Urdu/hindi

[Yashwant Malaiya]

Prof. Naseem Hines wrote:

>For that matter, the term Hindi and Hindu is also difficult for a
>layperson to understand because or their origin in a geographical region.
>Urdu is a Turkic word which means lashkar or cantonement. Terminalogy and
>the baggage appended to it are two different things.

When discussing Hindi and Urdu, we should indeed focus on terminology
to resolve differences.

1. They are not independent languages. They are the same language
if we remove the loan words. All Farsi and Arabic words are loan
words, as are sanskrit tatsama words. Every one of these can be
replaced by an English word (as some do), and the resulting
expression would be grammatically valid.

2. At one time the term "Hindi" was sometimes used for what is
now called "Urdu" (with Farsi/Arabic words), to distinguish it
from Farsi.

3. Texts in Apabhramsha (and old Hindi etc) are now available that
fill the gap between Prakrits and modern North Indian languages.
Thus any speculation is unnecessary.

4. Contrary to popular view, a lot of Muslim authors, specially
Sufis, wrote in what today would be termed Hindi (and not Urdu).
There is no good reason why their language should be considered
any different from that of Khusro. These authors, like Jayasi
etc. should be studied in Pakistan.

Yashwant