Talk:Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar

Source: Hindustani Grammar by Moszczynski with revisions by Jdas07 and Kitabparast; adapted from Hindi grammar created by Magicalsaumy.

Hindustani Grammar for Three Pages (Resolution Reached)

Since Hindustani is a very imprecise term, what's the sense in regurgitating all the material in Hindi grammar here? The only value this page could have is if there was a set of differences that could be discussed in the grammar, but since the meaning of term Hindustani isn't even widely agreed upon, this article is purely redundant. - Taxman ^Talk 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindustani encompasses two standardized registers in the form of the official languages of Hindī and Urdū, as well as several nonstandard dialects. This page serves as the main grammar page for both Hindustani (Hind-Urdu) and Urdu. This article includes both the Devangari and Nastaliq scripts and has some information unique to it that the Hindi grammar page does not have. I hope this helps. Jdas07 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'm aware of the various definitions of Hindustani, however it is not standard among researches and writers in the field. And in any case there is no value in purely duplicating information in articles. Hindi grammar is already redundant enough with Urdu grammar. We don't need 3 articles plus what is covered in Hindi and Urdu. Addition of another script does not justify a redundant article. The duplicate information should be stripped out and the only thing left here should be information that is important to be discussed, but is not appropriate for Hindi grammar or Urdu grammar to cover themselves. I can't think of anything that would be in that category. I'm open to being shown that there is critical information in that category, but without justification that there is, we should not have this article. - Taxman ^Talk 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no Urdu grammar page in Wikipedia. It utilizes this one as its grammar page. Hindustani utilizes this one as Jdas07 stated. If any page should be deleted, it should be the Hindi grammar. How can Urdu or Dakhani speakers read the Hindi grammar page? They cannot. Both Hindi and Urdu speakers, as well as speakers of nonstandard dialects considred Hindi or Urdu (Hindustani) can read this page as well as use it as this page contains both the Devanagari and Nastaliq scripts. Also, look at the language codes on the Hindustani page. Significant numbers in other countries besides Pakistan and India speak Hindustani. In those countries, the language (sometimes an official language [i.e. Fiji)] is called Hindustani. This page and the Hindustani page are staying. AbdulQadir 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Hindustani and Hindustani grammar will not be deleted. Hindustani was even the original name for both Hindi and Urdu. Hindustani is considered a language and will have its own page containg history, vocabulary, grammar, use, etc. Specifically, this grammar page can be used by all three languages: Hindustani, Hindi, and Urdu. We are definetely keeping this article. Ahmed27 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no offense, but just because you say it doesn't make it so. Provide some evidence for your position and be willing to give and take and consider that there might be better solutions than you know about. - Taxman ^Talk 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Adbul you raise a decent point that perhaps the best solution is to have a single article that comprehensively covers Hindi and Urdu grammar so that readers of both scripts could use it, but you haven't made a case for why it should be called Hindustani. That is an informal term that does not have standardized acceptance, and has a meaning that has changed over time. You say to refer to the codes in Hindustani and all I see are Hindi, Urdu, and two relativley much much smaller local languages of Fijian Hindustani and Caribbean Hindustani. Other than those two relatively minority players, there is no recognized language Hindustani, no ISO codes beyond the Fiji and Caribbean ones. You use the Hindustani article as if it is evidenc for your position, but it is essentially just a search and replace version of Hindi. It doesn't make the case for Hindustani being a standardized term either, or why it should regurgitate all the same material from Hindi. If the answer is to have one gramar article for Hindi and Urdu, then perhaps the better title is 'Hindi and Urdu grammar'. But I'm not convinced that's the best way because it requires the one single article to discuss all of the features unique to Hindi and Urdu in one article, and discuss their differences. That makes it difficult to summarize and maintain a proper balance between overview and detail. In any case lets discuss all the pros and cons and weigh the evidence. I apologize if I started off sounding combative, lets all tone that down and get to the business of writing the clearest and most accurate exposition of the languages involved. - Taxman ^Talk 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Asalaamalakum. The Hindustani language is still the Hindustani language-- the langauge spoken in India (and Pakistan) for centuries. It has just been called two names for political and religious reasons. Also, your reference to small local languages is incorrect. Fijian Hindustani and Caribbean Hindustani are widely spoken in the countries mentioned on the Hindustani article. Actually half or greater of the populations of those countries speak Hindustani (see the demographics of those countries if you want proof). Even further, it would not matter if they were small languages or not. Individuals speaking Hindustani would still need an article. Because Hindustani is known as Hindi-Urdu (once again see the main page and use a search engine if you would like), I think Hindustani would be an appropriate name. Just using Hindi grammar as the main grammar page and removing this page could infuriate others (for political and religious reasons). Another thing, information from the Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani articles can be used because they were all referred to as Hindustani. It does not matter if there are some repeats, as long as a viewer gets a thorough understanding of the subject. Since Hindustani encompasses Hindi, Urdu, and itself (Hindustani, Fijian Hindustani, and Caribbean Hindustani), it deserves to have sections like Hindustani and Bollywood, a Vocabulary section, a Grammar section, etc. Moreso, if you read the Hindustani page, some sections not directly lifted off of the Hindi page. Just because tg=hey use the same or similar title does not mean they are they exact same section. Many individuals have worked hard on those articles and it would be a shame to see them deleted. In my opinion, the best resolution to this dispute is to end this argument and leave things the way they are. In this way, no one will be hurt or offended. Either way, this article nor the Hindustani article will not be deleted unless there is a plebiscite or consensus and so far it looks like most people want these pages to remain. Thank you for your time. Allah Hafiz. AbdulQadir 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree. Also, specifically in support of the Hindustani grammar page, the language family given by Ethnologue puts all Hindi [1], Urdu [2], Fijian Hindustani [3], and Caribbean Hindustani [4] all under Hindustani. Hindustani is then two standardized registers in the form of the official languages of Hindī and Urdū, as well as several nonstandard dialects (the definition I had originally posted). Like AbdulQadir said, this definition is pretty standard when one searches the internet or looks in a dictionary. I also support keeping the main Hindustani page ss well. Much of the information is not repeated...and the things that are repeated apply to all of Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu). Because these three terms: 'Hindustani', 'Hindi', and 'Urdu' are so close to one another it is impossible not to repeat the information because it is the same for all three! Hindustani will also continue to have its identity as a language and thus the information on the main Hindustani article should be kept. I hope this helps you all. With regards, Jdas07 01:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing either of you has said justifies a redundant article. I can also tell neither of you have read academic literature on the languages involved. That's not meant as an offense, it's just not possible to come to the best solution when that's the case. For every one reference text you point to that refers to Hindustani as a language I can show you 10-100 that refer to it as a convenient umbrella term and no more. So Adbul, then you don't think Urdu grammar should be an article? How can you justify not having that article? How can you justify having three articles on almost the identical topic? "are so close to one another it is impossible not to repeat the information because it is the same for all three!" covers my point for me except it is possible not to repeat information so much. Simply don't repeat it. Organize the articles properly so you don't have to. This same situation occurs in other topics and the solution is not to have multiple redundant articles. No academic or reference text on the languages chooses that solution. - Taxman ^Talk 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxman is being way to abrasive. I say leave things the way they are. There is no need to delete this page or the Hindustani page. Patel24 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I apologize if I'm being abrasive, but if you think we should keep this article then should we also have Urdu grammar? Why should we have three nearly identical articles? An opinion without reasoning doesn't really help resolve the situation in the best way. - Taxman ^Talk 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, you have just said that Hindustani is an umbrella term for both Hindi and Urdu. That proves the point I am trying to make. The article can be used for both Hindi and Urdu. According to The Indo-Aryan Languages by Colin P. Masica, Urdu and Hindi are two different ways of using the same language. He also goes on further to say they are exactly the same dialect, as used by two different communities. Do you ever wonder why almanancs group Hindi and Urdu together as Hindustani? It is because some support this view. Then again, others support the alternate view. However, all people will have to acknowledge that they were the same language at one point in time. Are you also aware that linguists classify Urdu and Hindi together as Hindustani? If you will read the introduction of both the Urdu and Hindi articles, you will read: Urdū also refers to a standardised register of Hindustani termed khaRî bolî, that emerged as the standard dialect of Urdu. OR Hindi also refers to a standardized register of Hindustani termed khari boli, that emerged as the standard dialect of Hindi. Then you will read Urdū is often contrasted with Hindi, another standardised form of Hindustani... OR Hindi is often contrasted with Urdū, another standardized form of Hindustani. I am just trying to be consistent with the other two articles. You mentioned: "Simply don't repeat it". Well if we are not going to repeat the same sections, are we going to create three separate pages for each of these topics? I don't think so. The best way to do this is leave things the way they are (as far as the main Hindustani article is concerned). (By the way, I have read much academic literature on Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani.) Do not you believe ethnologue when they group Hindi, Urdu, Fijian Hindustani, and Caribbean Hindustani all together under the category of Hindustani? Isn't this suppose to be a reliable source. Because this article contains scripts familiar to speakers of the two standardized registers of Hindustani (both Hindi and Urdu), this article is more prefereable over the Hindi grammar, which only contains one script, unintelligible to Urdu Hindustani speakers (written wise). As of now the Urdu and Hindustani articles both use this as the main grammar page. The Hindi article can do that if they want to (but then again they might not want to drop their grammar page). However, I feel we should keep the similar sections where they are on the main pages of Hindustani, Urdu, and Hindi as not doing so would require creating multiple separate articles. This is the best advice I have on this topic. Thanks for discussing this. Jdas07 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware it's an umbrella term. None of that supports having a redundant article. Being an umbrella term does not justify having a duplicate article. If you believe a single grammar article is best for Hindi/Urdu which is a possible option, then what is the solution to the problem of having that single article have to cover all of the differences to be comprehensive and still be readable and not excessively long? Either way I can't even begin to see how having three redundant articles is an acceptable solution. You all seem to be arguing solely to justify the existence of this article instead of working on the best overall solution. I suppose the way I've brought up and discussed the problem and the location and limited scope of the discussion has contributed to closing people's minds. - Taxman ^Talk 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, several sections in the Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani pages overlap because they are relevant in each article. There is no point in removing them from each langauge page as this would anger people and we would have to create several new separate articles just for that. It's not worth it. We should just leave the sections where they are on the main pages (Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani). Besides, those sections aren't that long anyway. I see your point though about Urdu, Hindi, and Hindustani sharing the Hindustani grammar page though as it is a really long page. But as you said, some people might not like the idea because the Hindi grammar page already exists. Taxman, we know your'e just trying to make things work too so so this isn't an argument just a friendly discussion. What do you have to say to this idea? Allah Hafiz. Ahmed27 03:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No removing parts to create several new articles isn't the answer, but neither is having three articles where two or one would do. We should restrict this discussion to the grammar articles and discuss the language articles themselves in a more appropriate spot. If a single grammar article was the consensus way to go, the right way would be to merge the histories of Hindi grammar and Hindustani grammar if possible, but that can be dealt with later. Finally, I wrote my above comment before the edit conflict, but it still applies, so I inserted it anyway, hope no one minds. Finally, I've only heard Khuda Hafiz, is Allah Hafiz more common in places? - Taxman ^Talk 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, can you merge the histories then? From my understanding then, Hindustani grammar will replace the coexisting Hindi grammar page because of its dual scripts and "Hindustani" umbrella term. Correct? By the way Khuda Hafiz is the original phrase used more commonly although Allah Hafiz is sometimes used. Hope that helps! Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Jdas07 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there's certainly not consensus to do it yet, nor do I think Hindustani grammar is necessarily the best term. It really is in the minority of use, and no, Ethnologue is not considered an unimpeachable source. It is widely considered to have various problems. Personally I think Hindi-Urdu grammar is the better title, but I'm open to other ideas and seeing what a wider discussion can come up with. - Taxman ^Talk 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the information. However, I would personally prefer Hindustani since it is an umbrella term for Hindi and Urdu. Since both of us have these ideas, maybe the best way is to combine them: "Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) grammar" What do you think? Jdas07 04:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Move made to Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar. Thanks. Jdas07 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sat Sri Akal! Good points and good resolution guys. I think "Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar" will be the best solution too. It covers both forms of Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu, and Hindustani itelf. Yeah, I wouldn't remove the sections from any of the three langauge articles either. That would be way to contentious. Anyways, keep of the good work. Singhman 21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, am I the only one that thinks that is a rather unwieldy title? No one is going to type that in a search. - Taxman ^Talk 23:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried a couple search engines. If you type in "Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar", it comes up. Just searching "Hindustani grammar" also comes up. So does "Hindi-Urdu" grammar in one of the engines I tried. Just having the title be Hindustani grammar would work too since it is an umbrella term and would be used for all three language articles (plus it is a little shorter). But I also like the current title. Plus, Jdas07 has already redirected all the articles and changed the links. In Talk:Hindi grammar, Moszczynski mentioned calling the article Hindustani grammar. Ss147 also mentioned putting the Urdu script in it and that has already been done so obviously we are on the right track! Bahut Bahut Sukria. AbdulQadir 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is still a problem. This article never should have been created the way it was. I've just finished reviewing quite a number of linguistic overviews of the Indo-Aryan language family. None of them treat Hindustani as anything but a convenient term, certainly never a separate language. All entries in linguistic encyclopedia type works were for either Hindi and Urdu separately with both articles mentioning that most linguists consider them nearly the same language, or there was one article for Hindi-Urdu. What that means is that there is no justification for having Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar as a separate article from Hindi grammar. Per Wikipedia:Content forking it essentially represents a POV fork. The correct way to have done it would have been to have gained consensus at Hindi grammar to move it to a neutral location and edit it to incorporate both scripts. Doing a copy and paste forking of that article essentially throws away all the history of how the article was created, which is another reason forking is considered bad. So I believe I've made good faith efforts to back up my position with strong research. Those of you who disagree with me have not done the same. Per the verifiability policy the best sources "win", not numbers in a poll. I know a lot of you would rather I dropped this, but I believe there is value in doing things the right way in this project and coming to the overall best solution, even if that's difficult. - Taxman ^Talk 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think you have casued enough problems? Take a look at this article from this linguistics encycolpedia: [5]. This article talks about Hindustani grammar, number of speakers, and its role in South Asia. Also, see Talk:Hindustani language. You will see many definitions provided there. I think you need to research the topic more thoroughly before you try to further your own clandestine purposes. As you can see aboce, there was a consensus that you merge the articles. Don't you think its about thime you do so. Hindustani (Hini-Urdu) is as neutral of a name as it gets, especially since it is sometimes used as an umbrella term. As discussed by several people above, this article should be kept because of its neutral name and dual scripts. Merge Hindi Grammar into this article if you really want to do that. Patel24 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)