Urdu speakers

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

Samar Abbas <abbas at IOPB.RES.IN> wrote:

> Zaban-e-Urdu actually developed in the camps of the armies of Mahmud of
>Ghazni. Zaban-e-Delhavi is derived from this Zaban-e-Urdu. The
>Ghaznavid Urdu is an amlagam of Persian, Arabic and Turkic.

Yup.  And Franconian (Frankish) is Germanic, while Francien (French)
is Romance.  Same thing.  Typical confusion of signifiant and
signifie.

>> Khari Boli is the speech on which the Zabaan-e-Dehlavi is based, and after
>> the shifting of the Mughal Court to Delhi it survived as a sort of country
>> cousin of Zabaan-e-Dehlavi. Standard Urdu has abandoned many Khari Boli
>> forms.
>
>This is the older view propagated by the Sanskrit-centric Brahmanical
>fundamentalist scholars. As per this view,
>     Sanskrit -> Prakrit -> Apabrahmsa -> Khari Boli -> Urdu.
>These same linguists also claimed that Tamil, Greek, and English were
>degraded forms of Sanskrit. These same people have claimed that :
>
> 1. "Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple" [cf. Oak's book]
> 2. "Qutb Minar is a Hindu temple"
> 3. "Shakespeare and Homer copied Sanskrit texts"
> 4. "Aryans did not invade India, but were created by Brahma in the
>     Punjab" etc.etc.
>
>Fortunately, these lunacies have now been discarded by serios indologists.
>It is thus accepted that Tamil is a Dravidian langauge, and that Urdu is
>not a degraded form of Sanskrit. Sanskrit was created in 500 BC by Panini
>et al and did not exist before that.

Tamil is Dravidian (with Indo-Aryan borrowings), Urdu is Indo-Aryan
(with Persian-Arabic borrowings), and Sankrit was codified (not
created) by Panini.  Linguists stopped talking about "degraded" forms
of speech about 200 years ago.  We leave that kind of talk to the
amateurs, or to the lunatics on both sides.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam