Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Magyar-Sumerian Connection? (The Untenability of the Finno-Ugrian Theory)

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,484
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Lightbulb Magyar-Sumerian Connection? (The Untenability of the Finno-Ugrian Theory)

    THE UNTENABILITY OF THE FINNO-UGRIAN THEORY
    FROM A LINGUISTIC POINT OF VIEW
    Dr. László Marácz


    RESEARCH OF THE MAGYAR LANGUAGE RELATIONSHIPS


    In The Magyar Turning Point

    My book, Hungarian Revival: Political Reflections on Central Europe was published in 1995 in the Dutch language. This book's aim was to break out from the ring of oppression, news blackout, the multiple taboos that surround the Magyars of the Carpathian Basin, and their culture, to state the truth including the injustices of the Trianon peace dictate. As a linguist I raised the question of the Finno-Ugrian language theory, too. I came to the conclusion that this theory is untenable even from a linguistic point of view. In this book I summarize my arguments against the Finno Ugric relationship of the Magyar language in the following ten paragraphs

    1. Attempts to validate the Finno-Ugrian language relationships are based solely upon the relationships between words. Language research really began to take shape only after the second world war. When we speak of Finno-Ugrian language relationships, we mainly address the lexical parallels of these languages.(p.68)

    2. The Finno-Ugrian theory underdetermines. It fails to isolate any lexical parallels that are valid only in the case of the Finno-Ugrian languages, but that leave out other Eurasian languages out such as the Altaic languages, the Turkish, the Mongolian, the Sumerian, etc. (p.69). Sándor Csőke in his manuscript entitled The Sumerian-Mongolian-Turkish Equivalents Of The Supposedly Finno-Ugrian Word-Supply Of The Magyar Language (Eberstein, 1982), demonstrated very convincingly that the word stems and words listed under the 670 title-words of the Lakó-Rédei etymological dictionary, entitled The Finno-Ugrian Elements Of The Magyar Words, Vol.I-III (Budapest, 1971, 1972, 1978) occur not only in the so called Finno-Ugrian languages, if they appear in them at all, since forty percent of the entire vocabulary appears regularly in only one, the so called Finno-Ugrian language and is missing from all the others. Next to the Magyar language's Finno-Ugrian elements we can also find the Sumerian, Turkish and Mongolian equivalents. The same can also be said of the original basic strata of the vocabulary, which is considered a decisive factor in the search of language relationships, so it must hold true in the relationship of the Finno-Ugrian languages too. Pronouns, names of body parts, some words denoting family ties, objects or phenomena of nature, names of basic actions, and numerals belong into this category of the vocabulary. Based on logic we can surmise that we are dealing here with related languages. Let's take a closer look at some of these categories. The numbers are the same as in the Lakó-Rédei dictionary.


    Pronouns

    419. Magyar mi = we

    Sumerian me =as above

    Finnish me =as above

    Estonian me = as above

    Vogul män =as above

    Ostyak men =see dual

    Old Turkish biz =we (phon.: m > b)

    Turkish biz =as above

    Middle Turkish miz =as above

    Chatagaj biz =as above

    Mongolian bida = as above

    see manai = ai possessive pron. Ours

    Kalmyk manä = as above


    94. Magyar te = you

    téged, tied, tiéd/ yours
    -sz =verbal suffix

    Sumerian za/ze-, zi/ = te; z > t/ you

    Finnish si- = you

    Old Turkish sä- = you

    Turkish se- = you

    Mongolian či < ti- = you

    (This particle is missing from the so called Ugrian languages).


    Names of body-parts

    143. Magyar fej, fejet, fô; j-hézagtöltô/ head

    1. fej =head

    2. fej = ember, személy/ person

    Mongolian beje = bodies

    Manchurian beje = Mensch

    Yakut bäjä =as above

    Osman bäjin = brain

    Turkmen bejni = as above

    Azerbaijani. bejin =as above

    Uigur miji = as above

    Jakut mäji = head

    Lebed pää = brain

    Mongolian ekin = brain

    Middle Mongol. hekin = brain

    Manchurian fehi = brain

    Gold pejé = forhead

    Korean pong = head

    Vogul pangk, pungk = head, pinnacle, mountain

    Finnish pää = head

    Magyar ponk = dial. pinnacle

    Sumerian pa = appu = summit, top

    Arch. Magyar fe = arch. head


    Their ancient forms:

    Turkish pängi

    Finno Ugr. ??? pänge

    Arch.Mongolian päki

    Arch.Tungus peghi


    232. Magyar has = belly

    Sumero-Akkadian hašů= innards

    Kalmuck xoto = belly, stomach

    Mongolian qotu = as above

    Manchurian qodo = as above (phonology: š> t)

    Osman karyn = as above

    Uigur karyn = as above

    Old Turkish qarîn = belly, -phon. š > r

    Sumerian haš= qadâdu = to bend

    Magyar hasal, le-hasal = to lie on one's stomach

    Middle Turkish kîš- = to bow, to bend

    Osman kîš- =as above


    237. Magyar hát = back

    Sumerian gudu = kinnatu = hind quarters

    Vogul khute, khuti = behind something

    Old Turkish kid = the end, behind

    vö. kidin = as above

    Uigur kid = as above

    Chatagai kät = back of something

    Yakut kätäx = back of the head

    Mongolian gädä = back, behind, etc.


    323. Magyar kéz, keze-t = hand

    Sumerian giš = hand, foot,

    mountains

    loose change, etc.

    Magyar kezel, kezes, közvetítés, készpénz to handle, handy, mediation, cash

    keszkenô, kesztyű,.etc-= handkerchief, gloves

    Vogul kät = hand

    Ostjak ket = hand

    Finnish käsi = hand

    in compounds: käte-hand

    Chatagai kütöl = obedient horse

    Mongolian kötel- = to lead by the hand

    see: gesi-gün = members of the body

    Kalmyk gešůn = as above


    350. Magyar láb = foot , tip-or =stomp on [ d' > l]

    Sumerian dib = to go

    phon.1: to step; d > l

    2. nomen verbum

    Mongolian dab-dari-= touch the ground with the foot

    Kalmuck dabdr- = as above

    Mongolian daba- = to come and go over something

    Kalmuck daw- = as above

    Tunguz dow- =as above

    (The Magyar l-sound at the beginning of the word is

    secondary. The so called Finno-Ugrian words do not belong here.)


    442. Magyar nyak = neck. The K is an affix

    Sumerian I.gu = I. as above (phon.:g > ny)

    II.nag = to drink

    Magyar nyakal = to drink

    Magyar nyakaz = to behead

    Uigur jaka = collar

    Chatagai jaka = as above

    Osman jaka =as above

    Lamut-Tunguz ńäkam = neck


    477. Magyar orr = nose, tip

    Sumerian I. ur =. to smell

    II. ir = to smell

    Magyar orront = as above

    Magyar orr < or-r = smthing that smells

    Sumerian III. ur = tip of something

    Magyar a. orr = nose

    b. orom= mountain top

    Mongolian örü-me = tejföl; smthing on top

    Chatagai ör = elevation

    Kazak ör = as above

    Osman ör = hill

    Finnish vuori = mountain

    Votyak vyr = hill

    Ostyak vor = height


    539. Magyar száj= mouth

    Sumerian I. sag = face, (phon.: g > j)

    II. sa = as above

    Magyar szá = mouth

    Sumerian III. ka =face, mouth, opening

    palatalization: szá ...

    (None of the so called Finno-Ugrian elements can be admitted into this category because of
    phonetic reasons. All of the Vogul words are of Mongolian origin.)


    Vogul sunt -sut = opening, mouth,

    Mongolian suda-ga = furrow

    Kalmuck sudä =as above

    Khalkha suDä = as above


    556. Magyar szem = (-m suffix) eye

    Sumerian ši = to see; the onlooker

    Akkadian zîmu = face

    Vogul säm = eye

    Ostyak sem = eye

    Turkish sima = face

    Osman symar-la- =to select

    Votyak šin =eye

    Zyrian šin = eye

    Cheremiss šindza = eye

    lit. Mongolian sinjile- = to find, to examine

    Kalmuck šindzl- = to observe

    Cumanian synčla- = look at, inspect

    Mongolian sübe = ear of the needle

    Kalmuck süwe = as above

    Mordvine šelme = the eye

    Finnish silmä = the eye

    Estonian silm = as above

    Kalmyk tšilme- = to glance

    Mongolian silib-ki- = as above

    564. Magyar szív, szívet, = heart

    Sumerian I. šag = libbu = I. heart, middle

    II.šab = as above

    III.ša = as above

    Magyar szü, szú = heart

    Sumerian to be kind hearted

    Magyar szívélyes, szíves, szívesség,

    szível = cordial

    phon. u > v; b > v

    Sumerian ag = lubbu, the inside

    Magyar a.szék, szík = the yolk of the egg,

    inside,-kernel of smthg

    see: Sumerian šab = libbu heart, mood, etc.

    Old Turkish säw = to love

    säwig = love, lovable

    Uigur säb- = to love

    Osman säw- =as above

    Mongolian seb = improvement, rest

    Zyrian ševem = heart =

    Finnish syväm = as above


    A few words of family ties

    20. Magyar anya = mother

    Old Turkish ana = mother

    Oirot änä = as above

    Soron äjä = aunt, older sister

    Tunguz eńi = as above


    (The words ángy, anya are not children's vocabulary,
    but they do take us back to the ancient Sumerian roots. )

    Sumerian gana, gan = with young (animal)

    Old Turkish jängä; (phon.: g > j; n > ng)

    Magyar ángyi ; (phon.: g > ř; n > ngy) aunt

    see: gana

    Turkish ana = mother

    Magyar anya, (phon.: g > ř) mother


    The meaning of the Sumerian word is birthing-mother.

    1. Magyar apa, apja = father

    Sumerian ab, abba = father, grandfather

    cattle, cow

    Vogul âpa = grandfather, bear

    Middle Turkish aba = father, bear

    Osman aba = father

    Mongolian aba = as above

    Korean aba = as above


    246. Magyar hím =man, male

    Sumerian hum = sexual maturity

    Vogul xum = human, man

    vö. kum = as above

    Kalmyk küm = human

    see: Kümüdzi- = to become human

    to improve one's mind

    Mongolian kümün = man, human

    Samoyed kum, kumo = as above


    441. Magyar nô, neje = woman, wife

    Sumerian I. nig = liones

    II. nu-gig = Kultdirne*

    III. nin = sister

    Ostyak ning = wife

    Mongolian naji-ji-nar = feminine, womanly

    Kalmyk nâdzinr = as above

    Sumerian IV. na = sleep together

    Magyar nôszik, nász = wedding


    Objects and phenomena of nature

    57. Magyar csillog, csillag = to twinkle, star

    Sumerian zil = zalag = to twinkle

    Mordvin tšildor- = to shine, to glitter

    Cheremiss tšelgez- = as above

    Mongolian čilger = light, bright

    see:jilgir- = to radiate

    Ostyak čil = radiant

    see:šulpa- = to radiate, to shine,

    Kirgiz čolpan = morning star

    Mongolian c'olban = as above

    Uigur c'olpan = as above


    120. Magyar fa = tree, woood

    Sumerian pa = issu =as above

    see: mu = as above

    Vogul - pä = as above, after the names of trees

    Cheremiss pü = wood, tree

    Samoyed fe = as above

    Gold-Tungus pe = willow-tree

    Uigur y = woods, thicket

    see:y-gač = tree

    a-gač = as above

    (The beginning p-sound was lost in the Turkish languages.)

    Manschurian faka = Gabelholz*

    famha = wood-bobbin

    fungku = block of wood


    211. Magyar hal = fish

    Kalmyk xala = Fischadler fishing eagle

    lit. Mongolian qalu = as above

    Gold-Tungus xol-ton =as above.; -ton affix

    Finnish ku = nůnu = fish

    kua = as above


    384. Magyar mag /cernel

    Sumerian I. mu = zěru = seed

    II. magzat = child, infant

    magló...

    Uigur mäng = birdfood

    Middle Turkish mäng = seed, birdfood

    Tarantchan bäng = hallucinogen of hemp- seed

    Mongolian bugu-dai = certain seeds

    orig.: mago-t, mag, (phon.: b= m)


    207. Magyar hajnal = dawn

    Turkish kujaš= sun

    Sumerian I. kug = light, clean, clear

    Vogul khuj, stb. dawn

    Sumerian II. huš= huššu = red, reddish shine

    Ostyak xuši = red sky


    659. Magyar villám, villámlik, v-added= lightning

    vö. illog, villog= flickers

    Sumerian I. illu = to shine

    II. il = to flare up

    világít, velágít= to shine

    világ = light

    világos = bright, light

    III. ul-šar-ra = world

    Magyar velág, világ = v-added, world


    297. Magyar jég, jege-t, = ice

    Sumerian šeg = šurîpu = as above

    Vogul jangG = as above

    Mordvin jej, eng = as above

    Finnish jää = as above

    see: jägi, jähi = as above

    Manschurian juhe = as above

    Uzbek jax = as above

    Mongolian söng = spring ice

    Kirgiz seng = table of ice

    Mongolian jekere- = it will be cold


    Basic actions

    11. Magyar al, alj, alatt, alá,etc. = base,

    bottom, below

    Uigur al = underside

    see: altyn = down below

    Magyar alant=below

    Vogul ial = down

    Ostyak ilen = below

    Finnish ali- = something below

    Estonian ala = the lower...

    Samoyed iro = ground

    Sumerian ur = išdu = ground

    Votyak ul = base

    Mongolian ala = male repr.org.

    albatan = subordinates

    50. Magyar 1. csap, csapkod =to slap

    Lit. Mongolian čab-či- = to hit

    Kalmuck tšaptši- = as above

    Turkish čap- = as above

    Chuvash šup- = slap in the face

    Cheremiss šoB-, saB- = as above

    Sumerian sag = to hit

    (phon.: sag > saB > čab = csap; B = béta)

    Magyar 2. csap = to throw

    Sumerian šub = to throw

    Magyar 3. csapodár = fickle

    Sumerian šub = neglect

    Magyar 4. csappan = to lessen

    Sumerian šub = fallen, to fall

    Magyar 5. csapat= troop

    Sumerian sabu = mankind


    67. Magyar csuk = to close

    Sumerian I. šu = pahů = as above

    II. sag = as above

    ad: I. šu >ču-k > csuk; -k affix

    ad II. sag > čak = csuk to close

    Lit. Mongolian čuqu-ra- = spread out

    see:čogu-ji-la- = to close

    and čoguji = Hängeschloss*

    Selkup čagajap- = to close


    290. Magyar iszik, iszom, ivó= to drink, -er

    analyzed: i-sz-ik, i-v-ó

    base: i

    Vogul äi-sä-m = I drank

    Sumerian a. mů = water

    e. mů = water

    Old Turkish ič- =- č verbal affix/to drink, -é

    Kazak iš- = as above

    Kojbál is- =as above

    Finnish juo- = as above


    307. Magyar kel =arise

    Sumerian I. gal = to lift, to lift up, to pull up

    II. gal = to be secure

    III. gal = to fit, to sit secure Magyar kel, felkel, kel, el-kel, =to rise, to get up, sold out

    keltez, kelet, napkelte, = to date, east, sunrise

    útra-kel = to rise, start a journey

    Mongolian kel-ki- =to build a family

    egybe kel = to be united

    Old Turkish käl- = to come, to arrive

    Osman gel- = see: :g, as above

    Uigur käl- = as above

    Middle Turkish käl- = as above

    Vogul-Ostyak: kal- , kul- = to get or step up

    315. Magyar kerül, kering, etc.= to circle

    Sumerian I. gar = enclose

    II. gur = to wind, to return

    III. kar = closure

    IV. kur = cirle, bend

    Magyar kerék, kerek, kereng,= wheel,round,

    circular flight

    kering, kerít.= to encircle

    kert, keret, kerítéstetc.= garden,

    frame, fence

    Mongolian kerü- = to go round about, to circle

    Old Turkish quršadil- = to enclose

    Chagatai kur = hoop, belt

    Tartar kyrša- = to tie around

    Tartar kyršan = tire (around a barrel)

    Yakut kürä = an enclosed space

    Bashkir kertelü = to enclose

    Mongolian kürdü = ring, hoop

    kürijele- = to enclose

    qari- = to return

    Ostyak keret- = to return

    korak =hoop


    397. Magyar megy, ment, = he walks, went

    menni, me-het = to walk, may walk

    Sumerian ma = to go

    Old Turkish man- = walks, steps

    mang = step

    Ostyak man- = walks

    Finnish mennä = to walk

    Bashkir meneü = as above

    Uigur min-, mün- = to mount

    Chagatai min- = as above

    Turkmen mün- = as above


    Numerals

    321. Magyar két, kettô, ketten, = two, two together

    Magyar ket- számnév = two

    Sumerian I. kud = in pair, two

    II. gab = Duplikat, in double

    Mordvin kafto, kayto = 2 two

    Vogul kit = 2 two

    Ostyak kat = 2 two

    Lamut-Tunguz katak = -k affix companion

    katlin =-lin affix, in pair

    Yakut xat = double

    Kirghiz katmar = two together

    mar affix

    Osman katmär = double

    Old Turkish qatîn = repeatedly


    229. Magyar három, hárma-, = three

    arch. hamu = as above

    Vogul xurem = as above

    LappN golbmä =. as above

    Finnish kolme = as above

    Kalmuck gurwn = 3 as above

    Mongolian gurban = 3, as above

    gurmu-sun = triple

    Tunguz gurbin = a 3 yr. old reindeer

    Ostyak xolem = 3 three

    Sumerian gur = 1/3 gur liquid measure,

    1/3 gur= a third


    3. The deduction of Finno-Ugrian phonetic laws does not rest on solid grounds. Indogermanistics whence the concept of phonetic laws originated, has already given up its linguistic efforts based on phonetic laws. (p. 69)

    4. The reconstruction of the so-called Finno Ugric base language is arbitrary. It is presupposed that the Vogul radicals mirror the original Uralic Finno-Ugrian basic vocabulary. There are no linguistic rules to support this theory. (p. 69)

    5. Bjöm Collinder, a Swedish linguist, defines 400 Finno-Ugrian radicals. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, abbreviated MTA) determined 1000 Finno-Ugrian radicals and this is uninhibited overstatement. Not all base-language radicals appear in all Finno-Ugrian languages (p. 69). Today's Finnish linguistics strongly revises the Finno-Ugrian language theory. Finnish linguists research the Old Germanic relationships in place of the Finno-Ugrian language relations and they favor the theory of Finnish continuity.

    6. There are no written records available of the Finno-Ugrian language. Because of this the Finno-Ugrian basic vocabulary cannot be determined. Neither the so called phonetic law can be validated, nor the language communities such as the Ugrian, Volga-Finn, etc., which are of a later presupposition (p. 69). Because of these facts, the entire Finno-Ugrian basic language is mere speculation. The Finno Ugrian linguists themselves admit this.

    7. It is well known that in the etymological dictionary (TESZ) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, a great number of words can be found that are listed as "of unknown origin". The question arises, why does the TESZ not make any effort to find analogies in the languages of ancient cultures, such as the Sumerian or Sanskrit, or simply list them as of "Magyar origin" if in fact their Magyar origin can be documented (p. 70)?

    8. There are basic grammatical differences between Magyar and the Finno-Ugrian languages. For example, only Magyar uses the system of verbal prefixes. This struck a cord with Gyula Décsy, Finno-Ugrian linguist too but he ascribed it to the wanderings of the Magyars. Authors Hajdu and Domokos did not even mention this though they examine twenty grammatical structures in the Finno-Ugrian languages. It can be noted that none of these grammatical forms appear in the Finno-Ugrian languages they mention (Samoyed, Obi-Ugrian, Magyar, Permian, Mordvin, Cheremiss, Finnish and Lappish): they did not realize that such tables provide excellent and strong evidence against the Finno-Ugrian relationships. They also illustrate the double standards used by the Finno-Ugrian theorists. (p.70).

    9. Pál Hunfalvy submitted a study to the Journal of the Hungarian Academy in 1851 in which he argues that the Hungarian radicals cannot be explored with word-analysis. (He did this at a time when research was well under way toward the creation of a dictionary which was supposed to embrace this huge vocabulary with the aim of analyzing and charting the internal structure of the Magyar language. This Czuczor-Fogarasi [CzFo] dictionary is still a unique and an irreplacable Magyar cultural treasure.) The analysis of Magyar words is only being done with the help of related languages. But we never read of how these relationships can be determined. Lacking a better tool, we may presuppose that Finno-Ugrian linguists prefer word comparisons. If so, then this method becomes a classic example of circular reasoning. According to this method a certain Magyar lexical element becomes a radical only if they also exist in the related languages. Related languages can be established only if they possess common radicals. Modern linguistics rejects Hunfalvy's method of word-analysis because it holds the inner reconstruction of lexical elements paramount. The fact that a word element constitutes a radical is determined by the structure of the Magyar language. As a result, modern linguistics rejects the Hunfalvy-paradigm on the grounds of logic and scientific linguistics. Because it forms the basis of Finno Ugrian linguistics, the entire paradigm leads us astray. The TESZ works from this base also. The Hunfalvy program has bizarre consequences that permit the existence of magyar radicals only if they are present in the related languages also. These he calls of Finno-Ugrian origin. Any words that are not present in the other Finno-Ugrian languages he handles only as loan words.

    10. It is apparent that Magyar lexical radicals have to be researched in the Magyar vocabulary and no other place. According to Gergely Czuczor and János Fogarasi the Magyar radicals are monosyllabic lexical elements without affixes or markers. The Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary is based upon the linguistic principle that the Magyar radicals do not stand alone but can be compared with radicals similar in form and content is a further principle. These radical groups form so-called "word-bushes", or word clusters. Thus the Magyar radicals can be recognized by the fact that they belong to these word clusters.


    For example let us look at the monosyllabic radicals of the K-R consonantal word cluster, the formation of which CzFo discusses in terms of comprising various nouns, suffixes, or further conjugations. We show some examples below, printing the radicals in bold type:

    1.

    kar (Magyar radical), arm

    kar-ika (Magyar wordformation), hoop

    kar-ima (Magyar wordformation), border, brim

    kar-ám (Magyar wordformation), pen

    ker- (Magyar radical),

    ker-ek (Magyar wordformation), round

    ker-ül (Magyar wordformation), circular motion

    ker-ít (Magyar wordformation), to enclose

    kor-c (Magyar wordformation), hem of garment

    kör-öz (Magyar wordformation), to cirle around smthg

    kör-ny (Magyar wordformation), to

    kör-nyez (Magyar wordformation), to be in the neighborhood

    kur (Magyar radical),

    kur-itol (Magyar wordformation), to grind, to sharpen

    kur-kál (Magyar wordformation) to search


    The K-R consonantal radical, which are bonded by the common theme of circularity, the TESZ subdivides it into such individual components that the common bond ceases to exist:


    kar (Old-Turkish), arm

    karika (possibly Magyar), hoop

    karima (northern-Slavic), brim

    karám (unknown origin), pen, fold

    karing (not mentioned), to circulate, to circle

    ker (not mentioned),

    kerek (the further development of ker-), round

    kerül (Finno Ugrian), to move around something

    kerít (Finno-Ugrian), to enclose

    kering (further development of ker), to fly in a circular pattern

    kéreg (derivative), bark, outer covering

    kor (Turkish origin), age, as in aetas

    korong (Slavic origin), disk

    korc (Old French),

    korlát (unknown origin), railing

    kör (created by analogies), circle

    körös (Magyar development), circular

    köröz (formation), to circle around

    körny (new creation from the 19th c.), *

    környez (19th c. creation), to neighbor a location

    körül (finno Ugrian), around

    kur (not mentioned),

    kur-itol (unknown origin), to grind, to sharpen

    kur-kál (origin uncertain). (See p. 102) to search


    [The following dictionaries were used to translate the archaic words: Kálmán Szily, A Magyar Nyelvújítás szótára, Budapest, 1992, and Dr. Móric Ballagi, Új Teljes Magyar és Német Szótár, Budapest, 1857. Károly Lázár, translator]



    II. METHODS OF THE FINNO-UGRIAN WITCHES' KITCHEN

    László Honti, the Finno-Ugrian professor of the University of Groningen, reacted to the above on three different occasions. One reaction came in the correspondence section of the NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch daily paper, on February 3, 1996; the second was in an interview he gave to the newspaper of the University of Groningen, called UK, on February 15, 1996; and the third was in a lecture he held at the invitation of Mikes Kelemen Kör in Amsterdam on February 25, 1996. His reactions do not satisfy the necessary scientific criteria, as I will now demonstrate. The Honti kind of attacks can be taken seriously neither in style nor in the method of reasoning if we consider all of the contraindications, and "disturbing" elements. The question arises, whether it is worth the effort to discuss such theses any further. My answer is that regretfully these do have to be answered. In my opinion, one must to establish and demonstrate where the error in the Finno-Ugrian paradigm lies, where its distortions are, and why on moral grounds is it impossible to hold a worthy, scientific discussion, with the proponents of the Finno-Ugrian theory. The analysis of similar discussions, and approaches is not strictly connected with linguistics, but it is rather the subject of the science of sociology. These phenomena gives us an insight into the workings of the paradigm, which uses the same methods which began with Hunfalvy and his group. It also gives insight into the social status of the paradigm. For this reason, I do not consider this "debate" to be a scientific debate between two linguists, but rather a type-phenomena. Critics of the Finno-Ugrian approach will be exposed to the following:

    1. There was no effective reaction to any of the counter arguments contained in my book (Magyar Fordulat). Honti did not refer to the body of scientific research that already refuted the basic tenets of the Finno Ugrian theory. There is no mention of non-Finno-Ugrian Magyar linguistic research, such as László Götz's magnificent work, contained in two volumes.

    2. Honti began his Amsterdam lecture that my scientific approach is on the level of an article published in the Hócipő [This is an extreme liberal Hungarian satirical weekly. Editor.] entitled "Do the extraterrestials speek Magyar"? and he handed out his leaflets among the audience of his lecture. He declared in front of the Amsterdam public that I was not really a linguist and that my book, Magyar Fordulat should never have been published, etc.

    3. According to Honti, I stated that there was no connection between Magyar and the Finno-Ugrian languages (NRC Handlsblad), and that I was an adherent of the Magyar-Turkish language relationship. (NRC Handlsblad, UK, Amsterdam lecture). I want to make it unmistakably clear that there was no such statement in the Magyar Fordulat. There are parallels between the Magyar and the so-called Finno-Ugrian languages, but these are not as exclusive as the Finno-Ugrian theorists would lead us to believe. I also must mention that I never discussed a Magyar-Turkish language relationship. I stated only, that there are parallels between Magyar and Turkish, too. (See the lexical parallels under 1.2.) Honti's tactical approach is clear: he wants to put statements into my mouth which I never said, but in the presence of which the Finno-Ugrian theorists can feel comfortable that the superiority of Finno-Ugrian theory has been established. According to the adherents of the Finno-Ugrian school, the linguistic debate about origins of the Magyar language in the nineteenth century ended with the victory of the Finno-Ugrian theory over the Turkish-origin theory. Here we have to note that the so-called "Ugrian-Turkish war" shows signs of being an artificially inflated debate. The theories of Ármin Vámbéry suffer from the same problems of methodology and practice as do the Finno-Ugrian theories.

    4. In science there are no eternal truths, dogmas. There are theories, which have to be tested when new facts emerge. According to Honti this is not necessary since, according to him, the "Finno-Ugrian origin of the Magyar language can be considered as fact from the 18th century on." (NRC Handelsblad) First of all, the antiquity of a scientific theory does not guarantee its correctness. Furthermore, by today's views, 18th century European linguistics cannot be taken seriously. For example, there was hardly an earnest theory concerning grammar, linguists' work was based on word lists at best. Honti himself feels that this is too little, since language relationships go beyond mere lexical elements. If this latter statement is true, what did János Sajnovics prove in his book which was published in Copenhagen in 1770 concerning Magyar-Lappish language relationships, The Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum Et Lapponum Idem Esse. By the standards of modern linguistics, he proved nothing. At most he showed that there are word-parallels between the Magyar and Lapp languages. Even the Finno-Ugrian theorists admit this fact. Comparative linguistics has not accepted words for the last 150 years, as etymologically related on the basis of content and sound values. As a consequence, Honti's statement that the Finno-Ugrian language relationships are a closed fact as of the 18th century is without foundation. Finno-Ugrian theorists never mention one of Sajnovics' statements from his masterwork, which was never translated into Magyar. Sajnovics' research was not limited exclusively to proving the Magyar-Lapp language relationships, but considered these languages part of a chain that reaches from Europe's northern perimeters in a continuous band all the way to Asia and which is still alive, writes Sajnovics. From the German edition: "Dass ich aber meine Műhe für diese Untersuchung zu Recht aufgewendet habe, kann ich kaum bezweifeln, wenn ich bedenke, dass es sich um das Idiom jenes Volkes handelt, das einst nach einhelliger Überstimmung der historiker diese überaus ausgedehnten nördlichen Reiche als erstes besiedelt hat und unter seiner Herrschaft ungeheure Landstriche umfasste. Auch heute erstreckt es sich vom äussersten Europa wo es mit seinem entlegenen Winkel nach Westen und Norden blickt, über Finnmarken, Lappland, Finnland und Tataria in einer ununterbrochenen Folge bis nach Asien." (Translation: "I can hardly doubt that I have spent my time with this research well especially if I take it into consideration that it concerns the idiom of those people, who, according to the unanimous agreement of historians, first settled this expansive northern empire which included enormous territories. Even today it extends from the most distant parts of Europe from whose farthest corners one can look east and west and see past Finnmarken, Lapland, Finnland and Tartaria in an unbroken view as far as Asia.")

    Because of this it would be just to declare Sajnovics as on of the forerunners of the Ural-Altai linguistics' forerunners. In the light of this it is also understandable why the members of the Turán Társaság (Turanian Society) considered Sajnovics as their spiritual father. Thirdly if the Finno-Ugrian theory would have been a proven fact at that time, why did Sándor Körösi de Csoma go to India in the first half of the 19th century, to search for Magyar origins? The Finno-Ugrian theory apparently did not convince him even though he was in the German center of the Finno-Ugrian studies during his years at the university of Göttingen the 18th century arguments about Finno-Ugrian origins did not convince him. It is also documented that he spoke several languages.

    5. Honti declared in his Amsterdam lecture that one cannot state that languages are not related, one can only state their relationship to one another. If this is true than what is the basis of Honti's statement that the Magyar and the Turkish languages are not related, that all non Finno-Ugrian relationships have to be cast out and the only correct language relationship is the one between the Magyar and the Finn languages.

    6. According to Honti, my statement "the Magyar linguists are not clear about the origin of several Magyar words is incorrect (NRC Handelsblad). This statement of mine - regrettably - is true since the present Magyar linguistics which is in office today casts out the basic tenets of the CzFo great dictionary. It is for this reason that the Hungarian linguists don't write about the close connection between such radicals as:

    3. öv, év, ív, av-ul (belt, year, arch, coming of age)

    4. nap, nap-a, nép, nem, nem-z, nem-zet (sun, day, male progenitor, people, procreate, nation)

    5. megy, mász-ik, moz-og, moc-orog, mocc-an (walks, creeps, moves, moves about, stirrs)

    6. lity-eg, löty-ög, lotty-an, lötty-en, litty-lotty (to swing about, a liquid tossing about in a container, spilling out, swish-swoosh)

    7. kolomp, kolonc (cowbell, a weight around an animal's neck)

    8. láng, lámp-a (flame, lamp)

    9. ro-hadt, ro-ggyant, ro-kkant, ro-ppant, ro-zzant, ro-zoga, ro-skad, ro-ssz, ro-zsda (rotten, feeble, disabled, enormous, rickety, in a state of collapse, bad, rust)

    10. gyűl-öl, gyal-áz, gyil-kol (hates, calumniates, kills)

    11- tip-eg, top-og, tip-ereg, top-orog, tap-os, tep-er, tip-or, tapp-ancs, top-ánka, tap-sol, táp-ászkodik, betopp-an, toty-og, tögy-ögy, toty-orog, tögy-örög, tögy-örészik (the first four and the last five words are connected with tip-toeing in one place, then: to step upon, to press to the ground, another word for foot or paw, a pretty little shoe, to clap, to slowly get up, to come in unexpectedly).

    12. csepp, csepp-en, csep-eg, csap, csap-lár, csap-zott, csap-adék, csobb-an, csob-og, cseb-er, csup-or, csob-olyó, csib-or (a drop, to drip, to drip, the person who pours the drinks from a container in a bar, wet from perspiration, precipitation, sound of the water after an object fell in it, babble, as in a babbling brook, a bucket, a cup, a shepherd's water container, water scavenger beetle).


    Later I shall return to the organization of the Magyar dictionary according to their inner structure into the so called "word-bushes", words derived from a single radical. (See III. for several examples.) In my view the most important duty of today's Magyar linguistics is to establish a research program for the organization of these lexical relationships. First the dictionary's inner structure has to be established. Honti is in error in his statement that the basic tenets of etymological research cannot be contradicted, because "the Finno-Ugrian linguistics has a long history (NRC Handelsblad). The antiquity of a paradigm is no proof of its correctness. One also has to state strongly that the TESZ travels on dead-end tracks.

    3. According to Honti I was not supposed to mention Hunfalvy's original, German name which is Hunsdorfer. In my book, the Magyar Fordulat I demonstrated the political background of Finno-Ugrianizm. The Finno-Ugrian theory gained acceptance when Hungary was not an independent nation, during the so called Bach-epoch, later during the communist regime, in other words when Hungary was subject of sever physical and psychological terror. Hunfalvy and Budenz placed the linguistic researches of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences into the service of the Austro-German power politics. The character of my book, (which mirrors my political opinion) justifies the need to mention Hunfalvy's (original) German name. But let us cite count Széchenyi as crown witness, who was the founder of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He wrote in 1851 the following: "And now even this last really Magyar institute should be uprooted? Regrettably, yes! Because the basic rules of the Academy that were recently changed are nothing else and nothing less than such a stabbing which leads easily to its death, at least as I see it with the eyes of my soul." One also has to mention that the originating of the Magyars from the northern people has much older traditions, because of western cultur-political reasons also. Mihály Horváth, Kossuth's minister of culture wrote a book titled Twenty-five Years From Magyar History in which he states, that Matthias de Miechov, bishop of Kracow invented the "Finno-Ugrian" origin of the Magyars, which was later declared missionary material by Sylvius Piccolimini, the later by pope Pius II (1458-64).

    I objected to Hunfalvy and the Finno-Ugrian theory because they do not satisfy the requirements of scientific study, as I have already shown above. The Alpha and Omega of Finno-Ugrian theory is the rejection of the basic tenets of the Czuczor-Fogarasy dictionary. Anyone can ascertain the correctness of this latter since they prove to be a useful tool even today. According to Honti my attack against Hunfalvy is "an attack against all the Magyar and Finno-Ugrian linguists." (UK)

    13. The pseudo science of Finno-Ugrianizm comprises the following tenets:

    1. We don't talk about anything that does not justify the Finno Ugrian theses

    2. Anyone who judges the Finno-Ugrianizm can and should be subject to slander

    3. Put such words into the mouth of the critic which he never said, and refute this statement.

    4. Finno-Ugrianizm possesses the eternal truth.

    5. Within Finno-Ugrianizm double standards are permitted.

    6. Stating the truth is not allowed

    7. The sciento-political background of the theory is a taboo.

    Let us see now why the basic reasoning of Finno-Ugrianizm failed. First we have to establish that:

    14. Honti's Amsterdam lecture in no way proved the Finno-Ugrian relationship of the Magyar language.

    Honti wanted to prove the Finno-Ugrian origins of the Magyar language in his Amsterdam lecture. For this reason he distributed a hand-out (see addenda IV) in which very "engaging" facts surface. The title of his lecture "Is our mother-tongue Finno-Ugrian?" is only a supposition which cannot be answered. Honti's affirmative answer was only an empty statement. According to Honti the supporting material which supports the Finno-Ugrian relationships have to conform to the following tenets: "there are very well defined criteria for the establishment of the relationships between languages, and among these it is only a very small section of the identical forms of the base-vocabulary mentioned by Marácz and the system of sound structure which appear in them systematically. It is of no less importance the grammatical relationship of these languages, which Marácz did not mention. In the recognition of language relationships the so called mutual words play an important role." (NRC Handelsblad). The real scientific value according to his hand-out either contradict the above criteria, or they are insufficient, or they hold true to other, none Finno-Ugrian languages also. For this reason his argument appearing on the handout has no validating power. Let us examine Honti's reasons one by one:

    1. Honti attempts to validate the Finno-Ugrian language relationship with an Indogermanic example. It is already at this point that his reasoning fails since the Indogermanic school gave up the method of working with sound-values, as László Götz has shown this very convincingly. Since the Finno-Ugrianizm is an appendix of Indogermanism with the fall of Indogermanistics the Finno-Ugrian theory failed too (in this field). For this reason we may put to rest one and a half page of the Honti hand-out.

    2. On page 2-3 we find Finnish-Magyar word-parallels, sound-correspondences. The other languages were not mentioned due to limited space of his handout. Maybe because the situation is so obvious? The basic Finno-Ugrian word complex cannot be documented. Because of this the whole list based upon sound-correlation is pure speculation which awaits validation. (I wonder if something that cannot be proven could be validated if a century and a half was not enough to accomplish this feat?). It is arbitrary that in Magyar the sounds changed. The question arises what is the reason that all the other languages represent the sounds of the Finno-Ugrian base-language and why did they change only in the Magyar and not the other way round? To these questions we don't get any answers.

    3. The personal pronouns correspond only in part, but there are unexplainable differences too. For example there is no explanation for the difference for the first person singular which in Finnish is hän and in Magyar it is "ő" and the parallel between the two is not equivocal. There are further functional differences between the two personal pronouns, because the hän cannot be pronounced, the ő on the other hand is pronounced.


    (hän) tulee = he comes

    (ő) jön as above


    The parallel here is superficial because if we take a closer look at the data we find that qualitatively we are not talking about the same thing. The numerals too show only partial parallels.

    4. From a language-history point of view phonotaxis has no validating poser. It is even contradictory because the Finn handles the conglomeration of consonants differently from the Magyar.

    5. Vowel harmony exists in both languages. But this is characteristic of only a few so called Finno Ugrian languages. The entire language-family cannot be accepted as one. See the tipological ***table of Hajdú-Domokos (supplement I.). There are important deviations from this. For this reason the vowel-harmony has no validating power.

    6. The grammatical elements are connected with the similar elements of other agglutinative languages. The triune structure of the cases appear not only in the Finno Ugrian languages. They are not unique to the Finno-Ugrian languages. Furthermore there are methodological differences too, as demonstrated in the Hajdu-Domokos appendix.

    7. In Hungarian the case inflections of the verbs often depends on the verbal prefixes which are totally absent in the Finnish language. For this reason this has no validating power either.

    8. Both languages express possession with the use of copulative verb instead of the "habeo" structure. Aside of the mutual properties the shown structures are completely different. In Finnish in the possessive structure the owner bears the adessivian -Ila-suffix, in Magyar on the other hand the dative is formed by the -nak suffix. The Magyar "habeo" structure shows similarity with the Magyar possessive structure where in one variation the -nak structure also appears, as in Jánosnak a háza, meaning John's house. The lack of genitive and a possessive structure in Finnish is mutual in the Magyar and in Finnish languages, but the parallel is superficial here too. Deeper analysis shows that the two structures in reality are very different from one another.

    9. In compound sentences we find a participial structure. This can be found not only in the Magyar and Finnish languages but also in Sumerian, Mongolian and Turkish. For this reason this cannot validate an exclusive relationship between the Finnish language and the Magyar.

    There were some aspects which Honti could not explain in his Amsterdam lecture. According to Honti my thesis is incorrect which states that the Finno-Ugrian approach does not take several other languages into consideration. According to him several generations have studied the Turkish, Slavic, German and Latin influence upon the Magyar language (NRC Handelsblad). Every foreign word that came into the Magyar language can be found in the dictionary, every influence has already been researched (UK). First of all it is not true that several other languages have been taken into consideration concerning the origin research of the Magyar language. If this were true than why don't we find in use the arguments of Zsigmond Varga, Kálmán Gosztonyi who documented that structurally the Magyar and Sumerian languages are related languages. The academic linguists do not expand the linguistic relationships with many other languages as Sándor Csőke, or László Götz have done and this practice is unacceptable from a scientific point of view. Even if they included some other languages into the origin-search of the Magyar language it was solely with the prejudice that the loaner was always the Magyar; Honti himself adheres to this method. This research rests on presumptions and is invalid.

    The Sumerian language relationship was also mentioned in Amsterdam. According to Honti there are some overlapping points between the two languages. But these came into the Magyar language with the aid of the Finnish language. Only one question remained open: how did this happen? Honti admitted that there are 2-10 identical words between the Magyar and the Kechua languages. If there are so few identical words than we need an explanation as to why this question arose in the first place. The Japanese Magyar word-relationships, the 200 Japanese identical words came about by accident according to Honti. If chance plays such a great role as in the case of the Magyar-Japanese connection than why does he not use the same argument to the Magyar-Finn language relations too?



    III. BACK TO CZUCZOR-FOGARASI
    I would like to outline the research program concerning the lexical elements of the Magyar language, which is firmly grounded as far as methodology and linguistic aspects are concerned, in opposition to the basic tenets of Finno-Ugrianizm. It starts with the base that we need to reconstruct the Magyar language's own lexical elements and not with the help of a non-existing, presupposed language which cannot be documented.

    1. The Magyar vocabulary's monosyllabic radicals are readily available in the so called CzFo Magyar language dictionary. By collecting the relatives of these radicals we can establish word-groups ("word-bushes") which consist of radicals with identical form and content. This work was partly started by Czuczor-Fogarasi. This dictionary demonstrates the strong inner cohesion of the Magyar language. Their basic tenet was that the primitive lexical elements with similar form and mutual content belong together. We will call the mutual radical of a wordgroup a creator radical. This radical is abstract and does not possess a linear preference. This is validated for example by the relationship of the Magyar words cse-kély/kics-i, or kígy-ó/gyík radicals. For this reason the CS-K, K-GY are abstract radicals which are capable of creating words from both directions. The modification of creating radicals are determined by very steady linguistic rules.

    Hypothetically vowels can change freely. Consonants can form a unit within the so called natural phonetic categories, or in other words the modification of the radicals can occur only within consonants of a similar type, or consonants that were used in the same position. For example consonants of a similar type, k- and g- (related explosive sounds) permit the relationship of the words ker-ek and gör-be (round and crooked), or the dental z- and d- sounds permit the relationship of the concept of víz- and véd (water and protection). CzFo also use restrictions in meaning. The radicals are not only related when they have a similar form, but when they have a similar momentum of meaning also. The momentums of meaning have to be readily recognizable as in the case of the K-R creator radicals and the elements of the wordgroup that belongs to them. Every word has an almost circular meaning-momentum. Considering that the Magyar radicals are very old and come from a different cultural age the meaning-criteria cannot be used very rigidly because we don't see the apparent correlation of meaning. Adorján Magyar also reminds us of this.

    For this reason the zero point of work hypothesis in the research of the Magyar radicals, or creator radicals is the following:

    17. Radicals with the same phonetics are variations of one and the same creator radical and these radicals have to be connected with one another in meaning.

    This lexical research principle has consequences also.


    1. The list of the creator radicals form the axiomatic elements of the Magyar vocabulary.

    2. The creator radicals have creative powers. They are capable to create new words, or wordgroups. The unused radicals are not filled by far.

    3. Only the radical counts as a Magyar radical which is part of a wordgroup. Foreign or acquired words are those radicals which stand alone.

    4. The Magyar vocabulary has cohesive strength. The dictionary consists of word-groups ("word bushes") and it is not a mass of isolated lexical elements.

    6. The Magyar dictionary can be divided into meaning-fields also. The creator-radical is connected with conceptual meaning also. For this reason the Magyar language is the language of "knowledge" because the ancient knowledge is attached to creator radicals. Adorján Magyar calls these cultic wordgroups, such as:

    18. rúd, réz, ráz, rez-eg, resz-ket, rozs-da, rózs-a, rőt (rod, copper, vibrate, tremble, rose, red)

    This wordgroup is connected with the phonetics, form and other attributes of copper.)

    5. The concept of creator radicals were not part and do not function in the Western languages. Every meaning has different phonetical forms.

    6. Research into vocabulary, language relations, comparative linguistics can only be performed when the charting of the creator radicals, or the word-bushes has been completed. Until this has not been completed one should not start.

    7. After this task was done the Magyar can be compared to any other language. Related languages are the ones from a lexical point of view where we find similar radicals, or wordgroups. In this case the direction of the loan-process can clearly be established. If there are word-parallels between the Magyar and the non Magyar words and the Magyar radical is part of a wordgroup then the Magyar was from where the word came from.


    Finno-Ugrianizm wants to take the origin of the Magyar language to a dead-end track very consciously but it wanted to dissect the cohesive force of the vocabulary. If we return to CzFo and take this further the Magyar lexical research can begin anew and the lexical correspondences of the Magyar language with other languages, the Magyar language origin-studies can gain a new momentum. Beyond this we will be capable to discover old connections too through the creator radicals and we will understand the great British linguist's and diplomat's Sir John Bowring's statement, which he made in 1830 about the Magyar language.

    The Greek Hérodotos mentions in his great historical work the origin legend of the Scythians which goes as this. Thargitaos, the legendary Scythian king had three sons. At the beginning of their reign gold treasures fell from the heavens. When the oldest son ran there to grasp the treasures flames rose from the objet. The second son had a similar experience. The third, youngest son on the other hand was able to lift the gold treasures without difficulty and so he became the king of the Scythians. According to the legend the following four gold objects fell from the heavens: a plow, a yoke, a hatchet and a cup. If we look at the Magyar names of these objects we find the following surprising words and facts: ek-e, ig-a, f-ok-os, ak-ó. These words belong to one and the same radical and are a part of one wordgroup, based on -K. The word ég (sky) adheres to this group too. Lets observe the greater family of these words in which the following can be found: ig-e, j-og, ig-az, ig-ér, egy, ügy, agy, ok, ék, üd-v, id-ő, éd-es, etc. (word of God, law, truth, promise, one, matter/affair, brain, cause, bliss, time, sweet, etc.) This is surprising in itself because these words refer to creation, knowledge, world-order. It appears they all are connected with the heavens, the sky. The Scythians, and let us state, the Magyars did not only receive gold objects from the sky, but much more. This necessitates further research.

    The linguist and diplomat Sir John Bowring wrote the following about the Magyar language in 1830:

    "The Hungarian language goes far back. It developed in a very peculiar manner and its structure reaches back to times when most of the now spoken European languages did not even exist. It is an language which developed steadily and firmly in itself, and in which there are logic and mathematics with the adaptability and malleability of strength and chords. The Englishman should be proud that his language indicates an epic of human history. One can show forth its origin; and alien layers can be distinguished in it, which gathered together during the contacts with different nations. Whereas the Hungarian language is like a rubble-stone, consisting of only one piece, on which the storms of time left not a scratch. It's not a calendar that adjusts to the changes of the ages. It needs no one, it doesn't borrow, does no buckstering, and doesn't give or take from anyone. This language is the oldest and most glorious monument of national sovereignty and mental independence. What scholars cannot solve, they ignore. In philology it's the same way as in archaeology. The floors of the old Egyptian temples, which were made out of only one rock, can't be explained. No one knows where they came from, or from which mountain the wondrous mass was taken. How they were transported and lifted to the top of the temples. The genuineness of the Hungarian language is a phenomenon much more wondrous than this. He who will solve that will analyze a divine secret the first thesis of which is: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    The often quoted Bowring opinion brings up a few new questions. First of all what is he talking about in this quotation? Second, where did he receive his knowledge of the Magyar language and the courage to declare these about the Magyar language. Thirdly, what is the divine secret of which he speaks. Let us try to answer these questions. Bowring, when he talks about language thinks of the vocabulary, according to the practice of his day. He knows, that the lexical elements of the Magyar language are very old, and developed according to their inner order. The origin of the lexical order is rooted in the spiritual realm. We may suppose that Bowring who spoke the Magyar language himself first of all knew this secret, otherwise he would not have composed his statement in such a mystical yet secure way. What he could not do was to research the secret of the Magyar language since there was no writing on this subject in his time and it is not very likely that he would have discovered it. This could have come only from a man, whose mother tongue was Magyar, who was a linguist, who knew the basis of the theoretical Indian linguistics, the grammatics of Panini about the Sanskrit language, who was well versed in the ancient culture languages, like the Sumerian, the Sanskrit, etc. which he could compare with the Magyar, and knew the ancient cultures and their spiritual wisdom. All these attributes could have been present in 1830 in only one person, named Sándor Csoma de Körös. This supposition is strengthened by the fact that Bowring knew and even supported him. So we may well suppose that Bowring was introduced into the divine secrets of the Magyar language by Csoma de Körös. But what is this divine secret? Every Magyar radical is part of some greater unit, a wordgroup and in this way every radical is representative of this greater unit. So the pars pro toto tenet prevails. The smaller unit represents the greater unit too. If the Universe, and creation is built upon this principle we understand why we work with divine secrets when we research the Magyar vocabulary.


    ***
    László Marácz was born in Utrecht in 1960. His parents left Hungary at the time of the 1956 Hungarian revolution. He completed his studies at the University of Groningen in Hungarian and general linguistics. In 1980 he translated Ferenc Sánta's novel The Fifth Seal into Dutch. He attained his qualifications in general linguistics in 1984. He worked as scientific assistant at the University of Groningen's at the department general linguistic from 1984 to 1990. He defended a thesis concerning the Magyar language structure under the title "Asymmetries in Hungarian" doctoral dissertation in 1989. The study centered on the generative-structuralist analysis of the syntax of the Magyar language. He engaged in free research from 1991-1992 within the framework of the Niels Stensen Foundation. He was a guest-researcher at the MIT in Boston. He held lectures at eight American universities concerning his doctoral dissertation. He is working at the Amsterdam University's Institute of Eastern-Europe from 1992 as Associate Professor of the program of Magyar studies. His book Hungarian Revival, Political Reflections on Central Europe. The book raises several important questions concerning problems of Hungarian survival. He received a permanent post at the University of Amsterdam.


    ***



    Notice
    On May 22, 1997, a linguistic conference was held on the grounds of the Gödöllő Agrártudományi Egyetem (Gödöllő Agricultural University). Participation was by invitation only. The organizer of the conference was Dr. Sándor Győri Nagy, who invited the following scholars: János Péntek (Kolozsvár), György Papp (Ujvidék), Jenő Kiss and Géza Balázs (ELTE), Gábor Pap (Gödöllő/Miskolc), József P. Pesti (Kalocsa), László Marácz (Amsterdam). The goal was to discuss the present state of linguistics in Hungary, which has heretofore been forced to adhere to either the Finno-Ugrian or the Turkish line of linguistic theory, totally neglecting the Magyar line of word origins. Participants proposed to extend the circle of linguistic researchers and to convene every six months for further discussions.

    Gábor Pap discussed a new Magyar educational system that teaches the Magyar language based on Magyar linguistics. The first experimental teaching began in Keszthely. The invited speaker from Kolozsvár (Transylvania) could not be present due to the present negotiations with the government of Rumania concerning the reinstatement of the Bolyai University in Kolozsvár (Rumanian name Cluj) to the founding Hungarian community. László Marácz from Amsterdam discussed the structure of word clusters in the Magyar language. The participants agreed on the following:

    1. The origin of the Magyar language cannot be fully and successfully researched within the constraints of the currently prevailing Finno-Ugrian theory, which is untenable from a linguistic and scientific point of view.

    2. The main aim of Magyar linguistics is to fully research and bring to light the internal structure of the language.

    3. Only then can it be compared to other Eurasian languages, its relationships with which will be then thoroughly researched.

    4. The evaluation will be done very systematically and with great care.

    The Editorial Staff of the Journal of Hungarian Studies decided to print this news item due to its historical importance. The Magyar language was not permitted to be taught in schools during the Habsburg regime. Teachers were forced to take their charges to woods and other out of the way places in order to teach them their mother tongue. Count István Széchenyi formed and funded the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1826 to uphold the Magyar language and culture. Following his death in 1860, the Habsburgs began to control the Academy and manipulate it to suit their political ends, leaving a legacy of unscholarly work and anti-Hungarian motivation that has survived to this day. The academy is today an institution that has misused its trust, its operations being contrary to its founding principles. We hope that the Gödöllő conference will be the first step in reestablishing Count Széchenyi's ideals.


    ***

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,484
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Re: Magyar-Sumerian connection?

    A board dedicated to the Anti-Finnugor Theory:
    http://s13.invisionfree.com/Antifinnugor_theory

  3. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 11th, 2016 @ 12:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    CM-Atlantidish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Location
    Mamvcivm
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    British
    Posts
    3,586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Re: Magyar-Sumerian connection?

    "We Magyars are the direct descendants of the FOUNDERS of CIVILISATION! Look, it says so in my book."
    Yawn.
    You could list a dozen words from any Australian language, and find 'cognates' in Scots Gaelic, if you really wanted to. Some Hungarians DO really want to find some glorious past for themselves, and are thus prepared to waste their lives in such a search.

    How impious to scorn their ancestors' already sufficiently heroic past, by dredging the Middle East for anything vaguely approximating a sign of Hungarian language!

    Do they suppose an urbanised agricultural population from the Fertile Crescent suddenly decided to off and become horseriding nomads in the Great Steppe? Madness.

    Of course, all Eurasian languages have a 'connection' SOMEWHERE far back in the mists of time, but Hungarian's connection with Sumerian is no more spectacular than that of Turkic, Dravidian, Etruscan, Inuit or English! [All of the above are theorised by some Nostraticists as belonging to a "Steppe" superfamily, of which Sumerian is a distant cousin. Our languages, by this classification are closer to Sumerian than AfroAsiatic [Semitic etc.], North Caucasian, Sino Tibetan or Vasconic, but that's not saying much! And it's certainly no grounds for any particular pride amongst modern day Hungarians!

  4. #4
    Turul
    Guest

    Re: Magyar-Sumerian connection?

    WAS HUNGARIAN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT EASTERN CULTURES?

    by Dr. Tibor Baráth

    The state of the current research.

    According to current scientific view, two languages flourished in the Ancient East in the millennia BC. It is believed that one originated somewhere north of the Tigris and Euphrates valley, and came to full bloom in Szemúr Sungod's country (Sumer, Sumir) where it became the literary language. It is also believed that it spread from Sumer toward the southern part of the country and later to the east all the way to the Mediterranean. The other language that flourished at this time, the language of the Ancient Egyptians is believed to not only have been the spoken language of the Nile-region but also the language of southwestern Africa. After the Egyptian kingdom was firmly established (1500 BC), it spread toward the great bend of the Euphrates river and Syria. Both languages are believed to be the world's oldest languages. ("The language of the hieroglyphs is perhaps the oldest in the world." - Brodrick M. Morton A, A Concise Dictionary Of Egyptian Archaeology, London, 1922.)

    If we examine the exact position of the places where these two languages flourished, we find that they completely match the territories occupied by the two great branches of the Hungarians: the Hun and the Magyar. These two names are frequent in this territory where the Hungar-Magyar people represented the culture-bearing population. This gives rise to three questions:

    1. Did a fatal linguistic misunderstanding or misinterpretation occur when deciphering these languages that prevented proper classification of these two languages?

    2. Is it possible that these two languages were in fact the same?

    3. If they were in fact the same, were they the Magyar language?


    Posing these questions is validated by the fact that there is no historical evidence that these ancient eastern languages were called Sumerian or Egyptian by the actual residents of these cultures or the record-keepers of the time. These two names, coined and popularized by the scientists of the 19th c. AD,(1) were used only as geographical markers, but were not used as the names of the people or their languages.

    Those texts which we call Sumerian today were written in two different manners: with pictographs and cuneiform writing. The older texts were written with the former method, the younger texts with the latter. Sumerologians have not even touched the pictographs yet; as far as I know none of them have been read. I believe the reason for this is these pictures yield their meaning only in the real Sumerian language, which is the Magyar (Hungarian), and their sound value can be established only according to this language. Consequently if someone does not speak this true "Sumerian" language, that person is unable to decipher them. This remark already lets us get a sense of what follows. All the present views concerning the Sumerian language are based solely upon the cuneiform texts. The cuneiform signs usually mark only the consonants and the reader adds the required nouns. The consonants may be read without really knowing the real Sumerian language, but it does not expose the nouns nor how to break the text into words. And where the Egyptian texts are concerned, they too used simplified pictures drawn close to one another. Later, the simplified version of a type of lettering came into use, hieroglyphs made of these pictures. They too mark only consonants and the vowels have to be added by the reader according to the spirit of the language. The Egyptologists read only the newer, hieroglyphic texts but they are unable to tell for certain what the nature of the accompanying vowels are and how the text should be broken into words. If we add here that the hard and soft consonants were frequently represented with the same sign (T=D, P=B, S=SZ, K=G, R=L) we may form a vague idea of the huge possibility of errors which may be committed while reading or transcribing the Sumerian and Egyptian texts into today's alphabet.

    There is no solidly established consensus concerning the use of today's alphabets. Should the English, the French or some other language's alphabet be used? They never thought of the Hungarian. If we base our transliterating onto the English spelling-system, how can they mark the Hungarian GY, TY, LY sounds, which have firmly established spelling system in the Hungarian? Out of this dilemma arises the fact that the same word or name varies and is written in five or six different manners according to the nationality of the translator, as we find in the case of the Muger ruins in the city of Ur, or in the case of the Hungar and Magyar names. One can extract useful material from a translator's work only when one knows the translator's nationality, and knows the phonetics and graphics of his/her language. Things become even more complicated when the English scientist believes he knows the proper pronunciation but he is unable to find in the alphabet of his own language the proper symbol for that perceived sound, so he uses just for this sound, a symbol of the Italian alphabet. What will ensue of such a text if, let's say, a German scientist reads it and transliterates the text according to the German alphabet? There will be such a chaos created that it will take a very brave and strong man to attempt to lift out the true Sumerian and Egyptian words from this hodgepodge and even express an opinion about the nature of these languages. (2)

    The foremost prerequisite for attaining the proper sounds, transliteration and understanding of these ancient scripts is to be familiar with the language with which the ancient texts were written and is fully familiar with the rules of pronunciation. This knowledge is as yet lacking and consequently today's researchers do not have the magic key with which to open up the secrets of these languages and their efforts have not led to a satisfying conclusion. In lack of such a key, the non-Hungarian scientist - and I am always talking about them in this book - usually resort to a replacement key. The Mesopotamian Sumerian is approached and translated with the help of the Persian, Assyrian and most of all the Hebrew. The Egyptian is translated with the help of the Coptic and Greek languages. Words transliterated in such a manner from the Sumerian and Egyptian may lack vowels at the most critical points or vowels will appear completely unnecessarily, consonants may become scrambled, and words may be shortened or in running texts the words' beginnings and endings will be uncertain or wrong. In other words, the transcribed text will distort the original to an almost unrecognizable form in both the Sumerian and the Egyptian language. Due to these many-layered mistakes of the transliteration-translation process, all of a sudden a language appears, in fact created by the translators, which does not resemble any known language. So we can truly state it is without any relatives and it is extinct. This opinion has to arise by necessity due to the above. If someone is unfamiliar with the sad background of Sumerology and Egyptology will accept this concoction as true "Sumerian" and "Egyptian".

    The uncertain sound-values of these two ancient languages, the incorrect transliteration and the complete distortion of the original characteristics was noted by the orientalists themselves. Waddell reproached the linguists a long time ago, saying that they base the transcriptions of Mesopotamian texts upon the Assyrian language. These scientists, says Waddell, "begin their work laden with false racial and religious theories and did not have a key to the sound-values of personal names, which we inherited with Sumerian signs that had several sound-values. (Lloyd Seton: Foundations in the Dust, Bristol 1955, p.121). The destruction of the Sumerian language took on such proportions that the first translations proved useless and had to be laid aside. (Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, New York 1961 p.22.) Samuel Kramer, an American Sumerologist made this remark, and he himself took extensive liberties in translating the Sumerian texts into English and frequently reads something completely different from what is written. Even with this in mind, he faces problems that are seemingly insurmountable. (Sumerian Mythology pg. 65, 68, 69, 73, 75-77), because very often he only feels the meaning of the words based on the text surrounding it. (S.N.Kramer: Twenty-Five Firsts in Man's Recorded History; From the Tablets of Sumer, Indian Hills, 1956) He does not have a key either and his results are so individualistic, that based on his findings he believes the Sumerian language without a family also, a language without a beginning and without a continuation. He even finds the date of its demise around 2000 BC. We do not fare any better - regrettably - concerning the reading of the Egyptian hieroglyphs as even a beginner of Egyptian studies will notice after studying Sir Wallis Budge's works. He himself states that the pronunciation of a great number of words, mostly verbs, cannot be ascertained and the meaning of symbols given by him is only marginal. (Budge, E.A.W. Egyptian Language. Easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics with sign list. London, 1958, p.146 and passim.) The greatest Egyptologist of all times, the French Maspero admits very honestly: "It is our endeavor that we attempt the pronunciation of the Egyptian words but it may lead only to marginal results because we never know with sufficient certainty how they sounded. Our only recourse is that we establish what sound-values some of the words had in Greek times as far as this is possible." (Maspero G.: History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babilonia and Assyria. 6.vol. London, s.d. I, VI) "The general pronunciation of the Egyptian names in our days is not so much Egyptian, but Egyptologian; in other words the pronunciation of these words is according to Egyptologists." (Ceram C.W. A Hettiták Regénye, Hungarian translation by Márton Hegyi Budapest, 1964, p.26) "Needless to add, no one supposes that the result of this compromise is anything but a caricature of the ancient Egyptian tongue, but, the circumstances being as they are, it is the best that can be done." (P.E.Cleator Lost languages, New York, 1961, p. 59) The reader should never forget this fact.

    At the same time, we have to realize that in certain instances it is truly very difficult, or even impossible to read the written text well and find its true meaning, even if we do have the knowledge of the rules of this writing and reading and also use the only good key leading there, which is the Hungarian language in establishing the sound values. After all, we are dealing with the spiritual heritage of a world of 4-5000 years ago; the workings of the minds of the people then was completely different from ours. This difficulty can be bridged only if we become thoroughly familiar with the belief system, statesmanship of the ages BC. It is for this reason that when we do translate a text we must sometimes add lengthy explanations to a given sentence. The following examples will clarify this statement.

    The Egyptian and Sumerian texts frequently use the following names of their Sungod: Égúr, Székúr, Kerek Úr, Napúr, Ősúr, Magúr, Útúr, Honúr, Szemúr, Égető Úr, Vörös Szemű and some at least twenty more expressions. Western scholars who are not familiar with the key-language understand only the Úr suffix of these words which they translate as God. They also believe that as many such words with Úr endings exist, that many gods were worshipped by the ancients. For them there is a God An, God Utu, God Sek and so on. Anyone familiar with the key-language and the ancients' religion will recognize these words as the names of the same Sungod; the ancients stressed one of the Sungod's characteristics and function by a given name. We may compare this practice to the Roman Catholic Church's practice to call God the Father in his creative capacity, the Son is his redemptive function and the Holy Spirit as his sanctifying function. We will fully understand the Sungod's many names if we are familiar with the concepts of the ancients concerning the Sungod. According to them, the sun, this heavenly body is God's visible picture. Since this picture appears round, they name him Kerek Úr (Round Lord). Since the Sun brightens everything and sees everything, like a giant eye another name of his is Szemúr (Occulate Lord). Since his eye is pairless, they call him Egyszemű (One Eyed), according to the sun's color Vörös Szemű (Red Eyed) and since the Sun resides in the sky they also called him Égi Szem or Égszem (Eye of Heavens). When they contemplated its immense heat they called him Égető Úr (Scorching Lord) and Sütő Úr (Shining Lord). They also believed that he is the only Lord in his world so they called him Honúr (Lord of his Home) and Égi Király (King of Heavens). As they saw the apparent motion as he rises in the morning his name then was Ra-Kel (Ra rises), the rising on the eastern borders Kel-Út (The Road of Rising/East) where he sits down onto his chair: Szék-Úr (Lord of the Chair or the Seated/Settled Lord), later on he sits into his chariot and travels the shiny roads of the skies: Útúr (Lord of the Road) and when he finished his daily journey and reaches the west: Nyug-Út (Resting/Western Road) and as he sinks below the horizon: Esút, Este (The Falling/Evening Road, Evening). As we clarify this section of their belief everything becomes clearer and also realize that the ancients whose religion was connected with the Sun were never polytheistic, they only had one God.

    We can follow the ancients' footsteps and thinking this far and we can also understand the names they used and we are able to explain it to people who are ignorant of the Hungarian language. Things become complicated when the ancient theologians begin to use word-plays and substitute the names of their God using assonance; then they use a symbol, a picture of something that has no internal relationship with God except an assonance exists and so it becomes useful as a symbol that conveys a sound. The sentences, prayers they create with such symbols appear completely incomprehensible. For example when they want to write God's name as Ég-Úr (Lord of Heaven) they draw a mouse (Egér), Székúr's (The Seated/Settled Lord) name is conveyed by a wagon (szekér), the name Kerek-Úr (Round Lord) is represented by a wagon-wheel (kerék), the Úri-Ős (Ancestral Lord) with a giant (óriás) and so on. How could a person unfamiliar with Hungarian find its way among the symbols: when is it proper to talk about the Lord of Heaven (Égúr) and when the animal (egér) that represents his name here on earth? It is believed for exactly this reason that the Babylonians worshipped a mouse. With the above explanations we realize that they have not worshipped idols in any way just as we are not idol-worshippers when we pray in front of statues in the churches but the essence of what they symbolize; or in Egyptian symbology: for whom the symbol stands. We often find in the late Stone and Bronze Ages a tiny bronze-wagon on the altars. In this case they did not worship the wagon but the meaning this artifact conveyed, one of the names of the Sungod: Székúr or Az-Ég-Ur (The Seated/Settled God or The Lord of Heaven). It is of utmost importance for Hungarians to realize this for these facts are the weightiest series of testimonies concerning the true form of the Sumerian and Egyptian languages. In the case of the wordplay egér - Égúr (mouse - Lord of Heaven), szekér - Székúr (wagon - Seated Lord) it is perfectly clear in the Hungarian language, as it is clear in case of Szemúr when his name is written with the image of a donkey (szamár). But how many names of so called "idols" are lost to us! We become helpless when the tracks are lost. It is better to admit this fact freely and not to use some very individualistic explanation and mislead the reader, or to calumniate the ancients. They never worshipped crocodiles, snakes, frogs and insects; the good historians know that all this is only a figment of imagination just as much as the story of a relativeless Sumerian and Egyptian language.(Egyptian Mythology New York s.d. p.10; Hawkes, Jaquette, Wooley Leonard: Prehistory and the beginning of civilization. New York, 1963 p.717; Maspero G.: History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babilonia and Assyria, 6.vol. London s.d p.III.153)

    Since it is so difficult to read the ancient Eastern texts, to transcribe them into today's alphabets and understand them, we are not amazed that only a very few people are willing to tread this very bumpy road. This explains why the study of the near one-hundred-thousand known Sumerian and Egyptian literary texts, which are known to us for 70 or 80 years has hardly progressed (S.N. Kramer Sumerian Mythology New York,1961, VIII). This is the reason that the presently used transcribed texts are unsuitable for linguistic studies and the clarification of the Sumerian and Egyptian languages cannot come about with their help. This situation was already realized by A. Nehring, a German scientist who remarked the following as early as 1936: "Thus far there was no attempt to make use of the grammar, study of sound and structure and the sentences in connection with the problems of the history of the ancients." The person who quoted this sentence in Budapest added the following: "The situation in this respect, as far as I know it has not changed since significantly." (Henning Von Der Osten, Hans: Die Welt der Perser, Stuttgart, 1956).

    If one reviews the state of present research it is clear that there is something seriously wrong concerning the two languages that were baptized Sumerian and Egyptian. Even though they are believed without relations and dead, they clearly have a strong affiliation with the present day Hungarian. Considering this the basic accepted tenet of Sumerology and Egyptology is incorrect.

    *

    Notes

    1. The first examiners of the Mesopotamian language called it a Scythan language. Today they bring it in relationship clearly with the Magyar, Finno-Ugrian or Ural-Altaic languages but still call this language Sumerian. The Sumerian name was coined in 1869 by Oppert, a French linguist and was picked up in the scientific journals of the day. Oppert arrived to this name by reading about the Lord of Sumer and Agade. He proposed that the named Lord was a king and the two other names are names of countries. The former name was extended and became the name of the country and the people (Kramer, Samuel Noah, The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character, Chicago, 1964). But Oppert never understood the meaning of Sumer (Szemúr=Occulate Lord) and Agade (Égető=the Scorching Lord), both of which names are but two different names of the Sungod, thus the name of the country simply meant: The Country of the Sungod. This name described every country where the supremacy of the Sungod was honored. The above mentioned names can be substituted by any of the other names of the Sungod or territory marking names, such as Hon, Kő, Ma, Ta. There existed for example a Napotthon (Home of the Sun), a Szemhon (Home of the Occulate Being), Makor-Ta, Hét-Ta, Ég-Ta, Szem-Ta, etc...(The lands of Makar, Hét, Ég, Szem = these are all names of the same Sungod).

    2. In the orthography of names complete confusion reigns throughout the scholarly literature. (Ceram C.W. The Secret of the Hittites, V; New York, 1956.) It is hardly necessary to say that differences of opinion exist among scholars as to the method in which hieroglyphic characters should be transcribed into Roman letters, Budge E. Wallis Egyptian language; Easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics with sign list. London, 1958 - p.32). Since in hieroglyphic writing only the consonants and not the vowels are indicated, our reading of Egyptian names is only a compromise and we do not pretend that our form of transcription renders the names as they were pronounced. (Tutankhamun treasures. Trésors de Toutankhamon. Montreal, 1964 - p. 4)

    Short biography

    Professor Tibor Baráth was born in Alsólendva Hungary in 1906. He received his Ph.D. in History in Budapest, and continued his postgraduate studies in Vienna, Paris and Montreal. He was professor of history at the University of Kolozsvár, Hungary (1940-45), until the communist takeover of his native country. Prior to his nomination to the teaching post, he was Secretary of the Hungarian Institute in Paris (1932-39) and fulfilled the role of Assistant-Secretary of the International Committee of Historical Sciences at the same time. He moved to Paris with his family in 1945 where he founded a Hungarian newspaper. He left Paris for Montreal, Canada in 1952. Here he continued his research concerning ancient Hungarian history which he began in Kolozsvár. Prof. Baráth was author of over one hundred historical essays and also of several books, the most significant ones being: The Tax-System in Hungary, 1605-1648; History of the Hungarian Historiography, 1867-1935 (in French); A Short History of Hungary; the three-volume Ancient History of the Hungarian Peoples (in Hungarian), and The Early Hungarians (in English).

    ------------

    For those interested in the subject and those who have anything constructive to add see my thread Sumerian Near-Eastern Origin of the Indo-Europeans@
    http://forums.skadi.net/sumerian_nea...ns-t89962.html
    Last edited by Turul; Wednesday, February 14th, 2007 at 01:31 PM. Reason: Adding link to related topic

  5. #5
    Naturbursche
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Boche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, December 24th, 2008 @ 10:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,575
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Magyar-Sumerian connection?

    This was a really interesting Read. Thank you for sharing it. I could need that for a course at the Uni, just have to translate it to german.


    And please, don't show this to Pro-Alpine, it would just make him feel even more superior.





    Gruß,
    Boche
    "We Germans fear God, but nothing else in the world; and already that godliness is it, which let us love and foster peace."
    - Otto von Bismarck, 1888

  6. #6
    Senior Member VitkiValkyrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 11th, 2012 @ 10:16 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Dutch and German
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Natal Natal
    Location
    Margate
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Engineer
    Politics
    Germanic cultural preservation
    Religion
    Germanic heathen
    Posts
    108
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    re-interpreting levantine mythology

    At the time semitic mythology was condensed into the talmud and torah, the jewish scribes had a Babylonian education (the exile period). Most of their myths are thus re-interpreted from the Babylonian, which had Sumerian roots. In light of that, names such as Sjemjaza mentioned in the book of Enoch, can be better interpreted by using Hungarian, whereby it will be rendered as Szemhaza..a place rather than a person. I think that Hungarian is the key to the true meaning of many ancient texts. It would be interesting to look at Germanic mythos from an assumption of possible very early contact with proto-Hungarians. The structure (but not sound values) of the Magyar runes is very similar to Futhark.

  7. #7
    Senior Member VitkiValkyrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 11th, 2012 @ 10:16 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Dutch and German
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Natal Natal
    Location
    Margate
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Engineer
    Politics
    Germanic cultural preservation
    Religion
    Germanic heathen
    Posts
    108
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Thoughts on Magyar

    I am wondering, if yahweh (i am who i am) was a mistranslation and out of context use of the sumerian god Enki (en=me, ki=who). The name of deity is Isten in both Hungarian and Sumerian. Many other similarities come to mind, e.g. Taltos (H) and taltal (S) both mean shaman. In religion the resemblence of the two languages is striking, e.g orsag (H, territory) and Urusag (S, territorial god). Legal terms, too, eg. Ragalom (H) and ragamu (s), biro (H) and baro (S), ugyved (H) and ugido (S), the same meaning in both languages. The Hungarian suffix -nak/nok refers to administrative positions (or used to, my source book refers here to an archaic use) and the Sumerian gods were collectively called the Annu-naki. If i made mistakes with the Hungarian, please correct me.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 01:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Tree Wizard
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Hi,

    The diffussion of myths is an interesting theory. Seems like many look for Thule. It is both if one asks me..??

    Quote Originally Posted by VitkiValkyrie View Post
    I think that Hungarian is the key to the true meaning of many ancient texts. It would be interesting to look at Germanic mythos from an assumption of possible very early contact with proto-Hungarians. The structure (but not sound values) of the Magyar runes is very similar to Futhark.
    Would you care to elaborate on that..??

    Later,
    -Lyfing

  9. #9
    Senior Member VitkiValkyrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 11th, 2012 @ 10:16 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Dutch and German
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Natal Natal
    Location
    Margate
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Engineer
    Politics
    Germanic cultural preservation
    Religion
    Germanic heathen
    Posts
    108
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Magyar runes

    There are many internet sites that shows the Magyar runes (when i find them again, i will post a link or two). They look like younger Futhark! The reasons i think there was perhaps early contact, are 1. The Magyar runes were in use long before any 'official' middle-ages contact with northern Germanics sailing down the Danube and they resemble Futhark so strongly 2. The similarity between the names of Odin's ravens (ravens perhaps a kenning of sons?) with Hun and Magyar 3. The Hungarian myths of magical horses are similar to Sleipnir, in that they could cross boundaries between worlds. 4. The Hungarian myth of a king buried in a golden treasure in the Danube reminds strongly of the Rhinegold. Aargh, when i started writing i thought of many reasons, now i can't remember. Sorry, i will dig up my notes and later post better and more details. I just can't help wonder if our ancenstors went a-viking down the Danube earlier than expected, and told the Hungarians our stories.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Sturmbaon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, October 24th, 2016 @ 07:43 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Donauschwabe
    Ancestry
    german, austro-hungarian
    Subrace
    pred. Nordid
    Country
    Austrian Empire Austrian Empire
    State
    Danube Swabian Community Danube Swabian Community
    Location
    Ungarn
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Searching for nordic girl
    Occupation
    Engineer
    Politics
    Preservationist
    Religion
    Theist
    Posts
    124
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VitkiValkyrie View Post
    There are many internet sites that shows the Magyar runes (when i find them again, i will post a link or two).
    Here you are:
    1: Old Hungarian script
    2: Proposal for encoding the Szekler-Hungarian Rovas in the BMP and the SMP of the UCS
    3: A cold opinion on the rovás (or Magyar "runes")
    Geitarborg í Árhnjárlandi | Kämpft gegen die Einwanderung! | Aufnordung

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ugrian-Speakers of the Ladogan-Racial Type
    By Boche in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, August 6th, 2007, 10:30 PM
  2. A Magyar Ember - The Magyar Human
    By Evolved in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 07:32 AM
  3. Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 09:41 PM
  4. The Holy Grail: a Sarmatian-Magyar connection?
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Indo-Germanic Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, May 10th, 2004, 09:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •