OldBoring wrote:Why Uralic language now?
Irusia wrote:Tere! Mulle väga meeldivad soome-ugri keeled. Ma õpin eesti ja soome keelt, ja tahaksid õppida tulevikus ka liivi, võru ja võib-olla isegi karjala või ungari keelt. Nad kõik on nii huvitavad ja erilised, ja väga ilusad ka.
Kas keegi tahab rääkida siin?
Linguaphile wrote:OldBoring wrote:Why Uralic language now?
[flag=]et[/flag]Miks mitte?
[flag=]liv[/flag]Mikš mittõ?
[flag=]vep[/flag]Mikš ei?
[flag=]fi[/flag]Miksi ei?
[flag=]vro[/flag]Mille eiq?
[flag=]sme[/flag]Manne ii?
[flag=]vot[/flag]MisseB?
[flag=]hu[/flag]Miért ne?
OldBoring wrote:Linguaphile wrote:OldBoring wrote:Why Uralic language now?
[flag=]et[/flag]Miks mitte?
[flag=]liv[/flag]Mikš mittõ?
[flag=]vep[/flag]Mikš ei?
[flag=]fi[/flag]Miksi ei?
[flag=]vro[/flag]Mille eiq?
[flag=]sme[/flag]Manne ii?
[flag=]vot[/flag]MisseB?
[flag=]hu[/flag]Miért ne?
It was Finnougric languages before.
Linguaphile wrote:[flag=]et[/flag] Miks mitte?
[flag=]liv[/flag] Mikš mittõ?
[flag=]vep[/flag] Mikš ei?
[flag=]fi[/flag] Miksi ei?
[flag=]vro[/flag] Mille eiq?
[flag=]sme[/flag] Manne ii?
[flag=]vot[/flag] MisseB?
[flag=]hu[/flag] Miért ne?
OldBoring wrote:Why Uralic language now?
Levike wrote:Latin languages have the Q.
vijayjohn wrote:Latin languages have the Q.
Vagy a palatalizáció az a mássalhangzónak
Levike wrote:vijayjohn wrote:Latin languages have the Q.
Vagy a palatalizáció az a mássalhangzónak
Vagy ez, amit mondtál.
De magyarul is nem minden m-mel kezdődik. Pl: Ki? Hol? Hogyan?
But even in Hu. not everything starts with an m. Ex: Who? Where? How?
De "ki" az hasonlít a finn "kuka"-ra. Mégha mintha törökül is "kim".
But "ki" (who) is similar to the Finnish "kuka". Although in Turkish they also say "kim".
vijayjohn wrote:A fordításod elolvasása nélkül értettem ezt, amit mondtál magyarul.
I understood what you said in Hungarian without reading your translation.
Levike wrote:vijayjohn wrote:értettem ezt
Kapsz egy sütit.
You get a cookie.
vijayjohn wrote:OldBoring wrote:Why Uralic language now?
Because Finno-Ugric is a controversial grouping
OldBoring wrote:vijayjohn wrote:OldBoring wrote:Why Uralic language now?
Because Finno-Ugric is a controversial grouping
huh.... and there's a Unilanger majoring in Finnougric studies...
vijayjohn wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg_9RGwqHSM
OldBoring wrote:Well, from my understanding, I think there's a difference between language group and language family.
Language family means that languages are related, language group not necessarily.
Maybe we can consider the Finno-ugric a language group, but not necessarily a language family.
Just like Altaic languages are not a language family, yet one is free to study all of languages considered to pertain tho this grouping.
Or how there's the concept of "East Asian languages" (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese) because they share some history and culture and loanwords, but they are not related languages.vijayjohn wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg_9RGwqHSM
I need subtitles.
OldBoring wrote:Well, from my understanding, I think there's a difference between language group and language family.
Just like Altaic languages are not a language family, yet one is free to study all of languages considered to pertain tho this grouping.
Or how there's the concept of "East Asian languages" (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese) because they share some history and culture and loanwords, but they are not related languages.
I need subtitles.
OldBoring wrote:Nagyon szépen köszönjüköm.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests