The suffix for present tense is an important criteriea in dialect studies in terms of classification, and concerning works are usually on morphological forms derived from the –yoru form of present tense. This essay warns for wrong consequences, which are being got from wrong evaluations of the auxiliary verb ver-, and thus, claims that the -i ver(i) form in Anatolian and Balkan dialects is indeed not a present tense usage. Firstly M. Adamovic dealt with this suffix in his work “Konjugations-geschichte der türkischen Sprache”, by using data of Meninski and Gadjanov, but in terms of present tense.
The aim of our study is to present a graphic overview, in the form of maps, of some common features among Uralic and some non-Uralic neighboring languages in their present forms: Indo-European, Altaic and Paleo-Siberian. We abstain from including some geographically remote languages - from the point of view of Uralic - e.g., Basque, Caucasian, Dravidian, Ainu, Korean and Japanese, among the Indo-European languages Albanian, Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, and among the Paleo-Siberian languages Gilyak (or Nivkh) and Ainu.
In recent years attempts have been made to cast a new look at ancient India. For too long the picture has been distorted by myopic colonial readings of India’s prehistory and early history, and more recently by ill-suited Marxist models. One such distortion was the Aryan invasion theory, now definitively on its way out, although its watered-down avatars are still struggling to survive. It will no doubt take some more time—and much more effort on the archaeological front—for a new perspective of the earliest civilization in the North of the subcontinent to take firm shape, but a beginning has been made.
The British ruled India, as they did other lands, by a divide-and-conquer strategy. They promoted religious, ethnic and cultural divisions among their colonies to keep them under control. Unfortunately some of these policies also entered into the intellectual realm. The same simplistic and divisive ideas that were used for interpreting the culture and history of India. Regrettably many Hindus have come to believe these ideas, even though a deeper examination reveals they may have no real objective or scientific basis.
Most educated Indians know that most Indian languages are divided into two broad linguistic streams - i.e. the Indo-European and the Dravidian. Tied in with this linguistic classification is the theory that the North Indian languages came with Aryan settlers. During colonial rule, it may have seemed comforting to North Indians to know that they enjoyed a historical genetic and cultural connection with the superior races of Europe who had by then come to rule much of the world. Of course, this provided little comfort to the South Indians who were indirectly told that their own cultural history was inferior to that of the North because they lacked the all-important European connection.
Homeland: The Danube River valley (Wallachia and Hungary). Farming learned from the people of Asia Minor. Cultivation of native rye and oats and domestication of native pigs, geese, and cattle begins. Strong tribal sociey develops.
While the Anatolian theory enjoyed brief support when first proposed, the Indo-Europeanist community in general now rejects it, its majority clearly favouring the Kurgan hypothesis postulating a 4th millennium expansion from the Pontic steppe. While the spread of farming undisputedly constituted an important event, most see no case to connect it with Indo-Europeans in particular, seeing that terms for animal husbandry tend to have much better reconstructions than terms related to agriculture. The linguistic community further notes that linguistic evidence suggests a later date for Proto-Indo-European than the Anatolian theory predicts.
Bei einer früheren Gelegenheit wurde in diesen Blättern über meinen Versuch, ein in der Chronica Hungarorum des Johannes von Thurócz mitgetheiltes, bisher als apokryphisch angesehenes Verzeicbniss der Vorfahren Attila's auf die in den chinesischen Aufzeichnungen des Alterthums erhaltenen Regentennamen des centralasiatischen Hiung-nu-Volkes zurückzuführen, Bericht erstattet.
I am convinced that Uralic languages do not descend from one, more or less unitary proto-language, spoken about 8,000–4,000 years ago in the Uralic proto-home in West Siberia, South Urals or in the Volga area from where the speakers of that proto-language began to spread out, primarily westward, just as the traditional Uralicists usually suppose.
Since we cannot be at all sure that an IE population existed in pre-historical times, we have to strongly doubt also the existence of an IE homeland. Instead, there must have been a community – quite possibly an ethnically distinct community, as it was often the case – that used a relatively homogeneous linguistic structure.
In the framework of a novel approach to the history of Uralic – Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic – languages the data from archaeology and population genetics as well as physical anthropology, geology, climatology and many other branches of science are taken into consideration. I believe that today such an approach is singularly appropriate because in observations of more distant past of languages there are no documented linguistic data at our disposal.
The ethnonym hungar has not got a clear etymology. According to sources the name hungar can be related to the names: ogur, ogurda, ungri, hunugur, ugri, nukurda, nukarda, hujur; Jura, jugra, ugra, Hungaria, Unkurijja.
In this book, which is aimed at general linguists as well as Uralic specialists, Angela Marcantonio examines the history, phonology, morphology, lexicon and onomastics of the Uralic languages. She uses both conventional and modern statistical methods of analysis.
The colorful Egyptian hieroglyphs are not decorations, but an intelligent, fluid writing, the written form of the ancient language spoken in the Nile-Valley. The Egyptian writing can be continually followed from archaic times, through the end of the Greco/Roman age, thanks to the multitude of surviving inscriptions. There is no need to apply (pseudo) scientific methods to form hypothetical words - marked by stars in the literature.
This work is highly recommended for beginner and advanced students of historical linguistics, as well as for seasoned professionals who would not mind having a new resource to the subject matter, whether for use in teaching or to search for alternative ways to define or explain concepts and terms. This glossary is more accessible and concise than the only other similar resource in English.
This book on the developing arguments concerning the Aryan Invasion Theory consists of adapted versions of papers I have read: the first at the World Association of Vedic Studies (WAVES) conference on the Indus-Saraswati civilization in Atlanta 1996, the third at the 1996 Annual South Asia conference in Madison, Wisconsin and in a lecture at the Linguistics Department in Madison; the fifth contains material used in my paper read at the second WAVES conference in Los Angeles 1998; the second and fourth were read at lectures for the Belgo-Indian Association, Brussels, and at the Etnografisch Museum, Antwerp.
The IE-framework, however, in spite of the copious genetic and other evidence to the contrary, still insists on 'Aryans' entering 'Dravidian' India, merely in order to satisfy its linguistic model. Indology's continued insistence on linguistics being the final determinant in all matters relating to the spread of IE languages and in defining the nature of the connections between various languages deemed IE, could well be obstructing the envisioning of new paradigms: models that might be able to explain the observed similarities between Samskritam, Avestan and European languages, whilst still being consistent with the data revealed in the other sciences.
There is a great deal of confusion over the origins of the Aryan invasion theory and even the word Arya. It explains also the use and misuse of the word. The evidence of science now points to two basic conclusions: first, there was no Aryan invasion, and second, the Rigvedic people were already established in India no later than 4000 BCE. How are we then to account for the continued presence of the Aryan invasion version of history in history books and encyclopedias even today?
The aryan invasion theory has been one of the most controversial historical topics for well over a century. However, it should be pointed out that it remains just that – a theory. To date no hard evidence has proven the aryan invasion theory to be fact. In this essay we will explain the roots of this hypothesis and how, due to recent emergence of new evidence over the last couple of decades, the validity of the aryan invasion theory has been seriously challenged.
In this study I will prove that the so-called Sumerian Hypotheses of Hungarian is true. This does neither mean that Hungarian is the same as Sumerian, nor does it mean that Hungarian alone has Sumerian as its ancestor language. What I will prove with the present study is that at least 731 Hungarian lemmata which are shared by at least 1 more lemma in at least one other member of the Finno-Ugric language family can be traced back to Sumerian.
In questo articolo discuto i recenti risultati della ricerca genetica sugli Etruschi - che come mi attendevo corrispondono abbastanza da vicino a quanto la mia tesi etrusco-ungherese predice -, e ritengo utile illustrare anche quelli delle ricerche linguistiche da me terminate fra il 2003, quando è uscito il mio libro (Alinei 2003), ed oggi.
M.Ö. 3100-1800 yılları arasında yaşamış olan Sümerlerin dilinde, Türkçe kökenli 168 sözcük vardır. Bu sayı azımsanamayacak kadar fazladır. Çünkü iki Hint-Avrupa dili arasındaki ortak sözcüklerin sayısı da bu kadardır. Her şeyden önce Sümerlerin dilleri kesinlikle Türkçe değildir, Türkçe ile akraba da değildir; tamamen başka bir dildir
Professor Mario Alinei is a linguist, who has been a member and President of the International Society for Dialectology and Geolinguistics for seven years. He is also a member of seven - linguistics related - academies and societies and the founder of Societa Linguistica Italiana. He has written several books and over 200 articles within his chosen field. Among these the Origini delle lingue d'Europe (two volumes) and the Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungherese, (the Magyar title: Ősi kapocs, A magyar-etruszk nyelvrokonság) are of great significance to the above subject and they also help broaden the present frontiers of linguistics.
Linguists of the Western world base their research by necessity upon the known, Indo-European linguistic rules when they study the evolution of languages. These rules rest upon the present day use of languages and never touch upon the first moments of their birth. Placing the already known and the newly discovered languages onto the map of linguistic achievements according to the Indo-European world view necessitates an incredibly precise work, which almost achieves its goals. Western linguists still continue to battle the outcomes of this almost condition since they feel that behind the collected material there is another, unknown linguistic layer onto which they are unable to put their finger. They call this layer "proto language" no matter where its occurrence is.
I am a linguist, specialising in Uralic studies. My recent book (Marcantonio 2002a) carefully examines the evidence in favour of the theory that the Uralic languages are genetically related. In the extensive literature on this subject, I find that there is no scientific evidence at all in favour of the Uralic theory. Instead there is an extensive interlocking network of self-consistent assumptions and circular reconstructions. I conclude that the Uralic languages do not form a language family.
In the last couple of decades there have been in Finland as well as abroad a number of publications, in several fields of science, such as linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, genetics, which, one way or the other, all question what one can call ‘the standard, traditional Uralic (U) theory’ about the origin of the Finns and their language. Compare for example the following works in fields outside linguistics: Dolukhanov (2000a & b); Julku and Äärelä (eds,1997), Julku (2000); Niskanen ( 2000) and Nuñez (1987); see also the article ‘Palaeontology: science or fiction?’ in this volume for further references.
Already in 1874, the British priest Isaac Taylor brought up the idea of a genetic relationship between Etruscan and Hungarian (Taylor 1874). Since the very influential linguist August Friedrich Pott accepted this affiliation in the first number of his jou
This “Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian” – for which I propose the abbreviation “EDH” – is based on the assumption that the Hungarian (Magyar) language is the direct successor of Sumerian.
In the most recent Sumerian Grammar (Edzard 2003), Dietz Otto Edzard deals on less than one page with the possible relationship between Sumerian and other languages under the title “The (hopeless) question of the linguistic affiliation of Sumerian”, thus proving to be biased from the beginning.
Western scholars were not the first to decipher the ancient language of the pharaohs, according to a new book that will be published later this year by a UCL researcher.
For the first time, a text has been found in Old Persian language that shows the written language in use for practical recording and not only for royal display. The text is inscribed on a damaged clay tablet from the Persepolis Fortification Archive, now at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. The tablet is an administrative record of the payout of at least 600 quarts of an as-yet unidentified commodity at five villages near Persepolis in about 500 B.C.
The Rosetta Stone allowed 19th century scholars to translate symbols left by an ancient civilization and thus decipher the meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Could it be that Dr. Szilágyii has just not read my book yet? That he has merely leafed through it, found the cover ridiculous and the presence of an Hungarian poet who dares to criticize the Academy outrageous, and then has assumed the theory as impossible and turned thumbs down? It would be human. But not scientific.
This contribution is based on my recent work on the problem of the origins of Indo-European (= IE) languages and lately on Etruscan (Alinei 2003) –, and is divided in five parts: (A) the first outlines the three presently competing theories on the origins of IE languages; (B) the second summarizes the converging conclusions reached by different sciences on the problem of the origin of language and languages in general; (C) the third surveys recent theories on the origins of non IE languages in Europe; (D) the fourth illustrates examples of how the IE linguistic record can be read in the light of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, and in comparison with the two competing theories; (E) the fifth concerns the specific problem of the Slavic ethnogenesis.
The Hungarian translation of my book Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, il Mulino, Bologna, 2003, has been published by ALL PRINT Kiadó, Budapest, 2005, with the title: Ancient link: the Magyar-Etruscan linguistic relationship.
L'impulso che la recente scoperta della bilingue hurrico-ittita di Bogazköy sta dando agli studi hunitologici, ancor prima della sua integrale pubblicazione, dovrà riflettersi anche in un progresso dell'analisi di quell'importante materiale linguistico che è costituito dai nomi di persona.
In linguistics, languages can be compared to one another either by genetic or by typological classifications. Genetic relationship means that all the languages compared are (supposed to be) genetically related to one another like the members of a family.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, there was a lively, often acrimonious debate over the existence of the Sumerians. A majority of scholars contended that the Sumerians originated the civilization of ancient Mesopotamia, and invented cuneiform writing, which they passed on, with other elements of civilization, to the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians who appeared after them in Mesopotamia. A minority, led by Joseph Halévy of the Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, asserted that Mesopotamian civilization was a Semitic creation, and that the so-called Sumerian texts were really Semitic texts written in a hieratic mode.
As the author has shown in previous work, although linguistics as a science was born in Darwin’s century, Darwinism’s influence on it was superficial and produced the mystifying, but still current, view that language is a living organism, and language change an organic law. Language is, instead, a social artifact with an interface with nature, which is governed by the law of conservation and changes only exceptionally.