Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Some
Pretorian
Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages? Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 06:52 |
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
No mate if you read this thread you will see bunch of debunking of Cyrus claims. In fact Iranian and Germanic come from diffrent diealectual sphere in the IE spectrum.
And Cyrus
I am waiting for you responce on my gentics reply to you Cyrus
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 07:38 |
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
The prefix "com-" (together) in "connection" and "compare" sounds very Centum, it is better to use the prefix "ham-". In modern Persian you could use "hambastegi" for "connection" and "hamsangi" for "compare".
|
|
|
Suren
Arch Duke
Chieftain
Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 07:38 |
Originally posted by Some
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
No mate if you read this thread you will see bunch of debunking of Cyrus claims. In fact Iranian and Germanic come from diffrent diealectual sphere in the IE spectrum.
|
I know I said that only for fun of it.
Edited by Suren - 02-Jun-2009 at 03:16
|
Anfører
|
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 13:54 |
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
The prefix "com-" (together) in "connection" and "compare" sounds very Centum, it is better to use the prefix "ham-". In modern Persian you could use "hambastegi" for "connection" and "hamsangi" for "compare". |
Slight problem, Cyrus. The "con-" prefix in connection and compare is from Latin via Old French; so it is not a Germanic prefix. For this reason any conversation of the prefix or words mentioned above is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
|
|
Some
Pretorian
Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 14:07 |
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
The prefix "com-" (together) in "connection" and "compare" sounds very Centum, it is better to use the prefix "ham-". In modern Persian you could use "hambastegi" for "connection" and "hamsangi" for "compare". |
I see you like to run from arguments still when you get the chance.
Anyway I a sense if it is worth talking with someone who proves to have limited info about it.
You have never learned the comparative method that is needed to branch languages.
I will give you an extremely simple version of comparative linguistics.
Let's take the Avestan hunu and compare it with PG *Sunuz or old English sunu or old norse sonr and let's look at Baltic Lithuanian sūnús and Slavic Slovak syn.
These are all congates to Avestan hunu but you see a clear difference in the Iranian form.
You see where S in the rest of the languages you H Iranian these is not uncommon because many PIE S have become H in Iranian but not in any other branch.
We clearly see that Iranian went trough S to H shift. DO you find this in Germanic no you don't from there we see that Germanic never went trough but kept the PIE S instead.
Now another word PIE *(h2)ōwyóm that means egg and is cognate to English egg in German it is ei in Swedish ägg and in PG ajjam. And in Celtic Welsh wy and in Proto-Celtic it was *awio
In Iranian the cognates to *(h2)ōwyóm is New Persian ḵẖaya and in Middle Persian xāyak and in and those it look like Egg? No it does not but they are cognates if one understand the phonetically and morphological changes.
Let's look PIE *swésōr meaning sister. Compare English sister, Icelandic Systir and Dutch zuster with Iranian Avestan xᵛaŋhar or new Persian ḵẖẉahar,ḵẖẉahar and hvar from Khotanese.
*gʷḗn means woman in PIE in English we have the cognate queen and in Swedish kvinna and in Norewegian kone and in Dutch kween and Icelandic kona and Danish kvinde.
G became K in Germanic
And in Iranian G did not became K but rather J/Z with J being the older form and becoming Z in Persian,
Indo-Iranian it is *janH-
very much like
Avestan jǝ̄ni, jaini, jąni ,Middle Persian it is zan Persian it is zæn
So you see Cyrus true congnates do not sound the same in fact they can be alien and can only be understod as congantes if one understands there history.
We see here very easily that Iranian and Germanic went trough sound and morphological changes.
Why is that so hard to expect? Or maybe you start to get it?
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 17:11 |
Originally posted by King John
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
The prefix "com-" (together) in "connection" and "compare" sounds very Centum, it is better to use the prefix "ham-". In modern Persian you could use "hambastegi" for "connection" and "hamsangi" for "compare". | Slight problem, Cyrus. The "con-" prefix in connection and compare is from Latin via Old French; so it is not a Germanic prefix. For this reason any conversation of the prefix or words mentioned above is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. |
Exactly, Centum is also the Latin word for Hundred.
|
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 18:42 |
Originally posted by Some
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
The prefix "com-" (together) in "connection" and "compare" sounds very Centum, it is better to use the prefix "ham-". In modern Persian you could use "hambastegi" for "connection" and "hamsangi" for "compare". |
I see you like to run from arguments still when you get the chance.
Anyway I a sense if it is worth talking with someone who proves to have limited info about it.
You have never learned the comparative method that is needed to branch languages.
I will give you an extremely simple version of comparative linguistics.
Let's take the Avestan hunu and compare it with PG *Sunuz or old English sunu or old norse sonr and let's look at Baltic Lithuanian sūnús and Slavic Slovak syn.
These are all congates to Avestan hunu but you see a clear difference in the Iranian form.
You see where S in the rest of the languages you H Iranian these is not uncommon because many PIE S have become H in Iranian but not in any other branch.
We clearly see that Iranian went trough S to H shift. DO you find this in Germanic no you don't from there we see that Germanic never went trough but kept the PIE S instead.
Now another word PIE *(h2)ōwyóm that means egg and is cognate to English egg in German it is ei in Swedish ägg and in PG ajjam. And in Celtic Welsh wy and in Proto-Celtic it was *awio
In Iranian the cognates to *(h2)ōwyóm is New Persian ḵẖaya and in Middle Persian xāyak and in and those it look like Egg? No it does not but they are cognates if one understand the phonetically and morphological changes.
Let's look PIE *swésōr meaning sister. Compare English sister, Icelandic Systir and Dutch zuster with Iranian Avestan xᵛaŋhar or new Persian ḵẖẉahar,ḵẖẉahar and hvar from Khotanese.
*gʷḗn means woman in PIE in English we have the cognate queen and in Swedish kvinna and in Norewegian kone and in Dutch kween and Icelandic kona and Danish kvinde.
G became K in Germanic
And in Iranian G did not became K but rather J/Z with J being the older form and becoming Z in Persian,
Indo-Iranian it is *janH-
very much like
Avestan jǝ̄ni, jaini, jąni ,Middle Persian it is zan Persian it is zæn
So you see Cyrus true congnates do not sound the same in fact they can be alien and can only be understod as congantes if one understands there history.
We see here very easily that Iranian and Germanic went trough sound and morphological changes.
Why is that so hard to expect? Or maybe you start to get it?
|
|
|
|
Some
Pretorian
Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 19:57 |
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Some
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Suren
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.
|
The prefix "com-" (together) in "connection" and "compare" sounds very Centum, it is better to use the prefix "ham-". In modern Persian you could use "hambastegi" for "connection" and "hamsangi" for "compare". |
I see you like to run from arguments still when you get the chance.
Anyway I a sense if it is worth talking with someone who proves to have limited info about it.
You have never learned the comparative method that is needed to branch languages.
I will give you an extremely simple version of comparative linguistics.
Let's take the Avestan hunu and compare it with PG *Sunuz or old English sunu or old norse sonr and let's look at Baltic Lithuanian sūnús and Slavic Slovak syn.
These are all congates to Avestan hunu but you see a clear difference in the Iranian form.
You see where S in the rest of the languages you H Iranian these is not uncommon because many PIE S have become H in Iranian but not in any other branch.
We clearly see that Iranian went trough S to H shift. DO you find this in Germanic no you don't from there we see that Germanic never went trough but kept the PIE S instead.
Now another word PIE *(h2)ōwyóm that means egg and is cognate to English egg in German it is ei in Swedish ägg and in PG ajjam. And in Celtic Welsh wy and in Proto-Celtic it was *awio
In Iranian the cognates to *(h2)ōwyóm is New Persian ḵẖaya and in Middle Persian xāyak and in and those it look like Egg? No it does not but they are cognates if one understand the phonetically and morphological changes.
Let's look PIE *swésōr meaning sister. Compare English sister, Icelandic Systir and Dutch zuster with Iranian Avestan xᵛaŋhar or new Persian ḵẖẉahar,ḵẖẉahar and hvar from Khotanese.
*gʷḗn means woman in PIE in English we have the cognate queen and in Swedish kvinna and in Norewegian kone and in Dutch kween and Icelandic kona and Danish kvinde.
G became K in Germanic
And in Iranian G did not became K but rather J/Z with J being the older form and becoming Z in Persian,
Indo-Iranian it is *janH-
very much like
Avestan jǝ̄ni, jaini, jąni ,Middle Persian it is zan Persian it is zæn
So you see Cyrus true congnates do not sound the same in fact they can be alien and can only be understod as congantes if one understands there history.
We see here very easily that Iranian and Germanic went trough sound and morphological changes.
Why is that so hard to expect? Or maybe you start to get it?
|
|
Even if you say that it was ''Kan'' and if that si true are you sure it is a congnate with Queen? Cause remember similear do not means congnates you would first have to prove that it is a congate to the Avestan forms jǝ̄ni, jaini, jąni and Persian zæn .
And Zan is not a congnate to son or the old Iranian form hunu unless you have good arguments and evidence to prove that.
You see Cyrus just eye bolling similear words are not true linguistics because in the long term with these you can make up what ever langauge familiy.
Cause words change meaning if you look even in the Germanic branch you can find that, the word jord in Swedish for an example those not sound or look like English earth but they are congnates.
English tree is congnate with New Persian dār , English heart is congnate with Avestan zərədā . Persian گرگ gorg/gurg is congnate with English wolf.
So you see Cyrus can we just not accept Germanic and Iranian are not closer relatives other then to Proto-Indo-European?
All love
|
|
beorna
General
Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 00:19 |
I red your Dr. Faux and I was right, he's Dr. Faux-pas
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 08:06 |
Originally posted by Some
Even if you say that it was ''Kan'' and if that si true are you sure it is a congnate with Queen? Cause remember similear do not means congnates you would first have to prove that it is a congate to the Avestan forms jǝ̄ni, jaini, jąni and Persian zæn .
And Zan is not a congnate to son or the old Iranian form hunu unless you have good arguments and evidence to prove that.
You see Cyrus just eye bolling similear words are not true linguistics because in the long term with these you can make up what ever langauge familiy.
Cause words change meaning if you look even in the Germanic branch you can find that, the word jord in Swedish for an example those not sound or look like English earth but they are congnates.
English tree is congnate with New Persian dār , English heart is congnate with Avestan zərədā . Persian گرگ gorg/gurg is congnate with English wolf.
So you see Cyrus can we just not accept Germanic and Iranian are not closer relatives other then to Proto-Indo-European?
All love
|
It seems you think Avestan and Persian were the same languages, this is true that there are numerous words of Avestan origin in the Persian language but we also know several Persian words which differ from Avestan words, for example the Persian word for "tree" is "tir", not "dar". In the modern Persian language these two words are synonym.
English "to" is congnate with New Persian"ta" and Avestan "da", do you think Persian "ta" has a different origin?
Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 23-Jan-2009 at 08:08
|
|
|
Aryan de Pakhtra
Janissary
Joined: 27-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 04:50 |
Even Avestan can not be called "Iranian" language.
Iranians.... borrowed an Aryan language and religion.
Also Zoroastiansim do not belong in Iran, as its language was Avestan which is most closely related to Munji, Yidgha, Pashto and Wakhi. **edited for content**
- no insults shall be tolerated
- read up on the Code of Conduct
Edited by es_bih. This is an unofficial warning to cease inflamatory posts.
Edited by es_bih - 27-Jan-2009 at 05:48
|
|
Suren
Arch Duke
Chieftain
Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 07:36 |
First, read some books then we may discuss on this issue.
|
Anfører
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 12:48 |
Original Iranians never lived in Iran, just as original Turks didn't live in Turkey.
|
|
|
Some
Pretorian
Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 20:11 |
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
Originally posted by Some
Even if you say that it was ''Kan'' and if that si true are you sure it is a congnate with Queen? Cause remember similear do not means congnates you would first have to prove that it is a congate to the Avestan forms jǝ̄ni, jaini, jąni and Persian zæn .
And Zan is not a congnate to son or the old Iranian form hunu unless you have good arguments and evidence to prove that.
You see Cyrus just eye bolling similear words are not true linguistics because in the long term with these you can make up what ever langauge familiy.
Cause words change meaning if you look even in the Germanic branch you can find that, the word jord in Swedish for an example those not sound or look like English earth but they are congnates.
English tree is congnate with New Persian dār , English heart is congnate with Avestan zərədā . Persian گرگ gorg/gurg is congnate with English wolf.
So you see Cyrus can we just not accept Germanic and Iranian are not closer relatives other then to Proto-Indo-European?
All love
|
It seems you think Avestan and Persian were the same languages, this is true that there are numerous words of Avestan origin in the Persian language but we also know several Persian words which differ from Avestan words, for example the Persian word for "tree" is "tir", not "dar". In the modern Persian language these two words are synonym.
English "to" is congnate with New Persian"ta" and Avestan "da", do you think Persian "ta" has a different origin? |
I never said that Avestan and Persian was the same langauge. Just wanted to give you examples of more then one Iranian langauge. It is very funny Cyrus that you continue to hold on to the same thing over and over again.
I have shown you clear examples that Iranian and Germanic do not have a posibility to closely related because they have treated the morphology and phonology of PIE diffrently.
Just look at the PIE root swésōr in all Iranian langauges it has changed S to new forms mostly H or X in certain conditions
Iranian:
- Avestan: xᵛaŋhar-
- Khotanese: hvar-
- Khwarezmian: 'x
- Sogdian: xwār
- Middle Persian: xwah(ar)
- Ossetic: хо/xʷæræ
In Germanic it is S or Z in the case of Dutch
Germanic: *swester(a)-, *swestr(a)-
Just here you can see tha what you belive do not make any sense. And I don't feel like giving you more examples because I have allready won the argument and that is that we see that Iranian and Germanic have gone trough diffrent changes that reflects to PIE and you seem to ingore that.
Anyway Cyrus bye.
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 11:09 |
You can read here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sister&searchmode=none that sister is a compound word ( *swe- "one's own" + *ser- "woman.") and the Avestan word doesn't begin with "x", you are right about the Persian word, however Persian xewahar also means "one's own woman" but relates to proto-Germanic *xiwa
Meaning: tribesman, relative
Old Indian: śéva- `dear, precious'; śivá- `auspicious, gracious, benign, dear'
Slavic: *sēmь 'persona', *sēmьjā
Latin: cīvis, -is c. `Bürger' (OLat ceivis)
Other Italic: Osk ceus `civis'
Russ. meaning: соплеменник, родич
Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 28-Jan-2009 at 11:34
|
|
|
Some
Pretorian
Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 14:52 |
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri
You can read here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sister&searchmode=none that sister is a compound word (*swe- "one's own" + *ser- "woman.") and the Avestan word doesn't begin with "x", you are right about the Persian word, however Persian xewahar also means "one's own woman" but relates to proto-Germanic *xiwa
Meaning: tribesman, relative
Old Indian: śéva- `dear, precious'; śivá- `auspicious, gracious, benign, dear'
Slavic: *sēmь 'persona', *sēmьjā
Latin: cīvis, -is c. `Bürger' (OLat ceivis)
Other Italic: Osk ceus `civis'
Russ. meaning: соплеменник, родич
|
Ovnce again what your doing is nothing then mass lexical compairasion. From what I see the Persian word and the Proto-Germanic root are not congnates you see similear words do not mean close relation. As you can see in most Iranian and Germanic congnates they are very diffrent from one another and have treated the sounds of PIE diffrently.
just for an example Proto-Germanic preserved labio-velars (K with lip rounding for an examples) and also has completly diffrent reflexes of PIE forms. And Iranian did not and just made them to plain velars and in Germanic like all Centum diealects it merged palatel-velars(Almost like english cube) with plain velars and in Indo-Iranian those became silibants .
You show no Iranian reflex of Proto-IE: *k'eiw-, *k'eim- the closest would be Old Indian śéva since it is Indo-Iranian and this is logical k to s . In Germanic we have eventualy K to X and later in most cases H.
Iranian and Indo-Aryan and Nuristani and etc form the Indo-Iranian branch all old langauges of each the branches show extrem similearties and also in culture and in names and in religious texts Vedic Sanskrit texts and Avestan texts are very similear in many parts.
Cyrus the day you understand the comparitive method we can talk but you don't.
It is getting silly because you just ingore all real congates and go back to mass lexical compairasion and that is not linguistics and cannot make anyone an expert on compairative and historical linguistics. Is it not enough that both branches came from PIE to you for some reason.
All love
Edited by Some - 28-Jan-2009 at 14:53
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2009 at 13:42 |
This thread can be continued, I have found some new evidences.
|
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2011 at 13:45 |
What do Your opinion explain us Cyrus?How did those people come on German's lands today?Linguistic moments are provoking indeed!Distances between Iran and Germany/Europe were so big so those people had come not on picnic!
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2011 at 13:59 |
This is really an old thread, the fact is that Iranian languages don't relate just to Iran and Germanic languages just to Germany, there is also a big distance between Turkestan and Turkey.
|
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Feb-2011 at 14:13 |
I just need your personal opinion about those ancient migrations!?!Backward direction movements are far away from reality!Germans were puzzle that was not solved by me!?!Hope will show me parts I have not seen since now!?! Regards!
|
|