quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
And this is why I've decided to study linguistics.

Please, please be very careful Kalleh.
Having tried to follow assiduously these arguments, but with little success, I have an awful headache. I feel sure this reflects on my own incompetence and lack of native intelligence, but I wonder whether the writings of Shakespeare, Johnson, and Dickens were influenced by such studies.

Watkins has a good essay on the subject.

Professor Watkins held—he is now emeritus—two professorships at Harvard University: one in classics and the other in linguistics. The summer after graduating from university, I attended the LSA Linguistics Institute held at the Universität Salzburg, where I had the distinct pleasure of taking two classes from Watkins: Introduction to Hittite and Problems in Indo-European Linguistics. A little over a decade ago, I ordered my first batch of books from Amazon: Watkin's How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics and a comparative dictionary of Gothic.

Having tried to follow assiduously these arguments, but with little success, I have an awful headache. I feel sure this reflects on my own incompetence and lack of native intelligence, but I wonder whether the writings of Shakespeare, Johnson, and Dickens were influenced by such studies.

I know you're kidding, but the same could be said for almost any academic pursuit. I'm sure that anybody on this board could study linguistics successfully, if they just applied themselves. I don't see what the writings of any great author has to do with it, but I was never stopped from enjoying literature by my study of linguistics or computer science.

The European Union has several official languages. That makes a little more sense. But, it still doesn't explain why the US doesn't have an official language by legislature.

Greek, Italian, and German are official languages of the EU. Not Persian or Hindi. Apparently, there are Irano-Aryan loans in English and Irano-Aryan morphemes that have a resemblence to younger English words, words that are at the core of the English language.

Knowing one Indo-European language would give someone a good headstart, at least with vocabulary, in any of the other Indo-European languages, right?

The following is a rough list of the 1000 most common words in English and some of their Irano-Aryan Cognates

1000 Most Common English Words and Their Irano-Aryan Cognates

What right does any language coalition have to utilize an intangible assest like a language in business without including that language as an official one?

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

What right does any language coalition have to utilize an intangible assest like a language in business without including that language as an official one?

Are you saying because English has some Persian loanwords in it, that the EU should make Farsi an official language? You know Farsi has a bunch of Arabic loanwords in it (probably more than the number of Persian loanwords in English), but I don't think anybody would argue that Arabic should be an official language of Iran. I'm really not quite sure what it is you're trying to say.

As for your list of cognates, one could argue that Hittite has a similar list of cognate words in relationship to Farsi's top 1000 words. What does that mean? All the Indo-European languages have many words that are cogante with words in other Indo-European languages. That's how linguists in the 19th century noticed that Sanskrit, Avestan, Latin, and Greek were all related to one another.

I think that EU should make Persian an official language if its going to use Persian in business. To the best of my knowledge, Iran doesn't have intellectual property laws. So, nobody owns intellectual property. Intellectual property is open to all, I would presume. I know Dari Persian and Pushtun are official languages of Afghanistan.

I don't think Iranian's should be profiting off of and exploiting Arabic culture.

I would say, that Hittite does have cognates in English, but Gathic Avestan and Rig Vedic Sanskrit or Mycenean Greek sound like a better candidates to me for an oldest sister language because they are part of language families that are still living. The Anatolian (includes Hittite) language family died out 2100 years ago.

Are the words he, she, the, they, them, there, this, that, those cognates?

Are the words who, what, when, where, why, and, how cognates?

zmj says, "The official languages of the EU are: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, and Swedish."

That's 23 languages, but the EU's website lists only 20, omitting the 3 I've marked in red. That said, though, I belive zmj is right. Perhaps the EU website is out-of-date; perhaps the EU uses those three languages under some technical classification other than "official".

Romania and Bulgaria just got into the EU recently. A month or so ago?

I think that EU should make Persian an official language if its going to use Persian in business. To the best of my knowledge, Iran doesn't have intellectual property laws. So, nobody owns intellectual property. Intellectual property is open to all, I would presume. I know Dari Persian and Pushtun are official languages of Afghanistan.

Whether a language is declared by a country to be official or not has little to do with intellectual property law. Nobody owns English or Farsi. How is speaking or writing in English (or one of the other official languages of the EU) using Farsi? Farsi and English are not even mutually intelligible. If anything, all languages are in the public domain.

Whether a language is declared by a country to be official or not has little to do with intellectual property law.

That may be the case, but I belief that should be one of the purposes of an official language.

Nobody owns English or Farsi.

Yet, anyhow. When I read about how there is such a concept as intellectual property law, and when I read about people reserving the rights to the phrase "Hip Hop" or "your fired" (Donald Trump attempted to anyhow) it just makes me wonder what direction things are going in.


How is speaking or writing in English (or one of the other official languages of the EU) using Farsi?

For one, if English has loanwords from Farsi then English is borrowing from and Farsi. I understand that most linguists would probably say that Farsi is not going to get its loanwords back. But, maybe it should.

Farsi and English are not even mutually intelligible.

Yet, there is Farsi vocabulary that resembles English vocabulary.

If anything, all languages are in the public domain.

I agree, to an extent, because words and phrases can be trademarked and copyrighted.

It makes me wonder. Mallory says that there are more Iranian loans in the Indo-European language than any other language, and Indo-European is the most widely spoken family. Therefore, alot of business must be conducted using Iranian loans. So, it would seem, that, by saying something like "nobody owns language" works to the advantage of non-Irano-Aryan businessmen and to the disadvantage of Irano-Aryan businessmen (if they could take their loans back). Do you have any idea what I'm getting at?

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

quote:

Originally posted by mojobadshah:

The following is a rough list of the 1000 most common words in English and some of their Irano-Aryan Cognates

Where did you get this list?

If you are interested in Farsi loanwords in English, then here's a list.

quote:

Yet, there is good deal of Farsi vocabulary that resembles English vocabulary.

And a good deal of Hindi vocabulary that resembles English vocabulary. And a good deal of French vocabulary that resenbles English vocabulary. And so on for German, Greek, Latin, Swedish...

quote:

It makes me wonder. Mallory says that there are more Iranian loans in the Indo-European language than any other language, and Indo-European is the most widely spoken family.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please provide a quote?

As far as the list in question. I procured it myself using Irano-Aryan loan words and cognates. I've seen more extensive lists of Persian loans to English, but maybe they are not accurate.

English Words of Persian Origin

Persian Origins of Anglo-Saxon Words

I can't provide a quote because I don't have my books on me. But I'm a hundred percent sure that in The Search For the Indo-Europeans Mallory says that "the Indo-European family of languages are most loaded with Iranian loans".

The Indo-European family of languages is the biggest family of languages is it not?

quote:

Originally posted by mojobadshah:
Persian Origins of Anglo-Saxon Words

I'm very sceptical about this article. It seems to use mass comparison - listing a bunch of words from two languages that have similar sound and meaning. This method is not linguistically sound. The article presents no systematic rules for why or how these words are related, and so any claims it makes are not falsifiable. Language Log talks about it.

quote:

I can't provide a quote because I don't have my books on me. But I'm a hundred percent sure that in The Search For the Indo-Europeans Mallory says that "the Indo-European family of languages are most loaded with Iranian loans".

The Iranian languages are part of the Indo-European family, so I don't know what it means to say that Indo-European has Iranian loans.

You might be confusing loanwords and cognates. Cognates are words that are derived from a common ancestor. All Indo-European languages have cognates, because they are all derived from a common ancestor. Have a look at the AHD's list of IE roots, or the wikipedia list of IE roots. English father is similar to Persian pitā/pedar, not because the English word was borrowed from Persian, but because both words share the same ancestor.

A loanword is a word that is taken from one language into another with little or no translation. For instance, rook was borrowed into English from Persian.

Your list of English words and their Iranian cognates, if it is accurate, has nothing to do with words borrowed into English from Iranian.

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

quote:

A loanword is a word that is taken from one language into another with little or no translation. For instance, rook was borrowed into English from Persian.

That's the chess piece (otherwise known as the "castle") I believe. Strange that we generally call it a rook, but the move that involves swapping the king and the rook is known as "castling".

I have no evidence to support it but I suspect the English probably uses more loan words than any other language. I believe, too, that this is one of the reasons why English is now the world's most important and successful language.

goofy, I'm skeptical about the Persian Origins of Anglo-Saxon Words list, too. However, I know that the list I procured has loanwords and cognates. Mostly cognates. But, in intellectual property, one trademark can be confused with another, and one copyrighted idea can be unoriginal. Do you understand? As far as Mallory, I'm sure he was talking about Iranian loanwords (and not cognates) to other Indo-European languages, like Greek and Latin. zmježd has the book. According to Sims Williams Armenian is the biggest hunting ground for Iranian loans.

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

quote:

Originally posted by mojobadshah:
It makes me wonder. Mallory says that there are more Iranian loans in the Indo-European language than any other language, and Indo-European is the most widely spoken family. Therefore, alot of business must be conducted using Iranian loans. So, it would seem, that, by saying something like "nobody owns language" works to the advantage of non-Irano-Aryan businessmen and to the disadvantage of Irano-Aryan businessmen (if they could take their loans back). Do you have any idea what I'm getting at?

Assuming that Iranian gave loanwords to other IE language groups - well, this is a fact of language. It's normal. English has many words from Old French and Old Norse that have been completely nativized, like for instance "catch" and "they" respectively. Where do you draw the line?

Anyway, I don't see how "taking their loans back," is going to benefit the Iranian language-speaking businessman. How would it even work? Also, any concepts that English speakers are communicating with words borrowed from Iranian could just as easily be expressed with words of a different derivation. There's nothing special about Iranian words that means they can express comcepts that other languages can't. And Iranian language-speakers are not at a disadvantage just because English may have words of Iranian derivation. Farsi speakers can still express all the concepts they need to express, for instance.

I think it's normal for a language to be influenced by the languages it comes into contact with. A "pure" language would be very rare. It would have to be spoken by a community that has had no contact with any other language - and how would you ever determine that?

I don't see how "taking their loans back," is going to benefit the Iranian language-speaking businessman. How would it even work?

It would work like any other organization that protects intellectual property, like The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP). Only instead of an idea police there would be a word police.

Also, any concepts that English speakers are communicating with words borrowed from Iranian could just as easily be expressed with words of a different derivation. There's nothing special about Iranian words that means they can express comcepts that other languages can't.

English has many synonyms, so basically it comes down to one's choice of words. I remember reading about how Mathew mentioned the Zoroastrian Magi or Wisemen to give his account of the nativity a sense of archaism. I figure the same idea of giving archaic value to something could be applied with words. I think if your going to exploit your own roots (in business) then go ahead, use synonyms, but don't exploit another culture's roots. Nobody is puting a knife to anybody's neck forcing them to use this or that language.

I think I may have remembered what Mallory said wrong. I'll have my books next week.

zmježd, pp.125f. "We must also take a brief glance at the most loaded of Indo-European words*mdash;Aryan."

What is the most loaded of Indo-European words?

What does "most loaded" mean? If the Indo-European languages are not most loaded with Iranian loans then what Indo-European language is? And, what I mean by that is what single Indo-European (eg. Iranian, Greek, Latin, German, etc....) language do all the other Indo-European languages (Iranian, Greek, Latin, German, etc....) borrow from the most?

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

mojobadshah, it's important not to conflate language and culture. I still don't see how a Farsi speaker is disadvantaged just because English has loanwords from Iranian languages. Does this mean that the French speaker is disadvantaged because English has so many words of French derivations? Or that I'm disadvantaged because Hindi speakers use a lot of English words?

zmježd, pp.125f. "We must also take a brief glance at the most loaded of Indo-European words*mdash;Aryan."

What is the most loaded of Indo-European words?

The sentence you've quoted is Mallory's, not mine. He says that Aryan is the most loaded of IE words.

What does "most loaded" mean? If the Indo-European languages are not most loaded with Iranian loans then what Indo-European language is? And, what I mean by that is what single Indo-European (eg. Iranian, Greek, Latin, German, etc....) language do all the other Indo-European languages (Iranian, Greek, Latin, German, etc....) borrow from the most?

By most loaded, he means a word with many meanings, some of them contradictory and many negative. For some it is an ethnic designation. This use of the word is the one that Mallory says best describes the Iranians, since the word, in Avestan, is an ethnic designation. In Sanskrit and in the Vedas, it's more of a linguistic designation. That is people who spoke an Aryan language. That is why the term Indo-Aryan is used of some languages in Indian, e.g., Sanskrit, Prakrits, Hindi, Urdu, Gujerati, etc., but not of other languages, e.g., Dravidian (Tamil, Kannada, Telegu, etc.). That's why your term Irano-Aryan doesn't make much sense to me. The only languages I know about in present-day Iran are IE ones, i.e., Iranian ones. Other people have other meanings for the term Aryan. I mentioned 19th century German linguists, who were also nationalists and racist, who used the term to distinguish "true" Indo-Europeans like the northern German and Nordic races from all other races. This meaning, which is one still used by white supremicist groups, is not scientific and not really something I want to discuss. You should be aware of this, because for many English speakers in the States, this is the primary meaning of the word Aryan. (It is important to remember that often when a language borrows a word from another language, its meaning changes.

Most-loaded does not mean that one IE language has more borrowings than another. While it might be interesting to count the number of Persian loanwords in English (as opposed to loanwords in English from French, Latin, etc. that are ultimately of Persian origin), I don't see how it ties in with IP laws. And it's not something I'm personally interested in doing.

This is obviously a subject that is very important to you, but I just don't understand how a language borrowing from another is bad. I think it's a good thing. And it's not something that can be legislated out of existence. There was a story in the news recently about the Iranian government trying to get rid of English loanwords from Farsi. The example they gave was pizza. Americans borrowed the word pizza from Italian which in turn borrowed it from the Neapolitan dialect, which in turn inherited it from Latin.

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

quote:

This is obviously a subject that is very important to you, but I just don't understand how a language borrowing from another is bad. I think it's a good thing. And it's not something that can be legislated out of existence.

Those countries which try to get rid of "foreign" words (France is a good example) will always fail and generally impoverish their language.

I don't believe that French has been impoverished by the Academy's attempts to fix the language. They just have a larger vocabulary as a result: the words that have been approved and the words that people use. (Actually, it's even more than that, as the Belgians and the Quebeckers have alternate sets of official and unofficial words, too.

zmježd, don't get me wrong. I don't think borrowing words is a bad thing. I don't think preserving a language or purging a language of foreign words is a bad thing either. I believe in freedom of speech. But, I'm not sure I believe in freedom of speech when it comes to businesses using a valueable assest like language, cultural anomalies, to make money. I am aware that the word Aryan has come to have negative connotations. I think its sad. If, scientifically, Iranians are "most justly" Aryan they should embrace it. Aryan, meaning a good thing.

I understand that Irano-Aryan as a linguistic designation doesn't make sense to you. I'm trying to understand why. What does SOAS mean by

"Iranian (Aryan) languages are spoken in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Arran (republic of Azerbaijan), Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, China, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Russia and other scattered areas of the Caucasus Mountains." http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/iranian_languages.htm

Would, Aryan, be better or worse to designate Iranian languages?

I understand there are certain topics you would rather not go in to. However, this is a forum on Irano-Aryan Roots and Intellectual Property. What is it about language that you are, primarily, interested in? And, please, do not discuss anything that you don't feel comfortable discussing. I value your input.

I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. And feel free to do so yourself. Iran doesn't have intellectual property laws. To me that says that you can't reserve the right to any form of intellectual property. Use it all in business. On another hand the EU and the US do have IP laws. To me this says watch out what IP you use in business because you can get sued for infringement.

To all, I'm here to learn, and not to offend. We are all entitled to our own beliefs regarless of legislation. Thanks for your input.

quote:

I don't believe that French has been impoverished by the Academy's attempts to fix the language. They just have a larger vocabulary as a result: the words that have been approved and the words that people use.

Whether it's been due to official attempts to "fossilise" the language or whether it's for some other reason, it seems clear to me that French is now a far less important language than English (and many other languages). Once it was hugely important.

Would, Aryan, be better or worse to designate Iranian languages?

Iranian is the word used to designate those languages in the literature written in English. If you use Aryan, you run the risk that (a) people will misunderstand what you mean (i.e., that you're making some kind of racist assumptions), or (b) they'll understand you, but because you're using old-fashioned linguistic terminology, they'll think you're either referring to (1) all of the Indo-European languages or (2) Indo-Iranian languages. Now, of course, you can try to reclaim Aryan for positive meanings, like gays have attempted to do with the word queer, but then you risk either offending people or having them not take you too seriously. (I think all attempts at engineering languages are doomed to failure.)

I, personally, think that the IP laws in the US and the EU need to be fundamentally rethought, but I doubt that that can be done from a linguistic POV. You disagree, which is your right; I just don't think I have the will to add or detract from your argument.

I'm curious, there are non-Indo-European speakers in Europe like the Finns, the Hungarians, and the Basque, and there are Indo-European speakers in Europe. Is it that the Indo-European language traveled and not the people? Is it a case, wherein, the inhabitants of Europe adopted the language of a newcomer that arrived in small numbers, that may or may not have descendants, in present day Europe? Are Indo-European speakers of today descendants of the Pro-Indo-Europeans (e.g. from the Southern Russian Steppes), biologically, in alot of cases? What language would present day Indo-Europeans speak today were it not for the PIE speakers?

there are non-Indo-European speakers in Europe like the Finns, the Hungarians, and the Basque, and there are Indo-European speakers in Europe. Is it that the Indo-European language traveled and not the people? Is it a case, wherein, the inhabitants of Europe adopted the language of a newcomer that arrived in small numbers, that may or may not have descendants, in present day Europe? Are Indo-European speakers of today descendants of the Pro-Indo-Europeans (e.g. from the Southern Russian Steppes), biologically, in alot of cases? What language would present day Indo-Europeans speak today were it not for the PIE speakers?

The answer is that we don't know, but people are studying the problem. One of the older hypotheses is that the Indo-Europeans came out of Scandinavia or Northern Germany (those who held these beliefs just happen to come from those areas, too). One of the more popular current theories is that Indo-Europeans came out of the Asian steppes. One theory is that bands of Indo-Europeans invaded Europe and the Indian sub-continent. Another theory has Indo-European languages spreading with agricultural inovations and tools.

The Finns (and closely related Estonian and Sami aka Lappish) are recent arrivals in their territories; the Hungarians arrived under 2K years ago; the Turks have been in Anatolia for less than 2K years(before that there were Greeks and the Hittites, previous to the Hittites there were the non-Indo-European-speaking Hatti); The Basques seem a likely candidate for pre-Indo-Europeans, but we can't be sure. It's a pity their language only started to be recorded 500 years or so ago. There are also groups of people, known as Gypsies aka Roma, who speak an Indo-Aryan language throughout Europe. We assume they are recent arrivals.

Short of writing, i.e., within the last 6000 years or so, we don't know what ancient peoples were speaking. Humans seem to have migrated from Africa 50K years ago. They brought their languages with them. There are people, like Professor Cavalli-Sforza, who are studying the DNA of populations around the world to see what possible migration paths might have been, but DNA does not tell you what language somebody spoke, only written records do.

I'm no history expert, so I don't have too many examples, but I'll try to cite a few. The Romans conquered much of Europe, Spain, France, Italy, etc., and all of these countries speak Romance languages today. Before the Roman Empire, I would imagine that these countries had their own languages. It was not a large number of Romans who moved into these regions, it was the cultural and military dominance. Later on, the role of the Church probably also played heavily in this process.

When the Normans conquered England in 1066, the language did not become French, although many borrowings occurred. The Germanic language of the Anglo-Saxons prevailed, due to the majority of the populace being of those races. When the Celts were displaced, they were displaced as a people, not just a language.

I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this without more examples, but I would say a small number of speakers couldn't have spread the Indo-European tradition, without some corresponding cultural, militaristic, or technological superiority over the other peoples of the area.

There seems to be some discrepency about using the designation Irano-Aryan (which I believe is more discriptive) instead of Iranian as a linguistic classification. In Irano-Aryan Faith and Doctrine as Contained in the Zend-Avesta, (1977) there is a foward by the transcriber M.W. Wood, wherein he states that the author, Albert Pike, "whose translation of and commentary on the Vedic Hyms in twenty large volumes, won for him fame as one of the greatest Sanskrit scholars of his period; whose Lecture on the Aryas in eight volumes (four on the Irano-Aryans and four on the Indo-Aryans) and other works like the present one show that he had well earned the title given him forty years since as "the greatest living Orientalist." Albert Pike states "The proper name of the people, indeed, was "Arya" as that of the people of the Punjaub was. It was the name of the race, and I style the two branches "Indo-Aryan" and "Irano-Aryan." (forward, and pg. vi)


The following are quotes concerning the archaism of Avestan in contrast to Sanskrit

Robert S. P. Beeks states in A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan (1988) that "It (Gatha Avestan) is even more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves systematically the PIE laryngeals." (preface)

In The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots(1984), author, Joseph Shipley states that "Avestan is the earliest language of the the Indo- division of Indo-European." (pg. 297)

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

According to Joseph Shipley's The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots

The following words are related to PIE *dekm

"El" is Hebrew for god; it also appears in Arab "Allah" (al-ilah)

Gk. "Jerusalem", Hebr. "Yerushalaim" "Shalom" and Arab "salaam" are from Sem. "aslama" whence also "Islam", "Muslim"

L. "December" Gc. "ten" Skr. "satam" E. "satem" (pg. 57)

Would this mean that the word Allah is rooted in an Indo-European ancestor or a Semetic ancestor or both the Indo-European and Semetic forms are related to a common ancestor?

Arab. Salaam and Hebr. Shalom have the same meaning, peace, yet Shipley shows that Salaam is rooted in IE. * dekm and * eis whereas the Hebr. Shalom is rooted in IE * eis and * skelo.

* eis is related to "Asmodeus" the Avestan god of wrath and Gc. Eisen: iron (the holy metal)

Gk. skheleton is in all likelihood borrowed from Syrian, from Akkad shalamtu, and is then related to Hebr. Shalom (pg. 363)

I'm trying to figure out whether Allah and Salaam are, really, IE. anomalies or Semetic. Does anybody have any idea what is going on, here?

The following words are related to PIE *dekm

"El" is Hebrew for god; it also appears in Arab "Allah" (al-ilah)

Gk. "Jerusalem", Hebr. "Yerushalaim" "Shalom" and Arab "salaam" are from Sem. "aslama" whence also "Islam", "Muslim"

L. "December" Gc. "ten" Skr. "satam" E. "satem" (pg. 57)

I am curious what PIE *dekm has to do with Hebrew 'el, ('elohim) 'God', shalom 'peace', Arabic 'al-ilah 'Allah', salaam 'peace', and Sanskrit satam '100'. (I don't see anything obvious, nor have I read about it.) Indo-European and Semitic have had a long history of coexistence, but it is very hard to prove genetic relations. There are some words, like wine and seven that seem to have been borrowed from Semitic into PIE (or vice versa depending on your politics). I will try to find a copy of Shipley's book and look through it.

I'll also try to find the Beekes book, read it, and get back to you on it.

quotes from A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan by Robert Beekes

"Zarathustra must be dated between 500 and 1000 BC. We cannot go into the debate on his date. As to the linguistic side, the fact that Gathic is as archaic as Vedic Sanskrit, and much more archaic than Old Persian, a date in the beginning of this period is more likely than one towards the end of it" (pg. XXI)

"the text was laid down in manuscript in the fourth century AD or later, which is at least a thousand, perhaps almost 1500 years after Zarathustra. In contrast to the Rigveda, where very little has been changed" (pg. 10)

"when a form by some chance has escaped from the normal development, it often shows a more archaic state of the language" (pg. 11)

Gathic Avestan closely resembles and is as archaic as its Indo-Iranian sister, Rig Vedic Sanskrit, if not more archaic demonstrated in the following Indic (Sanskrit) translation of an early Iranian Hymn:

Avestan təm amavantəm yazatəm
Sanskrit tam amavantam yajatam

surəm damohu səvistəm
suram dhamasu savistham

mithrəm yazai zaothrabyo
mitram yajai hotrabhyah

This powerful strong deity Mithra
strongest in the world of creatures,
I will worship with libations (Murray, 35)

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

The Irano-Aryan, Cyrus II, is known for for his Great Cylindar which is an attestation of the world's first international human rights charter, which was advanced for its time. The anomally, Cyrus, is a cognate of the Iranian word Khor as in Avestan Kwarshed Yasht "sun hymn," or even Khorashan, Afghanistan, the "sun shine [city]?" Avestan hvarə-xšaēta "sun-shine?" Khor seems to be a cognate of the word, sun. Khor also seems to be a cognate of the Avestan designation for Christ or Christians, which is Keresa. Did the Avestan Keresa preceed the Greek Christos? Would it be accurate in stating that Keresa, Cyrus, Christ, and, sun, are all cognates?

The AHD seems to be a good resource for looking up IE roots. Their list of roots is here. And sun and Christ are not cognates.

Christ, from Greek Χριστος (khristos) 'annointed' (cf. chrism 'holy oil') is from the PIE root *ghrēi-, ghrəi-, ghrī- 'to rub', see Pokorny 457. Pokorny only lists Hellenic, Germanic (cf. English grime), and Baltic reflexes of the root, and no Indic or Iranian ones.

English sun, Latin sol, Greek ηλιος (hēlios), Sanskrit sūrya, and Avestan hvarə are all from PIE *sāwel-, sāwol-, suwel-, swel-, sūl- 'sun'; see Pokorny 881.

Goofy, I didn't find AHD to be very extensive when it comes do demonstrating the, obvious similarity, in many cases, of English's vocabulary to the vocabulary of the Indo-Iranian languages, in general. I've posted a still under construction, but revised lists in this forum's introduction comparing the Irano-Aryan vocabulary to the vocabulary of its younger sister English. It takes from several sources. I have noticed inconsistencies in Sharon Turners source.

zmježd, based on what you said the Avestan, hvarə, Old Persian, Cyrus, named from Kuros "the sun", and the English, sun, are etymologically akin.

Pokorny says the PIE root *ghrēi-, ghrəi-, ghrī- 'to rub' doesn't list Indo-Iranian reflexes. Apparently, Shipley says that Sanskrit, ghat, "where sins are rubbed away", Kali, "terrific tongue of Agni, deity of fire" Kalikshetra (wikipedia) -> Kalighat, "the early name of Calcutta" and Calcutta are akin to the word, Christ. The closest thing to an Iranian relative of the word, Christ, is the Avestan Keresa. The Avestan Keresa may be related to Keres-aspa.

In the Avesta the God, Mazda, bestows the hvarə-xšaēta or "divine light" upon the Irano-Aryan ruler Jam-sheed. From Jam this divine light is transferred to Keres-aspa, an anomaly that may have been shortened to Keresa. Whatever, the case the Avestan word Keresa designated Christ or Christians.

Secondly, there is the Avestan hvarə-xšaēta and, later, Persian khor-sheed "sun-shine." Avestan hvarə, as already mentioned, is akin to the English, sun, or Greek, hēlios. This leaves the Avestan, xšaēta "shine." Both the Avestan forms seem, to me, to very much so resemble the designation Helios Christos or hvarə-xšaēta. Anotherwords Helios ~ hvarə and Christos ~ xšaēta.

However,I lack the expertise in the area of morphology, so I can't come to any morphological conclusions other than noticing resemblences in phonemics and semantics of one word to another.

I was led to this observation after reading the following: "In ancient Russia Helios Christus may have been called Khors (whose statue was raised in Old Kiev before the conversion), who was also known as Khres (perhaps a corruption of the Greek Khristos, meaning Christ, but most likely Keresa, the Avestan word for Jesus). Khors/Khres was traditionally represented as a Christ-like figure sometimes racing a golden solar chariot, sometimes carrying a lamb. This is fairly good evidence for the existence of a cult centered on Jesus, the Sun of God, Smosha. Such a Jesus is to to be seen on the 10th Century German Quedlinberg reliquary, which came to the attention of Professor Flint. In many ways it depicts the traditional Slavic imagery of Khors (Khres) the solar chariot-racer encircled by the twelve zodiacs, however it had by that stage became Christ the Good Sun surrounded by the twelve apostles of the good zodiac. The existence of such a motif in Germany, Scythia, and Rome is attributable to Aryan messianic lore, which originated among the Iranian Magi, and filtered across the Caucuses with Magian Christian exiles." (pg. 36-37- preterhuman.net/texts/unsorted/cgc%201.pdf)

Helios Christos resembles hvarə-xšaēta. Anotherwords Helios ~ hvarə and Christos ~ xšaēta. This also brings to mind the Indo-Aryan cognate, Kalikshetra (Kalighat or Calcutta). The Sanskrit -kshetra "shrine or [Agni's]fire" resembles the Avestan xšaēta "shine".

1. Avestan hvarə-xšaēta Persian khor-sheed Pashto Khora-shan
2. Sanskrit kali-kshetra -> kalighat -> Calcutta
3. Greek helios-christos

And according to Shipley both Sanskrit the Sanskrit wors Kali, and, kshetra (or Kali, and, ghat) come from the same PIE root gher I.

What is the likelihood that the PIE root *sāwel-, sāwol-, suwel-, swel-, sūl- 'sun' and the PIE root *ghrēi-, ghrəi-, ghrī- are, really, the same root?

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

Helios Christos resembles hvarə-xšaēta. Anotherwords Helios ~ hvarə and Christos ~ xšaēta. This also brings to mind the Indo-Aryan cognate, Kalikshetra (Kalighat or Calcutta). The Sanskrit -shetra "shine or [Agni's]fire" resembles the Avestan xšaēta "shine".

I don't find xšaēta in Pokorny, but I know that Avestan xš and Sanskrit ksh in word intial position are related to Greek κτ kt, κθ kth, and not χ kh (as in Khristos). It is possible that the Persians called Christians and their eponymous god by a word that sounded similar but was not really related. One sees the same thing in Talmudic literature where Jesus is refered to a Yeshua ha-Notsri, which seems to be from the Greek Iesous Nazarenos 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Hebrew ha-Notsri came to mean Christian by extension. Also the times for the end of Avestan as a spoken language and the founding of Christianity is probably centuries apart.

What is the likelihood that the PIE root *sāwel-, sāwol-, suwel-, swel-, sūl- 'sun' and the PIE root *ghrēi-, ghrəi-, ghrī- are, really, the same root?

I would say none at all.

zmježd, I agree that it is possible the Zoroastrians designated Christ or Christians with the Avestan Keresa "a word that sounded similar but was not really related." I'm still not convinced that the Avestan, hvarə, and xšaēta, is not related to the Greek, helios, and, christos, respectively.

Did the designation "Helios Christus" preceed the designation the, "sun Christ" or "Christ"? Is, Christus, in, Helio Christus, even, related to the Greek, Christos?

Why would Shipley say that the, Kali, and, Ghat, both come from the same PIE root gher I, whereas Pokorny says two PIE roots *sāwel-, sāwol-, suwel-, swel-, sūl- 'sun' and the PIE root *ghrēi-, ghrəi-, ghrī-? Shipley does note that Helios comes from the PIE root, sauel.

Could it have been that Mathew's version of the Nativity of Christ, mentioned the wisemen or Zoroastrian Magi "who followed the star" to mean, in so many words, that this ancient hvarəx-šaēta "divine light," that came from their God, Mazda, represented by the characteristics luminary, and the father of the sun, is said to have first originated with Jam-sheed or Jam Christ, was being passed on to the new Christ?

Could there an inconsistency among etymologists when it comes to the development of the words Avestan, hvarə-xšaēta and the Greek, helios christos?

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

I'm still not convinced that the Avestan, hvarə, and xšaēta, is not related to the Greek, helios, and, christos, respectively.

Greek helios and Avestan hvarə are cognate. I said that in a post above. There's nothing controversial about the correspondence. OTOH, I don't see Avestan xšaēta coming from PIE *ghrēi- like Greek Khristos. I'm not sure about the ghat in Kalighat, but Sanskrit kshetra means 'soil, earth, land' and is cogante with Greek khthon, Latin humus, and Persian zamin. The word khristos, which means annointed, is an epithet of Jesus of Nazareth and as such is a loan translation of Hebrew moshiach which also means 'the annointed one'. There are also multiple theories about the etymology of Calcutta.

I've never heard the term Helios Christos before, but I would not be surprised that Jesus would be equated with a Sun god. In fact, early Christianity was just one of many mystery religions popular in the Roman Empire in the first couple of centuries CE. Another popular god, at least with Roman soldiers, was Mithras, and I don't have to remind you where this particular god came from: Persia. Mithras was called Sol Invicta in Latin: the unconquered sun. And his major holiday was around Roman Saturnalia, i.e., December 25th. All of this is interesting, but it tells us little about the meaning and origin of the word Christ.

The magi in the nativity story in the Gospels are usually called wise men or kings from the East (i.e., Persia) and are considered good, but in Acts a certain Simon Magus is considered the first christian heretic, an evil sorcerer.

Prof. Sims Williams states that "the name of the Pashtuns and their language Pashto is probably derived form *Parsa- or *Parsu- and can be connected with the Parsu of the Rig Veda. (pg. 69) According to Shipley, the word Parsi which is rooted in *Parsu- is a triune of three words Ormazd, Zardusht, and Yasht or PIE ane + ger + iag. Now, if the Rig Veda, the earliest of the Vedas, attests to the Pashtuns, wouldn't that mean that Zoroaster lived before the Rig Veda was recorded?

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

quote:

Originally posted by mojobadshah:
Goofy, I didn't find AHD to be very extensive when it comes do demonstrating the, obvious similarity, in many cases, of English's vocabulary to the vocabulary of the Indo-Iranian languages, in general.

quote:

Originally posted by mojobadshah:
However,I lack the expertise in the area of morphology, so I can't come to any morphological conclusions other than noticing resemblences in phonemics and semantics of one word to another.

If I could compare all the words in two languages, I might find some similarities in sound and meaning. But that wouldn't prove anything unless I could formulate rules that explained all the sound changes. This is called the comparative method:

quote:

The comparative method (in comparative linguistics) is a technique used by linguists to demonstrate genetic relationships between languages. It aims to prove that two or more historically attested languages are descended from a single proto-language by comparing lists of cognate terms. From these cognate lists, regular sound correspondences between the languages are established, and a sequence of regular sound changes can then be postulated which allows the proto-language to be reconstructed from its daughter languages. Relation is deemed certain only if a partial reconstruction of the common ancestor is feasible, and if regular sound correspondences can be established with chance similarities ruled out.

Simply noticing similarities is not good enough.

My apologies if you know this already, but I want to make it clear. There are some researchers who do not use the comparative method, they use something called mass comparison, and this is not regarded as scientifically sound.

That is exactly what I meant. I would like to have a better hold on those linguistic formulas and rules, and that is one of the reasons I am, here. I'm pretty sure that most of the etymological sources I take from are using the comparative method.

Prof. Sims Williams states that "the name of the Pashtuns and their language Pashto is probably derived form *Parsa- or *Parsu- and can be connected with the Parsu of the Rig Veda. (pg. 69) According to Shipley, the word Parsi which is rooted in *Parsu- is a triune of three words Ormazd, Zardusht, and Yasht or PIE ane + ger + iag. Now, if the Rig Veda, the earliest of the Vedas, attests to the Pashtuns, wouldn't that mean that Zoroaster lived before the Rig Veda was recorded?

Not necessarily. It's not the Pashtuns who are mentioned in the Rig Veda, but Parsu, and he suggests that the two are related "probably". This refers to the Persians / Iranian speakers. Also, not all of the Rig Veda was recorded at the same time. One of the mandalas (like a chapter) was added later than the rest. Could Pashtuns not have preceeded Zarathustra? Was Zarathustra a historical person or not?

Interesting you should bring up Professor Sims-Williams. I just wrote an email to him asking to purchase a back issue of a journal he edits. Which book of his are you reading?

As for the comparative-historical method in linguistics, there exist some books you might want to look at: Antoine Meillet The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics; Hans Hock Principles of Historical Linguistics; Raimo Anttila, Historical and Comparative Linguistics.

zmježd, the book by Sims Williams is non other than the The Indo-Iranian Language and Peoples

In regards to the relationship between the anomalies, Zoroaster, to, Persia, Parthia, the Pashtuns (Parsu of Rig Veda 8, 6, 46), Pathans, and Parsis. For some reason I got it figured, that the development of the word, Parsu, in the Rig Veda might have been a conscience fusion of its earlier triune of roots, Ormazd (the father), Zardusht (the son), and Yasht (akin to Gk. hagio- "holy" ) into, eg. Parsu, in the Rig Veda, the later Pashtuns who, probably, practiced, Zoroastrianism, in the same way that, Zoroastrianism, was the state religion of Persia.

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

Pokorny's Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch is online:

Part I (*abh- to *dens-)
Part II (*deph- to *gou̯ǝ-/gū- 'hand')
Part III: *gou̯ǝ-/gū- 'call, cry' to *k̂ē(i)-)
Part IV: (*k̂ēko- to *pid-)
Part V: (*pik(h)o- to *su̯elplo-s)
Part VI: (*su̯em- to *ū̆d-, plus a few additional lemmas)

ɔoɯdləʇəlʎ ɐʍəƨoɯə¡

zmježd,

Did you ever figure out whether the root of the words "Allah," "Jerusalem," "Islam," "Salaam," are, essentially, Indo-European or Afro-Asiatic in origin?

Did you ever figure out whether the root of the words "Allah," "Jerusalem," "Islam," "Salaam," are, essentially, Indo-European or Afro-Asiatic in origin?

As far as I can tell, the text starting with "In the above names by the way" until "as a token to their visit to the Holy City" in the entry for the root dekm is a long digression which would've been better put in a footnote. All Shipley seems to be saying is that the syllable El in names such as Eleazar, Israel, et al. is the Semitic root for 'god' as in the Arabic word Allah. He then digresses further about Arabic salaam, Hebrew sholom, and the various forms of the place name for Jursalem being related to the word Islam, etc. None of these can really be linked to dekm, but he started digressing while discussing an aside to the Septuagint, which is from the Latin word septuaginta for '70': the -ginta is most probably related to dekm: seven tens for 70. It looks like the book may have been published after Shipley died, and perhaps had note been edited as well as could be.

What is language dominance?

What is language dominance?

A little context?

I recall one linguistics professor mentioning something about language dominance. Apparently, grammatically, one language is not more dominant than another because both languages have specific rules. I'm wondering whether when one language, an intangble asset, is more frequently utilized and therefore more monetary valueable, is an instance of language dominace.

I'm wondering whether when one language, an intangble asset, is more frequently utilized and therefore more monetary valueable, is an instance of language dominace.

If you want to define language dominance that way, I guess you can.

This link leads to a great deal of information about language dominance, which seems not to be comparison of languages but rather tests of individuals' language skills.