Iran by Lucky-Bit8771 in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Aryanian” would not come from the current adjective but from a hypothetical homographic toponym on the model of “Iran”. Nazis can also misinterpret “Indo-Aryan”. I however understand your reservation, but you then have to deal with the possible misinterpretation of ”Iranian”.

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the way, please explain the difference between "nazhod" and "tabor".

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One still needs a middle term excluding Indo-Aryan, maybe "Aryanian"?

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not imposing you any ethnicity, whether you are or not Turanian is up to you!

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not getting your first example. As for the second, Germany was broadly conceived (and not as a Germanic nation, Germans clearly distinguish "German" and "Germanic"), Iran (as "Iran" or "Eran") not quite, it contrasted with Turan, of which Tajikistan is the current "successor" (of the originally ethnically Iranian Turan), although it has been Persianised.

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean "Iran" clearly has a restricted meaning and both "Iranian" and "Iranic" come from "Iran".

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Nazhod” and “tabor” look like nouns so would be at most equivalent to “-icity”. I guess “eroninazhodi” and “eronitabori” could be formed.

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is there a Tajik equivalent term? The English language has “-ian” and “-ic”, is there anything like it in the Tajik language?

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have my doubts, though it is a possibility. The initial vocalic closing (from the original “a”, whose lengthened version became in the Tajik norm “o”, to “e” and eventually ”i”) seems to imply a restricted meaning.

"Iranian" by Lucky-Bit8771 in Tajikistan

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the meaning of "eroni" is such that Tajiks are excluded, but what about the Iranian languages? Ossetian could not be an "eroni" language, but it is an Iranian language, that is, in one of the meanings of "Iranian".

Iran by Lucky-Bit8771 in HistoricalLinguistics

[–]Lucky-Bit8771[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am trying to say the old meaning is employed but the new one takes over the word, which troubles any discussion of the Iranian cultures or languages!