Za Atila, "ata" e bashta v tjurski, no "Atila" se smjata, che idva ot gotskoto "atta", pak "bashta", s umalitelno okonchanie. > A za guri i az mislia che e sigurno Tjurksko vapreki che sred tjurkskite narodi mai s >izkljuchenie na Uigurite go niama. mi "guri" e tochno r-Turkic, za razlika ot obiknovenoto tjurksko "guzi". S tova "r" te se rodejat poveche i s mongolskija. "Ono-guri" - "deset streli/deset plemena". Za po-lesno napravo da prepratja kakvoto sym zapazil ot usenet: ********** From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.magyar,soc.culture.mongolian Subject: Re: Relationship between Korean and Japanese Re: japanese are desendents of chinese? Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:58:09 GMT Organization: World Access / Planet Internet >Between Mongolian and Hungarian? Sure there are some, but they are mostly >words of Turkic and Turko-Mongol origin like tenger ('sea' comp. Mongolian >'tengis'), apa ('dad', comp. Mongolian 'aav'), alma (apple', comp. Mong. >'alim'), bator (brave, com. Mong. 'baatar'), mascka (cat, comp. Mong. muujgai >or is it just onomapoteia?) etc. > >As we know, Magyars were Eurasian nomads before settling in Panonnia and they >just might have picked a few words from their steppe neighbours. The borrowings are specifically R-Turkic (as in the word , vs. Z-Turkic ~ ). The only extant R-Turkic language is that of the Chuvash on the Middle Volga, believed to be the descendants of the Volga Bulgars. The closest relatives to the Hungarians/Magyars, the Mansi and the Khanty, live just east of the Ural mountains, and it is likely that the Magyars passed through the Middle Volga region or thereabouts on the way to Europe. There they confederated themselves with the Bulgar/R-Turkic tribe known as Onogur (cf. Z-Turkic "ten arrows/tribes"). The name "Hungarian" derives from "Onogur". ... ************* >Osven tova mislia che na Ungarski oguri ili ugori znachi >neshto kato narod, nali te Ungarcite sa bili narichani Tjurki. ungarcite sa bili otnavhalo sedem (deset maj v po-kysni iztochnici) plemena, njakoi ot tjah ugro-finski/madzharski, drugi - altajski, (r-)tjurkski. Nali se smjata i che imeto "Ungarija" idva ot "prabylgarskite onoguri" koito bili tam predi madzharite da dojdat. Pak edna stara izvadka ot usenet. *************** Subject: Re: Wi No Huns? From: mircea@enteract.com (Mircea) Date: 1998/06/04 Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if ... The federation's multi-ethnic character, polarized around its two main components, one Ugric and one Altaic, had lasting effects. For example, Transylvania (Erdely) became a distinct administrative region outside Magyarorszag because while Arpad with the Ugric tribes settled in Pannonia, Gyula, with an entourage mostly Altaic, moved in Transylvania. Documentary sources reveal that the division was more than an administrative one. Describing the lands of Hungary during the 10th century, al-Masudi mentions Baskarde in Magyarorszag and Turks in Transylvania. Abulfedae Annales Moslemici talks about Baskunds in Magyarorszag and Hunkars in Transylvania. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who around 950 was visited by high-ranking Kabars from Transylvania, mentions that the Turks (Hungarians) were a bilingual tribal federation, and that the two entities were still learning each others tongue. ... *************** On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 16:25:56 -0400, Shadow-Eyes wrote: > Actually the Magyars and the Huns are more closely related then >scholars have previsouly though. This is accoring to Pritsak. Omeljan Pritsak's theory regarding the language of the Huns was elaborated in 1982. Eight years latter, summarizing what's known about the Huns' language, Denis Sinor concluded that, in his opinion, there is simply not enough evidence for a definite statement in this matter: To begin with, there is no incontrovertible evidence concerning their language. It is of course certain that many languages were used within the Hun dominion and it can be taken for granted that some of these were Germanic. But only a few words of the Hun language – mostly personal names – were noted down in contemporary sources and their analysis or, should we say, decipherment has not yielded generally accepted or acceptable solutions. We cannot here take up the task of a detailed, linguistic refutation of at-least four serious attempts made by outstanding scholars (in chronological order: Nemeth, Doerfer, Maenchen-Helfen, Pritsak) but I would indicate the main reasons for my own scepticism. It is clear that words beginning with a consonant cluster, such as the proper names Bleda or Scottas, or the word strava, a Hun term for a funeral feast, cannot be Altaic. The same verdict would be applicable to proper names with an initial r-, such as Ruga. However, some Hun personal names, such as Iliger, Dengizikh, have a decidedly Turkic character and lend support to the a priori assumption that the Huns were Turks or Mongols. The fact that the Bulgars of Asparukh – whom we considered descendants of the Huns led by Irnikh – were Turks is also a strong argument in favor of the hypothesis that at least part of the Hun leadership was Turkic speaking, and so were the Caucasian Huns of the 7th century. [Sinor, D., 1990, The Hun period. In: The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Ed. by Denis Sinor), Cambridge University Press, 177-205.] ... ************** Subject: Re: Wi No Huns? From: mircea@enteract.com (Mircea) Date: 1998/06/01 Message-ID: <35731a09.268198@news.enteract.com> Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if On 29 May 1998 17:07:05 -0500, Zsolt Csiszar wrote: >The Hungary name is probably coming throug the French Hongrie, which probably from >the latin Hungaria. Yet Hungaria comes from "Ungari," the German-Latin variant of the name "Onogur." Some Onogurs were once part of the Hunnic federation in Pannonia. After the Hunnic empire vanquished, leftover Onogurs and Huns retreated to the Pontic steppes. Centuries later, some Onogurs made it to Pannonia as auxiliaries of the Avars. After Charlemagne eliminated the Avars, surviving Onogurs made it back, again, to the Pontic steppes where they formed a new nomadic federation, Magyars' ancestors included, and led it to Pannonia in 896. >This Magyar was the most important tribe of the Hungarians Numerically, maybe. But before the 896 arrival in Pannonia and for a while after, the Onogurs were the dominant political party (that's why the new country, Hungary, was named after them) and the Kabars were the leading military force. When listing the tribes of the original nomadic federation, even the oldest Hungarian chronicles, put the Majghari in the third position. >Arpad was the chief of the Magyar tribe who was elected the chief of all Hungarians >before they took over their new home in the Danubian basin. According to the Hungarian tradition, Almus, Arpad's father, was the son of Ugek, an Onogur chieftain who married Emesu, the daughter of a Majghari leader. Almus son of Ugek was elected to lead the newly-formed, multi-ethnic federation of Altaic Onogurs, Ugric Majghari, and other nomadic tribes. Why Almus? Because his Onoguric lineage on the paternal side gave him rights to the lands of Pannonia, a land that once belonged to a certain king Attila from whom Almus, father of Arpad, descended. ... *********** Ako njakoj go interesuva po-podrobno moga da pratja celija arhiv, 100-200 Kb :-) Tozi Mircea (istinsko ime Liviu Iordache) mi beshe pratil i syotvetnata statija na I. Boba ("The Pannonian Onogurs, Khan Krum and the formation of the Bulgarian and Hungarian polities." Bulgarian Historical Review, 1983, 1, 73-76), no neshto sym ja zatril javno. > ____Ha, ha, che te veche sa se podgotvili za abordazh. Cialata im r-tjrkska rabota se krepi >na savremennia chuvshki i na s nishto nepotvardenata im dogadka che Chuvashkia e svarzan s >Prabulgarskia. Kade sa im dokazatelstvata che prabulgarite sa govorili r-tjurkic. imat r-tjurkski nadgrobni nadpisi ot 13-14 vek (s isljamsko sydyrzhanie) ot Volzhska Bylgarija. Az mu oponirah na Gursey, che sa dosta kysni i po-syshtata logika bi trjabvalo da izkarame dunavskite prabylgari za slavjani, oshte ot 10-11 vek, no toj ne jdisva. Bilo imalo r-tjurski zaemki, ranni pri tova - 6-7 vek maj, v ezicite na njakakvi ugro-finski plemena, koito malko po-kysno se bili iznesli ot povolzhieto za kym Sibir. Osven tova imalo mnogo seriozen r-tjurski plast v ungarskija, kojto naj-verojatno se bil dylzhal na po-rannite "prabylgari onoguri" tam. >Specialno mi e ljubopitno zashto Ziezi, z?oapan, Anzi, Zenty, Zera, Zvinica i drugi >sa taka a ne Rieri, roapan/ako z ne ebilo izpolzvano za zh estestveno/, Anri, Renty, Rera, Rvinica. da de, ama zashto mislish, che tezi imena sa imali tochno tozi pratjurski zvuk *r2 na mjastoto na "z"-to? Originalni tjurski dumi zapochvashti sys "z" ili "ch" maj njama (vzemi i "chorba", kojato e persijska zaemka v turski). Ako si zabeljazal Gursey dopuska iranski proizhod za goljam broj ot Dobrevite dumi (kato gi razglezhda kato eventualno alanski), no otstojava i nalichieto na (r-)tjurski etimologii. T.e. che e imalo I takiva plemena. A sega koi tochno ot tezi iranski (alanski ili ne) i tjurski plemena sa bili ot "originalnite" prabylgari nego ne go interesuva osobeno. Za nego sa vazhni ezikovite svidetelstva za nalichieto na takyv "dreven" r-tjurkski, koeto javno e syshtestveno ot gledna tochka na razvitieto na tova ezikovo semejstvo. T.e. Dobrev kakvoto se stremi da ustanovi prabylgari-iranci v Sredna Azija/Pamir, Gursey kazva "Dobre" i ne mu puka osobeno. Tyj che se ustanovi njakakyv modus vivendi i vse pak gledam da naucha neshto novo i ot nego. >A tova za metatezata - brei Pritsak da ne bi da znae Bulgarski, koi mu kaza za taia metateza >kakto pri v'rh i vr'h, sashto v'lk i vl'k, b'rz i br'z. Onia den tochno tova obsazhdahme. he-he, tova za bl@gari-b@lgari az samija go dadoh kato iljustracija na idejata mu. Ne znam dali Pritsak go e spomenaval.