Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blondie
Q is an original altaic marker, but proto-turkics had other haplogroups like C, R1, or N1, but doesn't matter we are talking about N1 and R1 haplo among pre-magyars. In the case of magyars why we should consider the siberian N1 marker as non siberian turkic if we can consider it siberian ugric? Why? Or why we should consider the R1 haplo as turkic if proto-ugrics also had this haplo? Its like if you would find a cup of tea in your mom's kitchen and you would think she ordered it from Romania because there are tea in Romania too, no, it makes no sense. The most realistic version is this tea was made by your mom in the kitchen 10 minutes ago. Why should we prefer a foreing influence instead of local answer?
I feel like this is getting into the territory again of "what is a proto-ugric/proto-turkic?" The problem is that several hundred or a few thousand years, and these people were totally different already from one another. For example, the Conquering Hungarians were very different from the proto-Ugrics/Turkics just like modern Hungarians are genetically different from the conqueror-era graves. None of these people are going to be identical to their ancestors from 500, 1000, etc years ago. Especially on the steppes.
I understand your tea example, but I feel like this tea example would be better for explaining the philosophy of haplogroup and admixture diversity while still showing common origin in my mind:
There is a tin of tea A. Over time, tea A is used and supplemented in the same container with tea B. Then tea C is added once that blend of A and B gets smaller. Over time, tea A is replaced to the point where it is now a minority of the blend. However, every time you make the tea, you can always taste the subtle flavors of tea A. Would you not say that the tea is therefore a "tea A blend?" I would, and most people would imo. The only time that you can effectively call into question if that is true is if the old blend is removed entirely to the point where there is no more tea A in the tin.
Quote:
I ask you again, how can you classify an ethnicity linguistically if you don't know their language? Just because some profs thinks the avars were most likely turkics it doesn't mean it's 100% sure or something, because we don't know their language.
Don't ask me. Ask the academics that all say it. You know that even a casual search will say Avars were Turkic.
Quote:
No, most hungarians do care about the conquerors, but they don't make about it a turkic identity quoestion like you do.
More than you think. Also, I'm more interested on the commonality of the steppe legacy shared today and what we can do with it in the future. That is showing promise as well. Conqerors having Hunnic admix should be the highlight of the conversation. This has been asserted by academics in a few studies now, but it seems like people don't know quite how to frame a response to it. It is almost an eerie quiet..
Quote:
Okay, Hungary is not full member of Turkic Council just an observer member, and Hungary will leave it for sure if Orbán goes, simple because modern hungarians have nothing to do with them.
Full vs. Observer status had nothing to do with my point. Nothing at all, and you know it. The point was that the Turkic Council members say we are Uralo-Altaic, and you asked for countries, so I gave them to you. If Hungary left, they would still say the same thing, because the member states said it even before the Turkic Council was a thing. Your tangent about future membership is irrelevant to your original question since the member states will still call us Uralo-Altaic, which is a much fairer assessment than Finno-Ugric.
Quote:
And it's a very nice thing if turks like hungarians, but hungarians don't care about it in general, neither West Europe btw. Hungarians compare themselves to austrians (or other central euros), not only because the historical relations, but Austria is the idol of most hungarians economically, that we must reach their economic level, this rivalization is also existed in the Monarchy.
I am not interested in economic things on the meta sense. There are things more important than money to me. I take care of my fiances just fine. Rivalry with Austria is cringe in the 21st century. The only reason Austria is doing better is because it was on the "free" side of the Iron Curtain.
Quote:
Doesn't matter your opinion in this question, Hungary will be gypsie majority just like other neighbor countries if the government won't do anything.
You seem to think that I am somehow spooked by these numbers. What matters if the Hungarians will do something about it. Are you going to do something about it to help us, or are you going to just be sad that Roma are having kids and Hungarians aren't? If kids matter to people, then they have them, if not, they won't. Outside of ignorant mistake pregnancies or some form of rape, children are born when two people want them. A nation that wants no kids wants no place in the future. Thankfully, there will always be Hungarians interested in having a family, and not for stupid demographic reasons but because a family makes them whole. If you cannot see this, then maybe you either need time to think about things outside of the material, or maybe you don't want a kid. I don't know. It's all your choice.
Quote:
Wrong, the elite vs commoners identity existed before the feudal hungarian state. The hungarian nobility always claimed that they are descedants of counquerors, but commoners (hungarus) are not, so they don't belong to the hungarian nation. It was the thinking in medieval Hungary and later until the national awakening. And nobody talked about any racial thing.
You are missing the point. I asked you, during the Vata Tengrist Pagan uprising, the "commoners" could have any king. Yet, they restored the founding dynasty to the throne. Why? Because they wanted a Hungarian ruler, not a foreign one. It is your words that make it sound more of a racial difference thing (commoners being different and therefore tension between them and conquerors).
Quote:
Man... i deleted only 2 post, and now you present me like i always do it, bullshit. I have already said why i deleted it, i realized this is obsoleted, thats all. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.
Never said that you "always" do it. It was about this thread. Don't feel so attacked by it. It isn't like it matters in the long-term on TA. The only reason I type a conversation so many pages back is to do just that: have a conversation. I don't think that too many people will even make it this far in the thread.
Quote:
Yes i know in TA the genetic test is like Bible, but i said million times why i don't do genetic test. First of all i don't trust in these companies who store you personal datas, secondly the language, culture and identity does matter not this cheap genetic test what is basically just playing with numbers, i have seen such genetic map which claimed such nonsense things like hungarians are closer to swedes than finns, or you will get different results almost in every test, sorry i can't take it seriously.
Then why trust genetic tests at all? Why not get your genome fully sequenced and keep that DNA data? That is the most scientific data you can get. I agree that some companies aren't as good as others regarding their quality, but there is no way that on one hand you use genetic data in your arguments then say that you don't take it seriously at all. Or else why are you even here?
Quote:
Attila's haplo is irrelevant, it can be bantu-negro too does not matter, because he was hun and he will always be hun regardless of his paternal origin. And of course the hungarian academy is ugric oriented because the hungarian language is ugric, that's why. Its not a difficult thing, but i have never seen any hungarian prof who denied the significant old turkic influence. Neither me, nor Dunai don't deny that.
You are so close to understanding the perspective I am attempting to share about the Conquering Hungarians with that sentence. R1, N, etc, should not even matter that much in the end, but it does when people say nonsensical claims like Dunai stating because there is so much N that therefore Hungarians have a close connection with Mansi origins while R1 is dominant. The Conquerors are not Mansi, or Oghuz, or Kabar, etc. They are a unique blend that makes the Hungarians.
Dunai certainly did make such anti-Turkic claims, and many other anti-Turan TA posters have in the past on the forum. They will always say, "Hungarians had nothing to do with Turks" but now those voices have gotten much more quiet, and for good reason.
Quote:
No, székelys are not turkic peoples, they are hungarians, but an unique hungarian subgroup with most likely old turkic origin. Btw if you really interested the origin of székelys you should buy the rubicon "A székelység története" historical magazin, 20 page only about it, they analysed every theory. Very interesting.
It is a very interesting topic. I have multiple books about the subject from the 1990s to today and watch the evolution of the theories. I have a small collection on my bookshelf of my favorites. Some say we have a Turkic origin, some say we have a resettled Hungarian origin. I have stated my opinion here about my own thoughts.
I want you to clarify this:
No, székelys are not turkic peoples, they are hungarians, but an unique hungarian subgroup with most likely old turkic origin.
So are you saying that you think the origins are different from the Hungarians via the European Hunnic origin, and that makes the subgroup Turkic? Also, it seems contradictory that if you say a group is "most likely old Turkic origin" but then say that they "are not a Turkic peoples." You will need to clarify this.
Quote:
In my opinion, székelys are descedants of huns, and they lived in Transylvania since the huns, and later they adopted the hungarian language somehow. Of course this is just my subjective opinion.
Does this mean that you don't think that the Huns of Europe spoke Hungarian if my subgroup picked up Hungarian at some point? Because if Szeklers are Huns, and are not a part of the conquest from Asia but adopted the Hungarian language, then there must have been a different language; I would assume you would think it is Turkic? One of my favorite books is from Róna-Tas regarding Hungarian history during the conquest up to the establishment of the kingdom in 1000. In this, he says that while the name "Székely" is unique, he cannot state that the name alone is enough to differentiate from the Hungarians as a whole, and that settling on the frontier is not a good enough example, either. He says that a different origin is possible, but he believes that current evidence is inconclusive, and linguistically there are no differences in Szekler-Hungarian speech.
Of course everything is your subjective opinion. It's what makes talking fun.
