Re: A question about the origins of the various Hungarian groups...
- From: Gladius Sagitta <gladius.sagitta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:11:49 +0200
turan*@shaw.ca wrote:
not only because balint homan stated that the rulers and the "noble
class" of the proto-magyars spoke a turkic language (or more properly
put: a turkish dialect), but also, if you think about it that 3 or 4
of the landtaking "magyar" tribes out of the ten (or 7) tribes were
actually turks, than the frequency of use for such words should also
correspond to this percentage, which in turn will hasten the inclusion
of such words into the magyar language
This is not a "must". According to onomastics interpretations and
comparisons, even most of the chieftains of the other, "Megyer",
tribes were Turks. A considerable effect played a role: the language
spoken by "anné" (anya); if the maternal language was rather Magyar,
then the logical consequence was that in a couple of centuries
Turkish disappeared altogether. In connection with the fact that
many Turkish-speaking men died on the battle fields. Anyway, Hungarians
must have been so thoroughly magyarized, that, when other Turks
moved in (Petchenegs, Cumans etc.), and much later the Ottomans,
these waves were not able to induce a Turkic revival within the
medieval Hugarians. The Turkish/Turkic "hagyomány" simply wasn't
there. In contrast with Crimea, the territories around the Caspian
Sea ("the Khazar Sea": Hazar Deniz), and Turkey - where there must
have been enough Turks so that the language could be spoken for
longer periods of time (i.e., until today, even in parts of N-W
Iran, wich is Azerbaydjan, and Kurdistan).
Considerable regions of Hungary were provinces of Turkey (vilayets).
To no avail as the language is concerned: there was no "revival"
of the "grey wolves". :-) Not even in Transylvania, where the
presence of the Petchenek, Cuman (Kun), Berendey etc. was quite
strong, and the distance to the western borders of another
important medieval Turkish entity, the Golden Horde, were shorter.
***********************************************
"It is very hard to make this estimate, particularly as many words
reached English, for example, from Latin by way of Norman French.
For genuine linguists + turcologists it is by no means as hard as
for dilettantes. The entering path can be seen in many lexems
due to phonetic occurrences, that show *when* and *where* that
and that kind of word could've been borrowed. For example,
experts were able to establish that words such as árpa, búza,
alma, sárga, bika, kis+kicsi (etc.) are old Turkish (belonging
to the "R" branch, i.e. proto-Bulgar) despite the fact that
they are extant in all the other dialects (i.e. dialect groups),
e.g. in modern Turkey's Turkish. And that kalauz, balta, csôsz
are Petcheneg-Cuman words. (AFAIK, in modern Turkish: balta and
kilavuz).
So, of course, Turkic and Iranian (and other old Indo-European)
words known for sure that they are late loanwords from other
medieval languages aren't taken in consideration as old Turkic
and Iranian borrowings (i.e. prior to 1000-1100). What's taken
in consideration are such words as anyu, Isten, arany, vásár,
oroszlán, szekér, kard, búza, árpa, alma, kis+kicsi, kék, sárga,
híd, szakál, kapu, vám, bilincs, gyula, törvény, boszorkány,
barom, gyümölcs, szûcs, gyermek, asszony, etc. (Various such
words of Turkic origin are themselves loanwords.)
However, the result of a computerized survey of roughly 80,000 words
in the old Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd edition) was published in
Ordered Profusion by Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff (1973). They
reckoned the proportions as follows:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutenglish/proportion?view=uk
But it is much easier than in most east-European languages, since
English started to be written prior to the year 1000, and there
are many texts that have been studied, etymologically and
statistically. Most of the Latin vocabulary that entered
the language via Old and Middle French are known. Some experts
are even able at least to write in Old English, whereas nobody
can do that in Old Hungarian (Magyar) (i.e. in the language
spoken in the 10th-11th-12th centuries).
Besides, the statistics data by these German authors say much
about the characteristics/ typology of the English language,
which, despite the Latin vocabulari of over 60%, is a (West-)
Germanic language, and not a Romance one.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: A question about the origins of the various Hungarian groups...
- Next by Date: Re: A question about the origins of the various Hungarian groups...
- Previous by thread: Re: A question about the origins of the various Hungarian groups...
- Next by thread: Re: A question about the origins of the various Hungarian groups...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
