Does Vladimir Putin exist?

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

Here is one

https://www.behindthename.com/name/vladimir/top/russia-moscow

It seems like it is losing its popularity however. Perhaps the bigger Vladimir Putin makes himself a dick, the less people want their kid to be named like him.

You really pick the most ridiculous and obscure things to argue about. Further proof you are just a bot in a beta testing stage

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:47:51 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on August 31, 2020, 07:37:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2020, 07:19:31 AM

Does anyone really think that parents put this much effort into naming their babies?

No, I am saying that "Vladimir Putin" is probably not the real name (given to him by his parents) of the president of Russia.

Why not?  Isn't Vladimir a perfectly reasonable name to give a Russian baby boy born in in the early 1950s?

Do you have some citation for the claim that Vladimir is a common name in Russia?

I didn't claim that it was common name.  I asked why you think that it shouldn't be a reasonable name.

But since you asked:

A common name throughout Russia, Vladimir is featured in novels by Turgenev and Pushkin.

The place where  lived for longer is decisive here.

But it isn't. Yes, languages borrow words from languages spoken near-by. But the basic vocabulary of languages doesn't change because of that. Words for numbers 1-10 are unlikely to be borrowed (Sanskrit names for numbers 1-10 are very similar to Latin and Greek ones, and even more so to the Slavic ones, because Sanskrit is a satem language), and so are the words for basic body parts (the word for "nose" is "nasus" in Latin, "nos" in Croatian and "nasa" in Sanskrit), pronouns (as far as I know, all Indo-European languages have a 2nd person singular pronoun which sounds like "thou", mostly it starts with the same sound as the word for the number "three") and so on (the word for "night" is "nox" in Latin, "nakti" in Sanskrit and "noć" in Croatian...).

Words for numbers 1-10 are unlikely to be borrowed

There are many things in this world called as unlikely but then have been learned as likely.

Turkish / Persian /English / Arabic numbers:

PS: I know the letters, but usually only consonants are written in Persian. Since vowels are not written, I can make mistakes with vowels. What I am writing in parentheses is the close pronunciation.

1 bir / یکی (yak) / one / vaheed
2 iki / دو (due) / two /athnan
3 üç / سه (sa) / three / thlat
4 dört / چهار (cahaar) / four / arba
5 beş / پنج (panch) / five / hamsa
6 altı / شش (shash) / six / set
7 yedi / هفت (hafed) / seven / sebaa
8 sekiz / هشت (hashed) / eight / thmany
9 dokuz / نه (zaam or naam they pronounced similar) / nine / tesaa

There are differences in the pronunciation of words, but they resemble words from the same root. I grouped these:

Turkish and Persian have common numbers: 1/9 = 11 %
Persian and English have common numbers: 3/9 = 33 %
Persian and Arabic have common numbers: 1/9 = 11%
English and Arabic have common numbers: 4/9 = 44%

Although Britain and Arabia are distant from each other, I think the reason why the numbers are so similar is due to the historical colonial culture of the British on Arabic countries.

Bonus: Kurdish

yek (Persian)
du (Persian, English)
se (Persian)
char (Persian)
panch (Persian, Turkish)
shash (Persian)
haft (Persian)
hasht (Persian)
nah (English, Persian)

Kurdish has 1/9=11% common number with Turkish, 2/9=22%  common number with English and 8/9=89% common number with Persian.

Well thank God for the Arabic numeral system

We got the Roman calander but thankfully dumped their numeral system

1 bir / یکی (yak) / one / vaheed

Well, word for "one" does change from time to time, because there tend to be a few words in a language meaning approximately "one". Latin "unus" and English "one" are almost certainly related. Is Croatian "jedan" related to them? I am not sure, but I'd guess it is.

3 üç / سه (sa) / three / thlat

I must say I got surprised a bit to learn that the Persian word for "three" is "sa". I expected it to be something like "tri", as in Sanskrit or Croatian. Is there some other word in which Indo-European "tr" changes to "s" in Persian? I can't think of any.
What do you mean that the Arabic word for "three" is "thlat"? It's ثَلَاثَة (ṯalāṯa).

4 dört / چهار (cahaar) / four / arba

Well, it's a good question why the English word "four" starts with 'f' instead of "wh". By the Grimm's law, we would definitely expect it to start with "wh", because it started with "kw" in Indo-European. On the other hand, it's not isolated. The word "wolf" ends with 'f' in English, and it ended with "kw" in Indo-European (and note also that it changed to 'p' in Latin "vulpes"). As for Persian "cahaar", I don't see anything too weird there to conclude it's not Indo-European. The 't' disappearing appears to be a normal thing in Persian, and the change from "kw" to 'c' is entirely expected in a satem language.

5 beş / پنج (panch) / five / hamsa

Why wouldn't Persian "panch" and English "five" be related? By the Grimm's Law, 'f' in Germanic languages corresponds to 'p' in other Indo-European languages. The relationship is quite obvious if you take into account that the 'i' in "five" was nasalized (but English lost nasalized vowels in Old English), as is visible in other Germanic languages, such as German "fünf".

7 yedi / هفت (hafed) / seven / sebaa

The fact that the Persian word for 7 starts with 'h' is not surprising. It's well-known that Indo-European 's' at the beginning of a word in front of a wovel turns into 'h' in Greek and Persian. Similarly, the Persian word for "sun" is خور (xwar), and for "sister" is خواهر (xâhar). A much better question would be why the Persian word for "six" starts with "sh", but I haven't studied Persian much.
As for why Proto-Semitic and Proto-Indo-European have similar words for 6 and 7, well, it's hard to tell. De Saussure used that as an argument for relationship between Indo-European and Semitic, but Semitic languages are now generally accepted to belong to the Afro-Asiatic language family, so it's very unlikely. It's probably a coincidence. Similarly, the Etruscan word for 7 was "semph", also vaguely similar.

8 sekiz / هشت (hashed) / eight / thmany

Well, the "sh" in Persian "hashed" is not surprising, since Persian is a satem language, and Indo-Eurpean 'kj' regularly changes to 's' or 'sh' in satem languages. As for the initial 'h', I don't see any obvious explanation for that. But, again, I haven't studied Persian at all. I guess it's something like the so-called "spiritus asper" in Greek words such as "hydra" (related to English "water"), triggered by the following vowel.

Turkish and Persian have common numbers: 1/9 = 11 %
Persian and English have common numbers: 3/9 = 33 %

And I thought you were claiming Persian was more closely related to Turkish than to English.

Although Britain and Arabia are distant from each other, I think the reason why the numbers are so similar is due to the historical colonial culture of the British on Arabic countries.

That's definitely not the explanation. Hittite and Akkadian also had similar words for "six" and "seven", thousands of years before colonialism.

That's definitely not the explanation. Hittite and Akkadian also had similar words for "six" and "seven", thousands of years before colonialism.

Sorry? Aren't Hittits and Akkadians counted as people?

Words for numbers 1-10 are unlikely to be borrowed

Then I gave example includes this numbers, now you started to tell another story. Come on, be consistent.

And I thought you were claiming Persian was more closely related to Turkish than to English.

Generally so. But when issue comes to numbers, Turkish is far away to others. This is because we Turks why not good on trade. Others are talking same language. 

The fact that the Persian word for 7 starts with 'h' is not surprising. It's well-known that Indo-European 's' at the beginning of a word in front of a wovel turns into 'h' in Greek and Persian. Similarly, the Persian word for "sun" is خور (xwar), and for "sister" is خواهر (xâhar). A much better question would be why the Persian word for "six" starts with "sh", but I haven't studied Persian much.
As for why Proto-Semitic and Proto-Indo-European have similar words for 6 and 7, well, it's hard to tell. De Saussure used that as an argument for relationship between Indo-European and Semitic, but Semitic languages are now generally accepted to belong to the Afro-Asiatic language family, so it's very unlikely. It's probably a coincidence. Similarly, the Etruscan word for 7 was "semph", also vaguely similar.

It is funny you are still talking "Indo-Europe" language family that never existed and have not similarity. You can make a test and compare them. India is similar to Persian more than others. If you pay attention then you can see, Iranian and Indian peopla are genetically, typically similar. What a relevance with Europe? It is just a comedy to claim there can be a language family has the name "Indo-Europe". Hahaha. A full of comedy.  Give it up and let the discuss continue serious. We can really do a test to compare languages, for example English, Indian, Turkish and Persian. Also, Russian is not close to English. Give it up that claim.

Well, it's a good question why the English word "four" starts with 'f' instead of "wh". By the Grimm's law, we would definitely expect it to start with "wh", because it started with "kw" in Indo-European. On the other hand, it's not isolated. The word "wolf" ends with 'f' in English, and it ended with "kw" in Indo-European (and note also that it changed to 'p' in Latin "vulpes"). As for Persian "cahaar", I don't see anything too weird there to conclude it's not Indo-European. The 't' disappearing appears to be a normal thing in Persian, and the change from "kw" to 'c' is entirely expected in a satem language.

It is still a comedy. You are talking depends on evidences, then you magically add "Indo" to Europe language family. Why can't you give an example of Hindi about your examples? Because Hindi has nothing with others.

What do you mean that the Arabic word for "three" is "thlat"? It's ثَلَاثَة (ṯalāṯa).

I have wrote it as how I spaek it in Turkish. It simply shown as talaata in writing, but Arabic words are not speaking as same as they written. They generally add something at the end of the word or sentences. They tell it as "th-laat", t and h together and laat. It may be thlaati or thlaata according to talking. Arabs generally use "aat" paragoge for make words plural. For example bint is single, but it becomes plural when they tell "benaat". This example can be increased. According to this thought, there is a possiblity they use it in the meaning of "plural of something" means three. It requires to know what "th" means. I guess it comes from du, it means two. It may be come from "du-laat", "two-plural" means three., guess.

I think you should do a study demonstrating the relevance of Hindi to these languages ​​before continuing here. You can't get rid of that discussion by using them together; Indo-European language family was never existed. India and Europe has nothing similar than they have more than others. Until I work it, this word is a claim too. It seems unlogical to me. India and Europe together? what does that have to do with anything?

This is why it illogical. There are Turks number of more than 200 millions between them. From Turkey to Yakutia (yakut means ruby in Turkish, a turkish word, because there are ruby mines in Yakutia), and a few south of Turkey but mostly north side of Turkey, all this region filled with Turks. In other words, Turk region divides Russia to two parts. It is impossible to be a connection between Indians with Russians and Europeans other than teleportation but not visit the Turk region.

Aren't Hittits and Akkadians counted as people?

You claimed the similarities between Arabic and English words for 6 and 7 are attributable to the recent colonialism. I pointed out that this is not an explanation, because Hittite (the oldest attested Indo-European language) and Akkadian (the oldest attested Semitic language) also had similar words for 6 and 7.

now you started to tell another story

How?

This is because we Turks why not good on trade.

That's obviously not what's going on. Latin, Greek and Sanskrit names of numbers were similar, even though people speaking Sanskrit and people speaking Latin and Greek didn't trade with each other, they didn't even know for one another (Greeks believed Hindus river was the end of the world).

Also, Russian is not close to English. Give it up that claim.

Russian is related to English, that's what I am certain.
English 't' corresponds to Russian 'd': "two"-"два" (dva), "ten"-"де́сять" (desiat), "tree"-"дрова́" (drova), "twig"-"двигъ" (dvigu), "to"-"до" (do), "water"-"вода́" (voda)...
English 'th' corresponds to Russian 't': "three"-"три" (tri), "thin"-"то́нкий" (tonkiy), "that"-"тот" (tot), "brother"-"брат" (brat), "mother"-"мать" (mati)...

Why can't you give an example of Hindi about your examples? Because Hindi has nothing with others.

Hindi is relatively closely related to Persian (both belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European), nobody claims otherwise.

I have wrote it as how I spaek it in Turkish.

You compare with the earliest attested form of the language, not with how people who don't speak a language well pronounce words. Basic common sense. And you shouldn't compare Hindi with English (or whatever language you suppose it to be related to), you should compare English with Sanskrit, since we know Hindi came from Sanskrit (much like Italian and Spanish came from Latin).

It is impossible to be a connection between Indians and Europeans other than teleportation but not visit the Turk region.

And there were many Indo-European languages spoken in modern-day Turkey. Hittite, Lydian and Luwian belonged to the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. Then there was the Phrygian language, and no doubt many other Indo-European languages we know nothing about.

You claimed the similarities between Arabic and English words for 6 and 7 are attributable to the recent colonialism. I pointed out that this is not an explanation, because Hittite (the oldest attested Indo-European language) and Akkadian (the oldest attested Semitic language) also had similar words for 6 and 7.

But that entry was not about it. It was about your claiming there isn't similarities about numbers. Your different opinion here did not affect the original argument. Hitits are lived in Turkey and relatives with both Turks and Greek. If you want to take them, please take the rest of the world and give me nothing, okay?



Hitit is here and they are also "the oldest attested Indo-European language" according to you. So, our grandfathers are actually your grandfathers and we Turks have came from Mars here, right?

I have use my right to do not continue this discussion. Please, okay? I don't interest what happened to Putin anymore after that point. You have no idea whose are living in Turkey but talking from 1000 kilometres far as you know it better than me. Okay, take it all, I don't want any of it. Get the Hitits, urartus, Sumerians, Azteks, others, all of them are your grandfathers and we came here from Mars by teleportation. Okay.

It was about your claiming there isn't similarities about numbers.

And there clearly isn't a similarity between Turkish numbers and English or Persian ones, or between Turkish numbers and Arabic numbers.
Maybe there is some deep-in-time connection between Arabic (a Semitic language) and Persian and English (Indo-European languages), but very few linguists subscribe to that idea. Most linguists think the similarities between Indo-European and Semitic names for numbers 6 and 7 are a coincidence, and the reasons to think that are quite obvious.

So, our grandfathers are actually your grandfathers and we Turks have came from Mars here, right?

Where Turks came from is irrelevant to whether some languages of India are related to most languages of Europe. Maybe Turkic languages are, as some linguists claim, related to Mongolian and Korean and perhaps Japanese (Altaic Hypothesis). Maybe (though I am not sure any expert claims that) some Turkic languages were spoken in Anatolia in ancient times, but were not attested.
But if you will reject the connection between English and Persian because it's supposedly not based on enough evidence, then please be consistent enough to also reject the connection between English and Turkish, as it is clearly based on even less evidence.

If you are going to keep claiming nonsense like Indo-European, you need more solid evidence. I do not produce a language family called Engo-Turko. There are similarities between these languages, there are similarities between each language. But India geographically far from others. Then you say the Hittites have something to do with the Indians. Nope. It does not affect.

I have draw you where people live:



This map was like this 100 years ago, it was like this 500 years ago, it was like this 1000 years ago also, -if exist- 3000 years ago too. Countries are formed and countries collapse. Soldiers come and soldiers go. But the peasants cannot move much, they do not have such technology and requirements. It does not matter who founded the Hittite state, its people are Turkish people. There are Turks, Kurds in the east and Greeks in the west. This situation has not changed at all. Peoples are always the same. Therefore, if the Hittites came and passed from these lands, it is impossible not to affect Turkish. This event you are talking about is completely imaginary.

When a country invades another country, it carries its own language there. A mixed language is formed. Since the British exploited India for a long time, they also carried their language there. This is all it. Historically, they have nothing in common. Between Europe and India there is Asia and the Middle East, and the two cannot interact without affecting them.

Look at it: This family is a characteristic family in India:



You are telling it Indo-Europe language family. Are you okay? You are telling it depends on supposedly history science, but I am talking depending the realities. If you have a language similarity with this, get have fun with it!

This is average Russian family:



Pay attention you are telling they are in same language family. Okay.

An average Persian /Iranian family:



An average Turkish family. I don't use blondes here especially but brunettes.



So,

You claim this family has nothing with Russians, but has relationship with this family:



Why are you saying that? Because according to you, Turks do not belong to this geography. This is history invented by westerners. Turks have always been in this geography. Those in the east of this map that I have drawn, those neighboring China are similar to the Chinese, and those in the west are similar to the Greeks. This is the case when it comes to general image language also.

Even if Indians had actually managed to reach Europe 3000 years ago, much greater differences between their languages ​​would surely have occurred in such a long time.

If you are going to keep claiming nonsense like Indo-European, you need more solid evidence. I do not produce a language family called Engo-Turko. There are similarities between these languages, there are similarities between each language. But India geographically far from others. Then you say the Hittites have something to do with the Indians. Nope. It does not affect.

I have draw you where people live:

Are you assuming that Indo-European languages originated in India? 

The Indo-European languages are a family of related languages that today are widely spoken in the Americas, Europe, and also Western and Southern Asia. Just as languages such as Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian are all descended from Latin, Indo-European languages are believed to derive from a hypothetical language known as Proto-Indo-European, which is no longer spoken.

It is highly probable that the earliest speakers of this language originally lived around Ukraine and neighbouring regions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia, then spread to most of the rest of Europe and later down into India. The earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity is believed to be around 3400 BCE.

Are you assuming that Indo-European languages originated in India? 

As usual, wise is off trying to debunk a theory without even a cursory knowledge of the theory.

His expertise in engineering is only matched by his expertise in linguistics...

If you are going to keep claiming nonsense like Indo-European, you need more solid evidence.

And if it is nonsense, why do nearly all linguists believe that?

There are similarities between these languages, there are similarities between each language.

Sure, we all speak human languages and, in the vast majority of human languages, subject comes at the beginning of a sentence (SOV and SVO are by far the most common word orders), there is a word for mother starting with 'm' and for father starting with 'p', and so on. But if you pick any two random languages that aren't related, you won't find any similarities in the names of numbers 1-10, the names for basic body parts (except possibly for "nose", there appears to be a cross-linguistic tendency for nose to be named something like choongah, onomatopoeia of sniffing, but obviously not among Indo-European languages) and other basic vocabulary, nor in grammar endings.

Then you say the Hittites have something to do with the Indians. Nope. It does not affect.

The exact position of Hittite among the Indo-European language family is a matter of some controversy, but no serious linguist since 1920s has argued it's not an Indo-European language. It was deciphered partly using knowledge from other Indo-European languages.

I have draw you where people live

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make with that map.

it was like this 1000 years ago also

Errr... Nope, a thousand years ago Russian was spoken only in the very west of what's now called Russia. Russians back in the day didn't even know of much of Siberia, much less of the Pacific Ocean. Languages spoken there 1000 years ago were mostly Uralic, Tungusic, Dene-Yeniseian and Indo-Iranian languages, not Slavic languages.

A mixed language is formed.

Mixed languages, that is, creoles, have very specific grammatical features, such as a very isolating syntax. Claims that Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-Aryan languages are creoles are complete nonsense. Claim that English is a creole holds some more merit, but not much.

Historically, they have nothing in common.

Actually, they do. Sanskrit is related to Latin and Greek, and more distantly to English. Here are Sanskrit numbers:

1. One एकम् (ekam)
2. Two द्वे (dve)
3. Three त्रीणि (treeni)
4. Four चत्वारि (chatvaari)
5. Five पञ्च (pancha)
6. Six षट् (shat)
7. Seven सप्त (sapta)
8. Eight अष्ट (ashta)
9. Nine नव (nava)
10. Ten दश (dasha)

It was like that long before colonialism, and also long before English language even existed.

Between Europe and India there is Asia and the Middle East, and the two cannot interact without affecting them.

And, again, countless Indo-European languages were and are spoken in the Middle East. Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luwian...), Phrygian, Persian, Armenian...

Why are you saying that?

Because languages have nothing to do with race, and have very little to do with genetics. Finnish people are genetically related to Swedish people, but their languages are unrelated (Swedish is closely related to English, while Finnish is distantly related to Hungarian, and even more distantly to the Samoyedic languages). Similarly, Turks are genetically closely related to Greeks, but linguistically they are closely related to Uyghurs (whereas Uyghurs are genetically closely related to the Sibe people, to which they are linguistically not at all related). Languages spread a lot faster than genes do.

Quote from: wise on September 01, 2020, 07:30:31 AM

If you are going to keep claiming nonsense like Indo-European, you need more solid evidence. I do not produce a language family called Engo-Turko. There are similarities between these languages, there are similarities between each language. But India geographically far from others. Then you say the Hittites have something to do with the Indians. Nope. It does not affect.

I have draw you where people live:

Are you assuming that Indo-European languages originated in India? 

Quote from: https://www.ancient.eu/Indo-European_Languages/

The Indo-European languages are a family of related languages that today are widely spoken in the Americas, Europe, and also Western and Southern Asia. Just as languages such as Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian are all descended from Latin, Indo-European languages are believed to derive from a hypothetical language known as Proto-Indo-European, which is no longer spoken.

It is highly probable that the earliest speakers of this language originally lived around Ukraine and neighbouring regions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia, then spread to most of the rest of Europe and later down into India. The earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity is believed to be around 3400 BCE.

A few linguists do argue that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in India. Though, it's hard to defend that idea in the light of reconstructed Indo-European vocabulary, the word *lakjs (compare Croatian "losos", German "Lachs", Tocharian "laks", Ossetian "лӕсӕг") in all likelihood meant "salmon", and there are no salmons in India. Regardless, it's certainly less wrong to claim that PIE was spoken in India than to claim English is more related to Turkish than to Hindi.

Well actually Vladimir does mean to rule or govern and Putin comes from the word "Put" soft T, which mean the way. So yes his name actually means to rule or to govern the way or leading the way. Very interesting.

Sanskrit is related to Latin and Greek, and more distantly to English. Here are Sanskrit numbers:

Lets examine it with Persian and decide which one it seems similar; I take first two from your post;
English / Sanskrit / persian
1. One एकम् (ekam) Yek
2. Two द्वे (dve) / do
3. Three त्रीणि (treeni) / se
4. Four चत्वारि (chatvaari) / chaar
5. Five पञ्च (pancha) / panch
6. Six षट् (shat) / shash
7. Seven सप्त (sapta) / haft
8. Eight अष्ट (ashta) / hasht
9. Nine नव (nava) / noh
10. Ten दश (dasha) / dah

As we see that, except the number "three", and may be seven a bit, Sanskrit is similar to Persian more. So, how can you claim its being relative with English?

If you referring Sanskrit here, so why don't you take Persian a member of that language family? It is clear that persian has more similarity to Sanskrit more than others, like Hindi. Because they are not part of the scenario?

In my opinion, Hindi-Europe language family is made up in order to convince Indians and some other people to convince behave together with Europeans.

That theory divides Russians and Turks traditionally lived on same location, and divides Indians and Persians lived tradionally as a neighbor thousands of years, and adding them to Europe. What a relevance? It is still comedy.

If you referring Sanskrit here, so why don't you take Persian a member of that language family?

And I am.

Hindi is relatively closely related to Persian (both belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European), nobody claims otherwise.

You know, I am starting to think you are trolling.

You know, I am starting to think you are trolling.

Says he.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 02, 2020, 12:21:10 AM

You know, I am starting to think you are trolling.

Says he.

What do you mean?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 02, 2020, 01:51:26 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on September 02, 2020, 12:21:10 AM

You know, I am starting to think you are trolling.

Says he.

What do you mean?

He means that it looks funny to see a guy who is nothing but a troll to call out someone for being a troll

No one takes you serious. Everyone thinks you're a troll. Or a bot.

Both my mother and father were called Vladimir, my dog was Ralf.

Quote from: wise

If you referring Sanskrit here, so why don't you take Persian a member of that language family?

And I am.

Quote from: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86960.msg2280228#msg2280228

Hindi is relatively closely related to Persian (both belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European), nobody claims otherwise.

You know, I am starting to think you are trolling.

And I have start to think you are trolling either.

You have start to tell Indo-Iranian branch now.

So;

You have start with Indo-Europe, and now it has been enlarged to Indo-Persian; which is on the line? Indo-China, Indo-Russia, Indo-'Nesia, and with Indo-Africa, nobody remains but Indo-Turks. Indians are so crowd and you can create a relationship with everything this way. But, but,, Where is Indo-Turk language family? 

These are the languages in the PIE family tree.  Turkic has it's own.

No one takes you serious. Everyone thinks you're a troll. Or a bot.

Once again, try talking to something you know is a bot (like Cleverbot), you will quickly realize the big difference between talking to me and talking to a bot.
And why would I have to be a troll? When I published peer-reviewed papers about linguistics (like this one), none of the experts there complained that I was a troll. But when I try to apply my knowledge of linguistics to real-world issues, or even correct people who are very mistaken about well-known facts from linguistics, then somehow I am suddenly a troll. Is it some clever form of the Poisoning the Well fallacy?

Indo-China, Indo-Russia, Indo-'Nesia, and with Indo-Africa, nobody remains but Indo-Turks.

Chinese is clearly unrelated to English. Both when it comes to basic vocabulary, and it doesn't even have that many English loanwords.
Russian is related to the Indo-European languages of India, but it is probably more closely related to Germanic languages (Germanic and Balto-Slavic share many innovations in vocabulary, and superficially similar sound changes between Indo-Iranian and Slavic are probably areal influence).
Indonesian languages (a branch of the Austronesian language family) are traditionally thought to be unrelated to Indo-European languages, though I think it's possible to be related. There appear to be some systematic similarities (Indo-European *s appears to regularly correspond to Austronesian *q, Indo-European *d appears to regularly correspond to Austronesian *d and Indo-European *r appears to regularly correspond to Austronesian *l), though it's hard to prove they aren't coincidental. When it comes to connecting attested Indo-European languages (with thousands of known words), you can list sound laws with tens or hundreds of examples accross a wide range of vocabulary, so that the mere suggestion that it's due to coincidence must appear absurd. Something like that just can't be done with poorly known languages such as Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Austronesian. They clearly aren't closely related.
African languages are very diverse, and not very well studied. Hypotheses about deep connections between many or even most African languages (such as Niger-Congo languages) aren't based on solid evidence. Could some African language family be distantly related to Indo-European languages or Dravidian languages? Possibly. Some prominent linguists, including De Saussure, considered Hamito-Semitic languages to be related to Indo-European. But if there was some language family closely related to Indo-European in Africa, it would have already been recognized by linguists, and distant relationships are hard to prove.
Turkic languages are generally thought to be unrelated to Indo-European languages, they are considered by mainstream linguistics to be unrelated to any other language family. Now, there are a few linguists who consider Mongolic, Turkic, Korean and perhaps Japanese to be related and form the Altaic language family, but it was never mainstream linguistics, and it has fewer and fewer proponents over time. There are some linguists who accept the Altaic language family and claim it's related to Indo-European and Uralic languages, this is called Nostratic Hypothesis, but it is widely viewed as pseudoscience among mainstream linguistics. But, even so, it's not nearly as pseudoscientific as what you, wise, are claiming.

These are the languages in the PIE family tree.

Why wouldn't Hittite be a satem language? As far as I can tell (though I haven't studied it that much), Proto-Indo-European *kj corresponds to 'ss' in Hittite. For instance, the famous Hittite word for "horse trainer" is "assussanni" (similar phonological development to the Sanskrit word for horse, अश्व, ašva, rather than to the cognate Latin word "equus").

By the way, JimmyTheCrab, you seem to agree with me, at least for the most part, about linguistics, right? Then why do you imply I am a troll?

Everyone following along, I have created this throwaway to let you all know that FlatAssembler is not trolling; I've been hearing his nonsense for years, and recently he's made clams about how prisons don't exist. At first, I thought he was trolling, but as time went on, I regret to inform you that isn't the case.
As for the topic, I'm sure this is the next ridiculous thing he's going to believe. Since he thinks he knows linguistics, he's gonna use it to support nutty conspiracy theories, even when in actuality it means nothing at all.

Keep responding to him, it's entertaining anyways, but just know your time could be better spent elsewhere. He almost never changes his mind, and when you present him with a compelling argument, he keeps moving the goalposts. It's a fruitless endeavor to try to change his mind.