Talk:Hungarian language/Archive 2

Consensus?

"Today, the consensus among linguists ..." Consensus is a POLITICAL term. Science is based on EVIDENCE therefore there is no need or room for consensus. If there is a consensus between 'scientists', they are not scientist and the outcome is politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Lexicon and loanwords

I'm not a linguistics, thus merely wondering why do you call the vocabulary section "Lexicon"? It sounds very strange.

---

| A few months back I added this statement to the Lexicon section:

---

Therefore the history of Hungarian has come, especially since the 19th century, to favor neologisms from original bases, whilst still having developed as many terms from neighboring languages in the lexicon.

---

This was added upon reviewing the sources cited in that section which include the list of vocabulary origins and loanwords. I also kept in mind the factors of historical purism in Hungarian during the 19th century, as well as the conservative nature of the grammar as contributing to the argument that Hungarian has become a more purist language than most in Central Europe.

I do find the statistic of "80%" of the lexicon being Uralic hard to believe; not even German and Lithuanian could have such a high percentage of native words over loans, but I assume the findings of that research stand.

What's the consensus here on my addition? Should it be supported with citations or do the above sources already work?| CormanoSanchez (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely no way there is 80% of the lexicon being Uralic. --130.156.22.43 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I believe a reasonable estimate would be 25% Uralic, 30% at most|CormanoSanchez (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jurchen Mogher and Magyar: Tungusic elements

There is an interesting study showing the comparison of the ancient Jurchen language with Hungarian and Mongolian. I think it is worth taking a look at. http://www.iacd.or.kr/pdf/journal/04/4-02.pdf

The presence of Tungusic words in Hungarian cannot be explained by the "Uralic Theory". Even if it were assumed that Magyars borrowed words from Turks, many of these Tungusic words (also the same in Manchu) are different than in Turkic, so how Hungarian shares these words is unexplainable by this theory. The Xianbei and Xiongnu not only had cultural exchanges, but genetic ones as well. The Xianbei were also a Tungusic-speaking people. I wonder if this could explain the similarities. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm curious about any explanation of the origin of the Hungarian language, but I think this article is nonsense. It compares random words that are arbitrarily suffixed and uses compund words and obscure correspondences. One would need to compare basic words, roots and stems, not full words that are similar by chance. For example (but there are many similar):

• bariso - birkózó (wrestler):

  birkózó is in fact bír (to bear, to cope with) -kózik (reflexive, or "each-other" suffix) -ó (-er, -ing). It is not one word.

• noshen - összhang (harmony, accordance)

  összhang is a compound of össz (all, each) and hang (sound). I think it is not an ancient compound either.

The list is full of such mistakes, and therefore I say it is not even worth mentioning. Qorilla (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it should be added, I just posted it here in the discussion for others to contemplate. I have seen a couple other essays which had Manchurian words that are definitely related such as "beteg" (ill), "kanal" (spoon) "hamar" (quickly) "oldal" (side) and "Bereny". As I stated before, the presence of these words in Hungarian cannot be explained by saying they are loan words from Turkic, as is often the rationale given for related Mongolian words in Hungarian. The mention of related Tungusic words in other essays can be found at: http://helimski.com/2.170.PDF as well as on page 49 at: http://www.federatio.org/mi_per/Mikes_International_0108.pdf --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Old post, but as shown by Qorilla, repeating an argument shown to be faulty doesn't make it any less false. "HUNGARIAN FEDERATION IN THE NETHERLANDS" is not what would be considered an academic Reliable Source, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"unrelated to most other languages in Europe"

This statement seems an anachronism from Cold War times when we in the West were quite ignorant of what lay beyond the borders of the Soviet Union. Actually if Hungarian is related to Finnish it must also be related to Karelian, Estonian, Udmurt, Mari and other languages still spoken in the Baltic countries and in European Russia. LADave (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"the West" has been aware of what lay beyond the borders of the USSR for centuries before the creation of that communist political state. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How does one say. in Hungarian: wonderful,& nosey 2600:1013:B011:DDF3:217D:E68D:E313:2A33 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is not a comprehensive list of most European languages. 220.253.216.28 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Magyars or Hungarians

In Hungary there lives many nations: Magyars, Slovaks, etc. There are not "Hun" people. There are many languages. There is not Hungarian language. There are Magyar, Slovak, Roman (or Romanian), etc. --195.228.142.2 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Huns, sycthians (szittya in Hungarian, the latin name of the huns), magyars means the same nation. Because the nature of the dualist culture (the important "things" also had opponents in the legends and even in the leadership, like the "kende" and the "gyula", and Honőr (Hunor) and Magőr (Magor) of the legendaric ancestors of the Huns and Magyars. Fehér János aka Aries (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Magyars are not Huns. Sorry.50.111.46.18 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The word Hungarian comprehends the Hungarian nations and the Hungarian languages. Magyar is the official language of Magyarország (Hungary), but the word ″Magyar″ is not equal with the word Hungarian. In Hungary there are many nations and languages, but the main population of the country is the Magyars. Certainly in the country there are some other ethnic minority (cigány, tóth, székely, etc). I am Magyar, no need to explain to me what does it mean. Excuse me, you are in wrong about this. Huns, sycthians (szittya in Hungarian, the latin name of the huns), magyars doesn't mean the same nation! In Hungary we teach our history, and we know our history. Yours sincerely, Krisztian 195.228.142.2 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit because it was factually incorrect, but because it was not really relevant to the description of the hungarian language that there are also other languages in Hungary, it was not very well written and it was out of style for an encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, then please, correct this according to the relity. Thank you. 195.228.142.2 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about ethnic groups in Hungary. That information belongs in the article Hungary, not here. This article is just about the Hungarian language. The word "Magyar" has three different, distinct meanings: 1) An ethnic Hungarian (whether he/she still speaks Hungarian or not), 2) A citizen of Hungary (whether he/she is ethnically Hungarian or not), 3) The Hungarian language. In this article, the word only refers to the name of the language, not to either the ethnicity or the citizenship, so the discussion of "Not all Magyars (citizens of Hungary or ethnically Hungarian) speak Hungarian" is really moot. --Taivo (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Hungarian people speak Magyar, Lovári, Beás, Szlovák, etc., and all Magyars speak Magyar.

I don't really understand this dilemma. I am a Magyar, and I am a Hungarian. I am a Magyar man in Hungary. The truth is that Magyarország is called Hungary in the west. Magyar people are called Hungarian people in the West. It should be known that Hungarian people are not only Magyars, but many other ethnicities. So Hungarian people are not the same as Magyar people. Some people here are Hungarians but not Magyars, in their case it cannot be said that Hungarian and Magyar mean the same thing. In addition, many languages are spoken in Hungary, so there are many Hungarian languages, one of which is the Magyar, the main of Hungarian languages. Magyar language is not the same as the Hungarian language, but "only" one of the Hungarian languages. I am indeed Hungarian, but mainly Magyar, I speak Magyar, not "Hungarian". And I know countless people here who are also Hungarians, but not Magyars. 188.143.0.185 (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Magyar language is not the same as the Hungarian language", this is total nonsense, show me please what is Magyar and what is Hungarian language? I do not know the difference... Hungarian means "Magyar" in Hungarian language. That is. Should we remove all English words and use words by native languge for people? “Magyar” = Hungarian in Hungarian / Hungarian = Hungarian in English, “Deutsch” = German in German / “German” = German in English, “Suomalainen” = Finnish in Finnish / Finnish = Finnish in English, “Hrvatski” = Croatian in Croatian / Croatian = Croatian in English, “Čeština” = Czech in Czech / “Czech” = Czech in English, “Svenska” = Swedish in Swedish / Swedish = Swedish in English, “Español” = Spanish in Spanish / Spanish = Spanish in English, “Polskie” = Polish in Polish / Polish = Polish in English OrionNimrod (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition

And there is a common Surname "Magyar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopSpeeder (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Jobbik wants the revision of the Finno-Ugric narrative

http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2009/09/jobbik-wants-revision-of-finno-ugric.html 70.59.22.166 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Habsburgs trying to destroy Hungarian self-pride by relating their language to Finns? Sounds legit! StasMalyga (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty goofy stuff. I'm sure that the core body of linguists and historians all over the world will stand up and take note. Or not. :-) Anyway, not appropriate for the article as this falls under WP:FRINGE. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people are just dim. Here is a presentation why Hungarian is indeed a Uralic language: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Hungarian.pdf --Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hungarian academics never denied the Finno-Ugric relation. It is a good business (and votes) for Jobbik to bugger the laymen about it. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To become a "Hungarian academic" you must agree, if you don't then you are side-listed and outcast from the academic community. you hardly can publish anything (negative peer reviews) and if you can't publish then nobody takes you seriously so you became outcast >> vicious circle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.130.195 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate but it is not fringe theory. It has been a political practice to psychologically reduce the history of a nation (i.e. Hungarian/Magyar history) by the Habsburgs to better control socio/economic parameters of the affected peoples. Because the western influence and interpreted views of biased political systems and because Hungarian nation was never as advanced in the art of propaganda as being a people seeing less value and less honorable actions in such tactics, the overwhelming side-affects bring out the un-accepting views of people who experience comments and views from Hungarian indiviuals, politicians, writers, poets and historians. user:guest 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.161.193 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hercehurca

"but neither their prefixes, nor their suffixes make sense (for example, hercehurca 'long-lasting, frusteredly done deed')." well technicaly hurca does makes sense it comes from verb "hurcolni" means dragging some thing away so hurca means his act to dragg things away... (have no other example to replace however) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.228.161 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kinship terms

(There used to be a separate word for "elder sister", néne, but it has become obsolete [except to mean "aunt" in some dialects] and has been replaced by the generic word for "sister".)
This is not very accurate. Néne is a short form of nagynéni (aunt). Bácsi (the husband of aunt) is not used for the short form of uncle (nagybáty or nagybácsi).
ki (who)
nővéred (your elder sister)
nagynéni (aunt)
nagynénik (aunts)
nagynénéd (your aunt)
nagynénéid (your aunts)
nénéd (short form of 'your aunt')
nénéid (short form of 'your aunts')
nagybácsi (uncle)
nagybácsik (uncles)
nagybátyád (your uncle)
nagybátyáid (your uncles)
And so far:
kisöcs (sibling or younger brother)
nagytestvér (sibling or elder brother "big brother")
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtkr (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction

I Corrected the legeslegmegszentségteleníttethetetlenebbjeitekként to legeslegmegszentségtelenítetthetetlenebbjeitekként. The ut ít suffix is excist but ítt is not and the past participle sign is the double t not the single. (I'm not a grammer genius so I'm not sure about the suffix names but I'm tottally sure about what form is correct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.207.246 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for to undo my correction... If somebody who also speek hungarian can correct this, I would thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.86.51 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding "later" - what does it means?

Hello, your edit [[9]] of adding the word later to the phrase The Hungarians migrated to the Carpathian Basin around 896 and came into contact with Slavic peoples – later as well as with the Romance speaking Vlachs,

• - implies that at the time Slavic people were present but Vlachs did not? I don`t understand.
• Can you explain on which grounds are you adding this data?
• According to this source [10] , During the 7th century and throughout the 9th century the Slavs came to the Dacia area. Their language greatly influenced Romanian. - Slavic people influenced Romanian language in the 7-9 century but Vlachs did`t had any contact with the Hungarians in the 9th century?

Also this data has a reference, modifying data that is supported by a reference without adding some sources may be considered WP:OR and please try to WP:AGF assume good faith. I am not provoking you, I am genuinely asking why are you modifying this data. Adrian (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Adrian,

regarding our past, it is even weird to just again you come up with such curious questions, and you don't want to have any further conflict. You should not forget, last time you called "major POV repair" by very certainly identifying an ethnic Hungarian as a "Swedish", and of course you could also citate a source - I am sure you'll always find any source to support anything you want - and regardless of all obvious evidence you gave only a possibility of the former one....it was not enough what his own family, own mother officially say, it was not enough, what's his name, where he lives, what they relatives say, or where they as well live, even not any source, and only after I did referenced a video of speaking on his mother tongue of his nationaliy, a wise third party removed the unneccesary collateral information on that site and left only the truthful information (but as I can see, insanity is again on that page)...sometimes people of the word would think by some Romanians different natural laws are working, nothing is enough they believe, state what they dogmas are, regardless what is the reality. This former case had a very bad affect on your evaluation as well, since then - not particularly from this incident - there's a saying in Hungary (better a joke) that "a Swedish-Romanian is a rarity..." (for third parties: Erik Bikfalvi) Of course, now very wisely to refer to the current Wikipedia rules, "does not reflect the truth", "can citate evrything", "this is not belongs to here", "this is not a blog", but it's a problematic phenomenon with you, if I would not mention now the sad "Mihai Viteazul union" case. That means: these huge imbalance of evaluating the reality and to commensurate to the biassed encyclopedic content without any proof is a common problem I always indicated. I state again: good faith means to advertise and identify any information has a proof/can'tbe disprooven at first, and only after to indicate possible alternate theories. Sorry, I have never felt it by you. I have to emphasize: you can insert million of citations references, maybe you are able to mislead, to coin many people in the world, wilfully or not wilfully, but this is not elegant, even if the rules of Wikipedia unfortunately allow it.

Now to the current case:

- yes your assumption is good Slavic people in some areas in the Carpathian Basin were present, but there's no trace of Vlach people there that time (Disclaimer: the name and it's alternates Blacis/Olah/Vlach, etc. did not always referred to the same people, not even in ethnic or linguistic meaning, only later for was it mainly interpreted as Romance speaking people)

- The grounds were explained, but i repeat it: the contact between the ancestors of Romanians/Vlachs and Hungarians were made definitely later than 896, according to even the different official Hungarian and Romanian historical viewpoint, if we spare the really fringe theories, even just see how Romanians interpret by stating after the settling of Hungarians in the Great Hungarian plain, when they enter to Transylvania and when they conquer it fully...well all of these dates are far from 896, if we regard even the most romantic Romanian assumption (unfortunately without any valuable historical, archeological, toponymical and documentary evidence). Of course if your desire is to enlist sources, I could do that, but it would cross the limitation of the current topic, the current page, even my answer also does it...it's place would be better any page about the origin or ethnogenesis of Romanians, or similar.

- The Slavic influence is a South-Slavic influence the ancestors of Romanians acquired from the South, showing deep relations to the Orthodox Church, the Bizantyne roots in the region of Epyrus, Moesia, Dacia Aureliana, etc., but North of the Danube this time there's no trace of your ancestors, but as entering Wallachia, Transylvania and later Moldavia the effect of the "Nordic"-Slavic effects by the wordage, administration deeply affecting the Romanian language. Hungarian-Romanian affections and interchange of wordage starts earlier the 13th century.

-The reference and the citation is only referring to the last sentence - the percent of Hungarian-originated wordage in the Romanian vocabulary - this case the sentence I modified does not harm any referenced citation, or am I wrong?

Think all about it, and so long you try to play the chasing "policeman", better pay attention not to run in ridicouous fallacies, because Wikipedia is still not a joke site. If you want to have the page unchanged, you have to prove the presence of the Vlachs that time there and as well prove the interchange of words in the two languages happened earlier that time. Without that, of course, you can start a citation war, but this is not substituting the need of proof in serious questions, as Bikfalvi, with a Hungarian name, with a Hungarian mother, with Hungarian father, with a Hungarian mother tongue, and with the official declaration with of it's mother and family being Hungarian with 0% Swedish descent, will remain always as ethnic Hungarian in Romania, regardless how many insane people try to corrupt him "Swedish", because it is much more convenient because of their dislike of Hungarians. That is as well a provocation, in any means, far away from you of course, personally. So long some Romanians don't want to follow Demsusianu's or Diaconescu's warning of how dangerous is to be fringe and by cheating people themselves, they cause much more harm to their nation and their evalutaion as with the opposite they would gain. (KIENGIR (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Please spare me of your personal opinion of our last encounter or your analysis regarding me. I am assuming good faith but you must understand that you must present evidence for your data. Adding data like this(what you did last time also) may be disruptive because you are changing referenced data with your personal opinion. Again, you are stating you personal opinion in spite of some referenced data which is not allowed (WP:OR; WP:SOURCE).

* From WP:OR - Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves.

* From WP:RS - Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

When writing your answers please try to use some reliable sources to support what you are saying, because expressing your personal opinion has nothing to do with wikipedia (as I said before, don`t think that my personal opinion counts too. It is best to avoid what anybody thinks and prove your data. If you analyze I have not expressed my personal opinion in our encounter). Ok, I found a source "I like" - please find a source "you like" and demonstrate to me that what you are saying is verifiable. Adrian (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, however, I won't repeat it it's not only my personal opinion, but ok, let's hit sharply to the details. I will try to be as short as possible, but this is much more deep to discuss, than adding one word. About the word Vlach and it's meaning (and similar versions of usage):

1. Sheperd, nomadic, farmer: in Albania, Greece, the old-Serbia

2. Peasant, raja: durint the Ottoman times

3. Volga-Bulgarian inhabitant by Rubriquis, Baco, Albulghazi

4. Basarban (bazarath/böszörmány): by Fazel-ullah-Rasid

5. Bulgar-Slav by the times of the revolt in Asen

6. Turkic nomad by Pachymeres

7. Christian Slav in Bosnia

9. Bulgarian-Ruthenian-Rumun nation by the time phounding the voivodeships of Moldavia, Wallachia

10. Istro-,Macedo-,Mengleno-Rumun

(Anonymus az Erdélyi Oláhokról, Dr. Réthy László, Budapest, 1880)

The problem also appears at Gesta Hungarorum, although Anonymus makes a distinction:

-"Isti etenim Zaculi Hunorum sunt residui, qui ... cum Blackis commixti literis eorum perhibentur"

-"Sclauis tantummodo, Graecis, Teutonicis, Messianis et Ulahis advenis remanentibus in Pannonia"

The former one are fitting to a possile vulgar-latin speaking population from the post-Roman Era (eastren Franks), but the latter better fits to a Turkic nation with a Bulgar-onogur origin, especially probably Karluk-Turks by the conquers of Krum and Omurtag. The confusion is coming out again, when Kézai telling Szeklers learned their special letters and writing from the "Blaks/Vlachs", because it's impossible since Romanians and their ancestors did not use Turkic runic alphabet. The general problem that it is systematically misinterpreted, and all Vlach/Blak types are consistently intrepreted and modern Romanian or Rumun, that is definetely not the case.

Hunfalvy's claims that is impossible Hungarians took many-many words from teh Slavs during the X. XI. XII. centuries, but the ancestors of Romanians would be here, why there's no effect on the Hungarian langauge? At the same time the dominance of Slavic toponyms/hídronyms in Transylvania also shows the Slavic populations arrived there earlier. By the way the Hungarian affection to the Romanian language began after the Hungarian state was founded and also the district of the Church were set, because the adopted words are representing the life of the state, church of the developed communities.

Diez (Grammatik d. romanischen Sprachen. I. 139.), recognizing the loan words Romanian language, Hunfalvy also recognizes the foreign grammatical effects of Bulgarian, Arnaut, Albanian, Greek, at the same time the Slavic fromatives showing a very early contact.

Maybe I don't have to cite the earliest recorder official royal documents, documenting forst contact of Vlachs 1208, 1210, 1222. 1247, etc.

A possible survival or any ethno-genesis of a possible "Daco-Roman" population is barely impossible, since Romans almost exterminated all Dacians (Etropius, etc.), and by entering many nations and many devastations - Huns, Gepids, Avars, Bulgars, Slavs, etc., and counting the withdrawal of Roman legions to the south it would be twice as hard to happen, to say nothing of the anomalies the lacking archeological evidence, no cemeteries, religious ruins, no toponyms survived, regardind Transylvania the majority of these are Hungarian, Slavic and German origin, regarding Moldavia and Wallachia Slavic originated toponyms dominating. The Romanian language does not contain Dacian words, ot better to say Dacian originated words, or those little amount are claimed in such a microscopic amount and as well it is quite unreliable, since we don't know full the Dacians language, the suspicion and the desire from Romanian side is enormous, with less reliable result, now some Romanian historians try to explain trhe similarities and the Illyrian shell of the language by Dacians possibly migrating to the south, but this theory is also standing on very weak legs...The Bulgaro-Vlach Empire also indicates the way of migration, before reaching the lands where now Romanians live, and the royal documents also time by time recording settling Vlach settlers in the South-Carpathians (Hunyad, Szeben, Omlás, Fogaras, later Máramaros), as well at the mean time entering the region of Moldavia. Petchenegs, Cumans and the Cumania also showing a barely impossible survial of presence, so many nations appear these territories but there are no real trace of Vlachs that time. Even the Bazarath/Basarab dynasty, are of ismaelite-bulgarian origin, about their language: Janus Plancarpini, 1246: "porro de terra Kangittarrum intravimus terram Biserminorum, qui locuntur lingua Comanica, sed legem tenent Sarracenorrum" (Hakluyt' Collection of the Early Voyages, Travels and Discoveries of the Englisch Nation, London 1809.I.54.)

The religion and church also bounds the ancestors of Romanians to the south, because they were set under the ecclesiastical rule of the archbishopric of Ochrida (1020) Transylvanian Romanians belonged there until 1715, as well the today, the Istro, -Mengleno and Aromanian relatives still live in the South where the ethnogenesis of the the ancestors of the Romanian nation were happened.

By Ungrovlachia, the title of the Voivode was constructed quite the same, as the Bulgarian Asenids Tzar title: "V Christa Boga blagovjerny vajevoda (Vladislav) milostij Boziej gospodin vsej Vingrovlachii"

Important information is also, the Italian substratum and effect on the Romanian language, the Friauli dialect (linguistic continuity between Venetia - Istria - Dalmatia in the Roman times), this can be easily checked (Schuchardt: Der Vocalismus des Vulgarlateins. Leipzig 1868. II. 46)

Some Hungarian loanwords from the Romanian language (they are reflecting the case mentioned above):

Nému, aldui, aldasiu, fagadasiu, surzuita, birau, biru, kezesiu, oca, uca, orasiu, orasianu, feredeu, hiklenia, valciegu, hasna, keskeneu, mestesiugu, uricasiu, bulciu, gandu, haleu, hotar, holda, ileu, valmasiu, gazdaku, vama, chipu, chipzui, ravasiu, ravasiu de drumu, sáma, dare de sáma, catana, fagadau, lacui, lacasiu, mintui, mintuitor, vileag, siru, urlui, uiag, fel, felu, giulusiu, alénu, bintatuire, untuire, ingaduire, etc.

But I could continue infinite, however, what do you exactly need? You haven't answered the question, if the referenced citation is only referring the to last sentence, or also including the sentence I modified? Answer it, because I never change referenced data!

After all I have to emphasize, the well-known Romanian point of view Hungarians only entering and conquering Transylvania after 1002, and finishing their conquer by the end 13th century are also implies the contact and linguistic interchange could on be happened AFTER 896. So please honestly tell me, is it really a great "Orthodoxy" to add "later"? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

I apologize for not answering your question before (if the referenced citation is only referring the to last sentence, or also including the sentence I modified?). I just checked it and apparently it refers only to the 1.43% of the Romanian vocabulary is of Hungarian origin.[9] - about the percentage. I am sorry, I made a mistake too. It looks like this whole sentence is not supported by any sources (except for the last part (1.43% of the Romanian vocabulary is of Hungarian origin.[9]).

I don`t want for you to see this as an act of bad faith, but you still haven`t provided any source for your claims in your comments. Please check this example.

ex: According to this source [11] , - Here I am presenting a source to you, or anybody else who wants can check the data I claim for to be valid. You did explained a lot but with no evidence for your data. Understand that answers like this don`t really matter unless you have something to back-it-up with something.

As a conclusion, I see from your comments that we personally disagree (in particular with the origin of the Romanians) but that doesn`t really matter. Since this sentence is unreferenced I suggest deleting it and leaving only the referenced part(1.43% of the Romanian vocabulary is of Hungarian origin.[9]) to avoid any possible confusion or conflict. Because modifying it one way or another may not seem neutral to one of us. Also by wikipedia policies any unsourced material that is challenged can be removed (( from WP:SOURCE - Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed)). Do you agree? Of course unless you have a reliable source claiming the data you originally wanted to insert ? Adrian (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree, I have provided many source of many distractions, but some cases did not exactly identified which part belongs to even more section, or just did not insert it here on the talk page on well-known, easily accessible and verifiable sources, or like so. I just wanted to have pinpointed that a very caring work and objectivity leads me to any correction. I read your source, yes it's verifiable, but regearding the content, there is no proof of that (= I mean, where, and when the possible affection of Dacian elements have been made, if the words are undoubtedly Dacian, secondly when and where the Slavic influence - you see, here I spared the "possible" designation, since the Slavic effect is obvious and undeniable - were happened). A disagree I have no evidence on my data, since I presented more contemporary, more original sources, as well more foreign opinons, research, even many facts Romanians don't even debate, as the source you inserted. Of course, my goal was to pinpoint why adding later is necessary, and two thing is needed for that, to be more certain, 1. contacted that time the ancestors of the Romanians with Hungarians 2. The wordage of the adoptions which time did happen. It's a complex thing, your source not even really chase it (even the Hungarian wordage line, even not very carefully the Slavic effects, but only the most desirable Daco-Roman scope of view, but ignoring the necessary other approaches).

The most importants is - and I have an intensive contact with the Romanian intelligentsia and discussing with them such "heavy" questions - how could Romanians resolve the huge factual controversions cannot be debated in any means regarding the Daco-Roman theory, and when they would not use by some kind reverse engineering decide "what is happened", and the affecting and turning everything from the past to the desired outcome they embrace for themselves, as it concludes such inference lines, that don not care the measure of probabilty of dubious or unproved things, and the level of tolerance of any alternate outcomes mostly meets with a huge opposition. You remember, we should start from the facts, and base and build anything from them, and not vica versa, by disregarding them or accept more likely less probabilistic or even not verifiable assumptions. Of course, the policy of Wikipedia is to present the more view and more source is possible, but regarding Romanian/Hungarian related articles, we're soon in that way in every article not even anything really certain could be described, but a Hungarian reality, and a Romanian reality, and these rarely the same...

So, explain it sharp and punctuate, exactly for what you consider "You have no evidence for your data", because there are plenty of data identified where there is irrefutable evidence, or you considered and overall the current case of "later"? (i.e. just a few: the usage of the Vlach designation of different nations, the origin of the toponyms/hydronims, or the words adopted by the Romanian langauge are not debated evidence and facts, so you can't state I have no edivence for that, since by the exhaustive enumeration, all of can be checked one-by-one and verified, and this cases two different "truth" cannot exist because they immediately contradict themselves and many other facts that are not even debated by Hungarians and Romanians...by these case, addig a citation with proof or without proof is just an extra, however I am always for the former one, and this cases, there are such)

There are two possibilities:

1. Accept your offer, and let the mutual history of Romanians and Hungarians discuss on any particular page for that (it would be the most convenient, but it would not be very professional I think)

2. We discuss the mutual effect on the Hungarian-Romanian language separated by the Slavic one, and there we present both opinions

3. I insert "later" referencing the first source I presented, but with the particular page where Hunfalvy expressing his statement

However, the current state of the article would conclude - according to the most accepted and distributed Romanian point of view - 1. the ancestors of Romanians were present in Pannonia 896 (that's fringe and not even supported by this view) and/or 2. Hungarians immediately enetered Transylvania in 896 (this contradicts this view) ---> So by your opposition (= neutrality, conflict, confusion) by adding "later", even the current state have more contradiction to the Romanian point of view, but by adding "later", it would be less, because then it would be coherent with the most desired Romanian point of view. Please choose this time you from the three possibilities, and I will accept it. (KIENGIR (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

Unrelated to the debate, but you could at least phrase it better; "later as well as" is a confusing mess. StasMalyga (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Subsection

StasMalyga - I think that the main problem is that KIENGIR is not an experienced wikipedian. I think that we are close to solving this problem.

KIENGIR - You wrote a lot of data but without any evidence for them. I am not saying this data is false but how can I know it is valid? For this reason we must use valid sources. Let`s put aside this discussion just for a moment and we will continue it.

Please consider this: For example, I claim that Lima is the Capital of Peru - and you disagree with this statement. For now, I am just saying it, there is nothing to back-me-up right? It is just my word against yours. As such I can`t do anything because I must give an evidence for my statement and you have every right to remove this info or contest it until I prove it.

When talking about any problem on talk pages we also must provide evidence for what we are saying for the same reasons.

Now if I say again that Lima is the Capital of Peru and I present this source [12] where if you click on it it opens a web page. When you search this web page, you can find info that I am claiming to be valid. I hope I managed to explain it. If you don`t understand something, please ask.

For the continuance of our discussion regarding this article (Hungarian language), you claim various things but without links to prove it.

I would suggest the solution number 1, but only if solution number 3 you suggested really hasn`t have a valid source. I suggest to keep it simple. I think solution number 3 would be the best, but only if is verifiable, if not then I would go for number 1. If you have a source for adding Later or anything similar that we can rephrase it according to the source, please provide a link here so everybody can check for it`s validity and consider this data adding to the article. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

StasMalyga -> you're right, I immediately recognized the false english of adding just "later".

Adrian -> Yes I am not an experienced Wikipedian. But before choosing between 1 or 3, yes, I will ask. Help me. I still not agree with "You wrote a lot of data but without any evidence for them". Let's see just one example, the Hungarian Royal Documents from 1208, 1210, or 1222, 1247, etc. - reference for the can be found barely enough, consider now I add one fulfilling Wikipedia's rule - these are internationally known, and their original latin written content is not debated by Hungarians, Romanians or anyone else of the world. It proves that Hungarians and Romanians surely contacted in the 13th century. They are a contemporary, official evidence. Of course, from these we can't make a 100% valid probabilistic inference if Hungarians or Romanians contacted in 896, but because we don't have any contemporary official document neither the Hungarian side, nor the Romanian side mentioning any contact with the other nation that time, our most valid premise, supported by an overall accepted, official, contemporary reliable (of course is it, and respectable) source is this contact is more likely to happen the time the documents were written, the 13th century, because such similar evidence we did not have from 896. Then my question is, is it not obvious so long any document does not appear fulfilling all of these requirements from 896, so long we accept the current state of evaluation? That so long I don't give i.e. 50%-50% probability both the Hungarian point of view and the Romanian point of view, but I give 95%-5%? And because of that, I let appear mainly the Hungarian point of view this time, because it has an evidential support, and I only mention the Romanian point of view as a secondary, alternate assumption because it has not such an equal support? (and let's forget this time authors from the past two centuries both sides reconsidering the past and stating things opposing to contemporary evidence, author's whom you can add a reliable source for anything they have written, regardless they proved it or not) What is the solution/artbitration in this case? Am I understood well? Because if you can add anything fulfilling Wikipedia's rule, regardless of it's contents validity, then who will judge between competing and contradictory content? (remember the "Zimbabwean" case, you said you would not let it mention in the headline, just as an n-ranked opinion) (KIENGIR (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC))

You must understand that you have to prove the data you are representing. You claim that your data is coming from he Hungarian Royal Documents from 1208, 1210, or 1222, 1247,? Ok. That is a good source, but can you prove it? How can I or anybody else know that the information you are talking about is true? Or that the information you are presenting is coming from the Hungarian Royal Documents? You must understand this situation. Can you insert a link proving your data? Or maybe a scanned page of this document, but about scanning a page a don`t know the procedure really. If you can do this, we will find out how to verify this.

You misunderstood, I am not here to judge, nor any other wikipedian should do that, but we should follow wikipedia rules. I am really doing my best to explain to you how to represent sources and how wikipedia works.

If there are contradictory sources we add them according to their number and name. If there is 9 sources claiming that Victor Ponta is Zimbabwean and 1 source claiming he is Romanian, then we include the mainstream theory, mentioning the remaining source is some context (EX: According to Adrian, Victor Ponta is Romanian). If there are 50% claiming one and 50% claiming another then we simply say something like "According to some sources xxx, according to other yyy" - this is how it is usually done, but this is not set in stone. Talking to other users may result in different consensus.

If you can`t present a source I would suggest deleting this sentence. Please read about presenting sources WP:SOURCE. I will also try to contact a Hungarian editor to help you further understand this. Adrian (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think user KIENGIR refers to these charters (from page of History of Transylvania):

• The first written sources about Romanian settlements descent from the 13 century and the first mentioned Romanian township was Olahteluk (1283) in Bihar county. The 'land of Romanians', Terram Blacorum (1222,1280) showed up in Fogaras and this area was mentioned under different name (Olachi) in 1285. The first appearance of a supposed Romanian name 'Ola' in Hungary derives from a charter (1258).

Fakirbakir (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think an improvement but consider this , from the article (History of Transylvania)

• According to supporters of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity, Transylvania was populated by Vlachs at the time of the Hungarian conquest,[18] while opponents of this theory assert that Transylvania was sparsely inhabited by various people, mostly of Slav origin, and the most dominative element of them was the Bulgarian,[19] or indigenous Slavs and Turkic people.[20] The precise date of the conquest of Transylvania is not known; - You are talking about settlements and not population.
• Also on this article [13] from the same source you added in the first part of the sentence: The oldest extant documents from Transylvania make reference to Vlachs too. Regardless of the subject of Romanian presence/non-presence in Transylvania prior to the Hungarian conquest, the first written sources about Romanian settlements derive from the 13th century, record was written about Olahteluk village in Bihar county from 1283.[85][86].

Since this is an obscure subject I suggest something else. Maybe this could be rephrased something like During the medieval period, the Hungarians migrated to the Carpathian Basin around 896 and came into contact with Slavic peoples, Romance speaking Vlachs and Germans, - seems more NPOV for me. The medieval period is from 5-15th century, it falls under the period of time and it seems more acceptable to everyone. Adrian (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I tried to do something similar on the page. But this also sounds good to me. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Also please if you have the time, try to talk to KIENGIR regarding the general practice of sources and citation. I tried to explain but I failed. I think this user is constructive but just needs to be familiar with how wikipedia works. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fakirbakir -> thank you for joining this conversation, and for your help. The reference you added, yes it helps of course, however I just pulled one case in order to know what would really Adrian accept or not, moreover I would add the reference from my sources.

Adrian -> You did no failed to explain, but you two made the conversation and judgement earlier I again entered to check the talk page. I think the proposal you made is acceptable, since this page really not should be about mainly about which migration theory is the more likely, but better about the Hungarian language - despite I could add reference, but yes, by reading again and again the rules of adding the source, I find premises which outcome may be interpreted mayn ways by anyone. The most interesting is, the number of the sources stating the same, or just a source to be fulfilled Wikipedia's expectations can overwrite real probabilty of things or the truth. As I see, current state "During the medieval ages" were removed by Taivo, so were are again at the problem we started...thus I will pursue a change, I think it would be acceptable: I will add "in the next centuries", and adjust the nations listed into alphabetical order. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

I am sorry but I don`t believe that is according to sources that state both theories. This is just another way to say "later". I will change back the article to the version established by changes made by 3 other editors (Fakirbakir,Hgilbert,Taivo) and me. If that doesn`t works either then it is best to delete this whole sentence to avoid any possible conflict. Adrian (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this version is also not acceptable, because it would suggest or can be misunderstood all the nations enlisted were present in the basin. The version I proposed does not placed Vlachs later, but referred a period the contact with the nations enlisted, without any such classification. It's meaning was the same like you proposed "During the medieval period", but Taivo reverted it. So, I will try again: "After the conquest of the Carpathian Basin the following period Hungarians came into contact with Avar peoples, Germans, Slavic peoples and the Romance speaking Vlachs." Is it acceptable for you? It does not refer to time, just enlisting the nations after the conquest happened, and they are in alphabetical order, so noone can say the listing order would refer the sequence of contact. If you mind we can add to the list Petchenegs, Cumans, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

This is ok by me, but I can`t speak for other users. The best way is to add it to the article and see if anyone change it. If a change occurs then we discuss it further. Of course, adding other nations that were present is fine, but I would be more comfortable if there would be any sources for all this. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone clear why I rewrote part of the text, it was because English style allows one time adverbial per sentence, not two. Having the sentence start with "During the Medieval period" and then have "around 896" in the middle violated this principle. --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs Review by a Linguist

In the section dealing with historical relationships with other languages, only lexical items are mentioned--no mention is made about syntactic similarities (agglutination, etc.). Other sections are similarly sloppy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.7.34 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Syntactic similarities are notoriously irrelevant for historical relationships, that's why they receive no mention. Languages with agglutinative morphology are common all over the world. You need to be more specific about the rest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian a topic-prominent language??

The article "Topic-prominent language" currently lists Hungarian as an example of a topic-prominent language. I question this claim because topic-prominent languages (such as Japanese and Chinese) tend to have grammatical features which (AFAIK) are not characteristic of Hungarian — e.g., sentences with two "subjects" in the nominative case (one of which is in fact the topic of the sentence); a special case marking for the topic, distinct from that of the subject; and/or the lack of a reliable marking distinction for subject vs. object.

I think it would be helpful if some people who are much more familiar with Hungarian than I am could go look at this other article, and if Hungarian does in fact fall into the topic-prominent category, supply a citation to a reliable source from the linguistic literature if possible, or else supply an example sentence in Hungarian accompanied by an analysis demonstrating its topic-prominent character.

Please note that "topic-prominent" is not exactly the same as "topic-comment" (you may wish to read the separate article dealing with topic-comment). Hungarian definitely uses its flexible word order to identify topic vs. comment, but AFAIK it does so in the context of a nominative-accusative case alignment. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Search with Google for: Hungarian "topic prominent". You will find many papers and citations for this. If you can't find them, I may copy some here, but I have no time now. Qorilla (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric Group

I'm also restoring the classification. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of blindly removing information (e.g., "Finno-Ugric group"), sources (e.g., "Encyclopedia Britannica") and making personal attacks (e.g., in you edit tag: "POV warrior"), please, take time to explain your actions here and seek for a consensus. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a consensus for all the Uralic articles, one that was reverted here based on the EB, which is not a RS. The consensus is that Finno-Ugric is a synonym for Uralic, and that Ugric is uncertain. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you point me to the page where this "consensus" was reached? And why do you think that EB is not RS? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: And I am waiting for your answer for my comment above regarding estimating the number of native speakers. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It was years ago, and these articles have been stable for years. We use linguistic sources for linguistic claims. For the number, I won't respond to "I didn't hear that". — kwami (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not being constructive. To answer you:

• It's quite strange that you cannot link the discussion about this, you could surely find it on an archived Talk page. Nevertheless, even if there was a consensus among some editors, it of course do not bind other editors to have different views, especially if these views are supported by mainstream reliable sources. Thus, I am sorry, but this alleged consensus is irrelevant, you cannot make a consensus to disregard sources.
• Your claim that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source is quite strange (did you read WP:RS?), but since you specifically asked for linguistic sources, here I cite some recent books which explicitly state that Hungarian is a member of the Finno-Ugric group: [14] (Cambridge University Press, 2002), [15] (Indiana University Press, 1999), [16] (Wiley Blackwell, 2010), [17] (Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2005 - also appeared in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development), [18] (Intellect Books, 1997), [19] (Springer, 2007), [20] (Cambridge University Press, 2012), [21] (Blackwell Publishing, 2003), etc. etc. As you can see, even very recent linguistic works published by mainstream publishers classify Hungarian as Finno-Ugric, therefore, this theory must be presented on WP, as well.
• Finally, please, explain why do you want to stick to a specific source of your choice (which looks cherry-picking to me) with respect to the number of native speakers, instead of using an interval of estimates which are supported by scholarly linguistic works. If you think that you have already answered that, then please, copy-paste your answer here, to make it clear what do you think your answer is.

Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all strange. You could find it about as easily as I could. But since this would affect dozens of articles and has been stable for years, it would probably be best to bring it up at wiki project languages. — kwami (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That was your answer? Where are your arguments? And, of coures, you can raise the "Finno-Ugric" issue at the wiki project languages, and I am certainly interested in the comments they can offer, however, we cannot dismiss mainstream academic sources (e.g., the ones I listed above). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't hear when I answer, and continue to make spurious arguments, so what's the point? It also doesn't help that I don't have a keyboard. — kwami (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are not much things to hear, since you did not really answer. Writing one or two sentences or just claiming that my arguments are "spurious" (without any explanation or proof) is not the same as providing solid arguments. And I am sorry if you do not have a keyboard (e.g., you use a tablet or smartphone), but that does not make you exempt of providing arguments (preferably supported by reliable sources). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kwamikagami, I am still waiting for a proper explanation which rationalizes your actions of removing the term "Finno-Ugric", despite being a mainstream theory and used my numerous recent linguistic works (published by reputable scientific publishers, such as Cambridge University Press, Indiana University Press, Wiley Blackwell, Springer, etc.). So: we should not use the term "Finno-Ugric", because...? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I know the terms "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" are used as synonyms sometimes. Typical example is the "World Congress of Finno-Ugrian Peoples" where Samoyedic peoples are invited too irrespective of the fact their language is not Finno-Ugric but Uralic. However "Finno-Ugric" is definitely not an outdated term. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My current understanding of kwami's approach is that Finno-Ugric is only a "sub-branch" of the Uralic family. Although, in Hungary scholars traditionally use the term "Finno-Ugric" instead of "Uralic". Fakirbakir (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this is his problem (but I am not sure, since he did not really tell us). If it is a sub-branch, then what's the problem with mentioning it, as well. I also wanted to mention the Uralic family, since my variant was: "Hungarian [...] is a member of the Finno-Ugric group of the Uralic languages. Hungarian belongs to the Ugric branch of Finno-Ugric, and it is spoken by the Hungarians. [...]" Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We would deserve a proper explanation at least in this case. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a fuller explanation would be good. The problem with Koertefa's statement is that there's only agreement on the Uralic part. Ugric is being revised and may or may not survive. Finno-Ugric has evidently been largely abandoned, at least according to the leaders of the earlier discussion and the sources they brought. This is a common kind of problem in language classification: It's relatively easy to demonstrate languages are related, much harder to determine exactly how. (Cf. Italo-Celtic etc.) I'll copy some of the details from the language-family article. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finally taking time to answer and to even bring sources (!). You have made some bold claims, but it is not clear to me what evidence your claims are based on. For example, you write that "Finno-Ugric has evidently been largely abandoned". Could show some evidence which support this claim (preferably sources)? I guess you read the two sources you have cited in the article (unfortunately, I do not have access to the second one). The first one indeed criticizes the sub-families, but admits that this (almost) binary classification of Uralic languages is still the mainstream view, i.e., "More importantly, recognizing the weaknesses in the standard classification opens new horizons for specialists working on comparative Uralic linguistics.", i.e., this binary classification is still the standard one. Thus, even the wording of this article shows that this classification is the mainstream view (another example from the paper is "In the standard binary classification, the number of proto-languages [...]"). It might be that after some years it will no longer be the case, but that's another story. WP should reflect the current mainstream view. The fact that there are linguists who criticize the sub-branches of Uralic family does not mean that the Finno-Ugric term was "largely abandoned". Wikipedia should not present new theories which criticize the standard, mainstream view as facts (cf., WP:FRINGE). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have tried to look up this consensus you keep referring to, but could not find it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the interested editors: the issue has been raised on the talk page of the Uralic languages article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Native speakers

Recently, the number of native speakers was changed. The new source [22] is *website* and it claims that there are 12,319,330 native Hungarian speakers. It is based on data from the 2001 census, does not claim other sources. Moreover, the simple fact that it gives such a precise number (ending with 330!) makes it a bit dubious. I think it was based on some census data from the Carpathian Basin. To improve the article, I have inserted some more recent sources which talk about approximately 15 million [23] [24] Hungarian speakers. This can serve as an upper estimate. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks fine by me.Adrian (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

@Koertefa - Your 2nd source mentions 13–15 million speakers while another 2010 source found by me writes about 13.5 million native speakers. 14-15 million native speakers are mentioned by another source in the article Newnou (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ethnologue does not understand the concept of significant figures. They think that 1,000 5 = 1,005, which is of course silly. But that's just a math error, and they do give all their sources, if you'd bother to look. Nearly all are censuses from 2001 and 2002. Hungarian is not a fast-growing language, so the numbers are probably similar today.

Our other ref is an encyclopedia that has spent some considerable effort trying to get current speaker numbers. Ethnologue says 12.3M for 2001–2002, Nationalencyklopedin says 12.7M for 2007. That's pretty good agreement. Your sources, however, leave something to be desired. One of them is on choral rehearsal and says that Hungarian seems to be related to Turkish and the Ural-Altaic family; for all we know the authors are as ignorant about demography as they are about linguistics. The book on language contact gives no date for the figures, and does not concentrate on such information. Both are therefore inferior sources. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ELL2 gives 13.5M from some time before 2006. I've used all three as refs that the number is approx. 13M. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your commet, but I do not agree with you. Of course, nobody knows the exact number of people speaking Hungarian in the world, there are only estimates available, and different sources provide different numbers. Here on Wikipedia the best we can do is to present the minimal as well as the maximal estimates which are used by reliable sources. This source [25], called "The Handbook of Language Contact", published by Wiley-Blackwell (a top scientific publisher) in 2010, clearly gives the estimate of 13-15 million. I am sorry if you personally do not like this, but it is a perfectly valid source and should not be disregarded. Please note that it is not our role to judge or verify scientific works, but to present them. If you think that, for some reason, this source is not reliable here, you know what to do (WP:RSN). Otherwise, please leave the estimate and its source there. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kwami. The sources that kwami lists are widely accepted sources for numbers of speakers. This encyclopedia of language contact seems to be more aimed at L2 speakers as well as L1 speakers. And it is one source, not the multiple sources that kwami has cited. One source does not trump other sources which have an established track record for reliability. --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not get your argument. A peer-reviewed source, published by one of the largest scientific publisher, should not be disregarded. I can only repeat myself: there are many estimates available and different sources use different estimates, so the best we can do is to provide a lower and an upper estimate. Just because your personal opinion is that some sources have an "established track record" it does not mean that other academic sources cannot be used. You should seriously argue that the book called "The Handbook of Language Contact" should be treated as unreliable, otherwise, it is quite strange that you simply want to disregard it, since it presents an estimate which you personally do not like for whatever reason. And there are other recent sources (e.g., published after 2000) that use the upper estimate of 15 million [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], and even university courses in the UK gave 15 million as an estimate in the academic year 2012/2013 [34]. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these are reliable linguistic surveys. A guidebook to Budapest? Really? You actually consider that to be a reliable source? And a grammar of Finnish? If you think that these are reliable sources for the number of native speakers of Hungarian, then no wonder you don't understand what Kwami and I are saying to you. We don't use sources that are just "sources" for the number you like. We do, actually, have to consider the linguistic reliability of the source. Some books just look at the population of Hungary, add a few million for expats and call that a "survey" of native speakers. That is simply bad methodology. Kwami and I have listed sources that are widely considered in linguistic circles to be reliable linguistic counts using standard, scientific methodology to determine the number. Just because you don't seem to understand the science of linguistics doesn't mean that you can ignore the scientific facts of reliable linguistic sources and the unscientific habits of non-linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: it is not our role to verify the sources (only their reliability can be questioned) or to compare their scientific values, as simple WP editors are not qualified for this. And yes, my extensive list also contained some guidebooks as well as a Finnish language book, since my aim was to give a wide illustration that there are several recent sources which estimate the maximum number of native Hungarian speakers as 15 million. Note that this source [35] is a scientific linguistic work, recently published by one of the top scientific publishers, so you don't have any real basis to disregard it. And, as I already wrote it down twice, there are many sources available which present many different estimates, so if we are honest, we should not simply cherry-pick one or some of them, but give the lowest and the highest estimates which can be found in the available reliable scholarly sources, such as this one [36]. Since it is a recent scientific linguistic source, you must accept it, unless you want to question its reliability. If this latter one would be the case, then you should raise the issue on WP:RSN. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We're back to edit warring over this. KœrteFa, you can't cherry-pick your sources to get the largest number possible. That's the definition of POV pushing. In fact, we follow the National Encyclopedia in most places to avoid precisely these arguments. Sources dedicated to speaker number agree on 13M. Therefore we report 13M.

This isn't about Hungarian. Everyone's out to exaggerate the importance of their language. Back when we did ranking, we had a huge fight with people claiming that English has more speakers than Spanish (you can support that too, if you pick your sources just right). Yesterday I reverted an increase in the Nepali population from 17M to 32M, and the Balochi pop from 7.6M to 10–15M. This is more of the same. We should not be choosing sources with the aim to promote the language. That's profoundly unencyclopedic.

You argue that we're not allowed to evaluate our sources. That's nonsense. WP policy requires us to evaluate our sources. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and ideas. Let me copy a part of my answer from April: "And, as I already wrote it down twice, there are many sources available which present many different estimates, so if we are honest, we should not simply cherry-pick one or some of them, but give the lowest and the highest estimates which can be found in the available reliable scholarly sources, such as this one [37]". Selecting one of the encyclopedias seems much more of a POV pushing issue than providing the *lowest* as well as the *highest* possible estimates which can be found in *reliable* (e.g., scholarly) sources... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: About you last comment. I did not write that we should not *evaluate* the sources. I wrote that we should not *verify* the sources. It is nonsense to think that WP requires us to *verify* the claims in the sources, since it would require original research. We can only compare the sources, evaluate their reliability, etc. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami, maybe you also take a look at the total population figures from the infobox of Hungarian people article. In the current version the presented data are "c. 13.2-14.5 million". Do you think that 14.5 million is a too high estimation? 79.117.149.70 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, but ethnicity is not language. Many Hungarians in Romania speak Romanian, for example. I'm not trying to down-play the number of speakers; when I first arrived in Slovakia, I spoke Hungarian, rather to the annoyance of Slovakians who didn't speak it, and I find it a shame that use is declining in Romania. But here on WP I am on the lookout for people trying to maximize the number of speakers of their language, and have fought that in English as much as in any language. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, if you think that it is an exaggeration to talk about 15 million Hungarian speakers, then it is your own POV. You may be right or you may be wrong, we have no way to verify your opinion. However, we have sources, so we should use them. Furthermore, since different sources provide different estimates, the most neutral way is to use my method. BTW: you could as well accuse me of trying to *minimize* the number of Hungarian speakers, since I also want to put the *lowest* number that can be found in mainstream, scholarly sources. Please, explain your problem with my approach. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. [a] WP is not a source. [b] You used the exact figure of the source with the highest number. That's cherry-picking. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not get it. [a] Who said that WP is the source or which source of mine is based on WP? [b] I used both the highest and the lowest figures that can be found in mainstream, academic sources. Those who want to stick to a particular source do cherry-picking. Please, be much more specific and explain in detail what is your problem with my approach, i.e., to show an interval of estimates which are supported by scholarly sources. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: For the newcomers: these were the two sources Kwamikagami has deleted. [38][39] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found some other linguistic sources ([40][41][42]) in addition to the two above. Taking these into account as well as Ethnologue [43], which presents the lowest estimate, I suggest giving the interval estimate 12.3–15 million in the infobox. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no objection was raised for more than a week, I have updated the infobox. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The current source is from 2007 and presumably offers the most up-to-date estimates. The sources provided by you are some years older 79.117.164.153 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi, I think that you are well aware that I have provided other sources, as well, and some of them were more recent than 2007 (see above). So your edit was not well-justified. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW: There were no censuses between 2001 and 2011, so a source from 2007 is not much better than a source from 2003. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of bad faith. I will make another check later if I was wrong. However, as far as I know censuses count the number of ethnics, not the number of speakers 79.117.187.111 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Censuses normally gather information on *both* ethnicity and mother tongue. And these data do not always match. For example: according to the 2011 Slovak census, 458,467 people declared themselves ethnic Hungarians, while 508,714 stated that Hungarian was their mother tongue (sources are at the Hungarians in Slovakia article). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

They would also appear to be giving the number of ethnic Hungarians , which is ca. 15M . Not all Hungarians speak Hungarian , especially in Romania . — kwami (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, most Hungarians in Romania do speak Hungarian as mother tongue. Why do you think that it is not the case? On the other hand, it is true that there were millions of people in the Carpathian Basin who did not declare their mother tongues, which also explains why do we have such a wide estimate. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A source for the number of speakers might be reliable if a) it gives a reference for it and/or b) it deals with the topic. Unsourced figures given in compendia or books/papers whose topic is not the number of speakers are not reliable. — Lfdder (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

According to who? Could you cite some WP guidelines regarding that? And what are the sources for Nationalencyklopedin? Why it is better than The Handbook of Language Contact, which also deals with the topic (the Uralic/Finno-Ugric family)? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to me. I didn't say it was a guideline; it's just what I think. The Handbook of Language Contact deals with language contact, not speaker numbers. I don't know about Nationalencyklopedin, you're gonna have to ask kwami. — Lfdder (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Nationalencyklopedin is what we agreed to use as the primary source for our list of most-spoken languages , so we're comparing like with like . It's also what we generally use for the languages in that list . — kwami (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Such an agreement would make sense, can you please link it? BTW: neither the Finnish nor the Estonian articles (the two other large languages in the Uralic family) use Nationalencyklopedin for their estimates. Do you also suggest changing their sources? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nationalencyklopedin has onyl got langs with over 10m speakers IIRC. — Lfdder (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the first discussion was here. It's come up several times since . (The spelling 's wrong sometimes .) I was opposed to it at first , but eventually came around .

Yes , it only lists the top languages , which tend to be the ones that are the most complicated to figure out . — kwami (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

kin

We have an anon. IP adding generations to the kinship table. A while ago we had Serbs and Croats trying to outdo each other in kinship, resulting in something like sixteen generations in either direction, so I'm a bit suspicious of such claims. Anyone have a ref that such terms are actually in use in Hungarian? — kwami (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Phonology/writing system

I do not really agree with the statement that `if Hungarian orthography was totally consistent, <gy> would have been written as <dy> instead.' As far as I know, the "g" sound in English "argue" is a better approximation to the palatal consonant /ɟ/ than the "d y" sounds in British "duke" or American "would you". Though I am not a native speaker of Hungarian, I was corrected when pronouncing <gy> as the latter. However, this must be confirmed by an expert prior to changing the article. Podgorec (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But the same is true of "ty". Since "d" is the voiced homologue of "t", one would expect the voiced homologue of "ty" to be *"dy". Either that, or they could be "gy" and *"ky". — kwami (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you pronounce would you as [ˈwʊdʒə], no wonder you were corrected. That's a totally wrong example to use, because /dʒ/ is a different phoneme in Hungarian, spelt dzs. I see it has already been removed, anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is <gy>, because it was originally [ʥ], and Italian guys who created the ortography thought it's best to mark it with gy, which is 'palatal g'. This is effectively the same as soft g in Italian: bonGiorno, for example. 212.24.189.120 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Name order

I consider it should worth mentioning the followings in the "Name order" section: if the name of a Hungarian person is used according to the Western name order in a Hungarian text, then it means a very serious insult. (For example: writing "Imre Kertész" instead of "Kertész Imre"). 82.131.220.47 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Related verbs, nouns and pronouns

I think that the left-hand-side columns consists of 'infinitve's and right-hand-side the 'gerund's. ZJ (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130805060439/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua:80/eng/results/general/language/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210154349/http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/oldhu/halotti.html to http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/oldhu/halotti.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A Turkish-Hungarian twin poem wich made from their common vocabulary and grammar

It is a Turkish-Hungarian twin poem which made with their common vocabulary and grammar. I asked the readers to write a similar poem with any Finno-Ugric language but that seems impossible for them. We can write similar twin poems just with those languages which are relative with each other. For example it is easy with Italian-Spanish pair but impossible with Japanese-English.

It is why I cannot believe in the Finno-Ugric origin. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H Miki (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this have any encyclopedic relevance? You're free to believe whatever you want, but "a poem was written" is not an argument for anything at all. We actually can write similar poems with unrelated languages… not any random pair, but anything where you can cram in enough loanwords and similarities works just fine.

I can't tell what the methodology has been exactly, either; several words used here are of indisputed Turkic origin, but words of clear Uralic origin such as víz, or even known Indo-European origin such as arany still seem to hang abound as well. So this is not quite an eleven hal úszik a víz alatt type of an approach. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A similar twin poem would be easy to write in Finnish and Swedish, though the two languages are completely unrelated. Kernaazti (talk)

You are free to believe in Bigfoot, werewolves, and little green men from Mars, too - doesn't make your belief correct. Hungarian language has only a "loanword" connection with Turkic languages - linguists are very clear on this.104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes maybe you can write similar with many languages which are not related. For example with Finnish-Swedish pairs. But first, show me those! And I'm sure you can write similar poems with related languages. For example Swedish-Danish, Italian-Spanish pairs. But you cannot write a twin poem with Hungarian-Finnish pair, or with any other Uralic language. In the Hungarian language it is possible just with the Turkic languages. H Miki (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So the point you're making, then, basically would round off to the long-known fact that Hungarian has no close relatives, and is a "family-internal isolate"? I do find this an interesting topic in its own right, but we might need to remember WP:NOTAFORUM if there's no relevance to improving the article itself.

(Looking a bit less far away than Finnish though, e.g. the Mansi-Hungarian comparison sentences at Mansi language certainly suggest that you could still put together some kind of a "comparison poem".) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114081722/http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50553 to http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50553
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928153213/http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/250 to http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/250
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928153159/http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/253 to http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041010065220/http://impulzus.sch.bme.hu/info/magyar.shtml to http://impulzus.sch.bme.hu/info/magyar.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928030415/http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/form-suffix.html to http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/form-suffix.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805202844/http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/hungarian/index.html to http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/hungarian/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924083712/http://www.magyarangolszotar.hu/ to http://magyarangolszotar.hu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119064254/http://wiki.langwiki.info/Hungarian to http://wiki.langwiki.info/Hungarian

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

... Most widely spoken non-Indo-European language in Europe ?

How do you come up with this statement? Almost 11 million of Turkish people lives in the European part of Turkey and plus there are up to 9 million Turkish speakers in various European countries which makes the Turkish speakers in Europe almost 20 million. The numbers may vary but Turkish (a non-Indo-European language) is definitely more spoken in Europe than Hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloglu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it is referenced. If there is a more accurate source, by all means, any involved editor can update the article.98.67.0.13 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would have said that widely-spoken carries a geographical connotation (as opposed to a count of the number of speakers), and therefore Finnish would be the most widely spoken Finno-Ugric language in Europe. (But Hungarian is spoken in more countries, if a politicised interpretation of widely spoken is made.) I was about to change the text to most native speakers, but I then thought of Turkish, which has more speakers in Europe alone, and if Asiatic Turkey is included has a greater geographical range as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed this nonsensical claim. Turkish definitely has more speakers in Europe than Hungarian, and Arabic might have. Yes, somebody found a source claiming Hungarian as number one. Sources can be wrong as well, and in this case the source contradicts many other sources (such at Ethnologue). Just a few days ago Le Monce accidentally (I presume) wrote that Turkey and Egypt are almost entirely Christian. Obviously wrong (probably meant to write 'Muslim) but Le Monde is a trusted source. So should we edit those articles to claim the countries are majority Christian because we have a source saying so? Obviously not, because many other sources contradict the error. Same thing applies here. Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Recognised minority language in Ukraine

If the law that created regional language in Ukraine has been ruled unconstitutional how can that "doesn't change reality" that Hungarian is a recognised minority language in Ukraine Kostaki mou? As far as I know Swahili and Hungarian have the same legal status in Ukraine; being neither are recognised minority languages in Ukraine because there are no "recognised minority languages in Ukraine". Of course Hungarian is a minority language in Ukraine and Swahili is not. I would not object to mentioning Hungarian as a minority language in Ukraine (in the infobox of this article). But as far as I know there is no legal basis to claim Hungarian is a "recognised minority language in Ukraine". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian being a part of the Ugric branch

As is well-known in linguistic circles, Hungarian belongs to the Ugric branch of the Uralic language family. This fact is established and has also been an established fact in this article for many years. However, a month ago, user Kwamikagami changed the first sentence of the article, writing that Hungarian being a part of the Ugric branch was increasingly doubted, but did not provide the article with any kind of source. User KIENGIR has had my edits reverted, although I have told him that a source must be provided. This user then tells me I should discuss the matter with Kwamikagami instead, informing me that he has written about this in several articles, all unbeknownst to me. Is this standard procedure? Stating that it is doubted that Hungarian belongs to the Ugric branch is a highly controversial statement. Either of these two, or both, are welcome to provide sources. I am a linguist myself and as far as I know, no claims about Hungarian not being a part of the Ugric branch has been widely accepted in linguistic circles in modern times. Perceptivity (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This was a discussion we had years ago. It is precisely in modern times that the subclassification of Uralic has come to be doubted, both the supposed primary split between Samoyed and Finno-Ugric, and the (greater) Finnic and Ugric groups themselves. Recent classifications have an agnostic comb-like structure, not because the branches don't cluster together in reality, but because such relationships have not been demonstrated to the standards of historical linguistics. Something similar has happened with Austro-Asiatic (vs. Mon-Khmer), which has also moved from bifurcation to an agnostic comb-like structure in recent classifications. In that case, some of the branches have been recombined (or more often, new connections have been discovered), but I'm not aware of any such renovation in Uralic. If you have recent RS's that have examined the doubts raised and come to the conclusion that Hungarian indeed is closest to Khanty, or to Mansi, or to both -- or perhaps to some other branch of the family -- then we'll be happy to reconsider. But it's a poor argument to say, in effect, "people have repeated the Ugric model for decades without good evidence, so we should too." — kwami (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your doubts, but I still think you may have misunderstood one or two things here. As I have explained numerous times already: the consensus is that Hungarian is part of the Ugric branch, despite how less well-founded that theory may be considered to be. As far as I can see, the only one who has expressed these doubts is you. In short: it is you, who doesn't provide a source, who will have to do so and not the other way around. Until then, Hungarian will continue being part of the Ugric branch. Another thing, by the way: a couple of linguists expressing doubts are of course not enough to claim that Hungarian does not belong to this branch. You have to have consensus. You may, however, express elsewhere in the article that there are doubts (presuming you have a source to back you up), but not in the first sentence of the article. Perceptivity (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As well reacting to your edit log, I am not wrong, because contrary to your statement, you do not understand really how WP works. I legally made reverts by WP:BRD, as well to the last stable version (it has not any connection to my personal views or any opinion of the subject). Consensus can change, but you have to establish that with Kwamikagami at this point, etc. see Wikipedia:PGCHANGE.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

This will probably be the first time in a decade that I disagree with kwami, but Perceptivity is right. It is very easy to find multiple academic sources stating the Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric. Even as someone fairly familiar with the academic literature in the field, I have not seen anything but fringe disputes that that would be the case. It is true that science develops all the time, but if we are to challenge the academic consensus this far, providing good WP:RS is certainly a requirement. And to be clear: finding a couple of articles disputing it will not suffice (see WP:FRINGE. We need to establish that, at very least, a significant minority holds that view. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, but involve as well User:Florian Blaschke, who made as well changes in the relevant articles. Discuss all about this infobox.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

Jeppiz, regarding you edit log I noticed only after my first reply:

I think I clearly indicated as well here I have no involvement of challenging any academic consensus, I acted per policy (thus referring to what I have should done on the talk page regarding this fallacious from your behalf in this context). Also, per policy, I might claim WP:BRD more than twice, in accordance with the rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

Thank you all for input in this matter. By the way, KIENGIR: being an unregistered member of Wikipedia for 15 years, the least I expect from a member of this community is that they know that a change in consensus is not of interest to any article if the person who claims it can't provide a source. In this case, the made edit is clearly controversial (due to the lack of any kind of source), but was also made to the opening sentence of the article, as if it were an established fact. Because of this, the edit made by Kwamikagami on 3 December 2019 should have been the one reverted from the beginning. Perceptivity (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the topic, I also want to make clear that I don't mind if the doubts on the origins of Hungarian are mentioned as long as they are sourced, but then they should not be in the opening sentence. Perceptivity (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I fully undestand you, your basic approach does not have any problem, yes sources are needed etc. But since in WP the establishment of WP:CONSENSUS has various possibilities and since Kwami conducted discussions on other pages as well with sources, it has been established. In other words, even if you have right, there is a process, i.e. you discuss here, agree/challenge and as well according to various other tools, and if there is a resul we modify, until the last stable version remains mostly, shall it be right or not (see WP:WRONG), etc. I just wanted to make you see my intentions. Jeppiz a bit overreacted the sitiation, since even if Kwami will be in minority with even a previously established something, there is the standard process how to solve that, etc. Jeppiz had to better to claim that he reverts back further before Kwami, and the dispute should start from there, etc., if he felt that something was not in order.

Concurring with you last sentence, the (traditional grouping) will be re-added, as I checked it has been the permanent part of the article as well years before Kwami's edit.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

User Kwamikagami has not presented a single source. What difference does it make if he did in other articles? The topic is this article. Furthermore: the fact that he discussed it elsewhere doesn't in any way make it valid (considering his point of view is still just a theory and has nothing to do with linguistic consensus). Perceptivity (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Some concensus or discussions does not necessarily conducted in all article's related, but just one article and it may be a reference point fairly (and also we should not confuse linguistic/acedemic consensus with WP:CONSENSUS, etc.). Again, about other details like sources, etc. please discuss with him.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

The sources should be in this article. It's not harder than that. Really. Perceptivity (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You may fairly claim that, however in case he conducted something previously in accordance elsewhere it may be also ok. But let's wait his reaction to your inquiries.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

Perceptivity, you keep claiming that this is my POV, that I made these changes, but that is false. We had a discussion years ago and decided, as a community, to change the default classification of the Uralic languages on WP. This affected all the Uralic languages, not just Hungarian (though it always seems to be Hungarian that people get upset about), and has been the consensus now for years. It's not up to me to provide sources for that consensus, as you can refer to the old discussion (which is probably under either Uralic or FU). Rather, it is up to you to provide evidence that counters the sources used to achieve that consensus, one that will convince not just me but the others involved, assmuming they're still active on WP.

BTW, if you can demonstrate the validity of either Ugric, Ob-Ugric, Hungarian-Khanty or Hungarian-Mansi, that would actually simplify things for me in another project. So I'm not at all opposed to you demonstrating this -- I'd appreciate it, actually -- I just expect better evidence than sources copying each other for decades, an issue that was discussed when we came to the current consensus. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:, Finno-Ugric is another matter. That was abandoned across the board, because no-one has ever shown that the Samoyed languages form the primary split of the family. Rather, Samoyed was simple recognized as being related long after the Finno-Ugric languages had been established and proto-FU reconstructed. (There have also been suspicions that the exclusion of Samoyed was more racist than linguistic.) People do continue to use the term 'Finno-Ugric', but often simply as a synonym for 'Uralic', much as we continue to hear about 'Mon-Khmer' from sources that do not maintain that the Munda languages are necessarily the primary split of AA, where proto-FU is the same language as proto-Uralic, and proto-MK is the same language as proto-AA. If we do reinstitute FU, it will require updating all of the Uralic languages except Samoyed.

Also, although it's quite possible that Ugric will turn out to be valid, it may not include all three of the language clusters traditionally included in it, though as long as one of them is Hungarian that shouldn't matter much for this article. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I recall having seen the discussion you refer to before, but if my memory serves me right, it was about whether we should use the Uralic term or the somewhat dated Finno-Ugric one (which doesn't encompass the Samoyedic languages). I don't recall having seen anything there about Hungarian being disputed as being a member of the Ugric branch of the Uralic language family, though. While I can see that you do an important job I respect and admire, I still maintain that since consensus among linguists is that Hungarian belongs to the Ugric branch, Wikipedia must follow this. We who build Wikipedia are not here to make our own research (unless it really has achieved recognition). I would still like to know if it has. I myself do research on languages and have read many articles on this subject, but I have never seen anyone seriously suggesting that Hungarian isn't a part of the Ugric branch and getting recognition for it. If it hasn't, then I'm sorry to say that it doesn't belong in the opening sentence of any article, despite what other contributors may think. I'm sure most of Wikipedia agrees with me on this. This doesn't mean it doesn't altogether, though. Perceptivity (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for good comments. I should point out I have absolutely no personal preference in this apart from making sure we align with academic consensus. I did have a quick look at some other Finno-Ugric languages - they use the same family grouping as here. As Perceptivity says, I'd be very careful about a discussion on WP to override academic consensus, that is the definition of WP:OR. Not saying that's the case here but, while I completely trust that what kwami says is correct, we still need sources if we are going to contest the traditional classification; we cannot just decide to override it. Jeppiz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

But we concluded there is no academic consensus for the validity of Ugric. We weren't overriding academic consensus, but following recent findings rather than an old classification that was being repeated without evaluation. The same recent sources that cast doubt on FU also cast doubt on all the other subbranches of Uralic above the patently obvious ones like Balto-Finnic. Thus the classifications in these sources had a comb-like structure, with Ugric broken up as well. The argument wasn't that Ugric was invalid, but that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it was valid -- like Italo-Celtic etc. in IE. There were also doubts as to which of the 3 branches belonged in Ugric if it were valid -- there are problems with contact-induced similarities with either Khanty or Mansi, I forget which, so even Ob-Ugric did not appear to be valid. I have not seen any reassessment since then that either Ob-Ugric or Ugric as a whole turns out to be valid after all. Doesn't mean such evidence isn't out there now, of course, but it wasn't when we came to this consensus. This was a rather involved debate that included a number of people who knew the lit and knew what they were talking about. I'd like to see some actual evidence before we revert it.

Hammarström at Glottolog judged that the evidence for Ugric is insufficient and abandoned it. So has Ethnologue. Both are 2ary sources that evaluate the 1ary sources. (The problem with Ethn. is that many of the classifications are old and unref'd. But this one is a recent revamp.) Are there any new sources out there that have debunked our current sources, one of which is the primary authority used by Glottolog? — kwami (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

kwami, Glottolog lists Hungarian as Uralic [44] as does Ethnologue [45]. This discussion would be much easier if everybody understood that sources are needed. If anyone is going to make a claim that X or Y say something, then kindly provide those sources as well. Jeppiz (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, just goes off spending two weeks writing an article day and night, mixed up Uralic and Ugric... Please ignore everything I've said and put it down to fatigue. Apologies to everyone. Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I would claim that Glottolog and Ethnologue are tertiary sources and are often enough unreliable for the fine details of language classification (they're at most reliable as whichever handful of primary or secondary sources they happen to have picked). This perhaps needs to be raised as a bigger topic in general. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Jeppiz.

BTW, of the sources we have from this century, all but Salminen (2002, 2007) accept the validity of Finno-Permic (Permian, Balto-Finnic, Sami, Mari, Mordvin). So we could reasonably re-institute that. As for Ugric, Kulonen (2002) and Lehtinen (2007) accept it, while Michalove (2002) and Janhunen (2009) do not. Michalove accepts Ob-Ugric but keeps Hungarian separate, Janhunen accepts Hungarian-Mansi but keeps Khanty separate, while Salminen doesn't accept any of it. So the similarities that led to the proposal for Ugric are still recognized, but there's disagreement as to what they mean. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I will return to this discussion tomorrow, but I once again have to ask Kwamikagami to refrain from once again adding unsourced information – and before gaining consensus! Is this really so hard to respect? Perceptivity (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems this dispute is over. Perceptivity thanked me for cross-linking the infobox to the refs that were already in the article (and which they evidently never bothered to check, despite having them pointed out more than once), which happened when they did the reasonable thing of adding 'cn' tags where they had a problem, and is now celebrating that being "stubborn" (= edit-warring, lying, and being obstructionist) finally "paid off". Perceptivity, I hope you don't think that is a recipe for future success on WP, as a couple days of dealing with your obstructionism does not leave me favorably inclined to cooperate with you in the future, and a couple days of your bullshit has taught be that nothing you say can be believed. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

All I asked for was some sources placed after a couple of statements. Since you initially refused to add them, I reverted your edits until you chose to comply with a very basic rule of this community. This is hardly edit-warring. I were aware that you claimed you had sources in other places the whole time and never denied knowing about that, but sources are expected to follow the statements. You never even told me exactly where those sources were to be found, so I could never add them myself. See my point? To me, that is the only thing obstructionist here. Calling me a bullshitter, liar and obstructionist and making references to Donald Trump is hardly good behaviour. Take responsibility for yourself and cooperate instead of calling me names. I, however, would gladly cooperate with you in the future, but I do expect you to follow the rules of this community. If you do not, I will continue to revert your unsourced edits and not care the slightest how you feel about it. If you want to avoid it, you can start by adding the sources from the beginning. Simple enough, don't you think? You can go ahead and have me blocked now, but I hardly think your efforts will be fruitful. Perceptivity (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL! not DONALD Trump - the noun, "trump" - figurative a valuable resource that may be used, esp. as a surprise, in order to gain an advantage ..... thanks for the laff, tho' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.4 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Something strange with syllabification

I think (but I'm not sure) that Hungarian is the only language which can do this: if there is a long consonant (marked doubled) between two vowels they will be part of two different syllables written. So for example the word állomás (meaning station) will be syllabified as ál-lo-más. And when that long consonant is written with a digraph it will become two different digraphs: asszony (meaning a married woman) will be syllabified as asz-szony. I think this should be put in the article. Adam bozso (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Source? 104.169.17.20 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox mismatch

I've noticed, the infobox lists Poland as part of the native speech area, but there is no matching information in the article. @KIENGIR and Others: Can you help out with clarifying details? –Austronesier (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

By the Treaty of Trianon, Poland also gathered territory from Hungary, obviosuly those countries are listed in the infobox which fell the same category regarding this.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC))

So the infobox entry refers to Hungarian speech areas in Poland in the borders of 1921-39? The default reading of the infobox entry as it stands now is that present-day Poland incorporates Hungarian-speaking territory. In any case, the information should be mentioned in the main text, ideally with specification of the geographical extent. –Austronesier (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Poland holds those territories also today. Maybe some qualifier may be added, as per Austria, Serbia or Ukraine, which denotes especially where was the historical Hungarian territory.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC))

The above is not correct, no. Poland did gain a small part of Hungarian speaking territory after WWI, but lost the same territory after WWII. There is no Hungarian speaking territory in modern Poland. If someone wants to claim the opposite, the onus is on them to mention which Polish village(s) or town(s) they believe are Hungarian-speaking. Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Here must be a confusion. Poland gained territories from Hungary after WWI, and what he lost, gained back after WWII, and still part of Poland. Territories don't speak anyway, as villages or towns, here native to means as part of the former country.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC))

Just to avoid misunderstandings, I initially raised a courtesy question about unsourced and unsupported content, instead of deleting or tagging it right away. Since we haven't received substantial information about Hungarian speakers in Poland (in the present, or historically), the content as it stands now remains unverified and is deletable per WP:V. NB that this page is about the Hungarian language, not about where pieces of erstwhile Hungarian territory went. –Austronesier (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, what means to you native to? In the infobox all country was listed who got parts from Hungary. Nativity does not necessarily means what is the situation today, so you should not make any revert until the end of the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC))

Árva and Szepes do very slightly overlap even with modern Poland. Our articles for both have also demographic maps from 1910 which however show that no Hungarian-speaking villages ended up on that side of the border. The northwesternmost Hungarian village in Szepes was Osztornya (presumably = Osturňa), while Árva had no Hungarian presence in the northeast at all (Turdossin and Trsztena come the closest, though it is hard to tell if even these are red dots incidating a Hungarian minority or orange dots indicating a Polish minority). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 23:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but this is only relevant if we clarify what is "native to", since demographics may always change. Nominally native to means the whole Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

"Native to" means the existence of stable communites of L1-speakers. Countries don't talk, people and communites do, and these have specified locations within a territorial unit (country etc.). The Kingdon of Hungary was a multi-ethnic state, and there were several stretches where Hungarian was not used as a first language. Again, this about the Hungarian language, not about what happened to erstwhile Hungarian territory. When we say e.g. that German is spoken in Poland, this is not because formerly German territories like Silesia, southern East Prussia and western Pomerania are part of Poland now, but because there are still German speakers in present-day Poland, albeit in increasingly vanishing numbers. Another example: Albanian is spoken in parts of Europa that never were under Albanian jurisdiction, yet we can safely state that Albanian is natively spoken in Italy. Hundreds of languages on this globe never had the chance to be the language of a nation or state. Obviously, for such languages, there is no other possible reading of "native to", and we can hardly give e.g. Hungarian an "official language"-priviledge. By the same logic, we could say that Danish is native to Iceland.

So without the onus of WP:V fulfilled (Tropylium made a laudable first step in that direction, with inconclusive result), "Poland" cannot be included in the infobox. And btw, I find it disappointing that information which completely unsourced and unsupported by the rest of the article ("Poland" in the infobox is a hapax in the whole article!) keeps being reinserted in the infobox under the pretext of an ongoing discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:,

Don't be disappointed, per WP:BRD I legally may revert until the end of discussion (no "pretexts", but policy - btw. you said by your own inconclusive result), since until we did not make clear what means "native to", the sourcing and other questions are less relevant, considering infobox template fabrications and their terminologies are sometimes fixed, inlcuding possible parameters. E.g. now you told your appoach and interpetations, other's did, I did as well, but we did not finish it fully. Now you define "native to" is present tense, not historical (in the latter case, there cannot excluded there would not be ever Hungarian speaking community, even if it is less likely, etc.), and I never meant native to would be equal with being "official". Can you assure me in other articles the interprartion of native to in present tense is as you define?(KIENGIR (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC))

It's not about past or present, it is about actually telling us in which part of present-day Poland Hungarian is or once was spoken. It is about concrete information and sources to support such a claim. "Legally", you cannot add unsourced content, even if it was there before: WP:V is quite clear about that. –Austronesier (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, this is fast getting into disruptive territory. Not only are you edit warring (and you've been duly warned on your talk page), but you are wrong on absolutely everything discussed.
1. No, WP:BRD does not give you any right to revert. BRD says a user can revert once. If you believe BRD means that your version takes precedence over the consensus version, then you clearly misunderstand BRD.
2. No, Hungarian has not been spoken in any part of Poland, neither contemporary Poland nor pre-WWII Poland. (Tropylium provided a good overview on this already. At the very least, you have not provided any source for your claim (see WP:OR).
3. No, nobody is interested in your homespun redefinition of "native to". Again, we use sources, not users' personal ideas (WP:OR. Again).
4. No, there is no "ongoing discussion" any more. There is clear consensus among users, and one user refusing to WP:HEAR. That is not a discussion, it is disruptive behavior at this point. Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeppiz,

you are - again - totally on the wrong path, claiming edit warring - once we discussed this what means edit warring in real (2 reverts in five days next to abiding policies is NOT edit warring, and NOT a duly warning) - so to be consistent according to your preception you should have wraned also other users. Moreover, I disagree I would be wrong, I am precise and substantial as ever. Let's see:

1 - I did not mention WP:BRD so far in the edit log, hence I did not make any revert claiming on this, moreover I perfecly now the rules, and BRD is as policy and process that everyone should follow.

2 - I did not say such as you claim, so this comment was unnecessary.

3 - Excuse me, I did not made any homespun redefinition of "native to", the issue arose now and it is discussed, as it is also influence by the template issues I referred, so at first level it is not the issue of sources or OR, only after if this is clarified. This is the point how we should interpret it, and asked Austronesier to provide further on it.

4 - There is an ongoing discussion, denying it is ridiculous, just view the page's history, and before you mention consensus, better analyize what it means, instead of claiming WP:HEAR, which has been never ever an issue with me, as well youe accusation of disruptive behavior is wholeheratedly rejected, I've never did like that.

Moreover, I suggest you to calm down and practise more good faith!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC))

I have no interest in arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing in your angry rant above even addresses the topic. The situation is very simple: you're the only claiming Hungarian is native to Poland. Then it is up to you to present reliable sources to back up that claim. In the absence of such sources, we are not including Poland. Jeppiz (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed: this is now degenerating entirely into wikilawyering. The onus remains on Kiengir: if you think some concept like "native" should be discussed, fair enough perhaps, but then what is the definition you suggest (and, indeed, per what sources?) and how would it imply Hungarian being "natively" spoken in Poland? These are the only real open question. As long as we're tossing around policy links, WP:CRYSTAL comes to my mind: articles should not be written to reflect some hypothetical future understanding on what "native" perhaps might mean. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeppiz,

angry rant is something you did against me, and I just reacted to your points, so if you say it does not address the topic (which is false statement again, beucase I explained the catch, which Tropylium understood now), then it's because of you primarily.

Tropylium, wikilawyering the user before you started, suddenly and unneccesarily, he should visit the i.e. the List of largest empires article and there he should see when really warnings would be adequate or necessary, as well both in the article and the talk at which point we may discuss about disruption (a good case study, of lacking such since months with an amount of the power of 50 ), so yes, I will react if I am accused improperly or someone is not precise enough regarding issues with me! Back on the topic, again, what you claim I was discussing with @Austronesier:, who is anyway a very polite and valuable contributor, and we were likely in the end of our understanding and interpretation to clarify when Jeppiz made his unneccesarry rally. I accepted finally Austronesier's arguments, but won't accept post harassment, because if Austronesier's latest edit is not reverted and we are discussing in the talk, having 2 reverts in five days each is not a subject of edit warning notice, but if less then 24 hours someone would achieve three reverts and have the last recent edit contrary to status quo ante (and not the one who is pro), e.g. than I would understand. WP:RULES are consistent, and anyway with fellow editors with we solved many issues in the past we won't byte each other.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

Possible Tungusic influence

It's quite possible there was a Tungusic influence. It's not communis opinio, but quite possible.

István Futaky in two articles (1970, 1973) indicated the probable borrowings from Tungus-Manchurian into Hungarian, and at least four of his etymologies (for Hung. beteg ‘ill’, oldal ‘side’, hamar ‘quickly’, kanál ‘spoon’) appear to be faultless.

Helimski 2000

It could be mentioned. dnik ►

Certainly worth a mention. Futaky's handbook article from 1988 picks out the examples hamar, kanál and telek 'strap'. This never seems to have been widely accepted though in Hungarian etymological dictionaries or the like (oldal at least has also a good native etymology, the others are typically left at "etymology unknown"). Helimski's proposal that this is due to the Pannonian Avars having spoken a Tungusic language seems to be similarly unpopular; and e.g. Janhunen (2013) claims passingly that all Hungarian ~ Tungusic parallels would rather be "…a question of Central Asiatic areal items which have moved in parallel both to the east (Tungusic) and to the west (Hungarian)" (though then he seems overly skeptical anyway, e.g. also rejecting the much larger stock of Tungusic loanwords in Khanty). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC) 

Fringe comparison theories

@Jeppiz recently suggests zapping the list of these with the comment a proper source is needed (…) a world of research has happened in the last 80 years. I feel this misunderstands the point of the paragraph. None of this is itself reliable research. The notable point being made is that Hungarian has for long attracted a disproportionate amount of pseudoscientific language comparison, a fact that has since then not changed, and probably can be found mentioned also in newer sources. I don't particularly follow literature discussing this phenomenon, but e.g. Laakso (2018) (English translation) makes a few related points. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)