wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Dec 8, 2010 6:08:30 GMT -5
How do u know that Hungarians at that time were predominantly non-muslim? Did you lived in that time and actually seen them that they were non-muslims. Cause maybe it could of been 50-50, we never know. But i do heard that many Bosniaks muslims do have Hungarian origin and were Hungarian muslims that were expelled from Hungary, how ever then again the numbers still unknown, and i have also heard that Pomaks (well not all of them) had Hungarian origin and they also expelled from Hungary and settled in Bulgaria and Bulgarised with the rest of the Bulgarian muslims like Pomaks. But this is only based your oppinion influenced by the Finno-Ugric theorist. We Hungarians as whole knows and acknowledge very well that Finno-Ugric isnt correct but a dogmatic theory forcefully imposed on the field of Hungarian history. So what is the next pseudo-science dogmatic theory gonna be for the Hungarians? Hungarians decended from apes or monkeys from Africa? Oszkar you should study a bit harder on Turkology. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) This is only one-sided oppinion based by the Darwinist who are playing with genetics, but really it's not correct. We need the accurate info, not the Darwinist pseudo-science. You see that's the problem, if we ever going to research and investigate the unknown, we need to do it without the influence and support by the Darwinist who are investigating nothing but a dogmatic bedtime stories for adults. you may find it crap but im telling ya, Germans, Slavs, Gypsies, Armenians got their own history, they most definately wouldnt need the Hungarian-Turkic element so they adopted there own and claim such and such that they are Hungarians and they from Germany, India, Armenia, etc,etc. Now with the Jewish assimilation, they are introducing their own history into the Hungarian history claiming that Hungarians came from Israel wearing sandals and cover their face with headscarf while they live in the desert. Can i tell you something? They are not Hungarians, they just Hungarian by-language but identifically they are not Hungarians. That's how i meant with Hungarian history being fabricated by those Hungarian wanna-bees. How do you know that they generallised? Have you met them, have you spoke to them, did you live back in those days? I dont give a chit about Indo-European people, to me are they just a bunch of retards. Hungarians are not Indo-European and never will be. I dont care about Western world either, there's nothing in the west but prostitution, depression, crime, anarchy. The West is indeed in anarchy. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) The West contributed nothing to Hungary but destruction, ownership and wars and anarchy as we can still see it now with this Orban Viktor or Gyurcsany in power. Hungary needs radical changes in politics, we truely had enough of this Capitalist-Communist Cold War games. And now with the European Union making things worst of Hungary as well.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Dec 10, 2010 1:16:47 GMT -5
Maybe but not 100%, not even 45%. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) First of all article written by Muslims may have error, it's got nothing to do with admitting. Secondly even if Islam wasnt strong in Hungary, Islam still entered Hungary. 3 religion Christianity, Islam and Shamanism was the religion Magyars were practicing. There was Magyar muslims and there will always be Magyar muslims out there. Today is the re-awakening for Magyar muslims to revive there religion, and many Magyars are still entering Islam, cause they realised the Islam religion was the religion that some Arpad's Magyar tribes were practicing. Im gonna post you some source about it, even Magyar christians knows more about it than I do. Finno-Ugric theory is a theory in crisis as much as Darwinism is also a theory in crisis. But honestly have you ever heard about Karachay-Balkars or Kabardino-Balkars? Do you really know who they are? Come to the Hungarian forum, and we chat about it, what i have found so far, probably the Hungarians in majority is not aware of this. Rather than both of us warring each other in an Arabesque style (Ugric-Turkic theory war) over the origin of Magyars, we should look up more on this Balkars people living in the Caucasus, cause im telling ya, we not gonna get anywhere with this Ugro-Turkic war. yeah written by Darwinist scientist and geneticist and not by Creationist. Since majority of scientist and scientifical research is all based on Darwinism. They are the one at the highest peak at the moment, they are the one that controls all scientific media like newspaper, radio, books, internet and TVs in a dogmatic way rather than scientific way. Those 2 people are very people loyal type of Magyarised people, not like the Gypsies, Germans, etc,etc. They accept the Magyar-Turkic element of history rather than any pseudo-science styled History. 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. why correct? cause im nationalist and i believe that Hungarians has the right to exist as a nation rather than destruction? Im radical? In order for Hungary and Hungarian's survival to succeed, they have to survive radically. If someone want to point a knife at you just because your Hungarian, wouldnt you have to survive radically? Think about it. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
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
|
|