Talk:Aryan

Misleading map

The map is dominated by the centum:satem division, which has long been recognized to be of no diagnostic value for the genealogical subdivision of the Indo-European languages, of which the creator obviously is unaware. The map should be removed as soon as possible. If kept at all, it could be shifted to a chapter of tectals in Indo-European phonology. 195.4.79.246 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Racism category is wrong with this article

racism category is wrong here, the "racism category" Is associated with Aryan race & Aryanization and others... not the aryan article. ♔ Koolak (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

messy

This article is a bit sloppy, I suggest, and could be improved by following a structure such this [1]. Onanoff (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Rajkris

I don't know why User:Rajkris is removing this para:-

"The term "Aryan" ultimately derives from Sanskrit आर्य (ā́rya, “noble" or "noble one”), from Proto-Indo-Iranian *arya-, possibly either from Proto-Indo-European *h₄eryós (“kind”) or *ar(y)- (“master”)."

Aryan#In_Indian.2FSanskrit_literature and Aryan#In_Iranian_literature covers up everything that had been added in this paragraph. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed this para because there is no proof of indo iranian languages as it was not a written language... Therefore, asserting that it is from a so called proto indo iranian arya is not at all correct !... It is just an hypothesis but there is no scholar agreement on it just because there is no proof... And refering to Proto Indo European is even more silly. Aryan article is a very sensible article, that's why one need to be very careful on writing it; only things on which there is total agreement must be written. This is not at all the case here. If this article tells the contrary, then it is misleading and therefore MUST NOT be mentionned (in this case at least).Rajkris (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently "Aryan" is a loanword. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkris I don't know what you would consider as "proof", now that we have got signs, seals, and many more things to represents. Some people may still won't consider believing on these evidences. Usually whenever I attempt to research the origins of these noted figures, I happen to find some connection with the Eurasian continent, mostly south and western though. In fact I found that there a a metal plate depiction of Ganesha was found in Iran, in 1993, dating back to 1,200 BCE. It was examined by some good archaeologists. Would you consider it as proof? This article cannot be favorable to particular country or region or even language. You have to wonder that why there were no edit conflicts or edit war on this article for years. Also what you actually meant from scholar agreement, as long as it supports the neutral point of view, what is the issue? It will be easier if you propose your own para or even essay.(I shall rewrite and see if there are sources) Bladesmulti (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the sourcesd provided does not support anything I have removed. I have been specialising in this topic for a few years so I know what I'm talking about. Your sources do not support what is written and fyi Dumezil claims are reconsidered by number of current scholars. Aryan notion is regularly updated throughout time... If you don't know this, you cannot edit this article in a proper way.Rajkris (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Provide some sources which state otherwise. Your claim of specialisation is irrelevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What bother me most is the "from Proto Indo Iranian arya', as if it was a true,accepted fact by all. But this is not at all the case. I cannot check the refs provided for this part and even if they support precisely what you have written, they are old whereas the topic, definition, understanding of Aryan has changed ovetime. This part of the sentence is really misleading. It has either to be removed (this is my position) or replaced in its context properly. Regarding the other parts of the sentence, I don't mind.Rajkris (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkis has been attempting to remove any text that supports the outrageous claim that the word Aryan has any relationship to Iranian for years. Some while ago there was a tedious edit war between him and an Iranian nationalist editor. Bladesmulti, a metal plate depicting Ganesha tells us nothing about the origin of the word Aryan. Ganesha is not a Vedic deity. Can we keep on topic? Paul B (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, if you think so, you have not understood my purpose. I'm just trying to keep & explain things under their context. It is me who added properly some refs regarding Iran.Rajkris (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkris, I guess Talk:Aryan/Archive 4#ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris is the relevant section you meant? You wrote "the topic, definition, understanding of Aryan has changed ovetime" Does that also mean that there are scholars who doubt, or deny, that the word "Aryan" comes from Proto-Indo-Iranian (Arya)? Anf if not so, then where does it come from? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Vedic aristocracy did not practice Hinduism; they practiced Vedism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What I am blaming is how can one claim that arya was written in this way in the hypothetical Indo Iranian language ??? Why not aria, ari, ary, etc. It is only an hypothesis and must be presented as such. By it presenting it as as fact, you are misleading people and entering in contradiction with Sanskrit Arya which is used only in Indian context. Rajkris (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess that western script was not very widespread in those days, so any "translation" is interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are answer does not reply to my question(s), you are just avoiding them... Let me repeat & summarize once again my concern regarding your edit on the so called Proto Indo Iranian *arya-: the refs you have provided are not reliable because they are either old ones (Dumezil& Oswald) or does not provide any justification for their assertion (Witzel). I don't have inside access to Laroche (Dumezil) & Oswald refs but in the chapter 'Possible derivation from Proto Indo European', these refs are mentionned and,based on them, it is written :'... 1957 theory by Laroche... Indo Iranian 'Ar-ya'... Proto Indo Iranian Arta...'. According to that, what you have written a few lines above is not correct. From my side I have provided refs (here : Talk:Aryan/Archive 4#ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris) stating that Arya is a Sanskrit word. Just fyi (and Paul Barlow), I don't mind, I don't care that Arya is from an hypothetical Indo Iranian language (and actually, I believe in this !), my only concern is when one tells that in this language it was pronounced arya whereas we don't have any proof, it is just an assumption by one or more scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's exactly what counts: assumptions by one or more scholars! Not your personal iinterpretations or understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The pb is the asumption on Indo Iranian root changes from one scholar to another (see : [2] --> Indo Iranian *ara- ; [3] --> Indo Iranian *ar- ... I also found Indo Iranian *aryo-...

You are wrong to revert my last edit. In the Britannica, it is clearly mentionned that Aryan was formerly used to designate Indo Iranians, and now the word is limited to the word Indo Aryan languages. Now most shcolars use the terms Indo Iranian, Iranian & Indo Aryan languages... And in the same way, Aryan is no more used by proper shcolars to designate Indo Europeans. Rajkris (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment at the moment on the use of the word, but the Britannica is a tertiary source and should be avoided if at all possible. It's not a scholarly source and we should only be using scholarly sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be good to know that most current citizens of the new nation of India do not know Sankrit, even though in the last few decades almost all local vernaculars have been busy taking words and usages from Sanksrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.243.241 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated usage

Rajkris added the note "Dated" two times at Aryan#Scholarly usage:

• "Dated: Indo-Iranian languages (Indo-Aryan or Indic, Nuristani, and Iranian languages)". References and notes given here say:
  • Encyclopædia Britannica;
  • The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002 [4];
  • Schmitt, "Aryans" in Encyclopædia Iranica: Excerpt: "The name "Aryan" (OInd. āˊrya-, Ir. *arya- [with short a-], in Old Pers. ariya-, Av. airiia-, etc.) is the self designation of the peoples of Ancient India and Ancient Iran who spoke Aryan languages, in contrast to the "non-Aryan" peoples of those "Aryan" countries (cf. OInd. an-āˊrya-, Av. an-airiia-, etc.), and lives on in ethnic names like Alan (Lat. Alani, NPers. Īrān, Oss. Ir and Iron.)[5] in May,2010]."

None of these sources say that the usage of the the Aryan for these languages is dated. EB and Schmitt also don't say that the term Aryan is being used for those languages. Gnoli speaks about the use of the term Aryan for Persians, Medes, Bactrians and Sogdians. The Wiki-article for [[Indo-Iranian languages]] does provide a source: Numeral Types and Changes Worldwide, by Jadranka (EDT) Gvozdanovic, Language Arts & Disciplines,1999, Page 221. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2013-01-02., which says: "Some languages of the Aryan family - that is, the Indo-Aryan (including the Dardic), Iranian and Nuristani". So, to use the term "Aryan" for "Indo-Iranian including Indo-Aryan" seems to be wrong anyway.

• Dated: Proto-Indo-Europeans" - no source provided

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are currently 2 points of clashing between us :

- Root of Sanskrit Arya in Indo Iranian : it is only hypothesis and must be clearly presented as such; here are the different versions I have found during my research :

1. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture page 304 [6], "Our ability to reconstruct a Proto Indo-Iranian intermediate between Proto-Indo-European on the one hand and Proto-Indic and Proto-Iranian is also supported by the self-designation, *aryo-..."
   
2. Historical Linguistics, by Lisa Purse, Lyle Campbell, page 415 [7] , "*(h1)aryo- self-designation of the Indo-Iranians..."
   
3. Acta Iranica, by Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, page 337 [8], "It thus seems that Ved. arya and Avest. airya are to be connected... with Indo-Iranian *ara-..."
   
   

- Current use of Aryan : it is nowadays used to designate Indic languages only. If you see most of (recent) books, authors talks about Indo Iranian (they just alude sometimes to the (ancient) connection between Aryan and Indo Iranian). And this (current) trend is fair because originally, Aryan is from Sanskrit Arya which means Noble/Lord/Aristocraty and was used to designate the worshippers of Vedic gods and especially Indra (the God of the nobility). Therefore, this automatically excludes the Iranians... To avoid any misunderstanding, it is important to use properly the terms Indo Iranian, Iranian, (Indo)-Aryan, as done nowadays by (proper) scholars.

Concerning the word Aryan, my big concern is throughout time scholars have misleaded people, and for me, they have a great responsibility for the 2nd WW consequences... I just want to avoid such things to repeat again..

Here are my refs:

1. An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages by Philip Baldi, page 51 [9]
   , "The term Aryan used alone is often used to designate the Indic branch..."
   
2. Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia. Vol. 1-, Volume 2, by John T. Koch, page 961 [10]
   , "The Indo Iranian (formely called Aryan) languages..."
   

Concerning Dougweller comment on Britannica, I agree, but if I'm not mistaken, it is not against Wiki rules to use it in the last resort. Britannica is short and clear : it starts with "Aryan, former name given to Indo Iranian... Nowadays limited to the word Indo Aryan.". Britannica summarized the word Aryan very clearly (and it is very important to be very clear for such word !)... So if Wikipedia takes another direction, one of the 2 is wrong... But if you look at my above explanations and refs and also to my previous ones here : Talk:Aryan/Archive 4#ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris, it comes to the same conclusion as Britannica.

Jonathan, if you do think that nowadays Aryan is still used to designate (Proto) Indo Europeans, sorry but you are either not having enough knowledge about this article or you are pro white... In both cases, you are not fit to edit this article...

Once again, I'm interested in Aryan word since a very long time, I read many books & articles on it and noticed lot of mistakes either unintentional or politicaly motivated !!... If we use all of them as ref, this article will be just a mess and mislead people (with all the consequences!).

My research can be summarized like that (I have provided and can provide all the refs needed) :

• Aryan from Sanskrit Arya Noble/Lord/Aristocarty,
• Iran from ancient name Eran, from Airyanam (land of Air(y)an(ian)s); in Mede, Persian, Avestan we find words like Air(i)ya / Ari(i)ya / Arioi / Ari(i)a / Are, etc., which are supposed to be national names (note: the real heir of the ancient Persians that is the Parsis, never (or very rarely) used those words to designate themselves...) These words and Sanskrit one may come from the same Indo-Iranian word *aryo- /*are-, etc.
• (ancient) Europeans (scholars) used the Persian words (and other quite similar ones found in Greek, Irish, etc., languages) as an argument to claim ownership on the Sanskrit word & used it to designate the whole Indo Europeans, more particularly Europeans and more specifically northern Europeans... This has been the core of Nazi ideology which lead to the extermination of more than 6 millions Jewish...
  

This is the real history of Aryan word and this wiki article must be presented like this... Rest is just (bad & dangerous) politics.

Rajkris (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Only two comments here:

• "Therefore, this automatically excludes the Iranians" - WP:OR
• "Jonathan, if you do think that nowadays Aryan is still used to designate (Proto) Indo Europeans, sorry but you are either not having enough knowledge about this article or you are pro white... In both cases, you are not fit to edit this article." - totally unacceptable accusation of racism. @Dougweller: am I correct here? Rajkris, you added "Dated" to "Proto-Indo-Europeans"; I asked for refs for both. If you think that that makes me a "pro white", you don't understand how Wikipedia works, or how to collaborate.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And here for some serious surce-reading:

"Fortson, IV: "The Sanskrit word ārya-, the source of the English word, was the self-designation of the Vedic Indic people and has a cognate in Iranian *arya, where it is also a self-desigantion. Both the Indic and Iranian terms descend from a form *ārya that wa sused by the Indo-Iranian tribes to refer to themselves. (It is also the source of the country-name Iran, from a phrase meaning 'kingdom of the Aryans'.)" (Fortson, IV (2011), "Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction", p.209)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, what is written is wrong. Concerning Iran it is from Eran, 'Land of Erans' ([11]), rest is just pov and misreading from some (western) scholars...Rajkris (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rajkris, if this is the level on which you want to "discuss", we're done here. Comment directed at comment by Rajkris, which has been removed by Rjensen. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

delete offensive attack on scholars--Wiki rules do not allow calling scholars Nazis. Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Selective reading, Rajkris, as usual. Page 161 does not say that Iran is derived from Eran, it explains that Eran means "Iranians". See also p. 376: "Iranians (Eran)". Page 330 says: "The Aryan/Iranian lands". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Warned Rajkris. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If I have written this, it is because this is the kind of writing which lead to some fake & dangerous theories. This is the true reality, whether you like or not !... Regarding your last ref, I have refs which states clearly that in Avestan & Persian it was written Ari(i)ya/Airya... The so called Iranian arya (with short a) is a recent Iranian (natioanalist) invention because this word is more closed to Aryan... Iran is from Eran which originally mean land of Eran(ians)... The land of Aryan is just a modern shcolar invention... See when and how Persia has been renamed Iran and the connection between the rulers of this country and the Nazi Regime !(I have provided refs about that some time ago, check also here : [12]).

Since I started editing this article, I have provided so many refs !!!... You are just ignoring them and even threatening me !!... This is not acceptable !... My line is in peer with what is written in Britannica (a respectable Encylcopaedia which focus on Sanskrit root of Aryan and tells at the end that the word Aryan is now limited to Indo Aryan languages)... Choosing another direction will just ternish Wikipedia reputation which is already not good.Rajkris (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All you have said is "I will add references tomorrow", I don't even wait anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The true Ossetic descendant

Let me quote from this treatise:

Quotation 1:

(42.) Thus Ir "Ossete" and Iron "Ossetic" cannot continue *arya- "Aryan," *aryana- ([left arrow] gen. pl. *aryanam "of the Aryans"; cf. nn. 6, 15), as long believed (cf. Miller 1903:17 [[section]4.2], Bailey 1959: 97-98). Abaev (1949: 246, 1958: 546) connects Ir with various ethnic and place names in neighboring Caucasian languages, but also possible is Bielmeier's derivation from Pit. *wira- "man" (Av. vira-, Ved. vira-; Knobloch 1991: 35), which would have given POss. *ir (nn. 38 [end], 41; for loss of *w before *i, cf. D insoej [I ssoez] "twenty" < POss. *insaedy < PIr. *winsati) > *jyr (*[jir]) > I ir; this would account for the accentuation of lrrn, underlyingly /jyron/ (with initial I-preserved after Ir; on the regular loss of POss. *i- in Iron, e.g., in "twenty" cf. section 4.2, (7) and see Axvlediani 1963: 14-15 for examples).

Quotation 2:

3) *ri > *li, *ry > *1

See (2a) above on r-stem pl. *pitarah [right arrow] *fidari-ta > *fidali-ta > POss. *fidaeltae > I fydoeltoe "fathers" [D fiddoeltoe]; sim. I madoeltoe "mothers" oervadoeltoe "relatives, brothers" [D maddoeltoe, oervaddoeltoe]. That this change had taken place already by early medieval times is confirmed by the name of the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'Alans' < *aryan- (Bielmeier 1989a: 241), which survives in the Ossetic etynonym allon, attested in the epic of the Narts (Abaev 1949: 245-46, 1958: 47-48, 545-46). (42) The shift of *r > *1 before *i, and presumably also *ry > *1, must have preceded the syncope of unstressed *i (6); the absence of umlaut in allon indicates that *y was lost in the cluster *ry before *a > *ai / -- Cy (see [4] below; for other examples of non-"epenthesis," cf. Abaev 1949: 245

I first learnt of this from Johnny Cheung's Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism, who appears to have discovered this fact.

Moreover, on here, borrowings of Alanic *allan into Nakh languages (with the meaning "prince") are mentioned.

Thus it turns out that the true descendant of Proto-Iranian *aryānām in Ossetic is not iron, despite the tantalising resemblance to Modern Persian Iran, but the relatively obscure word allon (from Alanic *allan).

This has an additional consequence: The traditional etymological derivation of iron from *aryānām is the main reason that scholars have assumed that Ossetic descends from a different Scythian dialect than Sarmatian-Alanic. However, it turns out that Scythian, Sarmatian, Alanic and Ossetic all share the development Iranian *ry > l(l), along with several others. This means that Ossetic is a straight descendant of Alanic, Sarmatian and Scythian and there is no real basis for the reconstruction of old dialect differences within Scythian (at least in Eastern Europe; if the relatively well-attested Saka language is reckoned as part of Scythian, it is clearly different, but this assignment is doubtful), as far as I can see. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! All it is right, only I doubt that it can mean "man, husband", from "vir". No, of course. Even it isn't necessary to give this point of view. Academician Abayev absolutely truly came long ago to a conclusion that the ethnonym "ir" is related to the Caucasian languages. He wrote that this ethnonym has to have some relation to the Caucasian territory under "Ereti's" name. In my opinion here it is necessary to argue. In the Caucasian languages - Chechen, Ingush "iru/Ira" is meant by "peak, an edge". This word is available and in Avarian, but with "b-" indicator of inanimate objects: b-e'er (and the separate word 'Er in Avarian means "a pole,a spear" (=probably Celt.-Germ. ger,Lat. veru "spear"). Moreover, this root with the same value can be found in the Mongolian languages, "ir" the "edge, peak", and irgen "the citizen means, the people", etc. It all from a one subject. And the most important - a medieval kingdom of Sarir in Dagestan:"Sar" in the Iranian languages means "the head,top,a cover". And the second component has obviously whether the Caucasian or Mongolian origin "ir" - "peak". I will remind that during earlier era the territory Sarir in the Iranian sources carries the name "Agran". This term in the Indo-Iranian languages matters "extreme, sharp", etc.--37.139.52.40 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

'Simple' is not a synonym of 'simplistic'

While I understand that some individuals love translating arya as "noble", the following claims being made in the first two sentences of the article do not follow:

"Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/)[1] is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('noble').[2][3][4]
In present-day academia, the term "Aryan" has been replaced in most cases by the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European", and "Aryan" is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term of the "Indo-Aryan languages" in South Asia.[3]

The implication that academia chose a loanword 'for noble' as an identifier of an ethnic/language group is quite silly, and the false citation of the Encyclopedia Brittanica does not make it better. What the Encyclopedia Brittanica explicitly says in the very first sentence is that Müller insisted it was an ethnonym. Indeed, it was arya as an ethnonym that prompted Müller to promote Aryan as the name of an an ethnic/language group. He did the same with "Turanian", "Celtic" and "Semitic". Semitic is older, and is from the pre-enlightenment use of "Semitic", "Hamitic", "Japhetic" as ethnic/language groups. For "Turanian", "Celtic" and "Aryan", Müller just followed the old treatment of language as a property of ethnicity.

The "noble" stuff has another (related) "linguistic" origin: the identification of the Indo-European language group is originally based on William Jones' comments in his translation of a judicial Indian text known as the Laws of Manu (Manusmriti). This is a profoundly racialist work, and in its justification for the caste system, it depicts the "noble" aryas in conflict with the "slave-like" "enemy" dasa. So, yes, in one sense English "aryan" does come from a Sanskrit word used as "noble". But that is not the end of the story.

When Jones made his translation, he imagined that the three sons of Mani were co-eval with the three sons of Noah. Just as three sons of Noah (Ham, Shem, Japheth -> Hamitic, Semitic, Japhetic) were in conflict, so too were the three sons of Manu. The Manusmriti's "noble"-arya-versus-"slave-like"-enemy-dasa dichotomy, compared by Jones with the Semitic-versus-Japhetic conflict, is the origin of Semitic-versus-Aryan dichotomy. The contradistiction with Semitic is the only context in which one may legitimately claim that "Aryan ... is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('noble')".

But the article doesn't do that. I understand the need to keep things simple, but 'simple' is not a synonym of 'simplistic'. -- 77.183.157.162 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what are remarkably garbled argument. The use of "noble" as a translation of Arya[n] has nothing to do with Jones. It's simply the standard nearest-equvalent term in English for one of the principal uses of the term. Yes, Jones connected the ancient migrations of Biblical characters to the Manu myth. As a matter of fact Jones's model was to some extent at least based on that of his friend Jacob Bryant, who believed Europeans were in part Hamitic rather than Japhetic. I know of no passage in Jones where he compares Arya-versus-Dasa to Semitic-versus-Japhetic. Indeed the Semites and Japhetites were not typically set in opposition at this date, since that's entirely inconsistent with Biblical-based models. While Muller was certainly strongly linked to promoting the terms Turanian and Aryan, he had next to nothing to do with promoting the terms Celtic and Semitic. I've no idea where you get that idea from. Renan is far more important as a theorist of those concepts. The article does not say that academia "chose" "a loanword 'for noble' as an identifier of an ethnic/language group". It's simply that that "Aryan" as used in modern English comes immediately from Sanskrit, though one could make a case that the earliest rare (pre-18th-century) usages come from Persian. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy, please. I realize that this subject tends to raise hackles, but that is not my intent.

The use of "noble" as a translation of Arya[n] has nothing to do with Jones.

Is it not Jones' translation that first led to the word appearing in English with that meaning of Arya[n]?

Under those circumstances, isn't it a bit simplistic to suppose "it has nothing to do with Jones"?

(etc) Besides the point, so not going there.

The article does not say that academia "chose" "a loanword 'for noble' as an identifier of an ethnic/language group"

My point was, and is, that the article does say is "Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/)[1] is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('noble').[2][3]"

English is not so poor that it needs a loan word from another language to express "noble". Nor does the English language use "Aryan" as a synonym of "noble" (perhaps skinhead jargon excepted, I wouldn't know). The implication that "noble" is what the word was loaned for is false. The implication that English uses it and borrowed it for anything but an ethnic/racist/liguistic denominator is bizarre. It does not follow.

Whether it means "noble" in Sanskrit is moot. That meaning cannot be the basis of "an English language loanword" used in English as a ethnic/racist/liguistic denominator. Especially not given that the person who promoted it (i.e. Müller) insisted that it was a ethnic/liguistic denominator.

Am I clearer now? -- 77.183.157.162 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where this discussion is coming from. The use of 'noble' in brackets didn't convey anything significant to me. But, I presume you would be satisfied if it is replaced with something like: "a presumed self-designation of the Vedic people"? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That would at least be plausible. Support from a reliable source on English (loan)words would be an improvement too. (like the OED perhaps? Which Wikipedia says "traces the historical development of the language, providing a comprehensive resource to scholars and academic researchers"?) -- 77.183.157.162 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Is it not Jones' translation that first led to the word appearing in English with that meaning of Arya[n]?" Not that I'm aware of. The word Arya does not have a significant role in Jones' writings. I can't recall passages in which he uses it. Even if he was the frist person to translate it into English, I fail to see how that is relevant. He was the first person to translate any Sanskrit words into English. Later scholars did not rely on him. They made their own studies based on their own research. So, no, the "noble" translation has nothing especially to do with Jones.

The article does not say that English needed to borrow a word to mean "noble". Obviously that would be absurd. Since we already have the word noble, and many others. The point of the opening sentence is to emphasise that the word Aryan exists in English, so that it does not become an ownership debate about what it really should mean in Sanskrit, Avestan or whatever. The opening sentence could be improved, sure. It's been rather held hostage due to ideological issues with Indian and, to a lesser extent, Iranian editors.

Re Muller: There is no single "person who promoted it"; Muller was one of many writers who used it. Yes, he used it, or took it to be, an ethnic/liguistic denominator. I think that usage should be in the lead section. Paul B (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While others, after Jones, made their own translations, it is still Jones' translation that the OED quotes for the earliest example that supports "loanword from Sanskrit". The OED quotes Jones (and Müller) for "from Sanskrit", not the others. It may be that the OED entry is mistaken, or incomplete, but that is a different proposition altogether.

It's been rather held hostage due to ideological issues with Indian and, to a lesser extent, Iranian editors.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that taking Occam's razor hostage is a better solution than hostage by ideologues. I also can't see (I'm probably missing something) why Indian ideologues would abhor "self-designation of the Vedic people" (as Kautilya3 reasonably suggested). An insistence on a non-sequitur would expose them as absurd or illiterate, and I doubt that they would want to be seen that way.

As far as the Iranian ideologues are concerned, and assuming that there is an interest in granting their point, they could presumably be mollified by extending Kautilya3's suggestion to include them too. Perhaps something like this:

... is an English language loanword initially adopted from a Sanskrit self-designator of the Vedic people and their language. The loanword was subsequently extended to include a related Iranian self-designator of the Iranian peoples and their languages.

Either way, the emphasis is retained, the ideologues appeased, and absurd suggestions avoided.

Muller was one of many writers who used it

The OED (and pretty much everyone else) doesn't quote Müller just for laughs. Yes, Müller neither invented it, nor did he use it exclusively. But he actively argued for it (and contra the alternatives), and his lecture series addressed to non-academic audiences popularized it. "Müller ... cemented the centrality or prominance of 'Aryan' in European ethnology and imperial culture" (Ballantyne, Tony (2002). Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire. Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan. p. 44. For Müller's key role, see also pp. 5-6 in Thapar, Romila (1996). "The Theory of Aryan Race and India: History and Politics". Social Scientist. Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 3-29. Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3520116 ).

-- 77.183.178.112 (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

German/Germanic word "Ehre" and missing of Balto-Slavic cognates

Why there is no mention of Balto-Slavic languages? They were the closes language family to Indo-Iranian family in ancient times. I assure you that you can find similar cognates in Lithuanian and Slavic languages. If Germanic word "Ehre" has a position in this article, why you ignored the Satem branch Balto-Slavic? Lithuanian has many similar words to Avestan and Sanskrit. I don't know why editors always ignore Lithuanian in related WP articles. Is it because of low population of Lithuanian-speaking people? Or the only important languages in the history were Germanic ones, Latin and Greek?! --188.158.112.105 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for other cognates, please feel free to add them. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aryan was the Identity of ancient Indo-Iranians: Good sources for this article

• Aryans: Self designation of the peoples of Ancient India and Ancient Iran who spoke Aryan languages (Indic and Iranic peoples).
• Source

Bibliography

1. K. Jettmar, “Zur Wanderungsgeschichte der Iranier,” Die Wiener Schule der Völkerkunde/The Vienna School of Ethnology, Horn-Wien, 1956, pp. 327-48.
2. T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “The Iranian Migration into the Zagros,” Iran 5, 1967, pp. 11-34.
3. D. Stronach, “Achaemenid Village I at Susa and the Persian Migration to Fars,” Iraq 36, 1974, pp. 239-48.
4. R. Ghirshman, L’Iran et la migration des Indo-aryens et des Iraniens, Leiden, 1977.
5. I. V. P’yankov, “K voprosu o putyakh proniknoveniya iranoyazychnykh plemyon v Perednyuyu Aziyu (On the problem of the ways of penetration of Iranian tribes into western Asia),” Peredneaziĭskiĭ sbornik III, Moscow, 1979, pp. 193-207.
6. Ètnicheskiye problemy istorii Tsentral’noĭ Azii v drevnosti (II tysyacheletiye do n.è.)/Ethnic Problems of the History of Central Asia in the Early Period (Second Millennium B.C.), Moscow, 1981 (contains a number of important relev ant articles by linguists and archeologists, inter al. by M. S. Asimov, B. G. Gafurov, V. I. Abaev, E. E. Kuz’mina, B. A. Litvinskiĭ, È. A. Grantovskiĭ, B. and F. R. Allchin). For systematic, though outdated, treatment of the culture and homeland of the Proto-Aryans see F. Spiegel, Die arische Periode und ihre Zustände, Leipzig, 1887.
7. Also still useful are W. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, Erlangen, 1882, and O. Schrader, “Aryan Religion,” in J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics II, 1909, pp. 11-57.

By: R. Schmitt --123.198.50.115 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are Mitannian Aryans?

Sorry.On your map that the East of Turkey is occupied by Armenians, but actually it was initially occupied by Urarteans (a dialect or branch of Hurrian language), whose language had no relationship with Armenian. Armenians appeared later, they moved in Anatoly from Balkans. Therefore the Armenian language should be specified on the Balkans. Besides at you neither on the map, nor in article isn't present words about the Mitannian-Aryan language. Carriers of this Indo-Aryan adverb lived in the territory of the most part of modern Syria and partially Iraq. They lived in one state with a non-indoeuropean Hurrians. It is about a so-called Mesopotamic-Aryan language of the Mitannannian empire of Hurrians/Hurrites. Hurrian (or Mitannian) Aryans are mentioned even in the British encyclopaedia, but you about them don't have anything. Therefore I suggest to bring the Armenian language from East Anatoly to the Balkans (or at least to specify that Armenians migrated from the Balkans). And it is obligatory to show Mitannians kingdom as the territory of distribution of the Indo-Aryan language. Thanks!--37.139.52.40 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)