History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedIs Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 686970
Author
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 23:42
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

What about the genetic evidences?
 
 
Y-DNA

The Y-chromosome side is more consistent with the present incidence. Ancient Norse appeared to belong mostly to Y-DNA haplogroups I, R1a and R1b (S21+). There are nevertheless great disparities between the regions of Scandinavia. Denmark, along with Friesland, northern Germany and the Netherlands, have the highest incidence of hg R1b. Over 40% of Swedes belong to hg I1a, and another 10% to I1c. In Norway, the three haplogroups have about the same share, but with stronger R1b concentration in the South-West and R1a in the North.

It appears that Scandinavia already shared this variety of haplogroups 2000 years ago. The only thing that has changed over time is the increased blending between the original ethnic groups that converged in northern Europe.

Science Daily : New Research Refutes Myth Of Pure Scandinavian Race

Dr David Faux suggested the existence of a genetic connection between Scandinavians and Central Asians (PDF). He argues that the presence of haplogroup Q in Scandinavia might be due to the migration of a Hunnic tribe to Scandinavia during the Great Migrations of the 4th and 5th centuries. The Huns were allied to the Goths, whose homeland was Sweden.

Dr Faux also hypothetizes a Central Asian origin of haplogroup R1a, found nowadays in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and South Asia. This haplogroup might have been associated with the ancient Scythians, among others.
I think Some has written the most that's important for a response to you. So I will just write a short posting, especially because I got the flu, my wife and children too. I was once impressed by DNA research. The mitochondrial Eve and so on. I think DNA research is important but as every other historical evidence it is important to be able to read it. I wasn't able to read your Faux, I'll do it later. But his Hunnic idea is quite amazing. So I would like to call him Dr. Faux(pas). There is no single evidence for a Hunnic invasion into Skandinavia. You and others are pressing the facts so that they get comparable to your ideas.  Some time ago I read a pseudo-scientic news about the German origins. It said that just a few Germans were descendants of Germanic ancestors. I am not sure but I think they said that 10 or 20% are even Jews. There were two haplotype, named as Slavic-Viking and the other as Slavic-Celtic. They should come from North-East Europe a 20000 years ago. Oh, yes, Celts from North-East Europe, right the way down from Taiga or Tundra and 20000 years ago. There are two many Genetic scientists or pseudo-scientists that talk about thinks they don't know.
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 04:48
So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
Anfører
Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 06:52
Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
 
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 Smile
 
 
 
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 07:38
Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
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".
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 07:38
Originally posted by Some Some wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
 
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
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 13:54
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
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.
Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 14:07
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
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?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 17:11
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
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.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 18:42
Originally posted by Some Some wrote:

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
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?

 
You are wrong, the Middle Persian word for woman was "Kan", I had mentioned it here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25719&PN=2 In modern Persian we have "Kaniz" which means "Young Girl" -> http://namesaz.com/8292/name/name/null and "Zan" meant "offspring", similar to Dutch "Zoon" (son), in the modern Persian there is "Far-zan" or "Far-zand" which actualy meant "eldest son/first son" but already "child/son" -> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF
Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 19:57
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Some Some wrote:

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

So far there is a little more connection between Iranians and Germanics compare to IE.Big smile
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?

 
You are wrong, the Middle Persian word for woman was "Kan", I had mentioned it here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25719&PN=2 In modern Persian we have "Kaniz" which means "Young Girl" -> http://namesaz.com/8292/name/name/null and "Zan" meant "offspring", similar to Dutch "Zoon" (son), in the modern Persian there is "Far-zan" or "Far-zand" which actualy meant "eldest son/first son" but already "child/son" -> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF
 
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
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 00:19
I red your Dr. Faux and I was right, he's Dr. Faux-pas
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 08:06
Originally posted by Some Some wrote:

  
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
Back to Top
Aryan de Pakhtra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 27-Jan-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aryan de Pakhtra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 07:36
First, read some books then we may discuss on this issue.
Anfører
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 12:48

Original Iranians never lived in Iran, just as original Turks didn't live in Turkey.

Back to Top
Some View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Nov-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 20:11
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Some Some wrote:

  
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.
     
     
    Back to Top
    Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    King of Kings

    Joined: 07-Aug-2004
    Location: Iran
    Status: Offline
    Points: 3963
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
     -> Click Here (like Old Saxon hiwa "wife"), as you mentioned the Middle Persian word was just "xewah", I think we use the suffix "-ar" that the word becomes similar to "baradar" (brother), "madar" (mother), ..., I had talked about the proto-IE root of it here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=495726#495726
     
     
    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
     
    What is the Persian word? خويش = xewish (khewish)


    Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 28-Jan-2009 at 11:34
    Back to Top
    Some View Drop Down
    Pretorian
    Pretorian


    Joined: 11-Nov-2008
    Status: Offline
    Points: 168
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Some Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 14:52
    Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

    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
     -> Click Here (like Old Saxon hiwa "wife"), as you mentioned the Middle Persian word was just "xewah", I think we use the suffix "-ar" that the word becomes similar to "baradar" (brother), "madar" (mother), ..., I had talked about the proto-IE root of it here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=495726#495726
     
     
    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
     
    What is the Persian word? خويش = xewish (khewish)
     
    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
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 686970
      Share Topic   

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
    Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

    This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.