0
This is something that's always caught my attention. Turkish I understand is completely different because the origin of the Turks can be traced all the way back to the Mongols. I can see the connection with Persian but Hindustani (Urdu and Hindi) just completely throws me off. I see way more similarities between Arabic and European languages than I can with Hindi/Urdu. Arabs as an ethno-linguistic group also developed much closer to Europeans than South Asians did. How come you have to cross a huge swath of the Middle East before the Indo-European connection continues?
For example, I find South Asians have much harsher accents in English compared to Arabs, even though they were historically colonized by the British Empire who spoke English while almost no Arab nation has been truly colonized by Anglos.
Another point would be the fact that the sounds in Arabic sound less "foreign" compared to the sounds in Hindustani. Even when native speakers speak their own Hindi/Urdu it's almost like they have an accent within their own language that they're speaking. Lots of forced sounds and pronunciations that sound completely alien to other Indo-European speakers. Arabic can be pretty guttural but it sounds far less alien compared to Hindustani. Same with Persian.
So, is the connection mostly a fairy tale or is there something I'm missing here? Am I not looking deep enough? I do not in any way see how Hindu/Urdu are more Indo-European than Arabic. Both grammatically and phonetically.
Bookmarks