|
Post by caucasoid on Jan 23, 2004 7:38:20 GMT -5
Most Linguists agree that the Mittanian and Hurrian languages (if indeed they represent two different languages) were not Indo-European. Thank you fo that. I knew that Hurrian was not Indo-European, but I was unclear about wether Mittanian was related to Hurrian.
|
|
|
Post by darwinslawyer on Jan 23, 2004 12:50:59 GMT -5
Again, it seems that people are confusing LINGUITIC and RACIAL classifications. The earliest evidence of the Indo-European language is the Rig Veda, a very old INDIAN text, dated, conservatively, to ca. 2000-2500 BC. It was written by people who called themselves Aryans, i.e. "Nobles". It is notable that the skeletal record of the sub-continent has not changed since this time. Also notable is that in the first Shloka (couplet) of the first hymn of the first recorded Indo-European language text, the Rig Veda, there are Dravidian phonemes (retroflex consonants). What does this mean? It means the first recorded Indo-europeans were already mixed, and it also means that "aryan" should refer only to people who subscribed to the sacrificial Vedic religion, before its collapse in ca. 500-100 BC with the rise of Buddhism in India. There is no racial meaning in the word "Aryan" except for 19th century German fantasists who needed a non Judeo-Christian outlet for their deluded Neitschean Folkische yearnings. Period. Words can have more than one meaning and the meaning may change over time, hardly an unusual concept to a linguist. Yes it may have a specific meaning in India however it was taken as the word which the prototypical Indoeuropeans refered to themselves by linguists, because of the below words in different European languages which are similiar to "Aryan". ariothez- Greek (noble) aire ------celtic (noble) eire------German (Honour) arya-----Persia/india (noble) While we will never know for sure what the original Indo-Europeans called themselves this is a useful word to use. It certainly has a much more logical derviation than most words we use today. It has also evolved to have other connotations like "person of honour" and other positive associations. Words change meaning all the time.
|
|
|
Post by dandan on Jan 23, 2004 13:05:11 GMT -5
Words can have more than one meaning and the meaning may change over time, hardly an unusual concept to a linguist. Yes it may have a specific meaning in India however it was taken as the word which the prototypical Indoeuropeans refered to themselves by linguists, because of the below words in different European languages which are similiar to "Aryan". ariothez- Greek (noble) aire ------celtic (noble) eire------German (Honour) arya-----Persia/india (noble) While we will never know for sure what the original Indo-Europeans called themselves this is a useful word to use. It certainly has a much more logical derviation than most words we use today. It has also evolved to have other connotations like "person of honour" and other positive associations. Words change meaning all the time. It has long been obsolete as a term for proto-IE. It belongs in the same box as such terms as "Indo-Germanic" et al.
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Jan 24, 2004 4:18:06 GMT -5
Indo-Germanic is a false term..it's Indo-European and not all IE languages are Aryan what some people obviously believe...
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 25, 2004 11:54:11 GMT -5
Indo-Germanic is a false term..it's Indo-European and not all IE languages are Aryan what some people obviously believe... Say not Aryan in its narrower sense = Indoiranian languages are Aryan in its narrower sence. In the wider sence all Indoeuropean languages are Aryan or Indogermanic. (from the most Eastern and most Western major group)
|
|