There is when you combine the observations that the word is pan-Semitic but the word is not pan-Indo-European at all. given that the word came to mean "free, noble" in modern Semitic language the Semitic ḥ-r-r reinforcing native IE *h2er- & influencing the ways in which it's used is also a completely reasonable explanationno other Indo European languages have a cognate term for Arya; the closest might be Celtic but even that one suffers from serious problems to establish cognateness. 1/2
>>18494967The "cognates" (such aryos)Doesn't fit regular phonetic development (false cognates). The A in Indo-Iranian is long rather than short. The Germanic one always cited here also doesn't exist aside from a single inscription and postulation about Ariovistus (in which case it could easily be just a Celtic loan) So,1) the word might exist in two IE branches but2) the length of the vowel does not match regular phonetic developmentwhich is far from what you need to make a conclusive PIE derivation Note that it's the Indo-Iranian (not Celtic) which has anomalous vowel length compared to the proposed PIE derivation, & *h2er- is attested in other Indo-Iranian words, e.g. Sanskrit ṛtá (truth), Iranic names such as Artaban. See Oswald Szemerényi, Studies in the Kinship Terminology of the Indo-European Languages (1977)He writes everything I am arguing here. In short, The word gets transmitted via Mesopotamia and the Direction of transmission is here on the base of in which branch the word is more widespread.
>>18494978
>>18494981Guys, Each tribe, each clan, had its own name for themselves. There was no name for them as a group. free, noble" in modern Semitic language, a race of free, noble people coming into contact with the filthy sedentaries of Mesopotamia would not unlikely adopt it to refer to themselves in their presence. Again, Etymologies are not always linear, sometimes two different terms from two different origin languages
>>18494967There's no evidence for such claims besides old books
>>18495266?
>The word "Aryan" is a Semitic loanword,You haven't presented evidence for a loaning direction.You also have not demonstrated that "Aryan" is Semitic. Don't understand? There is no such word *h2ari̯ós in Semitic. You need to distinguish between roots, stems, and words. When you do, you will realize that there are words with Indo-European morphology that exist nowhere in Semitic.>There is when you combine the observations that the word is pan-Semitic but the word is not pan-Indo-European at all.Again, you haven't demonstrated that the word is "pan-Semitic" but rather that a similar looking root or stem is frequently observed.>the Semitic ḥ-r-r reinforcing native IE *h2er- & influencing the ways in which it's used is also a completely reasonable explanationIt's not reasonable because one would expect the triconsonantal ḥ-r-r stem to be loaned into Indo-European, but it wasn't.>no other Indo European languages have a cognate term for Arya;You're simply ignorant of the subject.For *h2ar- and *h2ari̯(o)- I've covered words in• Anatolian *h2ar-, ethnonym usage• Hellenic *h2ari̯(-ah2)- personal names• Armenian *h2ari̯o-, ethnonym)• Germanic *h2ari̯o- ethnonyms• Italic *h2ari̯o-, personal names• Celtic *h2ari̯o-, ethnonyms
>>18495295>the closest might be Celtic but even that one suffers from serious problems to establish cognateness.There are no "serious problems" and you haven't shown any. It is the communis opinio in Celtic studies that Proto-Celtic *ari̯o- is formally compatible with Indo-Iranian *Hari̯á- (Matasović, 2008, p. 43). That means linguists recognize that the words are relatable through regular sound changes without issue.>The "cognates" (such aryos)>Doesn't fit regular phonetic development (false cognates).It fits the regular phonetic development and you haven't shown otherwise.>The A in Indo-Iranian is long rather than short.Incorrect. What you are referring to is not Indo-Iranian as a whole but rather a single Sanskrit word. Both long and short vowel variants exist in Sanskrit (Mayrhofer, 1992-2001). The long vowel version is called a vṛddhi derivative, which is a very common occurrence in Sanskrit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%E1%B9%9Bddhi>The Germanic one always cited here also doesn't exist aside from a single inscriptionYou are referring to ⟨arjosteR⟩ and I do not cite this word. Although you say "The Germanic one always cited here", this is a giveaway that you haven't been following the discussions.What I cite are:*ari̯a-l- >> *er-laz*ari̯a-man- > *er-man- (stem)>Note that it's the Indo-Iranian (not Celtic) which has anomalous vowel lengthThe vowel length is not "anomalous" but rather the result of a very productive derivational process in Sanskrit.
>>18495298>The word gets transmitted via Mesopotamia and the Direction of transmission is here on the base of in which branch the word is more widespread.That's quite the fantasy. There is no *h2ari̯o- in Mesopotamia, and if there were, that would be very surprising since that is an Indo-European i̯o-stem, a signature of the Proto-Indo-European language.I am well aware of these "Nostratic" correspondences. It was one of the first things I learned about when beginning to research this subject since a couple recent papers discuss them. If you've never read about Nostratic or long range comparisons across language families, it's probably for the best if you set this topic aside as you don't understand what you're dealing with. What you are bringing up is not an isolated phenomenon. Apparently related words between Indo-European and other language families, especially Afro-Asiatic and Uralic, is a common occurrence. Do we therefore conclude that Afro-Asiatics created the Proto-Indo-European language? Hardly. You are touching upon deep prehistory that nobody understands. You can find these *(H)ar- type words across Eurasiatic more generally, not just Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European.
>>18495304One issue is it can be difficult to distinguish a genuine Nostratic root or stem from a more recent loan into Afro-Asiatic. For example, the Euphratic substrate points to Indo-European speakers being absorbed and assimilated into the Sumerian and Semitic speaking populations. Another problem is that you may look at similar looking words like Ugaritic ⟨a͗ry⟩ ‘kinsman’ and not realize they can exhibit genuine coincidences such as the independent usage of the nisba suffix. You may also come across formal issues. For example, *h2ari̯ó- is securely reconstructed with the *h2 laryngeal, yet ⟨a͗ry⟩ has no such laryngeal even though Semitic languages have no problem pronouncing the laryngeals of PIE. It is right to ask if these are coincidentally similar roots, one with a laryngeal and one without, or if the reason Ugaritic has a missing laryngeal is because it comes from an Indo-European substrate which regularly lost the laryngeal.There are all sorts of thorny issues, and ultimately you are leaving the more scientifically sound territory of IE linguistics for the uncharted territory of 10s of thousands of years of human interaction (Nostratic) that nobody truly understands and is often beyond the reach of sound reconstruction.You won't be able to dispute that *h2ari̯-(o-) words are securely reconstructible for PIE. There is no sign of Afro-Asiatic morphology in the IE terms. That is what one expects to see in a loan.The one thing you should walk away with though, is the understanding that this prominent theme of *h2ar-(i̯o-) ethnonyms is an Indo-European phenomenon, not an Afro-Asiatic or Sumerian one. It doesn't matter that you can find similar looking words in other language families. They did not decide to call themselves Aryans. Indo-Europeans did.
>>18495306Matasović, R. (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://brill.com/view/title/12610Mayrhofer, M. (1992–2001). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (3 Bände). Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
>>18495308>>18495306>>18495304>>18495298OP has a ridiculous profile on Xiiter where he poses as a linguist, he bases his ideas solely on this author and spams every post on Xiiter where someone talks about "Aryan" and this retarded theory of "Mesopotamian origin" Muh Nostratic saar
>>18495325It's a bit mind boggling for someone who hasn't studied historical linguistics previously to accidentally stumble upon Nostratic phenomenon. It is fuel for the imagination that can cause one to jump to conclusions.Nobody in IE studies has to shy away from it. There is a more general issue that there are roots shared between Eurasiatic language families and nobody truly knows how the language families managed to have a significant number of shared inherited roots. When a cognate is found elsewhere, it doesn't mean it wasn't present in Proto-Indo-European from the very beginning. Proto-Indo-European itself probably took words from both northern/north eastern Eurasiatic and the Caucasus during its development. Any sort of direct contact with Afro-Asiatic speakers on the steppe is unlikely.What actually matters is the how and why words can be related in separate language families. For Afro-Asiatic, the broadest perspective is simply that West Eurasians were involved in its genesis, so it would actually be surprising if there was no shared vocabulary elsewhere. Nobody has to deny long range comparisons outright. It's just that careful thought has to be given as to what the implications are. For example, the hypotheses of Aryans in Egypt or Egyptians on the steppe both warrant great skepticism.All this said, the reason *h2ari̯ó- goes back to Proto-Indo-European is because of the comparative evidence. Proto-Indo-Europeans used this root and stem independently for their own purposes which caused unique semantic developments, and it became involved in their identity.
>>18495667Yes, and I'm not kidding. He simply copies and pastes his shitty posts from Xiiter. Search for "Slovborg"
>>18494967Semitics aryan confirmed??
>>18495688My question would bedo you think it's this guy on xitter who made posts in 2023 or is it actually __someone else__ who is well known for copying and pasting when he can't come up with his own arguments. Notice how there's been no response.Are we searching xitter for ways to debunk the word Aryan now? Seems a little desperate. Maybe an LLM can help you do better next time.
>>18495728It's best not to mention the name of the person. And thinking about it, makes sense. In another thread, someone exposed him copying crap from a random Blogspot in the reply box (sigh).We need FLAGS.
>>18495693No
