Etruscan/Magyar?
Etruscan/Magyar?
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]
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'. [ma]
Though there has been no research/work done in refuting/falsifying this theory's claims since its publication, the work has managed to attract flack from 'experts' who have allegedly read it published only in Italian (2003) and Magyar (2005), for daring to actually connect Etruscan with Magyar of all things.
"Alinei readily admits that there are areas of Etruscan that have not been explained by his theory, such as its words for numbers. His main point about the Turkic origins of Etruscan vocabulary for offices of state is nevertheless a powerful one. His theory also has the distinct virtue of generating testable hypotheses, most notably regarding the separation of the Hungarians from the Obugric group. If one accepts these, one is obliged to accept a causal chain of events that projects the Hungarians back to a Bronze Age presence in the Carpathian Basin, and by extension, to the Kurgan peoples. Alinei’s linguistic conclusions may thus be as important for Uralic studies as Ventris’ decipherment of Linear B was for Greek." [Morris]
A lazy but classic ploy is "... to accuse Alinei's work of being the product of mass comparison, a methodology that is not accepted by comparative linguists." Q.E.D. The implication being that debates, examinations and studies of the theory are therefore not even necessary, and hence the historic and archaeological parts of Alinei's argument can also be dismissed. It is important to note that this habitual claim that such comparisons, "are based on accidental, superficial resemblances" is not entirely justified, even though 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'. But, how many similar-sounding words with similar meanings exist in the strictest statistical sense for each pair of the thousands of languages of the present and of the past? Who can say with any authority how many random matches actually exist between any two given languages? Serious scrutiny is lacking in all quarters, it seems.
Linguists just haven't done the sums. Some do play with artificial computer-generated wordlists to prove how high the probability of random matches might be, but such demonstrations don't take into account any form or function that is seen in real and complex human languages which tend to evolve subject to internal and external 'environmental and cultural' determiners that would most likely skew the probabilities from the ideal. Of course, 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.
If the gullible masses aren't put off, because no one is capable of presenting counter arguments, then one could always heap abuse on the theory and make personal attacks on its author with claims of 'voodoo science'; another ploy that is very fashionable in Etruscology and Uralic/Ugristics: an obvious sign that clear/critical thinking is not really required. If that doesn't work then one could always use silence to simply shun the theory without risking academic reputations because it might be too 'jarring' to accepted views of the Truth, whatever that may be at the moment. Just how does such bad behaviour fit the spirit and the accepted methodology of mainstream science in which some place so much faith?
Irrespective of what truly lies behind such attitudes, if Alinei's theory is 'wrong' then its allegedly testable hypotheses should be falsifiable (don't hold your breath). 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 such remote times. Voodoo science, indeed!
As a last resort, one could always use this gem against the theory:- the Magyar arrived in Europe in 895-6 AD and there is no way they could have had a relationship, prior to settling in the Carpathian Basin, with the Etruscans. But 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 [sp] 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... ".
If an Ugrian Etruscan relationship has some basis in fact to the annoyance of the dogmatists, then it is also possible that the similarity in grammar, between the Ugrian languages (which include Magyar) and Latin as pointed out by [sp], is not simply due to chance. After all, the Etruscans with their own highly 'inflected' language had a great influence on Roman culture and language. (A very naive comparison of Latin and Magyar grammar can be found here.)
Most attempts at an alternative point of view (even by professionals) attract rabid accusations of nationalism or crank scholarship. One wonders why such 'scientific' arguments are still necessary to defend mainstream linguistics and history. Just search the web for evidence of the very subjective and highly acrimonious denounciations of unorthodox theories and the very personal attacks on their authors especially in the fields of linguistics and history, those bastions of absolute truth. It isn't skepticism that is in short supply in mainstream Etruscology and Ugristics, but a modicum of objectivity.
It beggars belief that Etruscan studies/courses are not offered by any Hungarian university nor is there any research being done in the field in Hungary. Maybe it is not all that surprising. If there is no teaching and research into currently accepted Etruscan dogma how can there be any debate about alternative theories/questions beside the emotional ranting or the cowardly silence?
Officially, the Etruscans are thought to have called themselves Rasna or Rasena. [lb] However, in his book, Prof. Alinei maintains that the name the Etruscans gave to themselves was MEX 'people, league' (with final chi greca), seemingly an early form of Magyar. This is written as MECH in [lb]. 'Rasna', in Alinei's reading, is comparable to the Magyar word RÉSZ 'region'. <Mex rasna> in one inscription is rendered by him as 'Etruscan (magyar) region'. If this doesn't fit in with your current 'belief' system or worldview, then that is your problem not mine.
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/. Officially, this nomenclature is believed to derive from the Ugrian "Mansi–" or "Magy–" with the addition of the Turkic "-eri." forming "Megyeri" – "Magyen." – "Magyar", which was the name of the largest Hungarian tribe. Both particles mean "men or people". [zb] However, the whole etymology is uncertain [see Chong].
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 appear to lead to
| The main linguistic traits of Etruscan | Applies to |
| It is an agglutinative language | Magyar and Uralic |
| Its accent is on the first vowel | Magyar and Uralic |
| It has vowel harmony | Magyar and Uralic |
| Formants, case endings and postpositions are added to the word stem | Magyar and Uralic |
| The occlusive consonants are exclusively voiceless (P T K) | Uralic |
| The syllable structure is open (= it ends in vowel) | Uralic |
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' under the dual kingship of the Magyar (Hungarian) nation |
| CANØE | REX ‘king, highest institutional authority’ | KENDE (< Turkic), (ancient form K-ND-) Kende was 'the nominal civil administrator' under the dual kingship of the Magyar nation |
| MARU | Latin MARO, -ONIS, Umbr. MARON ‘competent in constructions and in the acquisition of lands’ | (FÖLD)MÉRÕLiterally translates as (Land)Measurer = Surveyor |
| PURØ-/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’ |
Further, note that both Hungarian and Basque have no grammatical gender and no noun classes. Etruscan common nouns have no special endings for gender either. Only personal names have gender in Etruscan. [lb]
The following crude table lists the Etruscan alphabet and how each 'character' sounds in English. Hungarian equivalent sounds (if equivalent) are also listed. Writing was most often right-to-left. There are some differences between the character forms and those that were in fashion over the centuries. See the references below which show the changes that occurred.
Etruscan has no (b), (d), or (g) and no (o). While <k> was used in front of <a>; <c> was used before <e> and <i>; and <q> was used before <u>.
These pages contain 'SIMILAR' words in Magyar (organised by Etruscan SIMILARITIES) which are a subset of the main Magyar Comparisons. NO claim of any relationship is made between them. No matter how many times I stress this, some people still make dogmatic statements about these comparisons. WATCH MY LIPS: nowhere do I claim that Magyar (Hungarian) is related to Etruscan, Basque, Japanese, Sanskrit, Sumerian, or Martian or whatever. I wouldn't dare to make such claims which are, after all, the sole prerogatives of Indo-European.
Be aware that you might not agree with what I consider 'similar', so the whole exercise is not 'scientific' and as such is 'pseudo-science'. Of course, by including as many agglutinative languages as possible such as the taboo language isolates I lay myself open to such equally unscientific accusations as nationalism and/or pan-Hungarian fantasies! On the other hand, by using a restricted range of languages for comparisons, one might be accused of being highly selective. You can't win either way! But these are not the only obstacles in this emotionally charged area.
If we were dealing with the 'known' linguistic universe then word comparisons might elicit these words of wisdom :-
"In the respective vocabularies of any two languages there are often words which are similar in form, meaning and sound. However, similar words with similar meanings do NOT prove that languages are related. It may point to a possible relationship; you would still need to examine the origin of each and every word in order to be certain that the similarity is not due to chance or to other factors such as borrowings or native compounding." |
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.
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. Not being able to analyse the sound change rules across the thousands of languages of the past and of the present is a serious handicap. Not being able to include the history of every word (even if we knew it with any certainty) in every language both of the past and of the present is obviously a bummer. Not bothering to compare the 'grammatical similarities' of thousands of languages does not bode well, perhaps it's just too hard. |
Having been warned is it still unreasonable to suppose, without resorting to accusations of pan-Hungarian fantasies, that this material may have found its way into the Magyar lexicon over the unbelievable 5000 year-long trek [art] of the proto-Magyar nation, during which time many peoples joined them and whose variegated multi-cultural contribution eventually formed a vibrant and dynamic people and a new language? Included are words which are often declared as loans from Indo-European without regard to Caucasian, Middle Eastern and even Asian parallels.
| The 1000 or so A4 pages on the right compare 'similar' words in Etruscan and Hungarian | AC-AR AS-CA CA-EP |
| ER-HI HU-MU NA-RU | |
| SA-S'A S'A-TU TU-ZU |
Selected References
[art] Róna-Tas, András,
Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History, Central European University Press, 1999Gives an official exposition of what we 'know', and details the difficulties encountered in tracing pre-Settlement Magyar history.
[Chong] Chong, P.,
Ural Altaic Etymology Dictionary (dead link)
The above links have been down for maintenance for a long time.Ural Altaic Etymology Dictionary (also died)
[lb] Bonfante, Larissa, Etruscan, Uni. California Press, 1990, ISBN 0-520-07118-2
[ma] Alinei, Mario, Prof.
* Origini delle lingue d'Europa.* Vol. I: La teoria della continuità, il Mulino,1996, ISBN: 88-15-05513-4* Vol. II: Continuità dal mesolitico all'Età del ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche Bologna, il Mulino, 2000, ISBN: 88-15-07386-8* Etrusco: una forma arcaica di unghereseBologna, il Mulino, 2003, ISBN: 88-15-09382-6
* Õsi Kapocs : A magyar-etruszk nyelvrokonság,
"In what is probably the most interesting account of recent years, the Italian dialectologist, Mario Alinei, suggests in his new book that Etruscan is nothing more than an archaic form of Hungarian with extensive Turkic borrowings. This linguistic proposition rests on two historical/archaeological propositions – an uncontroversial one that the Etruscans came from the Carpathian basin, and a highly controversial one that identifies them as a proto-Hungarian/Uralic people." [Morris]* Response to the 'scientific' arguments being used to attack Alinei and his book in Hungary by one academic.* Colloquium 7.3: Intrusive Farmers or Indigenous Foragers: The New Debate about the Ethnolinguistic Origins of Europe, Coordinator Mario Alinei, in: Proceedings of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Belgium, 2-8 September 2001, Section 7, The Mesolithic, BAR International Series 1302, Oxford 2004, pp. 77-114
[sp] Scientia Press
Intriguing speculation on the origins of the Romans and their language.
[zb] Bodolai, Zoltán Dr.,
THE TIMELESS NATION, Chapter 1 THE MILLENIAL QUEST, Hungaria Publishing Co., Sydney, 1978
- Influences of the Turkish languagesOn their journey to the other side of the Ural mountains, to Bashkirs and the steppe North of the Black Sea in the South of today’s Russia the Magyars, as the Hungarians call themselves came in contact with several other peoples like the Iranish speaking Alanen and the many Turkish speaking tribes like the Khazaren, the Petsjenegen and the Skythen...
- Akármilyen meglepő is, magyarul ez azt jelenti, hogy az etruszk a magyar (nyelv) egyik ősi formája...
- Mario Alinei Õsi kapocs - A magyar etruszk nyelvrokonság
A magyar olvasó számára azonban, mielõtt nekilát könyvem olvasásához, szükségesnek tartom hangsúlyozni, hogy e könyv olasz közönség számára íródott, és ennek hatása a mû szerkezetére nem elhanyagolható...
Comments
Post a Comment