Sanskrit/Udru/Hindi (Re: Did you hear this?)

[Robert Zydenbos]

Am Sa, 03 Feb 2001 schrieb Aditya, the Cheerful Hindu Skeptic:

> > My own
> >experience is that it is better to speak Urdu in Delhi than Hindi
> >(i.e., to say ";suruu karanaa" and "istemaal k." rather than
> >"praarambha karanaa" and "prayoga k."),
> I do not know where you got the idea that these are the words of Urdu and
> not Hindi. Urdu would be " aap ka ism sharif?" instead of "what is your
> name?".  The usage that you quoted are obscurantism and examples of
> Raghubiri Hindi which never got hold even in the academia.

Perhaps precisely the opposite is more the case: the number of academic
publications that follow the above distinction is rather innumerable,
whereas for non-academicians (e.g., my daughter) Hindi may be "the
language of Shahrukh Khan". In academia a certain terminology
concerning these matters has already been established (based on a
practice in the land, even if there are persons who disagree with it),
and it seems not desirable to alter it.

> >More or less; like in Canada or New Zealand. And why not?
> Not so much in Canada which is more influenced by the media across the
> border than by loyalty to the queen.

Now wait a minute: what I learnt in school in Canada ;-) was distinctly
more British than US-American, and Canadian dictionaries show the same.
While some newspapers follow US spelling (maybe for the ease of
spelling correction software?) and some persons do too, you will
also find those who vehemently oppose it - more because they appreciate
being distinct from Americans rather than because of 'loyalty to the
queen'.

In another message:

> The acceptance of US form
> internationally is due to its being more logical.

So the European continent is not part of the international
community, nor is the British commonwealth? Hm...

RZ