Hungarian and Sumerian?

Moderator: Ashucky

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2005-12-17, 10:02

..

Image


..

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2005-12-18, 9:15

Image


The hungarian-sekler alphabet:

Image

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2005-12-23, 17:34

Sumer- hungarian words from Antal Endrey's book: Origin of Hungarians.


Sumer-magyar:

ur (úr) -- úr
nin, nini (nő, néne) -- néne, néni
lil (lélek)-- lélek, lilk
urszág (uraság) -- uraság
uruzag (ország) -- ország, régiesen uruzag
ussa (öccs) -- öccs
ari (meny) -- ara
ul (méh, asszony öle) -- öl
kus (bőr,test) -- hús
bur (vér) -- vér
gis (kéz) -- kéz
us (nemz) -- ős
kurun (kenyér) -- kenyér, kerenye
edin (hordó) -- edény, edin
dal (edény) -- tál
szabur (edény) -- csupor, szapor
dar (ételáldozat a halottaknak) -- tor
izi (izzik) -- izzik
bil (éget) -- fől
szil (vág) -- szel
szab (vág) -- szab
hun (pihen) -- huny
sir (sír) -- sír
bur (lyukat csinál) -- fúr
bul (fúj) -- fúj, fúl
ru (farag, vés) -- ró
mas (iker, hasonló) -- más
dan, tan (magyaráz) -- tan-ít, tan-ács
til (lakik, telepszik) -- tel-ep, tel-ek
dingir (isten) -- tenger, tündér
itu (hónap) -- idő
rig (beszél) -- rege, regél
retu (rét) -- rét
kabbar (kövér) -- kövér
gada (ágyékkötő) -- gatya
gar (gyárt) -- gyárt
gur (hajlít, hajlott) -- görbe
guz (közép) -- góc
gam (hajlít) -- gamó, gamós bót (kam-pós bot)
dib (megy) -- tip-eg
dug (dagad) -- dag-ad, dag-anat
eri (megy) -- ered
es (est) -- est
zid (mérges) -- szid
has (hasít) -- has-ít
indi(menet) -- ind-ít, ind-ul
kid (köt) -- köt
kur (kör) -- kör
nad (nagy)-- nagy
nam (nem) -- nem
pa (fa) -- fa
bur (fül) -- fül
sza (száj) -- száj, szá-m, szá-d etc.
hal (meghal) -- hal
gil (gyilkol) -- gyil-kol, gyil-ok
ud (út) -- út
me (mi --P1) -- mi
szur (szúr, döf) -- szúr

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2005-12-28, 7:52

Hungarian TAMGA:

Image


Akhaimenida (old-persian) tamga:

Image

Sarmatian tamga( from North-Pontus):

Image
Image

Abhazian tamga:

Image

Kabard tamga:

Image

Ossetian tamga:

Image

Old-türk tamga:

Image

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-01-05, 21:47

The Rubik cube of the Hungarian Language
BEFORE BABYLON - a book written by Kiss Dénes

The visual image of the Hungarian language

E
E K E
E K É K E
E K É K É K E
E K É K E K É K E
E K É K E K E K É K E
E K É K E K É K E K É K E
E K É K E K E K É K E
E K É K E K É K E
E K É K É K E
E K É K E
E K E
E

This is the visual image of the agglutanating Hungarian language.



EK
EKE
EKE-e?
EKÉK
EKÉK-e?
ÉK
ÉK-e?
ÉKE
ÉKE-e?
ÉKEK
ÉKEK-e?
KÉK
KÉKE
KÉK-e?
KÉKEK
KÉKEK-e?
/KÉKEKÉ
Plural of the fifth letter of the alphabet /Es/
Plough
Is it a plough?
Ploughs
Are they ploughs?
Wedge
Is it a wedge?
His/her ornament
Is it his/her ornament?
Wedges, ornaments
Are they wedges/ornaments?
Blue (colour)
Blue of something (e.g. blue of the sky)
Is it blue?
Plural of blue
Are they blue?
Possession of blue objects (and dialect: question tag)/



The table above shows 16 (with the dialect 17) different word forms and phrases of three Hungarian sounds but other variations are also possible (different combination of vowels E, É and consonant K because the sounds of the Hungarian alphabet (like digits of a number) convey meaning and also have a place value. Some sounds and sound groups added to the word behave as suffixes denoting pluralization, possessives, etc. thus defining meaning. They may also take a front position as prefixes or be in a mid-position. In the lists of words E, É may form a question or a possesive case whereas K is a plural suffix.

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-01-13, 22:48

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:25:38 -0700
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Endangered Languages List
<[log in to unmask]>
Comments: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
From: "B. K. Rana" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: MAGARS, MAGYARS, MUGARS & MOGHULS
Comments: To: Allen W Thrasher <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;


Magar language is a TB language. The central Magar and Kham Magar languages are different. The Kaike Magar language is even different.

'Langhali' [not LAGghalI] is a Central Magar Language term meaning 'villager or neighbour' [Langha > village with prefix ali> of or belonging to]. It means of the village.

We have been able to found a voluntary social organization in New York - Langhali Association USA. last year.

I myself am a Magar and hence 'Langhali' also.. There are lot more other books that you have cited. Does one have to accept whatever an otsiders write ?

As far as I understand, the Magars [Langhalis] have never claimed that Magyars are their ancestors. But a team of the Magyars of Hungary have visited in early 90s in search of their ancestors.


"In search for his ancestors, a Hungarian researcher, Alexander Choma De Korus [?], while en route via Lhasha of Tibet to Mongolia, died in Darjeeling in 1842. There is a memorial tablet erected in honor of him in Darjeeling" - one of the team members had written in a faxed message to me also.



Another Hungarian scholar Gyula Laszlo [The Magyars: Their Life and Civilization 1996] has ruled out any nearness between Magars and Magyars.



Both Dor Bahadur Bista 'Fatalism and Development [1994] and F. B. Hamilton "An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal' [1819] write Magars and the current Shah kings are of same origin.



We also believe in it as both the Shah Kings and Magars share exactly same cultures eve today. The priests in the king's guardian deity are always a Magar. There are lots of stuff on Magars and others in Brian Hodgson's Essays on the Language, Literature and Religion of Nepal and Tibet [1857].



Perceval Landon's Nepal [1928], Michael Oppitz's research article - The Wild Boar and the Plough: Origin Stories of the Northern Magars - in Kailash [1983]. Eden Vansittart has written profoundly on Magars in his 'The Gurkhas' [1906]. Recently, John Whelpton has also written in his book 'King Soldiers & Priests in Nepalese Politics and the Rise of Jung Bahadur [1830-1857] published in 1991.



The northern Magars are subdivided into Buda, Gharti, Pun and Roka. Some writers have written the Huns invaded Nepal and they became 'Pun'.



There are lot to write here.



Thank you,



BKR



Allen W Thrasher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
George van Driem, Languages of the Himalayas, Brill, 2001 (Handbuch der Orientalistik, Section 2. India. vol. 10), v. 2, p. 780, has this to say (I have rendered his standard transliteration into Harvard-Kyoto):

"Before the 1990 revolution, a rare Magar periodical entitled LaGghalI [sic: it should be LAGghalI- AT] appeared irregularly. In the atmosphere of political fervour prevailing in the years following the Nepalese revolution of 1990, various booklets were published which made fantastic claims. One such claim [identified BrAhmI script as of Magar origin]. Another claim was that the Magars are related to the Magyars or Hungarians, a fact which is argued solely on the basis of the similarity of the name, e.g. BuDA Magar (VS2053b). The latter claim must, however, be seen as just a recent episode in a long tradition of pseudo-scholarly publications attempting to relate the Magyars with any and every distant group. [Uxbond 1928 used this as part of a theory linking with Magyars with the Mundas and as far afield as the Maoris.]

Parts in square brackets are my summary.

Citations:
BuDa Magar, HarSa BahAdur. VS BhAdra 2053b (AD 1996). Magar jAti ra unkA sAmAjik saMskAr. Kathmandu: ZrImatI PuSpAvatI BuDA Magar.

Uxbond, F.A. 1938 Munda-Magyar-Maori, an INdian link bertween the antipodes: new tracks of Hungarian origins. London, Luzac and Co.

Van Driem considers Magar a Bodic language within the Tibeto-Burma, which further subdivision within the Bodic not yet clear. However, he uses the term Magaric to include Magar and Kham.

Allen Thrasher


Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D.
Senior Reference Librarian
Southern Asia Section
Asian Division
Library of Congress
Jefferson Building 150
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-4810
tel. 202-707-3732
fax 202-707-1724
[log in to unmask]
The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Library of Congress.




B. K. Rana
Winter Hill, Massachusetts
United States of America
Tel: 617 233 0158
http://www.geocities.com/bk_rana


Anthropology and Genetics



The anthropology searched the Hungarian old country by morphologic searches. The old country of the Hungarians have to be searched where people lived or even live like Hungarians. The Uyghur cementery at Astana near to the Jungar Gate revealed by Aurel Stein between 1913 and 1915 grounds for this, wherefrom 1200 graves were revealed by Uyghur and Chinese subsequently in 1986 AD. The in this cementary buried people were morphologically the same as those being settled in the Carpathian Basin as ?Hungarians?. Demonstartive is the fact that Turanian, Pamirian and Taurid elements got into the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarians those are typical of the Turkish nations of Innermost Asia only, but occur nowhere else in Europe. Beside the morpholigical searches the physiological searches give lately information about the origin of a nation. Within the Landsteiner Bloodgroup System the rate of the typical Hungarian ?0? and ?B? bloodgroup gene (31,05% and 17,90%) is off from of the europid and Finno-Ugric nations, but ranges with the rates of the Innermost Asian Turkish nations. Beside of this occurs also an other kind of bloodgroup character among the Hungarians (e.g. the Diego [A+]) presented in no other nation of Europe. The in Europe almost unknown ?mongolic spot? has 22,6% of occurrence and the also rarely occurring lactose intolerance (missing lactose digestive enzyme) is at 37% among the Hungarians ?racy of the soil?, like in Innermost Asia. The skin splinter (bőrléc) system of the Hungarians has Innermost Asian characteristic (low bend rates, but high of wortexes). The Gm-marker searches pointed out, that among the Hungarians occurring Gm abst and Gm afb3 marked genemarkers miss by the European nations. The until now done international mitochondrial DNA searches have also Innermost Asian characters, showing our merge with other European nations, but our genetic non relationship with Finnish and Finno-Ugric nations also obvious. (Semino, Ornell ? Passarino, Giuseppe et al. Science. 10th November 2000.).

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-01-26, 14:32

hello

Supposedly from Hallod? – Can you hear it? Allegedly said by the Hungarian Tivadar Puskás who invented the telephone exchange. This etimology is however dubious.

But don't forget: EDISON has a hungarian assistent: ISTVAN FODOR (1856-1929).
When the TIVADAR PUSKAS invented the telephone-crossing-center, they speaked together by phone, PUSKAS said: "HALLOm! HALLOm!" ( "I hear! I hear!").
This is the short story of the phone-"HALLO" ..

http://www.magtudin.org/Hamvas.htm


CELTIC-HUNGARIAN WORDS:

( ÍR = irish)

Mi lehet a GAEL,GALL eredete?


sumér GALU= ember,nép





ír MAC= fiú,ivadék-> magyar MAG=fiú,ivadék


BUAITEOIR= kelta bátor,gyozo





BAIN(kiejtve BÁNY) = magyar bánya


SÁIBLE= magyar szabja





walesi kiejtve:GYEREMAR = gyere már-> magyar: GYERE MÁR, jöjj már


(walesi által megerosítve)






---KÖR szógyök:---





ír CORR=kör -> magyar KÖR


angol curly(kiejtve KÖRli) = göndör,KÖR-alakzatokból álló


ír COR=forog,pörög , magyar KÖRöz,forog


német GARten = magyar KERt, KERített,KÖRített


angol GARden = magyar KERt, KERített,KÖRített


---





walesi BAI = hiba, bunösség->magyar BAJ


ír SBH=vág,furészel -> magyar SZAB


ír SÁIBLE=zsably -> magyar SZABLYA


ír BINE=kárhozat -> magyar BUN





walesi ADAR = madár


ír FÁL=fal,kerítés ->magyar FAL


ír FEAR=férj, férfi -> magyar FÉRJ,FÉRFI


ír GÚNA=ruha -> magyar GÚNYA


walesi HEN=öreg -> magyar VÉN


ír IARR=kér, követel -> magyar JÁR(neki)

Hogy a kérdésre válaszolni tudjunk, vizsgáljuk meg a kelta nyelv(ek) jellemző vonásait :


· A szó jelentése szempontjából a hangsúlynak nincs meghatározó szerepe.


· A beszédben a hangsúly mindig a szavak első szótagára esik, azaz a szó első szótagja a főhangsúlyos.


· Az egyszerű (nem összetett) szavak általában vagy magas vagy mély hangrendűek, a szótőhöz illesztet toldalék, az indogermán nyelveknél ismeretlen, hangharmóniát követ:


URRA úr > URR-AIM tisztelet / GAOIS [gís] okosság > GAOIS-EACH [gíseh] okos


· Hangrendi okok miatt az ír nyelv alkalmaz olykor toldalék hangokat ragilleszkedésnél:


FUIL vér à FUIL-T-EACH vér-es, ACAOIN- fájdalmas sírás à ACAOIN-T-EACH kín-os


· Az ír nyelv nyomatékosan megkülönböztet, úgy írásában, mint beszédében, rövid és hosszú magánhangzókat: A – Á, E – É, I – Í, O – Ó, U – Ú: ALTÁN szurdok, patak, BEITHÉ gúny, csúfolódás, CIPÍN pálca, vessző, virgács, ORÓ óly, URRÚS erősség.


· Továbbá, az ír használja beszédében a nagyon lágy mássalhangzókat is: Gy (> GÉARÚ gyorsulás, ROGILE ragyogó; DIÚNAS önfejűség, ÉIDE egyenruha); Ty (> TIMIRE küldönc, AINTIN ángy, néne); Ny (> NÍOCHÁN mosás, BAIN bánya); Ly (> SÁIBLE [száblya] szablya); van lágy R [rzs] (> BÁIRE-oir [bárzsór] = VERS(eny)-ző ó ellentétben a ‘kemény R’ hanggal > BÁIR-se-oir [bársor] = BIR-ás(-kod)-ó játékvezető, bíró).


· A kelta nyelv kerüli a mássalhangzó-torlódást, még „átvett“ (kölcsön-)szavak esetében is:


vels YSGOL (iskola), YSBATA (kórház > ISPOTÁLY), stb.


· Névelő (csak határozott), ugyanaz mint a magyarban: Velsben Y [a] és YR [ar]: Y GWR [a gúr]= A FÉR-fi, FÉR-j és YR YFANC [ar ifank]= AZ IFJÚ, IFJONC. Ugyanez írben A, AN, N’ (manninban Y [a], YN [an]): A CUACH (az ölelés) = A CSÓK és AN OS = AZ ÖZ.


· Névmások:


személyes névmás: ír FUIR-IM (vár-OM), CEANGALANN TÚ (göngyöl-ÖD), BEIR SÉ (el-bír ő); vels MAE E (van Ö), MAEN NHW (van-NAK).


birtokos névmás: ír M-ATHAIR (apá-M), D-ATHAIR (apá-D), A ATHAIR (ap-jA), ATHAIR-NA (apá-N-k); mannini CHASS AYM (láb-AM), CHASS AYD (láb-AD), CHASS E (láb-A).


visszaható névmás: ír FÉIN [hény], mannin HENE (ÖN-) > „SÍNN FÉIN“ („mimagunk”).


mutató névmások: ír SIN, SEO / óír SA, SE = magyar AZ, EZ (> japán SONO ez, az); ír ÚD = magyar AZ A, AZ OTT (> AN TULÁN ÚD THALL az a dűlő A DŰLŐ OTT TÚL).


· Kötőszavak, ragok, képzők:


kötőszó: ír ES, IS, S, óír OS, mannin AS = magyar ÉS, IS, S (> vö. japán SHI és)


kopula (igekötő, amely a névszói-igei állítmány igei része): ír IS (magyar IS > vö. török ISE de, és, is, még) > IS MAITH LIOM TAE (igenis) teát kérek ~ IS MÉLTÓ VELEM TEA [ii]


tagadó mondatokban: NI nem, CHA se, sem / kérdő mondatokban: AN [e’] > AN TÁ van-e


tagadószó: ír NÍ, NEAMH, breton NE, NAM, magyar NE, NEM; ír NÁ ! magyar NE !


ír AIN-, AN-, MI-, mannin NEU-, MEE- igei előrag (magyar NEM- > vö. török MA, ME)


ír, skót CHA se = magyar SE > CHA BHÍ se lesz, CHA BHIODH se lehet, CHA CHUALA se hall, CHAN ANN sem van (nincs), CHAN FHAIGH sem fog / ír NACH (NE- + CHA) = magyar NE-SE SE-NEM > NACH MÓR, NACH BEAG se-nem nagy, se-nem kicsi


ír NIL (NÍ-BHFUIL) [NÍ=NEM +(BH)FUIL=VALA] = magyar NINCS [NEM-IS]


· egyéb kötőszavak:


ír ACH (magyar CSAK) > NÍL AGAM ACH É ez mindenem NINCS NEKEM CSAK Ő


ír ÁMH (magyar ÁM, ÁM-de > vö. török AMA, japán DE MO de, ámde)


ír DÁ ha / DÁ [DE+A] de (magyar DE, HA > vö. török DE de, mégis)


> ír DE BHARR habár (magyar DEBÁR ~ HABÁR > vö. török BARI habár)


ír GO (magyar HOGY) > DEIR SÉ GO BHFUIL DEIFIR AIR mondja, hogy siet


MONDJA, HOGY VALA SIETSÉG REÁ mondja, hogy sietnéke van


ír FARA olyan mint, aféle (magyar FÉLE) [iii]


ír MAR mert, mint, hamár > magyar MER (MERT), MÁR (MINT), ha-MÁR


> MAR ATÁ, MAR A BHÍ éspedig MÁR VAN, MINT (A) VOLT úgy van, amint volt


ír NÍ (magyar MI, AMI, vala-MI) [iv]


· határozó szavak (ragok):


- alanyeset és tárgyeset - az ír nyelvnek nincs tárgyas eset-ragja, a régi magyar nyelv sem ismerhette, egyes mai kifejezések ezt igazolják: széna kaszálni, adó-szedő, szőlő-szedő stb.


- vokatívusz (megszólító eset):


ír A DHUINE UASAIL Ó Felség, A CHAILÍN Ó leány (> török GELIN menyecske)


- birtokos eset ragja


ír AG, NA (magyar -NAK, -NEK) vagy ír –N, -A, -E (magyar -É) mint birtokos utóragok:


SIN AG-AT É tied AZ NEK-ED Ő (AZ NEK-ED-É)


MAITHE NA TÍR-E a vidék, terület (földes)ura MÉLTÓ(ság)A A TÉR-É


CÚ-N kutyá-NAK, CEAN-A szerelem-É, CÉIR-E feketeség-É (> török KARA fekete)


- részeseset ragja - van igekötő funkciója is, akárcsak a magyarban:


ír AR (magyar -ON / -RA, -RE) > AR GHRÁ DÉ (az) Isten szerelmé-RE


ír AG (magyar -NAK, -NEK / -NÁL, -NÉL) > TÁ BEIRT MHAC AIGE van két fia NEKI


- helyhatározó:


ír DO (magyar -BA, -BE / -RA, -RE > török -yA, -yE) > DUL (indul) DO BÚDAIPEIST


ó lásd még: ír ÁIT hely (magyar ITT, OTT) > ír ÚD (magyar az-OTT, am-OTT)


ír UAIDH (magyar ODA-való > vö. török -DA)


ír SA, SAN (magyar –BA(N), -BE(N) > vö. finn -SSA, -SSÄ -ban, -ben)


> GO MALL SAN OICHE későéjjel KÉSŐ-IG ÉJ(szaká)-BAN


ír INNIU (magyar INNEN), ír UAINN (magyar ONNAN)


ír THALL (magyar TÚL) > THALL TOINN tengeren túl


- távolító eset:


ír DÁ, DE, DEN (magyar -TÓL,-TÖL / -BÓL, -BŐL /-RÓL,-RÖL > török -DAN,-TAN)


ír Ó (magyar -I) > családnevekben: Ó NIALL ó Magyar-I, Gyula-I, Károly-I, Miklós-I


- közelítő eset:


ír GO, mannin GYS (magyar -HOZ,-HEZ) ó vels AGOS (magyar KÖZ-el)


> DUL MÉ GO MO MNÁ indul-ok asszony-om-HOZ


- eszközhatározó


ír LE (magyar -VAL, -VEL > török ILE,-LE) > ír MAILLE (magyar MELLÉ, MELLETT)


- határvető


ír GO (magyar -IG) > GO GLÚINE SAN UÍSCE térd-IG víz-BEN


ír NÓ GO (magyar AM-ÚGY, EM-ÍGY) > ír NÓ (magyar ÁM, NOHA)


- időhatározó


ír Ó (magyar Ó-ta) > Ó BREACHAD reggel óta PIRKADAT-ÓTA


ír GO (magyar -IG) > GO AN T’EARRACH tavasz-IG / ír NUIGE (magyar MÍG)


ír HUAIR (magyar -KOR > vö. régi török QUR kor, idő, rang)


- számhatározó: ír CUAIRT (magyar -SZER, -SZOR > vö. török KERE -szer, -szor) [v]


- egyéb határozó szavak


ír ATH- (magyar ÁT- / UTÓ- / ÓD-on régi, elavult / OD-ébb > vö. török ÖTE messzébb)


ír AIS hátra, vissza, ismét (magyar IS-MÉT > japán MADA ismét)


> AIS- = VISSZA- (> vö. türkmén IZ hát > IZA vissza; ótörök ISRÄ mögött, hátul) [vi]


· képzők:


-L igeképző (gyakorító > vö. koreai IL tesz): ír ADHARC-ÁIL szúr, döf (agancs-OL), GUAILL-EÁIL vállal [denom.]; SÁBH-ÁIL vág, fűrészel (‘szab-d-AL’), TÓCH-AIL gyökerezik (tőked), COM-ÁIL összeköt, befon (hám-OL), CEANG-AIL megköt [deverb.]


(magyar SZÉP-ŰL, JAV-ÚL, VÁLL-AL, KIAB-ÁL, UGR-ÁL, DOB-ÁL, REP-ŰL. ASZ-AL)


-L névszóképző: ír SÁIBH-ÁIL szabadítás [denominális]; TOG-ÁIL növekedés (dagály), GABH-ÁIL elkapás, megkaparintás [deverbiális] (magyar SZEM-ÉLY, KÖT-ÉL, FED-ÉL)


-D / -T igeképző (cselekedtető): ír SCAIR-T csörget, SCAIR-D csurgat, SAIGH-ID átszeg (magyar ET-ET, IT-AT, NÉZ-ET, KÉR-ET, VÁR-AT, SZAGG-AT)


-D / -T névszóképző: ír MAG-ADH [maga] móka, ROIS-EADH [rosë] rés


(magyar SZÓ-z-AT, TERÜL-ET, SZIG-ET, DOLGOZ-AT, FOGÁSZ-AT)


-G / -K igeképző: ír SLO-G sereget gyűjt, TOL-G tolakszik, CEAL-G csal(-og)


(magyar MOZ-OG, FORR-OG, CSILL-OG, VILL-OG, IN-OG, CSOSZ-OG)


-G / -K névszóképző: ír BÁIST-EACH eső, BEAL-ACH út, szoros, nyílás, TATH -AG test


(magyar GYER-EK, ŐR-EG, HOR-OG, ÜR-EG, VIL-ÁG, ÜV-EG)


Az ír nyelv mai nap is egy ragozott nyelv, ami ismét csak elkülöníti az indogermán nyelvektől - a szlávban található „utórag-halmozással“ való szóalkotást Julius Pokorny finnugor hatásnak (!) nevez. Íme egy ír agglutináció, azaz utóragokkal való szóképzés:


ír TE meleg, forró [> régi ír AED tűz, tűzhely, ír DÓ-igh izzik, ég / vels DE = magyar DÉL];


TE-AS forró-ság, hő-ség (> TŰZ) > TE-AS-AI forró, égő, tüzes (> TÜZ-I),


TE-OL melegít, hevít > TE-OL-AI meleg (DE-L-I ~ TULI-piros) > TE-ALL-ACH kályha,


TE-NE tűz („IZZ-ÁNY“ > TŰZ) [> vö. szumir UDUN tűzhely].


Szóképzés


Melléknév képzése főnévből:


Ø az -EACH, -ACH rag/képző segítségével (> magyar -AS, -ES, -OS):


BÁ-CH (BÁJ-OS), DIAIL-ACH (DALI-ÁS, TÁL-t-OS), MEIRG-EACH dühös (MÉRG-ES)


Ø az -ÚIL, -OIL [ejtsd: úly/oly] (> magyar -I): AITHRI-ÚIL (ATYA-I), NEAMH-OIL (MENNY-EI)


Főnevek képzése:


Ø az -ADH, -EADH (> magyar -AT, -ET) képzővel: adh-MHOL-ADH dicséret (> adh-MHOL meg-emel), SILL-EADH csillogás (CSILL-AT) > szumir ZAL ragyogó; ZIL fény, fényes, FILL-EAD (vissza-)fordulás (FOR-dul-AT)


Ø -AGH (> magyar -aG : CSILL-AG, SZALL-AG / -SÁG): BISH-AGH bőség (BUSA-SÁG), CEARD-AÍ-OCHT kézművesség (GYÁRT-Ó-SÁG), FIRRIN-AGH valóság > ír FIOR való (vö. magyar FIR-tat vallat)


Ø -ACH (> magyar -ÁS): BAR-ACH reggel (VIRR-ÁS virradás), DIÚLT-ACH tiltás (TILT-ÁS) > ír DIÚLT-igh megtilt


Ø -aS (> magyar -ÁS): CAL-AOIS (CSAL-ÁS), SOIL-SE (CSILL-ÁS > jakut SÜLÜS csillag)


Ø -ÁIL (> magyar –ÉLY, -ÉL : SZEM-ÉLY, SZENT-ÉLY, KÖT-ÉL): TOG-ÁIL növekedés, GABH-ÁIL megkap(arint)ás (> GABHÁILA Honfoglalás)


Ø -AÍ [í] (> magyar -Ó): ASARL-AÍ (VARÁZSL-Ó), ROBÁL-AÍ (RABL-Ó), CEARD-ÁÍ kézműves, kisiparos (GYÁRT-Ó), TÓGÁL-AÍ (ház)építő (TÁKOL-Ó)


Ø -AINN (> magyar -ANY): ABH-AINN folyó, ACH(AR)-AIN-Í(KÉR-v-ÉNY)


Ø -AM (> magyar -aM : SZELL-EM > ír SCÁIL, TIL(t)-AL-OM > ír DIÚLT-Ú): URR-AIM tisztelet, DÉAN-AMH tevékenység, ténykedés („TÉNY-ÉNY”)


Ø ír -OIR (> magyar -OR): BUAITE-OIR győző (> BÁT-OR), FUAID-IRE utazó (> FUT-ÁR), BÓITHRE-OIR útonálló, bujdosó (> BETY-ÁR) ó vö. ír BÓITHRE-OIR-EACHT koborlás, csavargás, bujdosás;


Foglakozást jelző főnevek alkotása:


ír AOS [ejtsd: ísz, ész] ó magyar IZÉ (> -ÁSZ, -ÉSZ, -ÁCS, ÁS, -OS)


AOS DÁNA (költő, regös)= DAN-OS (> DÁN „egy fajta költészet”)


AOS CEIRD (kézműves)= GYÁRT-ÁSZ (> CEARDAÍOCHT kézművesség)


è ilyen még a magyar: vad-ÁSZ, hal-ÁSZ, lo(v)-ÁSZ, gyógy-ÁSZ, méh-ÉSZ, cip-ÉSZ, zen-ÉSZ, szín-ÉSZ, kert-ÉSZ, kov-ÁCS, szak-ÁCS, tak-ÁCS, munk-ÁS, or(v)-OS stb.


[> vö. török -ÇI, -CI > ari-ÇI méhész, sati-CI eladó, duvar-CI kőműves stb.] [vii]


Igeképzés


Ø a főnévi igenév képzője az ír -IGH (breton –IN): BORR-IGH forr(-ik), FÁLA-IGH falaz, FUIR-IGH megvár (ó FAIR elvár), TANA-IGH (el-)tűnik / SERR-IN zárni, TERR-IN törni


Igeragozás:


n Az ír nyelvben különvált az alanyi (independent kötetlen) és a tárgyas (dependent kötött) ragozás: óir ÍCC-U ügyel-ek óÍCC-IM ügyel-em; D’ÍCC ügyel-t ó D’ÍCC-IS ügyel-t-e.


n A lenni igének két alakja van: BÍ és TÁ (> ír BÍM vagyok ó TÁIM van nekem).


Megjegyzendő, hogy a régi ír nyelvben létezett még egy ún. „személytelen“ (impersonal) alakja is a ‘lenni’ igének, amit FAIL, FEIL, FUIL, FILE alakban írtak ó magyar VALA.


Ezt az ige fórmát ma is használják, de csak kérdő mondatokban: AN BHFUIL vala-e.


n Az ír nyelv nem ismeri a „to have“ (van neki) igét, hanem ezt a lenni ige tárgyas ragozási formájával (TÁ) fejezi ki, akárcsak a magyar nyelv (az indogermán nyelvektől eltérően !) [viii]:


TÁ SÉ AGAM van az nekem/ AGAT neked/ AIGE neki/ AGAINN nekünk stb.


NÍL SÉ AGAM nincs az nekem/ AGAT neked/ AIGE neki/ AGAINN nekünk stb.


n Még három lényeges magyar - ír közös vonás fedezhető fel az igeragozás kapcsán:


1. Az első igeragozási típusnál a D’ (régi ír DE, DO) a múlt idő jele [> vö. magyar -T].


2. A jövő idő jele a „FIDH” rag, a FAIGH (fog, képes lesz) igéből képezve ó a mai


magyar „FOG“: LÉI-FIDH MÉ (szó szerint: OLvas-FOG-OM) ~ el-FOG-OM olvasni.


3. Érdemes még megfigyelni a magyar - ír - török feltételes mód hasonló kialakítását is:


Ø magyar OLVAS-NÁ-M <> ír LÉA-IF-INN <> török OKU-SA-M.


Ezek olyan alapvető jellemvonások, amelyek lényegileg elkülönítik az ír nyelvet az ‘indogermán’ nyelvek struktúrájától.


Egyéb nyelvtani egyezések:


A melléknév egyes számban marad akkor is, ha a főnév többes számban van (!):


DOS UAINE bokor zöld (> zöld bokor), DOSANNA UAINE bokrok zöld (> zöld bokrok).


A számnevek után a főnév egyes számban marad:


(AON) DUINE (egy) személy, DHÁ DUINE két személy, CÉAD DUINE száz, sok személy;


Az ír nyelv, akár a magyar is, előragokkal és utóragokkal rendelkezik. A magyar az egyedüli urál-altáji nyelv, amely előragozó (!). A modern ír nyelv többnyire elvesztette régi utóragjait.


- előragok: Az ír nyelvben az AR előrag (skót AIR) mindig egy teljes, lezárt cselekményt jelöl.


ír AR = magyar EL- (> AR SIÚL = EL-SZAL-ad / AR-FOG = EL-kezd ~ neki-FOG)


ír AG (régi ír AD-) = magyar MEG- (> AG ITHE = MEG-ESZI / AD-BAIL = MEG-HAL)


ír FOR- = magyar FÖL- (> FOR-MHÉADA-igh = FÖL-NAGY-ít)


ír AS el, ki = magyar OSZ-, ISZ- (> AS-LUI = OSZ-OLY, ISZ-kiri elinnen, eliszkolj) stb.


- utóragok (csak egynéhány, amit a régi írások megörökítettek az utókor számára) [ix], például:


-AR (-ÉR-t), -CO (-HOZ, -HEZ), -LA, -LE (-VAL, -VEL), -ÚI (-I > pl. marosvásárhely-i)


Az elő- vagy utóragoknak személyes névmással történő ragozása a magyarral azonos, pl.:


LE-M (VEL-EM) CU-C-UM (HOZ-Z-ÁM) FOR-UM (FÖL-ÉM)


LE-AT (VEL-ED) CU-C-UT (HOZ-Z-ÁD) FOR-UT (FÖL-ÉD)


LE-IS (VEL-E) CU-C-Í (HOZ-Z-Á) FOR-Í (FÖL-É)


Többes szám: az ír nyelv három képzőt használ (-aCHA, -aNNA, -TA)


Ø INÍON-ACHA leány-ok, GAEL-ACHA ír-ek, TANAÍ-OCHA tav-ak stb.


Ø LEAID-EANNA legények stb. (a magyarban is többesjel > hoz-N-ak)


Ø GÁR-THA kiáltások, DÚN-TA tanyák stb. (> finn TALO-T házak, POJ-AT ifjak, fiúk).


Fokozás jele: vels, breton -AFF (magyar -ABB): TEC-AFF szebb, HYN-AFF vénebb stb.


Az ír nyelv egy másik „magyaros“ vonása az, hogy amikor páros szervek egyikéről szól, azt a „fél“ (LEATH) szavával fejezik ki: LEATHLÁMHACH félkezű, LEATAOBHACH féloldali stb.;


Lásd még: LEATHEÁN „fél-madár” a madár párja (→ feleség), LEATHFHOCAL „félszó” (jelszó).


Kicsinyítő képző: ír -ÓG (óír -AC, -IC, -OC, -ÓC, -UC) és breton -IK (magyar -KA, -KE):


óír OSS-OC = ÖZ(I)-KE (ír OIS-ÍN őzgida), FÉSS-ÓC = BAJSZ-KA, ír INÍON-ÓG = JÁNY-KA, breton YAR-IK = JÉR-CE (tyúkocska) ó breton YAR (vels IÂR) tyúk.


Névrag, a női nevek megkülönböztetésére: ír NÍ = magyar -NÉ (> Máire Ní Ógáin)


Továbbá, az ír nyelv nem ismer modális konstrukciókat, azaz nem használ – akár a magyar – parancsoló jellegű igéket. Úgy az írben, mint a magyarban a KELL (ír CEAL) értelme ‘belső indítatásból szükségeltetik, igényeltetik’’. A parancsoló szavakat csak körülírással tudja kifejezni, noha az indogermán nyelvekben (pl. német) különálló igék.


Kérdő szavak: ír CÉ (magyar KI) > ír CÁ HUAIR (magyar MI-KOR); ír CÉN (magyar HÁNY) > CÉN UAIR (HÁNY-SZÓR); óír CUN hol (régi magyar, székely HUN);


CAD hogy > CAD É MAR TÁ TU [kagyémartátú] hogy vagy (köszönés) HOGY MÁR VAGY TE


Kérdőszócska: AN [e’] > AN TÁ T’ARRAN AR AN MBORD VAN-E KENYÉR AZ ASZTAL-ON


A keltának nincs szavuk az „igen”-re: jellemző a kérdésre maga a kérdésben foglaltatott igével való válaszadás, a kérdéssel azonos nyelvtani módban (időben):


Ø AN TÁ TEACH TABHAIRNE ANN (van-e csárda errefelé) ? à TÁ (van) / NÍL (nincs),


Ø AN TUIGEANN TÚ GAEILGE (tudsz-e írül) ? à TUIGIM tudok / NÍ THUIGIM nem tudok.


Mondattan: Az ír mondatszerkesztés lényegre törő, mint a magyar, az ige mindig bevezeti a mondanivalót, és így a közlés mindig a lényegestől a kevésbé lényeges elem felé halad:


NÍ BAINEANN SÉ DUIT GEOBHAIDH TÚ É ACH ÍOC AS


NEM BÁNT AZ TÉGED KAP(HAT)OD TE ŐT CSAK FIZESS


NÍL ORM OBAIR A DHÉANAMH TAR AR AIS


NINCS RÁM MUNKA, AMIT TENNEM TÉRJ (RÁ) VISSZA („VISZ-RA”) [x]

További, a ‘KÖR’ szóbokorral kapcsolatos szavak: magyar KAR-ima (ír CUAR abroncs, CRUINN kerekség); KER-get (óír GRENNAT kergetnek, GUAREN kering, köröz, környez), KER-ülő (ír COR kerülő > COR bealaig kerülő út); KÖR-ít (ír CÓIR-igh köríteni > CÓIRIÚ körítés), KÖR-nyék (ír má-GUAIRD környék), KÖR-őz (ír GUAIRDEALL körözés, GUAIRE keringés), KÖR-ül (ír CUIR thart körbe jár, körbe tart, CHUR ort körös-körül), KÖR-zet (ír CRÍOCH terület, vidék); KUR-ta (ír GEARR, GAIRID rövid; CIORRA- ~ GIORRA- megkurtít); CSAVAR (ír COR csavar, csőről), FORGAT (ó ír FIAR ferdít, ferdül), FORGÓ csípő (ír CORR-óg csípő), GÖNDÖR (ír COIRNIN göndör), GÖRCS (ír CRANRA görcs, bog a fában), GÖRDÜL (ír COR gurul), GÖRNYED (ír CORADH görnyedés, görbület, CUAR görnyedt, görbe), PERDÜL (ír COR fordul, gurul, perdül; és az ír „csárdás“ neve), PERGET (ír CORRA-igh kavar, forgat, kering, COIRE forgás, pörgés), TEKER (ír TOCHRAS tekerés, mannini TOGHYR teker, felcsavar), HER-g-el (ír CORR-aíl hergelés) stb.

testrészek neve: TATH-ag test (> tetem), BIANN bőr, bőnye, FIONN-adh [fona] szőr, fan, FÉSS bajusz, CEANN (PENN) fej, ÉICSE ész, AIGNE elme (> agy), COND értelem (gond), SÚIL szem, SÚIL [szúly] száj, FIACAL fog (és ‘foka vm-nek’), COUGAS gége, SCÓG szegy, CHÍCH csecse, CLIABH mellkas (kebel), PUTÓG has (pocak), BALL bel, belső (BOL has, BOLG gyomor, begy, hólyag), CRÓ vér (> CRUA vörös), FUIL vér (> FUILEADÁN véredény), DEIREOIM gerinc (DEIR-eadh hát ó vö. török GERI hát), FÓIR vég (far), SUÍOCH-án segg, MÉAR ujj (MÁM marék), DÉARNA tenyér (terenye), SEIR sarok stb.


- rokonságot jelölő szavak: GAOL család, nemzetség, ANU anya, AITE (nevelő)atya, BEAN asszony, öregasszony (banya), FEAR férfi, férj, DAIDEO nagyapa, MAMÓ nagyanya, GARMHAC gyermek, unoka, GARLACH gyerek, kölyök, MAC fiú (mag), LEIAN leány, CAILIN menyecske (vö. török GELIN menyecske), BÁB menyecske, szerető, ÓG ifjú, öcskös > ÓGLAG, HOGYN legény; ÉIGIN egyén stb.


- számok: SUIM szám (> SUIM-igh számol; SUIM-lú számla), AIT egy (vö. osztják IT egy, az ó ír UD az), CÉAD sok, száz (vö. kabard KOD sok), SÁR- felülmúlhatatlan (szer-) stb.


- természetbeli tárgyak, jelenségek: NEAMH Menny, GRIAN (GER+AN óriás (gar) fény) Nap, LLEUAD [hloud] Hold, ROGILE ragyogó (RÉGAL kivilágosodik ~ REGGEL) > RÉALTA csillag, SILL-eadh csillogás, BREACADH virrad (pirkad), FIONN fehér, fényes (FÉNY), GOLAU fény (VIL-ág), SNUA szín, CIAR sötét, komor (vö. török KARA fekete), OIE éj, TOIRNEACH dörgés (durranás), TENE tűz (> TEAS tüzesség), ÇHE hő, BRUITH-ean pára, CEO köd, DUREO dér, IÂ jég, EAS vízesés (ESŐ), UÍSCE víz, BOR pezsgő víz (BOR-víz), TUILE folyó, hatalmas ár (ETEL), TONN tenger (óír DÔN), BÉAL folyótorkolat (ÖBÖL), TANAÍ sekély vizű tó, ATÓIN zátony, LOG lyuk, BEARNA verem, BED (FÓDLA) föld, THALLOO talaj, PÚIR pór, GREAN göröngy, CLOCH kő, SCEILG szikla, CARRAIG kéreg, hegyhát, ARD-án fennsík (vö. francia ‘ARD-ennes’ ó magyar ‘ERD-ély’), MAIG máglya, TULÁN dűlő, PORT folyópart, MÚR magas part (mart), FRAOCH berek, RIT (vizes)rét, ÁTH gázló (asz), LÁIB láp, SAIL sár stb.


- növényzet: FID fa, FÓD fű, gyep, TÓCH gyökeret ereszt, töked (vö. ír TOICE vagyon, töke, TOICI kapitalista, tökés), GEÁG ág, FÁS vessző, LUIBH növény, gyom (> LAPU), SIOL sarj, csira, GENAU fenyő (török ÇAM), ULL alma, MÁ (óír MAGH) mező stb.


- állatvilág: LOEN lény, ALLAID állat, FIAD vad, AG szarvas (ADH-arc agancs), OSS őz, MARCA ló, LÓTH ló, EACH ló (asza) > EACH-AIRE lovász (huszár), MAIRT szarvasmarha, BOOAG tehén (buga), DAMH ökör (vö. török TANA ökör) > tinó, CÚ kutya, ABACH eb, FAOLCHÚ farkas [FIADH-MHIOL vad-állat + CHÚ kutya = vadkutya], BROC borz (vö. mongol BORKI), LEON oroszlán, ADAR madár (vö. japán TORI), SEABHAC [sauk] sólyom („sivítő, sivalgó”), IOLAR [ilër] sas (ülü), CARÓG, FRAO varjú, CÁG csóka, GÓIC kakas, YAR tyúk > YARIC jérce, CIRCE csirke, LACHA kacsa (réce), GÉIS hattyú (vö. török KAZ lúd), COLÚR gerle, FILIMÉALA fülemüle, FÉILECAN pillangó (vö. ír FÉIL pilla, pólya, fátyol), FÍOGACH fogas (hal), EOCHRAÍ (hal)ikra, UBH, WY, VI tojás (> ív, ívik, ivar) stb.


- ház, háztartás: TEACH, TY [ta] ház (> szálló-DA, óvó-DA, csár-DA), CÓNAITHE kunyhó, FÁL fal, CAB nyílás (KAPU), CLO kilincs (vö. török KOLU), TÉAGAR takaró, PUIC pokróc, PALLENN takaró (pelenka), RUGA rongy, SUÍOCHÁN szék, JYST üst, TÚLÁN tál, MEADAR (fejő)veder, CRÚSCA korsó, CÁS kas, kosár, SÍOTHLÁN szűrő, szita, MAOS áztat (> mos), GÚNA ruha (gúnya), SEAC zeke, CABH-áil kabát, CÓITIN kötény, köpeny, CRIOS öv, szíjú, MAELLAN mellény, BRÓG cipő, CEANGAL kantár / kengyel stb.


- mezőgazdaság, állattenyésztés: GORT kert, VETU vet, ÁR feldúl, elpusztít (> arat), CÉACHTA eke (vö. ír GÉAG ág), ÁITH aszal; CRÓ karám, GÍOLLA gulyás, AOIRE [íre] őr, CÍOBAR juhász (vö. török ÇOBAN) stb.


- étkezés, mulatozás: FIUCH fő, BEIR főz, forral, BRUITH süt, pirít (vö. BRUITH-ean pára), ITH eszik (EE- ev-), YFED iszik (IU- iv-), LÉ-acht folyadék, lé, OL ital, CWRW [kúrú] sör, ARBHAR gabona, árpa, CÍOCH kása, TAÓS, TEISEN tészta, CURNAGHT kenyér (kerenye), COIP-eadh (> köpül), HUF-en hab, MEZ méz, GOIR só (géra), SA-lann (lemez-/kristály-)só, SAILL szalonna; CÉILÍ táncos összejövetel (> kaláka), SEINM zene, SEINN zenél, DEIL dal, COR forgó-pörgő tánc (> csárdás), SCORAIOCHT szórakozás, mulatság, SOITH szajha stb.


- sport: LÚBÁN labda, LÚITH futás, lótás, RÚID rajt, IMIR mérkőzés, CHELL játék (csel), BARRÓG birok, birkózás stb.


- fegyverek: BATA bot, BUN bunkó, BUAL-t-éan ütőszeg (vö. ír BUAIL pall), BWYELL balta, SÁIL szál(-fa), GÁI kopja, COLG kard (óír CALAD), SÁIBLE szablya (vö. ír SÁBH vág, szab), SÁIGH-ead nyíl (szeg) > SAIGHDIÚIR nyilas, ÁIGE íjász stb.


- bányászat, ipar, kereskedelem, közlekedés: BAIN [bany] bányászik, BONN (fém-)pénz, GABHA kovács, TÁIRGE-óir tárkány, OBAIR munka (ipar), DÚIL dolog, TU út, CAR kerék, CWCH [kúh] csónak (vö. török KAYIK, jakut XAJIK), HWYL [húal] hajó > HWYLIO hajós, EARRA árú, ÚS haszon, kamat (vö. török ASI) stb.


- társadalom, hadsereg, országlás: URRA úr, vezér / őr, CEANN fejedelem (kán), BODACH egy vidék katonai parancsnoka (vajda), FLAITH [FIÚ fő + LÁ- ló + -ITH fn-képző] lovas-vezér, nemzetségfő (lófő), LÁEACH lovas(-harcos), BUACHA fiatal katona (baka) > BACÁN katonai kiképzés, SEKELL ‘kiváló, kemény harcos’, GAISCE hős, BUAITEOIR győző (bátor), GÍOLLA fiatal vezér (> gyula), NUADHA vezér, fejedelem (nádor), MIDHIR főbíró, felhatalmazott (‘megyer’-törsz ?) ó török MÜDÜR vezérigazgató, COIMHÉADI követ, kém, BARN, BREUT, BRIW bíró, BRIOD birtok (vö. ír BEIR bír, tart), BARDA őrhely (börtön), CÓIP csapat, CAD had, CATH csata, CABHAIR háború; ÚIR föld, terület, ország (OR-szág), DÚN tanya, BAILE, PLU falu, CATHAIR (nagy)város, kerek vár (> régi magyar KÁTA), CAER, KER vár, RIATH erőd stb.


- vallás: ANU Anya(istennő) ~ DANU Jó-Anya, DON (Is-)Ten, DAGHDHA ‘Jóisten’ (Dicső-Atya), NEAMH Menny, NAOMH nemes, szent (vö. török NIMET áldás) > NEMED szentély, TUAR isteni jel (> TUARÚIL megjósoló, isteni sugallatú, csodálatos, kísérteties), HUD csoda, DRAOTA druida (torda), ALTA-igh megáld (> ALTÚ hálaadás), CEALL templom (igal), DIAIL táltos (dalia), GUÍ ima (ige), RÁMHAILLE révülés, REIC rege, RIONN róni (> RIABH rovás), BETH írás (betű), CÍN könyv, IRIS hírlap, ASARLAÍ varázsló, ÍOC gyógyít (javít) ó IACH jó, CÓGAS gyógyszer, VIJIL böjt, BÁ báj, BAI baj, CUR betegség, kór (COIR hiba, CEARR kár), DEILBH tünemény, ami nem szellem (ó DE Dél, TOLAÍ tüzes), TACAR utánzat, képmás, hamisítvány (> tükör), SÍÚIL tündér (sellő), NAS-adh nász, MIONN női korona, párta; eskü (> menyecske; menyegző), TÚARE étkezés, lakoma, halotti tor, BÁS halál (vész), SÍ (SIDH), SÍR sírhalom, ‘tündérdomb’ stb.


- idő, helyzet: RÉ rég, ARIUC örök, ANOIS most, MEANDAR mindjárt; AGOS közel, YMAITH messze, NOON innen, UAINN onnan, THALL túl, RAON irány stb.


- tulajdonság, mennyiség: OES, UZ ős, előd, HEN vén, OET idős, ÁR-sa öreg (ó RÉ rég), ATH ó, ódon, ÚR új, DEA jó (> ED-es), IAWN, IACH jó, jól, REZEUDIG rossz, rozoga, COIGIL kegyelmez, CUNÚS gonosz, SAONTA őszinte, SADB [szajb] szép, DEAS díszes, GRÁNNA csúnya, fránya, GER óriás, gar, MÉAD nagy, CÉAD sok, BAIL bő, BIS bős(éges), BACH kicsi (pici), BRAON parány, GAIRID rövid (kurta), URRA erő (> URRÚS-ach erős), BOG puha, LAG lágy, GWAN gyenge, KUNV könnyű, TUIL tele, UIREAS-ach üres, GEIR kövér, SEANG sovány, MÉITH gazdag, módos, SAIBHIR vagyonos ember (> szabir ?), ANÁS ínség, SÍOGAI gyenge, nyápic ember (szegény), OLC rossz, szegény, nyomorult (> olcsó, ócska, ocsmány), FUADAR gyors (fudri), GEARÚ felgyorsulás, LEASC lassú (LEISCIÚIL, LHIASTEY lusta), LOICEACH munkakerülő, ‘lógós’ (ó LOIC meglóg vm elöl), MALL lassú, buta, gyenge (málé), BAOTH buta, BUILE hülye, DAILLE dilis, ÉIGEAS ügyes, GAOIS okos, SAOI bölcs (eszes), EOLACH jeles (ó EOL jel), DIAIL deli, dalia stb.


- a lét és a cselekvés igéi: LUÍ teljes mozdulatlansági állapot (áll, ül), HUN, SUAN alszik, FUIR megvár, FAIR elvár (> FAIRE virrasztás, őrködés ó vö. török BÜRE-mek őrizni), NEADA-igh nyugszik, ÉIR-igh kel, ered (> EFFRO ébren, éber), ÉIR-igh ér, elér, megér, megérik, AIR-igh érez, LÚTH futás (lótás) > LÚT-áil meglódít, IMIGH ~ MYND megy, TÉANA jön, TANA csökken, elfogy, eltűnik, TAR tér, visszatér, megtér, CORRA-igh kering, kerül, SAT-ail gyalogol, sétál, SIÚIL szalad, SITHEAD rohanás, hajsza, FUADA-igh megszöktet (FUADAR fürgeség), ACHAIR kér, AGAIR akar, IARR kér, követel; keres, valamerre tart, CEAL kell, ÉIGEAN igény, SANN kijelöl, kioszt, kiutal, felajánl (> szán), CEAD hagy, engedélyez (-hat, -het), DÉAN tenni, FAIGH indít, ösztönöz (> ar FOGNI nekifog), FUAIGH megfog, összefog, GABH elkap, megragad, URRA-igh őriz (> URRA őr, URRÚS őrs, őrség), FAICH- figyel, ügyel, oltalmaz, ÍOC ügyel, ápol, TUIG tud, ért, ismer, DIÚLTA- megtagad, megtilt, TACA-igh alátámaszt (dúcol), TEANN támasz, TÓG épít (tákol); emelkedik (dagad), LAGHDA csökken, zsugorodik (lohad), TOLL összerak, tol > TOLG lökdös, tolakszik, TYWALLT tölt (> TUIL tele), URA-igh árnyékol, SÉIMH-igh enyhít, lágyít, símít, simogat, BÁN-aid ver, bánt, OIDHE csapás, ütés; hirtelen halál, BUAIL megüt, fejbe kólint, pall, CAITH dob, hajít, SÍ sí (sirít), RIOS lenget, riszál, SÉID felfúj, fokoz, szít, SEAD üt, tép, sújt, SCOITH letép (szakít), TORRI tör, TÁIR lealacsonyít, megrongál (tarol), SÁBH vág, szab, CEALG csal, becsap, CEALA-igh elrejt, elcsel (ó CALAOIS csalás, CHELL játék, csel), SEÁP csapás, REAB széttép, széttör, szétzúz, repeszt (> robban), ROB-áil rabol, KOLL elvész, elvesztődik (elkallódik), (ad-)BAIL (meg-)hal, SCOL szól, szólít, BÉIC ordít, bőg, FEAD-ail fütyöl, SEINN zenél, CUACH ölel, csókol (> CUACH csók, csokor), BÍS-igh baszik, szaporodik / szaporít, bősít (ó BÍS-iúil szapora, termékeny), TOIRCH-igh megtermékenyít (> TORCHEAS terhesség), IDU vajúdás, SAOLA-igh születik stb.

User avatar
Kuba
Posts: 2694
Joined: 2005-11-28, 13:37
Real Name: Jakob Krystian
Gender: male
Location: Wiedeń
Country: AT Austria (Österreich)

Postby Kuba » 2006-01-26, 15:36

Ungarherz muss vieles leiden,
Steht im Hintergrund bescheiden,
Zupft sich kleines Lied auf Zither:
Extra Hungariam non est vita!
Image
Image

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-01-26, 21:33

Kuba wrote:Ungarherz muss vieles leiden,
Steht im Hintergrund bescheiden,
Zupft sich kleines Lied auf Zither:
Extra Hungariam non est vita!


from "Die Ungarische Schöpfungsgeschichte" by Peter Hammerschlag (1902-1942)

User avatar
Kuba
Posts: 2694
Joined: 2005-11-28, 13:37
Real Name: Jakob Krystian
Gender: male
Location: Wiedeń
Country: AT Austria (Österreich)

Postby Kuba » 2006-01-26, 21:40

Exactly... this discussion here reminds me of some of it's verses.
Image
Image

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-02-02, 16:29

Ancient migrations of Homo sapiens sapiens
as mirrored in epigraphy and modern genetics




by Em. Dr. Pál Fejes (Szeged, Hungary)


Epigraphy is more than simply the science of writing: the deciphering and interpretation of ancient texts may throw light on forgotten events from the remote past. This publication describes the surprising unison of modern genetics and epigraphy. The ancient Eurasian marker, M173, of Homo sapiens sapiens is shown correspond exactly to the migration "EESSA-exodus" from north India (in about 44 600 B.C.) Similarly, in all probability, the gene flow M170 is identical with "AENEAS", another important migration, also from India, which took place in about 19 000 B.C. The view is expressed that the interesting distribution of the Eu19 haplotype can be explained by the Sumerian exodus which reached France in the west, populated North-Italy by a particularly important race, the Etruscan, and the Tarim Basin in the east (which might have been at least partly habitable) in the time following the occupation of their homeland around 2000 B.C.


In 2000 O. Semino and sixteen co-workers published a paper in the journal Science entitled "The genetic legacy of Palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: a Y Chromosome Perspective" [1]. Like a number of other scientists before them (see references and notes in the original paper) they derived information on Palaeolithic and Neolithic migrations from studies of 22 binary markers of non-recombining Y chromosomes (NRY) from 1007 blood samples collected in 25 different European and Middle Eastern regions.


The Science publication is an excellent work, but the historical backing of the findings (as for all publications which have dealt with this theme previously) is missing, and there appears to be virtually no hope that the events which occurred in the remote Palaeolithic epoch (in the biblical 'ADAM, SET and ENOS era, i.e. between c. 44 000 and 36 000 B.C.) can ever be reconstructed or that any relics (with or without written records) will be unearthed in the future to support such conclusions.


Nevertheless, there is still some hope that a faint beam of light may be thrown upon this black hole of human history, primarily by means of archaeological relics, with hieroglyphic and NILW (an abbreviation for " North Indian Linear Writing " used by the present author, for about a decade) and later cuneiform texts on them, because these ancient texts are open to interpretation. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to compare the results of epigraphic papers with other of publications such as those of Semino and his co-workers. The reason is simple: for scientists at home in genetics, the field of epigraphy and linguistics seems very remote, and vice versa. From such a comparison, possible errors may hopefully be corrected.


In a number of publications in recent years I have dealt with the most important migration of Homo sapiens sapiens in the remote past [2-6]. I call this "EESSA.HAR", or "EESSA-exodus". There is considerable (widely overlooked) evidence of its existence. From a very rich pool, let me mention just a few of these points: the widespread occurrence of the notions "EEG.EESSAR.REED", "EESSAR.REED", "SAR.REED" > "SAR.RET" [2,5]; the "negative" imprints of an open palm to be found over the whole world from Japan, over South France to Patagonia. (The most beautiful relics of this kind can be seen on a number of limestone cave walls in Borneo, French Provence: caves Pech Merle, Gargas, Chauvet and, as the newest, in the cave Cosquer near to Marseilles and in the Argentine province Santa Cruz, in South Patagonia).


There is no doubt, the Hungarian word "tenyér" < (…).DEEN.EER (where the missing vowel is EE, or EH) has the meaning: "Edenic MAGAR"; extending the notion by the word "imprint", leads to "my people is the (fugitive) army from the 'ABYSS.(E).WER.HUN. HASSA", where the meaning of "ABYSS" might be selected from the options of Webster's unabridged Dictionary [7]: "in which anything (or rather "everything") is lost"; or "hell", in full agreement with the Greek: [GR] abnssoz = "immeasurable depth", "hell".


Also the megalithic buildings belong to this theme, because (EE)M.EEG.HAL.EED.(EE) contains the underlined syllables: EEGAL meaning "the people of EEGEER". The cyclops (< SSEEG.EEL.LU.BEESS) walls, being important parts of these buildings (provided they had such walls at all) have the meaning: "seat of MAGAR people (from the) HADESS". (I don't think, it would be necessary to name the long list of megaliths, each built for the eternity, over the whole world.)


These characteristics can be found everywhere over the (then habitable) territories of Earth. I have identified the nationality of the fugitives (the EEM.HUL people); their language (EEM.EESSAL = EEM.HUL meaning "SSEEG.EEL.I-MAGAR"); the place wherefrom the exodus started in c. 44 600 B.C. (the surroundings of the North-Indian "MUZAFFAR" city) and whereto it arrived as concerns both the place and historical time [4]. I have outlined the causes which led to the exodus, i. e. rebellion of the tribe HAN.EG (with the meaning "war"), known among the Hungarian "Landholders", in 896 A.D., as the tribe "Nyék". The HAN.EG tribe (who lived near to the confluence of the North-Indian rivers Chenab and Ravi, in their home: HU.DU.HUM, or HAR.HAB.HA) due to reasons unknown attacked and burned up the home of the EEM.HUL people on the left side of the Jamuna river, north to the (present) Indian capital, DEL.HI, in the time of winter solstice


(HA)G.HA.HAR.HASSU.UN > [MAGY] "Karácsony", or
(HA)G.HA.HAR.EESS.(E).DU.HUM.HASS > [ENG] "Christmas"


when the high growing reed covering the marshy tide-land was dry.

The land-name of the attackers : HAR.HAB.HA (> [MAGY] "árpa") is identical with the [ENG] BARLEY, or Hindi: [HIND] E.HA.HU (= HANU) > JAU, having male gender. From this follows that the word SE, with the same meaning, is also of male gender, in contrast to SEH.HE, in brief: SEE = HAR.I.I.BA (meaning "barley", too), but this notion should have female gender. These remarks seem to be unnecessary linguistic nuances. Actually, these "nuances" have major influence in epigraphy; they decide whether something is white or black, warm or cold.


. The horrible deed, mentioned, is well known from the Bible; it is the KAIN / 'ABEL conflict. The biblical story is "codified" by later redactors, attempting to satisfy their ideologies, as KAIN, with the tribe-symbol of "bull" [8], did something else as described there: instead sacrificing his "brother", 'ABEL to his god, "he" killed a large percentage of the six tribes of the "cow", the people EEM.HUL. According to the Sumerian epic "ENKI and NIN.HU.HUR..SSAG" SSEEG.EEL.I soldiers gave then the border ward at the single contact between the two nations of bitter hatred, the bridge over the river Jamuna (somewhere near to MUZAFFAR city). From the (also "edited" and not "fully understood" [9]) Sumerian epic "The creation of the pickax" we know even the name (HANU.UN.EN.HAG.EE >): 'ANUNNAKI of the attackers ("the house which rebels against the king", as we learn from the epic!) who used flaming torches to burn up the land of JADEE (= NEEB.EER.[EE.EE] REED.EED), i. e. the "people of GENESIS".


The military action was more than a "success": of the "EEM.HUL people (who, I think, might had been participants of the winter-solstice festivities and had neglected their duties at the Jamuna bridge) about 40 000 burned alive to death, or drowned in the deluge followed shortly after the flood of fire, and the others, remainders from the six tribes, c. 320 000 persons became fugitives, who ran away in every direction of the wind, fully losing control over themselves.


About 120 000 persons (about 33 %) selected the western direction under the command of NEE.MARUD (> NIMROD; meaning: "healthy"), because the adored king and warlord, HAR.I.I.BAD, lost his life in the animosities mentioned. After the death of NIMROD (MEENEESS >) MENES inherited the leadership. (The historical time then was a few tens of years after the start of the exodus).


It is interesting that whereas NIMROD had become worthy to get a place in the Sumerian pantheon of gods (and also in the Bible!), MENES had not. (We find NIMROD's depiction on plate VII., first on the left side, in Kramer's book [9], already cited).


The migration in western direction went across EER.HAN (= "my MAGAR home") > IRAN; the marshy tide-land SUMEER (the name is distorted); MEZU.BUD. HAM.I.HA (with the shocking meaning: "army of the Edenic people of MAGAR.I.HA from India") > MEZOPOTAMIA; HAN.HAD.HUL.EE.HA (= "my Edenic army of MAGAR.I.HA") > ANATOLIA. Reaching the "Large Green Sea" (the "Mediterranean") the migration wave split into two streams: one of them turned to north, towards the Balkans (< (HA)BAL.GAN = "I am Edenic MAGAR") and the other to (North) AFRICA (< HABUR.EEG.HA = "home of war"). This was the genesis of the North-African MAGAR.EEB (meaning: "army from the MAGAR snow-home") states. (For me it's very disturbing that the relevant states eliminated two "HA" syllables leading to the meaningless notion: "MAGREB").


Whereas the EESSA migration wave reached the Mediterranean east coast in the biblical epoch 'ADAM, the MAGAR.EEB states (including MOROCCO) could be populated only in the SSET age (44 000 - 40 000 B.C.). This is true also for the territory of EESS.BAN.EE.HA (= "EESSU.HUN.HABUR.EEG.HA = "MAGAR snow-home, house of war") > HISPANIA. The migration got stuck (temporarily) at the Pyrenean mountain range (presumably due to the thick layers of snow covering the mountain passes). The Hungarian name of this mountain range: PIREE.NEE.HUSS = "tüz + nép + MAGAR" = "people of fire, the MAGAR". (The "Book of Dead" did not [8], however, we, Hungarians, have this name of ours fully forgotten).


The wave moving across the Balkan Peninsula populated great parts of EE.HU.HUR.HU.BA (= "I am Edenic MAGAR [arriving by the] EESSA-exodus from the house of the people: MAGAR.I.HA"; a quite disturbing meaning, especially if we remember the very sad situation that the "Iron Curtain" excluded us from Europe for about 60 years!) > EUROPA (the Hungarian name of Europe) already in the 'ADAM era, except Provence, Bretagne, 'Albion (today's England), Scotland, Sweden and Norway which were reached only in the SSET, whereas Russia, the Mediterranean isles (like MEENOSS [i.e. Crete], LEE.MEEN.OSS > Lemnos etc.) could be populated only c. 4000 years later, in the ENOS era (40 000 - 36 000 B.C.). The same time was necessary to cross the American Continent, down to the "Tierra del Fuego", i. e. Patagonia [10], as well.

--

"Beautiful MAGAR.I.A", or as we know it today: "Sib +er + ia" could be owned still later, in the KEENAN age (36 000 - 32 000 B.C.), because this territory was inaccessible in the previous ages due to thick layers of snow and lasting permafrost. (Thus, the very early ['ADAM era] appearance of EESSA fugitives in North America [I would like to refer onto the relics of the famous Burrow's cave [11]] can be explained by migration via China and the unfrozen seacoasts).


The remaining 55 % (about 200 000 peoples) migrated towards China in order to reach (the presumably known) North-America over the (then certainly) dry passage (today the Bering passage), or to the north (Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan) and south, crossing today's Tamil Nadu and reaching the beautiful isle: SSAR.I.LAN.EEG.HA (= "house of the king of MAGAR's") known as "SRI LANKA".(Here only the underlined word has any meaning in modern Hungarian: "little girl". As GEERAL (meaning "king") > [ENG] "girl", not too much remained from this rank of the remote past!). By applying a special technique (jump from an isle to the other) the fugitives reached Australia, as well.


The Edenic population of Australia are called: HABUR.EE.EEG.EENEESIS > "'ABORIGINES", who occupied the north-western and northern coastal territories in the (dynastic) EEM.EEN.EEG era (identical to SSET), even though they left North-India already in the (dynastic) EEM.EEN.EESS era (corresponding to the 'ADAM epoch) which is clearly seen on the underlined word: "GEENEESIS".


(The Helvetian Rhaeto-Romanic people is known also as "ABORIGINES").


In 1988 a reporter of the American Natl. Geogr. Magazine interviewed an old member of the (HA)G.HAGU.DJU (= "deadly hate annihilated the MAGAR (people)") tribe. According to the unwritten traditions of his tribe they are living on the territory of the "KAKADU Natl. Park" since about 41 000 years (!). (Taking the upper limit, 40 000 B.C. of the SSET age, the old man erred only 1000 years [12]).


The volume "Aboriginal Stories" by A. W. Reed [20] published first in 1994 is an excellent collection of myths and legends of the Australian Aboriginals, extended by two word-lists: English-Aboriginal and Aboriginal-English. (Some years ago I was deeply concerned that this ancient MAGAR population will be extinct before a representative selection of aboriginal words from hundreds of dialects in use today among the tribes could have been compiled by authentic Hungarian linguists. Now, I am not afraid any more.)


The Aboriginals cannot deny their origin: the most important spirit of heavens in the happy Dreamtime was BAJAME (< BA + EE.HA.MEE = "MAGAR.I.HA. NEEP HABUR.HAM.EE", meaning approximately: "people of MAGAR.I.HA in war with HAM.EE". Please, don't ask me about HAM.EE; its meaning is horrendous!) These stories and names may fundamentally help in the reconstruction of happenings in the ancient mother-land.


From this short overview it's clearly seen that the biblical genealogy and dynastic time-determinants (for more details cf. [4]) permit to follow the migration wave both in location and time. Nevertheless, the question can be raised, how reliable these historical dates might be? I have to refer here on to a paper published in the July-September issue of the historical and epigraphic journal "Migration & Diffusion" [21] where I give the readings and translations of a rich selection of archaeological relics unearthed in Asia Minor and Egypt. Here, I have to restrict myself onto publications of previous researchers and the results of modern genetics, but, in this case too, I have to avoid lengthy analyses. Let's look first at the publications of linguists from the 19. century or even much sooner, dealing with the history of Scythic people.


In the subtitle "Ante-Semitic period" of the publication [13] by H. C. Rawlinson we can read the following sentence: "If we examine the traditions of the Greeks,…we trace everywhere a belief in the existence of a Scythic dominion in Asia, at the dawn of history". These Scyths were certainly the people of the biblical NIMROD, the ancient inhabitants of (EEDEEN.DEER >) "TIN TIR", the name of Babylon before 2500 B.C., meaning "Edenic EESSAR".


Their title, used as a distinctive epithet even by the later Chaldaean kings, written by cuneiform signs: is well readable: NEEBAL.EESSA.HAR.HAN | HU.HAR.HAZA.HAT.TI | HUTEET HUN | EEM.EEN.EESSA.HAR | where NEEBAL (later: NEPAL) is the name of the EESSA-exodus (meaning: "I am from the people of EESSA-exodus, home of war"), HUTEET HUN = "murderous house", and the underlined detail is the dynastic time-determinant of the 'ADAM epoch (c. 44 600 B.C.). (The cuneiform text is not older than c. 4000 B.C.)


In the same publication Rawlinson goes further:…"we are authorised to infer that, at some very remote period…a great Scythic population must have overspread Europe, Asia and Africa", speaking similar languages with common characteristics in the grammar. (About the Georgian [which means: "EEGEE.MAGAR.I.HA" where"EEGEE" is enigmatic, means either "Edenic", or "it is dying out"] language Rawlinson thought, "it is probably the direct representative of ancient Scythic". However, the Scyths "beyond the Caucasus", like the Lapps, the Fins, the Esthonians and the Magyars were not forgotten in the paper, either. I think, it is simply unbelievable!)


The Scythic, actually "EEM.HUL", dominance (I would use instead EEM.HABEER.EE > [ENG] EMPIRE, with the meaning: "SSEEGEL-MAGAR house") lasted - according to the chronology of EPIPHANUS - "from the deluge to the reign of (NEEB.HUS.HADEEN.EESSA.HAR >) NEBUCHADNEZZAR", the last king of Babylon possessing ancient EEM.HUL origin (the historical time is a few years before 539 B.C.) (Although this statement of Epiphanus cannot be accepted at face value, it's worse that there were a number of "deluges" and we don't know which one had been meant by Epiphanus. I think, this one was the local deluge in North India in c. 44 600 B.C., but the biblical "tower of Babel" had been built in TIN.TIR in c. a few tens of years before the "Tollmann-deluge" in 7750 B.C. [14], which, by violent storms, earthquake and flood damaged the building seriously in its semi-finished state. It remained so until c. 600 B.C. when (U)N.HABUK.HAD(EE)N. EESSAR restored it, the "ÉTEMENANKI", in its full grandeur. This was the time when the linguistic divergence took a sharp turn, as "ordered by the Lord".)

--

There is another important detail in these writings in need of correction. The Bible, in Gen. 214, is declaring that the "golden age" and "the focus of the EESSA-exodus" was Mesopotamia, contrary to old reminiscences which go back to a place with high mountains in the immediate neighbourhood. The misinterpreted Sumerian table from NIPPUR (No. 29.16.422) supports the views of the Bible and the text's translator, S. N. Kramer, who did not want to observe the serious contradiction between the text of the NIPPUR table and the Sumerian epic "ENKI and NIN HURSAG", published also in his translation [loc. cit.], which is a true description of the "golden age", with NIN SIKIL (= "SSEEGEEL woman") as goddess of DEEL.MU.HUN = "EESSAR.REED.DU.HUN in North India.

Rawlinson's perceptions are fascinating, because in a later letter presented at the meeting of the Roy. Asiatic Soc. in 1853 (published in [15]) he had seen these historical events "on a larger scale": "The importance of these views (as summarized previously) and their bearing on the world's history…cannot be too highly appreciated" was announced by him at this occasion. In other words, his impressions are important not only from the point of view of EEM.HUL (or MAGAR) history, these historical events are also for the "Indo-European" (i.e. "Arian") nations of prime importance, because their forefathers had left North India by the EESSA-exodus, too.

It was necessary to correct a few errors (e. g. that the persons involved were those of the EEM.HUL race, and not the Scythians who appeared on the scene only c. in the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C.; that the "focus" of the EESSA-exodus was North India and not Mesopotamia and the relevant historical time was in the remote past [in the end of the biblical 'ADAM era]). Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to study Rawlinson's (from this point of view) most valuable publication [13], dealing with the theme in merit (and in the possession of a fairly superficial knowledge of Hungarian, but, instead, he could read the cuneiform texts). It's now worthwhile to inspect how Rawlinson's views and my epigraphic recognitions are mirrored in the results of modern genetics (I dare say, also without any knowledge in Hungarian and epigraphy).

Contrary to beliefs expressed also in the paper by Semino et al., migrations in the past on larger scale were mainly due to natural disasters and lost wars. Changes of the climate and developments of new technologies were only of secondary importance.

Of the 22 binary markers ("haplotypes") two, Eu18 and Eu19, constitute about 50 % of the European chromosomes. They belong to a common allele, M45, a lineage of which, characterised as M3, is common in the native Americans, the Indians, and in a few Siberian tribes (like the most north-eastern NEEB.HU > "Nyivh"). According to the studies cited, another lineage, M173, an ancient Eurasian marker, characterises Homo sapiens sapiens who "diffused from east to west about 40 000 to 35 000 years ago". These migrants are supposed to have been the founders of the Aurignac culture (the meaning of Aurignac is: "house of war and death; people from MAGAR.I.HA [which was annihilated by] the assassins of HABU.UN.HA").

It is easy to recognise, this migration wave corresponds exactly to the EESSA-exodus which - according to the previous short summary - began in c. 44 600 B.C. and (if the northern territories are also considered) was finished in the ENOS, or even in the KENAN age (Siberia). Thus, even if the authors' estimates are absolutely unorthodox, they are precise!

Table 1. of the paper cited reveals interesting differences in the percentages of the haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19. While Eu18 decreases from west to east (reaching 88.9 % in Basque), the trend for the haplotype Eu19 is reversed, reaching its maximum in Hungary (60 %). The authors are explaining this observation by complicated drifts triggered by the Würm III. glacial, which, of course, is a possibility, but let me return to it later.

There were only two points I could not agree with in the publication. The first relates how and when the EESSA fugitives reached North America? According to the paper the Aurignac culture appeared almost simultaneously also in Siberia from which some groups migrated to the Americas. In reality, Siberia had been populated only c. 4000-8000 years later, whereas North America ("down" to the state Illinois) was reached (according to archaeological relics found in the Burrow's cave; loc. cit.) via China and the passable seacoasts already in the 'ADAM epoch. (This is a clear indication, the American Continent, or at least its northern part, was already known to the fugitives!) In the second question I feel myself absolutely authentic: neither the EESSA-exodus people, nor the present population of Hungary did, or do speak an Uralic language! (According to H. Matsamuto, professor of the University of Osaka, the "Uralic, north-Mongolian" marker [Gm ab3st] is represented in the Hungarian population in 10.3 % on the average [16]. The comparable Eu9 haplotype, in Table 1. of Semino's paper reaches only 2.2 %. I think so, the presence of the Uralic marker in the Hungarian gene pool is not very fortunate.)

The M170 mutation is most frequent in central Europe and in the lands of the Basques and Sardinians. The authors proposed that this mutation occurred c. 22 000 years ago by a migration from the Middle East and was closely associated with the Gravettian culture. The underlined name corresponds unequivocally to the (EEM.HUL) linguistic structure: GEER.HABEET.TI = GEERU.HUN.HAD.DI, meaning "dead (= GEERU > Cretan: [CR] KIRU) home of HAT.TI" (where HAT.TI is the name of the ancient inhabitants of Anatolia, meaning "six MAGAR (tribes)").

The name relieves old memories in me from the early nineties when I have spent a few months with a text from Praisos (East Crete), written with Greek letters, not in Greek, but, supposedly, in Eteo-Cretan, in reality EEM.HUL language [17]. The text is (from linguistic point of view a "terrible" one) a historical chronology which can be partitioned into groups, each corresponding to 4000 years. (The origin is 44 000 B.C.) Provided, I am not erring too much in the historical time, in about 19 000 B.C. appears a notion in the text: "TEEMEET.HO.E.HON" = "house of the grave", followed shortly by HAD.HA.EEN.EH.HASS, meaning "army of 'AENEAS". It was an important migration set off (again) by a lost military action (on the side of migrants) in India which transformed their land into a grave. (The close connection of the Gravetti culture with the [ENG] GRAVE (= GEERU.HUN.HA, like the name of the city: KIRUNA in North-Sweden) seems to be non-disputable. In spite of this "AENEAS" was personified and, as far as I know, became forefather of the Latin).

--

In the early nineties I was sure, this migration was restricted only to Anatolia, the Aegean isles, Sicily and Italy. It was an error.


The origin of the Eu19 haplotype, to my opinion, is due to another very important historical event, the "migration of magicians" (or rather their "exodus") after destruction of the last Sumerian city-state, 'UR, by the Semitic invaders in approximately 2050 B.C. (cf. [9]). As mentioned, in the next to the last issue of Migration & Diffusion [21] I have proved that the founder of the Hittite Empire in c. 1800 B.C., HANITTASS (>'ANITTAS), must have been a Sumerian fugitive, a "Magus". He organized the dispersed Sumerian civilian and military persons fully shaken in their faith, and his followers created a strong and rich empire within a few hundreds of years, able to encounter in an undecided battle with the then strongest military force of the world, Egypt (warlord and Pharaoh Ramses II), near to KADESH in 1288 B.C. There are, however, a great number of unequivocal linguistic and archaeological proofs that the Hittite influence went beyond the central territories of Anatolia. Masses (according to my estimate several 100 000 people) were involved in the "exodus of magicians" and their desperate flight spread over the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin, Austria, Northern Italy, Bavaria and even over France. Those, who arrived either from the Carpathian Basin by crossing the Alps, or on ships across the Adriatic Sea (Telsina was founded by them on the seacoast) and settled in North Italy had comprised a famous race, the Etruscan. They should have had Sumerian ancestors. In 2003 an Italian professor of linguistics, Mario Alinei, published a book on Hungarian-Etruscan affiliation [18], entitled "Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungerese" (The Etruscan language is an archaic form of the Hungarian). His belief is well founded because the name of their land (EED.HU.HUR.HU.HUR.I.HA >) "ETRURIA" means "Edenic MAGAR.I.HA", and the name of the people (EED.HU.HUR.HUS.SSEEGEE >) "ETRUSC" means: "Heroic seat of Edenic MAGAR".


Let be set aside now whether in 1800 B.C. the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin had been 'AWAR-MAGAR, or SEKEL-MAGAR people. Anyway, the book by M. Alinei is a shocking revelation, indeed!


The genetic influence can easily be recognised in the cephalic index, and in the frequency of the Eu19 genetic haplotype analysed by the group of O. Semino. The "flagging" of migration is shown in the experimentally observed trend of its distribution. (The highest value [60.0 %] found in Hungary is no surprise: among the Land-takers in 896 A.D. there was a "Sumerian" tribe, with the name "TARJAN", that of the "smiths", the "sons of Gomer").


Another wave had taken the northern direction (Chaldea, Georgia) and passing the Caucasus (and founding 'OSSETIA there) turned to the east (Bashkiria, Juguria, and Kazakhstan). It was a real surprise for me, too, that almost all of these nations have the same national colours (red-white-green) as Hungary, a very many thousand years old legacy of the ancient HAT.TI Empire.


The well conserved mummies found in the Tarim Basin, like the "Beauty of Loulan", or the "Cherchen Man" [19] are excellent examples showing the physical appearance (like the Europeans) and an unbelievable "elegance", as concerned their clothing, of the late Sumerian fugitives and their descendants. Surprisingly, indeed, not a single scientist recognised yet that the appearance of European-looking persons on the eastern rim of the Tarim Basin in c. 2000 B.C. and the annihilation of Sumer are "somehow" related!


References
[1] O. Semino et al. Science, 290 (2000) 1155.
[2] P. Fejes, Migration & Diffusion, 1 (No. 5, 2001) 6.
[3] P. Fejes, Migration & Diffusion, 4 (No. 16, 2003) 81.
[4] P. Fejes, Migration & Diffusion, 5 (No. 20, 2004) 65.
[5] P. Fejes, Midwestern Epigraphic Journal, 12/13 (1998-1999) 103.
[6] P. Fejes, Migration & Diffusion, 3 (No. 10, 2002) 95.
[7] Websters Dictionary (Simon and Schuster, 2nd Edition, New York, 1972).
[8] E. A. W. Budge, "The Book of Dead" (Routledge and Kegan Ltd., London, 1974).
[9] S. N. Kramer, "Sumerian Mythology" (Harper, New York, 1961).
[10] National Geographic Magazine 205 (2004) 55.
[11] L. Bürgin, "Geheime Archäologie" (Bettendorf, München, 1998).
[12] National Geographic Magazine 173 (1988) 266.
[13] H. C. Rawlinson,, J. Roy. Asiatic Soc., 15 (1855) 215.
[14] Alexander and Edith Tollmann, "Und die Sintflut gab es doch" (Droemer Knaur, München, 1993).
[15] H. C. Rawlinson, The Athenaeum (No. 1321, 1853) 228.
[16] Tauszik T., Magyar Tudomány, 1990/a (No. 8) 904.
[17] J. Friedrich, "Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler" (W. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1932).
[18] M. Alinei, "Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungerese" (Il Mulino, 2003).
[19] E. W. Barber, "The Mummies of Ürümchi" (MacMillan, London, 1999)
[20] A. W. Reed, "Aboriginal Stories", (New Holland Publishers, Sydney [Australia], 2005).
[21] P. Fejes, Migration & Diffusion, 6 (No. 23, 2005) 70.

User avatar
Guillem
Posts: 2771
Joined: 2003-11-10, 13:25
Real Name: Guillem
Gender: male
Location: New Cross, London
Country: GB United Kingdom (United Kingdom)

Postby Guillem » 2006-02-02, 17:00

So we finally know what became of the naughty Sumerians! ;)

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-02-03, 7:16

..



EARTH MOTHER IMAGES

by Fejes Pál (Szeged, Hungary)


In the MES Newsletter 18, No.3, 2001 J. J. White, Editor of the Society, published a paper entitled "Earth Mother Images in Argentine Indian Art". He suggested to get Earth Mother Culture "right" and made the proposition to send him our ideas on the subject.


I would like to direct his and the MES reader's attention to my view that the nine pictures he selected from the Dover Pictorial Archive Series, besides their artistic values, do "speak", using a very ancient way of writing (I am calling it "North-Indian linear script") which was in use over the whole world from the time of the Upper Palaeoliticum (40 000 BC) till the Neoliticum (10 000 BC). This is the explanation that these symbols are so similar from Asia to Argentina.


Using Figure 1., exhibiting a two-headed bird symbol and Figure 2. with a strange looking serpent having bird-foot prints in his tail, I show how should such pictures be read even when not a single character can be seen on them.


Image


The texts of Fig.'s 1. and 2. are principally hieroglyphic, but there are a few exceptions. In Fig. 1. the quill-feather of the "bird" should be read as


← 4 → |
| | | | = (HA)BU.HUR.HAS.SSEE =

= (HA)BU.HUR.HAG.HU.HUR.REED.DU.HUN.HA.SSEE


Here the underlined text stands for HAS = [ENG] (EE).DEEG.(EE) > DIG, but actually this word was: EDGE = [HUN] EEL, the name of the ancient "Motherland". The word: SSEE = [ENG] BAR(A).LEE.EE > BARLEY, but it is an "abbreviation" for BA.HAR.HA + LEE + EE = WOOD + GREEN + BELL.EEB(EE).LEE + EE =

= HUL.HALU.HASS ( > [GER] HOLZ = WOOD) + EEGAR.EE.EEN + BEEL.L.EEB(EE).LEE + EE

i.e. the English expression contains in addition an adjective (BELL.EEB(EE)) to "LEE", which is a short for "people" expressed (after J. J. White) in Earth Mother's Sacred language, or rather in EEM.HUL = SSEEG.EEL.I-MAGAR, the Eurasian "lingua franca" (short: [LF]) of Homo sapiens sapiens.

The word EE.EEN means "sentinel", "ward". The structure: LEE.EE stands for the accusative.
Now, comes the: "bird" + 2 + "head":

BEEREE.HA.HAR.EED + DEE.EE + HAD =

FIRE.FLOOD.HIT + TU HUN.EEG.HAD + HAD

because EE.EE > [LF] EE.J = [ENG] NIGHT < N.EEG.HAD.

Though disputable whether there are two "wings" (previously we considered two "heads"), or only one? I take two. The ancient English structure of number 2 is: D.HABA.BU > [ENG] TWO, but, here I use rather the Sumerian synonym: MEEN > MIN = "two".

In addition: [LF] EEN > IN = HU.HUR ( = [ENG] LORD). Thus,

2 + WING = (HA)MIN + (HA)B.HABU.HUR.HAG =

ZU.HUN.EE.KAIN + (HA).HAR.HUN.HADEESS.HAG

The word [LF] HAG means "cover", but it was used instead of kill, devastate, annul, etc. And what was devastated, or to be precise: who was annihilated? A "person" from the Greek mythology: "IKARUS" (who supposedly attempted to fly…):

CROSS + 2 = (EE)GAR.HUSS + (HA)MEEN = EEGAR.HUS.I. + SSAMEEN =

EE.GAR.HUS.I.MAGAR HASSA.HAR.HAN


The transliteration reads like this:

(HA).BU.HUR.HAG.HU.HUR.REED.DU.HUN.HA.HUL.LU.HASS.EEGAR(HU).WARD
(EE).LEE.EE | BEEREE.HA.HAR.HIT.TU.HUN.EEG.HAD.DI | ZU.HUN.EE.KAIN.
HA.HAR.HUN. HADESS.HAG.EEGAR.HUS.I.MAGAR.HASSA.HAR.HAN |

I try to give a translation rather according to the sense than following the text exactly: "War annihilates my home: HAT.TU country, "Raven House": EEGAR.I (of the) SSAWAR.(HA)D(EE) people. Flood of fire hits the army of "Lake Country" house of HAT.TI (people). KAIN (from) the Netherworld desolates EEGAR, heroic MAGAR house: HAR.HAN (meaning: "gold") by HADESS' flood".


If I want to keep the length within c. 2 pages, it is not possible to explain why EEGAR(I) was the"house of raven". (The notion is certainly not my creation, because near to the ancient Motherland even today we can find a river with the name RAVI (cf. [GER] RABE > RAVI = "raven")).


It is by far not obvious either, that [LF] WAR.(HA).D(EE) = WAR.HASS ( > [HUNGARIAN] VAROS) = [ENG] CITY. The "sine qua non" of a city at that time was the existence of a market place! If this translation is correct, then it means, the ancient Magyar's had had the first city of the world! Can this be taken seriously? The answer is yes! From written records of Transsylvania ("Erdély") we know even the name of this city: it was the city of


"(HA)Z.HA.SS.IN.BU.HUN.N.EE.HUSS people".

(To my opinion this "city" was located on the little peninsula of CHAN.DU.HUR.I lake, 80 km north to Delhi (in India)). The meaning of the city's name: "The Netherworld's assassin beats HU.HUN.HA of the MAGAR (= "HUL") people".


Now, let us turn to Fig. 2. with the "serpent". Here the four "undulating lines" should be read according to the North-Indian linear writing as:

(HA)N.EEG ( = (HA).BU.HUR = "war") + BISS.HA.HAR (= "flood of water") and similarly, the "6 arrow-head" within the tail of the serpent as: (…)SS.EEG.EESS ( > "six") + EED.EEGEE( > "edge") + SSEE. It is of advantage to use the Hungarian synonym: GEEDU (>"ketto") for expressing "2". Thus, we see on Fig. 2.: 2 + head + 4 + BISSAR + serpent + 6 + edge + SSEE =

The translation reads like this:

"(This is a) country of perfidy and war. Death annihilates HAT.TU HUN house. Flood of HABA.SAR.HASS kills the people of "Snow Meadow" home. HABEESS.HU.HUN.HA of GEEN.DU.EE (i.e. HUN.HA of MAGAR) dies".

The notion "HAB.HASAR.HASS" is to be found in the (Hindu) MAHABHARATA, as "ABSARAS". Supposedly, they were pixies of the god: (IN.HADU.HUR.HA >) "INDRA", meaning "I am BABEL's warlord". As far as the fairies are concerned, it's an easy task to select one (having male gender!) from the very rich choice of the English language. E.g. "pixie" is the right one: (HA).BEG.EESSEE (> "pixie") = [LF] UN.HAG.EESSEE, where [LF] UN = [ENG] to BORE (not forgetting that [LF] HABOR(U) means "war"),


[LF] HAG (> 'AG) = [ENG] BRANCH < BA.HAR.HAN.HASS = BA.HAR.HAN.EG BEL.L thus eventually

[LF] HAG = BABEL.L > BABEL
and [LF] EESSEE (> Sumerian: IZI) = [ENG] FIRE. Therefore, these fairies were actually very bad "pixies" who annihilated the ancient EEM.HUL Motherland located near to the present Indian capital, Delhi, by flood of fire (the dry reed covering this territory in winter-time had been set on fire by torches) followed shortly thereafter by the first documented (local) deluge of human history. "GEEN.DU.EE" represents the ancient structure of the Hungarian word: "kendo" = [ENG] KERCHIEF. The Hindi word: KIN.TU (< GEEN.DU.EE) means: MAGAR! The pharaohs of Egypt had worn "kin.tue's" with yellow and blue stripes (both colours and the stripes are of historic importance) on their heads instead of crowns thereby expressing their ancient EESSA origin. They were actually BEERU's ( > PERO's) of the EEM.HUL people. (The word "pharaoh" is of Semitic origin).

I hope, the readers will not be surprised when I tell: the Indians of the Americas were well informed on their ancient history (because they could write!), for their name:

INDIAN = HU.HUR.REED.EEDEE.EEG.EEN = "I am from the Edenic MAGAR home, HAT.TI"
where HAD.DEE > HAT.TI means "six MAGAR (tribes)".

After these tragic enmities a great percentage of the EM.HUL people lost their life in the floods of fire and water whereas those remained alive had to leave their home in the EESSA (meaning. "snow") exodus around 44 600 BC.

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-02-06, 5:16

Scythian Vocabulary and Names


Based on the works of Gyula Meszaros
(Scyth, Hattic, Hittite, Kartvelian langs,Caucasus Lang)
Additions on Uralic, Sumerian, Hurrian, Hungarian by Fred Hamori
Additions on Turkic from Umit Ertim, and Marc Hubey
Additions on Chuvash from Elana Romanova


Language Abreviations:
Kür=Kürin,
aba=abazak,
cher=cherkes,
abc=abchaz/abhaz
min=mingrel,
tem=temirgoi,
khar=kartwel languages


A short historical introduction of the Scythians select Scytha.htm


Basic words and word particles


a = pronoun demonstrative, pointing pronoun?, the- "/Scyth
a- = pronoun demonstrative /Hatti
a- = the /Pakhy
a = the /Hungarian
a-da =the father/Scyth (part of male names also
"Okta-mas-a-da-s"/Herodotus


da =father /Hatti
da, de =father , family/Kab
da=father /chechen
adda=father /Sumerian
atta=father /Hittite
attai=father /Mitani
atta=father/Elamite
atan=father/Dravidian
ata, adam=father /Turkic
ata=father /Uralic
also in a few I.E. languages (Latin, Gothic)


ar = men, army /Scythian
ar =army /Abchaz
eri = ? /Georgian
er-im= men, army /Sumerian
er =men /Turkic
ur =lord, from leading male /Hungarian
uros=leading male /Uralic
iuri =lord /Hurrian
"ar-po-xa-i (s) =army/men +place/land+ruler-of"/Herodotus 2nd son of Targitaos
"ar-po"=military camp, arpad=a Hurrian city state.


ari =one /Scyth (as in Ari-ma-spu=one eyed/Herodotus)
ar =one /Lezg
-ar =? /Sevan
erthi =one /Georgian
ur =lord, (prime?) /Hungarian
"Ari-ma-s-p-u"=one-where- the light-comes out /Meszáros interpretation?
Herodotus interprets Arimaspu as "one-eyed-(men)"


hur- =gold ?
hurasu =gold /Akkadian
hiaruhhe=gold /Hurrian
_arany =gold /Hungarian
zarana =gold /Iranian
ap-arany=refined gold/Dravidian


bla =eye /Scyth
b-la=eye /Hatti
ble =eye/Pakhy
bla, la, [a]la=eye/Abchaz
lá-t=sees /Hungarian
be-lát=to see into, come to know/accept /Hungarian
bámul =to gawk at/Hungarian
lá =force a way into (to see), to look after, to know /Sumerian


i=this/Scyth
e, e-t =this /Uralic, Dravidian
a-ti =this /Hurrian


ia =woman, wife? /Scyth
ias, ian =pre-Helene female names
yá-ny, lány =girl /Hungarian
alani =lady /Hurrian
ge=girl, geme =woman /Sumerian (no Y or I so substitutes g)
la- =girl /Dravidian


ka=hand/Scyth
ka=hand /Hatti
*ka=arm, hand, craft /Pakhy
k`a=hand/Chechen
xe =hand/Lezg
kéz, kacso =hand, kar=arm /Hungarian
kati=hand/Uralic
kati=hand/Akkad
kis-ib=hand, fist, to seal /Sumerian (also su)
kIs,qIs=to squeeze, to hold, i.e. kol kIs (shake hands)./Turk
kissar= arm-hand /Hittite (from Hattic)


kati =protector, king, royal "hand+place upon"/Scyth (ex: Katiari)
ka-a-ti, ka-te-e, kat-ta =king /Hatti
[ka]-tas (nom) =king /Hittite -Hrozny
_adal=king /Hurrian
hat-al-om=power of rule, might etc/Hungarian
hat-ár=border, extent of rule/effect/Hungarian
fej-EDEL-em=prince, ruler "chief/head+king+characteristical/like"
kuduru=border stone /Messopotamian
-adar, catar=border/Dravidian


arun =sea (feminine ) un may simply be mother/Scyth [Plinius]
arun =sea /Hatti
ár =flood /Hungarian from *sar /Uralic
"Te-ma-arun-Vd-a =the mother sea being /Plinius "matrem maris"


-ca =place /Scyth
-kol =tent, living space /Scyth
-ka =place /Hatti
gul=tent /Hatti
-ki =place, town /Sumerian
-hely =place, also town suffix /Hungarian
hál =to rest, to sleep, nap/Hungarian
Kol-ozs-vár, Kal-ocsa, etc /Hungarian cities
"Kol-ax-ais"="tent/place+ruler (over)"/Meszaros version /Herodotus 3rd son of Targitaus


Vd =predicate element, to be /Scyth
Vš =predicate element, to be/Hatti
Vš =predicate element, /Pakhy


gi =center,inside, inner /Scyth
Ar-gi-m-pa-s "men/army+inner-lands" /Herodotus
-gi- =locative infix "above" /Scyth
gi =heart, inner, ?lap /Pakhy
gu =heart /Abchaz
gu=interior parts, central, stomack, /Kap
ha'š 4=abdomen, back /Sumerian
köz=common, /Hungarian
közép=center /Hungarian < uralic *kitepp
has =abdomen /Hungarian <Uralic kas'=swelling,hump,back
kas =swelling, karin=abdomen /Turk
heso =navel /Japan
ég =sky =above /Hungarian (supposed to derive from FU *sanke [nk>g]
šanne =weather /Lapp from *sanke
gi-, -gi- =over, above /Pakhy
an =above, sky /Sumerian ank>an?
"Tar-GI-ta- " = weather god+above+be
"Tar-Xu-ta" = weather god+ son +be/of (son of Zeus/TAR, father of the Scythians)


ku =boy,son /Scyth
k`o,a =son/Pakhy
qo =son /Kab
k`o =son /Šap
xva, xi =son /Ku"r
ogul? /Mongol?Turk
köl-ök =young child, pup /Hungarian
In old Asia Minor male names 'xos'
Nimrod the son of KUS? Kassites, etc.
Kol-ax (is) may in fact be related to this also, the 3rd son of Targitaus.


*kus =iron/Scyth ?
gus-kin =gold??/Sumerian
*kuc'e, *kus'e =iron /Cherkes
ghuc^e=iron /Aba, Sap.


G`uc, ', h`uc, '=iron /Kabard
ku-si-i =of bronze /Khaldi
qu-ba =iron/Kar.
uu: c^e'=iron /Pakhy
kés =knife /Hungarian
kuas >juoase>uase > base =iron /Samoyed
kuas>uas>vas =iron /Hungarian
vaski=copper /Finn
ves=tinn/Vogul
Originally the use of iron & steel was known by the Hittites and Hurrians
and even their Assyrian neighbors did not use it for a long time. The new
white metal was more valuable than gold for a long time. Hence its association
to gold?


la, lo = folk, peoples, army <multitude?> /Scyth
la =army /Hatti
lu-lu =men, people /Sumerian


le-gény=young man/Hungarian
lo-fu =the chief of the people/Late Hun (China)
lo-fö =chief/Transylvanian Hungarian
"Sco-lo-ti" =ruler(of)+people+be(ing)
"Sco-lo-pi-tu (us) =ruler(of)+people+


li =from god, god /Scyth
lil =god of the atmosphere, chief earthly god/Sumerian
lég =atmosphere, lélek=soul,spirit/Hungarian
*lewle =breath,spirit/Uralic
ál-d =blessing (of God) /Hungarian
alad=good spirit (male) /Sumerian


Leip- =beloved (of god), royal house ( as in Leip-ox-is)/Scyth
"Leipo-xa-i(s)" =the royal house-ruler -of "/Herodotus, 2st son of Targitaos
lipo =royal house "beloved (of god)"/Hatti
lipa =name of a Hittite city
lipiš, libiš =core, heart, (the abode of the spirit)/Sumerian
lép =spleen, milt /Hungarian lVppe = milt/Uralic
lep =to cover, inundate, shelter, screen, protect, surprise/Hungarian
lepedö=coverlet/Hungarian
leppâ =tent of the most rudimentary construction/Lapp
levaš =roof, shelter, open shed, coverlet, lid /Cheremis
levedä- =to cover/Cheremis
l'ip- =to cover, roof in/Votjak
lip- =to cover /Vogul


Levedi =9th century Hungarian ruler, believed to be a "protector"of the marches
between Kazars and Magyars, offered a royal Kazar wife by Kazar Kagan.



horse in Scythian is unknown
luo, leu, lehu /Kab
ulak /Kauk. /Klapr. VMC.II, 359
uluki /Georgian
uloqi-cxeni /Min
lu =horse /Vogul
lau, lox=horse /Ostjak
lov, lo=horse /Hungarian


saddle Scythian name is unknown
ud: -nàgu =part of saddle /Pakhy
unagiri =saddle/Georgian
unageri, onangeri /Min
ingir /Svan
hungir /Sevan
nugur , nür /Chechen
nyereg =saddle /Hungarian ??<< nyug =rest +ur >> nyur-eg?/Munkacsi AKE487-8.


-ma =negative particle /Scyth
-ma =negative particle /Hurrian
-ma =netative particle /Turkic
-ma =negative particle /Arabic
ma- =locative, to be (at) /Scyth
Gog in the land of Ma-gog =referst to the Scyths of Anatolia (ma=land/place) /Bible


ma-, -ma- =interrogative, who?, where?/Hatti
ma-t =where is, ma=who? /Pakhy
manu =earth, land /Dravidian
ma =locative (where), ma-da=land of /Sumerian
me =to be /Sumerian
me-=interrogative particle /Hungarian
ma =land, place /FinnUgor
me-gye=county/Hungarian
ma-ti=town, part of a town/Japanese
ma =country, land/Japan
ma- =ground, land, country/Finn, Est
mü=ground, earth/Cheremis
ma =earth, land, place/Vogul


ma = great mother,mother /Scyth
ma =common name in Anatolia for the prehistoric Mothergoddes
ama =mother /Sumerian
eme = mother /Uralic
also in I.E. languages.
"Te-MA-arun-da" =the mother sea source /Plinius "Sea Goddess"



na =mother /Scyth
na-a =mother /Hatti
ne, a:ne' =mother /Pakhy
n`e =mother /Aba
an =mother /Abchaz
ane =genetrix /Kabar
anya=mother, anyag =matter /Hungarian
eneh=cow /early Hungarian
ana =mother /Ural Altaic


-ni, -na =locative, place names /Scyth
-n =genetive element /Scyth
-n =genetive /Ural Altaic
-n =genetive /Sumerian (according to some researchers)
-nak =genetive /Hungarian
-nél =at (locative suffix) /Hungarian
ná =to be with /Sumerian
-ni- locative terminal infix/Sumerian


-o, -u, -i =participle building element /Scyth
-u =participle building element /Hatti
-o, -ö =participle (one who is/does ) /Hungarian
"Ka-t-i" =one who protects, king. As in Katiari.
u =like this, as this /Sumerian


pada =leader (pa=determinative+da=leader) /Scyth (ex: 'Artimpada)
Ar-pada=leader of the army/men /Scyth
paše =duke, head, principle /Kab
bas =head, pasa=type of military leader /Turk
*pa=head, chief /Uralic + *ed'e=lead/Uralic
Ár-pád=the commander in chief & later king of Hungary/896AD
patesi= priest ruler /Sumerian
Erpat =the clan chief of the gods, early title of rulers of Egypt/ Egyptian


pa-pa =weather god, father of gods, father? /Scyth
baba =ruler, lord /Old Bulgar
papai(os) =father of gods, Zeus /Herodotus
fö =[p>f] chief, head, apa=father, apó =old man /Hungarian
aba =father, leader /Sumerian
aba =father /Semitic


po, pa =land, place /Scyth (A-pia=earth (goddess))
api =land, earth, earth goddess /Scyth , Herodotus
apie ="ackerfeld"/Chechen
fö-d > föld=earth, land /Hungarian [p>f]
fed =to cover/Hungarian


po, p'ha =daughter /Scyth
pxu =daughter /šap
O-po-in=name of a Scythian queen [ Herodotus]


ra =dark, black /Scythian
ra =black /Hatti KUB II 2 II.
ka-ra=black /Turkic
pa-RA-la-ti =Black heads, common people, ruled by Kolaxis.
pa-rea-tak-(eni) =Mede tribe
pa-ra-szt=peasants <originally the common workers/landless /Hungarian


ri =spring, source /Scythian
uro =well /Scythian
ú-ra =well/Hatti
uor =a pit /Chechen
ri, a-ri =well, spring /Hittite , Sturt.54, 70
er-ed =originate, spring forth /Hungarian
ür-eg =a pit, a hollow in the ground /Hungarian


s = light /Scyth
"ari-ma-s-pu" =one, where the light comes out" i.e the eye/Mészaros
s,e=light, shine, white /Pakhy
Vs =the day/Pakhy
çe-, çi- =cinder, light, appear /Kab
sere =grey /F.U.
sörö =grey/Turkmen
su-gár =sunbeam "gar/kor=big"/Hungarian
sü-t =shines (the sun)/Hungarian
si+ gara =ray/light+big /Sumerian
szé-n =coal /Hungarian
szi-n=color /Hungarian
szür-ke =grey "lightish"/Hungarian


sco =ruler, chief /scyth ( Sco-lo-ti, Sco-pa-sis, A-sku-zai)
found as part of prehelene personal names as -ska ??
sa =chief, head, upper end of something /Scyth
š-ha =sir /Hatti
ša ="haupt, selbst"/Hatti
še =head , height /Pakhy
*šxa =man /Pakhy
çh`a=hero, "dominus"/Kab
išha=sir /Hittite
sag' =head, isag'=chief/Sumerian
sa-ng=head, high, mound, pointed object/Ugrian _agy=brain/Hungarian
shang yu=king of the eastern Huns /Chinese ref
ság, szeg=mound, szék=throne, -ság=suffix of the collective/Hungarian
-sa =suffix of the collective /Hurrian
-sag, nam- =suffix, prefix of collective (there are others) /Sumerian


sin =river water, water, the Tanais river /scyth
šin =watter /Pakhy
mšyn =sea /Abchaz
šin =watter /Kub, Kai, Chür, ..
ten-ger =sea "water+great"/Hungarian [s>t, or t>s]
tav, tó =lake /Hungarian
ti =sea, river /Uralic
tlin=water /Avar
tlen=water/Kar
"Tanain ipsum Scythae Sinum vocant"/Plinius -Nat.Hist. VI,


Ta =people, men, collective/Scyth
tar-sua=fellow man /Hurrian
társ =fellow man, companion /Hungarian
társa-ság=society/Hungarian
törzs=tribe, trunk of a tree /Hungarian
-turs_ = people, etruskans /Etruskan
turk =turk people, turkut=turks (archaic)
tur-xu =sky-god(s) son , /Scythian.


In Hungarian mythology Magyar (Mag-or) is the son of the god of heaven, who
creates mankind by bringing up the seeds from the bottom of the heavenly sea.
Mag=seed, semen, self in Hungarian and Uralic Magur.


Mészáros claims that the Scythians had a triple kingship system, which is symbolized in their legend of origin and also at times when under attack three leaders arise to rally the people against the invaders. This is like the Khazars and Magyars, who each ruled a special area of society. One, the theocratic king or the ruler of the royal house, which is Leipoxis is much like the Hungarian Kende, who had no power outside of his area. There was the ruler of all the armies, the Scythian Arpoxais, who wielded considerable power over the free men, the nobles and army, this was the Gyula title whose name was Árpád, who was the Jula in Kazaria. Then there was the last ruler Kolaxis in Scythia and the Hungarian Horka, who was the ruler over the common people. The Hungarian Horka was the chief judge also. He ruled over the "black heads", the common workers, farmers, craftsmen etc. Horka? Kara=black in Turkic. The common people were called the "Pa-ra-la-ti" in Scythian. Pa-ra=land-black-people, but this also means dust, sand in Sumerian "par-im", Hungarian "por" and Turkic "bar" also. The "Pa-ra-szt" are the lowly peasants in Hungarian. The only strange thing with this explanation is that the legend seems to emphasize the importance of Kolax(is) as the chose one of god, when he alone is able to lift the various tools of gold that god rains down from above. Perhaps these too just represent the tools of the workers, which the warrior king and the theocratic king cannot and must not touch! But not so, only the first two the golden plow and yoke are work tools, the sword should be for Arpoxais and the golden goblet generally used for prayers should be for Leipoxais.





More Scythian gods and tribes, Part II


Scythian Gods


tar =weather & sky god, above /Scythian (as in Tar-gi-ta-us)
tar, ta-a-ru=weather god /Hatti
torr-am =sun, origin, birth /Dravidian
türe =originate /Turk
dirim =life /Turk
tarem = sky god, creator god /Ugrian
tier-mes=sky god/Lapp
ter-em-tö =creator /Hungarian
dör-ög=thunder (an attribute of the sky god)/Hungarian

Even in Christianity Hungarians had horse sacrifices when a person died, giving the animal
to the church instead of the old communal sacrifice. In the east they buried their chiefs in "kor-hány", that is in kurgans, just as the Turks, Huns and Scythians, Sarmatians. The Scythians claimed their ancestor TAR-gitau derived from the sky god.


Hestia (fire goddess) is called Tabiti in Scythian
TaBt, toat,tut=fire in Ob Ugrian
tu"z =fire, izo=fiery hot /Hungarian
tap-lo =tinder, fire starting material/Hungarian


tabi, izi =heat,fire /Sumerian
tau =hot, fire, flame /Egypt
tuli =fire /Finn
togo =fire /Tunguz
turt= to smoke, to pull /in Chuvash
asha= heat, warmth/ Chuvash
tav =proper heat > tava =frying pan /Turkish
tüt- = to smoke /Turk
taba =frying pan /Karachay-balkar
tepsi =frying pan /Hungarian


Apollo (sun god) is called Oeto-syr(us) in Scythian/Herodotus
1)Utu =sungod, time god in Sumerian.
ödü =time /Uigur turk
öt =sun, ot=fire /turk
idö =time /Hungarian
utu =sun god /Sumerian


2)sir, sar =ruler
chur =prince /Hun, Tibetan, Pechegen,Kirghiz (archaic)
Shar= ruler, king/ Chuvash (archaic)
=> pat-sha=king/modern Chuvash(pat=here, this land + sha(r)
=> the king of this place)


The Hatti sun god does not fit with this Scyth designation
because it is supposed to be "istanu", (also Sunday), which
in Hungarian is the name of God, even today as isten.
s=light + teng =sky/atmospere/spirit. A different aspect
of the sun than time. Perhaps it was also known.


Celestial Aphrodity is called Artimpasa
Artemis? <Scythian Artimpaz
erdim /Turk
erdim =virgin /Cuman
érdem /Hungarian + paz=god/Ob Ugrian


Poseidon (the sea god) is
Thami-mas-ada(s)/?/Tagi-mas-a-da(s)/Scyth
1a) tagas =sea /Mongol
dag-ály =tides, tág=to swell /Hungarian
teng-iz =sea /Turkic
tines = sea/Chuvash [ng >ns]
tang-aroa =sea /Polynesian
1b)tim =sea, well ?? /Sumerian <ref missing>
ti =sea,lake /Uralic
tav =lake [m>v] /Hungarian
2) mah =great,large /Scyth
mah =great, large, high, exalted/Sumerian
mag-as =tall, mély=deep /Hungarian
mekku =tall, high /Dravidian
man=big, great/Chuvash('a' sounds like(similar, but longer)
the last sound in 'here')
3) ada =father /Scyth
ada =father /Sumerian
ata =father /U.A.
atte=father/Chuvash


Ares (no Scyth name given) uses the symbol of the sword. Possibly a name sounding similar to Heracles to the Greeks Nergal >> Irigal the Messopotamian wargod, from Sumerian. The only Scythian god with an altar & sacrifices of men. In 20th century BC in Assyria there are already mention of sword symbology and customs. Where the sword of Assur was given special rites and ceremonies. Oaths of alliegance. The custom of sword sacrifices and symboligy is from Messopotamia. A Hittite stone relief is illustrated with a Jazyly Kaja, where a short stabing sword is shown pushed into the ground. It's handle decorated with gods and lions. It originates from the 14th to 13th centuries BC.


Similarly Jordanedes mentions the Hun sword customs the "gladius Martis" of the Huns and Avars. Also the Bulgars had such customs as did the Yazig. The Transylvanian Hungarians had customs even in the 13th through 15th centuries where they would place sword blades in the ground of a mound./Nagy Géza, "A szittyáks nemzetisége", Budapest 1895. The legend of the sword of Attila also has a sword coming out of the ground and claimed to be the sword of god. This same sword is claimed to be the sword of Hungarian kings which is now in a museum in Vienna. Its decoration and form are however early Hungarian and not of the form common to the Hun swords. Herodotus does not tell us what the Scythian word for sword is, which in this case would be very usefull, only the name of another prized Scythian weapon the toothed battle ax "sag-ar-is".


This is also in Hungarian as "szek-er-ce" which is also a wood ax and a battle ax name. In sumerian the name sagar is instead the name for a lance, spear since the root word sag=pointed, peak object. sag 2 also means to "chop down", sag'=point, head, sag 2,3=damage,strike.





Scythian Tribes


The land of the nomad Scythians on the banks of the Borystenes river is called "Hialea" . /Scythian
This has no relations to the Greek word for "woodland" as the area has allways been a plain and not forrested. Mistranslation.


1)From Hittite records "Hu-la-ia" =country name and river name.
Hull-ašša =country name/Friedrich MVAG Bd. 34
Ah-ku-la-aš-ša =Hatti origin place name.
hely=place, settlement area (sometimes town suffix) /Hungarian
köy =village /Turkish
ki =town,place /Sumerian
2)la =people /Scyth (already has examples)
halah=people/Chuvash
lu-lu =people /Sumerian
3)-ia, -ua = determinative suffix /Scyth
-i = of a place, from a place, ( -e, -a genetive)/Hungarian
-a = genetive / Sumerian


Arimaspi ="one eyed", near the mountains of the east (Urals)
"ari=one +ma (place-locative)+a =the+si=light+ep=comesout/entry"


Issedo(ne), a matriarchial people, where a woman has equal
rights to her husband. This has traces in several distant


Scythian nations, including the eastern Sakas. This is commonly a very non-Indo European practice, with similar remnants in Sumerian and early Egyptian (matriarchial inheritance customs). The Issedone also practiced a sort of canibalism of the deceised, mixing their flesh with the meat of sheep. In one place they are said to have displaced the Scyths some pushing them westward. ?? Yaz-ig Iranian?? Yas-et (-ta is the Alanic, Uralic, Altaic plural suffix).


Agathyrsi a matriarchial people where a woman may have several husbands. A people known for their great wealth and love of gold decorations. They are one of the Scythian nations. In the Greek version of the origin of the Scyths from the sons of Heracles and a serpent like mother, the Aga-thyrsy are one of the sons along with Gelonus and Scythes the youngest. They live in the west near the Danube.


"a-gathy-ar-si" = the royal army, or a-kati-ar.. the-Katiari.
Gelon(us) may be of the Au-chata group of Leipoxais. <religious>


1) a =the /scyth
2) kati=royal (or gi=central + ti =people/plural? )
3) ar =men/army
4) sa / sco =leader,ruling, chief
The chief of the armies, known also as Arpoxais, whose "clan"
is the Katiari.
--- or similarly ---
tarsua =fellow man /Hurrian
társ =fellow man /Hungarian
törzs =society, törzs =tribe /Hungarian
_turs_ =etruskans/ Etruskan
There is evidence of the etruskans spreading through the
Balknans into Ertruria, perhaps some stayed.


The "Greek" version of the Scythian origin myth may be another local tribes version in fact because there is much in it that has historical basis. The stringing of a composite Asian bow invented by the Hurrians, took much strength. The three sons of Heracles, who is the embodiment of strength in Greek mythology, [erö =strength in Hungarian] could only be done by "Scythes", so he became the ruler. There is much more to this than meets the eye however. I dont know about Turkish expressions but Hungarian expressions abound in references to this act of bending (the bow) and related excercising of power.


Along the Hypanis River, a tributary of the Danube.
Callippidae = Greek & Scythian mixture (?in customs)
(Kol=place/tent + lippi=beloved/royal +da ?plural.


Alazonian =inland along the Hypanis
Above these are the farming Scythians, who grow to sell their products.


According to Herodotus they dont use their own product. <very unlikely> This gets back to an age old false bias of the western cultures that the easterners are only flesh eaters. The Chinese also had this false idea. One can understand this best from the view that the settled agricultural societies probably ate little meat, while the semi-nomadic societies ate little grains. But both ate these when available, in obviously different quantities from each other, because arid lands are used for grazing and little grain grows there. Little water means little cultivation. There are lots of references to oasis or river areas in Central Asia where there was extensive irrigation and farming. One of these is considered the starting point of the Huns, and it has paintings of them with plows pulled by oxen. So much for that myth.


Neuri =in the north along the river Hypanis. Customs like the
Scyths. but perhaps not Scythian at all. They are said to turn
into wolves once a year. The infamous wherewolf myth, which is
supposedly also in Transylvania. <never heard of it there>
The totem animal is perhaps implied here, which is celebrated
somehow.. perhaps mimicking once a year and some kind of a
sacrifice? A dumb guess? The Turkic and Hun myths of origin
from a wolf or various dog breeds comes to mind. The Sumerian
mother goddess BAU is also assosciated with a dog.


I wonder if the Neuri are the same as the Enarees, the soothsayers of the Scyths, whose name is generally translated from "an-aryan=unmanly" using Iranian, but may in fact be something totally different. This is based on their "womanlike" custom of dress may be nothing more than a different dress culture. While scythians wore pants most of the rest of the surrounding world still did not! The Hurrians also used the term "nairi" for their peoples name in Urartu. This also has no relation to Iranian, but could be another element brought north by the Scythians from their Anatolian homeland.


However in Ob-Ugrian "nayer"=king,ruler.
Sumerian nir = ruler, prince,
Sumerian ner-gal =the prince of the underworld, wargod.
Dravidian anar =to rise, to move up.
Hungarian nagyur =great lord, prominent lord.


East of the Tanais (the Don River) is no longer Scythian, there live the Thyssa-getae, who are north of the Budini and are a hunting nation, who hunt with horse and dog by lying low, with horse and dog to ambush. < A strange tactic still tought in Hungary to horses, where the horse lies down on its side.


Thyssa?Tars=society-people/Hung,Hurri + geta/had=clan,army Ti=people/Scyth+ S=light/white+gi=above+ta=land-area /Scyth


North of the Royal Scythians are the Black Cloaks, (the ancestors of the Alans-Iranians.) The Alans traditionaly wore grey colored clothes. (So did others) "The Black Cloaks are a race quite different from the Scythians."/Herodotus They are not Scythians, but Iranic speakers! Alans are tall-slim, blondish people. In Hungarian traditions the Magyars, and Huns intermarried with them to form a new nation. /Legend of the Stagg According to Meszaros their name is also Iranian/Alanic. 4th cent A.D. "Alani et Melanchlaenae"/ Amm. Marcelus XXII i.e. the "Melanchlaenae"= the black cloaks. Procopius also writes that the old name of the Sauromata is "black cloak". The color of mourning in Ossetic "saudar". Herodotus explains their "incorrect Scythian" speech with the myth of origin from the non-scythian amazon women and scythians. The Amazons were called Oir-pata ="man slayers".


The term is also Sumerian
1)er=man + /U.A.& Sumer
oir =man /Scyth
uros =lead male/Uralic
The term may even be in common with "blood, relations,
clan settlement" in U.A. and Dravidian and Sumerian.
2) pad(4)=hardship,difficulty
bad (Diemel =stupid) , Hung buta =stupid.
bad (Diemel 152,7 =sick, dead) Hung bet-eg, pat-kol -el
bad (Diemel 69,100 =the end) Hunga fogy =to diminish
bad (Diemel 69,100 =fall apart) Hung pat-an =to break, snap apart
bad (Diemel 69,29 =old, elder) Hung bátya, bácsi=elder brother,elder
bad (Diemel 69,38 =take out,remove Hung bánt=to hurt, injure.


Pat-ak= stick, pat-ak-la=to beat with a stick/ Chuvash
bot =stick, rod, bot-oz =to beat with a stick /Hu
pata-k = beating, pata-k-la = to beat /Turkish **
bánt =hurt, vád =accusation [b>v], /Hu
bát-or =brave, (old bahatur)/Hu
Mongol bahadur =knight, brave,
Turk bagatur?
bety-ár =criminal or scoundrel /Hu
pat-var = an argument or fight, quarrel, wrangle./Hu
bit-ang = an incorrigable bad person./Hu
pat-an =crack and break apart./Hu
pat-og-tat =to be cracking (a whip)./Hu
bot-lik =stumble, slip, blunder./Hu
bot-rány =scandal./Hu
bont- =to demolish, take to pieces. /Hu
b/v vad=wild, untamed /Hu
vit-éz =knight, warrior [noble] /Hu
batesa =noble knight./parthian
vad-ász =hunter ?killer.(thats about the closest to it) /Hu
véd =defend, protect./Hu d/t //s


"Oir-pata"=man killers(?) (beaters?), were known to the Greeks as Amazons who in time intermaried with the Scythians, but their children become the Sauromata who never learned Scythian correctly./Herod. A rather dubious explanation, but there probably was a mixing of the Iranic group with the Scyths before and after their
conquest by the Sauromata. It is strange that the Sumerian term "eme-sal" sounds so much like "ama-zo(n)" to me, and meant "language of women", but was a whole different dialect of Sumerian.


North east of the Royal Scythians after crossing a plain you come to a great mountain (Ural Mountains) where the Argipei live, a people bald, flat noses, very long chins (Mongoloids), with their own language. Ob-Ugrians coming from the north-east, who adopted Finno-Ugrian language but with many eastern links. Their description is Scythian:
"AR=men/army +gi=above + pa =land +i=of" =upper lands of army


Soothsayers are the "enarees" who dress like women and use willow wands and also the inner bark of the linden tree. najer =king,ruler /Ob ugrian, nir =prince /Sumerian nyir =moist, wet, birch tree /Hungarian (uralic-altaic-dravidian) Willow is also a tree that loves moisture like the birch. (???) a-na=the+mother/female/feminine + er=men == "feminine men"
an-aryan =un-manly /Iranian
/Meszaros believes these to also be Iranians, but other
explanations are also certainly possible, as shown above.


Begining at the upper reaches of the Meotis (Sea of Azov) for 15 days march there are no trees. Above this area live the Budini. An old turkic name for people. They live in a thickly wooded area with trees of every type. North of the Budini, there is a desert of 7 days march, after which comes the "Thy-ssa-getae" who are hunters. These were already discussed. Adjoining them are the people who bear the name Iyrcae =?Finns. Finnish "yrkö" = men.


http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/scytha.html

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-02-13, 15:23

MAòõAR, MAòõARIST$N , name given to the Hungarians or Magyars and to Hungary in the Ottoman period.

1. In pre-Ottoman period


(1) The names for the Hungarians and Hungary in the Arabic and Persian authors of the 3rd-8th/9th-14th centuries.



The earliest mention of the Hungarians (Magyars) occurs in | the Kit§b al-A#l§Î al-nafÊsa of Ibn Rusta (Ibn Rosteh), written between the years 290-300/903-12-13 on the basis of the geographical treatise of al-ò3ayh§nÊ (ca. 300 A.H.) who used, in the composition of this work, an anonymous historical account dealing with Central Asia and Eastern Europe and dating from the second half of the 3rd/9th century. In this source the Hungarians appear with the name of al-Maù3ÿ9ariyya, i.e. the Magyars. In this period they inhabited the plains adjacent to the Black Sea, between the Don and the Lower Danube, their eastern neighbours being the powerful Turkish tribe of

Baù3an§k (Pechenegs). It was under pressure from this tribe that they were compelled to withdraw, in ca. 889-92 A.D., into the basin of the Carpathians, where they founded a state which survived, within its 9th-10th century frontiers, until the end of the First World War.

It seems that the same Anonymous account of the 3rd/9th century is also the basis for the description of the country al-

Maù3ÿ9ariyya (Ar. bil§d al-Maù3ÿ9ariyya) contained in the Kit§b al-Mas§lik wa l-mam§lik of al-BakrÊ (ca. 460/1068). In fact, the Hungarians mentioned in this account led a nomadic existence, and their territories, situated on the Black Sea, bordered on the provinces of the Byzantine Empire (Ar. bil§d al-Råm ).

http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C4/COM-0604.html


.

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-02-27, 6:20

Image

1st line: hungarian-sekler runes
2nd line: old-greek runes

HETTIT "j":
Image


HETTIT "i":
Image

In PHOENICIAN and old-LATIN runes didn't "j", and the old-SEMITIC language hasn't "i" rune.....

So where was coming the hungarian "i" and "j" runes from?


..

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-03-04, 11:35

Hatti gurta ’bekerített hely’, tör. jurt, jurta

Hatti haruna ’egy tárolóhelyiség’, lat. arena (eredetileg: harena)

Götz például behatóan foglalkozott a h-r, g-r, s-r hangok által meghatározott – bekerítettségre, köröző mozgásra utaló – szavak családjával. Lásd: magy. kert, cserény, karám, garád, góré, szérű, csűr, fészer (tkp. a TESZ szerint is fél-szer, vö. falunagy>fónagy), kürt, kürtő, szarv, korsó, hordó, kulacs, szilke, csajka, serpenyő, karika, korong, gyűrű, hurok, garabó, kerít, horog, karom, hurok, háló, görbül, görbít; akk./assz. haru ’háló, hurok’, širdu, sirdu ’kötél, kantárszár, gyeplő’ (sodrással készítették), gaggaru ’korong’, kallu ’egy nagy edény’, karpatu ’egy nagy edény’, karu ’hordó’, sarsaru ’egy edény’, sila ’egy űrmérték’; héb. g-d-r, ch-r-m ’bekerít’, k-t-r, h-t-r ’körülvesz’, ’agal ’köröz’, ’akal ’görbít’, kikar ’korong’, ’ereb ’szövet’, ’aros, serid ’fonadék’, kalachat ’fazék, üst’; ógör. khórtosz ’bekerített, védett hely’, külix ’kehely’, güro ’teker, forgat, csavar’, kürte ’fonadék’, kürtia ’kosár’, kraterosz ’üst’, szkoliosz ’görbe’; lat. hortus ’kert’, gyrus ’csavarodás, tekervény, gyűrű’, cratis, crates ’fonadék’, sero ’összecsomóz’, cortina ’üst’, crater ’korsó’, calix ’kehely’, seria ’hordó’, solium ’kád, koporsó’; csuv. ś∂r∂ ’gyűrű’; óind k-r-t ’fonni’, č-r-t ’csomózni’; etióp karabo ’kosár’; arab haram ’hárem’; gót garda ’karám’; ófeln. gurtil ’öv’, kratto ’kosár’, hurd ’fonadék’; tör. qori ’körülvesz, őriz’; baraba-tat. qoram ’udvar, ill. udvar, amelyben állatokat tartanak’; ném. Garten ’kert’, Gürtel ’öv’, Kratte ’kosár’, Kreis ’kör’, Hürde ’karám’, Korb ’kosár’, Krug ’korsó’, Karaffe ’palack’, Kelch ’kehely’, Kelle ’vakolókanál, csanak’, Schalle ’tál’, Silo ’siló’, Geschirr (edény), Sarg ’koporsó’, Garn ’fonál’, krümmen ’görbül’, krümpfen ’görcsöl’, schürzen ’hurkol, csomóz’; litv. gardas ’karám’; ószláv gradu ’bekerített hely, város’ (szerintem a гóрод is a magyar garád fejleménye); szlk. krám, kram ’favágók, szénégetők alkalmi lakása, szálláshelye’.


Amit Götznél nem látok: magy. csörlő; ógör. kirkosz ’gyűrű, karika’, koronosz ’görbe, hajlott, hajlított’; lat. arena, eredetileg: harena ’kör alakú küzdőtér’, circus ’kör, ill. kör alakú pálya kocsiversenyek számára’, cohors, cors ’bekerített hely, udvar, cserény, karám’, curvare ’görbít, hajlít’, crispus ’göndör, fodros’, circulus ’köröcske’; ófeln. hring ’kör, gyűrű’, garto ’kert’; ófranc. curt ’bekerített udvar’, cercle ’köröcske’; óang. hring ’körpánt, fonadék’, geard ’bekerítés, kerítés, sövény’; ónorv. hringr ’gyűrű’; ófríz hring ’gyűrű’, garda ’kert’; óbolg.–ómac. kragu ’kör’; régi észak-franc. gardin ’kert’; ang. court ’udvar, sportpálya, bírósági székhely (régen a törvénykezés a mezők v. a város elkerített részein zajlott), whorl ’lendkerék v. emelőcsiga (1460 k.), levél- v. virágkarika, örv a növény szára körül, csigafordulat (pl. az ember ujjbegyén)’.

Ebbe a szócsaládba tartoznak még Götz szerint a következő – tekergőző, kacskaringózó mozgással összefüggő – szavak: óind srp ’csúszik-mászik’, krmi ’féreg’; zend rap ’csúszik-mászik’; óír cruim ’féreg’; litv. kirmele ’féreg’; ógör. herpo ’csúszik-mászik’, herpesz ’kígyó, féreg’, rhomosz ’szú’, karabosz ’bogár, rák’, szkorpiosz ’skorpió’, szkarabaiosz ’szkarabeusz’; lat. repo ’csúszik-mászik’, reptilium ’csúszómászó’, crabro ’lódarázs’, serpo ’csúszik-mászik’, serpens ’kígyó’; oszm. sazağan ’sárkány, nagy kígyó’, yoğur- ’gyúr’; csag. čavur ’fordít, forgat, csavar’; ném. Raupe ’hernyó’, Krebs ’rák’, Krabbe ’rövidfarkú ollótlan rák’, krabbeln ’kúszik, mászik’, robben ’kúszik, mászik’; franc. ecrevisse, skrebis, escarabiso, ekrebis, karabiso ’rák’.

Vö.: magy. sereg, sürög (=forog, forgolódik); serít (=spinnen, drehen), serül (=sich wenden, sich drehen); sürög-forog, csűr-csavar (mindkét szóelem a családba illik), kavar, kever, habar, gyűr, gyúr, sertepertél, görget; sárkány.


Image
szumír GAM gur2 ’kör, hurok, csomó, kötés, abroncs, karika, gyűrű’
akk. kippatu ’kör, abroncs, karika, gyűrű’; šumutu ’(?) abroncs, gyűrű, karika’

Image
szumír GIŠ.GAM ĝešgur2 (gešgur2) ’karima, körszegély’
akk. kippatu ’kör, abroncs, karika, gyűrű’

Image
szumír HIxAŠ2 har ’gyűrű, háló, hurok’
akk. kamkammatu ’gyűrű’


További szumír megfelelők Götz nyomán: harub ’egy rovar, féreg’, gar, kar2 ’körülzár, körülvesz, keret, kerítés’, gur ’körülvesz, csavar, teker, forgat, hajlít, gabonamérték, pecsétel’ (a gyűrű az ujjra csavart karika alakú tárgy, melyet pecsételésre is használnak, sőt régen, különösen férfiaknál, ez volt az elsődleges rendeltetése), kur3 ’gabonamérték’; har ’összetekeredik, gyűrű, horog, hurok’, hur ’gyűrű, horog, hurok’, kur2-kur2, gur2, kur2 ’görbül, görbe, börbület, görbít, hajlít, kör’, sur, šur ’elhatárol, körülhatárol, körülzárt hely, helyiség’, šuru, šurun ’ól, istálló, karám’, šer ’köt’, sur ’fon’, gal ’egy nagy korsó’, gur9 ’egy mérőedény’, gur7 ’hordó, gabonaraktár, egy űrmérték’, hara2 ’söröshordó’, sila2 ’egy mérőedény’, šur ’egy edény’

Image
szumír SAR sar ’kert, területegység, térfogategység’ akk. mūšaru ’virág- v. zöldségágyás, kert, zártkert’ Forrás: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html A sor hosszan folytatható, itt most a Götz által összeszedett kifejezések számát csak néhánnyal egészítettük ki. Érdemes megjegyezni egyébként, hogy „Győr” helyneveinket is pl. az avar gyűrűvárakkal magyarázzák. Ami a lényeg: elég hajmeresztő, ha a TESZ olyasmit állít, hogy a „kör” XVII. századi fejlemény.

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-03-06, 11:24

THE HUNGARIAN ORIGIN OF THE NIBELUNGENLIED
(The Song of the Nibelungs)


Adorján Magyar
(Published by A Fáklya, Warren Ohio, USA)

Foreword

It would be a shame to allow this very interesting little study to sink into oblivion, not only because it discusses a 200 year-old literary question worthy of consideration and sheds light from a totally different perspective than previous studies, but also because this study makes it necessary to reveal historical facts which were passed over by historical writings.


Adorján Magyar’s conclusions seem correct in general and they are especially forceful when he analyzes Prof. Jiriczek’s work. There is nothing in his conclusions, which we can contradict because his references are exact and his conclusions are consistent.


There is something that should be included in the text, where he quotes Amadée Thierry’s “Histoire d’ Atilla”[1] because, on pages 200-201 of Volume II., this writer mentions historical facts concerning the fate of the inhabitants of Hunnia, after the victory of Charlemagne over the Avars. For this reason, we will show this as a true and totally representative picture of the times in a later segment of this study. We may also add here that Charlemagne did not annihilate the Avars, because they retreated only to the river Rába after their defeat. The invading Slavs could not annihilate the remnants of the Magyar population, which is totally understandable when one reads the data of the Annales Mettenses:


“Chaganus princeps Hunnorum propter necessitatem populi sui imperatorem adiit, postulans sibi locum dari ad habitandum inter Sabariam et Carnuntum quia propter infestationem Sclavorum in pristinis sedibus manere non poterat.” ad.ann. 805


A significant number of Avars gathered in the territory between Szombathely and Petronell, where they could defend themselves more successfully against the attacks of these looting hordes.


We need to pay closer attention to Adorján Magyar’s statement: “The Christian priests did not persecute with such vigor the memories of the past anywhere else, other than in our country.” (i.e. Hungary)


http://www.magtudin.org/Nibelungenlied.htm


..

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-03-09, 7:19

"Despite the divergent trails of genetic markers, Aryans and Dravidians may not be that far removed from each other. Linguists have for long been agreed that “English, Dutch, German, and Russian are each branches of the vast Indo-European language family, which includes Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian and other languages, -- all descendants of more ancient languages like Greek, Latin and Sanskrit. Digging down another level, linguists have reconstructed an earlier language from which the latter were derived. They call it proto-Indo-European, or PIE for short.” Dr. Alexis Manaster Ramer of Wayne State University, USA digs even deeper and finds common roots between PIE and two other language groups: Uralic, which includes Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian; and Altaic that includes Turkish and Mongolian. All these three groups, Dr. Ramer argues, find their roots in an older language called Nostratic. If he is right then all Indian languages, Sanskritic or Dravidian are descended from Nostratic, spoken about 12000 years ago. "

http://www.indiadefence.com/whoweare.htm

User avatar
nJohn West-Hungary
Posts: 679
Joined: 2004-12-31, 15:26
Real Name: John Nemeth
Gender: male
Location: Szombathely / Steinamanger / Savaria
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Postby nJohn West-Hungary » 2006-03-10, 13:49



A case study within Uralic

Dr. Angela Marcantonio

1. Introduction

I am a linguist, specialising in Uralic studies. My recent book (Marcantonio 2002a) carefully examines the evidence in favour of the theory that the Uralic languages are genetically related. In the extensive literature on this subject, I find that there is no scientific evidence at all in favour of the Uralic theory. Instead there is an extensive interlocking network of self-consistent assumptions and circular reconstructions. I conclude that the Uralic languages do not form a language family.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the methods of analysis that have been employed to build up the standard Uralic theory – and how the use of these methods has, I believe, so misled researchers. I believe this examination will be relevant to scientists in all disciplines that base their work on these reconstructions, as well as linguists who are responsible for establishing them. I hope to begin the process of a quantitative re-examination of other language families, including perhaps Indo-European.

Examining how researchers have come to believe in the unity of the Uralic language family, scholars have mainly used the so-called ‘Method of Historical Linguistics’. By comparing attested languages which are assumed to be related, and assuming a high degree of regularity in the way the languages have evolved in the past, it is believed one can reconstruct much of the language, location, culture and antiquity of a supposed ancient community. This process of reconstruction is referred to as ‘Palaeolinguistics’.

In the past, palaeolinguistics has attracted such a high scientific credibility amongst authors and peer-reviewers that many authors who report counter-evidence to the model tend to minimise or ‘re-interpret’ their data, rather than present a paper that clearly contradicts the model. Thus, one can observe papers in linguistics, archaeology, history and genetics that present evidence contradicting the theory, but whose conclusions either minimise the importance of their results, or re-interpret their data so that it now fits the model better. This minimisation or re-interpretation reinforces the interlocking network of assumptions and interpretations, so that even counter-evidence, ultimately, appears to contribute towards reinforcing the model.

One of the grossest distortions of this nature is found in the historical text that supposedly goes a long way towards establishing the Uralic origin of the Hungarians. We shall see that the original text of Constantine Porphyrogenitus refers to a population of Turks, and it clearly contradicts the supposed Uralic model. Historians describe this contradiction as ‘ridiculous’ because it contradicts the accepted linguistic model, and they simply assume that the original record was in error. The record is ‘corrected’ or ‘re-interpreted’ in most translations, so that it now appears to support the theory. Most textbooks do not mention that any re-interpretation is involved, and indeed many specialist papers fall into the same trap. One now finds this very text quoted in linguistic textbooks in support of the theory. A true circularity.

My central theme will be that I seek to invite authors – with the support of peer-reviewers – to have the courage to report their evidence as it stands. When authors discover evidence that is at variance with the linguistic models, this evidence must not be ‘re-interpreted’ in order to be consistent with the accepted model, but rather it should be stated clearly that the evidence contradicts the accepted model.

1.1 What is wrong with the standard Uralic theory?

According to the standard Uralic theory, the Hungarians, Finns, Samoyed, Lapp and so on all descend from an ancient community that lived somewhere near the Ural Mountains about 8,000 years ago.

Recent evidence from archaeology, anthropology and genetics appeared to contradict this theory. Several authors have drawn attention to this, including Julku (1997and 2000); Dolukhanov (2000a & b); Nuñez (1987, 1997a & b, 2000) and Niskanen (1997, 2000a & b). Compare also the recently published volume of ‘Root IV’, edited by Julku (Julku 2002). The principal items of counter-evidence are as follows:-

The results from genetic analysis are at variance with the conventional assumption that genetic inheritance is the dominant factor in language transmission. The Samoyed and Ob-Ugric people have largely ‘Mongoloid’ genetic character, whilst the rest of the (traditionally classified) Uralic populations are largely ‘Europoid’. In fact, there is no evidence for a “Uralic gene”, other than as a linguistic definition of the gene characteristics near the Ural Mountains.
There are no archaeological traces of migrations from the Ural Mountains toward the West, contrary to the predictions of the standard model. Indeed, populations and technology (such as arrow-heads, ice picks and ceramic technology), appear to have spread in a direction generally from the Southwest to the Northeast, that is, in the opposite direction than the one predicted by the conventional model.
The supposed migration from the Ural Mountains into empty European areas is contradicted by evidence that North-eastern Europe has been inhabited, without interruption, by local populations throughout this period.

This evidence has given rise to many different models being proposed, such as the ‘Uralic lingua franca’ model as formulated by Wiik and Künnap (Künnap 1995, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2000/01, 2001; Wiik 1995, 1996, 1997a, b & c, 1999, 2000, 2000/01a, 2000/01b; see also Taagepera 1994, 1997, 2000 and Sutrop 2000a & b and 2001), or the chain model as proposed by Pusztay (1995, 1997, 2001).

All these new models appear to have a common thread. Despite their “revolutionary” or “revisionist” approaches (see Janhunen 2001), many of them still implicitly assume that there was in some sense a Uralic linguistic area, distinct from, for example, the Altaic or Siberian linguistic area. In fact, linguists as well as anthropologist and archaeologists[1] generally assume that the original, local populations who lived in northern-eastern Europe were the ancestors of the modern ‘Finno-Ugric’ and /or ‘Uralic’ populations (see for example Wiik 1996, 1997a, 2000; Künnap 1996, 2000/01; Dolukhanov 1998; Julku 1997; Nuñez 1997a & b; Pusztay 2001; Parpola (1999)),

I believe this central assumption, that linguistic studies have established the uniqueness of the Uralic family, is fundamentally flawed. Rather than being based on scientific evidence, the standard Uralic theory is founded on an extensive interlocking network of self-consistent assumptions and circular reconstructions. There is space here to outline only some of the linguistic evidence – for more information see Marcantonio (2002a & b): -

The key Ugric node, on which the family was historically based, has never been reconstructed, and it is widely recognised that Hungarian is radically different in morphology, lexicon and phonology from its supposed siblings in the Ugric node.
The Uralic node has likewise never actually been reconstructed. What is normally referred to as a reconstruction of the Uralic node in fact omits any systematic consideration of the key Ugric node. Statistical analysis of this corpus shows that it has the statistics of a set of accidental look-alikes.
There are a number of linguistic correlations that are shared by the U languages; but these are also shared with the Altaic languages and Yukaghir. In fact, one can observe isoglosses that clearly cross the traditionally established language families.

1.2 What is wrong with the linguistic method of analysis?

More generally, there are severe problems with the methods that have been used to build up language families, including the Uralic family. In this section I shall briefly examine the linguistic methods. However, the problems that become evident appear to have infected other areas of study, such as the interpretation of historical texts: it is the interaction with other areas of discipline that will be the main focus of my talk and will be described in the next section.

It is generally assumed the use of the so-called “Comparative Method” of linguistic analysis yields results which are statistically significant and which therefore can be relied upon to establish language families. Indeed, if one finds many words in the various different languages, all related to one another through the same regular rules of sound-correspondences, then it is unlikely that the words are similar by chance and therefore there is a statistical significance to the results.

However the central problem is that I have not found any instance where such a corpus of regularly related words can be found. Most studies of the Uralic languages, including the main Uralic dictionary UEW (Rédei (ed.) 1986-91), do not state the sound-rules on which the correlations are supposed to be based. The principal exception is the Uralic corpus of Janhunen (1981), which clearly states the sound-rules (at least for vowels) joining identified words. However this corpus contains more sound-rules than regular correspondences, so that this corpus too has no statistical significance.

For other issues related to of the Comparative method, including the problems related to the basic regularity principle on which the comparative method is founded, see for example Fox (1995); Belardi (2002, I: 147ff.), Weinreich (1953), Weinreich, Labov & Herzog (1968), Labov (1963, 1972, 1980, 1981, 1994), Wang (1969,1979).

In a layer on top of the results of the Comparative Method, one finds the use of the methods of Palaeo-linguistics, in which one reconstructs the homeland and way of life of an assumed ancient community based on the reconstructed words. Putting aside the problem of the lack of statistical significance of the reconstructed words, there is recognised to be a further problem with this method (see for example Renfrew (1987: 77ff.)). The meaning of words may change through time, some crucial cognate-words may disappear from some languages, cognate-words may not refer to the same object, and the spreading of technological innovations may diffuse new names throughout a vast area. These factors mean that, even if one could demonstrate that the reconstructions have statistical significance, it would still be debatable whether the method is capable of producing a window on the pre-historical past that is anything more than speculative.

In order to illustrate this situation, one can consider the reconstruction of the ancient Uralic words for flora and fauna, which have been used to help establish the location of the ancient Uralic homeland. Typically there are several reconstructed names for each relevant term, each with a variety of alternative meanings, so that one is unclear which of the words are supposed to have been used. For example, Table 1 shows the various reconstructed meanings of the eight reconstructed words for ‘reindeer’: -

Table 1: the reconstructed words for ‘Reindeer’

dog/drone/male reindeer
Reindeer/elk
Ox/leading reindeer
Reindeer
male elk/deer/reindeer/ sacrificial animal
domesticated reindeer
domesticated reindeer/sheep/cow
male elk/reindeer/camel

Finally, one finds that most of the relevant reconstructed words are shared with non Uralic languages, mainly Altaic languages and Jukaghir. In fact, the reconstructed terms for body-parts and flora & fauna are present, on average, in 2.1 non-Uralic languages, contrary to the assumptions of the model.

If one accepts the state of affairs outlined above it becomes evident that relying on the method of Palaeo-linguistics can be dangerous in general, and in the Uralic context in particular. In the next paragraph I am going to illustrate what represents, in my opinion, one of the most misleading instances of linguistic and extra-linguistic reconstructions within Uralic: the reconstruction of the name ‘magyar’, the self-denomination of the Hungarians, and the consequent historical and ethnic reconstruction of their origin. This example in turn will illustrate one of those interlocking network of self-consistent reconstructions and interpretations upon which the standard Uralic theory is based, as claimed above and in Marcantonio (2002a).

2. The reconstruction of magyar and the associated re-interpretations of historical evidence

2.1. Introduction

The reconstruction of the ethnonym magyar, which has played a central role in the historical formation of the standard Uralic theory, is a paradigmatic example of the interlocking network of self-consistent reconstructions and interpretations upon which the Uralic theory appears to be founded.

All the available historical records (including Greek, Latin and Arabic sources of the 9th /10th Centuries AD) that mention names similar to magyar clearly and consistently refer to Turkic tribes. They therefore contradict the Uralic theory, in which linguists claim that the Hungarian language and peoples originate not from the Turkic, but from the Uralic group of languages. In order to square this evidence with the dominant model, massive re-interpretation is required, as described in detail below. Commonly, no mention is made that any re-interpretation is involved, not even in the specialist literature (see for a recent example Rédei 1998: 57), so that the re-interpretation /correction, being passed on from textbooks to textbook, generations after generations of scholarship, acquires the status of a ‘pseudo-fact’.

Linguistically, there are clear, Turkic etymological correspondences with the term magyar, dating from early Arabic records. These correspondences also contradict the dominant linguistic model, but they usually go unmentioned in textbooks. Indeed, even in specialist literature they are usually referred to as forming part of the unsolved “Hungaro - Bashkir complex”, as if it were an arcane detail rather than a major element of counter-evidence to the theory.

As we shall see below, linguists prefer an etymology which connects magyar to another ‘Uralic’ proper name, Mansi, the self denomination of the Voguls. Unfortunately this etymology differs from the historically attested forms and is linguistically ad-hoc. Linguists and dictionaries recognise that the etymological connection magyar-mansi is ‘problematic’, but it is nevertheless accepted on the grounds that such a connection is ‘supported’ by the historical ‘data’, thus giving rise to a true circularity.

2.2. Magyar: the historical background

As mentioned, the (presumed) etymology of the Hungarians self-denomination has been central in the emerging and establishing of the conventional paradigm. In fact, it was since long known that the Hungarian Chronicles [2] had indicated an unspecified Eastern homeland for the Hungarians. Between the 15th and the 17th Centuries it came to be taken for granted that this Eastern homeland could be identified with an area near the Ural mountains, called ‘Yugria’ (hence the term ‘Uralic’ and ‘Ugric’). This belief was in turn based on the apparent similarity of the toponym Yugria (with which the area was indicated in Russian and Western European sources) and the ethnonym ‘hungarus’, the Hungarians’ external denomination. This connection was later on reinforced by the discovery that one of the populations living in that area, the Voguls, called themselves ‘Mansi’, which ‘to the lay ear slightly resembles the name magyar’ (to use Kálmán (1988:395) words). In other words, one of the cornerstones of the traditional paradigm - the belief that the closest relatives of the Hungarians are the Vogul/ Mansi peoples -- was originally based not so much on scientific arguments, as on a superficial, ‘accidental’ similarity between proper names: magyar vs Mansi and hungarus vs Yugria. In the meantime, linguists and historians believed to have found early occurrences of the term magyar in the text ‘De Administrando Imperio’, written in Greek by the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus between 947 and 952 AD. The testimony of the historical text was held to lend support to the Uralic origin of the Hungarians, as established by linguists.

It is now widely recognised in the specialist literature that Hungarian is radically different – in Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon and Syntax – from the Ob-Ugric languages; see for example Abondolo (1987:185 and 1998: 428), Sammallahti (1988:500), Helimski (1984:253) and Salminen (1997: 86). It does not therefore come as a surprise to realize that the Ugric node (Hungarian and the Ob-Ugric languages) has consistently defied the many attempts to its reconstruction (see for example Hajdú (1987: 306), Sammallahti (1988: 484) and Abondolo[3] (1998: 428)). Nevertheless, it was assumed at the time of the formation of the conventional paradigm, and is still widely assumed to this day[4], that Hungarian shares a privileged relationship with the Ob-Ugric languages. This means that the etymological connection: magyar-Mansi was originally and remains nowadays the only item of ‘evidence’ in support of the assumed close relationship between Hungarian and the Ob-Ugric people. Similarly, the (presumed) testimony of the Byzantine Emperor was and remains the only item of ‘historical evidence’ in support of the Uralic origin of the Hungarians. This being the case, it is worth to examine closely these terms and their linguistic as well historical connections.

2.3 The chronological and linguistic development of magyar

It is received wisdom within Uralic studies that Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Administrando Imperio, Chapters 38-40) mentions the name magyar, by this referring to what has now become the nation of the ‘Uralic’ Hungarians. It is also widely reported that the Emperor’s text provides another crucial item of information regarding the ancestors of the modern magyars, that is, that they lived together with Turkic tribes for about 300 years. This information is crucial indeed because it would explain why Hungarian, a Uralic language, is closer to Turkic than to any of the Uralic languages: the prolonged and close cohabitation with Turkic tribes can easily be held responsible for the strong influence of Turkic over Hungarian, influence which manifests itself primarily in terms of extensive lexical and phonological borrowing (see at this regard the comprehensive work by Ligeti (1986)). In turn, the thesis that Hungarian was originally a Uralic language, despite superficial evidence of the contrary, can be maintained as valid.


However, this is not quite the true story. In fact, the Emperor never actually mentions the name magyar itself, neither is there in the text any indication that the Emperor is referring to the ancestors of the modern Hungarians or any explicit mention of the ‘300-years-long’ cohabitation with Turkic tribes. The Emperor mentions a name which is somewhat ‘similar’ to magyar, that is ‘Megέrh’ (interpreted as ‘megyer(i)’), by this name clearly referring to a leader of a ‘Turkic’ clan. As to the question of the 300-years-long cohabitation, at one point [5] the Emperor says that the Turks (not the magyars) lived together with the [Turkic] Khazars for ‘three’ years. More specifically, the original text states the following:

1) ‘The nation of the Turks’ consists of seven (subsequently eight) tribes[6] /clans, one of which was lead by Megέrh

2) ‘The Turks lived together with the Khazars for three years, and fought in alliance with the Khazars in all their wars’

The name Megέrh seems to be reflected in place-names present in modern Hungary, such as Puszta-megyer, Tót-megyer, Békás-megyer, Káposztás-megyer, etc.

The original text as reported in point (1) has been re-interpreted in the sense that the Emperor is referring to the ancestors of the modern Hungarians, this interpretation being based on two assumptions: a) that a clan leader name has become a clan and then a nation name, and b): that the names Megέrh and magyar are ‘regular variants’ of one and the same name, being connected through regular sound correspondences (according to the requirements of the Comparative Method). However, Megέrh does not really match magyar (/måd’år/), because of the mismatch in the vowel quality (front vs back, respectively) and the presence of a final vowel in Megέr-h which is missing in magyar[7](see below). This being the case, on a strict application of the Comparative Method one would have to conclude that these names are not related to one another, and that Megέrh / megyer(i) has nothing to do with the modern Hungarian term magyar. Therefore, in order to establish the desired connection, some sort of ‘explanation’ is needed that would show how these two forms can be considered indeed as regular variants of the same name. This is achieved through a linguistic ‘re-interpretation’ involving the historically attested forms (Megέrh and a later form Mogerii[8] (interpreted as ‘magyeri’)) as well as the modern term. This re-interpretation, which is hardly ever made explicit in the literature, or even mentioned, takes place along the lines illustrated in the Tables (1) and (2) below (from Marcantonio 2002a:257):

Table 1. The chronological development of magyar : the attested forms

Constantine’s ‘clan / leader’ name Megέrh / megyer(i)

circa 950

The ‘nation’ name Mogerii / magyeri (in the text Anonymus Gesta Hungarorun)

circa 1200
magyar (/måd’år/)
modern Hungarian

Table 2. The chronological development of magyar : the linguistic ‘re-interpretation’

*mogyër Megέrh / megyer(i) (regressive assimilation)
attested circa 950
(“secondary variant”)


Mogerii / magyeri


attested circa 1200


magyar (/måd’år/) (progressive assimilation)
modern

As shown in the Tables, the mismatch in the quality of the vowels is explained (for example Ligeti 1986:400) by assuming that the original attested form of 950 was a mere ‘secondary variant’, despite its being (supposedly) reflected in modern Hungarian place-names. This secondary variant is supposed not to appear in the linguistic tree. The early form is instead supposed to be Proto-Hun. *mogyër [9] (see for example Németh 1930/1991: 246; Gheno and Hajdú 1992:15; UEW 866-67; Ligeti 1986: 400), that is a form reconstructed on the basis of Megέrh / megyer(i), Mogerii/ magyeri and magyar, so that the various reflexes of the name appear to be more regular. In fact, by assuming *mogyër as the original form, the vowel mismatch can be accounted for through two processes of vowel assimilation: magyar would have developed from Proto-Hun. *mogyër through progressive assimilation, whilst Megέrh / megyer(i) would have developed from the same reconstructed form through regressive assimilation. These assimilations in turn are claimed to have been triggerd by the principle of ‘Vowel Harmony’, the feature (typical of Modern Hungarian) according to which all the vowels within a word must be of the same quality. The change *mogyër into its ‘regular variants’ magyar ~ megyer(i) supposedly took place in the late Proto-Hungarian period, before the time of the home conquest (honfoglalás), that is before the time of the conquest of the present-day Hungarian territory, ‘officially’ achieved in 896 AD.


Although the processes of assimilation described above are totally normal, common phenomena in languages, there are two problems associated with this explanation. Firstly, the rejection of the early attested form Megέrh / megyer(i) and its replacement by a reconstructed form that has, by design, fewer sound mismatches with the modern form, is clearly an ad-hoc process that does not accord directly with the historical records and that is contradicted by the toponyms. Secondly, the justification of the assimilation processes through the principle of Vowel Harmony is not satisfactory, because the first Hungarian text, the famous ‘Halotti beszéd’, written between 1192 and 1195 AD, shows that Vowel Harmony is just about in the process of formation [10]. It is not therefore a fully developed feature, as would have been required for the processes of assimilation to run to completion round about 896 AD.


Last, but not least, this ‘explanation’ leaves out the question of the final vowel present both in the Greek and Latin forms (as well as in the Arabic forms, see below), but absent in the reconstructed form. In other words, it poses difficulties to claim that *mogyër developed as its variants the form magyar on the one hand and megyer-i, with an added (long[11]) vowel, on the other hand, given that final vowel tend to be lost, not gaigned. This difficulty becomes even more apparent when discussing the ‘standard’ etymology of magyar (see next section).

Let us now turn to the issue of Constantine’s text as reported at point (2). As mentioned, although the original text is pretty clear, in the sense that the Emperor talks about the ‘Turks’, it is widely ‘re-interpreted’ as if it did refer to the ancestors of the modern magyars. Furthermore, although the emperor clearly writes ‘three’ (‘τρεîς’) years, it is widely ‘re-interpreted’ as if he meant ‘three hundred’ years, or ‘two hundred’, or, anyhow, a very long period of time. This is because three years is not a long enough period to justify such an extensive, deep influence of Turkic over Hungarian, if it is assumed that Hungarian is purely and simply a Uralic language. Given that the text by Constantine has been recognized as containing inaccurate information in other areas of the narration, this particular bit of information has generally been regarded as wrong, somtimes even ‘ridicolous’ (Grégoire 1937: 636, 1952: 280; see also Deér 1952: 108). A ‘correction’ therefore is required: instead of the word for ‘three’ (τρεîς), one should read only the initial letter, more pecisely, on should read: τ’, which is the standard way of writing ‘three hundred’ in Byzantine Greek[12] (see for example Deér 1952; Moravcsik 1930: 107, 1984/1988: 42-43; but see Shepard [13] 1998: 25 for a different interpretation). Thus, historians re-interpret the text in order to make it consistent with the linguistic model, according to which the Hungarian language and people are a totally separate, linguistic and ethnic group form the Turks. In turn, linguists generally state that the Hungarian language diversified itself so radically from the other Uralic languages because there were ‘several centuries’ of symbiosis between the magyars and the Turks. This is usually reported as being a documented fact, an item of historical ‘evidence’, rather than what it actually is: an interpretation or, better, re-interpretation, of an otherwise quite clear historical text.

2.4 Magyar: the ad-hoc, ‘Uralic’ etymology

Having stated that magyar can be identified with megyer(i), through the ‘explanation’ reported above, there remains to ‘explain’ the connection between magyar and mansi, given that a pure superficial similarity between the two names would not be considered ‘scientific’ within the framwork of Historical Linguistics. Therefore, a proper etymology has been created in order to justify the assumed connection. However, as we shall seee below, this etymology is highly ad-hoc, and cannot therefore contribute towards “building up” the scientific credibility of this superficial similarity. Nevertheless, textbooks usually cite this etymology as ‘evidence’ in support of the Uralic origin of the Hungarians (and, of course, of the validity of the Ugric node), in this way giving rise to a circular argument. The ‘standard’ etymology of magyar is as follows (according to UEW 866 as well as the other major Hungarian etymological dictionaries):

3. magy-ar consists of two parts. The first part, magy- derives from Ug. *mańć'. ‘man, human being’, from which also the self-denominations of the Voguls, Mansi, and the self-denomination of one the Ostyak clans (mańt’ ~ mońt’ ~ maś) is derived (UEW 866). Hun. /-d’-/ is a regular reflex [14] of P-U *-ńć-. The second element of magy-ar, that is -ar (~ -ér, - ër) ‘man’, is the same component found for example in Hun. emb-ër ‘man’. This root in turn is connected with Finn. yrkä ‘bachelor’, yrkö ‘man’ < F-U *irkä (*ürkä) (UEW 84).

This etymology presents a major difficulty: the segmentation magy-ar does not have any independent justification, because neither of the two members (magy- and -ar ) are ever found as stand-alone elements. The same holds true for emb-ër ‘man’, not to take ito account the question of the missing final -i, as discussed above[15]. And, in fact, the sources that support this etymology admit that there are several difficulties (see Ligeti 1986:400 and Németh 1972:156). For example, UEW 84 & 866 says that compound nature of the noun is no longer retrievable, the compound has now become ‘opaque, obscure’.

At this point it is worth mentioning, without going into details, that there exist in the specialist literature an ‘alternative’ etymology for the name magyar, although this is hardly ever reported in textbooks. In the 10th Centuries Arabic sources (such as ‘The Book of the Precious Stones’, written by the Arabic geographer Ibn Rusta circa 930 AD), there occur the forms ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġiri ~ ba EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġird, which are regular variants [16]. Several authors claim that these terms are to be identified with the name magyar (see for exaple Imre 1972:328 and Ligeti 1986). More precisely, according to Ligeti (1986: 376-7, 396, 400) from the variant ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġiri the term magyar has developed, whilst from the variant ba EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġird the forms bašġir(d) ~ baš EQ \O(j,ˇ)ir(t) ~ bašgir have developed, that is, the denomination of the Turkic Bashkirs. Within the framework of the Comparative Method this etymology is certainly more ‘scientific’ than the standard etymology of magy-ar as reported in (3) above. In fact, no arbitray segmentations are required, there is no mismatch in the quality of the vowels, the consonants match (see foot-note (16)), and the lack of the final vowel in magyar can be explained with a normal process of ‘loss’ in final position. This alternative etymology, if accepted, suggests that, at least in the eyes of the Arabic historians and geographers, the tribe of their contemporary ‘magyars’ is somewhat connected to (if not even identical with) the tribe of their contemporary ‘Bashkirs’.


It would go beyond the scope of this paper to comment on the issue of the ‘magyar-Bashkir’ connection[17], which has been extensively dealt with in the specialist literature. Here it suffices to observe that, by the designation ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġir(i) ~ ba EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġir(d) the sources explicitly and consistently referred indeed to a Turkic population, and that the ‘Bashkiro-Hungarian complex’ (as it has been labeled by Vásáry (1985/7)), still ‘belongs to the open questions of Hungarian prehistory’, to use Ligeti’s (1986:375) words[18] [bold is mine].


Bibliography


Abondolo, D. 1987. Hungarian. In B. Comrie (ed.), The Major Languages of Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. 185-200.
Abondolo, D. 1998. Hungarian. In D. Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages. Routledge Language Family Descriptions. London: Routledge. 428-456.
Belardi, W. 2002. L’Etimologia nella Storia della Cultura Occidentale, I. Roma: Il Calamo.
Deér, J. 1952. Le problème du chapitre 38 du De Administrando Imperio. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 12 : 93-121. Bruxelle.
Di Cave, C. 1995. L’Arrivo degli Ungheresi in Europa e la Conquista della Patria: Fonti e Letteratura Critica. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo.
Dolukhanov, P. M. 1998. The most ancient North Europeans: consensus in sight? In Julku, K. & Wiik, K. (eds), The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia, I. Turku: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.
Dolukhanov, P. M. 2000a. Archaeology and language in prehistoric Europe. In A. Künnap (ed.). 11-22.
Dolukhanov, P. M. 2000b. “Prehistoric Revolutions” and languages in Europe. In A. Künnap (ed.). 71-84.
Fodor, I. 1975. Suomalais-ugrilaisen arkeologian pääongelmia. In P. Hajdú (ed.), Suomalais-ugrilaiset. Pieksämäki: Suomentanut Outi Karanko-Pap. 45-74.
Fodor, I. 1982. In search of a new Homeland. The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Budapest: Corvina.
Fogelberg, P. (ed.) 1999. Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Science and Letters.
Fox, A. 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction: an Introduction to the Theory and Method. Oxford: OUP.
Gheno, D. and Hajdú, P. 1992. Introduzione alle Lingue Uraliche. Torino: Rosemberg & Sellier.
Golden, P. B. 1990a. The peoples of the South Russian steppes. In D. Sinor (ed.). 256-277.
Golden, P. B. 1990b. The peoples of the Russian forest belt. In D. Sinor (ed). 229-253.
Grégoire, H. 1937. Le nom et l’origine des hongrois. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft B. 91: 630-642.
Grégoire, H. 1952. Le nom grec de Novgorod. La Nouvelle Clio 4: 279-280.
Györffy, Gy. 1948. Krónikáink és a magyar őstörténet. Budapest: Néptudományi Intézet.
Hajdú, P. 1987. Die uralischen Sprachen. In P. Hajdú and P. Domokos. Die uralischen Sprachen und Literaturen. Hamburg: H. Buske. 21-450 [Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó].
Helimski, E. 1984. Problems of phonological reconstruction in modern Uralic linguistics. LU 4: 241-257.
I, 129-194.
Imre, S. 1972. Early Hungarian Texts. In Benkő, L. and Imre, S. (eds), The Hungarian Language. Janua linguarum. Series practica 134. Budapest: Akadémiai Kadó. 327-347
Janhunen, J. 1981. Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. JSFOu 77: 219-274.
Janhunen, J. 2001. On the paradigms of comparative Uralic studies. FUF 56: 29-41.
Julku, K. (ed.) 2002. The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia, IV. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. Oulu.
Julku, K. 1997. Eurooppa – Suomalais-ugrilaisten ja Indoeurooppalaisten pelikentta (Europe, an arena for Finno-Ugric and Indo-European interaction). In K. Julku and M. Äärelä (eds). 249-266.
Julku, K. and Äärelä, M. (eds) 1997. Itämerensuomi-eurooppalainen maa. Studia Historica Fenno-Ugrica II. Jyväskylä: Atena.
Julku, K. 2000. Die ältesten Wurzeln der finno-ugrischen Völker im Lichte der heutigen Forschung. In A Künnap (ed.). 125-130.
Kálmán, B. 1988. The history of the Ob-Ugric languages. In D. Sinor (ed.). 394-412.
Kézai, S. 1937-1938. = Simonis de Keza Gesta Hungarorum. In E. Szentpétery et al. (eds), I.
Künnap, A. 1995. What does a “Uralic language” mean ? C8IFU IV: 209-212.
Künnap, A. 1996. Mea culpa, aga omakeelsed Eesti põlisasukad oleme olnud ehk juba 12 000 aastat. Keel ja Kirjandus 8: 505-513.
Künnap, A. 1997a. On the origin of the Uralic languages. In A. Künnap (ed.), Western and Eastern Contact Areas of Uralic Languages. F-U 21: 65-68.
Künnap, A. 1997b. Uralilaisten kielten läntinen kontaktikenttä. In K. Julku and M. Äärelä (eds). 63-72.
Künnap, A. 1998. Breakthroughs in present-day Uralistics. Tartu: University of Tartu.
Künnap, A. (ed.) 2000. The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia II and III. F-U 23.
Künnap, A. 2000/01. Comparativistics and uralistics. C9IFU V: 183-187.
Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273-309.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press.
Labov, W. 1980. The social origin of sound change. In W. Labov (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New-York: Academic Press. 251-266.
Labov, W. 1981. Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language 57: 267-309.
Labov, W. 1994. Principle of Historical Linguistics: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ligeti, L. 1963. Gyarmat és Jenő. In L. Benkő (ed.), Tanulmányok a magyar nyelv életrajza köréből. NyÉrt 40: 230-239.
Ligeti, L. 1964. A magyar nép mongol kori nevei (magyar, baskír, király). MNy 60: 385-404.
Ligeti, L. 1978. Régi török eredetű neveink. MNy 74: 257-274.
Ligeti, L. 1986. A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Marcantonio, A. 2002a. The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 35. Oxford: Blackwell.
Marcantonio, A. 2002b (to appear). Comment: ‘On the paradigms of Comparative Uralic studies’ by Juha Janhunen (FUF 2001, Vol. 56:29-41). FUF 57.
Molnár, J. and Simon, Gy. 1977. Magyar nyelvemlékek. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
Moravcsik, Gy. 1930. Az onogurok történetéhez. MNy 26: 4-18 and 89-109.
Moravcsik, Gy. 1984/1988. Az Árpád-kori magyar történet bizánci forrásai. Fontes Byzantini historiae Hungaricae aevo ducum et regum ex stirpe Árpád descendentium. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Moravcsik, Gy. and Jenkins, R. J.H. 1949. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio. Greek text edited by Moravcsik, English translation by Jenkins. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetemi Görök Filológiai Intézet.
Németh, Gy. 1930 /1991. A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Németh, Gy. 1966a. Ungarische Stammesnamen bei den Baschkiren. ALH 16: 1-21.
Németh, Gy. 1966b. A baskir földi magyar őshazáról. Élet és Tudomány 13: 596-599. Budapest.
Németh, Gy. 1972. Magyar und Mišer. AOH 25: 293-299.
Niskanen, M. 1997. Itämerensuomalaisten alkuperä fyysisen antropologian näkökulmasta. In K. Julku and M. Äärelä (eds). 104-118.
Niskanen, M. 2000a. Somatological variations and the population history of northern Eurasia. In A. Künnap (ed.). 349-371.
Niskanen, M. 2000b. The origins of Europeans: population movements, genetic relationships and linguistic distribution. In A. Künnap (ed.). 33-59.
Nuñez, M. 1987. A model for the early settlement of Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 4: 3-18. Helsinki.
Nuñez, M. 1997a. Uusi katsaus Suomen asuttamismalliin. In K. Julku and M. Äärelä (eds). 47-63.
Nuñez, M. 1997b. Finland’s settling model revisited. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology 10: 93-102.
Nuñez, M. 2000. Problems with the search for the ancestral Finns. In A. Künnap (ed.). 60-68.
Parpola, A. 1999. Varhaisten indoeurooppalaiskontaktien ajoitus ja paikannus kielellisen ja arkeologisen aineston perustella. In Fogelberg, P. (ed.). 180-206.
Pusztay, J. 1995. Diskussionsbeiträge zur Grundsprachenforschung (Beispiel: das Protouralische).Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 43. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Pusztay, J. 1997. Ajatus uralilaisten kansojen ketjumaisesta alkukodista. In K. Julku and M. Äärelä (eds.). 9-19.
Pusztay, J. 2001. The so-called Uralic original home (Urheimat) and the so-called Proto-Uralic. TRAMES 1/5: 75-91.
Rédei, K. (ed.) 1986-91. UEW: Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I-VIII. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Rédei, K. 1998. Őstörténetünk kérdései. A nyelvészeti dilettantizmus kritikája. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó.
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language. The puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: J. Cape.
Róna-Tas, A. 1978. Julius Németh: life and work. AOH 32: 261-236.
Salminen, T. 1997. Facts and myths about Uralic studies. A review article of Jazyki mira: Ural’skie jazyki. Otvetstvennye redaktory: Ju. S. Eliseev, K. E. Majtinskaja.[Languages of the World: Uralic Languages]. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50 : 85-95.
Sammallahti, P. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages (with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic). In D. Sinor (ed.). 478-554.
Shepard, J. 1998. The Khazars formal adoption of Judaism and Byzantiums’ northern policy. Oxford Slavonic Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 11-34.
Sinor, D. (ed.). 1988. The Uralic Lnguages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Handbook of Uralic Studies I. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Sinor, D. (ed.) 1990. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: CUP.
Stephenson, P. 2001. Review article: early medieval Hungary in English. Early Medieval Europe 10: 95-112.
Sutrop, U. 2000a. The forest of Finno-Ugric languages. In A. Künnap (ed.). 165-197.
Sutrop, U. 2000b. From the ‘Language Family Tree’ to the ‘Tangled Web of Languages’. C9IFU I: 197-291.
Sutrop, U. 2001 (ed.). Preface. TRAMES 1/5:3-6.
Szentpétery, I. et al. (eds). 1937-1938. Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum Tempore Ducum Regumque Stirpis Arpadianae Gestarum, I-II. Budapest: Academia Litterarum Hungarica.
Taagepera, R. 1994. The linguistic distances between Uralic languages. LU 30: 161-167.
Taagepera, R. 1997. The roots and branches of the Finno-Ugric language tree. (Manuscript).
Taagepera, R. 2000. Uralic as a Lingua Franca with roots. In A. Künnap (ed.). 381-395.
Vásáry, I. 1975. The Hungarians or Možars and the Meščers / Mišers of the Middle Volga region. AEMAe 1: 237-75
Vásáry, I. 1985/7. The linguistic aspect of the “Bashkiro-Hungarian complex”. AEMAe 5: 205-232.
Viitso, T.-R. 1995. On classifying the Finno-Ugric languages. C81FU IV: 261-266.
Viitso, T.-R. 1997a. Keelesugulus ja soome-ugri keelepuu. Akadeemia 9: 899-929. Tartu.
Viitso, T.-R. 1997b. The prosodic system of Estonian in the Finnic space. In I. Lehiste and J. Ross (eds), Estonian Prosody: Papers from a Symposium. Tallin: Institute of Estonian language. 222-234.
Wang, W. S.-Y. 1969. Competing sound change as a cause of residue. Language 45: 9-25.
Wang, W. S.-Y. 1979. Language change: a lexical perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:1-34.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New-York: Linguistic Circle of New-York [2nd edition by The Hague: Mouton 1968].
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. Empirical foundation for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds), Directions for Historical Linguistics. A Symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95-196.
Wiik, K 1995. Itämerensuomalaisten kansojen ja kielten syntykysymyksiä B. Uusia kontaktiteoriaan perustuvia ratkaisuja. University of Turku
Wiik, K. 1996. Põhja-Euroopa rahvaste ja keelte päritolu küsimusi. Keel ja Kirjandus 9: 581-589
Wiik, K. 1997a. The Uralic and Finno-Ugric phonetic substratum in Proto-Germanic. LU 33: 258-280.
Wiik, K. 1997b. Suomalaistyyppistä ääntämistä germaanisissa kielissä. In K. Julku and M. Äärelä (eds). 75-101.
Wiik, K. 1997c. How far to the South in Eastern Europe did the Finno-Ugrians live? Fennoscandia Archaeologica 14: 23-30.
Wiik, K. 1999. Pohjois-Euroopan indoeurooppalaisten kielten suomalais-ugrilainen substraatti. In P. Fogelberg (ed.). 37-52.
Wiik, K. 2000. European Lingua Francas. In A. Künnap (ed.). 202-236.
Wiik, K. 2000/01a. On the interaction between the Uralic and Indo-European peoples and languages through lingua franca. C9IFU VI: 391- 408.
Wiik, K. 2000/01b. Five issues in five minutes as a reaction against the traditionalists. Comments on the plenary presentation “Urheimat und Grundsprache (Wissenschaftliche Hypothesen und unwissenschaftliche Fehlgriffe)”. C9IFU VI: 465-469.
Zvelebil, M. 2001. Revisiting Indreko’s culture historical model: “Origin and area of settlement of the Finno-Ugrian peoples”. TRAMES 1/5: 26-47.


[1] There are various, slighlty different opininons among scholars as to exactly which population/ culture, from which ‘centers of populations dispersal’, the ancestors of the present-day Finno-Ugric/ Uralic people might have derived from. However, this is not of relevance for the current argument, therefore these various positions are not taken here into consideration.

[2] Compare for example Anonymus Gesta Hungarorum (for which see below foot-note (8)) and Gesta Hungarorum, written by Simon Kézai between 1282 and 1285.

[3] For example, Abondolo (1998: 428) states that ‘What is traditionally termed ‘Ugric’ may itself have been more a Sprachbund than a node in the Uralic family’.

[4] The notable exception is Viitso (1995, 1997a & b), who has proposed a Uralic family tree quite different from the traditional one, where, among other ‘deviations’ –as it were - Hungarian is not bundled togther with Vogul and Ostyak.

[5] Chapter 38, line 13-14 (from the edition by Moravcsik and Jenkins (1949:170-1))

[6] The original text reads as follows (Jenkins’ translation from Moravcsik and Jenkins (eds) 1949:175): “Of the clans of the Kabaroi and the Turks. The first is this aforesaid clan of the Kabaroi which split off from the Chazars; the second, of Nekis [identified with Modern Hun. Nyék]; the third of Megeris [megyer(i)], the fourth, of Kourtou-germatos [compare Modern Hun. -Gyarmat], the fifth, of Tarianos; the sixth, Genach [identified with Modern Hun. Jenő < Jeneg ]; the seventh, Kari, the eighth, Kasi [identified with Modern Hun. Keszi < Kesző ~ Keszeg ] ”. The name Megέrh (like most clan names) appears in the genitive construction: “τρίτη του Megέrh”. As to the origin of these names, there is complete agreement in the literature that they are all of Turkic origin, with the notable exception of Megέrh / megyer(i) ~ magyar. However, Turkic correspondences have also been proposed for the very name megyer, compare the Bashkir ethnonyms and toponyms: Mišer ~ Mišar ~ Mišär ~ Meščer ~ Mižer etc. On the issue of the Turkic origin of the (presumed) Hungarian clan names compare for example Vásáry (1985/7); Fodor (1975 and 1982); Ligeti (1963, 1964, 1978, 1986); Di Cave (1995); Golden (1990 a & b); see also Marcantonio (2000a: 260-262). The Emperor’s text reports several other famous ‘Hungarian’ proper names, such as Álmos and Tas, and the nobility name kündü, all of which, again, are also present in Turkic (see Ligeti (1986)). The name Árpád, that is, the name of the leader who accomplished the honfoglalás, the conquest of the present-day Hungarian territory, is also mentioned in Chapters 38-40. For this name, however, no clear etymology or origin is indicated either in Ligeti (1986) or in the etymological dictionaries.

[7] These mismatches are widely recognised in the specialist literature, see for example Gheno and Hajdú (1992:15), UEW 866-67 and Ligeti (1986: 400).

[8] The name Mogerii is found in the Mediaeval Chronicle Anonymus Gesta Hungarorum, generally known as Anonymus (his author being indeed not specified). The Chronicle was written in Latin circa 1200. The anonymous author states that the Hungarians, of Scythian origin, call themselves, in their own language, Mogerii (~ Mogerij): “ ... populus de terra Scithica egressus per ydioma alienigenarum Hungarii et in sua lingua propria Mogerii vocantur” (Szentpétery et al. (eds)1937-1938: I, 33). This seems to be the first explicit, clear association of the two designations Hungar- and magyar. For information about the other 9th –13th Centuries sources that, supposedly, refer to the ‘magyars’ see Di Cave (1995) and Stephenson (2001).

[9] Several variants are also usually listed, such as *mogyëri ~ *ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġër(i) ~ *ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)gir(i).

[10] A halotti beszéd és könyörgés, ‘The Funeral Oration and Prayer’, the first Hungarian text, is a free translation from Latin by an unknown author. In this short text Vowel Harmomy is not yet a fully developed feature, as shown by the following examples: Old Hun. vilag-bele vs Modern Hun. világ-ba ‘into the world’; Old Hun. uruzag-bele vs Modern Hun. ország-ba ‘into the kingdom’; Old Hun. muga-nek vs Modern Hun. mogá-nak ‘to himself’; Old Hun. halal-nec vs Modern Hun. halál-nak ‘to the death’ (from the edition by Molnar & Simon 1977: 17-18).

[11] It is assumed that the final vowel is long on the basis of the Greek ‘h’ of Megέr-h, as well on the basis of the names attested in the Arabic sources, for which see foot-note (15) below.

[12] The number ‘three’ is generally written as: g .

[13]At p. 25 the author comments: “But the De administrando does not conceal the ambiguousness of the Hungarians’ relations with the Khazars: the period of full-blown military alliance is implausibly allocated only three years, perhaps as a symbolic way of indicating that it was quite brief,..”.

[14] One my observe that Hun. -gy- /-d’-/ may be the reflex not only of P-U *-ńć-, but also of several other sounds. Therefore this sound change on its own cannot constitute evidence in favour of the validity of the etymology.

[15] As mentioned, the denominations recorded in the historical sources contain a final, long -i (Latin Mogerij ~ Mogerii, and Greek Megέrh), for which there is no corresponding vowel in the presumed Old Hungarian component *-ar ~ *-ér ~ *-ër. The presence of a final long vowel is confirmed by the original Arabic script, which reads as m.ğ.γ.rīya, whereby the long -ī- of the Arabic ending -īya indicates that the original, non-Arabic word contained a final vowel.

[16] The initial m ~ b alternation is a regular one within Turkic (common Turkic m- vs Bulgar Turkic and Khazar b-). Similarly, the correspondence -gy- /d’/ of magyar vs /š/ of bašġir is a regul one (see Ligeti 1986: 376-7, 396, 400).

[17] Scholars have tried in various ways to ‘re-interpret’ this item of counter-evidence so as to fit it in with the thesis of the Uralic origin of the Hungarians. Compare for example Németh (930/1991:325-327, 1966a & b, 1972); Györffy (1948:184 f.); Fodor (1975, 1982:265 f.); Ligeti (1963, 1964, 1978, 1986: 375 & 378-379); Róna-Tas (1978); Di Cave (1995:34 f.); Vásáry (1975, 1985 /7) and Golden (1990b:245).

[18] The original text reads as follows:“[The Bashkirs] a magyar őstörténet nyitott kérdései közé tartozik”.


Return to “Ancient, Classical and Extinct Languages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest