Word "Aryan" is priced becoz of its Indic(Hindu)

I think part of the point is that the Hittite and Tocharian languages are, so, dead, that no individual could honestly claim that the core of the language that they speak is, even, a related.  That the Gathas are literature, and that the Iranian speakers were aware of the monetary value of a word are factors, too.   By the time the Gathas were recorded, its author had, already, looked back to a long history.   I recall something about the story of Jamshid and how it goes into the details of how Jamshid became the psychopomp of the departed, whereas the story of Jam's Sanskrit counterpart, Yama, the first man to die, doesn't go into the details and is basically, already, the psychopomp.   Does anybody know of any examples of these parallels?


Edited by mojobadshah - 25-Apr-2007 at 19:57

Sharrukin, I appreciate you're feedback.  I know you're trying to keep it real.   There is Homeric literature.   Even, Young or Zend Avestan is estimated to be hundreds of years older, than the Old Persian Acheamenid inscriptions that are placed around 600 B.C.  And then there's Old or Gathic Avestan which is hundreds of years older than Young Avestan.  A few hundred years older than 600 B.C. would place the Gathas before the Illiad. 

Maybe you can help me understand the following evidence: according to the late, Joseph T. Shipley's, The Origins of English Words, the designation Persia is a triune of the words Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster, and Yasna.  The designations Persia, Parthia, Pashto, Pathan, and Parsi are rooted in *Parsu.  Apparently, there is evidence that the Pashtun tribe was mentioned in the Vedas.  Wouldn't that mean that the anomalies, Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster, and Yasna predated the anomally Parsu (older form of Pashtu) which was attested in the Vedas, and that Zarathustra lived before the attestation of the Parsu in the Vedas?

Are you saying that the Avesta wasn't literature, while it was an unrecorded text being orally transmitted, and that it did become literature when it was inscripted in Phalavi?

The idea that parsava means border reiminds me of something from the OED Online about how, Parthian Shot, changed to Parting Shot, and might be related to words like, partition, and party.  Is that what it meant?  What I don't understand is how the roots ane, ger IV, and iag I or Ahura, Zoroaster, and Yasna became *Parsa or *Parsu, and whether it was a conscious fusion.  I am full of questions.  Does the word jirga have any Avestan relatives?  Were the Acheamenids monotheists or not?  Were there, really, libraries that were destroyed by Alexander, and if so, is there any telling what the nature of the content was? What is the underlying truth behind the Greeks and Roman's placing Zoroaster as early as they did? 

And what do you make of the following?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/traces_of_aryan.pdf 


Edited by mojobadshah - 27-Apr-2007 at 19:08

There is all these evidence of attested literary works that we have, today.  Avestan, Sanskrit, Homeric Greek, Celtic, Latin.  Do we know about the time of their attestation because of comparative-linguistics, calendrical correlations, and radio carbon dating the texts?

Secondly, there is evidence that the Greeks, and Romans were aware of Zoroaster.  Apparently, they place him long before, even, the Trojan wars, and, therefore, Homer.  Is there any evidence of Iranians placing Greeks and Romans 6000 B.C. before the author of the Gathas? 

I hear that.  Apparently, Zoroaster may not have been written by Zoroaster, but an East Iranian speaker.  Can we say the same about Homer's works.  That they were not nessecarily compiled by Homer but a Homeric Greek speaker?  And, correct me unless I'm mistaken, Ahuramazda is an East Iranian.  Darius authorized his own autobiographical "literary" work to be inscripted and fixed in stone, and tells us that it was by Mazda, an East Iranian diety, that he came to be the Shahnashah.  Therefore, either Mazda along with the East Iranian vocabulary came, either, before or after Darius.   Both West and East Iranian works are part of the same Irano-Aryan continuem.  Can we be sure that the Irano-Aryan morphemes weren't influenced by the Greek branch of IE. ?  Both Darius's Behistun and Zoroaster's Gathas were autobiographical, and aside of some place names in the Behistun, conservative in not including non-Irano-Aryan.  It seems to me that the various works that were written in IE. aside from Irano-Aryan, were centered around anomalies of non-IE. origin.  Furthermore, Darius was a, Parsam (Eng. Persian), unless I'm mistaken.  The word, Parsam, was a tribal state designation rooted in the East Iranian roots Prana, Ahura, Zararthustra, Yasna, and Mazda.  Prana is related to every word that has, a P R followed by a vowel, and, a P followed by a vowel followed by an R, hence, protecter, printing, property, private, party or partition.  From the same four words developed the designation of the East Iranian tribe of Pashtun. 

Edited by mojobadshah - 11-May-2007 at 00:41

Edited by mojobadshah - 15-May-2007 at 21:49

 

 

Homer's "literary" work was not written down by himself c. 800 B.C.

Hesiod "literary" work was not written down by himself c.700 B.C.

 

Aparently, both both lived centuries before recorded history.  What does that mean?

 

Did Darius live before recorded history?

 

Solon's "literal" works were poetic in nature, and not autobiographical c. 638-558 B.C.

 

And then comes, Darius's "literal" work, right?  Or are their other Greek authorities that were primier to the Persian emperor?  Darius's "literal" work was autobiographical history, fiction.  Not poetry. Not mythology.  Which was written under his, Darius's, authority, while he existed.  Can we say the same about Homer, Hesiod, and Solon?

 

Why would Darius have chosen to mention Avestan Mazda, and not Avestan Zardusht?  Can we be sure that Zardusht was not initially a state designation, and as time passed, developed into new state designations, like Par-Za or Parsa? 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mojobadshah - 16-May-2007 at 15:00

I hear you loud and clear.  Tell me more about the Greek "literal" works, that are authobiographical "literal" work's authorized and written down by the author of the work, and not recounted by later Greek authors, not mythological, not poetic, and not legal.  First person accounts of history.  I know I said Darius's work is fiction but I meant to say non-fiction.  Very, non-fiction.  Not philosophy.  Not poetry.  Not mythology.  Not legal.   Just the facts.   

 

Edited by mojobadshah - 21-May-2007 at 16:40