||US Immigration Question (mind)
|| 11 sor
||Re: Sun Language Theory? (was Re: Finnish related to Tu (mind)
|| 65 sor
|| 5 sor
||Re: Is Finnish related to Turkish etc (mind)
|| 540 sor
||Re: Sun Language Theory? (was Re: Finnish related to Tu (mind)
|| 151 sor
||Forger Nick Sandru fights the truth with obscene articl (mind)
|| 37 sor
|+ - ||US Immigration Question (mind)
My mother filled out a I-130 (assisted relative) form mid Dec. '96 in
NYC. Does anyone know how long it will take for my case to go through? I
would appreciate a fee and/or schedule from someone that went through
this recently, i.e. when can I expect to receive my interview at the US
Consulate in Toronto, medical exam, etc., etc. Are there any tricks to
speed up the process?
Stephen Dancs Tel./Fax: +1 (416) 963-9624
|+ - ||Re: Sun Language Theory? (was Re: Finnish related to Tu (mind)
> Well, the "common numbering system" argument might hold a little
> water, if true (though number words can be borrowed, cf. Japanese),
> but the "agglutinative" argument isn't worth much. Typology (eg
> inflecting vs isolating vs agglutinative, or verb-subject-object(VSO)
> vs SOV vs SVO) is a useful way of describing present languages.
> However, there are many cases where known related languages have quite
> different types, and this casts doubt on the use of typology to show
Once you know the basis of the numbers in Sumerian you can see that it
is related to FinnUgor and Hungarian. Almost every term has either a
related word or the number and the numbers have their meanings often..
but not allways. The basic terms 1,10,100,1000 also are found little
changed. So there is a relationship in numbers, which are amongst the
hardest to see the relationship in. Similarly there are common word
particles, prefixes (in Hungarian only), and suffixes also as well as
common pronouns and methods of using them in independent, verbal or
possesive suffixes. This besides the hundreds of common words.
Add to this common language features.. there are about 56 of these that
were listed by Coloman Gostony (Dictionaire Etymologie Sumerienne
et Grammaire comparee", Paris, 1975. Of these Hungarian
matches with 51, FinnUgor in general with 21, Altaic with 29, Caucasian
languages with 24, then all others drop to less then 10. Basque is
listed with only 4. One of these days this should be translated to
English because its an interesting comparison of the languages of
the world to Sumerian.
I Just put a tiny portion of John Halloren's Sumir
dictionary on line with their Hungarian and Ural Altaic versions on
line for review. I have equivalents to about 90% of his total dictionary
but that is just too big to put on line and besides there is still much
to be done in updating it.
> Finnish is generally considered agglutinative, with a low fusional
> index, whereas the closely related Estonian has a high enough index of
> fusion to be considered inflecting. Amongst IE languages, Russian is
> highly inflected while English is mostly isolating.
All languages change eventually and one should compare their archaic
forms. I know.. I dont allways follow my own advice because I dont
allways have the luxury to do so.
> It gets worse when you consider the opposite case -- languages that
> share a typology but are thought not to be related. For instance,
> Turkish, Japanese, and Tamil are strongly verb-final, but they are not
> considered to be related (some think Japanese may be very distantly
Some are begining to think otherwise, but in a very ancient time frame.
Uralic and Elamite and Dravidian are now gaining ground in relatedness
but in an older super language sense. There are lots of shared vocabulary
> It's a lot easier to prove that languages are related than that they
> are not. So maybe Sumerian is indeed related to Basque. Of course all
> languages are probably related through some unreconstructible "common
> world" ancestor -- the alternative would be truly absurd -- but that
> isn't what most people mean when they say language X is related to
> language Y.
Check out some of my website I deal with many of these that you
mentioned, perhaps so far in a simple way but this will be enhanced in
time. the website is http://exo.com/~fredh/lang.htm
I hope to post more on these topics later.
|+ - ||Teszt (mind)
Csak arra vagyok kiváncsi mit szól a szerver az ékezetes betükhöz.
Ha olvashatók, akkor nem értem, miért ír mindenki ékezetek nélkül.
|+ - ||Re: Is Finnish related to Turkish etc (mind)
I agree with Fred Hamori that the current ethno-linguistic
theories should be reviewed. The following are excerpts from my
research work entitled "The controversy on the origins and early
history of the Hungarians" which I presented at the Canadian
Hungarian Studies Association's 1996 annual conference:
.... The Finno-Ugrian theory's origins can be traced back to a book
published in 1770 by a Hungarian Jesuit, Janos Sajnovics, in which
he claimed that the Hungarian language is identical to that of the
Lapps. This work had no immediate significant impact in Hungary,
but it was followed up by mainly German linguists, among whom
August von Schlozer played the leading role in the development of
the Finno-Ugrian linguistic school. This school had a determining
influence on the development of linguistic research in Hungary
during the second half of the 19th c., where linguists of German
origin also played a leading role. At that time, Hungary was ruled
by the Habsburgs, and German influence was very strong in the
political, economic, social, and cultural fields.
It is also important to note that the 19th c. saw the rise of
modern nationalism throughout Europe, and that German nationalism
was among the most chauvinistic. It was in this context that the
idea of a superior Aryan race was conceived. Although the term
"Aryan race" is no longer considered politically correct and has
been replaced by the more scientifically-sounding "Indo-European"
term, the fundamental assumption of this ethno-linguistic group's
cultural pre-eminence is still being maintained today. Just as the
proponents of this theory sought to prove their claims of Indo-
European (Aryan) cultural superiority, they also sought to prove
that, conversely, non-Indo-Europeans were culturally inferior. The
Finno-Ugrian theory was therefore promoted in this ideologically
Following the defeat of the Hungarian War of Independence of
1848-49, the repressive Habsburg regime took over the Hungarian
academic institutions and imposed the exclusive research
orientation of the Finno-Ugrian theory about the origin of the
Hungarians. Thus, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences became an
instrument of the Habsburg regime's cultural policy of
Germanization, which sought to weaken the Hungarian national
identity - thereby facilitating foreign domination - through the
distortion and falsification of information relating to the origin,
history, culture, and language of the Hungarians, censoring and
prohibiting any publication or research which did not conform to
the officially imposed Finno-Ugrian theory. This was also the case
under the Hungarian Communist regime which also pursued an anti-
Hungarian policy with the objective of Russification. It was
therefore in the interest of these regimes to "let the conquered
Hungarians believe that they have an ancestry more primitive than
that of the Indo-European peoples. In Habsburg times Hungarian
children were taught that most of their civilization came from the
Germans: today they are taught that their 'barbaric' ancestors were
civilized by the educated Slavs".
The Finno-Ugrian theory proved to be most suitable for this
purpose. This theory claims that the Hungarians originated from
primitive Siberian hunter-gatherer nomads who wandered Westward and
who acquired a higher culture upon coming into contact with Indo-
Europeans and other peoples. This theory has been increasingly
brought under criticism by dissident and exiled Hungarian
researchers because of its negative portrayal of the Hungarians in
relation to their neighbours, because of the historical and
political circumstances under which this theory has been imposed
and perpetuated, and because this theory fails to take into
consideration a substantial amount of scientific data which
contradicts it. It should also be noted that according to the
scientific review "Nature" (20/02/92), the quality of the research
conducted at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is rather poor, and
this also seems to apply to the Finno-Ugrian research orientation.
The significant degree of uncertainty and confusion which
still exists within this field of research is due to the fact that
the Finno-Ugrian theory is essentially based on linguistic
speculation which is not supported by any conclusive archeological,
anthropological and historical evidence. In fact, most of the
available evidence seems to contradict the Finno-Ugrian theory, and
furthermore, serious reservations have been raised concerning some
of its linguistic arguments. Several researchers have also pointed
out that the Finno-Ugrian theory contains serious methodological
inconsistencies and errors, that the term "Finno-Ugrian" itself is
arbitrary and unscientific, and that the inclusion of Hungarian in
the Uralic group is artificial and without adequate scientific
It is not the apparent linguistic similarities between the
Hungarian and the Uralic languages which are in question, but the
nature and degree of the relationship between the two groups. The
Finno-Ugrian theory's assumption that the Hungarians are directly
descended from the "Finno-Ugrians" and that the Uralic peoples are
the only ethno-linguistic relatives of the Hungarians seems to be
fundamentally flawed: a specific linguistic relationship does not
necessarily correspond to a genetic relationship, nor can it
exclude relationships with other ethnic groups. The Finno-Ugrian
theory rejects the possibility that the Uralic group may somehow be
related to other ethno-linguistic groups such as the Altaic group,
perhaps partly because the first major challenge to the Finno-
Ugrian theory came from advocates of the theory that the Hungarians
were of Turkic origin, based on the numerous and significant
observable linguistic, cultural and anthropological similarities
between the Hungarian and Turkic peoples, as well as on historical
In fact, comparative linguistic analysis has shown that there
are many similarities between Hungarian and several other major
Eurasian linguistic groups, and although the Finno-Ugrian theory
claims that these similarities are the results of borrowings on the
part of the Hungarians, it nevertheless appears that the Finno-
Ugrian theory requires a fundamental revision concerning the
relationship between the Hungarians and the Uralic group, as well
as their relationship to other ethno-linguistic groups. An
alternative explanation for the existing linguistic relationship
between Hungarian and other languages, including the Uralic and
Altaic languages, is provided by the Sumerian ethno-linguistic and
cultural diffusion theory, according to which the Eurasian ethno-
linguistic groups were formed under the dominant cultural and
linguistic influence of the Sumerian-related peoples originating
from the Near East and which have progressively spread throughout
Eurasia during several millenia since the Neolithic period (5000
After British, French and German archeologists and linguists
discovered and deciphered the oldest known written records in
Mesopotamia and its neighbouring regions during the first half of
the 19th c., they came to the conclusion that the language of those
ancient inscriptions was neither Indo-European nor Semitic, but an
agglutinative language which demonstrated significant similarities
with the group of agglutinative languages known at the time as the
Turanian ethno-linguistic group which included Hungarian, Turkic,
Mongolian and Finnic (later referred to as the Ural-Altaic group).
The principal results of the research conducted so far on the
Sumerian-Hungarian relationship have indicated that these languages
have over a thousand common word roots and a very similar
grammatical structure. In his Sumerian Etymological Dictionary and
Comparative Grammar, K lm n Gosztony, professor of Sumerian
philology at the Sorbonne, demonstrated that the grammatical
structure of the Hungarian language is the closest to that of the
Sumerian language: out of the 53 characteristics of Sumerian
grammar, there are 51 matching characteristics in the Hungarian
language, 29 in the Turkic languages, 24 in the Caucasian
languages, 21 in the Uralic languages, 5 in the Semitic languages,
and 4 in the Indo-European languages.
The linguistic similarities between Sumerian and Hungarian as
well as other languages are corroborated by the archeological and
anthropological data discovered so far. These archeological finds
indicate that the Sumerians were the first settlers of Southern
Mesopotamia (5000 BC), where they had come from the mountainous
regions to the North and East with their knowledge of agriculture
and metallurgy, and where they built the first cities. Their use of
irrigation allowed an unprecedented population increase, resulting
in successive migratory waves which can be traced archeologically
and anthropologically throughout Eurasia and North Africa. Thus,
from the evidence left by this process of colonization, it appears
that the Sumerian city-states were able to exert a preponderant
economic, cultural, linguistic and ethnic influence during several
thousand years not only in Mesopotamia and the rest of the Near
East, but also beyond, in the Mediterranean Basin, in the Danubian
Basin, in the regions North of the Caucasus and of the Black Sea,
in the Caspian-Aral, Volga-Ural, and Altai regions, as well as in
Iran and India. It seems therefore that the Sumerians and their
civilization had a determining influence not only on later Near-
Eastern civilizations, but also on the Mediterranean, Indian, and
even Chinese civilizations, as well as on the formation of the
various Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups.
One of the most comprehensive studies examining this complex
question is Laszlo Gotz's 5-volume 1100-page research work entitled
"Keleten Kel a Nap" (The Sun rises in the East), for which the
author consulted over 500 bibliographical sources from among the
most authoritative experts in the fields of ancient history,
archeology, and linguistics. In his wide-ranging study, Laszlo Gotz
examined the development of the Sumerian civilization, the
determining cultural and ethno-linguistic influence of the Near-
Eastern Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age civilizations upon the
cultural development of Western Eurasia, and the linguistic
parallels between the Indo-European, Semitic and Sumerian languages
indicating that the Sumerian language had a considerable impact on
the development of the Indo-European and Semitic languages which
have numerous words of Sumerian origin. Laszlo Gotz also examined
the fundamental methodological shortcomings of Indo-European and
Finno-Ugrian ethno-linguistic research. His conclusion is that most
Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups are related to one another in
varying degrees, and that these groups, such as the Indo-European,
Uralic and Altaic groups, were formed in a complex process of
multiple ethno-linguistic hybridization in which Sumerian-related
peoples played a fundamental role.
.... The archeological and anthropological finds of the Carpathian
Basin indicate that the indigenous population (the Neolithic,
Copper and Bronze Age settlers) was related to, and at least in
part originated from, the ancient Near-Eastern civilizations.
.... The contemporary Persian, Armenian, Arab, Greek, Russian and
Western sources generally concur with the Caucasian-Caspian origin
of the Magyars and with the Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar identity. It
is also interesting to note that although the Byzantine sources
generally referred to the Magyars as "Turks" (Turkoi), they also
mention that by their own account, the Magyars' previously known
name which they used themselves was, in Greek translation,
"Sabartoi asphaloi". This is extremely important because this name
refers to the Sabir people, also known as the Subareans, who
inhabited the land known by the Babylonians and Assyrians as
Subartu which was situated in the Transcaucasian-Northern
Mesopotamian-Western Iranian region. By their own account, the
Sumerians of Southern Mesopotamia also came from this region which
they referred to as Subir-Ki.
.... At the time of the Magyar settlement, the bulk of the
Carpathian Basin's population was made up by the remaining Avars,
Huns, and other previously settled non-Indo-European peoples. The
archeological and anthropological data shows that beneath the
apparent constant discontinuity of foreign invasions, there seems
to be a fundamental similarity and continuity of non-Indo-European
peoples in the Carpathian Basin going back to the Neolithic period.
Gyula L szl˘ also pointed out the Avar-Magyar ethnic continuity in
his book "Kett”s honfoglal s", in which he referred to the
anthropological evidence indicating that there was a considerable
Avar population in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Magyar
settlement, and that the Avars and the Magyars were
anthropologically identical. Taking this into consideration with
the accounts of contemporary Byzantine documents according to which
the Avars spoke the same language as the Huns, the Hun-Avar-Magyar
ethno-linguistic identity seems highly probable.
It appears therefore that a fundamental revision of early
Hungarian history is necessary in order to arrive at a more
accurate picture, and much research work remains to be done in this
field. Based on the available information, it seems most probable
that the Hungarians are a synthesis of the peoples which have
settled in the Carpathian Basin since the Neolithic period up to
the Middle Ages: the Sumerian-related peoples of Near-Eastern
origin (Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Ages), followed by the
Scythians (6th c. BC), the Huns (5th c. AD), the Avars (6th c.),
the Magyars (9th c.), the Petchenegs (11th c.), and the Cumans
(13th c.). This Hungarian synthesis is characterized by a
remarkable ethno-linguistic homogeneity and has remained highly
differentiated from the considerably more numerous surrounding
Indo-European peoples. The conclusion which can be drawn from this
is that the Hungarians were able to preserve their ethno-linguistic
identity and to maintain a demographic majority or critical mass
within the Carpathian Basin as a result of the continuous inflow of
ethno-linguistically related peoples. These peoples were designated
in the 19th c. as Turanians, and the Sumerians, Scythians, Huns,
Avars and Magyars were all considered to belong to this ethno-
Presently there are still many misconceptions concerning the
Turanian peoples: it is still widely believed, erroneously, that
the Scythians were an Indo-European people, that the Huns and Avars
were Turkic-speaking peoples of Mongolian race or origin, and that
the Magyars were a mixture of Finnic and Turkic elements. These
misconceptions originate from an inaccurate historical perspective
which failed to recognize the existence of a separate Turanian
entity amidst the multi-ethnic conglomerates of the Scythians,
Huns, Avars, and Magyars, whose empires consisted of tribal
federations which included various other ethnic groups: Indo-
Europeans, as well as Uralic and Altaic peoples besides the
dominant Turanian elements. It now seems that this Turanian ethno-
linguistic group to which the Hungarians belong was a distinct
group from which the Uralic and Altaic ethno-linguistic groups
later evolved through a process of ethno-linguistic diffusion and
hybridization. This explanation of the existing ethno-linguistic
affinities between the Hungarians and the Uralic and Altaic groups
would be more in line with the latest findings on this subject. In
light of these findings, it would seem appropriate to re-examine
this question objectively, avoiding the officially imposed
ideological biases which have clouded the issue since the middle of
the 19th c. and still continue to do so today.
|+ - ||Re: Sun Language Theory? (was Re: Finnish related to Tu (mind)
In > Cluster User wrote:
>> But, this is besides my point. I had stated (above) that
>> my argument was a "relative" one and was made specificly
>> against certain people's arrogant and empty claims...
> the most arrogant and empty claim was made by polat kaya,
> who reproduced something quite close to the "sun language
Listen, here the first article I reacted to in the negative:
Daniel von Brighoff > wrote
> And German Opa "grandfather" and Zulu baba "father". Say,
> y'all might be on to something! Could this be the key to
> all languages? Or could it just be that [ba]/[pa] is one
> of the first syllables a baby can produce?
Nicely put.... Just a I was thinking about writing something
similar...voila.... These people must be either extremely
self-centered and ignorant or are simply anti-intellectual....
p.s. Don't forget Papa(Spanish), bobo (Cherokee), bapa (Andes),
You guys must be eating your brains for appetizers.
Is this arrogant and empty enough for you...?!
(Polat Kaya's article came later, I believe as a response to
this one also.)
>> The guy had made sure he ended his alternative languages
>> list with "Kurdish" and a smiley... Later he didn't miss
> paradox's point about the word for father not being relevant
> was well taken.
I have no doubt it was well taken by your and your likes...
How about this next message from him...?
"paradox" 12/27/96 >
You sure are am embesile....How can one be so self-centered,
ethno-centric, ill-informed, ignorant to the degree of pathetic....
Anyway, obviously you've not spent a lot of time away from your
com-patriots to hear non-Turkish/Arabic/Persian sounds. In about
every language there are certain sounds that are universally
shared. They are mostly related to immediate family, basic
survival level things that surround you...
To give a few examples: tomato potato lemon pilot motor yat
DOWN BOY!!!!!TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND HOLD FOR
3 SECONDS BEFORE YOU SPEAK!:)
Did you take this one well also...?
>> to blow some hot air. Thus, I challenged him to provide
>> an alternative list, with his own choice of arternative
>> languages, and asked him to name which official Turkish
>> scientist and study (or whatever it was) he was talking
> I don't blame him for not remembering the name of crackpots,
Of course you wouldn't... :) Maybe you guys are "crackpots"
yourselves too, how could one know...?
> but they do exist, politically motivated ones too.
I know many so-called "objective linguists" who are very
much "politically driven" too, and I believe you are one
> In the 80's the author of "erzurum agzInda osmanlIca kelimeler"
> (perhaps "sozcUkler" - "ottoman words in erzurum speech") was
> one of them, as can be seen from the title. the loanwords were
> hardly the literary loans of the ottoman period, the attempt
> was to show that kurdish - persian cognates were just that. I
> too didn't bother to remeber the name of the author, and I am
> not about to make a trip to turkey just for that.
You had brought this up in a previous discussion with me
also. I had asked you which words were you talking about
and you had given a similar answer then too...
The thing is, if it is important for you to bring such a
garbage into a debate, then it should be important enough
for you to remember it...! Otherwise it it nothing more
than irrelevant bull-shit story based on your personal
In the past, whenever I expressed my opinion about Turkish
(admittedly), you labeled it as "linguistic nationalism"...
Next time you bring up this story, I will expect that you
will also tell us what those words are specificly...! So
that we can see what you are talking about beyond your mere
>> Unless I somehow missed them, I haven't seen a response
>> to those requests yet. Of course, this doesn't make the
> because your "requests were irrelevant.
Only as much as his, and now your arguments...
>> Sumerian-Ural/Altaic list more than what it is. But, it
>> sure "*does prove*" that among the participants of this
>> thread, and specificly the ones who brought it up, have
>> thus far been unable to offer any alternative list...
> again that is irrelevant. such things are too tedious
> for a newsgroup debate.
Then, why do you expect a "perfect, unrefutable Sumerian-
Ural/Altaic word list" in a newsgroup to begin with...?
And why do you defend someone's empty, arrogant, irrelevant,
trashy remarks, where one could simply say "hey, this list
is just not good enough"...?
>> Why not stop trying to read between the lines, and take
>> this for what it is...?
> I am only answering your post.
But I don't think you see my point and neither do I think
that you can... Because your "anti-linguistic nationalism"
pretension works only against Turks. When it comes to the
subject of creating one "Sun-Kurdish Language" out of many
mutually unintelligible "*dialects*" (as you call them) in
order to create a global "Kurdish national identity", you
are all for it...
If you want to be a linguist, that's fine. If you want to
be a political activist, that's fine. If you want to be
both, that's fine too. As long as you let it be known the
way it is...
|+ - ||Forger Nick Sandru fights the truth with obscene articl (mind)
Received: (from ) by localhost (8.6.12/8.6.12) with UUCP id
GAA00887; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:52:19 +0100
Received: (from ) by katmai.sandes.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
GAA21666; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:30:09 +0100
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:30:09 +0100
From: Nick Sandru >
Subject: Re: Highly obscene web page about Nick Sandru aka Nikki Sandru
Stop posting this crap, asshole!
>The following, highly obscene web page was found through Alta Vista and
>several other search engines.
>It contains highly offensive, but important information about Nick Sandru,
>aka Nikki Sandru.
>The web page is located at
>under the heading of Cancel Forgers at
[Agent skipped the rest of this message, per your instructions for long