|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 29, 2009 0:40:30 GMT 3
True or not, until I meet a Hungarian I don't like, I don't think I'll ever be so cold as to pop their little bubble :/
It doesn't really look fake, but I'm curious how they gained their Hun translated words to compare with Magyar.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 29, 2009 0:47:11 GMT 3
Just because the Huns ruled over some obscure forest-dwelling Finno-Ugric peoples among with hoardes of others doesn't make the Magyars the direct and only descendents of the Huns. I would assume some of them were actually nomadic. Of course. it doesn't give Magyars the "only descendants claim" but at least it gives them some share of the Huns' heritage. Chuvash language BTW which is believed to originate from Hun language is very heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 29, 2009 0:51:43 GMT 3
True or not, until I meet a Hungarian I don't like, I don't think I'll ever be so cold as to pop their little bubble :/ It doesn't really look fake, but I'm curious how they gained their Hun translated words to compare with Magyar. The point of the article is that some proto-Magyars were called "Huns" by Armenian chronists. The article doesn't really claim that the language described there was the only authentic language that historical Huns spoke, rather it assumes that that language is a form of proto-Magyar. However, the fact that Armenian historians would call Hungarians "Huns" would imply that Finno-Ugrics may have played a more substantial role in the Hun Confederation that is usually thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 29, 2009 0:55:13 GMT 3
^ Well, Tatars were called "Mongols" by Russian chronists, to the point even my grandmother who claims to be Tatar descendant doesn't know if she's Mongol or Turkic.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 29, 2009 0:57:06 GMT 3
^ Well, Tatars were called "Mongols" by Russian chronists, to the point even my grandmother who claims to be Tatar descendant doesn't know if she's Mongol or Turkic. But it's not without some sense behind isn't it? Don't you as a Klmyk a Kalmyk consider the Goden Horde a part of the great Mongolian Steppe realm? |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 29, 2009 1:03:55 GMT 3
There are reasons behind such misunderstandings but it doesn't prove Tatars are Mongols not Turkic, nor similarily does it conclude in this situation that the Magyars are Huns.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 29, 2009 1:09:06 GMT 3
I don't care if their own little cute imaginary world is destroyed or not, I simply don't like it when people claim over somebody else's stuff. For example, I hate it when some Turks claim that Genghis Khan was Turkish. This is absolutely nonsense.
That is also a common misconception. From the examples of Hunnic Turkic, we see that it belonged to the Eastern-Z Branch, not to the Western-R Branch of the Oghurs. In fact, the Huns arrived in Europe much later than the Oghurs did. Chuvash is a descendent of Oghur Turkic, not Hunnic Turkic.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 29, 2009 1:18:19 GMT 3
Really, I thought both Hunnic and Chuvash are in Oghuric subgroup?
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 29, 2009 1:23:36 GMT 3
Nope, Hunnic is not. Otherwise, Attila's son Tengizik should have been "Tengirik"  |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 29, 2009 2:52:17 GMT 3
Huh? Is there agreement that there were Turkic groups that were remnants of Huns in the vicinity of the southern Russian steppes or that those groups had nothing to do with the Huns? The Magyar ruling class mixed with those Turkic groups. Both in genes and language the proof is there. That's why some of the historians who aren't even fans of the so-called Turkic theory still admit that the Hun-Magyar connection might be a ruling clan legend.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 29, 2009 2:59:49 GMT 3
Posted the above before I read this page... I know from previous discussion that Ihsan believes Hunnic was z-Turkic which would seem to preclude any Hun-Magyar connection because Magyar borrowed from an r-Turkic language. Most scholars though agree that Hunnic was an r-Turkic language. Even so, "remnants" could be absorbed in an r-Turkic sea. If you believe in the Isfahan Codex, then some Armenians met some "Huns" that spoke some language related to ancient Magyar.  What's not so crazy is that there were possible other "magyaric" groups roaming about that simply went extinct before we knew about them. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 29, 2009 7:07:24 GMT 3
Posted the above before I read this page... I know from previous discussion that Ihsan believes Hunnic was z-Turkic which would seem to preclude any Hun-Magyar connection because Magyar borrowed from an r-Turkic language. Most scholars though agree that Hunnic was an r-Turkic language. Even so, "remnants" could be absorbed in an r-Turkic sea. Yes. I also read this interpretation before, that's why I was confused. If you believe in the Isfahan Codex, then some Armenians met some "Huns" that spoke some language related to ancient Magyar. What's not so crazy is that there were possible other "magyaric" groups roaming about that simply went extinct before we knew about them. Yes. I think that was quite possible. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 29, 2009 7:24:53 GMT 3
Another possibility, as Ihsan points out, is that since Oghurs arrived in Europe before the Huns, they could have swept up some Oghurs and begun the language assimilation process much earlier. The idea that Huns spoke a z-Turkic language doesn't really cause possible connections to be dismissed. The Huns left a big impact on the Romans. I have doubts that a similar impact passed down orally would not have also occurred amongst steppe peoples. Is anyone familiar with the Kyrgyz legend that they're descended from Attila's Huns? cf www.kyrgyzmusic.com/Bishkek_article1.html |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 29, 2009 14:57:57 GMT 3
This is the first time I ever hear about this Kyrgyz legend and I very strongly doubt it actually exists. The idea that Huns are the direct ancestors of Kyrgyzs and Kazakhs are just very popular among modern Kazakhs. Seems that the author of the song just created it recently based on his experience of reading the very recent popular Kyrgyz historiography.
My impression is tha Attila has left much more bigger impact on Germanic culture considering his importance in all the Germanic epics.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 29, 2009 17:46:21 GMT 3
Ok, but why specifically the Huns? Maybe it was some other Turkic people like the Khazars, Oghurs-Bulghars, etc?
Indeed, we know that the Huns integrated into the Oghurs, thus the Bulghar union was established.
However, till this day, I haven't seen any real evidence to proove that the Huns were R-Speakers. I would be very glad if someone can post some examples, if there is any. "Tengizik" is, for example, an example of Z-Turkic.
Most probably yes. Those funny Central Asian states are right now in the process of the nation-building phase, so they try to make up their own history from scratch, trying to base themselves to some important and big Steppe-Turkic empires. The same was done in Turkey too, and there are still some who continue to believe such stuff.
|
|
What's not so crazy is that there were possible other "magyaric" groups roaming about that simply went extinct before we knew about them.