This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
It looks like
Bhojpuri should be removed from this article. Bhojpuri is listed on several pages as being a Bihari (Eastern Indic) language, not a Hindi (Central Indic) language.
Nicole Sharp (
talk)
09:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Hardly 'encompassing only minor dialects'. This is a subbranch of the Indo-Aryan branch, and as such includes multiple languages, including the de facto national language of India. The terms are synonymous: Central Zone = Hindi languages (though the other uses of 'Hindi' are not). --
JorisvS (
talk)
21:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It is confusing. It is good that we did not use Glottolog otherwise it will become more subbranch. Any issue in just having Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan as simple qualification ? Something like Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-language. We can still mention all Zone and branches in the separate sections on same page.
PradeepBoston (
talk)
19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Requested move 25 June 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose First, one correction. The article
Eastern Indo-Aryan languages does exist. Further, here is a slightly altered Ngram view
[3] that give at least a few attestations of "Central Indo-Aryan".
However, my main point is that we might have to go a step back: is the grouping covered by this article (whether called Central Indo-Aryan or Hindi languages) actually a thing in linguistic classification? A look at the table in
Indo-Aryan_languages#Subgroups shows that there are indeed many sources that define some kind of Central group (or 'zone') for the Indo-Aryan languages, but none except for Kausen (2006), which is a tertiary source not specialized in Indo-Aryan linguistics, defines the Central Indo-Aryan languages the way we do here. Moving this page to "Hindi languages" will not heal this, because here "Hindi" is not a classificatory but a sociolinguistically defined term. Certainly, the varieties covered in this article are commonly considered to be Hindi, but not as distinct languages in a linguistic subgroup called "Hindi languages", but as dialects of a sociolinguistically demarcated Hindi language (singular!), in all its fuzziness (cf. the Bhojpuri debate). And we already have an article about this, viz.
Hindi Belt.
One primary reason why I wanted to move this page was indeed the fact that a classification called Central Indo-Aryan Languages did not correspond to Eastern and Western Hindi languages consistently and thus the article being called
Hindi languages will be more accurate (Eastern Hindi + Western Hindi languages). Also Hindi belt doesn't refer to the region were languages grouped arbitrarily under Hindi are spoken, rather it corresponds to the region where Hindi is the lingua franca but not necessarily the native language. Both are different. Also Eastern and Western Hindi languages aren't dialects of a language called "Hindi". Standard Hindi and Hindustani are one of the various languages within the Hindi languages and referring to others as it's dialects would be incorrect. Similar to how all Rajasthani languages are dialects of Standard Rajasthani. The Hindi languages are a group languages not dialects of a singular language.
PadFoot2008 (
talk)
08:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The Hindi Belt is the area where speakers of vernacular IA varieties (whether you call them languages or dialects) sociolinguistically identify with "Hindi" and use MSH as "Dachsprache" (although some speakers take pride in their variety as a distinct language and consider themselves not diglossic, but bilinguial, as observed e.g. with many Braj and Awadhi speakers due to their own respective literary histories). The Hindi Belt area largely covers the speech areas of Western Hindi and Eastern Hindi varieties, but can also extend further (depending how speakers view their own variety, and also on census practice).
What I'm trying to say, the main thing that is incorrect here is to have this very article that presents Western Hindi + Eastern Hindi as an actual subgroup (or zone) within IA, when hardly any scholar of IA linguistics does so (maybe earlier versions of Ethnologue did, not sure about that). From a comparative viewpoint, Western Hindi + Eastern Hindi languages share little to nothing (except for the name "Hindi") that isn't also shared by one of the other established branches of IA. I'll happily support this move request if "Hindi languages" is reduced to a disambiguation article that links to
Western Hindi languages and
Eastern Hindi languages.
If not moved, we could add some detail that "Central Indo-Aryan" is a fluid concept that can greatly differ from scholar to scholar. The only common denominator is the inclusion of Western Hindi (NB not necessarily Eastern Hindi). But fluid concepts are things that we usually avoid for language subgroup articles from an encyclopedic viewpoint (linking to it becomes arbitrary, an infobox makes little sense, it cannot be categorized etc. See also
Talk:Indo-Aryan_languages/Archive_1#Classification_3.) Pinging @
Kwamikagami: as the article creator for ideas how to get out of this dilemma. –
Austronesier (
talk)
09:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed that "Hindi" as generally conceived is a spurious group cladistically. However, we currently have Central IA as a branch of IA at
Indo-Aryan languages. As long as that's the case, we should have a corresponding article here. Of course, if we update our classification at IA, we should change or move or create or delete the dependent articles. But because this is a dependent article, any corrections should be made there first.
— kwami (
talk)
10:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
We do follow the classifications made in the Indian Census. Those classifications has been by consensus accepted as incorrect and politically driven. We follow classifications made by linguistic experts and scientists. Please, see previous comments and discussions.
PadFoot2008 (
talk)
11:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Those need to be clarified because it's no longer clear what "Central IA" is supposed to mean, and we are now inconsistent.
— kwami (
talk)
19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've been editing the child articles so that they're consistent. I'm not sure it matters much which way we go otherwise.
— kwami (
talk)
22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The concept of the Central Zone has more relevance in the scholarly literature than the non-entity "Hindi languages". So, obviously, this article is useful, and there is no consensus to turn it into a redirect as you have unilaterally decided to do in the middle of a discussion. There is certainly some cleanup needed and more info about alternative views on the scope of the C. Zone, but that's best done in an existing article. –
Austronesier (
talk)
09:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All right then, I guess. Anyways, it was you yourself who suggested this article be split. Look at your very first comment in the discussion.
PadFoot2008 (
talk)
10:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Respectfully, editor
PadFoot2008, you deserve an answer from me. The situation here in the present is what I had first thought to do, then I decided to close this request and [keep things as you had left them. There had been some resistance before that, but I wasn't sure how strong it was. Turns out it is stronger I think than either you or I had suspected. So we land back here in the present moment, and editors can continue discussion about the merits and the drawbacks of moving this article to a different title. Thank you very much PadFoot2008,
Austronesier and
kwami for your improvements to Wikipedia!P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there12:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New articles created with overlapping scope
Editors watching this page may wish to look at
Eastern Hindi languages and
Western Hindi languages, new pages created with an overlapping scope. Looking at Google Scholar, it seems that there's enough coverage using these terms to establish notability, but that doesn't preclude
WP:PAGEDECIDE or other considerations of how to best present information to readers. signed, Rosguilltalk01:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply