0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,106 Given: 3,279 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 6,915 Given: 7,434 |
I am mostly interested in those groups cause they had a rich history. The usefulness of their existence is we would know more historical and linguistic details about them, like the example with Liburnians that Feiichy mentioned. But I don't think most people would care about them, so it's fine if you don't either. Everyone has their own opinion.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,106 Given: 3,279 |
Well its not like we know a significant amount about it to distinguish it as much. For all we know it could have been a dialect of East Iranian similar to the other ones and not distinct enough. Considering it got phased out by Persian even before the Mongol invasion it was probably a midpoint between Sogdian and Pahlavi
Thumbs Up |
Received: 6,667 Given: 5,726 |
Goths
Etruscans (Tyrsenians?)
Sumerians
Thumbs Up |
Received: 6,915 Given: 7,434 |
Based on the data we know, they had their own East Iranic language and weren't included among Sogdians. Anyways, we could make the same argument for many old ethnic groups, especially non-Persian Iranic ones. The de facto opinion is that they were their own ethnicity, so it's not worth calling them out for being known as their own ethnic group. Otherwise, you should do that for all other non-Persian Iranics.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,808 Given: 4,545 |
Quenya
Sindar
Khazad
1984 was A Warning Not A Manual
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,329 Given: 2,699 |
Goths, Gauls and Tocharians.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks