Question unfairly closed

Question

I recently posted this question, I got the following set of three comments. Which I quote and try to understand one by one

India is nine times the size of Germany, and roughly the size of Europe west of a line from Szczecin (Stettin) to Venice; an area which is home to the major languages of French, Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Italian as well as a host of minor languages. On what basis do you expect a heavily populated area that large and diverse to NOT have many languages?

I have no idea why this comment was written. I do not think no where in the post I said I expected Indian state only to have one language. I simply asked, why northern side speaks more than southern.

This question really needs some initial research (at least), and the use 'Hindi' needs some clarification. Try looking at Hindi language. –

There are of course places where this is discussed, eg this quora thread but it doesn't have any trust worthy reference. The purpose of me asking in this site is to get more reputed answers which are sourced.

Are you asking specifically about speaking Hindi at all, or are you asking about native languages? The chart you posted seems to include second language speakers, but it is not clear from your question whether you are including those. –

I simply asked, why more fraction of people speak Hindi in northern state than other. I never put an additional condition if it is as native language or not. So, I don't understand why the commentors are stuck up on this.

I hope my question can get reviewed and reopened.

Answer 1

I didn't close it or comment, so if I were you I'd be more interested in an answer from one of the people who did.

However, I saw the question, and as someone who has an interest and a fair bit of researched knowledge on the subject of world linguistic history, would honestly like to try to answer it. Unfortunately, I literally don't understand what you're asking.

At present, the best answer I can give to a simple "why" question like that is "Why not?"

In other words, why wouldn't things be that way? They have to be some way, right? What's at all odd about it? Perhaps if you can edit the question text to answer my "Why not?" question, you'd have a more answerable H.SE question on your hands?

---

Speculation section - I think you are trying to do one of two things here:

Guess 1: You meant to be asking something along the lines of "How did the modern distribution of Hindi come to be?" (which honestly demands a novel, not an answer here), or perhaps "Why did Hindi become dominant over so much of the Subcontinent, but never got any further south?" (not a bad question there IMHO)

Guess 2: You've actually got a bit of an agenda, and any answers that call back into the current consensus history/linguistics/archeology picture of Hindi being an Indo-European language that migrated in with its speakers from the Eurasian heartland of that language family, will be jumped on and argued. In fact the question was perhaps a prompt for inducing this exact argument, rather than a serious question.

I'm sorry if Guess 2 is insulting, but we really get people like that here, and as a new user, for all we know you're one of those. Questions that are likely fodder for such people tend to get extra scrutiny, and tend to be put on hold much more quickly.