Hungarians

[Tamas]

Greetings !

Well, it seems no clue yet, or researching ?
Meantime, I have a question to the mongol brothers, how do you say in mongolian (the most easiest and shortest way):
Do you speak mongol ?

Also, I came across an important thing which seem to me as a very cricial point in linguistics. They say there is no real "h" in turkic, and there is no way a word would start with the letter.
May this be only in oguz-türk, or the ogur (or lir) type also ?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Regarding the Sabars, up to now I have never come across with any source or research that links them to the Magyars.

Also, I came across an important thing which seem to me as a very cricial point in linguistics. They say there is no real "h" in turkic, and there is no way a word would start with the letter.
May this be only in oguz-türk, or the ogur (or lir) type also ?

There is no evidence of the existence of the sound Ordinary H in Gokturk and Uyghur period Old Turkic. Mahmud of Kashghar also explains in the late 11th century that originally Turkic did not have that sound but in time, several words in some dialects developed with that sound, such as Ühi ("owl"; Mahmud here notes that the majority of the Turks say this word as Ügi but only some Turks pronounce it as Ühi). However, we know the presence of the "kh" sound as early as the Turfanese Uyghur period.

Regarding the Oghur (LIR) branch of Turkic, it is possible that the sound H existed emong them before the 11th century. The only known Khazar written document that contains the Turkic language of the Khazars, the Kievan Letter, has been researched by Talat Tekin. He read the Turkic word on the letter as Hoqurïm, which would be Oqurïm in Old Turkic, meaning "I have read". Looks like a formula used at the end of imperial documents that were read and approved by state officials.

[hjernespiser]

The "back" initial k is known to have changed into an initial h in Oghur (and a reason why the word karacsony as a loan from Turkic would be impossible to resolve). Today's Chuvash uses an h- in place of this k- and, as you probably know, Turkic loanwords into Hungarian from this time period (roughly 7th cent.) also begin with an h-.

The change is basically possible because Turkic would soften the k- into a kh- and then ultimately an h- and it's just a style of the way different groups speak. Some others go the opposite direction and strengthen the k- by voicing it into a g- (Jungar and Tsengel Tuvan both have gajda instead of Tuvan kajda). We can see many Khakass words with the k- softened to kh-. I.e., Kongoroj vs. Khongoroj.

[Tamas]

Jan 7, 2011 0:13:15 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Regarding the Sabars, up to now I have never come across with any source or research that links them to the Magyars.

There is no evidence of the existence of the sound Ordinary H in Gokturk and Uyghur period Old Turkic. Mahmud of Kashghar also explains in the late 11th century that originally Turkic did not have that sound but in time, several words in some dialects developed with that sound, such as Ühi ("owl"; Mahmud here notes that the majority of the Turks say this word as Ügi but only some Turks pronounce it as Ühi). However, we know the presence of the "kh" sound as early as the Turfanese Uyghur period.

Regarding the Oghur (LIR) branch of Turkic, it is possible that the sound H existed emong them before the 11th century. The only known Khazar written document that contains the Turkic language of the Khazars, the Kievan Letter, has been researched by Talat Tekin. He read the Turkic word on the letter as Hoqurïm, which would be Oqurïm in Old Turkic, meaning "I have read". Looks like a formula used at the end of imperial documents that were read and approved by state officials.

Greetings once again !

If this is the real situation, then "we are" (you are) facing a major problem. No Göktürks (from the VI. century? (ad. 550->)) and Uyghurs spoke with initial "h", but the descendants would like to claim the hsiungnu/hun heritage only for their own. Very interesting.
I think oghur languages do not change this fast and spectacularly within a hundred years (Attila died at 453 ad.).

By the way, I would like to humbly ask if lir-türk speaking türks has to do something with "the huns" (like bolgars, bashkirs, pechenegs, etc.), then why is that the oghuz-speaking branch claims themselves also the successors, why their language is a big disproval of this theory.

Also, manysi call human/man as "khun", as I read, with more the letter "h" at the begining (just as Mrs. Stacy wrote) this fully softens to an "h".

Do not forget the very-very "proto-majars" were on the steppe since at least the "Sintashta-Petrovka culture" period (which is the part of the Andronovo), so I think modern day hungarians know everything about the oghur-türks.

Plus, back to the sabir question, early-hungarian "princes" (I can look their names up for you if you would like to know exactly) who were guests in the Byzanthine-empire (at that time called Rúm - from the word Rome), told to the king they were called "sabirs" - sabartoi asphaloi before they were designated majars. So strange, isn't it ?
I do not see any disapproving evidence which should interpret or even suggest early-hungarians were not the sabirs....
What do you think on this, hmm ?

[benzin]

IX Constantine Byzantine emperor says in his work aministra imperio the older name of the magyars according to the magyar leaders visited him, is subartu asphalu, (undefeatable sabirs)

Many other source links the sabirs to the magyars undirectly, I find them if you are interested.

Jan 7, 2011 0:13:15 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Regarding the Sabars, up to now I have never come across with any source or research that links them to the Magyars.

Also, I came across an important thing which seem to me as a very cricial point in linguistics. They say there is no real "h" in turkic, and there is no way a word would start with the letter.
May this be only in oguz-türk, or the ogur (or lir) type also ?

There is no evidence of the existence of the sound Ordinary H in Gokturk and Uyghur period Old Turkic. Mahmud of Kashghar also explains in the late 11th century that originally Turkic did not have that sound but in time, several words in some dialects developed with that sound, such as Ühi ("owl"; Mahmud here notes that the majority of the Turks say this word as Ügi but only some Turks pronounce it as Ühi). However, we know the presence of the "kh" sound as early as the Turfanese Uyghur period.

Regarding the Oghur (LIR) branch of Turkic, it is possible that the sound H existed emong them before the 11th century. The only known Khazar written document that contains the Turkic language of the Khazars, the Kievan Letter, has been researched by Talat Tekin. He read the Turkic word on the letter as Hoqurïm, which would be Oqurïm in Old Turkic, meaning "I have read". Looks like a formula used at the end of imperial documents that were read and approved by state officials.

[benzin]

I read it somewhere that the Huns didnt call themselve Huns, only from the time they faced that the nations of europe call them and fear them in that name.

Jan 7, 2011 12:05:06 GMT 3 Tamas said:

Jan 7, 2011 0:13:15 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Regarding the Sabars, up to now I have never come across with any source or research that links them to the Magyars.

There is no evidence of the existence of the sound Ordinary H in Gokturk and Uyghur period Old Turkic. Mahmud of Kashghar also explains in the late 11th century that originally Turkic did not have that sound but in time, several words in some dialects developed with that sound, such as Ühi ("owl"; Mahmud here notes that the majority of the Turks say this word as Ügi but only some Turks pronounce it as Ühi). However, we know the presence of the "kh" sound as early as the Turfanese Uyghur period.

Regarding the Oghur (LIR) branch of Turkic, it is possible that the sound H existed emong them before the 11th century. The only known Khazar written document that contains the Turkic language of the Khazars, the Kievan Letter, has been researched by Talat Tekin. He read the Turkic word on the letter as Hoqurïm, which would be Oqurïm in Old Turkic, meaning "I have read". Looks like a formula used at the end of imperial documents that were read and approved by state officials.

Greetings once again !

If this is the real situation, then "we are" (you are) facing a major problem. No Göktürks (from the VI. century? (ad. 550->)) and Uyghurs spoke with initial "h", but the descendants would like to claim the hsiungnu/hun heritage only for their own. Very interesting.
I think oghur languages do not change this fast and spectacularly within a hundred years (Attila died at 453 ad.).

By the way, I would like to humbly ask if lir-türk speaking türks has to do something with "the huns" (like bolgars, bashkirs, pechenegs, etc.), then why is that the oghuz-speaking branch claims themselves also the successors, why their language is a big disproval of this theory.

Also, manysi call human/man as "khun", as I read, with more the letter "h" at the begining (just as Mrs. Stacy wrote) this fully softens to an "h".

Do not forget the very-very "proto-majars" were on the steppe since at least the "Sintashta-Petrovka culture" period (which is the part of the Andronovo), so I think modern day hungarians know everything about the oghur-türks.

Plus, back to the sabir question, early-hungarian "princes" (I can look their names up for you if you would like to know exactly) who were guests in the Byzanthine-empire (at that time called Rúm - from the word Rome), told to the king they were called "sabirs" - sabartoi asphaloi before they were designated majars. So strange, isn't it ?
I do not see any disapproving evidence which should interpret or even suggest early-hungarians were not the sabirs....
What do you think on this, hmm ?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

If this is the real situation, then "we are" (you are) facing a major problem. No Göktürks (from the VI. century? (ad. 550->)) and Uyghurs spoke with initial "h", but the descendants would like to claim the hsiungnu/hun heritage only for their own. Very interesting.
I think oghur languages do not change this fast and spectacularly within a hundred years (Attila died at 453 ad.).

By the way, I would like to humbly ask if lir-türk speaking türks has to do something with "the huns" (like bolgars, bashkirs, pechenegs, etc.), then why is that the oghuz-speaking branch claims themselves also the successors, why their language is a big disproval of this theory.

Actually personally, I do not think and claim that the Oghuz were the direct successors of the Huns. However, being a Turkic people, still we are closer to the Huns then you Ugric Magyars are.

Also, manysi call human/man as "khun", as I read, with more the letter "h" at the begining (just as Mrs. Stacy wrote) this fully softens to an "h".

Old Turkic Kün means "people" and this word is attested in Gokturk and Yenisei Qyrghyz inscriptions.

Do not forget the very-very "proto-majars" were on the steppe since at least the "Sintashta-Petrovka culture" period (which is the part of the Andronovo), so I think modern day hungarians know everything about the oghur-türks.

Why are you Magyars so obsessed with the Huns?

[Tamas]

Jan 7, 2011 19:05:27 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Why are you Magyars so obsessed with the Huns?

Greetings.
Well, you know, I don't know the answer for this question.
It's inside every magyar.

[Tamas]

Jan 7, 2011 19:05:27 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Actually personally, I do not think and claim that the Oghuz were the direct successors of the Huns. However, being a Turkic people, still we are closer to the Huns then you Ugric Magyars are.

Really ?
If this is the case, you did not learn anything from the before mentioned Andronovo-culture before ?
Okay.
Three kind of people were involved.
Let's say the "ogur-türkic, the arya-iranians and from the ugor branch the proto-hungarians" - knowing the fact that there were no nations or these kind of self-designations then.
I have told you the secret of the inner-asian mummies and the Kazakstani blondes if you like.

[hjernespiser]

I would not build a whole theory with the idea that the word Sabartoi Asphali refers specifically to the Sabirs and that the Sabirs were Magyars. The problems are insurmountable. The name is mentioned ONLY in De Administrando (as is Levedia).

[hjernespiser]

BTW, the word for person in Mansi is not khun, but khum, with an M. And it's an M in practically all the cognates in the other Uralic languages.

[Tamas]

Jan 7, 2011 20:26:40 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

I would not build a whole theory with the idea that the word Sabartoi Asphali refers specifically to the Sabirs and that the Sabirs were Magyars. The problems are insurmountable. The name is mentioned ONLY in De Administrando (as is Levedia).

You are right !
There is a written thing what the hungarian delegation stated on themselves, and instead we should dismiss it or hold it as a desinformation, and instead we should just base our theories on nothing. ;D
That makes sense !
But oh well, if you have another version which makes more sense, then please I think we are ready to listen to that also.
Also, I thought Lebedias really existed....
And I think it is just luck we have such sources since it's better than nothing....

[Tamas]

Also, I would like to humbly ask what are the insurmountable problems with this "sabir" relationship ?
There is no disapproving evidence on the contrary - or I did not find - so please clarify.

[Ardavarz]

Jan 7, 2011 19:05:27 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

If this is the real situation, then "we are" (you are) facing a major problem. No Göktürks (from the VI. century? (ad. 550->)) and Uyghurs spoke with initial "h", but the descendants would like to claim the hsiungnu/hun heritage only for their own. Very interesting.
I think oghur languages do not change this fast and spectacularly within a hundred years (Attila died at 453 ad.).

By the way, I would like to humbly ask if lir-türk speaking türks has to do something with "the huns" (like bolgars, bashkirs, pechenegs, etc.), then why is that the oghuz-speaking branch claims themselves also the successors, why their language is a big disproval of this theory.

Actually personally, I do not think and claim that the Oghuz were the direct successors of the Huns. However, being a Turkic people, still we are closer to the Huns then you Ugric Magyars are.


Old Turkic Kün means "people" and this word is attested in Gokturk and Yenisei Qyrghyz inscriptions.

I used to think once that the name "Hun" is related to Mongolian hün - "human", but later I learned that Old Mongolian form was hömön. Now if Oghur (lir-) Turkic have had initial h- (as O. Pritsak thinks too) this Old Turkic word (kün) could provide a plausible explanation.

Cf. for instance the name of Attila's youngest son Hernac - in Danube Bulgarian source it is rendered as Irnik (probably it had a light aspiration - Hirnik - as some authors speculate), while in Volga Bulgarian (in later Kipchak language) - as Kermek.

Jan 7, 2011 20:26:40 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

I would not build a whole theory with the idea that the word Sabartoi Asphali refers specifically to the Sabirs and that the Sabirs were Magyars. The problems are insurmountable. The name is mentioned ONLY in De Administrando (as is Levedia).

I agree. The name Sabartoi sounds Scythian to me (with usual plural suffix -tä) and then isn't the sound "ph" (from Asphaloi) absent in Old Turkic? But I wouldn't speculate. The problem with such hapax names is that we can never be sure if this is the real name of those people (i.e. how they have called themselves in their own language) or some nickname given by others.

[hjernespiser]

There is a written thing what the hungarian delegation stated on themselves

No... What we have is a Greek transcription of a name reportedly from a Hungarian delegation that was called "Turk" by the Byzantines. Hungarians have been called many different names by foreigners. The use of a Greek word (Asphali) in the name points to the entire name being one of these names that foreigners used for Hungarians. Just as Turks are not Hungarians because Hungarians were called Turks by foreigners, Sabirs are not Hungarians just because the name may have been applied to a group of Hungarians who went or remained in the east.

Hungarians have always called themselves Magyar or some cognate form of that word. Such ethnic name consistency is essential to remaining a cohesive ethnic group. When Hungarians want to tell English-speaking people that they are Hungarian, they do not normally say "Magyar". It would not be much difference for an ancient Hungarian delegation to use a foreign name that the Greeks may have known about.

More later...