Rajesh_g, you're right. Duperron came up with the 'Aryan' word.
Post from sci.archaeology:
http://www.gatago.com/sci/archaeology/3061965.html
See some of them initially argue that IE did start off with the name 'Aryan'. Finally the outer thread puts them straight:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An important addition to the message below.
I gave page references to Max Müller without saying which book it was, sorry. It's from "Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas" (London, 1888).
Examples of <b>other works from about the same time which used the term "Aryan" where we would now say Indo-European</b> are George Cox, "The Mythology of the Aryan Nations" (London, 1882) and Ulick Bourke, "The Aryan Origin of the Gaelic Race and Language" (London, 1875).
Alan
<Uneducated comments by others trying to extricate IE from its biblical racist origins>
Seppo, I sympathize with your attempt to stop the spread of racist nazi crap, but you play into their hands by making errors. <b>For example, you say: "Aryan" NEVER referred to "Indo European" group of languages.
This is exactly how Max Müller uses the term. For him the Aryan languages are what we today call the Indo-European languages (and they were called IE long before Max Müller too, but he unfortunately preferred the term Aryan).</b>
Have you read Max Müller, Seppo? Take another look at page xvi, where he writes: "the Aryas, before the were broken up into Hindus, Persians, Greeks, Italians, Teutons, Slaves, and Celts". Or page 2-3, "With two exceptions, all the modern and ancient dialects of our small European continent belong to three great families, the Aryan, the Semitic, and the Turanian." Or page 80: "If we find the same words with the same meanings in Sanskrit, Persian, Armenian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavonic, and Teutonic, what shall we say? Either the words must have been borrowed from one language by the other, or they must have belonged to an older language, from which all these so-called Aryan languages were derived."
Now, would you still be prepared to say: '"Aryan" NEVER referred to "Indo European" group of languages'?
<b>Furthermore, Max Müller certainly helped to spread the use of the term Aryan to cover the whole IE family, but he wasn't the first. It is traced back to Anquetil-Duperron in 1763.
This practice was continued by Schlegel (from 1819), by Pictet in his work from 1859 and then Max Müller.</b>
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Some in the west are coming around and looking into the origins of the term IE. Or maybe it's wishful thinking on my part.
The other people in the sci.archaeology thread are now probably distraught that they have been working as part of a racist fable. Or maybe they got over it, as they always tend to do. Close their eyes, pretend it never happened.
IE studies: Christo biblical endeavour in the start, Christo racist endeavour in the middle, unquestionable "science" today. A reliable lineage indeed.
Post from sci.archaeology:
http://www.gatago.com/sci/archaeology/3061965.html
See some of them initially argue that IE did start off with the name 'Aryan'. Finally the outer thread puts them straight:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An important addition to the message below.
I gave page references to Max Müller without saying which book it was, sorry. It's from "Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas" (London, 1888).
Examples of <b>other works from about the same time which used the term "Aryan" where we would now say Indo-European</b> are George Cox, "The Mythology of the Aryan Nations" (London, 1882) and Ulick Bourke, "The Aryan Origin of the Gaelic Race and Language" (London, 1875).
Alan
<Uneducated comments by others trying to extricate IE from its biblical racist origins>
Seppo, I sympathize with your attempt to stop the spread of racist nazi crap, but you play into their hands by making errors. <b>For example, you say: "Aryan" NEVER referred to "Indo European" group of languages.
This is exactly how Max Müller uses the term. For him the Aryan languages are what we today call the Indo-European languages (and they were called IE long before Max Müller too, but he unfortunately preferred the term Aryan).</b>
Have you read Max Müller, Seppo? Take another look at page xvi, where he writes: "the Aryas, before the were broken up into Hindus, Persians, Greeks, Italians, Teutons, Slaves, and Celts". Or page 2-3, "With two exceptions, all the modern and ancient dialects of our small European continent belong to three great families, the Aryan, the Semitic, and the Turanian." Or page 80: "If we find the same words with the same meanings in Sanskrit, Persian, Armenian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavonic, and Teutonic, what shall we say? Either the words must have been borrowed from one language by the other, or they must have belonged to an older language, from which all these so-called Aryan languages were derived."
Now, would you still be prepared to say: '"Aryan" NEVER referred to "Indo European" group of languages'?
<b>Furthermore, Max Müller certainly helped to spread the use of the term Aryan to cover the whole IE family, but he wasn't the first. It is traced back to Anquetil-Duperron in 1763.
This practice was continued by Schlegel (from 1819), by Pictet in his work from 1859 and then Max Müller.</b>
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Some in the west are coming around and looking into the origins of the term IE. Or maybe it's wishful thinking on my part.
The other people in the sci.archaeology thread are now probably distraught that they have been working as part of a racist fable. Or maybe they got over it, as they always tend to do. Close their eyes, pretend it never happened.
IE studies: Christo biblical endeavour in the start, Christo racist endeavour in the middle, unquestionable "science" today. A reliable lineage indeed.