pashtun etymology

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I cannot open that book. Can you please copy the relevant part about the etymology of the word Pashtun/Pakhtun here.

that's funny because I could open the book fine. Are you sure you're not excuse making because you're trying to avoid Academic evidences which are uncomfortable for you to digest because of the need to promote nationalistic propaganda which may in fact be false?

[khushal]

What evidences? I haven't spoken of evidence of anything; Just that there's a lack of strong evidence regarding connections Bactrians as being Pashtuns.

Maybe little reading comprehension would do you good.

you are the one in need of reading comprehension. you mentioned habibi claiming the soft Pashto was first.

[Kushan Prince]

Why would I mention them if I didn't know their where abouts? especially considering Rudi Bakhtiyari is Iranian. They're nomadic people. Nomads migrate.


sorry but the fact Bakhtiyaris exist; shatters any solid grounding of Bactrians having a direct relation to Pashtuns.


No you're wrong ALL Pashto linguists agree that the SHHH sound came before the KHHH sound. This is a fact. read Abdul Hai Habibi's book on Pashto. Once again you spout idiotic nationalism rather than facts.
"too bad" indeed.

So how can Bakhtari people be related to Bactrians if they are a southwestern Iranian group while the Bactrians were eastern Iranian? There's your answer. Also keep in mind that the bactrians themselves were nomadic and a tribal people who lived in tribes like modern day Pasthuns, Pashto language is believed to be descendant of Bactrian and Avestan.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

So how can Bakhtari people be related to Bactrians if they are a southwestern Iranian group while the Bactrians were eastern Iranian? There's your answer. Also keep in mind that the bactrians themselves were nomadic and a tribal people who lived in tribes like modern day Pasthuns, Pashto language is believed to be descendant of Bactrian and Avestan.

You have bad reading comprehension;; The use of similarities of words to determine origins is faulty because Bakhtiyari is closer to Bakhtria tha Pashtun is. And by the way MOST Indo-Iranian peoples were Nomadic. Not exclusive to Pashtuns, there are even Kurdish nomads. vbeing a "descendant" of something doesn't make that "something" Pashtun. According to modern science, we're descended from Africans; are Africans now Pashtuns?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you are the one in need of reading comprehension. you mentioned habibi claiming the soft Pashto was first.

That's not a weak evidence. that's a linguistic fact. This is an established conclusion.

If you said it's weak this means you have no idea of the academic conclusions on the topic.

[Khostai]

And how is Paktia, a majority Pakthun province, named Paktia and something else?

[Kushan Prince]

You have bad reading comprehension;; The use of similarities of words to determine origins is faulty because Bakhtiyari is closer to Bakhtria tha Pashtun is. And by the way MOST Indo-Iranian peoples were Nomadic. Not exclusive to Pashtuns, there are even Kurdish nomads. vbeing a "descendant" of something doesn't make that "something" Pashtun. According to modern science, we're descended from Africans; are Africans now Pashtuns?

Bactrian is a greek word, not the official term of what they actually called themselves so that's not a good reason why bakhtaris are descended of them. Keep in mind that Bactrian just means "people of Balkh" and nothing more. You also still fail to realize that Bakhtari's are southwestern as opposed to eastern iranian.

[khushal]

That's not a weak evidence. that's a linguistic fact. This is an established conclusion.

If you said it's weak this means you have no idea of the academic conclusions on the topic.

you do realize that most notable linguists are critical of what habibi says right? His pata khazana is said to be fraudulent.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you do realize that most notable linguists are critical of what habibi says right? His pata khazana is said to be fraudulent.

Show us references where notable linguists are critical about what Habibi said about the SHHH dialect of Pashto pre-dating the KHH dialects.


By All means take the floor with evidence to support this claim.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Bactrian is a greek word, not the official term of what they actually called themselves so that's not a good reason why bakhtaris are descended of them. Keep in mind that Bactrian just means "people of Balkh" and nothing more. You also still fail to realize that Bakhtari's are southwestern as opposed to eastern iranian.

and Bakhtiyari sounds closer to that "Greek Word" than Pashtun does; so by simple logic it would more likely refer to them than Pashtuns on that account. THat's why your "hey it sounds similar so it must refer to Pashtuns" is a ludicrous claim. And at that it doesn't really even sound like Pashtun, You have to REALLLLLLLLLLYYYY Stretch the word, replace the B into a P, drop the R, add an OOOO sound. So many phonetic changes to make the similarity even tenable.

If Bactria simply means "People of Balkh" and nothing more then that is MORE evidence that Pashto and Bactrian are not synonymous. Because Pashto means something very specific and it doesn't mean "people of Balkh" nor does it mean "Bakhtar" or anything close.

[Kushan Prince]

and Bakhtiyari sounds closer to that "Greek Word" than Pashtun does; so by simple logic it would more likely refer to them than Pashtuns on that account. THat's why your "hey it sounds similar so it must refer to Pashtuns" is a ludicrous claim. And at that it doesn't really even sound like Pashtun, You have to REALLLLLLLLLLYYYY Stretch the word, replace the B into a P, drop the R, add an OOOO sound. So many phonetic changes to make the similarity even tenable.

If Bactria simply means "People of Balkh" and nothing more then that is MORE evidence that Pashto and Bactrian are not synonymous. Because Pashto means something very specific and it doesn't mean "people of Balkh" nor does it mean "Bakhtar" or anything close.

Bactrian means nothing, that's my whole point. Since you are using name similarities then i can say Pashtuns come from Pactyans/Pakhtas because their names sound similar.

[khushal]

Show us references where notable linguists are critical about what Habibi said about the SHHH dialect of Pashto pre-dating the KHH dialects.


By All means take the floor with evidence to support this claim.

I don't know if they criticize him about the kh or sh but they do criticize him of his claims that pata khazana is authentic especially when there are letters in it that were introduced to the Pashto alphabet in the 20th century.

But it does seem that he was part of the group that wanted to standardize Pashto and make the sh Pashto formal and standard.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I don't know if they criticize him about the kh or sh but they do criticize him of his claims that pata khazana is authentic especially when there are letters in it that were introduced to the Pashto alphabet in the 20th century.

But it does seem that he was part of the group that wanted to standardize Pashto and make the sh Pashto formal and standard.

That;s a bit different ....being wrong on one thing doesn't automatically imply being wrong about everything else.


And it's not linguists who doubt Abdul Hai Habibi on that , it's literary historians.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Bactrian means nothing, that's my whole point. Since you are using name similarities then i can say Pashtuns come from Pactyans/Pakhtas because their names sound similar.

I'm not; I'm showing how your argument backfires .....totally different

You said Bactrian means "someone from balkh" wow you change your jibberish when you're backed in a corner. and Pactyan/Pakhtas is also a stretch since the SHHH sound pre-dates the KHHH sound according to Pashto linguists. So this sound wouldnt have existed back then in any word referring to Pashtuns. ....sorry ...womp womp womp. lol

[khushal]

That;s a bit different ....being wrong on one thing doesn't automatically imply being wrong about everything else.


And it's not linguists who doubt Abdul Hai Habibi on that , it's literary historians.

But it does weaken his reputation.

David Mackenzie is a respected linguist who criticizes him.
I have not read his book about his theory about sh predating kh. can you explain how he comes to this conclusion?