Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Slavic & Hungarian (was: Avars)

Expand Messages
  • vespirus@socrates.berkeley.edu
    ... But the Hungarians also had lots of contact with the peoples who became Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, and Poles. How do we know that the borrowed words
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 16, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, hadji wrote:

      > <<How do you know that these words come from Slovak in particular, and
      > not from various Slavic languages?>>
      >
      > It is not a difficult question. Simply because the Slavic tribes settled
      > in Pannonia up to north from Drava river were the same as those one
      > settled to the south of Western Carpathians (i.e. Tatras mount) in
      > Slovakia) and wich were the future Slovaks.

      But the Hungarians also had lots of contact with the peoples who became
      Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, and Poles. How do we know that the
      borrowed words in Hungarian came from early Slovak, and not from these
      other languages as was claimed? What is the evidence?

      > << When the Magyars moved into the Carpathian basin, there was much
      > less difference between the various Slavic languages than there is now. >>
      >
      > That is right. But also existed any differences and medieval
      > historicians had mentioned them. ....

      I was not talking about the tribes, but their languages. Yes, we know of
      many tribes in Gaul, but they shared languages. There are fifty states in
      the USA, but there is not a separate language for each one. In the
      Netherlands in the middle ages, there were Brabanters, Geldermen,
      Flemings, Hollanders, and many others, but they all spoke the same
      language and still do.

      My point is that although we do have records of diffeent Slavic tribes
      from a very early date, all the written records of these groups look far
      more alike than they do today. Some people think that Polish, Czech, and
      Slovak were all the same language until sometime around the tenth or
      eleventh century.

      > <<For instance, it is difficult to distinguish Czech and
      > Polish in many cases because they were still using the same system of
      > spelling. >>
      >
      > Well, I guess it is a very easy task. I can not mix up these two
      > languages.

      I have no trouble telling apart the *modern* languages, but I'm not
      talking about the modern languages. I'm talking about the *medieval*
      forms of the languages, when Czech used the same spelling system as Polish
      without any haceks or other symbols that they use today. Have you seen
      many medieval Czech and Polish documents?

      > <<Yes, Hungarian has borrowed many words from Slavic languages, but how
      > do you know this was from Slovak in particular?>>
      >
      > There are many words borrowed from other languages too and I guess there
      > are some words borrowed from Hungarian language too. But the most close
      > folklore the most close nature to Hungarians have surely Slovaks.

      But surely that is because the Slovaks were ruled by Hungary for many
      centuries. Was the folklore the same in the middle ages, or are you
      talking about today's folklore and music?

      --Walraven
    • hadji
      Salve Walraven,
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 17, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Salve Walraven,

        <<But the Hungarians also had lots of contact with the peoples who
        became Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, and Poles. How do we know that
        the borrowed words in Hungarian came from early Slovak, and not from
        these
        other languages as was claimed? What is the evidence?>>

        Well the direct contacts with Poles, Czechs were quite limited to
        dinastic relations which surely did not influence a lot the folk's
        spoken language, while the contacts with Slovaks or Serbs or Slovenians
        were much closer. It is difficult of course to say a given word is
        borrowed from Slovakian language as it is obviously the same in Serbian,
        Slovakian or Slovenian languages. Of course the more correct definition
        would be "borrowed from Slavic languages".
        Nevertheless I thing it is not so wrong to say "borrowed from
        Slovakians" because the perdominant part of modern Hungary lies on the
        lands or dependant territories of Great Moravia - the second Slavic
        national state formation after Bulgarian state. To the south of
        G.Moravia was Bulgarian state. Serbia was formed in southward of modern
        Hungary. One more note - there are still Slovakian minorities both in
        Hungary and Vojvodina, while there are no Serbian or Croatian minorities
        in Slovakia. It means that territory occupied by tribes related to
        future Slovaks occupied approximately the whole Panonian plane up to
        north from Drava river.
        But it is only a logical construction not a "historical evidence". I do
        not force you to accept it.

        <<I was not talking about the tribes, but their languages. Yes, we know
        of many tribes in Gaul, but they shared languages. >>

        Well, so you may not speak about any Slavic language related to earlier
        Meddieval. The most correct is then to speak about Church-Slavic or
        Old-Bulgarian language. It is necessary to exact what we are talking
        about: the folk's spoken language, dialects, Slavic medieval written
        languages or modern national languages.Because all these are very
        different categories.

        << There are fifty states in the USA, but there is not a separate
        language for each one.>>

        Europe is too different to be comared with a only 200 years old state
        formation.

        <<My point is that although we do have records of diffeent Slavic tribes
        from a very early date, all the written records of these groups look far
        more alike than they do today. Some people think that Polish, Czech,
        and Slovak were all the same language until sometime around the tenth or
        eleventh century.>>

        That is right. I agree. Even southern Slavic languages were very close
        to other ones.

        <<I have no trouble telling apart the *modern* languages, but I'm not
        talking about the modern languages. I'm talking about the *medieval*
        forms of the languages, when Czech used the same spelling system as
        Polish without any haceks or other symbols that they use today.>>

        The original note did not specified what kind of languages we were
        talking about. As for medieval languages you are right.

        <<But surely that is because the Slovaks were ruled by Hungary for many
        centuries. Was the folklore the same in the middle ages, or are you
        talking about today's folklore and music?>>

        That is the reason the cultural, lingvistical and other exchange to be
        more intensive than that one with other Slavic folks.
        As for medieval folklore, it is something very conservative and the very
        ancient elements remain in every folklore. For example there are
        Macedonian dances with are very similar to Greek and Albanian one.
        Someone may say that it is a result of geographycal neighbourhood. But
        there are similarities with Jewish dances too, which speaks about very
        ancient relations, probably even from the Roman and pre-Roman times.

        Vale

        Alexander Probus

        BYZANTSKY SPOJENCI
        SLOBODNI MUZI V SLOBODNYCH KRAJINACH
      • Castalia
        ... From: hadji Someone, perhaps Walraven, wondered: How do we know that ... The confusions may be caused by semantics, or by the flavour
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 17, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          -----Original Message-----
          From: hadji <hadji@...>


          Someone, perhaps Walraven, wondered:
          How do we know that
          >the borrowed words in Hungarian came from early Slovak, and not from
          >these
          >other languages as was claimed? What is the evidence?>>


          The confusions may be caused by semantics, or by the flavour of modern
          politics and education.
          One of the gentlemen who was involved in my work, was an Historian from
          Slovakia. We spent some time discussing the history of his region. He
          certainly had political biases, and I have had to work around them to
          understand.
          On a large map of Europe, he passed his hand over the area of Hungary
          and beyondd and said " All this land was slovak land before the Magyars
          came. And they should go back were they came from, because this land was
          ours." He said that the Magyars came in 800. I understand this gentleman
          is now a General.
          Perhaps, for the sake of semantics, we can say that the land had
          belonged to the people who became the "slovaks" as we know them today.....as
          well as the people who became other branches of the Slavic family tree.

          It is difficult of course to say a given word is
          >borrowed from Slovakian language as it is obviously the same in Serbian,
          >Slovakian or Slovenian languages. Of course the more correct definition
          >would be "borrowed from Slavic languages".


          When we consider that English didn't exists 1200 years ago, it is fair to
          say that perhasp "slovak" didn't either.

          >Nevertheless I thing it is not so wrong to say "borrowed from
          >Slovakians" because the perdominant part of modern Hungary lies on the
          >lands or dependant territories of Great Moravia - the second Slavic
          >national state formation after Bulgarian state.

          I think it depends on how you want to choose your terms. Once everyone
          agrees on the vocabulary, the concepts follow so much more easily.


          It means that territory occupied by tribes related to
          >future Slovaks occupied approximately the whole Panonian plane up to
          >north from Drava river.
          >But it is only a logical construction not a "historical evidence". I do
          >not force you to accept it.


          "Future slovaks" is a tidy way to describe them :-)

          Hadji:
          ><< There are fifty states in the USA, but there is not a separate
          >language for each one.>>


          Wait 500 years. Frankly, I doubt that a deep southerner and a New yorker
          could make out each other's dialect after 4 pints of Guiness.

          We share a written language, but "spoken English" is diversifying
          incredibly. We speak of South American English, Central American English,
          and others, and I saw distinct forms of Korean English when I was there, and
          they began to influence *my* speech. The fact that I spend 90% of my
          working life with Slavic speakers who learn English, has influenced *my*
          speech and writing.

          It goes beyond accent. Syntax, word order and pronunciation: I never expect
          my Lithuanians to understand the Scots.


          ><<My point is that although we do have records of diffeent Slavic tribes
          >from a very early date, all the written records of these groups look far
          >more alike than they do today. Some people think that Polish, Czech,
          >and Slovak were all the same language until sometime around the tenth or
          >eleventh century.>>


          Keeping in mind, however, that the people doing the writing may have all
          received their education in a similar way in a similar style.


          For example there are
          >Macedonian dances with are very similar to Greek and Albanian one.
          >Someone may say that it is a result of geographycal neighbourhood. But
          >there are similarities with Jewish dances too, which speaks about very
          >ancient relations, probably even from the Roman and pre-Roman times.


          Just an aside: when, at one of our military social events, a Romanian band
          was playing, and the Romanians took over the centre, it was very easy to
          dance with them..................because of dancing in the SCA. Not much
          difference in the circle dances.

          Yours,
          Ksenia
        • hadji
          Salve Ksenia,
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 18, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Salve Ksenia,


            <<The confusions may be caused by semantics, or by the flavour of modern
            politics and education.
            One of the gentlemen who was involved in my work, was an Historian from
            Slovakia. We spent some time discussing the history of his region. He
            certainly had political biases, and I have had to work around them to
            understand.>>

            Everyone have some political or other biases. I would like to ask you
            for his name. The case you described is so absurd, that I doubt such a
            man do not exists or it was a not very appropriate joke only.
            Some peoples are quite accustomed to present "easteuropeans" as archaic
            monsters, but it speaks about nothing than some kind of political biases
            to.

            <<He said that the Magyars came in 800. I understand this gentleman
            is now a General.>>

            I am sorry. It is too absurd to be a true.

            When we consider that English didn't exists 1200 years ago, it is fair
            to say that perhasp "slovak" didn't either.

            I agree.

            <<I think it depends on how you want to choose your terms. Once
            everyone agrees on the vocabulary, the concepts follow so much more
            easily.>>

            "Future slovaks" is a tidy way to describe them :-)

            Thank you very much. It seems you are quite witty. So, I would like to
            remember you that I am writing on your language (not on mine) and am
            quite limited in my expressions possibilities. Nevertheless I am trying
            to comunicate with persons like you.

            Hadji:
            ><< There are fifty states in the USA, but there is not a separate
            >language for each one.>>

            Dear Castal, I have signatured my note, so please be so kind to read
            whom you are writing or addressing your posts.

            <<Wait 500 years. Frankly, I doubt that a deep southerner and a New
            yorker could make out each other's dialect after 4 pints of Guiness.>>

            No need to wait. Noone knows whether some states will exist so long.

            <<Just an aside: when, at one of our military social events, a Romanian
            band was playing, and the Romanians took over the centre, it was very
            easy to dance with them..................because of dancing in the SCA.
            Not much difference in the circle dances.>>

            Oh, yea! I forgot, I am sorry. Some people have been everywhere and have
            seen everything and can do everything.

            Have a nice weekend Xenia

            Bene valete

            Alexander Probus
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.