> I have no problem saying that Indo-European is a preferable term nowadays, but to claim that the term "indo-germanic" is ethno-nationalist is just absurd.
It's not absurd because it was used ethno-nationalistically, by both Indians and Germans in the past. I've certainly heard it used in English exactly that way. In English, and especially in linguistics contexts, its nationalist associations are clear.
Furthermore, it's also patently incorrect: there is no higher affinity between the Indic and Germanic branches of Indo-European.
"Indo-European" is a term derived from the geographic span of the language family, not a particular language at either end (there is no "Indian" or "European" language). In contrast, the latter half of Indo-Germanic specifically refers to the Germanic sub-branch, to the exclusion of the many other Indo European sub-branches.
The fabrication of that supposed affinity to the exclusion of the other branches was a specifically nationalist exercise, different only in degree to more egregious things like the appropriation of the swastika (whose name and most prominent use is Indic). We know this because the Indo-European family was uncovered by William Jones when he observed the affinities of Ancient Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, not the Germanic languages (those connections then quickly followed). So its identity was always broader than Germanic from the moment of its discovery.
Therefore, Indo-Germanic doesn't make sense for the same reason Indo-Hellenic or Indo-Celtic don't make sense.
The oldest sub-branch affinity we can deduce in the Indo-European language family is the centum/satem split, which Indic and Germanic languages are on opposite sides of, and even that split is difficult to track down to single branch point, it could be an independent development in different sub-branches.
If it had been initially called Indo-Celtic or Indo-Romance and those names had stuck, it would be equally fine, but that's not what happened historically.
You're fighting against windmills, there are no perfect names for huge language families, this gets even worse when we look at certain language families in other continents. It's very common to just pick two subbranches (or geographic regions), combine them and call it a day (e.g. Sino-Tibetan).
> If it had been initially called Indo-Celtic or Indo-Romance and those names had stuck, it would be equally fine, but that's not what happened historically.
Yes, and in English, the language of this discussion, Indo-European is the term that is used, not Indo-Germanic.
It's not absurd because it was used ethno-nationalistically, by both Indians and Germans in the past. I've certainly heard it used in English exactly that way. In English, and especially in linguistics contexts, its nationalist associations are clear.
Furthermore, it's also patently incorrect: there is no higher affinity between the Indic and Germanic branches of Indo-European.
"Indo-European" is a term derived from the geographic span of the language family, not a particular language at either end (there is no "Indian" or "European" language). In contrast, the latter half of Indo-Germanic specifically refers to the Germanic sub-branch, to the exclusion of the many other Indo European sub-branches.
The fabrication of that supposed affinity to the exclusion of the other branches was a specifically nationalist exercise, different only in degree to more egregious things like the appropriation of the swastika (whose name and most prominent use is Indic). We know this because the Indo-European family was uncovered by William Jones when he observed the affinities of Ancient Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, not the Germanic languages (those connections then quickly followed). So its identity was always broader than Germanic from the moment of its discovery.
Therefore, Indo-Germanic doesn't make sense for the same reason Indo-Hellenic or Indo-Celtic don't make sense.
The oldest sub-branch affinity we can deduce in the Indo-European language family is the centum/satem split, which Indic and Germanic languages are on opposite sides of, and even that split is difficult to track down to single branch point, it could be an independent development in different sub-branches.