Talk:Hungarian language

message: I'm not a linguistics, thus merely wondering why do you call the vocabulary section "Lexicon"? It sounds very strange.
---
| A few months back I added this statement to the Lexicon section:
----
Therefore the history of Hungarian has come, especially since the 19th century, to favor neologisms from original bases, whilst still having developed as many terms from neighboring languages in the lexicon.
----
This was added upon reviewing the sources cited in that section which include the list of vocabulary origins and loanwords. I also kept in mind the factors of historical purism in Hungarian during the 19th century, as well as the conservative nature of the grammar as contributing to the argument that Hungarian has become a more purist language than most in Central Europe.
I do find the statistic of "80%" of the lexicon being Uralic hard to believe; not even German and Lithuanian could have such a high percentage of native words over loans, but I assume the findings of that research stand.
What's the consensus here on my addition? Should it be supported with citations or do the above sources already work?| CormanoSanchez (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely no way there is 80% of the lexicon being Uralic. --130.156.22.43 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexicon and loanwords 

message: This statement seems an anachronism from Cold War times when we in the West were quite ignorant of what lay beyond the borders of the Soviet Union.  Actually if Hungarian is related to Finnish it must also be related to Karelian, Estonian, Udmurt, Mari and other languages still spoken in the Baltic countries and in European Russia.  LADave (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "the West" has been aware of what lay beyond the borders of the USSR for centuries before the creation of that communist political state. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

text: How does one say. in Hungarian: wonderful,& nosey 2600:1013:B011:DDF3:217D:E68D:E313:2A33 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unrelated to most other languages in Europe" 

message: And there is a common Surname "Magyar"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopSpeeder (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2009/09/jobbik-wants-revision-of-finno-ugric.html 70.59.22.166 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Habsburgs trying to destroy Hungarian self-pride by relating their language to Finns? Sounds legit! StasMalyga (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's pretty goofy stuff. I'm sure that the core body of linguists and historians all over the world will stand up and take note. Or not. :-) Anyway, not appropriate for the article as this falls under WP:FRINGE. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are just dim. Here is a presentation why Hungarian is indeed a Uralic language: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Hungarian.pdf --Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hungarian academics never denied the Finno-Ugric relation. It is a good business (and votes) for Jobbik to bugger the laymen about it. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jobbik wants the revision of the Finno-Ugric narrative 

message: "but neither their prefixes, nor their suffixes make sense (for example, hercehurca 'long-lasting, frusteredly done deed')."
well technicaly hurca does makes sense it comes from verb "hurcolni" means dragging some thing away so hurca means his act to dragg things away... (have no other example to replace however)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.228.161 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hercehurca 

message: (There used to be a separate word for "elder sister", néne, but it has become obsolete [except to mean "aunt" in some dialects] and has been replaced by the generic word for "sister".)
This is not very accurate. Néne is a short form of nagynéni (aunt). Bácsi (the husband of aunt) is not used for the short form of uncle (nagybáty or nagybácsi).
ki (who)
nővéred (your elder sister)
nagynéni (aunt)
nagynénik (aunts)
nagynénéd (your aunt)
nagynénéid (your aunts)
nénéd (short form of 'your aunt')
nénéid (short form of 'your aunts')
nagybácsi (uncle)
nagybácsik (uncles)
nagybátyád (your uncle)
nagybátyáid (your uncles)
And so far:
kisöcs (sibling or younger brother)
nagytestvér (sibling or elder brother "big brother")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtkr (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinship terms 

message: I do not really agree with the statement that `if Hungarian orthography was totally consistent, <gy> would have
been written as <dy> instead.' As far as I know, the "g" sound in English "argue" is a better approximation
to the palatal consonant  than the "d+y" sounds in British "duke" or American "would you".
Though I am not a native speaker of Hungarian, I was corrected when pronouncing <gy> as the latter.
However, this must be confirmed by an expert prior to changing the article. Podgorec (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But the same is true of "ty". Since "d" is the voiced homologue of "t", one would expect the voiced homologue of "ty" to be *"dy". Either that, or they could be "gy" and *"ky". — kwami (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

text: If you pronounce would you as , no wonder you were corrected. That's a totally wrong example to use, because  is a different phoneme in Hungarian, spelt dzs. I see it has already been removed, anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology/writing system 

message: In the section dealing with historical relationships with other languages, only lexical items are mentioned--no mention is made about syntactic similarities (agglutination, etc.). Other sections are similarly sloppy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.7.34 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Syntactic similarities are notoriously irrelevant for historical relationships, that's why they receive no mention. Languages with agglutinative morphology are common all over the world. You need to be more specific about the rest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Review by a Linguist 

message: Recently, the number of native speakers was changed. The new source  is *website* and it claims that there are 12,319,330 native Hungarian speakers. It is based on data from the 2001 census, does not claim other sources. Moreover, the simple fact that it gives such a precise number (ending with 330!) makes it a bit dubious. I think it was based on some census data from the Carpathian Basin. To improve the article, I have inserted some more recent sources which talk about approximately 15 million    Hungarian speakers. This can serve as an upper estimate. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks fine by me.Adrian (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: @Koertefa - Your 2nd source mentions 13–15 million speakers while another 2010 source found by me writes about 13.5 million native speakers. 14-15 million native speakers are mentioned by another source in the article Newnou (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your commet, but I do not agree with you. Of course, nobody knows the exact number of people speaking Hungarian in the world, there are only estimates available, and different sources provide different numbers. Here on Wikipedia the best we can do is to present the minimal as well as the maximal estimates which are used by reliable sources. This source , called "The Handbook of Language Contact", published by Wiley-Blackwell (a top scientific publisher) in 2010, clearly gives the estimate of 13-15 million. I am sorry if you personally do not like this, but it is a perfectly valid source and should not be disregarded. Please note that it is not our role to judge or verify scientific works, but to present them. If you think that, for some reason, this source is not reliable here, you know what to do (WP:RSN). Otherwise, please leave the estimate and its source there. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Kwami.  The sources that kwami lists are widely accepted sources for numbers of speakers.  This encyclopedia of language contact seems to be more aimed at L2 speakers as well as L1 speakers.  And it is one source, not the multiple sources that kwami has cited.  One source does not trump other sources which have an established track record for reliability.  --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I do not get your argument. A peer-reviewed source, published by one of the largest scientific publisher, should not be disregarded. I can only repeat myself: there are many estimates available and different sources use different estimates, so the best we can do is to provide a lower and an upper estimate. Just because your personal opinion is that some sources have an "established track record"  it does not mean that other academic sources cannot be used. You should seriously argue that the book called "The Handbook of Language Contact" should be treated as unreliable, otherwise, it is quite strange that you simply want to disregard it, since it presents an estimate which you personally do not like for whatever reason. And there are other recent sources (e.g., published after 2000) that use the upper estimate of 15 million , and even university courses in the UK gave 15 million as an estimate in the academic year 2012/2013 . Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these are reliable linguistic surveys.  A guidebook to Budapest?  Really?  You actually consider that to be a reliable source?  And a grammar of Finnish?  If you think that these are reliable sources for the number of native speakers of Hungarian, then no wonder you don't understand what Kwami and I are saying to you.  We don't use sources that are just "sources" for the number you like.  We do, actually, have to consider the linguistic reliability of the source.  Some books just look at the population of Hungary, add a few million for expats and call that a "survey" of native speakers.  That is simply bad methodology.  Kwami and I have listed sources that are widely considered in linguistic circles to be reliable linguistic counts using standard, scientific methodology to determine the number.  Just because you don't seem to understand the science of linguistics doesn't mean that you can ignore the scientific facts of reliable linguistic sources and the unscientific habits of non-linguistic sources.  --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me repeat myself: it is not our role to verify the sources (only their reliability can be questioned) or to compare their scientific values, as simple WP editors are not qualified for this. And yes, my extensive list also contained some guidebooks as well as a Finnish language book, since my aim was to give a wide illustration that there are several recent sources which estimate the maximum number of native Hungarian speakers as 15 million. Note that this source  is a scientific linguistic work, recently published by one of the top scientific publishers, so you don't have any real basis to disregard it. And, as I already wrote it down twice, there are many sources available which present many different estimates, so if we are honest, we should not simply cherry-pick one or some of them, but give the lowest and the highest estimates which can be found in the available reliable scholarly sources, such as this one . Since it is a recent scientific linguistic source, you must accept it, unless you want to question its reliability. If this latter one would be the case, then you should raise the issue on WP:RSN. Cheers,  KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your answer and ideas. Let me copy a part of my answer from April: "And, as I already wrote it down twice, there are many sources available which present many different estimates, so if we are honest, we should not simply cherry-pick one or some of them, but give the lowest and the highest estimates which can be found in the available reliable scholarly sources, such as this one ". Selecting one of the encyclopedias seems much more of a POV pushing issue than providing the *lowest* as well as the *highest* possible estimates which can be found in *reliable* (e.g., scholarly) sources... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

text: PS: About you last comment. I did not write that we should not *evaluate* the sources. I wrote that we should not *verify* the sources. It is nonsense to think that WP requires us to *verify* the claims in the sources, since it would require original research. We can only compare the sources, evaluate their reliability, etc. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

text: User:Kwamikagami, maybe you also take a look at the total population figures from the infobox of Hungarian people article. In the current version the presented data are "c. 13.2-14.5 million". Do you think that 14.5 million is a too high estimation? 79.117.149.70 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but ethnicity is not language.  Many Hungarians in Romania speak Romanian, for example.  I'm not trying to down-play the number of speakers; when I first arrived in Slovakia, I spoke Hungarian, rather to the annoyance of Slovakians who didn't speak it, and I find it a shame that use is declining in Romania.  But here on WP I am on the lookout for people trying to maximize the number of speakers of their language, and have fought that in English as much as in any language.  — kwami (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, if you think that it is an exaggeration to talk about 15 million Hungarian speakers, then it is your own POV. You may be right or you may be wrong, we have no way to verify your opinion. However, we have sources, so we should use them. Furthermore, since different sources provide different estimates, the most neutral way is to use my method. BTW: you could as well accuse me of trying to *minimize* the number of Hungarian speakers, since I also want to put the *lowest* number that can be found in mainstream, scholarly sources. Please, explain your problem with my approach. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  [a] WP is not a source. [b] You used the exact figure of the source with the highest number.  That's cherry-picking.  — kwami (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not get it. [a] Who said that WP is the source or which source of mine is based on WP? [b] I used both the highest and the lowest figures that can be found in mainstream, academic sources. Those who want to stick to a particular source do cherry-picking. Please, be much more specific and explain in detail what is your problem with my approach, i.e., to show an interval of estimates which are supported by scholarly sources. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

text: P.S.: For the newcomers: these were the two sources Kwamikagami has deleted.  KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Since no objection was raised for more than a week, I have updated the infobox. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The current source is from 2007 and presumably offers the most up-to-date estimates. The sources provided by you are some years older 79.117.164.153 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Iaaasi, I think that you are well aware that I have provided other sources, as well, and some of them were more recent than 2007 (see above). So your edit was not well-justified. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: There were no censuses between 2001 and 2011, so a source from 2007 is not much better than a source from 2003. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop accusing me of bad faith. I will make another check later if I was wrong. However, as far as I know censuses count the number of ethnics, not the number of speakers 79.117.187.111 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry. Censuses normally gather information on *both* ethnicity and mother tongue. And these data do not always match. For example: according to the 2011 Slovak census, 458,467 people declared themselves ethnic Hungarians, while 508,714 stated that Hungarian was their mother tongue (sources are at the Hungarians in Slovakia article). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

text: They would also appear to be giving the number of ethnic Hungarians , which is ca. 15M .  Not all Hungarians speak Hungarian , especially in Romania . — kwami (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, most Hungarians in Romania do speak Hungarian as mother tongue. Why do you think that it is not the case? On the other hand, it is true that there were millions of people in the Carpathian Basin who did not declare their mother tongues, which also explains why do we have such a wide estimate. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: A source for the number of speakers might be reliable if a) it gives a reference for it and/or b) it deals with the topic. Unsourced figures given in compendia or books/papers whose topic is not the number of speakers are not reliable. — Lfdder (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to who? Could you cite some WP guidelines regarding that? And what are the sources for Nationalencyklopedin? Why it is better than The Handbook of Language Contact, which also deals with the topic (the Uralic/Finno-Ugric family)? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to me. I didn't say it was a guideline; it's just what I think. The Handbook of Language Contact deals with language contact, not speaker numbers. I don't know about Nationalencyklopedin, you're gonna have to ask kwami. — Lfdder (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nationalencyklopedin is what we agreed to use as the primary source for our list of most-spoken languages , so we're comparing like with like .  It's also what we generally use for the languages in that list .  — kwami (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an agreement would make sense, can you please link it? BTW: neither the Finnish nor the Estonian articles (the two other large languages in the Uralic family) use Nationalencyklopedin for their estimates. Do you also suggest changing their sources? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalencyklopedin has onyl got langs with over 10m speakers IIRC. — Lfdder (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native speakers 

message: The article "Topic-prominent language" currently lists Hungarian as an example of a topic-prominent language.  I question this claim because topic-prominent languages (such as Japanese and Chinese) tend to have grammatical features which (AFAIK) are not characteristic of Hungarian — e.g., sentences with two "subjects" in the nominative case (one of which is in fact the topic of the sentence); a special case marking for the topic, distinct from that of the subject; and/or the lack of a reliable marking distinction for subject vs. object.
I think it would be helpful if some people who are much more familiar with Hungarian than I am could go look at this other article, and if Hungarian does in fact fall into the topic-prominent category, supply a citation to a reliable source from the linguistic literature if possible, or else supply an example sentence in Hungarian accompanied by an analysis demonstrating its topic-prominent character.
Please note that "topic-prominent" is not exactly the same as "topic-comment" (you may wish to read the separate article dealing with topic-comment).  Hungarian definitely uses its flexible word order to identify topic vs. comment, but AFAIK it does so in the context of a nominative-accusative case alignment.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Search with Google for: Hungarian "topic prominent". You will find many papers and citations for this. If you can't find them, I may copy some here, but I have no time now. Qorilla (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian a topic-prominent language?? 

message: We have an anon. IP adding generations to the kinship table.  A while ago we had Serbs and Croats trying to outdo each other in kinship, resulting in something like sixteen generations in either direction, so I'm a bit suspicious of such claims.  Anyone have a ref that such terms are actually in use in Hungarian?  — kwami (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  kin 

message: How do you come up with this statement? Almost 11 million of Turkish people lives in the European part of Turkey and plus there are up to 9 million Turkish speakers in various European countries which makes the Turkish speakers in Europe almost 20 million. The numbers may vary but Turkish (a non-Indo-European language) is definitely more spoken in Europe than Hungarian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloglu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is referenced. If there is a more accurate source, by all means, any involved editor can update the article.98.67.0.13 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have said that widely-spoken carries a geographical connotation (as opposed to a count of the number of speakers), and therefore Finnish would be the most widely spoken Finno-Ugric language in Europe. (But Hungarian is spoken in more countries, if a politicised interpretation of widely spoken is made.) I was about to change the text to most native speakers, but I then thought of Turkish, which has more speakers in Europe alone, and if Asiatic Turkey is included has a greater geographical range as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... Most widely spoken non-Indo-European language in Europe ? 

message: I consider it should worth mentioning the followings in the "Name order" section:
if the name of a Hungarian person is used according to the Western name order in a Hungarian text, then it means a very serious insult. (For example: writing "Imre Kertész" instead of "Kertész Imre"). 82.131.220.47 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name order 

message: I think that the left-hand-side columns consists of 'infinitve's and right-hand-side the 'gerund's. ZJ (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related verbs, nouns and pronouns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130805060439/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua:80/eng/results/general/language/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210154349/http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/oldhu/halotti.html to http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/oldhu/halotti.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114081722/http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50553 to http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50553
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928153213/http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/250 to http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/250
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928153159/http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/253 to http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/253
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041010065220/http://impulzus.sch.bme.hu/info/magyar.shtml to http://impulzus.sch.bme.hu/info/magyar.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928030415/http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/form-suffix.html to http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/form-suffix.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805202844/http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/hungarian/index.html to http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/hungarian/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924083712/http://www.magyarangolszotar.hu/ to http://magyarangolszotar.hu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hungarian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119064254/http://wiki.langwiki.info/Hungarian to http://wiki.langwiki.info/Hungarian
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If the law that created regional language in Ukraine has been ruled unconstitutional how can that "doesn't change reality" that Hungarian is a recognised minority
language in Ukraine Kostaki mou? As far as I know Swahili and Hungarian have the same legal status in Ukraine; being neither are recognised minority languages in Ukraine because there are no "recognised minority languages in Ukraine". Of course Hungarian is a minority language in Ukraine and Swahili is not. I would not object to mentioning Hungarian as a minority language in Ukraine (in the infobox of this article). But as far as I know there is no legal basis to claim Hungarian is a "recognised minority language in Ukraine". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognised minority language in Ukraine 

message: I think (but I'm not sure) that Hungarian is the only language which can do this: if there is a long consonant (marked doubled) between two vowels they will be part of two different syllables written. So for example the word állomás (meaning station) will be syllabified as ál-lo-más. And when that long consonant is written with a digraph it will become two different digraphs: asszony (meaning a married woman) will be syllabified as asz-szony. I think this should be put in the article. Adam bozso (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? 104.169.17.20 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something strange with syllabification 

message: Looks like the conservative gov't has sent out 'trial' textbooks to Hungarian teachers with a new origin theory given some weight - that the language was ancestored by the Huns instead of a Finno-Ugric/Uralic background.  I see nothing but trouble from this for the Talk Page .... -HammerFilmFan
Of course. However, Hungarian truly belongs to the Uralic family. The Hunnic language was most likely NOT Uralic. It is much more likely to have been either Yeniseian or Turkic. Nationalist authors have been unable to come up with any reliable research that would prove the "Hunnic" theory. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:F5AF:BD32:6287:7FA (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: new nationalist Textbooks

message: It's quite possible there was a Tungusic influence. It's not communis opinio, but quite possible.
: István Futaky in two articles (1970, 1973) indicated the probable borrowings from Tungus-Manchurian into Hungarian, and at least four of his etymologies (for Hung. beteg ‘ill’, oldal ‘side’, hamar ‘quickly’, kanál ‘spoon’) appear to be faultless.
: Helimski 2000
It could be mentioned.
dnik ►
:Certainly worth a mention. Futaky's handbook article from 1988 picks out the examples hamar, kanál and telek 'strap'. This never seems to have been widely accepted though in Hungarian etymological dictionaries or the like (oldal at least has also a good native etymology, the others are typically left at "etymology unknown"). Helimski's proposal that this is due to the Pannonian Avars having spoken a Tungusic language seems to be similarly unpopular; and e.g. Janhunen (2013) claims passingly that all Hungarian ~ Tungusic parallels would rather be "…a question of Central Asiatic areal items which have moved in parallel both to the east (Tungusic) and to the west (Hungarian)" (though then he seems overly skeptical anyway, e.g. also rejecting the much larger stock of Tungusic loanwords in Khanty). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Tungusic influence 

message: recently suggests zapping the list of these with the comment a proper source is needed (…) a world of research has happened in the last 80 years. I feel this misunderstands the point of the paragraph. None of this is itself reliable research. The notable point being made is that Hungarian has for long attracted a disproportionate amount of pseudoscientific language comparison, a fact that has since then not changed, and probably can be found mentioned also in newer sources. I don't particularly follow literature discussing this phenomenon, but e.g. Laakso (2018) (English translation) makes a few related points. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe comparison theories 

message: The redirect Epistolae Pavli Lingva Hvngarica Donatae has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 18:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Epistolae Pavli Lingva Hvngarica Donatae]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion has been opened at Talk:Umlaut (diacritic)#Hungarian that editors of this article may be able to resolve. I notice that the statement challenged is also stated in this article and is also uncited. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umlaut