Yahweh-yireh

[bob x]

Unless you are proposing that the Vedic people migrated to India from Aryana

Of course they did.

The place-name Aryana is as old as the Gathas. Aryavarta, however, is a much more recent designation.

Aryavarta is attested from earlier than the Gathas.

The Vedic people were at most Indo-Iranians.

Of course they were. They were the "Indo" branch of the Indo-Iranians, at that time not very different from the "Iranian" branch, from whom they had only recently separated.

I just don't think that the form Aryan replaced anything.

You think wrongly. I SHOWED you what Bopp actually wrote (in German): where "Arian" appears in translation, it is replacing Arisch in the original text.

I think that this form was derived from the Parthian inscriptions with the -n affix in tact.

You think wrongly again. The -an adjectival ending is native in English; it is not coincidental that it also occurs in Iranian languages (it goes back to PIE and is likewise found in Gaelic etc.) but English-speakers were not thinking about Persian languages when they turned the noun Arya into the adjective Aryan anymore than when they turned the noun America into the adjective American.

I'm not really sure how the decipherers arrived at the vowels, but De Sacy didn't use Sanskrit to decipher the inscriptions. He used Zend.

Zend was practically unknown to any Europeans at the time. The first systematic study of it (using Sanskrit to puzzle it out) was by Rask in 1826, as I mentioned last time around (and he wrote in Norwegian, so it wasn't until Hagen translated it into German that it became widely known).

Got ya. But neither original author or the translator is using the word "Aryan" in reference to the "master race" here.

No, of course not.

And Bopp even uses Arianisch back then. And the fact that he changes from Arischen to Arianisch makes it even more suspect.

No, Bopp never used arianisch: that was my mistake. When you emphasized that the form Bopp used had an "n" in it, I told you my guess that if you actually looked at the German you would find "arianisch"; however, I did find the German, and it says Arisch the same as any other German writes, regardless of whether the German in question means "Indo-European" or "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian" or "superior white people" or whatever.

If that was the case why weren't scholars using the form Aryan in reference to the Indic speakers before De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian form? Why didn't William Jones use the form Aryan when he named the Indic languages?

He used geographic rather than ethnic names quite generally: he says "Tartarian" rather than "Mongolian", "Greek" rather than "Hellenic" etc. So?

I looked for when Europeans first learned Sanskrit, and the arya word, and it goes back a lot further than Jones. Sasseti, a Jesuit in Goa, wrote in 1585 that there was a special language "Sanscruta" in which scholarship was written; the church dispatched De Nobili in 1606 to study the language; another Jesuit named Roth published in Rome in 1666 a table of the Devanagari script and a list of important Sanskrit words (fuller dictionaries would take a little longer).

No, man. He uses Arisch and Arier which is derived from Indic

NO, NO, NO! Indic does not have -isch adjectival or -er plural; those are both perfectly normal German.

whereas Arianisch and Arian is derived from Iranian.

"Arianisch" never existed, and "Arian" derived from an English translation of Arisch.

"master race" has always been Arisch in German.

And so has the same word when used to mean "Indo-European" or "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian" or anything else other than "master race".

English speakers used Arian to translate Arisch in reference to the Iranians and Indians and Indo-Europeans. They only started using Arian to translate Arisch in reference to the "white race" during WII.

English ALWAYS used "Arian" or "Aryan" to translate Arisch regardless of what the Germans meant by it.

Please cite [Talgeri] from original source.

I already did so.

For all we know Arya just meant just "friend" or "helper" or "supporter," "one favorable to the cause," etc...

Bronze Age wars were strictly tribal, not about "causes"; the only "friends" or "helpers" or "supporters" anybody had in war were members of one's ancestrally-related nationality.

I saw he [De Sacy] used Old Persian and Zend.

I doubt Zend (then largely undecipherable to Europeans) would have been much help to him, but most certainly he did not use Old Persian (any source who told you so was lying), because nobody in the world (not in Iran or anywhere else) could read even a letter of it in his day. Grotefend published his first attempt at decipherment, 10 out of the 37 characters in the Old Persian syllabary, in 1802. This was a famous masterpiece of detective work: he got sha. first, because a character-series occurring often in the Behistun inscription with three instances of the same character had to mean "Great King, the King of Kings" and surely even back then the Persian word for "king" had to sound like shah; and he got some names because there were references to "Cambyses the Great King, King of Kings, son of Cyrus the Great King, King of Kings" and to "Cyrus the Great King, King of Kings, son of Cambyses the King" (you see, Cambyses I was king of Anshan, but not a "Great King") but the most frequent reference was to "Darius the Great King, King of Kings, son of Hystaspes" (AHA! Darius was the only Great King whose father was not a king at all). But Grotefend of course only knew what the names were from the Greek borrowings which left him to guess at the Old Persian pronunciations.

My point was that though the Vedas may have played a part in it the emphasis that the "Aryans" were the whiter people it was De Gobineau's racial philosophy that the British Raj picked up on

No, the British Raj didn't pay much attention to FRENCH pseudo-scientists; they had their own pseudo-scientists, who used the term "Caucasian" for the white race, which supposedly emanated from Georgia (ex-Soviet, not ex-Confederate) and so on and so on. Anyway, I was pointing out to you that the German, as well as French, usage of "Aryan" (or Arisch or Arien if the precise form of the adjective matters so much to you) to mean "white" people was from Indic, not Iranian, sources.

The Vedic people were NOT the Aryans by national affinity.

Yes, they were.

They did not come from Aryana.

Yes, they did.

From what I have seen even aripra doesn't mean "aryan born" but that the affix -pra has more to do with "purity"

"Aryan by ancestry" would have been a better rendering than "born" (pra cognate with Latin pre- as in predecessor, or English -fore in before).

And it's just all around sheisty that the authors would imply that the term Aryan originally designated the Indo-Europeans and not the "Iranians,"

The usage for Indo-Europeans in general was much more widespread than the scattered usages for "Iranians" only that you found in a handful of authors. When racialists starting emphasizing the notion that the speakers of the PIE language must have been "white" people, they were thinking of the usage of "Aryan" for Indo-Europeans in general, and of the racist verses in the Rig Veda, and not about anything from "Iran" at all.

"Historians can tell where Indo-European tribes settled by then languages. Some Slavic speakers moved north and west. Others, who spoke early Celtic, Germanic, and Italic languages moved west through Europe. Speakers of Greek and Persian went south. The Aryans, who spoke an early form of Sanskrit, located in India." - World History: Patterns of Interaction: Atlas by Rand McNally by Roger B. Beck, Linda Black and Larry S. Krieger (Hardcover - Feb 28, 2007) pg. 61

The same Aryans didn't speak an early form of Persian?

I agree that lumping the Persians in with the Greeks, instead of with the Aryans, is an error here.

 

[mojobadshah]

Of course they did.

Aryavarta is attested from earlier than the Gathas.

Please cite. To the best of my knowledge Airyanem Vaejah and Aryavarta have separately defined borders. Correction: Airyanam Vaejah is first attested to in the Hom Yasht which is contemporary to the Gathas if not older. I can't find Aryavarta in the Rig Veda anywhere. I see dhánā bharate "land of the Bharata" and bharate dhánā "Bharata land." The earliest reference to Aryavarta I can find is in the Dharmasutra and the earliest Dharmasutra compositions date to 500-300BC. Hundreds of years after the Yasnas were composed by the Avestan people. So what I was saying was either 1.) the Vedic people migrated from Airyanem Vaejah on part where the Pakistanis live today and established Aryavarta which I believe goes against convention or 2.) The Indic branch of the Indo-Iranians migrated from what became Airyanem Vaejah among the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranians, where they became known as the Purus and Bharatas and until Aryavarta was eventually established.

Zend was practically unknown to any Europeans at the time. The first systematic study of it (using Sanskrit to puzzle it out) was by Rask in 1826, as I mentioned last time around (and he wrote in Norwegian, so it wasn't until Hagen translated it into German that it became widely known).

This implies he was aware of Du Perrons translations of the Zend or Younger Avesta: The Numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Volume 3 By Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain), Royal Numismatic Society

No, Bopp never used arianisch: that was my mistake. When you emphasized that the form Bopp used had an "n" in it, I told you my guess that if you actually looked at the German you would find "arianisch"; however, I did find the German, and it says Arisch the same as any other German writes, regardless of whether the German in question means "Indo-European" or "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian" or "superior white people" or whatever.

Nevertheless the Germans were using Arianisch in association with the ancient place-name Ariana at least by 1884 (see Geschichte des Altertums: Bd. Geschichte des Orients bis zur begründung des ... By Eduard Meyer) and maybe earlier its being used in reference to the Indo-Europeans (Gothic Arians? IDK) probably because of the same association to the place-name Ariania (cf. Av. Airyanam) contemporary to the Parthian inscriptions that contain the form V-r-y-n (see Allgemeine encyclopädie der wissenschaften und künste in alphabetischer ... edited by Johann Samuel Ersch pg. 18 pub. 1828)

He used geographic rather than ethnic names quite generally: he says "Tartarian" rather than "Mongolian", "Greek" rather than "Hellenic" etc. So?

Sir William Jones, The works of Sir William Jones pg. 243

"...those Pandits and Maulavis would know to be false: the former would cite the beautiful Arya couplet..." My point is Jones is referring to the language of the Vedic people as Arya and NOT Arian. I can't find any usage of the form Aryan in reference to only the Vedic people until after its usage in reference to the Iranians, and by that time c. 1857 authors like Edward Henry Nolan are using the form Arian and Iranian interchangably with Indo-European which to me implies that he believed the Indo-European or Arian homeland was in "Iran," further implying that the usage Arian came into play due to an association with the "Iranians" and not the Indics.

I looked for when Europeans first learned Sanskrit, and the arya word, and it goes back a lot further than Jones. Sasseti, a Jesuit in Goa, wrote in 1585 that there was a special language "Sanscruta" in which scholarship was written; the church dispatched De Nobili in 1606 to study the language; another Jesuit named Roth published in Rome in 1666 a table of the Devanagari script and a list of important Sanskrit words (fuller dictionaries would take a little longer).

I'm not denying that it did. I'm denying that the Aryan word only came into use after M. De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian form V-r-y-n.

NO, NO, NO! Indic does not have -isch adjectival or -er plural; those are both perfectly normal German.

Don't be silly. You said it yourself the Ary- prefix was derived from Sanskrit.

"Arianisch" never existed, and "Arian" derived from an English translation of Arisch.

Actually "Arianisch" did exist. How early on is another question. Certainly not until after M. De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian. And if you're going to claim that the -n affix in Arian was an English development then you're going to have to provide me with some solid evidence.

And so has the same word when used to mean "Indo-European" or "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian" or anything else other than "master race".

English ALWAYS used "Arian" or "Aryan" to translate Arisch regardless of what the Germans meant by it.

Alright... Alright... I can see that. So by Mein Kampf the Nazi's were still under the impression that they were descendants of a common ancestor of the Indo-Germanic people who called themselves Arisch, and the English translation for Arisch was Aryan.

Bronze Age wars were strictly tribal, not about "causes"; the only "friends" or "helpers" or "supporters" anybody had in war were members of one's ancestrally-related nationality.

Where does it say that in the Vedas?

No, the British Raj didn't pay much attention to FRENCH pseudo-scientists; they had their own pseudo-scientists, who used the term "Caucasian" for the white race, which supposedly emanated from Georgia (ex-Soviet, not ex-Confederate) and so on and so on. Anyway, I was pointing out to you that the German, as well as French, usage of "Aryan" (or Arisch or Arien if the precise form of the adjective matters so much to you) to mean "white" people was from Indic, not Iranian, sources.

Is that not what wikipedia says?

"Aryan by ancestry" would have been a better rendering than "born" (pra cognate with Latin pre- as in predecessor, or English -fore in before).

Sure, sure... though it's more like "Arya by ancestry" and still don't think that it was a national designation in the Vedas. It was more of a spiritual reference. Like "Priest by Birth." Can't find an Aryavarta until post-Vedic times.

The usage for Indo-Europeans in general was much more widespread than the scattered usages for "Iranians" only that you found in a handful of authors. When racialists starting emphasizing the notion that the speakers of the PIE language must have been "white" people, they were thinking of the usage of "Aryan" for Indo-Europeans in general, and of the racist verses in the Rig Veda, and not about anything from "Iran" at all.

Still sheisty. They should have mentioned that they are the Indo-Europeans that settled where the "Iranians" live on part today.

I agree that lumping the Persians in with the Greeks, instead of with the Aryans, is an error here.

Yes. Very a#s-w#pe error. And it's most likely not even an error. MOST LIKELY has more to do with politics than it does with mistakes. I mean we can't have people knowing that the Persians were Aryans, cause people might second think the relevancy of the Persian Empire, might come to realize that it was the largest Empire ever, nor would we want people to know that Zoroaster was an Aryan, because then people might end up second thinking the relevancy of the Zoroastrian religion and its influence on the Abrahamic faiths, and we can't have that now can we because that would work against the politics of the Abrahamic religions, especially Judeo-Christianity, and people may "may" realize that whereas Zoroastrianism is an Aryan religion Christianity is based on Judaic centrisms and is not based on an Aryan tradition, on the outset anyhow.

 

[bob x]

This implies he was aware of Du Perrons translations of the Zend or Younger Avesta: The Numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Volume 3 By Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain), Royal Numismatic Society

No it doesn't. It would be impossible, without a time machine, for de Sacy working in 1759 to know about du Perrons' publication of 1771 (his subsequent work on coins, read in 1789 and published 1793, might have drawn on du Perrons, but not the initial decipherment):
"No one, however, could read these texts of the Avesta. To a young Frenchman, Anquetil du Perron, belongs the honor of first deciphering them. The history of his labors is interesting and instructive. Happening, in 1754, to see some tracings made from the Oxford MS., and sent to Paris as a specimen, du Perron at once conceived the spirited idea of going to Persia, or India, and obtaining from the priests themselves the knowledge of their sacred books. Though fired with zeal and enthusiasm, he had no means to carry out his plan. He seized the idea of enlisting as a soldier in the troops that were to start for India, and in November, 1754, behind the martial drum and fife this youthful scholar marched out of Paris. The French government, however, recognizing at once his noble purpose, gave him his discharge from the army and presented him his passage to India. After countless difficulties he reached Surat, and there after innumerable discouragements, and in spite of almost insurmountable obstacles, he succeded in winning the confidence and favor of the priests, with whom he was able to communicate after he had learned the modern Persian. He gradually induced the priests to impart to him the language of their sacred works, to let him take some of the manuscripts, and even to initiate him into some of the rites and ceremonies of their religion. He stayed among the people for seven years, and then in 1761, he started for his home in Europe. He stopped at Oxford before going directly to Paris, and compared his MSS. with the one in the Bodleian Library, in order to be assured that he had not been imposed upon. The ten years were devoted to work upon his MSS. and upon a translation, and in 1771, seventeen years from the time he had first marched out of Paris, he gave forth to the world the results of his untiring labors. This was the first translation of the Avesta, or, as he called it, Zend-Avesta (Ouvrage de Zoroaster, 3 vols., Paris 1771), a picture of the religion and manners contained in the sacred book of the Zoroastrians."

What we find in your source is that de Sacy recognized the alphabet in which these statues were inscribed as "akin" to the Pahlavi script (adaptation of the Hebrew/Aramaic, without vowels; used in Parthian period and thereafter) and the Zend script (supplemented with vowel-marks; the script was known, but not a single word of its meaning). Therefore, he could figure out which letters were which, although puzzled by significant variations (which the Numismatic Journal uncharitably ascribed to "great carelessness or want of skill" by the engravers; more likely, there were simply several variant handwriting-styles in use). He does not comment on the affinities of the language, which is mixed actually: after the personal name of the king comes MLKV MLKYN which is pure Aramaic, malka malkayin "the king of kings", and then the phrase with VRYN in it ("of Aryans and non-Aryans"); and that is in most cases the entirety of the text, so there wouldn't be much to learn about the linguistic affinities anyway from such short samples.

The inscriptions are, in fact, early Sassanian: de Sacy called the language of the VRYN word "Parthian" but that was a little off; I have kept correcting you every time you insist they were "Sassanian" inscriptions, but you were right and I was wrong (along with de Sacy). I had not, actually, heard of de Sacy before: and your source above explains that hardly anybody in the 19th century had ever heard of him either! "One reason, probably, why M. de Sacy's discoveries have been so feebly prosecuted by his successors, was the incomplete mode in which the alphabetic details were illustrated. In the absence of type to give the legends, they are given in his text by Hebrew letters, and the eye therefore is deprived of the advantage of becoming familiar with them in the progress of perusal. In the engravings of the legends and of the alphabets, they are also compared with the Hebrew characters alone-- not with the Roman or the modern Persian; and consequently it was necessary to be conversant with the Hebrew letters to become acquainted with those of the coins." (p. 52)

De Sacy's assignment of the initial vowel "a" is surely mistaken, if this is Sassanian period. Once Sassanians started using a fuller script, we see that the word was already eran.

Nevertheless the Germans were using Arianisch in association with the ancient place-name Ariana at least by 1884 (see Geschichte des Altertums: Bd. Geschichte des Orients bis zur begründung des ... By Eduard Meyer)

NO! Nobody ever used "arianisch" until bobx made a mistake earlier in this thread! From Meyer p. 649: Bildungen mit dem Mitanniwort ar, ari 'geben' (mit dem arischen aria nicht zu verwechseln!) "Pictures with the Mitannian word ar/ari 'to give' (not to be confused with the Aryan (ARISCH!) word aria!)"

(see Allgemeine encyclopädie der wissenschaften und künste in alphabetischer ... edited by Johann Samuel Ersch pg. 18 pub. 1828)

There is no arianisch there either, not on p. 18 or any other page.

My point is Jones is referring to the language of the Vedic people as Arya and NOT Arian.

I think Jones does use "Aryan" as an adjective somewhere, but I can't find it so I may be mistaken.

c. 1857 authors like Edward Henry Nolan are using the form Arian and Iranian interchangably with Indo-European which to me implies that he believed the Indo-European or Arian homeland was in "Iran,"

Jones, for what it is worth, thought Iran was the homeland, not just of the Indo-European speakers, but of the whole human race.

Actually "Arianisch" did exist.

No, actually it didn't. Arisch is the only form in German, and Aryan has always been its English translation.

Certainly not until after M. De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian. And if you're going to claim that the -n affix in Arian was an English development then you're going to have to provide me with some solid evidence.

Jesus freaking Christ. The adjective for America is American. The adjective for Canada is Canadian. The adjective for Iran is Iranian. The adjective for India is Indian. The adjective for Tibet is Tibetan. The adjective for Italy is Italian. The adjective for Sicily is Sicilian. The adjective for Rome is Roman. The adjective for Rumania is Rumanian. The adjective for Bulgaria is Bulgarian. The adjective for Ukraine is Ukrainian. The adjective for Russia is Russian. The adjective for Austria is Austrian. The adjective for Australia is Australian.
Your theory that English-speakers would need to read an obscure French author that hardly anyone had heard of in order to come up with the idea of using -(i)an as an adjectival ending is utterly absurd.

Alright... Alright... I can see that. So by Mein Kampf the Nazi's were still under the impression that they were descendants of a common ancestor of the Indo-Germanic people who called themselves Arisch, and the English translation for Arisch was Aryan.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. ALL German authors, whether they used the word to mean "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian" or "Indo-European" or "superior white people", used the same word, and ALL English translations translate it the same way.

Where does it say that in the Vedas?

Where does it say "Hey, we're a Bronze Age tribalistic society, and we don't trust anyone we're not related to"? Is that what you're asking??? No, of course it doesn't say that: it takes that kind of society for granted, just like the Old Testament does; it would never have occurred to Bronze Age authors that society could possibly function any other way.

Is that not what wikipedia says?

You were quoting the Wiki article for the proposition that British governments officially adopted and propagated the racial theories of a 19th-century Frenchman, as their justification for being in India, which you said they weren't until the mid-19th-century; nothing in Wiki indicates any such thing.

Sure, sure... though it's more like "Arya by ancestry" and still don't think that it was a national designation in the Vedas.

"Ancestry" and "nationality" were not two different things at that time.

Can't find an Aryavarta until post-Vedic times.

Apparently it is in the Atharva-Veda (I can't find the line), but that one is much later than the other three Vedas in date, scarce earlier than the Manu-smrti "Laws of (primordial) Man" where it certainly occurs. So, my bad: there is no text in India using Aryavarta that is older than the Gathic use of Airyanam Vaeja.

Yes. Very a#s-w#pe error.

It is, I will agree, very bad for a reference book not to know such a basic fact of linguistic/ethnic classification as that the Persians and other Iranians are closest to the Indics. It is a sign of general ignorance about Iran, which you have rightly complained about.

And it's most likely not even an error. MOST LIKELY has more to do with politics than it does with mistakes.

Now you're just slipping into paranoia.

I mean we can't have people knowing that the Persians were Aryans, cause people might second think the relevancy of the Persian Empire

No, actually if you remind people that Iranians were "Aryan" in origin, what it would make most people think is that they must be fascists. The Nazis have poisoned the word; you can lament that all you like, but it is just the fact. Your insistence that only "Iranians" have the right to use the antique pronunciation with "a" at the beginning is very silly, because all of your people abandoned that pronunciation thousands of years ago, and trying to revive it now will just cause confusion with all the other usages of the word over the years since.

 

[mojobadshah]

No it doesn't. It would be impossible, without a time machine, for de Sacy working in 1759 to know about du Perrons' publication of 1771 (his subsequent work on coins, read in 1789 and published 1793, might have drawn on du Perrons, but not the initial decipherment)

Where'd you get that De Sacy deciphered the Sassanian in 1759? I saw that he used Joseph Pellerin's work to decipher the "inscriptions on rock reliefs" in 1793 on CAIS and see also The Asiatic journal and monthly miscellany, Volume 27) which states that "M. de Sacy availed himself of the Pehlvi vocabularies which had been collected in India by Anquetil du Perron, where that spirited as well as learned scholar passed several years among the remnant of the ancient disciples of Zoroaster." This source also goes on to say that "These memoirs of M. de Sacy were published in 1793... were by common consent ranked among the noblest monuments of French erudition."

De Sacy's assignment of the initial vowel "a" is surely mistaken, if this is Sassanian period. Once Sassanians started using a fuller script, we see that the word was already eran.

Where does the source say De Sacy assigned the initial vowel "a."? CAIS distinguishes between the Parthian form written during Sassanian times VYRN and Sassanian forms written during Sassanian times Eran.

NO! Nobody ever used "arianisch" until bobx made a mistake earlier in this thread! From Meyer p. 649: Bildungen mit dem Mitanniwort ar, ari 'geben' (mit dem arischen aria nicht zu verwechseln!) "Pictures with the Mitannian word ar/ari 'to give' (not to be confused with the Aryan (ARISCH!) word aria!)"

Warum man anstatt der jetzt allein üblichen Form Iran durchaus die vor einem Jahrtausend gebräuchliche Irän anwenden soll, weiss ich nicht. Wenn man eine archaische und fremd klingende Form gebrauchen will, sollte man wenigstens Ariana, arianisch sagen. - Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums: Bd. Geschichte des Orients bis zur begründung des ... pg. 510 pub. 1884

There is no arianisch there either, not on p. 18 or any other page.

Remigius getauft, welcher zu ihm sprach: „Neige deinen Nacken, milder Sigamber, bete an, waö du angezündet hast, und zünde an, was du angebetet hast;" und mit Chlodowig mehr als dreitausend Iran« ken, und seine Schwester Albofeld ^). ....Viele Gallier sehnten sich fehr nach der Herrschaft der Franken, da diese katholisch, wie sie, und die Gothen arianisch waren: so mußte der Bischof Quintian von Nhodez aus dieser Stadt fliehen, weil die Gothen ihm Schuld gaben, daß er die Herrschaft der Franken über dieses Land wünsche. Diese Umstände er» wägend, sprach Chl. zu den Seinigen: „Mir ist es bitter, daß diese Arianer einen Theil Galliens haben. - Johann Samuel Ersch, Allgemeine encyclopädie der wissenschaften und künste in alphabetischer ... pg. 18 pub. 1828

I think Jones does use "Aryan" as an adjective somewhere, but I can't find it so I may be mistaken.

Well if you could find that that would be helpful.

Your theory that English-speakers would need to read an obscure French author that hardly anyone had heard of in order to come up with the idea of using -(i)an as an adjectival ending is utterly absurd.

Just show me that Jones or anyone else used the form Aryan before M. De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian language written during Sassanian times.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. ALL German authors, whether they used the word to mean "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian" or "Indo-European" or "superior white people", used the same word, and ALL English translations translate it the same way.

Yeah... yeah... I see how the English translated the German form Arisch Aryan, but I would like to point out that not everyone was using the form Aryan for Indo-European like this guy:

For, in their estimatioin, the most perfect languages--as languages--are the Indo-Eureopans (the Arya), and the most imperfect, therefore most needy of development, are those languages that are not Arya, and that our Philologers do not know. - Árkád Mogyoróssy, A new philological theory [on the connection of the Aryan and Shemitic ...  pg. 4 pub. 1885

Though I realize he's not German. But I'm also a little confused because if the terms Indo-Germanic and Indo-European came to be used interchangeably with the term Aryan, how did they distinguish between the common ancestors of the Indo-Germanic people and the Indo-Germanic people?

Where does it say "Hey, we're a Bronze Age tribalistic society, and we don't trust anyone we're not related to"? Is that what you're asking??? No, of course it doesn't say that: it takes that kind of society for granted, just like the Old Testament does; it would never have occurred to Bronze Age authors that society could possibly function any other way.

No, the Vedas don't imply this and I don't see why this form could not have been applied to to a priestly community because that's what words of the same root like Airyaman imply in Avestan.

You were quoting the Wiki article for the proposition that British governments officially adopted and propagated the racial theories of a 19th-century Frenchman, as their justification for being in India, which you said they weren't until the mid-19th-century; nothing in Wiki indicates any such thing.

What am I missing? "Meanwhile, in India, the British colonial government had followed de Gobineau's arguments along another line, and had fostered the idea of a superior "Aryan race" that co-opted the Indian caste system in favor of imperial interests." - Wikipedia

"Ancestry" and "nationality" were not two different things at that time.

But that's not what its saying Arya- = "praise" and -pra = "birth" put em together and what do you get "praisers by birth" NOT "Aryan nationals by birth."

Apparently it is in the Atharva-Veda (I can't find the line), but that one is much later than the other three Vedas in date, scarce earlier than the Manu-smrti "Laws of (primordial) Man" where it certainly occurs. So, my bad: there is no text in India using Aryavarta that is older than the Gathic use of Airyanam Vaeja.

I can't find Arya-Varta in Atharva-Veda either. Please cite.

It is, I will agree, very bad for a reference book not to know such a basic fact of linguistic/ethnic classification as that the Persians and other Iranians are closest to the Indics. It is a sign of general ignorance about Iran, which you have rightly complained about.

Thank you. Now all we have to do is notify all the schools in the U.S. that use this textbook and other textbooks like it to stop BSing the "Iranian" people! I just hope that the politicians are smarter about the "Iranians" than the people who wrote those textbooks.

Now you're just slipping into paranoia.

Paranoia... is complete awareness.

No, actually if you remind people that Iranians were "Aryan" in origin, what it would make most people think is that they must be fascists. The Nazis have poisoned the word; you can lament that all you like, but it is just the fact. Your insistence that only "Iranians" have the right to use the antique pronunciation with "a" at the beginning is very silly, because all of your people abandoned that pronunciation thousands of years ago, and trying to revive it now will just cause confusion with all the other usages of the word over the years since.

That's only going to happen as long as the textbooks continue to disassociate the "Iranians" with the Aryans of the Avesta and later periods, and as long as they fail to reduce the confusion between the Nazi conception of the "master race" and the Irano-Aryans.

 

[bob x]

Where'd you get that De Sacy deciphered the Sassanian in 1759?

From you. It turns out to be impossible (unless he was very very precocious): he was BORN in 1758!

I saw that he used Joseph Pellerin's work to decipher the "inscriptions on rock reliefs" in 1793 on CAIS

Then CAIS is very badly confused about the sequence of events. Your source from the Numismatics journal says that he deciphered the rock inscriptions (at the bases of statues, although the statues themselves in many cases were broken or lost) years before he then applied his decipherment of the script also to inscriptions on coinage from the same kings' reigns; it was this paper on coins which he prepared sometime in the 1780's, read at a conference in 1789, but was not able to print until 1793 (Google "French Revolution" if it is not immediately obvious to you why it was difficult to get things accomplished during those years). And hardly anybody read his publication of 1793 because he printed all the translations in Hebrew letters only; so actually he didn't print "ARYAN", he printed aleph-resh-yod-nun, and I don't know if he even filled in the vowels at all (medieval Hebrew scribes developed the "pointing" system of dots and strokes to indicate the vowels, but I don't know if de Sacy used any pointing).

and see also The Asiatic journal and monthly miscellany, Volume 27) which states that "M. de Sacy availed himself of the Pehlvi vocabularies which had been collected in India by Anquetil du Perron, where that spirited as well as learned scholar passed several years among the remnant of the ancient disciples of Zoroaster." This source also goes on to say that "These memoirs of M. de Sacy were published in 1793... were by common consent ranked among the noblest monuments of French erudition."

What you are omitting with your "..." is that the memoirs of de Sacy received "scant attention" at first; but later, after the pursuit of scholarship had begun to resume its former level, de Sacy's works in general were ranked highly among the French. Until the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815, and even through the revolutionary upheavals of 1820-21, French academic institutions were in turmoil; and there was very little international communication, let alone co-operation, in the world of scholarship. This article from 1838, a translation from a French article written in 1833 (just after de Sacy's death), appears to be the first notice taken by the English-speaking world that he had even existed.

Some quotes from your source: "on the monument of Kirmanshah, as on that of Nakshi-Rostem, the Pehlvi inscription is accompanied by another which may evidently be referred to a language and character used by the Sassanian princes conjointly with the Pehlvi... In vain did M. de Sacy attempt to decipher it, and it still awaits an interpreter. At length, his attention was turned to a pretty numerous collection of medals existing in our cabinets. From the general nature of the medals, it was presumed that these belonged to the Sassanian dynasty; but this opinion was required to be confirmed by their legends. At first sight, M. de Sacy had the satisfaction of recognizing the Pehlvi characters and language; he read the names of the princes who ordered each piece to be struck."

So what we see here is that the Pahlavi script (as we now call it; "Pehlvi" in this source, "Parthian" as de Sacy called it) continued to co-exist with the later Sassanian script, not deciphered at all as of 1838 (it includes a variety of consonant and vowel symbols which are only slight variations of each other and hard to distinguish).

"By good fortune, a part of the inscription in unknown characters was in the Pehlvi language, in which there is a mixture of words peculiar to Persia with many Semitic terms, Chaldaic, Syriac, &c. M. de Sacy had little difficulty in recognizing this class of word." "Chaldaic" and "Syriac" are terms for Aramaic dialects: this is talking about the habit of writing, for example, MLK' MLKYN "king of kings" in Aramaic instead of in any variety of Persian. "The rest belonged to the Zend, a dialect on which, more recently, the labours of our associate M. Eugene Burnouf have thrown much light." Here "Zend" is being used rather generically for any antique Persian (the Sassanian words are not, of course, identical to Avestan forms, but closer to them than modern Persian would be). There follows the sentence you quoted about de Sacy seeing the Pahlavi word-list sent from India by du Perron: that was earlier than Perron's trip into Persia itself, to learn about the Avesta and translate its text. So: indeed I was mistaken in thinking that de Sacy was relying on Sanskrit scholarship to puzzle it out (there is no mention in the article of him ever learning Sanskrit); Avestan itself was just beginning to be studied, but he did have some "Pahlavi" to work with.

Where does the source say De Sacy assigned the initial vowel "a."?

IT DOESN'T. You, and only you, have been insisting that de Sacy was the first to write "verbatim" the spelling a-r-y-a-n and that anybody else who spells it that way must have gotten it from de Sacy. It is the core of your argument, and it seems to be based on nothing at all.

CAIS distinguishes between the Parthian form written during Sassanian times VYRN and Sassanian forms written during Sassanian times Eran.

Two different scripts (one explicitly marking vowels, while the older script without vowels continued in use), but the pronunciation of course would have been the same.

Warum man anstatt der jetzt allein üblichen Form Iran durchaus die vor einem Jahrtausend gebräuchliche Irän anwenden soll, weiss ich nicht. Wenn man eine archaische und fremd klingende Form gebrauchen will, sollte man wenigstens Ariana, arianisch sagen. - Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums: Bd. Geschichte des Orients bis zur begründung des ... pg. 510 pub. 1884

LOL! Indeed I must believe you when you say you can't read German-- because this passage is ridiculing people like you! It says:
"Why in the world anybody would want to substitute throughout, instead of the now universally used form 'Iran', some 'Iraen' as supposedly used back over a thousand years ago, I don't know. If somebody insists on using an obsolete and weird-sounding form, at the very least you should say 'Ariana' and 'Arianish'." That is, he is saying that nobody uses arianisch, but at least it would be better than some of the substitutions for the universally-understood "Iranian" that he has seen.

Remigius getauft, welcher zu ihm sprach: „Neige deinen Nacken, milder Sigamber, bete an, waö du angezündet hast, und zünde an, was du angebetet hast;" und mit Chlodowig mehr als dreitausend Iran« ken, und seine Schwester Albofeld ^). ....Viele Gallier sehnten sich fehr nach der Herrschaft der Franken, da diese katholisch, wie sie, und die Gothen arianisch waren: so mußte der Bischof Quintian von Nhodez aus dieser Stadt fliehen, weil die Gothen ihm Schuld gaben, daß er die Herrschaft der Franken über dieses Land wünsche. Diese Umstände er» wägend, sprach Chl. zu den Seinigen: „Mir ist es bitter, daß diese Arianer einen Theil Galliens haben. - Johann Samuel Ersch, Allgemeine encyclopädie der wissenschaften und künste in alphabetischer ... pg. 18 pub. 1828

This has absolutely nothing to do with "arya" names at all! It concerns the "Arian heresy" founded by 4th century theologian Arius, who taught that the "Son of God" is not the same as "God" nor eternal, but rather was the first creation of God. Arius was condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and then poisoned (apparently; chroniclers lovingly detail the sufferings of his long illness). The Goths were converted to a cruder version of his theology, in which Jesus did not start to exist at the beginning of time, but rather when Mary conceived: that is, he was the "son" of God in the same sense that Hercules was the son of Jupiter, something barbarians readily understood. The Ostrogoths were ruling Italy and the Visigoths ruling Spain, so the Roman Catholic Church (holding fast to the Trinity doctrine, that Jesus was fully divine, as Nicaea had approved) was in danger of extinction. Then came the great coup of convincing king Chlodwig (Latinized as Clovis) of the Sicambrian sub-tribe of Franks (pre-eminent among the Salic league, which conquered the Ripuarian league to unite the Franks) to accept baptism into the Catholic Church, instead of into the Arian Church. The text is:

"...baptized by Remigius, who said to him, 'Bow your neck, gentle Sicamber, and pray to what you have reviled, and revile what you have prayed to.' And with Clovis were converted three thousand Franks, and his sister [who also owned a lot of land] Aldofeld. Then many of the Gauls much desired the lordship of the Franks, because they were Catholic, like themselves, where the Goths were Arian: so, Bishop Quintian of Rhodez had to flee that city, because the king of the Goths accused him, of seeking the lordship of the Franks over the land. Considering these circumstances, Clovis said to those loyal to him, 'It is bitter to me, that these Arians have any part of Gaul.' [he would go on to conquer all of 'France' as it then came to be called]"

Well if you could find that [Jones using "Aryan" with an "n"] that would be helpful.

At this point I think it was just a mistake on my part. I too sometimes "remember" things from sources I haven't looked at in a long time, when in fact it just isn't there.

I would like to point out that not everyone was using the form Aryan for Indo-European like this guy:

For, in their estimation, the most perfect languages--as languages--are the Indo-Europeans (the Arya), and the most imperfect, therefore most needy of development, are those languages that are not Arya, and that our Philologers do not know. - Árkád Mogyoróssy, A new philological theory [on the connection of the Aryan and Shemitic ...  pg. 4 pub. 1885

Though I realize he's not German.

Hungarian; I am not going to look up the original because Hungarian is not one of my languages. Why the English translator didn't stick an "n" on the end of the adjective, I don't know and I don't care. I find your fixation on the presence or absence of adjectival endings totally bizarre.

I'm also a little confused because if the terms Indo-Germanic and Indo-European came to be used interchangeably with the term Aryan, how did they distinguish between the common ancestors of the Indo-Germanic people and the Indo-Germanic people?

Between the "Indo-Germanic" and the "Indo-Iranian" peoples, you mean? Those who used arisch to mean Indo-Germanic/Indo-European would say indisch-iranisch for "Indo-Iranian"; those who used arisch to mean Indo-Iranian would say indisch-germanisch for "Indo-European" (note again: my usage of "Indo-Germanic" for something a little narrower than all of "Indo-European" is just my own terminology and not standard).

No, the Vedas don't imply this and I don't see why this form could not have been applied to to a priestly community

Because it is always talking about soldiers.

because that's what words of the same root like Airyaman imply in Avestan.

No. Atharvan is what Avestan says for "priestly".

What am I missing? "Meanwhile, in India, the British colonial government had followed de Gobineau's arguments along another line, and had fostered the idea of a superior "Aryan race" that co-opted the Indian caste system in favor of imperial interests." - Wikipedia

I don't see that sentence, or anything remotely like it, in Wikipedia. It has no basis in historical fact, in any case. Perhaps you caught some version of Wiki when a rogue editor put in a sentence that has been removed for dishonesty.

Arya- = "praise"

??? No it doesn't.

Now all we have to do is notify all the schools in the U.S. that use this textbook and other textbooks like it to stop BSing the "Iranian" people! I just hope that the politicians are smarter about the "Iranians" than the people who wrote those textbooks.

Our politicians are seriously stupid.

Paranoia... is complete awareness.

No: it's egotism. You are imagining Americans think hostile thoughts about Iranians all the time, not considering the possibility that most people in America hardly ever think about Iranians, because you're just not that important, and haven't been for thousands of years. I'm sure you could find inaccurate statement about Armenians or Tibetans or any other remote people in the books, because the general level of ignorance and indifference in this country is rather high. I am not going to disagree with you about the sorry state of education, just about your belief that everything circles around you and your kind.

That's only going to happen as long as the textbooks continue to disassociate the "Iranians" with the Aryans of the Avesta and later periods, and as long as they fail to reduce the confusion between the Nazi conception of the "master race" and the Irano-Aryans.

The way to reduce that confusion is to STOP trying to replace the pronunciation "Iranian", which people have been using for thousands of years and understand without any ambiguity, with an "obsolete and weird-sounding form" that is just going to invite confusion with all the mis-usages over the years.

 

[mojobadshah]

From you.

?

Where did I say that?

What you are omitting with your "..." is that the memoirs of de Sacy received "scant attention" at first; but later, after the pursuit of scholarship had begun to resume its former level, de Sacy's works in general were ranked highly among the French.

All I was trying to show is that his work wasn't unheard of as you tried to show. AND I cited my source...

IT DOESN'T. You, and only you, have been insisting that de Sacy was the first to write "verbatim" the spelling a-r-y-a-n and that anybody else who spells it that way must have gotten it from de Sacy. It is the core of your argument, and it seems to be based on nothing at all.

That was what I was saying initially, but then you pointed out that De Sacy may have only gotten as far as V-R-Y-N, so I see that it may not have been Aryan verbatim, but I also asserted that the usage of the form Arian came into use because of its association with the Parthian form V-R-Y-N. But the fact remains that the Iranians were the only people to have used the form Aryan verbatim, but since this fact wasn't discovered until after WII when linguists had deciphered the Kabaa-i-Zartusht inscriptions that fact doesn't really help my argument now. And there was also the 10th century historian Hamza Isfahani who claims the form Aryan was once applied to Persia, but I doubt westerners knew about around De Sacy's time.

LOL! Indeed I must believe you when you say you can't read German-- because this passage is ridiculing people like you! It says:
"Why in the world anybody would want to substitute throughout, instead of the now universally used form 'Iran', some 'Iraen' as supposedly used back over a thousand years ago, I don't know. If somebody insists on using an obsolete and weird-sounding form, at the very least you should say 'Ariana' and 'Arianish'." That is, he is saying that nobody uses arianisch, but at least it would be better than some of the substitutions for the universally-understood "Iranian" that he has seen.

If nobody was using Arianisch then why was he pointing out that it's foolish for anyone to use Arianisch? And how is Arianish any different, really?

The text is:

"...baptized by Remigius, who said to him, 'Bow your neck, gentle Sicamber, and pray to what you have reviled, and revile what you have prayed to.' And with Clovis were converted three thousand Franks, and his sister [who also owned a lot of land] Aldofeld. Then many of the Gauls much desired the lordship of the Franks, because they were Catholic, like themselves, where the Goths were Arian: so, Bishop Quintian of Rhodez had to flee that city, because the king of the Goths accused him, of seeking the lordship of the Franks over the land. Considering these circumstances, Clovis said to those loyal to him, 'It is bitter to me, that these Arians have any part of Gaul.' [he would go on to conquer all of 'France' as it then came to be called]"

I see what you're saying, but weren't the Salin Franks Sicambre Scythians and weren't the Alans who ruled between the Ostragoths and the Visagoths Aryans too? Is that just coincidence?

At this point I think it was just a mistake on my part. I too sometimes "remember" things from sources I haven't looked at in a long time, when in fact it just isn't there.

Aha! So as far as either of us know there is no recollection of the usage of the form Arian until after M. De Sacy's decipherment of the Parthian inscriptions?

Hungarian; I am not going to look up the original because Hungarian is not one of my languages. Why the English translator didn't stick an "n" on the end of the adjective, I don't know and I don't care. I find your fixation on the presence or absence of adjectival endings totally bizarre.

I find people's fixation with Greek history and the Jewish tradition bizarre.

Between the "Indo-Germanic" and the "Indo-Iranian" peoples, you mean?

No, what I mean if the Aryans were supposed to have been the common ancestors of all the Indo-Europeans, but the word Aryan was also being used to mean Indo-European, then how did linguists distinguish between the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Europeans?

Because it is always talking about soldiers.

No. Atharvan is what Avestan says for "priestly".[/QUOTE]

So what? The soldiers were warrior priests. Whereas Gathic Avestan accounts for an Aryan homeland, Sanskrit doesn't account for an Aryavarta until after the Vedic period when these Arya are first mentioned. In the few instances where the term does appear (Yasna 32.1, 33.4, 49.7), airyaman is a common noun denoting the social division of priests. -Airyaman

And Atharvan and Aryan come from the same root.

I don't see that sentence, or anything remotely like it, in Wikipedia. It has no basis in historical fact, in any case. Perhaps you caught some version of Wiki when a rogue editor put in a sentence that has been removed for dishonesty.

"Meanwhile, in India, the British colonial government had followed de Gobineau's arguments along another line, and had fostered the idea of a superior "Aryan race" that co-opted the Indian caste system in favor of imperial interests." - Aryan

??? No it doesn't.

I know I saw that somewhere. Can't find it now. I think it was in Mayhofer's dictionary.

Our politicians are seriously stupid.

I guess were all screwed then.

No: it's egotism. You are imagining Americans think hostile thoughts about Iranians all the time, not considering the possibility that most people in America hardly ever think about Iranians, because you're just not that important, and haven't been for thousands of years. I'm sure you could find inaccurate statement about Armenians or Tibetans or any other remote people in the books, because the general level of ignorance and indifference in this country is rather high. I am not going to disagree with you about the sorry state of education, just about your belief that everything circles around you and your kind.

I don't think ALL Americans think hostile thoughts. But the propagandists sure like to tell the Greek side (not to mention Italic, Celtic, Germanic, everything not "Iranian") of ancient Indo-European history and not the Aryan ("Iranian") side of Indo-European history, but they sure do like ideas that originated with the Aryans like God and all that good stuff that makes their profitable religious institutions. Second off we're already at war with Afghanistan, and it's hard not to wonder whether we've been at war with Afghanistan so long that it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or the Taliban anymore, but rather suppressing the real Aryans in the U.S. I mean have you ever come face to face with an Al Qaeda or Taliban member? How do we know that there ever really was an Al Qaeda or a Taliban? For all I know it was just independent groups of really pissed off people. And if it's not bad enough that the U.S. has been at war with one "Iranian" nation for 10 years now the politicians are consistently advocating a war against the Iranians.

The way to reduce that confusion is to STOP trying to replace the pronunciation "Iranian", which people have been using for thousands of years and understand without any ambiguity, with an "obsolete and weird-sounding form" that is just going to invite confusion with all the mis-usages over the years.

I'm not trying to replace Aryan for Iran. I'm trying to 1.) lessen the confusion when referring to the Pashto, Iranians, Kurds, etc.. collectively. No, I already explained to you why Iranian is too confusing to people other than yourself. Aryan is confusing too, but at least 1.) people already associate the word Aryan with antiquity which is good because the "Iranian" history is ancient. 2.) the "Iranians" are the Aryans, but as long as the textbooks omit critical facts like this and critical facts like the Nazis weren't descendants of the Aryans in the same paragraph, then of course it's going to continue to be taboo to speak of one's Aryan heritage openly in public, there are going to be a lot of misunderstandings, or worse, and even deniers.

 

[bob x]

Where did I say that?

In post #16, you said "I'm pretty sure that the term came into use among westerners when M. De Sacy deciphered these inscriptions in 1739." LOL! I mis-remembered it as "1759". Apparently you meant to type "1789" which would be when he read his paper to the academy (but that was after he had also looked at the coins, some years after he first deciphered the statues).

All I was trying to show is that his work wasn't unheard of as you tried to show.

Yes, but you were claiming he was well-known among English-speakers and that this is where English-speakers got the notion of adding an "n" onto the "Arya" word. What your sources indicate is that he was well known in France, but that England only started to learn anything about his work much later.

AND I cited my source...

Thank you. There was much else of interest in the article.

That was what I was saying initially, but then you pointed out that De Sacy may have only gotten as far as V-R-Y-N, so I see that it may not have been Aryan verbatim

In fact it is exceedingly unlikely that the initial vowel was "a" among Iranian speakers anytime after their separation from the Indics. It had already shifted to "ai" in the Avestan and probably in the Achaemenid Old Persian; shifted to "ha" or "he" in the Herat name very early; and settled on "e" by Sassanian times before becoming "i" in medieval Persian. The Greeks tended to simplify complex vowels when borrowing from Iranian, so their Ariana for the broad eastern region may have been from some *Airyana source, or, since they also included the Indus Valley in their usage of Ariana (Pomponius Mela, you pointed out, included *only* Pakistan), they may have known the Indic pronunciation, and recognized already that the Indic and the Iranian were not separate words.

but I also asserted that the usage of the form Arian came into use because of its association with the Parthian form V-R-Y-N.

Yes, you keep asserting that, and I keep telling you that you are not correct. Quite the reverse: the Pahlavi form was recognized because the "Aryan" word was already known from other sources.

But the fact remains that the Iranians were the only people to have used the form Aryan verbatim

No. They have never used exactly that form since way back when the Iranians and the Indics were not yet two separate people. The "Iranian" form is truer to what your people have been calling yourselves ever since you were a distinctive entity.

If nobody was using Arianisch then why was he pointing out that it's foolish for anyone to use Arianisch?

He was saying it was foolish for anyone to insist on using "obsolete and weird-sounding" forms derived from how "Iranian" was supposedly pronounced thousands of years ago-- but IF you wanted to use an obsolete and weird-sounding form, he would suggest arianisch as being at least more faithful to the really ancient pronunciation than the weird forms German authors were actually using.

weren't the Salin Franks Sicambre Scythians

???? Where in the world did you get such a notion? They were Germans, most closely related to the Saxons and Frisians.

and weren't the Alans who ruled between the Ostragoths and the Visagoths Aryans too?

Alans (who were indeed Iranian in origin, from the remnants of the Scyths; closest akin to the Iron "Ossetians") accompanied the Suevi ("Swabians", a German tribe) and Vandals (a little-known Centum branch of Indo-European, somewhat different from Italic and Celtic; they had lived in Poland) across the Rhine to Gaul in 409, were pushed over the Pyrenees and then defeated in Spain, Suevi pushed into the far northwest, the Vandals to the south ("Andalusia" from Vandalus); the Alans ceased to exist as a distinctive tribe. None of these were Christian of either "Catholic" or "Arian" variety, and have nothing to do with the religious controversy between Gauls and Goths which gave the Franks their opening.

Is that just coincidence?

That "Arian" as a name for the followers of the Greek theologian Arius looks rather like "Aryan"? Not entirely. Both have -n at the end because that it is an ordinary way to form adjectives. The name Arius is from a Greek root seen in arete "excellence" (in skill or behavior) which often, as in Indic usage of arya, has the meaning of "nobility" (belonging to the upper social classes; or, pertaining to the proper behaviors of someone who deserves such rank) as in English aristocracy (from a Greek word, "rule by the most excellent", the -st- being the same superlative ending as in English most, best etc.)

We see this root in other branches of Indo-European, sometimes just with the meaning "skill" without any reference to either ethnicity or social class, as in Latin ars "art" or German Arzt "doctor" (originally, anyone with some very specialized skills), or sometimes in the sense of "member of one's community or tribe", as in the self-name of the Armenian people (the second syllable is the same root as in English man), or of the Arsi who originally lived around Troy (Greeks didn't like the sound-sequence "rs" and called them Asioi; but Hittites called them ar.za.wa. pronounced something like "arzey") but migrated during the "Sea Peoples" period far to the east, where they wrote the "Tocharian" literature (in which their self-name remains Arsi).

All these are like the arya forms in Indo-Iranian. It is only the Eire "Ireland" name which was incorrectly assigned to this same root: it was originally Ibere (source of Latin Hibernia) with "b" softening to "w" and then a complex vowel; that name, like Iberia "Spain+Portugal" and the roots of such place-names as Ypres in Belgium, the Ibar valley in Serbia, and the Dnieper "Ieper river" in Ukraine, are from pre-Indo-Europeans, descended from the Cro-Magnons of 30,000 years ago and of an exceedingly alien language family (Basque is the last survivor).

No, what I mean if the Aryans were supposed to have been the common ancestors of all the Indo-Europeans, but the word Aryan was also being used to mean Indo-European, then how did linguists distinguish between the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Europeans?

I'm afraid I still don't get your question. Among linguists, if you are talking about the single ancestral language, it is Proto-Indo-European (and those who liked the "Aryan" word would have said "Proto-Aryan"); if you are talking about one of the descendant languages, you would say "Greek" or "English" or "Farsi" or whatever, while if you are talking about all of the descendant languages as a unit, that's the "Indo-European language family" (or the "Aryan family" for those who talked that way).

No. Atharvan is what Avestan says for "priestly".

So what? The soldiers were warrior priests

????? Where did you ever get such a notion as "warrior priest"? Soldiers and priests were quite distinct specializations, each of whom needed to spend their whole life developing their particular skills.

airyaman is a common noun denoting the social division of priests. -Airyaman

Your article says that the word means "member of the community or tribe". The Vedic Sanskrit aryaman means someone who has given or received from you hospitality: sharing a meal was a very significant gesture of kinship and friendship among all ancient peoples (and the element of kinship, as well as friendship, must not be under-estimated: in Galatians Paul has an argument with Peter, because Peter was reluctant to share meals with fellow-Christians who were of non-Jewish ancestry). The "Armenian" name probably meant the same kind of thing originally.

For completeness, the Wiki article notes that one author a century ago thought that Airyaman might have gotten turned into a minor deity because the word shifted from "member of the community" to "member of some priestly community"; but this hypothesis has been rejected because of the lack of any supporting linguistic evidence. The hypothesis that the word got re-interpreted as a divine name because late Zoroastrian priests just did not understand what it meant is more straightforward.

And Atharvan and Aryan come from the same root.

No, Atharvan is from athar "sacred fire", same root as Greek aether "star fire", Latin attar "fragrant oil", Irish aed "festive bonfire" etc.

"...the British colonial government had followed de Gobineau..."

Here is the Wiki article Aryan actually DOES say, which is what I have been trying to explain to you for what seems like forever: "'Arian' has "long been in English language use".[11] Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya[1] to refer to speakers of North Indian languages.[11]" The footnote is to some late-18th-century citation of the adjective form "Arian" with an "n" (from Jones perhaps? I still can't find it in Jones; but well before English-speakers had heard of de Sacy in any case; and deriving from Sanskrit not anything Iranian) in the Oxford English Dictionary which, alas, I no longer possess.

Then, "When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past": the ancestor language here refers to Indo-Iranian; I emphasize "similar" because there really is no evidence that Iranians ever pronounced the word exactly like "Aryan" anytime after they separated from the Indics. In one respect you are correct: that the "Iranian" alteration of the word was more commonly used as an ethnic designation (or geographic term), rather than as a reference to social class or "noble" qualities (as more common in India).

Finally "Then, in the 1830s, partly based on the theory (now regarded as erroneous) that words like "Aryan" could also be found in European languages (such as the idea that "Éire" derived from "Aryan"), the term "Aryan" came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the original speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, "language" was considered a property of "ethnicity", and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be called the "Aryan race"..." And there is no way to separate that word from the unfortunate later stages of this history.

I know I saw that somewhere. Can't find it now. I think it was in Mayhofer's dictionary.

Mayrhofer's Etymological Dictionary? I doubt that very much. Wherever you got the stuff about British governments following French racialists, it has little to do with anything factual.

But the propagandists sure like to tell the Greek side (not to mention Italic, Celtic, Germanic, everything not "Iranian") of ancient Indo-European history and not the Aryan ("Iranian") side of Indo-European history

We ARE Italic, Celtic, and Germanic. I have ancestors from Sweden, Ireland, Germany, and England, and know lots of people with ancestors from Italy and Spain and so on; I have no ancestors from Iran or any countries from around there-- you do, so of course you are more concerned about such countries than I am-- just like students in China study a lot more about ancient Chinese than either of us care to. And my cultural heritage involves also a lot of ideas from Greeks and Jews; Persia is one of those lesser influences from way back, like Egypt and Babylon, which just hasn't had much import for thousands of years.

but they sure do like ideas that originated with the Aryans like God and all that good stuff

Will you stop this insane rubbish about how nobody in the world ever thought about God until those oh-so-superior Iranians taught them how?

How do we know that there ever really was an Al Qaeda or a Taliban?

I watched thousands of my people murdered, live as it happened. Don't start turning into one of those deniers too: they are as sick as Holocaust deniers.

now the politicians are consistently advocating a war against the Iranians.

No politicians think a war with Iran would be a good idea. There has however been worry that some in Iran might want such a war.

I'm not trying to replace Aryan for Iran.

Well, the distinction between "Irani" (citizen of the state of Iran, some of whom speak Arabic or Azeri Turkic) and "Iranian" (speakers of not just Farsi but also the related languages which spread out beyond the borders of the state of Iran) is lost on a lot of people, I will concede. Some more obviously distinguishable words would help; I just don't think "Aryan" with all its accumulated baggage is a word you want to go anywhere near.

I'm trying to 1.) lessen the confusion when referring to the Pashto, Iranians, Kurds, etc.. collectively.

You would only create a much worse confusion.

Aryan is confusing too, but at least 1.) people already associate the word Aryan with antiquity

Hardly any people associate the word "Aryan" with anything except fascist skinheads. If you want to convince people that Pashto, Tajiks, etc. are all horrible murderous scum who need to be destroyed before they impose brutal dictatorships, getting everyone to call them "Aryans" would be a good start.

2.) the "Iranians" are the Aryans

The "Iranians" are one branch of the Indo-Iranians who originally used the word "Aryan": namely, the branch that long ago STOPPED using the form "Aryan" and started using names like "Iran" instead.

 

[mojobadshah]

In fact it is exceedingly unlikely that the initial vowel was "a" among Iranian speakers anytime after their separation from the Indics. It had already shifted to "ai" in the Avestan and probably in the Achaemenid Old Persian; shifted to "ha" or "he" in the Herat name very early; and settled on "e" by Sassanian times before becoming "i" in medieval Persian.

Like I said the complexity with the vowels is not detrimental to my point. Airyan is not that much different from Aryan.

The Greeks tended to simplify complex vowels when borrowing from Iranian, so their Ariana for the broad eastern region may have been from some *Airyana source, or, since they also included the Indus Valley in their usage of Ariana (Pomponius Mela, you pointed out, included *only* Pakistan), they may have known the Indic pronunciation, and recognized already that the Indic and the Iranian were not separate words.

No reconstructed source. They were referring to Airyana. Zoroastrian literature defines the southwestern most part of Airyana as Hepta-Hindu or the Indus river. But the easternmost part of Airyana extends as far as Iran.

He was saying it was foolish for anyone to insist on using "obsolete and weird-sounding" forms derived from how "Iranian" was supposedly pronounced thousands of years ago-- but IF you wanted to use an obsolete and weird-sounding form, he would suggest arianisch as being at least more faithful to the really ancient pronunciation than the weird forms German authors were actually using.

Well to me that would indicate that there were people who referred to the Iranians as the Arianisch.

???? Where in the world did you get such a notion? They were Germans, most closely related to the Saxons and Frisians.

Guardians of the Holy Grail, but see also Descent Claims in Scythians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All these are like the arya forms in Indo-Iranian. It is only the Eire "Ireland" name which was incorrectly assigned to this same root: it was originally Ibere (source of Latin Hibernia) with "b" softening to "w" and then a complex vowel; that name, like Iberia "Spain+Portugal" and the roots of such place-names as Ypres in Belgium, the Ibar valley in Serbia, and the Dnieper "Ieper river" in Ukraine, are from pre-Indo-Europeans, descended from the Cro-Magnons of 30,000 years ago and of an exceedingly alien language family (Basque is the last survivor).

Isn't the word Eire akin to the name of the Irish deity named Aryaman akin to the name of the Iranian deity Airyaman?

I'm afraid I still don't get your question. Among linguists, if you are talking about the single ancestral language, it is Proto-Indo-European (and those who liked the "Aryan" word would have said "Proto-Aryan"); if you are talking about one of the descendant languages, you would say "Greek" or "English" or "Farsi" or whatever, while if you are talking about all of the descendant languages as a unit, that's the "Indo-European language family" (or the "Aryan family" for those who talked that way).

I'm not even sure how its relevant to my point myself, but if the pre-WII linguists called the Indo-Europeans Aryans, didn't they call the Proto-Indo-Europeans too, so how did they distinguish between the two classifications?

Also are we sure that the Nazis actually thought that the Indo-Iranians weren't the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans because linguists were under the impression that Sanskrit most resembled the Proto-Indo-European language for a considerable length of time. From the birth of Indo-European linguistics up until 1870?

????? Where did you ever get such a notion as "warrior priest"? Soldiers and priests were quite distinct specializations, each of whom needed to spend their whole life developing their particular skills.

So there was evidence of a caste system in the Vedas. Therefore why would it be unlikely that all Arya meant was "member of the caste" instead of national of the "land of the Aryans"?

No, Atharvan is from athar "sacred fire", same root as Greek aether "star fire", Latin attar "fragrant oil", Irish aed "festive bonfire" etc.

And Athar- as in Athravan "bearer of Asha (cf. Skr. Arta)" is akin to the L. order which is akin to the word Arya.

Here is the Wiki article Aryan actually DOES say, which is what I have been trying to explain to you for what seems like forever: "'Arian' has "long been in English language use".[11] Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya[1] to refer to speakers of North Indian languages.[11]" The footnote is to some late-18th-century citation of the adjective form "Arian" with an "n" (from Jones perhaps? I still can't find it in Jones; but well before English-speakers had heard of de Sacy in any case; and deriving from Sanskrit not anything Iranian) in the Oxford English Dictionary which, alas, I no longer possess.

Well its hard to be 100% sure as to what the adaptation of L. Arianus was because its in quotes. Second of all if the form Arian had been in English use then how could it have been borrowed from the Sanskrit ārya? And lastly, De Sacy discovered the VRYN form in Parthian in the late 18th century too.

Mayrhofer's Etymological Dictionary?

That's where I got the translation for the word Arya "they praise."

I doubt that very much. Wherever you got the stuff about British governments following French racialists, it has little to do with anything factual.

WOAH. It's in Wikipedia! In the article "Aryan"!

We ARE Italic, Celtic, and Germanic. I have ancestors from Sweden, Ireland, Germany, and England, and know lots of people with ancestors from Italy and Spain and so on; I have no ancestors from Iran or any countries from around there-- you do, so of course you are more concerned about such countries than I am-- just like students in China study a lot more about ancient Chinese than either of us care to. And my cultural heritage involves also a lot of ideas from Greeks and Jews; Persia is one of those lesser influences from way back, like Egypt and Babylon, which just hasn't had much import for thousands of years.

First of all I could be European by my heritage for all you know. Second of all that's pure bullcrap. How in the heck could Persia be one of the lesser influences when 2/3rds of the world religious heritage developed from Persian ideas? Thirdly, if it wasn't for the Afghans the 1% of upper class Americans wouldn't be swimming in their inheritance right now. Which is extremely upsetting because what the heck do I learn about Americans? I learn that they've been communizing the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) heritage for as long as the Aryans (Irano-Afghan) have not been in America, and are still doing it now since they've been here.

Will you stop this insane rubbish about how nobody in the world ever thought about God until those oh-so-superior Iranians taught them how?

I'm not trying to piss you off here BX, but that IS what friggin happened. There is no clear reference to God in the strict monotheistic sense until Deutro-Isaiah which was attested after the Jews had come into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians who had been monotheists in the strict sense as far back as they can recall.

You would only create a much worse confusion.

Hardly any people associate the word "Aryan" with anything except fascist skinheads. If you want to convince people that Pashto, Tajiks, etc. are all horrible murderous scum who need to be destroyed before they impose brutal dictatorships, getting everyone to call them "Aryans" would be a good start.

People associate the word Aryan with an ancestral people who, for lack of better words, ruled the world at the beginning of time, which is what the Aryans in the original sense of the word did. The Persians were responsible for having established the largest empire in history, and Cyrus II, for one, did it with grace, because he was a tolerant Emperor, liberated the Jews, and what did they do in return? They hijacked their God, and other ideas, and now the 2/3rds of the world is under the impression that they are entitled to use those ideas to accumulate their ingenious cult followings, and then use those followings as a political arm to turn people against the Iranians by claiming that the Iranians are the one's who are asking for a war.

The "Iranians" are one branch of the Indo-Iranians who originally used the word "Aryan": namely, the branch that long ago STOPPED using the form "Aryan" and started using names like "Iran" instead.

They were the only branch to have used the form VYRN (no prefixes or affixes) and as a national designation.

 

[bob x]

Like I said the complexity with the vowels is not detrimental to my point.

Then use "Iranian" LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

Airyan is not that much different from Aryan.

Or, if you insist on using an obsolete and weird-sounding form, say "Airyan". If you call yourself "Aryan", then everybody who doesn't know South Asian linguistics will assume you are a Nazi, and everybody who does will assume you are embracing the Indics as part of your group.

Zoroastrian literature defines the southwestern most part of Airyana as Hepta-Hindu or the Indus river. But the easternmost part of Airyana extends as far as Iran.

I hope that is a typo, and that you meant to say the "southeastern" end of Airyanam (note the final "m" since you are so particular about the presence or absence of endings) was Pakistan, and the "westernmost" part extended to Iran. Please tell me that you are capable of looking at maps and telling which direction is which.

Well to me that would indicate that there were people who referred to the Iranians as the Arianisch.

Please re-read what he wrote, and what I wrote, both of which I thought were very clear. NOBODY was saying "arianisch"; instead they were using OTHER "obsolete and weird-sounding forms", of which he gives Iran-with-an-umlaut (not sure how that was supposed to be pronounced) as a particularly bad example. He suggests that IF anybody wanted an "obsolete and weird-sounding form" (which he himself would never want), then "arianisch" would be an improvement over what anybody of that kind actually used.

Guardians of the Holy Grail

Oh... my... God....
The "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" people are a bunch of raving lunatics. This particular book you linked me to is the worst piece of their literature that I have seen yet.

but see also Descent Claims in Scythians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very peculiar. It says that the "Chronicle of Fredegar" claims the Franks were descended from Scyths or Cimmerians. I found that exceedingly strange, because I have read the Chronicle of Fredegar and distinctly thought that Fredegar called the Franks descendants of the Trojans, indeed gave an elaborate concocted genealogy tracing them all the way back to old king Priam (the doomed king in the Iliad). And the link to that Wiki article confirms that I am right.
Bear in mind: anybody can put anything into Wikipedia. It is a useful resource, but if you want to rely on it for a dubious claim, check out its footnotes and trace back to the primary source. If there isn't a primary source, then "Wiki says so" actually means just "a random guy on the Internet says so".

Isn't the word Eire akin to the name of the Irish deity named Aryaman akin to the name of the Iranian deity Airyaman?

There is no "y" in Irish; there are diphthongs (complex vowels) in Irish, but "ia" is not one of them; so there could not possibly be such an Irish deity as "Aryaman" or "Ariaman". Anyway, as I just told you, the actual origin of "Eire" is now understood: the older name was Ibere, adjectival form Iberinn hence Latin Hibernia; the reduction of the consonant is something that happens in Irish all the time (the heroic name Cuchullain is now pronounced "Coolin" etc.) and the older name is from pre-Indo-European times.

I'm not even sure how its relevant to my point myself, but if the pre-WII linguists called the Indo-Europeans Aryans, didn't they call the Proto-Indo-Europeans too, so how did they distinguish between the two classifications?

Distinguish WHAT from WHAT? I have no idea what you are even asking. We distinguish the original ancestral language from the descendant languages by sticking on the prefix Proto-.

Also are we sure that the Nazis actually thought that the Indo-Iranians weren't the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans

??? Indo-Iranians are the people who live, NOW, in India, Iran, and adjoining areas. Germans are the people who live, NOW, in Germany. The people who live now in India are not the ancestors of the people who live now in Germany. If we trace back ancestors only to a point where the two groups were already separate, the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians were the Proto-Indo-Iranians, and the ancestors of the Germans were the Proto-Germanics, who were peoples living in different countries at the same time, just like now. If we trace back ancestors to when they weren't two different groups at all anymore, those common ancestors are the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Again, I have a terrible time figuring out what you are even trying to ask.

So there was evidence of a caste system in the Vedas.

No. We don't even know if a priest's son was always a priest, or a soldier's son always a soldier: in most ancient societies it would be customary for a son to follow his father's specialty, and in many it would be obligatory; it is plausible that this was so in Vedic India, but the texts don't even tell us that much. The fourfold Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Sudra division does not appear until the Manu-smrti and is characteristic of a more settled society than the Vedic period (compare: in France and Germany there were "Three Estates" represented in parliamentary assemblies, the Clergy, Lords, and Commons, where the "commons" were actually merchants and craftsmen like the Vaishya in India; the fourth estate, so to speak, of the Peasants was not allowed any role in governance, like the Sudra). The peculiar characteristic of the Indian caste-system, that there were ritual barriers to intermarriage and social interactions, is nowhere hinted at in the Vedas.

Therefore why would it be unlikely that all Arya meant was "member of the caste" instead of national of the "land of the Aryans"?

Member of WHAT caste? You pointed out that there are Arya priests in the Vedas, so I pointed out that there are also a lot of Arya soldiers, not priests only. Are you now trying to claim that they were only the soldiers? No, the term includes priests, and soldiers, and others as well; anybody of the tribe.

And Athar- as in Athravan "bearer of Asha (cf. Skr. Arta)" is akin to the L. order which is akin to the word Arya.

Athar does not mean "bearer of Asha"; it means "fire". Athar and Asha are completely unrelated words. Asha and r.ta (the actual Sanskrit word, although Mitannian does have Arta) are also not the same word (one derived from Sumerian, the other from Akkadian), and none of these words is "akin" to Arya. You now appear to be claiming that any two words containing the "a" vowel (which happens to be the most common sound in all the languages of the world) are the same word, as if humans did not even hear consonants at all. By this logic, America means Arya as does Austria; for that matter, so does ashcan and aardvark.

Second of all if the form Arian had been in English use then how could it have been borrowed from the Sanskrit ārya?

??? You are unaware that English often borrows word from other languages??? The word has been in English ever since it was borrowed from Sanskrit. No-one except you thinks it was borrowed from anywhere except Sanskrit; more specifically, the OED is saying it entered English through the 17th-century Sanskrit-Latin dictionaries published by the Jesuits, which expressed the word as arianus because -anus is the ordinary ending for an adjective in Latin just like -an is in English.

And lastly, De Sacy discovered the VRYN form in Parthian in the late 18th century too.

And English speakers never heard of him for a half-century later.

That's where I got the translation for the word Arya "they praise."

Can't find Mayrhofer on line; did find a review of his new edition, thoroughly revised, so there may be changes from the version you've seen; and a book saying Mayrhofer thinks arya originally meant "hospitable lord" or "master of the house" (as in the aryaman compound), rejects the connection to the Irish forms and Wuest's theory that it comes from a word for "field" and meant "the farmers" as opposed to "animal herders" (very bad on two grounds: Latin words with ar- for "field" as in the source of English arable "land worth farming" are just late erosions, within Latin, of the agr- root as in agriculture, acre; and in the Vedas and Gathas, the Arya are the animal herders, as opposed to the farmers). Another author Grassman is cited as connected arya to a verb ar "to praise"; but if there is a derivation there, I would think it is in the opposite direction, arya being that word for "skillful" or "excellent" or "praiseworthy" and then ar coming from that with the sense of "to call excellent" (note in Mitannian, ar is "to give" perhaps from arya construed as "hospitable" or "generous"; that is, ar "to act like an aryaman should").

WOAH. It's in Wikipedia! In the article "Aryan"!

No. It isn't. There's nothing even vaguely similar to it in Wikipedia. I keep telling you over and over. I have no idea where you got it from. It's rubbish, in any case.

How in the heck could Persia be one of the lesser influences when 2/3rds of the world religious heritage developed from Persian ideas?

Because that's not true. The Persian contributions are the baggage about angels and demons and hellfire, which the Jews threw out long ago and the Christians don't think particularly essential anymore. It's minor, and frankly it's value has been less than zero.

Thirdly, if it wasn't for the Afghans the 1% of upper class Americans wouldn't be swimming in their inheritance right now.

I have not the slightest freaking clue what you are talking about here. In this whole post you are making almost no sense at all, but in this particular sentence I can't even figure out what nonsense you are even trying to convey.

Which is extremely upsetting because what the heck do I learn about Americans? I learn that they've been communizing the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) heritage for as long as the Aryans (Irano-Afghan) have not been in America, and are still doing it now since they've been here.

And Afghans communize the North Africa idea of herding animals, and the Mesopotamian idea of wheeled vehicles, and the Semitic idea of writing in alphabetic script, and the Indian idea of writing numerals in base 10 with zeroes and everything, not to mention the American idea of rifle-barreled guns. Why, some of those Afghans even dare to use electricity!

I'm not trying to piss you off here BX, but that IS what friggin happened.

No. Your inflated sense of your own importance is utterly insufferable.

There is no clear reference to God in the strict monotheistic sense until Deutro-Isaiah

Wrong. We have been over this before.

the Persian Zoroastrians who had been monotheists in the strict sense as far back as they can recall.

Zoroastrians have NEVER been monotheists in the "strict" sense: there has always been this multiplicity of divine "emanations" which, as far as the Jews are concerned, is just polytheism in a weak disguise.

People associate the word Aryan with an ancestral people who, for lack of better words, ruled the world at the beginning of time

What people would that be??? Until I read this sentence of yours, I had never heard of anybody in the world thinking any such thing. People associate the word "Aryan" with death camps and skinhead punks; except for linguists who recognize it as an obsolete word used most often for the Indics and generally now retired from usage completely.

which is what the Aryans in the original sense of the word did.

Uh... they ruled a dismal section of the northern steppes.

The Persians were responsible for having established the largest empire in history

The British Empire controlled 40% of the land surface of the planet.

Cyrus II, for one, did it with grace, because he was a tolerant Emperor, liberated the Jews, and what did they do in return? They hijacked their God

No, Jews never had any intention of worshipping Ahura Mazda. They had their own God, thank you very much. The whole point of the "tolerance" of Cyrus is that the Jews, like everybody else in his realm, could worship their own God in their own way, without any obligation to pay any attention to Ahura Mazda.

2/3rds of the world is under the impression that they are entitled to use those ideas

The entire world is entitled to use whatever ideas are in the public domain.

turn people against the Iranians by claiming that the Iranians are the one's who are asking for a war.

Iran infiltrated assassins and bombers to our country.

They were the only branch to have used the form VYRN (no prefixes or affixes)

The "n" IS an affix. It is an adjectival ending, a very common one.

 

[mojobadshah]

Then use "Iranian" LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

Why the hell would I do that? The "Iranians" were the only people to have called themselves VRYN. Not shite like Aryanti. Just VRYN. And the only people to have used this designation as a national designation.

Or, if you insist on using an obsolete and weird-sounding form, say "Airyan". If you call yourself "Aryan", then everybody who doesn't know South Asian linguistics will assume you are a Nazi, and everybody who does will assume you are embracing the Indics as part of your group.

That's not my fault. U.S. educational institutions are to blame for that.

I hope that is a typo, and that you meant to say the "southeastern" end of Airyanam (note the final "m" since you are so particular about the presence or absence of endings) was Pakistan, and the "westernmost" part extended to Iran. Please tell me that you are capable of looking at maps and telling which direction is which.

Yup, typo.

Distinguish WHAT from WHAT? I have no idea what you are even asking. We distinguish the original ancestral language from the descendant languages by sticking on the prefix Proto-.

Is that what the linguists before WII did though?

No. We don't even know if a priest's son was always a priest, or a soldier's son always a soldier: in most ancient societies it would be customary for a son to follow his father's specialty, and in many it would be obligatory; it is plausible that this was so in Vedic India, but the texts don't even tell us that much.

That's not what Boyce says. The role of the Zaotor in Avestan ran parallel to the role of the Hotar in the Vedas. See A History of Zoroastrianism

Member of WHAT caste? You pointed out that there are Arya priests in the Vedas, so I pointed out that there are also a lot of Arya soldiers, not priests only. Are you now trying to claim that they were only the soldiers? No, the term includes priests, and soldiers, and others as well; anybody of the tribe.

No I pointed out that there were Warrior Arya "praisers" and that an Arya was anyone who praised the gods, and were at war with the Dasyu which includes the Aryans because they did not praise the gods, that there was no Arya land or nation, there was only a Bharata land or nation until long after the attestation of Airyana Vajeah the homeland or kingdom-nation of the Aryans (Iranians).

Athar does not mean "bearer of Asha"; it means "fire". Athar and Asha are completely unrelated words. Asha and r.ta (the actual Sanskrit word, although Mitannian does have Arta) are also not the same word (one derived from Sumerian, the other from Akkadian), and none of these words is "akin" to Arya. You now appear to be claiming that any two words containing the "a" vowel (which happens to be the most common sound in all the languages of the world) are the same word, as if humans did not even hear consonants at all. By this logic, America means Arya as does Austria; for that matter, so does ashcan and aardvark.[

??? You are unaware that English often borrows word from other languages??? The word has been in English ever since it was borrowed from Sanskrit. No-one except you thinks it was borrowed from anywhere except Sanskrit; more specifically, the OED is saying it entered English through the 17th-century Sanskrit-Latin dictionaries published by the Jesuits, which expressed the word as arianus because -anus is the ordinary ending for an adjective in Latin just like -an is in English.

The 17th-century Sanskrit-Latin dictionaries published by the Jesuits, which expressed the word as arianus because -anus????

The Sanskrit-Latin dictionaries published by the Jesuits expressed the words as Arianus because the -anus is the ordinary ending for an adjective in Latin????

Please cite where the English adaptation of Arianus appears.

No. It isn't. There's nothing even vaguely similar to it in Wikipedia. I keep telling you over and over. I have no idea where you got it from. It's rubbish, in any case.

WOAH, talk about deniers. How many people have to die before its considered a Holocaust anyhow?

Because that's not true. The Persian contributions are the baggage about angels and demons and hellfire, which the Jews threw out long ago and the Christians don't think particularly essential anymore. It's minor, and frankly it's value has been less than zero.

What the hell are you talking about? Ahura Madza was "a single all mighty creator of the universe and fatherer of mankind" Yahweh didn't even become the only god until Deutero-Isaiah which was after the Jews had come into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians.

I have not the slightest freaking clue what you are talking about here. In this whole post you are making almost no sense at all, but in this particular sentence I can't even figure out what nonsense you are even trying to convey.

No? That's sad. Maybe its because you've got something to lose....

And Afghans communize the North Africa idea of herding animals, and the Mesopotamian idea of wheeled vehicles, and the Semitic idea of writing in alphabetic script, and the Indian idea of writing numerals in base 10 with zeroes and everything, not to mention the American idea of rifle-barreled guns. Why, some of those Afghans even dare to use electricity!

Go ahead an charge the Afghans for communizing the North African idea of herding animals. Just make sure they get compensated for over 2/3rd's of the world's usage of concepts like "God."

No. Your inflated sense of your own importance is utterly insufferable.

I have no inflated sense. My sense is based on what I see and hear.

Wrong. We have been over this before.

Zoroastrians have NEVER been monotheists in the "strict" sense: there has always been this multiplicity of divine "emanations" which, as far as the Jews are concerned, is just polytheism in a weak disguise.

Yes, they have. Ahura Mazda was "a single creator of the universe and fatherer of the human race." Yahweh didn't become a one God until the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians around the time Deutro-Isaiah and Deuteronomy chapters 1-4 were written.

What people would that be??? Until I read this sentence of yours, I had never heard of anybody in the world thinking any such thing. People associate the word "Aryan" with death camps and skinhead punks; except for linguists who recognize it as an obsolete word used most often for the Indics and generally now retired from usage completely.

People don't associate the word Aryan with the "Master Race"?

Uh... they ruled a dismal section of the northern steppes.

Which was the greater part of the Known World.

The British Empire controlled 40% of the land surface of the planet.

You're talking about land. I'm talking about people. And the only reason the English got as far as they did is because they had access to the sea, and they had guns whereas the natives did not. The Aryans (Iranians) ruled by the sword.

No, Jews never had any intention of worshipping Ahura Mazda. They had their own God, thank you very much. The whole point of the "tolerance" of Cyrus is that the Jews, like everybody else in his realm, could worship their own God in their own way, without any obligation to pay any attention to Ahura Mazda.

What kind of God changes from a god that is just one god amongst other gods, to a god that is just worshipped in times of need otherise they'd turn to other gods, to a God that is worshipped after the people come into contact with a people that have worshipped only one God called Ahura Mazda as long as they can remember?

The entire world is entitled to use whatever ideas are in the public domain.

Only because they are the idiots that are writing the laws. They are not Aryan. Nor are they Zoroastrian by their heritage.

Iran infiltrated assassins and bombers to our country.

What in the HELL are you talking about? There is a higher crime rate due to the idiots within the United States than there will ever be from idiots coming from Iran. There were no Iranians involved in 911. That was the Arabs, Saudis, and Egyptians. And the U.S. contributes to both Saudi oil wealth, and made the Egyptian president the richest man in the world. DON'T YOU DARE look to the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) for a scapegoat.

The "n" IS an affix. It is an adjectival ending, a very common one.

Just show me that the Jesuits were using the form Arian before De Sacy.

 

[mojobadshah]

I got to say: making the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) out to be the badguys is not going to win the hearts of the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) people. Nor is hijacking their identity. Making a movie about how Alexander conquered the Persians for only 4 years was more significant than the fact that the Persian Empire conquered the Greeks for longer, and was the largest Empire of the ancient world and lasted for centuries, and was also significant in that it promoted religious tolerance is not going to win the hearts of the Aryans (Irano-Afghans). And attributing monotheism to the Jews instead of the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) because they're not Christian today is not going to win the hearts of the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) people either.

 

[bob x]

Why the hell would I do that?

Use the same word that EVERYBODY ELSE uses? The pronunciation that YOUR OWN PEOPLE chose, thousands of years ago? Perhaps because the purpose is to communicate, and that if you use the words that people already know, they might have more chance of understanding what you are trying to say???

The "Iranians" were the only people to have called themselves VRYN.

And that "Y" reached back to influence that "V" vowel, long long ago, turning it from "a" to "ai" three thousand years ago, and to "e" or "i" two thousand years ago. The INDICS are the only people to have preserved the pronunciation with "a", which the Iranians have not been using since they were the same people as the Indics.

Not shite like Aryanti.

What's "shite" about using a plural ending, when speaking of more than one person? THAT'S ALL that the -ti is, the same ending in origin as the -s in English, and you will find in the Iranian texts also, that endings get tacked on to the word, as required by the grammar of whichever particular language the text is written in.

That's not my fault. U.S. educational institutions are to blame for that.

No, the actual history is responsible for that. US educational institutions quite properly need to talk about the actual history, not your fantasies.

Is that [using "Proto-" for ancestral languages] what the linguists before WII did though?

Of course. I'm not getting what it is that you find puzzling here.

That's not what Boyce says. The role of the Zaotor in Avestan ran parallel to the role of the Hotar in the Vedas. See A History of Zoroastrianism

What I find there (the paragraph from p. 11) is "Zoroaster himself, although a zaotar, married into a 'warrior' family, and gave one of his daughters in marriage in the same way." In later India, the "caste" system would put barriers in the way of that; you were claiming that in the Vedas (which Boyce does not discuss in detail) such a system was already in place, but there is no evidence in support of that, so far as I can find.

No I pointed out that there were Warrior Arya "praisers" and that an Arya was anyone who praised the gods

"Praiser" is not the root-meaning, but never mind that now. The Arya had their own national gods, whereas the other tribes had different gods, which is how it was in all Bronze Age societies. You are trying to draw a distinction between membership in a tribe, membership in an alliance, membership in a religion: but all of those things went together; that is what "nationality" consisted of at the time. Herodotus: "What is it that makes us all [Athenians, Spartans, etc.] Greek? We share the same ancestors, and we share the same gods, and we share the same speech."

there was only a Bharata land or nation

Bharata is a very late term, well after Aryavarta.

The 17th-century Sanskrit-Latin dictionaries published by the Jesuits, which expressed the word as arianus because -anus????

Sigh. What is your problem understanding the concept of an adjectival ending??? Latin for Roman was Romanus. Latin for Italian was Italianus. The function of the -us is to make the word singular: in the plural, Latin for Romans is Romani, for Italians is Italiani. So a singular Arya would become Arianus in Latin and Arian in English, while plural Aryanti from Sanskrit would become Ariani in Latin or Arians in English. The basic "n" inside those Latin endings is the SAME "n" as in English, or Pahlavi, or Irish, or any of a large number of the Indo-European languages, because it comes down from Proto-Indo-European.

Please cite where the English adaptation of Arianus appears.

As I told you, I no longer have a copy of Oxford English Dictionary, nor is it freely available. But that is where Wiki says the citation came from: late 18th-century, derived from the Sanskrit, through the Latin translations. I remembered seeing it in Jones, but haven't been able to find it in Jones; he was, however, far from the only English author writing about India, in the period when British East India Company was consolidating control of the country.

WOAH, talk about deniers. How many people have to die before its considered a Holocaust anyhow?

If not one single person died, it would certainly not be a Holocaust... I deny that the words you keep re-writing appear in the Wiki article because THEY AREN'T IN THERE. I deny that they have any factual accuracy because the British did not, in fact, rely on French hack-authors for their policies. I looked for any history about British exploiting "Aryan/Dravidian" divisions in India: certainly it is true that the British employed divide-and-conquer tactics (especially setting Hindus and Muslims against each other) very often; but in the one case where "Aryans" and "Dravidians" faced off, which is in Sri Lanka (Ceylon as the Brits pronounced it then) where the (Indo-European-speaking) Sinhalese are Buddhist and the (Dravidian-speaking) Tamil are Hindu, the religious split more than the linguistic division (not really a big issue elsewhere in south India) created a cultural clash. But rather than saying (as whoever you were quoting claimed; my searches failed to find the source of your quote, but did turn up web-sites saying similar things) that "We British are Aryan, and will take the Aryan side against the non-Aryan darkies of the lower classes and the south", the British took the Tamil (Dravidian) side. They promoted the Tamil within the civil service (worsening the tensions which exploded in the recent civil wars there), because the Tamils were the minority and had generally been on the bottom, and would therefore be more beholden to the British.

What the hell are you talking about? Ahura Madza was "a single all mighty creator of the universe and fatherer of mankind"

And so was Manitu among the Algonquians, and Vairacocha in Peru. You think Iranians are the only people in the world who ever thought there was a single source? IT JUST ISN'T TRUE, and your refusal to acknowledge that is egotistical and insane.

Yahweh didn't even become the only god until Deutero-Isaiah

Wrong. Proto-Isaiah shows it also. We have been over this before.

No? That's sad. Maybe its because you've got something to lose....

Are you trying to communicate, or just to stroke your own ego? I am telling you that you are making no sense, and are sounding downright stupid and crazy. Do you have any desire to explain what you are talking about? Now, apparently, you are expressing some belief that I am among "the top 1% of Americans"? I have never made $30K a year in my life, and am currently living in a trailer in the woods without electricity or running water. Try again.

Go ahead an charge the Afghans for communizing the North African idea of herding animals.

No. That's the most terrible idea I have heard in a long time, as everyone else told you when you first came up with it. Free exchange of ideas is the reason we are not all still stuck in the Stone Age.

I have no inflated sense. My sense is based on what I see and hear.

Quite the reverse. You only allow yourself to see or hear things which you can fit into your inflated sense of self-importance.

Yahweh didn't become a one God until the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians around the time Deutro-Isaiah and Deuteronomy chapters 1-4 were written.

Proto-Isaiah does not differ from Deutero-Isaiah in this regard, and the older chapters in Deuteronomy do not differ from 1-4.

People don't associate the word Aryan with the "Master Race"?

You were claiming that everyone actually believes that the Master Race once ruled the entire world, at the beginning of time, which not even the Nazis ever believed. And of course, most people don't believe that the "Master Race" has any validity at all.

[The northern steppe] was the greater part of the Known World.

No, it was the boondock, the barely-known territory at the fringes.

You're talking about land. I'm talking about people.

The percentage of the world's population controlled by the British Empire was also far larger than anything the Persians could ever have dreamed of.

And the only reason the English got as far as they did is because they had access to the sea, and they had guns whereas the natives did not. The Aryans (Iranians) ruled by the sword.

Yes, the English had far superior technology to what the Iranians had, and as a result, not only did they control a wider empire, but they controlled it more thoroughly. The Persian Empire didn't really "reach down to the ground": Cyrus tolerated local institutions controlling the day-to-day affairs of the people, because he didn't really have the power to control that much territory, in a thorough-going sense. This is why Persia turned out to be a hollow shell, easily blown apart by one strong breath.

What in the HELL are you talking about?

Iran infiltrated plotters to assassinate the Saudi ambassador and bomb the Israeli embassy; they were caught last week, creating a serious possibility that we will have to overthrow that government. We have not wanted to start a war with Iran, but if Iran wants to start it, I assure you we will finish it.

There were no Iranians involved in 911.

Afghanistan provided the training bases and communication centers.

And the U.S. contributes to both Saudi oil wealth, and made the Egyptian president the richest man in the world.

Uh, Mubarak was not even in the top 100, but never mind that.
Look, Americans despise the Saudi monarchs, and dictators like Mubarak, every bit as much as we despise the mullahs of Iran, or the Taliban. Nothing would please us more than to see Egypt develop a healthier society, choosing honest leaders, except to see other countries (like Saudi Arabia especially) following the same kind of path. But as long as we need to deal with such countries (and until solar or wind power comes way down in price, or fusion technology has some breakthrough, or whatever, they have something we need to buy), then we have no choice but to deal with whatever sick leaders your peoples put into place. We didn't choose Nasser; the Egyptians did; we sided with him against Israel, Britain, and France in 1956 about the Suez Canal, because they were in the wrong; but when Nasser annexed Syria in 1958 we acted against him to keep him from taking over more countries. We didn't choose Sadat; Nasser did, and the Egyptians let him; he inherited an alliance with the Soviets against us, but we sent him grain when Egypt was in bread riots, because it was the right thing to do (Sadat later said he was impressed that he didn't even have to ask). We didn't choose Mubarak; Sadat did, before he was on the US side, and the Egyptians let him; we just had to deal with him.

The other choice would be to invade, and force a change in regime, and we have rarely wanted to do that. We invaded Afghanistan because you launched mass murderers into our country; that was necessary, although I think that now Osama is dead, we ought to get out. The invasion of Iraq I will not attempt to excuse: I think it was very wrong and stupid, and I am on record as saying so even before we went in. But the state of Iran stayed away from sponsoring al-Qaeda; they have sponsored groups attacking Israel, but that's Israel's look-out; until last week they did not attempt to invade our soil, and so we have not carried our dislike for them so far as to try to overthrow them. We did not interfere in the 1979 revolution (though Khomeini always was distasteful to us), because we recognized that our interference back in 1953 had been wrongful and stupid.

DON'T YOU DARE look to the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) for a scapegoat.

NOW YOU LISTEN TO ME, AND YOU AND EVERY OTHER IRANO-AFGHAN HAD BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS CLEARLY:
DON'T YOU DARE
INVADE OUR SOIL TO COMMIT MURDERS EVER AGAIN. Because we have the power to invade YOUR soil anytime we need, and we could kill every last one of you, and reduce your countries to sheets of molten glass, if that is what it takes.

Just show me that the Jesuits were using the form Arian before De Sacy.

The first Sanskrit-Latin dictionary was 1666. I gave you a long quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia about that history back a few posts ago.

I got to say: making the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) out to be the badguys is not going to win the hearts of the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) people.

Stop BEING the bad guys. We don't give a damn about "winning your hearts." You can be whatever kind of society you like, go back to the Stone Age if medievalism is not primitive enough for you; just stay away from us.

Making a movie about how Alexander conquered the Persians for only 4 years was more significant than the fact that the Persian Empire conquered the Greeks for longer

False. The Persian invasion of Greece was a very famous failure.

 

[mojobadshah]

Use the same word that EVERYBODY ELSE uses? The pronunciation that YOUR OWN PEOPLE chose, thousands of years ago? Perhaps because the purpose is to communicate, and that if you use the words that people already know, they might have more chance of understanding what you are trying to say???

The Aryans (Irano-Afghans) chose to call themselves VRYN thousands of years ago.

And that "Y" reached back to influence that "V" vowel, long long ago, turning it from "a" to "ai" three thousand years ago, and to "e" or "i" two thousand years ago. The INDICS are the only people to have preserved the pronunciation with "a", which the Iranians have not been using since they were the same people as the Indics.

So the VYRN (Aryan) became Irani. What's your point?

What's "shite" about using a plural ending, when speaking of more than one person? THAT'S ALL that the -ti is, the same ending in origin as the -s in English, and you will find in the Iranian texts also, that endings get tacked on to the word, as required by the grammar of whichever particular language the text is written in.

Because nowhere in the Vedas is the form attested without a -ti. The Irano-Afghan form is attested as VRYN like Aryan.

No, the actual history is responsible for that. US educational institutions quite properly need to talk about the actual history

By confusing students into thinking that the Germans were the Aryans when the Irano-Afghans were the real Aryans?

, not your fantasies.

I'm not the bible thumper.

What I find there (the paragraph from p. 11) is "Zoroaster himself, although a zaotar, married into a 'warrior' family, and gave one of his daughters in marriage in the same way." In later India, the "caste" system would put barriers in the way of that; you were claiming that in the Vedas (which Boyce does not discuss in detail) such a system was already in place, but there is no evidence in support of that, so far as I can find.

See Zoroastrian History

Aryavarta wasn't a nation within the Bharata Dahnna or nation. All Arya in Vedic meant was "praiser of the gods." I mean they called the Irano-Aryans or Dasyu because they didn't praise their gods.

"Praiser" is not the root-meaning, but never mind that now. The Arya had their own national gods, whereas the other tribes had different gods, which is how it was in all Bronze Age societies. You are trying to draw a distinction between membership in a tribe, membership in an alliance, membership in a religion: but all of those things went together; that is what "nationality" consisted of at the time. Herodotus: "What is it that makes us all [Athenians, Spartans, etc.] Greek? We share the same ancestors, and we share the same gods, and we share the same speech."

Bharata is a very late term, well after Aryavarta.

No its not. It's in the Rig Veda. Bharata Dahnna "Bharata Nation."

Sigh. What is your problem understanding the concept of an adjectival ending???

Holy shit BX. I understand everything you have said about every linguistic element that you've pointed out since I've been on this forum. Why the heck would you think I don't?

As I told you, I no longer have a copy of Oxford English Dictionary, nor is it freely available. But that is where Wiki says the citation came from: late 18th-century, derived from the Sanskrit, through the Latin translations. I remembered seeing it in Jones, but haven't been able to find it in Jones; he was, however, far from the only English author writing about India, in the period when British East India Company was consolidating control of the country.

Well that's too bad. Because I'm not going to be satisfied with you're evidence until you can show me evidence of the form Arian attested in AT LEAST ONE piece of literature from before De Sacy that does exactly that.

If not one single person died, it would certainly not be a Holocaust... I deny that the words you keep re-writing appear in the Wiki article because THEY AREN'T IN THERE. I deny that they have any factual accuracy because the British did not, in fact, rely on French hack-authors for their policies. I looked for any history about British exploiting "Aryan/Dravidian" divisions in India: certainly it is true that the British employed divide-and-conquer tactics (especially setting Hindus and Muslims against each other) very often; but in the one case where "Aryans" and "Dravidians" faced off, which is in Sri Lanka (Ceylon as the Brits pronounced it then) where the (Indo-European-speaking) Sinhalese are Buddhist and the (Dravidian-speaking) Tamil are Hindu, the religious split more than the linguistic division (not really a big issue elsewhere in south India) created a cultural clash. But rather than saying (as whoever you were quoting claimed; my searches failed to find the source of your quote, but did turn up web-sites saying similar things) that "We British are Aryan, and will take the Aryan side against the non-Aryan darkies of the lower classes and the south", the British took the Tamil (Dravidian) side. They promoted the Tamil within the civil service (worsening the tensions which exploded in the recent civil wars there), because the Tamils were the minority and had generally been on the bottom, and would therefore be more beholden to the British.

Wikipedia on Aryan says "Meanwhile, in India, the British colonial government had followed de Gobineau's arguments along another line, and had fostered the idea of a superior "Aryan race" that co-opted the Indian caste system in favor of imperial interests."

On the British Raj Wikipedia says "British Raj (rāj (राज راج), lit. "reign" in Hindustani[1]) was the British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947;[2] it can also refer to the period of dominion, and even the region under the rule."

I can understand you not agreeing with it, but denying that that's what it says is just delusional. Now, I don't have a hard time believing wikipedia because it sounds like something I read here: After Tamerlane

 

[mojobadshah]

You think Iranians are the only people in the world who ever thought there was a single source? IT JUST ISN'T TRUE, and your refusal to acknowledge that is egotistical and insane.

Yes it is. The Gathas describes God as "an all good single omnipotent and omniscient creator with anthropomorphic features, who created both the spiritual and material universe and everything in it including the Devil, and who fathered mankind."

Like half the world thinks that God originated in Jewish scripture so what's you're point? You're just kidding yourself if you think that that the idea of the Jewish God developed independently. The only clear statements of monotheism appear in Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy while the Jews lived under Persian Zoroastrian tutelage.

Wrong. Proto-Isaiah shows it also. We have been over this before.

You said that Proto-Isaiah describes other gods as merely blocks of wood. That just doesn't do it for me. For one its an acknowledgment of other gods, and secondly it sounds more like a figure of speech than a strict monotheist statement.

Are you trying to communicate, or just to stroke your own ego?

No, all I'm trying to do is set the record straight.

I am telling you that you are making no sense, and are sounding downright stupid and crazy. Do you have any desire to explain what you are talking about? Now, apparently, you are expressing some belief that I am among "the top 1% of Americans"? I have never made $30K a year in my life, and am currently living in a trailer in the woods without electricity or running water. Try again.

You're always telling me that I'm crazy. And I wasn't including you among the 1%. I was saying if you're going to communize mine or anyone else's inheritance which includes the intangible wealth of one's cultural heritage then make sure you communize that 1%'s wealth too. Because the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) have been through one holocaust after the next since Zoroaster in order to defend theirs. That 1% isn't defending their wealth. They send kids that have never even heard of Iran or Afghanistan to do the slaughter.

No. That's the most terrible idea I have heard in a long time, as everyone else told you when you first came up with it. Free exchange of ideas is the reason we are not all still stuck in the Stone Age.

You brought it up. God is not one of those ideas that needs to be freely exchanged in commerce in order for people to have gotten themselves out of the Stone Age. God, the idea, was identified with the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) cultural identity, until the Jews hijacked it, and in turn the Christians and Muslims.

Quite the reverse. You only allow yourself to see or hear things which you can fit into your inflated sense of self-importance.

Dude, you live in a trailer in the woods. I on the other hand am in the most materialistic city in the world. I have no inflated sense of self-importance. My sense is the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were endowed with a rich cultural heritage. So really all I'm saying is that the Aryans are rich in the metaphorical sense, and they would be in a more tangible monetary sense, but there are too many cheap asses in the world who want to go around preaching about how the Greeks were militarily superior and the Jews are intellectually superior. And wait... wait.. I already know what you're going to say: "because they are." But that's just bullshit. It's how people like to take the focus off who the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) really are so that you can continue to exploit their wealth: religious concepts, natural resources, expand their empires, and so on....

Proto-Isaiah does not differ from Deutero-Isaiah in this regard, and the older chapters in Deuteronomy do not differ from 1-4.

Show me.

You were claiming that everyone actually believes that the Master Race once ruled the entire world, at the beginning of time, which not even the Nazis ever believed. And of course, most people don't believe that the "Master Race" has any validity at all.

What? They sent scientists all over the world to try and prove that every culture of the day had been an offshoot of the white race. I'm not trying to say that the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were the Master Race, but rather that they were responsible for the Master IE. language and monotheist religion.

No, it was the boondock, the barely-known territory at the fringes.

Athens and Sparta were at the boondocks. That's why the Persians didn't bother when they put up a fight. The Greeks of Asia Minor, Thrace, and Macedon which were both located in Europe, on the other, had more for them to covet.

The percentage of the world's population controlled by the British Empire was also far larger than anything the Persians could ever have dreamed of.

Yes, that's because there are more people around today, and also the world is a bigger place than it was during Persia's day, when the British did not even exist. Proportionately the population of the Persian Empire was larger than the British Empire did.

Yes, the English had far superior technology to what the Iranians had, and as a result, not only did they control a wider empire, but they controlled it more thoroughly. The Persian Empire didn't really "reach down to the ground": Cyrus tolerated local institutions controlling the day-to-day affairs of the people, because he didn't really have the power to control that much territory, in a thorough-going sense. This is why Persia turned out to be a hollow shell, easily blown apart by one strong breath.

A hollow shell? It was around for 300 years before Alexander showed up, who only ruled for 4 years. I think you have an inflated sense of empire. I don't even think you can call that an Empire, just a bullshit way for Europeans to stroke their egos, and overshadow the history of a "barbarian" culture. And Persia rose again to become Rome's greatest rival. If I'm not mistaken there are something like 3 times as many Persian speakers today as their are Greek or Italian speakers in the world.

Iran infiltrated plotters to assassinate the Saudi ambassador and bomb the Israeli embassy; they were caught last week, creating a serious possibility that we will have to overthrow that government. We have not wanted to start a war with Iran, but if Iran wants to start it, I assure you we will finish it.

Good luck with that. I supported the first two wars. I'm not going to support another one. But what? You sympathize with Absolute Monarchies and Religious States?

The other choice would be to invade, and force a change in regime, and we have rarely wanted to do that. We invaded Afghanistan because you launched mass murderers into our country; that was necessary, although I think that now Osama is dead, we ought to get out. The invasion of Iraq I will not attempt to excuse: I think it was very wrong and stupid, and I am on record as saying so even before we went in. But the state of Iran stayed away from sponsoring al-Qaeda; they have sponsored groups attacking Israel, but that's Israel's look-out; until last week they did not attempt to invade our soil, and so we have not carried our dislike for them so far as to try to overthrow them. We did not interfere in the 1979 revolution (though Khomeini always was distasteful to us), because we recognized that our interference back in 1953 had been wrongful and stupid.

I launched mass murders into your country? First off as cliche as it may sound I'm an American. I just don't believe in YOUR bullcrap interpretation of who the Aryans were and are. Second off, those mass murders didn't even come from Afghanistan. THEY CAME from Arabia. Non-Aryan lands. And yes, the U.S needs to get out of Afghanistan yesterday. For one you're not trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. So you're prob-a-bly not going to have an easy time making friends over there.

Stop BEING the bad guys. We don't give a damn about "winning your hearts." You can be whatever kind of society you like, go back to the Stone Age if medievalism is not primitive enough for you; just stay away from us.

NOW YOU LISTEN TO ME, AND YOU AND EVERY OTHER IRANO-AFGHAN HAD BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS CLEARLY:
DON'T YOU DARE
INVADE OUR SOIL TO COMMIT MURDERS EVER AGAIN. Because we have the power to invade YOUR soil anytime we need, and we could kill every last one of you, and reduce your countries to sheets of molten glass, if that is what it takes.

You tell em dog....

The first Sanskrit-Latin dictionary was 1666. I gave you a long quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia about that history back a few posts ago.

False. The Persian invasion of Greece was a very famous failure.

According to who? The Greeks? You mean the guys that went around telling stories about how their Gods were a bunch of lying, rapist, murdering thieves, and... trickers.

And I suppose that proskenesis was originally a Greek tradition too, right?

 

[mojobadshah]

Afghanistan provided the training bases and communication centers.

And were the heck was all the money that went into those bases and centers coming from? Pakistan? U.S.A's ally? Hah!. Afghanistan is a 90% agricultural society. The Afghans practically don't even use money. Money has the power to make people do some seriously stupid shit. So if you don't want the same shit to happen again STOP FUNDING THE SAUDIS, like BIN LADEN. What'd they pull a Grace Kelly on you're asses?

 

[bob x]

Yes it is. The Gathas describes God as "an all good single omnipotent and omniscient creator with anthropomorphic features, who created both the spiritual and material universe and everything in it including the Devil, and who fathered mankind."

And MANY OTHER CULTURES around the world also developed the notion of a singular creator god. Your belief that Iranians are the only people in the world ever to have developed such a notion is egotistical and insane.

Like half the world thinks that God originated in Jewish scripture

BECAUSE IT DID, as the end-point of a two-thousand-year evolution of ideas that started when Iranians didn't even know that animals could be domesticated.

You're just kidding yourself if you think that that the idea of the Jewish God developed independently.

No. You are the one who is seriously deluded here. The Jewish conception of God was a purer monotheism than the disguised polytheism of Zoroastrianism, with all its multiple "emanations" of God that allowed pagan deities to be re-adopted back into the religion despite Zoroaster's original teaching that they should be despised. Some Jewish sects did adopt these bastardized conceptions of angels and devils etc. but Judaism has thrown all that baggage out, because it is alien to their own tradition.

The only clear statements of monotheism appear in Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy while the Jews lived under Persian Zoroastrian tutelage.

Proto-Isaiah is as monotheistic as Deutero-Isaiah. I have told you this many times, and you just don't listen.
The early-written chapters of Deuteronomy are as monotheistic as the later ones. I have told you this many times, and you just don't listen.
When the Jews were under political rule from Persia, they received no Zoroastrian "tutelage" because Cyrus and his successors did not care, even slightly whether any other people converted to Zoroastrianism; for whatever reason, Zoroastrianism had no missionary urge. I have told you this many times, and you just don't listen.

You said that Proto-Isaiah describes other gods as merely blocks of wood.

I corrected myself. The passage about "blocks of wood" was Deutero-Isaiah, just before the verse hailing Cyrus as YHWH's anointed (moshiach). But in Proto-Isaiah, I showed you a passage about how YHWH controls the actions of everyone in the world whether they worship YHWH or not.

That just doesn't do it for me. For one its an acknowledgment of other gods

The "block of wood" passage acknowledges the existence of statues; yes, of course, obviously the statues existed. It is a flat denial that they are anything other than statues.

it sounds more like a figure of speech than a strict monotheist statement.

I don't know how much more bluntly the reality of any other gods could be denied. What is it that would be acceptable to you? The Gathas contain no denial of the reality of the Daevas, only statements that good people should "hate" them, which sounds much more like an acknowledgement of their reality.

I was saying if you're going to communize mine or anyone else's inheritance which includes the intangible wealth of one's cultural heritage

You are trying to CAPITALIZE the right to freely think ideas. That is outrageous, and horrible.

Because the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) have been through one holocaust after the next

I really hate that kind of trivialization of other people's suffering. No, you have never had anyone attempt, even once, to exterminate your entire people, so stop whining and playing victim. Most of the wars which you have had over the centuries have been yourselves doing it to each other. On the occasions when you have been invaded, your own inability to create a coherent society is the reason why you were vulnerable.

God is not one of those ideas that needs to be freely exchanged in commerce in order for people to have gotten themselves out of the Stone Age.

Ideas are not "exchanged in commerce" at all. Once they are public, they are out there for everyone. And yes indeed, contemplating how the universe could be explained in terms of some unifying principle was an exceedingly vital kind of idea, in order for us to progress beyond the Stone Age.

God, the idea, was identified with the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) cultural identity

BULLSHIT!
Other peoples went on figuring out their own ideas about God, and nobody outside the Irano-Afghans ever "identified" the notion of God with Irano-Afghan culture. Your insane notion that only the MASTER RACE was smart enough to think of any such concept does, indeed, make you sound like a Nazi (as does your stubborn desire to hijack the word "Aryan", not for the Proto-Indo-Iranians, but for the branch of their descendants who never called themselves that).

My sense is the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were endowed with a rich cultural heritage.

You had a turn at the top, but that was thousands of years ago. Some of your religious ideas did influence others: angels, devils, all that kind of rubbish; the only parts of Zoroastrianism that made it into other people's beliefs are the garbage, which has been worth less than nothing. What your people never could develop was a reasonably functional society, which is why you are so weak now, and have been for a very long time.

asses in the world who want to go around preaching about how the Greeks were militarily superior and the Jews are intellectually superior. And wait... wait.. I already know what you're going to say: "because they are."

Yep. Darius invaded Greece, and got his ass kicked; so Xerxes tried again, and got his ass kicked; but when Alexander invaded Persia, it evaporated like a puff of smoke, and Greek kings were ruling in Afghanistan down to the last century BC, while no Persian king has ever gotten near Greece again.
The Jews have always made contributions to the sciences and the arts far out of proportion to their numbers: Einstein is the most famous name, but the list of physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, musicians, authors, etc. who were Jewish is astounding. I am not saying your people are stupid, or have made no contributions: as a mathematician I revere al-Khworizmi for his work, but like most of the great contributors from Iranian origins, he was a very long time ago.

What? They sent scientists all over the world to try and prove that every culture of the day had been an offshoot of the white race.

What??? No, they were quite clear that most cultures in the world were from other races, and the Germans wanted to prove that therefore all those other cultures were inferior.

I'm not trying to say that the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were the Master Race, but rather that they were responsible for the Master IE. language and monotheist religion.

This is equally arrogant and insane.

Athens and Sparta were at the boondocks.

No, they fronted the Mediterranean, a massive cultural interface. The northern steppes had little population and were very late hearing of new ideas. Iranians only began to become powerful when they got out of that backwoods homeland and started copying ideas from the Mideast.

Yes, that's because there are more people around today, and also the world is a bigger place than it was during Persia's day, when the British did not even exist.

Britain did exist, but was in the boondocks.

Proportionately the population of the Persian Empire was larger than the British Empire did.

NOT EVEN CLOSE. The Mediterranean, China, India and southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa each had larger populations than Persia.

A hollow shell? It was around for 300 years before Alexander showed up, who only ruled for 4 years.

Less than 200 years, to be more precise; but after Alexander, there was nothing nothing nothing left of the Persian Empire. Greek successor states continued for centuries; Parthians gradually pushed them out of some, though not all, of the territory, but they were not remnants of the Achaemenid state, which had vanished without any successors at all.

I think you have an inflated sense of empire.

I am saying there is a distinction between the amount of territory an "empire" holds, and the degree of control the "empire" actually exerts. Achaemenid Persia had a wide territory precisely because Cyrus made a policy decision not to control any of it very thoroughly, and this is why, when that "empire" was shoved hard, it fell over and disappeared.

If I'm not mistaken there are something like 3 times as many Persian speakers today as their are Greek or Italian speakers in the world.

The descendants of Latin also include Spanish, French, and Portuguese, each of which outnumbers all the Iranian languages put together.

But what? You sympathize with Absolute Monarchies and Religious States?

???? Didn't I loudly shout the opposite? How strongly must I express myself for you to hear me?

First off as cliche as it may sound I'm an American.

If you were born here, you have our citizenship and I would not deny it to you. But your loyalties are obviously elsewhere.

Second off, those mass murders didn't even come from Afghanistan.

Afghanistan gave them the bases and the operations center. Saudi Arabia has a sick culture, but their government would not have allowed such a thing. Your people did. Your denial of it makes me worry whether you are the type to support terrorist infiltrators while lying about it.

For one you're not trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

No, we're not. They can be as sick at heart and as crazy of mind as they choose to be, just so they know to stay away from us.

 

[mojobadshah]

And MANY OTHER CULTURES around the world also developed the notion of a singular creator god. Your belief that Iranians are the only people in the world ever to have developed such a notion is egotistical and insane.

Not one that was omnipotent.

BECAUSE IT DID, as the end-point of a two-thousand-year evolution of ideas that started when Iranians didn't even know that animals could be domesticated.

There's nothing independent in development about a religion that started out henotheist which then converted to monotheism when the Jews came into contact with the Zoroastrians who were the first monotheists.

No. You are the one who is seriously deluded here. The Jewish conception of God was a purer monotheism than the disguised polytheism of Zoroastrianism, with all its multiple "emanations" of God that allowed pagan deities to be re-adopted back into the religion despite Zoroaster's original teaching that they should be despised. Some Jewish sects did adopt these bastardized conceptions of angels and devils etc. but Judaism has thrown all that baggage out, because it is alien to their own tradition.

You keep saying that, but that doesn't mean shit to me. Ahura Mazda was the creator and the Amesha Spentas were semi-divine beings that did not share Ahura Mazda's divine status. The Jewish conception of God as in a monotheist god didn't develop until the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians. Originally the Jews DID NOT have a God, because they were henotheist and they believed in other gods.

Proto-Isaiah is as monotheistic as Deutero-Isaiah. I have told you this many times, and you just don't listen.
The early-written chapters of Deuteronomy are as monotheistic as the later ones. I have told you this many times, and you just don't listen.
When the Jews were under political rule from Persia, they received no Zoroastrian "tutelage" because Cyrus and his successors did not care, even slightly whether any other people converted to Zoroastrianism; for whatever reason, Zoroastrianism had no missionary urge. I have told you this many times, and you just don't listen.

Yeah, Cyrus promoted religious tolerance, but if you read Wright he explains that the Persians also had a lot of influence on how the Old Testament was compiled and even its contexts including when it came to the Jewish perception of God.

But in Proto-Isaiah, I showed you a passage about how YHWH controls the actions of everyone in the world whether they worship YHWH or not.

Well what else does it say? Does it say there are no other gods but YHWH? Because from what I understand the shift from henotheism to monotheism only occurs in Deutero-Isaiah and that before the Yahweh of Jerusalem had merely become the only Yahweh, and not the only God. I mean if the Jews didn't worship YHWH they would have worshipped other gods right? The Zoroastrians on the other hand only worshipped one God. The Daevas weren't gods. They were demons. An entirely different concept. Now gods like Baal, etc... were gods, and did not become translated as variations of the Devil until the Christian era.

I thought you said that eminations was not strict monotheism?

You are trying to CAPITALIZE the right to freely think ideas. That is outrageous, and horrible.

No I'm not. I'm advocating the right to capitalize on very specific ideas which originated with the Aryan culture and are associated most justly with the Aryan cultural identity and that are not even necessities of life. And there's nothing horrible or outrageous about making sure something is justly compensated when their property is being infringed upon.

Ideas are not "exchanged in commerce" at all. Once they are public, they are out there for everyone.

Ideas are utilized in commerce. And who determines whether they are public? The idiots that would have to pay for them if they weren't?

And yes indeed, contemplating how the universe could be explained in terms of some unifying principle was an exceedingly vital kind of idea, in order for us to progress beyond the Stone Age.

I don't know how you can know that. But we're not in the Stone Ages anymore. We live in an age of IP regimes.

BULLSHIT!
Other peoples went on figuring out their own ideas about God, and nobody outside the Irano-Afghans ever "identified" the notion of God with Irano-Afghan culture. Your insane notion that only the MASTER RACE was smart enough to think of any such concept does, indeed, make you sound like a Nazi (as does your stubborn desire to hijack the word "Aryan", not for the Proto-Indo-Iranians, but for the branch of their descendants who never called themselves that).

Your just being silly now. The Irano-Afghans are the only ones who used the form VRYN which is the closest form to the word Aryan which today has been hijacked by the Nazis who write the highschool texts in such a way that students come out thinking that people like the Nazis who right the texts were the real Aryans. And I didn't say anything about a Master Race. Aryan (Irano-Afghan) is not a race. "White," "Black," "Brown," those are racial designators. When I say Irano-Afghan (Aryan) I only say that so not to confuse the linguistic designation Iranian which also includes the Afghans and others with the national designation Iranian which does not include the Afghans and others. I was speaking in terms of a Master Language ancestral to all the living Indo-European languages which the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) language indeed is, and a Master Monotheist Belief System which Zoroastrianism indeed is.

You had a turn at the top, but that was thousands of years ago. Some of your religious ideas did influence others: angels, devils, all that kind of rubbish; the only parts of Zoroastrianism that made it into other people's beliefs are the garbage, which has been worth less than nothing. What your people never could develop was a reasonably functional society, which is why you are so weak now, and have been for a very long time.

I don't understand why it's so easy for you to accept that the Aryans founded ideas like "The Christ" "Angels" "The Devil" "Demons" "Hell" "Heaven" "The Resurrection" "Judgment Day" but not "God."

Yep. Darius invaded Greece, and got his ass kicked;

I don't see it that way. He lost some battles. But the Persian Empire continued to expand its borders to include Thrace and Macedon which were in Europe.

so Xerxes tried again, and got his ass kicked;

I would hardly call having burned the entire city of Athens to the ground "getting his ass kicked."

but when Alexander invaded Persia, it evaporated like a puff of smoke, and Greek kings were ruling in Afghanistan down to the last century BC, while no Persian king has ever gotten near Greece again.

Alexander's Empire is what evaporated like a puff of smoke, and the only way Greeks managed to stay in Persia was by marrying into Persia, and as it turns out after Alexander's Empire did fall apart it the Persians were included within the largest of the 4 sections which were ruled by rival Greek factions. So did the Greeks really rule or was it the Persians by then?

The Jews have always made contributions to the sciences and the arts far out of proportion to their numbers: Einstein is the most famous name, but the list of physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, musicians, authors, etc. who were Jewish is astounding. I am not saying your people are stupid, or have made no contributions: as a mathematician I revere al-Khworizmi for his work, but like most of the great contributors from Iranian origins, he was a very long time ago.

Talk about Holocaust. Einstein was the father of the fucking atom bomb. Ave Siena, on the other hand, was the father of modern medicine. What could be more important than modern medicine? And if you want to talk about successful people far out of proportion to their numbers I hear that the Iranian Americans are the most successful ethnic group in the United States when it comes to business and education.

What??? No, they were quite clear that most cultures in the world were from other races, and the Germans wanted to prove that therefore all those other cultures were inferior.

They went to Tibet to measure faces and concluded that they were originally white.

This is equally arrogant and insane.

Their is nothing arrogant or insane about claiming that Einstein "invented" the Atom Bomb. What is insane is that he did.

No, they fronted the Mediterranean, a massive cultural interface. The northern steppes had little population and were very late hearing of new ideas. Iranians only began to become powerful when they got out of that backwoods homeland and started copying ideas from the Mideast.

Whatever. The point was that the Persians did rule over the Greeks of both Asia Minor and Europe. How many idiots know that?

Britain did exist, but was in the boondocks.

There was no Britain back then. The inhabitants of the land now known as Britain were pre-Indo-European speakers. Britain is a Celtic term is it not. And the Celts were Indo-Europeans. Hence, there was no Britain back then. We have no verbal history from the pre-IE inhabitants of Britain.

NOT EVEN CLOSE. The Mediterranean, China, India and southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa each had larger populations than Persia.

Not more multicultural populations, nor did they have a written history.

Less than 200 years, to be more precise; but after Alexander, there was nothing nothing nothing left of the Persian Empire. Greek successor states continued for centuries; Parthians gradually pushed them out of some, though not all, of the territory, but they were not remnants of the Achaemenid state, which had vanished without any successors at all.

Nothing left but a people that speak the Modern Persian language that are more people than the people who speak the Greek, Italian, French, Celtic, and German.

If you were born here, you have our citizenship and I would not deny it to you. But your loyalties are obviously elsewhere.

My loyalties are to the Aryan Americans....

Afghanistan gave them the bases and the operations center. Saudi Arabia has a sick culture, but their government would not have allowed such a thing. Your people did. Your denial of it makes me worry whether you are the type to support terrorist infiltrators while lying about it.

The Saudi's have a sick culture but their government would not have allowed such a thing??? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

No, we're not. They can be as sick at heart and as crazy of mind as they choose to be, just so they know to stay away from us.

Personally, I think that's the wrong approach. Especially when they are the ones that are being invaded and at the same time being demonized. Of course you're going to have people that are going to see it as an opportunity to glorify themselves when the fight is against a superpower. But what about the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Americans?

 

[bob x]

So the VYRN (Aryan) became Irani. What's your point?

That's the whole point. "VYRN" was pronounced "Eran" and is has since become pronounced "Iran". You want a word for the "Iranians" which excludes the "Indics": "Aryan" is not properly used in that sense, because that pronunciation was only used by the common ancestors (Proto-Indo-Iranians) and then by the Indic branch alone.

Because nowhere in the Vedas is the form attested without a -ti.

It occurs with numerous grammatical endings; Vedic Sanskrit like Avestan had a complex grammar. Nowhere in the Gathas does the word occur without some peculiar ending, either, depending on the grammatical context: at Yasna 9:14 in the context "the realm of the _____" it is airyene; at 27:5 in context "protective spirit for the _____" it is airyema; at 32:1 in context "the _____ strive for Ahura Mazda's blessing" it is airyemna etc. Nowhere in Avestan is the ending exactly -an anymore than in Vedic Sanskrit.

The Irano-Afghan form is attested as VRYN like Aryan.

As far as I can figure out what you are even trying to argue: in "Middle Persian" languages like Pahlavi etc. one possible grammatical ending, in appropriate contexts, was -an looking like a common ending in English. Well, that is why Iran is only used in English for Iran, and not for India, and similarly Afghan and Pashtun acquired their endings in the native languages, not as a tack-on in English. But apparently you think this means that English-speakers should not be allowed to use the -an suffix on other words (like American, say?) if the reference is to non-Iranian peoples? Sorry, not going to happen. We stick -an (or the plural -ans which does not occur in Iranian languages) to the stem ary- only to refer to people who actually pronounced it ary- and, sorry, that only includes Proto-Indo-Iranians and, after the split, the Indics, not the Iranians.

By confusing students into thinking that the Germans were the Aryans when the Irano-Afghans were the real Aryans?

No, we tell the students that the German belief was a total fiction; and if your garbage about "Irano-Afghans were the real Aryans" becomes widespread, we will teach students that that is a total fiction too.

I'm not the bible thumper.

Neither am I.

All Arya in Vedic meant was "praiser of the gods."

Wrong. I don't know why I explain anything to you, when you just stubbornly repeat what is false.

I mean they called the Irano-Aryans or Dasyu because they didn't praise their gods.

Dasyu refers to Dravidian and Munda speakers.

Bharata is a very late term, well after Aryavarta.

No its not. It's in the Rig Veda. Bharata Dahnna "Bharata Nation."

My bad: I thought Mahabharata was the first text to contain it.

Because I'm not going to be satisfied with you're evidence until you can show me evidence of the form Arian attested in AT LEAST ONE piece of literature from before De Sacy that does exactly that.

1) You can look for the OED as easily as I can.
2) de Sacy did not attest "Arian" either.

Wikipedia on Aryan says....

NO IT DOESN'T!
I have no idea where the hell you got that piece of text that you keep throwing at me. It is nowhere in the Wikipedia article, however.

On the British Raj Wikipedia says "British Raj (rāj (राज راج), lit. "reign" in Hindustani[1]) was the British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947;[2] it can also refer to the period of dominion, and even the region under the rule."

1858 was the date when Victoria assumed the title "Empress of India." The "period of dominion" of the British over India, however, had started well over a century before. Again, I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you, when you just won't listen.

I can understand you not agreeing with it, but denying that that's what it says is just delusional. Now, I don't have a hard time believing wikipedia because it sounds like something I read here: After Tamerlane

Repeating, over and over again, that a piece of text "says" what it simply does not say (at all; not even close; it's not just that the "quotation" isn't in there, but neither is anything like it) is seriously delusional. And what can I say about your claiming that this After Tamerlane sounds like it is saying it? None of the cites in that book that you pull up have any relevance either.

There's nothing independent in development about a religion that started out henotheist which then converted to monotheism

It is entirely independent of the Zoroastrian conception of a multiply-emanating deity into which pagan deities can be fused.

the Amesha Spentas were semi-divine beings that did not share Ahura Mazda's divine status.

The vast majority of Zoroastrian prayers and rituals are addressed to these deities; they receive more worship than Ahura Mazda himself, seeming not only to "share" his status but actually to overshadown him.

The Jewish conception of God as in a monotheist god didn't develop until the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians.

Wrong. I don't know why I bother talking to you.

if you read Wright

I read Wright. He demonstrates over and over again that he has zero understanding of how ancient peoples thought about anything, or about how religious people of any period think.

from what I understand the shift from henotheism to monotheism only occurs in Deutero-Isaiah

Your failure to understand does not change the facts. You are wrong.

and that before the Yahweh of Jerusalem had merely become the only Yahweh, and not the only God.

??? There had never been more than one Yahweh.

The Zoroastrians on the other hand only worshipped one God. The Daevas weren't gods. They were demons.

Unless their cult remained popular, like Mithra and Anahita to take the most prominent examples; then they got re-adopted into the religion and worshipped again.

I thought you said that eminations was not strict monotheism?

Exactly. Zoroastrianism as it came to develop (Zoroaster himself would not have approved, I don't think) was polytheism in weak disguise.

I'm advocating the right to capitalize on very specific ideas

Well that's even worse. You understand that the idea of capitalizing on ideas is, in general, a terrible idea-- but you want to make an exception where it would profit you personally.

And who determines whether they are public?

That's a simple question of fact. Are the ideas known to the public? Then they're public.

we're not in the Stone Ages anymore. We live in an age of IP regimes.

No thanks to people like you.

When I say Irano-Afghan (Aryan) I only say that so not to confuse the linguistic designation Iranian which also includes the Afghans and others with the national designation Iranian which does not include the Afghans and others.

"Irano-Afghan" is a reasonable term.

I was speaking in terms of a Master Language ancestral to all the living Indo-European languages which the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) language indeed is

No. The Aryan (Indo-Iranian) was one branch of descendants from the Proto-Indo-European, not "ancestral" to any of the others; and the Irano-Afghan was one branch of the Indo-Iranian, with significant shifts away from the original pronunciations (notably, the "Iran" word).

and a Master Monotheist Belief System which Zoroastrianism indeed is.

This is insane arrogance on the level of the Nazis.

I don't understand why it's so easy for you to accept that the Aryans founded ideas like "The Christ" "Angels" "The Devil" "Demons" "Hell" "Heaven" "The Resurrection" "Judgment Day" but not "God."

The Messiah, as the anointed king and agent of God on earth, was an independently derived concept, later somewhat influenced by the "Saoshyant" concept but not derived solely from Iranian sources. Angels, the devil, demons, hell: yes, that rubbish is all from iran. "Heaven", not so much. "The Resurrection" and "Judgment Day", not really (in the Zoroastrian texts each soul goes to judgment individually at death, not at end-times). "God", most assuredly not.

I don't see it that way. He lost some battles. But the Persian Empire continued to expand its borders to include Thrace and Macedon which were in Europe.

No, after the defeat of Darius at Marathon, his satrapy in Thrace (it had the name Skudra which is interesting in view of the Scutari name in the Balkans; perhaps same Indo-European root as Scyth and Scot) ceased to function, and his tributary kingdom in Macedon slew his ambassadors and stopped paying him. Word of his humiliation inspired Egypt to rebel, although he managed to put this down.

I would hardly call having burned the entire city of Athens to the ground "getting his ass kicked."

Losing 20,000 soldiers and his entire fleet, however, was a serious set-back. He had subdued Thrace again, but now lost it again; he had forced Macedon to pay him again, although the Macedonians spied against him, supplying info to the Greek city-states; and after he went home with his tail between his legs, he lost all the Greek-speaking cities, and many of the non-Greek cities, in western Anatolia.

Alexander's Empire is what evaporated like a puff of smoke

The successor states imposed the Greek language and much Greek culture on a huge area for centuries. Nobody in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, or Egypt ever spoke any kind of Persian again; the language of trade, diplomacy, and literature was Greek from then on.

the only way Greeks managed to stay in Persia was by marrying into Persia

What in the world are you talking about? Nobody cared about Roxanne, or took very seriously her claim that her son was Alexander's. She ended up buried ignominiously.

as it turns out after Alexander's Empire did fall apart it the Persians were included within the largest of the 4 sections which were ruled by rival Greek factions.

Yes, the kingdom of Antigonus (later ruled by the Seleucid dynasty) subjugated all of Persia, although not able to hold for more than two centuries.

So did the Greeks really rule or was it the Persians by then?

The Greeks.

Talk about Holocaust. Einstein was the father of the fucking atom bomb.

Which has not led to a holocaust, but to the longest-lasting and most widespread period of general peace in the history of the planet. Einstein was also the father of quantum theory, therefore of all electronics including the "IP regimes" which allow us to communicate; everything which separates us from the 19th century has his hand in it.

Ave Siena, on the other hand, was the father of modern medicine.

No, he was one author in the subject of medicine. Greek and Jewish doctors (and Frenchmen and Englishmen and Germans) have contributed more.

if you want to talk about successful people far out of proportion to their numbers I hear that the Iranian Americans are the most successful ethnic group in the United States when it comes to business and education.

As I say, I'm not calling your ethnicity stupid, or unaccomplished, but they are way way way behind the Jews.

The point was that the Persians did rule over the Greeks of both Asia Minor and Europe.

That's not true at all. In Asia Minor, yes, the Persians conquered the Ionian colonies of the Greeks. In Europe, they twice briefly subjugated the Thracian barbarians, and once for a couple decades got tribute from Macedon, a kingdom with a Greek ruling family but not a Greek populace.

There was no Britain back then. The inhabitants of the land now known as Britain were pre-Indo-European speakers. Britain is a Celtic term is it not. And the Celts were Indo-Europeans. Hence, there was no Britain back then.

The Centum branch of Indo-European (including Celts as well as Italics etc.) separated from the eastern branch (which I call "Indo-Germanic": the Germanics, Balkans, Indo-Iranians, and Balto-Slavics) and began spreading across western Europe (including the island of Britain, which they called by forms of "Britain" as far back as we can know) at a very early stage-- long before Indo-Iranians started filtering down out of their steppish homeland.

Nothing left but a people that speak the Modern Persian language that are more people than the people who speak the Greek, Italian, French, Celtic, and German.

You are seriously mistaken. Persian itself has 20 million speakers; the Iranian group as a whole has about 40 million. Among the Romance group: French has 75 million native speakers, and 190 million who use it as a second language in Africa (Persian for a second language would add about 15 million more to the Iranian totals); Spanish has 320 million speakers; Portuguese has 220 million speakers. Among the Germanic group: English has 330 million native speakers and 150 million who are fluent in it as a second language (and of course huge numbers who speak broken English); German has 90 million native speakers (and in the Balkans, a large number of second-language speakers though not many of them are very fluent). You are correct that Greek (down below 15 million) and Celtic (Welsh is the only one that is still in millions at all) are way past their prime.

My loyalties are to the Aryan Americans....

Exactly. I don't trust you.

 

[mojobadshah]

That's the whole point. "VYRN" was pronounced "Eran" and is has since become pronounced "Iran". You want a word for the "Iranians" which excludes the "Indics": "Aryan" is not properly used in that sense, because that pronunciation was only used by the common ancestors (Proto-Indo-Iranians) and then by the Indic branch alone.

What I meant to say was the Parthian aleph-rey-yeh-nun which translates to aryn or v-r-y-n as you say developed into Sassanian Eran and today's Iran and this Parthian aryn is closer to Aryan than Aryanti is. Are you now saying that the Parthian v-r-y-n was pronounced Eran? Because that's not what CAIS says.

As far as I can figure out what you are even trying to argue: in "Middle Persian" languages like Pahlavi etc. one possible grammatical ending, in appropriate contexts, was -an looking like a common ending in English. Well, that is why Iran is only used in English for Iran, and not for India, and similarly Afghan and Pashtun acquired their endings in the native languages, not as a tack-on in English. But apparently you think this means that English-speakers should not be allowed to use the -an suffix on other words (like American, say?) if the reference is to non-Iranian peoples? Sorry, not going to happen. We stick -an (or the plural -ans which does not occur in Iranian languages) to the stem ary- only to refer to people who actually pronounced it ary- and, sorry, that only includes Proto-Indo-Iranians and, after the split, the Indics, not the Iranians.

No I'm saying that the Parthian form aryn more closely resembles Aryan than the Aryanti does.

No, we tell the students that the German belief was a total fiction; and if your garbage about "Irano-Afghans were the real Aryans" becomes widespread, we will teach students that that is a total fiction too.

That would be totally like you not to because the ancestors of Irano-Afghan did call themselves vryn which comes out sounding exactly like Aryan, and Proto-Aryan (Proto-Indo-European) is a hypothetical language based on reconstructions so the Nazi belief that they were descendants of the Proto-Aryans is totally fictional, but the attested ancient literature shows that the Irano-Afghan forefathers did call themselves "Aryan."

Wrong. I don't know why I explain anything to you, when you just stubbornly repeat what is false.

Look whatever you think it meant there was no Arya land or nation during the Vedic period. The Vedas only mention a Bharata land or nation. Airyana Vejaeh the homeland of the Airya (Aryans) is mentioned in Irano-Afghan literature long before an Aryavarta is mentioned in Indic literature.

Dasyu refers to Dravidian and Munda speakers.

That's not what your source on Talgeri said.

My bad: I thought Mahabharata was the first text to contain it.

See no Aryavarta until long after a Bharata dahnna which was when these Arya roamed present day Pashtun (Irano-Afghan) occupied Pakistan.

1) You can look for the OED as easily as I can.
2) de Sacy did not attest "Arian" either.

De Sacy attested aleph-rey-yeh-nun > a-r-y-n > Arian > Aryan. And if I had access to the OED I would. But if you and the rest of the world are going to claim that the word Aryan was a loan from Sanskrit then you should be able to support that claim. Considering neither of us has seen this OED source I can't agree with you.

1858 was the date when Victoria assumed the title "Empress of India." The "period of dominion" of the British over India, however, had started well over a century before. Again, I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you, when you just won't listen.

That's the whole point. "VYRN" was pronounced "Eran" and is has since become pronounced "Iran". You want a word for the "Iranians" which excludes the "Indics": "Aryan" is not properly used in that sense, because that pronunciation was only used by the common ancestors (Proto-Indo-Iranians) and then by the Indic branch alone.

What I meant to say was the Parthian aleph-rey-yeh-nun which translates to aryn or v-r-y-n as you say developed into Sassanian Eran and today's Iran and this Parthian aryn is closer to Aryan than Aryanti is. Are you now saying that the Parthian v-r-y-n was pronounced Eran? Because that's not what CAIS says.

As far as I can figure out what you are even trying to argue: in "Middle Persian" languages like Pahlavi etc. one possible grammatical ending, in appropriate contexts, was -an looking like a common ending in English. Well, that is why Iran is only used in English for Iran, and not for India, and similarly Afghan and Pashtun acquired their endings in the native languages, not as a tack-on in English. But apparently you think this means that English-speakers should not be allowed to use the -an suffix on other words (like American, say?) if the reference is to non-Iranian peoples? Sorry, not going to happen. We stick -an (or the plural -ans which does not occur in Iranian languages) to the stem ary- only to refer to people who actually pronounced it ary- and, sorry, that only includes Proto-Indo-Iranians and, after the split, the Indics, not the Iranians.

No I'm saying that the Parthian form aryn more closely resembles Aryan than the Aryanti does.

No, we tell the students that the German belief was a total fiction; and if your garbage about "Irano-Afghans were the real Aryans" becomes widespread, we will teach students that that is a total fiction too.

That would be totally like you not to because the ancestors of Irano-Afghan did call themselves vryn which comes out sounding exactly like Aryan, and Proto-Aryan (Proto-Indo-European) is a hypothetical language based on reconstructions so the Nazi belief that they were descendants of the Proto-Aryans is totally fictional, but the attested ancient literature shows that the Irano-Afghan forefathers did call themselves "Aryan."

Wrong. I don't know why I explain anything to you, when you just stubbornly repeat what is false.

Look whatever you think it meant there was no Arya land or nation during the Vedic period. The Vedas only mention a Bharata land or nation. Airyana Vejaeh the homeland of the Airya (Aryans) is mentioned in Irano-Afghan literature long before an Aryavarta is mentioned in Indic literature.

Dasyu refers to Dravidian and Munda speakers.

That's not what your source on Talgeri said.

Repeating, over and over again, that a piece of text "says" what it simply does not say (at all; not even close; it's not just that the "quotation" isn't in there, but neither is anything like it) is seriously delusional. And what can I say about your claiming that this After Tamerlane sounds like it is saying it? None of the cites in that book that you pull up have any relevance either.

"Caste in India symbolized Indian backwardness. yet British rulers, for their own convenience, struck a bargain with Brahmins to harden caste status into an administrative system (formalized in the census). In colonial Africa a parallel process took place as clans and following were reinvented as 'tribes', with chiefly rulers as their ancestral leaders. Here, as in India, a plitical gambit was carefully packaged as an act of respect to local tradition. In the colonial version of history, caste and tribe were inscribed as immemorial features of the Indian and African past. In imperial propaganda, they became the genetic flaws that made self-rule for Indians and Africans impossible." - After Tamerlane

That's the whole point. "VYRN" was pronounced "Eran" and is has since become pronounced "Iran". You want a word for the "Iranians" which excludes the "Indics": "Aryan" is not properly used in that sense, because that pronunciation was only used by the common ancestors (Proto-Indo-Iranians) and then by the Indic branch alone.

What I meant to say was the Parthian aleph-rey-yeh-nun which translates to aryn or v-r-y-n as you say developed into Sassanian Eran and today's Iran and this Parthian aryn is closer to Aryan than Aryanti is. Are you now saying that the Parthian v-r-y-n was pronounced Eran? Because that's not what CAIS says.

As far as I can figure out what you are even trying to argue: in "Middle Persian" languages like Pahlavi etc. one possible grammatical ending, in appropriate contexts, was -an looking like a common ending in English. Well, that is why Iran is only used in English for Iran, and not for India, and similarly Afghan and Pashtun acquired their endings in the native languages, not as a tack-on in English. But apparently you think this means that English-speakers should not be allowed to use the -an suffix on other words (like American, say?) if the reference is to non-Iranian peoples? Sorry, not going to happen. We stick -an (or the plural -ans which does not occur in Iranian languages) to the stem ary- only to refer to people who actually pronounced it ary- and, sorry, that only includes Proto-Indo-Iranians and, after the split, the Indics, not the Iranians.

No I'm saying that the Parthian form aryn more closely resembles Aryan than the Aryanti does.

No, we tell the students that the German belief was a total fiction; and if your garbage about "Irano-Afghans were the real Aryans" becomes widespread, we will teach students that that is a total fiction too.

That would be totally like you not to because the ancestors of Irano-Afghan did call themselves vryn which comes out sounding exactly like Aryan, and Proto-Aryan (Proto-Indo-European) is a hypothetical language based on reconstructions so the Nazi belief that they were descendants of the Proto-Aryans is totally fictional, but the attested ancient literature shows that the Irano-Afghan forefathers did call themselves "Aryan."

Wrong. I don't know why I explain anything to you, when you just stubbornly repeat what is false.

Look whatever you think it meant there was no Arya land or nation during the Vedic period. The Vedas only mention a Bharata land or nation. Airyana Vejaeh the homeland of the Airya (Aryans) is mentioned in Irano-Afghan literature long before an Aryavarta is mentioned in Indic literature.

Dasyu refers to Dravidian and Munda speakers.

That's not what your source on Talgeri said.

It is entirely independent of the Zoroastrian conception of a multiply-emanating deity into which pagan deities can be fused.

A god that controls everything is exactly the same thing as a multiply-emanating deity, and even less monotheistic than Zoroastrianism because the Zoroastrian God created these what you call "emanating deities" with Free Will.

 

[mojobadshah]

The vast majority of Zoroastrian prayers and rituals are addressed to these deities; they receive more worship than Ahura Mazda himself, seeming not only to "share" his status but actually to overshadown him.

I don't care what it seems like to your devils advocate ass. Ahura Mazda is always acknowledged as God.

I read Wright. He demonstrates over and over again that he has zero understanding of how ancient peoples thought about anything, or about how religious people of any period think.

Your failure to understand does not change the facts. You are wrong.

??? There had never been more than one Yahweh.

These are the facts:

1.) Archaeologists have found written references from the eight century BCE not just to "Yahweh" but to "Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman." (Wright, 153)

Wright says "in a theocracy, this sort of divine fragmentation threatens national unity. Josiah, by confining the legitimate worship of Yahweh to the temple in Jerusalem, was asserting control over Yahweh's identity and thus over Judah's."

Which resulted in this monolatorous not monotheist statement:

2.) Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our god (Elohim) is one LORD (Yahweh) - Deuteronomy 6:4-5

And this clear monotheistic statement:

3.) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. – Deutero-Isaiah 44:6

doesn't appear until the Jews had come into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians.

Unless their cult remained popular, like Mithra and Anahita to take the most prominent examples; then they got re-adopted into the religion and worshipped again.

Exactly. Zoroastrianism as it came to develop (Zoroaster himself would not have approved, I don't think) was polytheism in weak disguise.

I'm not concerned with how the belief's of the Aryan people ended up. I'm more concerned about the fact that somewhere along the lines the Aryan people originated monothesim and they did it before any other people, and that Jewish monotheism developed from Aryan monotheism.

Well that's even worse. You understand that the idea of capitalizing on ideas is, in general, a terrible idea-- but you want to make an exception where it would profit you personally.

It already happens: The owners of the Superman copyright were famously able to sue the publishers of Captain Marvel in National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications, 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1951), that case was settled in an era where caped, super-powered superheroes were a fairly new concept, and where it could fairly be said that Captain Marvel would be a non-fair use derivative work based on Superman.

That's a simple question of fact. Are the ideas known to the public? Then they're public.

What is considered public domain depends on the legislators. The same idiots who would lose out if expressions were copyrightable because none of them are Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Americans.

No thanks to people like you.

I didn't invent IP regimes. But if you people are getting compensated for your ideas then the Aryan Americans should be getting compensated for theirs.

"Irano-Afghan" is a reasonable term.

But Aryan would be better because not only the ancient Iranians, but also the ancient Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, Pashtun, Ossettes, used similar designations, and it should exclude the Indics to avoid confusion between the Indic languages and the aforesaid language family. And high schools need to respect that the Irano-Afghans were the first people to have used this designation as national designation: Airyana Vejeah and do either one of two things. Either 1.) don't bring up the Aryans at all anywhere in the curriculum of high schools or 2.) not omit the fact that the Irano-Afghans speakers were the original Aryans by national affinity when the word Aryan is brought up anywhere in the textbooks. It's a very simple request. Don't do it and you'd just be bullshitting the [Aryan] American people.

No. The Aryan (Indo-Iranian) was one branch of descendants from the Proto-Indo-European, not "ancestral" to any of the others; and the Irano-Afghan was one branch of the Indo-Iranian, with significant shifts away from the original pronunciations (notably, the "Iran" word).

All I was meant was that after the long dead Anatolian language family the Indo-Iranian words are the oldest attested forms out of the Indo-European languages as a whole and therefore "Master" given the basic underlying IP. principle: you come up with it first copycats will be held accountable for infringement.

This is insane arrogance on the level of the Nazis.

Shut the front door. There's nothing insane or racist or genocidal about demanding compensation for a third parties exploitative usage of a peoples cultural heritage and identity. The Jews were in an uproar when Gibson misrepresented them and the Quelleta tribe were in an uproar when the producers of Twilight used elements of their Native American mythology in their movie.

The Messiah, as the anointed king and agent of God on earth, was an independently derived concept, later somewhat influenced by the "Saoshyant" concept but not derived solely from Iranian sources.

Yes before the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians Messiah meant something different, after words it meant "Saoshayant."

Angels, the devil, demons, hell: yes, that rubbish is all from iran. "Heaven", not so much.

I heard you the first time. But the Christians do use "angels," "the Devil," "demons," "heaven," "hell," "The Resurrection" and "Judgment Day."

"The Resurrection" and "Judgment Day", not really (in the Zoroastrian texts each soul goes to judgment individually at death, not at end-times). "God", most assuredly not.

Not true at all. For the Resurrection see Zam Yasht 3.14-20 and for the General Judgment see Yasna 43.5 and Zam Yasht 15.88-90

No, after the defeat of Darius at Marathon, his satrapy in Thrace (it had the name Skudra which is interesting in view of the Scutari name in the Balkans; perhaps same Indo-European root as Scyth and Scot) ceased to function, and his tributary kingdom in Macedon slew his ambassadors and stopped paying him. Word of his humiliation inspired Egypt to rebel, although he managed to put this down.

Did the Persian Empire expand to its greatest extent under Xerxes or not?

Losing 20,000 soldiers and his entire fleet, however, was a serious set-back. He had subdued Thrace again, but now lost it again; he had forced Macedon to pay him again, although the Macedonians spied against him, supplying info to the Greek city-states; and after he went home with his tail between his legs,

Impossible. People don't have tails between their legs.

he lost all the Greek-speaking cities, and many of the non-Greek cities, in western Anatolia.

Did the Persians rule Greek-speaking cities or not?

The successor states imposed the Greek language and much Greek culture on a huge area for centuries. Nobody in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, or Egypt ever spoke any kind of Persian again; the language of trade, diplomacy, and literature was Greek from then on.

Did those satraps ever really speak Persian ever?? From what I understand unlike you guys "Judeo-Christian Europeans" the Persians did not impose their language upon conquered peoples. In fact they had several official languages, but their language of commerce was Aramaic. And if imposed the Greek language then why don't the Aryans speak Greek today?

What in the world are you talking about? Nobody cared about Roxanne, or took very seriously her claim that her son was Alexander's. She ended up buried ignominiously.

But don't turn on the red light. But the word is that Alexander couldn't quell the Bactrians or ancient Afghans (Aryans) so he had to marry her.

Yes, the kingdom of Antigonus (later ruled by the Seleucid dynasty) subjugated all of Persia, although not able to hold for more than two centuries.

The Greeks.

The Greek forefathers of the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) not of present day Greece though. And the Seleucids had to do the same thing Alexander did to hold Persia. They took Persian wives.

Which has not led to a holocaust, but to the longest-lasting and most widespread period of general peace in the history of the planet. Einstein was also the father of quantum theory, therefore of all electronics including the "IP regimes" which allow us to communicate; everything which separates us from the 19th century has his hand in it.

What kind of insane ass justification for annihilating an entire city of innocent civilians, and putting the world in the greatest danger its ever been in.

No, he was one author in the subject of medicine. Greek and Jewish doctors (and Frenchmen and Englishmen and Germans) have contributed more.

Did any of those non-Aryans (non-Irano-Afghans) even exist during Sienna's time? His methods were revolutionary are still used in medicine today.

As I say, I'm not calling your ethnicity stupid, or unaccomplished, but they are way way way behind the Jews.

Well I'd hope not because you'd be offending something like 4 different European national ancestries.

That's not true at all. In Asia Minor, yes, the Persians conquered the Ionian colonies of the Greeks. In Europe, they twice briefly subjugated the Thracian barbarians, and once for a couple decades got tribute from Macedon, a kingdom with a Greek ruling family but not a Greek populace.

Oh wow... that's the same thing!

The Centum branch of Indo-European (including Celts as well as Italics etc.) separated from the eastern branch (which I call "Indo-Germanic": the Germanics, Balkans, Indo-Iranians, and Balto-Slavics) and began spreading across western Europe (including the island of Britain, which they called by forms of "Britain" as far back as we can know) at a very early stage-- long before Indo-Iranians started filtering down out of their steppish homeland.

The Celts didn't inhabit where Britain is today that long ago. Nor did the Germanic people. I believe it was Herodotus who first mentions the Celts and Germanic people about 100 years after Old Persian inscriptions and the Cyrus Cylindar, not to mention the the Airyana of the Avesta attested hundreds of years before then. Persia hasn't moved since it was established.

You are seriously mistaken. Persian itself has 20 million speakers; the Iranian group as a whole has about 40 million. Among the Romance group: French has 75 million native speakers, and 190 million who use it as a second language in Africa (Persian for a second language would add about 15 million more to the Iranian totals); Spanish has 320 million speakers; Portuguese has 220 million speakers. Among the Germanic group: English has 330 million native speakers and 150 million who are fluent in it as a second language (and of course huge numbers who speak broken English); German has 90 million native speakers (and in the Balkans, a large number of second-language speakers though not many of them are very fluent). You are correct that Greek (down below 15 million) and Celtic (Welsh is the only one that is still in millions at all) are way past their prime.

Lets put it this way. Iran has 80 million people alone. Afghanistan has 30 million, but maybe 15 million Persian only speakers. Tajikistan has 8 million Persian speakers. Total Persian speakers ~ 100 million Persian speakers. More native Persian speakers than there are native Greek, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Scottish, German, English, speakers.

Exactly. I don't trust you.

Yeah, well I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY. I trust in myself.... Who do you trust?