Me^χ-(r) > Meǵ-er?

Màsoknak meg külföldön agyukra megy a magyarsàguk
(S.O.B 11/6/2007)

The following map shows Etruria and Etruscan expansion in ancient Italy (red) between the 8th. and 6th. centuries B.C. in relation to the Carpathian Basin (green area; the Magyar homeland).

Officially, Etruscan is considered an isolate, that is, linguists haven't been able to or are unwilling to classify it. Though, some see only one possible language as being a kin to Etruscan, an example of which was preserved on a stele found on the northern Aegean island of Lemnos in 1885 which was dated to the late sixth. century BC. [lb], while others also see a kinship with the Rhaetic language spoken in northern Italy long ago. [source]

Of course, that does not mean that  there have been no attempts to connect Etruscan with other languages :

(*) (1870) Robert Ellis (1820-1885) "Etruscan: the Asiatic affinities of the Old Italians".
(*) (1913) Jules Martha (1853-1932) tried to show a relationship with the Finno-Ugric languages.

Controversially, Mario Alinei - emeritus professor at the University of Utrecht, where he taught from 1959 to 1987 sees "Etruscan as a very archaic form of Hungarian (Magyar)", as part of his 2003 'theory of continuity'. [alinei]

The Hungarian version of Alinei's book is titled 'Ösi kapocs. A magyar-etruszk nyelvrokonság' published by Allprint Kiado, in 2005 and its chapter headings are I. 'The roots of Etruscan names of states of office' pp. 23-44 II. 'Etruscan - Lexicon and Toponomy' pp. 45-148 III.'Etruscan - texts', pp. 150-260 IV. 'Archaic form of the Hungarian language mirrored in Etruscan and Ugric studies', pp. 261-392 V. 'Carpathian Basin and Danubian origin of the Etruscans (According to Archaeological Research and the Theory of Continuity)', pp. 393-440 VI. 'Etruscan and Hungarian Prehistory', pp. 441-482 References pp. 499-512  (Book Summary)

******************* Some criticisms of Alinei's hypothesis which say more about the critics and the quality of their understanding and objectivity than about their subject. ******************* (*) Nothing more than an "unscientific nationalistic" work of someone who must be "...possessed by more or less crazy ideas of relating their native language with some very prestigious or exotic language ...". Alinei is an Italian academic with no discernible Hungarian nationalistic agenda who is trying to apply his theory of Continuity in the area of Etruscology. (*) Alinei's work "...is nothing more than the product of mass word comparison." Well it is a bit more than that, since Alinei discusses sounds and their relationships in Etruscan and archaic Hungarian. (but see Marcantonio's criticism below). Additionally, Alinei uses evidence from archaeology, (palaeo)anthropology, historical sciences, genetics and the cognitive sciences which are entirely ignored, unknown or not dealt with by the critics. (*) Alinei "...only compares modern Hungarian with ancient Etruscan." No. He uses reconstructed Uralic/Ugric proto forms and ancient Hungarian forms when available. (again see Marcantonio's criticism below). (*) Others complain that Etruscan is nothing like modern Hungarian (see below under Klima). Duh! After 2000 odd years one might expect a few differences even if they were related. (*) The "...Magyar arrived in Europe in 896 AD, there is no way they could have had a relationship with the Etruscans." Such a simplistic view is ignorant of the possiblility of an earlier Ugrian connection with the Etruscans. It might just be that the Etruscans, as pointed out by [kjd] and implied by [alinei], "...were Ugric-speaking cousins of the Hungarians, not Hungarians themselves. The Hungarians continued to live in the steppes north of the Black Sea during the long centuries of the histories of the Trojans, Etruscans, and Romans... ". (*) Alinei's book above on p. 206 and Xaverio Ballester on p. 15 of his article (site1, site2) refer to an allegedly non existent Etruscan word 'naceme' which is found only on one object called Vetulonia's Cup in a continuous script and nowhere else in the entire corpus of Etruscan texts. Isn't this just a case of Voodoo Linguistics? At first glance, you might think that the part about the absence of 'naceme' is a valid argument, however its absence in existing 'texts' doesn't prove much because a lot of information is just unavailable on Etruscan culture and language. nacemeuruiθalθileniθaliχememesnamertanśinamulu TEXT ON ‘TALKING VASE’’( TLE 366) (The so called VETULONIA’S CUP, kyathos (Greek drinking cup, also used as a measure) found in the “Tomba del Duce” (The Great Leader’s Tomb) (7th/6th.° c. B.C.)) naceme uru iθal θilen iθal iχeme mesnamer tanśina mulu M. Alinei "Etruscan life and afterlife: a handbook of Etruscan studies" Edited by Larissa Bonfante on p. 216 [source] naceme uru iθal θilen iθal iχeme mesnamertanśina mulu M. Pallottino (TLE 366) nac eme uru iθal θil en iθal iχ eme mesnamer tanśina mulu H. Rix (ET Vn 0.1) nac eme uru iθalθi leni θal iχ eme mesna mertan śina mulu A. Zavaroni [source] As you can see - your 'guess' is as good as any in this 'exact' science. The separation of the words is "pure conjecture" even for professionals, because although Etruscan inscriptions might be numerous, they are also rather limited in content and scope! An extensive enough corpus of texts which covers all aspects of Etruscan culture, religion, history and social interactions which do not deal exclusively with the dead just does not exist for us to be able to know for sure one way or another concerning the status of 'naceme'. A great deal of primary information about the Etruscans has been lost and insurmountable difficulties stand in the way of reconstructing their civilisation and history.  [J.F.Hall] Interestingly, a linen cloth called the Liber Linteus held in the Zagreb museum is the longest piece of Etruscan text and was once used to wrap a mummy, but is still not well understood. Assuming that Vetulonia's cup is similar to others which are deemed to be 'talking', that is, inviting the drinker to imbibe, then Alinei translates this cup's words accordingly. Of course, all this is hypothetical but even so, some upset themselves greatly over it. According to Alinei's hypothesis ETRUSCAN MAGYAR naceme (1) NEKEM uru ÚR iθal ITAL θilen TELJEN iθal (2) ITAL iχeme IGY-(IDD)+MEG(dial.ME) mesnamer (3) MÉZ-NA + MÉR- tanśina TAN- + SZÍN ‘nice shape’(11° c.) + -A mulu Khanty MUL ‘gift, offering’ (1) “In me, sir, pour the drink! (2) Drink up the drink! (3) (I am) the gift showing with its nice shape the measure of hydromel” Hope that translation isn't too 'jarring' for you. (*) The theory must be wrong since Alinei lists Etruscan 'huth' as '6' when everyone knows it means '4'. Not everyone, it seems. For a start, the theory does not revolve around one word which is in some dispute, anyway, in this 'exact' science. According to [lb] we know the first six Etruscan numbers: thu, zal, ci, s'a, mach, huth, who justifies this by saying that "Their order was recognised because in antiquity the sum of each of the two opposite sides of the die added up to seven: mach + zal = seven; thu + huth = seven; ci + s'a = seven. Other clues led to the identification of each particular number, so that the order given above is generally accepted today." Critics point out that many ancient dice don't follow this 'classic' pattern of "1-6,2-5,3-4" but instead also have such numbering as "1-2,3-4,5-6". Check out this collection of dice. What the critics fail to ask is "In which Etruscan periods were the different patterns in use?". For the answer see Artioli et al. below. Critics rightly argue the case for "four' and 'six' cannot be based on one set of dice alone.  This is why some list huth as '4' and s'a as '6' based also on the following observations listed in [glb: p.127]: (a) in the tomb of the Charons, one figure of the demon Charon is labelled 'Charun huths' IF /-s/ is the genitive marker in huths then one might be tempted to fantasize that 'Charun huths' means 'Charun of the Four' (winds, directions rivers etc.). Sounds reasonable provided huth is '4' and that huths is related to huth as no one has a clue to the meanings of the subnames of the other Charuns - Charun Chunchules, Charon Lufe with the fourth being completely illegible. (b) another name for the city of Tetrapolis, Hyttenia is related to huth meaning '4' However, Beekes [2003, p. 37], a Dutch historian/linguist, points out that "The idea that Hyttenia was equivalent to Tetrapolis and shows Etruscan huth ‘4’ is probably incorrect. Huth probably did not mean ‘4’." and refers to "Steinbauer, D. 1999, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen. St. Katharinen" as supporting evidence.  Steinbauer's site lists the first six Etruscan numbers as thu, zal, ci, mach, huth, s'a. Is that "Charun Number Four, Five or Six"? There is no consensus. The works of two academics which provide stronger evidence concerning the numbers huth and s'a : (1.) Adriana Emiliozzi's work confirms the use of s'a for '4' (referring to a quadruple burial), and therefore huth for '6' according to [glb: p.127] See: A. Emiliozzi, 'Per gli Alethna di Musarna', in Miscellanea Etrusco-Italica I (Rome, 1993) 109 ff. (2.) As recently as May, 2011, Artioli and colleagues presented evidence from 93 Etruscan dice "allowing the firm attribution of the numeral 6 to the graphical value huth and 4 to s'a". "...Combinatorial analysis of the numerals distribution on the six faces of the die shows that only two of the 15 possible numerical combinations were actually in use in southern Etruria, and that during the fifth century BC there was a marked shift from the typical (1–2, 3–4, 5–6) combination used in the early seventh- to fifth-century BC dice to the (1–6, 2–5, 3–4) combination used at later times and still largely adopted today." See: Artioli, G., Nociti, V., Angelini, I., "Gambling with Etruscan Dice: a Tale of Numbers and Letters", Archaeometry, Vol. 53, Issue 5, October 2011, pages 1031–1043 (Abstract). Go figure. (*) Linguists shun Alinei's theory and this proves the theory has no merit. On  the surface it does seem that way, but it proves nothing of the sort. Thomas Kuhn maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly." During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. [source] Alinei admits that there are areas not explained by his theory, but what does outright dismissal without any examination prove? Can one evaluate such a work simply by reading short English summaries? Can one evaluate such a work by simplistically concentrating on one or two words without being aware of the archaeological and historical aspects of the rest of the theory? If Alinei's theory is 'wrong' then its allegedly testable hypotheses should be falsifiable to use Karl Popper's idea. Much more so than the unpronounceable proto-words invented in mainstream linguistic circles which can never be historically verified/falsified with actual spoken proto-languages of extremely remote times. Voodoo science, indeed. Linguistic dogma relies heavily on historical linguistics (HL). The perceived marginalization of HL to use Johanna Laakso's expression (from LINGUISTIC SHADOW BOXING) is seen as an attack on its very foundation. Much of the professional criticism against Alinei also refers directly or indirectly to Alinei's alleged 'lack of understanding of HL' resulting in attacks on his 'professional competence'. Interestingly, Alinei criticised HL back in 2006 in which he writes that "In this paper I try to argue that the epistemological framework of traditional historical linguistics with regards to language evolution has always been and still is based on a misconception of Darwinism, and therefore needs a radical revision." ******************* Some "criticism" from professionals (mostly one-liners) from which it is impossible to learn anything. ********************* (*) Szilágyi, János György, seems to be the only one I have seen who at least made an effort to 'review' Alinei's book in Hungarian, albeit half-heartedly and not very generously in a paper called Élet és irodalom (in Hungarian) back in September 2005. Alinei's response in English to this 'review' of his book by this academic. This site in Hungarian expresses the situation nicely: "Alinei kiválóan összefoglalta a témát, és mi csak egyetérthetünk vele. Nem, itt nem arról van szó, hogy az etruszk-magyar nyelvrokonság mellett foglalunk állást, vagy vitatjuk azt. Még csak el se jutottunk arra a szintre! Még kulturált, tárgyilagos hangnemben sem sikerült megszólalnunk. Egyetlen dolgot sikerült csak: ismét lejáratni magunkat a nemzetközi tudományos életben." My translation: "Alinei summed up the situation well, and we can only agree with him. It isn't about working alongside nor of willing to discuss his Etruscan-Magyar linguistic link. We didn't get that close for such a possibility. We couldn't speak with a civilised objective tone. One thing we managed to achieve: to discredit ourselves once again in the eyes of the international scientific community." (*) Brogyanyi, Bela, - a comparative-historical linguist's 2008 criticism (here) On p. 9, Brogyanyi writes "Nach Auffassung des Italieners Mario Alinei, des emeritierten Professors der Universität Utrecht, ist das Etruskische „una forma arcaica di ungherese“, also eine archaische Form des Ungarischen; in seinem Buch Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungherese glänzt er aber durch völlige Unkenntnis des Ungarischen und Etruskischen (vgl. Alinei 2003). " (translation: "According to the Italian Mario Alinei,  emeritus professor at the University of Utrecht, Etruscan is "una forma arcaica di ungherese", ie an archaic form of Hungarian, in his book Etruscan: Una forma arcaica di ungherese but he dazzles with his utter ignorance of Hungarian and Etruscan (cf. Alinei 2003).") An attack on Alinei's professional competence is all we get. That, apparently, explains everything we need to know. Objectivity in Science? Brogyanyi mischievously points out that "Sogar Angela Marcantonio, die die finnisch-ugrische Sprachverwandtschaft des Ungarischen selbst ablehnt, bezeichnet in hrer Rezension Alineis Buch als „un caso di ‘fanta-linguistica’“, also einen Fall von fiktionaler Sprachwissenschaft Marcantonio 2004), womit sie allerdings Recht hat. Diese Art der Etruskologie, diAe die sog. ungarischen Alternativen ultivieren, verdient somit keine weitere Beachtung." (loose translation: "Even Angela Marcantonio, who questions the Finno-Ugric language family and the place of Hungarian, sees Alinei's book as "un caso di 'fanta-linguistica'," that is a case of fictional Linguistics Marcantonio 2004), she certainly is right. Such Etruscan studies, which cultivate the so-called Hungarian alternatives deserves, therefore no further consideration." A clue to this outright dismissal without any justification might lie in Alinei's criticism back in 2006 of historical linguistics (here) (Brogyanyi's field of expertise). Tit for Tat? (*) Marcantonio, Angela, and her review of Alinei's book is mentioned here and by Brogyanyi above: Marcantonio apparently concludes that "(a) there is not enough available linguistic material to compare archaic Etruscan and Hungarian; (b) Alinei manipulates data already difficult to interpret; (c) proposed similarities are in reality unsystematic between Etruscan and Turkic; Alinei ignores the similarities with Latin, Greek, for example in the field onomastics, or lexicon of the institutional vocabulary". You must be aware that Marcantonio also cops serious flack from mainstream linguists for her 'theory' concerning Hungarian and its place in Finno-Ugristics. (see [Laakso]) Of course, if a linguist also has a theory which clashes with dogma or with another's then personal attacks will arise. For a background, see "LINGUISTIC PALAEONTOLOGY: SCIENCE OR FICTION? - A case study within Uralic" to see what the fuss is all about. Marcantonio also criticises 'historical linguistics' and raises the ire of traditionalists; see "Historical linguistics and the origin of the Finns : The debate between 'traditionalists' and 'revolutionaries'". (*) Laakso, Johanna, refers to Alinei's Italian book here as Alinei, Mario 2003: Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di Ungherese. Bologna: Il Mulino. [Beside Kalevi Wiik, a frightening example of misunderstanding and misuse of historical linguistics by an estimated (sic) professional linguist.] Are you sufficiently frightened? Does that detailed, objective and scientific one-liner help you understand all that misunderstanding and misuse of HL by an esteemed professional linguist? Again, the real issue is Alinei on 'historical linguistics'. Dr. Laakso refers the expectant reader to what she calls a 'review' of the Hungarian version of the book, by János György Szilágyi in the journal Élet és irodalom Obviously, Laakso couldn't have read the 'review' : this link will take the reader to the correct page in Hungarian (as of 10 Feb. 2012 this article is no longer 'free') (*) Klima, László, a Finno-Ugric academic (the quality of the criticism is all the more disappointing). Reference: Egyezzünk ki a múlttal! Műhelybeszélgetések történelmi mítoszainkról, tévhiteinkről. Szerkesztette: Lőrinc László, Történelemtanárok Egylete, Budapest, 2010 - available here pp. 159-161 (in Hungarian) The book is an attempt to counter the 'myths' being propogated about the past of Hungarians, their language and their country mostly from the traditionalist's point of view. It is generally assumed that the Finno-Ugric theory was firmly established beyond doubt by rigorous scientific method of analysis by the 'scientist' J. Budenz in the 19th. century. This idealistic view is still propogated by traditionalists in reaction to the "Many Hungarians (who) rejected the relationship with poor people with a ”fish fat smell” and enthusiastically ”fought” for the ”glorious Turkish origin”. It was to the merit of Budenz, Hunfalvy, Munkácsi, Szinnyei and others that the up-to-date methods and sound facts slowly overcame the sentiments.” [from A. Rona-Tas, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 32, 1978] A fine example of the usual unscientific name-calling of those with 'unorthodox' views who must be simply engaging in racist, fascist, nationalistic sentiments where only the traditionalists use(d) up-to-date methods and sound facts. It must be quite obvious even to the most rusted on Finno-Ugricist that, (a) the Comparative Method was in its infancy at the time, which means that it could not have been applied systematically and scientifically in any case. In fact, this holds true not only of the Uralic languages, but also of the Indo-European languages. Even "the forms of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European have changed out of all recognition as successive generations of scholars have refined and amended their predecessors' work"; (b) despite his correct programmatic and methodological intentions, Budenz did not specify the sound-rules by which he tried to establish his Hungarian/Ugric correspondences, furthermore arbitrary stretches of meaning were often accepted in order to establish the desired correspondence between Hungarian and a Ugric language, or to reject an undesirable Hungarian/Turkic correspondence. In a word, Budenz' corpus turns out to be of very poor quality, particularly in the light of modern linguistic knowledge; (c) earlier on Budenz even concluded that there was in fact a genetic relationship between Hungarian and Turkic which is at odds with the modern view that Finno-Ugric has no relationship with Turkic or any other language families. That is, to strengthen the Finno-Ugric theory, the Turkic words found in Hungarian are now ALL declared as loans although no original work to substantiate this paradigm shift can be found. [from Marcantonio, Nummenaho, Salvagni (Linguista Uralica, 2001)] Klima says Alinei probably doesn't understand the method of 'historical linguistics' and lists some of the perceived sins raised by 'critics' :- (1.) "Alinei's comparison of a 9th. c. A.D. Hungarian word gyula with the Etruscan zila raises the ire of critics who claim that it is absurd comparing a Turkic loanword in Hungarian with Etruscan which Alinei tries to explain away with some migration theory. What is more striking is that the sounds aren't even familiar, he believes that after the /g/ there stands a dipthong consisting of two vowels /y/ and /u/." Alinei (2005) doesn't say this about gyula. On p. 28 he says Etruscan /z-/  is appropriately compared with Greek /dy-/ or /-dy-/ equivalent sound. In his book summary he writes that in earlier times the Hungarian forms JILA, DZ-LA were likely. In any case, modern Hungarian /gy-/ today takes the place of /dj-/ at the start of some foreign words and probably didn't exist in such early times, anyway. (2.) "Alinei doesn't understand vowel harmony (VH) operating in Hungarian. Because of this, his comparison of Etruscan tezan with the 3rd. person indefinite conjunctive/imperative form of the Hungarian verb tesz is wrong. It is tegyen not tegyan. He repeats this mistake many times." The criticism is misleading. Alinei never refers to tegyan in his (2005) book but correctly lists tegyen. I think the critic means to say "that Etruscan tezan should have developed into modern Hungarian tegyan which violates VH, but instead developed into tegyen (which does not), therefore Alinei is wrong in his assertion". "Shows that the level of criticism is one which is at the level of a modern Hungarian grammar teacher not a historical linguist, because it refuses to acknowledge the possibility of sound changes or of a different orthography that tend to occur in an ancient language over a long period of time."[Hamori]  Seems too generous an assessment. The following table shows VH in modern Hungarian :- Front Vowels Long é ő ű í Short e ö ü i Back Vowels Long á ó ú   Short a o u   General Rule of Vowel Harmony:- Every word in Magyar contains either all back or all front vowels. However, (a) a few words allow e, é to be used with back vowels (b) Front vowels i, í have no corresponding back vowels and so can also be used with back vowels. (c) Vowel Harmony does NOT apply to foreign words in Hungarian. The critic doesn't seem to be aware that sounds and orthography (spelling) can and do change. The first Hungarian text, the famous ‘A halotti beszéd és könyörgés', ‘The Funeral Oration and Prayer',  is a free translation from Latin by an unknown author written between 1192 and 1195 AD, shows that Vowel Harmony is still in the process of formation. In this short text Vowel Harmony is not yet a fully developed feature, as shown by the following examples: Old Hun. vilag-bele vs  Modern Hun.  világ-ba ‘into the world’; Old Hun.  uruzag-bele  vs  Modern Hun.  ország-ba  ‘into the kingdom’; Old Hun. muga-nec  vs  Modern Hun. magá-nak  ‘to himself’; Old Hun.  halal-nec  vs  Modern Hun.  halál-nak  ‘to the death’ (from the edition by Molnár, J. and  Simon, Gy. 1977. Magyar nyelvemlékek. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.: 17-18). referenced in [Marcantonio] According András Róna-Tas, Professor of Altaic Studies and Early Hungarian History at József Attila University, Szeged: "The self-nomination magyar is of Finno-Ugric origin. It consists of two parts. The first part magy- goes back to an earlier form mans, which is identical with Manysi, the name of the Voguls, now living in Western Siberia, and with Mos, the name of one of the two main groups of their relatives, the Ostyaks. The second part, which sounded earlier er, is also an ethnic name, with the meaning "man, creature" and was the name of another Ugric group. From the two groups with Finno-Ugric names and languages was formed the name of the Hungarians mans+er > magy+er > magyer (this form, lacking vowel harmony, is recorded until the 13th century) > magyar." One of the more important words, that is the earlier self-designation for a Hungarian - MAGYER - lacked vowel harmony until the 13th. century! The critic doesn't appear to be aware that there are exceptions to the general rule of VH especially concerning front vowels e, é which can in fact be used with back vowels in a few words in modern Hungarian as well.  For example, Demonstrative pronoun az 'that'+ /-ért/  'causalis case' < azért 'for that purpose'. leány 'girl, daughter' (thought to probably be a compound formed from Ugric/Uralic elements) lecsó 'ratatouille-like dish made of stewed onions, tomatoes and paprika' (of controversial origin) tajték [c1395] 'foam' (from a root of unknown origin) [lr: vol3, p. 53] ********************************************************************************************* dézsma 'tithe' (earlier form dézma) of N. Italian origin < Latin [lr: vol1, p. 78] diák ~ deák [from a SSl language] 'scholar; scribe; secretary; student, schoolboy; Latin' [lr: vol1, p. 78] tányér [c1395] 'plate, dish', of Italian origin, cf Italian tagliere (obs) 'dish', (mod) 'chopping-board'. [lr: vol3, p. 56] With this in mind, Alinei's hypothesis concerning Etr.  tezan > tegyen is not so outrageous after all. (3.) "Alinei ignores (SOV) Hungarian word order. One can't compare Etruscan apa nacna 'father-great' with Hungarian nagy apa because the word order is reversed." Is this really about 'word order' in a sentence, or about placement of the adjective in relation to a noun? Word order in a sentence is about the placement of the components of a SENTENCE, namely, SUBJECT, VERB and OBJECT (SVO). It is not a hard and fixed rule even in modern Hungarian which is often (SOV). You can change the component order of a sentence in Hungarian for emphasis just as you can in Classical Latin also usually (SOV). In Classical Latin (SOV) the adjective is generally placed after the noun unless the word is used in poetry, while both Magyar (SOV) and English (SVO) have it in front of the noun! But, the Hungarian adjective used as predicate (in the nominal sentence) follows the noun. E.g. 'A kert szép.' = 'The garden is nice/beautiful.' Interestingly, French (SVO) allows adjectives to be placed before or after the noun, depending on their type and meaning - a Romance language which allegedly developed from vulgar Latin. Note :- component order of a sentence in both Latin (SOV) and Magyar (SOV) is not as important as it is in English (SVO) as the suffixes attached to the 'stems' in Latin and to the 'roots' in Magyar determine the context. The following simple examples are from [wlg: 14] and translated to Magyar make perfect sense without alteration of the original meaning. Latin Magyar Puer puellae bellae rosam dat. A fiú szép leánynak rózsát ad. Bellae puellae puer rosam dat. Szép leánynak a fiú rózsát ad. Bellae puellae rosam dat puer. Szép leánynak rózsát ad a fiú. Rosam puer puellae bellae dat. Rózsát a fiú szép leánynak ad. Try rearranging the words in the English sentence "The boy is giving a rose to the pretty girl" without a little discomfort. (4.) Klima gets upset with Alinei's explanation of historical events which allegedly imply that the Honfoglalás by the Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 9th. century A.D. was fabricated or an outright lie perpetrated by many writers. That is, the Honfoglalás ('hon' = 'homeland' + 'foglalás' = 'occupation’) (i) Linguist András Róna-Tas' clumsy translation of  Honfoglalás is 'The Landtaking' (he believes in the official version of ONE wave of 'landtaking' in the 9th. Century AD!) Based entirely on linguistic speculation around a few words, linguists can 'derive' prehistory itself to show that the ancestors of the Hungarians left their Uralic cousins around 4000 BC [art:0] and wandered about on the Eurasian steppes for 5000 years on their way to the Carpathian Basin without suffering a major disaster in their encounters with some of the fiercest nations such as the Khazars, Bulghar-Turks, Alans, Slavs, Mongols, the numerous Turkic nations and Indo-Iranians and so on. All this while great civilisations rose and fell. Sounds like Voodoo Science, but it is the officially accepted dogma concerning the Hungarians. (ii) Historian Gyula László refers to this as 'The Conquest' (he believes in TWO waves of 'landtaking' centuries apart! That is in 670 and 896 AD?!) Concerning the historical speculation of some linguists, he has this to say: "For some time it had been fashionable to say that by the time of the Conquest, Magyar dwellings had advanced no more than "from yurt to hut". This assertion is laughable enough nowadays but it was sustained for a while by the over-hasty conclusions of some linguists who had tried to trace the history of Hungarian building terms back into the Finno-Ugrian past and ended up envisaging some amazingly primitive shelter. Clearly, the concept may have had some validity for conditions that prevailed five or six thousand years before the Conquest, but to project this into the Conquest period itself was methodologically unsound. Ethnologists were closer to the truth with their opinion, briefly put, that Conquest-period Magyar dwellings must have been more like nineteenth-century Hungarian villages than the clusters of rudimentary tents in which the Magyars' kinsfolk, the Voguls and Ostyaks, dwelt until recently. Sadly, the time-scales of linguistics are extroardinarily precarious: correct as many of the etymologies undoubtedly are, they are not anchored to a firm chronology and thus have led to historical deductions which are as uncertain as those in the sphere of prehistory." Can you believe it? Nothing is certain - even the hysterical speculation of mainstream linguists. In light of this, Alinei's version of history which mentions the Honfoglalás but implies the dating is a problem (source) may not be so outrageous after all :- According to the Uralic Continuity Theory, Uralic populations belonged to the groups of Homo sapiens sapiens who had settled in Europe in Palaeolithic times. They were thus already in Eastern Europe during the last Glacial (13.000 b.C.), and moved to the North at the time of the deglaciation (9.000 b.C.), in order to continue their culture of specialized hunters and fishermen. The present distribution of all Uralic languages, except Magyar, perfectly corresponds to the scenario reconstructed by the Uralic Continuity Theory. The only problem, as is known, is that of the Honfoglalás (‘homeland occupation’) of the Magyar, who at a time which has not yet been established with certainty, must have separated from the other Ugric people and moved from the Ob river area to their historical territory. The new PCT offers a new solution for this problem and, at the same time, the elements for a demonstration of the identity of the prehistoric Magyars with the ancient Etruscans. Euroasiatic nomadic cultures begin – by definition - with horse-riding. And horse-riding emerges in the steppe area, in the 4th millennium, within the so called Serednyi Stog (= SS) culture, which as we have argued must be assumed as TURKIC. From the SS culture there develops, in the 3rd millennium, the more famous kurgan or Yamnaia (= Y) culture, which must also be assumed as TURKIC. We must now recall that the MAGYAR terminology for HORSE and HORSE RIDING is TURKIC of origin, and is shared by the OB-UGRIC languages. This has fundamental implications for the DATING OF THE UGRIC UNITY: (1) MAGYAR AND OB-UGRIC LANGUAGES must have been still united in their western central Asiatic territory in the 4th and 3rd millennium, when the first HORSE-RIDING TURKIC CULTURES developedin the steppe area, to the South of their settlement.         (2) They must have been very much influenced by them, also culturally. Most of the POLITICAL, SOCIAL and AGRICULTURAL TURKIC (especially CHUVASH) LOANWORDS in MAGYAR, however, ARE NOT SHARED BY OB-UGRIC LANGUAGES. In turn, this implies that the Magyar, AFTER their separation from the other Ob-Ugric languages, must have undergone a SECOND WAVE OF TURKIC INFLUENCES. When did the SEPARATION of the Magyar from the Ob-Ugrians then take place? As ARCHAEOLOGY informs us, at the end of the 3rd. millennium B.C. a KURGAN group invaded Hungary during the ‘classic’ period of the BADEN culture. As this is the only archaeologically well-attested episode of invasion of the Hungarian territory, we have no alternative as to the conclusion that it was this group, probably TURKIC CHUVASH, which caused the separation of the Magyar from the other Ugric people, at the sametime acculturating and guiding them to the Honfoglalás, the conquest of their historical territory. Moreover, as in the light of the PCT the kurgan culture must be assumed to be TURKIC, and the Baden culture as SLAVIC, this would explain why Magyar has so many TURKIC LOANWORDS NOT SHARED BY THE OTHER UGRIC (AND URALIC) LANGUAGES, as well as so many SLAVIC PLACE NAMES. WHY WERE ETRUSCANS MAGYAR? (1) ARCHAEOLOGY, since the 1970's, has concluded that the ancestors of the Etruscans, the so called VILLANOVIANS (from the name of the Central-Italian culture of VILLANOVA, of the beginning of the 1st millennium) came from the Carpato-Danubian area. The archaeologist who has contributed the most to this discovery is the American Hugh Hencken. (2) The Villanovians and their predecessors Proto-Villanovians were characterized, among other things, by cremation. Cremation originated in central Europe with the so called Urn Fields. The earliest Urn Fields in central Europe are the Hungarian ones (Hencken). (3) Moreover, Carpato-danubian influences on Italian prehistory began much earlier:  Starting from the 3RD MILLENNIUM, Italian prehistory sees “an almost continuous presence of central-European influences” (Barfield). (4) In the 2ND MILLENNIUM, the so called Bronze Age “Terremare” in the Po Valley (Emilia), and the artificial hills of Bronze Age settlements in the Danube plain (e.g. Tószeg) are “remarkably similar” (Barfield). (5)  Archaeological evidence for Carpato-Danubian influences on the prehistory of Northern Italy is actually such as to make one think of an “ACTUAL INVASION ... of the Po Valley by people coming from East”(Barfield, cf. Cardarelli). OBLIGATORY CONCLUSION: In the light of the PCT, the Carpato-Danubian people who exercised so much influence on northern Italy in the course of the 3rd and 2nd millennium, and who became the Villanovians of the 1st millennium, can only be the heirs of the conquerors of Hungary in the 3rd millennium, that is Magyars who had been accultured by Turkic élites. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TURKIC ROLE IN THE PREHISTORY OF THE MAGYARS AND –AS WILL BE SHOWN - OF THE ETRUSCANS Hugh Hencken, the main scholar of the Proto-Etruscan culture of Villanova, has advanced the hypothesis that in the 2nd millennium b.C. the Etruscans – who were called TYRSENOI by the Greeks – from the Carpato-Danubian region might have reached the eastern Mediterranean, and could thus be identified with the TURSHA, one of the famous SEA PEOPLE struggling for the control of Mediterranean Sea and mentioned by ancient Egyptians. This hypothesis has been recently strengthened by the discovery that the language of the inscriptions of the island of Lemnos in the Egean Sea is also Etruscan. Independently from Hencken’s research on Etruscan, HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS (e.g. Tibor Kovács) have advanced the hypothesis that ‘2nd millennium Magyar’ might have participated in the ventures of the SEA PEOPLE. The LATIN NAMES for the Etruscans, namely TUSCI (< TU(R)SCI), ETRUSCI (< ETURSCI), ETRURIA (< ETRUSIA < ETURSIA), as well as the Greek one TYRSENOI, could thus be connected with the name of the TURKS, anticipating the long series of TURKIC OR ALTAIC NAMES that have been given to the Magyar in history: HUNGARIANS, AVARS, TURKS, BASHKIRS, HUNS. The ‘birth’ of the Etruscans – that is of PREHISTORIC MAGYARS WHO INVADED ITALY AND WERE CONSIDERED AS TURKS, – would then have taken place in the Bronze Age, when the Carpato-Danubian area became “the industrial heart of Europe” (Barfield) and Hungarian metallurgy, after reaching its zenith, started off a wave of expansion campaigns of the Magyar. To reiterate, it might just be that the Etruscans, as pointed out by [kjd] and implied by [alinei], "...were Ugric-speaking cousins of the Hungarians, not Hungarians themselves. The Hungarians continued to live in the steppes north of the Black Sea during the long centuries of the histories of the Trojans, Etruscans, and Romans... ". (*) Facchetti, Guilio M., The Interpretation of Etruscan Texts and its Limits, The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 33, Nos 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2005, writes on page 371-2 :- (a) Facchetti writes "Still more recently Mario ALinei has published Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese (Alinei 2003), and all his skills as a linguist has not availed him from doing similar methodological blunders. I do not wish to go into details here; suffice it to say that Alinei clears away all the combinatory work done on Etruscan (for grammar especially) to try to make Uralic inflexions fit without ripping the seams." Another one who 'doesn't wish to go into details here', which might help the reader understand what the fuss is about. (b) Facchetti writes "He completely ignores the aforesaid recent findings in phonology (and phoneme/grapheme relationships), returning to the obsolete but convenient theory that the handwriting changed and orthography was not consolidated (p. 263); this has been a catch-all approach for all who used etymology or groundless comparative studies". Of course, languages change. Contrast this with [lb: p. 17] who points out that the alphabetic system changed twice. First, when the Greek model alphabet was adapted to the needs of the Etruscan language, then some time around 400 BC various other changes culminated in the creation of the 'neo-Etruscan' alphabet. Several letters disappeared. K continued to be used in the northern cities, as did the sibilant M (ś). The loss of vowels in Etruscan spelling after the first syllable, resulting in clusters of consonants, was due to an intensive stress accent which around 500 BC affected Etruscan as well as other languages of Italy. In the Archaic period (7th.-5th. c. BC) inscriptions were sometimes written boustrophedon (one line from left to right, the next from right to left and so on). In the  3rd c. BC or later inscriptions  (under Latin influence) were written left to right. In this late period some inscriptions in the Etruscan language were even written in the Latin alphabet; and some in the Latin language with Etruscan letters. In the earliest inscriptions the words are not separated at all, the letters running on one after the other (scriptio continua). From the 6th. c. BC words are often divided from each other by one, two or more dots placed vertically above each other. Sometimes this 'punctuation' separates groups of letters or syllables within a word; such syllabic punctuation constitutes a peculiar feature of Etruscan writing in certain periods. Apparently, Facchetti's has issues with "What has hidden the Uralic affiliations of Etruscan is its highly variable spelling, although Alinei assures us that its latitude is no worse than in Mediaeval Florentine or Venetian texts. If the Etruscans were a warrior aristocracy that was gradually absorbed by its subjects, then it presumably recruited its scribes from its Italic-speaking subjects, who wrote in a vowel-poor alphabet of Semitic origin, thus obscuring the open syllable, agglutinative nature of a Uralic language with extensive vowel harmony. These links nevertheless become clear when we consider the Etruscan vocabulary for its offices of state. Writing in the 10th century, the Arab historian, Ibn Rusta, noted that Hungarian tribes split their leadership between a warlord wielding de facto executive power, the gyula, and a largely ceremonial but revered king, the kende. Alinei finds that the main offices of the Etruscan state included the ZILA/ZILAΘ/ZILCI/ZILI/ZILX, identified by Greek sources as the military commander, and the CANΘE/CAMΘI/CANΘCE, the princes civitatis or leader of the Etruscan community. Then there is the knight, LUCUMO (Hung. ló (horse) + Komi. kom (man)), the two-headed axe, PURΘ (Hung. balta (axe), Chuvash purte), and the land surveyor, MARUNU (Hung. mérő (measure)), to cite but a few examples. Once one overcomes this hurdle, the relationships become much clearer, the main phonological differences being Etr. θ > Hung. t, Etr. c > Hung. k/h, Etr. z > Hung. gy/cs." [Morris] One man's interpretation is anathema to another in this 'exact science'. (c) Facchetti claims that "With a few prods in the right direction comparing the five or six hundred Etruscan surviving lexemes with the tens of thousands offered by other languages (or more if you take whole families) can result in anything." Lazy, self-fulfilling refrain often used to heap scorn on the works made not only by amateurs but by esteemed, professional linguists who apparently make 'methodological blunders'. Why? Because the blanket claim that all wordlist comparisons "are based on accidental, superficial resemblances" is not entirely justified. Historical linguists, in particular, insist "...that from a purely statistical point of view, even among any two unrelated languages, there will most likely be a number of similar-sounding words with similar meanings". The basic premise of this apparently authoritative and oft repeated statement is sound, but it is not based on any hard evidence. With thousands of languages and thousands of words per language, coupled with a finite number of sounds, it does seem reasonable to expect some 'similarities' - whatever they are. However linguists haven't done the sums, so does this "appeal to authority" prove anything? In an ideal linguistic world, "regular sound changes" should show which words are related and which are not. In this non-ideal world there seem to be annoying exceptions to those rules as well. Serious scrutiny is lacking in all quarters, it seems. Besides, we aren't dealing with certainties in the case of the so-called language isolates such as Etruscan nor in the case of the substantial Magyar lexicon of unknown origin. A large problem with language isolates is that their prehistory cannot be reconstructed by means of the comparative method, and little is known of their origins. That substantial Magyar lexicon, which linguists haven't been able to tie to every other language as loans, is obviously also a problem. (d) Facchetti says on the vocabulary alone "Hungarian and Etruscan are irreconcilable: take Etr. cel, which from the Tavola di Cortona and other documents we are certain meant 'earth'." (i) Alinei's first proposal is that Etr. CEL1 CELA CELATI CELΘI refer to 'grave pit or ditch' or 'grave'. Is that a long bow to draw from 'earth, ground, soil' to 'grave pit or ditch' or 'grave'? It is certainly true that modern Hungarian sír 'grave, tomb' (thought to be possibly of FU origin) and ancient Etruscan cel are irreconcilable, therefore, Alinei looks to the Ugric cousins of Hungarian such as Mansi, Hanty or uses those official, unverifiable and fictitious Finno-Ugric/Uralic proto forms to help 'identify' potential earlier forms "without ripping the seams". For example, Mansi kal' -χål-χil- and so on 'to dig out, excavate' which is connected with Hanti kai and others. Is this Faccheti's problem with Alinei's proposal? (ii) On the other hand, Facchetti might be bitching about Alinei's other proposal which is that Etr. CEL2 refers to 'goddess of birth; mother goddess; East'? However, this is supported in part by the Bonfantes who write that CEL referred to 'mother goddess': see CELSCLAN 'son of the goddess CEL (TLE 368) [glb: p. 86] Now, this would be comparable to Hungarian root verb kel- to arise, rise, swell, to 'give birth'; or the derived word kel-et meaning 'place where the sun rises; East'. This is certainly NOT irreconcilable! In the Ugric languages one also finds Mansi koål 'to arise, bring to fruition'; Hanti kül < Ugor *kälä 'to get up, arise' according to Alinei. So, how certain are we that 'CEL' meant 'earth' only? (e) Facchetti says "the supposed dichotomy between the titles zilaθ/camθi (Alinei also equals them with canθ-: but see Torelli-Agostiniani 2001, 137), on which he constructs all his theory, simply doesn't exist in Etruscan." Such certitude must be comforting when the various players can only partially agree on the meanings of many Etruscan words (and sometimes not at all). For example, Etr. camθi can mean 'name of a magistracy' [Bonfante] or 'a type of priest' [Facchetti]. So how is it known with certainty that it did not mean ‘king, highest institutional authority' as claimed by Alinei? It is dishonest to say that Alinei "also equals zilaθ/camθi with canθ-". Nor does he construct "all his theory" on Facchetti's imagined 'dichotomy', whatever that is supposed to be. Alinei uses not only linguistics but history and archaeology to construct "all his theory" which is conveniently ignored by Facchetti. Let's not get too emotional. It is, after all, a proposal and one is free to consider it in the spirit of inquiry and questioning or one is free to reject it without further consideration. Scientists at work. Etruscan Relative 'MEANING' Source zil- zil,zilac,zilc,zilach,zilath camthi  'to rule' 'a magistrate' 'name of a magistracy' L. Bonfante, 1990 zilath ? 'a cultural functionary' ? Steinbauer doesn't even list camθi ? D.H.Steinbauer, 1999 zil zilaθ zilaθ parχis zilaθ eterau/zileteraia zilaθ ceχaneri zilc/zilχ zilc munica camθi/canθe dichiarazione del giusto (in senso sacrale; cfr. lat. fas). carica politica (= pretore), da zilc = "pretura". pretore del <patriziato> pretore della <plebe> capo del <senato> pretura pretura sacra tipo di sacerdote (type of priest) G.M.Facchetti, 2000, 2001 zila canθe, canθce, canθus, camθi PRINCEPS CIVITATIS ‘chief of the Etruscan community’ REX ‘king, highest institutional authority’ M. Alinei, 2005

Magyar is the name the Hungarians apply to themselves and to their language. It is not pronounced MAG-YAR and one should be aware that Hungarian /gy/ (palatised /d') is ONE sound much like Basque /dd/.

According to [Marcantonio] the ‘standard’ etymology of  MAGYAR is as follows (according to UEW 866 as well as the other major Hungarian etymological dictionaries):  magy-ar  consists of two parts. The first part,  magy-  derives from Ug. *mańć'. ‘man, human being’, from which also the self-denominations of the Voguls,  Mansi, and the self-denomination of one the Ostyak clans  (mańt’ ~  mońt’ ~  maś) is derived  (UEW 866).  Hun. /-d’-/ is a regular reflex of P-U *-ńć-. The second element is -ar  (~ -ér, - ër) ‘man’, and is the same component found for example in Hun. emb-ër  ‘man’. This root in turn is connected with Finn.  yrkä  ‘bachelor’,  yrkö  ‘man’  <  F-U  *irkä  (*ürkä) (UEW 84). This etymology presents a major difficulty: the segmentation magy-ar does not have any independent justification, because neither of the two members (magy- and -ar) are ever found as stand-alone elements. The same holds true for emb-ër ‘man’, not to take into account the question of the missing final -i, [the denominations recorded in the historical sources contain a final, long  -i (Latin  Mogerij ~ Mogerii,  and Greek  Megέrh), for which there is no corresponding vowel in the presumed Old Hungarian component *-ar ~  *-ér ~ *-ër.  The presence of a final long vowel is confirmed by the original Arabic script, which reads as  m.ğ.γ.rīya, whereby the long  -ī- of the Arabic ending -īya  indicates that the original, non-Arabic word contained a final vowel]. And, in fact, the sources that support this etymology admit that there are several difficulties (see Ligeti 1986:400 and Németh 1972:156). For example, UEW 84 & 866 says that compound nature of the noun is no longer retrievable, the compound has now become ‘opaque, obscure’.

According András Róna-Tas, Professor of Altaic Studies and Early Hungarian History at József Attila University, Szeged: "The self-nomination magyar is of Finno-Ugric origin. It consists of two parts. The first part magy- goes back to an earlier form mans, which is identical with Manysi, the name of the Voguls, now living in Western Siberia, and with Mos, the name of one of the two main groups of their relatives, the Ostyaks. The second part, which sounded earlier er, is also an ethnic name, with the meaning "man, creature" and was the name of another Ugric group. From the two groups with Finno-Ugric names and languages was formed the name of the Hungarians mans+er >magy+er > magyer (this form, lacking the vowel harmony, is recorded until the 13th century) > magyar."

I have even seen where /-er/ was declared to be of Turkic origin. Do they just make this stuff up according to which way the wind blows?

[Marcantonio] also mentions that there exists in the specialist literature an ‘alternative’ etymology for the name magyar although this is hardly ever reported in textbooks. In  the 10th Centuries Arabic sources (such as ‘The Book of the Precious Stones’, written by the Arabic geographer Ibn Rusta circa 930 AD), there occur the forms  ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġiri ~ ba EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġird, which are regular variants [the initial  m ~ b alternation is a regular one within Turkic (common Turkic  m- vs  Bulgar Turkic and Khazar  b-). Similarly,  the correspondence  -gy-  /d’/  of  magyar  vs  /š/  of  bašġir  is a regular one (see Ligeti 1986: 376-7, 396, 400)]. Several authors claim that these terms are to be identified with the name magyar  (see for example Imre 1972:328 and Ligeti 1986). More precisely, according to Ligeti (1986: 376-7, 396, 400) from the variant  ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġiri  the term  magyar  has developed, whilst from the variant  ba EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġird  the forms  bašġir(d) ~ baš EQ \O(j,ˇ)ir(t) ~ bašgir have developed, that is, the denomination of the Turkic Bashkirs. Within the framework of the Comparative Method this etymology is certainly more ‘scientific’ than the standard etymology of magy-ar above. In fact, no arbitray segmentations are required, there is no mismatch in the quality of the vowels, the consonants match, and the lack of the final vowel in magyar can be explained with a normal process of ‘loss’ in final position. This alternative etymology, if accepted, suggests that, at least in the eyes of the Arabic historians and geographers, the tribe of their contemporary ‘magyars’ is somewhat connected to (if not even identical with) the tribe of their contemporary ‘Bashkirs’.  It would go beyond the scope of this discussion to comment on the issue of the ‘magyar-Bashkir’ connection [scholars have tried in various ways to ‘re-interpret’ this item of counter-evidence so as to fit it in with the thesis of the Uralic origin of the Hungarians. Compare for example Németh (930/1991:325-327, 1966a & b, 1972); Györffy (1948:184 f.); Fodor (1975, 1982:265 f.); Ligeti (1963, 1964, 1978, 1986: 375 & 378-379); Róna-Tas (1978); Di Cave (1995:34 f.); Vásáry (1975,  1985 /7) and Golden (1990b:245)], which has been extensively dealt with in the specialist literature. Here it suffices to observe that, by the designation  ma EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġir(i)  ~  ba EQ \O(j,ˇ)ġir(d)  the sources explicitly and consistently referred indeed to a Turkic population, and that the ‘Bashkiro-Hungarian complex’ (as it has been labeled by Vásáry (1985/7)), still ‘belongs to the open questions (Marcantonio's emphasis) of Hungarian prehistory’, to use Ligeti’s (1986:375) words [the original text reads as follows:“[The Bashkirs] a magyar őstörténet nyitott kérdései közé tartozik”].

According to Alinei [ma], "Modern Etruscology, with regards to linguistics, has been called ‘combinatorial’ or ‘hermeneutic’, because it has concentrated on the study of the INTERNAL characters of the language, as well as on its relations with the material and cultural context, without the hazards of the attempts to connect Etruscan with one or another language. Therefore its results, when they have been reached on the base of irrefutabile evidence, can be considered as very important." So the conclusions of this 'combinatorial' Etruscology  lead to

Some important Etruscan names of political leaders, officers and public institutions listed by [ma] as identifiable in Magyar and more importantly in some Turkic languages :-

Etruscan	TRANSLATION BY ETRUSCOLOGISTS ALREADY ASCERTAINED IN THE 19th. CENTURY	Magyar
ZILA	PRINCEPS CIVITATIS ‘chief of the Etruscan community’	GYULA (< Turkic), (ancient forms JILA, DZ-LA) Gyula can mean (a) male given name; (b) a war or 'military leader with executive power'
CANΘE	REX ‘king, highest institutional authority’	KENDE (< Turkic), (ancient form K-ND-) Kende was 'the nominal civil administrator'
MARU	Latin MARO, -ONIS, Umbr. MARON ‘competent in constructions and in the acquisition of lands’	(FÖLD)MÉRÕ Literally translates as (Land)Measurer = Surveyor
PURΘ-/PURT-	‘connected to political power’	Chuvash PURT? ‘battle axe’ > Magyar BALTA (> Latin BALTEUS ‘sword belt’)
CEP-	‘connected to political power’	KÉP (< Turkic) Magyar meaning of 'symbol,image,picture etc.'
LAUC, LUC, LAU×UM-, LU×UM-, LAU×ME etc.	Latin LUCUMO/LUCMO/LUCMO N, -ONIS ‘lucumon’ (‘??’)	Magyar LÓ 'horse' (< Turkic) + Mansi KOM/KUM (cf. Magyar HÍM) ‘horseman’ = ‘noble man, knight’

However, we aren't dealing with certainties in the case of the so-called language isolates nor in the case of the substantial Magyar lexicon of unknown origin.

Copyright © 2000-2012

Last updated 23 March 2012