A couple things I've noticed in the 7 or 8 Hindi films I've seen:

1. Quite frequently, a character will speak a couple lines of Hindi followed by a line of English. Is this a common way of speaking in India?

2. I noticed in several films they referenced Dubai. Is there some signifigance between Mumbai and Dubai? It is certainly mentioned more than any other city outside of India.

3. Which part of India is Tamil spoken? I've read there are over 100 different languages spoken in India but I could not find any info online as to which regions spoke which ones. In Fiza they also mentioned a language called Urdu...is this something to do with Islam or is spoken in a certain region of India?

4. Why was Bombay changed to Mumbai or is Bombay simply the English word for Mumbai?

If any one has any links to any sites to where I could learn more about this fascinating country, I would be most grateful! These films have made me want to learn more and more about India. I have tried doing a Yahoo search but couldn't find anything.

Thanks,
Jeff

1.) India was, once upon a time, a colony of the British and hence the use of English in Hindi films is not uncommon. In fact the medium of instruction is all english in schools, colleges and universities. The national lang is , most often taught as the second lang (or if you happen to be in a particular state in South India or elsewhere it may become the local dialect... Tamil being one of them)

2.) Nope there is no relation between Dubai and Mumbai. Dubai is the hub of all underworld activities (esp drugs, smuggling etc.) and the folks there use it is a base so that they can target their operations.. But in recent times the hub has changed to some place close by (in ur friendly neighbourhood terrirost country of cos ! )

3.) Tamil is the oldest lang of India and it is primarily spoken in South India (with Tamil Nadu being the hub of tamil chauvanism). Outside Tamil Nadu you have it in Northern Sri Lanka, Malaysia and other countries of south east asia.
Urdu is basically a concotion of Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Sanskrit, Turkish and itr developed when India was ruled by the Mughals. These days its spoken primarily in Northern India, and It is also the National lang of (present day) Pakistan

4.) Its called Chauvinism, patriotism or whatever u may wish to call it. Bombay was the name given by the British and it was hence changed to its present name of Mumbai ( named after the local goddess there.. Mumba Devi).. It something akin to what you you would say for Munich in english and Muenchen in german

Jeff go to
http://in.yahoo.com
and you will get all the info you want (India content specific) ..

Hindi movies and music frequently incorporate Urdu words, so it's not just Hindi you are hearing.

The oldest language in India is Sanskrit not Tamil. The Tamil speaking population try to dispute but it is yet to be proven on the simple fact that Tamil has numerous Sanskrit words while Tamil has no influence on Sanskrit.

The language used in Hindi films is known as Hindustani. Hindustani is a mixture of Hindi and Urdu. It is spoken mainly in north India.

Congress would have given you a zero in ur history course had you been in India... cos the first thing they teach u in school is the Adi-dravidian culture of which Tamil is a direct descendant ... If you forgot... Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India before the Aryans came to India ( and brought with them Sanskrit)
Check it up if you can somewhere

oh..oh...there is major controversy over the Aryan invasion theory with MOST experts now agreeing that there was in fact NO Aryan invasion(you can google on this to come up with no end of material). This was a theory propounded by the Brits to spread the false notion to the 'natives' they were the superior peoples hence all things good that came by the Indian subcontinent was brought down by the 'invaders', including the Brits themselves.

And by the way Congress has a valid point...whilst there are numerous instances of Sanskrit words being used in Tamil, you will NOT find the use of a Tamil word in Sanskrit....ofcourse the use of Sanksrit in Tamil can be attributed to the mixing of 2 civilisations that lived in the same subcontinent but had perhaps not intermixed....

Though there is no doubt that Tamil is not based on Sanskrit unlike most other Indian languages that derive heavily from Sanksrit. One of the purest form of Tamil is still spoken in Sri Lanka which is why most people that can follow Tamil are still unable to follow the dialogues of Kannathil Muthamittal (portions that show the jungles of Jaffna etc. involving Sri Lankan Tamils) because there is huge use of the old Tamil words and not the colloquial as is spoken today in Tamil Nadu.....

Phew...that was a long post...

I just hope Jeff is able to get something conclusive and informative out of this thread. Well atleast one thing he should be able to make out is that due its very ancient origins, the Indian culture is as difficult to conclusively make statements on as it is diverse.

we are like this only....when we cannot clarify we confound! ???

Now I have a question about Tamil: "Kushi" is a word for "happy" in Tamil. Does "kushi" have any base in Sanskrit or is it something borrowed from Urdu?

This i believe is a question for Sunny.....though the word 'Kushi' seems a manifestation of the word 'Khush' which is used in several other languages as well....it may have its origins in the Persian/Farsi hence Urdu too.

Also the reason for the use of so many 'external' words in Tamil can also be attributed to the fact that it is perhaps the longest surviving of all the ancient languages from the subcontinent. Sanskrit in its original form is almost gone with no one (except a village in karnataka) even speaking it for everyday use. But Sanskrit however continues to live through most of the other commonly spoken tongues, giving them their grammar and a huge lexicon.....

Congress & sknath, you both are correct with regards to the first spoken language in India or Bharat. However, you guys are overlooking the age of the Palaeolithic & Neolithic men. Records show that they were the first settlers in India & that they entered from opposite ends. Various symbols of stones show that the Neolithic men first settled in the Bellary district of Madras, hence the languages of - Tamil, Telugu, Kanarese & Malayalam originated through the generic named "Dravidians".

Palaeolithic men are said to have entered from the northern region of India as according to old stone symboled records and majority of the high-class Hindus, who are tall, fair-skinned and long-nosed and whose language is derived from Sanskrit.
There is no definate records of the "first" settlers in India other than Palaeolithic & Neolithic men and there settlements in India have been discovered around the same time period.

Sorry to split hairs but there is no such language as 'Kanarese'...it is Kannada...and Also Bellary district is in Karnataka.....thank you.

DVD collector,

"majority of the high-class Hindus, who are tall, fair-skinned and long-nosed and whose language is derived from Sanskrit"

C'mon now...we all know that's bull. I certainly don't buy that. I've seen so many dark skinned high-castes and even in south, east as well as some parts of north india the high castes do also consists of dark people. I mean even Ravi Shankar is a 'high' caste brahmin (from the north) and he's dark, short, etc.
What you said looks like it comes straight out of a British produced history book. The thing ppl have to remember is when the British were in India, they thought they would rule forever, so they thought "hey, why not fool the natives and write our version of history for them' they'll lap it up for sure". Looks like they did manage well and fooled alot of indians for a long time. But even now even westeners who studied the History of India are debunking the Aryan invasion Theory. But some Indians have such an inferiority complex that they still want to believe it, cos it fills their hearts with glee that their ancestors could've once been goras!

:tounge:

My bad.

My interpretation was wrong, I apologize. What I meant to explore was that, a majority of those whom speak a language originated out of the Sanskrit are apart of the Palaeolithic ancestry, thus the northern region of India. Mr. Khiladi, I wasn't talking about the era of the British Rule, I was specifically concentrating on an era way before the Indian British Rule. And just for your understanding, I would not yield information about India's history out of a british history book, that would just be a wrong depiction and a biased interpretation. I have a good natural knowledge of India's history, a few close members of my family are infact historians of India, I hope you recognize the influence

YOu are right, that Khush is a word that originates from Farsi. By the way Urdu is a language that is derived from acombination of Farsi, Hindi and Persian.

PS: Has anyone noticed that there has been no post from Jeff in this thread since he originally started it. I wonder why? Maybe all you guys "confounded" him a bit way too much