that what constitutes a "language" is not only an empirical but also a phenomenological problem.... two named "languages"—say, Hindi and Urdu—may be mutually intelligible in the oral/aural channel—indeed the same language for the vast majority of speakers—but be written in two different scripts, have different literary traditions, and—critically—be the official languages of two different (and often antagonistic) nation-states, India and Pakistan.

So, if we want to say that they are "mutually intelligible", for whatever reason, we also need to emphasise, again, that they are the same language. Dear reader, we are not trying to make a fool out of you! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Can this source be used for number of native speakers in Pakistan?

https://books.google.com.pk/books?redir_esc=y&id=2RdITXUpyVgC&q=22+million#v=snippet&q=22%20million&f=false

This source says 22 million Urdu speakers. But this addition was reverted here... [2]

45.116.232.53 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The source itself is good. But note that Rafiq Zakaria is discussing partition migration figures, for which nobody has any authoritative data. I would think Pakistan Bureau of Statistics is giving authoritative data, and we can't contradict it based on some other source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Absurd etymology taking loanwords

Horde is a loanword, so it's really a bad example. Reading the article, we think that it has the same Indo-European root in Urdu and in English. That's totally wrong and absurd. Some words exist with the same roots in Romance or Germanic languages and in Urdu, but for a loanword, it's cheating. It's like saying a loanword in Urdu, taken from the English language, has the same root. It's absurd.

It has been taken in English from French, "horde" is the French form (the "h" and the final "e" are typical in French), and in French, it has been taken from Tartar "orda", and Turkish and Mongol "ordu". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Bad example" of what? What part of the article are you objecting to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

11th most spoken language in world

Urdu 11th most spoken language in world: Study.— Bukhari (Talk!) 05:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

please remove the lnigua franca words from here and urdu has nothing to do with india,its official language of pakistan and only for pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.62.72.17 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

Please add that Urdu is dialect of Hindi spoken by Muslims 174.192.7.65 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Urdu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Urdu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urdu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

182.190.24.37 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hiye!, this page is some wrong. can i edit this page.

 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Should Saudi Arabia be added to list of Minority countries?

Saudi Arabia has a lot of Urdu speakers due to immigration and expats (like UAE), so should it be added to the list of Minority Countries, with a reference if needed? Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Distortions

Just dropping a note here because The Mirror Cracked reverted my tiny bit of clean-up. The problem with this page is not sourcing but distortion, the result being that the write-up is completely inconsistent and nonsensical.

For this particular sentence, there is no doubt that the Mughals "brought Persian" to India. But Persian had already been there for centuries before then. The very next sentence of the article mentions that. So, what is the point of this sentence? Please don't revert edits unless you know what you are doing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

"The other side of the divide came with the beginning of the Hindi movement in the 1860s when some Hindus began to assert that one could no longer be a good Hindu and an advocate of Urdu at the same time. This movement made deliberate changes in Khari Boli which eventually resulted in a highly Sanskritized Hindi. The split in the common trunk of Hindi and Urdu, Khari Boli, which began with the growth of one major branch, Persianized Urdu, now continued with the growth of another major branch, Sanskritized Hindi. The process of multi-symbol congruence now commenced in earnest and culminated in slogans such as 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan' whose creators saw no room for non-Hindi speakers and non-Hindus in Hindustan. We might go so as to call this process the 'Sanskritization of Urdu' or at least the 'Sanskritization of Khari Boli'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.255.108 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided reliable source for the claims. Secondly, this is an article on Urdu. So excessive discussion of Hindi would be off-topic and WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Zaban urdu mualla.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)