Talk:Chaand Raat

Nagari?

Even though CR is celebrated in India, the community who celebrate don't use nagari, so I think it is safe to remove it. Otherwise, we could put Gujarati, Punjabi, Sindhi, Telugu, Assamese, Bengali, Tamil, etc. all on one page, since these all are official indian languages. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu

The expression "Chand rat" is used by non-Muslims in India as well, when they go over to Muslim households to wish them Id Mubarak. So, Hindi-Urdu is entirely appropriate. However, for the script, either say "Urdu" and "Hindi" or say "Perso-Arabic" and "Devnagari." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It clearly expresses your decades old regret about creation of Pakistan. You guys have shamelessly hijacked Wikipedia, to prove everything related to Pakistan as Indian in attempt to diminish separate identity of Pakistan. Hindi is a spoiled variant of Urdu. Urdu was invented by Muslims, and when sanskritaized by Hindus is called Hindi. Pre-independence violence for and against Urdu clearly proves that Urdu is not same as Hindi; if it were true, Hindus must have accepted it as lingua-franca. Therefore, stop using propaganda based treminology of "Hindi-Urdu". These are two separate languages with blood of their respective followers burried in thier roots. Szhaider 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Szhaider, Fowler&fowler is not Indian. He is just trying to be neutral and I support his edits as they can all be buttressed with references. Hindi and Urdu both evolved together as one language, Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu. Linguists consider the languages to be the same -- a diasystem. I would highly recommend you to read pieces of academic literature regarding the subject: Urdu Through Hindi: Nastaliq With the Help of Devanagari and Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani, khaRî bolî. In addition to what Fowler&fowler stated, there are many Muslims in India who do use Indic scripts rather than Perso-Arabic. For example, you must have noticed that Indian Muslims protesting Pope Benedict employed Indic scripts in their protest signs. Urdu is used predominately in its historic literary centers (i.e. Lucknow, Hyderabad, Delhi, Aligarh) and Jammu and Kashmir. In light of this information, to say that Urdu is the language of the Muslims, is incorrect. Not to mention that many Indians today enjoy Urdu Shayari and some of the best Urdu poets were Hindus. I myself and my parents are also Urdu speakers! =) In regards to the Hindi-Urdu controversy, much of the arguments were over the preferred script: Devanagari or Perso-Arabic, not the actual spoken language itslef (which was the same). The fact that India and Pakistan have commonalities in culture, language, history, and people allows for many of Wikipedia articles to give a perspective from both countries. In fact, in academia, students often study South Asian culture and the Hindi-Urdu language. Please kindly assume good faith when editing on Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Szhaider, Well, the problem is that from a linguistic viewpoint, it is the grammar and the core vocabulary that make a language, not the larger vocabulary. For example, the English language has almost 80% words of Latin origin (imported mainly from French as a result of the Norman invasion); however, English is considered a Germanic language and not a Romance language, because its grammar and core vocabulary (20%) is Germanic. Similarly, the grammar and core vocabulary of both Urdu and Hindi come from Khariboli, the dialect spoken in the Delhi and Western UP areas during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Here is a quote from Indo-Aryan languages (by Colin P. Masica, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and South Asian Languages at the University of Chicago), Cambridge University Press, 1991, the standard reference work in the area:

The ultimate anomaly in what-is-a-language dilemma in Indo-Aryan is presented by the Hindi-Urdu situation. Counted as different languages in socio-cultural Sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic Sense A. They are different literary styles based on the same linguistically defined subdialect.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaand Raat is not a Hindi terminology as it has eveolved to be a part of Urdu the prefered language of Muslims. I find the terminology of "Hindi-Urdu" extremely offnsive and a shameless attempt to combine cultures of two entirely different countries. Many of you who claim that both languages are same should see ground realities. I perfectly understand both languages and can catch even bery minute differences without any difficulty. Even Urdu as Urdu is very different in Pakistan and India. Urdu books of Indian writers use Hindi based grammer which is quite different from that of Urdu in Pakistan. Structure of Hindi language sentences is simpler and more confusing than that of Urdu. Hindi language extensively relies on Hindu religios terminologies to describe everyday situation while Urdu uses Arabic based Islamic terminologies. They should be recognised two separate languages. Although English is germanic language but it is not german. Same is true for Urdu. Although both languages have same sources ie Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Sanskrit and English etc. but both have evolved to be different languages with users of different cultures. Szhaider 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, which of the following sentences is Urdu: "main pencil istemaal karta hoon" or "main pencil prayog karta hoon" or "main pencil use karta hoon". The structure of Hindi and Urdu provide for mutual intelligibility. Your argument that "although English is germanic language but it is not german" is irrelevant. A more apt comparison would be within language families, not across them, eg. Hochdeutsch vs. Plattdeutsch. Hindi and Urdu are syntactical variants with different formal registers. The Urdu that a common Pakistani speaks can be understood by an Indian who speaks Hindi. When will people understand that there is there is no implicit relationship between religion and language. Any attempts to obtain such result in artificial languages like formal Urdu and Hindi, which sound laughable in the public sphere, if not across the radio waves they are broadcast. Sarayuparin 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't take it the wrong way, but I am having a very hard time deciphering your English, to the point that it gets in the way of comprehension. Please put in a little more effort into your English composition and use a spell check before your next effort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in a hurry and didn't double-check. No worries. You should increase your reading time for practice. Szhaider 02:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Szhaider dear, like many other words and phrases, Chand Raat has evolved from the Sanskrit into Hindustani -- the progenitor of the standard registers, Hindi and Urdu. Either we use the academic term Hindi-Urdu, or Hindustani. I will let you decide. Just giving one of the languages shows a personal preference. Please consider this kind request. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept the terminology of "Hindi-Urdu". It is either Urdu or Hindi. "Hindi-Urdu" is not a language. If you put Urdu instead of Perso-Arabic (with out removing the words "Devangari script", then I can agree to "Urdu and Hindi" instead of "Hindi-Urdu". Szhaider 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to compromise. However, with your version, a language is mentioned, then a script. If we want to be consistent we should employ the use of scripts (Perso-Arabic & Devanagari) or languages (Urdu & Hindi). I don't think this should be a problem as Perso-Arabic/Urdu already has preference in the lead of the paragraph. As far as the term Hindi-Urdu is concerned, I'm not sure why you take offense to the term. Academics, Linguists, and referenece books all use the term. Wikipedia also uses the term (see Hindi-Urdu grammar). Could you please explain why you consider Hindi-Urdu to be a pejorative? Even a Pakistani nationalist source considers the term. Please consider the following quote by Mir Taqi Mir:

najane log kehte hain kis ko suroor-e-qalb

aya nahin ye lafz to Hindi zaban ke beec

Your reply would be greatly appreciated. I hope the insight I provided helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are mostly heavily influenced by Indians, which are, therefore, unacceptable. My assertion is that you are trying to prove every Urdu, Arabic and Persian terminology as Hindi and Indian (remember Pajamas, Nimaz etc.). This kind of behaviour is more propaganda than information. You cannot refer to any other South Asia related Wikipedia articles. Look at those articles. They have been extensively corrupted to make them biased towards India and Hindu culture. Every article related to Pakistan or Islam have more Indian (and mostly Hindu) contributers than any other. This propaganda mission is going on in a well organized way. I stand by my suggestions and cannot accept any more changes to them which will render them ineffective. Szhaider 08:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can live with Szhaider's latest version, i.e. Perso-Arabic/Devnagari for the script and (only) Urdu for the language. Urdu, after all, is spoken in India. Also, Anupam, do you think we need the Sanskrit etymology? I say that because the Devanagari spelling for the etymology doesn't look right to me. You could either just do away with the etymology, or correct the spelling. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. My compromise should not be seen as agreement with Szhaider on anything she/he says in the above paragraph. To Szhaider: It is not for you to "not accept" a source if it meets the Wikipedia criteria of reliable sources. You need to provide reliable sources of your own. To date, I haven't seen any source provided by you. Wikipedia does not care who edits any page, whether Indian, Pakistani, or any other national. The WP principle is simple: don't provide lame conspiracy theories; provide sources. That's it. So, find some academics on this planet who say that linguistically Hindi and Urdu are different languages and why, and then we'll talk. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Szhaider, you fail to understand that the majority of Hindi and Urdu vocabulary overlaps. Regarding the pajama article: the Persian word is Payjama, not Pajama (note the spelling difference). The former made its way from Persian into Indo-Aryan languages like Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, etc. The loanword into the English language was the latter, not the former. Thus, the categories I placed on the article were indeed correct. I was tired of reverting so I let you carry on. The word namaaz also made its way into Hindi and Urdu thus making the scripts relevant. Notice your first edit to the rozah aticle: You deleted the Hindi script but kept all the others (see here). Credit should be given where it is due. Regarding my sources, only one out of the five I provided was written by an ethnic Indian. Either way, it's not that odd to find Indian sources regarding Indian languages (or is it?). In light of these facts, I find the term propaganda mission to be anachronistic. Fowler&fowler, you bring up good suggesetions. Keeping the lead with script names (Perso-Arabic and Devanagari) is fine with me. Like Szhaider suggested, "Urdu and Hindi" instead of "Hindi-Urdu" will also work for the other matter. I still think it is important to mention Hindi since the locution exists in the the language as well. Regarding the etymology: I think it is a relevant line and should be kept. However, since the Sanskrit seems incorrect, we can omit the Sanskrit but keep everything else. We can then ask someone like Sarayuparin, who know Sanskrit better than I do, to add the correct spelling. How does all this sound? Looking forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does every issue -- be it historical, cultural, or linguistic -- that is historically shared by Hindus and Muslims always get reduced to statements like: "It clearly expresses your decades old regret about creation of Pakistan"? Some things are much larger than pathologically frenzied national identities, be they "Indian" or "Pakistani". The linguistic, cultural, and religious traditions of South Asia were heterogeneous systems well before Pakistan or India were invented, before Hindi and Urdu were artificially constructed, before monolithic "Hinduism" and "Islam" were formulated. Now we have to pollute something like chand raat with communal bigotry and insinuations of cultural and religious hijacking? Come on. Believe it or not, both the words chand and raat are derived from Sanskrit. Since Sanskrit and Islam can't possibly have any linguistic and cultural connections, let's start a new page using something artificial like shab-e-qamri so that we can avoid having to accept that there might have been linguistic and cultural contact in northern India well before Pakistan and India. Sarayuparin 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anupam, Yes, that's fine. BTW, I've added a history section to the pajamas page. I've also added etymologies from various dictionaries to the pajamas talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fowler&fowler, thanks for all your research on this topic. I requested Sarayuparin to add the correct Sanskrit spelling for the etymology section and he kindly did so. I also added a picture of a celebration in Hyderabad, India. Thanks also for your research on the etymolgy of pajama. Because you provided the reputable sources, the Category:Hindi terms and Category:Urdu words can be readded to the article. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Szhaider, the word respectively implies that Urdu is only used in Pakistan, not in India, when in fact it is used alongside with Hindi. As a result, I have deleted the word. I feel that the Hindi-Urdu issue has been compromised enough. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaand Raat. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130620161702/http://njchandraat.com/ to http://njchandraat.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 16:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)