31–40 of 252 posts
The diversity in general in India is mind boggling which most of Indians take for granted. Be it terrain, climate, language, culture, food, etc., And all the above change noticeably every 200KM or so such that you will find more similarities between Delhi and Lahore (different countries) than Delhi and Bangalore. It's a miracle that India manages to function as one country.
India's definition of what is and what is not a language is highly politicized and highly idiosyncratic. Hindi and Urdu, by any reasonable linguistic definition are not separate languages. The official standards for both Hindi and Urdu, are both based on the form of the huge dialect continuum that spans North India and Pakistan, as spoken in Delhi. The only difference is that Urdu uses Persian and Arabic as inspirati…
Indeed, a large percentage of 'Hindi dialects' are nothing of the sort. Many Rajasthani 'dialects' are far closer to Gujarati than they are to Hindi.
India's definition of what is and what is not a language is highly politicized and highly idiosyncratic. Hindi and Urdu, by any reasonable linguistic definition are not separate languages. The official standards for both Hindi and Urdu, are both based on the form of the huge dialect continuum that spans North India and Pakistan, as spoken in Delhi. The only difference is that Urdu uses Persian and Arabic as inspirati…
To some extent this is true of all languages, and it's a big part of nation building to draw the lines in whatever ways are convenient. Like, who decided Catalan, Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian are all separate languages but Swiss, Quebecois, Alsatian, West African, and French versions of French are all the same? Where are we drawing lines if not at political boundaries?
According to Hobsbawn, the original sources of developing national identity came from newspapers. Once the printing press became a thing, over time, whatever language a region read its news in slowly became the way for natural cultural divisions to form. The presence of news and a common literary canon created an imagined community around it.
India didn't have nationalism form this way since British administrative districts cut across linguistic/cultural lines. They muddied the natural process of nation-formation by having everyone speak English as a lingua franca and relegating the native languages to private life. But the Islam/Hindu cleavage was still there, so that's where the division came in at independence. (Among other cleavages that the early government of India managed to keep under control).
The number of languages is stunning. Does anyone know if the number of languages is just the officially named languages or if it includes creoles? The language I speak is a creole of two languages and doesnt have a name or writing system really, and I'm curious to know how that is counted.
The number of languages is stunning. Does anyone know if the number of languages is just the officially named languages or if it includes creoles? The language I speak is a creole of two languages and doesnt have a name or writing system really, and I'm curious to know how that is counted.
I'd consider "Mumbai Hindi" a creole. It's nominally a dialect of Hindi/Urdu but it has a lot of Marathi mixed in, among other languages.
It's amazing how most Indians believe that Hindi is the national language of India, when there's no such as a national language in India. There are two official languages for union government communication - Hindi and English. I've also noticed that a lot of non Indians find it funny that most Indians here in bay area companies communicate among themselves in heavily accented English instead of The Indian language.
The original plan was, of course, to phase out English as a national language. This never happened, I suppose partially because while 'Hindustani' (as was) made sense as a symbol of unity during the time leading up to Independence, afterwards, especially as 'Hindi', it was seen more as a regional language (even if the region involved is large) and so not necessarily more deserving of official nation-level status than…
There would have needed to be some system for maintaining a rough level of parity/equality of representation of various minority groups at the high level. Scheduled castes and tribes would probably not have been as well protected under such a system, for example, but it's probably something than could have been worked out with effort.
It's amazing how most Indians believe that Hindi is the national language of India, when there's no such as a national language in India. There are two official languages for union government communication - Hindi and English. I've also noticed that a lot of non Indians find it funny that most Indians here in bay area companies communicate among themselves in heavily accented English instead of The Indian language.
>in heavily accented English instead of The Indian language. Also called "Indian" by some non-Indians, as in: "sorry, I don't speak Indian" :) A bit like saying "chai tea", mentioned in the recent thread about the history of tea. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20015505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20009037
They must be thinking i'm pulling their leg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd consider "Mumbai Hindi" a creole. It's nominally a dialect of Hindi/Urdu but it has a lot of Marathi mixed in, among other languages.
Standard Hindi itself has some characteristics of a creole; at the very least it has had both grammatical and vocabulary influences from a number of languages, including Punjabi, Persian, Portuguese and English.
It's amazing how most Indians believe that Hindi is the national language of India, when there's no such as a national language in India. There are two official languages for union government communication - Hindi and English. I've also noticed that a lot of non Indians find it funny that most Indians here in bay area companies communicate among themselves in heavily accented English instead of The Indian language.
It's amazing how most Americans believe that English is the national language of the US, when where's no such thing as a national language in the US.
India's definition of what is and what is not a language is highly politicized and highly idiosyncratic. Hindi and Urdu, by any reasonable linguistic definition are not separate languages. The official standards for both Hindi and Urdu, are both based on the form of the huge dialect continuum that spans North India and Pakistan, as spoken in Delhi. The only difference is that Urdu uses Persian and Arabic as inspirati…
> on the street level, the language is identical Personal anecdote: when I first went to South Asia, I spent time in southern Pakistan and learned some basic Urdu. Then I spent time in north India, among Hindi speakers. The language I'd learned was immediately usable there, but my local friends could also tell where it came from -- and sometimes would tell me "Aha! yes, we know what you mean, but that's an Urdu word…