Talk:Luandi

Etymology

User Mrsecurity39 392, whose account is newly created and only contributions are few, twice removed Dybo (2007)'s proposed Iranian etymology for the Xiongnu ruling clan (transcribed by Chinese as 攣鞮 *r(h)wan-de > Luandi) (notwithstanding Dybo's implied opinion the Xiongnu spoke a Turkic language). Their reasons are:

• "https://kpfu.ru/portal/docs /F230999094/01.pdf Is the source used but neither in this PDF nor in any other of Anno Dybo her Turkic studies does anything of this subject come up. Therefore the text isn't sourced and an unrelated source has been put in place" 1
• "I shall repeat it once again the source of Anno Dybo doesn't mention anything on the subject of the r(h) wan-de. Her source is a source on TURKIC language comparison, its a source on proto Turkic Reconstruction nothing to do with the Xiongnu as you can see from page 6 to 9." 2

On page 9 of the pdf of Dybo's (2007) "Early Contacts of Turks and Problems Of Proto-Turkic reconstruction", Dybo clearly wrote:

In the same groups of Chinese sources we find the lexemes among “Hsiung-nu” words that can be traced as Iranian ones, borrowed from one of the Eastern Middle Iranian languages which was similar to a kind of archaic Khotanese Saka[...].

d) Iranian exotisms among “Hsiung-nu” Chinese transcriptions (only from Shi zi [aka Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian] and Han shu [by Ban Gu & Ban Zhao]), dairy husbandry words and titles

[...]

7. 攣鞮 *r(h)wan dē ‘royal clan of Hsiung-nu’ – Cf. Kh.Saka runde ‘kings’ (NPl of rre ‘king’ < *rwant-).

If Mrsecurity39 392 can read Chinese at all, they would have known that 攣鞮 was Han Chinese transcription for the name of the ruling clan of the Xiongnu chanyu:

自淳維以至頭曼千有餘歲，時大時小，別散分離，尚矣，其世傳不可得而次（云）。然至冒頓，而匈奴最強大，盡服從北夷，而南與諸夏為敵國，其世信官號可得而記云。單于姓攣鞮氏。
For more than thousands of years from Chunwei to Touman, [the Xiongnu's multitudes] had been sometimes large and sometimes small as they had been scattered and divided; so their genealogies could not be gotten and listed in sequence. Then in Modun['s time], the Xiongnu were at the pinnacle of greatness and strength: the northern barbarians totally submitted [to the Xiongnu] and [Xiongnu became] a state rivalling the various Xia (aka Han Chinese) in the south. Therefore their genealogies, information, and official titles can be gotten and recorded. The Chanyu's surname is Luandi.

— Book of Han, Volume 94 - Account of the Xiongnu

I think that User Mrsecurity39 392's deletions and reasons (which imo are intellectually dishonest) amount to POV-pushing. HistoryofIran, Krakkos, Ermenrich, Mann Mann et al. What are your opinions? Erminwin (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, thanks for looking into it. I have reverted him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"rv, sorry, but that made zero sense. The quote is mentioned in the article talk page, where you are yet to participate. Please take your concerns over there"

None of what has been stated by Erminwin can be found in Anno Dybo her Turkic Reconstruction study, have any of you actually read it? Or is it as I've quoted from you HistoryofIran and have you just blindly took Erminwin's word for it? Frankly I have quoted the page that Erminwin has used multiple times to justify his claims and what he states can be nowhere found (page 9 of her study). Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

user:HistoryofIran Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If you do get to the said page where the luandi their name is said to be of descendant of an iranic loanwoard in Anno Dybo her study I'd like you to quote the page either in most part, or it's entirely as it is definitely not page 9 (that I have quoted from her study prior to disprove prior editing by Erminwin where they had claimed page 9 supports their editing) and for it to be double checked by a third person preferably user:Krakkos, user:Mann Mann or user:Ermenrich . Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Mrsecurity39 392 to HistoryofIran:

  have you just blindly took Erminwin's word for it?

• HistoryofIran to me:

  I checked the source again, and it does indeed state what you've added. Therefore it has been restored. I'm not sure if there is anything else to discuss, as this information has been quoted word for word up above and is pretty obvious.

• @Mrsecurity39 392:: Can you stop misinterpreting? Erminwin (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Misinterpreting what exactly? Something that clearly isn't stated in a study?

This is what is being said on page 9 of Anno Dybo her study

"The phonetic peculiarities of Proto - Bulgar / Early Bulgar > Hungarian and Early Bulgar > Slavic adaptation : vowels . Proto - Turkic vowel length was relevant in Pro to - Bulgar and Danube Bulgar ; The Proto - Turkic diphthongue * ia has specific reflexes in Proto - Bulgar , Danube Bulgar , Volga Bulgar inscriptions and Chuvash ; The reflexes of * a and * e can be distinguished from reflexes of * a and * ä in ProtoBulgar , Danube Bulgar and Chuvash . [ Slavic adapted Danube Bulgar a ( < * a ,Thus , during the period under study , Slavic did not lose the difference in quantity of * a [ a ] < PIE ā , * ō and * o [ 0 ] < PIE * ă , * ŏ ] . Consequently , all early contact data reaffirm the " Altaic - oriented " reconstruction of Proto Turkic . OUig . - Old Uigur PA Proto Altaic Abbreviations CT - Common Turkic LOCH- Late Old Chinese MChin Middle Chinese MIran . -MIr . - Middle Iranian MMo - Middle Mongolian NMo - Northern Mongolian OCH - Old Chinese OInd . - Old Indian OT - Old Turkic"

Frankly I see nothing there on the issue of the luandi the way you quoted it there to be, word for word. So either we're not reading the same study or something isn't right.

https://kpfu.ru/portal/docs Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll hear it from the other 2 what they'll find on the issue of the "luandi" in Anno Dybo her book cause frankly I've read it all and it's nowwhere to be found let alone on page 9 that I have quoted the source to the study is provided below so anyone can have a read themselves. I'll wait another day or so otherwise I'll have to revise the article back.. Since well the stated source says nothing on the Luandi.. At all. So unless one of you can point out what exact page (which isn't page 9) it does state so and so, I'll have to revise it again. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

user:Ermenrich, user:Krakkos, user:HistoryofIran or user:Mann Mann Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Portal/docs link is where Anno Dybo her study is. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You are now threatening to be disruptive, I would highly advise you to refrain from doing more reverts. https://kpfu.ru/portal/docs/F230999094/01.pdf take a look at page 9, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The source mentions "攣鞮" (the Traditional Chinese name of the clan) and the cited content exists in the source. But there is zero mention of "Luandi" (English name?). This is a content dispute case. So you guys better ask for third opinion/RfC, or take this case to WP:DRN. Please don't ping me for this article. I can't help. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Luandi is the pinyin trancription (albeit without tone-marks) of 攣鞮. Mrsecurity39 392 has just revealed their ignorance. Erminwin (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring

@HistoryofIran:, @Krakkos:, @Ermenrich:, @Mann Mann: Mrsecurity39 392 again. Can't tell if he's trying to get me banned. Erminwin (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

For some reason I'm not receiving your pings, Erminwin. I checked the source again, and it does indeed state what you've added. Therefore it has been restored. I'm not sure if there is anything else to discuss, as this information has been quoted word for word up above and is pretty obvious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Minetest which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Minetest which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)