Bengali: হিন্দু or হিন্দূ

[lachesisdecima]

Hi all.

First of all, I do not wish to offend anyone's religious sensitivities (this being a controversial topic at best) by specifically using this religious word. This is simply an example to demonstrate something that I came across. Hope you all understand this. Thanks.

In Sanskrit, the word Hindu is written as हिन्दू, with the vowel sign for the long "uu" sound. I understand the pronunciation of Bengali has moved a long way from this (removing all the hroshsho/dirgho vowel differences in speech). However, for etymology's sake, Bengali writes everything the Sanskrit way, preserving the long vowel SIGNS, but not the sounds. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the word "Hindu" be written as হিন্দূ.

However, I come across the word হিন্দু more often than হিন্দূ (I saw this in one place so far that was not for Sanskrit). For instance, in the Wikipedia article for the subject: https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/হিন্দু , it uses the word হিন্দু.

I would like to know which one is the right way. Or, are both right? Thanks in advance for all answers provided.

 

[Shounak]

It is হিন্দু as in হিন্দী or হিন্দুস্তান. In sanskrit dictionary, I found it हिन्दु only.

 

[tarkshya]

In Sanskrit, the word Hindu is written as हिन्दू, ...

I highly doubt if this word is even found in Sanskrit. The word is Arabic/Persian in origin, and entered Indian languages in middle ages.

I would like to know which one is the right way. Or, are both right? Thanks in advance for all answers provided.

In modern Hindi, the word is written as हिन्दू. In Urdu it is written as ہندو . In the English texts of early British Raj, the word was written as "Hindoo". All this tell me that the spelling with long u vowel is the most common and correct one.

 

[Dib]

I agree with Shounak. In Bengali, the standard spelling is হিন্দু with a short u-sign. Also, to build on tarkshya's comment, it is a late borrowing into Sanskrit, and Monier-Williams lists it with a short -u, which is understandable since Sanskrit (especially later Sanskrit) prefers masculine gender words in short -u to long -u. In any case, I doubt it came to Bengali through Sanskrit, as it is a rare word there. It is much more likely to have come from Persian, which has a long -u in this case. But Bengali spelling does not retain the short-long vowel distinction of Persian. In either case, there is no case to argue for a long -u spelling, as far as Bengali is concerned. The short -u and -i signs are more or less the default -u and -i signs in Bengali.

It is হিন্দু as in হিন্দী or হিন্দুস্তান.

Not to contradict you in any way, but interestingly Bengali also uses হিন্দুস্থান/hindusthan, which may even be more common than হিন্দুস্তান/hindustan (purely speaking from impression here). One of the common confectionery chains in Kolkata is called "Hindusthan Sweets", for example.

 

[lachesisdecima]

Thanks all for your replies.

It is হিন্দু as in হিন্দী or হিন্দুস্তান. In sanskrit dictionary, I found it हिन्दु only.

This is fairly interesting. In Tamil, long -ii ending Sanskrit words, take on short -i endings for the infinitive.

e.g. लक्ष्मी (lakSmii) in Sanskrit will become லக்ஷ்மி (lakSmi) in Tamil.

I saw that Hindu was written हिन्दू (hinduu) in Hindi, and presumed that long -uu ending Sanskrit words become short -u ending words in Tamil. Therefore, it ended up ஹிந்து (hindu). Turns out I am wrong here. Tamil probably assimilated हिन्दु from Sanskrit (contact with Persians was limited among the Tamils I believe) the same way it assimilated विष्णु (became விஷ்ணு (viSNu)--> Simple short -u ending like Sanskrit).

In either case, there is no case to argue for a long -u spelling, as far as Bengali is concerned. The short -u and -i signs are more or less the default -u and -i signs in Bengali.

This brings up an important question. What happens to a word like लक्ष्मी then? Does Bengali change it to a short -i? Or does it follow the Sanskrit spelling closely? Also (hard to find a word with a long -uu ending in Sanskrit), what about भू? Does Bengali change it to a short -u? Or follow the Sanskrit way once more?

Not to contradict you in any way, but interestingly Bengali also uses হিন্দুস্থান/hindusthan, which may even be more common than হিন্দুস্তান/hindustan (purely speaking from impression here). One of the common confectionery chains in Kolkata is called "Hindusthan Sweets", for example.

This might be a bit of a tangent, but I am so glad you bought this up. I believe स्तान is from Persian (probably a borrowing during Mughal times) while स्थान is a Sanskrit word. Both should be accepted in Northern languages due to the Sanskrit and Persian influence. In Malayalam, for instance there is only സ്ഥാനം (sthaanam) with aspiration due to the lack of substantial Persian influence. I have both come up in various situations.

e.g. Pakistan is usually पाकिस्तान but the Indian state Rajasthan is राजस्थान

But I think पाकिस्थान is acceptable too though rarer.

 

[tarkshya]

This might be a bit of a tangent, but I am so glad you bought this up. I believe स्तान is from Persian (probably a borrowing during Mughal times) while स्थान is a Sanskrit word. Both should be accepted in Northern languages due to the Sanskrit and Persian influence. In Malayalam, for instance there is only സ്ഥാനം (sthaanam) with aspiration due to the lack of substantial Persian influence. I have both come up in various situations.

e.g. Pakistan is usually पाकिस्तान but the Indian state Rajasthan is राजस्थान

But I think पाकिस्थान is acceptable too though rarer.

I know it is on a tangent, but let me digress any way, because it is interesting discussion..

-stan and -sthan suffixes are not completely interchangeable, at least not in Hindi. It may sound wild to you, but there are huge political connotations in these small suffixes. . Persian vs Sanskrit roots of these suffixes mean that right wing Hindu organization only like -sthan suffix. Therefore in the publications of a right wing org like RSS one would only find "Hindusthan", and no "Hindustan". Somehow "Hindusthan" drives the point home more forcefully that Hindusthan is the "sthan" of Hindus. "Hindustan" just does not do it.

 

[lachesisdecima]

I know it is on a tangent, but let me digress any way, because it is interesting discussion..

-stan and -sthan suffixes are not completely interchangeable, at least not in Hindi. It may sound wild to you, but there are huge political connotations in these small suffixes. . Persian vs Sanskrit roots of these suffixes mean that right wing Hindu organization only like -sthan suffix. Therefore in the publications of a right wing org like RSS one would only find "Hindusthan", and no "Hindustan". Somehow "Hindusthan" drives the point home more forcefully that Hindusthan is the "sthan" of Hindus. "Hindustan" just does not do it.

Also very interesting to know. Too often language gets intertwined with politics. But the really funny thing is that I see the word पाकिस्थान being used by the very right wing organisations that you speak of. Perhaps it is not as political (not to say there is not any) as it seems but merely the Sanskritisation seeping into general usage. I wonder how the usage is in Pakistan. Do they use one or other or even both? Perhaps, in different contexts there as well.

 

[Dib]

In Bengali, the standard spelling is হিন্দু with a short u-sign. Also, to build on tarkshya's comment, it is a late borrowing into Sanskrit, and Monier-Williams lists it with a short -u, which is understandable since Sanskrit (especially later Sanskrit) prefers masculine gender words in short -u to long -u. In any case, I doubt it came to Bengali through Sanskrit, as it is a rare word there. It is much more likely to have come from Persian, which has a long -u in this case. But Bengali spelling does not retain the short-long vowel distinction of Persian. In either case, there is no case to argue for a long -u spelling, as far as Bengali is concerned. The short -u and -i signs are more or less the default -u and -i signs in Bengali.

This brings up an important question. What happens to a word like लक्ष्मी then? Does Bengali change it to a short -i? Or does it follow the Sanskrit spelling closely? Also (hard to find a word with a long -uu ending in Sanskrit), what about भू? Does Bengali change it to a short -u? Or follow the Sanskrit way once more?

I am sorry. I think, I failed to deliver the exact intent of my message. When I said "in either case", I literally meant for both the proposed sources of "hindu", the long -u spelling is ruled out in Bengali:
Source 1, via Sanskrit: The Sanskrit original would have short -u.
Source 2, Persian directly: The -u/-uu distinction of Persian is usually not maintained in Bengali spelling.

So, as you can guess, Laxmi is লক্ষ্মী, pronounced lokkhi, but spelt in full Sanskrit 'glory'. So are ভূ/bhu (Earth), প্রতিভূ/protibhu (representative noun.), স্বয়ম্ভূ/sɔyombhu (self-created), etc. These 3 are very high register words. More common is বধূ/bodhu (bride). Of course, it may not be 100% consistent. While ঊষা/usa (dawn) with a long u spelling is common in Bengali, maybe even more common than উষা with short u-, as far as I know Sanskrit only has the second one. If my statement about Sanskrit is correct (please check!), then it is a clear case of hypercorection.

I believe स्तान is from Persian (probably a borrowing during Mughal times) while स्थान is a Sanskrit word. Both should be accepted in Northern languages due to the Sanskrit and Persian influence. In Malayalam, for instance there is only സ്ഥാനം (sthaanam) with aspiration due to the lack of substantial Persian influence. I have both come up in various situations.

e.g. Pakistan is usually पाकिस्तान but the Indian state Rajasthan is राजस्थान

But I think पाकिस्थान is acceptable too though rarer.

From my impression, I'd say pakisthan, afganisthan, etc. with the aspirated th is indeed the common Bengali pronunciation too, though the official spelling writes -stan exclusively, and the "-stan" pronunciation may be preferred in careful speech as well.

 

[lachesisdecima]

I am sorry. I think, I failed to deliver the exact intent of my message. When I said "in either case", I literally meant for both the proposed sources of "hindu", the long -u spelling is ruled out in Bengali:
Source 1, via Sanskrit: The Sanskrit original would have short -u.
Source 2, Persian directly: The -u/-uu distinction of Persian is usually not maintained in Bengali spelling.

So, as you can guess, Laxmi is লক্ষ্মী, pronounced lokkhi, but spelt in full Sanskrit 'glory'. So are ভূ/bhu (Earth), প্রতিভূ/protibhu (representative noun.), স্বয়ম্ভূ/sɔyombhu (self-created), etc. These 3 are very high register words. More common is বধূ/bodhu (bride). Of course, it may not be 100% consistent.

Thanks Dib. Guess it was a mistake on my part as well with the interpretation of what you were saying. In essence, Sanskrit words in Bengali are written just like they were in Sanskrit. Whereas, Persian words conform to the Bengali sound changes that occurred. I think this can be attributed to the fact that Sanskrit words (a majority, excluding modern borrowings and coinings, which still conform to Sanskrit standards) would have been imported before the merging of hroshsho/dirgho vowels while Persian ones only came in the past 500 years or so, most likely after the merger. So, it probably would have been unnecessary at that stage to use vowel signs for ঈ and ঊ for any bideshi (is this usage right? Please check and tell me) words. This might be pure conjecture. If someone has research on this topic, feel free to leave them here as reading.

While ঊষা/usa (dawn) with a long u spelling is common in Bengali, maybe even more common than উষা with short u-, as far as I know Sanskrit only has the second one. If my statement about Sanskrit is correct (please check!), then it is a clear case of hypercorection.

If what you say is true, I think ঊষা is indeed a hypercorrection. উষা is the way it is spelt in Sanskrit.

From my impression, I'd say pakisthan, afganisthan, etc. with the aspirated th is indeed the common Bengali pronunciation too, though the official spelling writes -stan exclusively, and the "-stan" pronunciation may be preferred in careful speech as well.

Interesting to know. The level of Sanskrit influence runs really deep with Bengali. Perhaps the official usage conforms to the unaspirated t because they wish to capture the spellings used in those nations. I think the official name of Pakistan is spelt without the aspirated t, similar to Persian usage. And the languages of Aghanistan (Dari Persian, Pashto, Tajik Persian) do not have aspirates, I believe. As far I know, only the Indo-Aryan branch of the IE family has aspirates. Interestingly though, Pashto has retroflexes. Their language is called ˈpəʂt̪oː, with a retroflex sha and ta.

 

[Dib]

In essence, Sanskrit words in Bengali are written just like they were in Sanskrit. Whereas, Persian words conform to the Bengali sound changes that occurred. I think this can be attributed to the fact that Sanskrit words (a majority, excluding modern borrowings and coinings, which still conform to Sanskrit standards) would have been imported before the merging of hroshsho/dirgho vowels while Persian ones only came in the past 500 years or so, most likely after the merger. So, it probably would have been unnecessary at that stage to use vowel signs for ঈ and ঊ for any bideshi (is this usage right? Please check and tell me) words. This might be pure conjecture. If someone has research on this topic, feel free to leave them here as reading.

I think, a much simpler explanation is that Sanskrit words retain their spelling in Bengali, simply because both languages share the script, and hence carry over the visual familiarity from one into the other. It's the same reason why Urdu and Persian mostly retain unintutive Arabic spellings (e.g. bilkul - recently discussed in another thread). Also why English retains French spellings (e.g. depot, bidet, etc. with silent -t), etc. Of course, sharing script does not necessarily imply that loanwords would retain the spelling (e.g. Turkish always respells its numerous French loanwords in Turkish orthography), but it facililates it, especially if the donor language has a high social prestige. When the donor language uses a different script, there is no way but to transcribe the loans more or less phonetically. Interestingly, Bengali even writes some Perso-Arabic words in strange Sanskritizing spelling, e.g. মোক্ষম/mokkhom (unfailing, irrefutable < محکم maHkam), মফঃস্বল/মফস্বল* (beside more expected but less common মফস্সল)/mɔphossɔl (outlying (town) < مفصل mufaSSal), etc.

And the languages of Aghanistan (Dari Persian, Pashto, Tajik Persian) do not have aspirates, I believe. As far I know, only the Indo-Aryan branch of the IE family has aspirates.

I don't know about Pashto, but Persian voiceless stops - t,k,p - are actually quite heavily aspirated syllable-initially. What they don't have is a contrast between aspirates and non-aspirates.

Interestingly though, Pashto has retroflexes. Their language is called ˈpəʂt̪oː, with a retroflex sha and ta.

I believe, the t is not retroflex in this word?

------

*EDIT: I suspect, this spelling is modelled after the Sanskrit loanword রজঃস্বলা/রজস্বলা/rɔjossɔla (menstruating), which has the exactly parallel phonetic shape except the final -a, which is correctly recognizable as the feminine suffix. The spelling 'রজঃস্বলা' with a বিসর্গ itself is probably a hypercorrection, but common.

 

[lachesisdecima]

I think, a much simpler explanation is that Sanskrit words retain their spelling in Bengali, simply because both languages share the script, and hence carry over the visual familiarity from one into the other. It's the same reason why Urdu and Persian mostly retain unintutive Arabic spellings (e.g. bilkul - recently discussed in another thread). Also why English retains French spellings (e.g. depot, bidet, etc. with silent -t), etc. Of course, sharing script does not necessarily imply that loanwords would retain the spelling (e.g. Turkish always respells its numerous French loanwords in Turkish orthography), but it facililates it, especially if the donor language has a high social prestige. When the donor language uses a different script, there is no way but to transcribe the loans more or less phonetically. Interestingly, Bengali even writes some Perso-Arabic words in strange Sanskritizing spelling, e.g. মোক্ষম/mokkhom (unfailing, irrefutable < maHkam), মফঃস্বল/mɔphossɔl (outlying (town) < mufaSSil), etc.

Yeah. I think this would cover it. Thanks Dib!

I don't know about Pashto, but Persian voiceless stops - t,k,p - are actually quite heavily aspirated syllable-initially. What they don't have is a contrast between aspirates and non-aspirates.

This is a much better way of putting it. Even English has aspirates. It is just they are no marked in writing. That would have been a better way to convey this whole thing.

I believe, the t is not retroflex in this word?

Ah yes. My bad on this one. Should have looked closer. Turns out the t is dental. Nevertheless, they do have retroflexes including the retroflex t. Which is interesting to say the least.