Yeah, Modu Tanhu, I'm sure you mean well, but as Ancalimon says - IE is a linguistic term, it's related to a language group.
What Ardavarz posted is informative (and correct as far as I know), read that.
It's puzzling to me how ill chosen some terms are. Why we call old things from which new things evolved by the names of the new things? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I think Indo-European fairly well describes the current part of the language group, but lacks the descriptive reach into the past. (where did these people come from? Was it still in India or Europe? Most likely no. It's cofusing.)
Yes, it's confusing to people. It's easily abused by nationalists, easily pointed at by Asians who feel we somehow attempt to rob them of their history and country by using this term.
Well, I feel the same way every time Ancalimon sees Turks everywhere in our history. Calling old things with current names. It's just confusing.
This Issyk Inscription is really interesting to me. I guess I didn't pay attention to it before. I don't know anything about it. I can only think that saying it is Turkic because the glyphs are similar to those in the Orkhon set may be misleading because alphabets are a technology that transfer easily amongst different groups of peoples. It may be one sample on a continuum of similar scripts. The so-called Western Turkic runes come to mind.
Yes, that's my opinion too. I consider it still undeciphered - despite of the many attempts to read it (based on Orkhonic runes, Kharoshthi, Rovas or else) this inscription remains mystery so far. It is one of the few relicts of the Saka writing together with Desht-e Navur and Surkh Kotal inscriptions.
The Western Turkic runes indeed could be related somehow since their origin is traced more or less to the Central Asian region too.
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 28, 2011 17:40:58 GMT 3
For the one who has difficulties comprehending:
Indo-European people From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article has many red links. You can help Wikipedia by writing articles to help lower the number of red links.
Indo-Europeans are those who are native speakers of Indo-European languages. [change] Indo-European languages
The term could also mean:
speakers of the not known but hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language Bronze Age (third to second millennia BC) speakers of Indo-European languages that had not yet split into language families we know today, like Centum and Satem dialects (speakers of languages predating Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Greek, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Balto-Slavic etc.)
Speakers of Indo-European languages in historical times and nowadays often are not called by the name Indo-Europeans but with often by the name of their language family like: Anatolians, Tocharians, Aryans (Iranians, Indo-Aryans), Greeks, Celts, Italic peoples, Germanic peoples, Baltic peoples, Slavic peoples, Armenians, Albanians (or subdivisions of these groups). [change] Indo-European peoples
The term "Indo-European peoples" means those Caucasians who are members of those ethnic groups that are descended from the original speakers of fornto-talkto- monto-conto-Proto-Indo-European. These ethnic groups are listed below:
The Indo-Aryans of Northern India (including also the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka and the Maldivians of the Maldives), the Iranian peoples (the people of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan as well as the Kurdish people), Armenians, Balts (the Lithuanians and Latvias), Slavs, the Roma (Gypsies), Albanians, Greeks, the Latin European peoples of Southwest Europe (the French, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese), the Teutonics of Northwest Europe (the English, Dutch, Germans, and the people of the Nordic countries except Finland), Celts, European Americans, English Canadians, Québécois, North American White Hispanics, White Latin Americans, Anglo-Celtic Australians (Anglo-Australians), New Zealand Europeans (Anglo-New Zealanders), Anglo-Africans, and Boers.
They were found in Afghanistan and related to Sakas and early Kushans. If I remember correctly the original of Dasht-e Navur inscription was lost - it was trilingual and one of the languages being unknown was thought to be Sakian. The script is similar to Kharoshthi (as one of the other parts), but with some non-standard signs probably to render a different phonetics.
They are reproduced also in Gerard Fussman's book "Documents épigraphiques kouchans":
Unfortunately for me I don't know French , but I've read some attempts at translation via Khotanese by J. Harmatta in the collection "History of Civilizations of Central Asia" only I don't remember which volume it was (what I read were only some excerpts in Google Books).
These people are the remnants of ancient Hunnic Empires worldwide - of course it's not Indo-European, but Hun neverthless, one can see if he studies the runes used for writing. Since shamans were entrusted with the runewriting, they branched off differently too, but you can still see evidence of this in viking runes, rovas ( Hungarian runes ), Kazah runes, Saka runes etc... Follow the runes... will tell you the truth....