Talk:Hunnic language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Large Change

I made some large changes to this article. The existing content I merely rewrote (not all of it, just parts) in more neuteral language.

I also added information about a Hungarian dr. Csaba Detre's claims of new Hunnic language vocabulary and grammar information find.

Please feel free to whip it into shape. I do believe that the information that is there is worth keeping. Despite the obviousness of Detre's Hun - Hungarian sympathies, the actual vocabulary does not readily bend to his pseudoscientific aims and may therefore be real. (Being a Hungarian speaker familiar with this sort of pseudoscientific stuff, I would expect far more convincing Hun - Hungarian matches than Detre is able to present.)

Additional information about the existence/authenticity of the Codex Isfahan and Codex Crete would be good. Perhaps some Arabic wikipedia editors could help... Zacharia Rhetor does bring up some arabic pages, and, of course, Isfahan is in Iran.

--69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, How do you figure that none of the content I added was worth keeping in any form? Just curious.

Oh, and your "more ballanced" info is a bit off. On what source are you basing the statement that the Hun language is *at all* related to Hungarian? Csaba Detre's document (about which you removed all information) certainly suggests so. But I do not think it is widely accepted by any linguists.

Even the Turkic connection is rather weakly established on account of the extremely low number of vocabulary items (and next to no other information) we have from the language. --69.158.25.93 20:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would love to have Csaba Detre's research prove to be true :D But time will tell I guess. I can't find any information regarding this Isfahan Codex cited. I also agree we need some information on the page regarding the current theories and the words those theories are based upon. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you of the opinion, Stacey, that some information ought to appear about Detre's claims in this article? Perhaps in a more limited form, with additional information appearing in appropriately named (presumably newly created) wikipedia articles? --70.49.194.205 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I should note, regarding Detre, that he is almost certainly a quack. The actual data however, for the above noted reasons, does not immediately appear fabricated. --70.49.194.205 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some info should appear. I haven't made up my mind yet. But I have found this... http://hunnyelv.uw.hu/ or http://hunnyelv.uw.hu/Peto_Imre_Hun_nyelvi_tanulmanyok.doc Someone here who speaks Hungarian could better determine the information. Given the extensiveness of the information presented, I guess it looks invented. I don't think even the Codex Cumanicus is as extensive as Peto Imre's doc. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 04:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Imre Peto's document is essentially just a commentary on Detre's document. I would argue that the mere extensiveness is not a strong indicator of it being invented. The implied claim is after all the discovery of historical records on the Hun language. Zacharia Rhetor, I believe, specialised in "barbarians". The number of words is between 500 - 600. There is also some grammatical info.
Some of it looks to be an uncanny "match" for the Hungarian equivalent, others look totally unrelated. In yet other instances, it is obvious that Deter "extrapolated". The hun word (don't ask me to source it) known to mean "God" is something vaguely like "taingar". Deter's list has the following entry "ősapai, ősi, isteni(?): isathain(I), isztain(K)" which roughly means: "ancestor, ancestral, godly(?): isathain(I), isztain(K)". I strongly suspect that if his sources in fact exist, they gave no indication whatsoever that the words "isathain" or "isztain" are at all related to god or godliness. He made a tempting, if simple-minded, leap of logic by noting the similarity between the Hungarian word for God ("isten") and the alleged Hun word for ancestor. Could as easily be a false cognate as anything else.
As it is stated above, though they "looks Hungarianesque" in superficial ways, they are not readable as Hungarian... even though very differently spelled and grammatically archaic Hungarian dating back more than half a century is quite readily comprehensible. This is much more different.
If indeed it is a hoax, it is an unorthodox one. One popular pseudoscientific claim Hungarophilic linguo-quacks like to make is that Hungarian is remarkably consistent and unchanging, that variation between dialects and even over time is remarkably minimal in comparison to other languages. Without speaking on the merit of such statements, a person who believes such a thing would be satisfied by a fairly simple-mindedly distorted Hungarian syntax for his made-up Hun language.
The fact that he claims to distinct historical sources gives me hope, and the fact that the Detre document claims to be an extract from a book due to be published. Kind of want to call him and ask some questions... his number is in the phone-book... but the whole thing is a bit bizarre, and I'm kind of dredding the possible experience of far-too-obviously being told poorly constructed excuses for why none of my reasonable questions can be met with verifiable answers...
Having said all this, I think even if this is a hoax, it deserves some mention (maybe with a link to a separate article devoted to Detre's claims). It's not like the world is teeming with fake Hun-language discoveries... either way this is unique. --70.49.194.205 04:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dr. Csaba Detre

He actually appears to be a legitimate and (seemingly respected) geologist. ( http://www.sulinet.hu/eletestudomany/archiv/1998/9827/foldunk/foldunk.html ) Tellingly though, he appears to have no linguistics or history qualifications/experience. --70.49.194.205 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Seems more credible now

This page, which appears to have no relation to Csaba Detre or his work, speaks of the Codex Isfahan, describing it in a manner that gives credence to dr. Detre.

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/1000ad.htm

"The Magyar name is fund in the Caucasus Mountain area for well over 2,000 years before the Central European resettlement. Earliest linguistic evidence is from about 500AD, [b]from the codex from Iran, Isfahan[/b] cloister of Saint Thadeus of Nor Cjupa. (sorry about spelling, dont know the original and its not European orthography either. [b]In this document[/b] which was rewritten from older sources from about 500AD [b]a small dictionary and sentences are written that are understandable in Hungarian even today[b], if we accept a few minor changes like calling god by the term Theo, rather than isTEN. [b]It is attributed to the white Huns[/b], but is not Turkic in language. Some in the past claimed that the white Huns were eastern Ugrian and the Black Huns were Turkic in origin. This seems to confirm that along with other comments that early historians have written, such as the fact that the white Huns were Caucasian and white skinned and fair haired with cities and writing while the black Huns were eastern Turkic types, whose phisical appearance constitutes a heavy mixture of dissimilar racial types including the Pamir type, which probably was their source, then Mongoloid elements due to their move to the far east and mixing with Tibetans, Chines, Mongols and others, but in Europe they also had sizeable Caucasian types probably from local elements. This was not the case with the white Huns at all."

The texts (or words) are not readily understandable in Hungarian, contrary to the above. It is "attributed to the White Huns". So it sounds like that while there is no agreement, the Codex Isfahan may well contain a Hunnic vocabulary list and grammar information.

It is worth noting that this document is totally unknown in Hungary as an instance of "early Hungarian linguistic record". It is known only through Detre's work, and for not yet a full year. Regardless of whether or not it is Hunnic, I have considerable difficulty accepting it to be old Hungarian. I have a copy of "A MAGYAR NYELV kézikönyve" ("The Handbook of the Hungarian Language"), a 600 page linguistics work published by the Hungarian Scientific Academy (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia), and it does not have anything about the Codex Isfahan in it. This is rather strange, considering that if the Codex Isfahan contents are Hungarian, they are the oldest surviving record of the language. (and yes, there is mention of numerous other early records of Hungarian, all of which are from after 1000 AD though)

I am increasingly of the opinion, that information about Detre's document should make it into this article; however guardedly or hostilely qualified as "preliminary" or "questionable". Perhaps when Ghirlandajo is finished bulldozing the article, we could add something in, Stacey. --70.49.159.78 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


The language (as suggested by the vocabulary and texts put forth by Detre) is also devoid of vowel harmony as far as I can tell... surely, unless vowel harmony is a "modern" acquisition, this cannot be Hungarian. Even seeing it related requires some odd assumptions... after all it appears that a fair bit of grammar and a meaningful percentage of (known) words have commonalities... but the lack of vowel harmony is puzzling. Perhaps one or the other is a creolised hybrid language... I don't buy it as ancient Hungarian though... --70.49.159.78 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


In some way I assumed that the "millenia" website referenced above took it's information from Detre. But anyway, I'm also starting to agree that mention of Dr. Detre should be made. Other articles in Wikipedia mention other crackpot theories while managing to keep NPOV. I'd still really like to find out more about this Codex Isfahan. Regarding the vowel harmony, I was under the impression that ancient Hungarian didn't have it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alliance

The Huns were allied with the Magyars (Hungarians) - what does this mean ? the Huns from 400 were allied with the Magyars from 900 ? is there a historic source atesting this alliance ? Criztu 12:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were Magyars back in 400 as well. They were however in Asia. I vaguely recall that the Huns were thought to maintain contact with Asia, both with Huns living there, as well as with other people there known to them. Presumably that is the suggestion. --69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunnic language

The Magyars (Hungarians) in the 5th century were allied with Huns, and there is hystorical source for that.and one more thing: the hungarian language contains 90% of hunnic names,for example: Attila,Csaba, Szabolcs, Ellák, Zoltán,Aladár, Emöke and I could write more...


The names as Attila,Csaba, Szabolcs, Ellák, Zoltán,Aladár, Emöke where adopted by Hungarian nationalists and spreaded into the masses in the 17th century. Of course, this is a method to legitimate and make more prestigious the prevalence of the Hungarians among the surrounding European Nations. It was a time when the Hungarian ethnic group, knowing that they are only a quarter of the total population of the Kingdom of St. Stephen, promoted Hungarism and Hungarian "racial superiority" vis-a-vis the surrounding European ethnic groups (Romanians, Serbs, Slovak, Germans, etc) which represented 75% pf the population of Hungary. Even today, racist Hungarianists are using this kind of names for them childrens !

[edit] Sources

Everything I have seen on the topic states that there are less than four attested Hunnic words that are not proper names, for example strava, "funeral". Furthermore in the case of proper names, as for example Attila itself, I have seen numerous proposed etymological explanations, some of which link, for example, the Turkic ata "father" with the Gothic diminutive suffix -ila as found in e.g. the name Ulfilas. Therefore I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to state with any certainty to which language family Hunnic may have belonged.--KASchmidt 10:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Agreed! Changed the article to say that. --69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


This article desperately needs sourced vocabulary lists. No one can say anything about the language unless the examples are given. Also it is not clearwhich kinds of Huns are being inferred here. The European Huns of Attila? The Huns of the Caucasus & Caspo-Aral region who bothered kingdoms like Armenia & Persia? Or the Huns that broke into northern India & Pakistan? Or the Huns that harrassed northern China? Each of these groups have names and terms which have survived and there is no reason to assume they all belong to the same language family. Lists please!

-- Unsigned

How widely is it agreed that the European Huns have nothing to do with the Indian and Asian Huns? They were nomadic people that temporarily had a near-Empire in Europe. I do not find it incredulous to assume they had wide presence in Asia as well.
Also, my understanding is that Huns were able to unite a lot of different nomadic people under their banners. So "being a hun" may well have been akin to "being Canadian". You have the protection of a state whose rules you follow and bear allegience to (unless you get pissed off, and ride with your family over to the next country/nomadic empire), but your language and culture may well be wildly different. --69.158.25.93 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Xiong-nu speaking a Turkic language

The jury is still out on this. Gathering evidence points to the possibility that they spoke a Yeneseian language, of which Ket is related/descended. Ligeti showed a Chinese transliterated Xiong-nu word meaning 'high boot' can be traced to Ket. See the talk page for Xiongnu for the reference. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Russian linguist, I believe Dul'zon, in Ketskiy Yazyk (Ket Language), stated that Ket and Hunnic are closely related, that the Ket and Huns left their home in what is now eastern Mongolia together and only split when they reached the Yenisei River. I also read in an older book on the Huns that the only affinity shown by the Hunnic language was to the Yeniseian languages. Mikenassau 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] black & white

There was 2 diferent nation of huns.
East(black): they languange is close the Kumi chuvas. It is remain in "codex chumanorum".
West(white): They languange is same the khazarsμαζαροισ/(VII.Konstantin) .

There is no definitive proof that the European Huns and the Ephthalites (White Huns) were related. What is "Kumi chuvas"? The Codex Cumanicus describes a z-Turkic language. The Chuvash language is r-Turkic. Therefore the Codex cannot contain remnants of Chuvash. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research moved to talk

Another emerging and disputed theory from the previously unknown Esfahan codex suggests that the Hunnic language was Ugric in character. This codex, from an Armenian monestary in Persia, was supposedly discovered in the 1970s but the discovery was suppressed. Conveniently the manuscript has disappeared since then and is thought to be for sale to the highest bidder. In the provisional edition of an upcoming publication on the topic, a few pages show that some words are very similar with the ancient Hungarian language. The Hunnic words were discovered accidentally and were written in ancient Armenian letters from the 4th or 5th century. The first major interpretations are under way by Dr. Csaba Detre.


*grin* --Stacey Doljack Borsody 07:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic language?

Strava is said to be Hunnic word for "funeral". Despite Huns were allegedly a Turkic people, this word sounds rather Russian to me (AFAIK, Turkish doesn't have initial consonant clusters). Is it possible that the Huns were ancestors of Slavs?--Al-Bargit 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wrong interpretation of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 article

Hi, I just noticed that the editor who added the following paragraph to the article got the meaning wrong (the problem is with the part I've italicized below):

"1997 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica reasons that "It is assumed that the Huns also were speakers of an r- and l-type Turkic language and that their migration was responsible for the appearance of this language in the West. The r- and l-type language is now documented only by Chuvash, a language considered as a descendant of a Volga-Bulgarian language. The rest of the Turkic languages are of the z- and s-type". However, this is contrary to the 2007 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica which states that "Attempts at interpreting earlier materials as Turkic (e.g., the identification of Hunnic elements in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) have failed.""

The quoted sentence belongs to the Linguistic History subsection of an overview article of the Turkic language family. The subsection is two paragraphs long, first of which briefly talks about the interrelations within the family, and the second outlining the development of branches and the earliest written sources. The actual context of the cited sentence is as follows, at the beginning of the second paragraph (link to the whole text: [1]):

"The linguistic history of the Turkic languages can be followed in written sources from the 8th century on. Attempts at interpreting earlier materials as Turkic (e.g., the identification of Hunnic elements in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) have failed. The Uighur, Oghuz, Kipchak, and Bolgar branches were already differentiated in the oldest known period. In subsequent centuries, Turkic underwent further divergence corresponding to its gradual diffusion."

As I get this, the earliest written sources associated with the Turkic family date from the 8th century. The attempts as interpreting earlier materials (e.g. materials in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) as Turkic (e.g. searching for Hunnic elements within these sources) failed. As I understand, for trying to follow the history of Turkic languages in sources earlier than the 8th century, linguists refer to sources external to Turkic speakers of the period, such as 4th century Chinese sources, and within these, look for possibly noted Turkic elements, for the Chinese case Hunnic elements, as the Chinese of the period were in contact with Hunnic speakers.

I honestly believe that this was a misunderstanding of the cited source. Seeing that there is nothing contrary to the information presented in the prior edition of the same encyclopedia, I'm removing the last sentence. I hope I explained the situation clearly enough. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altaic template

Is it just me or does the Altaic template seem useless, especially applied on language pages where the Infobox clearly displays language association? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)