Talk:Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni

message: re : this is a linguistic article, please consult and cite linguistic literature. The "spiritual conception of Armenia" may be notable to articles on Armenian national sentiment, but not here. see asha for a good article on the Old Persian term arta, including detailed discussion of etymology. dab (𒁳) 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me you 2001:14BA:14F8:DE00:6978:5957:4925:5652 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't dispute any of this. The topic of this article is, however, a linguistic phenomenon of the Bronze Age, completely and obviously unrelated to questions of Modern Persian or Armenian. Your knowledge of Armenian is most welcome on Armenian language, in particular informed contributions to the stubby "Morphology" section will earn you praise. dab (𒁳) 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that there is a large number of Greek and Persian loanwords in Armenian, accreted in several layers even predating the characteristically Armenian sound changes. Armenian language is not protected, and you may edit it, but you should not remove the reference to the borrowings: Every language has loanwords, but Armenian is particularly notable for its large number of these. Indeed, the number of Iranian loans in Armenian so large that linguistis only in the 1870s realized that Armenian is not in fact an Iranian langauge. dab (𒁳) 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I must ask you to please consult linguistic literature before making such claims. Iranian and Armenian are not in the "same language group". dab (𒁳) 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, this is nonsense. Please review WP:ATT. Try to read literature on historical linguistics if you are interested in the subject. Then come back and cite your academic, on-topic (linguistics) sources to make a point on whatever it is you like to say.  Yes, Armenian loaned many words from Persian, no need to dwell on the point, but your notion that the language are from the "same group" is unaware of the 1870s discovery that Armenian is a separate branch. That is, your opinion has been outdated for fully 130 years now (that's not as bad as it could be, we get some editors ideologically stuck at some point in the Bronze Age, but still...). It would also be good if you created an account if you are seriously intending to edit Wikipedia. It is irritating to have your IP address change every five minutes. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand. Both Armenian and Persian are Indo-European, of course, but they are separated by sound changes. The borrowing took place after these sound changes. Please read an introduction to Indo-European studies before taking this further, and do cite your sources for any claim you want to make. Your Armin thing is perfectly irrelevant until you can show us a scholarly reference discussing it. dab (𒁳) 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The modern German name Armin is from Arminius. That guy belonged to some Germanic tribe or other, but lived in Rome for a long time as a hostage, and the Romans called him Arminius because of his blue eyes – there's a blue mineral they called armenium. I bet that this mineral was named after Armenia. David Marjanović (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "arta"

message: A note from Darkstar: whoever brought this argument that it was Indo-Aryan because *eka (one) is Indic (and apparently, it was Mayrhofer) was wrong, because -k- is observed in lots and lots of Iranian languages. The initial s- of "satta" (seven) looks like a better idea, since it is only preserved in Nuristani and other Indic languages, but at the time level of 1500-2000 BC (when the Mitanni arrived in Anatolia) it could have existed in Proto-Iranian, just as well. Generally, the numbers listed tend to exhibit some proximity to the Nuristani languages, which are rather intermediate between Iranian and Indo-Aryan, and could have preserved some ancient features. "Citrarata "whose chariot is shining"" can also be explained in Avestan as cithra-ratha "chariot of the kin (clan)"; "-mazda" in Priyamazda is of course recognizably Avestan. People think of Sanskrit in the first place, because it has a wider vocabulary and is well preserved, but technically, I don't think there's any evidence relating Mitanni to Indo-Aryan proper (how the hell did those guys get that far?). However, Mitanni could still be classified as a lost branch of Indo-Iranian languages on the basis of these examples (as long as they are correctly transcribed and interpreted from the original which might be doubtful).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.200.241.223 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so, pray, in which Iranian language does the numeral "one" contain a -k-? dab (𒁳) 16:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, but even if Iranic was not significantly different from Indic by the 15th-14th centuries BCE, the extant Mitanni texts are more representative of the later Indian linguistic, cultural and religious concepts as we know them. It is certainly possible though, that in 1400 BCE, the Iranians might have worshipped the same Vedic gods as the Indians did viz Indra, Nasatya, Varuna, Mithra etc who are mentioned in the Mitanni treaty, and probably their language was also significantly closer to Vedic than what we know today. 65.49.2.159 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be more specific about this point, there are scholarly articles that respond to Mayrhofer 1982 with the (renewed) counter-claim that the Mitanni superstrate represents a non-Indic form of Indo-Iranian. See esp. Hock 1999 (Hock, Hans. 1999 "Out of India? The Linguistic Evidence" in Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, edited by Madhav M. Deshpande and Johannes Bronkhorst, Ann Arbor. pp. 1-17.); this article points out that the Mitanni superstrate does not exhibit distinctively Indic (*ai > e; *azd > ed; *jh > h) or Iranian (*s > h) sound-changes (p. 2). As for the deity names, the idea that, prior to the beginning of Zoroastrianism in which (many of) the old gods were explicitly demonized, the gods of the Iranians were very similar to those of the Veda is a well-supported hypothesis. Although there are a number of sophisticated arguments involving relics of the old gods in Iranian names, Vedic-like god names (e.g. Indra) are straightforwardly present in the Nuristani languages, despite the Nuristani languages representing a third branch of Indo-Iranian independent of both Indic and Iranian. A simple majority-vote reconstruction of Indo-Iranian religion would lead to the conclusion that it had gods and god names like those of Indic and Nuristani. All in all, the various close matches between Vedic and Mitanni may be due to nothing more than the mountain of evidence we have for early Indic (the Vedas and Brahmanas) as apposed to the thin evidence for early Iranian (primarily Avestan and, later Old Persian). Mellsworthy (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think you are just making assumptions, the distinguishing feature of iranian with indic is the S, so there is no chance that proto iranian represents the 'S'. this would totally demolish any iranian branch because this is the key feature which made Avestan an iranian and not indo aryan since avestan, if one knows sanskrit becomes intelligible. The word satta you quoted cannot ever be a proto iranian, since in avestan its hapta compared to sapta, hafta compared to  hapta and finally settling for haft while it is only prakrit specific that sapta losing its P completely contrary to iranian and becomes satta or sat in sindhi and saat in urdu/hindi. there are loads of names in mitanni which show this characteristic satta innovation where sapta turns into satta, there are also other middle indo aryan features, refer to my links below.According to the theory, the indo aryan and iranian diverged in 2000 BC, so mitanni couldn't be proto indo iranian. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Witzel (2001), now cited in the article, says on p. 66 (footnote 162): "Note that Ved. has eva 'only' < aiva = O.Iran. aiva 'one', and that only MIr. has ēvak 'one', but this is due to the commonplace MIr. suffix -ka". Does that settle it? "Old Iranian" should be both Old Persian (a West Iranian language) and Avestan (an East Iranian language). David Marjanović (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "aika"

message: The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has "aiva") in general. --This assertion of "particular importance" sounds much like OR, and should be carefully referenced, especially in light of the preceding discussion.  One might also make an equally valid case that the appearance of "mazda" in the Mitanni name Priyamazda "places it in the vicinity" of Iranian as opposed to Indic.  More likely, it simply shows "Mazda" and "Aika" are older forms, and the first of these later mutated in India, the second in Iran. But the wording should be referenced and also tweaked so as not to push any one bias. 141.152.51.148 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for possibly original assertion 

message: I think that the first Indo Europeans were from somewhere in the Middle East, and via the Anatholian hypothesis settled among other people around the world. Make sure you read it correct, settled among, not conquered or assimilated. The original theory of an aryan warrior race was really meant for the Vikings or Scandinavians. And this was of course bullshit, made up during the Romanticism when national thoughts dominated Europe. The theory of an invading people, that originated in Scandinavia and conquered all the way to India was to be modified because of the late history of modern Europeans. Instead they claimed India to be the original country, this has also been modified and changed to a compromise between the scholars, now it's somewhere in Central Asia. This is like a buffert zone, not extreme Asian, and not extreme European, but somewhere in the middle.
The basis of this theory is not solid, it's just a piece of crap written during a time when nationalism and romantic feelings were strong. The newer, Anatholian hypothesis is much more logical. A single people can't in any possible way invade and assimilate and area that large and with so many different people and change all of their languages. But they could bring some new words to their vocaboulary, by settling among them, and becoming a part of their society, with friendship. 
Simply:
We know that Agriculture started somewhere in the heart of Middle East, and we also know that the first Indo-Europeans that showed up in history, did also show up in Middle East. This must be the original homeland, and while they came further and migrated to different regions, they brought with them Agricultural knowledge and made the future safe for the Hunting communities around the world, while also bringing some of their own words to them and eventually becomming a part of them. 
I'm not so into genetical research but I've heard some about that this also would support it. Anyone who can say anything about this area?
This would mean bringing the dark-haired Middle Eastern charachter to Europe, rather than bringing the European blonde charachter to Asia.
--193.150.253.219 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is your advocacy (using questionable or even downright incorrect claims, which simplify and misrepresent the issue) of the Anatolian hypothesis (which remains controversial and not the preferred hypothesis of Indo-European origins, especially among linguists, whose opinions and arguments are rather more important in context) relevant to this article? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Also note Häkkinen, who shows serious problems with the attempt to derive Indo-Iranian, and thus Indo-European, from Western rather than Central Asia/Eastern Europe, based on the evidence of Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to Häkkinen doesn't work. David Marjanović (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo Europeans from Middle East 

message: I think this needs a rewrite to bring it more into line with Wiki standards and make it easier to read and understand by non experts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.128.206 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like it's written for experts by experts 

message: I suggest Wiki should not fall in to the hands of fascists and racist theorists.  The term Aryan was taken out long time ago and only Indo-Iranian was being used. I see the change to “Indo-Aryan” an attempt to revive the Aryan term. There is no reason to use this at all. In fact there is no reason to use even Indo in there. If you are using geographic location why not Pakistan ? Just saying. Sanskrit is not even used in India as a common language of people - it is only used by Brahmins! It is derived or is a cousin of old Persian!  So this revision of the terminology seems to be purposeful. Why don’t you just base those peoples origin when defining them than where they’re gone to? Such as Antolian or Yamnaya or Steppe pastoralists? Rochdoc (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term Indo-Aryan is unfortunate, but that's the term we use in linguistics. You also seem to be confused on the terminology: Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian are not synonyms. Indo-Aryan is a branch of Indo-Iranian, which is itself a branch of Indo-European. So, yes, Indo-Aryan is Indo-Iranian, but it does not follow that all uses of Indo-Aryan can be substituted with Indo-Iranian. The important thing about the Mitanni superstrate is that it is specifically Indo-Aryan, not just Indo-Iranian, so that specificity is needed. Your other suggestions are even worse: Yamnaya is an archaeological term, not a linguistic one, and it has nothing to do with the archaeology of the Mitanni. Steppe pastoralist is a vague non-linguistic term that describes a lifestyle and geography which also does not apply to the Mitanni. And Anatolian is a linguistic term, but it refers to a totally different branch of the Indo-European languages, distinct from Indo-Aryan. --Cyllel (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Aryan?  Then why not the antiquated term Aryan ?