Talk:History of the Hungarian language

message: There's vandalism on this page. It's been here for months. Let's see if you idiots can find it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.26.22 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on this page... somewhere 

message: It should be mentioned that 200 years ago only 29% of the population  on the territory of modern Hungary spoke Hungarian. СЛУЖБА (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What languages did the remaining 71% speak, then? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The percentage of speakers in a once-existed multiethnic kingdom is irrelevant from the point of a language history. Also I find such estimates dubious. --Cserlajos (talk)  (contribs) 16:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent expansion. 

message: I tagged this article for possible inclusion of Original Research, and also the need for in-line citations.  Phrases such as "Maybe a memoir ..." and many others do not sound very encyclopedic.  When writing material, you are required to add a reference from which you got the information from.  Just making a list of references is not good enough.  There are less than a dozen citations for a lengthy article which is supposedly grounded in documented history.  Please clean it up.  It's just slightly beyond start-class as it stands. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm the original author of this article. It was written like 8, or 9 years ago (the whole site started in 2005 I guess), and Wikipedia's standards of quality were much lower in those days. However, I had no intent to publish OR;  every statement is based on the referenced works. Unfortunately I don't remember page numbers after a decade of time. Good thing you came and tagged the article. Well, if I can still find the books, maybe I'll do the citation sometime soon.   --Cserlajos (talk)  (contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article BADLY needs work in the area of referencing, and possible OR 

message: What are those based on, and why are they preferred to the original text?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.139.93.230 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA stuff in Old Hungarian part 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Scots language which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I just ran across an interesting old source listing Old Hungarian numbers.
Newberry Library VAULT Case MS 54.1, folio 57v
MS 54.1 is a collection of medieval musical treatises. One of the treatises additionally lists the alphabets and numerals for a number of languages, including Greek, Arabic, Persian, Turkish and... on a later page: Hungarian.
"Iggi, kettu, harum, niggi, ut, hot, hette, nolch, kilenz, tyz, tyzeneggi, hohzz, honzniggi, honziketu, harmiggi, negevey, utven, hetven, khotvan, noltsalz, kilensaz, saaz"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.153.71 (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  14th century source for old Hungarian numbers 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Brutal Russian,
could you tell me where this diacritics come from:
- Hungarī
- sagíttis
- Hungarórum
- líbera
- Dómine?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hungarī comes from the fact that the Latin ending in question is -ī if one choses to use macrons to display vowel length: Wiktionary, parallel example word. I chose to use the macrons, which are not strictly necessary and can easily be removed, but cannot be wrong either. The diacritics in the song are marking the accented syllables (the song is a trochaic tetrameter - search for "latin") to help the reader read the song as intended. Do you think using the two types of diacritics is confusing? Brutal Russian (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes for an average reader it is not necessarily clear, may think this would be the original quote of the Latin text.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Latin text from the manuscript looks like this, and Latin text is never given in this form on wikipedia but is adapted to modern scripts and spelling conventions. Readers don't normally encounter direct transcriptions of manuscripts on wikipedia, and and as such aren't explained that what they're reading is never what is actually written. Two sets of diacritics is what I can imagine being confusing, but not simple accent marks in a Latin song excerpt - but of course it's no problem to add a clarifying note. Brutal Russian (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be left as they are now, the average standard used by most of the Latin texts people read.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the accents need to be marked as in most Latin texts intended for sung performance (such as found in music scores). This article is not for people who normally read Latin, and they can't be expected to know the correct accentuation, nor to recognise the metre - even professional singers need the accent marks. If a change in orthography helps the reader, then that change is justified. "Most text don't want to help the reader" is not a valid justification for not helping the reader. Note that there's no standard of Latin orthography, and there never was. —Now, unless you reverted my edit three times because you wanted to discuss spelling with me, I'd like you to either discuss factual reasons for the reverts - if there are none, please undo your reverts. Brutal Russian (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it was a prayer and may be sunged, it does not necessarily mean accents are needed, most of the Latin texts are presented with no accents, they are as well not necessary here. I already explained my reasons, and the reverts you already undid.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits