Talk:Hungarian language

new nationalist Textbooks

Looks like the conservative gov't has sent out 'trial' textbooks to Hungarian teachers with a new origin theory given some weight - that the language was ancestored by the Huns instead of a Finno-Ugric/Uralic background. I see nothing but trouble from this for the Talk Page .... -HammerFilmFan

Of course. However, Hungarian truly belongs to the Uralic family. The Hunnic language was most likely NOT Uralic. It is much more likely to have been either Yeniseian or Turkic. Nationalist authors have been unable to come up with any reliable research that would prove the "Hunnic" theory. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:F5AF:BD32:6287:7FA (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Epistolae Pavli Lingva Hvngarica Donatae" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Epistolae Pavli Lingva Hvngarica Donatae has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Epistolae Pavli Lingva Hvngarica Donatae until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Umlaut

A discussion has been opened at Talk:Umlaut (diacritic)#Hungarian that editors of this article may be able to resolve. I notice that the statement challenged is also stated in this article and is also uncited. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Section "Word order"

In the "Word order" section of a language article, I expect to be shown how a sentence works, and not necessarily how a name works. For example, in a normal English sentence the subject is first, then the verb, and then the object (this order is often abbreviated SVO).

It would be helpful to see the proper way to make an ordinary sentence in Hungarian, and it would also be nice to see details like "if the sentence is a question" etc. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi TooManyFingers, I think the word order is free, just speak higher tone and move forward which word is in the focus.

"megyek az állomásra" "I go to station" neutral

"ÉN megyek az állomásra" "I go to the station" emphasizing that I (not you)

"Az ÁLLOMÁSRA megyek" "I go to the station" emphasizing the station, important to where I go OrionNimrod (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope something like this can be included at the very beginning of the "Word order" section, because it is much more important for understanding how the Hungarian language works, even though the proper form for a person's name is a common problem for English speakers. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason for deleting intermediate subgroups

Because this led to an edit war on the page about the Finnish language, I thought that I'd leave my justification on the talk page for removing the intermediate subgroups between Uralic and Hungarian.

WP:TRUTH means that it doesn't matter whether subgroups like Finno-Ugric actually exist; it must be verifiable that there is a scholarly consensus that they exist.

It's possible to cherry-pick sources that say that these subgroups exist, particularly older sources, but equally there are other sources that deny the existence of any intermediate subgroups between Uralic and Hungarian. So what is needed is an expert overview of the different proposals that explains the scholarly consensus.

The book "The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages" qualifies as such a reference, and here is what it has to say:

"It is generally accepted that the Uralic language family comprises [Saamic, Finnic, Mordvin, Mari, Permic, Samoyed] and the Ugric group, which is sometimes also derived from an intermediate proto-language. However, there is no consensus on further groupings or subdivisions within Uralic." (emphasis mine)

On Ugric specifically:

"Many linguists would now derive these shared linguistic features from Sprachbund-like mutual areal influences rather than a common proto-language (see chapters 1.2 and 2.7; Salminen 2002)." Stockhausenfan (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This might be worth taking to WP:LING, but I do not believe we actually follow a standard of only-consensus for what to give as infobox classification; fairly widely supported + ongoingly debated subgroups are often included too with a "?", e.g. Tibeto-Kanauri; ditto unclear top-level families such as Niger-Congo above Atlantic-Congo. For the purposes of Hungarian this would yes probably mean including Ugric. (Separate Finno-Ugric though has yes not been really defended in decades now.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The key lies in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Do we say in this article that Finno-Ugric and Ugric have been entirely abandonded/rejected by general academic consensus? As of now, this article writes about Ugric: "it is no longer clear that it is a valid group"; and about binary split into Samoyed and Finno-Ugric: "that is now frequently questioned". It is a key fact about Hungarian that it is described as nested in the two intermediate subgroups Ugric and Finno-Ugric in many good sources, including fairly recent ones. All of us are aware about the recent trend to favor the null hypothesis for the internal classification of Uralic leading to a rake model (again in many good sources), but does that mean that Ugric and Finno-Ugric shouldn't get a mention in the infobox?

On a sidenote, lede- and infobox-heavy editing alone is not a healthy thing when our articles totally misalign about the evaluation of the Ugric branch. In Ugric languages, there is zero mention of recent doubts, while Ob-Ugric languages makes a much better job. –Austronesier (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)