Talk:Bihari hindi

There is no such language as Bihari Hindi. I am from Bihar,India and none of my friend, relatives have come across any such language. I think such views come in existence, because people of a region are disconnected from the other region. Also, such view (in India) may be based on syllogism. e.g

Punjab - Punjabi Bengal - Bengali Haryana - Haryanvi Hence, Bihar - Bihari

The names on the left part of hyphen are the name of the states(or provinces) in India. The right hand side is the name of the language spoken in that province. Going by the above mentioned propositions, it can be fairly concluded that a native resident of Bihar would be speaking Bihari. However, contrary to the fact, Hindi, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Vajjika, Magahi .etc. are the spoken languages in Bihar. Also, if the author of the page is trying to refer to the dialect, then it automatically brings Punjabi Hindi, Bengali Hindi and Haryanvi Hindi into context. Hence, this page itself should be dropped since it does not cater to basic facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.254.189 (talk • contribs) 2015-08-09T04:15:28 (UTC)


 * I am concerned to see that the above objection has gone unanswered for more than a year. I have no knowledge whether the objection is correct or not but clearly it deserves attention. I will mark the article disputed and also needing expert help. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The above mentioned statement is an opinion which seems to be based on ideas that the article does not contain. The unsigned, unregistered poster basically claims that any page discussing a regional form of a language is obsolete, and that if this page exists then local dialects or registers of Hindi native to other parts of India would be needed or allowed. He begins by stating the fact "no such language as Bihari Hindi exists", while the actual article does not refer to Bihari Hindi as a language or even a dialect, he then statesthat the majority of people in Bihar speak Bihari languages (Eastern Indo-Aryan). The rest of his argument is to describe how Hindi is spoken in a number of regions and that Wikipedia wouldn't be giving regional varieties of a common language their own page or description. In fact, Wikipedia does, just as there are articles about Québec French, New England English, Caribbean Spanish. He is essentially trying to falsely project a common debate on Wikipedia, that of language versus dialect, onto a page that makes no claim about the linguistic nature of Bihari Hindi, i.e. the Hindi spoken in Bihar: the article refers to Bihari Hindi as a "form", no more, no less. This is a political theme in India, and actually in many countries, where a prestige language standard is held in the highest regard and so when someone even recognizes local or regional differences, it is seen as either an insult to the language itself or to the regional speakers (either «Hey! Stop trying to act like we aren't all united by one language» or «Hey! Stop trying to say that we don't speak correct/proper like everybody else!). To reiterate, the article does not even name Bihari Hindi as language or even dialect, it is referred to as a "form" of Hindi.

The article should not be a point of contention, no language exists without a standard and a variety of regional speech forms, I think that is pretty much a foundational point of linguistics. The article does not state that Bihari Hindi is a language or even a register of Hindi, it simply describes some of the local particularities of Hindi speech in Bihar and Jhaarkhand. I don't think that we need much proof that language spoken by nearly 400 million people as a mother-language, across an area of millions of square kilometres, has regional varieties. User:Abdulrahimb 28 January 2017 User:Abdulrahimb 28 January 2017