Disputatio:Lingua Hindi-Urdu

Indica ~ Indica[fontem recensere]

Quomodo categoriae Linguae Indicae et Linguae Indiae inter se discrepant? IacobusAmor 14:09, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linguae Indicae sunt subfamilia, a nonnullis "linguae Indo-Aryanae" nuncupata (categorizatio "genetica" [ita appellata] linguarum). Linguae Indiae sunt eae linguae quae in India adhibentur (categorizatio geographica). Oportet fortasse haec ad caput paginarum categoricarum explicare :/

Si recte iudico, "Indo-Aryana" vetustior est inter appellationes a lumporibus-et-splittoribus usitatas, "Indica" autem novellior. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. OK. ;) IacobusAmor 14:22, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inter linguas Indiae sunt etiam linguae non Indicae, sicut lingua Tamil et aliae linguae e familia Dravidianarum linguarum. Est ergo bonum duas categorias habere, ut censeo. A. Mahoney 14:29, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ita, recte dicis. Distinctionem nunc ad caput paginarum categoricarum exscripsi (et nexus intervici adhuc omissos addidi). Gratias ago ambobus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movenda ad "linguam Hindustanicam"[fontem recensere]

Quid censetis? Pleraeque aliae editiones versiones "Hindustani" utuntur, et quidem est fons pro "lingua Hindustanica", sed nullus, ut videtur, pro "Hindi-Urdu". Lesgles (disputatio) 23:36, 28 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You might like to check whether those other-language articles are all talking about the same thing. Notice the extreme brevity and warning template on the article in Hindi about this, for example. I believe (open to correction, as always!) that Hindustani, a term used by the British imperial administration for the colourless language they wanted to favour, is not currently used by linguists except when talking about that historical period. In other words, to say that Hindi and Urdu are one language is already touchy (though true in some ways), but to call that one language Hindustani is to be downright imperialist.

For full disclosure, I was a consultant on the language names for the Bloomsbury/Encarta English dictionary. The copy-editors rewrote the "Hindustani" entry, over my head, so that it would contain the same comforting fifty-year-old claims that rival dictionaries also contained. That taught me a lesson :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I suppose i jumped over some controversy, and this looks like something that the other Wikipedias (and Wikidata) need to work out. One common problem for Vicipaedia seems to be that the attested forms of words often reflect outdated perspectives. It would be nice to find a Latin form for "Urdu", but I haven't found one, so I agree that it makes sense to stick to this neutral, though un-Latin form. (And too bad about Bloomsbury!) Lesgles (disputatio) 16:21, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC)[reply]