Talk:Indo-Europeans

From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Aryan or Indo-European?

From [1] the following definition is quoted:

Aryan

1. The hypothetical parent language of the Indo-European family.

2. a person belonging to, or supposed to be a descendant of, the prehistoric people who spoke this language. Aryan has no validity as a racial term, although it had been so used, notoriously by the Nazis to mean "a Caucasian of non-Jewish descent," etc.. The use of the word in connection with race is due to the idea, regarded by most ethnologists as false, that peoples who spoke the same or related languages must have had a common racial origin. Misuse of Aryan has led to its replacement in linguistic discussion by Indo-European.

Especially the second definition is quite strange (for in a dictionary).

The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911) gives a lot of information; it states that the term Indo-European is more common, but that Max Mueller in a book published in 1888 employed the more convenient and shorter term Aryan.

Is the term Aryan more accurate than Indo-European?

As also the 1911 Britannica acknowledges, Aryan is term that has confusingly been used in many different ways. There is a separate Aryan article. Indo-Europeans and and Indo-European languages are terms with clearer meanings. Upplysning 16:53, 26 August 2015 (CEST)

European peoples

I would say that the main page has some highly contentious and debateable comments upon it. Anthropologists, archaeologists and ethnologists for 1000 years cannot all be dunces and post-1945 liberal-leftists correct. Sorry but this is just wrong. Cicero 21:32, 25 August 2015 (CEST)

Unclear what is referred to. Certainly a lot of misinformation after 1945. But also a lot of research completely absent earlier such as genetic research. Especially in recent years. Upplysning 16:53, 26 August 2015 (CEST)

References

  1. Webster's new world dictionary of the American Language, 1972 edition, The World Publishing Company: Nashville, Tenn.