Yahweh-yireh

[radarmark]

Okay – first of all, here is the lknk to the OED on-line (http://www.oed.com/). And here is what it says.
“Etymology: < Sanskrit ārya , in the later language ‘noble, of good family,’ but apparently in earlier use a national name ‘comprising the worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans’ (Max Müller); compare Avestan”
The first use is in 1847 by J.C. Prichard in “On the various methods of research which contribute to the advancement of ethnology, and the relations of that science to other branches of knowledge” ( Rep. Brit. Assoc. 241). To wit “ Evidence shows that the Davidian race and linguistic formation preceeded the Ultra Indian, Tibetan and Arian in India.”

The word (in English, that is what we are writing in) is from not only Indian roots, but was first used to designate an Indian group.

Second of all, the quote from Meyer (1884) which mojobadshah used expressly says “use Iran”.

I think I hear the crashing of glass.

Other mistakes:

Many peoples have developed monotheism (even with an omnipotent creator). See any of the Plains Peoples of the Americas. Besides, it is really nothing to be overly proud of, for it is mistaken. In physics there is this little thing called Quantum Mechanics that, besides being the most validated and verified science, also shows that the majority if events in the world are uncontrollable and unknowable. If you want to go back to the days before your high and mighty IPs (founded on QM), go ahead. But just remember an omniscient and omnipotent Divinity conflicts with reality.

The United States is not now nor have they ever been at war with Afghanistan. We used military force against the Taliban and al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and the Taliban refused to hand over the culprit, UBN.
What holocausts against the Indo-Iranians? Timur the Lame would count, if he had been waging his war against one people. But he pretty much slaughtered everyone indiscriminately. The term holocaust and genocide are pretty much exclusively used to refer to the wholesale slaughter of an ethnic or religious group. I see nothing in the history of the steppes or Iran that suggest something comparable to, say the Genocide of Native Americans, the Shoah, Kampuchea, or Rwanda (Except Timur, and that, as I stated, focused on Tartars, Turks, and Mongols, not the native peoples of the region).
The United States contributing to Saudi wealth? No more (and in terms of percentage, a lot less) than other Northern Countries. It is a matter of who owns the oil we need (as our economy is currently structured). The U.S. gives far more to Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Israel (heck, we even give more to such heavy hitters as Peru and Bolivia). The fact is I cannot find the last payment to the Saudis.
And Mubarak? Get real, because he stole millions from his people does not mean all U.S. Aid went to him (we can go over that point by point). And he is way, way down the list of “wealthiest people”.
Oh, Einstein was not the “father of the atomic bomb”. In 1934 Leo Szilard actually patented the bomb, based on quantum theoretical predictions which were tentatively verified by Fermi and Joliet-Curie that year and finally fully verified by Hann-Strassmann-Meitner-Frisch. Bohr, Rabi and Lamb were the ones who lit the physicists’ tail on fire early in 1939. Einstein had only minor political impact (and Szilard had even more impact in that area).
Mojobadshah you might be, but your argumentation, I am afraid is about as well based as AH's was in Mein Kampf.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[bob x]

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

So are all these "emanations"; you were claiming that none of them "shared divine status" with Ahura Mazda, but that is not how the texts read.

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)

And Wright is of the opinion that these were regarded as separate gods???

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."

No, as usual Wright is not understanding. There was a fragmentation of the kingdom, which Josiah had the opportunity to undo now that Samaria had fallen, and the Assyrian overlords which had been preventing Judah from expanding back into that territory were also gone; what Josiah was doing was to prevent any fragmentation of the priesthood by shutting down any rival places of worship. A unified priesthood would help to support his unified kingship.

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

Very bad translation. Shema Yisrael, YHWH Eloheynu, YHWH echad means "Hear O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is singular." There is not a hint that there could be "more than one Yahweh" as you are garbling it: quite the opposite.

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.

That particular sentence, yes; but there are many other, earlier statements to the same effect, like the Shema in Deuteronomy and the passage in Proto-Isaiah which I keep referring you to. By contrast, there is no such clear monotheistic statement anywhere in Zoroastrian literature: rather, God is always conceived of as a multiplicity. It is in this respect that the Zoroastrian tradition is alien to the Hebrew tradition.

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.

This is not a "fact"; it is your egotistical fantasy.

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.

Emphasis added. The very CORE concept of intellectual-property law is that exclusive rights are granted only for a limited time; the sole justification for creating this kind of property right, at all, is that it encourages new ideas which then become public domain. You are removing that concept from your private intellectual-property law: as such, you have no justification for it whatsoever.

I didn't invent IP regimes.

No, you didn't. Anglo-American law did. You reject the very foundations of such law.

But if you people are getting compensated for your ideas then the Aryan Americans should be getting compensated for theirs.

Any new idea which you come up with now will receive the same protection as anyone else's, for a limited time.

But Aryan would be better because not only the ancient Iranians, but also the ancient Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, Pashtun, Ossettes

Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, Pashtun, and Ossetes ARE Iranians.

it should exclude the Indics to avoid confusion between the Indic languages and the aforesaid language family.

The pronounciation with initial "a" exists ONLY in the Indic branch. So all you are doing is to CREATE confusion.

And high schools need to respect that the Irano-Afghans were the first people to have used this designation as national designation

Irano-Afghans use the designation IRAN.

Airyana Vejeah

If you must use an "obsolete and weird-sounding form" then "Airyan" might be acceptable; just don't use a form which none of your people have ever used, not in all the time since you have even existed as a distinct people, which has been used to mean other, totally different things. Or, of course, you could use the form which already exists and is perfectly understandable.

Either 1.) don't bring up the Aryans at all anywhere in the curriculum of high schools

High schools generally do not teach historical linguistics at all; it is absolutely necessary however to teach about the history of the greatest slaughter of the 20th century. That is the one and only context in which the word is likely to come up, sorry.

or 2.) not omit the fact that the Irano-Afghans speakers were the original Aryans

That's not a fact. The Indo-Iranian common ancestors of the Indics and Iranians used the name; and while explaining to the students that the Germans were using the word wrongly, it would not be a bad idea to mention where the word does come from. The Irano-Afghans, however, are precisely the branch of that family which used something else instead.

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

Avestan is not "attested" until the 9th century AD. Even Sanskrit is not "attested" until the 6th century BC (before that India was illiterate). These oral preservations do turn out to conserve a linguistic stage from very early: but the belief that Sanskrit was "ancestral" to other languages was recognized to be wrong-headed as long ago as Jones. Other branches of Indo-European were already distinct (we have Mycenean Greek attested from the 13th century BC, for example).

and therefore "Master" given the basic underlying IP. principle: you come up with it first copycats will be held accountable for infringement.

The basic underlying principle, again, is that IP exclusivity should never be granted for a longer time-span than decades. And as I just noted, you are totally incorrect if you think that Indo-Iranians "came up with" language first.

There's nothing insane or racist or genocidal about demanding compensation for a third parties exploitative usage of a peoples cultural heritage and identity.

What I was calling insane and racist was your egotistical exaggerations of how much Iranians contributed to the religious evolution in the first place. Your idea about how IP should work is also crazy, but that's a separate issue.

The Jews were in an uproar when Gibson misrepresented them

No, they were in an uproar because Gibson portrayed them as deserving eternal curses from God and appeared to be justifying the excuses that have been used to murder them over the years. There have been thousands of movies, historical novels, etc. with Biblical themes, which do not arouse any uproar from the Jews whether they are particularly accurate or badly misrepresent the text-- because the Bible is public domain.

and the Quelleta tribe were in an uproar when the producers of Twilight used elements of their Native American mythology in their movie.

Their objections look totally silly.

Yes before the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians Messiah meant something different

Something which had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with religious developments among the Iranians.

after words it meant "Saoshayant."

No it did not. There was some influence from the Iranian concept; this is undeniable; but the Christian conception, that the Messiah had to voluntarily undergo a torturous death, has no connections with anything Iranians have to say; while post-70 Jews have repudiated the Zoroastrian baggage altogether, and conceive of Moshiach as the older Biblical text portrayed, with no similarity to the "Saoshyant" anymore.

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

Verse 19 of Zamyad Yasht looks like what you are getting at; but Zamyad Yasht does not have any verses 88-90, so I am not sure we are even looking at the same text. Yasna 43:5 I do not read the way you evidently do. Some clarification, please?

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

No. Its greatest extent was under Darius, until his defeat at Marathon cost him Thrace, Macedon, and southern Egypt. Xerxes failed to reverse the momentum, losing more territory.

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

The metaphor refers to the behavior of whipped dogs.

Did the Persians rule Greek-speaking cities or not?

A few (the colonies in Ionia), for a couple decades. You were claiming that Persians ruled "the" Greeks (which sounded as if you were claiming that Persia ruled all of them at some point), and for longer than the Greeks ruled Persia (not even close).

Did those satraps ever really speak Persian ever?

Some of them, not all of them.

In fact they had several official languages, but their language of commerce was Aramaic.

That's right. The Achaemenids' level of control was weak and superficial; there was no attempt to impose Persian language, culture, or religion. This is why it left little lasting trace.

And if imposed the Greek language then why don't the Aryans speak Greek today?

They imposed Greek for centuries. Then they lost the Iranian territories to Parthia. Much later, in Byzantine times, they lost Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to the Arabs. Later still, they lost Anatolia to the Turks.

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

The word from WHOM???? What I hear, quite the contrary, is that Bactrians worshipped him as a God, and were the most eager adopters of Greek culture in the Iranian zone, retaining a Greek dynasty down to the last century BC. One of the richest of the late Bactrian kings, Menander, is noted for his coinage, of which many examples survive: on the front is Athena's owl and the Greek inscription Basileou Menandrou Dikaiou and on the back the eight-spoked wheel (he converted to Buddhism) and the Sanskrit inscription Maharajasa Minindrasa Dharmikasa (both inscriptions meaning "of king Menander the Just"); note that no Iranian language was used at his court.

The Greek forefathers of the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) not of present day Greece though.

WHAT??? You are now saying that you are descendants of the Greeks-- or so it sounds, but I doubt that could be what you mean.

And the Seleucids had to do the same thing Alexander did to hold Persia. They took Persian wives.

Source?

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.

The greatest peace and prosperity it has ever been in, you mean.

Did any of those non-Aryans (non-Irano-Afghans) even exist during Sienna's time?

Jews? Greeks? They had existed long before his time, and he (unlike you) gratefully acknowledged their contributions.

His methods were revolutionary are still used in medicine today.

No, we do not still trace causes of illness to imbalance among the "humors". He knew nothing at all about microbiology or chemistry, because he was a medieval; like al-Khworizmi, he was great for his time, but that was a very long time ago. The title of "Father of Modern Medicine" which you ascribe to him is more usually given to Louis Pasteur.

The Celts didn't inhabit where Britain is today that long ago.

The Celtic style of ploughed fields begins to appear in the archaeological record of Britain c. 1800 BC.

Nor did the Germanic people.

The Saxon incursions were 5th century AD.

Lets put it this way. Iran has 80 million people alone.

Yes, I see I was using sources from decades ago, and that Iran has more doubled since then-- but of course the other nationalities in question have multiplied as well. Of Iran's 80 million, half (40 million) speak Farsi, over half of the rest (20+ million) other Iranian speeches (Kurdish is the largest), and the remainder mostly Turkic (with some Arabic, Armenian, Georgian); all the non-Farsi-speakers have at least some second-language familiarity with Farsi.

More native Persian speakers than there are native Greek, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Scottish, German, English, speakers.

More than Greek or Italian, true (and Irish/Scottish Gaelic is practically extinct); but about the same as German, and FAR FAR LESS than French, Portuguese, Spanish, or English.

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

I trust most people I meet. I am sorry for you.

 

[bob x]

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

No: it WAS the Sassanian Eran. After some confusion, I thought we had gotten it clear that the inscriptions de Sacy translated were from the Sassanian, not Parthian, period, and that he called the script "Parthian" because it was a holdover from the earlier time; another fuller script (with vowels) was also in use by the Sassanians, and de Sacy couldn't read it, but now we know that it shows the initial vowel to have been "e".

Are you now saying that the Parthian v-r-y-n was pronounced Eran?

Yes. I have been telling you for a long time that the initial vowel was surely not "a", because already in the Avestan it had shifted to "ai"; not since the Indo-Iranians broke up into separate Indic and Iranian branches have there been any Iranians pronouncing the word with "a".

Because that's not what CAIS says.

Who cares what CAIS says? You asked me long ago why CAIS would fill in the vowel as an "a" and I said it looked like they were just making a guess; they don't cite any evidence, and it doesn't fit the evidence we do have.

the ancestors of Irano-Afghan did call themselves vryn which comes out sounding exactly like Aryan

Wrong.

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

Not totally: Germans are indeed descendants from Proto-Indo-Europeans; they were mistaken about thinking that Proto-Indo-Europeans called themselves "Arya" when actually that was only the Proto-Indo-Iranians.

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.

The Manu-smrti which mentions "Aryavarta" is not as old as the Vedas, but it is about the same age as the Gathas.

That's not what your source on Talgeri said.

Yes it is.

2) de Sacy did not attest "Arian" either.

De Sacy attested aleph-rey-yeh-nun > a-r-y-n > Arian > Aryan.

No, he did not fill it in as "a-r-y-n"; and no, that is not where "Arian" or "Aryan" derives from, which was from Sanskrit scholarship.

Considering neither of us has seen this OED source I can't agree with you.

I used to own it; I just don't have it anymore. I thought it was among the books I brought from Michigan to California, but it seems to have gotten lost.

"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."

What's your point??? You were claiming that the British followed a French racial author, and claimed to be the same "Aryan" people as the groups they favored in India; I keep telling you that there is no support for your claim. The British certainly did not pretend to be the "same people" as the (coal-black) chiefly rulers in Africa, so what makes you think that this quote supports your claim about Brits pretending to be the same people as the Brahmans? The only case I can find where British divide-and-conquer techniques involved a clash between Aryans and non-Aryans was S'ri Lanka, where as I pointed out they took the non-Aryan side.

A god that controls everything is exactly the same thing as a multiply-emanating deity

Uh... no, not even slightly. What is your basis for even comparing these two concepts, let alone claiming them to be "exactly the same"?

 

[mojobadshah]

The United States is not now nor have they ever been at war with Afghanistan. We used military force against the Taliban and al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and the Taliban refused to hand over the culprit, UBN.

That's what I kept telling myself until I started talking to people like BX, and all them people who continue to impose their one sided Greco-Judeo-Christian propaganda with YET ANOTHER movie of Greek heritage "Immortals" (which sounds like the totally wrong movie to be calling Immortals, like it should have been about the Persian military) on the rest of the world because they got like some kind of superiority complex. A very phobic nature, when they can't tell people in textbooks who they're not the Aryans and who the Irano-Afghans really are, Aryans, and the best you can do as far as a more positive big budget film is "Prince of Persia." Not to sound all dramatic and shit, but like now I know why my life sucked when I was a kid.

The first use is in 1847 by J.C. Prichard in “On the various methods of research which contribute to the advancement of ethnology, and the relations of that science to other branches of knowledge” ( Rep. Brit. Assoc. 241). To wit “ Evidence shows that the Davidian race and linguistic formation preceeded the Ultra Indian, Tibetan and Arian in India.”

And Wright is of the opinion that these were regarded as separate gods???

Very bad translation. Shema Yisrael, YHWH Eloheynu, YHWH echad means "Hear O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is singular." There is not a hint that there could be "more than one Yahweh" as you are garbling it: quite the opposite.

That's not the way literal translations of the OT translate it. And Wright makes perfect sense because Yahweh was still considered a local god, and became strictly universal after the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians.

Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, Pashtun, and Ossetes ARE Iranians.

That's the dumbest friggin way to look at it. And if I was an Afghan, Tajik, Kurd, or Pashtun I'd have serious issues with you right now. What are you an Iranian?

Irano-Afghans use the designation IRAN.

What Afghan linguist do you know?

If you must use an "obsolete and weird-sounding form" then "Airyan" might be acceptable; just don't use a form which none of your people have ever used, not in all the time since you have even existed as a distinct people, which has been used to mean other, totally different things. Or, of course, you could use the form which already exists and is perfectly understandable.

Airyan and Aryan sound exactly the same to the ear of the layman, so I'm just going to say Aryan and you should too if you have any respect for [the Irano-Afghan] people.

High schools generally do not teach historical linguistics at all; it is absolutely necessary however to teach about the history of the greatest slaughter of the 20th century. That is the one and only context in which the word is likely to come up, sorry.

No your not.

That's not a fact. The Indo-Iranian common ancestors of the Indics and Iranians used the name; and while explaining to the students that the Germans were using the word wrongly, it would not be a bad idea to mention where the word does come from. The Irano-Afghans, however, are precisely the branch of that family which used something else instead.

The common ancestors of the Indo-Iranian speakers did not exist. Proto-Indo-Iranian is a hypothetical common ancestor based on reconstructions.

Avestan is not "attested" until the 9th century AD. Even Sanskrit is not "attested" until the 6th century BC (before that India was illiterate). These oral preservations do turn out to conserve a linguistic stage from very early: but the belief that Sanskrit was "ancestral" to other languages was recognized to be wrong-headed as long ago as Jones. Other branches of Indo-European were already distinct (we have Mycenean Greek attested from the 13th century BC, for example).

If you're referring to the fact that they weren't fixed on something tangible until then you have no point. As a matter of fact I have more respect for the Indic and Aryan (Irano-Afghan) people for having memorized and preserved their works through the oral tradition. And if you're going to put it that way then any document might as well have been written yesterday because there's no chemical process to determine when they were written.

What I was calling insane and racist was your egotistical exaggerations of how much Iranians contributed to the religious evolution in the first place. Your idea about how IP should work is also crazy, but that's a separate issue.

Iran is not a race. Like "black" or "white." It's a national identity.

No, they were in an uproar because Gibson portrayed them as deserving eternal curses from God and appeared to be justifying the excuses that have been used to murder them over the years. There have been thousands of movies, historical novels, etc. with Biblical themes, which do not arouse any uproar from the Jews whether they are particularly accurate or badly misrepresent the text-- because the Bible is public domain.

I don't believe that any harm should come to them AT ALL. But they've been, for a lack of a better word, stealing from the Aryans since Persia, just like the Christians have.

Their objections look totally silly.

You're objections look totally silly. I'm not a cheap ass. I'd gladly compensate the them for the use of their ideas in my works. I don't care how ancient they are.

No it did not. There was some influence from the Iranian concept; this is undeniable; but the Christian conception, that the Messiah had to voluntarily undergo a torturous death, has no connections with anything Iranians have to say; while post-70 Jews have repudiated the Zoroastrian baggage altogether, and conceive of Moshiach as the older Biblical text portrayed, with no similarity to the "Saoshyant" anymore.

And Zoroaster who was a Saoshyant was martyred defending the sacred fire in a war against the non-believers. Saoshyants underwent having molten metal poured over their bodies to prove they were the Saoshyants.

 

[mojobadshah]

Verse 19 of Zamyad Yasht looks like what you are getting at; but Zamyad Yasht does not have any verses 88-90, so I am not sure we are even looking at the same text. Yasna 43:5 I do not read the way you evidently do. Some clarification, please?

Yasna 43:5 says men will be judged "evil for evil" "good for good" on the last day "when creation reaches its goal.

Sorry it was Zam Yasht 15:88-90

No. Its greatest extent was under Darius, until his defeat at Marathon cost him Thrace, Macedon, and southern Egypt. Xerxes failed to reverse the momentum, losing more territory.

The metaphor refers to the behavior of whipped dogs.

So Xerxes expanded Persia's frontiers, briefly, Medizing Greeks up until he got to Athens, burned the Athenian city to the ground, and said screw it, nothing left here, lost a lot of men, not willing to lose any more, I'm out.

A few (the colonies in Ionia), for a couple decades. You were claiming that Persians ruled "the" Greeks (which sounded as if you were claiming that Persia ruled all of them at some point), and for longer than the Greeks ruled Persia (not even close).

Some of them, not all of them.

That's right. The Achaemenids' level of control was weak and superficial; there was no attempt to impose Persian language, culture, or religion. This is why it left little lasting trace.

That's so idiotic. The Persians never intended on imposing anything on anyone. The Persian Zoroastrians believed in Free Will. Something the Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't.

They imposed Greek for centuries. Then they lost the Iranian territories to Parthia. Much later, in Byzantine times, they lost Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to the Arabs. Later still, they lost Anatolia to the Turks.

If they imposed it the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) would be speaking Greek today just like the inhabitants of France, Spain, Porteugal, and Romania speak a Latin derived language today, or the Irish and Scottish speak English.

The word from WHOM????

Yup. That's the word.

WHAT??? You are now saying that you are descendants of the Greeks-- or so it sounds, but I doubt that could be what you mean.

Seleucus I Nicator had a Persian wife. And what I was saying was that the Greeks that ruled the largest section of Alexander's failed state were with the Persians.

The greatest peace and prosperity it has ever been in, you mean.

Oh, is that's why they sabotaged Iran's nuclear program? So they could live the greatest peace and prosperity.... To be honest with you I think they just did that because they don't want people to know that the Iranians are the original Aryans.

The Celtic style of ploughed fields begins to appear in the archaeological record of Britain c. 1800 BC.

How do you know they were Celts? They didn't have a language.

The Saxon incursions were 5th century AD.

Yeah, that was 1000 years after Persia was established.

Yes, I see I was using sources from decades ago, and that Iran has more doubled since then-- but of course the other nationalities in question have multiplied as well. Of Iran's 80 million, half (40 million) speak Farsi, over half of the rest (20+ million) other Iranian speeches (Kurdish is the largest), and the remainder mostly Turkic (with some Arabic, Armenian, Georgian); all the non-Farsi-speakers have at least some second-language familiarity with Farsi.

More than Greek or Italian, true (and Irish/Scottish Gaelic is practically extinct); but about the same as German, and FAR FAR LESS than French, Portuguese, Spanish, or English.

Your leaving out the Persian speakers who speak Persian as a first language in Afghanistan and Tajikstan which I estimate would make them more than the native French, Portuguese, Spanish, and English speakers. I'm talking Old World here. Not New World.

I trust most people I meet. I am sorry for you.

Nothing wrong with trusting in myself, and not lying, thieving, asswipes.

No: it WAS the Sassanian Eran. After some confusion, I thought we had gotten it clear that the inscriptions de Sacy translated were from the Sassanian, not Parthian, period, and that he called the script "Parthian" because it was a holdover from the earlier time; another fuller script (with vowels) was also in use by the Sassanians, and de Sacy couldn't read it, but now we know that it shows the initial vowel to have been "e".

What about the "y" in -r-y-n?

Not totally: Germans are indeed descendants from Proto-Indo-Europeans; they were mistaken about thinking that Proto-Indo-Europeans called themselves "Arya" when actually that was only the Proto-Indo-Iranians.

The Proto-Indo-European languages is a hypothetical common ancestor based on reconstructions. And there were no Proto-Indo-Iranians.

The Manu-smrti which mentions "Aryavarta" is not as old as the Vedas, but it is about the same age as the Gathas.

Your silly. The Gathic language is almost identical to the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda the oldest of the Vedic texts c. 1200 BC Manu-smirti wasn't even composed until 200 BC

Yes it is.

Talgeri said that the Irano-Aryans were not Aryans because they did not praise their Gods. The Irano-Aryans said the Indo-Aryans were not Aryans because they were not from Aryana. Just like the Iranians from Iran aren't American because they're not naturalized American citizens.

What's your point??? You were claiming that the British followed a French racial author, and claimed to be the same "Aryan" people as the groups they favored in India; I keep telling you that there is no support for your claim. The British certainly did not pretend to be the "same people" as the (coal-black) chiefly rulers in Africa, so what makes you think that this quote supports your claim about Brits pretending to be the same people as the Brahmans? The only case I can find where British divide-and-conquer techniques involved a clash between Aryans and non-Aryans was S'ri Lanka, where as I pointed out they took the non-Aryan side.

It said the endorsed the caste system which was racially based and they used it to deny the Indians to self-rule.

Uh... no, not even slightly. What is your basis for even comparing these two concepts, let alone claiming them to be "exactly the same"?

A god that controls everything??? That might as well mean that everything is that god.

 

[radarmark]

Hey, mojobadshah, why do the Khshnoomis appear to not support one of your readings of history? Is it just an intersectine difference?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

 

[mojobadshah]

The first use is in 1847 by J.C. Prichard in “On the various methods of research which contribute to the advancement of ethnology, and the relations of that science to other branches of knowledge” ( Rep. Brit. Assoc. 241). To wit “ Evidence shows that the Davidian race and linguistic formation preceeded the Ultra Indian, Tibetan and Arian in India.”

If that's true then what BX has said about the form Arian having been first used in the late 18th century must be false. And what the Online Etymology says about the form Arian being used in the 1830s for Indo-European must be false, and the earliest occurrance of the form Arian is in reference to the Irano-Afghans to the exclusion of the Indic speakers in Muller.

 

[radarmark]

But that is not english, Muller used in the deutsch.

 

[mojobadshah]

But that is not english, Muller used in the deutsch.

The English translation of Muller dates to the 1930's.

 

[bob x]

Not to sound all dramatic and shit, but like now I know why my life sucked when I was a kid.

Not to sound all psychoanalytic and shit, but the only reason anybody ever thinks their life sucks is because of their own chosen attitude.

Shema Yisrael, YHWH Eloheynu, YHWH echad means "Hear O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is singular." There is not a hint that there could be "more than one Yahweh" as you are garbling it: quite the opposite.

That's not the way literal translations of the OT translate it.

That WAS a literal translation: I show you the original text, which is not very complicated, three clauses of two words each, and tell you what it means (echad is the word "one; alone; only"), and now you are going to pretend you know the Hebrew language better than I do-- when you don't know the first thing about it? There are no translations, literal or otherwise, of the OT that would imply anything like your notion that YHWH was one out of several YHWH's: that is something you invented yourself, and is not just false, but anti-true (180 degrees opposite from true).

And Wright makes perfect sense

Wright is a very poor source, as I have explained to you before. Why you insist on relying on sources that command no respect, I do not know.

because Yahweh was still considered a local god, and became strictly universal after the Jews came into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians.

No, by the time of the Assyrians YHWH was the universal god commanding everything. Are you just stubborn, or are you intentionally dishonest?

That's the dumbest friggin way to look at it. And if I was an Afghan, Tajik, Kurd, or Pashtun I'd have serious issues with you right now. What are you an Iranian?

The word "Iran" originally covered the entirety of the Sassanian state, including everything from Kurdistan to Tajikistan. Its restricted usage for the state controlled by the Persian shah dates only to 1937. The term "Iranian" for the language group is over a century older than the use of the term "Irani" for citizens of the state of Iran.

Airyan and Aryan sound exactly the same to the ear of the layman

The proper pronunciation of Airyan is closer to "Iran".

I'm just going to say Aryan and you should too if you have any respect for [the Irano-Afghan] people.

No, that is insulting the Indics, who have a better claim to the name; and implies that all the Irano-Afghans buy into your insane delusions, which I seriously doubt.

The common ancestors of the Indo-Iranian speakers did not exist.

You are now claiming that your people have no ancestors? Just sprang out of the earth, as miraculous new creations?

If you're referring to the fact that they weren't fixed on something tangible until then you have no point.

That is what the word "ATTESTED" means. You were basing your entire argument on early attestation, which was incorrect.

any document might as well have been written yesterday because there's no chemical process to determine when they were written.

This, also, is incorrect.

they've been, for a lack of a better word, stealing from the Aryans since Persia

You are factually incorrect in believing that the Jewish religion derives from Iran, factually incorrect in believing that Iranians ever called themselves Aryans, and morally reprehensible in believing that there is anything wrong with freely thinking thoughts similar to thoughts which others have had before.

Oh, is that's why they sabotaged Iran's nuclear program? So they could live the greatest peace and prosperity....

Iran has shown itself again and again to be utterly untrustworthy, and not interested in joining the modern world, particularly as regards keeping the peace or building prosperity.

To be honest with you I think they just did that because they don't want people to know that the Iranians are the original Aryans.

To be honest with you, statements like this make me question your mental health.

How do you know they were Celts? They didn't have a language.

OF COURSE they had a language. Are you actually proposing that humans capable of agriculture hadn't yet even figured out how to talk???

Yeah, that [Anglo-Saxon invasion] was 1000 years after Persia was established.

Indeed, I would never have claimed that "England" existed in Persian times (it didn't yet exist even in Roman times), but your claim was that "Britain" didn't.

Your leaving out the Persian speakers who speak Persian as a first language in Afghanistan and Tajikstan which I estimate would make them more than the native French, Portuguese, Spanish, and English speakers.

No.

I'm talking Old World here. Not New World.

Why?

Nothing wrong with trusting in myself, and not lying, thieving, asswipes.

See my psychologizing above. Your self-absorbed, hostile, deluded attitude is the principal reason your life sucks.

What about the "y" in -r-y-n?

You have inconsistently cited the sequence of letters as V-R-Y-N and V-Y-R-N; if it is V-Y-R-N aleph-yod-resh-nun then the yod is indicating that the initial vowel is "i" or "e".

The Proto-Indo-European languages is a hypothetical common ancestor based on reconstructions.

Yes. Thousands of authors over hundreds of years have worked on the subject, all of them more knowledgeable about how languages actually develop than you are.

And there were no Proto-Indo-Iranians.

Of course there were. Again I have to ask where you think you came from.

The Gathic language is almost identical to the Sanskrit

It differs in systematic ways, particularly the vowel shifts and the change of "s" to "h", which indicate a somewhat later date.

the Rig Veda the oldest of the Vedic texts c. 1200 BC

The Rig Veda is c. 1500 BC. The Gathas are c. 1200 BC.

Manu-smirti wasn't even composed until 200 BC

Here you are correct: my bad, I was confusing it with the Atharva-Veda (where one source misled me into thinking that "Aryavarta" occurs, although apparently it doesn't occur there).

Talgeri said that the Irano-Aryans were not Aryans because they did not praise their Gods.

He says no such thing. He does not talk about Iranians at all; nor does he believe in the "praise" etymology for the arya word. He says the Dasyu are the earlier inhabitants of India, of Dravidian and Munda speech, with a very different set of Gods.

The Irano-Aryans said the Indo-Aryans were not Aryans because they were not from Aryana.

Show me anyone who ever said any such thing. The term Ariana always included the river valleys of Pakistan (Sind and Panjab provinces) which are almost entirely Indic-speaking and have been as long as we have any record; one of the sources you cited, Pomponius Melo, used Ariana to mean only those Indic-speaking areas.

It said the endorsed the caste system which was racially based and they used it to deny the Indians to self-rule.

It said nothing whatsoever about the caste system being racially based.

A god that controls everything??? That might as well mean that everything is that god.

No, a "transcendent" God (one conceived of as being separate from and "above" all created things, controlling them all) is a very different concept from an "immanent" God (one conceived of as being, in some sense, the "same" as all beings).

what BX has said about the form Arian having been first used in the late 18th century must be false.

I finally found it: William Jones translated Manu-smrti in 1794; it was in that translation, not his own essays, that "Arian" first appears in English.

And what the Online Etymology says about the form Arian being used in the 1830s for Indo-European must be false

That must be referring to the German usage of Arisch for "Indo-European", which indeed started in the 1830's; unlike you, the "Online Etymology" source evidently doesn't have any hang-ups about which adjectival ending is tacked on to a root.

the earliest occurrance of the form Arian is in reference to the Irano-Afghans to the exclusion of the Indic speakers in Muller.

Uh, no, quite the opposite: Muller was the one who popularized the use of Arisch to mean all of the Indo-Europeans, and their presumably very white-skinned racial ancestors. Bopp is the only author you have found who ever used arisch to mean "Iranian" as opposed to "Indic".

 

[mojobadshah]

Not to sound all psychoanalytic and shit, but the only reason anybody ever thinks their life sucks is because of their own chosen attitude.

All I meant was all the one-sided "Greco-Judaic-Christian" propaganda couldn't have helped, and I'm sure that, especially today, there a lot of kids out there as we speak who feel very reserved about telling people who they are due to the one-sidedness. I mean you guys gotta have some seriously small twinkies if you think that 1% of Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Americans is a threat to you so much so that you can't tell real history and gotta resort to fantasies about the Aryans e.g. Prince of Persia.... But I'm sure the 3% of Greek Americans is living it down thanks to Aryanophobic buttkissers out there.

No, by the time of the Assyrians YHWH was the universal god commanding everything. Are you just stubborn, or are you intentionally dishonest?

As they sat beside the rivers of Babylon, some of the exiles inevitably felt that they could not practice their religion outside the Promised Land. Pagan gods had always been territorial, and for some it seemed impossible to sing the songs of Yahweh in a foreign country: they relished the prospect of hurling Babylonian babies against a rock and dashing their brains out. - History of God

Since the section of Isaiah from which this verse [Isaiah 45:5] is taken was written after the exile, when Persians and Jews had enjoyed considerable contact, it is likely that, in the period leading up to its composition, their awareness of Ahuramazda's universal nature had conditioned thier perception of Yahweh, about whom they had already begun to think in more universalist terms as a response to their captivity. Zoroastrianism: an introduction to an ancient faith

You are now claiming that your people have no ancestors? Just sprang out of the earth, as miraculous new creations?

Was the Proto-Indo-European language a hypothetical reconstruction or not?

Iran has shown itself again and again to be utterly untrustworthy, and not interested in joining the modern world, particularly as regards keeping the peace or building prosperity.

To be honest with you, statements like this make me question your mental health.

Well maybe you should question the mental health of the authors of the history textbooks who group the Persians with the Greeks instead of the Aryans who they only group the Indians with.

OF COURSE they had a language. Are you actually proposing that humans capable of agriculture hadn't yet even figured out how to talk???

From what I understand a Celtic language, Lepontic, I believe wasn't attested until the 3 B.C.

You have inconsistently cited the sequence of letters as V-R-Y-N and V-Y-R-N; if it is V-Y-R-N aleph-yod-resh-nun then the yod is indicating that the initial vowel is "i" or "e".

In the inscription of Šāpūr I on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), Parth. ʾryʾn W ʾnʾryʾn (aryān ut anaryān), Mid. Pers. ʾyrʾn W ʾnyrʾn (ērān ut anērān; cf. Armenian eran eut aneran) comprises the inhabitants of all the known lands. The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān. - CAIS

I'm talking about the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), Parth. ʾryʾn, but if CAIS doesn't know that the imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is aryān then how come they're not writing it the way you said it was deciphered when they are writing it the way Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), Parth. ʾryʾn was deciphered?

Yes. Thousands of authors over hundreds of years have worked on the subject, all of them more knowledgeable about how languages actually develop than you are.

Of course there were. Again I have to ask where you think you came from.

Was the Proto-Indo-European language a hypothetical reconstruction or not?

Show me anyone who ever said any such thing. The term Ariana always included the river valleys of Pakistan (Sind and Panjab provinces) which are almost entirely Indic-speaking and have been as long as we have any record; one of the sources you cited, Pomponius Melo, used Ariana to mean only those Indic-speaking areas.

Because Airyanam is an Avestan term whereas Aryavarta is an Indic term.

"Although the Arian (or Iranian) tribe, which, commencing from Ariana, comprehended the ancient inhabitants of Bactria, Media, and Persia..." - Karl Otfried Müller Trans. John Leitch, Ancient art and its remains: or a manual of the archaeology of art pg. 219

I finally found it: William Jones translated Manu-smrti in 1794; it was in that translation, not his own essays, that "Arian" first appears in English.

Good work! Really, maybe I'll be persuaded that it was Jones, but De Sacy published his findings on the Parthian inscriptions including the form v-r-y-n in 1791, and mind you Jones thought that the Aryan homeland was in Iran.

 

[bob x]

Yasna 43:5 says men will be judged "evil for evil" "good for good" on the last day "when creation reaches its goal."

It does not say anything whatsoever about a "last day"; men are being evil for evil and good for good in each generation and "thus creation fulfills its goal."

Sorry it was Zam Yasht 15:88-90

Yasna 15 only has 4 verses. Zamyad Yasht is longer but not to verse 88. Can you cite some other way and show what text you are talking about.

So Xerxes expanded Persia's frontiers, briefly, Medizing Greeks up until he got to Athens

He very briefly recovered what Darius had lost, before losing it all again and more besides.

burned the Athenian city to the ground

Napoleon burned Moscow: how'd that work out for him? The Athenians sacrificed their houses to be sure of trapping and utterly destroying his army and fleet.

and said screw it, nothing left here, lost a lot of men, not willing to lose any more, I'm out.

He was lucky to escape with his life.

If they imposed it the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) would be speaking Greek today just like the inhabitants of France, Spain, Porteugal, and Romania speak a Latin derived language today, or the Irish and Scottish speak English.

It was imposed as the language of diplomacy, commerce, and literature; the Achaemenids by contrast had left Aramaic in that role. Anatolia and parts of Syria as well as the urban populace in places like Alexandria came to speak Greek natively; but in most people it was more like the role of English in the world today (when Brazilians and Kuwaitis negotiate a swap of timber for oil, they will not negotiate in Portuguese or in Arabic, but of course in English; that will not change what they speak at home).

Yup. That's the word.

FROM WHOM, I asked. I know of no source whatsoever that thinks Alexander gained anything politically from marrying Roxanne, who commanded no respect and came to a sorry end. If you have such a source, show me.

Seleucus I Nicator had a Persian wife. And what I was saying was that the Greeks that ruled the largest section of Alexander's failed state were with the Persians.

I find that this is true: Nicator's wife was Apama, and was not the only example of a Greek general marrying some non-Greek woman he met along the way; Alexander encouraged that. It did not help him hold his assigned province of Babylon, however; and he was not the one responsible for keeping the Iranian territories under Greek rule, that being Antigonus the One-Eyed, whose wife Stratonike was Macedonian; and Nicator's success in wresting the eastern two-thirds of the Antigonid successor kingdom away from Demetrius (son of Antigonus) was due to the military ineptitude of Demetrius, not because he had once had a Persian wife who by then was dead-- we know Apama was dead, because part of the treaty with Demetrius was Nicator marrying his daughter, also named Stratonike, although she was younger than his children. In what was a famous scandal at the time, Nicator's son Antiochus wanted Stratonike for himself, and Nicator on his deathbed gave him permission; the subsequent marital histories of the Seleucids, Antigonids, and Ptolemies were filled with incests, with no concern for native sensibilities.

All I meant was all the one-sided "Greco-Judaic-Christian" propaganda couldn't have helped

I also am not Greek, or Jewish, or Christian, but have no difficulty understanding that the actual roots of Western culture do need to be taught in the schools. Your grandiose self-pity about not being treated as the center of the world is something you have inflicted on yourself.

I mean you guys gotta have some seriously small twinkies if you think that 1% of Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Americans is a threat to you

Uh... 1% would be a gross exaggeration. You are the first American of such ancestry I have ever encountered. You are filled with paranoia that people think hostile thoughts about your people all the time: actually, most people seldom think about you at all.

so much so that you can't tell real history

We do tell real history. You want to invent a new history in which you are the center of the world. You had a large empire for a couple centuries, but that was thousands of years ago, and outside of your immediate region you have had almost no influence since then: deal with it. I don't see Thai Americans whining about how the schools don't teach the kids the central importance of mighty Thailand.

Pagan gods had always been territorial, and for some it seemed impossible to sing the songs of Yahweh in a foreign country

In CAPTIVITY. Compare the song The Minstrel's Boy: "The minstrel fell, but the foeman's chain could not drag that proud soul under / The harp he loved never spoke again, for he tore its cords asunder / He said, No more can I play thee, when all the world betray me / Thy songs were made for the pure and free / They shall never sound in slavery"

they relished the prospect of hurling Babylonian babies against a rock and dashing their brains out

Somehow that misreading of the verse had gotten imbedded in angry-atheist literature. It actually is talking about Babylonians being happy about smashing Jewish babies.

Was the Proto-Indo-European language a hypothetical reconstruction or not?

Of course it is, and the exact language spoken by the ancestral peoples may have differed in some particulars from what has been reconstructed, although by this point the disputes are over quite small details. You were claiming, however, that your people have no human ancestors at all, an exceedingly puzzling claim.

Well maybe you should question the mental health of the authors of the history textbooks who group the Persians with the Greeks instead of the Aryans who they only group the Indians with.

I did chide them for their ignorance in not knowing that Indo-Iranians belong together; but using the "Arya" word for Indics only is perfectly correct, since no Iranians have used that pronunciation at any time since they existed as a distinct people. The reason for grouping Greeks with them is a theory found in some sources which you yourself linked to: my own subgrouping of "Indo-Germanic" (the non-Centum branches) is a division into Germanic, Balkan Peripheral (Greek etc.), and Satam which combines Indo-Iranian with Balto-Slavic; but some have thought that Balto-Slavic goes closer to Germanic, and Balkan Peripheral closer to Indo-Iranian. I am not convinced, but it is a respectable theory. Grouping Greeks only with the Iranian sub-branch and not also with the Indics, however, is an erroneous distortion of that theory.

From what I understand a Celtic language, Lepontic, I believe wasn't attested until the 3 B.C.

And from this you conclude that they didn't even know how to talk until somebody wrote it down???

In the inscription of Šapur I on the Ka?ba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), Parth. ?ry?n W ?n?ry?n (aryan ut anaryan), Mid. Pers. ?yr?n W ?nyr?n (eran ut aneran; cf. Armenian eran eut aneran) comprises the inhabitants of all the known lands. The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is Parth. MLKYN MLK? aryan ut anaryan ke šihr hac yazdan.

The "Middle Persian" script is indicating HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PRONOUNCED the words. The "Parthian" script was archaic: it spells Shah "king" as m-l-k because that was the Aramaic; and the order of letters in the "Iran" word is apparently an archaism also, reflecting something like the "airya" pronunciation in Avestan and Achaemenid-era Persian.

if CAIS doesn't know that the imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is aryan then how come they're not writing it the way you said it was

I don't know, because they don't say. They are making their guesses, but if they offer no evidence, I don't care about their opinion.

Because Airyanam is an Avestan term whereas Aryavarta is an Indic term.

Which makes your stubborn insistence on using an INDIC pronunciation for people who have never said it that way extraordinarily baffling.

Good work! Really, maybe I'll be persuaded that it was Jones, but De Sacy published his findings on the Parthian inscriptions including the form v-r-y-n in 1791, and mind you Jones thought that the Aryan homeland was in Iran.

No, Jones thought the homeland of the whole human race was in Iran. He was certainly not relying on de Sacy's rendering of Middle Persian to help him translate Sanskrit (and, remember, de Sacy never filled in vowels at all). Moreover, he was living in Calcutta at the time, which would give him even less opportunity than someone living in England (which was at war with France and would remain so for most of the next two decades) to hear about a publication in Paris, which as far as we can tell no English-speaker did hear about for almost a half century.

 

[mojobadshah]

It does not say anything whatsoever about a "last day"; men are being evil for evil and good for good in each generation and "thus creation fulfills its goal."

It says "thus creation fulfills its goal" when there is NO MORE CREATING TO BE DONE.

Another translation is:

Then did I realize you as the Most Bountiful one, O mazda Ahura, when I beheld you as the First at the birth of life. Since you have ordained that deeds and words shall bear fruit, evil comes to evil and good blessings to the good. In your discerning judgment (this will go on) till the end of creation. - Ken R. Vincent, The Magi

Yasna 15 only has 4 verses. Zamyad Yasht is longer but not to verse 88. Can you cite some other way and show what text you are talking about.

XV.

88. We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda ....

89. That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;

90. When the creation will grow deathless, - the prosperous creation of the Good Spirit, - and the Druj shall perish, though she may rush on every side to kill the holy beings; she and her hundredfold brood shall perish, as it is the will of the Lord.
For its brightness and glory, I will offer it a sacrifice .... - Zamyad Yasht

FROM WHOM, I asked. I know of no source whatsoever that thinks Alexander gained anything politically from marrying Roxanne, who commanded no respect and came to a sorry end. If you have such a source, show me.

A friend who read a book on Afghanistan or Alexander the Great. The word pretty much everywhere is that the Bactrians were, and that one of the reasons he married Roxanne is because he had to in order to maintain control in Bactria.

I find that this is true: Nicator's wife was Apama, and was not the only example of a Greek general marrying some non-Greek woman he met along the way; Alexander encouraged that. It did not help him hold his assigned province of Babylon, however; and he was not the one responsible for keeping the Iranian territories under Greek rule, that being Antigonus the One-Eyed, whose wife Stratonike was Macedonian; and Nicator's success in wresting the eastern two-thirds of the Antigonid successor kingdom away from Demetrius (son of Antigonus) was due to the military ineptitude of Demetrius, not because he had once had a Persian wife who by then was dead-- we know Apama was dead, because part of the treaty with Demetrius was Nicator marrying his daughter, also named Stratonike, although she was younger than his children. In what was a famous scandal at the time, Nicator's son Antiochus wanted Stratonike for himself, and Nicator on his deathbed gave him permission; the subsequent marital histories of the Seleucids, Antigonids, and Ptolemies were filled with incests, with no concern for native sensibilities.

Antiochus I was half Persian.

Uh... 1% would be a gross exaggeration. You are the first American of such ancestry I have ever encountered. You are filled with paranoia that people think hostile thoughts about your people all the time: actually, most people seldom think about you at all.

Try telling that to the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) who recall their ancient homeland Airyana Veajah. What Aryan homeland can your people recall?

We do tell real history. You want to invent a new history in which you are the center of the world. You had a large empire for a couple centuries, but that was thousands of years ago, and outside of your immediate region you have had almost no influence since then: deal with it. I don't see Thai Americans whining about how the schools don't teach the kids the central importance of mighty Thailand.

I also am not Greek, or Jewish, or Christian, but have no difficulty understanding that the actual roots of Western culture do need to be taught in the schools. Your grandiose self-pity about not being treated as the center of the world is something you have inflicted on yourself.

Largest Empires of the Ancient World

Top Ten Largest Empires
by Contiguous Area of Land

12. Achaemenid Persian Empire - 7.5 million km² or 2.9 million mi² (under Darius the Great)

16. Roman Empire - 5.7 million km² or 2.2 million mi² (under Emperor Trajan)

18. Macedonian Empire - 5.4 million km² or 2.08 million mi² (under Alexander the Great)

Top Ten Largest Empires in History
by Percentage of World Population

Achaemenid Persian Empire - 27.6% (42 million out of 152 million in the 4th century B.C.)

Roman Empire - 26.5% (60 million out of 226 million in the 1st century A.D.)

Macedon NOT EVEN LISTED

Largest Empire by Percentage of World Population

What are the Greatest Empires

British Empire 20% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)

Achaemenid Empire 20.0%

Macedonian percentages NOT LISTED

List of Largest Empires

Conclusion: The Persians, who were Zoroastrians or the first monotheists, promoted religious tolerance, ruled the largest Empire in the world, which extended as far as Europe, included Greek states, and lasted from 600 B.C. from the rise of Cyrus to its fall 300 B.C. when Alexander came along and f'd up progress towards globalization.

Alexander's Empire was not larger or longer lasting or more politically significant (no liberating Jews, no influencing Jews, no Cyrus Cylinder) the Persian Empire and his exposure has nothing to do with significant Greeks contributions scientific discoveries, politics, and literature. The largest section of Alexander's Empire went to a Greek who was embracive of Persian culture.

In the last 10 years the pro-Greek big budget films about ancient Greek heritage include Clash of the Titans, Troy, Alexander, 300, and now Immortals. Pro-Aryan (Irano-Afghan) films include Prince of m'f'ing Persia.... YOU got small twinkies.

In CAPTIVITY. Compare the song The Minstrel's Boy: "The minstrel fell, but the foeman's chain could not drag that proud soul under / The harp he loved never spoke again, for he tore its cords asunder / He said, No more can I play thee, when all the world betray me / Thy songs were made for the pure and free / They shall never sound in slavery"

I don't get it.

Of course it is, and the exact language spoken by the ancestral peoples may have differed in some particulars from what has been reconstructed, although by this point the disputes are over quite small details. You were claiming, however, that your people have no human ancestors at all, an exceedingly puzzling claim.

No I was claiming that the Proto-Aryan language is a made up language that was created in the 20th century and that the first people to have attested to an Aryan national designation were the ancient Aryans (Irano-Afghans) e.g. Airyana Veajah.

I did chide them for their ignorance in not knowing that Indo-Iranians belong together; but using the "Arya" word for Indics only is perfectly correct, since no Iranians have used that pronunciation at any time since they existed as a distinct people. The reason for grouping Greeks with them is a theory found in some sources which you yourself linked to: my own subgrouping of "Indo-Germanic" (the non-Centum branches) is a division into Germanic, Balkan Peripheral (Greek etc.), and Satam which combines Indo-Iranian with Balto-Slavic; but some have thought that Balto-Slavic goes closer to Germanic, and Balkan Peripheral closer to Indo-Iranian. I am not convinced, but it is a respectable theory. Grouping Greeks only with the Iranian sub-branch and not also with the Indics, however, is an erroneous distortion of that theory.

OMG... you know what you just said was totally bullshit right?

The Greco-Aryans grouping does include the Greeks, Armenians, and Indo-Iranians, but you know that's not why they did that. If what you're saying is true they would have grouped the Indic speakers with the Greeks and the Persians, but no they tried to make it seem like the Indians and the Indians only were the only people to have used the "Aryan" designation. They had no problem telling us that the Indians were the product of waves of Aryan migrations from the Hindu Kush, but they did not tell us that the Persians were Aryans pretending like people actually know where the heck the Hindu Kush is probably hoping students would confuse that with India. They said nothing about how that's where the Irano-Aryans lived. YOU ARE STRETCHING IT. Just like them.

And from this you conclude that they didn't even know how to talk until somebody wrote it down???

No just that we can't be certain what their language sounded like or how their people thought to a great degree up until then 3 BC. Whereas we can be certain as to what the Persian (Aryan) languages sounded at least since c. 600 BC.

The "Middle Persian" script is indicating HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY PRONOUNCED the words. The "Parthian" script was archaic: it spells Shah "king" as m-l-k because that was the Aramaic; and the order of letters in the "Iran" word is apparently an archaism also, reflecting something like the "airya" pronunciation in Avestan and Achaemenid-era Persian.

I don't know, because they don't say. They are making their guesses, but if they offer no evidence, I don't care about their opinion.

Which makes your stubborn insistence on using an INDIC pronunciation for people who have never said it that way extraordinarily baffling.

I can't even under stand what you're saying here.

For the Irano-Afghan origin of Aryana and Aryan see:

The Greek term Arianē (Latin: Ariana) is based upon Old Iranian Āryana- (Avestan: Airiiana-, esp. in Airiianəm vaēǰō Ariana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aryan Home

The Old Persian and Avestan evidence is confirmed by the Greek sources: Herodotus (7.62) mentions that the Medes once called themselves Arioi; Eratosthenes apud Strabo (15.2.8) speaks of Arianē as being between Persia and India; Eudemus of Rhodes apud Damascius (Dubitationes et solutiones in Platonis Parmenidem 125 bis) refers to “the Magi and all those of Iranian (áreion) lineage”; Diodorus Siculus (1.94.2) considers Zoroaster (Zathraustēs) as one of the Arianoi. The ethnic, linguistic, and religious import of terms connected with Old Pers. ariya and Av. airya is therefore borne out by a lot of different evidence, over a span of time that goes from the Achaemenid to the Seleucid and Parthian periods and in Iranian and non-Iranian sources. Besides Greek, the non-Iranian sources include Armenian, as in the expression ari Aramazd “Ahura Mazdā, the Iranian” in The History of the Armenians (sec. 127) by Agathangelos (de Lamberterie, p. 243; Schmitt, 1991; Gnoli, 1993, p. 19). An Iranian source, the Rabatak inscription (l. 3 f.) in the Bactrian language, has ariao, meaning “in Iranian (language)” (Sims-Williams, 1995-96, p. 83; 1997, p. 5; Gnoli, 2002). All this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples (Geiger, pp. 167 f.; Schmitt, 1978, p. 31) who were aware of belonging to the one ethnic stock, speaking a common language, and having a religious tradition that centered on the cult of Ahura Mazdā.
The singular and plural forms, ēr and ērān, in Middle Persian were widely used in the Sasanian period. We have examples in the royal titles (šāhān-šāh Ērān [ud Anērān], literally “King of Kings of the Iranians [and non-Iranians]”) and in the titles of the civil and military administration: senior officers, dignitaries, and top-grade civil servants have titles such as Ērān-āmārgar, a sort of paymaster general, Ērān-hambāragbed, the super-intendent of the warehouses, Ērān-dibīrbed, the head of the bureaucracy, Ērān-drustbed, the court surgeon, Ērān-spāhbed, the marshal of the empire. These titles have no precedent in the Arsacid period; and even the Parthian royal title šāhān šāh Aryān, “King of Kings of the Iranians,” which occurs, for instance, in the Kaʿbe-ye Zardošt inscription, is no more than the Parthian version of the Sasanian title, just like the Greek version basileús basi-léōn Arianṓn. Iranian Identity II Pre-Islamic Period

No, Jones thought the homeland of the whole human race was in Iran. He was certainly not relying on de Sacy's rendering of Middle Persian to help him translate Sanskrit (and, remember, de Sacy never filled in vowels at all). Moreover, he was living in Calcutta at the time, which would give him even less opportunity than someone living in England (which was at war with France and would remain so for most of the next two decades) to hear about a publication in Paris, which as far as we can tell no English-speaker did hear about for almost a half century.

 

[bob x]

It says "thus creation fulfills its goal" when there is NO MORE CREATING TO BE DONE.

Yes. It's talking about what happens continuously from the creation of the world to its end.

88. We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda ....

89. That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;

90. When the creation will grow deathless, - the prosperous creation of the Good Spirit, - and the Druj shall perish, though she may rush on every side to kill the holy beings; she and her hundredfold brood shall perish, as it is the will of the Lord.
For its brightness and glory, I will offer it a sacrifice .... - Zamyad Yasht

Yeah, found it now. I'm trying to figure out how early or late it is: well after Zoroaster, obviously; Mithra has been adopted into the religion as "the greatest of the gods created by Ahura Mazda" (v. 35); but an old form of the name is used for Frangrasyab king of Turan, legendary arch-enemy, who gets warped into Frasian or Afrasian king of the "Turks" in late sources like Firdousi.

A friend who read a book on Afghanistan or Alexander the Great. The word pretty much everywhere is that the Bactrians were, and that one of the reasons he married Roxanne is because he had to in order to maintain control in Bactria.

Uh, no, that's not the word pretty much anywhere. If you don't have a source, then forget it.

Antiochus I was half Persian.

And his children were 1/4 Persian, and their children were 1/8 Persian, etc.

Try telling that to the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) who recall their ancient homeland Airyana Veajah.

Airyan was the pronunciation three thousand years ago, but it was more like Iran already by two thousand years ago. Irano-Afghans do not recall Avestan texts, since the Parsis were kicked out to India over a thousand years ago. Your point?

What Aryan homeland can your people recall?

My point was, precisely, that we don't give a damn about "Aryan homeland". Why should we?

Achaemenid Persian Empire - 27.6% (42 million out of 152 million in the 4th century B.C.)

Roman Empire - 26.5% (60 million out of 226 million in the 1st century A.D.)

Macedon NOT EVEN LISTED

Largest Empire by Percentage of World Population

What are the Greatest Empires

British Empire 20% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)

Interesting site. Of course, population figures for the ancient world are as hard to get accurate as pre-literate proto-languages; but there are some agreements with the demographic estimates I have seen before.

What I hear (I will try to find a link) is that in "classical antiquity" (last few centuries BC) the world's population could roughly be divided into five regions, each between 40 and 50 million people, in order from largest to smallest: Greater India (including southeast Asia as well as the subcontinent), China, Mediterranea (north Africa plus Europe), Greater Persia (the Achaemenid territories), and The Rest (principally sub-Saharan Africa, plus the tribes of the northern steppes and New World). Your site's sources seem to agree that Greater Persia was in the low forties, and India in the high forties (it gives "50 million" for the Maurya state at an only slightly later time when the whole population of the world had not moved much); and probably agree that Mediterranea was in the mid-forties at that time: it says "60 million" for Rome but in a later century when the whole world had multiplied by about a factor of one-and-a-half, so backtrack it to "40 million" for Achaemenid times in the areas that would subsequently become Rome, adjust that to take off the strip from Anatolia to Egypt (to avoid double-counting, as these were Achaemenid-ruled) but add in the Germanic, Celtic, and Sarmatian areas not reached by Rome; so, somewhere in the mid-forties for Mediterranea.

My problem with this site's figures is that this seems to leave only about 20 million for all of China and "The Rest". That is a serious lowball estimate just for China; and while Siberia and the Americas were fairly negligible (agriculture in Mexico and Peru were just starting), sub-Saharan Africa was going through its own agricultural boom (the "Bantu expansion"). Possibly this site is drawing on sources which only estimate certain parts of the world, and is not including anything at all for the parts where no estimate is given? I stand by my position that Achaemenid Persia was well under 20% of the world's population; still quite large and impressive, though.

Achaemenid Empire 20.0%

Macedonian percentages NOT LISTED

List of Largest Empires

Maybe 20.0% is correct. For the Macedonian Empire, of course it was slightly larger for the brief time it held everything the Achaemenids had, plus some more-- but the breakup was very rapid.

Conclusion: The Persians, who were Zoroastrians or the first monotheists

They were not the only monotheists at the time.

... promoted religious tolerance...

They co-opted local religious authorities because they did not have the armed power to control all that territory thoroughly. It was a reasonable policy decision (much better than the Assyrian and Babylonian practice of rampaging around all the time trying to crush everyone at once), but don't try to make it sound like it was altruism. It did mean that the state made no efforts to promote the Zoroastrian religion.

ruled the largest Empire in the world, which extended as far as Europe, included Greek states, and lasted from 600 B.C. from the rise of Cyrus to its fall 300 B.C. when Alexander came along and f'd up progress towards globalization.

A weak and transient hold on Thrace, and occasional tribute payments from Macedon, was not much of a presence in Europe. The rise of Cyrus was 535 BC and the rise of Alexander was 332 BC, so you are stretching two centuries into three.

Alexander's Empire was not larger

Of course it was: it included everything the Achaemenids had held, plus more.

or longer lasting

As a unified state, certainly not. The successor states did last longer, however.

or more politically significant

In political significance, it has been vastly more influential.

In the last 10 years the pro-Greek big budget films about ancient Greek heritage include Clash of the Titans, Troy, Alexander, 300, and now Immortals.

All of these are rather minor films; two of them I have never heard of.

I don't get it.

Obviously, you have no sense of poetry. The theme of the Psalm "By the rivers of Babylon..." was the same theme as in "The Minstrel Boy"; the author you were citing doesn't get poetry either.

No I was claiming that the Proto-Aryan language is a made up language that was created in the 20th century

Some of the details may still be incorrect-- but you do understand that PEOPLE actually did live back then, and already knew how to talk? It is unfortunate that there was such a shortage of tape recorders in ancient times, so we can't know exactly how they talked, but scholars have been working on it for a very long time. You are totally disrespectful to people who have dedicated their lives to understanding.

OMG... you know what you just said was totally bullshit right?

It was an erroneous distortion, of a theory that I do not personally accept, but do not consider unreasonable either.

The Greco-Aryans grouping does include the Greeks, Armenians, and Indo-Iranians

Which is why it was an erroneous distortion to think it includes Greeks, Armenians, and Iranians, but not Indics. Nobody in the linguistics field disputes that the Indics and the Iranians are closer to each other than to any other sub-branch.

they tried to make it seem like the Indians and the Indians only were the only people to have used the "Aryan" designation.

Which is true. Once the Indo-Iranian group split into Indic and Iranian sub-branches, one of the very characteristic markers of the "Iranian" sub-branches is the vowel-shift in the first syllable of the arya word.

No just that we can't be certain what their language sounded like or how their people thought to a great degree up until then 3 BC.

Their name for the island was reported as Perytan in the 4th century BC. The language was already Celtic.

Which makes your stubborn insistence on using an INDIC pronunciation for people who have never said it that way extraordinarily baffling.

I can't even under stand what you're saying here.

For some ungodly reason, it seems to be very important to you to pronounce the word with initial vowel "a" although you are only using it for precisely those people who didn't pronounce it that way. I can understand why you don't like "Iranian" since it creates confusion with a particular state, whose present government is one of the worst in the world; but you want to go back to a form that your people haven't used since there was no distinction between them and the Indics, and which creates confusion with the Nazis.

For the Irano-Afghan origin of Aryana and Aryan see:

The Greek term Arianē (Latin: Ariana) is based upon Old Iranian Āryana- (Avestan: Airiiana-, esp. in Airiianəm vaēǰō Ariana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly. Even in Avestan, the vowel was not "a" anymore. The Greeks always simplified vowels when borrowing from Persian; why are you now relying on the Greeks?

Eratosthenes apud Strabo (15.2.8) speaks of Arianē as being between Persia and India

That is to say, he means PAKISTAN, particularly the valleys of the Indus and adjoining rivers; some other authors, like Pomponius, also use it for Pakistan only; but most lump Pakistan together with "Iran" (in the wide sense), recognizing that the Indic and Iranian forms are really the same word.

The singular and plural forms, ēr and ērān, in Middle Persian were widely used in the Sasanian period. We have examples in the royal titles (šāhān-šāh Ērān [ud Anērān], literally “King of Kings of the Iranians [and non-Iranians]”) and in the titles of the civil and military administration: senior officers, dignitaries, and top-grade civil servants have titles such as Ērān-āmārgar, a sort of paymaster general, Ērān-hambāragbed, the super-intendent of the warehouses, Ērān-dibīrbed, the head of the bureaucracy, Ērān-drustbed, the court surgeon, Ērān-spāhbed, the marshal of the empire.

Witzel is not bothered by the vowel-shift: obviously this is still the same word. Why in the world are you so insistent on the vowel which your people don't use, and haven't been using for thousands of years.

even the Parthian royal title šāhān šāh Aryān, “King of Kings of the Iranians,” which occurs, for instance, in the Kaʿbe-ye Zardošt inscription, is no more than the Parthian version of the Sasanian title

The "Parthian" script does not write the vowels at all; the Sassanian script, which does, tells us how the word was really pronounced.

 

[mojobadshah]

And his children were 1/4 Persian, and their children were 1/8 Persian, etc.

What is with this percentage bull. I don't do that.

Airyan was the pronunciation three thousand years ago, but it was more like Iran already by two thousand years ago. Irano-Afghans do not recall Avestan texts, since the Parsis were kicked out to India over a thousand years ago. Your point?

There are Zartushtis in Iran, but all the Aryan people played a part in the preservation of Avestan heritage, and I don't know why you keep on saying the Irano-Afghans don't use these forms. There are High Schools, and Hospitals, airlines with trademarks like Aryana/Ariana, banks with the trademarks like Aryan, people with common names like Ariya, and Aryanzai "son of an Aryan."

My point was, precisely, that we don't give a damn about "Aryan homeland". Why should we?

Because the Irano-Afghans are the friggin Aryans! But the authors of the high school textbooks are in denial about that.

They were not the only monotheists at the time.

Maybe not, but they were the first monotheists, and the first monotheist world-empire.

A weak and transient hold on Thrace, and occasional tribute payments from Macedon, was not much of a presence in Europe. The rise of Cyrus was 535 BC and the rise of Alexander was 332 BC, so you are stretching two centuries into three.

Of course it was: it included everything the Achaemenids had held, plus more.

Maybe that's because you're not including these tributary states like the ones you mentioned above and ones like Ethiopia. IDK, but that's what the sources show.

In political significance, it has been vastly more influential.

How? Alexander wasn't responsible for any Cyrus Cylinders.

All of these are rather minor films; two of them I have never heard of.

To you, but not to rest of the idiots out there. It's pure one-sided propaganda.

Obviously, you have no sense of poetry. The theme of the Psalm "By the rivers of Babylon..." was the same theme as in "The Minstrel Boy"; the author you were citing doesn't get poetry either.

Here, but my point was that Jews didn't feel comfortable worshipping their god outside of their homeland and that Yawheh was only a local god up until Deutro-Isaiah. What was yours?

Some of the details may still be incorrect-- but you do understand that PEOPLE actually did live back then, and already knew how to talk?

OF COURSE I KNOW THAT.

It is unfortunate that there was such a shortage of tape recorders in ancient times, so we can't know exactly how they talked,

Yes very unfortunate, but the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) and Indic speakers had themselves for a taperecorder.

but scholars have been working on it for a very long time. You are totally disrespectful to people who have dedicated their lives to understanding.

No I appreciate their work, and I view it as kind of symbolic in significance, useful at times, but I wouldn't let it supercede the importance of real history and language like the history and language contained in the Avesta and other attested ancient IE. literature. The Avestan (Irano-Afghan) people are the first people to have used the "Aryan" designation in the national sense e.g. Airyana Veajah, not the Indic people, and not a hypothetical language which was the creation of 20th century linguists. That would be a distortion of the truth.

It was an erroneous distortion, of a theory that I do not personally accept, but do not consider unreasonable either.

It's not so much what they do say. It's what they don't say BX.

Their name for the island was reported as Perytan in the 4th century BC. The language was already Celtic.

Just so I can get an idea. Are we just restricted to national designations, common names, and place-names here.

Exactly. Even in Avestan, the vowel was not "a" anymore. The Greeks always simplified vowels when borrowing from Persian; why are you now relying on the Greeks?

Not totally. But my point was that the form Arian came into useage because it had something to do with the Parthian form which was attested around the same time as the Greek sources.

That is to say, he means PAKISTAN, particularly the valleys of the Indus and adjoining rivers; some other authors, like Pomponius, also use it for Pakistan only; but most lump Pakistan together with "Iran" (in the wide sense), recognizing that the Indic and Iranian forms are really the same word.

Witzel is not bothered by the vowel-shift: obviously this is still the same word. Why in the world are you so insistent on the vowel which your people don't use, and haven't been using for thousands of years.

WOAH, did you not read Witzel. The majority of the place-names which designate the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) lands which include Airyana Veajah were not in Pakistan, and extend as far west as Iran.

The "Parthian" script does not write the vowels at all; the Sassanian script, which does, tells us how the word was really pronounced.

Well IDK. Both CAIS and Encyclopedia Iranica show Aryan as the Parthian form, so maybe their is something were missing. Nevertheless the Parthian script would be as such v-r-y-n correct? And also Radarmarks OED source claims that the form Arian wasn't used until 1847. I can't tell whether it's used in the Indo-European sense or the Indic sense can you? And last but not least I'd like to see your Jones source for the form Arian. I can't find it on the net. Can you?

 

[mojobadshah]

No, it's not. The sibilant is what is found in EVERY OTHER INDO-EUROPEAN BRANCH except the Iranian subgroup of the Indo-Iranian (the German gods were Aesir not Aexir or anything like that; the root for "to be" which underlies the word is found as English is, Latin est etc. ) Therefore, the sibilant is the original sound, and the shift to "h" happened only within Iranian, at a fairly late date after Indo-Iranian had split up into sub-branches. There is not the slightest question here.

First off I don't know why s>(h) shift in Avestan would mean that Sanskrit is more ancient than Avestan just because Sanskrit retains . More archaic maybe, but not more ancient, and then again we don't know for sure what PIE. really looked liked. Avestan has retained voiced sibilants where Sanskrit has not. Does that now mean that Avestan is ancient? Or maybe, just maybe, the development to in Sanskrit and the rest of the IE. was a natural progression from something like a velar fricative /x/ somewhere along the lines like in my Ahura >Axura> Ashura > Asura hypothesis.

Norse myth and Avestan myth share some common elements. Ahura Mazda was their Odin and he was included among the upper pantheon of Aesir gods. Thor is said to have come from the Middle East somewhere. Folklore says he was named after Hector of Greek myth, but considering that he was a thunder god and thunder is associated with rain, I'm inclined to conclude that Thor had more to do with Iran. Tir "bringer of the rains" fr. Avestan Tishtriya.

Beeks shows h>x type progressions as early as Gathic as in GAv. hwar/xwar "sun," and velar fricatives do appear in Young Avestan (see http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Avesta/a07_lesson4.pdf)

We know that Assyrian form Ashura is attested c.2000 BC which was before the Mittani Asura.

So maybe the Germanic Aesir cf. ash "ass" developed from Avestan via Assyrian as such Ahura > *Axura > Ashura > Aesir.

Now if both the Avestan and the Germanic people both worshipped Ahura/Aesir then might that mean that the Vedic people was attested later than Avestan, after the Vedic people did away with the Ahura/Aesir worship? And that in the same way Ahura may have developed from Ahura>*Axura>Ashura>Asura.

Maybe the aspirate in Avestan Ahura developed into a velar fricative in a colloquial language and became difficult for the per-Ashura worshippers of Assyria and the Vedic speakers who did away with the Asuras. And this would also explain why Rig Vedic inflexions look more like Young Avestan inflections than Old Avestan inflexions. Because Rig Vedas, the product of Indo-Iranians who migrated from the "Hindu Kush" to Pakistan were attested after the Gathas were.

(the German gods were Aesir not Aexir or anything like that; the root for "to be" which underlies the word is found as English is, Latin est etc. )

Are you sure that Aesir/Ahura is akin to words like Latin est and Persian ast? Shipley doesn't show that. Who does? He does however link words like Ahura to horse, animal, and ass.

 

[bob x]

What is with this percentage bull. I don't do that.

You said Antiochus was 1/2 Persian, as if that was crucial. He and his descendants didn't marry any more Persians. What's your point?

There are Zartushtis in Iran

A small handful.

but all the Aryan people played a part in the preservation of Avestan heritage

Iran and Afghanistan have brutally suppressed anything non-Islamic for most of their histories.

There are High Schools, and Hospitals, airlines with trademarks like Aryana/Ariana, banks with the trademarks like Aryan, people with common names like Ariya, and Aryanzai "son of an Aryan."

This all started the day before yesterday.

Maybe that's because you're not including these tributary states like the ones you mentioned above

Alexander was FROM Macedon, and took Thrace first.

and ones like Ethiopia.

Ethiopia was never tributary. Cambyses took a sliver of their territory in the Cataracts. Alexander received the submission of everything the Achaemenids held, and more besides.

IDK, but that's what the sources show.

Which sources? I know of no source that does not show Alexander taking everything the Persians had held.

How? Alexander wasn't responsible for any Cyrus Cylinders.

The Hellenistic kingdoms have left us an enormous literature, not a handful of texts.

To you, but not to rest of the idiots out there.

I don't know of any "idiots" who think any of the movies you mentioned were important films.

my point was that Jews didn't feel comfortable worshipping their god outside of their homeland and that Yawheh was only a local god up until Deutro-Isaiah. What was yours?

That the point being made by the Psalm was something totally different, which has gone completely over your head.

OF COURSE I KNOW THAT.

It wasn't at all clear: you were saying Indo-Iranian ancestors "didn't exist".

Yes very unfortunate, but the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) and Indic speakers had themselves for a taperecorder.

The Irano-Afghan oral recitations make plain that they pronounced the first syllable like English ire as far back as Gathic times; in Sassanian times it was like air before settling on the modern ear pronunciation; Irano-Afghans, unlike Indics, have not used a pronunciation like are for that first syllable since they began to exist as a separate people distinct from the Indics. Are you telling me now that the oral recitation of the Avesta is a bogus tradition and does not really reflect what everyone else considers an undisputed fact, that you have been calling yourselves "Iran" for thousands of years?

Just so I can get an idea. Are we just restricted to national designations, common names, and place-names here.

Up to you: you made a statement that "Britain did not exist" and it is for you to explain what you meant by such a thing. Of course Britain "existed" although it was illiterate and backwoods at the time.

But my point was that the form Arian came into useage because it had something to do with the Parthian form

You keep saying that, but it's not true. The form entered European scholarship through the study of Sanskrit.

Witzel is not bothered by the vowel-shift: obviously this is still the same word. Why in the world are you so insistent on the vowel which your people don't use, and haven't been using for thousands of years.

WOAH, did you not read Witzel. The majority of the place-names which designate the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) lands which include Airyana Veajah were not in Pakistan, and extend as far west as Iran.

OF COURSE I read Witzel. His point is that the Iranian word (which always, west of Pakistan, is vowel-shifted) is the same word as the Indic word in origin, despite the shift.

Well IDK. Both CAIS and Encyclopedia Iranica show Aryan as the Parthian form, so maybe their is something were missing.

Maybe YOU'RE missing it: I'm not having a problem understanding. The vowel isn't marked, so they arbitrarily fill it in.

Nevertheless the Parthian script would be as such v-r-y-n correct?

Yes, and a fuller script was in contemporary usage, indicating that the initial vowel was "e" at that time.

And also Radarmarks OED source claims that the form Arian wasn't used until 1847.

No, it says the form WAS used in 1847; it does not deny the existence of any other usages.

I can't tell whether it's used in the Indo-European sense or the Indic sense can you?

It was explicitly talking about Indics.

And last but not least I'd like to see your Jones source for the form Arian. I can't find it on the net. Can you?

Best I can do so far, but I'll keep looking.

First off I don't know why s>(h) shift in Avestan would mean that Sanskrit is more ancient than Avestan just because Sanskrit retains . More archaic maybe, but not more ancient, and then again we don't know for sure what PIE. really looked liked. Avestan has retained voiced sibilants where Sanskrit has not. Does that now mean that Avestan is ancient? Or maybe, just maybe, the development to in Sanskrit and the rest of the IE. was a natural progression from something like a velar fricative /x/ somewhere along the lines like in my Ahura >Axura> Ashura > Asura hypothesis.

As with genetic mutations in biology, the majority of the descendants will retain the original, with the shifted form in the minority (although eventually it may be that only the branch which contains the shift has progeny, the other branches having died out). When we see "h" ONLY in Iranian, and "s" everywhere else, it is absurd to think that all branches except one have made a shift; rather, it is the one branch which sticks out like a sore thumb.

Sanskrit of course also has some shifts: it is not identical to the ancestral language; none of the descendant languages ever are; all will independently pick up some shifts. But Avestan has more shifts: look at the start of the source you linked me to: accusatives of haomo and mashiio are haomem and mashim, while in Indic accusatives of somo and martiyo are somam and martiyam; genitives are haomahe and mashiehe vs. Indic somasya and martiyasya; from bara "carry" and yuidiya "fight" the 3rd-person singulars are baraiti "he carries" and yuidiyeti "he fights" while in Indic we have bharati and yudhyati. Sanskrit has perfectly regular patterns, the same suffixes on all words, where Avestan shifts vowels depending on neighboring sounds; it is clear that the irregular derived from the regular, and not the other way around.

Norse myth and Avestan myth share some common elements. Ahura Mazda was their Odin and he was included among the upper pantheon of Aesir

Woden was an ancestor-god, from whom the Thuring, Walsing, and Helsing royal families traced themselves; the Roman authors analogize him to a "German Hercules", Herakles being the deified ancestor of the Heraklid royal family that took over Sparta etc. in the generations after the Trojan War; they also say this worship was a new cult among the Germans in the period when the Cimbri and Teutones invaded Gaul from Juteland and Saxony. Like Herakles, Woden is probably derived from an actual human leader, although obviously the myths don't give us much genuine biographical material: presumably Herakles really was very strong, and hunted and killed some impressive animals in his time; and Woden really did have only one eye (why would anybody make that up?) and had a very very fast horse. These kinds of deified heroes have remarkably little to do with a universalist god like Ahura Mazda.

Thor is said to have come from the Middle East somewhere.

WHAT??? Said by WHOM???

Folklore says he was named after Hector of Greek myth

WHAT??? Thor is Scandinavian for "thunder"; in Germany he was called Donner, in the Low Countries Donder, in Anglo-Saxon Thunor, all of these being the local forms of the word for "thunder". He is a perfectly local deity, of the "personified natural force" type.

but considering that he was a thunder god and thunder is associated with rain, I'm inclined to conclude that Thor had more to do with Iran.

Because, of course, it never rains anywhere except in Iran, or at least no other humans were ever smart enough to notice it?

So maybe the Germanic Aesir cf. ash "ass" developed from Avestan via Assyrian

Assyria is not on the way from Iran to Germany.

as such Ahura > *Axura > Ashura > Aesir.

You are assuming that all descendants of the original language, except one, shifted "h" to "x"; and then every single descendant of the unattested language with the "x" in it, without exception, shifted it to "sh"; and then that every descendant, except one, of Assyrian shifted it to "s" (but of course, there are no Indo-European languages whatsoever, certainly not German or Sanskrit, which could be considered descendants of Assyrian). This is not how linguistics works.

Are you sure that Aesir/Ahura is akin to words like Latin est and Persian ast?

Not entirely, but derivations from a verb "to be" are known in other linguistic groups for the kind of deity who is supposed to have to do with ultimate reality, rather than with some lesser facet of it (YHWH from the root h-w-h "to be" is of course the most prominent example).

Shipley doesn't show that. Who does? He does however link words like Ahura to horse, animal, and ass.

That seems a very silly, as well as insulting, theory. Animal-gods or "totems" are a common type of deity (as common as nature-personifications or ancestor-heroes) but while Egypt's deities were almost all of this type, it is not very prominent among the Indo-Europeans, and I just don't see Ahura Mazda as a horse-totem.

 

[mojobadshah]

You said Antiochus was 1/2 Persian, as if that was crucial. He and his descendants didn't marry any more Persians. What's your point?

You think they would have lasted as long as they did if they didn't have Persian blood? Intermarriage and politics have always gone hand in hand.

Iran and Afghanistan have brutally suppressed anything non-Islamic for most of their histories.

You sound like you're trying to suppress anything non-Islamic from their history. Zoroastrianism is part of the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) religious heritage. They still speak Aryan (Irano-Afghan) languages. Zoroastrian expressions are a big part of their culture. Islam is conceptually Zoroastrian with an Arabic backstory just like Christianity is conceptually Zoroastrian with a Judaic backstory. What is with these Semitic backstories? Allah is just another way of saying Ahura Mazda or Khoda cf. God. Zoroastrian mythology including Ormzad and Zartusht aka Ahura Mazda and Zarathushtra are preserved in classical Persian literature like the Shahnameh. Noe Ruz a Zoroastrian holiday is celebrated not only in the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) zone, but is also an official New York holiday, and was probably established by Zoroaster himself. People know Zoroaster in the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) zone. The Zartushtis are comparable to the priests here. The rest of the Indo-European people don't deny their pre-Christian religious heritage do they?

Ethiopia was never tributary. Cambyses took a sliver of their territory in the Cataracts. Alexander received the submission of everything the Achaemenids held, and more besides.

Which sources? I know of no source that does not show Alexander taking everything the Persians had held.

Maybe that's because you're not including Ethiopia, Libya, and the Sudan which were huge chunks of territory, and parts of Northern Russia, and the Danube?

See Largest Ancient Empire

I've also seen sites that rank the ancient empires in order of size and Persia is always at the top, but I can't find it now.

The Hellenistic kingdoms have left us an enormous literature, not a handful of texts.

They don't emphasize Alexander because of the literature that he left behind, his politics, science, or democracy, and his empire wasn't even larger than the Persian Empire. Cyrus wrote the Cyrus Cylinder and established the first world-superpower.

That the point being made by the Psalm was something totally different, which has gone completely over your head.

So the Jews were no reserved about worshipping beyond the confines of Jerusalem?

OF COURSE I read Witzel. His point is that the Iranian word (which always, west of Pakistan, is vowel-shifted) is the same word as the Indic word in origin, despite the shift.

The Indic Arya and the Irano-Afghan Airya obviously share the same root, and although there may have been some overlapping I doubt that Airyana Vaejah and Aryavarta were exactly the same place. I mean what, were they at war in the same place? Like did the Indic Arya literally live next-door to the Irano-Afghan Airya and battle?

Maybe YOU'RE missing it: I'm not having a problem understanding. The vowel isn't marked, so they arbitrarily fill it in.

But they're not arbitrarily filling it in for the Ka'ba-ye Zardosht inscription...

COMPARE:

In the inscription of Šāpūr I on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), Parth. ʾryʾn W ʾnʾryʾn (aryān ut anaryān)

TO:

The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān.

Best I can do so far, but I'll keep looking.

Yeah cause won't suffice. They could be substituting the word Aryan for Arya just like all the other sources do.

As with genetic mutations in biology, the majority of the descendants will retain the original, with the shifted form in the minority (although eventually it may be that only the branch which contains the shift has progeny, the other branches having died out). When we see "h" ONLY in Iranian, and "s" everywhere else, it is absurd to think that all branches except one have made a shift; rather, it is the one branch which sticks out like a sore thumb.

Greek contains "h."

Sanskrit of course also has some shifts: it is not identical to the ancestral language; none of the descendant languages ever are; all will independently pick up some shifts. But Avestan has more shifts:

Exactly all of the IE. languages have problems. That Avestan has more shifts doesn't make Avestan any less ancient than Sanskrit. All it means is that Avestan innovated quicker than Sanskrit. Lithuanian was attested much more recently than Sanskrit and though it's not identical to Sanskrit it is "similar" to Sanskrit.

Woden was an ancestor-god, from whom the Thuring, Walsing, and Helsing royal families traced themselves; the Roman authors analogize him to a "German Hercules", Herakles being the deified ancestor of the Heraklid royal family that took over Sparta etc. in the generations after the Trojan War; they also say this worship was a new cult among the Germans in the period when the Cimbri and Teutones invaded Gaul from Juteland and Saxony. Like Herakles, Woden is probably derived from an actual human leader, although obviously the myths don't give us much genuine biographical material: presumably Herakles really was very strong, and hunted and killed some impressive animals in his time; and Woden really did have only one eye (why would anybody make that up?) and had a very very fast horse. These kinds of deified heroes have remarkably little to do with a universalist god like Ahura Mazda.

Woden and Ahura Mazda resemble each other in the sense that Woden was the "Lord of Wisdom" and the chief god of the Nordic pantheon of Aesir gods like Ahura Mazda was the "Lord of Wisdom" and omnipotent creator of the universe.

WHAT??? Said by WHOM???

It was either Snorri Sturluson or the translator of the Eddas who explains that the Nordic gods were probably real people who came from Turkey (Anatolia) which is where Troy was.

WHAT??? Thor is Scandinavian for "thunder"; in Germany he was called Donner, in the Low Countries Donder, in Anglo-Saxon Thunor, all of these being the local forms of the word for "thunder". He is a perfectly local deity, of the "personified natural force" type.

Because, of course, it never rains anywhere except in Iran, or at least no other humans were ever smart enough to notice it?

But don't Thor and Tir sound like cognates. And Phuvel links Thor's hammer in Nordic myth to Feridoons gurz in Avestan myth.

Assyria is not on the way from Iran to Germany.

But Assyria is on the way to Turkey and Turkey is on the way to Europe.

You are assuming that all descendants of the original language, except one, shifted "h" to "x"; and then every single descendant of the unattested language with the "x" in it, without exception, shifted it to "sh"; and then that every descendant, except one, of Assyrian shifted it to "s" (but of course, there are no Indo-European languages whatsoever, certainly not German or Sanskrit, which could be considered descendants of Assyrian). This is not how linguistics works.

The Greeks preserved "h"

Not entirely, but derivations from a verb "to be" are known in other linguistic groups for the kind of deity who is supposed to have to do with ultimate reality, rather than with some lesser facet of it (YHWH from the root h-w-h "to be" is of course the most prominent example).

I think that the h-w-h may be cognate to Eng. be, was cf. Persian bud not Eng. is

That seems a very silly, as well as insulting, theory. Animal-gods or "totems" are a common type of deity (as common as nature-personifications or ancestor-heroes) but while Egypt's deities were almost all of this type, it is not very prominent among the Indo-Europeans, and I just don't see Ahura Mazda as a horse-totem.

What I meant was that Shipley claims that words like animal, horse, and ass are cognates of Ahura. And Ahura Mazda is actually depicted as a horseman during the Sassanian era.

 

[bob x]

You think they would have lasted as long as they did if they didn't have Persian blood?

You think Antiochus Epiphanes was only king because of his 1/32 Persian ancestry? Yeah, yeah, his great-great-great-grandfather had married a Persian woman, but nobody else in the family had, so obviously that wasn't very important.

You sound like you're trying to suppress anything non-Islamic from their history.

*I* am not the one doing the suppressing.

Islam is conceptually Zoroastrian with an Arabic backstory just like Christianity is conceptually Zoroastrian with a Judaic backstory. What is with these Semitic backstories?

Uh... apparently nobody else finds Iranian stories very interesting. Islam and Christianity are conceptually Semitic ideologies with a minor overlay of Zoroastrian ideas.

Noe Ruz a Zoroastrian holiday is celebrated not only in the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) zone, but is also an official New York holiday, and was probably established by Zoroaster himself.

Don't be ridiculous. The equinoxes and solstices have been noted by the human race for a lot longer than the Indo-European languages have existed; determining them is the reason humans even bothered to learn how to count.

The rest of the Indo-European people don't deny their pre-Christian religious heritage do they?

Mostly they do.

Maybe that's because you're not including Ethiopia, Libya, and the Sudan which were huge chunks of territory, and parts of Northern Russia, and the Danube?

I am not including anything which the Achaemenids, despite your fantasies, did not hold. EVERYTHING that Persia had, Macedon took: along with more.

They don't emphasize Alexander because of the literature that he left behind

Alexander established a wide zone of Greek language and culture which produced an enormous body of influential literature.

Cyrus wrote the Cyrus Cylinder

A single piece of text that nobody even remembered the existence of for thousands of years.

So the Jews were no reserved about worshipping beyond the confines of Jerusalem?

They were being asked to sing sacred songs for the ENTERTAINMENT of their ENSLAVERS. That is what the Psalm is weeping about.

The Indic Arya and the Irano-Afghan Airya obviously share the same root

Yes, obviously. And they have diverged in pronunciation. You are, for some bizarre reason, insisting that the pronunciation which your people don't use should be used for a group that excludes the people who do pronounce it that way.

although there may have been some overlapping I doubt that Airyana Vaejah and Aryavarta were exactly the same place.

The overlap is Pakistan. The Iranians extended the usage to include territories westward; the Indics extended the usage to include territories eastward.

Like did the Indic Arya literally live next-door to the Irano-Afghan Airya and battle?

Originally they lived not "next door" but in the same houses, because they were the same people. After they diverged, yes of course there sometimes wars, as between any two neighboring countries: Darius didn't take over the Indus Valley by asking "Please can I have it?"

But they're not arbitrarily filling it in for the Ka'ba-ye Zardosht inscription...

YES THEY ARE. You are just refusing to see.

COMPARE:

In the inscription of Šāpūr I on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), Parth. ʾryʾn W ʾnʾryʾn (aryān ut anaryān)

'ry'n W 'n'ry'n is what is written; in parentheses, they give aryan ut anaryan as how they think it should be read. Note: the Parthian script wrote just "w" for "and" because wa- is Aramaic for "and" (but surely it was read ut, Persian for "and"). They capitalize the Aramaisms in the writing (similarly, in transcribing cuneiform it is useful to capitalize the words that are written in Sumerian though meant to be read as the Babylonian or Assyrian words) as in:

The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān.

Here they leave MLKYN MLK' (Aramaic for "king of kings") as written, although surely it was read as shahin shah, but they fill in the rest, expecting you to understand that this is on the pattern of what they did above, with the first Sassanian inscription (from Shapur, the first Sassanian king). Get this straight once and for all: there is NOTHING in the Parthian script which ever has the letter "a" because-- the Parthian script did not HAVE a letter "a" (or "e" or "i" or "o" or "u", just undistinguished "vowel"). There were other scripts in use by Sassanian times, which did distinguish vowels: and always give "ai" or "e" or "i", not "a".

Yeah cause won't suffice. They could be substituting the word Aryan for Arya just like all the other sources do.

Yeah, because nobody in the world except you thinks that it makes a rat's ass worth of difference whether an adjective ending is tacked on to a noun. The source keeps citing to "Jones 1788" which must mean some particular work published by him in that year-- but Google Books won't let me see the pages in the back which would give a bibliographical cite; and it turns out that Jones' complete works take up 13 volumes, with tons of stuff published around 1788 at the peak of his career.

Greek contains "h."

But only initially; an "h" in the middle of a word, as in ahura, is impossible in Greek. And while most "h" in Greek do represent a shift from "s" (hel-ios, hal-os for Latin sol, sal, English sun, salt) some "h" are inserted before "k" which shifts to "s" in Indo-Iranian (hekaton for "100" instead of s'atam). You cannot explain Greek "h" as retention from Avestan "h".

Exactly all of the IE. languages have problems.

Not "problems"; they just have histories.

That Avestan has more shifts doesn't make Avestan any less ancient than Sanskrit.

Yes it does.

All it means is that Avestan innovated quicker than Sanskrit.

Why? The pace of linguistic change is pretty consistent regardless of language group. One exception is the "creolization" process when a language changes very rapidly because it was imposed on people who didn't speak anything like it before. So for your theory to work, you would need the Avestan speakers to have no ancestral relationship with the original Aryans. However, one of the characteristic features of that kind of rapid change is that the grammar especially gets stripped down; this certainly didn't happen in Avestan.

Lithuanian was attested much more recently than Sanskrit

And has, unsurprisingly, a much larger number of unique shifts.

and though it's not identical to Sanskrit it is "similar" to Sanskrit

It has a few striking features which are reminiscent of Sanskrit. But it is much further than "not identical" to Sanskrit: no-one looking at Lithuanian and Sanskrit would confuse them for each other; no-one looking at those two and Avestan would fail to see that Avestan and Sanskrit are a lot more alike than either is to Lithuanian.

Woden and Ahura Mazda resemble each other in the sense that Woden was the "Lord of Wisdom" and the chief god of the Nordic pantheon of Aesir gods like Ahura Mazda was the "Lord of Wisdom" and omnipotent creator of the universe.

Woden was not omnipotent, nor the creator of the universe, and was principally a god of war, rewarding those who kill many enemies, and demanding burnt human sacrifices from among the captives.

It was either Snorri Sturluson or the translator of the Eddas who explains that the Nordic gods were probably real people who came from Turkey (Anatolia) which is where Troy was.

I see. Yeah, lots of people liked to pretend they came from Troy. None of them did.

But don't Thor and Tir sound like cognates.

It's possible the Iranian word for "rain" has some relation to the Germanic for "thunder"; but I don't see any similarities in the deities.

And Phuvel links Thor's hammer in Nordic myth to Feridoons gurz in Avestan myth.

This is one of the silliest comparisons I have seen from you. Feridoon, a rebel who became king, made a club with a cow's head because his enemy killed a cow whose milk he had drunk as a child. This is like the hammer of a thunder-god... how????

But Assyria is on the way to Turkey

No, more on the way to Israel.

I think that the h-w-h may be cognate to Eng. be, was cf. Persian bud not Eng. is

I don't know whether h-w-h and be are really cognate; I was just saying that the concept of naming a deity for a word meaning "existence" is a common idea.

What I meant was that Shipley claims that words like animal, horse, and ass are cognates of Ahura.

Yes, I know that's what you meant. I'm saying I don't find that a very plausible idea.

And Ahura Mazda is actually depicted as a horseman during the Sassanian era.

So you think Zoroaster was just worshipping some kind of animal-god like the Egyptians had???

 

[mojobadshah]

Uh... apparently nobody else finds Iranian stories very interesting. Islam and Christianity are conceptually Semitic ideologies with a minor overlay of Zoroastrian ideas.

No they're not. They're ideologically Zoroastrian with Semitic backstories.

Don't be ridiculous. The equinoxes and solstices have been noted by the human race for a lot longer than the Indo-European languages have existed; determining them is the reason humans even bothered to learn how to count.

I'm talking Noe Ruz here, not the actual observance of the Vernal Equinox.

Mostly they do.

No they don't. They eat that pre-Christian stuff up. Greco-Roman mythology, Norse mythology, Leprechauns, etc...

I am not including anything which the Achaemenids, despite your fantasies, did not hold. EVERYTHING that Persia had, Macedon took: along with more.

Alexander didn't take Ethiopia, Libya, or the Sudan, Southern parts of Russia, or the Danube. Did you not read the link I posted. And sources always rank Macedon after Rome, and Roman after Persia when it comes to which ancient Empire was larger.

Alexander established a wide zone of Greek language and culture which produced an enormous body of influential literature.

That's not why they emphasize Alexander. Other than you and the select few, who knows about Koine Greek? Koine Greek is not why they write books about Alexander, teach Alexander in schools, or make movies about Alexander. Most people know about Alexander because he conquered the Persian Empire, and they're under the mistaken belief that his empire or the Greek Empire was larger than Persia, and after his shortlived 4 year long reign, the largest section of his empire went to a Greco-Persian dynasty.

A single piece of text that nobody even remembered the existence of for thousands of years.

It was in the Old Testament. And if it was never written we wouldn't know that that phase in the Old Testament ever really took place. As a matter of fact it's like one of the few part's of the Old Testament we do know actually happened. And Cyrus, himself, was not forgotten. He was Xenophon, a Greek general's hero.

They were being asked to sing sacred songs for the ENTERTAINMENT of their ENSLAVERS. That is what the Psalm is weeping about.

How do you know that again?

Yeah, because nobody in the world except you thinks that it makes a rat's ass worth of difference whether an adjective ending is tacked on to a noun. The source keeps citing to "Jones 1788" which must mean some particular work published by him in that year-- but Google Books won't let me see the pages in the back which would give a bibliographical cite; and it turns out that Jones' complete works take up 13 volumes, with tons of stuff published around 1788 at the peak of his career.

Yeah, because Jones himself uses the form Arya when he's talking about the Indic people according to what I have shown so I have big doubts that what you're saying about him using the form Arian at all is true.

But only initially; an "h" in the middle of a word, as in ahura, is impossible in Greek. And while most "h" in Greek do represent a shift from "s" (hel-ios, hal-os for Latin sol, sal, English sun, salt) some "h" are inserted before "k" which shifts to "s" in Indo-Iranian (hekaton for "100" instead of s'atam). You cannot explain Greek "h" as retention from Avestan "h".

Not "problems"; they just have histories.

None of them are PIE. They all show evidence of innovation in places where others don't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. First of we don't know what PIE looked like because it's a hypothetical language. Secondly even if we did and Sanskrit displayed more archaic forms than Avestan all that means is that the Sanskrit language did a better job of preserving the Proto-Indo-Iranian, but that doesn't mean that the Rig Veda was composed before the Avesta. The Indic speakers could have preserved a more archaic language and still have composed their literature after the Irano-Afghan speakers did.

Why? The pace of linguistic change is pretty consistent regardless of language group. One exception is the "creolization" process when a language changes very rapidly because it was imposed on people who didn't speak anything like it before. So for your theory to work, you would need the Avestan speakers to have no ancestral relationship with the original Aryans. However, one of the characteristic features of that kind of rapid change is that the grammar especially gets stripped down; this certainly didn't happen in Avestan.

If the pace of linguistic change is pretty consistent then how is it that Rig Vedic Sanskrit's inflextions look more like Young Avestan's inflextions than they do Gathic Avestan's inflextions?

And the Avestan's were the original Aryans. The Proto-Indo-Iranians (your original Aryans) are a hypothetical ancestor.

Woden was not omnipotent, nor the creator of the universe, and was principally a god of war, rewarding those who kill many enemies, and demanding burnt human sacrifices from among the captives.

Woden represented Wisdom. So did Ahura Mazda. They were both the big dogs.

I see. Yeah, lots of people liked to pretend they came from Troy. None of them did.

The point is that they were under the impression that their god's came from the East. There have also been similarities proposed between the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Nart Sagas and Nordic myth. And parallels have also been drawn between the creation of the creation of the first man and woman from a tree in both Avestan and Nordic myth.

This is one of the silliest comparisons I have seen from you. Feridoon, a rebel who became king, made a club with a cow's head because his enemy killed a cow whose milk he had drunk as a child. This is like the hammer of a thunder-god... how????

Puhvel also drew parallels to Indra's enemy smiting gurj.