Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 16:54

Given the political situation, do people think that Indo-Aryan will no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics with it being replaced with "Indic"?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat 18 Nov 2017, 02:41
Contact:

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Pabappa » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 19:17

Afaik, Indo-Aryan refers to what we now call Indo-European, not to a subgroup. Since Persians were the original Aryans, it's possible it's been used as a synonym of Indo-Iranian, but it wouldn't make sense to call the Indic branch alone by any hyphenated name when Indic already covers it.

Edit; apply I was wr9ng , even a fetr look8ng it up... but the rest of my answer still applies...

To get back to your point.... t he name Aryan may have fallen out of favor originally because of its nazi associatons, but that was l9ng ago and i didnt even remember which branch of the family it was without looking.
Image
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 20:00

Pabappa wrote:
Tue 13 Mar 2018, 19:17
Afaik, Indo-Aryan refers to what we now call Indo-European, not to a subgroup. Since Persians were the original Aryans, it's possible it's been used as a synonym of Indo-Iranian, but it wouldn't make sense to call the Indic branch alone by any hyphenated name when Indic already covers it.

Edit; apply I was wr9ng , even a fetr look8ng it up... but the rest of my answer still applies...

To get back to your point.... t he name Aryan may have fallen out of favor originally because of its nazi associatons, but that was l9ng ago and i didnt even remember which branch of the family it was without looking.
It's in current usage for the Indian Sub-Branch of the Indo-Iranian branch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages
https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=h ... 5+06:04:55
http://web.mit.edu/rbhatt/www/24.956/l1.pdf
https://www.routledge.com/The-Indo-Arya ... 0415772945
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Napa Valley, California

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 21:31

I'll admit that I find these terms confusing. I thought that Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan were interchangeable (the words "Iranian" and "Aryan" are cognates after all), but it seems that "Indo-Aryan" is actually a synonym for "Indic", which is a subbranch of Indo-Iranian, which is a branch of Indo-European.

I personally prefer "Indic", and given the negative contexts of the word "Aryan" (an unfortunate and inaccurate association), I can see it dying out.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by sangi39 » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 21:58

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Tue 13 Mar 2018, 21:31
I'll admit that I find these terms confusing. I thought that Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan were interchangeable (the words "Iranian" and "Aryan" are cognates after all), but it seems that "Indo-Aryan" is actually a synonym for "Indic", which is a subbranch of Indo-Iranian, which is a branch of Indo-European.

I personally prefer "Indic", and given the negative contexts of the word "Aryan" (an unfortunate and inaccurate association), I can see it dying out.

I actually had to do some digging on this one because, honestly, yeah, I got Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan mixed up for a bit there.

Apparently, the older terminology was something like "Indo-Iranian" or "Aryan" above (although "Aryan" was also used by some earlier people to refer to Indo-European as a whole, back when it was variously called "Indo-Germanic", "Japhetic", "Indo-Celtic" and so on), then Irano-Aryan vs. Indo-Aryan splitting off from that, with "Aryan" being a reference to a term used in both language groups as an endonym. Eventually Indo-Iranian replaced "Aryan", likely due to the associations the word has with Nazi ideology, and Irano-Aryan was replaced simply with "Iranian" (I assume in part because the "Irano-" element is cognate with "Aryan" so it's basically redunant, but probably again because of the associates with Nazism). Indo-Aryan has held on a lot longer, and honestly I can't tell why, but "Indic" is used by some people instead.

I guess "Indic" hasn't caught on as quickly because it conjures up thoughts of "all the languages of India", at the expense of the non-IE Dravidian languages, for example. Replacing one term for something that's less specific. I don't know.

Maybe "Indo-Aryan" will be replaced one day, but who knows.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat 21 Jul 2012, 07:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Porphyrogenitos » Wed 14 Mar 2018, 04:43

I always thought "Indic" was a catch-all term for all languages of South Asia, in particular casting Indo-Aryan and Dravidian as a historically and culturally intertwined whole. At least I'm pretty sure I've seen it used that way.

And I thought the point of the term "Indo-Aryan" was that it didn't refer to all languages that might be called "Indic" - it specifically referred to the Indic languages brought to the subcontinent by the Aryan cultural and linguistic group. And not just "Aryan", but specifically "Indo-Aryan", to contrast it with the Iranian languages, which could also be called "Aryan".
pittmirg
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon 13 Sep 2010, 11:04

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by pittmirg » Sat 17 Mar 2018, 19:28

Surely, replacing 'Indo-Iranian' with 'Aryan' or replacing 'Indo-Aryan' with 'Indic' would make the nomenclature more consistent. What political situation?
if you can't decline it or conjugate it, piss on it.
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:47

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Isfendil » Mon 19 Mar 2018, 02:41

pittmirg wrote:
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 19:28
Surely, replacing 'Indo-Iranian' with 'Aryan' or replacing 'Indo-Aryan' with 'Indic' would make the nomenclature more consistent. What political situation?
The issue is that Aryan is the indo-aryan reflex of that word, whereas iranian is more or less the iranian one, so calling indo-iranian "Aryan" would actually be a step backward.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Mon 19 Mar 2018, 03:50

Porphyrogenitos wrote:
Wed 14 Mar 2018, 04:43
I always thought "Indic" was a catch-all term for all languages of South Asia, in particular casting Indo-Aryan and Dravidian as a historically and culturally intertwined whole. At least I'm pretty sure I've seen it used that way.

And I thought the point of the term "Indo-Aryan" was that it didn't refer to all languages that might be called "Indic" - it specifically referred to the Indic languages brought to the subcontinent by the Aryan cultural and linguistic group. And not just "Aryan", but specifically "Indo-Aryan", to contrast it with the Iranian languages, which could also be called "Aryan".
Maybe to avoid associations with Nazism, Sanskrito-Prakritic could work?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2016, 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Vlürch » Wed 21 Mar 2018, 18:50

TL;DR: Nazis shouldn't be given the authority to redefine words.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal with "Indo-Aryan" is. My understanding regarding "Indic" is more or less the same as what Porphyrogenitos said, except that it can also refer specifically to the Indo-Aryan languages, which is why the term as a whole has always been really confusing to me; I'm 99% sure I've seen it used to mean both, and may have even used it myself to mean both at different times (or even at the same time!?), as in something like "the Indic branch" of Indo-Iranian and/or "Indic features" of phonology or whatever.

Replacing the term "Indo-Aryan languages" with "Indic languages" and scrapping the former as a synonym would only make everything even more confusing, so it doesn't seem like a good idea even without any kind of political considerations. It's kinda funny, though, because "the Indic branch" does clearly mean the Indo-Aryan languages and in a context where only Indo-European languages are discussed, "Indic languages" makes perfect sense and couldn't possibly be misunderstood. It's only when it's used without any specification of their relationship to other languages that it gets confusing, I think. If it became the standard term, there would be much more potential for confusion with "Indian languages" meaning all the languages of India and/or the Indian subcontinent, or even the indigenous languages of America.

I can't really think of a replacement for "Indo-Aryan" that isn't confusing in some way. Something like "Aryo-Indian" would probably be considered for replacement, too, since it's the exact same thing with the order of the elements reversed, even if it doesn't include "Aryan" in full... but it could be a tiny little bit less confusing, I guess, since it couldn't be confused with Indo-Iranian.

Googling it, I found out there's a book by Hoernlé called "A comparative grammar of the Gaudian languages", some editions apparently adding "Aryo-Indian" in parentheses after "Gaudian". AFAICT all the results on Google for "Gaudian" are about that book, which is available on archive.org as a .pdf (which is missing at least one page). There's an underdot in "Gauḍian", so it's probably derived from the Sanskrit word गौड (gauḍa), according to Wiktionary meaning a region of Bengal. However, judging by the first few pages, it seems like the way he used it is synonymous with "Indo-Aryan". Maybe that's one possible replacement, even if it's weird, obscure and possibly incorrect...?

Anyway, it's not like the Nazis invented the term "Aryan". Their use of it was/is on the same level of idiotic as their use of the swastika; there was/is no reason for them to not use it in the sense that it's a widespread symbol among various different peoples, but that's exactly why they simply can't tarnish it forever for everyone. Yes, a lot of people think that the swastika is a fundamentally Nazi symbol and that it has been irrevocably tarnished, or even that the Nazis invented it, but whenever someone says something like that they should be told that that's not even remotely true and as such shouldn't get all hysterical when they see it unless the context it's used in is clearly pro-Nazi.

The same applies to the term "Aryan". Okay, maybe it's somewhat more controversial than the swastika since its origin is arguably elitist (meaning "noble" and whatnot) and it's only ever used by Indo-Europeans in reference to Indo-Europeans (at least in a way that makes sense), but logically it could still be the default English-language self-designation of various Indo-European peoples; many of those peoples would likely have been genocided by the Nazis if the Nazis ever got to them, considering how fucking racist the Nazis were, so simply because of that it doesn't make sense to ban/avoid the word entirely. Actually, it could justifiably be used in an explicitly anti-Nazi way by/about such peoples. [:P]

The only instance of what may be that that I know of is that in the travel series of Ville Haapasalo, in one episode he was in Armenia and met Yezidis who considered themselves "Aryan" (in Russian, the guy who said it first said something like *аря and then his son said арийцы), which scared Ville because of the Nazi connotations; the old Yezidi guy also used Germans and Armenians as examples of "non-Aryans"; to me that sounds like "Aryan" as a non-Nazi term, considering the Nazi use of the term was based on Germans being the ultimate Aryans, but I could be wrong. (I don't know if it can be watched in other countries, but here's a link to the episode on Yle Areena.)

But yeah, the term has unfortunately become associated more with Nazis than the peoples it originally referred to. I don't understand why the Nazi connotations can't simply be overrun by non-Nazi connotations, though, since "Indo-Aryan languages" is the most well-established term and AFAIK it doesn't even have and has never had any of the Nazi connotations that "Aryan" by itself often has had since the Nazis adopted it. It shouldn't be too hard to disassociate the meanings from one another.

...then again, maybe I only say that because I'm not Aryan by any definition... I do really dislike the term "Nordic" as a reference to Finns for its Nazi connotations, though, so I guess it's a similar case with just the difference that a lot of the people who dislike "Aryan" are Indo-Europeans while Finns are not, and as such it's factually more incorrect to use "Nordic" to refer to Finns than it is to Germanic peoples, since the concept of a Nordic race was invented by white supremacists who originally hated Finns, and it wasn't until Hitler declared us honorary Aryans that we became "Nordic" and "European". Now those are the standard terms used to refer to Finns, and most Finns take pride in being those things even if they know the history behind them, which makes me sad. [>_<]

Sorry, I could go on forever about how much I hate Finland being indebted to Nazis... they even stabbed Finns in the back, but no one ever complains about that because it sounds like defending Nazis when it's precisely another reason to hate them.

Anyway, my point is that it does make sense for Germans or other Europeans to get offended by being called "Aryan", but more so because of the fact that it's incorrect than the fact that the Nazis used it. I mean, if the Nazi definition is so widespread that it's considered the default and someone who fits the Nazi definition gets offended by it because of the Nazi definition, that's kinda hypocritical since they're basically giving more weight to the Nazi definition than the previous definition(s). It doesn't make sense for Hindustanis, etc. to get offended by it, since by any definition except the Nazi one they are infinitely more Aryan than any German, etc. and AFAIK that's exactly how it is... except in the case of Neo-Nazis, of course, who consider themselves "Aryan" but Hindustanis, etc. "non-Aryan"... but again, nothing (Neo-)Nazis say should be given any serious weight.

What I'm trying to say is that if "Indo-Aryan" was replaced over associations with Nazism, then a lot of other terms would have to be replaced too. Personally, I'd like "Nordic" replaced and try to convince people who use it in reference to Finns that it's not appropriate in that context, but that doesn't stop them... nor should it. Being called a Nazi hurts, but it would be more beneficial for everyone if the pain itself was eliminated rather than the source of the pain, since the only thing words can hurt are feelings.

People will always use inaccurate and/or offensive words, and the more definitions are changed and the more words are labelled offensive, the more people will use incorrect and outdated definitions, and the more offensive words they'll say even without intending to. It also gives people who intentionally want to offend others more ammunition. So, in my opinion it's better to make offensive words inoffensive. That way, less feelings are hurt and more information can be spread.

Also consider this: assuming the majority of the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages aren't offended by "Aryan", who are Anglophones and other westerners to tell them to start being offended and demand that the term is replaced? What if the Indians who speak Indo-Aryan languages are proud of their Aryan heritage? Does that make them Nazis? Obviously not, because the Nazis would probably have killed them if they had the chance. Certain ultranationalistic Indians may go on about how much they love Hitler and shit, but that's just them being ignorant of history and clinging to the fact that Hitler also used the term "Aryan"; if they actually knew what Hitler did and thought about them, they logically wouldn't want anything to do with him.

Iranians may be another matter entirely, but I'm sure Hitler would eventually have found a way to fuck them over too. Even if he loved them and they still love him (not sure if that's the case), and even if they would have become the elite in a world where Nazis won the war, that's irrelevant because the origin of the term "Aryan" was the self-designation of the Indo-Iranian peoples (and still is in the name of the country Iran, which IIRC was changed from Persia because it was seen as more appropriate and inclusive rather than racist and exclusive) and predates Nazi use by a long, long, long time.

Even if Iran was a universally agreed upon evil country (it's not) and all of its inhabitants were raving ultranationalists who identify as Aryan (they're not), it still wouldn't make sense to declare the term "Aryan" inherently racist because it originally had no racial connotations whatsoever, and as such still doesn't have to have them. Besides, if the concern is only over Nazism rather than elitism/racism/classism/whateverism in general, that's only making it worse because it would allow Iranians and Indians to be openly elitist/racist/classist/whateverist.

Like, if a Persian dude declared himself an "Aryan nationalist", that wouldn't necessarily make him a Nazi or even racist; it'd only make him some kind of a nationalist, but he could actually be much less nationalistic than someone declaring himself a "Persian nationalist" because in this context "Aryan" would be more inclusive and less ethnocentric than "Persian". The Aryan nationalist could still be more racist than the Persian nationalist, but at least his terminology would be less exclusive and as such less racist.

Banning the word "Aryan" could be much more harmful for those who are less extreme in their views than for those who are more extreme because if they couldn't use that term with a semi-racialised extension of its historical meaning, they'd be forced to identify as something else. Imagine if the previously mentioned hypothetical Aryan nationalist wanted Iran to form a union with Pakistan and India because they're all "Aryan nations" while the Persian nationalist didn't. If the former couldn't identify as an "Aryan nationalist", what would he identify as?

On the other hand, if a German or white American or whatever calls himself an "Aryan nationalist", it's pretty obvious that they couldn't possibly mean it in that sense and should be ignored (or in the case of threats of violence reported to the authorities, etc.) unless they specify that they're talking about supporting Indians, Iranians, etc. rather than Nazi bullshit. I mean, one can be a "sympathetic nationalist" to other countries/nationalities/ethnicities/whatever, after all... but I don't know why anyone white would use the term "Aryan" for that purpose even if that was what they meant because of the Nazi connotations, so yeah, it's fair to say that that person would likely be a Neo-Nazi. [:P]

...holy shit, I'm rambling. My point is that people should be educated on what "Aryan" actually means and how the Nazi usage of it was/is incorrect, etc. instead of replacing it because it's not an inherently racist or even racial term... especially in compounds where no Nazi would ever have used it, like "Indo-Aryan", since they considered Indians to not be Aryan and would have never lumped themselves together with them. If Neo-Nazis lump themselves together with Indians, that's ironic as hell because they're starying so far from actual Nazism that actual Nazis would probably have killed them.

Anyway, my view is that the influences of Nazism should be rejected. In practice that means not changing anything because a (Neo-)Nazi wants it changed; the Nazis wanted to redefine "Aryan", so avoiding/banning/changing it because of their definition is giving them too much influence and authority. It'd be much better to simply laugh at their idiotic definition and continue to use it how it was used before they tried to change it. Letting the Nazis of the past have that much power over the present is only going to make it easier for Neo-Nazis to come into power in the future, and that's the last thing anyone with half a brain cell wants.
pittmirg
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon 13 Sep 2010, 11:04

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by pittmirg » Thu 22 Mar 2018, 11:01

The Indo-Aryan-speaking people of Europe were subject to Nazi genocide because of their ethnicity. Why would you deny them the right to refer to themselves with the name their ancestors used? If anything, it can be used to combat warped Nazi-influenced redefinitions of the word.
Vlürch wrote:Anyway, my view is that the influences of Nazism should be rejected. In practice that means not changing anything because a (Neo-)Nazi wants it changed; the Nazis wanted to redefine "Aryan", so avoiding/banning/changing it because of their definition is giving them too much influence and authority.
This.
Isfendil wrote:The issue is that Aryan is the indo-aryan reflex of that word, whereas iranian is more or less the iranian one, so calling indo-iranian "Aryan" would actually be a step backward.
Well, the reconstructed common self-designation is *arya-. In light of this, I see nothing wrong with using 'Aryan' for the whole branch.
if you can't decline it or conjugate it, piss on it.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Thu 22 Mar 2018, 18:39

Vlürch wrote:
Wed 21 Mar 2018, 18:50
TL;DR: Nazis shouldn't be given the authority to redefine words.

I agree completely. From what I have read, they have made life in Western Diaspora communities of Dharmic religion very hard, since most Dharmic faiths use the Swastika as some kind of symbol. Not to get too political here, I'm Jewish, and I find the ADL's protesting of a Pokemon (a franchise I am a fan of) card released in the early days of the franchise only in Japan, from a Japanese Franchise featuring a Manji to be hypocritical, as it's their culture, and as such predates the Nazis, and you think labeling it "Anti-Semitic" is not being "Buddhaphobic"? WTF? Actually, in Kabbalah, a Swastika made up of Hebrew Letters is a solar symbol (Though this may be a bad thing, as one passage in the Talmud uses the sun as symbol for Roman Antisemitism, since the Julian Calendar is pure solar, and the Jewish Calendar is Lunisolar) Stepping down from my soapbox, we shouldn't allow Neo-Nazis to take away terminology, especially scientific terminology (unless of course, we're dealing with "Scientific" Rascism :roll:).
This topic was started when I brought up the term Indo-Aryan on a non-linguistics forum, and somebody who wasn't Jewish lambasted me as a "Hypocrite" for "Wanting to major in an Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi 'Science'" because linguistics must be such, if their terminology includes anything to do with the word "Aryan" :roll: . If this is the feeling that the term "Indo-Aryan" creates in even some western non-linguists, we must consider the idea of Linguists rebranding the branch of IE for PR reasons, even if I am personally opposed to it.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2016, 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Vlürch » Thu 22 Mar 2018, 20:00

Shemtov wrote:
Thu 22 Mar 2018, 18:39
If this is the feeling that the term "Indo-Aryan" creates in even some western non-linguists, we must consider the idea of Linguists rebranding the branch of IE for PR reasons, even if I am personally opposed to it.
But why? Those people are literally ignorant and it should be explained to them why they're wrong. Personally I think it should be done in such a way that makes it clear that it's not their fault and they're not bad people for being ignorant, because antagonising people will only give them more reasons to be antagonistic towards you; I have a lot of experience of being told to stop saying certain words, and in most cases it's only made me want to say those words more because the explanations for why they shouldn't be said have either not been given at all, have been entirely subjective, or even so ridiculous and far-fetched as to approach Orwellian censorship... but if the explanation makes sense and there's an actual reason behind the word being best avoided, not something based on feelings but rather something based on facts (like the word being used with an incorrect definition), that's an entirely different matter for a lot of people, including irredeemable assholes like me.

And again, if it's only or mostly westerners getting offended by the term, it's more or less a non-issue because it doesn't refer to westerners. English isn't an Indo-Aryan language and as such it makes no sense for Anglophones to be offended by the term. Same goes for Germanophones, Francophones, etc. If the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages don't see anything wrong with the term, what right do Anglophones, Germanophones, Francophones, etc. have to change it?

Of course, it would be best if there was a massive poll where all the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages were asked how they feel about the term. If they didn't like it, then they should be allowed to come up with their own alternatives and one or more should be chosen from those by voting. Unfortunately no such poll has ever been conducted AFAIK, nor will one most likely ever be because of how much effort it would take... not to mention that the results would probably not be what the western academics behind the poll wanted. [:P]

In certain contexts, though, I could understand wanting to avoid "Indo-Aryan". One important factor to consider is algorithms and AI: on more than once occasion I've noticed that Youtube starts to recommend me Neo-Nazi videos after I've watched some linguistic videos on Indo-Aryan languages. [>_<] That's obviously because Neo-Nazis use the term "Aryan", too, even if incorrectly and in a way that has nothing to do with the Indo-Aryan languages... so, yeah, in such contexts it could be better to use terms like "Aryo-Indian" or whatever to avoid it being an exact match, but on the other hand that would make it harder to find the videos(/articles/whatever).

In the future there will be more AI and algorithms incorporated into everything, and the more aggressively they are programmed to attack far-right content, so if the AI at the base level doesn't evolve fast enough to disassociate the terms by context, that may be a good enough reason to find a replacement that everyone could get behind (but if the AI evolves, it would also begin to attack "Aryo-Indian" or most likely any replacement if it could detect that the term "Indo-Aryan" used to be used)... still, it hasn't reached that point yet AFAIK, and there's no reason to think that it ever will as long as people have the possibility to get back in control and undo the damage (like automated bans affecting the wrong people); it only seems to be a problem with Youtube, anyway, at least AFAICT.

~

And on the subject of swastikas: a lot of cultures have used similar symbols, including ancient Finns with the tursaansydän. Not only that, the Finnish military used the swastika with no connection to its Nazi use during the world wars. AFAIK it's still used, which some people don't like because they worry about how it's perceived by non-Finns. Still, it's not as taboo in Finland as it is in most European countries.

Funnily enough, because Finland hasn't banned the public display of Nazi symbols, Neo-Nazis are much easier to identify since they don't have to hide under pseudo-Nazi imagery like they do in many other countries, and as such can be ignored and/or reported if need be with less false positives than if they used vague symbols that could either be Nazi shit or not (and it makes satirising/parodying/mocking them much easier, too). I think that's proof that at least in some circumstances not censoring even outright hatred is better than the alternative.

...then again, a part of that is just me being an asshole who fears the slippery slope that would eventually send me down into the goo that would already by then be infested by Neo-Nazis, racists, misogynists, islamophobes, transphobes, homophobes, etc. since everyone already thinks I'm all those things for having a few opinions that are no longer considered liberal and because my sense of humour is shit. [:|]
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Thu 22 Mar 2018, 21:07

Vlürch wrote:
Thu 22 Mar 2018, 20:00
]

In certain contexts, though, I could understand wanting to avoid "Indo-Aryan". One important factor to consider is algorithms and AI: on more than once occasion I've noticed that Youtube starts to recommend me Neo-Nazi videos after I've watched some linguistic videos on Indo-Aryan languages. [>_<] That's obviously because Neo-Nazis use the term "Aryan", too, even if incorrectly and in a way that has nothing to do with the Indo-Aryan languages... so, yeah, in such contexts it could be better to use terms like "Aryo-Indian" or whatever to avoid it being an exact match, but on the other hand that would make it harder to find the videos(/articles/whatever).

In the future there will be more AI and algorithms incorporated into everything, and the more aggressively they are programmed to attack far-right content, so if the AI at the base level doesn't evolve fast enough to disassociate the terms by context, that may be a good enough reason to find a replacement that everyone could get behind (but if the AI evolves, it would also begin to attack "Aryo-Indian" or most likely any replacement if it could detect that the term "Indo-Aryan" used to be used)... still, it hasn't reached that point yet AFAIK, and there's no reason to think that it ever will as long as people have the possibility to get back in control and undo the damage (like automated bans affecting the wrong people); it only seems to be a problem with Youtube, anyway, at least AFAICT.






Couldn't someoneeasily "teach" the algorithm to distinguish between "Aryan" from "Indo-Aryan", that is, search for: Aryan Is there "Indo-" before it? If yes, ignore. If their was a massive auto-takedowns of content related to Indo-Aryan Studies, I think Linguistic Academia, and possibly Social Sciences/Humanities Academia would raise a massive hue and cry about "Stifling Academia".

Vlürch wrote:
Thu 22 Mar 2018, 20:00
]



~



Funnily enough, because Finland hasn't banned the public display of Nazi symbols, Neo-Nazis are much easier to identify since they don't have to hide under pseudo-Nazi imagery like they do in many other countries, and as such can be ignored and/or reported if need be with less false positives than if they used vague symbols that could either be Nazi shit or not (and it makes satirising/parodying/mocking them much easier, too). I think that's proof that at least in some circumstances not censoring even outright hatred is better than the alternative.
I have a lot of Political thoughts on this (though they are US-specific). If you're interested, PM me.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Thu 22 Mar 2018, 22:03

Vlürch wrote:
Thu 22 Mar 2018, 20:00
[quote=Shemtov
But why? Those people are literally ignorant and it should be explained to them why they're wrong. Personally I think it should be done in such a way that makes it clear that it's not their fault and they're not bad people for being ignorant, because antagonising people will only give them more reasons to be antagonistic towards you; I have a lot of experience of being told to stop saying certain words, and in most cases it's only made me want to say those words more because the explanations for why they shouldn't be said have either not been given at all, have been entirely subjective, or even so ridiculous and far-fetched as to approach Orwellian censorship... but if the explanation makes sense and there's an actual reason behind the word being best avoided, not something based on feelings but rather something based on facts (like the word being used with an incorrect definition), that's an entirely different matter for a lot of people, including irredeemable assholes like me.

And again, if it's only or mostly westerners getting offended by the term, it's more or less a non-issue because it doesn't refer to westerners. English isn't an Indo-Aryan language and as such it makes no sense for Anglophones to be offended by the term. Same goes for Germanophones, Francophones, etc. If the speakers of Indo-Aryan languages don't see anything wrong with the term, what right do Anglophones, Germanophones, Francophones, etc. have to change it?




~
People are idiots sometimes. If someone strongly identifies with Antifa, for example, no amount of explanation will persuade them that "Indo-Aryan" is not "A Nazi term". Psychologists have done a lot of research on bias. See conspiracy theorists, and on topic, there's no way to convince a Holocaust Denier he or she's wrong.
Also, Western voices do matter. A lot of people see linguistics as not a "real" science. If stupid stupid biased people have it in their head that the term "Indo-Aryan" makes linguistics "an Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi Pseudo-Science", the first thing is harder to overcome. I hate it, but I recognize pragmatically that for all myths about Linguistics to disappear, we may need to change the term.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Will Indo-Aryan no longer be an accepted term in Linguistics?

Post by Shemtov » Mon 13 Aug 2018, 01:58

Also, just a thought, but what do Israeli Linguists do about Cushitic languages? The :isr: word that would translate to "Cushitic" is also the :isr: equivalent to the N-word. We could learn from them, if this becomes a legitimate issue.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
Post Reply