|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 15, 2016 3:52:15 GMT
That's all the names in German if you didn't know. And btw it's Südafrika I believe I'm aware of that. I mean it's just like Germans call their country Destuchland. So... and then...? That's where I'm drawing a blank because I think I missed the point somewhere.  If you're wondering where the name German came from, it came from the Romans as they called the tribes living there Germans (living in Germania). Almanya as it's known in Turkish and similar versions (sorry I only know Turkish fluent which has that variation) is because of a tribe after Rome's fall. The English (Angles) were a Germanic tribe btw |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 15, 2016 5:25:19 GMT
I'm aware of that. I mean it's just like Germans call their country Destuchland. So... and then...? That's where I'm drawing a blank because I think I missed the point somewhere. If you're wondering where the name German came from, it came from the Romans as they called the tribes living there Germans (living in Germania). Almanya as it's known in Turkish and similar versions (sorry I only know Turkish fluent which has that variation) is because of a tribe after Rome's fall. The English (Angles) were a Germanic tribe btw that explains all those words who went with the Germans to England and never came back in their original shape  |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 15, 2016 6:30:29 GMT
I've gotten too deep into the ancient times too much apparently.
I even did some world-building by using the old English words to form names and places. Like for example... langufaesten means sea in old English.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 9:59:59 GMT
I'm aware of that. I mean it's just like Germans call their country Destuchland. So... and then...? That's where I'm drawing a blank because I think I missed the point somewhere. If you're wondering where the name German came from, it came from the Romans as they called the tribes living there Germans (living in Germania). Almanya as it's known in Turkish and similar versions (sorry I only know Turkish fluent which has that variation) is because of a tribe after Rome's fall. The English (Angles) were a Germanic tribe btw In england there were a lot of tribes(most of them were Balts(IndoEuropeans) and later came Latins and Germanics) for example Scots are Balts (in some languages Baltic's) and they still has a lot of common verbs in vocabulary, the Saxons, Angles and Anglo-Saxons are a bit more mixed, but still they were Balt tribes originally until romans conquered the weakest tribes of Britons (most of tribes mentioned above except Scots (the western end of the world also known as western wall)) so they are a big mix of nationalities. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 15, 2016 20:37:25 GMT
Baltic tribes? That's an interesting theory to put it. I have heard Scots, Welsh, and Irish came from a common Galliac people who spilt up during the forming times of the proto-kingdoms roughly after the Romans collapsed but the spilt might have been already underway before the Romans invaded British isles. And those Galliac came from Celts who were spreaded out all over Europe from Ireland to Turkey. In fact there was a providence in central minor Asia named after the Celtics by the Romans in that region. And interesting fact that Paul wrote an epistle to people in there and it became the book of Gal. in the New Testament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 22:42:47 GMT
Baltic tribes? That's an interesting theory to put it. I have heard Scots, Welsh, and Irish came from a common Galliac people who spilt up during the forming times of the proto-kingdoms roughly after the Romans collapsed but the spilt might have been already underway before the Romans invaded British isles. And those Galliac came from Celts who were spreaded out all over Europe from Ireland to Turkey. In fact there was a providence in central minor Asia named after the Celtics by the Romans in that region. And interesting fact that Paul wrote an epistle to people in there and it became the book of Gal. in the New Testament. Indo-Europeans (most of those travelers were Balts) were the first who came to Europe and they were the majority of European population until Romans took those tribes who had mixed withe others, so the only tribes who hadn't mixed were Scots, Baltic tribes and eastern and western Balts. They didn't even dare to attack Balts because their weaker tribes in Scotland completely destroyed 2legions(if I am correct 4th and 9th also known as Dragons and Eagles legions). Note it is not fully confirmed that Scots were Balts, but linguists and DNA confirmed that bound and the only problem is that Nationalistic historians don't want to confirm that Balts were the base for all of Europe and that Baltic states are the last Dinosaurs of Europe still standing. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 16, 2016 3:15:37 GMT
This is still definitely the first time I had ever heard anything like that. This would be the general overall view on the Indo-European language family: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languagesNonewhere in there is any mention of what you said. There's plenty of conflicting theories listed in there, so it's not simply a list from one singular view on the languages. I haven't heard this Indo-baltic theory before, nor I have seen it in any books before. I'm curious where did you picked it up, book title or documentary, or anything else please? |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 16, 2016 10:10:41 GMT
Yeah, neither have I ever...
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 16, 2016 10:16:16 GMT
You guys wanna quiz like question? Yes or no here is it anyway  What does the word "stan" in all Afghanistan etc mean? And no Google. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 17:52:30 GMT
This is still definitely the first time I had ever heard anything like that. This would be the general overall view on the Indo-European language family: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languagesNonewhere in there is any mention of what you said. There's plenty of conflicting theories listed in there, so it's not simply a list from one singular view on the languages. I haven't heard this Indo-baltic theory before, nor I have seen it in any books before. I'm curious where did you picked it up, book title or documentary, or anything else please? 1) wiki is not an impropriate source of information. 2) Most of the books I've read on this is in Latvian. 3) I've read a lot of information in scientific research databases and to get access to them you must pay and I had access for 3years and to restore my access is too expensive (≈200$ for year) And I don't understand what have you read if you haven't heard about this theory as it is one of the major theories in east Europe and as big nationalities (showinists) doesn't want to make it official and put them selves in to place when they has been a big mix of nationalities from the beginning etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 18:12:39 GMT
You guys wanna quiz like question? Yes or no here is it anyway What does the word "stan" in all Afghanistan etc mean? And no Google. If I remember correctly it was kingdom. And Han is is king |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 16, 2016 18:44:08 GMT
Stan means 'Land of"
So pakistan is the land of the Pakis and Kazakhstan land of the kazakhs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 16, 2016 18:56:29 GMT
Stan means 'Land of" So pakistan is the land of the Pakis and Kazakhstan land of the kazakhs. its not kingdom Oskar It's a Persian word that means "land of" so Sherman is right But Pakistan is the only exception to the land of category, it means the land of the spiritually pure.... |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 16, 2016 20:13:41 GMT
This is still definitely the first time I had ever heard anything like that. This would be the general overall view on the Indo-European language family: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languagesNonewhere in there is any mention of what you said. There's plenty of conflicting theories listed in there, so it's not simply a list from one singular view on the languages. I haven't heard this Indo-baltic theory before, nor I have seen it in any books before. I'm curious where did you picked it up, book title or documentary, or anything else please? 1) wiki is not an impropriate source of information. 2) Most of the books I've read on this is in Latvian. 3) I've read a lot of information in scientific research databases and to get access to them you must pay and I had access for 3years and to restore my access is too expensive (≈200$ for year) And I don't understand what have you read if you haven't heard about this theory as it is one of the major theories in east Europe and as big nationalities (showinists) doesn't want to make it official and put them selves in to place when they has been a big mix of nationalities from the beginning etc. It's not a good resource of in-depth research but it tends to give you the overall gist of the concepts or theories etc... and for historical data, Wiki isn't actually too far off from the real sources. I use it as a launchpad to gather the initial info then proceed from there. When I do see the data from the real sources, in my gathering, I'll use that data over what Wiki says if there's a conflict coming up. I do agree that it's not that reliable in serious research but it's acceptable in basic everyday use. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 20:22:50 GMT
1) wiki is not an impropriate source of information. 2) Most of the books I've read on this is in Latvian. 3) I've read a lot of information in scientific research databases and to get access to them you must pay and I had access for 3years and to restore my access is too expensive (≈200$ for year) And I don't understand what have you read if you haven't heard about this theory as it is one of the major theories in east Europe and as big nationalities (showinists) doesn't want to make it official and put them selves in to place when they has been a big mix of nationalities from the beginning etc. It's not a good resource of in-depth research but it tends to give you the overall gist of the concepts or theories etc... and for historical data, Wiki isn't actually too far off from the real sources. I use it as a launchpad to gather the initial info then proceed from there. When I do see the data from the real sources, in my gathering, I'll use that data over what Wiki says if there's a conflict coming up. I do agree that it's not that reliable in serious research but it's acceptable in basic everyday use. Information in wiki is often not only unreliable it is often fairytales as anybody can edit it. BTW I have seen such jokes there as: What is hockey? -Hockey is a Nintendo DS game made by communists in 1825 Etc |
|
