Thread 18081243

So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes? That's right—none. It's all based on conjecture. It all hinges on the r1a gene being linked to "Proto-Indo-European," which is a made-up language that doesn't actually exist. This artificially invented proto-language relies HEAVILY on Rigvedic Sanskrit as its foundation. So, it's ASSUMED that the people in the steppes spoke this made-up fantasy language. And after constructing it using Sanskrit, they say, "Hey, Sanskrit really comes from there." How convenient. Show me ONE kurgan burial in India with horses, chariots, and weapons, r1a skeletons—I'll be convinced of all of this. You make an incredible claim; show me the incredible evidence.

PIE is a made-up language—show me one, just one, PIE book or text. Sanskrit is real because we have texts in it. Lithuanian is real because we have texts in it. PIE is something a bunch of linguists "reconstructed" in the modern era, starting from the false assumption that there's something to reconstruct. And then they assume that this reconstructed language was spoken by people on the steppes. I mean, it's pretty comical if you think about it.

>>18081243 (OP)
Damn, what else could R1A mean then? There's no chance it's native to India. But you're just a little man with a wounded nationalist ego. We know that Sanskrit arrived from the steppes in 1500 by a population rich in Andronovo. We don't have confirmed Vedic samples, but believe me, when people like you come out, they'll have a mental breakdown.

>>18081243 (OP)
my condolences to anyone born indian. you can play a good hand, marry a good indian of high quality stock and try to evolve some small isolate of your people into a robust, durable, intelligent, thoughtful, and altruistic subset of indians.

>>18081301
>what else could R1A mean then?
The connection they make between the R1a gene, language, and, in some truly nefarious cases, culture and religion. They're trying to insinuate that they're the creators of our culture. It's the same thing they try with Greece and Rome. Hell, I've read articles that try to say that the Vedic religion isn't Hinduism and that it's actually the religion of the steppes.
>andronovo
David Anthony and others do exactly this—which is to cite our mythology in extremely ridiculous ways to establish connections that are, at best, dubious. Example: connecting the Rig Veda and chariot burial practices on the steppe.
They don't find any chariot or kurgan burials in India—oh, and then suddenly the same texts are used to pretend they switched to cremation just before the supposed invasion. And then, of course, after the invasion, everyone magically returned to their steppe burials.

It's a discussion, and there are many points of view. You don't need to feel embarrassed for us just because we don't agree with the opposing view.

>>18081311
Taking away your arguments based on pure syllogisms and attacks on a strawman (that hasn't even been fully explaine.. 'they"? Who?), it turns out that it's well documented that "your culture" isn't the same, or rather, doesn't show much continuity with archaic Vedic culture. Even your religion is significantly different from the ancient Vedic belief system. More progressive Indologists like Michael Witzel, a sort of David Reich of the field, assume that modern "Hinduism" presents so many innovations and reforms that it doesn't make sense to use the term "Vedic Hinduism." Again, you didn't explain what exactly R1a-Z93 could mean other than the advent of steppe peoples.

>>18081326
>>18081311
In fact, denying the PIE reconstruction makes you seem even more biased... it's far from perfect, but it's useful and well-structured, and I have considerable knowledge of morphology. Please, learn basic concepts of how linguistics works before you shit out of your mouth.

>>18081243 (OP)
>The fabled 105 IQ Indian
>This is what his mind produces

>>18081301
>they'll have a mental breakdown.
It's already happening. That's why this thread is here.

>>18081326
You haven't refuted anything here. My arguments are merely demands for archaeological evidence... where is it? Is there any reliable record of how much cultural similarities in archaeology reflect the actual volumes of migratory exchange between archaeological cultures, and is this true even for cultural complexes much better researched than the one under discussion? You can try to answer me. For example, the oldest excavated chariot is from the upper Ganges basin, between 350 BC and 50 AD. The absence of chariot remains in India
>R1a-Z93
not found in "Andronovo" samples, and even worse, the swarissue is a problem for the hypothesis.
>>18081352
See above, Another point to be noted is that Steppe ancestry in most modern day South Asians is male mediated unlike the case for Swat valley Iron age samples(Vedic era) which was mostly mediated by Aryan females(by 1200 B.C) who had less Steppe ancestry on the Y chromosome (~5%) than the autosomes-> Implying that Steppe ancestry entered mainly through maternally(ancient Gandharans & some of the modern day Dardic/Pahadi groups like Kalash,Chitrali descend from them).
than the autosomes-> Implying that Steppe ancestry entered mainly through maternally(ancient Gandharans & some of the modern day Dardic/Pahadi groups like Kalash,Chitrali descend from them).

But in present-day South Asians, it’s the opposite i.e. there’s more Steppe ancestry on

>>18081345
There is no precise sequence of singular one-step divisions between them that can be proven, nor can any of the "divisions" be precisely dated. The division into IIr is also undatable. The languages IVC, BMAC, Jiroft, Andronovo, Sintashta, Yamnaya, Botai, CW, CT, GAC, BB are completely unknown... there's no way around it... R1b, R1a satem, centum are a bunch of nonsense. Haji firuz is not IE simply because of R1b; that's more nonsense.

PIE is something a bunch of linguists "reconstructed" in the modern era, starting from the false assumption that there's something to reconstruct. And then they assume this reconstructed language was spoken by people on the steppes. I mean, it's pretty comical if you think about it and there's also political reasons for it

All right, there's obviously no helping a deluded person, but some people viewing the thread who are new to the topic might be wondering, "How do we know the Proto-Indo-European language was real? How do we know Sanskrit is descended from it instead of the reverse relationship where for example Greek ultimately descends from Sanskrit?"

If this is a genuine area of uncertainty for you and you want to evolve beyond an armchair theorist or critic, you need to immerse yourself into some introductory historical linguistics material. You think you know better than a linguistics professor? Learn what they have to say first and then you can participate in the discussion as someone educated on the same technical topic. Otherwise you're just attacking a field of knowledge out of ignorance. Here are some books you can start with:
• Fortson IV, B. W. (2011). Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
• Beekes, R. S. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
• Ringe, D. (2017). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
These will get you started on how Proto-Indo-European linguistic reconstruction is done. They are all available on Library Genesis so you have no excuse.

And how do we know Sanskrit isn't the parent language? It's very simple: the study of historical sound changes implies a particular chronology and ordering of events, so it's obvious to any competent linguist that Sanskrit came later.

>>18081375
>For example, the oldest excavated chariot is from the upper Ganges basin, between 350 BC and 50 AD. The absence of chariot remains in India
You don't understand how archaeology or evidence works. A lack of material evidence doesn't necessarily mean something didn't exist. Linguistics and oral tradition can be useful, even if they aren't "strictly archaeological." Ancient texts and oral traditions can help reconstruct a society's history and culture. Take the example of Ireland, where war chariots are mentioned in ancient texts, even epically, despite no archaeological remains having been found. The metaphor of the ruler as a charioteer is common in ancient texts, such as the "Audacht Morainn" and the Rigveda. In short, this doesn't prove that chariots didn't exist, especially considering they were likely made of wood and would have deteriorated quickly in the Indian climate. Rubbish argument, anon, try harder.
R1a-Z93 and its subclades are derived from Steppe_MLBA

>>18081412
For more information, see Raimund Karl's article, Celtoscepticism, a convenient excuse for ignoring non-archaeological evidence?
about the evidence of the chariot in Ireland, and as I explained, the lack of material archaeological evidence doesn't always define whether something existed or not. Textual and folklore evidence can be useful, as is the case with the RV, and someone else has already answered me about the linguistic issue. You simply don't know how reconstructions work, and keep in mind that not only has religion undergone innovations, but "Sanskrit" itself is different from the reconstructed Vedic language. We can talk about this

>>18081428
You're completely off topic. Spoked wheels only appear in the most recent books, or did they forget they had chariots? Ireland is irrelevant.
>>18081411
>>18081412
appreciate that IE studies would not exist without Western academics who first made the connections in India. However, it should not be forgotten that without the Brahmins in India none of this would have been possible. They were the original custodians of the literature that is the basis of IE studies, that which shed light on the origins of European civilization. Perhaps it was a mistake for those Brahmins to hand over the sacred literature, which their forefathers had passed to them, to those opportunistic foreigners who would use it for such lowly purposes. I imagine many a Vedic sage turning in his grave on hearing how their work is being appropriated, and of the character of those involved.
Christianity spread throughout Europe but (as far as I know) there is no genetic trace.
On the other hand, the Migration Period has significant movements of people with limited linguistic impact.

English and Western European technology/culture/democracy are globally adopted yet there is 0, I mean literally 0, genetic impact.

>>18081438
>appreciate that IE studies would not exist without Western academics who first made the connections in India.
No, this isn't true. Proto-Indo-European would still be reconstructible without Indo-Iranian support. It would just be less rich in certain details. The entire reason Indo-European historical linguistics exists as a field is because ALL of the languages have similarities. It is not dependent on one branch.

>>18081438
? My argument was analogous. I meant that the lack of direct evidence of war chariots in ancient India doesn't necessarily prove they didn't exist, or that they weren't related to the Indo-Aryans who migrated to India. The dynasties reached as far as Xinjiang in the Bronze Age, and certainly reached Europe. So, just as in the case of Ireland, where war chariots are mentioned in tradition and poems, no archaeological remains have been found. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..
Moreover, we know that the Indo-Europeans were not just a multiracial community of languages and dialects, but they were an ethno-linguistic group, you can read the latest articles, I can recommend some if necessary
>Christianity
This comparison was bizarre for the simple fact that Christianity never intended to be a restricted or particular religion of a group X or Y, as was classical Judaism. Comparing Christianity to linguistic dialects spread often by nomadic groups is anachronistic.

>>18081438
>lowly purposes
Meds now.

>>18081438
>They were the original custodians of the literature that is the basis of IE studies, that which shed light on the origins of European civilization
?

Even in the case of Christianity there is actual genetic impact. You think it was all Northern Europeans passing along the gospel among themselves? Wrong! The spread of Christianity has much to do with the Roman empire. Southerners went north and had long-term influence even after Roman territory expansions were reduced. Romans did leave a genetic impact as far north as Britain (but it is marginal).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Roman_Britain

>>18081487
anon? didn't you realize that his arguments are terrible and syllogisms?

>>18081243 (OP)
Sanskrit came from the Steppes
Any linguist can tell you that

>>18081243 (OP)
Go learn Estonian. You'll see where Sanskrit really comes from, Saar.

>>18081243 (OP)
Fun Fact 1: there was ZERO writing of any kind in the entire subcontinent, despite literally billions of people being their for thousands of years. Indeed, it wasn't until contact with Alexander, and other blonde Greeks, that the Brhami script would eventually be created. This is why so many of the Ashoka columns are written in Greek and Persian Aramaic.

Fun Fact 2: Greeks were among the Buddha(pbuh) very first disciples and are referenced throughout Buddhists texts. One can't help but see the "Greek" in the philosophy in the Buddha's teachings and vise versa. They are both cut from the same Aryan cloth.

Fun Fact 3: """Modern Scholars""" now place the life of the historical Buddha as being nearly identical to that of Socrates and both lived to about the same age of 80, making the connections to the Western world all the more intriguing. Not to mention all the similarity in material culture like robes/togas, "rosary beads", the notion of birth/rebirth/cyclical life, class/caste based societies, etc.... Clearly, great (Aryan) minds think alike.

In summary, everything people think of as """India""", aside from eating shit for fun, is entirely Aryan in origin, and has virtually nothing to do with the practices of the indigenous Dalit specimens.

Enough arguing about the Rigveda.

Let's be honest, none of you can interpret what it actually says, so let's leave it at that .but the Indian interpretation is the worst of all

History is something that can never be changed or rewritten; it can only be hidden for a time, but the truth will prevail in the end. And it doesn't look good for an invasion from the Steppes, even without data from Bronze Age India. I shudder to think what would happen when we had that data. None of you explained the swat issue... >>18081375
why? The other posters couldn't understand my arguments
>>18081630
just don't use English translations

I'll try again.
Listen, everyone, it's quite obvious from these Suvastu samples, from the 2nd millennium BC to the historical period, that there was no massive influx from the steppes; this was somewhat obscure and circumstantial, as was evident. Archaeology has long predicted that there were no mythical steppe warriors residing in the Suvastu area, home to groups related to the Dardic and Nuristani. The same applies to cemeteries H, Pgw, and others... so we'll have to wait for likely migrations from the period I mentioned, which is around 800 BC, which fits the situation perfectly.
Sorry, any PIE reconstructions can solve the problem

>>18081243 (OP)
>It all hinges on the r1a gene being linked to "Proto-Indo-European
This isn't just R1a. These are archaeological finds of basal R1a Z93 in Eastern Europe. That is, the remains of the direct ancestors of the Indian Brahmins, as well as many Turkic and Iranian peoples.

>>18081495
Harappans had a form of caste system. Take the example of the Todas of Nilgiri Hills who are an isolated Dravidian tribe and are genetically closest to Harappans with their own animism. They have a ritual caste-like system divided into 2 hierarchically

>>18081670
There's nothing special about these Suvastu samples, mate. Some of them come close to ~0% of this ancestry. There's a clear explanation: the genesis of this proto-Dardic culture isn't related to Andronovo or the steppes, which was obvious from archaeology

>>18081243 (OP)
>kurgans
See Round tumuli(Stupas)

>>18081713
Then explain how the Brahmins turned out to be direct descendants of the Andronovo?

some interesting books I found

>>18081736
>English translations
No.
Horseshit actually, made by some ignorant wignat
Friend, The only people who have less than <5% Aryan DNA are modern Europeans... some Dravidian & Munda groups. Most Europeans got their steppe ancestry from Bell Beaker/Battle.
>>18081727
Firstly, you need to show to us any andronovo samples with R1a-Z93

>>18081243 (OP)
the hindu nationalists that i've seen and heard of online basically all seem to exhibit this bizarre kind of inferiority complex, like they feel that indian culture is inferior to the culture of really i don't even know where - and then reaction formation makes them go online and scream about indian supremacy on twitter
and i can never understand it
is a 3,500-year-old literary tradition, in a literary language that's a member of one of the largest language families on earth, and that played an instrumental role in the development of historical linguistics, really not enough for those people who care about their cultural pedigree to feel good about it?
and if they're descended from the indo-aryans, who were incomers to south asia rather than natives, then what reason do they have to be upset about that?
it might feel good to be able to say "our ancestors lived here seventy quadrillion years ago, and we their descendants still live here now," yeah, sure
but would saying "our ancestors were badass conquerors who invaded and made this place their bitch" not feel as good, or better?

it's incomprehensible

>>18081736
>The Mahabharata of Krishna

Which literally means black, lol.

>From Proto-Indo-Iranian *kr̥šnás (“black”), from Proto-Indo-European *kr̥snós (“black”)

>Cognate with Proto-Slavic *čьrnъ (whence Old Church Slavonic чpънъ (črŭnŭ, “black”) (Glagolitic spelling ⱍⱃⱏⱀⱏ (črŭnŭ)), Russian чёpный (čórnyj), Bulgarian чepeн (čeren), Macedonian цpн (crn), Czech černý, Polish czarny, Slovak čierny), Old Prussian kirsnan (“black”), Lithuanian kir̃snas

>Krishna is represented in the Indian traditions in many ways, but with some common features. His iconography typically depicts him with black, dark, or blue skin, like Vishnu. But ancient and medieval reliefs and stone-based arts depict him in the natural color of the material out of which he is formed, both in India and in southeast Asia. In some texts, his skin is poetically described as the color of Jambul (Jamun, a black-colored fruit)

>>18081736
Good

>>18081786
You used to argue the word could also be blue, and Krishna is often depicted as blue as well.

>>18081786
The funny thing is that Krishna comes from Hercules.

>Hercules, the Greeks’ favorite hero is described as dark (melanan), hook-nosed (grupon) by Dicaearchus (Clement of Alexandria, “Protreptic to the Greeks” 2.30.7). Hercules was also proverbially melampugos (having a black behind) as indicative of his bravery, as opposed to pugargos (having a white behind), a coward

Archaeologically and historically, the historical Kṛṣṇa appears to have been a hero named Vāsudeva, associated with the Vṛṣṇi clan and ruler of the Mathurā region. The devotees who worshipped him were the so-called Bhāgavatas, who represent an early and ancestral form of what would later become Vaiṣṇavism.

Initially deified as a hero, Vāsudeva was later associated with the figure of Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu, as these Vedic traditions merged in the epic and Puranic periods. The mythological figure of Kṛṣṇa we know today results from the fusion of this historical hero and the cosmic god.

This Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa is a war hero, a virile and warlike symbol. Even in the Mahabharata, this still resonates strongly: Kṛṣṇa is a kṣatriya (the noble and warrior caste), a political and military hero; when he descends as an avatar (divine incarnation), his primary mission is to uphold the rājadharma, the dharma of the warrior nobility. So much so that he is the king and military leader of the Yādavas.

The gentler, more loving, and devotional image of Kṛṣṇa emerges strongly only later, in the Purāṇa narratives, especially in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, where he appears as the lover of the gopīs and the god of bhakti.

Interestingly, Megasthenes, a Greek emissary who visited India, mentions an Indian Hercules, whom many scholars identify as Kṛṣṇa.

>>18081713
>>18081659
A large-scale influx of people from the steppes into South Asia during the Bronze Age and perhaps the Iron Age. this happened during the Bronze Age, because all the Swat groups form a fairly organized line pointing in the general direction of the southern Andronovo samples.

The absence of R1a in these samples will be explained one way or another, sooner or later. But remember that R1a-Z93 has its origins in Eastern Europe. But they have steppe ancestry and cannot be descendants of first- or second-generation steppe migrants.Therefore, whatever happened, it happened well before these populations emerged in Swat. Swat is useless because it is not Vedic.

to everyone who wants to discuss in a civilized manner: ignore the spammer who appeared here

>>18081811
But the premise isn't correct. Why should you ignore archaeological issues? Out of fear? There's nothing great about these Suvastu samples, mate. Some of them even have close to ~0% of this ancestry

>>18081820
Saar, Did you even read what I said? Swat is irrelevant to the question. The only archaeological articles about this site are very clear that it cannot be reduced to "Vedic" or not. The region underwent an amalgamation of cultures.

>>18081824
Do I need to remind you again? temks R1a Z2124 Poltavka_Outlier.

Samples of Z2125 and Z2123 from Sintashta-Andronovo and later Scythian burials
but ***no**** L657 yet. Is that hard to understand???

>>18081791
NTA Little sunlight reflected on the skin of a very dark-skinned person appears blue in the same way that the dark sky at dawn appears blue before the sunrise. The Vikings called Haratins (Blackmoors) blámaðr/blåmann (blueman).

>>18081812
>discuss in a civilized manner
>in a thread created by a Hindutva
Lmao.

>>18081847
L657 was a very insignificant subclade in Sintashta-Andronovo, but experienced its growth after entering India. Supporting this is the fact that the modern distribution of L657 is almost entirely confined to the Indian subcontinent and peaks in the Gangetic valley.

>>18081874
then show the clades in Andronovo. not mental theories, and furthermore, Steppe_MLBA was rejected by several qpAdm models

>>18081852
>The blue hour (from French l'heure bleue; pronounced [lœʁ blø]) is the period of twilight (in the morning or evening, around the nautical stage) when the Sun is at a significant depth below the horizon. During this time, the remaining sunlight takes on a mostly blue shade. This shade differs from the colour of the sky on a clear day, which is caused by Rayleigh scattering

>The blue hour occurs when the Sun is far enough below the horizon so that the sunlight's blue wavelengths dominate due to the Chappuis absorption in the ozone layer. Since the term is colloquial, it lacks an official definition such as dawn, dusk, or the three stages of twilight. Rather, blue hour refers to the state of natural lighting that usually occurs around the nautical stage of the twilight period (at dawn or dusk)

>The blue hour is shorter in regions near the equator due to the sun rising and setting at steep angles. In places closer to the poles, the illumination and twilight periods are longer as the sun rises and sets at shallower angles

>>18081881
The reason Steppe_MLBA was "rejected" as a proxy in this context was because we were missing samples with the correct type of West Asian ancestry found in South Asians. That's basically why.

>>18081852
You can kiss him, but go somewhere else, get the fuck out of here

>>18081889
there is still no archaeological or linguistic evidence for this

>>18081912
>archaeological or linguistic evidence
What does this mean? Are you denying that Vedic is a language of the steppes? Oh, so you still insist on believing that PIE is "false"? If that's the case, the matter is dead. There's nothing to talk about, you refuse to understand how the reconstructions are made
>archaeological
Proto-vedics have their origins in the Vakhsh/Bishkent cultures, and has already been associated with the southward migration of the first Indo-Aryans. And there are similarities with Andronovo, which makes the origin of the MLBA steppes more plausible.

>>18081934
*or tazabagyab

>>18081697
a racial basis for varnas, it seems to be recognized that a division based on skin color and racial qualities was once the prevailing view.

>>18081852
>>18081883
Little Light + Black = Strong Blue is ironic considering that WHG were the first people with blue eyes and Shani's (Vedic Saturn) gemstone is Lapis Lazuli in Jyotish.

>Ancient sources reveals that the Germanics are described mostly as reddish-blond (rutilae comae = "golden-red") haired by the Romans (Germania (Tacitus) iv; Seneca. De Ira. iii. 26. 3) or flavus, meaning blonde (Juv. Sat. xiii. 164; Lucan. ii. 60) and blue or gray eyed (Tacitus. Ger. iv; Plut. Life of Marius, xi. 3; Hor. Ep. xvi). Their skin is also described as pale white (Vitruvius. vi. 1. 3; Eugippius. Thesaurus. 73). The ancient writer Julius Firmicus Maternus went as far as claiming the whole of Germany was blonde:

>"If the characters and complexions of mankind are due to the combinations of planets, and the motions of the planets make up men’s traits, as if in paintings: that is, if the Moon makes people fair-skinned, Mars red, Saturn black, why is the whole population of Ethiopia black, of Germany blond, of Thrace red-haired, as though the Moon and Mars had no strength in Ethiopia, and Saturn could not produce dark coloring in Germany or Thrace?" - Matheseos Libri Octo, ii. 1

>Shani is associated with two consorts: Neela, the personification of the gemstone sapphire, and Manda, a gandharva princess

>The name sapphire is derived from the Latin word sapphirus, itself from the Greek word sappheiros (σάπφειρος), which referred to lapis lazuli. It is typically blue, but natural "fancy" sapphires also occur in yellow, purple, orange, and green colors; "parti sapphires" show two or more colors

>>18081243 (OP)
Silly Dasa...
>We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy

In other words, since the arrival of European Aryans in India, there has been a shift from free intermixing between groups to caste-based endogamy. Ironically, the photo meme is 50% correct in some ways.

The Aryan invaders likely intermingled with the local populations

>>18081975
the fourth image is plausible in some way. and if I remember correctly, there was an article/study/news story or whatever the hell it was, about how high-caste individuals in India, with a high proportion of West Eurasian DNA (ANI), had sexual relations outside their caste, but did not allow mixed-race descendants to enter their caste. I don't remember much of the details, I'll see if I can find the study.

>>18081934
Heggarty says steppe ancestry enters India far too late, 1000 BC at least
>Vakhsh/Bishkent
No, these cultures are not said to be representatives of Vedic culture, and a quick search on Wikipedia reveals how the opposite is actually the case. Have you even read modern sources? And why then is Sanskrit the most conservative language in IE if it only entered India in "1500 BC"? It doesn't make sense.
>>18081975
Shitty meme see>>18081748

>>18081970
Btw Blonde hair is also associated with night/darkness, as it is a direct result of the mutation that causes very fair skin. In the Scandinavian region and surrounding areas, where night/winter lasts six months due to being near the planet's north pole, where the sun doesn't reach its light directly/completely as at the Equator, one can become deficient in Vitamin D, which humans obtain from the sun, due to excess Melanin, which reflects UV rays, while fair skin absorbs sunlight and provides more Vitamin D to the body. This gave fair-skinned people a selective advantage, which caused their numbers to increase proportionally in the region.

>Polar night is a phenomenon that occurs in the northernmost and southernmost regions of Earth when the Sun remains below the horizon for more than 24 hours. This only occurs inside the polar circles. The opposite phenomenon, polar day or midnight sun, occurs when the Sun remains above the horizon for more than 24 hours

>There are multiple ways to define twilight, the gradual transition to and from darkness when the Sun is below the horizon. "Civil" twilight occurs when the Sun is between 0 and 6 degrees below the horizon. Nearby planets like Venus and bright stars like Sirius are visible during this period. "Nautical" twilight continues until the Sun is 12 degrees below the horizon. During nautical twilight, the horizon is visible enough for navigation. "Astronomical" twilight continues until the Sun has sunk 18 degrees below the horizon. Beyond 18 degrees, refracted sunlight is no longer visible. True night is defined as the period when the sun is 18 or more degrees below either horizon

>Since the atmosphere refracts sunlight, polar day is longer than polar night, and the area that experiences polar night is slightly smaller than the area that experiences polar day. The polar circles are located at latitudes between these two areas, at approximately 66.5°

>>18081975
Keeping the genetic debate aside, is it true that racemixing eventually leads to dilution of identity?

>>18081975
Why do Wignats insist on identifying the Dasa/Dasyus with Indians when the RigVedic hymns clearly describe the Indus Valley Civilisation, most of which was in present-day Pakistan and had walled cities, castles, cattle, chariots, precious metals and same light skin even before the arrival of the Aryans, while the ancestors of the Indians lived in the far east within the subcontinent in regions covered by forests with small scattered agricultural villages without walled cities, castles, cattle, chariots, precious metals and same light skin before Indo-Aryans?

>The Dasyus lived in cities (R.V., i.53.8; i.103.3) and under kings the names of many of whom are mentioned. They possessed ‘accumulated wealth’ (R.V., viii.40.6) in the form of cows, horses and chariots (R.V., ii.15.4) which though kept in ‘hundred-gated cities’ (R.V., x.99.3), Indra seized and gave away to his worshippers, the Aryas (R.V., i.176.4). The Dasyus were wealthy (R.V., i.33.4) and owned property ‘in the plains and on the hills’ (R.V., x.69.6). They were ‘adorned with their array of gold and jewels’ (R.V., i.33.8). They owned many castles (R.V., i.33.13; viii.17.14). The Dasyu demons and the Arya gods alike lived in gold, silver and iron castles (SS.S., vi.23; A.V., v.28.9; R.V., ii.20.8). Indra overthrew for his worshipper, Divodasa, frequently mentioned in the hymns, a ‘hundred stone castles’ (R.V., iv.30.20) of the Dasyus. Agni, worshipped by the Arya, gleaming in behalf of him, tore and burnt the cities of the fireless Dasyus. (R.V., vii.5.3). Brihaspati broke the stone prisons in which they kept the cattle raided from the Aryas (R.V., iv.67.3). The Dasyus owned chariots and used them in war like the Aryas and had the same weapons as the Aryas (R.V., viii.24.27; iii.30.5; ii.15.4)

>>18082035
in most cases, yes.
>>18082008
I've already read it, and it's a study from 2016
>>18082026
saar, the meme is not scientific, but it makes sense with the information we have, you can read it here and stop lying
the study is called "Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India"

>>18082067
this study is dated and you don't know how to read it

>>18082088
I posted the name of the study, just read it... the conclusion is simple: free intermixing between groups to caste.
Narasimhan et al. 2019 says the same thing

>>18082043
>>18082047
>>18082051
>>18082056
>>18082060
Fun Fact: The people with the least proximity/ancestrality to IVC are in Central-East India, which is precisely the most untouchable and shithole region.

>>18082132
How many roads...

Well to me they just look like a focus of ganges civilization surrounded by siberian hunter gatherers

>>18081852
Black and blue are often conflated in Old Norse, as well, where Ravens are described as "Blue", which they are if you catch them in the right light. They're even sort of iridescent, which gives rise to the "blueness" aspect.

>>18082026
>No, these cultures are not said to be representatives of Vedic culture
Some authors have postulated that these cultures are related to the early Indo-Aryans who migrated to the southern regions. We may clearly be dealing with multiple waves, as was the case with the Goths, but these cultures are considered candidates for the southern Indo-Aryans. And the samples found in these regions are a good proxy for the Steppe in India. Davidski has already spoken about this.
>and a quick search on Wikipedia
I don't use Wikipedia. Our intellectual level is different.
>reveals how the opposite is actually the case.
What does it reveal? I'm not aware, update me lol
>Have you even read modern sources?
Yes.
>And why then is Sanskrit the most conservative language in IE if it only entered India in "1500 BC"? It doesn't make sense.
Is there linguistic consensus that Sanskrit actually retains a greater number of unchanged features and archaisms? I need an article on this, if it's too much to ask. And "Sanskrit" is different from the Vedic language, there are clear phonetic differences..and I can't help but notice this image of yours, but I'm sorry to say it's not correct and according to the historical and linguistic evidence we have... the term "Aryan" has not only cognates spread throughout Europe, but also its origin among PIE speakers. It is not restricted among the PIIr peoples, the PIIr term would be *haryá.

>>18082186
Must feel bad that even among your black skinned people, your women would rather fuck an inbred northern jeet because they're dark brown instead of black like dravidians

>>18082347
>And "Sanskrit" is different from the Vedic language, there are clear phonetic differences..and I can't help but notice this image of yours
Bullshit
>What does it reveal? I'm not aware, update me lol
these cultures are neither Aryan nor Vedic, recent studies deny this
See Teufer, Mike, (2020).

>>18082347
>the term "Aryan" has not only cognates spread throughout Europe, but also its origin among PIE speakers. It is not restricted among the PIIr peoples, the PIIr term would be *haryá.
Aryan word is just the English adjectival/demonymic(denotes origin,affrication) form for the original word "Arya" From Buddhist literature POV be it Pali or Sanskrit Ariya/Ārya word was always used as an ethical/honorific designation for someone who was noble,elevated,virtuous(irrespective of any race) but earlier it was often used as an ethnonym. Arya word is an only ny Indo-European word used by Indo-Iranians

>>18082945
Indo-Iranians only used this ārya/ariya/ariia term to denote ethnic or cultural identity, not racial actually
Be it Persians(Ariya), Kushan(they even called their language as Ariao) and others. And consider other as an-ariya who were distinct than them, including Europeans when Mauryans intruded Southern part of India and their mission was halted by a Tamil king called "Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ I", he earned the title of Āriyappaṭai-kaṭanta Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ("one who defeated the Aryan army") Indo-Iranian ethnic connotation of the term *arya- doesn't exist in any other Indo-European branches,

>>18081243 (OP)
>So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes?
It didn't, it's descended from a language that originated there but it evolved from it in India.
>It all hinges on the r1a gene being linked to "Proto-Indo-European," which is a made-up language that doesn't actually exist.
You can dispute particulars of the reconstruction, but it is not really plausible for the Indo-European languages to not be related to each other.
>>18081381
>PIE is something a bunch of linguists "reconstructed" in the modern era, starting from the false assumption that there's something to reconstruct.
Can you explain the systematic sound correspondences in core vocabulary and basic morphology between the Indo-European languages without assuming they descend from a common ancestor?

>>18082908
No, there are differences between Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit, though they're similar.

>>18082908
>Bullshit
...Friend, I understand that you have relatively little linguistic knowledge, There's nothing wrong with that, but when it becomes stubbornness, it's a whole other story. I tried to be polite in this thread and received lame responses. The development of Indo-Aryan phonetics was not marginally influenced by a language with a similar phonetic structure to Tamil. there is no denying it at this point.
Retroflexion is a striking feature of Dravidian languages and was absent in Indo-Iranian, and this same retroflexion began to be absent in RV, but we already have some evidence of it appearing in the Rigveda and it became more common in the Prakrit period, for example. The loss of the r or rs sound is the main cause of retroflexion, as seen in the change from dușta to duṭṭha and varṇa to vaṇṇa.
and we also have the loss of voiced sibilants from "Proto-Aryan" that occurred after the phonemicization of retroflexion. see forms like "nīda" and "anat" and the name of the rșis family Kanvas with the phoneme "ṇ" that show a clear Dravidian influence.
Sources:https://www.scribd.com/document/758977208/The-influence-of-Dravidian-on-Indo-Aryan

Regarding your other posts, I don't know if I understood exactly what the histography of Indian kings would serve for the question of whether or not the term Aryan is exclusive to PIIr, honestly. But we already had a thread here before, the reconstructed word for PIE or LPIE would be h2eryós, and we have cognates in several branches, including probably Tocharian. and even in the Iberian languages, speaking of which, I think I found something new.

>>18083132
More reconstructed *words...
The ethnonyms here are distinct; see how Greek (Héllēn) and Hittite (nešili) clearly use them as an ethnic connotation since antiquity. If you like this term so much, it's better to use the "reconstructed" PIE term *h2erós/*h2eryós instead of I-Ir ārya, since we have no evidence of other Indo-European ethnicities using similar words as ethnonyms.

Sanskrit is actually quite "pure," Mallory claims. And if this is true of Dravidian languages, it may be false, because BMAC has influenced Proto-Iranian languages since the beginning of time.
Read https://www.academia.edu/44087441/What_language_was_spoken_by_the_people_of_the_Bactria_Margiana_Archaeological_Complex
There is a lot of substrate even before the Vedas.

>>18083156
>>18083132
the etymology of the word "slave" in several languages, including Finnish, Saami, Moksha, and Udmurt, and its possible connection with the Proto-Uralic word "*orja." He also explores the connection between this Uralic word and the Indo-Iranian word "*arya

>>18081243 (OP)
Braaaaaaaaaap

Phenotype that composed Avesta and late Rigveda

>>18083232
the Rigveda 1000% sure, but only in the beginning. the people who did the Avesta had 50% bmac of looked like pamiris at least. ugly

>>18081243 (OP)
>writing posts with ChatGPT
lmao

>>18081311
Seriously, man? Are you really going down that path again? Indo-Iranian languages originate from the European steppes. The evidence, including mitochondrial DNA, whose meaning only I truly understand, leaves no other possibility.

If I understand the anti-steppe argument here, what they're really proposing is that Swat be modeled as late Turanian farmer (so extra Anatolian), Siberian/ANE, and Indus Periphery, right? Shitty argument, i must say

>>18083410
>>18083374
Why is my argument bad? Instead of imaginary maps and arriving at inflated numbers, you all need to come up with a real, decent explanation for how a socially and demographically marginal impact Indo-Europeanized an entire civilization. And it seems none of you have the ability to do so, which is why you falter. R1A? No clades in Sintashta samples. Swat? No one had the courage to answer me. Kurgans? Chariots? Nothing. Just mocking

>>18083374
Personally, Bmac probably spoke Iranian.
A BMAC movement to Andronovo brought Iranian languages to Andronovo. Where is the Greco-Aryan fire cult before 1500 BC in Andronovo? Camels, for which the Indo-Aryans use an Iranian word? What they are proposing is that the Indo-Iranians extracted everything Indo-European from non-Indo-Europeans.

>>18081301
These guys?

>>18083418
Me again
The Ginbutians should respond to criticism. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain shows migration and language replacement, but Celtic place names remained. It is strange that archaeologists attribute the change of all place names to steppe herders, when it seems more complex than that.

and we are told that a bunch of warriors from the steppe changed all the place names..........looks like these steppe guys were moving from farm to farm in europe and india selling vocabularies and giving language courses! (lol)

>>18083156
this is me>>18081411
Although you are very stupid and have unlimited knowledge in linguist, I agree that it was not really a broader PIE ethnonym, but in several branches, and Indo-European homeland according to the linguist, my area, is in the region south of the Caucasus. Probably in Iran, then they invaded Europe.

>>18083488
>this is me>>18081411 (You)
No it isn't. Fuck off.

>>18083496
I'll have to use tripcode again because you retards can't go a day without calling my attention? Lunatic.

>>18083162
Want to know something interesting about this. There's only 1 region where the aryans didn't dominate paternally. You know where? The same places where the word orja mean slaves that came from people who dominated the aryans. In finland, the paternal genes are n1. Bassically siberian. Not r1a or r1b. So aryan ales got cucked by asiatic people lol. Using language to decipher hidtroy works in both ways.

>>18083156
Yes, I agree with you, but it is a fact that languages have changed. The term is conditioned by affiliation to nobility, but not racial

>>18083582
Who am I, you loser? Now you have to pretend people "agree" with your claims because you don't believe in the veracity of your own arguments? It's late in my country, I don't know about Karala, but I don't have time to argue in impromptu, impromptu conversations right now, But don't worry, because we can continue our conversation tomorrow. Just wait, try to get the opponent's points instead of talking about things unrelated to the main topic (Ignoratio Elenchi)

>>18083582
"Who's 'I' here, you loser? Now you have to pretend people agree with your statements because you don't believe in the veracity of your own arguments? It's late here, I don't have time for petty chatter. But don't worry, we can continue tomorrow. Try to understand your opponent's points instead of getting sidetracked

>>18081243 (OP)
>Sanskrit is real because we have texts in it.
yes from like the 17th century AD

>Lithuanian is real because we have texts in it.
yes from like the 17th century AD

Btw notice how Google's jeetmini AI (actually indian) needs explicit instructions so as not to return the "billion years BCE" answer that just so happens to be oral and thus impossible to prove

>>18083667
Same applies to the lithuanian texts btw

>>18083667
"Oldest manuscripts from late Middle Ages" is also true of most Latin and Ancient Greek texts, because manuscripts tend to decay and have to be copied.

>>18083669
But Christians don't pretend their religion is a billion years old and therefore the most valid, or most ancient

>>18081243 (OP)
>So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes?
Well no one really believes Sanskrit did. More like an ancestor of the language. And the actual origin place is nebulous at best. It is thought it was somewhere around Eastern Europe, though.
>This artificially invented proto-language relies HEAVILY on Rigvedic Sanskrit as its foundation.
Reconstructed*. And it does that because it was generally assumed to be a purer more conservative form of the ur-language because of the Orientalist currents of the time.
>And after constructing it using Sanskrit, they say, "Hey, Sanskrit really comes from there."
People noting the similarities between Indian and Latin go back to the 1500s at the very least. They didn't pull this out of their ass, scholars and researchers from Europe noticed Ancient Greek, Latin, Etc. were oddly similar to eachother and started to wonder why.
>Show me ONE kurgan burial in India with horses, chariots, and weapons, r1a skeletons—I'll be convinced of all of this.
I mean, all of those exist in the same rough geographic area, just not in one place.

>>18083547
You don't have the tripcode.

>>18083678
Actually yahwists have tended to pretend that their religion is the most ancient, at least in the European context. This has effectively been made ridiculous by archaeological research, so they've stopped.
Plato said that people tend to obey laws more if they can be claimed to be ancient, so when the jews wrote the bible in the 3rd century CE, they backdated it and have been claiming that it is thousands of years old ever since.

>>18083801
>Actually yahwists have tended to pretend that their religion is the most ancient

it was real in your head right?

>>18084227
Ask the catholic church or your rabbi how old the bible is.
>cohencidentally, just older than every European text
Then ask an archaeologist what the earliest evidence of torah-judaism is
>3rd century BCE
oops

>>18084239
none of that matters in Christianity
because Jesus came to reject the laws of the Pharisees

>>18083801
Go fuck yourself, larpagan

>>18082945
>>18082955
Used by Europeans

>>18083132
Shall we refute the Abrahamic pig?
You can look, for example, at the case of retroflex phonemes in Indo-Aryan. Linguists have long argued that this was part of a Dravidian substratum, and it was one of the main arguments used against an Indian urhmeimat. However, this idea is no longer tenable, as we know that retroflexes are more common in the northwest and can also be found in some Eastern Iranian languages.

>>18083685
This guy knows what he's talking about.

>>18083582
Here's my theory. Many linguists take the term so literally. I think when they referred to themselves as nobles. They meant it as the aristocratic nobles, the people at the top that owned and ran everything. Not noble in virtue or bc they worshipped the right religion. But the nobility class that rules over their subjects.

>>18083488
Lol no. Genetics show that it was the other way around. People from ukraine invaded to the west, east and north. They spread their languages to Iran. Not the other way around. Let's put it this way, if iranians were the ones that spread into europe, you'd see alot of atleast some iranian dna markers in europe. But you don't. But you do see plenty of european markers in India, iran, northern middle east, Europe, mobgolia, western China and baltics.

>>18084544
Aryan means "noble(man), freeman; master, lord" and was used as an autonym of Indo-European tribes in Celtic, Germanic, and Indo-Iranian. The bare root of the word was also used as an ethnonym in Anatolian and could be used to refer to a fellow member of one's group. (This last sense is described by Mallory and Adams.)

The reason why it must also mean "nobleman" and not just "noble, virtuous" is because it is used to indicate a person of higher social status in Celtic, Germanic, and Indo-Iranian.

>>18084603
See here>>18082955

>>18082955
>>18084716
>Indo-Iranian ethnic connotation of the term *arya- doesn't exist in any other Indo-European branches,
There have been many threads about this. I do not wish to rehash the same arguments again. For the time being I can copy and paste something that was recently posted. If you want to learn more, you could search desuarchive for the thread about the Irish caste system, the one about the Aresaces tribe or the second thread about Aryaman. If you have questions about the sound changes in what I'm about to post, feel free to ask.

Introduction:
In Proto-Indo-European there was a word */h2eryós/ [h2aryós] which can be segmented into root-suffix like this: */h2er-yós/. *h2 is an abstract symbol which stands for a reconstructed consonant. *h2 was probably pronounced /χ/ (uvular fricative) early on and later sometimes /ħ/ (pharyngeal fricative). For the following I will use /χ/. */χ/ was lost in most Indo-European languages and */χe/ [χa] became /a/.

*/-yós/ usually makes adjectives directly but they can further be substantivized into nouns. Words with */-yós/ have inconsistent accentuation in Greek and Sanskrit, so the suffix can actually be */-yos/ sometimes. There does seem to been a common process of accent retraction in Proto-Indo-European that could nominalize adjectives, so originally there may have been a distinction */χéryos/ (noun) ~ */χeryós/ (adjective). The former version of this word does exist in Sanskrit (without vṛddhi).

When you modify a word internally to make a new word, that is called internal derivation. Celtic and Germanic lost constrastive accent, so it was no longer possible to use this type of internal derivation on */χeryós/ to make */χéryos/. If they wanted an explicit noun on top of */-yó-s/, they had to use external derivation to make a new word. That means adding an additional suffix. The presence of secondary suffixes has obscured the origin of some European words.

Copy and pasting in the next post
1/3

>>18085080
A quick review of some evidence for the use of *[χár-(i̯o-s)] as an ethnonym outside of Indo-Iranian:

1. Anatolian. Here the root *[χar-] is used but not the stem *[χár-i̯o-]
• Hittite arā- ‘member of one’s own group; peer; friend’.
• Carian Κᾱ́ρ (Kā́r) 'a Carian'. In the Carian language, /k/ reflects PIE */χ/

2. Germanic
• Germanic tribe named Eruli. Pre-Proto-Germanic *[ari̯o-lós] > *er(u)l- 'earl' > Eruli ‘(autonym) an east Germanic tribe who lived around the northern coast of the Black Sea’. Here the stem *[χár-i̯o-] is used as the self-designation of a Germanic tribe. In other words, they called themselves Aryans.

3. Celtic
• Celtiberian araiokum ‘a Celtiberian family name’
• Celtiberian inscription located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1alba_de_Villastar
>To the mountaineer and..., to Lugus of the Aryan peoples/tribes, in rural procession we came. For the mountaineer and the equestrian, for Lugo, the chief of the community raised a roof/covering, (also) a roof for the thiasus
• Celtic tribe named Aresaces. Like the Eruli, the stem *[χár-i̯o-] is also used. Here are the sound changes involved:
Gaulish Arius */ar.i̯os/ > (epenthesis) Ariios */a.ri.i̯os/ > */a.re.i̯os/ > Areos */a.re.os/ > (syncope) Ares- */a.res-/ >> (suffixation) Ares-ac- */a.re.sā.k-/
(Each step has an attested spelling so you can follow the evolution of the word *aryos as it becomes Ares. There are also parallels in other Gaulish words.)

4. Honorable mention to the Germanic tribe called the Harii, also connected to the Charini (probably based on the same name). Most have interpreted this tribe name as Proto-Germanic *harjaz 'warrior', but it's actually more complicated than that. It's also spelled Arii, and Latin spellings of Germanic tribes can vary between H-, Ch-, and O- (nothing) which indicates Latin writers often gave inconsistent or false spellings because they didn't actually know how a Germanic tribe's name was pronounced.

2/3

>>18085080
>>18085090

>writing all that shit

Aristocrat
There solved it

>>18085090
Now for a summary. What evidence supports the idea that *[χár-(i̯o-s)] was a Proto-Indo-European ethnonym and that it was used as such in Europe?

0) The word (*[χári̯os]) existed in Europe in Celtic, Italic, and Germanic
1) The word also existed in Indo-Iranian (of course)
2) *[χári̯o-(s)] was a common personal name or component of names in Europe in Celtic and Italic and sometimes a family name. Also a component of Germanic names.
3) *[χári̯os] was contrasted with "dā́sa"—a label which originally implied a person was a foreigner or enemy (i.e., non-Indo-European)—in both Sanskrit and Old Irish
4) *[χári̯os] is also used to refer to those who had traditionally Indo-European lifestyles and "dā́sa" for those who did non-Indo-European work
5) the Celts, Germanics, and Indo-Iranians had a deity called *[χári̯o-mṓn] who was originally understood to be their great ancestor and progenitor.
6) the root *[χar-] was used as an ethnic designator in Anatolian (i.e., the Carians)
7) European tribes (Celtic and Germanic) used the stem *[χár-i̯o-] as their self-described name, i.e., as an ethnonym
8) *[χár-i̯o-] was used as an ethnonym in Indo-Iranian cultures.
9) the Celtiberian inscription in Peñalba de Villastar may refer to Aryans collectively as if they had a collective ethnic identity which was communicated by the stem *[χár-i̯-] (and its various endings)

When a word is found in both Europe and Indo-Iranian, that suggests its existence in Proto-Indo-European. When the meanings of this word are similar and related in both Europe and Indo-Iranian, that suggests the meaning was similar in Proto-Indo-European.

3/3

>>18085090
>O- (nothing)
I forgot to fix this. 4chan changes the fancy null symbol into O
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_(linguistics)

>>18085080
You forgot the greek cognate

>>18083626
As he already showed:
>>18085090
>>18085080
>>18085104
and as I said earlier, the root would be h2er, and the word used by the PIE would be h2eryós, and it is not restricted to Iranians, and I won't dwell on it too much, as the anon above has already done the work. I would also mention some possible cognates in Armenian and Tocharian, and even in Burushaski, as I had discovered. And I'm reading a Spanish dictionary where I believe I found another word related to this word, still in the Iberian Peninsula, and I believe that in a thread the use of the word among the Romans was found.
Your link is not addressing the subject of our conversation, I'm afraid you're really using Ignoratio Elenchi tactics. The link deals with possible loans from "bmac", which, surprisingly, isn't even rebuilt. But it's unrelated to the fact I mentioned here>>18083132

we have an abysmal retroflexion in modern sacrist. absent in Iranian or Indo-European languages.. therefore, to argue that Sanskrit is "pure" (meaningless term) is to ignore the significant number of Dravidian substrate. retroflex sounds follow a regular shift of non-retroflex phonemes in the Iranian/other branches of PIE
1/2

>>18083156
.
As he already showed:
>>18085090
>>18085080
>>18085104
and as I said earlier, the root would be h2er, and the word used by the PIE would be h2eryós, and it is not restricted to Iranians, and I won't dwell on it too much, as the anon above has already done the work. I would also mention some possible cognates in Armenian and Tocharian, and even in Burushaski, as I had discovered. And I'm reading a Spanish dictionary where I believe I found another word related to this word, still in the Iberian Peninsula
and I believe that in a thread the use of the word among the Romans was found.

Your link is not addressing the subject of our conversation, I'm afraid you're really using Ignoratio Elenchi tactics. The link deals with possible loans from "bmac", which, surprisingly, isn't even reconstructed. it's unrelated to the fact I mentioned here>>18083132
we have an abysmal retroflexion in modern Sanskrit, absent in Iranian or Indo-European languages.. therefore, to argue that Sanskrit is "pure" (meaningless term) is to ignore the significant number of Dravidian substrate. retroflex sounds follow a regular shift of non-retroflex phonemes in the Iranian/other branches of PIE 1/3

>>18081243 (OP)
There is no proof that Sanskrit originated outside South Asia. But it is a fact that Sanskrit names appear in Bronze Age Syria and Iraq which indicates that the Indo Iranians who migrated to India in the Bronze Age had relatives who remained in the Middle East and Central Asia. Another piece of evidence are folkloric elements, e.g. the legend of Ashvins who are Lithuanian Ašvinai twins. However, that relationship is much older. A more recent sign is the folkloristic dichotomy of good and evil gods, the Devas and the Asuras. In Hinduism and Zoroastrian religion their roles are reversed indicating a very ancient religious dispute among Indo Iranians who probably lived around north eastern Iran close to the border with modern day Turkmenistan. Look up the Yaz culture of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). Iranians began worshipping Ahuras and called Daevas evil spirits or daemons. This happened before oral Sanskrit literature originated. That both Devas and Asuras are religious beings foreign to India is quite clear. In Europe, gods were called Divinities in different language, like Deus in Latin or Tevas in Baltic, with only Germanics standing apart calling their gods Aesir, similar to Asuras. Names of divinities also indicate foreign origin, Varuna is identified with Ouranos of the Greek and Indra with Germanic Donar. However, Indo European religion and Indo Aryan languages lived their on lives in India and diverged very early, that’s why none of the original Vedic deities associated with Europe are commonly worshipped in India today.

>>18085277
>See Teufer, Mike, (2020)
First of all, we have to keep in mind that archaeology in Central Asia is, at the very least, fragmented and poorly explained/studied, so we are far from any exact explanation, but there is evidence that cannot be ignored and makes things reasonable. And the author you posted says that there is a correlation with Xinjiang, and the arguments for this are circular in my opinion. I haven't read his article, but this is not accepted as a concession just because it is more "recent". It is evident that the people and culture of the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor (IAMC) had a real influence on the proto-Aryans and is related to them
Many South Asian populations, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, have a large part of their steppe ancestry, derived from the MLBA IAMC peoples and/or their close relatives. most of these peoples group together with Bronze Age Eastern Europeans and even with some Bronze Age Central Europeans

>>18085277
>>18083156
2/3
First of all, we have to keep in mind that archaeology in Central Asia is, at the very least, fragmented and poorly explained/studied, so we are far from any exact explanation, but there is evidence that cannot be ignored and makes things reasonable. And the author you posted says that there is a correlation with Xinjiang, and the arguments for this are circular in my opinion. I haven't read his article, but this is not accepted as a concession just because it is more "recent". It is evident that the people and culture of the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor (IAMC) had a real influence on the proto-Aryans and is related to them
Many South Asian populations, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, have a large part of their steppe ancestry, derived from the MLBA IAMC peoples and/or their close relatives. most of these peoples group together with Bronze Age Eastern Europeans and even with some Bronze Age Central Europeans

>>18085383
3/3
According to the most recent articles, Indians have little or no direct ancestry with the BMAC. This means that the early Indo-Aryans almost completely ignored the BMAC culture. The IMAC samples do not possess significant BMAC ancestry.

And many characteristics that have supposedly been attributed to "BMAC influence," such as soma and Indra, are not legitimate, but this is a separate thread in my view. There's similarities with Fedorovo and fire worship in Sintashta and in truth, in other branches IE.

So, Bishkent and Vakhsh are linked to the first Indo-Aryan movements southward from the steppe by several archaeologists. The author you cited postulates the existence of kurgan-like mounds in the region, and this culture differs from those that already existed. But again, look at the samples and how they are basically Andronovo with slight external ancestry. Lyonnet highlighted the uncertainty about the Andronovo component, suggesting an unknown ethnolinguistic element. However, recent discoveries of samples such as Kokcha, Dashtikozy, and Kashkarchi in the IMAC region may provide insights into the ancestry of the steppe in India. The samples are at the doorstep to India.

And there is the possibility of the involvement of the Tazabagyab culture, as I wrote in another thread. It is a possibility, but in short, the Indo-Aryans lived in this corridor before migrating or invading India.

>>18083231
This

>>18081594
Have you got any sources to back any of that up? If you do, please give citations. Or is this just cope from being unable to accept "jeets" doing respectable shit that cumskins came to respect? Some "we wuz kangz an' shit" type thing? Like saying Cleopatra was black.

>>18081301
1500? Where does that come from? The ancestor of Vedic Sanskrit arrived to India, but it developed to Vedic Sanskrit within India. It's like saying English isn't native to England.

>>18081560
Go learn how languages evolve, you fucking moron. Start with "proto-indo-european language".

>>18081795
That’s not true — Krishna didn’t “come from” Hercules. The confusion comes from the Greek historian Megasthenes, who visited India around 300 BCE and wrote that Indians worshipped a god “like Herakles” in Mathura. He was describing Krishna (or possibly Balarama), not claiming the two were the same being.

Greeks often used their own gods’ names to describe foreign ones — for example, they called Indra “Zeus” and Shiva “Dionysus.” This was just a way for them to explain unfamiliar deities in familiar terms.

Krishna’s origins, worship, and mythology are entirely Indian, deeply rooted in the Mahabharata, Harivamsha, and Puranas, all of which predate Greek contact. Hercules and Krishna only seem similar (both heroic, strong, semi-divine), but those are universal mythic archetypes, not proof of one copying the other.

>>18085216
I haven't forgotten. It's because it doesn't exist, Aristos is not an ethnonome.
And I'm doing research on the Indo-Australian hypothesis. There are incredible similarities between the two families. They are related families. The PIE came from South Asia.

>>18085828
>ethnonome
ethnonym
and before you get me wrong, I'm talking about ANE being the root that unites all of Eurasia. P>R>R2>r1b/r1a

>>18081594
If you want to contribute to the discussion, post facts. Not fan fiction, retard.

>>18085831
The term is present not only in Semitic languages such as Aramaic, Egyptian, and Hebrew, but also in the languages of indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East, such as the koranic. This suggests that the word has lost its exclusivity and meaning as a uniquely European identifier; it is Nostratic, Eurasian. An Arab is as Aryan as a Vedic person from 1000 BC.

The lack of evidence of Indo-European migration in the Levant and remote areas of Russia proves the theory. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the theory and its application.

>>18085828
Fuck off weirdo. You aren't me. Thankfully that should be obvious since you said
>The PIE came from South Asia.
Goddamn you are retarded.

>>18085851
>This suggests that the word has lost its exclusivity
Retarded take.
Whether or not there are cognates to the same root in other language families has no bearing on the semantic developments within Indo-European. The other language families do not use the root in the exact same way and there is no sign of autonymic usage outside of Indo-European. The stem *h2er-yo- also doesn't exist outside of Indo-European.

>>18085828
>Indo-Australian hypothesis.
? This doesn't exist, you're problematic. Your opinion is based on ANE ancestry in Southeast Asia...? How many times do you need to read that ANE is not a direct ancestry of any population other than the Tarim and is too old for anything? Mentally ill, and Q derives from P, which has K as an ancestor, which split from IJK in the European Cro-Magnons! K is found in Siberia - these are ANE haplogroups, the ANE are not South Asians, they are not Southeast Asians, they are the ANE, a group of their own. People like the AASI didn't even exist back then, nor do any South/East Asians alive today, no one.
>>18085851
pure nonsense, Nostratic is not accepted by practically anyone, it has the same academic vigor as the flat earth.

>>18085855
I didn't mean that, sorry. I meant ANE
I wanted to say that no one forgot, no, you, I use Google Translate
>>18085869
Check-out the origin of P, isn't from Siberia
>>18085864
No.

>>18085879
>Nooooo those Indo-Europeans can't just use that word as their self-designation!!! That has to be wrong
There's nothing to debate here. Long range comparisons have no bearing on how Indo-Europeans used their language for their own purposes.

>>18085828
Europigs? Connections between IE and Austronesian languages. The similarity between Sanskrit 'dvi'/'dvau'/'dve' and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian '*duha' is remarkable and undeniable.
There is a linguistic connection between IE and Austronesian cultures
>>18085864
Even Semitics used your precious term lol

>>18085890
>Even Semitics used your precious term lol
Objectively they didn't. No *h2er-yo- to be seen outside of Indo-European.

Also there's no sign they used it as an ethnonym. This has been debated before. The basic root most likely means "above" in a physical sense and this was an apt metaphor for describing someone who is socially superior.

I don't know what the point of this is. You won't be able to debunk the Aryan self-designation like this. Also this is all according to Bomhard. Nobody gives a shit about Nostratic comparisons outside of a few specialists.

>>18085933
They used as word for noble

How long did the invading Aryans stay racially Aryan for? Did they mix with the natives immediately, or did parts of them stay pure for hundreds of years before eventually succumbing?

>>18085980
When the Aryans still had all the purity of race, they produced extremely talented mestizos and mulattoes. Some of them were eager enough to seek an equal rank with their superior masters.
The Aryan principle didn't simply die after the first generation of mutts.

>>18085976
If the words are cognate between Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic, they are cognate via the roots, not complete stem formations. So no, they weren't using the same words between these two language families. Roots and words are different things. Roots still inform us on the possible meanings behind stem formations though.

What I'm saying is the stem *h2er-yo- is an independent creation within Indo-European. There's no evidence Afro-Asiatic peoples were calling themselves Aryans. That's the entire point. The reason I have researched this word *h2er-yo- is because I wanted to know if it was simply politically correctness and language policing which made people adamantly against calling Proto-Indo-Europeans Aryans. I think nobody really knew the extent to which this word was used but academics were so against it in the aftermath of WW2 that it became a matter of willful ignorance which prevented the necessary research.

The idea that "nobleman" is a core original meaning rather than a secondary semantic development also raises questions. How is that fitting as an autonym of a people? To some extent we should treat *h2er-yo- as an opaque label without assuming too much. "It's just what they called themselves. Don't think too hard about it." On the other hand, if one of the senses attached to the stem or root seems more appropriate than the other in this context then a hypothesis should be developed.

>>18086051
The idea which I have put forward before is that Aryans were called such because they identified as freemen. Knowing that they were nomadic pastoralists in the Bronze Age helps put this into context. "Aryan" was in contrast with non-Indo-Europeans or "dā́sa" who were settled people. From the point of view of nomadic pastoralists, it's not hard to imagine that they would think settled farmers weren't freemen. Farmers were trapped in one place, partook in regular hard labor, and probably had stricter hierarchies which they couldn't escape by simply moving to another place. Aryans may have even looked down on that lifestyle and thought themselves superior sometimes for not having to live like a serf.

When Indo-Europeans assumed social roles in societies they migrated to, it's not surprising that only the serf's role wasn't considered Aryan. Free roaming pastoralists had nothing to do with that sort of work.

>>18086056
"harjaz" - "warrior"
The Aryans were brave men of war, champions of free birth.
> nomadic pastoralists
I don't think they were nomads, though I comprehend why modern archeologists think that way. The thing is that they had horses and chariots, wich made them extremely mobile compared to other less technologized groups. They were also constantly warring against each other, so when one of their groups saw themselves stuck in shit they would just mount their chariots and move somewhere else. I mean there's a huge distance between the steppes and both India and Scandinavia. However they didn't just randomly move in the fashion of plain barbarians. I just don't think of them as the apes modern scientists make of them. They moved, sometimes huge distances, in search of a fatherland to settle.
During their movements, they would obviously face all kinds of enemies and fight them accordingly and keep moving. Easily understood why they got this "image" of mighty barbarians randomly appearing, raiding the cities to suddenly vanish in the depths of the steppe again.
The Khetas and the Sakas of the Mahabharata and the Shahnameh may as well have been the Germanics, or some other Aryan tribe roaming the lands in search of the new fatherland.

>>18081243 (OP)
>So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes?
No one suggests it did. It probably developed in India after the arrival of Indo-Europeans. Many Hindu concepts are probably native in origin.

Acknowledging Indo-European presence in India's story doesn't mean India is suddenly stripped of its heritage.

>>18086095
>"harjaz"
It looks very similar but this Proto-Germanic word is from PIE *kóryos. *harjaz is /xɑrjɑz/ phonologically. PIE *k became a velar fricative /x/ in Proto-Germanic (or /g/ depending on Verner's law). This /x/ was later lenited to [h] in word onsets.

Incidentally I am wondering if the spelling variations of the Germanic tribe called the Harii (Arii ~ Harii ~ Chari-ni) might actually indicate a late survival of laryngeals in word-initial position. The Eruli (also spelled Heruli) would be another potential example but I wouldn't want to make a judgement on these two possibilities alone. Benard Mees seems convinced the H- spellings are artificial, but it would be typologically normal for the laryngeals to be lost last in word-initial position as in Armenian, Persian, and (maybe) Albanian.

Then there would be a chain of events in Germanic:
*/#h2-/ [#χ-] > /#h-/ (in association with *k > /x/ because only one dorsal fricative is needed?)
Finally, /#h-/ being dropped allows /#x-/ > [#h-]

If this scenario is true, then it would mean the last vestiges of laryngeals were being lost in Germanic just as tribe names were being recorded in writing.

>>18081438
>I imagine many a Vedic sage turning in his grave on hearing how their work is being appropriated, and of the character of those involved.
I genuinely don't see why you would see it in this way. So the original Aryan Indians were white - who cares? They are still your ancestors. Just because they looked different and were related to people elsewhere on the globe, you have a problem with it? What about these theories is "lowly", if they actually are true? Yes, some white people today act superior because other white people millennia ago conquered India. But feeling pride in something like that is a bit silly - how are modern whites connected to the ancient Vedic Aryans? Even if there is a genetic similarity today, so what? If anything, I think both whites and Indians should feel ashamed for letting down a great shared legacy of ancient wisdom and honour that existed before but doesn't anymore. Neither group is a worthy heir to their ancestors.

>>18086051
Seriously, why do you have to be so mean and arrogant? I just asked a question. I'm not experienced in this matter and you treat everyone like this. I'm tired of this place. People have NO respect whatsoever.

>>18086196
If we assume the term "Germanic" to be Celticized for "Heermann" we may as well assume "koryos" to be cognate with "aryan" and consequently also "harjaz".
There is no attested evidence for the Germanic tribes ever using this term as an endonym. It's what the Celts and the Romans gave them, and it means literally "man of war".

>>18086056

If these cognates are true, then why would Celts who were settled and not nomads or Persians use the term? If true, it must mean something other than just a toothless nomad of the steppe.

>>18086212
>Seriously, why do you have to be so mean and arrogant?
Are you referring to this post? If you're referring to something else, I sometimes give rude response to trolls. Perhaps you are lacking context.

>I just asked a question.
What was you're question? I'm lost

>>18086221
>Celts who were settled and not nomads
Northwestern Europeans still lived like pastoralists. There's less room for pure nomadicism in Western Europe, true, but transhumance was still common. The British Isles and Ireland had a lot of people living as pastoralists because of the wide open grassy territories. Irish Travelers might be some of the last people clinging to nomadism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers#Origin_theories
>According to Helleiner (2003),[23] current scholarship is investigating the background of Gaelic Ireland before the English Tudor conquest. The mobile nature and traditions of a Gaelic society based on pastoralism rather than land tenure before this event, implies that Travellers represent descendants of the Gaelic social order marginalised during the change-over to an English landholding society.[23]

>>18086221
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boii#Etymology_and_name
>In a reference to the first known historical Boii, Polybius relates[7] that their wealth consisted of cattle and gold, that they depended on agriculture and war, and that a man's status depended on the number of associates and assistants he had. The latter were presumably the *ambouii, as opposed to the man of status, who was *bouios, a cattle owner, and the *bouii were originally a class, 'the cattle owners'.[8]

In Old Irish, a foreigner was literally called "cow-less" as in there was an underlying historical assumption at some point that natives were involved in pastoralism in some way or another.
https://dil.ie/3108
>ambuae
>(cow-less, worth no cows Ériu xlii 41-42 ) non-native , person from outside the túath, one without possessions, without legal connections:

>>18085454
>>18085383
>>18085104
These cultures are not Vedic, I don't know where you got that from, modern studies deny this in every possible way, you didn't answer my points. They are cultures that no one knows anything about and we know they were not Andronovo
>we have an abysmal retroflexion in modern Sanskrit, absent in Iranian or Indo-European languages.. therefore, to argue that Sanskrit is "pure" (meaningless term) is to ignore the significant number of Dravidian substrate. retroflex sounds follow a regular shift of non-retroflex phonemes Friend, you need to understand that these linguists' opinions are highly speculative and far from conclusive. 60% fanfic.

You can look, for example, at the case of retroflex phonemes in Indo-Aryan. Linguists have long argued that this was part of a Dravidian substratum, and it was one of the main arguments used against an Indian urhmeimat. But the problem is that this idea is no longer tenable, since we know that retroflexes are more common in the northwest and can also be found in some Eastern Iranian languages.
Regarding your post on "Aryan cognates, "
Many modern scholars argue that the ancient Aryan identity, as described in the Avesta and Rigveda, was based on religious, cultural, and linguistic factors, rather than on racial concepts. The term had no racial connotation, which only emerged later; the Indo-Iranian ethnic connotation is absent from other Indo-European languages.

>>18086262
>These cultures are not Vedic, I don't know where you got that from, modern studies deny this in every possible way, you didn't answer my points. They are cultures that no one knows anything about and we know they were not Andronovo
No one has categorically stated such a thing. What I'm saying is that the "proto-Vedics" definitely came from the IMAC, as evidenced by Bronze Age samples from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan,
The close relatives of the samples like Dashtikozy, probably bypassed those high, winding mountains and entered India through the Khyber Pass. And archaeologically, and even Mallory, which you cited, suggest that the proto-Aryans did indeed migrate south through this corridor. Feel free to speculate on the exact archaeological culture it might be. I've seen articles that postulate the Vakhsh cultures, which would be reasonable, but the fact remains that it must be a culture from this region and must be from the Bronze Age. It could also be Tazabagyab.
>But the problem is that this idea is no longer tenable, since we know that retroflexes are more common in the northwest and can also be found in some Eastern Iranian languages.
The retroflex in Vedic is more recognized as Dravidian, see the article I presented earlier.

And it hasn't been reconstructed in IE. Therefore, it's still considered a local substrate. Can you provide examples of where it can be reconstructed in IE?
and I'm not the other year you mentioned, but there is a consensus that h2eryós was used at least for self-disiguination.

>>18086302
>other year you
Other guy*

>>18086302
The burden of proof is on you to show that it's not PIE. It's a challenge, yes.
The argument that
>Hey, this looks a little different, so it's not PIE
isn't a very strong argument. Just compare it to the Vedic tonal accent; if they hadn't found an inferior version of it in Homeric Greek, the same thing would have happened, "proof" of the substrate's influence on Vedic Sanskrit.
Anyway, I have retroflexes in my own reconstructed PIE, called Vedic Sanskrit.
>χár-(i̯o-s)
Not a real word

>>18086302
Ando no, No, these cultures are not proto-Vedic, not even "herders," but were settled. Where do you think the Indo-Iranian homeland is? It must have fire worship and many other Indo-Iranian features that are missing in Sintashta and the early Andronovo period. The Andronovo IMAC theory is false.

>>18085104
>who was originally understood to be their great ancestor and progenitor
No, deity based on marriage, westernoid

>>18086314
>The burden of proof is on you to show that it's not PIE. It's a challenge, yes.
the burden of proof usually falls on the one making a claim, the need to present evidence to support that claim, which was not on your part, other than an article about what language the "bmac" might have spoken and some borrowings.
>Not a real word
He is not me, and you understand that this symbol is usually a fricative? The Aryan question has already been explained here and by me in other threads, there are cognates throughout Europe

>>18086344
>>18086314
>Anyway, I have retroflexes in my own reconstructed PIE, called Vedic Sanskrit.
and.. what exactly is that supposed to mean? "your" translation? what exactly are you talking about? but let me remind you that PIE could be reconstructed with or without Sanskrit, you use the number of archaisms and retention of Sanskrit to inflate your egos in a petty way, and you do not subjectively "translate" PIE because it is reconstructed.

>>18086254
>>18086244
Yes, but Your theory that it is something predisposed to pastoralism doesn't make much sense, you reduced everything.

>>18086344
>>18086349
You're probably referring to the term 'Indo-Iranian,' as these terms are found in Iranian, Dardic, and other languages. My point is that theories can change, and it's problematic to use unfalsifiable theories to promote a biased political or academic position. Other questionable positions include...

>>18086244
Nice try
>Other speculations on their origin are that they were descended from those Irish who were made homeless during the Cromwellian conquest in the 1650s, or made homeless in either the 1741 or the 1840s famine, or due to eviction in the Scottish Highlands.[

>>18085080
>>18085090
>>18085104
Good work anon.

>>18081243 (OP)
What proof do you have that you're not a seething jeet?

>>18086991
Thank you, baby

>>18087487
Effeminate
>>18086581
We have over 100 years of linguistic research on PIE, and we won't get anywhere by ignoring it. We've talked about this before. What's your problem? The reason retroflexes aren't reconstructed for PIE is because they're absent across IE branches, except in Sanskrit. And in Indo-Aryan, retroflex sounds follow a regular shift of non-retroflex phonemes in the Iranian/other PIE branches. It's not entirely random, as you claim.

>>18085851
Sorry to burst your bubble but indo europeans did migrate to the levant. Syria and parts of the levant ad something called the mitanni. The elites were indo european speaking members. They even had a religion super similar to the aryans of India and Iran. So the theory is they migrated in from the east. Had they migrated through the west, through Greece and anatolia, their religion and language would be more similar to there's. Not iran and India. These baatards went everywhere lol.

>>18085980
Mixed immediately. The only interesting part is in some places, they made themselves the elites. They became the aristocrats of the land and people and mixed heavily. In some places, aka northern and western europe, they murdered all the males and fucked the women. So sometimes it was more peaceful and they "took" over. Sometimes it was brutally violence. But no matter what, in every place they went except 1 place, you see their male dna everywhere and the female genetics barely changing. So they still cucked people in iran and greece and western China and Germany. Only place they didn't do that was the baltics. Apparently at some point, finno siberian people invaded them and their male lineage takes over. While much of the female dna is aryan and western hunter gatherer. The word for slave even comes from aryan which hints at what happened.

>>18087943
>Mittani
They were hurrians

>>18086056
Makes sense. But I like the theory that it meant different things in different areas they settled. In Ireland, they kept being pastoralists. So it mean free man. In anatolia. Thry became a small elite group that run everything. In iran and India. They were the elites and looked down on the locals. Totally different meanings depending on the relationship thry had with the locals.

>>18085104
I have a question

>>18088381
What is your question?

>>18087487
>>18087724
>>18088408
Kek, be wary anons. There are imposters lurking.

>>18088424
What are you talking about? Can you answer my question or not?

>>18088442
I use tripcode because there are malicious people here trying to impersonate me, but are you going to say what the question is or not

>>18088449
I'm a layman in linguistics and I would like to know how exactly we can confirm whether word X or Y would really be a cognate with Aryan and you had spoken in another thread about manu being present in Phrygian and Minyan myths where did you get that? Which book? And I would like to know if it was you who found that Aryan cognate about Lugos in the Iberians

>>18088458
>we can confirm whether word X or Y would really be a cognate with Aryan
we can't, everything is fragmented and generally very vague but the suffix "ar" is generally used, but it could be to plow the land ethnonyms with 100% certainty are Iranian all cognate posted here take with extreme doubt and strangeness ok
>you had spoken in another thread about manu being present in Phrygian and Minyan myths where did you get that? Which book
nobody said that.
>And I would like to know if it was you who found that Aryan cognate about Lugos in the Iberians
the mountain thing? I found out in a fabricated book, but I was wrong and I corrected myself Koch the great dismissed it

>>18088449
>>18088477
Kek. I'll be back on my computer where I keep my tripcode in a bit. This guy isn't me. I guess I really do need the tripcode for this thread.

>>18088477
>the mountain thing? I found out in a fabricated book, but I was wrong and I corrected myself Koch the great dismissed it
Are you that same clown who was impersonating everyone when the subject of "Aryan" was mentioned? Fucking worm, everyone can use desuarchive.org and see what was said and presented. Koch didn't "deny" anything; the page of the book you spammed simply said that there are other etymological possibilities. And I don't use "fabricated books," I just prefer to use works written in their respective source languages, as the authors are obviously more familiar with them. There are very good untranslated works.
>but I was wrong
No, related pic (translation made by google lens, If you can't read Spanish)

>>18088449
>>18088477
These posts aren't me.

Working on a response...

>>18088544
>>18088477
By the way, I discovered other interesting things on the subject, but I don't think it's useful to share them here with people like you nearby. Maybe another thread? But until then, and you learn to behave like humans with souls, we can have a human discussion, not a monkey one. By the way, for those who want to read the original source to see for themselves that there was no "invention" on my part.
Source:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Los_dioses_de_la_hispania_c%C3%A9ltica.html?hl=es&id=PAHgxlrL6FIC#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>18088458
>I would like to know how exactly we can confirm whether word X or Y would really be a cognate with Aryan
One of the most important things to keep in mind are regular sound changes. When two words are compatible through regular sound changes, they are in agreement formally. When their meanings are compatible they are in agreement semantically. The connection of two words from different languages is strongest when there is both formal and semantic agreement.

>and you had spoken in another thread about manu being present in Phrygian and Minyan myths where did you get that? Which book?
You won't find it in a book. I noticed the connection spontaneously when some words were brought to my attention. I will give a minor update on that.
It is possible to connect words like Μῐνῡ́ας and Mannus as given by Tacitus through an acrostatic noun with *o ~ *e ablaut in the root:
*mánh2u ~ ménh2u-
Mannus is from the o-grade (with PIE *o > PG *a)
Μῐνῡ́ας has raised the *e > i between two nasals.

There is a recurring theme of laryngeals metathesizing around high vowels, so we have *h2u in alternation with *uh2. Long ū shows there was compensatory lengthening from loss of the laryngeal in the sequence *uh2. So we have something like
Greek Μῐνῡ́ας < *menúh2-
Germanic Mannus < *monu̯éh2- or *monh2u̯-
Sanskrit Mánuḥ < *mó/énh2u- (Brugmann's law does not apply to a closed syllable)

>And I would like to know if it was you who found that Aryan cognate about Lugos in the Iberians
No, it was another anon. I only gave my interpretation of the inscription after noticing the word must actually be a plural collective based on the stem *h2er-y-eh2-.

>>18088618
>Germanic Mannus < *monu̯éh2- or *monh2u̯-
and the geminate -nn- is from -n(h2)u̯-

>>18088618
>must actually be a plural collective based on the stem *h2er-y-eh2-
Non_aryan cognate sorry

>>18088618
>One of the most important things to keep in mind are regular sound changes
How can I study these changes? Isn't phonetics also just as important?
Honestly, I didn't quite understand Manu's question, the explanation is very technical, where are you learning all this?

>>18088458
>I would like to know how exactly we can confirm whether word X or Y would really be a cognate with Aryan
I also think it's a good idea to give an example of regular sound changes. Here is a page from the paper I wrote.

An important etymology is PIE */h2éri̯os/ > Old Irish aire /arʲe/. There are lot of sound changes behind the origin of aire and it may seem complicated but the process is very regular and understood systematically. It also reflects the general process behind all PIE i̯o-stems that were inherited into Old Irish where we get PIE */-i̯o-/ > Old Irish /-ʲe-/. For example we also have
Proto-Indo-European */h2éli̯os/ > Proto-Celtic */ali̯os/ > OIr ⟨aile⟩ /alʲe/ i̯o-stem
*/h2éli̯os/ and */h2éri̯os/ are extremely similar words so it's no surprise that they underwent the same process from PIE to Proto-Celtic to Old Irish.

>>18088618
PIE ménh2u and maybe italic *yemos?

yall niggas cant read sanskrit, so automatically not arya.

>>18088586
Even iberians were Aryans

>>18081352
Which exact standard oh mlecchas do you meet? What right do you have to call yourself Aryan when your own father remains a mystery like your lineage?

>>18088654
Thanks for the explanation, I'll read it calmly then, basically, since we don't have a semantic reconstruction of the word, is it enough to analyze the regular sound changes?

>>18088668
>>18088658
I presented an archaeological and genetic explanation to you in the thread, and there was even an explanation of the Aryan terms in Europe, as mentioned above and by me among Galician peoples, at this point you were left with only provocation and satire? The arguments, from the Swat Valley to things related to R1a-Z93 were duly answered, data are not at the mercy of subjectivism, remember

>>18088641
Because the word was changed from o-stem to eh2-stem inflection in order to express collective number? Nonsense. This is just how Indo-European morphology works.

>>18088650
Some books were mentioned in this post you might consider: >>18081411
In general I don't rely on any one particular source. When I have a question I search for papers or books. I use Google Scholar a lot.
If you need an alternative to Wiktionary for looking up etymologies I recommend the Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series which you can find on Library Genesis
https://brill.com/view/serial/IEED

>>18088673
>we don't have a semantic reconstruction of the word
In this case the semantics are understood. Old Irish aire is well attested:
https://dil.ie/1885

Sometimes we might be dealing with a name that has no explicit definition. In that case we can only rely on formal correspondences.

>>18088693
>In general I don't rely on any one particular source
Because its all fake, and you do the same thing

>>18088641
The source is here>>18088586
Could you explain to me exactly why the cognate is not valid? I've been waiting impatiently since I last had contact with you and your friends.

>>18088458
he explains with his foot, Let me help
Basically, keep an eye out for words in different languages that share a common origin and follow rules of *regular phonetic change*, allowing them to be traced back to their original form. Phonetic change is key; compatibility of meaning between the two words is only useful if the sound changes are preserved, the original meaning has been maintained, or it has evolved in a related way.

>>18088731
>>18088693
Thanks everyone, but how do I search for regular phonetic changes? Sorry if the question is silly.

>>18088693
Stop playing god of war bro

>>18088618
>>18088618
a separate thread for this would be interesting, manu is a character reconstructed in PIE mythology as being the first human, it is something of its own

>>18088684
All research into this is subjectivism, once cannot determine where a certain gene went or came from. Its all conjecture. Aryan as a word and Aryavarta as a regional designation is only ever recorded by Indians and Iranians. Cognate words were used by ancient Europeans that is all. Everything else postulated is just hypothesis based on PIE which is a non-existant pipe dream of the euro poor to impose their ancestors on everyone.

>>18088737
No, it's not silly. The simplest sound changes are listed in tables like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws

They are also given in various handbooks. This book has some tables of sound correspondences between Indo-European languages. Again, you can find somethingn like this on Library Genesis.
Kapović, M., Ramat, A. G., & Ramat, P. (2017). The Indo-European Languages. Routledge.

>>18088705
>it's fake because the quest for knowledge is never ending
There's so much you will miss if all you have is a basic textbook. It's necessary to look for papers relevant to a niche subject that is continually evolving.

>>18088766
Thank you so much

>>18088756
Bump

>>18088756
I'm not against the idea. I'm not ready for a presentation at this time however.

>>18088756
No, it is not necessary, do you know why? There is nothing similar to the Vedic manu in other religions, this is already an exaggeration, everything has to have PIE origin? None of that is true.

>>18088866
Keep going without time
We're all tired of your threads and your "friend" above who stopped responding when you started using tripcode, right? You faggot? You're not accepted by comparative mythology.

>>18088880
?