I said that I would write here again when my exams are over. They are over since a week. So I would have had enough time to write here, but I didn't. At first I wanted to read the sources I posted before completely and then it appeared to me that it is clear what I mean if one have read those sources. Therefor I thought it wouldn't be necessary to post here again. Anyways, I'd like to make a clear end of this.
First of all I'd like to answer on this linguistic arguments. If you have read Marácz' text, you should see that there are arguments against those "proofs" of the Uralists. I'm not a liguist, but those "counter arguments" appear plausible to me. Please do not argument that he is improfessional. He is a professor. I'd say that this justifies that you at least discuss his arguments. On the other side you can see that lots of the founders of the Finn-Ugric theories were in deed amateurs. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong, but you should be careful with what they said.
However, I still doubt that those linguistic "proofs" of the Uralists are reliable. According to Wikipedia, which supports the official opinion, the Magyars have left the other Ugric tribes somewhere between 1000 and 800 B.C. The first encounters with the Magyars are from between 700 and 800, I'd say. And AFAIK they didn't mentioned something specific about their language then. I heard there are runes from before the conquest. That could say something about the language about the Magyars. However, normally those prayers are said to be the first written records (of all Finn-Ugrics). That means that either those runes are not decribted (reliably) or not necessarily of hungarian origin. However, suppose that the uralists guess about when Magyars left the Ugrians, that means that there is a gap of at least 1600 years where there is nothing really known about the Magyars. Th gap is even bigger if you concentrate on informations about their language. Now, please rethink whether it can be build up a reliable thesis about how their language evolved or not. Consider also that those evolution has been disturbed and "polluted" by the lack of connection to other Ugrians and the influence of Turkic people. I'll give you an example about what I mean:
The romanian word for Transylvania is Ardeal, the hungarian is Erdély. AFAIK most sources say that Ardeal derrivates from Erdély. However, Mirc doubts that and said this doesn't meets the evoluting rules. Well, he is free to believe whatever he wants and I can't proof him the opposite. Anyways, please compare the words. You will find out that rd are identical in both words. é and the e are quite close (could be even the same, that depends on the pronounciation of Ardeal), I'd say. A and E are also. The case of al and ly (ly is actually one letter and one sound) is a bit more complicated. Think of the word goulash. It derrivates from gulyás. You see that ly changed to ly. In German they spell the word Gulasch (almost same pronounciation like in english). You see that there are 2 languages with a word where ly changed to l, just like in Erdély and Ardeal. The a can be a connection sound that is a mixture of é and ly. However, this is no proof, I accept that. I can also hardly say something about the pronounciation of Ardeal. My opinion is, that considering that both words are from the same region from people living next to each other, Ardeal comes from Erdély. It could be vice versa as well, but it is reported that Erdély comes from Erdö elve (actually wrong ö here, but I don't have the right ö on my keyboard). You have to decide by your own what you believe. I'd say any other theory about the origin of the word is much less likely then this one. The evoluting rules of the romanian language have been interrupted because of the influence of hungarian speaking people. It is also not known if there was a form between Erdö elve and Erdély for which the romanian evoluting rules could be correct.
Now, if my example is correct and Ardeal comes from Erdély, then why the heck shouldn't things like that happen earlier during the gap of 1600 years when Hungarians were enroute and under turkic influence?
I don't say that those evoluting rules are useless at all. It's just that you need enough background information. Things like related languages that have a temporary relationship as well (both were spoken in the same or almost the same times; and nothing reconstructed, because with each reconstruction the count of mistkes made by the reconstruction rises), written records etc. These reliable informations don't exist in the case of the hungarian language. As I said before the first written record of an ugric language are those prayes of hungarian origin, that means that written records of Finnish or other Finn-Ugric languages must be from later times. Considering this I'd say it is impossible to proof anything with linguistics. You could support an existing theory about the hungarian origin by linguistics, but you can't proof anything. And as the Finn-Ugric theory is based on linguistics alone, it has really weak arguments I'd say. Some sources mention that the words for the first 4 number in Finnic and Hungarian are similar. I can't remember what the Finnic word for 1 is, but I can remember that I found it is not similar to egy. Sure, you could build up a rule of word evolution, but... Everybody could do that for every two languages and every two words. This is what Alinei does with Etruscian. Have you took a look at his text? He is able to read what it is written on the tables by using Hungarian and the decrypted text even make sense. Check also this source for further similarities between Hungarian and other languages:
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/japanese.html.
So, think about that. I'd say there is room for other theories and truths and therefor the scientific research should be continued in all directions. I'm pretty sure that statements like...
Maybe some the University of Leipzig or some other school with a strong Linguistics program and a lot of money should start sponsoring vacations for Hungarian nationalists to go visit Finland.
are improfessional. AFAIK there is also no Hungaristic in Leipzig anymore. General linguistic can say as much things about Hungarian as electronics can say about computer sciences. Something, but nothing really valuable.
In conclusion this whole topic is like Darwins evolution against the biblical theory. No side can proof its points. It's you choice which opinion you believe. In that case Darwins theory is the offical point of view (at least under scientific aspects), just like the Finn-Ugric theory is in the case of hungarian origin. Interestingly Darwin said AFAIK, that his theory isn't necessarily right, it is just the most probable theory than can be built up at the moment (with the current knowledge and scientific instruments). But still one day there could be someone proofing that the theory of evolution is wrong, because he has better tools etc. That's why I said I'd like to put an end to this. This will lead to nowhere as nobody of us is able to proof anything, I'd say.
I read only the Uralic side because only the Uralic side exists in 99% of all countries, despite the fact that if a Linguist was able to disprove the Uralic side, he would be very famous: so if some Linguist thought it was a viable idea, he would do it!
The Altaic hypothesis exists only in one country: Hungary. How could this be? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Nationalists in Hungary prefer the Altaic hypothesis, and therefore there might be political reasons that some Linguists would make that argument?
You really wonder that alternative theories are mostly of hungarian origins nowadays? The ones who care most for hungarian origin are the Hungarians themselves. That's why they pay the most energy in that topic. Nothing special.
The reason why the official point of view doesn't change is the following: people are lazy. The only change things if it is really necessary. Mostly in fundamental cases like this (not fundamental, because it would be so important for the world, but because it is believed since a long time). The alternative side can't also proof anything, therefore it is not necessary to change the official opinion. Not to mention that foreign researchers care less for the hungarian origin. It is also a question of prestige. It would be a blamage for a researcher if he denies dealing with another theory and keeps to only research in his direction for decades if it would turn out that his opinion was wrong. Not necessarily because he was wrong, but because his self-confidence and his statements against the alternative theory before. That would show his incompetency in his job. His carreer would be over.
For those who are still interested, I am writing some more things one could search for.
I may have already mentioned the hungarian runic alphabet (I'm too lazy to check whether I've done that or not). It fits better to the hungarian language then the modern latin does, even today. This alphabet is also called Székely rovásírás (Székely rune writing). The point is, that I was unable to find an explanation why it is called
székely rovásírás. All I could find out is, that this alphabet was used before the latin alphabet, obviously in whole Hungary. Later, around 1000 A.D., Saint Stephen of Hungary forbit that writing and destroyed all writings he could as part of "europizing" Hungary. I read that the Székelys saved it, which could explain why it is called
székely rovásírás. But... Modern researchs have shown that Székely genes show a relationship to Iranians. And it is still unsure what the origins of the Székelys are. Some say they are just Hungarians that have been send out to secure the eastern border. That conflicts with the genes as then they wouldn't differ so much from other Hungarians genes. Others say they are an own ethnicity and some even say also that they have always lived there where they are now. That would meet the legends of the Székelys that they are Huns that withdraw to Transylvania to hide from the other european peoples, because they feared to get attacked by them. Later they have successfully called for their Hunnish brothers living outside or at the border of europe for reinforcements. Those reinforcements became known as Árpáds Magyars. Now the part I have put together by thinking begins, thus it is highly speculative and unproofen, but interesting. First of all it is not reported that Székelys ever spoke another language then Hungarian, there is no trace for that. People that support the point of view that Székelys always lived there where they are now, say that they have become allies of the Magyars (independent from the Székely legends about their origin). If they were no Hungarians, they must have spoken a different language as according to the official theories there were no Hungarians in europe before. So, why did the decide to become allies of the Hngarians allowing them to occupy them? And why did they later saved the
székely rovásírás if it didn't fit to their own language? Why is there no trace of the original language of the Székelys? Sure, this could be explained as follows: they were a non-hungarian tribe that came to the carpathian bassin together with the Magyars. They may have adopted the language of the Magyars earlier. They either settled down in Transylvania immideatly or have been resettled a bit later. Thus they had no memories of their original language and thus haven't left any trace of it and used the rovásírás maybe even before they entered the carpathians just like the other Magyars did. The origin of the rovásírás can't be determined then. Another explanation would be that their legend is simply correct. Thus the rovásírás could have been used by them even before the Magyars arrived. Magyars may have used a similar writing as the writing may have been a relict of the Hunnish culture. The reason why I stating this is the codex of Isfahan. Guess where Isfahan is? Right, in Iran. Sure, it is definately not of hunnish origin, it is a dictionary written by foreigners that contents Hunnish. But still, it could be that Huns were near and thus explain the iranian genes of Székelys. The Huns simply moved towards europe, at least some of them, and later became known as Székelys. Other Huns may have left or moved to somewhere else. Those have definately mixed up with other peoples and thus their genes changed. They could have also been a different tribes. Similar to the Magyars later the Huns could have consisted of different tribes that were of different genetic background. Thos Huns that have move elsewhere, have later been called for assistance and became know as Magyars. This way it could be explained that
székely rovásírás got its name from the Székely directly. Another explanation would be, that the Székely kept it simply because it was a relict of their hunnish culture they didn't want to give up. Possibly also because with this alphabet they could express their language better. This would explain their interest of keeping it. Later it has been called
székely rovásírás simply because the Székelys kept it. Sure, nothing proofen, but interesting.
Another theory is, that there was once a huge territory where a language like Hungarian has been spoken. I don't call it Hungarian, let's call it proto-Hungarian. It could be called proto-xyz as well, I just want to point up the connection of that ancient language with Hungarian. So, I mean really huge. The Finns and other Uralics may have also spoke that language (that's why I said proto-xyz to avoid the impression of nationalism). Radics mentions the following report: there was once a foreign king (I think eastern roman, I'm pretty sure that it was something roman) that has conquered the carpathians bassin. He thought it would be a good idea to get there and talk to the people. In other words he went there to make some propaganda. During his speech an man shouted "marha!" In hungarian "marha" means "cattle" but is used aslo in sense of "idiot". This is an argument Radics gives for the theory of the huge proto-Hungarian speaking region. I can't remember where he took that from, maybe he even didn't give a sources. I could find that out, I have a printed version of his text I could look at. There is also another theory about Nimród that the Nimród of the Bible and Nimród from hungarian legends are the same person. Now, you sincerly know the story of Nimród: he built a tower (of Babel) which God didn't find so funny. God destroyed the tower and gave different languages to the people to avoid they build another building like that again. So, the Bible is probably exaggerated: not all people on earth spoke the same language. Instead only most or a lot of of the known world (know from the point of view of the authors of that story). And it the ancient language didn't disappear from one moment to another, instead it was a slow process. The tower could stand for whole Babylon that has been destroyed or conquered (but not by God) which caused the fall of that culture. Couldn't it be that the true core that the ancient language described in the Bible was a form of proto-Hungarian which started to fall apart or the territory where it has been spoken shrunk after the times of Babylon? It then could be that the language was even spoken centuries later in different regions or regions the new languages haven't reached so far. This could again lead to the Etruscians, that still may have spoken that ancient language. Sure, again highly speculative, not proofen, this time even probably wrong, but interesting, not? However, this really appears like science-fiction to me, but who knows?
The "č" is read like a Hungarian "cs" (English ch).
