
Languages of India - happy-go-lucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India
======
ignoramous
Not just Hindi but Gujarati has a dialect that is heavily influenced by Perso-
Arabic vocabulary called Lisan ud-Da'wat [0] As a native speaker of the later,
I can fully attest to the fact that the language isn't mutually intelligible
with Gujarati as spoken in India. It is even more true for the written form of
these languages. There's a day and night difference with Perso-Arabic
influence simply overwhelming its Gujarati roots.

This is also true for Hindi and Urdu, and you can tell esp if you're exposed
to both. When you study both the languages theologically and linguistically,
the differences become ever more apparent. It is only the mash of Hindi-Urdu
called Hindustani [1] (popularized in modern day by Bollywood) that's mutually
intelligible to both Hindi and Urdu speakers alike, and only in its spoken
form.

I, for sure, know that the Punjabi [2] spoke in Multan (Saraiki) _sounds_
different than anything I've heard in India; but my Indian Punjabi friends
tell me its mutually intelligible to them.

Imo, the Hindi-Urdu debate isn't similar to a Croatian-Serbian or even the
EasternPunjabi-WesternPunjabi one, where the vocabulary remains the same for
the most part and only phonetics remain a predominant source of divergence.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisan_ud-
Dawat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisan_ud-Dawat)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi%E2%80%93Urdu_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi%E2%80%93Urdu_controversy)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_dialects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_dialects)

~~~
lgessler
> This is true for Hindi and Urdu, esp when you're exposed to both. When you
> study both the languages theologically and linguistically, the differences
> become ever more apparent. It is only the mash of Hindi-Urdu called
> Hindustani [1] (popularized in modern day by Bollywood) that's mutually
> intelligible to both Hindi and Urdu speakers alike, and only in its spoken
> form.

You make it sound like everyday Hindi and everyday Urdu are far apart, but I'm
not sure if that's true: if you took a Pakistani Urdu speaker and an Indian
Hindi speaker, both from the middle class with only a modest amount of
education (and therefore limited access to specialized technical vocabulary),
both would have no trouble at all talking to each other. Occasionally one
might use a word where the other might have preferred a different one (like
زبان for the Urdu speaker and भाषा for the Hindi speaker for 'language'), but
it's only possible to imagine them struggling if both were attempting to speak
in the registers that are only used in exceedingly formal, technical, or
literary contexts.

And when you ignore vocabulary, it becomes even more clear: the grammar of
even highly Sanskritized Hindi is more or less identical to that of everyday
Hindi, and while I'm less sure about what high Urdu is like, I don't think it
differs grammatically from everyday Urdu either, with the possible exception
of ezafe[1] (which both Hindi and Urdu speakers are perfectly able to
comprehend, even if they do not produce it).

edit: this is Colin Masica's take in his book The Indo-Aryan Languages (p.27):

> The ultimate anomaly in the what-is-a-language dilemma in Indo-Aryan is
> presented by the Hindi-Urdu situation. Counted as different languages in
> sociocultural Sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are
> not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic Sense A. They are
> different literary styles based on the same linguistically defined
> subdialect.

> At the colloquial level, and in terms of grammar and core vocabulary, they
> are virtually identical; there are minor differences in usage and
> terminology (and customary pronunciation of certain foreign sounds), but
> these do not necessarily obtrude to the point where anyone can immediately
> tell whether it is "Hindi" or "Urdu" that is being spoken. At formal and
> literary levels, however, vocabulary differences begin to loom much larger
> (Hindi drawing its higher lexicon from Sanskrit, Urdu from Arabic and
> Persian), to the point where the two styles/languages become mutually
> unintelligible. To the ordinary non-linguist who thinks, not unreasonably,
> that languages consist of words, their status as different languages is then
> commonsensically obvious, as it is from the fact that they are written in
> quite different scripts (Hindi in Devanagari and Urdu in a modified Perso-
> Arabic).

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ez%C4%81fe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ez%C4%81fe)

~~~
ignoramous
Thanks.

> You make it sound like everyday Hindi and everyday Urdu are far apart, but
> I'm not sure if that's true: if you took a Pakistani Urdu speaker and an
> Indian Hindi speaker, both from the middle class with only a modest amount
> of education (and therefore limited access to specialized vocabulary), both
> would have no trouble at all talking to each other.

Hence this from the parent post: _It is only the mash of Hindi-Urdu called
Hindustani (popularized in modern day by Bollywood) that 's mutually
intelligible to both Hindi and Urdu speakers alike, and only in its spoken
form._

> And when you ignore vocabulary...

That's the crux of my point. The punjabi dialects vary mostly in phonetics and
not so much in vocabulary. In my case _Gujarati and Lisan ud Dawat_ aren't
exactly mutually intelligible in spoken form and most def not in their written
form. As for _Hindi-Urdu_ , it is mutually intelligible when in its hugely
popular _Hindustani_ [0] form, which is what your saying as well, I think.

> I don't think it differs grammatically from everyday Urdu either, with the
> possible exception of ezafe.

That's one difference that has Perso-Arabic tilt to it. The Urdu/Rekhta
literature has other elements [1] that diverge from high Hindi that it
couldn't possibly pass off as the same language as Urdu, imo. Exhibit A:
[https://www.rekhta.org/ghazals](https://www.rekhta.org/ghazals) Most native
Hindi speakers would have trouble parsing through most of those Urdu _ghazals_
, I'd reckon.

> At formal and literary levels, however, vocabulary differences begin to loom
> much larger (Hindi drawing its higher lexicon from Sanskrit, Urdu from
> Arabic and Persian), to the point where the two styles/languages become
> mutually unintelligible.

Exactly. For a language like Lisan ud-Da'wat spoken by a much less number of
people, there's a common ground with Gujarati which is simply to speak the
main language _Gujarati_ itself, even if the core vocabulary and grammar are
similar between the two. The only thing working for Hindi-Urdu mutual
intelligibility, imo, is that Hindi is spoken by a large number of people who
are exposed to Urdu, on a day to day basis, and vice versa.

I guess, like someone mentioned [2], 'a language is a dialect with an army and
a navy.'

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu_alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu_alphabet)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759103](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759103)

~~~
iamshs
Punjabi dialects do vary in vocabulary. Just go to Indian Punjab, and converse
with people from Majha, Malwa, Doaba or Poadh. You will instantly find
differences. Singers from Majha sometimes use vocab that needs help
translating.

------
neuralzen
When I visited Himachel Predesh I stayed a few days in a remote Himalayan
village named Malana, sometimes referred to as "The Village of Taboos" due to
all of the rules they have, largely concerning outsiders. Outsiders are not
allowed to touch a Malanan person, touch or enter a building, or even speak
the village language even if the outsider know some of it. They also claimed
to be the world's oldest continuous democracy, and descendants of Alexander
the Great's armies. Definitely a strange and fascinating society.

~~~
vishnugupta
It's a testimony to India's vastness and diversity that more than 99.5%
Indians wouldn't have even heard about Malana let alone know about their
unique culture and society.

~~~
puranjay
On the contrary, most people I know have heard of Malana simply because of
"Malana Cream", a variety of highly sought after hashish

~~~
talonx
"Most people you know" does not equate to 99 or even 90% Indians, so this does
not negate the previous statement.

------
vishnugupta
The diversity in general in India is mind boggling which most of Indians take
for granted. Be it terrain, climate, language, culture, food, etc., And all
the above change noticeably every 200KM or so such that you will find more
similarities between Delhi and Lahore (different countries) than Delhi and
Bangalore.

It's a miracle that India manages to function as one country.

~~~
viewtransform
The West expected India to be a failed state within a decade of independance.
There were 584 princely states and hundreds of linguistic, religious and
cultural minorities to integrate within one country.

Compare India to Yugoslavia which broke up violently along ethnic lines or to
Sri Lanka which had a bloody civil war that lasted 25 years. Or the division
of Pakistan into Bangladesh along racial and linguistic lines even though they
shared the same religion.

What I fear is that young Indians take nation for granted and don't understand
that India's secular democracy is fragile and that it can within a generation
'be broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls'.

~~~
mav3rick
Also mentioned in India After Gandhi.

------
aatharuv
India's definition of what is and what is not a language is highly politicized
and highly idiosyncratic.

Hindi and Urdu, by any reasonable linguistic definition are not separate
languages. The official standards for both Hindi and Urdu, are both based on
the form of the huge dialect continuum that spans North India and Pakistan, as
spoken in Delhi. The only difference is that Urdu uses Persian and Arabic as
inspiration/source for high vocabulary, whereas Hindi uses Sanskrit as a
source for high vocabulary. And they use different scripts. But on the street
level, the language is identical, not merely mutually intelligible.

Many of the languages traditionally clubbed by the Indian government as Hindi
are much farther away from standard Hindi than Urdu.

~~~
jfk13
> on the street level, the language is identical

Personal anecdote: when I first went to South Asia, I spent time in southern
Pakistan and learned some basic Urdu. Then I spent time in north India, among
Hindi speakers. The language I'd learned was immediately usable there, but my
local friends could also tell where it came from -- and sometimes would tell
me "Aha! yes, we know what you mean, but that's an Urdu word - in Hindi we say
...."

So even on a basic street level, I don't think it's true that they're
identical. Both part of the same huge dialect continuum, yes, but they're
slightly different points on it.

Whether to call them _separate languages_ is as much a political question as a
linguistic one, of course.

~~~
manbatman
Same way like Italian and Romanian and Spanish

~~~
samsonradu
Not quite. As a Romanian speaker I can’t understand more than very basic
Italian. Perhaps Spanish is slightly more understandable but still not to a
90% level for sure.

I also doubt they understand any Romanian at all.

~~~
sterlind
Romanian kept its case system unlike the other Romance languages by virtue of
ending up in the Slavic sprachbund. I'd wager that there are Slavic loanwords
as well?

~~~
barry-cotter
11-14%

> A statistical analysis sorting Romanian words by etymological source carried
> out by Macrea (1961)[88] based on the DLRM[99] (49,649 words) showed the
> following makeup:[89]

> 43% recent Romance loans (mainly French: 38.42%, Latin: 2.39%, Italian:
> 1.72%) 20% inherited Latin 11.5% Slavic (Old Church Slavonic: 7.98%,
> Bulgarian: 1.78%, Bulgarian-Serbian: 1.51%) 8.31% Unknown/unclear origin
> 3.62% Turkish 2.40% Modern Greek 2.17% Hungarian 1.77% German (including
> Austrian High German)[97] 2.24% Onomatopoeic If the analysis is restricted
> to a core vocabulary of 2,500 frequent, semantically rich and productive
> words, then the Latin inheritance comes first, followed by Romance and
> classical Latin neologisms, whereas the Slavic borrowings come third.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language)

------
_iyig
A co-worker of mine once said then he heard a greater variety of spoken Indian
languages in the Bay Area than he’d ever heard back in India, where he was
born and educated. Never thought of a polite way to ask, but I’ve always been
curious as to how many Indian co-workers of mine share a language other than
English - seems like the number could be lower than expected, given the sheer
amount of different languages.

~~~
karthikvellanki
Your co-worker's observation is actually more obvious than we think it is.

Since states in India are essentially divided based on linguistic grounds, he
would have been exposed to two Indian languages at best - the regional
language in his town and Hindi (if the dominant language in the town is not
Hindi already).

In the Bay Area you'll find people from various states of India.

~~~
skissane
> In the Bay Area you'll find people from various states of India.

Doesn't the same thing happen within India itself, due to internal interstate
migration? Not everyone who works in (for example) Bangalore's IT industry
grew up there.

~~~
peterburkimsher
On a related note, does that make people in (e.g.) Bangalore speak Hindi more
than Kannada?

In China, the purpose-built electronics city of Shenzhen is full of migrants
from other regions, so the local language is Mandarin even though the
surrounding Guangdong province speaks Cantonese.

~~~
gopkarthik
In Hyderabad which is in a neighboring state to Bangalore, most people speak
both Telugu and Hindi.

Among white collar workers English is pretty common.

------
keeganjw
It still boggles my mind that so many of the languages of India are related to
European languages. Hindi and English share a common linguistic ancestor. Yet
languages that are much physically closer together like English and Finnish or
Hindi and Tamil aren't related at all.

~~~
User23
This is because both Europe and India where both conquered by the Yamnaya
people about 4 millennia ago[1]. Europeans and Indians are (distant) cousins.
Take a look at most Bollywood stars for example and the resemblance is clear.

[1] [https://www.livescience.com/59703-north-india-populated-
by-c...](https://www.livescience.com/59703-north-india-populated-by-central-
asian-invaders.html)

------
vbtemp
Lost among here is Sentinelese
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_language)

The only language where not a single word is known to the outside world!

~~~
User23
On some level you have to respect a people whose response to anthropologists
is to see how many arrows they can stick in them.

~~~
ahje
There has been friendly contacts with them according to Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese#Shipwrecks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese#Shipwrecks)

------
vikramkr
The number of languages is stunning. Does anyone know if the number of
languages is just the officially named languages or if it includes creoles?
The language I speak is a creole of two languages and doesnt have a name or
writing system really, and I'm curious to know how that is counted.

~~~
staticautomatic
I'd consider "Mumbai Hindi" a creole. It's nominally a dialect of Hindi/Urdu
but it has a lot of Marathi mixed in, among other languages.

~~~
aatharuv
Mumbai Hindi is not a creole by any definition of linguistics. It is actually
a dialect of Hindustani with Marathi and other languages mixed in.

A Creole specifically occurs when two languages (usually unrelated) suddenly
mix together, usually with a _greatly_ simplified (but consistent) grammar
from the parent languages. It's not just the result of heavy borrowing.

I don't believe that's happened for Mumbai Hindi.

~~~
linguanerd
I believe you are confusing a "creole" with a "pidgin".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin)

> pidgin language, is a grammatically simplified means of communication that
> develops between two or more groups that do not have a language in common:
> typically, its vocabulary and grammar are limited and often drawn from
> several languages. It is most commonly employed in situations such as trade,
> or where both groups speak languages different from the language of the
> country in which they reside (but where there is no common language between
> the groups). Fundamentally, a pidgin is a simplified means of linguistic
> communication, as it is constructed impromptu, or by convention, between
> individuals or groups of people. A pidgin is not the native language of any
> speech community, but is instead learned as a second language

~~~
staticautomatic
I'm not sure Mumbai Hindi would qualify as a pidgin either then since it's
definitely the native language of a significant number of people.

------
peterburkimsher
This may be a long shot, but could anybody help me find a Bible in Oriya?

Last year I did some research into Unicode PUA characters and discovered some
unencoded Taiwanese & Hakka characters. I wrote a proposal to add them to
Unicode, and a blog post on Medium (called Hakka news).

Now I've done the same for all languages on Bible.com, and I'm trying to
compare with printed copies to know what the text should say.

~~~
j0e1
You can find an online version here
[https://vachanonline.com/](https://vachanonline.com/) .

If you are looking for the data, here is a repository:
[https://git.door43.org/BCS-BIBLE/Odiya-ULB-
NT.BCS](https://git.door43.org/BCS-BIBLE/Odiya-ULB-NT.BCS) That is the New
Testament only, the Old Testament can be found in the same way.

~~~
peterburkimsher
I can already get the online version!

The trouble is that I can see some PUA codes being used in the text.

[https://www.bible.com/bible/1749/1KI.4.20.ODIAOV-
BSI](https://www.bible.com/bible/1749/1KI.4.20.ODIAOV-BSI)

[https://www.bible.com/bible/1749/2KI.16.17.ODIAOV-
BSI](https://www.bible.com/bible/1749/2KI.16.17.ODIAOV-BSI)

[https://www.bible.com/bible/1749/ROM.6.16.ODIAOV-
BSI](https://www.bible.com/bible/1749/ROM.6.16.ODIAOV-BSI)

No idea if these will appear in the comment, but let's try:

 U+F020  U+F02F  U+F0A0

If I can compare to scans of a printed copy, then I'll be able to know what
the characters should be (and therefore whether they're already in Unicode).

------
vinni2
The surprising thing for me is the fact “India (780) has the world's second
highest number of languages, after Papua New Guinea (839).”

------
Jagat
It's amazing how most Indians believe that Hindi is the national language of
India, when there's no such as a national language in India.

There are two official languages for union government communication - Hindi
and English.

I've also noticed that a lot of non Indians find it funny that most Indians
here in bay area companies communicate among themselves in heavily accented
English instead of The Indian language.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
The original plan was, of course, to phase out English as a national language.
This never happened, I suppose partially because while 'Hindustani' (as was)
made sense as a symbol of unity during the time leading up to Independence,
afterwards, especially as 'Hindi', it was seen more as a regional language
(even if the region involved is large) and so not necessarily more deserving
of official nation-level status than Bengali or Tamil. English ends up being
more neutral in many ways (though, of course, not without its own (post-
colonial) baggage).

> I've also noticed that a lot of non Indians find it funny that most Indians
> here in bay area companies communicate among themselves in heavily accented
> English instead of The Indian language.

Ah, yes, of course, 'the Indian language'. :)

~~~
naravara
I always thought India would have functioned better if it had confederated
under a Swiss style cantonment system
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland)).
They maybe could have even avoided partition this way too. And whatever
paroxysms of violence from internal migration might have been mitigated
against if it was all being overseen by a single government and army instead
of the three-way clusterfuck of the actual partition.

There would have needed to be some system for maintaining a rough level of
parity/equality of representation of various minority groups at the high
level. Scheduled castes and tribes would probably not have been as well
protected under such a system, for example, but it's probably something than
could have been worked out with effort.

~~~
masklinn
> I always thought India would have functioned better if it had confederated
> under a Swiss style cantonment system
> ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland)).
> They maybe could have even avoided partition this way too.

In what way? Having even more autonomy than they have as states?

------
rurban
For the movie industry it's a challenge, but they settled for 5 languages to
target. Remember, the Indian movie industries are the biggest in the world, by
far outnumbering Hollywood or porn.

So they have English as lingua franca (mostly as repeated short statement to
get the point to non-native speakers), but it's not a target language.

1\. Hindi as dominant by the biggest industry from Mumbai (lot of trash
movies, comparable to Hollywood).

2\. Tamil from Chennai (much more political, having the more famous directors,
but kinda ridicolous fashion styles).

3\. Bengali from Kalkutta (very European, radical, cynical).

4\. Telugu (Chennai, now Hyderabad) and I have no idea about the fifth. Is the
a Punjab film industry? There are two more south Indian smaller industries,
but the south combined (Tamil, Telugu, Malalayam, Kennada) has a market share
of 50%, whilst in west you only hear about Bollywood with its musicals. Take
that Hollywood.

------
supernova87a
Too many languages, too many religions to govern a country like this
effectively. Unpopular truth, but truth nonetheless.

~~~
rishav_sharan
Yet governance has been pretty effective since the last 70 years and will only
get better as more of Indians get educated and the population growth slows.

------
mshaler
"The difference between a language and a dialect is an army and a navy." Of
course this is all politicized, therefore sometimes militarized...

------
ramgorur
Those who are wondering why Indian languages are a subgrouop of Indo-European
languages, this chart might be helpful. It shows some of the many words that
Sanskrit and Slavic both share.

[https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_a...](https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451)

~~~
rusticpenn
Not all indian languages are in that subgroup. There are another family of
dravidian languages.

------
billfruit
A bit strange that Sinhala is classified as Indo-European rather than as
Dravidian, as one might think from geography.

~~~
jvsg
The sinhalese people of Sri Lanka are Indo-European, not dravidian. IIRC they
came from Modern day Bengal.

~~~
billfruit
But Sinhalese culture,food etc is closer to Dravidian.

------
j0e1
Here is a well respected source on this
[https://www.ethnologue.com/country/IN](https://www.ethnologue.com/country/IN)

------
anuraj
India's right wing government under Modi is trying to impose Hindi on Indians
who belong to different ethnicity and speak diverse set of languages. A sure
shot recipe for balkanization of a young nation.

~~~
shripadk
> trying to impose Hindi on Indians

That turned out to be a big hoax. This is the second time such a frenzy was
created for no apparent reason. There is no such "imposition" done by the
Centre. A proposal is in draft which makes third-language compulsory for
students. That does not mean Hindi would be imposed. The student can choose
whichever language s/he wants to learn. The third language thing is
implemented in quite a few states already but it is not Nationwide. This
should be encouraged as it would allow students from Hindi belt and Dravidian
states to learn a different third language.

> speak diverse set of languages

I disagree completely. I am from South and I can tell you that we have too
much pride in our languages. So much so that we would rather speak English
with our fellow Indians but not learn a different Indian language.
Balkanization has already happened. What we need to do is try to unite by
shedding this arrogance of language superiority. It doesn't matter which
language came "first" or which is the most "ancient". A language is means of
communication. That is it! There is no need for all this frenzy around it.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> A language is means of communication. That is it!

As any sociolinguist will tell you, languages are partly a means of
communication, partly a signal of group identity. The latter trait of human
language is why some demographics intentionally take the common language and
attempt to make it difficult to understand by outsiders by adding in-group
slang and cant. It is why many peoples determine that a person is no longer a
member of their community when he/she switches to entirely speaking an outside
language.

If you see language merely as a means of communication, a lot of sociographic
and inter-ethnic phenomena are going to elude you.

~~~
shripadk
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I am talking about
irrational hatred for a language. Not about how a language can be misused. The
misuse of language is secondary. What is the point of knowing about slang and
cant if you aren't even going to learn the language in the first place?

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> Not about how a language can be misused. The misuse of language is
> secondary.

Again, use of language as a way to signal group identity and block out others
is not "misuse" of a language. It is an inherent part of the human language
faculty, it _is_ normal usage. I know that in a venue like this who many
participants are developers or sympathetic to the software community, there is
a tendency to think of human language like a programming language, as solely a
means of communication, purely a matter of "utility", but as I said, that is
not how human communities actually work.

As for “irrational hatred”: considering the danger that large languages
supported by a central government can pose to regional languages – a danger
illustrated by numerous case studies all over the world – the desire of
certain South Indians to avoid Hindi is not irrational at all.

~~~
shripadk
> It is an inherent part of the human language faculty, it is normal usage

If it is normal usage then there is nothing to fear right? This logic makes no
sense because I don't see this happening with other regional languages vis-a-
vis Hindi.

> a danger illustrated by numerous case studies all over the world

Are you telling me that Hindi speaking people are deliberately targeting Tamil
and Malayalam while giving a free pass to other linguistic communities? Why
don't I see Assamese or Odia people having similar issues with Hindi? Surely
they should also feel threatened by Hindi right? But they don't! They are
thriving and they continue to speak their own language, maintain their own
culture and traditions and also know to speak and write Hindi!

India has a 5000 year recorded history. Never has any language in these 5000
years been deliberately destroyed. I am a Kannadiga. I speak Kannada at home
and yet have studied Hindi as my 3rd language and am fluent in it. It hasn't
destroyed my culture, tradition or language. I don't see Hindi as a danger. If
at all it has enriched my life, my thinking and given me a greater
perspective.

But I am open minded enough to know other perspectives. Even if I disagree
100%. Can you share links to some of those studies? I find it hard to believe
that any study can come to a conclusion on one Indian language being a danger
to another language.

