|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 12, 2012 20:00:17 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 12, 2012 21:40:49 GMT 3
Thanks. I will share this on hungarian forums among idiots who says even in finnland they dont think we are relatives.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 12, 2012 23:38:16 GMT 3
lol that was nice, thanx.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Nov 12, 2012 23:54:23 GMT 3
We have some folks of the same kind here saying that Bulgarian is not Slavic. I guess it's contagious ;D.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 13, 2012 11:24:54 GMT 3
lol what is it if not Slavic? ;D
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 13, 2012 13:21:43 GMT 3
So what do they think? To what group does it belong to according to them? Indo-European? By the way, it is well known and documented that church (being the world's most powerful and controversial organization) and its branches (the most recent and known ones being the Jesuits and their other branch being their army) meddled with the languages people spoke and writing systems they used all around the world. (Not that I support their claims. I'm just a super-agnostic (I'm so agnostic that I don't know if I'm an agnostic or not))
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 13, 2012 21:36:58 GMT 3
ancalimon, are you referring to Jobbik?
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Nov 13, 2012 23:59:39 GMT 3
lol what is it if not Slavic? ;D Well, some kind of linguistic isolate, I guess, but certainly very old and very unique . This isn't some elaborated theory, just wild conjectures popular amongst certain nationalist circles. In general they claim that modern Bulgarian is a direct derivative of Proto-Bulgarian while Slavic and Turkic elements found in it are just external influences. As for its possible linguistic affiliation the two most prominent and mutually hostile opinions amomgst the different quarrelling groups are that it is either Iranian or Thracian (var. Pelasgian). There is also another not so widely popular theory regarding it as peculiar Uralic language related to Mordvin and Chuvash. It's ironic how the minds of such people work - while Hungarians don't want their language to be classified as Uralic, Bulgarians prefer rather that than to be Slavic or Turkic ;D.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 14, 2012 12:26:06 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 14, 2012 14:56:38 GMT 3
ancalimon, are you referring to Jobbik? I don't know... Whoever is claiming that Hungarian is not an Uralic language. The only two things I know about Jobbik are that they are related to Kurultaj and the banner which they showed on the Turkey-Hungary football match
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 14, 2012 18:47:18 GMT 3
I think Jobbik is only incidentally related to Kurultaj.
It's sad when history gets co-opted by politics. Jobbik, promulgating a political Turanism, supposedly stands on what the Hungarian legends say about Hunno-Turk roots and thus consider the Hungarian language to be some Hunno-Turk language. Yet when you talk to a Jobbik supporter, they seem to have little clue about those legends. Take what that sign says for instance. I've seen this statement repeated elsewhere by a Jobbik supporter. I pointed out that the legends say that Hungarians are descendents of the earlier Magor, who was brother to Attila's ancestor Hunor. No answer. And I've read stupid "tiszta" (pure) Magyar nutse from Jobbik supporters too, which is anti-steppe. You know they basically ousted one of their own, a MEP, when it was discovered that he had Jewish roots? It's easy to have fun with these ASSes and point out that Hunor and Magor married Alanic princesses, that Arpad was most likely a Turkic mutt, that Attila married Gothic women (Eastern Germans are as much "descendents of Attila" as Hungarians are!), that Leved took a Khazar wife, etc.
Anyway, non-experts asking the experts to re-examine their data deserve to be laughed at. They're like the Christan fundamentalists asking biologists to re-examine evolution.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 14, 2012 21:43:57 GMT 3
Im not sure you guys want to know about all kind of stupidity spreads here Some thinks hungarians came from an other galaxy. This theory even has its own "literature". This mostly happen because even the scholars cant get an exact answer where did we come from and who are we. There are many theories of great linguists, historicians wich are completely different from each other. Common people wants to know their heritage, and if they dont find answers, they will turn to the loudest ones, but I guess this story is the same everywhere else. About the match : ))
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 14, 2012 22:03:17 GMT 3
There's no exact answer on where Hungarians came from (that ambiguity tends to bother common people), but what is for certain is that the Hungarian language is a Uralic language, related to the Ob-Ugrian languages Mansi and Khanty.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 15, 2012 1:55:47 GMT 3
There's no exact answer on where Hungarians came from (that ambiguity tends to bother common people), but what is for certain is that the Hungarian language is a Uralic language, related to the Ob-Ugrian languages Mansi and Khanty. Actually I'm absolutely sure that the reason why there's no exact answer to where Hungarians came from is the church and their revising of history (together with torture, mass killings, book burnings, etc). The same most probably happened to Turks this time because of Omayyads.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 15, 2012 3:13:58 GMT 3
The funny is by that time (9th, 10 th century) the Hungarians were called the Turks.
|
|