Talk:Nawab

(First comment)[edit]

Shouldn't we have pages for each Nawaby? Thus entries on Nawabs of Bengal/Dhaka; Awadh; and so on?--iFaqeer 10:40, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Nabob[edit]

I think 'Nabob' deserves a separate page, as it is a term applied almost exclusively by Europeans to European traders, and is only etymologically related to 'nawab'. Hornplease 07:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to (possibly) dispute the above statement, and the current statements in the article that 'nabob' is a 'corruption' of 'nawab'.

1. Linguists do not regard alternative language forms as corruptions. If it is a corruption, then equally the Urdu form is a corruption of the Arabic naib.

2. While we need someone who knows Bengali to confirm this, I thought Nabob was the Bengali form. Many or most instances of the labials 'v' and 'w' in other Indian languages become 'b' in Bengali; e.g. names such as Ravindra--> Rabindra, Devendra-->Debendra. It seems to me likely that Nabob is the Bengali pronounciation, and therefore 'Nabob of Bengal' would be the right term for Bengali speakers, as opposed to Urdu speakers. The nawabs themselves may have been Urdu speakers. See http://banglapedia.net/HT/N_0138.HTM .

Imc 11:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Banglapedia says it just right: there is a Bengali pronunciation, but the official titles were not crafted locally but awarded by the Paramount ruler, in official 'Mughal Persian'; once the word has its new Mughal meaning, it no longer is a corruption of the Arabic (except etymologically) but a new word. As a new section is to show, Nawab may actually even be derived from Iran's own court Persian, as it had a specific use there too (since when seems unclear, but titles kept flowing from Persia, e.g. Aga khan). Fastifex 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nabob may deserve a page because of HMS Nabob. Uncle G 11:18, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Well, there already is a page, but a redirect by that short name failed (no longer!), as it is another name of USS Edisto (CVE-41) it now links to Fastifex 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalabagh[edit]

Kalabagh was a Jagir, or noble estate and never a Prinvely State of the Indian Empire. It was not counted amongst the Pakistani Princely states either. Thus I am deleting Kalabagh from the list ruling Indian Nawabs.

This page is about the Title "Nawab".Not about the "Princely states of Former British India".There were many ancient states such as Kalabagh etc.Who did not comply fully with the british rules and so were not made into the so called"Princely states".But that does not change their place in history nor their rulers ancestral Titles.So restoring the title. Yoohooyoo (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nattering nabobs of negativism should not redirect here[edit]

wuwt? should redirect to Spiro Agnew or Patrick Buchanan

Am I the only one who finds the first sentence in the second paragraph incomprehensible?

"Since most of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent had (like most otheriwse titled Hindu (maha)radjas and other princely states) accepted the authority of the Mughals at the height of this empire the term Nawab is often, but technically imprecise, as it was awarded to others and was not applied to every Muslim ruler, used to refer to any Muslim ruler in the subcontinent."

Can't somebody fix this?

I'll have a go, but it IS confusingly complex Fastifex 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab of Indooroopilly[edit]

This section is complete nonsense. And should be removed. Kwenchin (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (Note: Indooroopilly is in Brisbane, Australia where the user's domain (203.49.142.221) is located).[reply]

Is it OK for me to remove it? I removed it. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer just above. I also just removed the "Nabob of Norway." Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Does anyone know why this article has a military unit infobox? It doesn't seem relevant, and other, similar pages (Duke, Khedive, Sultan, King) don't need one. The Royalty template should be sufficient. If there are no objections, I suggest it be deleted. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ceremonial deputy[edit]

"Nawab" units were all "ceremonial deputies" of the "Great Mogul (emperor)", this was their initial hierarchy in the antiquity of Asia.

10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)43.242.179.105 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\\10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\10:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\[reply]