Talk:Finno-Ugric languages

Version of the family tree

The following tree was recently added to Uralic languages. I moved it here, for incorporation by experts.

• Uralic languages (was: Finno-Ugric)
  • Samoyed
    • Forest Nenets - 2,000
    • Enets (obsolete: Yenisei Samoyed) - very few
    • Nganasan (obsolete:Tavgi) - 1,000
    • Selkup (obsolete: Ostyak Samoyed) - 1,700
    • Kamass (extinct since 1989)
  • Ugrian
    • Khanty (obsolete: Ostyak) - 13,000
    • Mansi (obsolete: Vogul) - 3,000
    • Hungarian -14.5 millions
  • Finnic
    • Permian-Finnic
      • Komi - 350,000
        • Permyak or Permian Komi
        • Komi (obsolete: Zyryan)
      • Udmurt (obsolete: Votyak) - 500,000
    • Volga-Finnic
      • Mordvin
        • Erzya - 500,000
        • Moksha - 250,000
      • Mari (obsolete: Cheremis)
        • Meadow Mari - 500,000
        • Hill Mari - 42,000
    • Lapp
      • South Sámi - 500
      • Ume Sámi
      • Pite Sámi
      • Lule Sámi - 2,000
      • Kemi Sámi (extincted)
      • North Sámi - 30,000
      • Skolt Sámi - 500
      • Akkala Sámi
      • Ter Sámi - 500
    • Baltic-Finnic
      • Livonian - very few
      • Estonian - 1 million
      • Votian (or Vote) - very few
      • Finnish - 5.5 million
      • Ingrian - 300
      • Karelian
        • Karelian Proper - 35,000
        • Lude (may be a dialect of Karelian) - 5,000
      • Olonetsian or Livvi - 25,000
      • Vepsian or Veps - 6,000

Mikkalai 20:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I extended the thread. Information Centre of Finno-Ugric Peoples omit grouping Permian-Finnic, Volga-Finnic, Lapp and Baltic-Finnic under the same group (Finnic) as this three does. // Rogper 19:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph moved from Finnic

Maybe the following ought to be put in this article?

There is an old beliefe that there have been a proto-Finnic-Samic language group much like an artificial proto-Germanic group, but recent research shows it is not necessary, just like the proto-Germanic case.

/M.L.

Maybe this could be elaborated a little, like why the idea was abandoned (Kalevi Wiik, diffusion theory etc)? --Oop 21:24, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

proto-Germanic is by no means abandoned... - Mustafaa 01:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why was this moved?

Why was this moved to Finno-Ugric language from Finno-Ugric languages? None of the other language groups at Language_families_and_languages seem to be in the singular. -- Jniemenmaa 09:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't one of the wiser things I've done here, but I believe Wikipedia to have a preference for singular in titles, and also that North Germanic language have been in the singular for some time, at least[1].

I agree that a title in the plural would seem motivated for article covering a group of languages.
--Ruhrjung 13:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've studied Estonian philology for years and I have never heard about the 'Finno-Ugric language' in singular. It is a group entity and should be in plural. Nowadays, most people don't even postulate the hypothetical protolanguage any more, so this looks like having 'pant' instead of 'pants'. --Oop 21:21, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric legend

Dear Editor, Please do not revert this page. There is NO Finno-ugric language group, and this fact should be pointed out. If you think, there exists such a group, please argue. Deletion of pages will not make false things true. Thank you.

Explanation: I'd like to point out, that he Finno-Ugric legend was founded in the 18-th century by non-Hungarian, non-Finnic and non-Estonian people. Since the languages, artifically put into this group, have very few similar words, and the grammar is also quite different, except the agglutination, which is also characteristic for Basque, Etruskian, Sumerian, Turkish, Armenian, Persian and other languages, this proves, that this language group does not exist in reality. This is a non existing, pseudo-scientifical, phantasy language group.

No "finno-ugric" university faculty professor could answer the simple question, what is common in this "group" except agglutination, that is also part of Basque, Etruskian, Sumerian, Turkish, Armenian, Persian, etc... Therefore this group is a non-existent group, result of malevolous phantasy and pseudo-scientific fraud. -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203

Well, according to [2] The linguistic kinship of the Finno-Ugric peoples was discovered by János Sajnovics (1733–1785), a Hungarian scholar, at the end of the 18th century.

Also see [3] and the heading "Is it true that "the theories about Finno-Ugrian language relationship have been shown to be false"?"-- Jniemenmaa 07:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sajnovits was an astronomer. Christian, the Danish king invited him to lappland. He found the lappic people sympathetic, and wrote a rather stupid study, in that he tries to prove, that lappic is very similar to Hungarian. He wanted to help the Lapps with that, and he caused immense damage to Hungary and the whole science. However, probably, he did not know, that this would ever be taken seriously. He lists for example 110 "similar words". Some lappic endings are similar to Hungarian, and if he found one "similar" word, with the "similar endings he extended each word to ten ones. -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203

Deleting this opposing view is one way to go about writing this article.

This is a brutal way, used by people, who use their fists as arguments. -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203

I agree with you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

However it is not necessarily the best way nor particularly in accordance with the Neutral Point Of View. If there is or has been any academic support for the viewpoint being expressed by (217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203), then they should give a reference for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I am arguing, using simple arguments, that any person can understand. -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203

That is not enough. You must also be arguing for a view which other people besides yourself hold. Wikipedia is not a place for personal theories. It only accepts theories which have been described elsewhere by someone notable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Their view can then be incorporated in the article by attributing it to those who espouse it. Even if the theory has been shown to be false, that fact can be incorporated into the article along with the reference to the Helsinki University website. That is what it means for an article to be written from the Neutral Point Of View: it's supposed to show all viewpoints if there are two or more. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:04, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I argue, you just delete (revert) my argumentation. Is this the way you are arguing? -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203

I have never deleted your argumentation. Why do you say that I have ? However from now on I will move personal comments to this talk page because they do not belong in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Note particularly that the Helsinki University article states that "Seriously speaking, these answers represent the so-called Finnish mainstream Finno-Ugristics." which suggests that there are alternative non-mainstream viewpoints to which, no doubt, (217.235.200.226 and 217.235.199.203) belong. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

If you want to you could edit the additions into something more NPOV. I couldn't find anything useful about this theory through Google. Most hits were about Hungarian being related to Sumerian. -- Jniemenmaa 09:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to make the additions more NPOV. Not everything can be found on Google. It may be necessary to do some library research on this topic to discover whther this is a valid minority viewpoint. In the meantime we should give it the benefit of the doubt. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Not only related, but identical. Antropologically and in language, too. Also identical to Skythas, Huns, Awars.

I do not doubt at all the similarity of Hungarian to Finnish and Estonian. Due to the agglutination there are clear similarities. BUT: the same similarity exists between Hungarian, Basque, Turkish, Sumeric, Armenian, Persian, etc... Therefore the existence of a finnougric group is a pure phantasy-child.

If you believe, that there is a finnougric group, please answer the following 2 simple questions:

1. What are the similarities in the finnougric group by in words and grammar? Please only such identical words and grammatic rules (except agglutination), that are identical in ALL languages. No Finnish-Estonian similarities, also no Mari-Nenetz-xyz or whatever.

2. If you found the answer to question 1: What are the DIFFERENCES between Finnougric group and the Turkish language group? (except the words).

Please avoid the enumeration of url-s and books. Two simple questions- two simple answers. Thank you.

I find it somewhat disgusting, that grunt reverts the page in 5 minutes after editing. Cannot Grunt bear arguments? Is grunt really so primitive? :-(( -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203

The final comments above are simple insults. How do they help to improve the article ? Wikipedia requires contributors to be civil to each other. If you wish to have fun insulting people, please contribute to UseNet. On the other hand if you wish to have your view added to Wikipedia, please read the article on the Neutral Point Of View and on WikiLove to see how to do it in an acceptable manner. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Same about Hippophaë. No diskussion just revert. Why? Primitiveness? Malevolence? --

No. It's just because you are not adding your information in the correct way. Read the links that I gave you in my paragraph above to find out how to add controversial material in such a way that other people will not delete it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:04, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

• I set up a new page, and put a reference onto that here. This is more than neutral, isn't it?
• Hippophaë reverted after a few minutes. Primitivness without an end. -- Anonymous editor

I am sorry to hear that. I have to go out just now but when I return I will work with you to try to achieve agreement on this. Your material does belong here in my opinion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:16, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

• Well, I am happy with that link and the additional article. Thanks for your support. -- 217.235.200.226/217.235.199.203.

That's alright. However I feel that the material on your Antifinnougric page, together with new material on the Finnish "New Paradigm", should be mentioned as minority viewpoints within the Finno-Ugric article itself rather than being hived off to a separate article. Using the Wikipedia NPOV method, we can do that in such a way that all editors agree that the article only consists of true statements whether they support the mainstream Finno-Ugric hypothesis for the origin of Hungarian or the minority "Magyar" hypothesis. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:03, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

before you get involved in a lengthly and futile argument with the anonymous editor, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that he's been behaving exactly the same way on the corresponding page of the Hungarian wiki. He uses exactly the same arguments, never quotes any other sources than himself and prof. Marácz, and responds to criticism with accusations of enmity, aggressivity and bias. Recently he has started a similar campaign on the German wiki, too. I thought you should know.
David Hanak Nov 11 2004 6:00pm (CST)

David Hanak's remark is very much filled with personal emotions "enmity, aggressivity and bias", that, of course characterizes him. -- 217.235.207.56

These are insults -- not arguments. Please refrain from using them whatever your personal feelings maybe. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:11, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I cited David Hanak's wording without any modification. Where are the insults, please? -- antifinnougric

Besides that David Hanak agressively tries to stop any discussion. He criticizes, that I argue myself (he does not argue at all!), and that I cite Professor Marácz only. This is firstly not true, since on the Hungarian page I have also some other references in Hungarian, which are not useful here. Secondly, Dr. Marácz-s article is the easiest to be found on the net, and it is very current, but there are lot of others, who seriously doubt the existence of the artificial finnougric group. David Hanak obviously does not know any of those, but this is clearly not my fault. -- antifinnougric

Thanks for the warning, David. Hopefully somewhere between the Hungarian, German and English wikipedias we can manage to come to some sort of an understanding on this with him. If it is a personal theory held by one man, we should be able to establish that pretty quickly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:40, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Please refer to the Talk:Antifinnougric page for a way forward for everybody. I have to go out to the cinema now, so I won't be available for another couple of hours. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:48, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Someone from University of Jyvaskyla has reverted again the page, after 1 hour. I ask myself, what is it a theory,that cannot bear even links to criticism? This behaviour of finougristic fans tells quite a lot about finnougristic methods. PLEASE do not revert tha page, since this does not make sense at all. Thanks.

I agree that your current additions to this page need not be reverted, although your earlier additions certainly needed, at the least, heavy editing. Could all editors discuss the matter on this page before making any more changes to the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:11, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Thanks for your corresponding entry. Hopefully it stops the commentless and senseless revertings. -- antifinnougric

Answers for the reverting people

I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for provocative personal theories which are not based on proper linguistic research.

Well, simply reverting many times without any comment is insulting and provocative, isn't it, Hippophaë? -- antifinnougric

Of course, I accept criticism, but it must be clearly marked that it deals with personal opinions only. I revised the chaotic and partly wrong classification of the languages and added the Criticism chapter for links to pages with personal opinions. I hope everybody can accept the article now. --Hippophaë 02:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since Hungarian did not take over features or words from other languages, especially not from neighbouring ones, I had to correct your text. The two simple questions I list, clearly illustrate the problem with the existence of the so called "Finno-Ugric" group. Rather than wildly and primitively delete my text, please answer these simple questions first, Hippophaë. -- antifinnougric

I agree with your comments on provocative personal theories but some of the hypotheses for the origin of Hungarian that you are dismissing have a rather longer history than that -- the Turkic hypothesis for one. I gather that most modern linguists prefer to posit a Finnish-Hungarian connection rather than a Finish-Turkic connection nowadays, and it would be certainly be interesting to present the history so that readers become aware of why the Finno-Ugrian hypothesis is preferred over its rivals.

This has only political reasons. No logic of any kind can be found there. - af

Politics has a cruel logic of its own of course. But my background reading indicated that some people believe that Hungarian linguistic research may have been influenced by politics for nearly two hundred years now. I certainly think that an interesting article could be written about the history. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:11, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

There are studies in Hungarian about this. Very good is the study of Mr. Kornél Bakay, a historican, who sums up the history of the "Finno-Ougric" language group, its title is "How did we became Finno-Ougric". I would be interested to hear, if there are similar studies also in Finland. --af

Reading the source given to us by the anonymous editor convinces me that the main criticism of the Finno-Ugric hypothesis which he has been making is that it is based on 18th century word comparisons rather than modern techniques. -- Derek Ross

Yes, that is a very important point. The other very important thing is, that only aliens stated, that this "language group" exists. No Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian scholar ever. --af

This is not true.

There are a lot of Finnish scholars who say there is such a language group.

For example, there is Tapani Salminen at University of Helsinki: http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/ling.html

So please stop telling wrong things here.

More infos can be found here: http://www.helsinki.fi/~jolaakso/fufaq.html

--zeno 23:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I realise that many Finnish scholars support the Finno-Ugric grouping. In fact that is why the article says that the majority of linguists support the grouping. There is also a link (the second one that you mention) at the bottom of the main article which makes the point plain. Note that, although these statements have been made here on the discussion page, they have not been made in the article itself. And that is the important thing. The "wrong things" are part of a discussion about the article but they do not appear in the article itself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:01, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

If the data and the method are the same, the researcher will come to the same conclusion no matter what their nationality. The problem here seems to be a problem of method rather than of nationality. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:01, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Aren't you a bit naive? History falsification is a popular way for eliminationg nations. First eliminate their history, then their present time, and this will eliminate their future - how well did Orwell describe the method! -- af

True - but in that case I would argue that a "history falsification" method has been used rather than a "linguistic comparison" method. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:21, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Then I would answer, that linguistic semi groups are a well known method among others of history falsifiers. --af

Having said that your latest edits are much better than the simple deletion which you were originally doing. Hopefully they will be acceptable as they stand, or at most with a little more editing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:13, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Fixing the neutrality problem

Please care for my newest correction. The simple questions are absolutely valid, and if anybody can not give simple, understandable answers to them, he has no right to modify the test or delete it. Do you agree? -- af

Your latest correction starts off well. However it moves on to question the reader. The problem with the questions is that they ask for information which the general reader is not able to provide. People want to read the encyclopedia to find out what experts have to say on a topic and to find out whether all experts agree or not. Therefore there is no point in putting questions about someone else's opinion which can only be answered by an expert into a Wikipedia article. To inform the reader you need to include a concise description of your own opinion, making it plain that it is not shared by all other experts. In that way, the general reader for whom the Wikipedia is written will be informed by statements rather than being confused by questions. On those grounds alone, I believe that your newest correction needs to be changed, although it is definitely more neutral than your original contributions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:01, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, that questions are not, what encyclopedia readers want to read. However, if I write:

- There are no common features in the so called Finougric group except agglutination.
  There are no common words that are the same in the whole group, and also no 
  grammatic features, that are the same in the whole group, except agglutination.
. 
- There are many other languages, like Sumerian, Etruscian, Turkish, Armenian, 
   Persian, Basque, ... that also use agglutination, and have other grammar 
   similarities to individual languages of the "Finno-Ougric" group.
.
- Nobody doubts in relationship among the so called "Fino-Ougric" languages, 
  but the relationship is on a much higher level, that is, among much more
  languages, than only in this tiny, artificially and unlogically grouped
  "language group". The same is, of course true, for the "Uralic" "language
  group." 
 .
 I would not say, that only criticizers say that, since these are stone-hard facts. 
 The Finnish pages, that try to collect "similar" words between Finnish and 
 Hungarian illustrate best, how far Hungarian words are from Finnish ones, 
 and how unsimilar Finnish and Hungarian words are. In contrast to that, 
 there are in Finnish a lot of words (in fact much more, than those, which
 very remotely resemble to Hungarian ones), that resemble to German words, and 
 suggest old Finnish-Germanic relationship.  

Would that be accepted instead of the question? -- af

I would certainly find it much more acceptable than the questions. Please reformat in this way. As I have said before it would be worthwhile for you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully to see exactly how we phrase "unpopular" or alternative viewpoints within an article. If you follow the formula, it should make it easier for you to have your material accepted not only here but also on the Hungarian and German wikipedias. I realise that it is a long and sometimes frustrating way of working since you must be careful of the phrasing that you use to express ideas but when it is properly understood and used it can allow reasonable people of opposing views to edit even such controversial articles as the ones on the Palestinian/Israeli situation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:21, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to make the writing style of the main article closer to the NPOV style that Wikipedia requires. I have not finished but hopefully I have not changed any facts which either side in the dispute might consider important. Note how the article now states what people believe rather than what is true or false. I am perfectly willing to discuss what I have done and why it is necessary but note that I am not yet finished and would prefer to discuss after I have made all changes. Rest assured that they are in line with our discussion above. I merely wish to demonstrate the NPOV style. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:48, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I have now completed my editing, including the rewording of Antifinnougric's questions which he presented above. I hope that it presents both sides of the argument in a manner which everyone can agree with. If not then I hope that it at least shows the style which should be aimed at by any editor attempting to change the current contents, so that we can continue editing until we reach an article which we can all agree with. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:29, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Thanks for your formulation. It sounds quite good for me now. I broadened it a bit, since I know, that also serious Finnish linguists never really believed in the existence of this group and in the 1950-es years they openly distanced themselves on a congress in Belgium. I think, Estonian ones will also distance themselves soon. Also important to mention, that antropologically only Finnish and Estonians are related as nord europeans, whose language without doubt quite similar is, the others, the mixed european Hungarians and the mongoloid rest's languages are very different. Maybe Lapps are antropologically also mixed, since they look partly nord european, partly european and partly lightly mongoloid. Their language is quite apart from any language, and also they have several languages, that are mutually not understandable. --af

Oh. How nice to look at people's faces in order to find out how related the languages they speak are. This is really sound linguistic research. --zeno 23:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again this is a claim that appears on the discussion page but it does not appear within the article and it should not. As you point out it has nothing to do with linguistic research. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:12, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that you find the latest formulation acceptable and I hope that the supporters of the Finno-Ugric theory do too. I will wait for a couple of days to see if there are any other significant disagreements and then remove the neutrality dispute notice. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:03, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. The "Criticism" section is not acceptable,

Please please do not follow what "af" says here.

In many cases, he/she is just lying, and claiming things that are just obviously wrong, like "no Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian scholars ever felt there was a language group like the Finno-Ugric languages" or "... serious Finnish linguists never really believed in the existence of this group ...".

From what I saw on this page from her/him, he/she has no idea at all of comparative linguistics, and is just following some over-simple nationalistic ideas without ever thinking scientifically.

--zeno 23:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

zenogartner, I could not find sentences, like "o Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian scholars ever felt there was a language group like the Finno-Ugric languages". Is if from your phantasy? The point is, that the Fino-Ugric group was not established by native people, but from aliens. I also cannot find the sentence: "serious Finnish linguists never really believed in the existence of this group". Besides that I am completely missing any argument from your lines to the main point of the criticism. Please avoid the citation of books. Simple points, simple relies. Thanks, --af

Can you tell me which sentences in particular you find unacceptable within the Criticism section ? The sentences that you mention above are sentences that appear upon this discussion page and which do not form part of the article, so I cannot remove them from the article. I have little doubt that the criticism is nationalist inspired but if you read the criticism section carefully you will see that it only describes what some Hungarian linguists believe. It does not give an opinion on whether the beliefs are true or false. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:12, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

This "criticism" section is reporting a thoroughly mistaken, and un-noteworthy, POV. Wikipedia can report POVs, but has no business reporting the views of individuals unless convincing evidence is given that they represent a widespread view among linguists rather than one man's hypothesis. - Mustafaa 01:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I canot see your arguments. Just general words, nothing about the subject. --af

In your opinion... Of course the problem with that fine sentiment is that one man's "convincing evidence" is another's "barely credible rumour". I'd also have to ask how many people does it take to comply with your definition of "widespread". There aren't that many professional linguistic researchers, so the term "widespread" is rather overstating things in this context. The evidence that I have gathered convinces me that this is the view of one group of researchers rather than of one man but I still feel that that makes it noteworhy enough to be mentioned even if it is a mistaken view from beginning to end. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:48, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Incidentally, in Zoltan Kodaly's article I notice a few minor errors:

• On the pronouns, which are well-known as common Eurasiatic, he misleadingly fails to include the equally similar Indo-European pronouns, which he surely is aware of.
• Citing "Sumerian haš= qadâdu = to bend", as a cognate for Manchurian "qodo", he fails to realize that "qadadu" is an Akkadian gloss, not a Sumerian word.

which are dwarfed by an enormous error throughout: he makes no effort to establish any kind of sound correspondences, or to deal with the well-established Finno-Ugric sound correspondences, despite the fact that he feels happy to reject Finno-Ugric words that fit these correspondences "because of phonetic reasons". He explains this more fully in a footnote whose falseness alone should disqualify him from serious consideration as a historical linguist:

Zoltan Kodaly is no linguist. However, the person, whose "work" established finnougrism, was an astronom, with no linguistoc backround. --af

3. The deduction of Finno-Ugrian phonetic laws does not rest on solid grounds. Indogermanistics whence the concept of phonetic laws originated, has already given up its linguistic efforts based on phonetic laws. (p. 69)[2]

And if that doesn't do it, then how's this for linguistic illiteracy?

what do you mean here? Your linguistic illiteracy or someone else's? --af

6. There are no written records available of the Finno-Ugrian language. Because of this the Finno-Ugrian basic vocabulary cannot be determined. Neither the so called phonetic law can be validated, nor the language communities such as the Ugrian, Volga-Finn, etc., which are of a later presupposition (p. 69).[5] Because of these facts, the entire Finno-Ugrian basic language is mere speculation. The Finno Ugrian linguists themselves admit this.

For non-linguists here, the "phonetic laws" he speaks of are the foundations of historical linguistics, and have certainly not been given up by any serious historical linguists. Even the long-rangers do not deny their validity; they simply argue that trying to find them at deeper time depths should follow classification rather than preceding it.

He cites "László Honti, the Finno-Ugrian professor of the University of Groningen" as reacting to his theories as follows:

Honti began his Amsterdam lecture that my scientific approach is on the level of an article published in the Hócipõ [This is an extreme liberal Hungarian satirical weekly. Editor.] entitled “Do the extraterrestials speek Magyar”?

I think I can sympathise with Prof. Honti. - Mustafaa 01:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

why? --af

I'm not sure how discussing faults in one of Zoltan Kodaly's articles can improve this one, so I won't comment on your informative statements above. This article discusses the Finno-Ugrian language grouping. Now I may not know much about linguistics but I do know that this has been a controversial grouping for over a hundred years and is strongly dependent on what you think the origins of Hungarian are. So it seems to me perfectly valid to mention the fact that not everyone agrees with the mainstream view and to explain why they do not (no matter how mistaken they may actually be). I also think that it is poor that the article does not mention the view known as the "New Paradigm". It may well have little standing among linguists (and I can see why) but it is out there and we should be mentioning it, and mentioning that it too is a minority view discounted by the majority of linguists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:48, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Fair point, criticising Kodaly's pseudoscience may not help too much here.

well, he speaks about a pseudoscience, finno-ugristic. That is true. --af

But I must ask for evidence of notability. Would the Antifinnougric guy care to provide a list of researchers who believe this, together with their credentials?

Dear Mustafa, please answer the two simple questions:

• what are the similarities in the Finno-ugric group except agglutination?
  • (ONLY those, which are present in EVERY LANGUAGE of the group).
• if any: what are the differences between the Finno-ugric and the Turkish
  • languages, except the word set?

Please no url-s and books: Simple questions, simple answers. Thank you.

What do you mean "except the word set"? The word set is by far the strongest evidence for Finno-Ugric or any other closely linked language family. - Mustafaa 21:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, then you may also mention the word set. So please answer the two simple questions. Especially the COMMON WORDS off the "finno ougric" family, of course, of ALL languages. --af

Reading the one article adduced in evidence, Zoltan Kodaly's, has left me sceptical as to whether the guy has ever even been trained in historical linguistics, and all the more sceptical as to whether any linguist believes him. As for the "New Paradigm", it might merit a sentence or two; I haven't heard much about it, so I hesitate to offer an opinion. - Mustafaa 20:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot of linguists, who have exactly the same way of thinking, than I have it. But here we are not citating names or books, we are simply discussing about FACTS. Please answer the two simple questions, otherwise your argumentation has absolutely no value. Thanks.

No, actually we're citing names and books, we are not talking about FACTS (despite my digression earlier.) Please see Wikipedia:No original research - and give us a list of the linguists who believe this bizarre theory. So far, we're on zero, if your admission that "Zoltan Kodaly is no linguist" is correct. - Mustafaa 21:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

this is all so futile, and a perfect example of why WP can be so annoying (besides also being so beautiful). af,

• first of all, if you want to be taken seriously as a contributor, get an account. it takes you all of half a minute to create one.
• secondly, it is simply beyond me why people seem to have the impression they are an expert on linguistics simply because of their ancestry/origin. The people who proposed Finno-Ugric may not have been Finns or Hungarians, but they were serious scholars who devoted years of their lives to the task. That makes an expert, "hard work" (:) not just being fom somewhere. In fact, your synchronic understanfing of your own language is a hindrance just as often as a help for the understanding of your language's history. nationalism is certainly never a help.
• it is simply beyond me how the proposal of such a language family can be seen as malevolent. It's a theory. Well founded, if not as obvious as the Indo-European (not to mention Germanic) case.
• no original research. don't be fooled into trying to prove the theory to a troll. we are citing authorities. If he can cite a dissenting authority, let it be included. We are referring to scholarly opinions here, not establishing the facts ourselves.

As far as I am concerned, af is a troll.

Dear Dbachmann, please answer the following two simple questions:

• what are the similarities in the Finno-ugric group except agglutination?
  • (ONLY those, which are present in EVERY LANGUAGE of the group).
• if any: what are the differences between the Finno-ugric and the Turkish
  • languages, except the word set?

Please no url-s and books: Simple questions, simple answers. Thank you. Antifinnugor 20:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go back to work on the article. if he cites authorities (research articles), let them be included as minority views. If he wants to challenge the communis opinio (and Finno-Ugric is the communis opinio), the burden of proof rests with him. NPOV is not a licence to give equal hearing to random nutcase theories. dab 22:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

btw, please move back to languages. The plural is for the language family (as in Indo-European languages. The singular is at best for the proto-language (but shoul d really be Proto-Finno-Ugric language. dab 22:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition to the wise words of dab: please do not break up comments of others but instead adress them as a whole — this discussion is unreadable. And Antifinnougric, would you indeed please consider registering and signing your comments using ~~~~?

Antifinnugor 20:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) - here for you

It would certainly help communication, and additionally, it will help you to take credit for your contributions to Wikipedia. ¶ Mark Dingemanse (talk) 22:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

First of all Zoltan Kodaly is indeed not a linguist, he is a composer (everyone should check out his Missa Brevis and Psalmus Hungaricus). The article that is debunked above is written by Laszlo Karoly Maracz in honor of Kodaly.

On to the subject. I have been searching for academic sources backing up Af's position (in several University libraries and in the Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts database of the Cambridge Internet Database service). No results. Laszlo K Maracz, the only academic researcher mentioned by AntiFU, seems to have written two scientific articles (1985 and 1989), both not on the subject at hand. Furthermore, since I am Dutch, I had the chance to check out 'Hongaarse Kentering', the 1995 book of Laszlo K Maracz. This is a political work and statements regarding the status of Finno-Ugric should be interpreted with this in mind. Maracz seems to know quite a lot about Hungarian, but, mind you, has published never anything in the domain of historical or comparative linguistics.

My conclusions:

• A. The 'Criticism' section should be pulled out of the article pending real citation. In other words, at present, this section deserves no place because of its non-notability. Antifinnougric, this is how Wikipedia works (see Wikipedia:No original research).
• B. Like dab says, this discussion is a troll. Antifinnougric, do not keep asking the same questions.

Dear Mark Dingemanse, does this mean, that you cannot answer those simple two questions? Does this irritate you so much, that you call the asker a troll? Is the emperor really naked? If you cannot answer them, then this so called language group DOES NOT EXIST. So simple is that. Antifinnugor

Instead, provide sources to prove that this hypothesis is shared or recognized as notable by more than one academic linguist. ¶ Mark Dingemanse (talk) 22:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please note that Zoltán Kodály died in 1967. Although he is best known as a composer, he did have a PhD in linguistics. He did not actually write the article which you are tearing to shreds, and he may well have disagreed with its conclusions (who can tell ?). According to the article itself, its author is actually Dr. László Marácz, a Dutchman of Hungarian parentage who has a post at the University of Amsterdam. The article also names eight researchers who share the views of the anonymous editor who signs himself, "af". It may well be that the topic is not noteworthy enough to get its own article but it's certainly noteworthy enough to get a paragraph or so in an article on the Finno-Ugric languages. Take a look at Indo-European languages which mention both the Nostratic family and the Eurasiatic family (the personal viewpoint of one man) . -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:01, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Who are these eight researchers? Reading this, the only linguists (to use the term loosely) that I notice supporting it are:

• László Marácz, well dealt with by Mark Dingemanse
• László Götz, possibly; cited only in a footnote
• Rev. Zoltán Szabó Nagyernyei thinks Hungarian is the original language of humanity... does that count?

Maybe I'm missing someone; but most of the people in the article seem to be talking about other off-the-wall topics like Hungarian runes in North America. - Mustafaa 23:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article states:

On May 22, 1997, a linguistic conference was held on the grounds of the Gödöllõ Agrártudományi Egyetem (Gödöllõ Agricultural University). Participation was by invitation only. The organizer of the conference was Dr. Sándor Gyõri Nagy, who invited the following scholars: János Péntek (Kolozsvár), György Papp (Ujvidék), Jenõ Kiss and Géza Balázs (ELTE), Gábor Pap (Gödöllõ/Miskolc), József P. Pesti (Kalocsa), László Marácz (Amsterdam). The goal was to discuss the present state of linguistics in Hungary, which has heretofore been forced to adhere to either the Finno-Ugrian or the Turkish line of linguistic theory, totally neglecting the Magyar line of word origins. Participants proposed to extend the circle of linguistic researchers and to convene every six months for further discussions.

However it does not indicate which of these researchers might be linguists and which might not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:43, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

however, this whole conference business of Hungarians trying to prove they have nothing to do with Finns (are there also Finns trying to show they have nothing to do with Hungarians, or is this a one-sided quest?) might make an amusing addition to the article (if not a separate article). dab 09:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However please be aware that the viewpoint of this certain individual does not represent Hungarians' viewpoint at all, and his arrogance is a shame and not a general attribute of ours. We have the same problem on hu.wikipedia, he's trolling around, neglecting requests for sources, starts edit wars. I hope you find a solution (Derek is much more patient as I am it seems), so I can apply on him on hu as well... --grin ✎ 21:28, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Finnish nationalists seem more interested in proving that the whole of Northern Europe spoke proto-Finnish before the Indo-Europeans arrived, see "New Paradigm" but in general they seem to like the Hungarian connection. I still think that it's worth mentioning those two viewpoints, amusing or otherwise, in addition to the Finno-Ugric hypothesis' main rival, the Ural-Altaic hypothesis. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:00, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

The Ural-Altaic hypothesis, while obsolete, was once seriously held, and may be worth mentioning; however, it is in no sense a "rival" of Finno-Ugric, and in fact it assumes the correctness of Finno-Ugric. Linguistic taxonomy deals in trees; the tree proposed by Ural-Altaicists was:

• Ural-Altaic
  • Uralic
    • Samoyedic
    • Finno-Ugric
  • Altaic
    • Turkic
    • Mongolian
    • Tungus

or in other words, the standard Uralic and Altaic families conjoined. - Mustafaa 16:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are right of course. My apologies for muddying the waters. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:22, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

A response to Mr Anti-Finnougric (Äntifinnöugirinnikeliinin)

1. Historical linguistics is a well-established field with well-established rules on how to operate and how to prove that two languages are related. It has proven itself a hundred times over since its conception, and as of yet you have not offered us a reason why the solid historical linguistics that have been used to prove the unity of the Finno-Ugric family should be mistrusted, other than...

If it were, why can't anybody answer the 2 simple questions:

• what are the similarities of the finougric languages exceopt agglutination?
  • similarities, that are characteristic for alllanguages, common
  • words, common grammar.
• if 1. answered: what are the differences between the finno-ougric and turkish languages
  • except the word set?

Is the emperor really naked? --af

1. You have criticised the grouping on the idea that it was first conceived and explored by an astronomer. While astronomers are not qualified historical linguists (unless they are trained for both, which is rare,) this grouping is as valid as any because it has been tested and validated by professionally-trained historical linguists, and there are only a handful of professional linguists who question the unity of the Finno-Ugric languages (even if they are not genetically related, the grouping still exists, please note this), most of them ultranationalists from Finland.

Not only them. Could you give me some names and books/url-s except of the voddo page, that was cited here, if any? Thanks in advance, --af

1. Please realise that your request of us to not argue but to provide you with exactly what you asked, but excluding the things which you want to exclude is equal to a murder trial where the defendant asks the prosecution to exclude all or most of the evidence which proves his guilt. Why won't you allow us to use valid historical linguistics to argue against you, and why do you only want us to give you certain things? My interests do not lie mainly in Finno-Ugristics, and thus I am not able to produce much of the evidence you have asked for. Rather, as a scholar and a scientist, the reason I believe what I believe and the way I would tell it to others is because I trust the people who have written the idea, as well as the hundreds of linguists who have validated it and agreed.

Cheap excuse for not thinking, isn't it? --af

If a linguist publishes an article in which he tries to convince me that Navajo and Akkadian are the same language except for a relatively small 100 words and one syntactical difference, but his evidence is flimsy or non-existant, I will not believe him. If he has what seems like good evidence, I will go further since I am not knowledgeable enough to make a proper judgement about the particular situation from my current knowledge alone, and try to see what my peers believe and why. If an expert tells me "I agree with the article because my wife just died", I will be no closer to believing it than before. If an expert tells me "I think the article is total crap because I hate the author", I will be no closer to DISbelieving it than before.

well, I am simply asking two questions, and nobody can answer them. No personal sentiments any kind. --af

1. PLEASE register. There are a number of reasons. And as proof of our goodwill, you are not required to provide an e-mail address to register, and if you do provide one we won't send anything to it except e-mails from other users, which you can also disable if you like.

Best, Node 00:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am registered. Hope, theis pleases you. Antifinnugor 20:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa and Antifinnougric

Dear Finno-Ugricists,

I just stumbled into this talk page thanks to a tip from Mustafaa, and would like to contribute my five cents worth as a seasoned historical linguist. Forgive me for my lack of political correctness, but Mr. Anti-Finnougric is a charlatan who knows nothing about this subject.

can't you answer the 2 simple questions, and you are frustrated, that the dubious fonno-ugric group does not exist? Antifinnugor 20:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In fact, it is truly sad that so much energy has been expended in debating him. This is not about hurling insults, this is about knowing what you're talking about. There is well over a century of solid scholarship backing the Uralic family (this is, as you know, the name currently applied to this language family by linguists, rather than Finno-Ugric [or Ugro-Finnic], because Uralic includes Samoyedic, while Finno-Ugric stricto sensu does not). More recently, Uralic-Yukaghir has been gaining acceptance as a wider unity.

It may be that Mr. Anti-Finnougric and/or his sources are confusing Finno-Ugric with the old and now largely abandoned concept of a Ural-Altaic family, because some of the criticism unjustly levied at the Finno-Ugric language group by "af" recalls the valid criticism brought against Ural-Altaic. But that's no excuse. While the Ural-Altaic concept has come into question (in fact, even Altaic is disputed as a language family, and some linguists would like to separate Turkic-Hunnic from Mongolian-Tungus, while possibly attaching Korean and Japanese to the latter), Uralic and Finno-Ugric have never been seriously called into question.

the uralic family is the same nonsense, as the finno-ugric. I don't treat the ural_altaic, but if you say, it is disputed also. --af Antifinnugor 20:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, within the Nostratic hypothesis, all of the above language groups come together again, but in a much more remote and as yet dubious superfamily.

not dubious, but logical. You mix up the words. Antifinnugor 20:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The possibility of a more remote Nostratic unity does not in any way alter the facts as set out above.

Pasquale 19:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Antifinnugor, As you will notice, my contribution was not directed to you, but to the Finno-Ugricists. I have no intention to engage you in a debate, because you so obviously have no idea of what you're talking about that it is pitiful. As long as you cannot discern what you know and what you don't know, you will always look like a fool. I would not engage a physicist in a debate on the quantum theory, because I don't know anything about it. But at least I know I don't know anything about it. Pasquale 18:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Pasquale, I could not see any arguments in your letter, not a word about languages, just full unjustified critics and hate for my person. Probably you hate me, because you cannot answer my two simple questions. I am so sorry for you. --af

I'm sorry. You flatter yourself if you think I'd waste my hate on you. I couldn't care less about convincing you of anything. It may come as a surprise to you, but the purpose of the Wikipedia is not to convince you! I don't see why anyone would want to bother with that. Pasquale 01:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Pasquale, Bachmann, Mark, Node for weighing in. Several people have already rightly reminded us that this page should be devoted to source examination, not linguistic debate aka original research; however, temporarily ignoring this point, I think I'll briefly answer the questions to which Antifinnougor appears to attach such a strange significance:

• "what are the similarities of the finnougric languages except agglutination?" well, duh. Finno-Ugric is one of the world's best reconstructed families (see the Uralic section of this post for a sample); why don't you look at the Uralic etymological dictionaries alluded to by the very article you linked to?

Dear Mustafa, in that list there is not a single book, that treats the similarities in the whole so called finno-ougric group. Read it please again. I did not talk about Finnish- Estonian similarities, or Mari-Udmurt ones, but about similarities in the WHOLE GROUP. There is no one book, that presents them. Why? Antifinnugor 20:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

or failing that, you could try the elementary exercises near the beginning of Campbell's Historical Linguistics textbook, where the beginner historical linguist is given word-lists for Finnish and Hungarian to reconstruct Proto-Finno-Ugric with as an easy practice exercise.

Dear Mustafa, nobody, absolute nobody doubts certain similarity between Finnish and Hungarian. That is not the subject. The subject is the similariti(es) in the whole FU group. Antifinnugor 20:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• He qualifies this with "similarities, that are characteristic for all languages, commonwords, common grammar." - ditto, not that it matters; it is entirely possible to accurately reconstruct a language family without any single word surviving in every single member language.

Well, if the words are not similar and also the grammar is not similar except agglutination, then what is similar at all in the whole group? Then why do you want to set up an isolated, unnatural language group ? We are holding the breath and waiting for your enumeration. Thanks. --af Antifinnugor

• "what are the differences between the finno-ougric and turkish languages except the word set?" - what do you mean "except the word set"? If the word set isn't similar, and the morphology isn't similar, there is absolutely no reason to imagine that they're related. - Mustafaa 23:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Mustafa, I am still waiting for the similarities in the so called finno-ugric group (words and grammar), because without that this comparison makes no sense at all. Again:

• what are the similarities of the so called finno-ugric group?
  • in the whole group, grammar and words, please.
  • please no books and url-s but enumerate the similarities, that
  • we can compare with the turkish group. Is that so difficult?

I am still waiting for your enumerations. Is this really hopeless?

• if the enumeration is there, lets go to the second simple question,
  • to the difference between "FU" and Turkish languages. Antifinnugor

See Finno-Ugric languages#Bibliography - and go read the books cited. - Mustafaa 11:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The main source traditionally has been: Collinder, Bjorn (1955), An Etymological Dictionary of the Uralic Languages, Stockholm. But more important than the Uralic/Finno-Ugric sources is an understanding of how to go about proving a genetic relationship among languages. For that, an introductory book is best, for starters, such as Campbell's Historical Linguistics mentioned above by Mustafaa or other such, as well as at least some idea of how the Indo-European genetic relationship was proven (the textbook case). There is a science to the comparative method, failing which, you end up asking inane questions (like, "Can you tell me what is the sex of angels? If you can't tell me, you know nothing about theology."). The problem with linguistics is that it has always been plagued by crackpots, people who try to explain Basque in terms of Hungarian, or Hungarian in terms of Basque, or Etruscan in terms of Basque, or Sumerian in terms of Hungarian, or Etruscan and Sumerian in terms of Turkish, and so on and so forth. What all crackpots have in common is a complete failure to understand the science behind the comparative method. No amount of back-and-forth on a talk page can replace or explain that. You have to study and practice it for years, possibly at a leading academic institution. This poor devil is waiting for answers to his two "simple" questions (in "your own words"), as if one could write a treatise just for his benefit on this talk page. But he does not want to read any books. Go figure! Pasquale 19:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa, there are only two references to amazon. com in your list, no reference to the books. Are you a sales agent for amazon? Is it allowed to use commercial links in the wikipedia? Antifinnugor 18:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa, are you really completely unable to read any of the books? You never read them, if you read them never understood them and that's why you cannot answer the two simple questions? Or none of them answers the two key questions, I am asking here? Please try to answer them if you believe in the existence of this language group. With your own words. Please no books, no url's. The two questions are so simple. We are waiting. Antifinnugor 18:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Uwira & AF

Hello everybody, I have stumbled over this dead lock when I was searching for some stuff on the relationship of Finnish and Hungarian. I have read the article of Prof. Maracz and afterwards realized that its contents are being heavily discussed in this talk section. Admittedly I'm not an historical linguist but I think I have got a quite good understanding of how it works and thus want to encourage Antifinnugor to read over the article again.

In my opinion, Prof. Maracz does not rigorously reject the existence of the Uralic Family but rather criticizes the way the establishment of Hungarian as a member of this family was agreed upon. Two major points of Prof. Maracz are:

• Incomplete analysis of the Hungarian radicals which he considers to be the basic building blocks of the Hungarian language, each of them being a representative of a specific concept (like, e.g, the word roots of the Semitic languages). Prof. Maracz would like to see the Hungarian language examined after these building blocks are fully understood.
• Another point of Prof. Maracz is the, in his opinion, unserious discussion of his book on that topic by other, especially Hungarian, finno-ugricists.

Concerning the consecutively demanded similarities between the Finno-Ugrian languages and what makes them different from the Turkic languages, a good example might be the system of semantic cases that organizes direction and location, which, as far as I know, is completely absent in the Turkic languages.

Please explain us with examples, what are semantic cases, that organize direction a location. Thanks. Antifinnugor 18:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All my points do neither claim completeness, nor do I claim to be an expert in the topic but after having kept track of this discussion for quite some time I felt that most of the points Antifinnugor gave do not really consider the conclusion of Prof. Maracz, nor do they, as a consequence, lift the discussion beyond the comparison of word lists. : Oliver Uwira 12:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not analyze Dr. Maracz's article here. I just listed it as a reference. My key point is the two questions, that nobody can answer, and that show the unjustifiedness of the establishing of such an unnatural an unlogical language group. Antifinnugor 18:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link to László Marácz's "The Untenability of the Finno-Ugrian Theory from a Linguistic Point of View" should be taken out of this article (Finno-Ugric languages). I actually bothered to read this "work" and I guarantee you it is not a serious scientific article. The author clearly lacks any knowledge or understanding of historical and comparative linguistics, the comparative method, and the science behind it. Pasquale 19:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr Pasquale, so far you did not bring the slightest argument lingusitically, but a lot of hatred and personal attacks. Why can you not bear the truth? Dr. Marácz is a linguist of high level, and his research is absolutely relevant here. So what? Personal hatred before real information? Antifinnugor 08:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Professor Angela Marcantonio

Professor Angela Marcantonio proved on a linguistic conference on 12-th of November in Amsterdam , that the Finnougric group is based on wrong estimations. Antifinnugor 20:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.kirj.ee/trames/marcantonio.htm TRAMES 1, 5, 2001 REVIEW OF THE ORIGIN AND AREA OF SETTLEMENT OF THE FINNO-UGRIAN PEOPLES BY RICHARD INDREKO, HEIDELBERG, 1948

Angela Marcantonio

University of Rome "La Sapienza"

Abstract. In this paper, written in 1948, Richard Indreko reports archaeological evidence that is inconsistent with the received knowledge about the origin of the Finnic people. His paper is worth re-examination now because the linguistic community is beginning to re-consider its basic assumption that these people originated in the area of the Ural Mountains and slowly migrated westward to reach their present-day territories. Indreko's evidence clearly contradicts this. For example, according to Indreko, technology - arrowheads, ice picks and comb ceramic technology - originated in Europe and spread over the area, in a direction generally from the south-west to the north-east. He concludes that, "the origin of the Finno-Ugrians could have their roots in … the European Palaeolithicum" (1948:13).

That one is about peoples, not languages. Irrelevant for this discussion. --Pjacobi 21:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not irrelevant. It speaks about the linguistic community's reconsideration of their assumption about the origin of the people, that in this case is linguistically relevant. And the first one about the Nov. 12-th conference is very relevant. Antifinnugor 18:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article in its entity is about peoples, not languages. Therefore the paper you mentioned is irrelevant to this Wikipedia article. It may or may not be relevant to a number of other discussions. --Pjacobi 23:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here some examples of the methods of Mr Budenz, the main pursuader of the Finno-Ugric language family:

Excerpted from "The "Ugric-Turkic Battle: A Critical Review"

3.2.2. The quality of the Ugric corpus

It is often the case that J. Budenz' choice of one or other of the Finnic or Ugric parallels is wrong, even if the overall Hungarian/Ugric connection is correct. For example, J. Budenz connects the Hungarian word for 'hunger, to be hungry', ÉehsÉeg, Éehes (MUSz 771) with Finn. hiuka (Gen. hiua-n, hiukais-ta 'to feel hungry'), and Cher. çsuçz- 'to be hungry'. According to UEW 208 and 851, the Hungarian words are not at all connected to the Finnish and Cheremis equivalents, which are, in fact, not listed.

Similarly, J. Budenz connects Hun. boka 'ankle, heels' to Finn. pahka 'gnarl, protuberance, node', and Mord. pov, povka 'button, knob' (MUSz 460). However, Hun. boka is not listed in UEW, and is considered of old Turkic origin in TESz I 327. On the other hand, Finn. pahka, according to UEW 350, is connected to MordM pakçs (< P-U *pakçsa). In J. Budenz' opinion Hun. orr 'nose' is connected to Finn. turpa 'muzzle', Mord. turva 'lip', Zyr. tirp, Ost. torip (MUSz 842). According to UEW 801, the Finnish, Mordvin and Zyrian correspondences are valid, but the Hungarian and Ostyak parallels are wrong, the etymology being classified only as Finno-Permian. Hungarian orr might instead be connected to the F-U root *were (*wºore) 'mountain', from which Zyr. ver and Vog. wºar- 'forest' are derived (UEW 571), but with uncertainty, due to the switch of meaning.

In addition to this, in our opinion there is another, a more serious problem. Often the sound-shape and especially the meaning of a given set of parallels are stretched beyond any reasonable interpretation in order to try and establish a connection between Hungarian and another Ugric language. Conversely, Hungarian and Turkic parallels with basically the same meaning and similar sound-shape may be considered incorrect on the basis of difference in meaning (for example, 'hair (of body)' vs 'hair (of head)'). A few paradigmatic examples will suffice. In example 1 below J. Budenz rejects the connection between similar words in Hungarian and Turkic for 'navel' on the grounds that the semantic match is not present in all the Turkic dialects. Instead he makes an improbable connection between the Hungarian term for 'navel' with the Ugric term for 'tongue', 'dumb' or 'rope', despite the fact that Hungarian has its own term for 'tongue': nyelv, as recognised by the author himself.

1a. According to Á. Vámbéry (1869 : 161), Hun. köldök ~ kõdök 9 'navel' corresponds to Cha. köndük / Osm. köbek, göbek 'navel'.

1b. According to J. Budenz (1871--1873 : 104), köldök belongs to Class II, that is, the Hungarian/Turkic connection is wrong. This is because Osm. göbek does not agree with the Hungarian form. The form containing -l-, in J. Budenz' opinion, is Ugric -- no explanation is given as to why this should be the case.

1c. According to J. Budenz (MUSz 41--42), köldök is to be connected with Lapp kiäl-dak 'chorda, fides, nervus' / Finn. kieli 'tongue, language' / Mord. käl 'tongue, language' / Vog. kalÍ 'dumb, mute, speechless', etc. This is because the real meaning of the Finnish word is held to be 'thin dangling body' ('fityegéÓo vékony test'), as testified by the Finnish phrase kello-n kieli 'bell-of tongue, tongue of bell'. Similarly, the Hungarian word would not really mean 'navel', but 'navel cord' ('nabels schnur').

1d. köldök is not listed in UEW.

We are sure today that the Finnish term kieli 'tongue' derives from a totally different root, reconstructed as Uralic *kele (*kºele)10 by UEW 144. It has parallels in most Uralic languages, as well as in the Altaic languages and Yukaghir. It is also generally recognised that köldök is indeed connected to similar terms present in Mongolian, Turkic and Samoyed, and that the Hungarian term could have been borrowed directly from Turk. kin-dik (Ró-na-Tas 1988 : 744; Ligeti 1986 : 30, 81, etc.). Notice that J. Budenz is aware of the existence of words similar in sound and meaning present in the languages; for example, he mentions Tat. kündük, kindik; nevertheless, he simply states that one cannot doubt the Ugric nature of the word. <9> kõdök = kéÓodök. <10> The Finnish dictionary SSA (1 1992 : 353) mentions the similarity between the Uralic and the Altaic forms, without taking position about the status of the similarity. Turkic

In example 2 J. Budenz rejects Á. Vámbéry's connection between the Hungarian and Turkic terms for 'to lay (eggs)' on the grounds that the Hungarian term is a transitive verb, whilst the Turkic verb is intransitive. Instead, he gives a forced interpretation of Est. too- 'to bring' as if it meant 'to lay eggs', on the grounds that this verb can co-occur with the noun muna 'egg'.

2a. According to Á. Vámbéry (1869 : 180) Hun. tojni 'to lay eggs', tojÉas 'egg', etc. are connected to Cha. togmak 'to be born', togum ~ toum 'egg, seed, (child)-birth', etc.

2b. According to J. Budenz (MUSz 222--223) Hun. toj-ni and tojÉas (which belong to Class II) are to be connected to Est. too- 'to go and get, to bring', because this verb occurs in the phrase muna too- 'to lay an egg'. Within the same etymological set are also included Finn. tuo-da and Mord. tuje- 'to bring, get'. He argues that the Hungarian verbs toj- 'to lay eggs' and hoz 'to bring, carry' derive from the same Ugric form meaning 'to bring, carry'. The justification for the switch in meaning (from the more general 'to bring' to the more restricted 'to lay eggs') is to be found in the similar semantic switch that occurred in going from I-E *bhar- and Lat. fer- to Ger. gebären 'to give birth'.

2c. According to UEW 528, the Hungarian verbs toj- and hoz are not connected. Finn. tuo- and Mord. tuje- can be derived from the reconstructed P-U root *tože- 'to bring, get, give', to which toj- could be connected, but with uncertainty for several reasons, including the semantic switch. Compare also Yuk. tadi 'to give' / Old Ind. da-dºati 'he gives' / Lat. dare (UEW 529).

In example 3 J. Budenz rejects Á. Vámbéry's connection between the Hungarian word for 'stomach' and the similar Turkic words for 'internal cavity', because, in his opinion, this meaning is not present in all the Turkic dialects. Instead, J. Budenz connects the Hungarian word for 'stomach' with Ob-Ugric words meaning, variously, 'round' or 'egg'. The justification is that these objects all share a round form.

3a. According to Á. Vámbéry (1869 : 147) Hun. gyomor 'stomach' is to be connected to Cha. tamur 'internal cavity'.

3b. According to J. Budenz (1871--1873 : 118) gyomor belongs to Class III.

3c. According to J. Budenz (MUSz 171) this word is to be connected with Ost. Énumir 'round' / Vog. Énamr 'egg'. Such meaning association is justified by similar associations to be found in Indo-European languages.

3d. gyomor is not listed in UEW; the alleged Vogul and Ostyak correspondences are not listed either. This word is nowadays generally considered to be a loan from Turkic (see Ligeti 1986 : 21, 196, etc.).

In example 4 J. Budenz rejects the connection between the Hungarian and Turkic words for 'hair', on the grounds that the former relates to the hair of the head and the latter to the hair of the body. Instead, he connects the Hungarian 'hair of the head' with Ugric words meaning variously 'hair', 'fibre' or 'horsehair'.

4a. According to Á. Vámbéry (1869 : 149) Hun. haj 'hair (of head)' is to be connected to Cha. kil / Osm. k£il, with the same meaning.

4b. According to J. Budenz (1871--1873 : 118), haj belongs to Class III; it cannot be connected to the Turkic forms, because their meaning is 'hair of body'.

4c. According to J. Budenz (MUSz 129), haj is to be connected to Vot. and Zyr. si 'hair (of head), fibre' / Finn. hiukset 'hair (of head)'.

4d. According to UEW 854, the Hungarian term derives from the Ugric form *kajê, to be connected to Vog. ºoj, kºoj.

Note that Finn. hiukset does not seem to be related to any other word within Uralic (apart from Balto-Finnic, UEW 15). Furthermore, Vot. and Zyr. si derive from a totally different root, reconstructed as P-U *sije (*süje), which means 'annual ring of a tree, fibre' and to which Finn. syy, of the same meaning, belongs (UEW 443).

It can be seen from these examples that J. Budenz is highly unsystematic in how widely he is prepared to interpret the meanings in question: they may be unacceptably broad to prove one point, and unduly restrictive to prove another. It is on this kind of basis that the Hungarian/Ugric connection was in fact founded!

To conclude this list we would like to mention a single example of parallels which, according to J. Budenz, are only Ugric, but which nowadays are recognised to be widespread beyond the Uralic area.

5. Hun. hÉugy 'urine' (connected by Á. Vámbéry to Cha. suduk / Osm. s£id£ik, etc. (1969 : 153)) / Finn. kusi, etc. J. Budenz (MUSz 120) correctly connected these two Hungarian and Finnish etymologies, rejecting Á. Vámbéry's Turkic/Hungarian connection. However, according to UEW, this term (< P-U *kuÉnÉce ~ *kuÉce) has parallels in all the Tungusic languages, compare, for example, Orok udugu (UEW 210).

---

Good job, Derek Ross, but what's your point? The above may well be a few select examples of errors. But to what degree are they representative?

The point is, that the alien Joseph Budenz's whole comparison work is set up using wrong estimations and unsystematic methods. The listed examples are just the tip of the ice berg. Antifinnugor 08:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you look hard enough, you will certainly find some erroneous comparisons in the best Indo-European linguists' works, but that does not call into question the existence of a genetic relationship among the Indo-European languages.

well, for those languages you also cannot setup two single questions, that nobody can adequate answer and that make the whole theory questionable. WE are not speaking here about little typos. Antifinnugor

Are you claiming that, because of the above errors, Hungarian is no longer to be considered related to Khanty-Mansi (Ob-Ugric)? It has always been known that a (minority) portion of the Hungarian lexicon is Turkic-Hunnic (including some pretty common words), so what's new here? The existence of Romance words in English does not change the fact that English is a Germanic language, right? So? Pasquale 01:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is ist really? It does not have grammatical gender, neither compound words, therefore quite a bit different from German. It also uses lots of Latin words. Antifinnugor 08:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I merely formatted badly laid-out text supplied by someone else. I was not trying to make a point. I am certainly not making the claim that you suggest and I am well aware that languages may belong to one language family and yet have a considerable portion of their vocabulary from another language family. Thus I fail to see where we are in disagreement on the points that you raise. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:06, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Derek, Thanks for backing up, and re-adding DR. Marácz article. It is strange for me, that there are such wild haters,who cannot bear the truth. Thanks again, I appreciate your work. Antifinnugor 08:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE WIKIPEDIA IS JUST AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO SCORE POINTS FOR SOME NEWFANGLED HISTORICAL LINGUISTIC HYPOTHESIS. THIS IS ONLY THE PLACE FOR WIDELY ACCEPTED OPINIONS TO BE RECORDED. SO, WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING THIS BATTLE HERE INSTEAD OF IN MORE APPROPRIATE LINGUISTIC FORA? IT IS AS IF THE NOSTRATIC HYPOTHESIS WERE TO BE ADVANCED HERE AND ONLY HERE: WHAT GOOD WOULD THAT DO? GET SERIOUS, GUYS! Pasquale 01:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point that I am interested in here, Pasquale. I am as firmly convinced of the basic correctness of the Finno-Ugric grouping as you are. However I am also prepared to accept that there are others who are not. I believe that in the interests of giving our readers the whole picture, we should be describing the Finno-Ugric grouping as the theory most likely to be correct while acknowledging that alternative hypotheses have been examined in the past and that some of them still have adherents, however mistaken those adherents may be. It is important that the general reader is informed of the existence of controversy when it exists. That is why I think that minority viewpoints should at least be mentioned in this article. Since they are not widespread, they should not receive undue prominence but neither should they be erased from the article to such an extent that the general reader is unaware of their existence. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:06, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

If somebody wrote about the earth being a round tray, saying that is the mainline hypothesis, and everything else is wrong, Mr Pasquale would fiercely demand, that every reference to other opinions is wrong and should be deleted. Antifinnugor 08:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alternative views, until they are not alternative any more, should not be given unduly much attention. This is an encyclopedia. /Tuomas 10:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of notability at last.

It took some time for Antifinnugor to provide sources. The 'Ugric-Turkic Battle'-article was, at last, a good start. I have undertaken the work Antifinnugor doesn't seem to like and this are my results:

• Marcantonio, Angela (2004) 'What Is the Linguistic Evidence to Support the Uralic Theory or Theories?' In Linguistica Uralica 40, 1, pp40-45.

ABSTRACT by author: "One must always make a clear distinction between things that one has demonstrated with evidence, & things that one has not. Sometimes the latter might be a valuable pointer for further research, however it must be clearly labeled as speculation, because to do otherwise would be misleading to future researchers. If one is to establish a language family within the framework of the conventional Comparative Method, one must begin with a reconstruction of relevant areas of morphology, & the reconstruction of at least the top node, the proto-language. Neither of these elements has to this day been properly implemented in Uralic studies."

• Marcantonio, Angela (2003) The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics.

This book has been reviewed in Journal of Linguistics (Saarikivi 2004, 40, 1, pp187-191), in The Canadian Journal of Linguistics (Vajda 2003, 48, 1-2, pp117-121), in Linguistica Uralica (Kunnap, 2003, 39, 1, pp55-57).

• Marcantonio, Angela (2001) 'The "Ugric-Turkic Battle": A Critical Review'. In Linguistica Uralica 37, 2, pp81-102.

ABSTRACT from Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. "The notion of a unique Finno-Ugric genetic node is challenged in a reexamination of the evidence widely held to have established it: 119 Hungarian lexical correspondences put forward during the 1870s by Jozsef Budenz, who, contrary to a widespread assumption, did not deny a remote Hungarian-Turkic genetic link but merely argued that Hungarian was more closely related to Ugric, a term that for Budenz included the Finnic languages. Budenz held that 28% of his Hungarian items have genetic Turkic cognates & another 7% are Turkic loanwords; he claims, however, that 62% of the items are purely Ugric (ie, Finno-Ugric). As the comparative method was still in its infancy, it could not be properly applied; eg, Budenz never articulated phonological criteria for his judgments. A comparison with K. Redei's Uralisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (Uralic Etymological Dictionary) shows that 52% of Budenz's correspondences are incorrect, 28% are purely Uralic, & 20% are Uralic with links outside the Uralic languages, eg, to Turkic or Yukaghir."

Thus, the claims Antifinnugor advances (whether they are accurate or not), are noted and reviewed in academic journals. I think that is the requested evidence of notability.

Antifinnugor, please lean backward and learn a few things from this.

• First, do this yourself next time. A lot of people have fallen over your blunt refusal to provide sources. Your behavior has been very troll-like and that is not the way contributors should treat each other.
• Second, do not play the victim. Nobody hates you and nobody hates the truth. This is not a personal matter and it has never been, and trying to make it look like it is does not argue for your case. If it were, I would not have helped you with this, would I.
• Third, try to work in a cooperative way. Running in, shouting "You are all wrong! This is absurd! This is a myth!' does not encourage people to take you seriously, as you might have noticed. Get to appreciate the way Wikipedia works.

I'm off now. — mark ✎ 11:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)