Talk:Gutian language

Turkish names?

The names sound Turkish to me. Maybe they were an Altaic tribe like later waves of barbarians that swept the Middle East and Europe ?

Yes, and some of them sound Elamite (Inkishush, Silulumesh) and Semitic (Irarum, Tirigan). This is no place for original research and speculations. But if you want to guess, there are some evidence they might have been among the first Indo-Aryan pastorals who used horses extensively and first inhabited the Iranian Plateau but were later overran by Iranian nomads.94.183.125.50 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkish did not exist 4000 years ago. This comment is curious; it's like saying "their names sound French to me, perhaps they were related to the ancient Romans or Gauls". I don't think you have a handle on how much languages change in 4000 years. We have a reasonable idea what early Turkic may have sounded like 2000 years ago (though even for Proto-Turkic there are significant disagreements about the reconstruction of the phonetics), but 4000 years ago its ancestor could have been so different that you wouldn't recognise it as an ancestor of Turkish (as it is heavily controversial if Altaic is even a valid language family in the first place, the nature of this remote ancestor remains doubtful, but even existing Proto-Altaic reconstructions do not resemble Turkish very much even superficially). Just compare Modern Persian with Old Persian and Sanskrit. 2000 BC is still the Proto-Indo-Iranian period, probably; let me just point out that the names don't resemble reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov

What do Gamkrelidze and Ivanov say about Henning's suggestion in the cited article? In their book Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans they only say (on page 786 of the English version) that it is "entirely plausible" and fits with their Urheimat theory. Kanguole 00:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

@Zoeperkoe: regarding the suggestion that the article gives undue weight to Henning's Tocharian theory, how do you suggest the article should be changed? The article already contains almost everything that can be said about the language, and laying out Henning's claimed evidence shows just how thin it is. Kanguole 10:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Thanks for taking the time to look into this! Not sure actually what's the best way forward. As far as I'm aware, theories like these don't get any mention at all in scientific literature on ancient Mesopotamia. So I could imagine that we trim it down to 1 sentence at the most, instead of an entire paragraph. But I'm not necessarily against leaving it as is, as long as there's good reason for it. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I read up on this when someone added this theory to Tocharian languages. Names like Henning, Gamrikeldze and Ivanov make it sound plausible, first evidence of an IE language would be a big deal, and it does get a number of incidental mentions in literature on central Asia, but when it's all laid out it's clear how thin it is. My feeling is that the best defence against such marginal theories is to deal with them in some detail in one place, and this article seemed to be it. With so little evidence of this language, it's not surprising that most of what is written on it is speculative. Kanguole 12:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

True. Let's leave it in place then. Even if you trim it down, someone else will probably come in again and add something with less reliable sources and that would be worse. I'll remove the template. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Germanic Theory

I have deciphered Linear Gutian (Old Gothic) and my works have been published in Iran, even in Amordad magazine: Amordad Magazine, Vol. 419, Page 6, Dr. Francois Desset, Michael Mäder and other ones who have worked on this ancient script, have read my works and are in contact with me, I really don't know why this important theory shouldn't be mentioned here!!

My articles in Academia: https://tehran.academia.edu/MojtabaShahmiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by MojtabaShahmiri (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(continuing talk page discussions here and here)

Your article makes several major new claims:

• The script usually called "Linear Elamite" is actually Gutian.
• You have deciphered this script and found that it matches proto-Germanic/Gothic (despite the time difference of over 1500–2000 years).
• The Indo-European homeland was in Iran.

These claims would need to be assessed by the academic literature before we could report them. You spoke of a wish to publicize your ideas, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. You need to get them published in the academic literature first. Kanguole 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole: The most important point is that my article has been published in the academic literature that I mentioned, I live in Iran, ancient Gutians also lived in Iran and my works have been published in Iran too, if there is a rule in Wikipedia that articles should be just published in a specific journal, please tell me. I have talked about several evidences and arguments in my article about those things that you say are new claims, I'm translating them into English too, for example about the script, please read it: https://www.academia.edu/41087549/Why_Linear_Gutian_not_Linear_Elamite As an academic historian I'm researching about it for more than 15 years. And about this thing that "The Indo-European homeland was in Iran", it is not my claim, please read new researches, like this one: NewScientist: World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: The hastily scribbled new piece which you have posted on the Academia site is again less than helpful for promoting your case. I just mention simple facts such as that you copied the misspelling of the name of the pioneer in Linear Elamite studies, Carl Frank (not "Carl Fink"), from the WP article (!), or the complete lack of references. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I have much more important things to do than translating my works into English, you can at least mention in WP page that in a Persian article which has been published in Iran, an academic historian named Mojtaba Shahmiri claims this script is in Gutian language, not Elamite. Those who research about Gutian language should know it. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The way to bring your work to the attention of researchers in the field is to get it published in the relevant academic journals that they read. Failing that, you could try online discussion boards. That is not the function of Wikipedia, which merely reports what is in scholarly sources. There is no reason to believe that Amordad magazine is a reliable source for claims of this magnitude. Nor does your presence in Iran, four millennia after the Gutians, give you any particular authority on the matter. Kanguole 15:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you want to impose your personal opinion, not Wikipedia rules, as I read all magazines are considred as reliable sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Magazines can be considered reliable sources for noncontroversial claims, which this decidedly is not. Your other "articles" are all unpulished.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason for this disagreement, my English articles are different parts of the Persian article which has been published, I have deciphered Linear Gutian, we can already read these ancient texts, if you believe this decipherment is wrong, you should tell me your reasons, not your personal feelings. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: I cannot see that have a genuine interest in the overall improvement of this encyclopedia. You do not contribute anything except for pushing for the inclusion of your own research. Several editors have explained to you why this inclusion will not happen at the current stage, for more than one reason. (WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:TALK).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Austronesier (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, do what you think is right. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the insertion of an "Indo-European theory" referring to a New Scientist article. Genes don't tell us what language people spoke. The underlying article the NS is reporting on (preprint, published version) is much more modest in its claims. But more importantly, neither article mentions Gutians. Connecting these things in this way is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is appropriate in scientific articles, but is forbidden in Wikipedia. Kanguole 11:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole: According to Wiki page about Gutian people, Assyriologist Julius Oppert has connected the Gutians with the Goths, can I add a Germanic theory based on his work? This theory seems to be much better than Henning's theory about Tocharians. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The theory of a 19th century assyriologist (or supposed theory- the info was unsourced until I just removed it) can not be used to argue this connection, which is quite definitely a fringe theory.--Ermenrich (talk)

@Ermenrich: What is your source which proves this is a fringe theory? Henning's theory about Tocharians which has been published in this Wiki page is almost from the times too. As I said, in Iran Linear Gutian has been deciphered and we are already reading about 60 ancient inscriptions in Gutian (Old Gothic) language. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I said nothing about Hennig. It is a fringe theory to use a 19th century Assyriologist who, apparently based on names, thought the Gutians were Goths. View the page WP:Fringe: other scholars do not hold or engage with these ideas.--Ermenrich (talk)

@Ermenrich: It is not a fringe theory, Gutians and Goths had the same names and Julius Oppert just mentioned this historical fact, ancient DNA studies also show that Indo-European people migrated from Iran to Europe, those who ignore these facts are not scholars. Before the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform script, many people thought that Persian language dates back to 500 AD, not at least 500 BC, even Persians themselves thought they spoke Avestan language in the old times. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

it is absolutely not a "historical fact " that the Goths and Gutians had the same name, nor does DNA prove language. I suggest you wp:drop the stick, you're not getting this added to wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk)

@Ermenrich: Do you want to deny that both of them have been mentioned as Guti/Goti in the ancient sources? Ancient DNA studies are evidences which show the possible relation between Gutian and Gothic people, according to your link, it can't be called a fringe theory when some evidences exist. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Today I wrote an article about Decipherment of Syllabic Signs in Linear Gutian (Old Gothic) Inscriptions: https://tehran.academia.edu/MojtabaShahmiri Of course I didn't have enough time because we are working on deciphering an exciting inscription, sorry for errors and typos. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fringe theories are not defined by whether there is some evidence to support them, they are defined by whether or not they are accepted by the academic community. This theory is not. Furthermore, your evidence is pretty insignificant. There's a 2000 year gap between the Goths and the Gutians, whose only similarity is their names (which, I might add, are recorded by completely different cultures at different times, and thus are certainly not "the same"). I suppose you think the Ghoti people are also Goths? DNA doesn't prove language, as has been pointed out before. Your own "decipherment" of Linear Elamite is questionable for various reasons that have been pointed out on other pages. But all of these factors are largely irrelevant because no scholars on the issue support your work or even mention it, meaning it can't be added to Wikipedia.

Maybe I'm wrong, and in 10 years we'll completely rewrite the history of Indo-European and Germanic linguistics. But I doubt it. Unless you can get other scholars discussing and citing your work, we're not going to add it, and you can't use unrelated research (including things no one has even discussed in two hundred years) to synthesize your own perspective. Sorry.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Accroding to a Persian proverb "You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep", it is called a fringe theory because there is no argument for rejecting this theory, the similarity between the names of Guti and Goth can be a pure coincidence, what about all other people who lived in this region, like Suedin, Germanii, Alman, Dani, Asgardi, Suebi, Semnoni, ...? Please at least mention one ancient people in this region who had a non-Germanic name. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to continue arguing with you about this - Wikipedia is not the place for WP:original research and talk pages are for improving articles, they are not forums. If you persist in misusing talk pages to spread and discuss your personal theories, you will probably be blocked for being disruptive, as you do not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:GREENCHEESE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As loopy as the Germanic hypothesis is, I must admit that the Tocharian one is utterly dubious as well. We're talking about a time earlier than 2000 BC! At the time, just like Primitive Germanic, Primitive Tocharian most likely looked nothing like the attested languages or even reconstructed proto-languages, and would be virtually unrecognisable, or rather, look fairly generic archaic IE-like, almost PIE-like. (No other IE languages are attested this early, except perhaps in faint traces and fragments, isolated loanwords or names, so it's plausible to think that Tocharian and Germanic would have looked more archaic than any of the familiar IE languages, indeed quite amazingly so.) So to point to attested Tocharian is just as nonsensical. I swear, most everyone, including academics, has near zero understanding of language change. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That's all true. The difference is that this theory gets mentioned in sources. I hope the article makes clear just how thin it is. Kanguole 08:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And also, while it's entirely possible that Gutian was (part of) a completely independent genetic unit, unrelated to any living language, the suggestion that Gutian might have been East Caucasian (although there's not much more than the vague resemblance of Quti to Udi) is at least somewhat more refreshing, and geographically and historically slightly more sensible, than attempts to force the evidence into a familiar mold. It's like trying to read rongorongo as Standard American English just because you happen to be familiar with the language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)