Alternative theories of the Hungarian language relations

Current linguistic theory suggests that the Hungarian language belongs to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic language family. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences supports this idea based on the harmony with the Indo-European language theory, and its scientific support worldwide. However, some expound alternative theories of the Hungarian language relations.

Rationale

Opponents of the Finno-Ugric theory put forward alternative theories in response to two principal problems:

1. According to one view, the relations between languages cannot be identified with ethnological history. The original Uralic and Finno-Ugric homelands are only the places of origin of the languages; however, within the framework of the Finno-Ugric theory, a Uralic origin of the Hungarians as an ethnic (as opposed to linguistic) group is also asserted. According to the alternative theories, the vast majority of the constituent Hungarian ethnicities have no Uralic connection whatsoever—genetically, archaeologically or linguistically. Therefore, the development of the Finno-Ugric language family can only be explained by language exchange, overlaying, or a transit language.
2. The second main argument is that, although Hungarian does have similarities in structure and vocabulary with Finno-Ugric languages, it has equally significant and fundamental similarities to other language groups, such as the Turkic languages. The alternative theories claim that the connections between Finno-Ugric languages do not pre-date these other relationships; or even that Finno-Ugric peoples took up a linguistic stratum from the Hungarians into their own languages, and that it's on this basis that these languages are now classified as Finno-Ugric.

History of the Hungarian language

Ármin Vámbéry in dervish dress, c. 1860

Ármin Vámbéry published his work, the Magyar és török-tatár szóegyeztetések ("Hungarian and Turk-Tatar word concords"), in 1869. In his book, Vámbéry claims that the Hungarian language has Finno-Ugric origins, and received many loanwords from various Turkic languages after it contacted them.^[1] The book began a linguistic debate, named the "Ugor-Turkic wars." Eventually the Finno-Ugric theory won against the theory raised by German linguists József Budenz and Pál Hunfalvy (né Hunsdorfer), and became the accepted linguistic history. At the time, the Finno-Ugric theory demonstrated more than a thousand unfounded Finno-Ugric word concords, though supporters accused the opposition's examples as being unfounded. With modern linguistics, The number of unfounded words has been put at less than 500.

After his first publication, Vámbéry never published another work on historical language theories.

Ágoston Trefort

Supporters of the alternative theories often label the Finno-Ugric theory as anti-national, or a matter muddied by politics. They often cite Ágoston Trefort, who, In 1877, was the Minister of Religion and Education, and later the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Trefort said: "I have to take notice on the country's interests, and that's why I accept the—internationally more favorable—idea of Finno-Ugric ancestry, because we need European and not Asian relations. The government will only support scientists who side with the Finno-Ugric ancestry."

In his work Őstörténeti csodabogarak ("Oddballs of Ancient History") from 1943, Miklós Zsirai presents a list of other languages Zsirai checked for Hungarian connections, other than Finno-Ugric and Turk. The list includes: Hebrew, Egyptian, Sumerian, Etruscan, Hittite, Basque, Persian, Pelasgian, Greek, Chinese, Sanskrit, English, Tibetic, Tamil, Cornish, Kamchatal, Yukaghir, Japanese, Ainu, Dravidian, Māori, Magar, Qin, Lepcha, Dafla, Abor-miri, Khasi, Mikir, Munda, Gondi, Armenian, Bodo, Koch, Garo, Kachari, Meitei, Telugu, Migal, Brahui, Tapka, Manio, Sopka, Horpa, Sherpa, Sunwar, Garo, Rodong, Churusija, Kulung, Bahing, Lehorong, Sangpang, Dumi, Balochi, Kamu, and Humi.

The alternative language theories tend to follow the multidisciplinary approach, as they also rely on the results of other sciences like archeology and human history, treating Linguistics as an auxiliary science of history. According to the alternative theories, if a language theory states something that is not provable by history, then it is the language theory that is wrong, and not human history.

Alternative theories

Finno-Ugric theory supporters are divided into two distinct factions. One faction supports the existence of the ancient Finno-Ugric languages, and claims that all the Finno-Ugric languages today evolved from them. The other claims that Finno-Ugric languages are only one branch of the Ugric language family, and that Hungarian is in the Ob-Ugric branch, and not an Finno-Ugric branch of the Ugric family.

Regardless of faction, both alternative theories debate the direction of linguistic "borrowing," and the model of language evolution. According to alternative theories, the Ugric language family (or the Finno-Ugric or Uralic-Altaic) received common word sets with the help of a traffic language,^{[clarification needed]} and the base of this traffic language would have been Hungarian. The alternative theories claim that the important language characteristics the Finno-Ugric theory relies upon only developed much later. The diminutives in are one of several such cases. The Uralic and Finnish languages have simple diminutives (-csa/i and -ka/e/i), but both variants can be found in the Hungarian language. However, the Slavic diminutive -ca, and even traces of the diminutives of other languages, like –d and –ny, are also present.

Several different attributes of the Hungarian language can be connected with other languages as well.

Kabardian-Hungarian language relation

Linguist Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna was the first to systematize and represent this the theory of a Kabardian-Hungarian language group. While on his travels to the Caucasus, Szentkatolna noticed that Hungarian appeared to be related to Kabardian. In his book A honfoglalás revíziója ("Revision of the Conquest"), the linguist tries to prove the relation not only from lingual side, but form historical and cultural aspects as well. According to his theory, the Huns did not fully merge with the other nomadic people migrating to Europe, with some of them staying in the Caucasus region, and others returning to the Carpathian Basin. According to his theories, the Huns had two descendant, the Khazars and the Avars. He did not consider the Kabardians—who live in the Caucasus—aboriginals, rather he considered them the direct descendants of the Khazars. He classified both languages as part of the Turanian language family (what is roughly the same as the Uralic-Altaic language family theory today), but considered them unique languages, that did not belong to the Turk language group. He didn not excluded the Ugric impact, as he was of the opinion that the tribe of the Sabir people who joined Hungarians—mentioned by Purple-born Constantine (szabartoiaszfaloi)—is such a tribe. The most major error in his theory is that he handled Kabardian as a fully isolated language, claiming that it changed very little, ignoring the local linguistic evolution. His work was forgotten after the language war, and the theory was never debated. The last person who engaged with the theory was Pál Sándor in 1903. Sándor issued his writings with the title Magyar és a kabard nyelv viszonya ("Hungarian and Kabardian languages' relation").

Biblical word concords

Studies the Hungarian names in the Bible.

Tamana-research

Studies the similarities and concords of geographical names found in the Carpathian Basin and all over the world.

Etruscan-Hungarian language relation

Another theory that received attention was the Etruscan-Hungarian theory, based on the research of Italian linguist Mario Alinei. Rather speaking about an Etruscan-Hungarian language relation, Alinei claims that Etruscan belongs to the Finno-Ugric family, and concludes that its closest relative is the Hungarian.

The similarity goes beyond simple modal concord, and applies to the writing system and to the articulation as well.

Hungarian alphabet with Latin transcription	a	á	b	c	cs	d	dz	dzs	e	é	f	g	gy	h
Hungarian articulation	a	á	bé	cé	csé	dé	dzé	dzsé	e	é	ef	gé	gyé	há
Etruscan variant	ay	–	bee	cee/kay	csuh	dee	dzuh	–	ee	–	ef	gee	–	haa
Etruscan alphabet[2]		–		/				–		–			–
Runic script
Hungarian alphabet with Latin transcription	i	í	j	k	ak	l	ly	m	n	ny	o	p	q	r
Hungarian articulation	i	í	jé	ká	ak	el	lyé	em	en	eny	o	pé	ku	er
Etruscan variant	ai	–	jay	kay/cee	–	el	–	em	en	–	ow	pe	que	ar
Etruscan alphabet		–		/	–		–			–
Runic script													–
Hungarian alphabet with Latin transcription	s	sz	t	ty	u	v	w	x	y	z	zs
Hungarian articulation	es	esz	té	tyé	u	vé	vé	iksz	ipszilon	zé	zs
Etruscan variant	suh	esz	tee	tyuh	yu	vee	wee	eksz	(wai)	zed	wai
Etruscan alphabet									()
Runic script

Theory of the ancient language

Ancient language research is a recent study with two main categories. One direction studies the so-called Nostratic languages, which holds no relation to Hungarian, because it ignores the Hungarian language, or studies it only through reconstructed Finno-Ugric words. ^[forrás?]

The other direction derives from the word bush- or root linguistics. This methodology, however, is considered unscientific by a wide range of academics. According to this theory, the integrated word bushes of the Hungarian language would not exist with the assumed scale of post combinations. The Integrated word bush system runs through the language organically. Supporters of this theory claim that the official Hungarian linguistics deny this simple fact, ignore the method of inner reconstruction (used abroad, ) and ignore the Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary, which supporters consider basic work. The fragments of these bush systems can partly be found in other languages or in ruins, but none of them as whole as in Hungarian. The loan words, taken from other languages either took root, and were pulled into the same meaning-circle as the corresponding root, were only used in a specific field, or were spilled out from the language. These bush systems—as the result of loaning larger amounts of words, and the fading meaning of the word roots, are broken in the majority of the languages. Because of the logical buildup of the word bushes (self-similarity, natural forms), the Hungarian language either developed together with an artificial language (a constructed ’lingua franca’, like the esperanto), or–respecting the iconic pictures, hiding in the roots–it developed as human mind advanced. According to this theory, the clearest form of the ancient language was preserved in the language that we call Hungarian today. They assume, that culturally speaking ancient Hungarians were the transmitters, rather than the receivers, of this knowledge and its words, or they least adopted it extremely successfully. Therefore, this theory requires proto-Hungarians to have lived in and around the Carpathian Basin longer than suspected.

Criticism of the alternative theories

Criticism from the national identity

According some critics, such as Károly Rédei fe., the alternative theories feast on the "utopian national identity." Official linguistics uses the term "utopian linguist" for scientists denying the Finno-Ugric relation of the Hungarian language. Rédei claims that the introduction of Hungarian's Finno-Ugric origin was met with disapproval because of the theory's clear anti-national message and political purpose.^[3]

Criticism of the methodology

Among the deniers of the theory, there are several widely used historical linguistic methods. For example, many of alternative theorists work with the modern version of Hungarian, and take the similarities to other languages as solid proofs, ignoring the lack or presence of the systematic sound correspondence.

A^[who?] comparative science was born in the 19th century who declared that we should inspect the differences, rather than the similarities, when comparing two languages. The resemblance of two words is no proof on language relation, simply because the reason of similarity can be loanwords, or even a coincidence. Semasiology and phonetics both change in language, which is why linguists and skeptics suspect loanwords, and not relation, when observing too much correspondence. However, some differences can only be explained with the common origin of the examined word set.

Supporters of alternative theories disregard the accidental existence of the more hundred similarities, claiming that identical phonetics and correspondent meaning at the same time are no coincidences. A main principle of these theories is that language families were born through aerial language equalization, though the possibility of loanwords supports the theory, rather than refutes it.

Supporters of the alternative theories claim that systematic sound correspondences can not be witnessed in all languages, so they can not be generalized. For this reason, no one objected when theorists made far reaching conclusions by comparing the word roots of the more than four thousand years of an extinct Eblaite language to today's Hebrew and Arabic. They pair up the name "Ebla" itself with the Arabic "ablā" (meaning ’white rock’).^[4] They claim^[who?] that both the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric language families were used a common word set.^[forrás?]

Difficulties in using certain theories

The Turk relation is supported by According to the Finno-Ugric theory, the words relatable with Finno-Ugric languages are more basic, belong to a more primitive meaning circle, than the words stemming from Turkic languages. The mere 500 Finno-Ugric words from the Hungarian language can only form a fragment of a basic word set, and the majority lend themselves to a Turkic or other no-Finno-Ugric origin. By itself, the theory of the basic word set is unable to show relation even within Indo-European languages. Hence, the basic word set theory cannot be viewed without a degree of cautiousness. The methods used to show relation to the Turk-Hungarian language relation, are almost the same comparative methods as used by Finnugrists; however, those methods are widely questioned today.

The relation between the Altaic languages is negated among today's linguists, however it was accepted a long time. The Altaic classification of the Manchurian, Hunnic and Avar languages is especially questionable. In approx. 100 B.C. Sima-Qian wrote about the Huns in the 110th book of his 130 volume work (themed: History of China and the surrounding folks). Scientist commonly believe that the language of the Huns is an extinct Old Turk language, and according to Byzantine chronicles, Avars are the descendants of the Huns.

Deniers of the word bush (Ancient language) their point that the theory is not scientifically provable. Critics point out that the most scenic and flawlessly working form of the "word bush system" excludes desultory relating, and is the essentially a three letter root system that can be found in the Semitic, and in wider sense in the Afroasiatic language family, and not in Hungarian. They go on to say that the root system is not a special, new, or newly founded linguistic attribute, but a "linguistic constant", what can be found in almost every language.^[5] Continuing, critics point out that it is impossible to not exclude the possibility of the import of the root system, because the Hungarian language does have root composing trends, but in an even more ancient form. It is the variant that was built on two consonants. For example, the word bush constructed on the k.r sonant frame. Some of its elements are three letter roots, but the semantic role of the consonants is in all of the elements. The root research of the Hungarian language started in the 19th century, when János Fogarasi and Gergely Czuczor issued an Academic big-dictionary, before being expelled by the research of the Finno-Ugric theory. It is possible to find Akkadian related words and words with Akkadian origin in all the Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages. The same Akkadian words can be found in today's semitic languages.^[6]

The arguments of the alternative theories do not hold up with current scientific methodology, which is why some linguists, and even the few who oppose Finno-Ugric theory neglect them.

References

Further information

• Finnugrisztikai alapismeretek (ELTE)
• Badiny-Jós Ferenc: Egyedül maradtam... Mégis féltek tőlem...?
• Dr. Bakay Kornél: Őstörténetünk és nyelvünk erőszakos finnesítése ellen I-II.
• Bobula Ida írások (sumer rokonság)
• A finnugor nyelvrokonság kutatástörténete
• EKOSZ-EMTE: Művelődés 33 – Gondolatok a magyarkultúráról
• Kiszely István: A magyarok őstörténete: a magyar nyelv eredete (török rokonság)
• Dr. Marácz László: A finnugor elmélet tarthatatlansága nyelvészeti szempontból (A finnugor elmélet elvetése mellett érvelő nyelvészeti tanulmány.)
• Dr. Marácz László: A kétszer kaksi igazsága (válasz Rédei Károlynak)
• Mancs.hu: Ősvita (a magyar nyelv rokonítási kísérleteiről)
• Ősnyelv (gondolatok az ősnyelvről, benne a magyarról)
• Mit mondanak nyelvünkről a külföldiek? (A magyar nyelv eredetéről)
• Nyelvrokonságok táblája (magyar-altaji-finnugor-dravida-szumér-etruszk rokonság)
• Varga Csaba (ősnyelvpárti)
• Varga Csaba: Az angol szókincs magyar szemmel, 2007
• Varga Csaba: Ógörög:Régies csángó nyelv, 2006
• Pacaldiéta (A nyelvrokonságról)
• Honti László (főszerkesztő): A nyelvrokonságról Az török, sumer és egyéb áfium ellen való orvosság, Budapest, Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2010.
• Honti László: Anyanyelvünk atyafiságáról és a nyelvrokonság ismérveiről Tények és vágyak, Budapest, Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2012.
• Borbola János (2008): A kota és a ház. Ősi gyökér 36 (2): 2–18.
• Buji Ferenc (kiadatlan): A botlás köve, avagy a p- > f- hangátalakulás.
• Buji Ferenc (1996): A kány-szócsalád. Magyar Szemle (Budapest) 7–8: 732–745. (első rész), illetve Magyar Szemle (Budapest) 9: 900–916. (második rész).
• Buji Ferenc (2000): Ismeretlen eredetű szavaink. Életünk (Szombathely) 6: 545–554.)
• Gostony, C-G. (1975): Dictionnaire d’etymologie sumérienne et grammaire comparée. Paris.
• Gosztonyi Kálmán (1977): Összehasonlító szumér nyelvtan. Fahrwangen. (Az előbbi, pontosabban csak a nyelvtani rész, magyar nyelvű kiadása. Fordította Vállay Frigyes Károly.)
• Sára Péter (1999): Ősi szavaink nyomában iráni és turáni tájakon. Közös gyökerű szavaink. Budapest. ISBN:963-9188-21-2
• Timaru-Karst Sándor (1999): Kelta magyarok, magyar kelták. Budapest. ISBN:963-7873-40-6

0.00 (0 votes)