Indo-European

>Indo-European
Hello, aren't you forgetting something? Why doesn't the term "indo-European" acknowledge the Iranian/Aryan language branch? Shouldn't it be called the "Indo-Euro-Aryan" language branch and peoples?

The Iranians are too Arabicized to be considered as genuine Ino-Europeans both in culture and ethnicity.

Iranian languages are part of the wider Indo-Aryan branch and it's just easier to say Indo-European even though Iran is in between India and Europe.

How about just Aryan like all academics called it before the 1940s? Indo-European is a politically correct term.

I think the issue is aryan isn't linguistically correct. It was chosen because they thought the word applied to all early indo-European languages but that wasn't correct.

Indo-European should be called Japhetic and Afro-Asiatic should be called Hamitic.

1. YOU ARE CONFLATING LINGUISTICS WITH RACE.

"ARYAN" IS A RACIONYM, AND CULTURONYM; ID EST: REFERRING TO THE ARYAN RACE, AND TO THE ARYAN LIFESTYLE/CULTURE.

"INDOEUROPEAN" IS A LINGUONYM; ID EST: REFERRING TO THE LINGUISTIC FAMILY, OR TO A LANGUAGE BELONGING TO THAT LINGUISTIC FAMILY.

2. THE INDOEUROPEAN LINGUISTIC FAMILY IS CALLED SO BECAUSE ALL THE INDOEUROPEAN LANGUAGES AROSE WITHIN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE COMPRISING FROM INDIA TO EUROPA, THEREFORE, ALL INDOEUROPEAN LANGUAGES ARE SEMANTICALLY COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE TERM "INDOEUROPEAN".

>2. THE INDOEUROPEAN LINGUISTIC FAMILY IS CALLED SO BECAUSE ALL THE INDOEUROPEAN LANGUAGES AROSE WITHIN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE COMPRISING FROM INDIA TO EUROPA,
That includes the very large Persian area. They are their own branch and deserve a name in the title.

>like all academics called it before the 1940s

Wrong. Aryan always referred to Indians. The term that was in vogue before Hitler was "Caucasoid".

How is it linguistically incorrect? It's a word. Akkadian for example is called a Semitic language. Semitic comes from Shem, one of the sons of Noah in the Jewish bible. What does Akkad have to do with the Jewish story? They have nothing to do with it. Also the Canaanite languages are called Semitic. Even according to the Jewish legend, Canaan was the son of Ham, not the son of Shem. So why Canaanite languages are they called Semitic for? The answer is because it's just a fucking word giving a name for a similar group of languages. You could call it lasagna if you wanted to.

No, Aryan is not linguistically incorrect. It's POLITICALLY incorrect.

>That includes the very large Persian area.

YES.

>They are their own branch...

YES.

>... and deserve a name in the title.

NO.

"INDOEUROPEAN" IS THE NAME OF THE LINGUISTIC FAMILY/TRUNK; WHY WOULD THE NAME OF ONE BRANCH BE INCLUDED IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY/TRUNK?

First of all shut the fuck up. Educate yourself bedore opening your cum-stinking mouth. Second of all kill yourself you literal tree-climbing ape.

"Shem" refered to a large group of people. Aryan is a specific ethnic group that actually existed. It'd be like calling all the indo-European languages Italian.

Problem?

You mean like how european language is basically latin, germanic or slavic based?

Your right in that aryan was dropped for political correct reasons. This being said, i don't think it was a good term from the beginning to describe the language branch.

Ok get this into you thick monkey skull. It's a fucking name. If linguists can call Akkadian language after a legendary Jewish goat fucker, then by all means they can call Indo-European Aryan or lasagna or whatever the fuck. It's a political issue, not a linguistic or any other type of issue.

Fair enough.

It's called Indo-European because the 'original' language family spanned from India to Europe with a few outliers/holes like Tocharian. Iran is included in that span of terrain.

>spanned from India to Europe
Is everyone literally retarded here? Is it a prerequisite to be a Zika baby born of a baboon to post here?

That's it. I'm done with this site.

Please don't go :(