Irish Chronology of the Irano-Afghan and Abrahamic People

[bob x]

237, 273, 254, and 248.

Sigh... I didn't want you to just repeat the numbers. I was asking if you would give me some clue what they are, if they're not page numbers. Before the 237, you have a related text (roughly corresponding Irish/English, both with the "Greeks of Scythia" weirdness) marked 123. Before the 273 is a section marked 29 in the middle and 159 at the end. Before the 254 is a section 137 (where Cecrops, founding king of Athens, is mentioned as the king where Nemed came from). Before the 248 is a section 129 which is obviously not from the Lebor at all: it describes inferences drawn from putting different sections of the Lebor together, and variant traditions disagreeing with the Lebor, and I'm interested to know what the source is.

No that's pretty much what I said.

You didn't understand at all what I was talking about, but it is probably more my fault for not explaining well. Where the original language had two different sounds, then in the descendant languages we would usually expect that these would stay two different sounds, even if not the same two sounds as before (one or both might shift: "p" and "f" were different in Latin, and become "p" and "h" in Spanish, pater/filius "father/son" > pater/hijo), but what used to be two different sounds might merge into one ("f" and "h" were different in Latin, but merge in Spanish). The reverse is more difficult: where the original language had only one sound, we do not expect it to split into two different sounds in descendants, except where the shift is driven by differences in the neighboring sounds: "c" in Latin was always pronounced "k", but before a front-vowel (i/e) it typically shifts to "s" where a back-vowel (a/o/u) leaves it alone, cattus/centum "cat/hundred" becoming English cat ("k" sound) but cent ("s" sound). There is no difference in neighboring sounds that distinguishes Sanskrit "b" from "bh" (or the corresponding Germanic "w" vs. "b" or the corresponding Latin "v" vs. "f") since both can occur before any sort of vowel. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, therefore, that this arose from the Avestan, in which both of them are "b"; if the single sound "b" had originally been present in all of the words, there is no reason why some cases of "b" would shift and not others, particularly not in systematic ways where, in each descendant language, the "bear/fer/bharati" word would shift one way while the "wield/valor/bala(ti)" word would shift the other, despite the fact that each descendant is shifting by a different pattern. It is totally established that Avestan shows a merger of two original sounds into one, here and in the analogous cases where Sanskrit also has aspirated vs. unaspirated while Avestan has a merger.

Sanskirt shows these aspirated plosives where none of the other IE. languages do.

It is hotly debated among Indo-Europeanists what the two original sounds were, whether Sanskrit's "b" vs. "bh" is faithful to the original, or whether there used to be glottalized consonants (something no IE language now has but related Nostratic languages do) which got reduced in varying ways in the descendant languages. It is however believed that in the Indo-Iranian branch at least, "b" and "bh" was original.

I view this as a sign of 4 cases where Sanskrit develops from the proto-Indo-Iranian consonants where Avestan doesn't.

There have to have been 8 separate consonants in the Indo-Iranian, which are merged into 4 in the Avestan, where Sanskrit preserves the set of 8.

If a sibilant like can develop into an aspirate like [h]>(h) then I don't see why a sibilant like [z] or something softer like an wouldn't develop into [h].

What you were claiming is that "gh" shifting to "h", which is totally direct and straightforward, could only have happened through an intermediate stage "z": the shift "z" to "h" is not impossible, though rare, but "gh" to "z" is totally bizarre.

I have found evidence of a z in the word "zoo" being pronounced j "joo" in Vietnamese

You are confusing what happens to non-native words that get borrowed, with the evolution within a language of native words. Vietnamese doesn't HAVE the "z" sound, so they have to substitute the next-nearest approximation when they borrow a word like "zoo".

but getting from j > g would appear to be less likely. But what about j > dj > g?

Both of these are unheard-of.

If it occasionally happens that's all I need to know.

Since x > sh is rare, the expectation is that the majority of descendants would retain the original, a small minority showing the shift.

"sh" to "s" happens too right?

Rarely. So under your hypothesis, the majority should have the original "x"; of the minority, most should show "sh"; hardly any should have "s". Instead ALL BUT ONE have "s".

It's not something you can discount unless you're trying to attribute some kind of language dominance to a people other than the Aryans (Irano-Afghans).

It is totally implausible, unless you are arbitrarily trying to attribute some kind of language dominance to Irano-Afghans. But if you think the Avestan form is original, then why don't you see "Aryan" as a distortion, and "Iran" (pronounced EYE-ran) as the original?

And I got another question. Avestan is more archaic than Old Persian. Yet Avestan shows Airya whereas Old Persian shows Ariya.

Not only have I talked about this with you repeatedly, I just got through asking you, specifically, to stop replying without paying attention to what I am saying. FOR AT LEAST THE FOURTH TIME: Old Persian is written in a weird script, syllabic cuneiform where each character is consonant+vowel, and the pronunciations of the words are not faithfully reflected, as the words are shoehorned into that shape. My best guess as to how a.ri.ya. was pronounced is that the ri. character is here being used for "ir" and that the word was airya exactly like in the Avestan. Is there any possibility that you could respond to this hypothesis of mine, or at least acknowledge that I have made it? Or am I going to have to post this same thing again next time, and then again, and then again...

there is also bad cf. wind, but I've also noticed that Sem. bedouin means "people of the arid land" which maybe be some sort of confusion between Iran. behdeen "people of good faith" and [people of the] bad "wind/arid" + din "cult"

Hopeless... I was giving you those words thinking it was OBVIOUS TO ANYBODY that they had NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with each other. OK: so do you think Iran is derived from English "I ran" because Irano-Afghans are all cowards, related of course to iron in the sense of "to flatten out wrinkles"?

But weren't the Magush well-nigh kings?

The shah was the king. From Cyrus on, no rival to the royal authority was tolerated.

OED says di- fr. dis prefix repr. L. dis-, corr. to Germ. *tiz- and rel. to Gr. DIA-.

OK, my bad.

see Wōden Etymology and origins

Yeah, it says the name means "rage", just like I told you. They also suggest a connection to the PIE *wat "shamanic trance" root in Latin vates "soothsayer; diviner" and the Irish faidh. That's possible, but there is no relation to the root of Germanic wit/wise, Latin videre "to see", Irish fis "sight", Indo-Iranian veda/avesta. There's a rare Sanskrit vaadiza "soothsayer" that looks to belong to the other root: the two roots are plainly distinguished in all branches.

See Vatican- are its orgins from paganism

Yeah, confirming what I told you. Do you have a point?

 

[mojobadshah]

Sigh... I didn't want you to just repeat the numbers. I was asking if you would give me some clue what they are, if they're not page numbers. Before the 237, you have a related text (roughly corresponding Irish/English, both with the "Greeks of Scythia" weirdness) marked 123. Before the 273 is a section marked 29 in the middle and 159 at the end. Before the 254 is a section 137 (where Cecrops, founding king of Athens, is mentioned as the king where Nemed came from). Before the 248 is a section 129 which is obviously not from the Lebor at all: it describes inferences drawn from putting different sections of the Lebor together, and variant traditions disagreeing with the Lebor, and I'm interested to know what the source is.

I don't know what to tell you. I told you what the book is called, who wrote it, and cited where the forms in question appear, and that they appear in two languages. 1 is in English and the other looks to be a Celtic language that it was translated from. The only other thing I figure might help is that 237 for example is taken from SECTION V First Redaction L3y11: F7y10.

It is totally established that Avestan shows a merger of two original sounds into one, here and in the analogous cases where Sanskrit also has aspirated vs. unaspirated while Avestan has a merger.

It is however believed that in the Indo-Iranian branch at least, "b" and "bh" was original.

There have to have been 8 separate consonants in the Indo-Iranian, which are merged into 4 in the Avestan, where Sanskrit preserves the set of 8.

There have to have been??? Because Sanskrit shows two forms one of which no other IE. languages shows? No way! For all we know Sanskrit was affected by another language and THAT's the reason it shows aspirated plosives, whereas Avestan and ALL the other IE. languages were not affected in the same way and maintained the unaspirated plosives or whatever they shifted to.

What you were claiming is that "gh" shifting to "h", which is totally direct and straightforward, could only have happened through an intermediate stage "z": the shift "z" to "h" is not impossible, though rare, but "gh" to "z" is totally bizarre.

Yeah, that's what I was saying gh > z > h.

You are confusing what happens to non-native words that get borrowed, with the evolution within a language of native words. Vietnamese doesn't HAVE the "z" sound, so they have to substitute the next-nearest approximation when they borrow a word like "zoo".

But how do you know that there wasn't a lot of intermixing with non-IE speakers? Pelasgians, Etruscans, the Basque, Seal people, etc...

Since x > sh is rare, the expectation is that the majority of descendants would retain the original, a small minority showing the shift.

Rarely. So under your hypothesis, the majority should have the original "x"; of the minority, most should show "sh"; hardly any should have "s". Instead ALL BUT ONE have "s".

Tocharian Latin, Old Irish, Gothic all show "s". And what is interesting is that is that all the Greco-Aryan languages including Armenian to the exclusion of Sanskrit show "h" as well as "s" and Hittite shows "sh"

Initially my argument was that h > x > s e.g. Ahura > *Axura > Ashura > Asura.

It is totally implausible, unless you are arbitrarily trying to attribute some kind of language dominance to Irano-Afghans. But if you think the Avestan form is original, then why don't you see "Aryan" as a distortion, and "Iran" (pronounced EYE-ran) as the original?

I do see it as whatever it was. If it was Eye-ran then it was Eye-ran. On the Yahweh-Yireh post I was trying to point out how the term Aryan is intentionally and for political reasons not associated with the Iranians in textbooks whereas it is associated with both the Vedic people, the Indo-Europeans, and the Nazis. You implied that the textbooks were right to call the Vedic people Aryan but not correct to call the Iranians Aryan when so far we have concluded that neither group ever really called themselves Aryan verbatim. You were also telling me that it's not a good idea for the Iranians to call themselves Aryan because the term would be confused with Nazis, but then you turned around and said that it made sense for the textbooks to call the Vedic people Aryan. Moreover my point is that the Iranians are called the Iranians because they have been using some form of the term Iran as a national designation throughout there history beginning with the Avestan form Airyana > Eran[shahr] > Iran[shahr] > Iran > Aryana which designates their ancestral homeland. Talgeri is one of the few Indic scholars who has come forth with this new interpretation that implies the Indics used the Arya "Aryan" as a national designation, yet most any Indic person you speak to on the subject will tell you that the term is used in the spiritual sense and though in post-Vedic (I stress post-Vedic; centuries after the Yasnas were attested) texts that the form Arya to designate the homeland Aryavarta. But the Iranians live there today as well as on part Airyana. The Indic speakers that live there are not even Hindu, but virtually all Urdo speaking Muslims in the strict sense and I doubt that the designation is even relevant to them. And lastly, Talgeri also promotes the out of India hypothesis which implies that the Indo-Europeans migrated out of in India rather than the reverse which if you ask me is a big joke. So at present I do see Aryan as a distortion of Airyana, but I also see Roman as a distortion of Romanus. Yet both Aryan and Roman are just Irano-Afghan and Romance family designations, respectively.

Yeah, it says the name means "rage", just like I told you. They also suggest a connection to the PIE *wat "shamanic trance" root in Latin vates "soothsayer; diviner" and the Irish faidh. That's possible, but there is no relation to the root of Germanic wit/wise, Latin videre "to see", Irish fis "sight", Indo-Iranian veda/avesta. There's a rare Sanskrit vaadiza "soothsayer" that looks to belong to the other root: the two roots are plainly distinguished in all branches.

Yeah, confirming what I told you. Do you have a point?

Oh, I just assumed that PIE *wat "prophet, poet" (but compare Avestan: aipi-vat-`to understand, comprehend') was the root of words like wit, but it resembles PIE *weid- "to know" in sound and meaning so much so that I wouldn't be surprised if the linguists distinguish the two roots so that people wouldn't come to realize that the Vatican and the Avesta and Veda don't share more in common than just expressions associated with religion, not to mention that the Vatican was built over a Mithraeum.

 

[bob x]

I don't know what to tell you.

WHAT THE NUMBERS MEAN! What is so difficult about this?

The only other thing I figure might help is that 237 for example is taken from SECTION V First Redaction L3y11: F7y10.

So the "237" is a footnote number? OK, so where is "129" taken from?

There have to have been???

There were four pairs of sounds conventionally marked (because of the Sanskrit pattern) as b/bh, d/dh, g/gh, gw/gwh (as opposed to the unvoiced p, t, k, kw where there need not have been any p/ph etc. distinctions). THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE BEEN "b" and "bh" etc. originally (there are conflicting theories about what the original sounds were). But there do have to have been eight different sounds originally, definitely not just four like in Avestan. Because in other descendant languages we get two different sounds depending on whether it is a "b" case or a "bh" case; what two sounds we get varies from one branch to another, but we keep getting two, not one. So it didn't start as one sound.

For all we know Sanskrit was affected by another language and THAT's the reason it shows aspirated plosives

And how would the Germanics and the Italics telepathically know which words in Sanskrit got a "bh" from the alien source, so they could know whether or not to keep it as "b" rather than shift it to "w" (in the case of the Germans) or shift it to "f" rather than keep it as "b" (in the case of the Latins). Your hypothesis, remember, is that ALL the sounds were just "b"; that's how it is in Avestan, and somehow you've gotten it into your head that that's the original, so why do Germans sometimes shift that "b", and sometimes not, and Latins shift if and only if the Germans didn't, and Sanskrit lets you predict which shifts will happen?

Yeah, that's what I was saying gh > z > h.

I KNOW that's what you're saying. I was asking WHY you would think that: "gh" straight to "h" makes sense; "gh" to "z"???

what is interesting is that is that all the Greco-Aryan languages including Armenian to the exclusion of Sanskrit show "h"

Greek only has "h" at the beginning of words, not always in place of "s"; Armenian "h" is something completely different; other branches of Indo-Iranian like Dardic do not have the s > h shift which is unique to Iranian.

Hittite shows "sh"

Possible, but not likely. They wrote in cuneiform, which is terrible for figuring out what the real pronunciations were. Their convention was to use the syllables with plain "s" only for Sumerograms and Akkadograms (spelling out words in the older languages instead of in their own) and the syllables with "sh" for Hittite, but that does not necessarily mean "sh" was the sibilant in Hittite, and few scholars think it was. Brill's Dictionary assumes the sibilant was just "s" but except for a little discussion of how consonant clusters including the sibilant reduce, there isn't much to explain why they think so.

Initially my argument was that h > x > s e.g. Ahura > *Axura > Ashura > Asura.

Then the majority of branches should have "h". Of the remainder, most should have "x". Of the few that are left, most should have "sh". Only very late derivative languages should have "s" as the-minority-of-the-minority-of-the-minority probability for all three shifts shoudn't even give us so much as one example among the ancient cases. This, of course, is nothing like reality.

I do see it as whatever it was. If it was Eye-ran then it was Eye-ran.

OK then. It is spelled IRAN. Can we stop this nonsense now?

On the Yahweh-Yireh post I was trying to point out how the term Aryan is intentionally and for political reasons not associated with the Iranians

Sigh... apparently not. THE REASON THE TERM "ARYAN" IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH IRANIANS IS... I THINK I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE... MORE THAN ONCE... ARE YOU READY? IT IS BECAUSE THE IRANIAN PEOPLE HAVE NEVER EVER EVER USED THAT WORD FOR THEMSELVES, NOT SINCE "IRANIAN" PEOPLE EXISTED, NOT UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY.

whereas it is associated with both the Vedic people

Correctly.

the Indo-Europeans

Seemed like a reasonable guess, but it was wrong.

and the Nazis.

Very wrong, but in order to teach that the Nazis were wrong, we do have to explain what they were saying.

You implied that the textbooks were right to call the Vedic people Aryan but not correct to call the Iranians Aryan when so far we have concluded that neither group ever really called themselves Aryan verbatim.

English speakers use -an as an adjective ending. German speakers use -isch instead. We will continue to do so, whether you like it or not. The ary- stem to which those adjectival endings have been attached is strictly from the Sanskrit. Your people shifted the vowel, a very long time ago, and the standard name for your people reflects that. I have told you this before. I don't understand what it is so difficult here.

You were also telling me that it's not a good idea for the Iranians to call themselves Aryan because the term would be confused with Nazis

It is the peculiar combination of grabbing this inappropriate name "Aryan" and making exaggerated pretensions to be the one and only race in the world which ever thought about God or souls or right and wrong, and taught all the other untermenschen the ideas they needed to become civilized, which makes you sound like a Nazi.

but then you turned around and said that it made sense for the textbooks to call the Vedic people Aryan.

That's what they called themselves (except that they have different adjectival endings other than -n, if that really matters to anyone).

Moreover my point is that the Iranians are called the Iranians because they have been using some form of the term Iran as a national designation throughout there history

No, that's MY point actually.

beginning with the Avestan form Airyana > Eran[shahr] > Iran[shahr] > Iran > Aryana

You were fine all the way up there until the end. "Iran" has stayed "Iran".

Talgeri is one of the few Indic scholars who has come forth with this new interpretation that implies the Indics used the Arya "Aryan" as a national designation

There is nothing even slightly new about that. It has been taken for granted by Sanskritists since the 1600's.

yet most any Indic person you speak to on the subject will tell you that the term is used in the spiritual sense

Among other senses.

The Indic speakers that live there are not even Hindu, but virtually all Urdo speaking Muslims

So? Linguistically, "Urdu" and "Hindi" are not even separate languages. Now you are saying that all Muslims are basically the same? That's how you end up being called "Arabs" by the more ignorant elements of the American population.

And lastly, Talgeri also promotes the out of India hypothesis which implies that the Indo-Europeans migrated out of in India rather than the reverse which if you ask me is a big joke.

I would agree with you there.

So at present I do see Aryan as a distortion of Airyana

Quite the reverse, actually: all cognates in other branches have ar-

I also see Roman as a distortion of Romanus.

No, that's just a change of adjectival endings. English speakers use -an to form adjectives. I know I have told you this before.

Yet both Aryan and Roman are just Irano-Afghan and Romance family designations, respectively.

No, "Aryan" does not occur in the Irano-Afghan languages at all; "Roman" is more narrow than "Romance", referring either to inhabitants of the city, or to the political structure of the old Empire.

Oh, I just assumed that PIE *wat "prophet, poet" (but compare Avestan: aipi-vat-`to understand, comprehend') was the root of words like wit

The two roots are distinct in every branch, as far as I can tell. That means there were two separate words all the way back to PIE. Now, if you go further back than PIE, it could well be that those two came from one

so that I wouldn't be surprised if the linguists distinguish the two roots so that people wouldn't come to realize...

Don't start stupid conspiracy theories. Linguists distinguish the two roots because they are two separate roots.

not to mention that the Vatican was built over a Mithraeum.

The Vatican was a CEMETERY before the Christians took it over. It was swamp ground that nobody wanted. People write lots of horse manure about the Mithraists, always wanting to pretend they had more to do with the Christians than it now appears they really did.

 

[mojobadshah]

WHAT THE NUMBERS MEAN! What is so difficult about this?

So the "237" is a footnote number? OK, so where is "129" taken from?

I'll have to get back to you on this because I don't have my book on me, but from what I can remember apart from the numbers marking the beginning of each verse in the Volume there is hardly any explanation as to where the Celtic source is derived from, but the books is called "The Book of the Taking of Ireland."

Your hypothesis, remember, is that ALL the sounds were just "b"; that's how it is in Avestan, and somehow you've gotten it into your head that that's the original, so why do Germans sometimes shift that "b", and sometimes not, and Latins shift if and only if the Germans didn't, and Sanskrit lets you predict which shifts will happen?

So 1. Sanskrit "b" corresponds to Germanic "w" and Latin "v" and 2.) Sanskrit "bh" corresponds to Germanic "b" and Latin "f".

So how do you know that a foreign element didn't affect "b" such that "b" > Avestan "b" Germanic "b" Sanskrit "bh" and Latin "f"?

I KNOW that's what you're saying. I was asking WHY you would think that: "gh" straight to "h" makes sense; "gh" to "z"???

Sorry you're question is not very clear. Is it impossible that "gh" > "z" > "h"? I just looks to me like in the case with *PIE *gwh> Skr. gh that a development straight to "h" looks too quick and unlikely and I'm compelled to conclude that there had to have been an intermediary stage like "z" or "j" or "s" before "h" that Sanskrit just doesn't show. Proto-Indo-Iranian shows *ǰʰ > Av. "z" where Skr. is "h." It's another case of this bs tendency to stay as close to the original false hypothesis that Sanskrit is closer to PIE than all the other IE. languages, but it's not unlikely that either ǰʰ or there was no ǰʰ but rather *ǰ and *ǰ > z > h is it?

Greek only has "h" at the beginning of words, not always in place of "s"; Armenian "h" is something completely different;

Big deal. They show "h" instead of "s" so how can you be 100% certain that "s" wasn't a product of "h" via an intermediary like "x" or "sh" which other languages like Avestan show or like Hittite at least are believed to display?

Then the majority of branches should have "h". Of the remainder, most should have "x". Of the few that are left, most should have "sh". Only very late derivative languages should have "s" as the-minority-of-the-minority-of-the-minority probability for all three shifts shoudn't even give us so much as one example among the ancient cases. This, of course, is nothing like reality.

Should have would have could have. To much conjecturing. We know that Avestan has "h", "x", and "s" Greek has "h" and "s" and Armenian has "h" Hittite might have "sh" and Sanskrit only s. There is no sure way to conclude that s >h and not the other way around like h > x > sh > s. And "s" doesn't regularly shift to "x" does it?

Sigh... apparently not. THE REASON THE TERM "ARYAN" IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH IRANIANS IS... I THINK I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE... MORE THAN ONCE... ARE YOU READY? IT IS BECAUSE THE IRANIAN PEOPLE HAVE NEVER EVER EVER USED THAT WORD FOR THEMSELVES, NOT SINCE "IRANIAN" PEOPLE EXISTED, NOT UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY.

YOU ARE BEING TOO TECHNICAL. Just like the lame ass imaginary laymen I was talking about. If the reason Aryan is not associated with Iranian then why does most of the literature from at least Müller 1847 Bopp 1850 Nolan 1857 up to now associate the Irano-Afghans (and Indo-Iranians) with the term "Aryan."

English speakers use -an as an adjective ending. German speakers use -isch instead. We will continue to do so, whether you like it or not. The ary- stem to which those adjectival endings have been attached is strictly from the Sanskrit. Your people shifted the vowel, a very long time ago, and the standard name for your people reflects that. I have told you this before. I don't understand what it is so difficult here.

That's what they called themselves (except that they have different adjectival endings other than -n, if that really matters to anyone).

Correctly.

No they never called themselves Aryan verbatim. According to you -n was a modern western development. The textbook itself even appears to make a point of this distinguishing Arya as a linguistic term and Aryan as a "national" term like it matters. The point is that the Iranians and according to you the Indics both used the term "Aryan" as a national designation.

Seemed like a reasonable guess, but it was wrong.

IT WAS PROPAGANDA.

Very wrong, but in order to teach that the Nazis were wrong, we do have to explain what they were saying.

Yeah, and in order to prove just how WRONG they were wouldn't it make sense to show that the ancestors of the Germans did not establish the First World-Empire, their literature does not date back to the furthest reaches of antiquity among the Indo-Europeans, and that a good deal of the religious expressions among the IE. were not derived from the Germans but oddly enough the ancient Irano-Afghans who do have a realistic association with the term "Aryan" were responsible for having established the First World-Empire, their literature is ancient, and the religious expressions that westerners still associate with today are characteristic of those that can be traced back to this ancient literature? And if not that then wouldn't it be fair to the Iranians and if it is just the Indics to point out that the term Aryan was not only misused but had been and is still used among the Indo-Iranians?

No, that's MY point actually.

No its not exactly your point. My point is that the Irano-Aryans actually had a national homeland called Airyana "Aryan land" in the beginning whereas, although the Indo-Aryans did call themselves Arya in some ethnic sense they did not mention any national homeland Aryavarta "Aryan land" until Manu-smriti was composed which was hundreds of years later.

You were fine all the way up there until the end. "Iran" has stayed "Iran".

Yeah as the name of the country Iran, but Aryana has been used among the Afghans at least since the 1950s, not to mention forms like Aryan, and Ariya. And see you just got confused about whether I was referring to the Iranians or the Irano-Afghans.

There is nothing even slightly new about that. It has been taken for granted by Sanskritists since the 1600's.

I don't think so. I think that this idea that "it has been taken for granted" is recent Hindu national propaganda that runs along the same lines as the Hindus trying to claim that the Indo-Europeans migrated out of India and not the reverse.

Among other senses.

The other senses like the national sense was only pointed out recently by the Hindu nationalists.

So? Linguistically, "Urdu" and "Hindi" are not even separate languages. Now you are saying that all Muslims are basically the same? That's how you end up being called "Arabs" by the more ignorant elements of the American population.

No I am saying that all Muslims are definitely NOT the same. Before Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, thanks to the CIA, Taliban had a good connotation. The term Taliban was interchangeable with the term Sufi and Sufism was essentially Zoroastrianism embracive of Islamic elements. The Urdu speakers are a different breed of Hindi speakers, and they're not even Hindu they're Muslim. Pakistan even means purest. I doubt very much so that these Indic speakers give two shits about Aryavarta or anything slightly related to Indic literature. Most of them are the product of waves of recent migrations into the region.

Quite the reverse, actually: all cognates in other branches have ar-

I know New Persian has Artesh cf. Army. And what about Old Persian cognates like Arta? Are you sure Old Persian Ariya was pronounced Airya?

No, that's just a change of adjectival endings. English speakers use -an to form adjectives. I know I have told you this before.

No, "Aryan" does not occur in the Irano-Afghan languages at all; "Roman" is more narrow than "Romance", referring either to inhabitants of the city, or to the political structure of the old Empire.

"Aryan" as a translation does occur Arya however does not, but Airya does and so does Airyene whereas Aryantioccurs in Indic. Just as "Roman" is a translation referring to inhabitants of the city whereas the form appears as Romanus in the ancient literature.

 

[bob x]

apart from the numbers marking the beginning of each verse in the Volume there is hardly any explanation as to where the Celtic source is derived from

So the numbers are verse numbers? OK, whatever. It does appear that the use of "Scythia" all over the place is from the Irish original text and not the later commentators. The particular case of Nemed (by the way, I find that "Nemed" is Irish for "privileged status"; sometimes nemed is "holy place" but more often used for people, doer nemed "conditional status" is the social rank of tradesmen who are treated as upper-caste if they have patrons who are nemed "aristocratic status"; probably related to English name) is what had me disputing your accuracy, because my sources said specifically Nemed was said to have come from Greece and you were saying he was said to have come from Scythia. So it turns out Nemed is said in the Irish text to come from "the Greeks of Scythia" which sounds to me like "Scythia" was just a generic word for "east somewhere" as far as they knew.

So 1. Sanskrit "b" corresponds to Germanic "w" and Latin "v" and 2.) Sanskrit "bh" corresponds to Germanic "b" and Latin "f".

So how do you know that a foreign element didn't affect "b" such that "b" > Avestan "b" Germanic "b" Sanskrit "bh" and Latin "f"?

AND "b" > Avestan "b" Germanic "w" Sanskrit "b" Latin "v".
If you insist that the Avestan (which only has one sound) is the original, then the same sound in the original has to have gone two different ways in each of the descendant languages. Your "foreign elements" have to have been present in India, Germany, and Italy; in all three places they arbitrarily divided words containing "b" into two categories which were affected in two different ways, and just by coincidence the b/w categories in German, b/bh categories in Sanskrit, and f/v in Latin agree. I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense; the way this obviously worked is that the original had two sounds here, and the distinction between the two was usually preserved even though the shifts were not the same in each descendant group, but Avestan was one group that merged the two into one.

Sorry you're question is not very clear. Is it impossible that "gh" > "z" > "h"?

Certainly it wouldn't happen directly. I suppose "gh" could go to plain "g" to palatalized "gy" to a "j" simplified to "z" and then devoice to "s" and reduce to "h". This is a very bizarre proposal, and I don't know why you would even think "gh" has much in common with "z".

I just looks to me like in the case with *PIE *gwh> Skr. gh that a development straight to "h" looks too quick and unlikely

??? "gh" and "h" are very similar, and going straight to "h" is completely unproblematic. You think it's "unlikely" because it's too easy?

Big deal. They [Greek and Armenian] show "h" instead of "s"

Not in words like asura/ahura which you were citing. Greek "h" is strictly initial and represents nothing in other languages (insertion before initial "k" as in hekaton) as often as "s"; elsewhere, Greek has "s" like usual. Armenian "h" is totally different: in hayr "father" for example it represents what is a "p" everywhere else.

so how can you be 100% certain

Without tape-recordings from ancient times we can't be 100% certain about anything. We deal in probabilities: you propose insanely improbable scenarios, with zero justification except that your desire to force-fit everything to an Iranian origin. It is not my burden of proof to show you 100% certainly wrong; it would be your burden, as the inventor of these hypotheses, to show that your proposals have any likelihood.

that "s" wasn't a product of "h" via an intermediary like "x" or "sh" which other languages like Avestan show or like Hittite at least are believed to display?

No form like *axura shows up in Avestan or anywhere else, and Hittite is not believed to have had the "sh" sound (as I just got through telling you). The hypothesis s > h is straightforward: we would expect, if that were true, that most show "s" and only a small minority show "h", which is what we see. Your alternative h > x > sh > s requires that almost all (instead of a minority) made the initial h > x shift, that ALL (without exception) of those which shifted to "x" then made the x > sh shift, and then ALL of these (without exception) made the sh > s shift, so that there is no trace of the intermediaries anywhere.

"s" doesn't regularly shift to "x" does it?

No, it would be s > h > x. We should then expect to see that in most cases, the first shift didn't happen at all (indeed, the majority of languages retain "s" everywhere), AND, if the first shift happens, only a minority of the "h" then go on to "x" (indeed, that is what we see in Avestan).

YOU ARE BEING TOO TECHNICAL.

What is "TECHNICAL" about spelling "Iran" as "Iran" rather than twisting it into a different spelling which has a different meaning, and is not the name of "Iran"? What if the president of Tajikistan had decided he wanted his country to be called "Ireland" from then on? Would you be here, arguing on and on and on and on and on about how you are the "real" Ireland, and it is all a political conspiracy against you that people keep using "Ireland" for that other place (you know, the one where that name has actually been USED before?), and accusing me of being "technical" for saying that "Irish" and "Iranian" are not the same word?

why does most of the literature from at least Müller 1847 Bopp 1850 Nolan 1857 up to now associate the Irano-Afghans (and Indo-Iranians) with the term "Aryan."

That's not true. Bopp 1850 is the only author you have shown who does so (and of course, he actually used arisch if the precise form of the adjectival ending matters). Mueller of course used it for the ancestral Indo-Europeans (or rather, his imaginary picture of them).

According to you -n was a modern western development.

Adjectival endings with "n" in them, with or without other letters, are practically universal in the Indo-European group. The Celtic double-n in Eireann "Irish" etc. could have been written with a single-n, but apparently you get real technical about these things. The Latin -anus instead of -an in Romanus "Roman" is just the same thing, except that Latin needs a masculine singular ending tacked on afterward. The old Indo-Iranian languages likewise needed some further endings after the "n", Avestan no less so than Sanskrit. Why in the world do you care? Why in the world do you expect anybody else to care?

The textbook itself even appears to make a point of this distinguishing Arya as a linguistic term and Aryan as a "national" term like it matters.

WHAT textbook are you referring to?

The point is that the Iranians and according to you the Indics both used the term "Aryan" as a national designation.

No, Iranians have NEVER EVER EVER used that term, at all, for anything, ever since they existed as a distinct people. They have always used, instead, the related word now commonly spelled "Iran".

IT ["Aryan" for "proto-Indo-European"] WAS PROPAGANDA.

No, it was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. The suggestion that Eireann "Irish" was from the same root as "Aryan" or "Iranian" was a plausible-looking one; it turned out to be wrong, but there was no conspiracy to get things wrong. When it was accepted, it seemed reasonable to assume that a name that was found at both the extreme eastern end to the extreme western end was the original ethnic self-name. The further elaboration into racial theories about the nature of that original ethnic group was, indeed, propagandistic; but not the initial hypothesis.

Yeah, and in order to prove just how WRONG they were wouldn't it make sense to show that the ancestors of the Germans did not establish the First World-Empire

Detouring into irrelevant ancient history is not useful to illustrating what was wrong about the German ideas.

wouldn't it be fair to the Iranians and if it is just the Indics to point out that the term Aryan was not only misused but had been and is still used among the Indo-Iranians?

It has been, and is still, used AMONG THE INDICS. That, of course, is generally pointed out. Pointing out that the name "Iran" is a related form is a tangent of limited relevance.

My point is that the Irano-Aryans actually had a national homeland called Airyana "Aryan land"

1. It is spelled Airyene pronounced "IRE-yeh-neh" and even at this early stage is better approximated by "Iran" if you pronounce it "EYE-ran" than by "Aryan"
2. It is just an adjective at this stage, not the name of a "national homeland" in the sense of a political entity with fixed boundaries. There was some vaeja "land" which they lived on, and such land was called airyene vaeja "Iranian land".

although the Indo-Aryans did call themselves Arya in some ethnic sense

Wow. I think this is the first time you were willing to give an inch on acknowledging that.

as the name of the country Iran

Until 1935, that state was called "Persia". I do understand that nowadays, you want to emphasize that the linguistic group is wider than the inhabitants of that state. Your hyphenated form "Irano-Afghan" is fine for that purpose. Insisting on a word that is well-established with different meanings is not fine.

but Aryana has been used among the Afghans at least since the 1950s

Really? I can't find a usage earlier than 2006.

see you just got confused about whether I was referring to the Iranians or the Irano-Afghans.

Huh? No I wasn't.

I don't think so. I think that this idea that "it has been taken for granted" is recent Hindu national propaganda

No. I never heard of Talgeri until you brought him up on this thread. I've known of "Aryan" as an (archaic and now disfavored) ethnic/linguistic designation for the Indics since the 60's. Its usage in such a sense goes back in western literature since the 17th century (although you appear to be correct that using the adjectival ending -an in English does not go back that far, the Latin adjectival ending -anus has been used in Arianus since the first Jesuits to translate Sanskrit).

No I am saying that all Muslims are definitely NOT the same... The Urdu speakers are a different breed of Hindi speakers, and they're not even Hindu they're Muslim

What's your point? I am really not following you: Urdu and Hindi are the same language (some technical vocabulary differs, with learned borrowings from Persian into Urdu but Sanskrit into Hindi), and Urdu-speakers are unquestionably Indic. You are saying however that we should call them not Indic but "honorary Irano-Afghan" simply because they are Muslim? That does, indeed, sound to me like you are saying that all Muslims are alike.

I know New Persian has Artesh cf. Army. And what about Old Persian cognates like Arta?

Are you claiming those are cognates of arya???

Are you sure Old Persian Ariya was pronounced Airya?

No, I'm not sure (ancient tape-recordings still being in short supply). But given the Avestan script, which records pronunciation more precisely than the cuneiform syllabary, it is the best guess that the Old Persian was actually similar.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The end point of the proto tribes migrating to the furthest shores west would be the Irish Isles.

The "Green Movement" is obviously an International Sydicate centered amongst the Upper landed gentry of Ireland.

The Spread of the "Green Movement" in all levels of the economy is the proof!

Chucky ar'law has gone global . . . I'm just speculating on this one, of course.

 

[radarmark]

bhaktajan,

You got it, just look at the Phoenix Park murders vignette in "Finnegan's Wake". Jamie Joyce began the "Green" movement while drinking his way across Europe!

Peace, brother!

 

[mojobadshah]

So it turns out Nemed is said in the Irish text to come from "the Greeks of Scythia" which sounds to me like "Scythia" was just a generic word for "east somewhere" as far as they knew.

Can you confirm this now? It could have been a generic word kind of like "Hun" but there were Iranians among the Huns too. Or considering that the Greeks had been present in that part of the world maybe they were Perso-Greeks. What could Parthalon have meant?

AND "b" > Avestan "b" Germanic "w" Sanskrit "b" Latin "v".
If you insist that the Avestan (which only has one sound) is the original, then the same sound in the original has to have gone two different ways in each of the descendant languages. Your "foreign elements" have to have been present in India, Germany, and Italy; in all three places they arbitrarily divided words containing "b" into two categories which were affected in two different ways, and just by coincidence the b/w categories in German, b/bh categories in Sanskrit, and f/v in Latin agree. I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense; the way this obviously worked is that the original had two sounds here, and the distinction between the two was usually preserved even though the shifts were not the same in each descendant group, but Avestan was one group that merged the two into one.

Well what do the vowels that proceed each of these sound changes look like? Could their vowel systems have anything to do with it. Like I hear you on how these changes were systematic, but why did Avestan maintain a harder "b" instead of shift to a "w" or "v"? Like what does shifting from a "b" or a "v" have to do with a "bh" when it could have been from a "b"? Couldn't the vowel systems (which would be comparable to foreign influences) in each of these languages Latin, German, as well as Sanskrit have explained a systematic change from say "b" to Skr. "bh" Ger. "w" and L. "v"?

I don't know why you would even think "gh" has much in common with "z".

What do you mean? Avestan is believed to have shifted from "gh" to "z."

Not in words like asura/ahura which you were citing. Greek "h" is strictly initial and represents nothing in other languages (insertion before initial "k" as in hekaton) as often as "s"; elsewhere, Greek has "s" like usual. Armenian "h" is totally different: in hayr "father" for example it represents what is a "p" everywhere else.

Armenian shows h; s; and Ø8 from PIE *s Indo-European Sound Laws

No form like *axura shows up in Avestan or anywhere else, and Hittite is not believed to have had the "sh" sound (as I just got through telling you).

So is the source I listed above dated?

The hypothesis s > h is straightforward: we would expect, if that were true, that most show "s" and only a small minority show "h", which is what we see. Your alternative h > x > sh > s requires that almost all (instead of a minority) made the initial h > x shift, that ALL (without exception) of those which shifted to "x" then made the x > sh shift, and then ALL of these (without exception) made the sh > s shift, so that there is no trace of the intermediaries anywhere.

But isn't it true that most IE. languages don't show a lot of evidence of velar fricatives "x" especially in the initial consonant position?

What is "TECHNICAL" about spelling "Iran" as "Iran" rather than twisting it into a different spelling which has a different meaning, and is not the name of "Iran"? What if the president of Tajikistan had decided he wanted his country to be called "Ireland" from then on? Would you be here, arguing on and on and on and on and on about how you are the "real" Ireland, and it is all a political conspiracy against you that people keep using "Ireland" for that other place (you know, the one where that name has actually been USED before?), and accusing me of being "technical" for saying that "Irish" and "Iranian" are not the same word?

That's not true. Bopp 1850 is the only author you have shown who does so (and of course, he actually used arisch if the precise form of the adjectival ending matters). Mueller of course used it for the ancestral Indo-Europeans (or rather, his imaginary picture of them).

Yes Bopp uses "Aryan" arisch verbatim translated Aryan in English and I was referring to Karl Otfried Muller:

"Although the Arian (or Iranian) tribe, which, commencing from Ariana, comprehended the ancient inhabitants of Bactria, Media, and Persia, was essentially different in language, national customs, and religion, from the Syrian race, yet the style of art among the former people bore a considerable affinity to that with which we have become acquainted at Babylon; and we are compelled to regard the art which flourished in the great Persian empire as only a further development ofthe ancient Assyrian." - Karl Otfried Müller Trans. John Leitch, Ancient art and its remains: or a manual of the archaeology of art pg. 219

WHAT textbook are you referring to?

"World History: Patterns of Interaction: Atlas"

No, it was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. The suggestion that Eireann "Irish" was from the same root as "Aryan" or "Iranian" was a plausible-looking one; it turned out to be wrong, but there was no conspiracy to get things wrong. When it was accepted, it seemed reasonable to assume that a name that was found at both the extreme eastern end to the extreme western end was the original ethnic self-name. The further elaboration into racial theories about the nature of that original ethnic group was, indeed, propagandistic; but not the initial hypothesis.

My point is ethnic designations get corrupted, but we don't throw them out because another ethnic group has defamed it. If the Nazi Germans had called themselves Americans and slaughtered tens of millions would Americans stop calling themselves Americans?

It has been, and is still, used AMONG THE INDICS. That, of course, is generally pointed out. Pointing out that the name "Iran" is a related form is a tangent of limited relevance.

A corrupted version of the term.

2. It is just an adjective at this stage, not the name of a "national homeland" in the sense of a political entity with fixed boundaries. There was some vaeja "land" which they lived on, and such land was called airyene vaeja "Iranian land"..

And this "Airyene Vaeja" appear in the Yasnas which were attested centuries before Manu-Smrti was composed and attest to an Aryavarta.

No, Iranians have NEVER EVER EVER used that term, at all, for anything, ever since they existed as a distinct people. They have always used, instead, the related word now commonly spelled "Iran".

Really? I can't find a usage earlier than 2006.

No. I never heard of Talgeri until you brought him up on this thread. I've known of "Aryan" as an (archaic and now disfavored) ethnic/linguistic designation for the Indics since the 60's. Its usage in such a sense goes back in western literature since the 17th century (although you appear to be correct that using the adjectival ending -an in English does not go back that far, the Latin adjectival ending -anus has been used in Arianus since the first Jesuits to translate Sanskrit).

Ariana Airlines was established in 1955... and everyone who has come out of Afghanistan since, at least that time, has known Aryana to have been the ancient name of Afghanistan, and they are all familiar with Zartusht : Zoroaster. Hamza Ifahani (894-970) notes in his "history of the Prophets and Saints" recalls that the Persians had once known their land as as Aryan. As far as I can tell the Indics had no knowledge of an "Aryan" homeland such as Aryavarta until the Jesuits arrived because the Sanskrit literature wasn't even intelligible to them.

Are you claiming those are cognates of arya???

No, I'm not sure (ancient tape-recordings still being in short supply). But given the Avestan script, which records pronunciation more precisely than the cuneiform syllabary, it is the best guess that the Old Persian was actually similar.

All these words Aryan OPer. Ariya, arta NPer. artesh developed from the same PIE * ar- "to join" root, so if the Old Persian speakers are pronouncing arta "arta" then what is more plausible that Ariya was pronounced "Eye-rya" because of Avestan forms or "Ariya" like it sounds?

 

[mojobadshah]

Oh, this was another really interesting etymology that Vallency proposed:

Av. Ahura Mazda > OIr. Crom

For a long time I couldn't see the connection, but then it came to me - the contracted Parthian form of Ahura Mazda was Hormazd, and if you take into account what I've been saying about h shifting to a velar fricative kh e.g Hormazd > Khormazd > korm (with metathis) > krom it makes sense.

And wikipedia says Crom was worshiped since Erimon cf. Av. Airyaman, Aryan who cast out the polytheists.

 

[mojobadshah]

No form like *axura shows up in Avestan or anywhere else

Shipley lists Oscar as a cognate of Ahura/Asura...

 

[mojobadshah]

Shipley lists Oscar as a cognate of Ahura/Asura...

Shoot. I knew I saw this somewhere. My mistake it was actually the OED, but it cites Osgar "god spear" cf. Asgard as a compound of two separate roots os "god" + "spear."

 

[youngAfrican]

From Lady Francesca Wilde, a well known Irish nationalist and hero for saving Ireland's ancient legends and stories. God bless her soul. Erin go bragh.

"This source of all life, creed, and culture now on earth, there is no reason to doubt, will be found in Iran, or Persia as we call it, and in the ancient legends and language of the great Iranian people, the head and noblest type of the Aryan races. Endowed with splendid physical beauty, noble intellect, and a rich musical language, the Iranians had also a lofty sense of the relation between man and the spiritual world. They admitted no idols into their temples; their God was the One Supreme Creator and Upholder of all things, whose symbol was the sun and the pure, elemental fire. "

"Meanwhile other branches of the primal Iranian stock were spreading over the savage central forests of Europe, where they laid the foundation of the great Teuton and Gothic races, the destined world-rulers; but Nature to them was a gloomy and awful mother, and life seemed an endless warfare against the fierce and powerful elemental demons of frost and snow and darkness, by whom the beautiful Sun-god was slain, and who reigned triumphant in that fearful season when the earth was iron and the air was ice, and no beneficent God seemed near to help. Hideous idols imaged these unseen powers, who were propitiated by sanguinary rites: and the men and the god they fashioned were alike as fierce and cruel as the wild beasts of the forest, and the aspects of the savage nature around them."

"And here in our beautiful Ireland the last wave of the great Iranian migration finally settled. Further progress was impossible—the unknown ocean seemed to them the limits of the world. "

"Philologists also affirm that the Irish language is nearer to Sanskrit than any other of the living and spoken languages of Europe; while the legends and myths of Ireland can be readily traced to the far East, but have nothing in common with the fierce and weird superstitions of Northern mythology."

She states many examples, such as legends regarding Peter expelling the Serpents from Ireland (this is a Christianization of earlier pagan Irish myths that originated somewhere that snakes existed. Hint: Not in Ireland).

"Amongst the earliest religious symbols of the world are the Tree, the Woman, and the Serpent—memories, no doubt, of the legend of Paradise; and the reverence for certain sacred trees has prevailed in Persia from the most ancient times, and become diffused among all the Iranian nations. It was the custom in Iran to hang costly garments on the branches as votive offerings; and it is recorded that Xerxes before going to battle invoked victory by the Sacred Tree, and hung jewels and rich robes on the boughs. "

Start with the name Darragh, stemming from Gaelic doire, meaning oak tree. The ancient Persian word for tree is dar. Modern Farsi it is darrakht. Modern cognates of Darragh in Farsi include Dara and Darius.

In both Persian and Irish legends, the sacred tree was a fruitless tree. In Persian it is the Platanus. In Irish legends it is the oak.

Many Irish legends linked land of Éireann to the land of Eran/Iran. It seems beginning in the 1800s there was a rush by the British to remove the history of the our ancient cultures and become more Romanophiles (perhaps due to Britain's imperial desires). Ireland being one of the only places in Europe relatively saved from the Roman Empire's conquests still retained a great history and culture of our ancient past.

The Legend of Finius Farsaidh:
According to the 11th-century Lebor Gabála Érenn, the 14th-century Auraicept na n-Éces, and other Medieval Irish folklore, ogham was first invented soon after the fall of the Tower of Babel, along with the Gaelic language, by the legendary Scythian king, Fenius Fars. Fenius journeyed from Scythia together with Goídel mac Ethéoir, Íar mac Nema and a retinue of 72 scholars. They came to the plain of Shinar to study the confused languages at Nimrod's tower (the Tower of Babel). Finding that they had already been dispersed, Fenius sent his scholars to study them, staying at the tower, co-ordinating the effort. After ten years, the investigations were complete, and Fenius created in Bérla tóbaide "the selected language", taking the best of each of the confused tongues, which he called Goídelc, Goidelic, after Goídel mac Ethéoir. He also created extensions of Gaelic.

Finius is a native Irish name. Yet Farsaidh (similar to Farsa, Parsa, Parisii, Persia, Paris, Farsad) has Scythian and thus Iranian roots. Farsaidh is from from Persian Pārs. In fact Farsad is a common last name in Iran.

Look at similar concepts of Peris, or Feroüers in Persian mythology and Aos Sí or the Sidhe Race in Irish mythology. Fairies and Peris are cognates. How about Cynthia and Scythia.

Thousands of these similarities exist, and it is not just due to our Indo-European past. There are much more similarities between Gaelic and Parsi/Farsi/Persian than there are between Deutsche and Farsi (Persian) yet the Germans and Persians are often considered to have a closer past. Even the Slavs share an undeniably high number of cognates, as I will describe below.

Even past the similarities of the Irish and the Iranians, much of Europe has been invaded by Iranic peoples. Just look at the Alan kingdoms. See Wiki Alans- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] They are an Iranian peoples. In the Iberian peninsula the Alans settled in Lusitania (cf. Alentejo) and the Cartaginense provinces. They conquered a vast chunk of Hispania from 409-430 AD and retained their Iranian language at that time until they assimilated with the local peoples. The brought the Alaut hunting dog to Europe. "The Alaunt was bred by the Alani tribes, the nomads of Indo-European Sarmatian ancestry who spoke an Indo-Iranian language. The Alans were known as superb warriors, herdsmen, and breeders of horses and dogs. The Alans bred their dogs for work and had developed different strains within the breed for specific duties."

I look forward to doing genetic testing of Irish wolfhounds and Afghan Hounds to see similarities in origin and how much middle eastern DNA can be found in the Irish wolfhound. I also would like to do DNA testing on the people of Allaines, France as well as southern Ireland in comparison to pure blooded Persians and Tajiks.

Moreover, Scythians also domesticated the horse in modern day Ukraine (once an Iranian nation as shown by countless maps by Thomas Lessman).
The Slavs share an unbelievably large number of Iranian derived words. I has several Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian friends and we appreciate studying anthropology and the etymology of words. I've found many examples. See wikipedia/wiki/Proto-Slavic_borrowings#Slavic_and_Iranian. According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".[2] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania.[3] For a long time there have been investigators who believe that the number of loanwords from Iranian languages in Proto-Slavic is substantial. In fact, the Chernoles, the pre-Slavic peoples inhabiting that land, were ruled by Scythian Iranian elite and spoke Scythian, an Iranian language.

Iranian Aryans were spread as far west as Ireland and as far east as Iran and even China (there are several white Iranian speaking peoples found in Western China) and we all share a not so distant past. The impact of Iranians on world history is so great that entire libraries could not hold such information. Fineus Farsa was a Farsi Iranian. As was Nebed. Be proud of your roots. The truth is in our DNA and it will be set free soon. Though countless invasions and time have separated the Erin and Eran, they are united through their celebrations, legends, and ancient religions. British dictionaries started changing roots of words from Persian in origin to Latin starting from their imperial age. Old copies of Webster's Dictionary have different roots listed as those after 1900!! It is a shame that people feel afraid to study history because they may uncover amazing truths. God bless those of the land of Erin, those of the land of Eran/Iran, the Germans, the Slavs, the Ossetians, and all of humanity as we each have our own beautiful flavor to add to this world history book.

 

[Thomas]

I look forward to doing genetic testing of Irish wolfhounds and Afghan Hounds to see similarities in origin and how much middle eastern DNA can be found in the Irish wolfhound.

Well good luck with that! Plenty of other stuff mixed into the blood by breeders trying to restock the line. The Irish wolfhound is my favourite breed by a long mile, and I'd give anything to have the companionship of one, in fact a pair (in my head they are Clancy and Mrs McKenna) but I live in a city, which is no place for a hound.

I could settle for a Kerry Blue (whom some famous Irish personages wanted as the National Dog of Ireland), as my grand-dad used to breed them and my dad had some 'rare ould tales' about his dogs, including one in which two blues (one my grand-dad's and the other not) had such a grip on each other that the only way to part them was bring a heated iron from the blacksmith's forge ... they're handsome dogs to my eye, but 'aggressive', even by terrier standards, doesn't cover it!

But as for my blood? My dad is Scottish sire, Irish dam, my mum is Irish through and through. With a lick of the sun my dad could pass for an Arab any day of the week, and my sister, who's married into a Greek family, is widely regarded by her relations as more Greek than they!

It's really quite odd the way someone can look so characteristically Irish, then the slightest change of expression, a tilt of the head, and they're Arab, then Greek, then ...

 

[youngAfrican]

All you have to do is look at Sean Connery and Ayatollah Khomeini! Look them up seriously on Google.