>Not to peck on a single point, BUT I sincerely believe that the word
>Persian fits the population of that day much better than the word
>Iranian does today.
Please do not confuse the linguistic term Iranian with the placename Iran -
they are not the same thing. Iranian is used to describe a particular
daughter branch of Proto Indo European - it includes a great number of
languages - both living and dead - a great number of which exist[ed] far
from the borders of modern day Iran. In other words, both the modern day
Persians, as well as the ancient Scythians, and for that matter the Ossets,
the Kurds, the Afghans, etc., etc., are all Iranians in that their languages
are closely related and stem from the Iranian division of Indo European.
>It appears that Persia of yesterday was an empire far greater than Iran
>today, an probably included more races/cultures of people.
It certainly did.
>I also wonder if and how the Galatians fit into Persia then and how they
>fit into central Europe where they were purported to have migrated.
Well, I don't believe that Galatia was ever a part of the Persian empire,
but I imagine that Galatians would have had some contact with Persians at
some point in time.
>Is there any connection at all to the two stories.
Which two stories?
- Chris Gwinn
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.