Nakhichevan

[jgk3]

Re: Nakhichevan

what points specifically would you like him to prove? And what is your criteria for concrete sources?

Now, you make what you want out of it, but unless you have evidence to support yourself, keep ideas (that may help promote turkish propaganda efforts) to self, as they will be used by others to hurt Armenia.

That is because Armenians are not innocent of falsifying other peoples' history. Up until Medieval Armenia, the Armenian church was a powerful literary center that supported Armenian geopolitical interests by undermining the histories of non-Armenian populations, often native to lands occupied/administrated by Armenia, such as Caucasian Albania.

If Nakhitchevan originally had a name that meant nothing about "first descended" referring to Noah's ark, the Church would make it so. If adopting "Ararat" as the name of Massis would serve Armenians in creating a prestigious geneology, it would be done, especially to advance the status of the administrative race. It is precisely this history of Armenian cultural warfare against its native neighbours that Turks today exploit by pointing out how we've lied, even though they love to rewrite history just as much in favor of a "Turkish" race, erasing all credit due to anyone who is not Turkish in race or political orientation in their realm.

Due to this genocidal history we carry, we are scared that challenging these myths adopted as fact will mean political losses for us. In politics, truth is worthless if they aren't in your favour. And we have a love/hate relationship with truth... Because what is true is that we were genocided and lost our possessions in a region we strongly identify with... But it is this very same sentiment that makes us thirsty for clinging to the Armenian version of everything, because the alternative is the genocidal/Turkish version of everything... apparently.

[levon]

Re: Nakhichevan

what points specifically would you like him to prove? And what is your criteria for concrete sources?

1) The distortion in the name was done by Armenian writers (mostly clerics) to concoct a fake meaning for the name.

2) European travellers from the 16th/17th/18thC wrote down the name they found the region's population actually using, and used the spelling they felt most accurately conveyed its pronounciation;


Concerning point 1). I'm assuming he has proof for this
Concerning point 2). I'm assuming he is certain that it is completely possible to replicate every pronunciation of Armenian those European language and alphabets (which languages were they, btw. Europe is not a single country).
I'm sure that he's certain that there isn't a way in hell that those "European travelers" corrupted the pronunciations, firstly, because they likely weren't fluent Armenian speakers, and secondly, because most European languages have fewer sounds than Armenian.

And of course. Nakhijevan is such an easy word to pronounce and spell that mere European travelers were able to correctly transliterate it into their scripts.

How about after he provides proofs for points 1) and 2), we'll look into the legitimacy of his sources.

[Hellektor]

Re: Nakhichevan

I'm sorry Hellektor, but the names Bell mentioned are new to me, and are useful for linguistic inquiry into how the name might've changed phonologically overtime and how it was named by different groups. What I want to know is who those European map makers asked for the pronunciation of the name of that region, in each case. Given how they've represented it with a latin alphabet and their own writing conventions, I do agree that there could be distortions in its representation, however... they can be filtered out if you know something about the language of the map makers, and the general consensus between all the forms harking to some "naxuan"-like origin.

The original meaning of Nakhjavan (in that form) might not exist, especially if it came from a 150AD form "Naxuana" which can very plausibly emerge overtime as Nakhjavan.

I am looking for the origin and the meaning of the name Nakhjavan. My reaction was to the constant, irritating, condescending, offensive behavior of the omniscient professor, the douchebag of the board, whose outbursts I usually ignore.

I had to respond this time to make sure that the accidental reader was not going to think what I was looking for had been found. I will ignore the omniscient professor (OP) as much as I can if his insults do not create similar confusing situations.

You are free to benefit from whatever subject you like of course.

Naxuana (also mentioned in the Soviet Armenian encyclopedia) IS the distortion of Nakhjavan, just like the so-called Albania (of the Caucasus) is a distortion of Aghvank (or Aluank/Alvank) with the European suffix for place names ia added. Arabs called Nakhjavan Nashwi, go figure the amount of distortion. The nowadays Persian name Dariush (probably influenced by the European distortion Darius) the name of the Achaemenid king (probably the greatest king, period) was originally Darayavahoosh, and so on and so forth.

These distortions/changes are part of language, just like everything else that changes all the time and while Armenians have all the right to “distort” Nakhjavan to Nakhijevan, I do not see the reason for the overpissed reaction of the OP whenever the name Nakhijevan comes up for which he blames 19th century posers or what not.

And yes, probably all the Armenians who lived there until the total ethnic filthying of the region called it so, Nakhijevan is the way it's called today by Armenians just like Erebuni is “distorted” to Yerevan (by 19th century posers?) or Geghama Lake is “distorted” to Sevan (by 19th century posers?), etc., etc.

The OP is perfectly comfortable with Sivas for Sebastia and does not seem allergic at all to the 20th century genocidal falsifications like fake “Azerbaijan” or “Eastern Anatolia”. Oh, was it some 19th century poser who changed the eternal name of Agri Dag to Ararat?

[levon]

Re: Nakhichevan

That is because Armenians are not innocent of falsifying other peoples' history.

Show some proof.

Up until Medieval Armenia, the Armenian church was a powerful literary center that supported Armenian geopolitical interests by undermining the histories of non-Armenian populations, often native to lands occupied/administrated by Armenia, such as Caucasian Albania.

Show some proof.

If Nakhitchevan originally had a name that meant nothing about "first descended" referring to Noah's ark, the Church would make it so....

Just because the church could do it, doesn't mean it did. Unless you have proof, stating the could becomes propaganda.

If adopting "Ararat" as the name of Massis would serve Armenians in creating a prestigious geneology, it would be done, especially to advance the status of the administrative race.

Same point as above.

It is precisely this history of Armenian cultural warfare against its native neighbours that Turks today exploit by pointing out how we've lied, even though they love to rewrite history just as much in favor of a "Turkish" race, erasing all credit due to anyone who is not Turkish in race or political orientation in their realm.

Turks aren't pointing out that Armenians lied. They are simply stating it, just as you are. Their efforts are classified as propaganda, because they are merely reasoned as they probably could do it; thus they could do it, and if they could do it, then they probably did it, and if they probably did it, then they are liars and cheats

Now, when put together it makes no logical sense; however, when such information is broken down into small pieces such as They probably could do it, it's harder to scrutinize, and most people will simply take it as fact without every questioning its validity, as it sounds like something that could be true.

When the first statement is circulated enough times, the next one can start it's circulation basing it's veracity on the previously established fact which is actually based on nothing. This statement will again be circulated enough times.

This process will continue until there are ample amount of evidence, which are actually all baseless, to support the final point.

This is one of the basis of Turkish propaganda efforts. So, knowing this, it's extremely important to back yourself up with proofs of your claims when saying things that you said above.

Conjecture can lead one in any direction. Here, I'll give you an example.

1) Most members here are males
2) Then the random poster is likely a male
3) Then bell-the-cat is likely a male
4) The majority of older single career-women may have cats
5) This means an older single career-woman likely likes cats
6) bell-the-cat has cat in his name, so he likely likes cats.
7) This means he may be a single career-woman
8) But he's a likely a man
9) Then he must be a man who acts like a single career-woman who likes cats.
10) This means, bell-the-cat might be homosexual
11) Repeat the above many times and come up with BS studies that support the statements (such as badly thought out case studies meant to reveal predetermined results)
12) Create a BS study that creates a link between homosexual men and single career-women with cats.
13) Based on 12 conclude that bell-the-cat must be homosexual.

Roughly speaking, that's how propaganda works. Give small pieces of info that will just slip through the cracks, and repeat it again and again. Maybe come up with some supporting evidence (which can be easily fabricated), and in the end claim the veracity of the final statement.

[jgk3]

Re: Nakhichevan

I am looking for the origin and the meaning of the name Nakhjavan. My reaction was to the constant, irritating, condescending, offensive behavior of the omniscient professor, the douchebag of the board, whose outbursts I usually ignore.

I had to respond this time to make sure that the accidental reader was not going to think what I was looking for had been found. I will ignore the omniscient professor (OP) as much as I could if his insults do not create similar confusing situations.

You are free to benefit from whatever subject you like of course.

Naxuana (also mentioned in the Soviet encyclopedia) IS the distortion of Nakhjavan, just like the so-called Albania (of the Caucasus) is a distortion of Aghvank (or Aluank/Alvank) with the European suffix for place names ia added. Arabs called Nakhjavan Nashwi, go figure the amount of distortion. The nowadays Persian name Dariush (probably influenced by the European distortion Darius) the name of the Achaemenid king (probably the greatest king, period) was originally Darayavahoosh, and so on and so forth.

These distortions/changes are part of language, just like everything else that changes all the time and while Armenians have all the right to “distort” Nakhjavan to Nakhijevan, I do not see the reason for the overpissed reaction of the OP whenever the name Nakhijevan comes up for which he blames 19th century posers or what not.

And yes, probably all the Armenians who lived there until the total ethnic filthying of the region called it so, Nakhijevan is the way it's called today by Armenians just like Erebuni is “distorted” to Yerevan (by 19th century posers?) or Geghama Lake is “distorted” to Sevan (by 19th century posers?), etc., etc.

The OP is perfectly comfortable with Sivas for Sebastia and does not seem allergic at all to the 20th century genocidal falsifications like fake “Azerbaijan” or “Eastern Anatolia”. Oh, was it some 19th century poser who changed the eternal name of Agri Dag to Ararat?

You make some good points... It's too bad you had to break the rules. This is your last warning before a ban.

[jgk3]

Re: Nakhichevan

Show some proof.

Unfortunately regarding the Caucasian Albanians, I can't find the sources that I want to share, but I've read about how names of their towns, outside of areas where Armenians formed what could comfortably be defined as a "native majority" in those days, would be colonized by Armenians and their names changed. Since Armenia was in power at the time, it would begin to claim some of those places as native to Armenians through giving them Armenian names, and the Caucasian Albanians lacking a sovereign voice, with their church for all effective purposes controlled by the Armenian one, could do nothing in response. This very "Turkish" tactic is common throughout the globe, and to think Armenians were immune to it during their hay day, just because we were genocided relatively recently and lost our sovereignty for centuries, is ridiculous. I will look for examples of what I'm talking about regarding Caucasian Albians from some good sources.

Just because the church could do it, doesn't mean it did. Unless you have proof, stating the could becomes propaganda.

"The Syrians of the east Tigris had a legend of the ark resting on the Djûdi mountain in the land of Kard. This legend may in origin have been independent of the Genesis account of Noah's flood, rooted in the more general Near Eastern flood legends, but following Christianization of the Syrians, from about the 2nd century AD, it became associated with the Mountains of Ararat where Noah landed according to Genesis, and from Syria also this legend also spread to the Armenians. The Armenians did not traditionally associate Noah's landing site with Mount Ararat, known natively as Masis, but until the 11th century continued to associate Noah's ark with Mount Judi." - Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, review of Friedrich Murat, Ararat und Masis, Studien zur armenischen Altertumskunde und Litteratur, Heidelberg, 1900. (source found on wikipedia: Mount Judi)

"According to Josephus, the Armenians in the 1st century showed the remains of Noah's ark at a place called αποβατηριον "Place of Descent" (Armenian: Նախիջեւան, Nakhichevan, Ptolemy's Ναξουανα), about 60 miles southeast of the summit of Mount Ararat (ca. 39°04′N 45°05′E / 39.07°N 45.08°E / 39.07; 45.08).[3] Josephus also stated that Themanin, the first city to be built after the Great Flood, was built at the base of Mount Judi." - An Universal History from the Earliest Account of Time. Millar. 1747. p. 242. http://books.google.ca/books?id=5NcG...age&q=&f=false. (source found on wikipedia: Mount Judi)

[levon]

Re: Nakhichevan

[QUOTE=jgk3;297942]Unfortunately regarding the Caucasian Albanians, I can't find the sources that I want to share, but I've read about how names of their towns, outside of areas where Armenians formed what could comfortably be defined as a "native majority" in those days, would be colonized by Armenians and their names changed. Since Armenia was in power at the time, it would begin to claim some of those places as native to Armenians through giving them Armenian names, and the Caucasian Albanians lacking a sovereign voice, with their church for all effective purposes controlled by the Armenian one, could do nothing in response. This very "Turkish" tactic is common throughout the globe, and to think Armenians were immune to it during their hay day, just because we were genocided relatively recently and lost our sovereignty for centuries, is ridiculous. I will look for examples of what I'm talking about regarding Caucasian Albians from some good sources.[QUOTE=jgk3;297942]

That's not proof. And if you've read it somewhere I would surely like to know the source of their reasoning.

Now, look at the bold part. You are using the reasoning "if they could do it, then they probably it. That kind of reasoning is flawed, yet you keep presenting it as fact.

"The Syrians of the east Tigris had a legend of the ark resting on the Djûdi mountain in the land of Kard. This legend may in origin have been independent of the Genesis account of Noah's flood, rooted in the more general Near Eastern flood legends, but following Christianization of the Syrians, from about the 2nd century AD, it became associated with the Mountains of Ararat where Noah landed according to Genesis, and from Syria also this legend also spread to the Armenians. The Armenians did not traditionally associate Noah's landing site with Mount Ararat, known natively as Masis, but until the 11th century continued to associate Noah's ark with Mount Judi." - Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, review of Friedrich Murat, Ararat und Masis, Studien zur armenischen Altertumskunde und Litteratur, Heidelberg, 1900. (source found on wikipedia: Mount Judi)

"According to Josephus, the Armenians in the 1st century showed the remains of Noah's ark at a place called αποβατηριον "Place of Descent" (Armenian: Նախիջեւան, Nakhichevan, Ptolemy's Ναξουανα), about 60 miles southeast of the summit of Mount Ararat (ca. 39°04′N 45°05′E / 39.07°N 45.08°E / 39.07; 45.08).[3] Josephus also stated that Themanin, the first city to be built after the Great Flood, was built at the base of Mount Judi." - An Universal History from the Earliest Account of Time. Millar. 1747. p. 242. http://books.google.ca/books?id=5NcG...age&q=&f=false. (source found on wikipedia: Mount Judi)

That's one view of it all. There are also accounts showing a completely different viewpoint. How are you so sure that this version of the story is the correct one?

Furthermore, you claimed in a previous post that the Church had likely ordered the changes, yet your source simply states taht at some point in time Armenians started to refer to Ararat as Noah's landing site. There is nothing related to the source of the change, yet you want to confidently state that it was the result of the Church's power.

Again, your reasoning is "it probably was so, the church could do it, therefore the church did do it. Flawed

[jgk3]

Re: Nakhichevan

That's not proof. And if you've read it somewhere I would surely like to know the source of their reasoning.

Now, look at the bold part. You are using the reasoning "if they could do it, then they probably it. That kind of reasoning is flawed, yet you keep presenting it as fact.

I'm not. I guess I shouldn'tve given what I've personally inferred from my own experience of looking into our history, before giving you the source for the facts I've considered.

That's one view of it all. There are also accounts showing a completely different viewpoint. How are you so sure that this version of the story is the correct one?

Furthermore, you claimed in a previous post that the Church had likely ordered the changes, yet your source simply states taht at some point in time Armenians started to refer to Ararat as Noah's landing site. There is nothing related to the source of the change, yet you want to confidently state that it was the result of the Church's power.

Again, your reasoning is "it probably was so, the church could do it, therefore the church did do it. Flawed

Ok, so engage me now with your views, which are much less flawed. I'm trying to say that the Church found use of that story, since it served Armenian national interests, and likely changed it from just a local story in the Ararat plain, to something to be embraced in all places where there is an Armenian church. Churches were the closest thing to tv networks in those days. So its promulgation likely happened through the church, given that it's a Christian institution and hence has complete access to that story.

[lampron]

Re: Nakhichevan

Because they learned the name from its printed form found in 19thC Armenian books.

Did they??? 19th Century? not in 18th or 17th or 16th century prints, or in written form from earlier centuries? I didn't realize you had a direct line to the spirits of deceased west Armenians to instantly check what they read from which century and how they pronounced what they read!

[londontsi]

Re: Nakhichevan

http://+.com/index.php?showtopic=14236&st=220
Replace the + sign above with H y e f o r u m to enter the website.

gegev this site seems to be very restrictive.

Is it an active BB or its me the problem?