[SPLIT] The Roots of Hungarian

[esaima]

Mod Note: thread split from here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7336)


The Baltic languages are not very difficult at first look, especially lithuanian which has many familiar latin words. I believe contrary to the "finno-ugric" theories, that finnish is a hard language even if it doesn't look that bad in written form, it has absolutely no connection to hungarian, not in grammar, not in pronunciation, not in words with common origin. Basically with this I arrive to my sweet hungarian language, it has no relative language, and connecting it with any type of family tree it's useless and unproductive.
I think that it is not so easy to make the scientific world to believe that Khanty and Mansi are not your linguistical relatives.They tend to write it everywhere.

[Horka Ozul]

I think that it is not so easy to make the scientific world to believe that Khanty and Mansi are not your linguistical relatives.They tend to write it everywhere.

Yeah, since the linguistic scientists are the most conservative to old dogmas, classifications, I heard rarely that due to new evidences they rewritten the linguistic origins. Especially with the magyar language it's even harder, since our own academicians preach the finn-ugric theory and the magyar language supposedly belongs to it without daring to respond to this theory's revisionists. The Khanty and Mansi are nearly extinct siberian tribes. How in the hell could they possibly have the most related language to us, because I looked up to the so called evidences, and they are extremely weak to say at best :confused: (This last sentence isn't intended to you)

[Cail]

Yeah, since the linguistic scientists are the most conservative to old dogmas, classifications, I heard rarely that due to new evidences they rewritten the linguistic origins. Especially with the magyar language it's even harder, since our own academicians preach the finn-ugric theory and the magyar language supposedly belongs to it without daring to respond to this theory's revisionists.
And what is your opinion? Where do you think Hungarian language belongs?


The Khanty and Mansi are nearly extinct siberian tribes. How in the hell could they possibly have the most related language to us
Lol, how does being "nearly extinct siberian tribes" affect their ability to be Hungarian's closest relatives? Hungarians migrated to Europe, Khanty/Mansi stayed and are now facing extinction. The relation is quite loose, ofcourse, it's not like inter-Slavic, or inter-Romance degree of closeness. But they are closest living relatives indeed.


because I looked up to the so called evidences, and they are extremely weak to say at best :confused: (This last sentence isn't intended to you)

"Evidence" as you call it is quite obvious to any linguist. Mass lexical comparison clearly shows that, correlation is about the same as in Celtic group (Gaelic vs Welsh/Brethon subgroups). And not just some cognates, but stable regular correspondence.

Hungarin being Ugric is not even discussed, it's simply scientific fact.

[Majar]

Hungarin being Ugric is not even discussed, it's simply scientific fact.

Hungarians are linguistic attention whores. :p They want to be special and unique, this is where the Scythian-origin stuff comes in. Alternative theories are as simple as "The Soviets said the Magyars are Finno-Ugric, so it must be wrong."

[Poltergeist]

Hungarians are linguistic attention whores. :p They want to be special and unique, this is where the Scythian-origin stuff comes in. Alternative theories are as simple as "The Soviets said the Magyars are Finno-Ugric, so it must be wrong."

The fact remains that Hungarian has no apparent closer similarity with ANY other language. That's a pure and simple fact, which makes relating of Hungarian to Hanti-Mansi, or to Finnic languages for that matter, very debatable and open to quite legitimate criticism.

[Horka Ozul]

And what is your opinion? Where do you think Hungarian language belongs?


Lol, how does being "nearly extinct siberian tribes" affect their ability to be Hungarian's closest relatives? Hungarians migrated to Europe, Khanty/Mansi stayed and are now facing extinction. The relation is quite loose, ofcourse, it's not like inter-Slavic, or inter-Romance degree of closeness. But they are closest living relatives indeed.



"Evidence" as you call it is quite obvious to any linguist. Mass lexical comparison clearly shows that, correlation is about the same as in Celtic group (Gaelic vs Welsh/Brethon subgroups). And not just some cognates, but stable regular correspondence.

Hungarin being Ugric is not even discussed, it's simply scientific fact.

"Closest living relatives" :eek:. Do you even know what are you talking about? There are no eskimo looking magyars, so what's your purpose saying this stupid thing :rolleyes:. And don't even start explaining that the original magyars died out, and had a 360 degree genetic and anthropological change only in 1000 years, that's why they don't look as siberian eskimos anymore.

[Horka Ozul]

Hungarians are linguistic attention whores. :p They want to be special and unique, this is where the Scythian-origin stuff comes in. Alternative theories are as simple as "The Soviets said the Magyars are Finno-Ugric, so it must be wrong."

Actually austrian linguists spread this theory first, trying to ridicule a nation which was having it's national revival in the Romanticism era, this doctrine just consolidated under communism, and today slowly is being questioned by more and more hungarian linguists and historians (not enough sadly).

[Osweo]

Actually austrian linguists spread this theory first, trying to ridicule a nation which was having it's national revival in the Romanticism era, this doctrine just consolidated under communism, and today slowly is being questioned by more and more hungarian linguists and historians (not enough sadly).
WHAT is ridiculous about descending (partially) from a warrior people that rode all the way from the Urals, smashed everyone in their way, and set up a new nation, miles from their homeland?

Mansi, Bashkirs, Chuvash etc. are not scum, apes or suphumans. And they are your distant relatives. VERY distant, but still not unconnected.

1 - 10
Hungarian egy kettö három négy öt hat hét nyolc kilenc tíz
Khanty..... it ...katn khutem n'ate vet khut tapet nivet yaryang yang
Mansi...... akva katIg khurum nila at khot sat n'ololov ontolov lov

The correspondences are clear as day. :coffee:

[Cail]

"Closest living relatives" :eek:. Do you even know what are you talking about? There are no eskimo looking magyars, so what's your purpose saying this stupid thing :rolleyes:. And don't even start explaining that the original magyars died out, and had a 360 degree genetic and anthropological change only in 1000 years, that's why they don't look as siberian eskimos anymore.

Can you understand that there is no connection between linguistic relation, and genetical relation whatsoever? American Negroes are linguistic relatives of Swedes and Scots, austroloid Indians are linguistic relatives of white Iranians and so on. On the other hand, Basques are very close to other Iberians genetically, while completely different linguistically. So is your case. Khanty-Mansi are closest linguistical relatives of Hungarians, while genetically Hungarians are of course much closer to their European neighbors.

[Horka Ozul]

WHAT is ridiculous about descending (partially) from a warrior people that rode all the way from the Urals, smashed everyone in their way, and set up a new nation, miles from their homeland?

Mansi, Bashkirs, Chuvash etc. are not scum, apes or suphumans. And they are your distant relatives. VERY distant, but still not unconnected.

1 - 10
Hungarian egy kettö három négy öt hat hét nyolc kilenc tíz
Khanty..... it ...katn khutem n'ate vet khut tapet nivet yaryang yang
Mansi...... akva katIg khurum nila at khot sat n'ololov ontolov lov

The correspondences are clear as day. :coffee:

Is that so. Than why those almighty fighting Ural warriors still live a peaceful, sedentary life, mostly fishing and hunting. Their temper, culture is totally opposed to the magyars of the 9th, 10th centuries, who were masters of horses, masters of the arrow. In behavior there is no evidence that the magyars could possibly be related to these quiet eskimo fishing men. Even if it is so that we descend from them, than in magyar gene-pool there should be abundant Uralic, asian genes, also physically we should resemble to Uralic people, at least near 3-4% if not more, yet it's totally on the other way around. It's undeniable that the counting resembles somehow to theirs, but it is more possible that these small tribes got in contact with a large proto-magyar population from whom they got influenced linguistically, it is out of the question that such small tribes could influence a large population, as the magyars were already in the second half of the first millennium.

[Osweo]

Is that so. Than why those almighty fighting Ural warriors still live a peaceful, sedentary life, mostly fishing and hunting. Their temper, culture is totally opposed to the magyars of the 9th, 10th centuries, who were masters of horses, masters of the arrow. In behavior there is no evidence that the magyars could possibly be related to these quiet eskimo fishing men.
Right... Several faulty assumptions to deal with here. The Ugrians are now a harmless people, but in the Sixteenth Century they put up a real FIERCE battle against the Russians. The Konda Khanty especially proved themselves in this regard. There were numerous bloody rebellions.

Also, the Ugrians have a purely autochthonous horse vocabulary, despite their residence in the Taiga. Linguists say that this is a sign of their movement from the Steppe region, pushed away by the Iranians and Turkics. I might even theorise an Ugrian lead in horse domestication, some time in the very ancient past. There are even hints of this in Herodotus's Histories.

Additionally, you have to look not only at Ugrians but at the Turkic speakers who only relatively recently changed language. This means various Bashkir and Tatar subgroups and clans, who DO follow a way of life closer to your old Magyars. The Yugurs of Gansu in China can even be mentioned (half now speak Turkic, half Mongol), and I've heard of Hungarian musicologists finding some very curious parallels out there... Central Northern Asia has a great deal of history that is now poorly understood.

Heh, and the Eskimo are about a million miles away from any of these folks!

Even if it is so that we descend from them, than in magyar gene-pool there should be abundant Uralic, asian genes, also physically we should resemble to Uralic people, at least near 3-4% if not more, yet it's totally on the other way around.
I have never denied that the original Magyars numerically were a tiny proportion of all the people who entered into the modern Magyar ethnogenesis, but it's clear they had the cultural upper hand.

Present day Ural populations have been subject to newer waves of eastern migrants, changing them from their earlier racial condition.

The best parallel is probably that of Turkish in Anatolia. They don't resemble the old Central Asian Kok Turks, but it's undeniable that that is the source of their language, and that a small amount of Turanid shows in their racial background.

It's undeniable that the counting resembles somehow to theirs, but it is more possible that these small tribes got in contact with a large proto-magyar population from whom they got influenced linguistically, it is out of the question that such small tribes could influence a large population, as the magyars were already in the second half of the first millennium.
The Ob Ugrians do have a Samoyedic substratum that probably wasn't so important a presence in the original Magyars, before the latter got caught up in the Great Steppe conveyor-belt. But I think you're exaggerating this.

Does anyone have any genetic data for the comparisons needed here? I'd be interested to see it.

[Horka Ozul]

Right... Several faulty assumptions to deal with here. The Ugrians are now a harmless people, but in the Sixteenth Century they put up a real FIERCE battle against the Russians. The Konda Khanty especially proved themselves in this regard. There were numerous bloody rebellions.

Also, the Ugrians have a purely autochthonous horse vocabulary, despite their residence in the Taiga. Linguists say that this is a sign of their movement from the Steppe region, pushed away by the Iranians and Turkics. I might even theorise an Ugrian lead in horse domestication, some time in the very ancient past. There are even hints of this in Herodotus's Histories.

Additionally, you have to look not only at Ugrians but at the Turkic speakers who only relatively recently changed language. This means various Bashkir and Tatar subgroups and clans, who DO follow a way of life closer to your old Magyars. The Yugurs of Gansu in China can even be mentioned (half now speak Turkic, half Mongol), and I've heard of Hungarian musicologists finding some very curious parallels out there... Central Northern Asia has a great deal of history that is now poorly understood.

Heh, and the Eskimo are about a million miles away from any of these folks!

I have never denied that the original Magyars numerically were a tiny proportion of all the people who entered into the modern Magyar ethnogenesis, but it's clear they had the cultural upper hand.

Present day Ural populations have been subject to newer waves of eastern migrants, changing them from their earlier racial condition.

The best parallel is probably that of Turkish in Anatolia. They don't resemble the old Central Asian Kok Turks, but it's undeniable that that is the source of their language, and that a small amount of Turanid shows in their racial background.

The Ob Ugrians do have a Samoyedic substratum that probably wasn't so important a presence in the original Magyars, before the latter got caught up in the Great Steppe conveyor-belt. But I think you're exaggerating this.

Does anyone have any genetic data for the comparisons needed here? I'd be interested to see it.

Of course you are just speculating, saying all sorts of different things without properly studying the problem. There are several good books written about the formation of the magyars, showing different perspectives to this, not very known in the west yet, most written in hungarian, some even in italian (by italian historians) and unfortunately not that much in english (most in english are sustaining the official finn-ugric theories). You said that the magyars were very few who came into the Carpathian Basin, however all historians seem to agree that it were between 200000-400000, which is a lot for those times. Still by mystery if supposedly they were Uralic looking why magyars share nor genetic, nor physical trace to these Uralic people :rolleyes:. On the other hand, magyar speaking populations were already living in the Carpathian Basin before the Árpádians came, these were the avars, who melted quickly into the Árpádians (only possible explanation could be that they were speaking similar language to the Árpádians). For example Marácz László has pointed out that because of the grammar the magyar language is totally different from the other Finn-Ugric languages. Studying profoundly the structure of the magyar language it can be said that the hungarian language from origin is an alone standing, own language and maybe a proto-language. This language has some very ancient ideas and some of those ideas had their roots obviously straight from the prehistory. To give an example: the words for East, South and West are the same as for sunrise, noon and sunset (kelet, dél and nyugat). And if it is night (thus no sun) then the Hungarian uses exactly the word to indicate, north. And North (észak/éjszaka) is (like the sun is during the night) in the North. Other typical things are that the Hungarian uses the emphasis or stress at the first syllable and they don’t like agglomeration of consonants in one syllable (schola became iskola, scrin became szekrény).

[Osweo]

Of course you are just speculating, saying all sorts of different things without properly studying the problem.
I actually did read a fair bit about all this a decade or so ago. Forgive my generalisations - my memory isn't too perfect! But the broad outline of it stays in my mind.

You said that the magyars were very few who came into the Carpathian Basin, however all historians seem to agree that it were between 200000-400000, which is a lot for those times.
Aye, but the numbers of Slavs, Germans and so on who they captured as booty must have been far higher. And every century since 1000 AD will have further diluted the initial injection.

Still by mystery if supposedly they were Uralic looking why magyars share nor genetic, nor physical trace to these Uralic people :rolleyes:.
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/husa/origins/matsumoto.lecture.html

You might like this thread, by the way:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2739&highlight=mongol+spot&page=6
;)

On the other hand, magyar speaking populations were already living in the Carpathian Basin before the Árpádians came, these were the avars, who melted quickly into the Árpádians (only possible explanation could be that they were speaking similar language to the Árpádians).
A problematic assumption with no evidence.

For example Marácz László has pointed out that because of the grammar the magyar language is totally different from the other Finn-Ugric languages. Studying profoundly the structure of the magyar language it can be said that the hungarian language from origin is an alone standing, own language and maybe a proto-language.
That's meaningless. English is the 'proto-language' of American and Australian - so what? Proto-languages aren't special, they're just the reconstructed common ancestors of observed linguistic families. PIE would have had several similar languages around it, in all likelihood. It was just 'luck' that it became the 'parent' of a large family.

This language has some very ancient ideas and some of those ideas had their roots obviously straight from the prehistory. To give an example: the words for East, South and West are the same as for sunrise, noon and sunset (kelet, dél and nyugat).
THOUSANDS of languages have that! Even your Ukrainian neighbours.

And if it is night (thus no sun) then the Hungarian uses exactly the word to indicate, north. And North (észak/éjszaka) is (like the sun is during the night) in the North. Other typical things are that the Hungarian uses the emphasis or stress at the first syllable and they don’t like agglomeration of consonants in one syllable (schola became iskola, scrin became szekrény).
These are quite common linguistic phenomena. Nothing special here.
The only way to discuss the problem in question is to know a lot about the Ugrian languages, and I'm afraid neither of us can do that. :(

[Horka Ozul]

I actually did read a fair bit about all this a decade or so ago. Forgive my generalisations - my memory isn't too perfect! But the broad outline of it stays in my mind.

Aye, but the numbers of Slavs, Germans and so on who they captured as booty must have been far higher. And every century since 1000 AD will have further diluted the initial injection.

http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/husa/origins/matsumoto.lecture.html

You might like this thread, by the way:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2739&highlight=mongol+spot&page=6
;)

A problematic assumption with no evidence.

That's meaningless. English is the 'proto-language' of American and Australian - so what? Proto-languages aren't special, they're just the reconstructed common ancestors of observed linguistic families. PIE would have had several similar languages around it, in all likelihood. It was just 'luck' that it became the 'parent' of a large family.

THOUSANDS of languages have that! Even your Ukrainian neighbours.

These are quite common linguistic phenomena. Nothing special here.
The only way to discuss the problem in question is to know a lot about the Ugrian languages, and I'm afraid neither of us can do that. :(

That opinion about the supposed mongolian genetics of magyars comes from a japanese pan-turanist, obviously trying to point out that magyars are even today linked genetically to turanian people, however those assumptions are biased and totally wrong since this study http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml shows clearly that magyars have purely European genes (1% Uralic/Baltic).

[esaima]

The Khanty and Mansi are nearly extinct siberian tribes. How in the hell could they possibly have the most related language to us, because I looked up to the so called evidences, and they are extremely weak to say at best
Ok, Finno-ugric theories are wrong.And you also don´t trust them because they were were supported by Soviets and communistic Hungary.What is the right or more modern version? Where did Hungarian language come from?

[Horka Ozul]

Ok, Finno-ugric theories are wrong.And you also don´t trust them because they were were supported by Soviets and communistic Hungary.What is the right or more modern version? Where did Hungarian language come from?

Since it's not a derivation of any big language family, it should be acknowledged as a stand alone language, which roots as far from the formation of the big language families. There cannot be given a correct answer since prehistory is still a big blur, besides some archaeological findings and some rare written documents we don't really know what was going on 3, 4, 5 millenniums ago.

[superhorn]

Hungarian has been geographically isolated from all the other Finno-Ugrian languages for more than a thousand years, and so it naturally developed on its own .
Most speakers of the Malagasy language on Madagascar are African in appearance, yet they speak an Indonesian language which was brought there
from Indonesia long ago . The situation is rather similar to Hungarian .