If you have not already noticed, they oddly are related. This is wierd because even though I have not seen any real Hungarians I have seen pictures. There is almost no resemblence whatsoever:confused: But the language is somewhat the same. Post explanations and anything else on this:)

If you have not already noticed, they oddly are related. This is wierd because even though I have not seen any real Hungarians I have seen pictures. There is almost no resemblence whatsoever:confused: But the language is somewhat the same. Post explanations and anything else on this:)

The maygars did not come from Hungary only settled there. The speak a finno-ugric language which is why most historians think they drifted down from the baltic originally.

I thought they were Magyars, not Maygars.

1. The Magyars originally originated somewhere around the Kyrgyz Steppes
2. There language is slightly similar to finno-ugric languages, so they are often categorized with them
3. The best theory out there is that the Uighurs and Magyars are close relatives, this comes form the remarkable similarities of the languages (more so than Hungarian to finno-ugic languages) and to an even greater extent the music
--I am of Hungarian descent so I have done quite a bit of research on this so don't just go blowing me off or something because I don't agree with those people who feel that all languages and ethnic groups need to fit into a larger group or chaos will consume us all.

Uygurs are a turkic people from east turkistan and turkic languages are similar
Hungarian( Attila is my cousin's name).

If you have not already noticed, they oddly are related. This is wierd because even though I have not seen any real Hungarians I have seen pictures. There is almost no resemblence whatsoever:confused: But the language is somewhat the same. Post explanations and anything else on this:)

Hungarian is indeed related (distantly) to the Finno/ugric languages. It has the ö and ä sounds (Uhmlaut) that the Finno/Ugric languages have. You will not really find too many similiarities because Hungarian diverged from the Finno/ugric languages so long ago. All of the Finno/Ugric peoples (Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Lapps, etc) come from the same area of orgin the Volga area (Volgan Mutka) just west of the Ural mountains. There used to be one Uralic language spoken by all of these peoples, that is before the peoples started to mass move to the west.

Wikipedia can give a more scientific explanation then i can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-ugric_language_family

O, I didnt spell Magyars right. Oh well.
Anyways I guess the Hungarians suffered the same fate as the fennic ancient language. Mingled with the germanic and romantic speakers in the area they settled.

Anyways I guess the Hungarians suffered the same fate as the fennic ancient language. Mingled with the germanic and romantic speakers in the area they settled.

I really wouldn't call it "suffered". Since, mingling actually did not change their language too much, only slighty influenced it. The same is true with Finnish, except with Russian and Swedish. As for their looks, meh who cares. Their still relative peoples.

Reno- That is only one theory. The other one, the one I put forth, realtes the Magyars much more closely to the Uighurs based in large part on the huge resemblance in musical styles. There are actually melodies that can be found nearly exactly the same in both groups. Of course, another theory that bridges the two, suggests that the more common Finno-Ugric groups (Finns, Estonians, Lapps, etc.) are one branch of teh family while the Uighurs and Magyars make up the other branch. Supporters of this say that the Uighurs migrated south with the Magyars for a short period before sperating and migrating east while the Magyars migrated west first to Ukraine, then eventually to Hungary. Becuase of the isolation of the Uighurs, they adopted many of the Turkic customs and interbred with the Turkics, although, they still maintain racial markings of an Indo-European people. Wikipedia mentions this in the article but does not mention these two theories unfortunately, if i remmember correcectly. The similarities between the Uighurs and the Magyars are quite astuonding.

Actually, the Magyars also had a lot of intermixing with the Turks before settling in Hungary, so their language borrowed from old Turkic dialects, making it that much more different from Finnish. Its roots are still Finno-Ugric, though.

The Irish and the Persians: Lost cousins as well.

Der Sensenmann- As stated, that is only one theory. It is very annoying when people post but don't bother to respond to others.

Aion- Please, explain, but on a different thread.

Aion- Please, explain, but on a different thread.

Nah, I won't elaborate on this. What I meant is that the linguistic affinity of Finnish and Hungarian is quite distant. Just like Gaelish and Persian are cognates (both belong to sub-branches of the Indo-European family). In fact even the names Éire and Iran (along with 'Aryan') probably come from a common root.
But to come back to the topic, it's a common misunderstanding that Finnish and Hungarian would be very similar to one another because they're both Fenno-Ugric languages. Their grade of affinity might indeed be compared with Gaelic and Persian.

"The Hungarians are a Finno-Ugric people related distantly to Finns, Estonians, Kurs, and some smaller groups in modern Russia. This means that Hungarian is not an Indo-European language, and is therefore quite different from most of its neighbors' languages. Their original homeland some 3000 years ago was in the Ural mountains but they migrated over several centuries southward and westward until around the 9th century A.D. when they broke free from an old alliance with the powerful Turkic Khazar empire. A combined Pecheneg-Bulgar attack in 896 forced the Magyars (as the Hungarians call themselves) westward, and they seized the southern part of a Slavic empire in old Roman Pannonia, in the Carpathian Basin. This is where present-day Hungary is located."

This was posted by Vrylakas in an old thread a long time ago.

As for the cousinship, there are only a few words that are similar ("hal" which means "fish" is one of them I believe). Once I saw Kalevala in Finnish with Hungarian subtitles and I was very surprised that I could not get a thing from the Finnish language... It was really cool though.

Once I saw Kalevala in Finnish with Hungarian subtitles and I was very surprised that I could not get a thing from the Finnish language... It was really cool though.

Hungarian is only a distant relative of Finnish, so i am not so suprised. :)

As for the cousinship, there are only a few words that are similar

All of the Finno-Ugric languages share structural features and basic vocabulary. Around 200 basic words. This common vocabulary includes at least 55 words related to fishing, 33 related to hunting, 12 related to reindeer, 17 related to plant foods, 31 related to technology, 26 related to building, 11 related to clothing, 18 related to climate, 4 related to society, 11 related to religion, and 3 related to commerce, giving an interesting picture of proto-Finno-Ugric society. :)

I've recently been reading the book "A History of Hungary", which was written by 18 authors from Hungary, Canada, the U.S., and Western Europe. Slightly outdated (published 1990), it does have a very good over view, written by Laszlo Makkai, on the origins of the Hungarian peoples. While the Finns, Estonians, and others form the region come form the Finn part of the Finno-Ugric proto-culture, the Hungarians and Uighurs came from the Ugric part of the Finno-Ugric proto-culture. Unlike the term 'Indo-European', Finno-Ugric, as far as my knowledge gows, refers not to modern location but to two sub cultural groups. This means that while the Finns and Hungarians are distantly related, the Hungarians are more closely related to the Uighurs. Also, because of the time periods during which the Hungarians lived as part of the Turkic Onogur Tribal Confederacy and under the Khazar Khaganate, they have much more Turkic influence than the Finns. Likewise, they have much more Greek influence becuase of the Byzantine Empire's influence to there south and Roman influence because of the prominence of the Roman Catholic Church in Hungary. While it is true that the Finns and Hungarians are distantly related as members of the Finno-Ugric family, the Hungarians, unlike the Finns, are a Ugric people with much closer ties to the Uighurs, who, I might add, have some words that are similar to the Finno-Ugric words scatered throughout there vocabulary, which many linguists believe, especially when taken in context with other evidence such as folk music and racial type, that the Uighurs originally spoke a Finno-Ugric language but latter adopted a Turkic language do to there circumstances.

Hungarians are distantly related as members of the Finno-Ugric family, the Hungarians, unlike the Finns, are a Ugric people with much closer ties to the Uighurs, who, I might add, have some words that are similar to the Finno-Ugric words scatered throughout there vocabulary, which many linguists believe, especially when taken in context with other evidence such as folk music and racial type, that the Uighurs originally spoke a Finno-Ugric language but latter adopted a Turkic language do to there circumstances.

:hmm: Highly unlikely on that last one. Uighurs have fairly well been documented through contact with Chinese civilization as speaking a Turkic language as early as the 6th century. The name "Uighur" derives from a Turkic tribal concept of autonomous but cooperating tribes. Also, it is very unlikely that any given people will just give up their native language and start speaking a completely unrelated language. People borrow linguistic terms and concepts, but not languages. If a territory shows evidence of a Ugric language being spoken, then replaced by a Turkic language - the most likely story is that the Turkic-speakers displaced the Ugrian-speakers.

Ancient Magyar's closest living linguistic relatives - and these are widely accepted as such in the linguistics community - are the Mansi languages of northeastern Siberia: Ob-Ugrian, Ugrian, Vogul, Ostyak. Among much other linguistic evidence, modern Hungarian culture has a peculiar singing rhythm in its folk music, and this rhythm is echoed by the Mansi peoples almost exactly. The name "Mansi" itself may be related to "Magyar" (if the term "Magyar" derived from the root term for "mondanni", to speak, as some linguists believe).

Finally, when talking about linguistic relations, it is important to remember we're talking about languages and not peoples. That there is a linguistic relation between modern Hungarian and Finnish, however distant, does not imply that there is a "blood" or genetic relationship.

Once I saw Kalevala in Finnish with Hungarian subtitles and I was very surprised that I could not get a thing from the Finnish language... It was really cool though.

Hej, Laci! Good to see you around! How's Manhattan? ;)

I helped a friend serve as guides for some Finns once and I just could not understand a word of what they were saying, though the cadence of their speech seemed similar.

Oh yes and I've been listening some Hungarian band called Hiperkarma music and its lyrics are in tempo very similar to in a Finnish rock song. Not that I coud understand any of them though :D

Later the Hungarian foreign students helped me to translate some of the lyrics..they had some good Hungarian spirit with them as well...I cant seem to recall its name I wonder why :p

Any suggestions, I will recognise the name when I'll see it.

Oh yes and I've been listening some Hungarian band called Hiperkarma music and its lyrics are in tempo very similar to in a Finnish rock song. Not that I coud understand any of them though :D

Later the Hungarian foreign students helped me to translate some of the lyrics..they had some good Hungarian spirit with them as well...I cant seem to recall its name I wonder why :p

Any suggestions, I will recognise the name when I'll see it.

That must have been Unikum.
Or maybe some kind of pálinka (peach, apple, pears?).
;)

I know that linguisticaly the Uighurs are nto the closest surviving relatives of the Magyars, but they are a closer relative than the Finns. Also, you state that peoples don't simply give up their language. While this is generally true, peoples living under the rule of another people will often adopt the ruling culture's language. If this were not so, the Chinese would speak thousands of different languages almost equally rather than mainly different Chinese dialects, sam to be said of the Native Americans, who have all but forgotten their native tongues in something like 500-200 years. In addition, you mention the rythm of Magyar music, this is actually the main reason that the Uighurs where first considered possible Magyar relatives. The music is so similar that it was almost as if the Magyar folk songs had simply been translated into Uighur, rather than being different songs. Besides this, genetic evidence links them to having Finno-Ugric or Indo-European ancestors. The fact that the music and a scattering of words are so similar leads many to believe that the Uighur must be of Finno-Ugric descent.

Unikum! That was it! :goodjob:

I never actually heard true Magyar (or Hungarian if you like) folk music, by the term Hungarian we understand Csardas performed with violins and cymbals (you know, the big wooden box with more than hundred strings). But as I understand this is more of a gypsy influenced music? (100 violins orchestra, Monty csardas, etc...) Cause I heard similar music played by french gypsies.

There is a nice example of a whole people "borrowing a language" from an other people. The Bulgarians. I do not know what they where to begin to (possibly some sort of turkic tribe, but I have read that they adopted their present slavic language when they moved to their present location.

(I believe it was History of Europe by J.M. Roberts)

Oh, and I have a more general one, but more jucy:

The Prussians took their name from a Baltic people (close relatives of Latvians and Lithuanians) who resided aproximately in the area of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) untill the 13th century. They wiped them out savagely in the name of christianity and stole their name.

There is a nice example of a whole people "borrowing a language" from an other people. The Bulgarians. I do not know what they where to begin to (possibly some sort of turkic tribe, but I have read that they adopted their present slavic language when they moved to their present location.

They didn't adopt the Slavic language (the language of the peoples they ruled) but Slavs eventually were able to penetrate leadership positions in the Bulgar empire(s), rather like how the Slavs quickly penetrated and overwhelmed the Varangian leadership of early Rus. In Bulgaria's case though, the (Turko-Chuvash-speaking) Bulgar leadership fairly early on accepted Slavs into their ranks and integrated quickly with the underlying Slavic society which probably vastly outnumbered the Bulgars. Nonetheless, it was never a case of the Slav language merely supplanting the Bulgar; many original Turkic-Bulgar words survive in modern Bulgarian. This is apparently not the case in modern Uighur, i.e. that Ugric words have survived into the modern language. For instance, all of the modern Slavic languages have the same terms for the third person singular (i.e., "He", "She" and "It"): On, Ona, Ono - except Bulgarian, which uses той (toj), тя (tja) and то (to). Among the Slavic languages, when describing rules or traits, it is common to hear "all Slavic languages...except Bulgarian...." Bulgarian still retains a lot of its historical non-Slavic properties, and if Uighur was once a Ugric language, then so should it as well.

Oh, and I have a more general one, but more jucy:

The Prussians took their name from a Baltic people (close relatives of Latvians and Lithuanians) who resided aproximately in the area of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) untill the 13th century. They wiped them out savagely in the name of christianity and stole their name.

That's quite different, as that was one people replacing another - a common event in history. A people simply do not give up on their own language and start speaking another, even in situations of occupation or conquest. Economics has proven a very effective language changer, but whenever a population moves towards another language elements of their original language always survive.

And BTW, the name "Prussian" was what the surrounding Slavic peoples called the original Baltic-speakers; we don't know what they called themselves. The name stuck to the region - the Prussian lands - and so, over time, quite naturally people living in the Prussian lands came (again) to be called Prussians. It wasn't stolen...

I've consulted some professional linguists specializing in the Ural-Altaic and Ugric languages, and have been told I may get a response early this week. I will share when I hear back. In the very least it sounds extremely unlikely for a people to just drop their own language and start speaking another.

I've heard th name Pro-or PreRussian somewhere...as a preform to the world Prussian..it was Preuss in German no?

In the very least it sounds extremely unlikely for a people to just drop their own language and start speaking another.

Eh... So what did the Gauls and the Iberians do in Roman times? Or many of the Native Americans?

Vrylakas

Your comment on the Bulgars was very informative and interesting, the Roberts book was, I must admit, very short (aprox 700 pages) so it did not contain specific enough info. Its main downside was its unilaterally western approach where eastern history (perhaps with the exception of Russia) was largely inadequate.

About Prussia, the “Prussians” where conquered by the Teutonic knights during the thirteenth century, later to become a Polish fiefdom. The source of Prussian power came from Brandenburg which later came to incorporate German Prussia into itself in 1701. The centre of Prussia did however continue to be Brandenburg with Berlin as its capital.
So it was the lands of the Teutonic knights that where known as Prussia which later came to be called merely “East Prussia” as a part of the greater Prussia of the seventeenth century.

So I guess I partly agree with you there.

Interestingly where Brandenburg now lays was once the lands of a Slavic people (the “Wieleci”) that the germans incorporated into themselves as an effect of their migration eastwards not hindered until 1410 at Grunwald/Tannenberg. There was always someone there first. Weren’t the Saxons there before that?

Where the Avars the same people as the Magyar, I know they where some sort of Turkic tribe situated in the area of western Romania of today since 567 ad and later those lands where Magyar by ca 1000 ad. When did the Hungarians get there?

Eh... So what did the Gauls and the Iberians do in Roman times? Or many of the Native Americans?

That's called displacement. In both cases these groups were conquered by outsiders who formed an administrative elite and as well colonized. In the case of the Gauls, some recent scholars have argued that they were rarely more than a loose collection of semi-related tribes whose Celto-Gaullic identity was solidified after the Roman and later Germanic onslaughts, as a reaction against outside invasion. The American (Plains) indians were forcibly Americanized and had their children taken from them and raised in American-style schools. Ancient peoples, who did not have the notions of ethno-nationalism that we have, did not do things like this.

But in both cases, the various Indian tribes and the various Gaullic tribes, they still managed to retain some aspects of their former cultures to our own day. I lived in New York state for some years and experienced first-hand local Seneca and Tuscarora (Iroquois) Indians still speaking their native language - though they also knew English. The Uighurs show no traits of a Ugric/Uralic -speaking people.

Your comment on the Bulgars was very informative and interesting, the Roberts book was, I must admit, very short (aprox 700 pages) so it did not contain specific enough info. Its main downside was its unilaterally western approach where eastern history (perhaps with the exception of Russia) was largely inadequate.

It has been my long experience that Western histories are far too often short on Eastern European history.

About Prussia, the “Prussians” where conquered by the Teutonic knights during the thirteenth century, later to become a Polish fiefdom. The source of Prussian power came from Brandenburg which later came to incorporate German Prussia into itself in 1701. The centre of Prussia did however continue to be Brandenburg with Berlin as its capital.

Nothing new for me here. My wife is from Torun/Thorn of old Prussia, so I've spent a lot of time in the north (though my family is from points east in the old Kresy). An important point to note however is that the Teutonic Knights, recently having been booted out of Jerusalem and the Crusades (and Hungary), were merely acting in conjunction with their initial sponsor - Konrad Mazowiecki (of Mazovia). Poland's central "government" (if you can call a medieval administration a government) had imploded in 1138 with the death of the last of the powerful Piasts, Boleslaw III ("Krzywousty") and would not revive until the early 14th century. Konrad, duke of Mazovia, was trying to seize real estate from the Baltic Prussians on his own initiative and equally on his own initiative had invited the Deutsches Ritteren in 1225 when the Prussians began launching devastating retaliatory raids into Chelmno and Mazovia. The convenient fact that they were non-Christians sealed the Mazovian-Teutonic Knights deal, and it was called a crusade by both sides. In the 1950s Hermann Schreiber wrote an excellent book called, when translated into English, Teuton and Slav, the Struggle for Central Europe. It is a fairly balanced book that goes into excellent detail on, among other issues, the destruction of the Baltic Prussians. It is in some regards gruesome reading but by no account unusual for its age. A good recommendation. Schreiber mentions for instance that there were reports of isolated villages still speaking the old Baltic Prussian as late as the early 18th century.

So it was the lands of the Teutonic knights that where known as Prussia which later came to be called merely “East Prussia” as a part of the greater Prussia of the seventeenth century.

Not really true; the Prussian state came to control many more lands far beyond its original medieval mandate, even before the Brandenburg unification. The Teutonic Knights came into frequent conflict for instance with two other German knightly organizations independently formed in the northern Baltic lands (modern Estonia and Latvia) as a result of earlier German migrations, and as well the Hansa city League resisted the Teutonic Knights. The eventual Prussian capital, Königsberg, was hated by those connected to the old Order as it represented the land-owning junker and middle classes who had derived from waves of German migrations and not from the ranks of the Teutonic Order. It was these two groups in fact who rioted in 1793 when Danzig/Gdansk was formally incorporated into the Prussian state; they preferred the autonomy of old Polish rule and distrusted the Hohenzollerns who romanticized the old Teutonic Order.

The name "Prussia" is simply older Slavic for "Po-rusy", the lands by/near the Rus. ("Rus" here may mean the Eastern Slavic civilization or the 10th-13th centuries, or either the Vikings of Scandinavia or possibly one of many early proto-Finnic tribes who wandered much of the modern Russian northwest, all of whom used the expression 'Rus' or 'Ruotsi' in some context.) In fact, modern Hungarian has preserved a remarkable amount of early Slavic place and people names inherited from the Moravian Slavs inhabiting the Carpathian Basin when the Magyars stormed it in the late 9th century) - for instance, Hungarians refer to Italians as "Olasz", derived from the old Slavic "ulah" or "vlah" for the Latin peoples - and the modern Hungarian term for Prussia is again the old Slavic version: "Poroszorgszág". (The "-ország" simply means "land" or "country". "Porosz" is derived from the Slavic "po-rusy", slurred even in modern Polish as "Prusy". The gist here is that you really can't take much from the Prussians' name as applying to a Baltic people who may not have even used it themselves and a later German people who picked up the name as a geographic moniker, rather like how von Bismark once remarked that for him, "Italy" would always be nothing more than a regional term.

Interestingly where Brandenburg now lays was once the lands of a Slavic people (the “Wieleci”) that the germans incorporated into themselves as an effect of their migration eastwards not hindered until 1410 at Grunwald/Tannenberg. There was always someone there first. Weren’t the Saxons there before that?

Europe is a peninsula, at the western-most end of a big landmass. There've been lots of peoples who have wandered the northern plains that stretch from the Urals to the Bay of Biscay. We only know the names of a few of the more (relatively) recent peoples.

In English these Slavs are referred to either as "Sorbs" or the German "Wends". In Polish we call the Slavs living below Potsdam in modern Germany the Luzycy (or sometimes "Serboluzycy"), meaning respectively the Lausatians and Serbo-Lusatians. They're what's left over after Charlesmagne's efforts in the late 8th century to push the Slavs back across the Elbe. The Lausatians' languagem considered today a Western Slavic language, is surprisingly close to Polish.

Where the Avars the same people as the Magyar, I know they where some sort of Turkic tribe situated in the area of western Romania of today since 567 ad and later those lands where Magyar by ca 1000 ad. When did the Hungarians get there?

No, the Avars were a largely Turkic tribal confederation while Hungarians are/were a Finno-Ugric people. The Avars entered Europe in the 6th century, destroying the Gepidic empire and taking up residence in the Carpathian Basin (i.e., modern Hungary and northwestern Romania). They were a Steppe culture and played an important role in European history for the next two and a half centuries until the Franks took advantage of an Avar civil war and trashed them in the early 9th century. When the Magyars (early Hungarians) moved into this same region decades later, they found the shards and remnants of Avar culture, mostly through several tribal groups who had piggy-backed with the Avars and followed them into Europe - among them, the Slavs.

If you're interested in some rough aspects of Hungarian and late Steppe culture, I once got into a ridiculous debate over Hungarian origins but which churned up a lot of source info in this thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-65862.html

Unfortunately it has only been preserved in archive form so it's a bit difficult to follow, but you'll get the idea.

***********************************

NOW, on to the main point of this discussion: Whether modern Uighur, a Turkic language spoken in what is today northwestern China, was ever in fact a Ugric language (and therefore related to Hungarian, as well as other similar languages in northeastern Siberia). My contention is that no, the idea is absurd that a people would ever give up their language entirely and just start speaking an entirely different language, with no trace of their earlier linguistic affiliation. I used a common website operated by professional linguists to ask whether this was indeed the case, and so far all responses agree that it is not possible. Here is a quote from the most succinct response:

Reply:
Uyghur is an Eastern Turkic language related to Uzbec, and, more distantly, to Azerbaijani and Turkish. It belongs to the Turkic branch of Altaic, a group made up of the Mongolian, Tungus, and Turkic languages. While a broader Atlaic including, perhaps, Korean and Japanese, is pretty much rejected among comparative linguists, this narrower Altaic is probably valid but still controversial. There has been a claim that Uralic and Altaic made up a Ural-Altaic family, but this claim has been almost universally rejected. Since the Turkic peoples spread into Turkey from the east, it's likely that the Turkic peoples originated in Central or East Central Asia. Uralic, which includes Finnish, Estonian, Samoyed, and other languages of NW Russia and the NE Baltic, has its homeland well to the NW of Turkic, and the likelihood of enough contact to lead to language adoption is remote. Uyghur, together with other Turkic languages, can be reconstructed back to Proto-Turkic with some clarity. Thus the possibility that the Uyghur peoples of western China were originally Uralic is truly remote.

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University

Reply From: Herbert Frederic Stahlke Date: Dec-12-2005
Available here: http://cf.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/ask-ling/message-details1.cfm?asklingid=200355406

An important point about Uighur is that it is not just another Turkic language; it was the language and script adopted by Genghis Khan (and therefore used widely for centuries) for the literary needs of his empire, and therefore has a wide-spread history in written form, which demonstrates quite clearly that this is a native Turkic language and not a Ugric-Turkic hybrid.

Sorry folks, but there simply is no connection between Uighur and the Ugric languages.

I must confess that my knowledge of the situation with the Teutonic knights is largely comprised of what I learned in the sixth grade. Recently dough I was smitten by a sudden elevation of interest in that part of history after reading this rather entertaining alternative history book titled “Krzyzacki poker” which made me interested in the difference of the point of views of the three main participants in the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald. So I googled the whole mess. I became a bit pissed of at “the Germans”, when my patriotic nerve was irritated (I’m born in Warsaw), after reading this German page describing “the slaughter at Tannenberg” from a rather twisted standpoint which even supposedly neutral English sites did not concur with. My level of irritation had unfortunately not abated yet when I made my previous comment.

I do recommend this one western historian who truly pays eastern Europe due in his books (and other less known parts), you have definitely already heard about Norman Davies.
I wonder why other western historians are so quick to forget the trunk of the subcontinent. Do you believe it is mostly because of the “iron curtain” or might it be so bad that they just don’t care?

Isn’t it rather so that the Wends are called the Wieleci in Polish and were situated square on modern Potsdam with the Serbs situated south of them in modern day Sachsen?
Do you know when the Serbs divided in to those and the ones by the Mediterranean?

What happened to the Longobardians, where they just swept away by the Slavs?
Oh sorry. I’ll just check that thread first.

One can seemingly claim that maybe the hordes of Kublai Kahn taught the Hungarians to play that folk music mentioned earlier. :)

I must confess that my knowledge of the situation with the Teutonic knights is largely comprised of what I learned in the sixth grade. Recently dough I was smitten by a sudden elevation of interest in that part of history after reading this rather entertaining alternative history book titled “Krzyzacki poker” which made me interested in the difference of the point of views of the three main participants in the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald. So I googled the whole mess. I became a bit pissed of at “the Germans”, when my patriotic nerve was irritated (I’m born in Warsaw), after reading this German page describing “the slaughter at Tannenberg” from a rather twisted standpoint which even supposedly neutral English sites did not concur with. My level of irritation had unfortunately not abated yet when I made my previous comment.

There's plenty to get upset about with earlier 20th century Germans re: Poland but when it comes to medieval states competing with one another it's best to remember we're talking tiny elites who had little interest in or association with common people. Medieval states have more in common with modern corporations than with modern states.

I do recommend this one western historian who truly pays eastern Europe due in his books (and other less known parts), you have definitely already heard about Norman Davies.
I wonder why other western historians are so quick to forget the trunk of the subcontinent. Do you believe it is mostly because of the “iron curtain” or might it be so bad that they just don’t care?

Norman Davies needs no introductions here. I was reading him back in the 1980s before his books were allowed in Poland. I still have my old, tattered copies of God's Playground and etc. In fact, his introduction to his Europe, a History discusses in some detail your next question.

Isn’t it rather so that the Wends are called the Wieleci in Polish and were situated square on modern Potsdam with the Serbs situated south of them in modern day Sachsen? Do you know when the Serbs divided in to those and the ones by the Mediterranean?

Modern ethnic or national names are not always contiguous with historical peoples. There are a few theories on where Serbs may have derived their name, but it is always possible that multiple groups of Slavs (or even non-Slavs) came to use that name without being aware of each other. Also, as in the case of the Prussians, a name may derive from a historical association with a region rather than any real connection to a previous people who lived there. Before the Magyar invasions of the late 9th century, there was a fairly freeflow of Slavic cultural exchange (meaning economic, military) from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and the differences between the various Slavic groups were far less pronounced. The creation of the Magyar state in the Carpathian Basin cut two of these groups decisively off from one another, forming (eventually) the Western and Southern Slavic groups, but there still are strong traits for instance in the Czech language that seem to derive from a Southern Slavic origin. The migrations of some groups associated (possibly) with the Serbs and Croats (witness "Biala Chorwacja" near Kraków) are too vague in evidencve to say for sure what the relationship may be between, say, the Slavs of Lusatia and modern Serbs.

What happened to the Longobardians, where they just swept away by the Slavs?

The Langobards had crosed into Italy in the mid-6th century and started seizing Byzantine-controlled cities, setting up their own kingdom. They were finally destroyed by the rising Franks under Charlesmagne in the late 8th century when they tried to attack Rome but the Pope appealed to the Franks for help.

One can seemingly claim that maybe the hordes of Kublai Kahn taught the Hungarians to play that folk music mentioned earlier.

The only thing the Mongols taught the Hungarians was how to die.

V.

After reading your link I decided it is better for me to shut up and go read more books.

Pokurcz: My point for the link was to provide some background on the Hungarians, that's all. Don't ever back out of a debate simply because you feel intimidated; just be able to back your arguments up with credible examples and sources, that's all. Trust me - if you ask my wife, I've been wrong a lot in my life... ;)

@Izraelite9191: Another linguist expert on Uralic languages has weighed in, still agreeing that any connection between the Ugric languages and Uighur is very unlikely:

I join my colleagues Fagan and Stahlke but add that the term Uighur is one of a number of "glottonyms" and ethnonyms of Siberia and Central Asia which have had a range of meanings. However i am aware of no case or instance where the term has been applied to a Uralic speaking people. There were formerly some Uralic peoples or offshoots thereof who got a little far up the Ob-Irtysh and maybe the Yenisey and fell in among Turks and became Turkicized. But I doubt if the people who became the Uighur picked up much from this. You or your source may possibly have been thinking of the "Yenisey Ostyak" but that is a term gennerally once applied to the peoples now referred to as the "Ket". Their language was certainly not Turkic, nor Uralic either. Ostyak is a term that refers to the people now known more commonly as the "Khanti" and they are Finno-Ugric, more specifically Ugric, but, therefore, Uralic. There are also the people known as the Dolgon, or "Dolgon Samoyed", or Dolgon Yakut", in the Taimyr Pennensula. Dolgon is sometimes regarded as a divergent dialect of Yakut. It is in any event certainly Turkic. But it seems more likely that the Dolgon are a Yakutucized Tungus people rather than a Yakuticized Uralic (Samoyedic) people, though there is the latter possibility.

Watch out for the term "Yellow Uighur", Sarɯ Uighur. It refers to a group of people living in China some of whom speak Uighur, others a Dialect of Mongolian, still others primarily Chinese, and yet others Tibetan! But none of em so far as I am aware speak a Uralic Language.

- Joseph F Foster Date: Dec-13-2005

One can seemingly claim that maybe the hordes of Kublai Kahn taught the Hungarians to play that folk music mentioned earlier. :)

Considering that Hungary was occupied by the Golden Horde for about 1 year only (they left the following spring) and that the Mongols looted, raided and pillaged the entire place. It would seem highly unlikely that the Mongols would have taught the Hungarians anything. ;)

Could somebody speaking Finnish tell me what a müsta is?

A people simply do not give up on their own language and start speaking another, even in situations of occupation or conquest.

I'm not convinced by this. What of the Persian Christians, who gradually gave up speaking Syriac and switched to Arabic under the Abbasids?

Could somebody speaking Finnish tell me what a müsta is?

There's no such word. In fact, there isn't even the letter ü in Finnish. Musta means black however. Perhaps you could specify a bit?

Could somebody speaking Finnish tell me what a müsta is?

Musta means black (like was said). The letter ü is not found in Finnish, it's found in languages such as Estonian (a close relative of Finnish) and German. ;)

Musta means black (like was said). The letter ü is not found in Finnish, it's found in languages such as Estonian (a close relative of Finnish) and German. ;)

... and in Hungarian. :)

Finnish uses the letter y for the same sound. In this case, it's probably only a heavy-metal-umlaut :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrylakas
A people simply do not give up on their own language and start speaking another, even in situations of occupation or conquest.

I'm not convinced by this. What of the Persian Christians, who gradually gave up speaking Syriac and switched to Arabic under the Abbasids?

Syriac refers to a whole range of Semitic (i.e., not Iranian or Indo-European) languages spoken in the territories of ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) in late Classical times. It refers roughly to the written (literary) form of Aramaic. When it's called "Persian", they are referring to the empire whose border (along with Rome) its speakers straddled (i.e., did not involve Farsi-speakers). It remained in use by the old Syriac churches until the Arab invasion, but that's just it - Mesopotamia (the region) suffered a catastrophic invasion by a well-organized and ideologically-driven conquerer in the 7th century who flooded the fertile region with colonists. The original "Syriac"-speakers were displaced to the outter deserts of Iraq - where they still can be found today, still speaking a modern derivative of the ancient Aramaic/Amorite languages. (I think in English today it's called "Chaldean".) The people themselves were physically removed, and replaced by foreign speakers. It wasn't that the population remained constant and started speaking another laguage; it was another case of displacement.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's true, or at least, it's not all the truth. Many Persian Christians remained within Mesopotamia: many of them were socially quite high ranking or wealthy, and they were not among those deported to the eastern borders. These people stayed where they were, and became more and more culturally influenced by their conquerors (taking Arabian-style patronymics, etc). So you can see this in a figure such as Catholicos Timotheos I, who ruled from 780 to 823, and who was apparently bilingual in Syriac and Arabic. He spoke the former in church and the latter when debating with the caliph. He represents a transitional stage, since throughout the ninth century Arabic was increasingly spoken by the Christians within Persia, displacing Syriac by the tenth century. Evidently the more marginal Christian communities continued to speak Syriac, but it was not the language of the church's heartlands by this stage.

You shouldn't over-stress the catastrophic nature of the initial Muslim invasions, either. In fact the Persian church, for the most part, did just as well under the Muslims as it had under the Zoroastrians. There was a bit of a decline in the later centuries, but really it was the invasions of Tamerlane in the fourteenth century that did this church in, not the earlier invasions of the Arabs.

I blame bad sources for my mistake. I submit to the superior sources of Vrylakas.

I think you're confusing my use of the term “peoples”. I am referring to an established community with a single common identity marked by certain markers (religion, language, traditions, etc.) whom all members share, and whom all members (as well as outsiders) recognize to be a community.

It was originally posited that the Uighurs, as such a “people” (re: definition above), had at one point in their history as a community spoken not just another language, but one completely outside their current language's linguistic family. This is absurd and highly unlikely. Peoples (definition above again) do not just change languages. Individuals do, small groups of humans do in different circumstances, but peoples do not. Though identity markers for what makes a community of people have changed over time, language has almost always been one of them. Giving up a language for a group more often than not means something catastrophic for the community – outside invasion, extreme economic or environmental distress, etc.

Your example of the Syriac languages is just such a case of a catastrophic event for the peoples using that language. That some scattered remnants of the culture survived and were tolerated by the invaders means little – some almost invariably always do. When I say “catastrophic” I don't mean burning buildings and mass slaughter; I mean conditions which are hostile to a community (the whole community) and its practices. Syriac forms of Christianity still survive in isolated enclaves in Iraq and Turkey today, but these are the mere fragments of a once large and locally dominant culture that did not survive the Arab invasions. Of those Syriac language-speakers who did adopt Arabic, they did so because their own community had been destroyed; the Syriac community had ceased to exist, except for a few outposts.

This is the difference between, say, modern Basque (whose community of speakers have survived countless foreign rulers) and the native language of most modern Irish - English - which is a case where the common community was really formed after the experience of foreign onslaught.

No community ever just gives up its own language. When members of a community do start resorting to a foreign language (supplanting their former native language) it is because their former community has in some way been destroyed or dismantled. Language is a crucial identity marker for humans and they do not give it up lightly. In those cases where circumstances undermine a culture - like the fragmentary Syriac-speakers or the Latin-speakers who wandered the Balkans for centuries after the western Roman collapse - even yet, the new replacement language always bears the imprint of its predecessor, unless there's been a complete population change (like the French to English in 18th century Nova Scotia). Israelite9191's case of Uighurs completely shifting gears and dropping their native language completely and adopting a foreign langauge with no resulting trace of their Ugric period is unprecedented.

Ya, I admited I was wrong. Please stop saying that I still claim it. Also, I can think of a better example of a people that have given up their language. That would be the Manx. They remain a distinct people despite their having given up their language. There is a current movement to revive the language, but it is a most certainly dead language formerly spoken by a still living and unique people.

Relax Israelite9191, I wasn't "rubbing it in". I was merely bringing up what started the whole discussion of language changes in a population.

Manx is a better example, but still not really a case of a population just giving up its own language. The core problem for Manx (the language) is in the 19th century it rapidly began to run out of "new blood" as young Manx-speakers moved to the UK (or the US) in droves and adopted to the English-speaking world. Those who returned brought their sense of Britishness with them, and the older Manx culture - not just the language, but many Manx cultural traits - were overwhelmed and undermined by the powerful economic and political pull of English. It's not that Manx-speakers just decided to start speaking another language; it's another case of a local culture coming under tremendous external pressures.

But the Manx are still a unque culture that because of circumstances, in this case external pressure (actually the reason I suggested for the Uighur loosing their language), gave up their native language in favor of an unrelated, foreign one. Though they lost some of their cultural traits, they still maintained a unique identity. I think that this shows that it is possible for a people to give up their language and still remain unique.

Your example of the Syriac languages is just such a case of a catastrophic event for the peoples using that language. That some scattered remnants of the culture survived and were tolerated by the invaders means little – some almost invariably always do. When I say “catastrophic” I don't mean burning buildings and mass slaughter; I mean conditions which are hostile to a community (the whole community) and its practices. Syriac forms of Christianity still survive in isolated enclaves in Iraq and Turkey today, but these are the mere fragments of a once large and locally dominant culture that did not survive the Arab invasions. Of those Syriac language-speakers who did adopt Arabic, they did so because their own community had been destroyed; the Syriac community had ceased to exist, except for a few outposts.

I still say this isn't an accurate account of what happened in Persia: the Christian communities remained large and did pretty well throughout the period of Arabian dominance. It was only in the fourteenth century, with the Mongol invasions, that they were reduced to "scattered remnants". But they mostly switched from Syriac to Arabic in the ninth century, while they were still doing well.

Still, the Manx example is an interesting one. What of Welsh, Gaelic, etc, which became virtually extinct before their recent re-introduction? Isn't their displacement by English an example of people changing languages? And isn't their return an even more striking example? There are very many Welsh people who speak Welsh as their first language, where a century ago virtually no-one spoke it at all.

One could also cite Singapore, where a deliberate effort was made to have everyone speak English as their first language. The attempt only half-worked (everyone speaks English, but not necessarily as well as their ethnic mother tongue, and it's pretty weird English at best), but here you have a country which under no foreign pressure at all decided what language to speak and then implemented it.

Welsh, Gaelic, and Scots Gaelic are interesting examples, but the last two in particular, don't fit in all the way. The language never lost native speakers entirely, only most of them. In parts of West Ireland Gaelic remained stronger than English throughout, while in Scotland the same can be said for Sctos Gaelic in the Highlands. I think with Welsh you have a slightly better case, but not quite enough.

Another language I was thinking of that lost, if I remember correctly, all of its native speakers was Cornish. In that case the Corns are not even recognized by the British government as beign seperate in culture from the in English in any way more than the position of Duke of Cornwall. This lack of respect from the ruling nation and the relative poverty of the Corns in relation to English and other British Celts resulted in them giving up their language and much of their culture, yet they still maintianed a good level of uniqueness to them.

Another example would be Breton, a Celtic language now spoken by only a few people in Brittany, France. The French government has not alloud language preservation movements in their country, this has stiffled any chance for Breton revitalization. Yet, the Bretons remain extremely unique. They tend to appear to be a mix of the more traditionally associated Celtic peoplese (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc.) and the neighboring French.

Furthermore, you can see an example of people giving up their language when Italian and French were derived and made into the official languages of much larger areas than in which they were originally spoken. When French was introduced, the other oil languages nearly disapeared completely. In fact, those that have survived (an ever smaller number) have been mitigated to the poition of French dialects, rather than individual languages. The same can be said of Italy. In Italy each of the regions, and sometimes subregions, had its own language. Today the only relativley secure pre-Italian Italian language is Sicilian (although some of the northern languages have been given a boost in recent years). Griko is spoken by only a scattering of Calabrese and Puglise, while both of the regional languages have disapeared. Sradinian is likely to go in one or two generations, and the same can be said of most of the south and central Italian languages. The people of both Italy and france willingly gave up their languages in order to attain both the national unity and acceptance that would come with adopting the new French and Italian languages.

Furthermore, another very good example would be the Normans. They were a Viking culture that undoubtably spoke a Norse dialect, but when they settled in France they adopted the French language within only a couple generations, wuite willingly I might add. Whiel they adopted many French cultural traits, they maintianed many of their own individual ones. For instance, they maintained a very militaristic and seafaring culture that allowed them to later on conquer England, Ireland, Siciliy, Southern Italy, and numerous other conquest here and there. Then, when they moved on to England and other areas, they quickly adopted the language of that civilization. It took a few generations, but the English Normans adopted English, as did the Scilian Normans Sicilian, the Calibrese Normans Calibrese, etc.

I am quite sure that there are numerous other examplesto draw on. For instance, many Native American languages. However, it seems to me that the above examples should be more than enough to prove the fact that it is possible for a people to give up their native tongue in favor of another language.

When French was introduced, the other oil languages nearly disapeared completely.

Well, French properly speaking is Langue d'Oil. It was Langue d'Oc which was subsumed, a more heavily latinized language/dialect which we could say had more in common in many ways with modern Portuguese than modern French, which is to say Langue d'Oc was a dialect of the lingua franca of the Southwestern Mediterranean portion of Europe.

Furthermore, another very good example would be the Normans. They were a Viking culture that undoubtably spoke a Norse dialect, but when they settled in France they adopted the French language within only a couple generations, wuite willingly I might add.

Yes, but they spoke bad French :p

In those cases where circumstances undermine a culture - like the fragmentary Syriac-speakers or the Latin-speakers who wandered the Balkans for centuries after the western Roman collapse - even yet, the new replacement language always bears the imprint of its predecessor, unless there's been a complete population change (like the French to English in 18th century Nova Scotia).

With regard to the Nova Scotia, keep in mind that 18th century Nova Scotia referred to a much larger area than the modern day province of Nova Scotia. In the 18th century "Nova Scotia" also included the modern day province of New Brunswick. And Nova Scotia was the english name for what the French called Acadia, which was had the same large, blurred range. The French were largely taken out of modern day Nova Scotia, though by no means entirely. However they remained in the modern province of New Brunswick, which even today is the only truly "bi-lingual" province of Canada, with about 40% french, more or less. They still "are" French to this day. So I agree with you in the point your making with regard to Nova Scotia , I just wanted to add a bit more detail to it. Nova Scotia is also interesting because they also had speakers of Celtic languages in Cape Breton, until about 100 hundred years ago, when it began to die out. However it is now being revived to some extent.

The people of both Italy and france willingly gave up their languages in order to attain both the national unity and acceptance that would come with adopting the new French and Italian languages.




The Occitans did not "willingly" give up their language. There was something called "the Albigensian Crusade", led by the dog Simon de Montfort, which destroyed and raped the true flower of early medieval European civilization in Southern France. Hardly something to be proud of or which came easily to Southern France.

The Occitans were not the only speakers of other oil languages (I am referring to the family when I use this term). The only speakers of French at the time were the Parisians. Burgundians, Aquitanians, Walloons (who still, to some extent, speak a unique language), and others still spoke other oil languages.

The Occitans were not the only speakers of other oil languages (I am referring to the family when I use this term). The only speakers of French at the time were the Parisians. Burgundians, Aquitanians, Walloons (who still, to some extent, speak a unique language), and others still spoke other oil languages.

Occitans did not speak Langue d'Oil, they spoke Langue d'Oc. Hence the name. They are different languages, with d'Oc more akin to Spanish and Portuguese. And as I was saying, they were subsumed by a violent crusade and the gradual effects of loss of power and external pressure, rather than willingly joining the Oil speakers.

Very well, but you are missing the main point of what I said. The Occitans were not the only ones who gave up their language with the introduction of Parisian French as the national language. Every region spoke a different language, most being from the oil langauage family, but not all of them. While the Occitans were the target of a crusade, the others have up thier language much more willingly. In fact, if I remember correctyl, the Albigensian Crusade was conducted on the basis of religious differences that seemed to be threatening the political stability of the region. If language was the reason than we would have seen similar crusades to erradicate the Breton language, even less realted, and other non-oil languages.

Very well, but you are missing the main point of what I said. The Occitans were not the only ones who gave up their language with the introduction of Parisian French as the national language. Every region spoke a different language, most being from the oil langauage family, but not all of them. While the Occitans were the target of a crusade, the others have up thier language much more willingly. In fact, if I remember correctyl, the Albigensian Crusade was conducted on the basis of religious differences that seemed to be threatening the political stability of the region. If language was the reason than we would have seen similar crusades to erradicate the Breton language, even less realted, and other non-oil languages.

Well I was simply correcting some inaccuracies in what you said with regard to Occitan, because it's an area I happen to be interested in. That's all. My point was not to say that language was the reason for the crusade either. The Albigensian Crusade had to do with religion, but it's misleading to say that the political stability of the region was threatened by it, or that religion was the only factor. Southern France had always been more urbanized, cosmopolitan and part of the Southern Mediterranean culture, exposed to diverse influences, especially Muslim, and had a stronger latin/Roman influence than in the north of France. It developed the idea of courtly society and trobadors. It was stable, and had always been different from the North. We're talking about different cultures here. Anyway, I'm not too sure how much it directly impacts your point about language, it's just that I don't agree with how you were characterizing Southern France. Like I said, it's an area I find interesting, so I will nitpick you on it ;)

My original statement, about the replacement of regional languages with Parisian French, was not in reference to the Occitans. I was refering to the oil languages and other languages, I actually must admit my not knowing that Occitan was more closely related to Portuguese than French. I must also point out that I said the religious differences seemed to be a causing political rift. This was enhanced by the cultural differences that you point out. The Parisians, if I am not mistaken, were concerned about unifying their country at the time and any opposing force was a problem. The Occitan "heresy" was a particular threat due to the fact that if not dealt with it would allienate the Papacy. The Parisian French saw the religious divide as being just the first step towards a political divide, the regions were already too independent as it was.

Woohoo!!!! 1,000 posts! :bounce: :band: :goodjob:

The Parisian French saw the religious divide as being just the first step towards a political divide, the regions were already too independent as it was.

Woohoo!!!! 1,000 posts! :bounce: :band: :goodjob:

Well, you have to be careful about projecting modern notions of nationalism onto Ancient and Medieval history. You're talking like France as a nation simply existed already, and that's how people viewed themselves back then. That is a much later concept, which leads to distortion when you try to squeeze Medieval Europe into its mould. I think that's where I'm disagreeing with your statements. There were really two different cultures, when we talk about langue d'oil from Isle de France and langue d'oc from the south. Different speech, different history, different social structures, culture, art, identities etc... Modern notions of French identity are not really useful to try and apply to this era, IMO.

congrats on your 1000th btw ;)

I am not trying to imprint modern politics on the situation, but there is a political dynamic that can not be ignored. The Occitan south had been part of France (more appropriately, I guess, the Frankish Kingdom) up till this time with some interruptions. While the Occitans would have remained semi-independent in a way not seen today, they would have still been vasals of the French throne granting power to the Parisians. The Parisian French would have been most weary of loosing any source of power at this point. As you metnion, the Occitan south was particularly rich, something that would have added to the need to maintain French lordship over the south. While the nation of France may not have existedin the same way as it does today, their would still have been political dynamics involved in the religious crusade into the Occitan south.

BTW, thanks.