Yahweh-yireh

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

Well, *I* was taught, indeed, that the Nazis were crazy and that their notion of the "Aryan race" was a fiction, that "Aryan" was really just an old word for the Indo-Iranians, and so on. If you didn't get that, it appears to be more of a function of how little you paid attention in school than of what anybody tries to teach.

First off I'm talking about High School. Are you? And no, that I and all my peers do not recall being taught who the real Aryans are in high school proves my point even further. Based on my statistical correlations the only Aryans most people are aware of are the Aryans of Nazi conception. Hence, not enough emphasis is put on who the real Aryans were and are in order to prevent confusion between the real Aryans and the Aryans of Nazi conception. It's totally insensitive to the living Aryans.

Originally Posted by bob x

And the Indics; the branch that you are referring to abandoned the pronunciation "Aryan" in favor of "Iran" many thousands of years ago, which is why "Iranian" is the standard term; and the hyphenated "Indo-Iranian" has become the standard term for the older group from which both Indics and Iranians sprang, to avoid any confusion from the mis-appropriation of the "Aryan" name, which nobody is just going to be able to forget about, however much you wish they would.

Look I understand that its important that schools expose students to the myth of the Nazi conception of the Aryan, but there is no reason why they should not be putting in the extra effort to prevent confusion between a totally legitimate national ancestry and one based on a false hypothesis. The schools don't go around exposing students to a term associated with discriminatory concept and confusing it with the Greek, Italic, Celtic, etc... ancestries.

And why on earth are the Tajiks (real Aryans), for example, being stiffed because of something that the Germans did to the Jews?

Originally Posted by bob x

Wrong. The British declared war when the Germans attacked POLAND; the German air attacks on British soil came later.

Not very "neutral", no; we did not contribute troops but were supplying arms to the British side.

Yeah, actually it does mean that. You are just being silly. You think that because it is necessary to teach that the Nazis had strange concepts, that anybody who even mentions that such strange concepts did exist must be endorsing their truth.

I stand corrected, however, it does not mean that the British or Americans didn't buy into the Nazi conception of the Aryans. All it means is that they viewed the Nazi's as a threat.

Originally Posted by bob x

You're just wrong. If you actually read the books, you find thorough discussion of where the word really came from, and how the 19th-20th century usages were misguided. There is nobody in academia who puts forth the view that the Nazis were right in their usage of "Aryan". You are arguing against imaginary people.

I've read that before. That article like so many others uses the form Aryan interchangeably with similar forms. In other words at certain points it doesn't distinguish between the Arya, Airya, Aryan and other forms. I wasn't saying that people in academia argue that the Nazis were right in their usage of the Aryan, but they way schools indoctrinate students on the phenomenon is practically subliminal. It leaves students thinking that the Aryans were blond hair blue eyed types, for example, and without any notion of that there were historical Aryans who have living descendants Afghans, Iranians, Tajiks, etc...

Originally Posted by bob x

You are mistaken. India is where the aryan pronunciation is still alive to this day; Iran is where iran became the pronunciation thousands of years ago. I would have thought this was common knowledge.

Nope. I'm not mistaken. The Afghans, Iranians, etc... are all aware of their Aryan heritage. The form is very much alive. The place-name Aryana is synonymous with the place-name Afghanistan. Afghanistan's airlines is called "Ariana Afghan airlines." When did the Indians call themselves Aryans? The Germans never even called themselves Aryans. At this stage in my research it would appear to me that both the Europeans and the Indians have just high jacked this form Aryan. Yes both the "Iranians" and the Indians used the form Airya and Arya respectively. But there is nothing to substantiate that Arya was ever used as anything other than to denote a "noble individual" until late when the place-name Arya-Varta comes into use, which is long after the "Iranians" were using the forms like Airya as national self-designators. Airyana, the homeland of the Airya is mentioned as early as the Young Avestan period. And the first time the form Aryan verbatim comes into use is in the imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions written the Parthian language "MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān" which I believe translates to "King of Kings of the Aryan and non-Aryan whose kingdom is worthy of praise."

I'm pretty sure that the term came into use among westerners when M. De Sacy deciphered these inscriptions in 1739. Apparently the form Arian in the Indo-European sense was first used in 1849, 1 year after De Sacy died (suspect) though I can't locate any sources. Yet the term Arian was used consistently to designate the "Iranians" from 1847-1850. Even De Gobineau didn't use this form. He designated the "White Race" Ariane not Arian. E.H. Nolan used the forms Arian and Iranian interchangeably to designate the Indo-Europeans. (anyone else starting to see signs of suspect here?) I see the form Indo-Aryan came into use in 1880 by Sir Monier Williams. And the the form Aryan verbatim didn't come into use until the British came out with a translation of Mein Kampf and must have substituted the German reconstructions *Arisch and *Arier. (very suspect) From what I can see it would appear the Indo-Europeanists have been trying to co-opt the Aryan heritage (whilst there has not been an Aryan presence in the west...)

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

that I and all my peers do not recall being taught who the real Aryans are in high school proves my point even further.

You do not recall being taught even the very basic outline of the World War Two story. I don't know what was in your specific textbooks, of course, but I don't know that adding more material would change the problem of students not absording the material anyway.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The schools don't go around exposing students to a term associated with discriminatory concept and confusing it with the Greek, Italic, Celtic, etc... ancestries.

Because nobody using such discriminatory concepts set the world on fire.

And I don't see any Celts here arguing that instead of saying "Celtic" we should all use some horribly archaic pronunciation of the name that fell out of general use thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

And why on earth are the Tajiks (real Aryans), for example, being stiffed because of something that the Germans did to the Jews?

What the Germans did (to a lot of people besides just the Jews) is a crucial event in history. Tajikistan just isn't very important: I would like students to be able to find it on a map, but even that seems to be too much to hope for.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

That article like so many others uses the form Aryan interchangeably with similar forms. In other words at certain points it doesn't distinguish between the Arya, Airya, Aryan and other forms.

Yeah, well it's had a lot of different pronunciations. "Iranian" is the pronunciation which has mostly been used by the people you pretend to be concerned about.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

From what I can see it would appear the Indo-Europeanists have been trying to co-opt the Aryan heritage (whilst there has not been an Aryan presence in the west...)

In the NINETEENTH CENTURY, Indo-Europeanists mistakenly thought the word went all the way back to Proto-Indo-European and might be a good term to use for the whole group. This is the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, when Indo-Europeanists decided a long time ago that the best way to avoid confusion is just not to use an archaic word that has been misused in so many garbled senses. If you want to talk about Kurdish, Ossetian, Farsi, Tajik etc. speakers the standard term is "Iranian". If you want to talk about the group from which they and the Indics descended, the standard term is "Indo-Iranian."

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

You do not recall being taught even the very basic outline of the World War Two story. I don't know what was in your specific textbooks, of course, but I don't know that adding more material would change the problem of students not absording the material anyway.

Stop trying to discredit me on the basic outline of WWII, when the point is that the British and Americans only got involved in the war because they realized the Germans were a threat to them, and not because they didn't agree with their racial philosophy. If teachers truly exposed students to the facts instead of catering to the Nazi's the students would come out with the understanding that the "Iranians" are the real Aryans and not with the Nazi conception of the Aryans.

Originally Posted by bob x

Because nobody using such discriminatory concepts set the world on fire.

Discriminatory concept is one thing, but to confuse students to the point that when a genuine Aryan tells them that they are an Aryan and they display signs of denial is another thing, and totally f'd up.

Originally Posted by bob x

And I don't see any Celts here arguing that instead of saying "Celtic" we should all use some horribly archaic pronunciation of the name that fell out of general use thousands of years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Celt is just another word for Gaul. Nobody makes either the Celts or the Gauls out to be racists.

Originally Posted by bob x

What the Germans did (to a lot of people besides just the Jews) is a crucial event in history. Tajikistan just isn't very important: I would like students to be able to find it on a map, but even that seems to be too much to hope for.

What about the Tajik Americans? I don't think you really give a damn about whether students are able to find Tajikistan on a map. I don't even see why you would fight against my point. What you are saying is totally discriminatory against the Tajiks and the rest of the real Aryans.

Originally Posted by bob x

Yeah, well it's had a lot of different pronunciations. "Iranian" is the pronunciation which has mostly been used by the people you pretend to be concerned about.

I am concerned about the Iranians. I'm also concerned about the rest of the world. And I believe that the world has the right to know the truth on this matter and not some conartist's artists interpretation of history and the identity of the Aryans.

Originally Posted by bob x

In the NINETEENTH CENTURY, Indo-Europeanists mistakenly thought the word went all the way back to Proto-Indo-European and might be a good term to use for the whole group. This is the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, when Indo-Europeanists decided a long time ago that the best way to avoid confusion is just not to use an archaic word that has been misused in so many garbled senses. If you want to talk about Kurdish, Ossetian, Farsi, Tajik etc. speakers the standard term is "Iranian". If you want to talk about the group from which they and the Indics descended, the standard term is "Indo-Iranian."

I already told you "Iranian" is way too confusing for the laymen. To even suggest "Iranian" to designate the entire language-family in question including the Kurdish, Ossetian, Farsi, Tajik and not "Aryan" is pure Nazi politics. In other words let the world think the people who aren't the real Aryans are the real Aryans, and supress the people who are the real Aryans. And what this interprets to when it comes to world politics is a serious SERIOUS offense.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Stop trying to discredit me on the basic outline of WWII

You're arguing about what you were supposedly taught in school, when it doesn't look like you paid any attention in school, so it is hard to tell what really was in your textbooks or whether it would make any difference if the content of the textbooks were changed.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

the point is that the British and Americans only got involved in the war because they realized the Germans were a threat to them, and not because they didn't agree with their racial philosophy.

The philosophy WAS the threat. Nobody cares if another country is internally ruled by a lunatic dictator (well, lots of liberal-minded people do care, but the politicians generally shrug and say "we have to be realistic"). It was the whole "Everybody must be subjugated to us, because we are naturally superior!" bit which MADE Germany a threat.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

I'm not sure what you mean here. Celt is just another word for Gaul. Nobody makes either the Celts or the Gauls out to be racists.

What I mean is, suppose some crazed evil group did start using the word "Gaul" for some bizarre meaning of their own, and a hundred million people died in the struggle against that group. The word "Gaul" would tend to be avoided afterwards, particularly since "Celt" has, anyway, been the more popularly used word among people of Celtic descent, for centuries now. It would seem very strange for someone to get incensed about the fact that "Celt" is the usual word nowadays, or to insist that it is wrong for schools to think the recent slaughter of a hundred million people is a more important subject to teach than the ancient linguistics of France and the British Isles.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

What about the Tajik Americans? I don't think you really give a damn about whether students are able to find Tajikistan on a map.

I really do. I find it distressing that you think Tajikistan and the Caucasus are the same thing. What about Georgian Americans, or Armenian Americans? The word "Caucasian" has also become problematic, because of its misuse by would-be racial classifiers.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

I already told you "Iranian" is way too confusing for the laymen.

And I am baffled why you think so. Even among those like myself who do know the original meaning of "Aryan", it is confusing to have to wonder when someone else uses the word whether they have any meaning like the original in mind, or some later garbling of the meaning. "Iranian" raises no such confusion.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

To even suggest "Iranian" to designate the entire language-family in question including the Kurdish, Ossetian, Farsi, Tajik and not "Aryan" is pure Nazi politics.

Uh, the pronunciation "Iranian" is what the Iranians themselves chose, a very long ago. Pronunciations like "Aryan" are more often found in India, and you for some peculiar reason want to exclude the Indics from "Aryan", a usage of the word which is neither faithful to the original history nor to what anyone hearing the word would expect you to be meaning.

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

You're arguing about what you were supposedly taught in school, when it doesn't look like you paid any attention in school, so it is hard to tell what really was in your textbooks or whether it would make any difference if the content of the textbooks were changed.

I don't have access to the history textbook of New York State high schools. I presume that the one New York State History classes use is "Glencoe World History Modern Times." I was however able to access a "Reading Essentials and Study Guide" on Hitler and Nazi Germany, and I see that it discusses the term Aryan.

"Hitler wanted to develop an Aryan racial state that would dominate Europe
and possibly the world for generations to come. Nazis thought that the
Germans were the true descendants and leaders of the Aryans. (They misused the term Aryan to mean the ancient Greeks and Romans and twentieth-century Germans and Scandinavians.)"

I see that the text does also mention that the Nazis "misused the term Aryan," however it does nothing to prevent confusion between the Nazi conception of the Aryans and the Aryans by national ancestry and linguistic association including the Afghans, Iranians, Tajiks, etc... Moreover it doesn't expose the reader to the fact that the Germans were not the true descendants of the Aryans. Nor does it expose the reader to the fact that the only descendants of a people to historically have called themselves "Aryan" are included in the Aryan language-family (Afghans, Iranians, Tajiks, etc..).

Originally Posted by bob x

The philosophy WAS the threat. Nobody cares if another country is internally ruled by a lunatic dictator (well, lots of liberal-minded people do care, but the politicians generally shrug and say "we have to be realistic"). It was the whole "Everybody must be subjugated to us, because we are naturally superior!" bit which MADE Germany a threat.

Once again that the Nazi philosophy was a threat, Germans thinking they were Aryans, doesn't mean that the British and Americans thought that the Nazi concept of the Aryan was a threat. It doesn't mean that they didn't think they were Aryans themselves then and it doesn't mean that they don't think that now.

Originally Posted by bob x

What I mean is, suppose some crazed evil group did start using the word "Gaul" for some bizarre meaning of their own, and a hundred million people died in the struggle against that group. The word "Gaul" would tend to be avoided afterwards, particularly since "Celt" has, anyway, been the more popularly used word among people of Celtic descent, for centuries now. It would seem very strange for someone to get incensed about the fact that "Celt" is the usual word nowadays, or to insist that it is wrong for schools to think the recent slaughter of a hundred million people is a more important subject to teach than the ancient linguistics of France and the British Isles.

First off the Nazis didn't use the word Aryan. The Nazis used the words Arisch and Arier. So why do the schoolbooks insist on using the term Aryan instead of the term that the Nazis really used? Second off using the word Celt isn't confusable with an ethnic designation that is already in existence. Celtic is distinct from both the words Irish and Scottish. Iranian is not distinct from Iranian. The Afghans (eg. Pashtuns) aren't Iranian. The Kurds aren't Iranian. Aryan is way less confusing when trying to refer to all three groups collectively.

[QUOTE=bob x;252241]I really do. I find it distressing that you think Tajikistan and the Caucasus are the same thing. What about Georgian Americans, or Armenian Americans? The word "Caucasian" has also become problematic, because of its misuse by would-be racial classifiers.

I called the Hindu Kush the eastern Caucuses because Josiah Harlan and others apparently called the Hindu Kush and the Himalayans the Indian Caucuses back in the day. And the mountains from the Himalayans to the Caucuses are part of the same mountain range.

[QUOTE=bob x;252241]And I am baffled why you think so. Even among those like myself who do know the original meaning of "Aryan", it is confusing to have to wonder when someone else uses the word whether they have any meaning like the original in mind, or some later garbling of the meaning. "Iranian" raises no such confusion.

No, it's pure stupidity from where I'm standing to use the term Iranian to refer to the Iranians, Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, etc... collectively and not Aryan. And if there's any confusion between the Nazi concept of the Aryans and the these original Aryans then the schools are at fault. That is where the problem begins.

Originally Posted by bob x

Uh, the pronunciation "Iranian" is what the Iranians themselves chose, a very long ago. Pronunciations like "Aryan" are more often found in India, and you for some peculiar reason want to exclude the Indics from "Aryan", a usage of the word which is neither faithful to the original history nor to what anyone hearing the word would expect you to be meaning.

Of course the Iranians chose Iranian, but the Afghans, nor the Tajiks, nor the Kurds did.

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

Uh, the pronunciation "Iranian" is what the Iranians themselves chose, a very long ago. Pronunciations like "Aryan" are more often found in India, and you for some peculiar reason want to exclude the Indics from "Aryan", a usage of the word which is neither faithful to the original history nor to what anyone hearing the word would expect you to be meaning.

And if the Indians are using the form Aryan then they are misusing the form too, probably a borrowing from the "Iranians" via the British under false pretenses. They never called themselves Aryans. The "Iranians" called themselves Aryans. The Indians called themselves Arya, and they didn't even use the form Arya to designate their people, they used it as a spiritual designation. The "Iranians" have consistently been using forms similar to Aryan as national designations as far back as they can recall.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

I see that the text does also mention that the Nazis "misused the term Aryan," however it does nothing to prevent confusion between the Nazi conception of the Aryans and the Aryans by national ancestry and linguistic association including the Afghans, Iranians, Tajiks, etc... Moreover it doesn't expose the reader to the fact that the Germans were not the true descendants of the Aryans.

It did in fact explicitly state that the Germans were not descended from Aryans. I don't know what more you want than a flat statement that their use of the term was a mis-use. A tangent discussing the linguistics of thousands of years would be completely out of place.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Nor does it expose the reader to the fact that the only descendants of a people to historically have called themselves "Aryan" are included in the Aryan language-family (Afghans, Iranians, Tajiks, etc..).

You are excluding the Indics again. Why?

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

It doesn't mean that they didn't think they were Aryans themselves then and it doesn't mean that they don't think that now.

It does mean that, actually.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

First off the Nazis didn't use the word Aryan. The Nazis used the words Arisch and Arier.

And modern Iranians don't use the word Aryan, they use Iran.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Iranian is not distinct from Iranian.

FInally we agree on something!

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The Afghans (eg. Pashtuns) aren't Iranian. The Kurds aren't Iranian.

Actually, they are.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Aryan is way less confusing when trying to refer to all three groups collectively.

It is much more confusing, because pronunciations like "Aryan" actually survive only in India.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

I called the Hindu Kush the eastern Caucuses because Josiah Harlan and others apparently called the Hindu Kush and the Himalayans the Indian Caucuses back in the day.

Josiah Harlan was rather nuts, but I don't find a source saying that he didn't know the difference between one end of Asia and the other. If he used such an idiosyncratic term as "the Indian Caucasus" for whatever reason, I don't see why the confusion should be perpetuated. We don't refer to the Appalachians as "the Eastern Rockies" after all. You were citing a report that humans living in GEORGIA traded with Egypt a long time ago as evidence as people from AFGHANISTAN were "in" Egypt: that's some serious confusion.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

And the mountains from the Himalayans to the Caucuses are part of the same mountain range.

What??? No. Just no. Geologically, they are from different continental-plate collisions and have had upthrusts in different epochs. Geographically, they are many thousands of miles apart.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

No, it's pure stupidity from where I'm standing to use the term Iranian to refer to the Iranians, Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, etc...

Afghans, Tajiks, Kurds, etc. are part of the "Iranian" group. The term was eran in Sassanian times, shifting to iran in Islamic times; found in the variant iron among the Ossetes. Aria as a name for a broad region with ill-defined borders has had a long survival in the east, but no pronunciation like "aryan" has been among such ethnic groups for thousands of years; the Tajik started promoting it about five years ago-- is that where you are coming from?

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

And if there's any confusion between the Nazi concept of the Aryans and the these original Aryans then the schools are at fault.

The Nazis are at fault. When everybody who remembers WWII is dead (that will still take a couple decades), if no neo-Nazi groups are still running around (that remains to be seen), then it will start to become possible again to use "Aryan" without confusion.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Of course the Iranians chose Iranian, but the Afghans, nor the Tajiks, nor the Kurds did.

You seem to think that iran refers only to the modern state with its limited borders, or to the Farsi-speakers specifically? You are mistaken; it has been used for thousands of years for a broader realm, originally for everything that the Sassanians held (which did, yes, include Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, etc. as well as Central Asian areas which nowadays are Turkic-speaking but weren't at that time).

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

And if the Indians are using the form Aryan then they are misusing the form too, probably a borrowing from the "Iranians" via the British under false pretenses. They never called themselves Aryans.

The word has been in continuous usage since Vedic Sanskrit. They distinguish the invading "Aryan" race (Indo-European speakers) from the indigenous "un-Aryan" races (Dravidian and Munda speakers) in the same sense that Darius called himself "king of the Aryans and un-Aryans". Since they tried to maintain barriers to inter-marriage, not very successfully, the terms came to refer more to class, "Aryans" being the upper castes and "non-Aryans" the lower.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The "Iranians" called themselves Aryans. The Indians called themselves Arya

You think that the -n adjective and -s plural suffixes ever existed in Avestan or Old Persian? No, that's just English.

[radarmark]

OED pretty much says it all. The english "aryan" is borrowed from the sanskrit "arya", meaning "noble" referring to those who spoke the language.

From that use to the term Indo-aryan, meaning the original speakers of the many languages of the Indic arm of Indo-European languages was a small step the german linguists made.

Yep, as originally intended in English, it meant "upper class indian of Vedic times" (approximately). If you take linguistics as a science it refers only to the languages of northern india. "Indo-iranian" covers the whole gauntlet of who mojobadshah is claiming. So aryans are "indians" by the linguistic standard and "iranians" are the gathic-avestian-pasto-dari-persian speakers.

It is a matter of definition and etymology, sorry mojobadshah.

Pax et amore omniavincunt.

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by radarmark

It is a matter of definition and etymology, sorry mojobadshah.

Don't be sorry Radarmark, just show me a source that uses the form "aryan" VERBATIM in reference to the Indic people or languages after before at least by 1793 when M. D. Sacy deciphered the Sasanian royal inscriptions containing the form Aryan VERBATIM in reference to "Iranian" people. I've seen OED.

Originally Posted by radarmark

OED pretty much says it all. The english "aryan" is borrowed from the sanskrit "arya", meaning "noble" referring to those who spoke the language.

What it means is that the English used the form "arya" to designate the Indic languages, which they later substituted with Aryan.

Originally Posted by radarmark

From that use to the term Indo-aryan, meaning the original speakers of the many languages of the Indic arm of Indo-European languages was a small step the german linguists made.

The usage of the form Indo-Aryan had come into use after the form Aryan had come into use to designate the Iranians.

Originally Posted by radarmark

Yep, as originally intended in English, it meant "upper class indian of Vedic times" (approximately). If you take linguistics as a science it refers only to the languages of northern india. "Indo-iranian" covers the whole gauntlet of who mojobadshah is claiming. So aryans are "indians" by the linguistic standard and "Iranians" are the gathic-avestian-pasto-dari-persian speakers.

If the form Aryan VERBATIM came to designate the Indo-Iranian people and languages it didn't come into usage until after linguistics were using it to designate the "Iranians" and Indo-Europeans because it's usage in reference to the Indo-Iranian people and languages didn't come into use until the 19th after M. D Sacy's decipherment of the Sasanian royal inscriptions by 1739. The form Aryan VERBATIM was being used to designate the Indo-Europeans by 1839 according to OED. Karl Otfried Muller used the form to designate the "Iranians" in 1847. Sir Monier Williams used the form Indo-Aryan in 1880.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Sasanian royal inscriptions containing the form Aryan VERBATIM in reference to "Iranian" people.

The Sassanians spelled the word eran. Europeans rendered it "Aryan" because they recognized that it was a variant of the familiar Sanskrit term.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

What it means is that the English used the form "arya" to designate the Indic languages, which they later substituted with Aryan.

"Substituted"? The suffix -n/-an/-ian to form an adjective, like American from America, is sufficiently common in English that I thought you would have noticed it without my needing to point it out. You are now getting totally hung up on precise spellings in different languages, berating textbooks written in English for not spelling things in German, for example. The "n" for adjectival or genitive forms also occurs in Indo-Iranian languages: that final "n" on "Iran" is of the same source.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The usage of the form Indo-Aryan had come into use after the form Aryan had come into use to designate the Iranians.

No, the term came to be used for the whole INDO-IRANIAN branch, and then "Indo-Aryan" was used for the Indic branch; some also used "Irano-Aryan" for the Iranian branch, but that came to be perceived as redundant, since "Iran" is just the Iranian variant of "Aryan" in the first place.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

If the form Aryan VERBATIM came to designate the Indo-Iranian people and languages it didn't come into usage until after linguistics were using it to designate the "Iranians"

No linguist has EVER used "Aryan" to mean Iranians, to the exclusion of Indics. That is your own personal invention.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The form Aryan VERBATIM was being used to designate the Indo-Europeans by 1839 according to OED.

Using "Aryan" for the whole Indo-European family was an error; it arose because of a theory that Eireann "of Ireland" (Eire with the "n" suffix used for a genitive) was a Celtic cognate of the same root, and therefore that some form of "Aryan" was the original self-name of the Proto-Indo-European speakers. This theory has been found not to work.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Karl Otfried Muller used the form to designate the "Iranians" in 1847.

Mueller used "Aryan" (or rather, "Arisch" since he was a German-speaker, if that really matters to you) for INDO-IRANIAN, not for "Iranian" alone.

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

The Sassanians spelled the word eran. Europeans rendered it "Aryan" because they recognized that it was a variant of the familiar Sanskrit term.

The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions which was deciphered by M. D. Sacy by 1739 is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān. - ÂRYÂ (ARYAN) Philology of ethnic epithet of Iranian people - (The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies - CAIS) ©

The form Eran must have come later

Originally Posted by bob x

"Substituted"? The suffix -n/-an/-ian to form an adjective, like American from America, is sufficiently common in English that I thought you would have noticed it without my needing to point it out. You are now getting totally hung up on precise spellings in different languages, berating textbooks written in English for not spelling things in German, for example. The "n" for adjectival or genitive forms also occurs in Indo-Iranian languages: that final "n" on "Iran" is of the same source.

Then where the heck did the form Eran with -n at the end of it come from? If what you're saying is true we wouldn't be calling Iran Iran today we'd be calling Iran Ira.

Originally Posted by bob x

No, the term came to be used for the whole INDO-IRANIAN branch, and then "Indo-Aryan" was used for the Indic branch; some also used "Irano-Aryan" for the Iranian branch, but that came to be perceived as redundant, since "Iran" is just the Iranian variant of "Aryan" in the first place.

Please cite.

Originally Posted by bob x

No linguist has EVER used "Aryan" to mean Iranians, to the exclusion of Indics. That is your own personal invention.

"I cannot, however, assume a special affinity between the Sclavonic (and Lettish) and the Arian languages (the Zend, Persian, Kurdish, Afghan, Armenian, Ossetish)…. When, however, the Sclavonic-Lettish languages at times accord with the Arian, in that they contrast with the Sanscrit…" - Franz Bopp, Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Sclavonic Languages… pg. 215 pub. 1850

Originally Posted by bob x

Using "Aryan" for the whole Indo-European family was an error; it arose because of a theory that Eireann "of Ireland" (Eire with the "n" suffix used for a genitive) was a Celtic cognate of the same root, and therefore that some form of "Aryan" was the original self-name of the Proto-Indo-European speakers. This theory has been found not to work.

No using Aryan for the whole Indo-European family arose because of a theory that Eire of Ireland and Arya was of the same root. But the form Aryan was derived from the Sasanian royal inscriptions.

Originally Posted by bob x

Mueller used "Aryan" (or rather, "Arisch" since he was a German-speaker, if that really matters to you) for INDO-IRANIAN, not for "Iranian" alone.

Exactly Mueller used Arisch for Indo-Iranian, not Aryan. And yes ofcourse it matters because American schools are going around telling students that the Nazi's thought they were Aryan, when they never did, and I don't think it does the real Aryans out there any justice to confuse a racial philosophy with a totally legitimate national ancestry and linguistic identity. Would you appreciate it if people went around telling people the Nazi's were Bob X's if they had really been Bob Y's?

I could see how that would serve all the politicians/religious organizations that have anti-Bob X tendencies though.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions which was deciphered by M. D. Sacy by 1739 is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān. - ÂRYÂ (ARYAN) Philology of ethnic epithet of Iranian people - (The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies - CAIS) ©

The form Eran must have come later

OK, that's Parthian. "Eran" is how it was in Sassanian times.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Then where the heck did the form Eran with -n at the end of it come from?

It's an extraordinarily common adjectival/genitive ending in every branch of Indo-European: American from America, Canadian from Canada and so on and so on. Eran was the word for the nation-state, the country of the "Era" (as "Arya" was evidently pronounced by then). English "Iranian" is a bit redundant, in that we are tacking on "-ian" as a suffix again.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Please cite.

Let me Google that for you. Pike used "Proto-Aryan" for "Indo-Iranian", "Indo-Aryan" for Indic, "Irano-Aryan" for "Iranian". The usage has not remained popular.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

"I cannot, however, assume a special affinity between the Sclavonic (and Lettish) and the Arian languages (the Zend, Persian, Kurdish, Afghan, Armenian, Ossetish)…. When, however, the Sclavonic-Lettish languages at times accord with the Arian, in that they contrast with the Sanscrit…" - Franz Bopp, Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Sclavonic Languages… pg. 215 pub. 1850

OK, so I was mistaken (I should have known better than to say "no linguist ever" has used any peculiar terminology). You will find, however, that in the German, Bopp actually said arianisch if, for some reason, it makes a big deal to you whether adjectival endings are tacked on to a word.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

No using Aryan for the whole Indo-European family arose because of a theory that Eire of Ireland and Arya was of the same root.

That's what I said. There is no doubt that the -ann on Eireann "of Eire; Irish" is the same as the -an on Aryan, but the theory that the roots are the same has proven untenable.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

But the form Aryan was derived from the Sasanian royal inscriptions.

It was known in Sanskrit, continuously since ancient times; then Parthian (not Sassanian) inscriptions (and Achaemenid inscriptions as well, in the 19th century) confirmed that the "Iran" name had earlier had the same spelling.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Exactly Mueller used Arisch for Indo-Iranian, not Aryan.

Because -isch is an adjectival ending (from Proto-Indo-European also; compare not only English -ish but also Latin -iscus, Slavic -ski) which in German often takes the place of -an. SO?

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

it matters because American schools are going around telling students that the Nazi's thought they were Aryan, when they never did

Of course they did, but they spoke German instead of English. Schools go around telling students that the Nazis officially called themselves "the Nationalist Socialist Party", when they really called themselves die Nationalistische Sozialistische Partei; but American textbooks write these things in the English forms. American textbooks go around telling students that Nazis declared war on the "French" although actually they declared war on the Franzosen.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Would you appreciate it if people went around telling people the Nazi's were Bob X's if they had really been Bob Y's?

If the Nazis used the term pronounced "boab iks" which doesn't quite sound the same as how English-speakers say "baahb eks", I would certainly avoid using "Bob X" as my screen-name (there are lots of other things I could call myself), and I wouldn't go on a ridiculous tirade about how the German name and the English name aren't really the same words, although they really are.

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

OK, that's Parthian. "Eran" is how it was in Sassanian times.

Yes, well the sources seem to imply that the Parthian form was attested during Sassanian times. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by bob x

It's an extraordinarily common adjectival/genitive ending in every branch of Indo-European: American from America, Canadian from Canada and so on and so on. Eran was the word for the nation-state, the country of the "Era" (as "Arya" was evidently pronounced by then). English "Iranian" is a bit redundant, in that we are tacking on "-ian" as a suffix again.

I've never ever heard or seen the "Iranian" form "Era." Please cite. The development for Iran must have been as such: Av. Airyanam > Parth. Aryan > MPers. Eran > NPers. Iran

Originally Posted by bob x

OK, that's Parthian. "Eran" is how it was in Sassanian times.

Yeah, well the sources seem to imply that the Parthian form was attested during Sassanian times. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by bob x

Let me Google that for you. Pike used "Proto-Aryan" for "Indo-Iranian", "Indo-Aryan" for Indic, "Irano-Aryan" for "Iranian". The usage has not remained popular.

The source says that Pike completed his manuscript in 1874. That's almost a whole century after M. De Sacy deciphered the Sassanian Royal inscriptions that attested to the Parthian form Aryan, and also long after the form Aryan had been applied to the Indo-Europeans as a whole.

Originally Posted by bob x

OK, so I was mistaken (I should have known better than to say "no linguist ever" has used any peculiar terminology). You will find, however, that in the German, Bopp actually said arianisch if, for some reason, it makes a big deal to you whether adjectival endings are tacked on to a word.

Well that would be equivalent to saying that Airyanam was what the Zoroastrians called the "Iranians." I'm not sure whether Bopp was referring to the "Iranians," Indics, or Indo-Europeans, but the source claims he wrote his first paper on the relationship between several Indo-European languages in 1817 which was almost 30 years after M. De Sacy had deciphered the Sassanian Royal Inscriptions containing the form Aryan.

Originally Posted by bob x

It was known in Sanskrit, continuously since ancient times; then Parthian (not Sassanian) inscriptions (and Achaemenid inscriptions as well, in the 19th century) confirmed that the "Iran" name had earlier had the same spelling.

Please cite or tell me what form you are referring to here.

Originally Posted by bob x

Because -isch is an adjectival ending (from Proto-Indo-European also; compare not only English -ish but also Latin -iscus, Slavic -ski) which in German often takes the place of -an. SO?

No Mueller wasn't using the Parthian form here. He was using a hypothetical reconstruction *Ar- based on the false hypothesis that the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans or PIE speakers used this form *Ar- to designate themselves. The form Aryan/Arian was derived directly from the Parthian inscriptions.

Originally Posted by bob x

Of course they did, but they spoke German instead of English. Schools go around telling students that the Nazis officially called themselves "the Nationalist Socialist Party", when they really called themselves die Nationalistische Sozialistische Partei; but American textbooks write these things in the English forms. American textbooks go around telling students that Nazis declared war on the "French" although actually they declared war on the Franzosen.

Uh Uh... the form Aryan which had long been used in linguistics to designate the "Iranians" a form which was derived from the "Iranians" and first came into use in a British translation of Mein Kampf. Which is very suspect considering the Iranians and the British had not been on good terms prior to WWII, and prior to WII the British had lost 3 Anglo-Afghan Wars. The Nazis never called the White Race Aryan/Arian.

Originally Posted by bob x

If the Nazis used the term pronounced "boab iks" which doesn't quite sound the same as how English-speakers say "baahb eks", I would certainly avoid using "Bob X" as my screen-name (there are lots of other things I could call myself), and I wouldn't go on a ridiculous tirade about how the German name and the English name aren't really the same words, although they really are.

Not if it serves both the false Nazi cause, the false English cause, while it works against your just cause. No one in their right mind would let an offense like that persist. The Nazis might as well have won WII. Bob X wouldn't let the Nazis win WII would he?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Yes, well the sources seem to imply that the Parthian form was attested during Sassanian times. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Parthians wrote in an Aramaic script, which like the Hebrew does not mark vowels (they also had the habit of spelling some words in Aramaic even though they were doubtless pronounced in Middle Persian: note that the inscription spells "king" in the phrase "king of kings" as MLK even though it was surely pronounced shah; similarly in cuneiform, Babylonians would often write LU.GAL. for "king" because that was the Sumerian, even though it would be read malku). As such, when the Parthians wrote the letters aleph-resh-yod-nun we don't know what the vowels were: the initial aleph tells us the word started with a vowel, but not whether the word was pronounced aryan or eryan or irayan. By Sassanian times, they had a fuller script, and the pronunciation was eran. No-one doubts that it was the same word, but you are really hung up on minutiae of shifting pronunciations.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The development for Iran must have been as such: Av. Airyanam > Parth. Aryan > MPers. Eran > NPers. Iran

The -am in your Avestan form is a plural-dative case-ending, which would be used only in particular phrases (the realm "for the Aryans"). Your "Parthian" form assumes that the "ai" vowel at some point shifted back to "a" before it became "e" and we really don't know whether that was ever true or not, as pointed out before.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The source says that Pike completed his manuscript in 1874. That's almost a whole century after M. De Sacy deciphered the Sassanian Royal inscriptions that attested to the Parthian form Aryan, and also long after the form Aryan had been applied to the Indo-Europeans as a whole.

Sigh. All I was doing was complying with your request for where the source of the distinction of terms "Irano-Aryan" vs. "Indo-Aryan" was; I just typed "Irano-Aryan" into the Google search-bar, something you could have done for yourself.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Well that would be equivalent to saying that Airyanam was what the Zoroastrians called the "Iranians."

Yeah, that was the pronunciation in Zoroaster's day, but it simplified thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

I'm not sure whether Bopp was referring to the "Iranians," Indics, or Indo-Europeans

He spells out explicitly what list of languages he means by arianisch, as "the Zend, Persian, Kurdish, Afghan, Armenian, Ossetish" (he was mistaken in thinking Armenian belongs here).

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Please cite or tell me what form you are referring to here.

The root ary- and all its derivations with or without the -an adjectival ending, which occurs with completely unchanged spelling and pronunciation in texts from India, starting with the Rig Veda (at VIII 8:9 and about 30 other places) and down to newspapers published yesterday (the "Arya Buzz" column in Times of India).

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

No Mueller wasn't using the Parthian form here. He was using a hypothetical reconstruction *Ar- based on the false hypothesis that the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans or PIE speakers used this form *Ar- to designate themselves.

The reconstruction is ary- and is not "hypothetical" but actual in Indic; only the part about it going all the way back to PIE in that form was hypothetical (and mistaken). Mueller is doing nothing more than using a German adjective rather than an adjective in an alien language, when writing German; Arabic-speakers don't say American, they say Amriki because -i rather than -an is the usual adjectival ending in Arabic; German-speakers say Amerikanisch, putting the -isch after the -an instead of deleting and replacing it, which is what Bopp did when he wrote arianisch instead of Mueller's arisch. Why are you thinking that these totally trivial and readily explained variations are "different" words, when in other contexts you take two words that hardly even look alike and claim they are the "same" without any explanation for the changes you require?

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

The form Aryan/Arian was derived directly from the Parthian inscriptions.

The form was already well-known from India before it was realized that it had once been used in Iran as well.

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

Uh Uh... the form Aryan which had long been used in linguistics to designate the "Iranians"

Hardly any linguists ever used the word to mean "Iranian"; you found Bopp doing that, but generally linguists used it to mean "Indic" or "Indo-Iranian" or "Indo-European".

Originally Posted by mojobadshah

first came into use in a British translation of Mein Kampf

They translated the German adjective into the English adjectival form of the same word. They translated juedisch into "Jewish" throughout the book, likewise: what exactly would you expect them to do?

[mojobadshah]

Originally Posted by bob x

As such, when the Parthians wrote the letters aleph-resh-yod-nun we don't know what the vowels were: the initial aleph tells us the word started with a vowel, but not whether the word was pronounced aryan or eryan or irayan.

Details... it's kind of like how westerners oftentimes pronounce Iran "I-ran" while Persian speakers pronounce Iran "Iraan." Although I was under the impression aleph was an "a"? And why would CAIS spell the word Aryan?

Originally Posted by bob x

Sigh. All I was doing was complying with your request for where the source of the distinction of terms "Irano-Aryan" vs. "Indo-Aryan" was; I just typed "Irano-Aryan" into the Google search-bar, something you could have done for yourself.

Yeah he also calls uses terms like Anglo-Aryan, and so on from what I recall, but my point was that the term Indo-Aryan didn't come into use long after the term Aryan as a designation for the Iranian languages had come into use.

Originally Posted by bob x

He spells out explicitly what list of languages he means by arianisch, as "the Zend, Persian, Kurdish, Afghan, Armenian, Ossetish" (he was mistaken in thinking Armenian belongs here).

Yeah in German he called this group Arianish. And English speakers were calling this same group the Arians. The form Arian was derived from the "Iranians."

Originally Posted by bob x

The root ary- and all its derivations with or without the -an adjectival ending, which occurs with completely unchanged spelling and pronunciation in texts from India, starting with the Rig Veda (at VIII 8:9 and about 30 other places) and down to newspapers published yesterday (the "Arya Buzz" column in Times of India).

You're going to have to cite the forms with -an. The closest form I see to Aryan is aryanti RV 10.48.3 and if I'm not mistaken the root is arya- means "praise" and the affix -nti means "they." Even if the root is aryan it doesn't designate a national identity. All the forms in "Iranian" always have.

Originally Posted by bob x

The reconstruction is ary- and is not "hypothetical" but actual in Indic; only the part about it going all the way back to PIE in that form was hypothetical (and mistaken). Mueller is doing nothing more than using a German adjective rather than an adjective in an alien language, when writing German; Arabic-speakers don't say American, they say Amriki because -i rather than -an is the usual adjectival ending in Arabic; German-speakers say Amerikanisch, putting the -isch after the -an instead of deleting and replacing it, which is what Bopp did when he wrote arianisch instead of Mueller's arisch. Why are you thinking that these totally trivial and readily explained variations are "different" words, when in other contexts you take two words that hardly even look alike and claim they are the "same" without any explanation for the changes you require?

Yeah and Mueller's root is Sanskrit while Bopp's is "Iranian."

Originally Posted by bob x

The form was already well-known from India before it was realized that it had once been used in Iran as well.

No no no. The only form that was known in India was Arya-. Where are you getting that the Vedic people called themselves Aryan? You are going to have to show me.

Originally Posted by bob x

Hardly any linguists ever used the word to mean "Iranian"; you found Bopp doing that, but generally linguists used it to mean "Indic" or "Indo-Iranian" or "Indo-European".

Since when have linguistics used the form Aryan to refer to the Indic or Indo-Iranians? Please cite.

Originally Posted by bob x

They translated the German adjective into the English adjectival form of the same word. They translated juedisch into "Jewish" throughout the book, likewise: what exactly would you expect them to do?

No they didn't. They substituted the word Arian which was was derived from the "Iranians" and used to designate the "Iranians" for the terms Arisch and Areir which were used to designate the "White Race." All too suspect.