B.C.

Yasna (language of Zoroaster)

Gathic

Rig Vedic

Zend

Sumerian

Minoans

Akkadian

Hittite

Mycenaean

Ionian

-Arimaspoi

-Cimmerian

Assyrian

-Sargon II

-Cimmerian
-Ashurbanipal

Babylonian

-Hammurabi

Acheamenids

Attic

-Scythians

-Classical Greek authors

-Sarmations

-Hellenistic authors

-Ptolemy

Vulgar Latin

-Accius, Pacuvius, Caecilius, Lucilius, Plautus 250 B.C.

Celtic

-Lepontic; Etruscan writing system

-Gaulish; Roman writing system

Bactrian

-Greco-Bactrian coin inscriptions

Pahlavi

-fragments from around the time of Mithridates

A.D.

Alanic

-Byzantine Greek authors

Pashtu

-Hakim Amir Crore of Gor 756

Armenian

-Ardunazai's account of the Crusades

Anglo-Saxon

-Beowolf 1010

Slavic

-Nestors Chronicle; compiled 1013

New Persian

-Ferwadousi's Shahnameh; Mahmoud of Ghazni's works for hire 998-

Lithuanian

-Simple Words of Catechism by Martynas Mazvdas 1547

Albanian

-Codex of Berat 1745

U.S.

-Constitution 1777

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

What a strange article. It seems to be claiming that a lot of English words were borrowed from Iranian languages. I don't believe it.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say in your paper, but I do have a few comments. Avestan is usually not thought to be the oldest recorded Indo-European language by most scholars. The dates I've seen are about 3000 BP, which would make it as old as Vedic Sanskrit. Taking it back 6000 BP means having to contend with dates for Proto-Indo-European. Mycenean Greek and Hittite are better candidates in my mind: 3400 BP and 3800 BP.

As for terminology, I wouldn't call foot, your fut, a Persian loanword. English foot, Latin pes, pedis, Greek pous, podos, all go back to PIE *ped- 'foot'. Many of the descendents of PIE have words for foot that are related to this reconstructed root, including Avestan. Even absinthe wasn't borrowed from Persian. It was borrowed from Latin, which borrowed it from Greek. The Greek word may be a loanword from Persian, or there may have been another intermediary.

Also, I've never seen the term Irano-Aryan. I've seen Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian, but they are different things. Also, aryas is a Sanskrit word as far as I known.

quote:

Edit by Wordcrafter: arnie, is this something we should delete as a potentially unsafe link?

No. But it should come with a health warning that you might be brain-damaged by information-overload before you finish reading it;-)

Wordcrafter,

The link looks safe enough, although the contents of the page may overload your brain cells, as Richard suggests.

mojobadshah seems to be semi-spamming us; possibly in an attempt to gain a high Google ranking. I've therefore removed the link itself and substituted a text version; those interested can copy/paste the address into their browser.

I must confess I gave up reading the page after a few paragraphs.

zmj, I am impressed by your excellent analysis. I thought the list of references was awfully slim when one considers his thesis.

arnie, I don't see why the link to my "arguement" would be unsafe, other than its hosted by angelfire....

goofy, I am claiming that there are Iranian loanwords in English. I am also claiming that many English words resemble much older Irano-Aryan words.

zmjezhd, it was my understanding that Indo-Iranian is the oldest member of Indo-European, and that Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves the PIE laryngeals. The English word foot, is not a loanword, but a morpheme that resembles the older Gathic Avestan pad. Apparently, absinthe, is an Iranian loan and not a cognate. I prefer the term Irano-Aryan over Iranian because the Iranians are most justly Aryan, and not Indo-Aryans.

arnie, this is not an attempt to spam or gain a high Google ranking. It is a serious indulgence in the idea, that this is not a communist nation. This is not a utopia. This is a capitalist nation. A cutthroat society, where everybody is looking to make a quick buck. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing is free, and intellectual property is the idea that even words in the form of trademarks, and copyrighted ideas, are not free, to an extent. And, people's roots are being exploited by people looking to make a quick buck.

Kalleh, references are slim because I wrote the article from memory. The references that are there are just for the etymology list part of it. I update the material, periodically, and hope to have a cited, and more extensively, referenced version.

To all, thanks alot, for your opinions.

zmjezhd, it was my understanding that Indo-Iranian is the oldest member of Indo-European, and that Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves the PIE laryngeals.

Well, that's where our understandings depart. The only IE language that preserves larygneals is Hittite. All IE languages, including Avestan and Sanskrit, have clues about the existing of alryngeals, mainly having to do with the lengthening of vowels. This is what lead Saussure to write his seminal paper in which he posited sounds (laryngeals) that did not exist in any of the IE daughter languages (at the time of the paper). Because Wikipedia is not really a primrary source, you might want to look at some of the following: Werner Winter, ed. 1965. Evidence for Laryngeals; W P Lehmann. 1993. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics; W P Lehmann. 1952. Proto-Indo-European Phonology.

At times, I've run across different folks (of Lithuanian, Indian, or Iranian nationalities) who argue that language X (which coincidentally is their national language) is more archaic than others in the IE family. This does not make too much sense, and I'm always leary of it, because it usually leads to a question of race which has little to do with language or the study of language. Some IE languages perserve, or better yet, have not changed some grammatical or phonological aspects of the parent language, e.g., Lithuanian and Sanskrit both preserve tone accent rather than stress accent. German, Sanskrit, and Avestan have gone through considerable phonological changes; Latin and Celtic slightly less so. When discussing age, we really must discuss how old are the texts in the language we are studying. Hittite has the oldest texts. Both Sanskrit and Avestan texts were transmitted orally for a long time, at least a 1000 years, before being written down. I have read that there are problems with some of the non-metrical Avestan texts because of corruption in this transmission.

The English word foot, is not a loanword, but a morpheme that resembles the older Gathic Avestan pad.

English foot and Avestan pad are cognates. They both were inherited by their respective languages from earlier languages, and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European.

Apparently, absinthe, is an Iranian loan and not a cognate.

As I said above. English borrowed the word absinthe from Latin. Latin borrowed it from Greek. Greek may have borrowed it from Persian. At any rate some historical linguists and lexicographers think that English/Latin/Greek absinthe may be cognate with Persian absand.

I prefer the term Irano-Aryan over Iranian because the Iranians are most justly Aryan, and not Indo-Aryans.

The terms I used are those used by historical linguists writing in English. Of course, you're free to use whatever terminology you wish to, but you run the risk of being misunderstood. When discussing languages, it's best to leave race out of it. This was a tough lesson learned by European linguists who lived through or were taught by those who lived through many unfortunate circumstances of World War II. Again, you're free to write about whatever you want to, and I am free to disagree with you for the reasons I've given.

zmjezhd, what's a good book on the Hittite language?

As far as the designation Irano-Aryan. I saw it in a book called Irano-Aryan Faith and Doctrines, inwhich, there was an analysis of the Gathic Avestan language.

Indo-Europeanist, J.P. Mallory is the one that said the Iranians are most justly Aryan in The Search for the Indo-Europeans. Irano-Aryans speakers were the first people to record themselves using the designation, Aryan.

Your input is, much, appreciated.

what's a good book on the Hittite language?

The classic grammar is Johannes Friedrich's Hethitisches Elementarbuch; there's also Warren H. Held, William R. Schmalstieg, and Janet E. Gertz. Beginning Hittite that's still in print.

Indo-Europeanist, J.P. Mallory is the one that said the Iranians are most justly Aryan in The Search for the Indo-Europeans. Irano-Aryans speakers were the first people to record themselves using the designation, Aryan.

Mallory's is a good book. I see what you're referring to on pp.125f. "We must also take a brief glance at the most loaded of Indo-European words—Aryan. An an ethnic designation, the word is most properly limited to the Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter where it still gives its name to the country Iran (from Avestan genitive plural airyanam through later Iranian eran to iran). The great Persian king Darius described himself as Aryan. The term was also widely used in India where it referred to one who was a member of the community (though details of who was included in the community have been the topic of wide and unsettled debate). Whether the ethnic designation was limited to the Indo-Iranians or not is difficult to say. A possible cognate appears in Hittie, for example, where it indicates 'kinsman, friend', and there also appears here the negative expression natta ara 'not proper to the community', that is, 'not done'. Although some claim that this root can be found in the names of many other Indo-European peoples, for example, Irish Eriu and aire, this would require more argument thanis worth the effort and we are safer to remain with the general consensus that it does not rather than to pursue this matter further." This passage is marked with an interesting footnote: "Szemernyi (1977, 125-149) provides a thorough summary of all the arguments concerning the word arya- and concludes that it is not even Indo-European but a Near Eastern, probably Ugaritic, loan word meaning 'kinsman, companion'."

Note that he refers to the use of the word Aryan as an ethnic designation, and note my cautions above. Some Germans in the 19th century and later (e.g., the Armanists and the Nazis) came to use the term Aryan to refer to ancient Germans (or Indo-Germans), and Mallory's remarks must be seen in this light. (See Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. 1992. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology; The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935.) This having been said, throughout Mallory's book he uses the terms Indo-Iranian to refer to the IE language subfamily which includes languages in present-day Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India (as well as Roma the language of the Gypsies in Europe and the States).

[Edited to correct typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

zmjezhd, is there any evidence of a group of present day speakers that claim to be linguistic descendents of the Hittites?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

is there any evidence of a group of present day speakers that claim to be linguistic descendents of the Hittites?

"[S]peakers that claim to be linguistic descendents of the Hittites", none that I'm aware of. The Anatolian branch of Indo-European has died out. The last records (of Lycian and Lydian ) are over 2100 years old. Most of the Hittite Empire was in present-day Turkey, with some along the coast in Syria.

quote:

Kalleh, references are slim because I wrote the article from memory. The references that are there are just for the etymology list part of it. I update the material, periodically, and hope to have a cited, and more extensively, referenced version.

Fair enough. However, it is impossible to provide a cogent critical analysis of writing when sources aren't cited.

zmježd, its curious that you have come across Lithuanians, Indians, and Iranians who have argued that their language's are archaic in contrast to other IE languages. How far did they take their arguements?

How far did they take their arguements?

Some farther than others. In this case, the language is Latvian. Mostly, they have just been people who've mentioned in passing that their language was the oldest or the source of all other languages or things like that. I just posted a link in another thread about the Indus Valley Culture aka Harappa. In this case, it's more of a case of which is older the Indo-Aryan languages of South Asia or the Dravidian. Religion (Hindu and Muslim) comes into play, along with nationalism etc. If you browse the web enough, you'll come across all kinds of strange theories about languages. (You might want to read some of the works of Marina Yaguello, especially Language Through the Looking Glass (originally Alice au pays du langage) or Lunatic Lovers of Language (originally Les fous du langage: Des langues imaginaires et de leurs inventeurs), or Jean-Jacques Lecercle The Violence of Language.)

zmježd, is there any archaic textual evidence of PIE in Sumerian, or Finno-Ugric, or any other language? Is the evidence of Indo-Iranian loans to Sumerian and Finno-Ugric based on archaic textual evidence? Is there archaic textual evidence of Indo-Iranian loans in any other languages?

is there any archaic textual evidence of PIE in Sumerian, or Finno-Ugric, or any other language?

No. Sumerian and PIE were probably contemporaries. We have 6000 year old Sumerian texts, but most Finno-Ugric languages are only recorded relatively recently: Hungarian ca.1000 CE, Finnish ca.1550 CE.

Is the evidence of Indo-Iranian loans to Sumerian and Finno-Ugric based on archaic textual evidence?

No. There are Indo-Iranian loans in Finno-Ugric. A while back I heard a Finnish professor give a summary of etymological evidence of Indo-Iranian loans in Finno-Ugric languages, but most of the languages were only recorded in the 19th century to present. So, it's the usual historical-comparative method for reconstructing words and comparing them to known words in Iranian languages. (I'll try to find the paper with his name and institution on it.)

Is there archaic textual evidence of Indo-Iranian loans in any other languages?

The only archaic textual evidence I know of is in a Hittite text on horse training (ca.1400 BCE), by "master horse trainer" Kikkuli of Mitanni, and some treaties with the Mitanni kingdom that have words in them which look to be Indo-Iranian. These are some gods' names and simple words.

zmježd, can you interpert the following link?
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/traces_of_aryan.pdf

Early Traces of the Aryans

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

mojobadshah, I would be careful with such a text. It seems to put Aryans in Iran in 7000 BCE. This would be before the time that most assign to PIE. You might want to read something more mainstream before making up your own mind. The whole Indo-European homeland hypothesis has never much interested me, because it probably can't be determined where the IE came from. 19th century German linguists and anthropologists assumed Northern Germany and Scandinavia, in the middle of the last cetnury Soviet scientists assumed Russia, and now Professor Jahanshah Derakhsnai, present-day Iran. The consensus of IE linguists and archaeologists today seems to be somewhere in Central Asia. The trouble with all this hyposthesizing is that without written records, you cannot tell what language was spoken by skeletons from archaeological excavations. Good luck.

[Corrected typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

zmježd,Professor Derakhsnai, saying that there is evidence of PIE and Indo-Iranian in archaic textual evidence of Sumerian?

Where can I find a chart online (or not) that compares vowel sounds to eachother? Example is "a" closer to "e" than "i"? Is "e" closer to "i" than "o"? etc....

Apparently there are 6000 Gathic words. Where can I find a list of those words and their cognates in other Indo-European languages?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

Professor Derakhsnai, saying that there is evidence of PIE and Indo-Iranian in archaic textual evidence of Sumerian?

Yes, that is what he seems to be saying. I was just saying that he's the only person I know who is saying it. Also, that his dates don't agree with other linguists.

Where can I find a chart online (or not) that compares vowel sounds to eachother? Example is "a" closer to "e" than "i"? Is "e" closer to "i" than "o"? etc....

You might want to look at the IPA website and the Wikipedia article.

Apparently there are 6000 Gathic words. Where can I find a list of those words and their cognates in other Indo-European languages?

You might want to look at: (1) Manfred Mayrhofer Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen; (2) R L Turner A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages (also online; (3) J H Peterson Dictionary of Most Common Avesta Words; (4) Julius Pokorny Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.

You might also want to read some books on comparative-historical linguistics: (1) W P Lehmann Theoretical bases of Indo-European Languages; (2) T V Gamkrelidze & V V Ivanov The Indo-European Language and the Indo-Europeans; (3) A Meillet The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics; C Watkins How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics.

zmježd, I'm assuming your analysis of the word foot is the most agreed upon one... Are you using IPA? Because, I've seen foot written in PIE a few different ways. Do you mind providing a more extensive (all PIE and IE forms) etymology of the word foot, beginning with PIE, followed by the oldest textual source to newest?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,