Towards Eurasian linguistic isoglosses: The case of turkic and hungarian

In this book, I will argueth at theso-calledUralic/Finno-Ugric languagec lassification is untenable. There are serious arguments for rejecting this taxonomy both on internal grounds and external ground. Among the internal arguments is the fact that the historical-comparative method that has been used to “prove” genetic relationships is no treally working for the Uralic/Finno-Ugric language family. The technical elaborations runs into a number of problems that I willdiscussin the course of this book. Tomention a few. The distribution of word sover the so-called Uralic/Finno-Ugric language family is defective. Quite of ten Hungarian has only one lexical correspondence with another Uralic/Finno-Ugric language. This fact does no texclude the option that such lexical correspondence sare produced by merechance. The questional so arises why lexical correspondence sin other hypothesed subgroups, like Finnic, Volgaic, Ob-Ugric and soonare “missing”. Why is it that frequently only one of the members of the sesub groups have preserved the so-called lexical “correspondence”? Theso-called sound law sare not really “laws”; theyover- and under generate. There are always exception to the sound laws. This should not be the casein a historical-comparative linguistic derivation. The Uralic/Finno-Ugric paradigmis built on circul us vitios is, i.e. circle reasoning and other logical in consequence’s. Important “generalizations” aremissed, like the root system of Hungarian that should be the bas is of anyre levant analys is ofthe Hungarian vocabulary, morphological system and its system of cognates with other languages.

Froman “external” point of view it is clear that the linguistic srelations between Hungarian and the Altaic languages, especially with Turkic are impressive. Due to the Uralic/Finno-Ugric classification these linguistic relations are only qualified as “secondary” in main stream linguistics. The argumentation is that Hungarian is a Uralic/Finno-Ugric language and henceany other linguistic relationships is by definition of an inferior “borrowing” nature in stead of a possible genetic relationship. In this book, I will at tempt to demonstrate that Hungarian-Turkic linguistic relations, i.e. both lexical and morphological are of a “deep” nature. I will argue that serious generalizations have been missed and that it is fullyun motivated to disconnect the ties between Hungarian and Turkic, i.e. more precise between the irpro to-variants. A certainc on servatis minscientific research is well-motivated but if a paradigm makes complete lywrong predictions that can not be accounted for in a rational manner it is high time – and I will argue that this is the case after 240 year so fre search of which the last 140 year swith full professional scientific equipments – to draw the conclusion that exclusive research of Uralic/Finno-Ugric linguistic has not ful filled the objectives, i.e. the isolation of a Uralic/Finno-Ugric peoples peaking one and the same Uralic/Finno-Ugric Ursprachein a geographically well-defined territory, theso-calledUralic/Finno-UgricUrheimat. Hence, this will open the possibility for the developments of other the oretical frameworks that are able to cover Uralicand Altai clin guistic contacts, and also other simult aneous linguistic contacts, with the Indo-European languages for example, i.e. bothits “Western”, Balto-Slavicvariantsandits “Eastern” Indo-Iranianvariants. Inanycase, it is reasonable to suppose that the see arly language contacts are rootingin Central Asian space and in the Scythian-Sarmatiantimes. I will argue that it is motivated to revise the theory of an Early Central Asian Sprach bund in the sense of theHungarian “Central-Asianists” that were researching along the selines in the second half of the nineteen thcenturyand the beginning of the twentie thcentury and to postulate anearly variant, a so-calledproto-variant of Hungarian, the ‘Magyar-UgorUrsprache’, that include dapart from the ancestors of the Hungarian language the languages that have been classified in the ‘Oghur’-group with in theTurkic language family, suchas Khazar, Avar, Bulgar, Onogur, Sabir, andsoon.Furthermore, I will provide arguments for the Early Central Asian Sprach bund and the Magyar-Ugor Ursprache not only from linguistics but also from other disciplines, in the first place from history and archeology. Instead of the paleolinguistic approach that has dominated Uralic/Finno-Ugric research tradition I will adopt the view that linguistic results are better founded the oretically, if the seresults are combine dand integrated into a theory with there sultsof history and archeology.

In this introduction, I will brieflyd iscuss thet woap proachest hatare confronted in this book. Theso-called ‘linguistictree’ approach ofthe German linguistic August Schleicher (1821-1868) andtheso-called ‘linguistic area and contact’ approach of the Russian émigrélinguist Nikolai SergeyevichTrubetzkoy (1890-1938). The discussion will be illustrated on the basis ofthe so-called ‘Indo-European’ language family. Further, I will carry the discussion over to the Uralicand Altaic language families and I will conclude that it is more fruitful to operate with seven categories, including Finnic, Ob-Ugric, Hungarian, Samoyedic, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic. This is the methodological guiding principle that I wille laborate on in this book. In the second part of the introduction I will discuss the content of this book chapter-by-chapter.

The self-denomination of the Hungarians in their own language is ‘Magyar’. The Hungarians are known by the outside world, that is in other European languages in reference to themselves or to their language as a variant of ‘Hungarian’, compare French ‘hongrois’, German ‘Ungarn’, Russian ‘vengr’, and so on. Throughout this book I will use both the external and self-denominations, that is ‘Hungarian’ and ‘Magyar’ without difference. Hence, I will not replace in historically established phrases, like ‘Magyar-Ugor’ Proto-language ‘Magyar’ with ‘Hungarian’.