hagopn

As a short interlude until my graveyard shift is done with: ITALIAN is a language I learned as a child, but English is a language I learned in early adolescent years. Latin I learned in high (secondary) school and college. Italian did not help me with Latin at all, but English helped a great deal. Grammatically, Classical Armenian saved my life in Latin courses! The moral of the story? «Ինչքան լեզու գիտես, այքան ալ մարդ ես», an old saying I first heard early on from my late father. We Armenians hear that phrase often. It's a cultural thing for us, to be multilingual. This in turn makes the wildly irratinal form of argumentation against learning our own Classical language in schools in Armenia rather hypocritical. We are willing to promote English, Russian, and anything else as a "second language," then why are we arguing agaisnt Գրաբառ? Let's compare the treatment of Latin roots and terms in the English language and compare that to the accepted Italian state vernacular (which was an anti-clerical move as well during the Renaissance, the final blow that came with Mussolini's equally anti-clerical Fascism). Check here for the etymologies: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none the Latin term abdicare, English abdicate, Italian [abdicare as one would expect. So far so good (and no orthographic changes noticeable except in the English grammatical inflection).... but... That brings me to expect. Latin exspecto, (reformed) English expect, Italian aspettare (which has taken on the meaning of "to wait"), but the root "ex" and "spectare" are now lost to Italian. English has "reformed" the s that lets you know there is something to spectate (to "look for") in there. Already the reform has broken ties with the past and the construction of the word. It gets worse. In English to "explain" is broken into its Latin roots of "ex" + "planus" (planare) to "bring it out in the plain/open). its meaning is directly from Latin, and the word roots are kept intact. As a result, an Englishman can learn Latin without having to relearn much. However, the Italian is "spiegare." Go figure. Yes, the original Latin word, phonetically, is in there hidden somewhere, but the alteration is simply and plainly the result of a totally illterate society. Oh, sure, I love the Italian language, the language of my most cherished years when my surrogate grandmother was this wonderful Italian neighbor we had, Cosetta was her name, God bless her soul. Yet, I wouldn't want to see Armenians suffer the same fate s that Italian peninsula and the Latin language. Is that what the Abeghyanakans are proposing Armenians as a whole were at the turn of the century? That's ridiculous. OK, the argument is that Italians were no longer using the x consonant in their daily speech. Many Armenians who were forcibly made Turkish speakers in the Ottoman Vampire (Arpa, don't tell me you have already used this---!>> you always do that:)) were not able to pronounce the ց, ծ, ձ, խ, and many other sounds. Some of the elders who were brought up as Turkish speakers still cannot. Does that mean we need to throw those letters and sounds out? If this 'change in language" argument is the strongest so-called argument, then we might as well, eh? Needless to say, I disagree with the reform in its present state. OK, I will continue with the debate later.

Europeans are regretting the absence of classical education. We are still not mature enough to know the difference. The Capitalized Irony is that the author mentioned above, Paryuyr Sevak, was proposing the instruction of classical Armenian at least at some level due to an apparent problem of comprehending the classical language among new students of philology. Armenia is not overflowing with such students these days. There is no explanation as to what “luxury” means except in the examples below, those of (in relative terms) newly developing vernacular languages whose canonical language (and by extension the sole midieval language of literacy) was a foreign language. Greek, however, had the “luxury” that Armenian had, the “luxury” of a sacred language that came from the same culture and that continued to be the literary language up to the early 20th century. Such sarcasm is the main cause for disagreement and the growing impasse. Perhaps the author can be sure to tell the Greeks they are being irrational in maintaining their classical orthography, and be sure to tell all Greeks that we know they are illiterates who have no possible chance of becoming literate because some reformers didn’t decide to turn their language upside down. Be sure to tell the Italians how fortunate they are to have lost their classical heritage and that they should stop giving instruction of the Latin language in schools in order to enrich their understanding of Italian, as the matter of fact. How fortunate they must feel to have had 50 mutually unintelligible vernacular dialects prior to Mussolini’s imposed language and literacy reforms. Dante’s “reform” apparently had not caught on and made anyone literate until Mussolini’s coercive measures in the mid 20th century! We will deal with the “literacy” argument in the next part. I am not familiar with the Russian reforms, but the Russian language has a short history in relative terms to that of Armenian and Greek. The Greeks and Armenians are indeed blessed with closer contacts with their classical literature and language history without much special philological instruction. There is no doubt that the reason to create the “literacy argument” stems from Bolshevik propaganda, which had its beginnings at the time of Abeghyan, a reformist in the socialist mold in his own right. 1. English has changed its spellings many times over the centuries, but, interestingly and ironically enough, the English language has been the most faithful among all the former Roman Imperial subjects to have maintained their Latin lexicon and its orthography. 2. Narekatsi in its original orthpgraphy and classical idiom is very hard to read for the mid-level literate person trained in the new orthpgraphy. It is much easier for students who have been partly classically trained (which was part of secondary education for Diaspora students) and have been habitually using the classical orthpgraphy. Lack of knowledge of the classical Armenian has caused many problems that even a "non-specialist" like myself has noticed, but it is not surprsing that this has not been subject to "official research and debate." The irrational levels of anti-clericalism (among socialist hotheads and their later Bolshevik idealist counterparts) is ultimately at the root of all this nonsense. 3. What “domain of distinguishing ourselves” is he talking about, other than as an attempt at making cheeky and useless comment?

Dear friends, I'm going to respond to this in pieces. This is not a good argument platform precisely because Sevak speaks as specialist, a philogist and lexicographer. This quote by Sevak could be used to render the exact opposite argument: The one that states that we are creating too many schisms within the language. Let us at least leave the classical to be legible and word roots as recognizable components of a common language root. In fact, this is something that Sevak has referred to in his prose. This is a biased conclusion. Greek and Armenian are the closest in linguistic parallels as far as development, and the Greeks chose to maintain their classic orthography. Greek and Armenian have long and continuous traditions of literary (and canonical/liturgical/classical) existence, longer than the post-Dante vernacular of Italian, longer than Elizabeth’s (not Alfred’s) English, longer than any European linguistic line. This above paragraph and entire article fails to mention that Abeghyan’s reform proposals were mostly rejected. His “single sound per single character” concept was thrown out, and it is a fact that the current orthography is in fact a compromise. this compromise was very political in nature as well, despite the dismissal by the author of this article, precisely because the Church and all Diasporans were not included in the debate. I have textbooks and monographs in the original Abeghyanakan proposed orthography, and it is incredibly illegible for a habitual Armenian reader. Ajarian and Malkhasyants were among those who pushed for a compromise. Malkhasyants in fact regretted his decision to support a reform of this sort altogether, and his “Explanatory Dictionary” was written in the classical (even if revised classical, nevertheless classical in its adherence to grammatical rules, preservation of word constructions and roots and so on). I was going to put this comment at the end of my reponses, but I cannot resist the temptation. Gurgen Sargsyan has been exquisitvely biased in his approach as well specifically by discounting the importance of the Mkhitarists in the development of Armenian linguistics and their tremendous input. The utter disrespect and contemptuous attitude towards such an incredibly important Armenian institution was shocking the first time I saw you, Varahour, and your friends on television, throwing out all efforts not corresponding to the "State." The last time we had this disucssion, we had in face to face, on the phone, by email, by forum, and you agreed that there is no reason to discount the validity of the arguments, but that it is important to have a State insitution be the leading party in the development. If you recall, we also came to the agreement that we would support a fair debate, non-politicized, that would include a greater number of Armenians from both sides of the fence. The current attitude held by the Abeghyanakans - which is, as mentioned above, a misnomer to begin with - is bound to cause more frustration. The most ancient of the language institutions, the Church, is taken out of the loop, shich is astouding as well. In any case, "Arpa" և "Vartahour" - the oldest of old հեթանոս pals , I propose we keep, for old time's sake, a friendly attitude toward each other. Կեգգե՜ք-------------»!!

Ոնց որ թէ Քուրդ-ողլու Վոնեգութն էլ մեր գրականության մեջ ներդրոմ է արել http://www.armtown.com/news/am/rfe/20070412/2007041216/ մի նոր «Սպանդանոց»ով:

բարև Նաիրի ջան, կարոտելենք քեզ---

The pronuciation that Armenians from Baku use is Baki, of "of the Bak" in Armenian genitive. The most vocal historian on this is in Los Angeles is Hovik Nersesian, but there are at least 6 others who have said this for the last 100 years. According to the same Hovik Nersesian, the Bagratuni dynasty had traditionally been the "ordaining" dynasty who would be the masters of coronation for the (what is in effect a confederate temporary high chief among equals) Armenian king. The Bag root is, according to Nersesian, part of the Bagratuni name. Hell, it's better than the Jewish theory of "The meychant Bigret Shappathichski". Ah, and there is theo Bulgarian Bog-omil movement that used the same root, and, by the way, they were influenced and partly manned by Paulicians from Armenia, who then yielded the Cathar movement.

“Look at Freud. He described this behavior as projection.” – A Fellow Armenian, upon making some commentary in the conversation and using Sigmund’s “brilliance” as evidence. “Plain and simple, Freud’s later behavior in Paris is symptomatic of someone who had suffered severe trauma in the brain due to excessive cocaine abuse.” – D. Johnson. M.D “The exaggerated emphasis on sexuality and survival instincts exhibited by S. Freud is common behavior among those who have suffered brain damage, particularly in the Cerebral Cortex’s frontal lobe, thought by some to be the seats of higher reason, of intelligence, of stability, of confidence and trust.” – G. Kaufman, M.D. “The worst that could happen is if a drug addict led the world.” - Artavazd Gyureghian, a.k.a. Գժիկ Արդոլիկ

Ես հատկապԷս հաւանում եմ հիվանդանոց բառը: Հայերեն երեվանեան «slang»ով (այսպէս ասաց, ժողովրդական լեզուով), սպանդանոց:

[Essentially there are too views two history, the accidental view, or the conspiratorial, the latter being the one based on cause and effect;causation, the initial being nothing more than the fortuitous conflict of good and evil and haphazardness. (After three years) Good point. How silly is it to eliminate consdpiracy when it comes to organized effort such as state building, large scale commerce, large scale military operations, colonialism, imperialism? It just so happens that "the BritishEmpire became holder of 1/4 of the surface mass of the Earth by some backgammon accident"? I myself, when reviewing certain events within what we call "history" can easily see conspiratorial machinations. Many events can have evidence corroborate the assertions of it being conspiratorial, however it is an incredibly difficult and arduous task to build a historic model on the conspiratorial view of history. Anything conspiratorial by default involved erasing one's tracks. Does that make the theory any less credible? Makow has a single thread of thought, and, to his credit, he has adjusted when new data has contradicted or varied a bit from his paradigm. Education institutions, the State, and the media, all stress the nature of the accidental view of events and history, and we have been hearing this since birth from every orifice of communication. Perhaps there is truth to what Marx and historical materialism state that individuals make choices, but only within the confines of what they are given. Of course one can sit here and punch holes in historical materialism, but nonetheless. The conspiratorial model would suggest that Marx himself is a product of these "hidden forces" that are "guiding history", the "illuminated ones". Why hidden? Marx came from a very strongly Jewish past, and Jewish political tradition, rich as it is, has its definite ideas on government, on social construction and engineering. Maimon was a strong student of Platonic republicanism. Anyway I don't have enough time right now to get too much into details, but I'll wish for further development of this thread. I read the article and I can safely say that there is alot of truth to it, and alot of unsubstantiated assertions as well. But it is an entirely broad article outlining hundreds of years of history. Perhaps we can take it point by point? In any event, you have touched upon and started a really good thread. As to what it has to do with Armenians, I am unaware, but I do remember reading how the British Rothschild banking dynasty, etc., etc., had something to do with refusing to help the Armenians during the Genocide, or blah blah I don't remember it clearly, but I have tried researching it and with no luck. In any event, I hope this thread keeps growing. Well, I hope you're still on this forum!--- I posted a link about John Perkins, a fascinating fellow who corroborates my thesis of a silent and undetected empire.

Zo, have you read this book? It's got some interesting stuff. It would have helped if he collaborated with Jahukian, Davtyan, and Gavoukjian (who was alive when this project began.) Karen Tokhatyan is continuing the rock carving research with continuous enthusiasm. We should be hearing from him soon.

That has already been answered by Mr. Heruni in his book as the article mentions. Corruptions of words happen over thousands of years. The entire problem with Eastern and Western Armenian is due to such phonetic corruptions.

I have been reading the latest book by Armen Davtyan, something that he humbly claims to be a sketch, and it is hardly that. 1. Over 600 cognates between the two languages. 2. Symbolic and rebus affinity exceeding any other possibility: i.e. the closest language to Sumerian has no other candidate than Armenian. 3. Astronomical, astrological, and mythological parallels are abundant. 4. Revisited is the connection with Aratta. Artak Movsesian had done a good job on that previous. Mr. Davtyan expands further on this. 5. Recent discoveries of rock carvings on Massis proving Sumerian symbology and its origins in Armenia. After a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I asked Mr. Davtyan when he was here what his thoughts were in publishing, and his response was that he will publish nothing until he is certain all the relevant source material has been exhaustively researched. Well! That seems to be a hell of an improvement on the pseudo-Armenology being paraded in the West and former USSR (which is still a slight improvement.) Mr. Davtyan did comment on the amount of resistance he has faced by the mere suggestion of researching the Sumero-Armenian relations. He is aware of the westernized anti-Armenian prejudices and biases that plague the pseudo-Armenological circles. There is much reverberation of that pseudo-Armenology here. For example, despite thorough research done by Hovik Nersesian, it is believed by some that "Anahita" is not a native Armenian deity. That is a problem with 1) lack of translated material and 2) lack of genuine scholarship in the west in the Armenian studies field.

Today I was listening to John Perkins on KPFK radion in Los Angeles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins, and this individual's very enlightening tesstimonial made one think about the Unanyans and their murder of Demirchian. An old event gets buried as "old news" by the vast majority of public outlets and "progressive minded" individuals alike. In any case, Mr. Perkins made a devastating indictment of how the IMF and World Bank, and their regulatory branch, the WTO work to impoverish economies for various commercial reasons, such as easy and cheap access to raw materials and even manpower, slave supply, and so on. Indonesia apparently is a very well run slavery economy with the largest documented percentage of sweat shop labor. Armenia is now a indebted economy that is slowly falling into the grips of a foreign oligarchy. The domestic ones were not enough, according to this gentleman, if Armenian falls within this mold, it too will be overtaken eventually by an international corporate oligarchy.

Why is it bullshit? I don't know about the zeal to Iranianize everything, save for mental midgets such as Nina Garoian and her vegetal produce, but Armenians and India have had long time interactions, long before the Arshakuni period, long before the Artashesian period. Why is that so hard to believe for moswt? Because they have been NATO brainwashed. Arpa, you are one brainwashed son of a gun. Despite yourself and your erudition, you are brainwashed.

"Urartuans" is a concoction. The "Urartu" is the Kingdom of Bianili or Van, which was an Armenian Dynastic line. What enemies of Armenians want "Urartu" to be is another story entirely.

Vahan Kurkjian's history of ancient Armenia is simply too outdated to take seriously. Kurkjian only selectively cites the speculations of those who did not know well the history of the region. At least his footnote on Ajarian covers his tracks. It's doubtful that he had much access to the scholarship in Armenia. This is still a problem with the Cold War stigma or aura still plaguing our scientific circles to a disturbing degree. Also, the University of Chicago is an anti-Armenian hotbed. We ordered the Hittite Dictionary of the U of Chi, and what did we find? All the words that start with A are not published. Why, we asked the department members, and the response was that they have decided to delay it for undisclosed reasons. Now, what possible "undisclosed reasons" would you have to publish only part of a dictionary? http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze.../KURARM/6*.html "Hittite inscriptions deciphered by E. Forrer testify to the existence of a mountain country, the Hayasa, lying around the Lake of Van. According to P. Kretschmer, Hayasa or Khayasa, identified with Haik, Hayk or Hark, was inhabited before the coming of Armens. The suffix sa of Hayasa corresponds to the stan (habitat) derivative of Hayastan (Armenia). The name of that pre-Armen people may be found in the writings of Greek historians, Choi, Chai or Chaoi, the ch being sounded like the Greek letter Χ. The identity of the names Hayk and Hayasa had been asserted by Karl Rot, long before Kretschmer. As to the form Hayasa-Azzi in the inscriptions, A. Goetze thinks the name Azzi represents the Alzi or Alzini of the Assyrian and Urartean inscriptions." The "Armens" versus the "Hayk", and what are the supposed "sources" for this new invention? As to the speculation of Azzi, this is beyond vulgarity. The argument posed by Nashan Martirossyan was accepted long before Goetze began to anti-Armenianize the period again. Both the Hittite and the Armenian/Hay languages used the same root of "azzi" for "origin, family, birth." Yet, you will not find it in the Hittite Dictionary by the U of Chi! This is also an improvement over the nonsense that pretends the Nairi and Hayassa are separate entities. They were not. Those were names used for the same entity by different neighboring cultures. The Armeno-phone Hittites/Hatti (yes, they were Armenian speakers) used the Hayassa proper name while the Assyrian used the Nairi (Nahri, land of rivers) toponym.

I haven't read this whole thread, and I don't quite need to read the entire thread. 1. The right wingers will all be the same sort of wishful thinkers relying on Melkon Armen Khandjian. 2. The so-called "empiricist" left-wingers will be those who will engorge themselves into ridiculing any and all informtion about which they too only will have anecdotal or converstational level knowledge of and access to. Let me just state that Armen Khandjian is a good person that I know personally, but he and his good intentions sometimes cause him to go overboard with his speculations. The sad part is that he causes the stigmatization of good scholarship, such as that by Martiros Gavoukjian, Hovik Nersesian, Dr. Lendrush Khurshidian, and now Vartan Matossian from Argentina. Matossian is the most "accepted" (by the western Armenological establishment) in his critique of Diakonov. Matossian does nothing less than totally discredit Diakonov, quite scientifically, particularly with regards to the false geopgraphical placements of Armenians during the pre-Urartuan periods. Matossian rejects, correctly so, Diakonov's wholesale adoption of ONE source that de-Armenizes the most obvious of the Armenian elements of the region, the Hayassa, and brings more data that corroborates what University of Prague's Nshan Martirossyan had been saying all along: Hayassa-azzi comprised a state that encompassed thee territory known as Metz Hayq. Yet, we have outdated and anachronistic revisionist minds that pretend Diakonov is some sort of God Almighty. Diakonov (mentioned as "Diankoff" by one poster, another indication of anecdotal and conversational level "knowledge") was an Azeribaijani asset, and this is well documented in his dealings with the Albanization of Azerbaijan in collaborative efforts with the famous rbid anti-armenian "historian" Zia Bunyatov. That Igor Diakonov hated Armenians is no secret, but we have the "established" Armenology circles here in the USA pretending the Diakonov is immune to criticism. Simple geography eluded Diakonov during his theorizing binges. The fact that the Albanian tribes, 26 tribes each with it own distinct language, were resident approximately 20 kilometers beyond on the north-east bank iof the Kur River s apparently not important to the Diakonovian/Buniatovian school of anti-Armenian revisionism in their attempt to Albanize the Kingdom of Khatchen, which is an obvious attempt at Albanizing the Armenians of Artsakh. Even our so-called "scholars" such as the flamboyant and jumpy George Burnutyun seem to have "missed" this simple geography lesson. We have arrogant and stupid posters on this forum who claim Diakonov as a final authority because James Russell said so, another moron who was only recently scandalized by his former colleague at Harvard, Bert Vaux, and was accused by Vaux of doing nothing less than sabotaging Armenian Studies at Harvard. Russell is now mostly pre-occuped with matters related to "anti-semitism" and has demonstrated that he couldnt care less about Armenians. The fact is that none of you know the actual politics, but, to the credit of the right-wing Inflaters, they at least know the political situation exists, even if they still dont understand its nature fully. the left-wingers are still swimming in their overflowing juices of vulgarity and arrogance. ARPA, you and your libertine stance disapopints me to no end. I did not expect to see such "gang-rape" mentality from you at least.

Nice distinction, "dogma of individualism" versus "true learned and mature individualism." I like that. This dialog can be characterized more as a "cult of hedonism" versus "cult of spiritualism/altruism," but your definition is more poignant in explaining the confusion that exists among the impressionable post-adolescent but perpetually adolescnet minds. Robert Blye has a nice term for this phenomenon: "Sibling society." In continuation, according to this mechanical and two-dimensional view, all such incredible phenomena are "accidental in nature." Never mind that the mere act of being aware is in itself a unexplainable phenomenon. Never mind that the very process of arriving to the conclusion that human beings have come to, that they need to actively and intelligently retain memory of such nature/DNA drive occurrence is in itself a very interesting and has to do with a sort of evolution that transcends "natural selection" and other vulgar explanations. Ndver mind that the first global mythology that deals with the very problem of man and nature and their interaction is not in any sense "tribal in nature" and is in fact very universal, quite altruistic in intent, and quite beyond teh realm of "survival" in the animalistic sense. Human evolution measured in the strictly anthropoligcal "sense" (which is what it is, whether the adherents of such vulgarity wish to admit it or not) is a total misrepresentation of man's actual role in his quest for pure awareness, far beyond the realm of "survival instincts," and nationalism is a primary vehicle, because spiritual and cultural nationalism is the only reliable and integral method for the conveyance of this all too valuable commodity for human beings called memory. Tell that to every student and follower of Hobbes. The concoction of the "necessary evil" argument stems from this. Some folks are like dogs, other pigs, others ants..., and the entire Aryan re-incarnation mythoology is a lesson in character, warning that human beings are alterable and infinitely flexible, to the point that they will give themselves the "privilege" to immitate the lowest of all lows in nature, in the univers, if permitted to do so, if permitted to go by their "guts" alone. It's all been said, friend. Just read Indra's plight, and see how our ancestors tackled this issue. Wonderfully said: In other words, as was written above: When the substrratum of multigenerational hope that can only be supplied by nationalism, he "religion" of father and mother loving their own ancestors and children in that wonderful string of timeless love that goes forward and backward in time, when that sort of understading fades, so too fades the hope, and a void is left where there is an innate need for a human being to connect to the universe in stages with no shortcuts. Very well written. In other words, you are the perpetual adolescent in "rebellion," which should otherwise be a natural stage of spiritual growth. But the operative word is "stage" or "phase" of spiritual growth. Nice. "An atom shakes, and the universe quivers." There is also another addendum to the above: "Of the infinite number of choices available to us, there is truly only one at any given instant that is the correct one. Man's work is then to be as conscious, as ware, and connected to divinity (or universe) as possible in order to be a recepticle for the correct vision and the openin of the door for a more correct choice in life." The mystics and ascetics were so fanatical in their quest for a "quiet space" to hear the "song of the universe" for this purpose, and they were quite explicit. We today are arrogant in thinking that all such higher thoughts have not crossed man's mind since time immemorial, and, ironically, mankind has worked hard to maintain a string of memory in the form of spiritual teachings, religious teachings, and the older, the better, the less materialistic, the more the likeliood of sincerity and, thus, accuracy. Email me, and let's get in touch.

Yes, what is more important to "you?" Definitions seem simple enough, but the holistic argument does not leave out the various components such as stages of human growth/maturation, spirituality and its role, different contexts in which one is forced to live in and the forces at play... Yes, when thinking in components, it is indeed very simple: The act of worrying and carrying about one's group, nation, culture, is a higher instinct. It goes beyond the personal, and not everyone is equipped with this instinct. It's the same concept as a person in the sahara who does not have even a word for snow. The act of only worrying about your "happiness" (i.e,. in this context, impulsive romance, attraction, ans o on) is an animal instinct centered only on the one idividual and his lower needs. "Warmth, nurturing," and so on are initial stages of human growth, but the "individualist argument" is an attempt to perpetuate the "adolecence" into adulthood. Adolescents need to be "in the forest to prove their worth." That is a natural stage in human growth, and it should be respected and properly guided upon arrival. However, then comes adulthood, when the individual is no longer an individual but a full member of the given grouping of civilization, nation, tribe, group, family, clan, whatever. Definitions are easy to concoct, and they are easier to split hairs on as well. Therefore, nothing is easy. Nation is not really a personal choice but a duty that one is blessed with. One is given the gift of many lifetimes of memory and wisedom, passed down to him through genuine spiritual attachment and love. There is no chance in the world that I can dictate policy onto you, nor am I willing to arrive at my goals as a member of the Armenian nation is such manner. I think you are approaching this with the same elitist nonsense that is taught in the "individualist" school where, as mentioned above, the very idea of contemplating the existence of "spirit" is denied as some sort of "lower form of consciouness." I beg to differ. Love, especially multigenerational love, cannot be surpassed in quality.

WOW! This is pure poetry! This is the most beautiful response I have read yet! Anonymouse, you are wrong about the fact that Armenians are not primordial as a nation, but your argument above is simply marvelous and true to the bone. It is always some tragic character flaw, a personal limitation, an shortsighted egotism, and, most importantly, that dastardly herd reflex that makes a person conform while believing that he is independent within an imperialist context. For example, you are constantly bombared with anti-nationalist bombs at every angle, from the songs you listen to, the movies you watch, the social studies classes you take, the novels you read, and all other communications media at the disposal of an institutionalized society of "melting the contents of the pot." Whil having been bombarded since brith via these sources, you are constantly told by these pavlolivian forces that "nationalism is racism, and racism is bad,' and then the conditioning is complete. The dupe that goes through this robotic programming does not ever realize, until perhaps his deathbed, that he has been a total fool, thrown from side to side to fulfill some sort of state mandated social agenda. The very few who are destined to be the visionaries who see this will be labelled with prefabricated derogatory slogans and titles, "Racist, Fascist, guitarist, pianist... (hey, music is an integral part of my racist life)" and so on. They shall always be isolated and alone among a sea of unthinking, ungrateful (to their ancestors), unfeeling, desensitized and utterly branwashed lemmings. Those few, then, will leave for a homeland once again. After all, they shalle be exasperated and exhausted in dealing with a large mechanism, a large and well-honed state (and now, quite global) apparatus designed to do away with "barriers to profit and conquest" such as nations and groupings that compete in general (hence the bombardment against the Catholic Church as well as any resistant nation such as the Serbs, Armenians, and so on). These "returning" itinerants have been a comon fertilizing phenomenon in our history, and I hope to be one who shall join their noble ranks. I am hoping for our state to be strong enough to support the true aspirations of our nation one day, and for that reason I own a home there. At this moment, one foot (the economic) is in the Disappearia, and the other in Armenia... the portion that we have been blessed with for the time being. In other words, "interracial marriages" are the topic of those who wish to forget that they are human beings with obligations to their ancestors. This sense of debt and duty to ancestry is a beautiful, highly spiritual, and noble instinct, and, unfortunately, it is one that has to be taught: Perhaps in the platonic sense, it has to be "revived and brought to the forefront" past all the animal and reptillian instincts of the two lower portions of the brain into the Cerebral Cortex where the spirit finds its home. Higher human civilized functions such as multigenerational thought have been taught via ritual and myth. It is either taught by myth, example, and, ideally, by ritual. Today, the same form of "ritual" is being used for the opposite effect of detached denationalized mayflies. The mythology we are being fed is that of the "spiritual egotist," an absurd justaposition of two opposing and incompatible images of the "spiritual saint and the egotistical and selfish fool with the short memory." We are taught at the lowest level to think in terms of "I am an individual with my own gonads and libido and must be left to my animal (so-called "romantic") instincts in order to advance my egotistical life" and this message is played again and again in the mass media and also the educational/academic world. When you get tired of swimming against a sea of shit, consider seriously investing in the noble project of enlarging your homeland's political boundaries, and I mean seriously, and sersiously think about investing into the move there, in concrete and material, as well as psychological, terms...

We have to forget about living outside Armenia if our intention is to remain Armenians, and, therefore, we have to lift mental and then, gradually, physical barriers for the sake of the generations, if we truly care about them. Mental barriers and physical barriers cross-influence on our day to day dealings as Armenians. We have the mental barriers of a small republic, too little land, landlocked, too little economic prospect in living there, too little chance of prospering materially as average urbanite lemmings... That's one barrier. The failing in our communities, our interrelationships as individuals and families, and so on all come from this substratum of hopelessness within the Armenian national context, but, as the old saying goes, you make the world as much as the world makes you. Then there is the barrier of the globalist ideology that Anonymouse mentioned. Nicely done, even though he's completely off the rocker on his denial that Armenians are a primordial nation, he has articulated the plight of nations in today's institutionalized anti-nationalism very well. After the mental barriers have been at least partly lifted, the physical barriers shall be gradually lifted, as they have been lifted to the tune of 14,000 square kilometers with the recovery of Armenian land from our murderous neighbors since 1994. I must say, despite my die-hard nationalist mentality, I had an additional "uplifting experience" after the 1992 reclamation of Shushi by Armenian forces. I somehow looked at my Armenian wife and my Armenian children in a different and more hopeful light. Try it one day, those who think nationalism is something about limousines and police escorts, flags, borders, and so on, to think of nationalism in this manner, that of a multi-generational tunnel of hope from the past to the future... Armenians can afford to be unique in this regard among nations. We are a nation with a strong set of roots, so long as we maintain memory of those very real roots. As my good friend always says, Keep the Faith. Hajoghutyun Յաջողոըթիւն Ա՜, այս ֆորումում հայերեն կարելի է գրել: Դէ, աւելի լաւ---

Anonymouse wrote: Essentially this is my problem, and the whole reason I started this thread...namely that there is an Armenian nation and its for the Armenian people who are descendents of either Hayk, or Hayasa, or whatever tribes you can think of. This is ahistorical for it ignores history. This little graph will perhaps convey what I am trying to say. Misconception number one, and a definite sign of total lack of familiarity with primary sources that deal with this matter. Hayassa is the toponymic and ethno-linguistic nomencalture for the entirety of Greater Armenian by the Hittites. Hayassa is the ONLY name used by the Hittites, just as Harminuap was the ONLY name used for the entirety of Greater Armenia by the Elamites or Armina by the old Persians, or Urashtu/Urartu (more than likely Ararat due to the syllabic no-consonant writing system used at the time) by the Assyro-Babylonians. Yet in another instance the Assyrians (prior to the ascendency as an imperial power) named the entire Greater Armenian ethno-linguistic group as "Nairi" probably in reference to the "River People," as the Armenians historically migrated an colonized the entirety of Mesopotamia via the Great Rivers. In short, there is no such thing as "Hayassa and other tribes" in any primary source. The individual tribes are still referred to under ONE BLANKET ethnic/geohgraphical term. In the case of Assyrians, allthe various linguistically and ethnically related tribes were named the "Nairi", and were understsood and grudgingly identified as a confedration of a sort. R=Roman P=Persian A=Arabic G=Greek M=Mongol Ru=Russian As=Assyrian ----------R---------------G ----------A ------------- Ru Hayasa -----------------------------------------------------------------Present -------As-------------------P---------------------------M This above is arbitrary and makes no conclusion or statement reflecting any reality out there. Individual experiences are irrelevant. We are speaking about a community and its self-identification as such through the eons. Armenians never experienced a break in their legacy in any manner except the political situation, and that is irrelevant to the concept of self-identification as a national identity. The first recorded "assimilationist" in history was, as I have referred to above, Tiglath Pilaser III, (the Assyrians' own Tigran III). He had a consciously implemented policy of uprooting, resetlling, and assimilating entire populations. He outwardly boasted of his success in defacing entire nationalities and ruling them as non-identities. This paved the way for the later age of sectarianism that still plagues us to this day, but the Armenians were exempt from this rul since this policy of assimilation via uprooting and resettlement never succeeded in Armenia. Armenians are, as a consequence, NOT subject to the same sort of "identity" soul-serachign speculative nonsense that the "Enlightenment" opponents are trying to push onto us. I recorded history, we have been Armenians, and we have always been Armenians. Do you see what I am trying to get at? We may have a straight line and say "We descended from Hayk, etc.", but that doesn't take into account all the shifts, and We descended from "Hayk" in the plural ethno-linguistic sense, and the personification of the Ethicity took on hit mythical form. Hayk is more than likely in reference to the Land/People/Deity triad nomenclature that the ancients always used. changes of history. Maybe I descended from a Greek, and you from an Arab, and he from a Assyrian. Thus that is the problem with nationalism in that it projects itself into the past and says "we descended from this". Well maybe so, but no one stays pure, especially not in that region of the Caucasus. That is not likely. Genetic injections due to invasion, rape, and so on are commonplace in such dynamic geopolitical regions, but the self-identification trail is remarkably constant. This is repeatedly illustrated by the existence of old villages and the continual habitation by Armenians who recall actual family lines to the ancient periods. The unfortunate part of the last few centuries is the constant Internal migration of Armenians from one location to another, but, again, this never changed their mode of self-identification. And so Armenia as a "nation" one can argue never really existed, for "Armenian" was an identity constantly changing, since history is not a point in time, it is a process. Change is, as is argued above, irrelevant. I have already covered that. If you wish to bring in new elements to your argument, you are more than welcome, but you are merley repeating yourself and are forcing me to repeat myself.

Gino, exhausted and tired after a hard day's work, wrote, You last posting made me laugh. Of course, I'm a fascist-faced devil who came here to assimilate you all. You are showing clear signs of taking this matter so personally and to the extreme pro-Azeri level I have only seen among Azeri propagandists on the Internet. You have been identified as such. You were the one who started proposing pseudo-historical ideas and theories, calling Azeri nation "a tribe" and insultingly putting the word Azeri in quotation marks; claiming that Azersi have no formed religion, culture, language, state; Like I said, you are taking this too personally to be one who is objective and detached. Theories are theories, and the facts and analysis that I bring forth have to be responded with reasonable and logical coutnerarguments, not propaganda. If you feel that logic and reason have no place in this argument, then perhaps you have better forums on which you can vent your pro-Azeri fascistic frustrations and wishes. fabricating theories about some a-la-Germany-1939 regime supposedly existing in Azerbaijan (sic!); and finally trying to prove me that I do not follow my own words. In fact, such a regime does exist, and since its foundation, the Azeri state has done mothing but attempt to clear its land of non-Turkic inhabitants. The Armenains were the first victims of the last era, but the "Albanians' that the Azeri Turks try to coopt as their "predecessors," where are they? In other words, when were they forcibly assimilated into the Shi'a muslim quasi-Turkic landscape? Ah, but this is another pandora's box that you wil have the myriad answers to in the typical statecraft fashion. Of course, some big words and knowledge of Latin phrases can "prove" your opponet's yielding and screaming in pre-death agony and admitting his being wrong. But what you drew as a conclusion is a complete nonsence. I bet you did OK, prove it. not understand yourself what you said in your last paragraphs. But that's not important for you. What is important is that you stopped the discussion on the most interesting moment, accused your opponent in yielding and being a fascist in a bold script and made everyone think that I have nothing to tell and got confused in my own ideas. I think you're not the one for a civilized discussion because from the very beginning you incited to yourself that no one but you is right. That is why you don't accept any facts that can argue with what you're saying (for ex, saying "No, it's a fact" with no proof). I think this clownade should be over. Good luck to you as well. In saying "not important" I was referring to your typical Azero-fascist propaganda package.

That's probably not true, although it has been debated. The Armenian/Albanian relations go back to the 4th century, and the Albanian language and its development has Armenian ties as far back as the 5th century. This is indicative the same administrative relations between the Albanian and Armenian churches as there was between the Georgian and Armenian. They were all under the Armenian Orthodox umbrella. Ah, Movses Kaghnakatvetsi also proves that point, and clearly he was Armenian. Well, he wrote in the Armenian language!

Because the Albanians were considered to be under the Armenian Orthodox Church, and the majority of the Chroniclers about Albania were in fact Armenians.