So, you're lecturing the rest of us on history, but you need someone to tell you the outcomes of the Turkish and Mongol invasions of Europe? This on top of your being unaware of any economic difficulties occasioned by going communist?
You've spent too much time on this thread bludgeoning with your ignorance for me to worry now about even the most easily misguided lurker thinking that you know what you're talking about.
So it's likely that Goths and Vandals would've been interested in plunder and but Pliny's Assyrian city-state would've not been interested in plunder and would've stayed right these at the north of the Black Sea? The Assyrians that lived north of the Black Sea had some kind of pacifying experience as they crossed the Caucasus?
When the Goths and Vandals and Magyars and Turks and Mongols invaded Europe, people noticed. Your Assyrians never invaded Europe that anyone noticed. That's why they're not on the list.
What list?
That's your story and you're stickin' to it. I'll give you the last word. I'm resting my case.
Where are all these asian descendants? I assume that if it was asian peoples invading in these mongol invasions that they would look asian. The first thing an invading army does is rape the women. Where are all these asians if that's what happened?
This on top of your being unaware of any economic difficulties occasioned by going communist?
I'm unaware of Communism causing the ground to become infertile.
You've spent too much time on this thread bludgeoning with your ignorance for me to worry now about even the most easily misguided lurker thinking that you know what you're talking about.
Oh really? You're losing a degree of credibility with every ten posts.
1. You first said that relic words would be significant. I've shown you hundreds of relic words and even entire sentences and then you throw your own theory out the door and say that it doesn't matter, that it's just a coincidence.
2. You say there's no way that a people descended from semitic peoples ever crossed the Caucasus. Pliny said otherwise.
3. You didn't know that the Assyrians removed the norther tribes from their homelands and restationed them in the captivities. It's in the Assyrian tablets that they did remove them.
Those are the big ones. But the main thing is that you went back on your own theory once proof was shown to you about relic words. First you said it would prove something, and once they were shown to you, hundreds of them, you said they're coincidences. So much for using languages to derive origin.
When the Goths and Vandals and Magyars and Turks and Mongols invaded Europe, people noticed. Your Assyrians never invaded Europe that anyone noticed. That's why they're not on the list.
Same people, different name. "German" simply meant "war man", it didn't specify ethnics. I'd say the Assyrians would classify as war-men.
That's your story and you're stickin' to it. I'll give you the last word. I'm resting my case.
I'd say things have gone very well on this thread even though I didn't want to get in the language arguments. Turns out through help from e-mails from interested observers there are solid links between Indo_European and Hebrew. I learned a little latin, and learned the difference between the bit-Kumri (Cimmerians) and the bit-Sakae (Scythians, Saxons). Profitable.