Are Hungarians Europeans?

[Melki]

Less than 100 000 Uralic speakers live east of the ural mountains (out of a total population of 25 million). Are you ignoring the fact that there are millions upon millions of IE speakers in asia as well?
Also, both IE and Uralic languages originated in eurasia.


You posted pictures of typical "steppic" customs and then claimed it to be part of "the sami lifestyle". Based on that, i just assumed that's what you meant.

Uralic languages are closely related to Altaic languages which are mostly Asians.
Besides, you know that the Ural mountains are an artificial boundary, decided by philosopher Denis Diderot for Catherine the Great who asked the encyclopedist to draw a clear borderline between Europe and Asia. The Urals are not a natural frontier, they are more like hills with gentle slopes, not steep mountain peaks. This border might as well have been the Volga, the Ob or the Yenisey,...or simply the Pacific Ocean. Same vegetation, same fauna on both sides of the Urals.

As for the IE languages, I always keep in mind that it means Indo-European, an Eurasian family by nature...

[Porn Master]

Uralic languages are closely related to Altaic languages which are mostly Asians.
Besides, you know that the Ural mountains are an artificial boundary, decided by philosopher Denis Diderot for Catherine the Great who asked the encyclopedist to draw a clear borderline between Europe and Asia. The Urals are not a natural frontier, they are more like hills with gentle slopes, not steep mountain peaks. This border might as well have been the Volga, the Ob or the Yenisey,...or simply the Pacific Ocean. Same vegetation, same fauna on both sides of the Urals.

As for the IE languages, I always keep in mind that it means Indo-European, an Eurasian family by nature...

Uralic languages are not closely related to Altaic languages, it's just hypothesis.

[Melki]

Uralic languages are not closely related to Altaic languages, it's just hypothesis.

They share a lot of grammatical and phonological similarities in their structure, though.

[Yggdrasil]

Uralic languages are closely related to Altaic languages which are mostly Asians.
Besides, you know that the Ural mountains are an artificial boundary, decided by philosopher Denis Diderot for Catherine the Great who asked the encyclopedist to draw a clear borderline between Europe and Asia. The Urals are not a natural frontier, they are more like hills with gentle slopes, not steep mountain peaks. This border might as well have been the Volga, the Ob or the Yenisey,...or simply the Pacific Ocean. Same vegetation, same fauna on both sides of the Urals.

As for the IE languages, I always keep in mind that it means Indo-European, an Eurasian family by nature...

"Closely related" is kinda stretching it. The "Ural-altaic" theory has been abandoned by linguists. The grammatical and phonological similarities you speak of are very ancient and predates "Proto-uralic" (which was clearly spoken in the Volga-kama region) by thousands of years. You also should make a distinction between genetics and linguistics as the two are not the same and should not be treated as such.
I'm very confused as to what you're trying to accomplish with your "the urals is an artifical boundary" argument here. Are you denying the fact that the vast majority of Uralic speakers live in eastern/northern/central europe?

[Melki]

"Closely related" is kinda stretching it. The "Ural-altaic" theory has been abandoned by linguists. The grammatical and phonological similarities you speak of are very ancient and predates "Proto-uralic" (which was clearly spoken in the Volga-kama region) by thousands of years. You also should make a distinction between genetics and linguistics as the two are not the same and should not be treated as such.
I'm very confused as to what you're trying to accomplish with your "the urals is an artifical boundary" argument here. Are you denying the fact that the vast majority of Uralic speakers live in eastern/northern/central europe?

Samoyedes, east of the Urals, for example are extra-European, geographically, ethnically, genetically, and culturally,
And it's not because some linguists have abandonned the Uralo-Altaic hypothesis that it's not valid anymore.

[Dunai]

To be honest I was expecting even higher percentages of deniers of Hungarians being Europeans than 15%, as this site gathers a large amount of trolls and provocateurs. While the origins of the Magyars are Eurasian, for somewhat more than a thousand years we are Europeans racially, culturally, and if that doesn't count as "enough" to be accepted as a European than it's rather pointless to continue arguing about it.

[Stears]

Samoyedes, east of the Urals, for example are extra-European, geographically, ethnically, genetically, and culturally,
And it's not because some linguists have abandonned the Uralo-Altaic hypothesis that it's not valid anymore.

About the Finno-Ugric and IE language groups.


Just some Hard-facts: Finno-Ugric language group was born in N-Eastern Europe (in the Elbe- Baltic Sea - URal region), until the roots of ancient IE language groups go back to Asian continent (Minor Asia). In the Eurasian supercontinent, there are more native speakers of IE languages in the ASIAN continent than in Europen continent. (Just remember the large IE speaking populations of India Pakistan Iran)
However, the 97% of Finno-ugric speaking people live in Europe. Therefore to call finno-ugric languages as "asian languages" is laughable illogical, unscientific and misleading.


TYPE IN ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA:"Proto Indo Europeans"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans


and see the maps about original ancient IE people!France Britain Italy haven't significant proto indoEuropean genes.The Germanic people have also very very low ratio of ancient IE haplogroup markers (R1a),only Eastern Europeans have high ratio of original proto IE haplogroups markers in Europe. Western European languages belongs to IE language group,but in very very distant way.(Have you ever heard about language-shift? The IE linguistic effect spreaded as a lingua franca and as a „dealer language” between many many populations during thousands of years) The real genetic IE people equal with the Eastern European people ( indians and iranians in the Asian continent.) Therefore being real (genetic) descendants of Indo-Europeans represent lower culture, technology & lower scientific and economic development in the European continent.

[Melki]

It would be interesting to know the origin of Turul, the mythological Magyar raptor bird.

It's more than probably of Turkic origin. Birds of prey (kites, hawks, gyrfalcons) were used for hunting in the steppes. Today, many Turks have Şahin ("hawk, buzzard") or Doğan ("falcon") as surnames. (Erdoğan means "falconman", if I'm not wrong)

[Yggdrasil]

Samoyedes, east of the Urals, for example are extra-European, geographically, ethnically, genetically, and culturally,
And it's not because some linguists have abandonned the Uralo-Altaic hypothesis that it's not valid anymore.

Samoyeds are peculiar because they are so different from other Uralic populations, both genetically and culturally. They are pretty much the only uralic group that has a clear predominance of Siberian genes compared to european ones (Mansi and Khanty are racially mixed as well, but the european side predominates slightly). Most linguists seem to believe they're recent language shifters so it makes sense.
The VAST majority of linguists HAVE abandoned the ural-altaic hypothesis simply because the similarities of the two language groups are not enough to suggest a recent common ancestor. There are however obvious links that cannot be ignored and pre-proto-uralic/proto-altaic might have been spoken near the vicinity of each other.

[Yggdrasil]

To be honest I was expecting even higher percentages of deniers of Hungarians being Europeans than 15%, as this site gathers a large amount of trolls and provocateurs. While the origins of the Magyars are Eurasian, for somewhat more than a thousand years we are Europeans racially, culturally, and if that doesn't count as "enough" to be accepted as a European than it's rather pointless to continue arguing about it.

What's very interesting is that even in 1000 AD Hungary, the population was, biologically speaking, almost exclusively made up of europeans.