study update, Parpola, Uralic genetics article

Balazs Csurgai helian at citromail.hu
Tue Mar 16 10:38:42 UTC 2010


   Greetings to all! This letter has more reasons: prewords:I happened to see and read the article 'Finno-Ugric and Turkic?' of Univ.Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso, which is available here:http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/fu_tu.html. First, I would like to respond to it with some thoughts, because it seems to me that there are some heavy misconceptions out there on this topic (not just in this article, but also in the older ones of others, so it is not a critic of the personal field, but rather that of the concept) . Laakso writes (rather she qoutes mindsets) e.g.:"We don't want to be related with primitive nomadic Siberian tribes, we want to be related with peoples who have earned themselves fame and glory, or at least have a war-like past."and she mentions the:“The Finno-Ugric relatedness is just an ideological (for example, Imperialist-Bolshevist) conspiracy against Hungarians.” etc. I think the situation can be explained this way: The main matter here is that the Hungarians had never "wanted to be in connection" with the Turkic peoples. Not this was the background of their negative view on the Finno-Ugrian relatedness (here it is regardless from that which side is right).But the very fact that some people had used this, then new theory, as a contradicting thing to their thousand year old tradition, that they are the descendant of the Huns, the so called Hunnic tradition. As if it were such,but in fact the Uralic theory never was an evidence to disprove it, despite that some had tried to push this viewpoint.   Another problem was with that new theory that it pushed away all of the historical sources, which approach was (and is) unsientific already in itself. On the contrary I could never imagine how could the Uralic/Ugrian/Hungarian lingustics remained so ignored so long in the past in the Huns related research, despite the owerwhelming historical evidences (sources, arch., etc). It seems that this whole topic may had been in the past under some academic type suppression of dissent (along with the topic under the second point (2. below)), or maybe just in a web of complex misunderstandings. I hope I could explain a little bit the motivations.  1.In my previous letter I posted the study that proved the Hsiungnu-Hun-Hungarian continuation, based on linguistics, and revealed some hints on their ultimate origin. I corrected and updated the essay, with some more lingustic explanations, and provided new evidences, more linguistic and historical background literature, mentioned new subthemes, e.g. the Iyrkas, etc. The new variant can be downloaded here,Huns and Ugors, variant 4, preAlpha, 44 pages: Huns-Ugors-v4.pdfhttp://www.megaupload .com/?d=E9GB0LSEmirror:http://uploaded.to/file/jrsjnw but as I don't want to bother the community of this list with this theme,I've made an internet page where the works can be seen by anyone who is interested. (The study is under a process of some kind of peer-reviewing right now (I've already got some very positive feedback), so this may can be considered as an online pre-publication for open reading and review.) The web address of the page:http://chronica.freebase.hu/huns/huns-ugors.html 2.Those who readed it could see that it has provided some historical and linguistic backround to the important researches which are conducted by Simo Parpola, professor of Assyriology, in collaboration with the Department of General Linguistics of the University of Helsinki (supported by the Academy of Finnland). As I realized that this topic is rather unknown even in the university circles in Hungary I decided to translate Parpola's article to Hungarian, to those who are interested, it is available also on the mentioned page, here: Sumerian: A Uralic languageSuméri: egy uráli nyelvhttp://chronica.freebase.hu/sumer/sumeruraliclang_hu.html I've also made some notes to it:on the Sumerian word gid = Ur. *veta ? issue: Uralic *veta is Hungarian vez- (to lead), thus the Sumerian gid in this form is rather connected with Hungarian húz (t>z) to drag, to pull (< Ugric ~ *kat to pull, to pluck, this is related to Hungarian 'hoz'  - to bring  from Finn-Ugric e.g.: Saami: guod, kuode, kinte, etc. (so can be also like approx.: gid) from Uralic *kanta - to drag, to bring, to carry, etc. and like, for example the similar Sumerian words such as the gid word's other meaning: gid = long, which is Hungarian hosz = long (written as hossz(ú), from Uralic *konc or *kocu) (the Sumerian sign for gid also can have forms of such as guz2 gida2 gidi3 git2 kid10 kit10, gi27, qid2, qit2, etc.), and the Sum./ Hung. word: gud / hős = hero from ? Ur *kaca. 3.I've also written another article, in which I collected the genetic reseraches which were made so far in the topic of the Hsiungnus. As it is connected to the general Uralic genetics topic rather well (e.g. to Hungarians, Mansis, general Finn-Ugors, Selkups), and by the way its datas fully corroborate the results of linguistics, and as it contains important material, to those who are not acquainted with this informations I've made it also available online, here: http://chronica.freebase.hu/huns/xionggen.htm Interestingly the debate issue of the Finno-Ugrian Urheimat's question is also appearing in the field of the genetics, as there are two possible explanations on their genetical origins' territory. Best regards,Balazs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ura-list/attachments/20100316/b68681f0/attachment.html>


More information about the Ura-list mailing list