[616c]

> You write: "All of them come from Arabic (not just the letters, the scripts) as well, and as an Arabic speaker I find that attitude strange. I could be reading too much into it."

>

> I think that's where our disconnect lies and I do think you're reading too much into it. Urdu is not a child of Arabic.

Ok. I think I should have been more clear. Urdu is not Arabic. I specifically mean the script, Nastaliq, and Arabic aphabet as used in Urdu is from Arabic (even though, as we are both aware, letters were added to compensate for the lack of certain letters in the original Arabic alphabet, re your Pakistan->Bakistan comment).

As for your insights in pronunciation, I LOVE the irony here. I was also studying Farsi for a while, and I routinely had trouble with this dispartiy, as I had to relearn sounds. It is hard to shake as the eight plus years of Arabic will not go away overnight. I also had friends who were advanced Farsi students with the opposite problem. And I have a father-in-law who teaches Arabic, and unfortunately I hear students and him confirm the religious Pakistani students are poor performers and/or argumentative in class: they have trouble realizing the difference between their knowledge of Arabic vocab and pronunciation through Quranic Arabic, Urdu, and complete inexperience for formal Standard Arabic (which is different from Quranic). I have also been party to these arguments, and heard of them. I have also been silly with my stuff.

In any event, I am amazed I am having this conversation on HN. I thought there would be such little interest in this topic. I am glad to have talked to you and others about this. I thought no one cares.