laudablepuss wrote:

Noi Dau Don wrote:

laudablepuss wrote:

But set that aside, what I said above is true. So, don't post .gifs of the Joker, tell me what your problem is.

(My Central Asian history prof was French, and liked to use the word "milieu" a lot. The next semester, my prof was Uzbek. I think. I forget now.)

Did you just scold me, you ass? I'm giving you this one on credit, but next time just assume I wouldn't mock you pointlessly like so much QB and fucking google it yourself.

Saying Iranian is synonymous with Indo-European is identical to saying that Nordic person is synonymous with Indo-European. "Iranian" is a distinct type that can't even be considered - genetically, politically, culturally - identical to Arabs, much less the entire body of Indo-Europeans.

AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT when you say "Indo-European" are you referring to language groups or ethnic groups? Because usually Indo-European is used to refer to language groups, and the roughly analogous ethnic term is Caucasian or Caucasoid.

I'm well aware of this, and that's why he went out of his way to use a lower-case "i". In the sense he used it, Nordics are iranians. It's weird, I know. I only threw it in there to see if anyone else had heard of this: clearly nobody has. Perhaps a better way of expressing it (using your preferred terminology) is iranian = caucasoid.

Language groups are a good approximation of ethnic groups, usually. I know French and English are spoken far beyond their ethnic groups, for example, but they're exceptions. It's a safe bet that throughout history, people who spoke a language were also members of that culture and ethnicity.