Post 270:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->are you trying to tell me that its wrong and insane to <b>describe a people acording to their language</b>??
tamilians arnt a people, different from say the japanese and the zulu (ie. those who speak the zulu language)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->All these are examples of valid population groups that are defined <i>both</i> by their language (Japanese, Zulu, Tamil) <i>and</i> either their ethnicity (japanese, zulu) or on regional basis (Tamilian).
This is what you said in post 267:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->semetics are <b>an ethnicity</b>. as are <b>indo aryans</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So which is it? You have now changed your "indo-aryans are an ethnicity" to implying that you always argued to use the term to describe a people according to their language. That is, you first claimed it as an ethnic group and now say you want to use it for describing a population of speakers.
There's a world of difference though. Let me try to illustrate this for you:
I speak English - however, I am not English but an English-speaker. I speak Tamil, I am Tamil and I am Indian. Indian is my ethnic category not my linguistic category.
Just like I can't randomly go about using the word 'English', there are some rules that appear to govern the use of 'Indo-Aryan' too.
Indo-Aryan was devised to be used as a linguistic group <i>only</i>. I.e. 'Indo-Aryan languages' is the only term. It was never defined outside linguistics, although it has found its way into other areas now.
Hence if someone says "yoga is Indo-Aryan" (shorthand for "yoga is an Indo-Aryan word") then that is correct in the IE worldview, because Indo-Aryan describes the word. No one will officially say "Ben-Ami is Indo-Aryan" or "Ben-Ami is an Indo-Aryan" - they'll say "Ben-Ami speaks Indo-Aryan" or "is an Indo-Aryan speaker". If you can't see the difference...
Racists do use Indo-Aryan as sub-race of IE. Also some indologists purposefully fudge their own rules and start talking about "Indo-Aryans and their material culture in such-and-such ce", though when called on it they are quick to correct it as describing the alien people who long ago influxed into India and spoke some parent Indo-Aryan language - meaning a language that had already split from its Indo-Iranian ancestor language or something. That is, the only time I've heard the Indologists brave using Indo-Aryan as an almost-ethnic group is when they speak in a (supposed) historical context of India.
You appear to want to use Indo-Aryan to designate N Indians, or specifically certain N Indians. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Don't worry, you're not all alone, as the CIA also uses Indo-Aryan as you do (it groups 75% of India under the Indo-Aryan <i>ethnic</i> group). But that doesn't make it any less wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->are you trying to tell me that its wrong and insane to <b>describe a people acording to their language</b>??
tamilians arnt a people, different from say the japanese and the zulu (ie. those who speak the zulu language)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->All these are examples of valid population groups that are defined <i>both</i> by their language (Japanese, Zulu, Tamil) <i>and</i> either their ethnicity (japanese, zulu) or on regional basis (Tamilian).
This is what you said in post 267:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->semetics are <b>an ethnicity</b>. as are <b>indo aryans</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So which is it? You have now changed your "indo-aryans are an ethnicity" to implying that you always argued to use the term to describe a people according to their language. That is, you first claimed it as an ethnic group and now say you want to use it for describing a population of speakers.
There's a world of difference though. Let me try to illustrate this for you:
I speak English - however, I am not English but an English-speaker. I speak Tamil, I am Tamil and I am Indian. Indian is my ethnic category not my linguistic category.
Just like I can't randomly go about using the word 'English', there are some rules that appear to govern the use of 'Indo-Aryan' too.
Indo-Aryan was devised to be used as a linguistic group <i>only</i>. I.e. 'Indo-Aryan languages' is the only term. It was never defined outside linguistics, although it has found its way into other areas now.
Hence if someone says "yoga is Indo-Aryan" (shorthand for "yoga is an Indo-Aryan word") then that is correct in the IE worldview, because Indo-Aryan describes the word. No one will officially say "Ben-Ami is Indo-Aryan" or "Ben-Ami is an Indo-Aryan" - they'll say "Ben-Ami speaks Indo-Aryan" or "is an Indo-Aryan speaker". If you can't see the difference...
Racists do use Indo-Aryan as sub-race of IE. Also some indologists purposefully fudge their own rules and start talking about "Indo-Aryans and their material culture in such-and-such ce", though when called on it they are quick to correct it as describing the alien people who long ago influxed into India and spoke some parent Indo-Aryan language - meaning a language that had already split from its Indo-Iranian ancestor language or something. That is, the only time I've heard the Indologists brave using Indo-Aryan as an almost-ethnic group is when they speak in a (supposed) historical context of India.
You appear to want to use Indo-Aryan to designate N Indians, or specifically certain N Indians. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Don't worry, you're not all alone, as the CIA also uses Indo-Aryan as you do (it groups 75% of India under the Indo-Aryan <i>ethnic</i> group). But that doesn't make it any less wrong.