|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 20:26:15 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.... Ah I remembered just before I checked what have you answered And BTW Han also known as khan is king |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 16, 2016 20:30:13 GMT
2) Most of the books I've read on this is in Latvian. ... 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. Honestly speaking, it still does sounds like a very obscure theory. It hasn't reached here in America yet. And even more honestly... don't you think there's a risk in accepting what the Latvians says about the Baltics? It's like accepting what Chinese says about their middle kingdom being the very center of earth and heaven, without questioning the validity of the view. Bias is very natural and understandable. I'm not rejecting the Baltic theory, I'm only skeptical but I'm willing to accept proof. As for other theories... In this subject of language origins, none of the theories has strong proof, and if it's all speculation then I can accept that many theories are very much possible but not yet proven. Anyway, sorry for the long response. I wanted to put some closure on this subject and to inform you of how I see things here (with respect of course). I hate to leave somebody hanging out on a branch in thin air without making it complete and finished. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 20:50:23 GMT
2) Most of the books I've read on this is in Latvian. ... 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. Honestly speaking, it still does sounds like a very obscure theory. It hasn't reached here in America yet. And even more honestly... don't you think there's a risk in accepting what the Latvians says about the Baltics? It's like accepting what Chinese says about their middle kingdom being the very center of earth and heaven, without questioning the validity of the view. Bias is very natural and understandable. I'm not rejecting the Baltic theory, I'm only skeptical but I'm willing to accept proof. As for other theories... In this subject of language origins, none of the theories has strong proof, and if it's all speculation then I can accept that many theories are very much possible but not yet proven. Anyway, sorry for the long response. I wanted to put some closure on this subject and to inform you of how I see things here (with respect of course). I hate to leave somebody hanging out on a branch in thin air without making it complete and finished. There is no wonder that you haven't heard of the research as it has been made only since middle 90 as you may know we were under USSR influence until 1991 and without it there is still a huge gap between European countries in research as research between countries takes at least 2-5 years till approval and knowing that it may take 15-25 years in this style... Back to topic the best proves of this theory is that you can find Baltic genes (DNS) in every single country of Europe, not mentioning linguistic as if you knew spellings and related stuff I could give you some good examples... I will try yo give examples to you so What does British man do if he wants to ride a horse? He goes to saddle horse So in Latvian saddle is sedlot Vamm it = Vemt In Brussels you can find Slakterhus in Latvian it would be slaktūzis. Scots still says Bern not children or kinder and in Baltic languages kid is bērns. There are many more just these were the fast examples. Not to mention that even the great Hercules (Heracles) came to Eridans (Greekish name for Baltic) scientists for knowledge (it was one of his 12 tasks if I remember correctly). |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 16, 2016 21:00:27 GMT
Actually, I looked up Eridans and if this is true, and i couldn't even find that Eridans MEANT Baltic in Greek.
When I looked up what is Baltic in Greek, I got Βαλτική. Which obviously starts with a B, which we can believe means B for Baltic.
And I don't think the Greeks even got to the Baltic states, at least in proficient amount of numbers. They got to France, the Black Sea, Iberia, Turkey, but I've never seen accounts of a large amount of them going to the Baltics or Northern Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 21:07:34 GMT
Actually, I looked up Eridans and if this is true, and i couldn't even find that Eridans MEANT Baltic in Greek. When I looked up what is Baltic in Greek, I got Βαλτική. Which obviously starts with a B, which we can believe means B for Baltic. And I don't think the Greeks even got to the Baltic states, at least in proficient amount of numbers. They got to France, the Black Sea, Iberia, Turkey, but I've never seen accounts of a large amount of them going to the Baltics or Northern Europe. Now you have found the modern name for Baltic. And if they didn't came to Baltic how the heck did they get Baltic amber? BTW Baltic amber is found only in Baltic sea. |
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Mar 17, 2016 0:45:57 GMT
Whenever I see the word "Baltic" I think of balsamic vinaigrette. Don't judge me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 17, 2016 1:21:26 GMT
Actually, I looked up Eridans and if this is true, and i couldn't even find that Eridans MEANT Baltic in Greek. When I looked up what is Baltic in Greek, I got Βαλτική. Which obviously starts with a B, which we can believe means B for Baltic. And I don't think the Greeks even got to the Baltic states, at least in proficient amount of numbers. They got to France, the Black Sea, Iberia, Turkey, but I've never seen accounts of a large amount of them going to the Baltics or Northern Europe. wait, are you telling me the Greeks gave a name to people they didn't even know existed?! |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 17, 2016 5:48:06 GMT
What are we discussing anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 6:21:41 GMT
Actually, I looked up Eridans and if this is true, and i couldn't even find that Eridans MEANT Baltic in Greek. When I looked up what is Baltic in Greek, I got Βαλτική. Which obviously starts with a B, which we can believe means B for Baltic. And I don't think the Greeks even got to the Baltic states, at least in proficient amount of numbers. They got to France, the Black Sea, Iberia, Turkey, but I've never seen accounts of a large amount of them going to the Baltics or Northern Europe. wait, are you telling me the Greeks gave a name to people they didn't even know existed?! They just knew very well where are Baltic's Even Hercules has been here |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 6:30:31 GMT
What are we discussing anyway? We are talking about nation and linguistic influences about 3000 to 18000 years before us(not b.c.). |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 17, 2016 6:31:12 GMT
What are we discussing anyway? We are talking about nation and linguistic influences about 3000 to 18000 years before us(not b.c.). oooohhhh sounds good, carry on  |
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Mar 18, 2016 14:12:06 GMT
This is interesting and I do not know about it before. Here's my little tip on making your argument more credible: "Add Citation" For example, if I claim "8% of Asian men are under the same huge family originated about 8 centuries ago in the area around Mongolia," I should also state who (which scientist) says that, on which piece of research, and when. So basically, I will must add a citation for that claim. In this case, it would be... Zerjal, T., Xue, Y., Bertorelle, G., Wells, R. S., Bao, W., Zhu, S., ... & Li, P. (2003). The genetic legacy of the Mongols. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 72(3), 717-721. So it will be more credible that just simply state "they say" or "scientist says." I find the above topic interesting and I would like to do further reading about these things when I have free time. |
|
|
|
Post by George S. Patton on Mar 18, 2016 14:20:28 GMT
I am from United States
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 18, 2016 14:20:40 GMT
This is interesting and I do not know about it before. Here's my little tip on making your argument more credible: "Add Citation" For example, if I claim "8% of Asian men are under the same huge family originated about 8 centuries ago in the area around Mongolia," I should also state who (which scientist) says that, on which piece of research, and when. So basically, I will must add a citation for that claim. In this case, it would be... Zerjal, T., Xue, Y., Bertorelle, G., Wells, R. S., Bao, W., Zhu, S., ... & Li, P. (2003). The genetic legacy of the Mongols. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 72(3), 717-721. So it will be more credible that just simply state "they say" or "scientist says." I find the above topic interesting and I would like to do further reading about these things when I have free time. adds more credibility to the argument. (Remembers he learnt something like this in business communication class, which we called "concreteness") |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 18, 2016 19:49:43 GMT
Yeah, we just learned about the Mongols and I've heard a ridiculous amount of people are related to Genghis Khan because he..lets just say he got around
|
|
