|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 29, 2011 20:46:46 GMT -5
Like you said; Serbs and Libyans have a common enemy. I would push that statement even further saying, the free-world has a common enemy. if u didnt have a common enemy like the Arab saying goes "my enemy's enemy is my friend" do u really think if for example if Serbia shared a border with a state run by that lunatic Gaddaffi that you could trust him? i mean most of his own people want rid of him same as most egyptians want rid of their own Government same as most Iranians want rid of Islamic Revolution Government.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 29, 2011 20:27:17 GMT -5
Is the topic of this thread just story based, or "historical" based? since there is no credible sources or historic literature provided it sounds more like a story. I doubt anyone is expected to take it more than a grain of salt or half*grain its very grandiose far fetched and conspiratorial sounding so far but maybe the next chapter about the sunworshippers will shed some light on things hehe.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 29, 2011 5:33:28 GMT -5
#1 would be in Serbian "jedan". Other 2 words(yekta and tak) don't have similar root in Serbian. The closest meaning of "The one"(meaning God) would be "Gospod". "Unique" is simply "jedinstven" my Serbian is not very good so excuse my spelling error or maybe some wrong words as I am just going from memory . Serbian Persian jedan yek tva do tri se cetiri chahar pet panj sest shesh sedam haft osam hasht devet noh deset dah
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 29, 2011 4:47:07 GMT -5
So 'tek' is proto-slav, go Sarmatians! [/quot asked my wife about this as she is Armenian but born and lived in Iran hence she speaks Persian. she said in Persian language ... jek/yek means the number 1, and there is a word "yekta" which is used often in reference to God meaning something like "the one". she said tak means something like "unique" .
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 24, 2011 6:25:31 GMT -5
Beautiful table. and yes its spring... sadly in Turkey not just the PKK but almost every single political/ideological group uses unpolitical gatherings to shout their message out. Wow didnt know Nevruz was a custom of Turkey thought was an Iranian/Persian practice.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 1, 2011 21:55:55 GMT -5
Like I mentioned before, Arabs and Serbs are spiritual brothers. really ? how do u mean ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 24, 2011 7:45:25 GMT -5
It makes me vomit. Until now, he lived in a country that offered him more possibilities than Croatia. He wants to leave, ok, but don't piss on a country that is way more open-minded than yours and that offered you possibilities that yours clearly couldn't offer to you. And I'm also speaking here for Albanians and other Balkans people who always criticize countries they are living in ... You aren't happy ?? Albania/Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia/etc is better, Albanian/Serbian/Croatian/etc girls are better looking, etc ... well, go back where you came from, and don't piss on a country and idealize your country of origin that you left because it was a s**tty country, with a s**tty economic situation, with s**tty mentality (especially when speaking about integration, racism etc ...). That's my opinion. I agree I am of a Hungarian background living in Australia. To be honest I get sick of the people who say things like this when truth is their families like mine and actually like almost every person that came here did so because things were not as great where they came from. To all the people that constantly say this if they are for real then why dont they just f-ck off, lots of whinging and complaining but in reality most of them would never go back to their origins or families origins. I understand people complaining in a certain Balkan East Euro in house way about day to day stuff like how u cant get the same quality salami or cheap priced booze as back home or how certain things are different etc, happens in my family too, but people like this guy who seriously wanna piss on the hand that feeds them and like this guy for what ever reason cant seem to get along with fellow citizens of where they live and have negative attitudes and racist attitudes towards them then seriously why dont people like this guy just f-ck off.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 24, 2011 7:26:45 GMT -5
^The Croats had a strict program: 1/3 kill, 1/3 exile, and 1/3 convert Wow , did they actually convert many Serbs, if so did these new Croat convert familes find out that their Grandparents were Serbs ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 11, 2011 5:43:15 GMT -5
Just another idea, what about Avar influences.
I read that Avars were in Pannonia for around 200 years untill they eventually assimilated into southern Slavs.
But maybe Avars assimilated more into Croats. I have even wondered if there is any connection between the words Avar and Hrvat.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jan 20, 2011 23:00:16 GMT -5
DY,Turkics were not Christians before they became Muslims. I don't know about Turkics being Pagans but I know they were shamans in the past.I think for most Turkics,they converted from shamanism to Islam. And yes,there are many Bosniaks in Istanbul.There are also many Bosniaks in Bursa.In fact,Bursa is known for its Balkan styled villages. The European Muslim refugees from former Ottoman lands were resettled all over Turkey.The southeast region received the least amount of refugees though. As for the 60,000 Armenians,these are the ones who are Christians and are descendants of the remaining Armenians once the Republic of Turkey was established. There are actually more Armenians.I'm talking about the Crypto-Armenians : Turk on the outside,but Armenian on the inside. Some say that many Turks who have been converting to Christianity in the recent years are these Crypto-Armenians. Krivosanin,I don't know why did you say Serbians are one of the largest groups,did you mean BOSNIAK? Bursa is known for its Ottoman styled homesand villages. These same styled villages have survived in Bosnia and some places like Albania and Macedonia, after the muslims and Turks were persecuted by the christians when Ottoman Empire was falling down. I've been to Bursa, very nice place, very big industry, strong Turkish patriots and home to the founding restaurant of the world famous Iskender Kebabi. There are 100,000 armenians in Turkey, many of them are illegal. They need to be deportated because they don't pay taxes. Crypto-armenians? LOL, the only people who have sympathy with the word Armenians are communists and leftist a**holes, other than that. Turkey is a pure Turkish country. One state, one language and one culture LOL Turkey is like America a nation built from and on various peoples, "one state, one language, one culture " .... plus 12 million Kurds etc etc etc. Once upon a time Turkey even denied these Kurds existed.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 24, 2010 19:42:55 GMT -5
anyone can tell any one anything but Unless that someone can back up what they are saying with real evidence then it doesnt mean much. The Turkic origin words in Hungarian have been studied very strongly for many years and several linguists have concluded there is approxiamatly only 300 odd words of Turkic origin. So unless the someone who told you has more accepted evidence than the majority of linguists that have studied the topic then we cannot take his claim with much seriousness. As I have said I wouldnt consider myself a Finn-Ugrist in the traditional sense as I tend to agree with Sinor Denes, in that I doubt enough is known about the supposed Finno Ugric peoples whom the Magyars supposedly originated from. As Sinor stated FinnUgric argument is that Magyars were these primitive forest dweller people who became transformed to a equestrian horse culture by Turkics whom they had much contact with. As Sinor points out words in Hungarian for horse and equestrian things are of Ugrian origin not Turkic so that in itself seems to go against the usual FU theory. The fact the Magyars had their own word for horse shows that they already knew something about horses and were possibly already a horse culture. The Turkic words in Hungarian relate more to agriculture which in itself is a sedentary lifestyle as opposed to the nomadic horse orientated war like steppe culture that Turkics are usually asscociated with. Many nomadic hordes were referred to as Turks and many certainly had a Turkic element. But in reality often these hordes were made up of mixed tribes of peoples and were not over all Turkic in ethnicity nor language. So its not hard to believe that this reference was made to Hungarians whom were strongly asscociated with Turkic peoples such as Bulgars, Khazars-Kabars at certain times. To give an example about what I am talking about lets look at some information written about the Eurasian the Avars whom are generally known as Turkics. For all the theories, historian Walter Pohl asserted in 1998, instancing the detailed attempts made by H. W. Haussig in 1953[6] and K. Czeglèdy in 1983[7] and his own methodological objections[8]: "It is pointless to ask who exactly the forefathers of the European Avars were. We only know that they carried an ancient, very prestigious name (our first hints to it date back to the times of Herodotus); and we may assume that they were a very mixed group of warriors who wanted to escape domination by the Göktürks."[9] If the Avars were ever a distinct ethnic group, that distinction does not seem to have survived their centuries in Europe. Being an 'Avar' seems to have meant being part of the Avar state (in a similar way that being 'Roman' ceased to have any ethnic meaning). What is certain, by the time they arrived in Europe, the Avars were a heterogeneous, polyethnic people.[5][10] Modern research shows[11] that each of the large confederations of steppe warriors (such as the Scythians, Huns, Hungarians, Bulgars, Avars, Khazars, Cumans, Mongols, etc.) were not ethnically homogeneous, but rather unions of multiple ethnicities.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars someone told me that there are over 2,000 Hungarian words of Turkish origin, so this is quite a bit of a competition between Ugricist and Turkist. Finn-Ugric theory is in crisis since they havent been able explain alot things but they in a dogmatic power in the field of Hungarian history. I have also found more geographer than just Ibn Rusta. The world most known man is Ibn Battuta from Morocco, even he describe Magyars as Turks. He is also appear to be a great Islamic scholar as well who consider Ibn Taymiyya (the father of Islamic extremism) as screw-loose. Then we got Said Nursi, a Kurdish Islamic scholar who wrote Hungarians as Turks. I gotta send some links on it.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 16, 2010 5:11:56 GMT -5
WBB said ... " It's because they find it impossible to believe that Ugric people were equestrian horde tribes, even i found hard to believe that Ugric or Uralic people imitates like Turks. Since these people are more like an Eskimo cultured to me, they go hunting in the woods, fishing in the lake and live in wooden huts or even Iglo rather than living in Yurts like Turks. Those Uralic-Ugric culture is not much of a culture to me, since Magyar culture is something more richer and powerful than this. " WBB I told you I would bring some information about this point. So below I am quoting from Denis Sinor he was Professor of Asian Studies and has written several books about Asia and Mongols etc, his article I quote from below is titled "Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory" I will give the link for the full article but I will only quote points here in reference to our discussion relating to your above quote. The Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory . Denis Sinor (Journal of World History 4(3), 513-540)
If the study of the Turkish loanwords cannot help us to locate with greater precision the probable place of Hungarian-Turkish contacts, it can shed valuable light on the cultural influence exerted by the Turks on the Hungarians. Under this aspect the study of the vocabulary is most revealing, for it shows that the majority of the Hungarian words concerning agriculture and animal-breeding are of Turkish origin: wheat, barley, hops, hemp, fruit, apple, pear, nut, pea, plough, scythe, bull, ox, calf, ram, heifer, wether, pig, hen, cheese, wool, etc. have Hungarian names of Turkish origin. Practically the whole agricultural terminology of Hungarian is either Turkish or Slavonic in its origin. Among the names of domestic animals there is one conspicuous absentee: the name of the horse is of Finno-Ugrian origin.It has been argued with great emphasis that the difference between the Finno-Ugrian and the Turkish ways of living is so profound as to be unbridgeable, and that it is hardly imaginable that Finno-Ugrians should, in the ordinary course of events, become a "Turkish-type" people. Although in recent years this theory seems to have lost some ground [22], it dominated research in Hungarian prehistory for so long that it may not be superfluous to show all its absurdity. The whole argument is based on fallacy for it takes for granted, without attempting to prove it, that there is a "Turkish way of living". The equation: horse-breeding nomadic warriors = Turks or Mongols,— is simply false. There can be no doubt that some of the greatest nomadic empires were built up by Turks and Mongols, but these states represent the highest stage in the development of peoples of Central Eurasia, a stage which comparatively few of them have ever reached.
A large proportion of Turks and Mongols were forest-dwellers just as the Finno-Ugrians, and only some of them developed the way of living that became associated with their names. We have historical records to show that the Turks themselves were originally a non-equestrian people and as far as the Mongols are concerned the duality between forest- and steppe-dwellers goes all through their history.
We have — it must be said — no historical records of any other Finno-Ugrian people than the Hungarians taking to steppe-life. But if we consider the poverty of our information concerning the languages of the many nomad peoples who successively populated the steppe-belt of South Russia we can hardly attach any importance to this lack of any other example. If the Hungarians had disappeared as did the many other peoples who in the first millennium populated the steppes north of the Black Sea, they would certainly be considered today as Turks.It will be remembered that the Hungarian word for "horse" and a certain number of technical terms connected with horse-breeding are of Finno-Ugrian origin. There is no reason to suppose — as it has been in some quarters — that the cleavage between Finno-Ugrians and Turks was that between primitive hunters or even food-gatherers and horse-breeding nomads.
There is no need to postulate a break — possibly due to outside influence such as a conquest by another people — in the cultural evolution of the Hungarians, and it would be even more rash to want to ascribe any such break to Turkish influence. The study of Hungarian vocabulary has revealed an important Turkish influence in the domain of agriculture and stock-breeding (with the exception of the horse), that is to say that this influence has exerted itself precisely in the least warlike activities. It is almost as if Hungarians would have become a sedentary people under Turkish influence.This obstacle has usually been got round by ascribing this influence to the supposedly more peaceful Bulgar-Turks. There are both theoretical and factual errors in this reasoning. Theoretically, if we admit the existence of non-nomadic Turks we weaken the — in my view untenable — hypothesis that Turks must be identified with horse-breeding nomads. Moreover we would still have to look for the people under whose influence the Hungarians made what is thought to be the great jump in their cultural evolution. On the factual side there is the weakness that this influence cannot be limited to Bulgar-Turks. If the Hungarian word for e.g. "the ox" has undoubtedly been borrowed from Bulgar-Turkish, we cannot make the same claim on behalf of the majority of other terms connected with agriculture or stock-breeding. They could have come into Hungarian from any other Turkish dialect. In any case it is impossible to have it both ways: the Turkish influence exerted itself on the Hungarians either by bringing them to a sedentary way of living, or by transforming them into nomadic, mounted warriors. I do not see any obstacle in admitting a two-fold influence, but with the ethnological premisses usually accepted in Hungarian prehistory this is not possible. Particular attention should be paid to the Turkish loanwords of Hungarian [5]. As we have already mentioned, such importance used to be attached to their presence that on their account scholars were ready to consider Hungarian as a Turkish language. In fact carefully compiled linguistic statistics have shown that only about 9 % of the word-roots are of Turkish origin, a rather small figure when we consider that Latin words amount to 8 % of the Hungarian vocabulary [6]. In a most remarkable study — a real gem of Turcology — the Hungarian scholar Gombocz [7] has shown that the phonetic structure of some of these loanwords presents phonetic features peculiar to the Chuvash language. Chuvash, an extraordinary Turkish dialect is nowadays spoken in the Middle-Volga region and it is thought to be the continuation of the language of the Volga-Bulgars [8]. Gombocz proposed well over two hundred etymologies, most of them reliable, but he made one mistake which proved to be of consequence to Hungarian prehistory. Having discovered that some loan-words show Chuvash-type characteristics, Gombocz hastily concluded that all the other Turkish loan-words were also of Bulgarturkish origin. In fact only a small number of these loanwords can with certainty be ascribed to this particular dialect: the rest could come from any other Turkish idiom. Therefore, whilst there can be no doubt that we must postulate some Volga-Bulgar influence on the Hungarians, it would mean going beyond the available evidence to attach to these few words an importance they do not possess and assume a considerable well-nigh decisive Bulgarturkish influence on Hungarian history.
In western languages the Magyars go by names such as Hungarians, Hongrois, Ungar, etc. which all go back to a Latin plural Ungri first attested in 862, and a Greek Ungroi in use in Byzance from the 10th century onwards [13]. It is generally thought that all these forms derive from the name of a Turkish tribe, the Onogur, known since the middle of the Vth century. The name passed through Slavonic intermediary into the various European languages and the phonetical evolution can be explained satisfactorily. There is however a problem connected with the transmission of the name, a problem which, so far as I know, has not received attention. How is it that the Slavonic form of the name of a Turkish people — obviously unknown in Europe — came to be adopted by Europe as the name of the Hungarians? This is all the more surprising as the only civilised people, the Byzantines, who at this epoch had contacts with the Hungarians did not, at that time, use this name to designate the Hungarians. It must also be remembered that the Byzantine historians distinguish between Onogurs ('Onogouroi) and Hungarians (Ouggroi).The problem is further complicated by the fact that the same name is also applied by the Russians to other Finno-Ugrian peoples. From the 11th century onwards a name Ugria (and variants) occurs in Russian sources, and although its application varies slightly, it is applied to the whole or to some parts of the Ugrian peoples. The linguistic technical term "Ugrian" has been adopted from this Russian denomination.www.kroraina.com/hungar/ds_ohp.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 16, 2010 5:08:44 GMT -5
WBB I told you I would bring some information about this point. So below I am quoting from Denis Sinor he was Professor of Asian Studies and has written several books about Asia and Mongols etc, his article I quote from below is titled "Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory" I will give the link for the full article but I will only quote points here in reference to our discussion relating to your above quote. The Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory . Denis Sinor (Journal of World History 4(3), 513-540)
If the study of the Turkish loanwords cannot help us to locate with greater precision the probable place of Hungarian-Turkish contacts, it can shed valuable light on the cultural influence exerted by the Turks on the Hungarians. Under this aspect the study of the vocabulary is most revealing, for it shows that the majority of the Hungarian words concerning agriculture and animal-breeding are of Turkish origin: wheat, barley, hops, hemp, fruit, apple, pear, nut, pea, plough, scythe, bull, ox, calf, ram, heifer, wether, pig, hen, cheese, wool, etc. have Hungarian names of Turkish origin. Practically the whole agricultural terminology of Hungarian is either Turkish or Slavonic in its origin. Among the names of domestic animals there is one conspicuous absentee: the name of the horse is of Finno-Ugrian origin. It has been argued with great emphasis that the difference between the Finno-Ugrian and the Turkish ways of living is so profound as to be unbridgeable, and that it is hardly imaginable that Finno-Ugrians should, in the ordinary course of events, become a "Turkish-type" people. Although in recent years this theory seems to have lost some ground [22], it dominated research in Hungarian prehistory for so long that it may not be superfluous to show all its absurdity. The whole argument is based on fallacy for it takes for granted, without attempting to prove it, that there is a "Turkish way of living". The equation: horse-breeding nomadic warriors = Turks or Mongols,— is simply false. There can be no doubt that some of the greatest nomadic empires were built up by Turks and Mongols, but these states represent the highest stage in the development of peoples of Central Eurasia, a stage which comparatively few of them have ever reached. A large proportion of Turks and Mongols were forest-dwellers just as the Finno-Ugrians, and only some of them developed the way of living that became associated with their names. We have historical records to show that the Turks themselves were originally a non-equestrian people and as far as the Mongols are concerned the duality between forest- and steppe-dwellers goes all through their history. We have — it must be said — no historical records of any other Finno-Ugrian people than the Hungarians taking to steppe-life. But if we consider the poverty of our information concerning the languages of the many nomad peoples who successively populated the steppe-belt of South Russia we can hardly attach any importance to this lack of any other example. If the Hungarians had disappeared as did the many other peoples who in the first millennium populated the steppes north of the Black Sea, they would certainly be considered today as Turks. It will be remembered that the Hungarian word for "horse" and a certain number of technical terms connected with horse-breeding are of Finno-Ugrian origin. There is no reason to suppose — as it has been in some quarters — that the cleavage between Finno-Ugrians and Turks was that between primitive hunters or even food-gatherers and horse-breeding nomads. There is no need to postulate a break — possibly due to outside influence such as a conquest by another people — in the cultural evolution of the Hungarians, and it would be even more rash to want to ascribe any such break to Turkish influence. The study of Hungarian vocabulary has revealed an important Turkish influence in the domain of agriculture and stock-breeding (with the exception of the horse), that is to say that this influence has exerted itself precisely in the least warlike activities. It is almost as if Hungarians would have become a sedentary people under Turkish influence. This obstacle has usually been got round by ascribing this influence to the supposedly more peaceful Bulgar-Turks. There are both theoretical and factual errors in this reasoning. Theoretically, if we admit the existence of non-nomadic Turks we weaken the — in my view untenable — hypothesis that Turks must be identified with horse-breeding nomads. Moreover we would still have to look for the people under whose influence the Hungarians made what is thought to be the great jump in their cultural evolution. On the factual side there is the weakness that this influence cannot be limited to Bulgar-Turks. If the Hungarian word for e.g. "the ox" has undoubtedly been borrowed from Bulgar-Turkish, we cannot make the same claim on behalf of the majority of other terms connected with agriculture or stock-breeding. They could have come into Hungarian from any other Turkish dialect. In any case it is impossible to have it both ways: the Turkish influence exerted itself on the Hungarians either by bringing them to a sedentary way of living, or by transforming them into nomadic, mounted warriors. I do not see any obstacle in admitting a two-fold influence, but with the ethnological premisses usually accepted in Hungarian prehistory this is not possible. Particular attention should be paid to the Turkish loanwords of Hungarian [5]. As we have already mentioned, such importance used to be attached to their presence that on their account scholars were ready to consider Hungarian as a Turkish language. In fact carefully compiled linguistic statistics have shown that only about 9 % of the word-roots are of Turkish origin, a rather small figure when we consider that Latin words amount to 8 % of the Hungarian vocabulary [6]. In a most remarkable study — a real gem of Turcology — the Hungarian scholar Gombocz [7] has shown that the phonetic structure of some of these loanwords presents phonetic features peculiar to the Chuvash language. Chuvash, an extraordinary Turkish dialect is nowadays spoken in the Middle-Volga region and it is thought to be the continuation of the language of the Volga-Bulgars [8]. Gombocz proposed well over two hundred etymologies, most of them reliable, but he made one mistake which proved to be of consequence to Hungarian prehistory. Having discovered that some loan-words show Chuvash-type characteristics, Gombocz hastily concluded that all the other Turkish loan-words were also of Bulgarturkish origin. In fact only a small number of these loanwords can with certainty be ascribed to this particular dialect: the rest could come from any other Turkish idiom. Therefore, whilst there can be no doubt that we must postulate some Volga-Bulgar influence on the Hungarians, it would mean going beyond the available evidence to attach to these few words an importance they do not possess and assume a considerable well-nigh decisive Bulgarturkish influence on Hungarian history. In western languages the Magyars go by names such as Hungarians, Hongrois, Ungar, etc. which all go back to a Latin plural Ungri first attested in 862, and a Greek Ungroi in use in Byzance from the 10th century onwards [13]. It is generally thought that all these forms derive from the name of a Turkish tribe, the Onogur, known since the middle of the Vth century. The name passed through Slavonic intermediary into the various European languages and the phonetical evolution can be explained satisfactorily. There is however a problem connected with the transmission of the name, a problem which, so far as I know, has not received attention. How is it that the Slavonic form of the name of a Turkish people — obviously unknown in Europe — came to be adopted by Europe as the name of the Hungarians? This is all the more surprising as the only civilised people, the Byzantines, who at this epoch had contacts with the Hungarians did not, at that time, use this name to designate the Hungarians. It must also be remembered that the Byzantine historians distinguish between Onogurs ('Onogouroi) and Hungarians (Ouggroi). The problem is further complicated by the fact that the same name is also applied by the Russians to other Finno-Ugrian peoples. From the 11th century onwards a name Ugria (and variants) occurs in Russian sources, and although its application varies slightly, it is applied to the whole or to some parts of the Ugrian peoples. The linguistic technical term "Ugrian" has been adopted from this Russian denomination.www.kroraina.com/hungar/ds_ohp.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 9, 2010 1:42:14 GMT -5
Because this has to some degree been researched. I even posted a link sometime ago about history of Islam in Hungary, I believe that article was written by Muslims and it even admits historically Islam in Hungray was never very strong or significant in comparison to Christianity in Hungary.
I never heard such things , show me the information if its true.
I dont necessarily agree with the FinnoUgric theory as it stands, for example I dont think enough is known about all the Ugric peoples as the FU theory claims Turkics taught Ugrics equestrian culture,alternatively there is actually reasonable evidence based on linguistics to suggests some Ugrics already had their own Equestrian culture, equestrian words in Magyar are Ugric based not Turkic.
Darwinists ? its based on genetic research. I have posted several links about it in Hungarian forum in past.
Turkics all have their own history which is only similiar up to certain points. Magyars do not speak Turkic and they have their own specific history too as I have said all along, they have their own ethnogenesis this should be respected rather than people like you lumping them in with other groups.
Cumans, and Jasz in Hungray had their own Turkic and Iranian languages too up until only 200 odd years ago, so in the end they became Magyarised, so your above theory could be applied in same way for them.
Because they usually referred to equestrian horde tribes as Turks.
so in the end what I said about you is correct as you admit above.
You are a radical WBB , Hungary at large does not accept your radical and unrealistic ideas.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 8, 2010 0:11:08 GMT -5
Ruled by duress doesn't mean much. Hungarians were predominantly non Muslim. . Not accurate. I have acknowledged Turkic elements amongst the Hungarian tribes. But I do not think that Hungarians at large were Turkic. it should also be noted that though modern-day Hungarians have a predominantly European genetic makeup, Guglielimino and Beres (1996) states that about 13% of the population have retained the other Uralic language speakers' genes, while Tomary, et al. (2007) sees no genetic continuity in the current population, but does see a genetic connection in ancient DNA between the small proportion of the population comprising the ruling class that is linked to Uralic populations ca. 1000 AD (around the time of the formation of the first Hungarian state).[26][27]
The new Hungarian genetic researches established that Hungarians had mostly European origin in the age of St. Stephen's Hungary.[29] According to the conclusion of these new researches, Hungarians of 10-11th centuries had mostly European genetic origin and there are no relevant genetic difference between Hungarian 'leader' population and the 'common' people. Those have same percent European (about 85-90 %, main European Haplogroups occur there) and Asian haplogroups ratios (however the composition of markers are different: B and M Asian haplogroups have dissimilar ratios, 'leader' population has bigger Europid U, X and N1a haplogroup ratios, 'common' population has bigger Europid preV, I, H and T ratios, but both of them have those recited groups, except X, N1a because these were just among 'leader people' and preV, I were just among 'common' people). Moreover, the researchers detected EU19, R1a1 and Tat-C haplogroups in the samples. The anthropological researches support these results (16 percent of the population had Mongolid, Europo-Mongoloid origin in the 10-11th centuries).[30] It might be determined, the conqueror Hungarians had mostly Europid anthropological composition.[31]
Around 830, a civil war broke out in the Khazar khaganate. As a result, three Kabar tribes[38] of the Khazars joined the Magyars and they moved to what the Magyars call the Etelköz, i.e. the territory between the Carpathians and the Dnieper River (today's Ukraine)[citation needed]. Around 854, the Magyars faced a first attack by the Pechenegs.[37] (According to other sources, the reason for the departure of the Magyars to Etelköz was the attack of the Pechenegs. Both the Kabars and earlier the Bulgars may have taught the Magyars their Turkic languages. The new neighbours of the Magyars were the Vikings and the eastern Slavs. Archaeological findings suggest that the Magyars entered into intense interaction with both groups.[citation needed] From 862 onwards, the Magyars (already referred to as the Ungri) along with their allies, the Kabars, started a series of looting raids from the Etelköz to the Carpathian Basin–mostly against the Eastern Frankish Empire (Germany) and Great Moravia, but also against the Balaton principality and Bulgaria en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians. I dont believe it. Look the mainstream finno ugric idea was that Turkics taught the Magyars equestrian steppe horse culture, But interestingly most of the Turkic origin words in Hungarian pertain to agriculture and the word for Horse in Hungarian is of Ugric origin not Turkic, as are many of the words asscociated with equestrian activities are also of Ugrian origin. The word Turk was asscociated with the Turk speaking peoples that came somewhere out of near Mongolia and the Turk empire lasted untill 8th century. Many tribes that were called Turks after that were actually hordes of mixed peoples with certainly a Turkic element, Avars are an example of this as were the late Huns. crap. Not by Hungarians only by others that used the word in a very generallised manner. I am aware of the competition of claiming peoples between Tukists and Iranists. Probably mixed Turko-Irano tribes but could have been many minority groups mixed into them we know even less about Avars and Huns. Dont jest you have insulted Indo European people , western world and christian world constantly. I am not really Islamophobic I am happy to accept any creed that is happy to live peacefully, tollerantly and respectfully of the laws and cultures of the communities they choose to live in. If any creed can be tolerant and flexible enough to live peacefully in a democracy then whats the problem. whatever.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 5, 2010 8:07:44 GMT -5
Then why do u call yourself Arab, at least make up your mind.
I am not the one fabricating Hungarian history as I have seen you do in the past how you did trying to tell people Hungary was historically a Muslim country etc etc.
It wouldnt matter if they had Turkic wives or if certain groups or even leaders were Turkic, what matters is that Hungarians called themselves Magyars and spoke and speak a non Turkic language. This is evidence in itself that they are more Magyarised than Turkicised and that whatever Turkification there was , it was not enough to make them speak Turkic or to maintain it if they did, ultimatly they are and were something of themselves, hence it is wrong to simply classify them as Turks, at best it may be said they were at best part Turkic at a certain time or rather they had Turkic elements. Many groups that were classified as Turks in that time were actually mixed tribes with perhaps Turkic leaders but this did not mean ethnic Turkic purity for all member tribes of the group so let us not deny other ethnic origins of the minorities. In the case of the Hungarians the Magyar element prevailed and dominated and assimilated all groups by language and identity so try learn to accept it.
[/b] So go and tell those stories, but im telling ya that even the Turks in this forum thinks your story is a pseudo-science.[/quote]
I couldnt give a chit what anyone here thinks. What I know for sure is that Hungarians were a mixed people that ultimatly speak a language that is not Turkic. For those ingorants like you that only want to follow some of the Turkic elements that were linked to the Magyars such as the Khazars,Bulgars and later Cumans but who want to ignore other elements such as the Magyars and other integral tribes of whom the majority must have spoke Magyarul and also the culture and peoples of the Carpathians that went into the nation then thats a sign of your ignorance and stupidity.
If the Magyars didnt call themselves Turks and ultimatly went in the direction of which they did then that was their fate , you cant change history no matter how much you would have prefferred for them to have become Muslims or spoken Turkic , these are all your fantasies, keep dreaming as u like I couldnt give a chit, and it wont change reality.
Huns were mixed tribes also, its quite possible they or some of them spoke Turkic but as far as I know there is no record of Hunnic speach, so for all we know they may have or at least some of them may have spoke Magyarul. Havent you heard some people refer to Huns as Scythians others call them Turkics as I said they were mixed groups.
WBB go and read your pro Arab, pro Islamic, pro anti European stuff as much as you like, but just leave Hungarians and Hungary out of it ok, we are as a whole not interested, Hungary has its own history and culture dont confuse yourself too much.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 2, 2010 8:32:35 GMT -5
my meaning is clear, Hungary was a Christian Kingdom from 1000AD and ever since Hungary is predominantly still a Christian country. As I said historically and in modern times. nobody knows exactly how the Huns spoke. Szekely may have spoke Turkic if they were originally from the Kabar, or Bulgar tribes but if they were Hunnic we dont know for sure how was the language. In any case we know Szekely do not speak Turkic now (if they ever did )and this has nothing to do with Slavs or Germans or anyother of your disliked Indo European groups but it has more to do with Magyars as that is the language Szekely speak I have already seen all the very few sentences containing Hungarian words of Turkic origin. People could do same here with other Hungarian words of other origins too it doesnt mean anything about the essence of the Hungarian language, as I have already said linguists will tell you those words you are talking about are borrowings thought to be of Khazar- Bulgar Turkic and we know Hungarians were living closely and in alliances with both those peoples. There is only 300 odd words in Hungarian thought to be of Turkic origin. I am not hostile towards Turkic, why should i be. I dont have specifically pro Armenian views that have any relationship to what we are talking about. I dont think that what you are arguing and nor your readiness to classify Magyars as Turks is something based on strongly scientific research in fact you are quite happy to ignore a lot of information and just opt for the view you prefer. And if we are to talk about or consider biases, then your anti indo european and anti Christian/ anti Western and pro Islamic - Middle Eastern - Turkic etc tendancies are well known. Magyar is not a Turkic word , cut the bullchit. Magyars kept their own language and eventually went there own way leaving behind there former Turkic allies the Khazars and Bulgars. not all of them no. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 2, 2010 1:45:33 GMT -5
when and by whom was that map made. We have spoken about some of the Chroniclers calling the Hungarians Turks and considering Hungarians at that time were allied with strong Turkic peoples such as Khazars this is not so suprising. The term Turk in that context can describe tribal alliances where Turks were probably the dominant party but this does not mean all the allies or subject peoples were Turk by ethnicity,origin, and language yes and many other theories. I have read this idea and I have also read books on Hungarian history where this theory has been discussed and critiqued. I am not convinced, and its just one of many too many theories about the name Magyar/Megyer. I am not Turkish/Turkic or Armenian and neither are you, unless of course you choose to make yourself a citizen of Turkey and make for yourself a Turkic/Turkish identity. If you think that being born into a Hungarian family (which are usually non Muslim) , somehow makes a person Turkish or Turkic in culture and nationality- identity, well good for you but I think thats a little bit delusional as there is very little cultural similarity between modern Hungarians and Turks /Turkics. And yes I am proud of my Hungarian background not you or anyone can tell me not to be. sorry but this is a over cynical and immature argument style in my oppinion. but its not an uncommon one from certain type of nationalist points of view, and its not unique to Hungarians you can find similiar types of whingings from other east euro and balkan countries. In Eastern and southern Europe its not an uncommon thing that peoples have such feelings about there neighbours and other Europeans. European Unity is a pipe dream. Hungarians in certain ways are more like the neighbour people's of that region of Europe than you would like to think. another fairytale.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Dec 2, 2010 1:16:13 GMT -5
Yes like in any democracy, but Toskali's point is correct Hungary is a predominantly Christian country in modern times and historically.
There is no or very few serious linguists that consider Hungarian a Turkic language. The words of old Turkic origin in Hungarian are borrowings and came into the language the same as later Slav words and German words have come into the language.
Unless the person was already aware of this example, I doubt by ear the Hungarian or the Turk would understand each others sentence as the sound of the language is different and is the pronounciation.
As I said before those Hungarian words of old Turkic origin are borrowings I could easily give many examples of Hungarian words that correspond to Slavic and German words. This type of thing is not enough to classify a language, nice try anyway.
see my above message and use yours.
yes all human beings have similarities as there is similaries of the human condition. Besides from that, its still possible to discuss and recognise uniqueness within cultures and nationalities and histories of nations.
Look Hungarians have there own history and their own ethnogenesis , why is that so hard for you to understand and accept.
Hungarians call themselves Magyar, others named them Hungarians. Yes Hungarian is a nationality and ethnicity.
I asked you about what do you think are the cultural similarities between Modern Turks, Mongols and Hungarians instead of answering the question you avoid it by claiming not wanting to waste time.
Face the facts Hungarians do not speak Turkish or Turkic unless its as a second language.
Some of those old chroniclers like Ibn Rusta saw the Hungarians allied and living beside Khazars and other Turanians and classified them as Turks. The Byzantines were probably more correct in labelling them as Scythians as this was a more broadly used term to describe nomadic Turanian type peoples.
I am not denying the historical Turkic or Turanian connections and elements of the early Hungarians but I am saying this is something different to classifying modern Magyars and historical Magyars as Turks/Turkics.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Nov 30, 2010 21:26:43 GMT -5
I agree with Thracian on this one. I have been to America a few times now and I would agree that average people are generally more tolerant and open to foreigners and immigrants than Europe is. USA ,Foreign Policy behaviour is a completly different issue. my experience of America is that its a country of great contradictions , there are the negative things everyone hears about but there a lot of great and positive things too. compared to Europe it's way advanced. Yeah it is actually very tolerant. Foreign policy is another thing - the laws here and rights given to ppl are another. That's why all the gays live in SF b/c we are so intolerant?? That's why you cannot dicriminate ppl by law under employment due to relgiion national origin, and sexual orientation. You are soooo wrong DY.
|
|