Talk:Scythian languages/Archive 1

"may be derived"
I'm wondering about this paragraph:


 * However, some of the Scythians moved toward the Caucasus, and modern Ossetic may be derived from their language.

I will admit that the distinctions between Iranian peoples of antiquity (the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc.) is a bit blurry to me.

Clearly Ossetic is an Iranian language. What could it have derived from, if not from Scythian/Sarmatian? Certainly the article for Ossetic gives no alternate explanation. --Saforrest 15:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Some Extentions
One external link and some modern form of names are added.


 * The anonymous deletion of the Iranian etymologies has been reverted. It may be a case of nationalist vandalism or simply a case of ignorance of the field. The original (and restored) list had references to the scholarly literature. "85.98.180.24" replaced the text with an unedited cut-and-paste insertion of the unscientific Fred Hamori-paper found on an esoteric website.
 * I have decided to be more than fair. Therefore I have kept an abridged version of the Fred Hamori-etymologies with a short commentary which should make it clear that it has no scientific significance at all. Even though there are hardly any advocates of the Turkic hypothesis in the scholarly republic, it has strong supporters in the internet, especially among advocates of the so-called Turanian theory, and I have therefore considered it worth mentioning it. Enkyklios 11:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

NOR (No Original Search)
Psuedo-linguistic scholarship claiming Hungarian to be Sumerian related to Scythians related to Dravidian has no scholarly basis. That is why it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist propoganda. Fred Hamori is not a scholar but a Hungarian nationalists. --Ali doostzadeh 18:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Scythian and Saka need two different pages
The Scythian group (Scythian, Sarmatian, Alanian, Ossetian) need a different page from Saka (Khotanese) as they are different sub-branches of Eastern Iranian. Just because both are called Scythian from a linguistic genetic relationship they are not the same. Check Linguarum Iranicum, etc. azalea_pomp
 * what is your point? We do have a separate Saka language article. It's a stub. We realize this is a dialect continuum (Eastern_Iranian_languages), but it is still pointless to keep an isolated substub for every sub-sub-dialect of Northeastern Iranian. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive suppression of factual information
It is customary to remove blanked out material to the talk page for discussion, not to preetend it never existed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The cited Iranian etymologies are uncertain due to the fact that we do not know what aspect has motivated the naming of the particular deity. They cannot of course serve as a proof of the Iranian nature of the Scythian language since they are based themselves on that assumption (it would be a vicious circle). Furthermore, it cannot be excluded altogether that the Iranian-speaking Scythians had non-Iranian theonyms.


 * The same criticism is valid for the alternative etymologies proposed by the advocates of the Turkish hypothesis. The following list of cognates in Sumerian and the Altaic and Uralic languages (inter alia) has been compiled by Fred Hamori:


 * Tabiti = *"fire god". Cf. Hurrian tib-ir "vulcan"; Sumerian tab "fire"; Egyptian tep "fire, burn, flame"; Ugrian tab-it, tab, tut "fire"; Hungarian tüz "fire"; tap-lo "tinder"; Sumerian tibira "metal worker, smith, to hit"; Turkic timur "iron"; Hungarian tibor (personal name <) *"smith". Second part = Sumerian adda "father"; Elamite atta "father"; Mede atu "father"; Dravidian atu "father"; Finnic atti "father,grandfather"; Chuvash atte "father"; Hungarian atya "father,patriarch"; Turkic ata "father".


 * Papaios = *father. First part = Sumerian ab, abba "father, old man, elder" (p / b); Sumerian basu "old man"; Akkadian abu "father" (> Semitic languages); Mongol baba "lord, father"; Turk baba "father, ancestor (clan head)"; Bulgar baba "ruler (old Bulgar Hun)"; Osman aba "father"; Dravidian apa, apu, apan "father"; Hungarian apa, apu "father"; Hungarian ba-chi "respected elder man" (s > ch); Ujgur ba-ch "respected elder man" (s > ch); Elamite an-apa "chief god < heavenly father", ne-bo "royal, heavenly ruler"; Dravidian, Egypt, Polynesian, Hungarian nip, nab, anapu, nap "fire / light / sun". Second part = Chuvas as+atte "grandfather"; Hungarian ösh "ancestor, ancient"; Turk yash "elderly, time".
 * Api = = *"mother earth". Cf. Sumerian a-ab-ba "the sea, goddes of the sea", ia "god of wisdom/sea lands"; Hungarian hab "wave, foam"; Ugrian xump "wave".
 * Oitosyros = *"sun god". Cf. Sumerian utu "sun/time god", ud "time", iti "month"; Hungarian Idö "time"; Ujgur ödü "time"; Turkic öt "sun", ot "fire"; Mongol ot-utsir "cause of years". Second part of the word = *"royal/king". Cf. Sumir sar; Scythian Sauro-mata "descendants of "royal" scythians"; Etruscan ae-sar "god" > Latin caesar; Assyrian kari-ja "ruler"; Kotanese chara "commander,leader"; Hun chur "prince", kur-sik "a Hun ruler"; Parthian ar-sak "ruler"; Hungarian ur-sag "lordship" (k > h > -), kor-many "government"; Tibetan chor "ruler"; Petcheneg chur "commander,leader"; Kirghiz choro "commander,leader"; Turk chur "early rulers" (archaic)
 * Arg/timpasa. First part = Sumerian a'r "a praise"; Mongol Er-gim-basa "important,prominent person"; Turkic Er-dem-pasa "head of righteousness?"; Turkic Ar-dam "virtue"; Hungarian Er-dem "virtuous,praiseworthy"; Cuman er-deng "virgin". Second part = Sumerian basu "elder man"; Ugric Paz "god"; Turkic bash > basha "head > prince"; Chuvash pus "head"; Sumerian pa "top, chief"; Osman beyin "head"; Finn-Ugor paa, paaye "head"; Hungarian fö, fey "top, head, chief" (p > f), feye-del-em "prince"; Dravidian pay "head"
 * Thagimasadas. First part = Mongol dagas, tagas "sea" (d > t); Mongol teng-rim "god"; Sumerian ding-ir "god", eng-ur "subterranean sea"; Hun t'ing-li "god"; Hungarian teng-er "sea", dag-ay "tides of the moon" (dag "swelling"), is-ten "god"; Turkic teng-ere "god", teng-iz, ten-iz "sea" (r > z). Or: Scythian *temer "lake/sea"; Sumir tim "lake or well"; Hungarian tav "lake" (m > v; Finnic ti "lake, sea"; Cheremis tomoz; Selkup tama. Second part = Sumir mis "prince / youngman / hero"; Ugor mosh "man"; Dravidian mas, mac "man"; Hungarian meshe "folk tale < hero tale", magy-ari "man > hungarian" (s > sh > z > gy); Turk masal "folk tale"; Russian mozer-ian "Baskir (turkicized magyar)"; Dravidian maga "male" (s > g); Tuva madir "hero". Third member = ata "father", see above.
 * In addition to being arbitrary like the Iranian etymologies given by mainstream scholars, these alternative etymologies suffer from a serious deficiency, namely the lack of a proper methodology. Even though the accumulative evidence may seem convincing to a non-specialist, it is in fact contrary to the basic principles of comparative linguistics. A superficial similarity of two words with a more or less similar meaning is not a proof of them being cognates (famous examples of accidental similarity are English bad ~ Persian bad or English have, German haben ~ Latin habere). The more languages one includes in a mass-comparison, the chance of finding similar words increases. A sound linguistic comparison, on the other hand, works hard in finding regular sound correspondences and derivation patterns language by language. In most cases related words are in fact very unlike indeed in the different languages (e.g. English hound = French chien, English come = French venir); thus, the apparent similarity of Hamori's cognates do not support his allegation - on the contrary.


 * Sumerian is not Turkish. Neither is Dravidian Turkish.  Look at the baseless etymology claims by Mr. Hamori who is a hungarian nationalist.  He claims Hungarian, Dravidian, Sumerian, Turkish are all related groups and then tries to find a similar sounding word in one of those languages to a Scythian word and by couple of transformations, tries to get his result.  That is not how linguistic works.  For example if I claim all the Indo-European languages, then I can relate Chinese to Indo-European.  The reason is that for many chinese words, I should be able to find a word in an Indo-European language and then claim Chinese has Indo-European words.  Have you read the Wikipedia policy on NOR (No Original Research)?  BTW every etymology needs to be sourced.  For example I know all the words from Mede and there is no "atu" as father.  So you can see the first etymology by Hamori is simply false.  Also "atta" for example means father in some Indo-European languages.  --Ali doostzadeh 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * idle fringe etymologizing of Sumerian, Turkic, Dravidian, Hurrian and whatnot is justly ignored on Wikipedia as pseudo-linguistics. dab (𒁳) 21:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification of Scythian
Our article seems inconsistent in this area. We have the box and the code, which links to Linguist List material. The rest of the box does not follow the classification given in the Linguist List; for example, there Scythian is an individual language. It is eastern, but not northeastern. The text references Britannica (modern), which wants to throw in most of eastern Iranian as Scythian. Apparently this is bigger subject that needs some investigation. I'm in favor of following Linguist List, as we have been doing so on all the major language articles. However, in contrast to many classifications, there is some ambiguity as to what actually is to be named Scythian and by whom. So, I suppose there will have to be footnotes to cover this. The corpus of Scythian also has to be clearly stated. I seem to have some work cut out for me here, so I won't be moving very fast. No instant solutions. I will concentrate on sorting out the theories and classifications and stating them correctly. Unless you want to depart from Linguist List they will be the bottom line.Dave (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannica
Britannica's notable language article does have a different classification, which was presented in this article. I have no intention of dispensing with that. This is why I moved classification to the top. That section of course has to be reworked to account for these different classifications. Taking all due cautions to check it on the Internet and get the appropriate refs, I would say, be patient, unless you want to take it over.Dave (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Speakers Of Iranic Languages Not All Ethnically Related To Persians
Certain of the so-called “Iranic-speaking” peoples of West Asia were very willingly assimilated by Germanic tribes in the early Middle Ages. (Some postulate that the Scythians became the Saxons, and we know that the Alans made it all the way to Spain alongside the Vandals and Goths.) I doubt very much if the Sarmatians, or any of the other Scythians, were physically disparate from Europeans. It is notable that Herodotus describes the Scythians as ruddy folk, blue-eyed and red-haired. The Persians speak an Aryan language, yes, but I doubt if they are ethnically related to the Sakash, except perhaps incidentally. Hindi and Russian are related languages through the Indo-European branch, but the people who speak them are not ethnically the same, obviously. The Aryan and Indo-European families are wide-reaching, and we still do not have all the facts which pertain to the spread of this linguistic and cultural tradition. First and foremost, the term “Iranian” should not be used as an ethnonym. It is quite ambiguous.

I know this is a board about language, not anthropology. And, no, I'm not a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.167.158 (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your terms as a bit equivocal; that is, it is hard for me to see what you mean by ethnic and ethnonym. At one point you seem to mean genes; at another, racial characteristics; at still another, language. Also, Iranic and Sakash seema bit foreign. Perhaps the solution to the problems that puzzle you is an adequate definition of ethnicity. The Iranians speak and spoke Iranian languages. But, if you learned Iranian on your mother's knee, chances are you learned the customs and everything else Iranian and chances are you look like all the other iranians, but not necessarily so. From an English-speaker's point of view, I don't see any problem with the way the editors are using these ethnic names. Language is typically meant and also nationality. In English, race and genetics are generally not meant, at least not today. Those are specialized topics; you'd have to say you were talking about race or genes. When we say "Germans" we don't generally mean a bunch of red-headed people. I hope this helps.Dave (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * PS. I did encounter the "Iranic." I do apologize for my ignorance. It is something new of which I was not aware. For anyone else tuned in to this discussion, "Iranic" is the Linguasphere term for the whole group. As I read along I will keep in mind what you say, but I reiterate there is nothing better than clarity of terminology.Dave (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Linguasphere
I see a link to a Linguasphere article has been added. However, the discussion on that is not too positive and someone threatens to have it deleted on the basis that Linguasphere does not have their codes up and running. I'm not interested in the associated edit war. I will try to find Linguasphere and see whether they have any usable codes in this area. If they do I will have to give some consideration on how exactly to handle the rival codes. Linguist List is predominant here, no doubt about it. Whether Linguasphere should have a share in the box or have another box or just be mentioned in the write-up would have to be decided. If their system is in fact not usable yet then I suppose we will have to wait until it is. In any case I'm taking on this task and will report to you on it. For the moment, the Linguasphere link should come out until these matters have been investigated and decided. Naturally, your opinion will count, and I've had enough edit-war stuff so don't even bother.Dave (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Well, I see the Linguasphere is part of the box code now and that code is locked. I don't have access. There is a linguasphere parameter. Well, if there is no code perhaps the parameter can be tweaked to give a code of none. In any case whatever their classification is, should be brought in, I think, so I'm going on with it.

PPS. Dalby just did a 1000-page workup of modern languages in the Linguasphere system. This is a new idea; it is far from complete. They have their own terminology. Unfortunately as far as I can see the 1000 pages are not given to us free of charge. That is not necessarily a big obstacle. However, I can't find any evidence that extinct languages are covered. If anyone knows about these matters please say something. The top level classification is actually available. "Iranic", as they are calling it, has a code. I therefore suggest we put in the code for Iranic and have a one-sentence explanation in the classification. If anyone knows of any further codes, as I say, don't despise us here, put in word or two.Dave (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scythian Map by Dieter Bachmann
I've been struggling to find information on the details of the map indicating Scythia and Parthia. How did Dieter determine the borders of these regions? Is there a guideline for citing map sources? Dezell (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The map as it currently is looks about right. Big area, small map. Can't get all the detail precisely right. Perhaps you may be familiar with Ptolemy and Strabo. If not, they would be worth while. I don't know how Dieter did the map but such maps are really quite easy to do. You take an edition of the two authors I mentioned, turn to the maps, put your tracing paper down, and there you are. All you need are the tools to turn it into a graphics file. As for whether there are guidelines, why don't you contact Dieter? It is user:dab I do believe. Do you have some detail of the map to which you object? If so, why don't you just object? Eventually all objections get read around here.Dave (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Linguist List
The Linguist List, which SIL International uses, is the basis of most articles about specific languages in WP. They provide a convenient ISO code, which seems to appeal to WP linguistics editors. I notice however that they make frequent changes to their list. That's to be expected, but it causes some confusion on WP. I think WP should keep up with it. Also I think there is a tendency not to realize that these codes are associated with a certain classification, devised by the linguists at Linguist List. So, other classifications may be inserted into the box as Linguist List's. I regard that as an inaccuracy. The boxes for all the Iranian languages are in somewhat of a mess of mixed classifications. I'm hoping to do something to straighten that out. That does not mean I pass judgement on any other classification, not at all. The box covers the coded languages. Its classification should match the code. Others can be expounded in the "Classification" subsection.Dave (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Passage set aside
"The vast majority of Scythological scholars agree that the Scythian-Sarmatian languages (and Ossetic) belong to the Eastern Iranian language family — like the once widespread but now extinct Sogdian language. This Iranian hypothesis relies principally on the fact that the Greek inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea Coast contain several hundreds of Sarmatian names showing a close affinity to the Ossetic language. ref Compare L. Zgusta, Die griechischen Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste [The Greek personal names of the Greek cities of the northern Black Sea coast], 1955. end ref."

The first 6 words are phrased as though they were weasel words - the editor didn't want to say who. Also they lead you to think there is some sort of question. There is no question, no need to defend anything. The only other view I know is a crank one - Ossetic is a Turkic language. Turkic derivations are found for the words. We can discount him all right. Anyway, "the Iranian hypothesis" does not at all rely on the Black Sea inscriptions. Ossetic is directly observable as an Iranian language; no need to deduce anything. This appears to be an over-condensation of the argument that the Black Sea inscriptions show that Old Ossetic, as they are called, is the ancestor of Ossetic. The ref is incomplete. No page numbers. But, why cite Zgusta when you can cite the originator of the study? So, I replaced this one with an expanded version giving more of the detail. We aren't going to lose Zgusta; he is cited elsewhere in the article.Dave (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another passage set aside
"Historians normally divide the Scytho-Sarmatian group chronologically rather than geographically:
 * Scythian (ca. 800 - 300 BC), mainly evidenced in Classical Greek authors
 * Sarmatian (ca. 300 BC - AD 400), mainly evidenced in Hellenistic and Roman inscriptions
 * Alanic (ca. AD 400 - 1000), mainly evidenced in Byzantine Greek authors"

The reference to what historians normally do is not of encyclopedic tone. We're not interested in the concept of normality as it applies to historians. In any case they do not prefer chronologic over geographical. Both are required. The names of the languages are somewhat amorphous. There was not necessarily one language in those categories. For example, lingist list's Alanic is a language of Spain used by the decendants of the Alans who escaped with the Goths from the Huns. Sarmatian does not appear at all, perhaps because it is under Old Ossetic. The list presumes that the languages mentioned are in fact known to be languages and are fully documented as such. I would say, this is over simple. The material is covered in previous sections or will be covered in sections I have not yet worked much on. I can't really do anything with this, too condensed, makes too many assumptions.Dave (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Third set-aside
"Some scholars ref E.g. Harmatta 1970. end ref detect a division of Scytho-Sarmatian into two dialects: a western, more conservative dialect, and an eastern, more innovative one. The innovative dialect may correspond to Sarmatian, whereas the conservative dialect may continue the dialect spoken by the old Scythians before the invasion of the Sarmatians."

This statement gives Harmatta as a ref but does not state which work by Harmatta or what page. I looked for it in the Harmatta I've been using and did not find it. If you have a proper ref for this please speak up. Otherwise it does not read as though it were conceived by a linguist. It does not follow the usual geographic or chronological classifications but speaks instead of "innovative" and "conservative." How can you judge something like that from a few fragments? I suspect it, but I often am wrong. If that is the case here, let me know, perhaps we can do something further with it. Meanwhile the topic of Old Ossetic dialects and languages is quite a large one. I don't know if we can do it justice really but we can parrot a few ideas passed by the linguists.Dave (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fourth set-aside
"between the 8th century BC and the 5th century AD. Up to the 4th century AD we have only a few words from any of these languages ref Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition - Macropedia on Languages of the World, "The Iranian Languages" end ref, substantial evidence of Sogdian and Saka dating from a later period."

The earlier stage of the article now goes beyond these elementary statements. Sogdian and Saka are covered in their own articles, which, however imperfect now, will be improved. In any case the "history" section is not really about history. In order to express what the editor seems to be driving at it needs to be expanded somewhat - also, archaeological speculations are in here without being defined as such. These are far from linguistic "facts." They definitely should be explicated here, but one or two sentences is not going to do it.Dave (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bachman's reversion
What is the story, here, Bachmann? Am I supposed to lose my temper now? Well I am not going to. What do you mean unsalvageable? I admit I'm not done with it. What I can do is finish it offline and then put the completed version back in. Did you not see that I was working on it? I would appreciate it if you would explain yourself. If it is the completion aspect, then as I say I can complete it. As far as what you had is concerned, you have no references and the view you present is not an accurate one. As you did not change the box back or revert the introduction I presume that it was the unfinished aspect that bothered you. I view this article as important because all the others are in quite bad shape and this is a fundamental one. Your reversion removed all the major sources, including Linguist List. What prompted you to take this action? As I am a reviewer of sorts I think I deserve an answer. Since you are working on this tonight, how about a dialogue? I shall await your answer. I will copy what I had over to a my user area and work on it there. As we are discussing it I will not place any templates. The ones it should get are the factual accuracy one and the no references one. This is only for the classification section. I have not checked the rest of it yet. For the history section, that stuff is just plain wrong. You can't associate languages with archaeology unless they are contemporary and then not without good reason. Kossinna's Law is not valid. Hoping to have some reasonable explanation and points of view soon. Dave (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No reply. Well, you know, Dieter, I've been on here for 5 years and you've been with me for just about every step of the way. You're a very determined fellow and we all know that determination pays off, whatever that should mean. History has had some very determined men. You know, I think your determination may finally have gotten me at last. All I can say is, this "encyclopedia" can either be about persons and personal feelings, and we can issue territorial warnings that certain articles or sections belong to certain editors, or it can be about the truth, but it can't be about both. What exactly have you got here or in any of these Iranian articles? What do you think you are accomplishing for 60000 edits or whatever? Chances are you are not going to answer, so don't bother. I got to go now. If you are interested in discussing this you know where to contact me. I would be mightily impressed if you put back what I had or else explained your reversion. Otherwise I am not inclined to waste any more time on you. Well, it isn't wasted, because you learn from every experience. Frankly it seems to me you are acting arbitrarily and without following policies and procedures and that you are one of a class of persons who does so apparently without governance. WP does not interfere with what you do but you interfere plenty in what others do and without appeal. I am wondering exactly what the term "administrator" means here. What exactly do you administer? If you were right in the things you delete and leave, it wouldn't be so bad, but you aren't. These "articles" don't look a thing like what the books and articles say. Frankly, Dieter, there is a big gap between whatever it is you are doing and what WP says it is doing, which I at the moment have no way to explain. Bye now. Remember, reasonable replies, or don't bother.Dave (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are trying to make this personal now. I saw an article getting out of control and I reverted to the last good version, that's all. "Determination" has nothing to do with it. Since you think that you were about to build something encyclopedic, eventually, perhaps you could try and use a WP:Workpage. Once you have compiled your material in an encyclopedic manner, you can still include it in the live article. I hope it is clear that a section entitled "Meaning of Scythian language", beginning with a subsection "Linguist List" dedicated to discussing the online Linguist List and its classification of various Iranian languages isn't encyclopedic, so I think my revert is amply justified. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, dab. I am surprised to see a reply here. Throughout the last 5 years you and I have had many discussions. You generally do not discuss, or at least you try not to. Your reply is a little late as far as I am concerned. I am still becoming inactive on WP. Nevertheless I called for a reply and here it is. I do not see any threats in it or disparagements so I am going to answer it. For the personal part, I am not getting personal, only frustrated. Certainly you should be aware that many editors consider you quite arbitrary. My last main experience was the Kurgan Hypothesis, where you wanted to remove Maria Gimbutas from the hypothesis (following her opponents). The only problem was, she invented the hypothesis. I had concluded beforehand that you were quite determined and that actually was somewhat of a problem for me. However I have accepted most of your judgements on WP. Many have been good, in my opinion. On this article, it isn't just this article of concern to me, it is the whole collection of articles on Iranian tribes and languages. This is only the foundation article. Beyond that we have the same problem with all the ancient languages and tribes: they are just too inexpert even to consider taking seriously and this does not seem to be of concern to admins. At this moment I would have to say, like many another skilled and educated user, I am not coming back to WP on an active basis. It takes too much time for too little return and the majority of the time is spent in edit wars. I think that is the feeling of the general public as well. I have more to say on this but it is better to say it in installments.Dave (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Next installment. Actually neither one of us is stating the case exactly. You TOOK a lot of my changes on this article. I rewrote the article. I rewrote the box. What is currently in the classification section is only the remnant of the material left behind. You appear to have a desire to seem reasonable or even to be reasonable. Fine. Let's take it from there. Your suggestion is to develop the section on a workpage. Seems good to me. Why clutter the article with undeveloped remnants? Why should you take MY word for what I intended to do? It isn't the fact that the appearance of undeveloped material was unacceptable to you, but rather the arbitrary way you did it. Speaking of unacceptability you must know that what is there is absurd and unreferenced. It would not even be acceptable in a freshman paper on the topic. It gets an F. But how do I express that evaluation? The above discussion questions everything in it. The reference is not a reference, it has no title or page numbers. So, I believe WP's policy in such cases is to put on tags. I am going to do that now. Often when I do that someone reverts the tags. You've done it I believe. This action will leave you with two choices. You can take the tags off or leave them on. If you take them off, discussion over. I shall not believe that your intent is reasonable and I no longer have time for unreasonable admins. If you leave them on we can go forward. Installment change.Dave (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Next installment. Hmn. Bottom line. We seem to be talking mainly about the organization of the section. Fair enough. I didn't like it myself; toward the end I would have reorganized it anyway. If we are going on I WILL use a workpage and use proper writing development procedure to develop it. The first step in any effort is an outline. I will take it step by step. Usually the article already has an acceptable outline. Not in this case. For the references, well you mistate the case there. The Linguist List ref is about the only one that does not cite book or article. True there are links to web sites. That is only an additional convenience. The refs are in fact to proper books and articles. Also I do not think you looked carefully at the existing references. Some are incomplete. What good is that? For linguist list, you contradict yourself. For one thing, it is not necessary to cite it because the box references it also through the language code. If Linguist List is unencyclopedic, why are we using it in every single WP language article? I can't really understand what you are saying there. If you want to cut out Linguist List, take out all the language boxes from WP. I don't mind just assuming it, as the box references it anyway. Perhaps you would prefer the SIL write-up. Are you going to tell me SIL is unencyclopedic also? Also I can't really connect with your claim of eccentricity. Unencyclopedic. Eccentric. These are not good judgements. Poorly organized - well I can accept that. I have to caution, if you decide to work with me on this I am going to be just as critical for the rest of the article, which I have not even looked at except cursorily. Well I need to go now. If you decide to cooperate on this I don't mind working on a work page and having you look at the different stages of the write-up. I work that way all the time when I do work. If you want to have people you consider expert look at it, fine. Now don't take this personally but I question your own expertise in the subject matter. We've been thru this before on the Greek and Latin side. This is not personal, only a question as to whether your content judgements are expert. More than this I cannot do. The ball is in your court. What is it worth to get good articles as opposed to convenient misinformation? As I say, any further arbitrariness or unreasonableness or failure to cooperate with your own suggestions and I'm out of here and you may as well revert the box and the intro also for al the good it is to the public. This is the last installment. I'll see what you do then I will or will not create a work page.Dave (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a bunch of tags in. Basically my objection to this section is its incompleteness. It does not bring out the main issues, whether there was in fact a known continuum and whether Ossetian is traced to any known dialect. Scythian is a vague and analogous term, it needs to be defined carefully. Old Ossetian is not mentioned at all. Maybe you need an expert. I could put more tags in. Let's see what you do with these tags. I need to know that this or any article can be improved or are we stuck with what one admin thinks and that is that. If the latter is true, then I'm done with this discussion and done with this "encyclopedia." It's nothing personal, Dieter. It's a question of return of utility for time spent. We need to consider what service we are actually offering besides the opportunity to be victorious in edit wars. I have to do something else with my morning now. You ask too much. I can't donate my time mainly for being a sparring partner. I don't even like to fight.Dave (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One more PS. I've been trying to analyze this conflict and here is what I came up with. What you seem to find most objectionable, or at least the first objection you uttered, concerns Linguist List. You don't consider that encyclopedic. LL works closely with SIL International. Is that not so? This disagreement then goes much over my head and probably over yours. The language boxes in use feature the ISO codes. Those codes are described in SIL International. The language committee here is responsible for that arrangement. For these Iranian articles, someone (you?) has been putting in classifications other than the one for which the codes were devised. I don't see that in the Latin or other articles. This introduces a fundamental contradiction to the articles. Chances are EB is using the Linguist List (or vice versa). The problem comes when you start bringing in other noted scholars. You have to decide or else get a determination that Linguist List is or is not encyclopedic. There is no other consistent way to procede. For example, Linguist List says Scythian ends in the 4th century BC. Here we have it going all the way up to Ossetian. If you say it is not encyclopedic, then I am all done. I can't assert both x and not-x in the same article. If you want to take all the codes out of the boxes then we can procede. If you say it is encyclopedic then we can find out where it comes from and use that. A decision is required. Is LL the basis for WP language articles or not? I would suggest you check with the language committee. Among the people you removed as unencyclopedic are Abaev and other Russians. What, Britannica is OK but Iranica is not? Well, I have put in a bunch of tags. I'm waiting to see what your response is. I will wait for a bit. Meanwhile why don't you think over where you stand on Linguist List, because this issue comes up on every single language article. I'm only doing this because you responded to my request for a reasonable reply. So, I'm taking a break from WP for a week or so then I will check in here. If you've made the right decisions I can go on with an outline in a work page. The principle of organization will take some thought. We can try out a few. If not, this rump-end effort will end. I have not changed my mind about getting off WP. You will then have to decide what to do with the article. My suggestion would be to go back to the point where I started to edit and revert to the last non-Dave version, but, practically speaking, it makes little difference.Dave (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

bullshit
"Russian word "khoroshyi" (good) which has Iranian root "khur" (good) and is not found in the other Slavic languages but in Ossetian (northeastern Iranian) instead."

Khoroshy. In other slavic languages as Krasno -"great"

please learn Slavic languages and then write nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.11.11 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

«Хороший» is usually etymologized as the children language form of «хоробрый» "brave" («хороший мальчик». "brave boy" -> "good boy"), so there is no need to introduce an Iranian source with a strange suffix. --89.112.59.155 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Хороший (= KHOROSHYI, HOROSHI) mali, malichki (little one - boy in this context) is NOT хоробрый(Horobri) or Slavic Hrabri. H-Rab-Ri (rabiti - "to use") and Horoshi - Koroshi - Krashyi - Krasni ("magnificent" or "beautiful" and not "good" at all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.28.205 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If the Scythians were the Sakas, why do we have two separate pages for the same language?
I thought 'Saka' was the self-designation of the Scythians and the name by which other Iranian groups called them (Persians, Medes, etc...), Scythian being the Greek name for the Sakas.

Why is there page on the so-called "Saka" language if it was spoken by the same ethnic group? How does it differ, apart from the location spoken? It's a Northeastern-Iranian language also... I don't think there's any difference.

It's like having two pages for the German language based on the foreign designation and ethnic designation for it: Deutsche language and German language.

Or Russian Language and Russky Language, Spanish Language and Espanol Language. Doesn't make sence? Gamer112 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There were two separate people known as Scythian. The first people, the Sakasen (Saxon's) (according to Stephanus of Byzantium and  General Ban Chao's  Chinese Imperial reports were forced to migrate west under pressure from eastern tribes who defeated and displaced them.  The eastern tribes became Scythians themselves from the regions they conquered.  Sima Qian, Zhang Qian wrote that the Yuezhi (Asii and Tokhari moved through Da Yuan and conquered Bactria defeating the Saka king.  The original Sakas (Amyrgians) were displaced and moved west.  The Greeks (Strabo) knew of this migration and passed along the info the the Romans (Tacitus, Pliny) who distinguished the original Scythians by calling them 'genuine' in Latin ('Germani'), from the eastern tribes who had become and remained known as Scythians (by means of displacement).LinuxDude (talk)
 * I think I can answer this now and I think the article is in the process of of answering it. The answer is that we live in a four-dimensional world, not a three-. Whichever way the universe and society is at any moment of consideration is nowhere large enough. You have to consider it at the next, and the next, etc., so when you take time into consideration the universe (and society) are far vaster than anyone imagined or can imagine. Consider one small aspect, the time payment. Let's say you owe $1000. When you get the bill it might seem overwhelming and infuriating. Now consider the time dimension. You don't owe 1000, you only owe the monthly payment of 100. Same thing with German and Deutsch. If by Deutsch you mean speakers of modern German then they can't be the descendants of the ancient Germans, which must include the English, the Scandinavians, and all the rest of the Germanic language speakers. This is how Hitler got an ideological edge, by pretending that modern German speakers are the true heirs to the ancient Germans. Saka is the same way. You have to consider Old, Middle and New Iranians. The attested Saka is middle Iranian while ancient Saka must have been Old Iranian, except that nothing survives. Moreover, the name Saka was not universal to the ancient Scythians I do not believe. And finally, other Middle Iranian languages came from the Scythians as Saka as well. Defining terms is really an important part of the topic. I hope I am doing better. For the Saka article I hope to be covering mainly the Middle Iranian Saka and the article shows traces of having been originally intended for that purpose. By Scythian Linguist List means the Old Iranian langage, so when you consider time they appear different. Thanks.Dave (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

More Scythian (Sakan) vocabulary from my notes
English - Saka Scythian - (Possible connections??)


 * Earth - 'Isama&#353;anda
 * Life - Jiveté (M. Kurdish "Jewey", "Ji" ; O. Pers. Jiva; Sansk. Jivita; Latv. Dzive)
 * Joy - Patsanémeté (Urart. Pitsu&#353;é; Hurr. Pisu&#353;ti)
 * Sun - Urmaisdé
 * Water - Utsa (Latv. Udens; Gael. U&#353;ke; Phryg. Utur)
 * Love - Briya (Vedic Preman; Goth. Friyaþva)
 * Wisdom - Hajvataté (Luw. Hazizi&#353;a; Hitt. Hatatar; O. Pers &#352;iyati)


 * Conclusions: Some of the words in this small sample don't seem to have any close connections to other languages; and some of the "possible connections" are "long-shots". The most obvious cognate is the word for Life with the Indo-Aryan languages.  All of the vaguely similar words happen to be Indo-European; with the exception of the Urartian / Hurrian.
 * It would be interesting to see what these vocab are in Ossetic, if anyone has it. Feel free to add any other connections or words to this list if you know of any.  Note, these words are nothing at all like their counterparts in Tocharian, that I have put on the Talk:Tocharian_languages page.  Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 05:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jivete is very similiar to the Slavic "Ziva","Ziv" or "Zivot" (pronounced with a 'ZH' sound similiar to J), a common cognate among Slavic Languages meaning living, live, life, etc... Zivite in Serbo-Croatian means "to live", probably very similiar cognates in other Slavic languages. Gamer112 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this looks interesting but I don't see any sources. I don't know what you mean by notes. Class notes are not encyclopedic references. You need to do the work and come up with citeable books, articles or web sites.Dave (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Which "references" of Slavic language do you need? Reference is a Slavic(any) - English dictionary. And indeed "Jiva" (Sanskrit) is Slavic Zhiva, Djiva,...("life, alive...")


 * For the word for sun, compare Ahura Mazda: 'In the Iranian dialects of Yidḡa and Munǰī, the sun is still called "ormozd"'. Doesn't get more Iranian (Eastern Iranian, even) than that. The word for joy can contain a prefix pat(i)- attested in other Iranian languages, so the similarity with Hurro-Urartian may well be superficial. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave was obviously replying to Codex Sinaiticus, not you, Gamer112. It's well-known that the Indo-Iranian and Slavic words are cognate. See Wiktionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian nationalist pseudoscience
"The runes of the Magyars (Hungarians) are very similar to the Scythian runes. The  Hungarian chronicles tell us about the Scythian-Hunnish ancestry of the  Hungarians and the  Hungarian runatic writing was called Scythian writing in the middle age  Hungary.  The symbols of the Scythians (deer, griffin, tree of life etc.) were the main symbols of the  Hungarians too so the kinship seems to be possible."

I've removed this paragraph as it really seems to do nothing more than attempt to prove some kind of nationalist sentiment about the origins of the Magyar people. Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about the history of Hungary, the Magyar, or the Scythians, can see this paragraph makes little scientifc sense. --86.135.71.113 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The information entirely pertinent. It simply needs rephrasing. I would request it's return with appropriate modification to ensure matters are objectively stated. --Rah29 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh no it's not, it's unsourced, pseudo-scientific, nationalistic bullsh*t. Somebody is obviously trying to imply the Hungarians descend from the Scythians or the Huns, which thanks to modern archaeology and genetics we know is false. Gamer112 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you for this primitive reaction. First of all it's well sourced, mostly by foreign sources as long in the "new age" some real pseudo-scientists invented their Finno-Ugrian doctrine. Your lines are implying an accusation against Hungarians, it's not fair, only the scientific value is important. Your last sentence is hilarious! Thanks to the modern archeology and genetics we know the Finno-Ugrian theory is living it's last days. If you'd remain silent, you'd be wiser. Anyway the corresponding sentence did not state Hungarians descending from the Scythians or the Huns, just about a possible kinship.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC))


 * The overwhelming consensus by mainstream scholars is that the Hungarian language is an Uralic language, i. e., a straight linear development from Proto-Uralic just like the Finnic, Saami and Samoyedic languages. Archaeology and genetics have nothing to contribute to this, because the origins of the Hungarian people are a completely separate topic. Chance is that the Hungarians are genetically more Slavic than anything else. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the Hungarians are thought to have taken over many cultural traits (quite possibly the script also, although they may have taken it from Turkic peoples instead) and some words from the Scythians back in Siberia and also in Eastern Europe, so there is a link, but still, linguistically the Hungarians are solidly Uralic/Finno-Ugric. Their biological and cultural origins, like in any people, are of course mixed. (Most Hungarians I have seen look solidly European like their Slavic, Germanic and Romanian neighbours, from Central/Eastern to Southern European, and few if any look even slightly East Asian. That said, neither did the Scythians.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Herr Doktor Blaschke has been hanging out with the Scythians again! I hope they didn't give you any cannabis or questionable meats.  Weird for Turkish fans to ignore their epic battles in north China to claim the Scythians...that was a history nobody wanted.  Gog and Magog type stuff.  Really the Scythians were just Slavic farmers with Iranian Sakas and maybe Volga Finn river stockades protecting them.  Maybe some Thracian or German or Galatian teams.  Maybe they can marry a farmers daughter and settle down.  The Scythians name is scary but really a Scyth is just a farming too and the Ossetian myths are that of a frontier farmer.

Indo-Euro and Iranian speakers might not be as exciting to Turkmaniacs who think they invented mounted archery...and that all Europeans are generic...but language aside these crews left a big mark. Mr. Blaschke, you live in Europe, you must know that language doesn't denote race or culture and But I think telling a Hungarian, or a Lithuanian or East German, that she's just a generic Eastern European Slav communist...would you say Munich is the same as Hamburg, just macho dudes and busty chicks with no humor? I expect few to have interest in the Caucasus mtns, or the Moksha Finns, or Baltic languages...and sure Hungary waves the flag for the Huns which seems crazy, Linguists are historians too and ethnicity and nationalism Romanians if they are Romani, or as I am glad you're sticking to the unfashionable truth...I'm not sure why Turkmaniacs want a big military strike in Europe so early...merchants and Tocharians might pass on some lingo but neither Oirat nor Dingling spoke the varieties of modern Turkic - full of loanwords, and no two dialects the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.137.188 (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tirgil34's edit
I've reverted this as it is pretty clearly copied from somewhere else, and because the many sources it mentions don't have enough information about them to verify them - see WP:VERIFY. Perhaps Tirgil34 could explain where this came from. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had to revert him again. The reference style used in his bulk addition of text is called Parenthetical referencing and requires full citations to be verifiable. It is also inconsistent with the referencing style of the article and would have to be converted before adding it. It is clearly also copied from elsewhere (without the full citations) and is thus apparently a copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Tirgil34 wrote this first on the German Wikipedia and copied it here. Always a good idea when copying material across Wikipedias, "a note identifying the Wikimedia source (such as an interlanguage link) should be made in an edit summary and a link left to the original at the article's talk page." Good idea even if it's your own material. And copying between articles here requires the same sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now back, both in the German and the English version. The refs are now complete, but I'm extremely wary of the comparisons with modern Turkish/Bashkir/Mordvin/Romance/English (sic!). Much of that is obvious nonsense, as far as I can see, but Tirgil34 insists that the sources are serious, scholarly and unbiased, which I can't really address or examine directly. I don't read Turkish, for starters. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting table and useful to have for so little known languages but maybe it would be great to add alternate views/sources for some of the words. Linguistics can be misused, abused or sometimes word connections can be plain wrong but done in good faith.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Providing Turkic etymologies for words fixed in Europe before Christ is sure nonsense. Most of mentioned authors used as sources are not notable and not reliable. According to these reasons:
 * The table contains nonsense etymologies with references to not reliable authors.
 * The section doesn't blend with other parts of the article.
 * This information is already exist in the preamble."Most researchers believe that the Scythian language belongs to the (old-)northeast Iranian of Indo-European group."
 * First paragraph is bad retelling of section Corpus.
 * Last paragraph is not about various linguistic etymologies.
 * It is highly possible that the section is copied from other place. Tirgil34 used Harvard citation like Gasanov 2002, 210.
 * There was no consensus on the table. And there are users who consider the table as nonsense.
 * ...I am deleting the section. Tirgil34, please next time discuss your changes if your edit is against consensus.--Bouron (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I see you are in agreement about the references. But I see Bouron is uncertain about the sense of my list. He says that there were no Turkic etymologies for words fixed in Europe before Christ. For this I will cite some evidences:


 * "But we hear of the name Turk in connexion with the Turkish invaders of Europe in the pre-Christian era. Pomponius Mela in the 1st cent. AD calls them Turcae and says that they live near the Budini, and Pliny the Elder in the same century uses the name Tyrcae of a people in the neighbourhood of the Don." (James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 24, Kessinger Publishing, Reprint 2003, p.476)


 * or


 * "[...] From the Sassanian data we have to accept that the warlike nomads who occured in the last centuries B.C. and who partly invaded in the Pontus and the Jaxartes areas in Sogdiana and Bactria were of Ural-Altaic, most likely of Turko-Tatarian origin. We use the term "most likely" because the most imaginable ethnos in the areas that encircles the north of the Iranian world and the great Ural-Altaic ethnicity could have been only of Turko-Tatarian descent, an ethnicity which existed there for thousands of years and is still at home in that areas; and because no single, even remotely plausible argument exists to assume any extraordinary ethnic upheaval to consider them as ancient inhabitants another Ural-Altaic people. Thus the question: 'did the peoples of Turko-Tatarian tounge occur in World History after the Arab invasion of Central Asia, or have there been actions in the Oriental World before Christ', must be answered with the last consideration." (Hermann Vambery, The origin of the Magyars: An ethnological study, FA Brockhaus, 1882, p.20) [This is my personal translation]


 * Furthermore:
 * The table contains reasonable etymologies with references to reliable authors, see notes from 27 to 70. (17:39, 26 January 2012‎)
 * Sources are not given as Harvard citation, see completed notes from 27 to 70, as mentioned above.
 * The section blend with other parts of the article, see note 75 by Karl Bouda. (17:39, 26 January 2012‎)
 * I will rewrite this section:
 * "Most researchers believe that the Scythian language belongs to the (old-)northeast Iranian of Indo-European group."
 * I will rewrite the paragraphs.
 * The section is a self-made reproduction of the German version. This was hard work.
 * Other users are mostly agreeing on the table. We are just waiting for consensus.--Tirgil34 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2012 (CET)

Not commenting on the content, but it was copied from somewhere else, I've pointed out that it was copied from the German Wikipedia by the person who first added it to de.Wiki, Tirgil34. I've added a null edit summary saying that. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what is even being discussed here. What is a discussion of Turkish etymologies doing on this page? Discussion of random etymologies belongs on wiktionary. Discussion of Turkic languages belongs on Turkic languages. This is the article about the Scythian languages. WHat the hell is this supposed to mean,
 * "word: vita Scythian word: vita source: Cuneiform Inscriptions from Susa, Iran (A.D. Mordtmann, 1870, 50) meaning: opposite	derived  from: English opposite, opposite source: A. Chay 2002, 155"

I can only assume this is a joke. Please don't waste people's time with this stuff. If you want to amuse yourself with posting random nonsense to see how people react, pray use google groups or something of the kind. Wikipedia is full of geeks with no sense of humour, so your pranks are not going to be appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that "A. Chay 2002" stands for "some homepage we found on the internet at s155239215.onlinehome.us". Why is this even brought up here, and why is Tirgil34 being allowed to revert-war over something like this without being given over to the warn-block cycle without further comment? Guys, your time is better spent writing articles than fighting windmills like this. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is actually concisting OF users like you and the likes of you, then Wikipedia is still going on to be a lost propaganda platform. Or should I enumerate how many Wikipedia rules you have broken Mr. dab? No, better not, you would fall in shame.--Tirgil34 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (CET)

--

Waiting for consensus on linguistic etymologies
There are only sparse written records about the Scythians, which makes statements about their language very difficult. Herodotus gives in his History Books several words about the Scythian language such as etymologies like Arimaspoi 'one-eyed' (4.27; their historicity is disputed) and Oiorpata 'men killer' (4.110). The identification of the components of those names is very complex. Most researchers suggest ΟΙΟΡ (oior) as iranian vīra- 'man, hero', while ΠΑΤΑ (Pata) is perhaps a prescription of ΜΑΤΑ, so Iranian mar, 'kill'.

Herodotus also leads to a number of people-, gods- and peoples names. Furthermore there are known cuneiform inscriptions dating from the Achaemenid Empire in the ancient Iranian city of Susa. Darius I, son of Hystaspes, left in it a Scythian language of a peculiar type.

Most researchers believe that the Scythian language belongs to the (old-)northeast Iranian of Indo-European group.

That the Scythian language is belonging to the northeastern branch of the Iranian group is also indicated by the fact that the Sauromatians or Sarmatians, according to Herodotus, used a corrupt form (dialect) of the Scythian language, and they were without doubt Iranians: In the late Greek inscriptions of the colonies of the northern Black Sea Coast have been handed down about 300 Iranian names, which can be explained only by Sarmatian influence. These names show some geographical differences in the sound development, which presumably suggests the existence of an eastern (=Scythian?) And a western (=Sarmatian?) dialect. In other words: In ancient times the Scythians, Sarmatians and Saka formed a linguistic continuum, from which the Sogdian †, the Alan † and the Ossetic languages occured. However, some authors affirm that the explanation of the Scythian words by the Iranian would be often full of contradictions and would be greatly exaggerated.

28 Turkic and 9 Iranian etymologies -> Iranian language?
So, in the above table, we have 28 Turkic and 9 Iranian etymologies imbedded in Scythian names. Surprisingly, this seems to lead to the conclusion that Scythian is an Iranian language. How can this be possible? Furthermore, the article says

"The Scythian languages (/ˈsɪθiən/ or /ˈsɪðiən/) were a family of Eastern Iranian languages of the classical and late antiquity period, spoken in a vast region of Eurasia named Scythia. It is a Middle Iranian language, belonging to the Iranian group in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family."

without providing any scientific references. Please, add more argumentation to support the Iranian origin of Scythian language, if you want to make the article scientifically sound. Now it just looks like an another poorly-argumented Wikipedia article. Tuisco (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is really piss-poor are the sound-alike etymologies (see False etymology) with Turkic languages presented above. Most are completely unconvincing on a statistical basis and amount to random noise, i. e., chance resemblances that are not even remarkable.
 * Like it or not, the Iranian classification of Scythian is well-established in the literature (by real historical linguists, experts on ancient languages and reconstruction of proto-languages), and Wikipedia does not need to spoonfeed its readers evidence and arguments and walk them through an introduction to historical linguistics. Just read a good introduction; ever since Fortson's textbook, we have an actually good one for beginners. But I have to warn you: it's hard. Linguistics, real serious linguistics, is complicated. So much more than picking out random words from a dictionary. Otherwise, everybody could do it and we wouldn't need experts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tirgil34 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (CET)

Redirect from Saka
Currently Saka languages redirects here. This seems a bit backwards: the languages of the Saka language group (currently awkwardly dab'd by being in the singular) are sometimes also called Scythian, but are the more western Scythian languages (Sarmatian, Alanian, Ossetic) themselves ever known as "Saka"? -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-Aryan word flag
The section on Sarmatians put out a call for references on Scythian words to this article. The discussion page cites chalibes, "steel". This is not an Aryan or an Indo-European word in origin. The Chalybes were the metallurgists for the region. At one time between the little and big Caucasus mountains natural nodes of bronze and steel were lying around on the surface. The people living there, who must have descended to Georgians and other Caucasian peoples, began working the copper. Eventually they invented tuyeres, which enabled them to achieve higher temperatures, at which point they discovered natural steel, which was iron mixed with Arsenic and Carbon. When they learned how to vary the Carbon content by puddling, they became the steel-mongers of the region. They developed a distinctive art, which has since come to be called "Scythian art." It is the famed animal and woven vegetation style, which you see also in Mycenaean art, with the "flying leap"of the gazelles. That they were not Indo-European is certain. The Chalybes are pretty well known in Biblical studies, living north of Assyria. Moreover, some of them descended to the kingdom or Urartu, which came from the original Hurrians. Urartu was taken over by Indo-European-speaking Armenians, on account of which the Armenians often take credit for the entire widespread style of art. These matters are explicated on any good history of Armenia or Georgia as well as on the Internet. Try topics such as copper or steel, ancient, or origin. The plains people, or Aryans, got most of their metal goods from the Caucasus region, although some was from the Urals, and then later some from Czechoslovakia and Poland. The Caucasus contains its own very ancient languages including many now defunct, such as Hattili and Hurrili as well as Urartean. We don't have much on the Chalybes and the origin of human use of metals in Wikipedia but if no one else does it eventually I will get to it. Meanwhile, it might be good not to get too carried away by Iranians. Not everything is Iranian. And, the Indo-Europeans may have been great horse traders, but they got their metal and their metal weapons and at least some of their vocabulary regarding those things from someone else.

"Aryan" and "Indo-European" are not synonymous, as your phrasing here would tend to imply. "Aryan" properly refers to the Indo- Iranian branch of Indo-European alone. Also, while on the topic of "Aryan", why is that old chestnut always allowed to appear in Wikipedia articles about "Aryan" meaning "noble", for which there is not the slightest evidence?


 * I thought there was at least some slight evidence for that one... arya- like Cognates in all the really old Indo-European languages, including Avestan, Sanskrit, Hittite, Greek (aristo-), Celtic, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, etc.... Hopefully someone with better data at their fingertips can fill this one out... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Codex Sinaiticus has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.238 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanskrit and Avestan are both Indo-Iranian languages so of course 'arya-' does appear in both - although with no certain meaning besides its use as the ethnonym for the original speakers of either language - but there are no certain cognates in any dialect outside of the Indo- Iranian branch. The root of Greek 'aristo-' may well be related to that of 'arya-', but 'aristo-' is not in Greek an ethnonym and thus any indication that the Indo-European ancestors of the Greeks ever called themselves 'arya-' or *aryo-. Those forms in Celtic and Germanic to which you refer were once thought to be cognates of 'arya-' but which etymologies have since been rejected. I'm not myself aware of any supposed cognates in Latin or Hittite.

See the archives of Yahoo's Indo-European discussion list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/ and/or query that list for confirmation or more information. See also Yahoo's indo-iranian linguistics list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo_iranian/.


 * See Wiktionary, although I agree that the Celtic and Anatolian comparanda are dubious and Mallory/Adams explicitly state that there is no evidence that it was ever used as an ethnonym outside of Indo-Iranian. And of course, the derivation from Semitic is bullshit, although I cannot check the source right now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of this section? I mean exact point. The non-Iranic OR non-IE origin? Can you provide your sources? --Zyma (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

More information
See The Scythian Empire, by Christopher i. Beckwith. Published 2023 by Princeton University Press 2600:8800:7000:162:C587:5220:FDA:2E72 (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Beckwith is highly unreliable and makes outlandish conclusions, so I don't recommend using him as a source. Antiquistik (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)