Paul wrote:

>Joe and Jeliko,
> ...
>Your knowledge and undestanding of history as it relates to Hungary is
>always welcome and informative.

Paul,
my name next to Jeliko's is clearly misplaced in this context for when
it comes to history, I couldn't hold a candle to Jeliko.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Joe

Andras Kornai (in an otherwise laudable posting) does a nice job of
bashing nationalist propaganda, but then he gets carried away a bit:

> In the interest of trying something relatively new here, I'd like to
> submit a reformulation of the famous Ford thesis: nothing that happened
> in Transylvania prior to 1975 matters today. To be sure, the situation
> 20 years ago was to some extent predicated on the situation 40 years ago,
> which in turn depended on the situation 60 years ago, and so forth.
> However, assuming a modest discount factor of 3-4%, what happened 20
> years ago has only 50% relevance, what happened 40 years ago has only
> 25% relevance, and what happened prior to WWI in a year is of less
> significance than what happens now in two weeks.

Now this is a rather sweeping claim about what is relevant and what is
not.  One may agree with Andras about the futility of the interminable,
noisy, and circular debates on the Slovak/Romanian/Hungarian/Serbian
versions of East European history, without buying into his reformulated
Ford thesis.  Debunking nationalist propaganda is fine, but it is really
unnecessary to weaken one's argument by insisting that pre-WWI events
are "irrelevant".

The thesis offered by Andras is modeled on analogies from physics and
economics (discounted cash flow, present value, and linear damping).
But this kind of linear model is not how history works.  History is
full of discontinuity, randomness, and chaotic phenomena, where small
perturbations have monstrously large consequences far into the future.
"For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse
was lost; and for want of a horse, the rider was lost", etc.  Things
do not necessarily become irrelevant just because they happened a long
time ago.

Looking at the present state of Eastern Europe, it is especially
difficult to claim that faraway and long-ago events do not matter.
If a man sees the outcome of a battle in 1389 more fundamental than
any event or "fact" he can directly observe, and that man is making
decisions affecting the life and death of thousands, and if that man
is unquestioningly followed by thousands of fanatical supporters,
each of whom similarly thinks of a 600 year old battle as the decisive
aspect of their concept of "reality", then who are we to say that the
600 year-old battle is irrelevant to the present?  Or that the myths
arising from those ancient happenings are less "relevant" than the
stuff you or I would consider "reality" or "incontrovertible fact"?
One can attempt to describe present-day Serbia in terms of GNP, or other
"objective" economic and social indicators, but you would not be able to
explain the policies of Serbia's rulers based on such "facts".  When
people's thoughts and decisions are dominated by historical myths, then
these historical myths are more "real" than the things we normally consider
part of "objective reality".  One can even come to the conclusion that
historical myth is the only thing that is "real" in a sea of unreality.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Hi!
I am now budgetting for my three-four week trip to Budapest.
I want to know ROUGHLY how much it would cost to stay in an accommodation
(not in a fancy hotel, of course) and food.
And, can somebody tell me as well how much it would cost to buy a SINGLE
ticket from Budapest to Tokyo in late Sept - early October?

Thanks in advance.
 Atsushi Yasutomi
        

Gabor Fencsik wrote:

: If a man sees the outcome of a battle in 1389 more fundamental than
: any event or "fact" he can directly observe, and that man is making
: decisions affecting the life and death of thousands, and if that man
: is unquestioningly followed by thousands of fanatical supporters,
: each of whom similarly thinks of a 600 year old battle as the decisive
: aspect of their concept of "reality", then who are we to say that the
: 600 year-old battle is irrelevant to the present?  Or that the myths
: arising from those ancient happenings are less "relevant" than the
: stuff you or I would consider "reality" or "incontrovertible fact"?

I suppose we are the neighbors and the relatives of neighbors of someone whose
mindset makes the neighborhood a dangerous place.


--Greg

Greg Grose avers:

> I suppose we are the neighbors and the relatives of neighbors of
> someone whose mindset makes the neighborhood a dangerous place.

Yeah, it must be the neighbors, the relatives of neighbors, and the
neighbors of those relatives.  Thank *goodness* we are absolutely,
totally immune to such things, free of historical myths, blessed with
a rightous mindset, and a strictly objective view of history.
It's *them* that is the problem.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Gabor Fencsik wrote:

: Yeah, it must be the neighbors, the relatives of neighbors, and the
: neighbors of those relatives.  Thank *goodness* we are absolutely,
: totally immune to such things, free of historical myths, blessed with
: a rightous mindset, and a strictly objective view of history.
: It's *them* that is the problem.

Oh my.  If I've averred once, I've averred a billion times, *never exaggerate*.


--Greg

SPEAK UP AMERICA -- MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT


Question:  Should the United States Government interfere and put
           restrictions on the use of the Internet??


CALL:  1-900-945-5600  ext  163  and cast your vote.

Cost:  $1.98 per call (NOT per minute)  Call Today

       Must be 18+/Touch Tones Only

       InfoService/Studio City, CA/213-993-3366


Results of this survey will be compiled and sent to members of
the House and Senate.  Thank you for casting your vote and for
making your voice heard.

Dear list subscribers,

I have received thoughtful comments (and some invective) on
this subject from:

        - Jakob, Charles
        - Goldberg, Jeffrey
        - Hidas, Peter
        - Koplyay, Janos
        - Nagy, Zsolt
        - Sass, Amber

Thank you.

Evidently my note on Arpad's people was carelessly put together
and I apologize for that. Also let me hasten to correct the
misunderstanding before Dr. Makkay's work, to which I have
referred (A Magyarsag Keltezese [sic]), is in any way prejudged.

Dr. Makkay works at the Magyar Tudumanyos Akademia's
Regeszeti Intezet. His work was brought to my attention
by a representative of the Nemzeti Muzeum. His scholarly
reputation deserves all the care I can muster. This, however
will be somewhat lengthy.

His book is rather complex and I found it helpful to use the
following simple approach.

Let's refer to the magyars as M and to Arpad' s people as AP.
M are all the native speakers of Hungarian in the 9th century
and AP are the people who invaded the Carpathian basin
at the same time.

Makkay reaffirms the origins of M as finn-ugric and uralic on
linguistic grounds. Words of turkic origin in the Hungarian
language are clearly no reason to question this assertion. This
was also pointed out by most of you. We all agree on this.

M reached the Carpathian basin because otherwise present day
inhabitants of the region would not speak Hungarian. We know
from historical records that AP also reached the Carpathian basin.

It is worthwhile pointing out that these two items of knowledge
are arrived at independently and by different methods of inference.

The critical step in Makkay's thinking is to question M=AP.

As Makkay is quick to point out, doubts about this equality go back to at
least
a century ago. What has changed in the meantime is: a) that it is now
possible to express these doubts in Hungary without fear of repercussions;
 - and more importantly  - b) linguistics have made major progress in
understanding the evolution of languages. Conversely it is also true
that in terms of the historical or archaeological record there is very
little new evidence.

Of course, we have all been brought up with M=AP but there is no firm
evidence for this. We have no decisive evidence pro or contra and in the
absence of either, it is appealing to opt for such a simple, elegant theory
as M=AP.

Incidentally it is also a good theory for creating an emotionally
powerful national myth.

We have no direct evidence contra M=AP because we do not know what
AP spoke nor do we have any hope of finding out directly. (Emperor
Constantine's famous remarks about the languages of the <turkoi> are
still interpreted in widely different ways.)

>From here Makkay proceeds as a good lawyer: he synthetizes all the
circumstantial evidence about AP during the period leading up to their
arrival in the Carpathian basin and during the period of their rule as
kings of Hungary.

The best way to summarize his logic for the period before Verecke is:
AP lived like Turks, fought like Turks, legislated like Turks, named
their children like Turks.....so, conceivably they spoke like Turks and
hence were Turks (better Turkic).

Remarkably it is the period of the Arpad dynasty that gives Makkay
his most convincing arguments. In particular he shows how Hungarian
proper names and toponyms started to appear and gained in proportion.
This, I believe, is uniquely Makkay's contribution: the Hungarian language
was REASSERTING itself during the Arpad dynasty!

The final chain in (my simplified rendering of) his argument is linguistic.
It is based on relatively new insights in the dynamics of the languages
of the conqueror and the conquered. In situations similar to AP's invasion
where a relatively small force subdues a larger settled population, the
language of the conquerOR disappears (Mongol rule over China).

In other words if AP=M, Hungarian would have disappeared and we would
speak Avarian presumably. (One way of countering this argument would be
to postulate that the pre-conquest population of the Carpathian basin was
considerably smaller than the invading army of Arpad. The word <honfoglalas>
is indeed a remarkable euphemism suggesting exactly that. It is however very
unlikely that a prime piece of <real-estate> should be largely vacant at a
time of frentic nation building.)

It is to Makkay's great credit that he does not use this last argument alone
although it stands by itself. My reading on the subject is woefully
incomplete
but I would be very amazed if any previous attempt can match his in
scientific rigour. He starts out with a statistically verified theory about
the ascendancy of the language of the conquered. This theory has been
built up independently of the Magyar issue. It may surprise some at first
sight
but it is also intuitively appealing that the language of conquered masses
should reassert itself over the language of the conquering minority
(assuming,
of course, that the conquerors have come to stay).

He then proceeds to show that what the theory would predict, can indeed be
statistically inferred from historical material.

If you have read sofar, I may as well include a personal note.

I have found Dr. Makkay because I was very puzzled by one aspect of
Hungarian post-conquest history. Why would a people, of ugric origin,
and of apperently peaceful disposition, which has been chased across
the steppe and finally settled in the rich Carpathian basin, choose to
ignore further threats coming from the East and start raiding the West?

I think Makkay's work settles that. AP raided the West, the M stayed at
home and took care of their fields. Our foreign ethnonyms are derived
from <onogur>, not because we were mistaken for Turks but because
those raiding parties were led by Turks.

Baratsagos udvozletekkel,                ghyczy


PS. I have spoken to Dr. Makkay on several occasions by phone and if anyone
is interested in contacting him, I would be glad to ask him whether
I may pass on his number.

He has sent me a copy of his book (published 1994) but I fear that it is no
longer available.
-------------------------------------
Name: tiha von ghyczy
E-mail: 
Date: 08/18/95
Charlottesville, Va.
-------------------------------------

Is anyone here interested in penpals from abroad? If so, I might be able to
help.

*****

I'm new to this list so I just wanted to say hello to you all!

*****

>^..^<

As usual, I'll pass over the numerous points of agreement with Ga1bor to
concentrate on the disagreements.
> The thesis offered by Andras is modeled on analogies from physics and
> economics (discounted cash flow, present value, and linear damping).
> But this kind of linear model is not how history works.  History is
> full of discontinuity, randomness, and chaotic phenomena, where small
> perturbations have monstrously large consequences far into the future.
> "For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse
> was lost; and for want of a horse, the rider was lost", etc.
Exactly. So let's pick a case where such instabilities are known to
play a large role: meteorology. I submit that the whether 10 years
ago is completely irrelevant for predicting the weather tomorrow: all the
information that there is about the weather is already contained in the
corrent state. If weather doesn't carry _forward_ for more than a week, ten
days on the outside, before chaos takes over the predictions, it is
obvious that it doesn't carry _back_ more than 10 days.

> Things do not necessarily become irrelevant just because they happened
> a long time ago.
Well often not, but in that case they are visible in the current state.
What I dispute the possibility of "dormant" information that somehow
makes a difference later, though it fails to make a difference now.

> Looking at the present state of Eastern Europe, it is especially
> difficult to claim that faraway and long-ago events do not matter.
> If a man sees the outcome of a battle in 1389 more fundamental than
> any event or "fact" he can directly observe, and that man is making
> decisions affecting the life and death of thousands, and if that man
> is unquestioningly followed by thousands of fanatical supporters,
> each of whom similarly thinks of a 600 year old battle as the decisive
> aspect of their concept of "reality", then who are we to say that the
> 600 year-old battle is irrelevant to the present?
I am. What this nice example shows is that current people's current
thoughts, aspirations, fears, hopes matter. Sure they do. But it is
rather immaterial whether the battle actually took place, whether it
took place the way it is remembered, etc. What matters is today's
myths, which are often only loosely based on yesterday's reality.

> When people's thoughts and decisions are dominated by historical myths, then
> these historical myths are more "real" than the things we normally consider
> part of "objective reality".
We agree.

> One can even come to the conclusion that
> historical myth is the only thing that is "real" in a sea of unreality.
But that's taking it a bit too far...

Andra1s Kornai

Andras Kornai wrote:

: > "For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse
: > was lost; and for want of a horse, the rider was lost", etc.
: Exactly. So let's pick a case where such instabilities are known to
: play a large role: meteorology. I submit that the whether 10 years
: ago is completely irrelevant for predicting the weather tomorrow:

Well, one can gaze at a mountain or climate.

--Greg