Talk:Aimaq people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Background of Chahar Mongols[edit]

The Chahar Mongols are closely related to the Kalhkha and Tümed Mongols. The three tribes are Eastern Mongols, i.e., Chingissid (or Kublaid) Mongols. The Chahar tribe's ancestral home is Inner Mongolia. The Chahar tribe has no historical relationship with the Aimak.

The Aimak have a closer tie to the Jagatai or even the Hazara.--Buzava 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what's up with the name Chahar-Aimak? --Khoikhoi 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the origin of the term "Chahar," but the term "Aimak" in Kalmyk-Mongolian means subsection or district. Perhaps the Chahar-Aimak claim descent from the Chahar Mongols. Interestingly, certain scholars (viz., Nicolas Poppe) have suggested that the Hazara are related to the Oirats. Btw, dörben is Mongolian for the number four.--Buzava 16:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the sample really Aimak?[edit]

The language sample link does not look like a Persian dialect to me at all. Imperial78

Aimak websites?[edit]

i haven't been able to find an Aimak website on the net, anyone if knows please add it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.104.174 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Why the reference to Evangelical Christians is inappropriate[edit]

  1. Most native peoples around the world have no population of Christians. Why mention this in connection with the Aimaks if none of their neighbors in Afghanistan are Christians either, and a local Christian / Muslim conflict isn't occuring here, as in Sulawesi?
  2. No Christians are "indigenous", Christianity has been a proselytizing religion from the very start.
  3. This reference in the text was obviously copied from one of the Evangelical Christian "linguistic" sites, which list the languages of "unreached peoples".

Iranian tribes in pre-Islamic times in Ghur[edit]

The region that is today populated by Chahar Aimaks was once in pre-islamic times home of many Iranian and possibly Kushanian and Tocharian tribes. One of these tribes was the Parsuatai, a Sacae tribe from northern Harirud region. Another tribe of Scythian or maybe Kushanian origin was the Arayasia and a sub-group of them known only by their name as Turshi. The Taimani Aimaks are descandants of native Ghurian people but the name is not native to them. The name indiciates a non-Ghurian origin. In fact a Pashtun origin. Indeed, there was a caravan leader and nomad from modern Pakistan called Taiman (15/16th century) and he was a member of Kakar tribe (today a branch of Pashtun people) who moved to Firuzkoh with 15 or 16 families and settled there. There, they were absorbed by the local population, remained only their name as the new formed and organized group. That the name remained is also a sign that the Taiman and his families were high regarded and possibly became even the leader of the local people.--94.219.48.197 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups[edit]

maybe is Kazakhs instead Tadjiks? (article "Afghan Kypchaks") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.39.102 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:TITLE[edit]

Per WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't this be moved to Aimaq people rather than Aimaq language being moved to agree with this? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to propose that. Shall I just move it, or make a request? Srnec (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence without any explanation[edit]

Revision as of 10:58, 19 June 2011: Please provide an explanation before deleting such relevant aspects. Thanks. --Tripkeepers (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the first part of the opening sentence of the "Origin" section? "Everyone likes turtles in the western areas of Herat and Badghis..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.83.44 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)