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 haů= innards
Kalmuck xoto = belly, stomach
Mongolian qotu = as above
Manchurian qodo = as above (phonology: > t)
Osman karyn = as above
Uigur karyn = as above
Old Turkish qarîn = belly, -phon. > r
Sumerian ha= qadâdu = to bend
Magyar hasal, le-hasal = to lie on one's stomach
Middle Turkish kî- = to bow, to bend
Osman kî- =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 gi = 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 geůn = 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 i = to see; the onlooker
Akkadian zîmu = face
Vogul säm = eye
Ostyak sem = eye
Turkish sima = face
Osman symar-la- =to select
Votyak in =eye
Zyrian in = eye
Cheremiss indza = eye
lit. Mongolian sinjile- = to find, to examine
Kalmuck indzl- = to observe
Cumanian synčla- = look at, inspect
Mongolian sübe = ear of the needle
Kalmuck süwe = as above
Mordvine elme = the eye
Finnish silmä = the eye
Estonian silm = as above
Kalmyk tilme- = to glance
Mongolian silib-ki- = as above
564. Magyar szív, szívet, = heart
Sumerian I. ag = libbu = I. heart, middle
II.ab = as above
III.a = 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 ab = 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 evem = 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 tildor- = to shine, to glitter
Cheremiss telgez- = as above
Mongolian čilger = light, bright
see:jilgir- = to radiate
Ostyak čil = radiant
see:ulpa- = 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 kuja= sun
Sumerian I. kug = light, clean, clear
Vogul khuj, stb. dawn
Sumerian II. hu= huu = red, reddish shine
Ostyak xui = 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-ar-ra = world
Magyar velág, világ = v-added, world
297. Magyar jég, jege-t, = ice
Sumerian eg = urîpu = 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 = idu = 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 tapti- = as above
Turkish čap- = as above
Chuvash up- = slap in the face
Cheremiss oB-, saB- = as above
Sumerian sag = to hit
(phon.: sag > saB > čab = csap; B = béta)
Magyar 2. csap = to throw
Sumerian ub = to throw
Magyar 3. csapodár = fickle
Sumerian ub = neglect
Magyar 4. csappan = to lessen
Sumerian ub = fallen, to fall
Magyar 5. csapat= troop
Sumerian sabu = mankind
67. Magyar csuk = to close
Sumerian I. u = pahů = as above
II. sag = as above
ad: I. u >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 i- = 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 quradil- = to enclose
Chagatai kur = hoop, belt
Tartar kyra- = to tie around
Tartar kyran = 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.
***
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by VitkiValkyrie
Bookmarks