Census dispels Hindi myth, only 25% in India claim Hindi is their mother tongue

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:looks like the term hindians has gained quite a bit of currency in other places on the internet. that makes me quite happy.

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis. a fightercock would of course delight in this incorrect usage of terms (madrasi for south indians, hindians for those whose first language is some variant of hindi). a wise person would know that it is not a good idea to refer to people by terms which they dislike.

stooping down to the level of some ignorant north indians (who call all south indians madrasis) does not behoove a wise and sophisticated south indian who realizes that he can either be a part of the problem (to antagonize north indians and south indians and drive a wedge between them) or to bring north indians and south indians closer together and ensure harmonious relations between them.

Tamil + ian = Tamilian

Hindi + ian ->  Hindiian -> Hindian (after removing the superfluous i )

Where is the problem ?

a person whose first language is Tamil can be referred to as a Tamilian, but he can also be referred to as a Tamil person. Likewise a person whose first language is Telugu can be referred to as a Telugu person. So a person whose first language is Hindustani is a Hindustani person. Hindustani is spoken hindi which has a history going back a thousand years. Modern Hindi is sanskritised Hindustani which is *not* the language spoken by the man on the street in hindi speaking states. it is a literary language and it is also an artificial language because it is not the language of the common man. it is also a language less than 200 years old. it was created by the british for the sole objective of dividing hindus and muslims: urdu for muslims, and sanskritised hindi for hindus. whereas earlier there was one language called Hindustani or Hindavi or Rekhta (rekhta = hybrid indicating that it is a language comprising of around 70% sanskrit words and around 30% persian words) which was the common language for all. Hindustani was also referred to as Hindi in medieval times, but this Hindi is not to be confused with modern Hindi. Hindustani is the language spoken by the common man on the streets of Hindi speaking states.

Maulana Azad and others had wanted the language of hindi speaking states to be called Hindustani. But the hindi fanatics insisted on naming it hindi (since the hindi for hindus, urdu for muslims british policy had acquired communal undertones) and had their way. Nehru told Azad that the language spoken by the common man will continue to be Hindustani and so how does the name of the language really matter.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:looks like the term hindians has gained quite a bit of currency in other places on the internet. that makes me quite happy.

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis. a fightercock would of course delight in this incorrect usage of terms (madrasi for south indians, hindians for those whose first language is some variant of hindi). a wise person would know that it is not a good idea to refer to people by terms which they dislike.

stooping down to the level of some ignorant north indians (who call all south indians madrasis) does not behoove a wise and sophisticated south indian who realizes that he can either be a part of the problem (to antagonize north indians and south indians and drive a wedge between them) or to bring north indians and south indians closer together and ensure harmonious relations between them.

Tamil + ian = Tamilian

Hindi + ian ->  Hindiian -> Hindian (after removing the superfluous i )

Where is the problem ?

a person whose first language is Tamil can be referred to as a Tamilian, but he can also be referred to as a Tamil person. Likewise a person whose first language is Telugu can be referred to as a Telugu person. So a person whose first language is Hindustani is a Hindustani person. Hindustani is spoken hindi which has a history going back a thousand years. Modern Hindi is sanskritised Hindustani which is *not* the language spoken by the man on the street in hindi speaking states. it is a literary language and it is also an artificial language because it is not the language of the common man. it is also a language less than 200 years old. it was created by the british for the sole objective of dividing hindus and muslims: urdu for muslims, and sanskritised hindi for hindus. whereas earlier there was one language called Hindustani or Hindavi or Rekhta (rekhta = hybrid indicating that it is a language comprising of around 70% sanskrit words and around 30% persian words) which was the common language for all. Hindustani was also referred to as Hindi in medieval times, but this Hindi is not to be confused with modern Hindi. Hindustani is the language spoken by the common man on the streets of Hindi speaking states.

Maulana Azad and others had wanted the language of hindi speaking states to be called Hindustani. But the hindi fanatics insisted on naming it hindi (since the hindi for hindus, urdu for muslims british policy had acquired communal undertones) and had their way. Nehru told Azad that the language spoken by the common man will continue to be Hindustani and so how does the name of the language really matter.

Rashmun wrote:

i have not mentioned urdu in all this. this is because Hindustani was synonymous with urdu. Hindustani, hindavi, rekhta, urdu, and even hindi were all synonymous with the same language. just as modern hindi is sanskritised hindi, so the urdu in pakistan and also the urdu used by some language fanatics in India is persianised urdu. persianised urdu consists of replacing commonly used words of sanskrit origin with esoteric words of persian origin. sanskritised hindi consists of replacing commonly used words of persian origin with esoteric words of sanskrit origin.