Because that would just be racist… even though you do all look alike.
related means: with something in common, with connection. that doesn’t mean same family, read the god damn wiki page about it and you will see that roots of those families have nothing in common. lol, and you are calling me intellectually incapable. F.U.
The point has been made clearly. There’s nothing more to discuss.
Boy you are retarded. Do they really indoctrinate everyone to incapability over in Georgia?
The word “related” DOES mean to be in the same family. It is English, which you obviously do not hold a strong grasp on, so I haven’t a clue how you can continue to fight someone who is a native speaker on such a moot point.
He really doesn’t understand any of this issue. He posted a huge chunk of copypasta from that Wiki article here -
https://forums.blackmesasource.com/showpost.php?p=473680&postcount=103
- but doesn’t understand what’s going on with the wiki-editing and clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of the passages. Notice how he underlines and uses bold for the term affirms in the passage, and then look at the context of the passage. He’s clearly confused.
But it doesn’t matter if Assassin understands or not. I’m not trying to convince him of anything - he’s a fanatic. I knew that about him before. I’ve only posted to demonstrate to other people that what he is saying is not accurate, and I think that’s been demonstrated.
Now he’s just going to argue the definition of “the” and post irrelevant copypasta that he doesn’t understand.
“The exact origin of the Bagratuni, as well as of the related Georgian branch (Bagrationi)” - not the georgain and armenian bagratid dynasties.
I bold those because some of you pretend to be blind to certain parts of texts.
you are making it easy.
ITT: Assassin is In denial about the fact that his parents were related.
ahahahahaha
EDIT: Stlll laughing.
Hahahaha
gtfo
I see that this thread has finaly come to intellectual par with the others.
Oh, so now you know the meaning of ‘related’.
You’ve allowed yourself to be reduced to desperately arguing about the semantics of the word ‘related’. The use of ‘related’ here is clearly the usage meaning ‘kin’ or ‘the same family’.
You don’t understand your own copypasta, which contradicts your propositions regarding both the Bagratid and your semantic argument regarding ‘related’.
‘Related’ as in ‘the same family’ - and ‘branch’ as in ‘branch of the family’
BTW - when the article says ‘the exact origin of the Bagratuni’, it means where they came from before they appeared in Armenia - and that is not even at issue here.
Your copypasta on the previous page - and I’m not posting this stuff as a point of argument, but only to show that you’re blindly and desperately posting copypasta that you haven’t read or don’t understand - the passages betray your propositions:
I don’t see any further argument here for you. The point has been clearly demonstrated in no uncertain terms. https://forums.blackmesasource.com/showpost.php?p=473704&postcount=107
Now, all you’re doing is arguing the semantics of a common word who’s meaning is clear in the context - a total Aspie move - and posting copypasta that opposes your own proposition.
Man I love this thread… 
I think, it can be called that I understood with what meaning he did use it. also I hope he can go and fuck himself.
same can be told about you then.
I don’t need your explanation. I wrote everything more exact up:
connected or associated
similar or related in quality or character
having close kinship and appropriateness
why don’t you copy paste about how certain are everyone in connection of those families… whoops there is nothing to copy.
I am not going to state my opinion about this, because you already know it.
and you are mistaken! AGAIN!
While yes, related can be used in a context that doesn’t mean family when the word is applied to multiple people it pretty much always means family.
As Zen has already pointed out, he has been brought up to believe his country is a mythical fairy tale land that has NOTHING to do with Armenia. He mentally just cannot handle the truth, so he will pick at ANYTHING to shield himself from it.
Arguing with him is like trying to teach a doberman advanced calculus.
Here’s how this breaks down:
Ethnic Georgians are an ethnoreligious group, meaning that the culture, history and religion are interdependent, as with Jews, the culture, history, and religion are the same thing. They have their own religion, their own National Church. They have a strong national, ethnic, religious and cultural identity which are all intertwined and all based on an historical myth.
The myth is basically that the Georgians are a biblical people, descended from King David.
This myth originated in the 11th century, and more details, including exact dates, were added in the 18th century, This myth was taken from a 1st millenium Armenian myth that the Armenians abandoned in the middle ages, and the Georgians adopted during their nationalization. The Georgian Bagratids used the myth as organizational rhetoric to bring together groups of varying ethnicity into a national identity with a shared origin, and in doing so created Georgia as a singular people, nationality, religion, and culture.
And so what does this have to do with this discussion? The Georgian myth says that the ‘Bagrat’ in the word Bagrationi is derived from the name of a single person - Bagrat, the son of Guaram, one of seven brothers of the Royal line of King David who came to Georgia from Palestine. The Georgians are descended from King David, and as such, are the chosen-people.
The entire story is a myth. It’s not real history, and no one outside of Georgia views it as anything but myth. Inside Georgia, I suspect that there are a certain percentage of people who understand that it’s a myth, and a certain percentage that believe that it is real history. Assassin is one of the people who think that it’s real history.
The actual accepted view of modern historians is that the Bagrat were a feudal family who acquired land first in what is now Armenia and branched into what is now Georgia - and by virtue of land ownership, attained noble status. As a house of nobility, they were referred to as the Bagratuni, or Bagrationi in Georgian, meaning the House of Bagrat. In English, we refer to them as the Bagratids, regardless of branch, i.e., Armenian Bagratids, Georgian Bagratids.
The Georgian view of history is well-known to be radically inaccurate. This may be the reason that the Swedish game makers used the word Bagratuni, instead of the Georgian spelling, because anyone interested in accurate history wouldn’t use a Georgian source.
Georgian Bagratids, Georgian Bagratuni, and Bagrationi are all the same thing.
From way earlier in the thread -
https://forums.blackmesasource.com/showpost.php?p=473482&postcount=53
Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48874/Bagratid-Dynasty
Encyclopaedia Iranica
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bagratids-dynasty
These are just 2 arbitrarily chosen, brief encyclopedia entries, but really, any reference in the world outside of Georgia will corroborate this stuff.
you are ignorant and stupid as hell. I am only arguing about bagratunis and bagartions being not the same dynasty.
that is myth about royal dynasty. that they are descendants of king David. what about people there is another myth, they consider to be descendants of one of the sons of Noah and it can even be partly true.
This proves that you haven’t been reading what I wrote or giving it your interpretation.
Exactly! lot of Originally Georgian lands are now parts of Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey(thanks to USSR).
Wrong.
-snip-
Thanks, Ram. I don’t know how much longer I could have gone before putting my fist through the screen.
Well Winged, as sad as it was to watch Assassin continue his fruitless argument, it was, on the other hand, very entertaining.