Iranian people/Language

[Midnight_Sun]

I'm no linguist either, but they both have Retroflexed consonants for one.

[بصير]

I speak farsi and I understand arabic and what I find is that about 30% of farsi vocabulary is actually arabic.
Point being that you said that case and gender is found in pashto but not in farsi...however it is found also in arabic.

What I would like to know is what the similarities with the eastern branch (indo aryan?) are and how is it closer than "iranian" (western?) ?

In the medieval period, in particular in the “Islamic Golden age”, Arabic became not only the Lingua Franca of Persia but its scholarly language and consequently amply influenced Persian (Farsi). However Persian is identified with three forms: Old Persian, Middle Persian and New Persian (“Farsi”), by contrast to New Persian, Old and to less extent Middle Persian are largely free from Semitic influence. Old Persian is actually apparently syntactically, lexically etc very similar to Avestan, and Sanskrit its sister languages. Farsi has had influence from non Indo-Iranian languages but Pashto, on the other hand, has had little outside influence and mostly has its roots in old languages like Avestan and Sanskrit etc.

Pashto is classified as an Eastern Iranic language not Indo-Aryan which is another group of the larger Indo-Iranian language family. The relationship between Pashto and Indo-Aryan (mostly Sanskrit) is largely lexical. Avestan (the putative oldest known Eastern Iranic language) is itself very close to Sanskrit its sister language and so the similarity of Pashto with Sanskrit is mostly found in Avestan aswell, furthermore, Pashto has much similarity with a variety of other Eastern Iranic languages like Bactrian, Ossetian and Pamiri languages. In addition, Pashto maintains a lot of Iranic morphological features not found in Indo-Aryan languages. The reason why Pashto is categorized as Iranian is thus because it is holistically closer to the Iranian subgroup (in particular the Eastern branch) than it is to Indo-Aryan.

Here is a more detailed analysis, it is unfortunately very technical.
http://www.iranica.com/articles/afghanistan-vi-pasto

[KingKhan]

I have a hard time trusting Afghan sources from non-Afghans. So I respect Nicks and Alchemist research/observation then a Joe doe linguist.

I also hate the word Iranix/Aryanic, they should call it Afghan. And Pashto an Afghan language, not a Iranic one.

[Alchemist]

Nick has me very suspicious of Iranica...

but not to digress from the original question...

what is the relationship between Old Persian and Middle Persian to New persian? Farsi lexically overlaps with pashto and arabic.

Also bacterian and Avestan are supposedly languages native to Afghanistan (or are they not?)...so how do they become dubbed "Persian"?

[Nick]

Nick has me very suspicious of Iranica...

but not to digress from the original question...

what is the relationship between Old Persian and Middle Persian to New persian? Farsi lexically overlaps with pashto and arabic.

Also bacterian and Avestan are supposedly languages native to Afghanistan (or are they not?)...so how do they become dubbed "Persian"?

Iranica relies basically on many books that were created inside Iran, where its original does not exist and the new versions is not reliable, simply because its original is not founded or pages were missing such as Behaqi and Jami however, for sections which were missing the Iranians simply added their own based on account of other historians (Mainly during Safivads). Some of the original books there were founded in library of Nishapur as well as later during the Qajar they were omitted, changed to fit their political or religious needs, and the work was also condensed. How we know?

Well you might ask how? Ok for example Alchemist, Scythian and gadoonwal makes a confidential meeting on February 2010 in New york and discussed opening a new business in New york. While the account of this meeting was verbally given to Nick when Alchemist came back to Toronto. So Nick also wrote in his dairy or a document that such occurrence did took place, as well as documented by Alchemist who mentioned that Nick was also aware of this secret meeting and kept with him. While in 300 years someone in New York found Alchemist’s records he then comes and destroy the original and makes his own with some changes (like oldest Hebrew Bible by Constituent of Rome, and Mother of Pashtu language the Gathas of Avesta by Alexander of Unan) While Nick has also made this account and kept it in Toronto. What happens? Next is that 200 years later in 2510 AD someone finds Nick’s record and compares it with new version of Alchemist. So there is conflict in comparison. Let’s assume the new version says they meet in Toronto, but wanted to open a business in New York, while Nick says “the 3 partners meet in New York while Alchemist was a native to Toronto but had to travel to New York for business meeting”. So here in 2510 AD for years have passed and non can be verified because one claims that Alchemists’ new version is same as original nothing changed (so it claim) and we knew it was reprinted by ABC company in Chicago in 2310 AD, and that style of writing was also different and that Nick’s version has been verified by anthropologist with using scientific method as well as the style of writing which is older and fit with 2000 AD era. In this respect there is a conflict and so considering the fact that new version was reprinted the question then is pointed to Nick’s account and how reliable he was besides Alchemist was also living in Toronto so there was more connection because they were friends like Afghan Rumi and Persian Shams Tabrizi, therefore Nick’s record could be more reliable. However for polical, social or other reason in the era of 2500 AD they place new version of Alchemist’s record as more reliable.

Brother the above example is just to give you a picture of what I am talking about. The Iranica by all means any Iranian source side anything with Iran and removes works of anti-Iranians, or anti-Shia, anything simply because their forefather’s religious believe or saying a society with continues hate towards a group or groups like Afghans, Turks, and Arabs have remained with them. Therefore Bayhaqi’s account in original 2500 pages in Arabic was destroyed during Suljaks few 1000 bundle of pages saved by an old library man, and when found was then ordered to hand in the pages and the Suljaks now in full control of Ghanzni order historians of their court to again rewritten in Farsi and present it to the king. So it did happen and from 1000 pages it was now 1500 pages again where is the other 1000 pages? Can any justify that from ¼ of a book what you would get? Right,
Other example that I can give you would include anti-Shai, and Timur hating historian Ahmad ibn Arabshah who wrote in Arabic on some accounts of savage Tamerlane, then translated in Turkish by Murtaza Nazm Zada Baghdadi titled “Tareek-e-Tīmurlank” in 1698 in Istanbul and again printed in 1728 in Istanbul as well as printed in Latin, French etc all of them claim to be translated of true version of Ahmad ibn Arabshah however the original is missing. Until 1860 when Istanbul produced another version titled Tarek-e-Timur-e-Gurgan. This however was rejected by world’s famous Irani intellectuals in when I was attending The International Society for Iranian Studies in Toronto in 2008. So I began to research and what I found was that “Tarek-e-Timur-e-Gurgan” was more anti-Shia and whereas the European and whereas Baghdadi’s version is not anti-shia but does not blame forefathers of Safivads lol and “Tarek-e-Timur-e-Gurgan” attacks Safivads lol. Another example would be Majalis al-Ushshaq by Sultan Bayqara and Kamal al-Din Husain Guzargahi Baghlani. So that’s why many Iranian sources including Iranica rejects “Tarek-e-Timur-e-Gurgan” and by far hates anything and everything abouts of recorded in "Majalis al-Ushshaq" and other many “ghaznawi” “Juzjani” “Herawi” and “Balkhi” or anything native Afghan or sunni and some Hindustani sources. Some time ago I was talking with a member in another forum about how Iranica rejects many of famous Afghan Habibi’s papers and only hand picks few of his articles.

I am not saying Iranica is 100% wrong LOL but for me it’s no different from Wikipedia or like any other English produced encyclopaedias like Britannica, or Americana, as I mention in this forum http://www.pashtunforums.com/461694-post4.html an example of how all of them uses British historian anti-muslim, anti-Afghan Clifford Edmund Bosworth ’s sources when it comes to origin of Ghurids LOL Clifford Edmund Bosworth LOl he is not profession in Iranian, Indian or Afghan history yet this guy fills up pages of Islamica, America and iranica and yet his field is from Maxico to spain, Africa, Europe and even China piles of BS he published. I have researching for over 10 years about afghanistan and i am not even close to profession in 10% history of Afghanistan LOL ok maybe I know more but still not enough and never enough to make such conclusion such as Clifford Edmund BS-worth. For me Iranica is only worth the last source which I would use but by far I don't recommand Iranica as far as I know people out there are trying to boost wikipedia to better, so why not wikipedia.

[Nick]

In the medieval period, in particular in the “Islamic Golden age”, Arabic became not only the Lingua Franca of Persia but its scholarly language and consequently amply influenced Persian (Farsi). However Persian is identified with three forms: Old Persian, Middle Persian and New Persian (“Farsi”), by contrast to New Persian, Old and to less extent Middle Persian are largely free from Semitic influence. Old Persian is actually apparently syntactically, lexically etc very similar to Avestan, and Sanskrit its sister languages. Farsi has had influence from non Indo-Iranian languages but Pashto, on the other hand, has had little outside influence and mostly has its roots in old languages like Avestan and Sanskrit etc.

Pashto is classified as an Eastern Iranic language not Indo-Aryan which is another group of the larger Indo-Iranian language family. The relationship between Pashto and Indo-Aryan (mostly Sanskrit) is largely lexical. Avestan (the putative oldest known Eastern Iranic language) is itself very close to Sanskrit its sister language and so the similarity of Pashto with Sanskrit is mostly found in Avestan aswell, furthermore, Pashto has much similarity with a variety of other Eastern Iranic languages like Bactrian, Ossetian and Pamiri languages. In addition, Pashto maintains a lot of Iranic morphological features not found in Indo-Aryan languages. The reason why Pashto is categorized as Iranian is thus because it is holistically closer to the Iranian subgroup (in particular the Eastern branch) than it is to Indo-Aryan.

Here is a more detailed analysis, it is unfortunately very technical.
http://www.iranica.com/articles/afghanistan-vi-pasto

Thanks scythian but despite you rejected my views in all respect I understand where you are coming from. After all you and many others have no other choice than just beliving in western sources, some which are right and some are wrong.

However Persian is identified with three forms: Old Persian, Middle Persian and New Persian (“Farsi”), by contrast to New Persian, Old and to less extent Middle Persian are largely free from Semitic influence. Old Persian is actually apparently syntactically, lexically etc very similar to Avestan, and Sanskrit its sister languages.

Leaving others for other time to discuss. While your western sourced articles claims there was old, middle and new Persian, why isn't there anything about old, middle and new Pashto? LOL

Old and to less extent Middle Persian are largely free from Semitic influence

OK here is another something you can question on, while there is your claim that Old persian and middle persian has less semitic lol what about Aramaic, the offical language of Archemanids until conquest of Alexander. LOL in fact in 2006 a Phoenician alphabet was found in Balkh was a massage written from kingdom of Soghdana (Tajikistan/Samarkan/Bukhara)to kingdom of Bakhtria (Land south of Oxus) a Semetic writing lol excited the Jews in 2005 that they found sematic root in Soghdana, but when translated it was same as Dirius scripture (page 96-120 Ancient Aramaic Documents from Bactria, ‘Khalili collection’ by jewish editors/writers Joseph Naveh and, Shaul Shaked, ISBN:1874780749) My point is simply to say that old Persian is heavily influnced by semitic and not the case as you believe or Aryanist wikipedians or false Iranica wants to believe. Dear brother Scythian while you are a researcher I am sure you want to hear this an Advise which I think you should consider is look into sources of Iranica or anything as well lol they are out-dated and mostly with BS that has been proven wrong. I have seen Iranica of 1984 and current newly published few things have changed like maybe 10% and added another 10% volume into it. Not alot has been changed my dear.

Old Persian is actually apparently syntactically, lexically etc very similar to Avestan, and Sanskrit its sister languages.

Sorry not the case, the writting and documents found by the Parthians were said to be close to new Avesta and based on investigation of your "Old Persian" you are referring to were referring to Avesta LOL iqnoring Archemanids but my dear Avestian langauges were never spoken by the Archaemanids,nor Medians or Parthians, and that their taxt was imported from Afgahnistan, or Aryana, it was the Sassanians who wanted to promote the new Avesta because that was what they thought was pure enough even then translated in Sussani-Palavi was not understand by the people of IRan. The Langauge of Sassanians were more of Palavi, and that only could be dated to Alexander's time. Anything before Alexander in Iran we are talking modern Iran were almost all Aramaic. The Iranians historian simple pick Avesta lol because that's the only text closest to "Aryanism" and sister langauge of Sanskrit. Despite it was only spoken East of Daste-Kafir and south of Oxus and also in a community of Mazandaran was found to be spoken a dialect of Avesta which according to their own history came from Gorgan of Bakhtria and NWFP. Never in Persia, you have to remember that Assyrians were in control of IRan before Aryanic Medians came in, and it was up to 800 BCE they almost reached Afghanistan Darangana (Zaranj-Kandahar area) passing the dry deserts of Iran (Roman historian Arrian). Although no such Assyrian record was found anything East or beyond modern Iranian borders into Afghanistan. In fact recent founds from Jiroft proved that they did reached Karman, and again I would say thei Assyrians areas covered from Turkey to Semnan and Iraq to Kerman, nothing found in Iranian side of Khorasan, and Darangana.

[Nick]

I speak farsi and I understand arabic and what I find is that about 30% of farsi vocabulary is actually arabic.

I used to think it was 35% based on early 19th century European accounts however modern lingustics put that number way higher. For some say 60% but generally the Iranian lingustic themselvs say 51% Arabic.

[Nick]

Brother scythian you are doing good job researching I have been reading your post and topic from other forums as well (If you are the same person please let me know)
Do your research in your lingustic field cause I give up on that in 2009 and now focus on Indian/Afghan history so my research is shifting. However if you found something interesting let us know. Otherwise please don't fall into anything termed as "Iranian" because there was no such BS Iranian in the world other than civilization of Pars and even racially diverse Persian speakers of Iran are not classified as "Iranian" so forget about adding Afghans into this BS.

[بصير]

Nick has me very suspicious of Iranica...

but not to digress from the original question...

what is the relationship between Old Persian and Middle Persian to New persian? Farsi lexically overlaps with pashto and arabic.

Also bacterian and Avestan are supposedly languages native to Afghanistan (or are they not?)...so how do they become dubbed "Persian"?

The connection between these forms is quite conspicuous from a Linguistic perspective; Old Persian had a complex declension system similar to other Iranic languages including Pashto, Middle Persian reduces declension and New Persian even more so the syntax thus evolved by simplification. Lexically, Old and Middle Persian are very similar, only New Persian (Farsi) seems to have had a more dramatic change in lexicon.

Now when you compare Arabic and Farsi holistically (comparing phonology, morphology, syntax etc) they are very different, mere lexical similarity is not enough suggest anything other than influence. New English has more than 60% of its lexicon rooted in non-Germanic languages but when you look at Old English it’s clear that its lexicon as well as other Linguistic features is Germanic. Categorizing a language in a language family presupposes that it has ancestry with other languages in the family so the historical forms of the language are very relevant. Arabic likewise is holistically very close to other Semitic languages like Hebrew so it is categorized in that langauge family. In Linguistics we have to look at more than just the vocabulary of a language.

In the field of Linguistics, Iranian/Iranic does not equal Persian, Persian is an Iranic language but Iranic is a language family encompassing many related languages thought to descend from one ancestor language. Bactrian and Avestan are Eastern Iranic languages but not Persian languages.

I do agree that it would be better if we dropped terms like Iranic/Iranian, Aryan, Germanic and Turkic in Linguistics as these terms are associated with other things outside Linguistics and just confuses laymen and this thread is evidence for that.
However, the label is quite irrelevant, the point is that there are clear relationships between these languages which do exist and hence why we categorized them in the same language family. What we call the language family is ultimately irrelevant as it is mere designation.


@Nick bro
Iranica is an encyclopaedia, its not something written by specific authors but it’s a collection of relevant work from various sources, in fact many from European/Western, there is no reason to suspect it is some sort of propaganda medium.

Yes I am aware of the Aramaic influence on Middle Persian, Aramaic was the Lingua franca of the Archaemanids, which is why I said to less extent and largely instead of completely. I’ve never claimed that Archaemanids spoke Avestan or Bactrian. However you have to realize that independent Linguists have thoroughly studied these languages holistically and are not propagandists or whatever if that is what your suggesting because there is no evidence for that, the fact that their findings are not harmonious with your opinions does not mean it is false.

Besides that article in Iranica is by Georg Morgenstrierne who was an eminent Norwegian Linguist specializing in the Indo-Iranian languages of the field of historical Linguistics, he travelled to several countries in the region and his work was pioneering in some of the extinct Indo-Iranian languages.

I don’t understand why you people are so concerned about mere appellations to be honest, the content of this work is sound, standard and already accepted by Linguists. When you produce a thesis refuting all their work and corroborating your theories then I will gladly reject all of it but until then I am inclined to standard academia.
PS: I don’t use this name in other forums so Im not the same Scythian

[Nick]

The connection between these forms is quite conspicuous from a Linguistic perspective; Old Persian had a complex declension system similar to other Iranic languages including Pashto, Middle Persian reduces declension and New Persian even more so the syntax thus evolved by simplification. Lexically, Old and Middle Persian are very similar, only New Persian (Farsi) seems to have had a more dramatic change in lexicon.

Now when you compare Arabic and Farsi holistically (comparing phonology, morphology, syntax etc) they are very different, mere lexical similarity is not enough suggest anything other than influence. New English has more than 60% of its lexicon rooted in non-Germanic languages but when you look at Old English it’s clear that its lexicon as well as other Linguistic features is Germanic. Categorizing a language in a language family presupposes that it has ancestry with other languages in the family so the historical forms of the language are very relevant. Arabic likewise is holistically very close to other Semitic languages like Hebrew so it is categorized in that langauge family. In Linguistics we have to look at more than just the vocabulary of a language.

In the field of Linguistics, Iranian/Iranic does not equal Persian, Persian is an Iranic language but Iranic is a language family encompassing many related languages thought to descend from one ancestor language. Bactrian and Avestan are Eastern Iranic languages but not Persian languages.

I do agree that it would be better if we dropped terms like Iranic/Iranian, Aryan, Germanic and Turkic in Linguistics as these terms are associated with other things outside Linguistics and just confuses laymen and this thread is evidence for that.
However, the label is quite irrelevant, the point is that there are clear relationships between these languages which do exist and hence why we categorized them in the same language family. What we call the language family is ultimately irrelevant as it is mere designation.


@Nick bro
Iranica is an encyclopaedia, its not something written by specific authors but it’s a collection of relevant work from various sources, in fact many from European/Western, there is no reason to suspect it is some sort of propaganda medium.

Yes I am aware of the Aramaic influence on Middle Persian, Aramaic was the Lingua franca of the Archaemanids, which is why I said to less extent and largely instead of completely. I’ve never claimed that Archaemanids spoke Avestan or Bactrian. However you have to realize that independent Linguists have thoroughly studied these languages holistically and are not propagandists or whatever if that is what your suggesting because there is no evidence for that, the fact that their findings are not harmonious with your opinions does not mean it is false.

Besides that article in Iranica is by Georg Morgenstrierne who was an eminent Norwegian Linguist specializing in the Indo-Iranian languages of the field of historical Linguistics, he travelled to several countries in the region and his work was pioneering in some of the extinct Indo-Iranian languages.

I don’t understand why you people are so concerned about mere appellations to be honest, the content of this work is sound, standard and already accepted by Linguists. When you produce a thesis refuting all their work and corroborating your theories then I will gladly reject all of it but until then I am inclined to standard academia.
PS: I don’t use this name in other forums so Im not the same Scythian

Yes I am aware of the Aramaic influence on Middle Persian, Aramaic was the Lingua franca of the Archaemanids

Ok I am glade to know but again to repeat Aramaic influnce did not occur to middle Persi as it had in old parsi. Just to clearify this ie Archaemandid era was in the 7th century not 3th century ie "middle parsian"

which is why I said to less extent and largely instead of completely. I’ve never claimed that Archaemanids spoke Avestan or Bactrian.

I know but you were not clear, seem to concide with Persian Aryanism propargana to make it sound as if persians spoke this langauge or it belongs to them etc.

Iranica is an encyclopaedia, its not something written by specific authors but it’s a collection of relevant work from various sources, in fact many from European/Western, there is no reason to suspect it is some sort of propaganda medium. However you have to realize that independent Linguists have thoroughly studied these languages holistically and are not propagandists or whatever if that is what your suggesting because there is no evidence for that, the fact that their findings are not harmonious with your opinions does not mean it is false.

Please don't take me wrong however you lack Eastern knowledge and depend more on the western sourced colonialistic theories.

My advice again for you is to understand this kind of studies are hardly surprising today but keep in mind that for a long time knowledge of what went on in non-western cultures wasn't based on direct experience but on superficial BS reports from outsiders, reports that often judged cultures, and languages with western civilization's basic European biblical morality. Colonialist lingustics had many distinctive characteristics for example they were ethnocentric. Basically the idea that western civilization was at the pinnacle of human evolution development and that others were inferior. Social Dawrinism- the idea of non-western people either were destined to be westernized (notion of Aryanizm and adapting western life style) or were doomed to extinction. Another characteristics was Racism simply put the idea that non-western people were inferior and by most uneducated to the westerners and therefore had to be educated to the best of their colonial powers ability (this went on specially in india, iran, as well as Afghanistan in some level to with respect to continued colonization to teach people about their own roots and cultures simply by observing them lol such an stupid idea it won't work for tribalistic society such as Afghans that could you to their far most ancestors).

It was only after WWII in 50s and 60s that things had changed because some western societies like USA recognized that ethnographies and other related data and books produced under the colonialist paradigm (1600-1960s) weren't as objective as they could be. So in 1969 the American Anthropological Association formed a committee on ethics. And by mid-1970s, guidelines for ethical ethnography were being published, and today graduate students undergo rigorous ethical and human relations before doing fieldwork. A practice since 1990s and today some of their new produced is simply fixing holistic books such as Iranica lol. So to say today not as many researchers work for colonialist efforts as they did in until 1950s dominently paid by governments for producing something for their BS.


So bro my request to you is having to go deep into research and not make same closing conclusion based on some BS and crap conclusions made in 1980s by Iranica of before that.


Today we are in a different stages of reseach and looking at cultures and societies from more open minded, educated and non-colonialistic academic research, and conclusions made based on field disciplines such as scienctific, archealogical, physical lingustic, and cultural features combined together. Therefore you cannot make ironic conclusive clear prospective to conclude that "ohh Iranica is an encyclopaedia, a collection of relevant" ---->BS" work from various European/Western, no reason to suspect it is propaganda." Come on Scythian you are from the new generation unless you are a close minded person. But if you are considering a researcher you should be open to this.


I will give you one example. I have said this in the past as well. Once upon a time there was this Afghan historian who was reseaching and he found a book that had reference in regards to development of pashtu language as well as some info in regards to Afghan tribes. So he translated the book in Farsi and printed in Iran. The first ever book called Pata Khazana and it was discovered a year after by a 17 years old British soldier in NWFP so he simply drew a line that Pata Khazana was made up because the Ghurid court language from what he read in history was Persian. There it was the article was published in the newspapers simply british thought Afghans are pashtunizing the NWFP so that they can unite with Afghan. In was the years of great conflict over what shell be done to Ghandi demand. So very bad year for Habibi to come up with such historical book. Two years later in reached hear or maybe British help to make up a history articles on Ghurids. So they did and few years that same BS travelled to Englend without any mentioning of Pata Khazana. The collection of false Persian articles than combined and republished in english by Bosworth. In conclusion the two open-enemy of Pata were westerners Bosworth and that nasty 18 years old soldiers of NWFP who only spend a year in nwfp. And after Bosworth that nasty little teenager was considered a lingustic lol despite he never read Pata because it was not in original pashtu published until 1967. Therefore today that nasty soldier is considered the world most famous Iranalogist and famous indo-Iranian lingustic lol. They funny part is that Pata Khazana has been found in Europe is way far years before Habibi was born lol Pata Khazana had 3 copies lol wonder where would we find the 3rd one. Anyways the publishers as well as those 250 western books and "historians" that drew conclusion based on songle source of Bosworth to conclude Ghorids were not Afghan but Eastern Turkic persian speakers are now doomed.
So that was something about your eminent "lingustic" which you didn't knew.

However published the book that w
Besides that article in Iranica is by Georg Morgenstrierne who was an eminent Norwegian Linguist specializing in the Indo-Iranian languages of the field of historical Linguistics, he travelled to several countries in the region and his work was pioneering in some of the extinct Indo-Iranian languages.

Perhabs a beginner of western research to better understand the lands and people they were about to colonize lol this is not bashing but a fact if you don't know again who was he working for? Sure I am his fan as he was not as sneaky and anti-Afghan as others who came after him.

I don’t understand why you people are so concerned about mere appellations to be honest, the content of this work is sound, standard and already accepted by Linguists. When you produce a thesis refuting all their work and corroborating your theories then I will gladly reject all of it but until then I am inclined to standard academia.

Already accepted by Linguists? Which linguistics? The guys who travel thousends of miles from a different civiliation of one continent to another so he can drew a conclusion. Are there any Afghan linguistic involved in this acceptance of western or any non-Afghan BS?
Iam sorry but you need to bring forth large number of modern Afghan linguistic for Iranian BS to be accepted, if they are talking about Pashtu in relation than that person must fully be educated in Pashtu history, litreture and pashtu develpment for such in this case anti-Afghan conclusions to be accepted.

When you produce a thesis refuting all their work and corroborating your theories then I will gladly reject all of it

Oh really so here mine is a theories and theirs is not?
LoL you are simply saying that those are now fact? Lol btother they are all theories and models to give some kind of picture. Brother Linguistic is a complex topic, at present 2011 there is no single model or theory has convinced all arthropologists just how languages are related. People have presented some compelling theories, but anthropologists are still evaluating them. The topic of lingustic has been now a subject of controvercy special stations based in India, Japan and China.



Again brother I have already told you about the roots f Iran and you seemed not be interested or maybe you are now aware enough as you said but whatever there is no such a think as old iranian languages or iranic ( a ward created by ban-persian wikipedians). Even in the academic level by mistake they created the category Iranian still was not fit with theory considering the differences so they added Eastern and western and from there northern and southern and then again south eastern, south western, north western, north eastern, lol I won't be surprised if they come up with central, south central, north central, east central and etc BS. From iranian intellectual the force of Aryanism proposed by Raza Shah is still alive as pan-persianism, and by their most recent advanced ideology of iranian simply means Persian. I am heavily involved in reading their work so I am well of what I am saying.

For persians Iran=Aryan, Iranian=Persian, and Iranian civilization simply means Persia, and Persian civilization. Lol having said that persian civilization or Aryan civilization as I said above post is only 2700 years old, where as Afghans Aryan civilization is far older and ancient records from that of Iranians. Therefore Afghans are not Iranian people and Pashtu language is not iranian language sureit can be mother of Persian sacred holy book and well as a major contributor of modern Persian or Farsi language. But not visa versa.

[KingKhan]

Good information here Nick. just Maybe we can protectnour history from people who are dedicated in rewriting history.