Politically laden terms

I personally regret the abandonment of the (legitimately employed) term "Aryan" in favour of "Indo-Iranian" -- the latter is longer and potentially misleading if one reflects that the Indo-Iranian homeland was neither Iran nor India; but "Indo-Aryan" is still preferred by many linguists to "Indic" or "Indian", since it refers unambiguously to the IE languages of India, excluding the Dravidian and Munda families. Unfortunately the first thing that occurs to a lay person on hearing the term "Aryan" is "the Aryan race". "Aryan" is technically incorrect in the sense "Indo-European".

The American English socioracial meaning of "Caucasian" is somewhat absurd (in addition to causing international confusion). It means in principle "of European extraction" but in fact Caucasians are a negatively defined category in social counts -- the residue that is left if you take away people who are "Black", "Hispanic", "Native American" or socio-ethnically marked in any other way.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: markodegard@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:02 PM

Subject: Odp: [tied] Re: Warning to list: Race and anthropology

Piotr: > The word "Caucasian" (like "Aryan") has its perfectly > legitimate technical uses. Yes, but 'Aryan' tends to be avoided. Hence, it's now Indo-Iranian, and old Indic. As I recall, 'Aryas' or the some such tends to be used where 'Aryan' could just as easily be used. 'Caucasian' as a geographic and linguistic term is valid, but 'Cauausus languages' would be just as useful, and perhaps, less ambiguous. It perhaps needs to be mention that many native speakers of English use the word only in terms of the 'white race', and are unaware of the Caucasian mountains. I would not be suprised if Ippolitov-Ivanov's "Caucasian Sketches" would be described as 'drawings of or by white people' by the majority. In speech, 'Caucasus' sounds like political meetings -- 'caucuses'.