Talk:Old Hungarian script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

Excuse me, but whatever happened to the images that Lufi2 uploaded? FYI, none of them are copyrighted in any way, and therefore can safely be uploaded and lined

i have the hungarian runes alphabet as a jpg image. (no idea if copyrighted, probably not!) how can i link it to this article??????????

I added images with the letters and numbers. Mind you, graphical representations of writing systems/alphabets cannot be copyrighted! Fortunately... (Yet?)

--Lufi2 08:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be a welcome addition to actually name some inscriptions which are reasonably well dated. --Pjacobi 11:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are *any*, mainly because it was written on wooden sticks. --80.99.62.187 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Amazingly??

I don't see how the addition of "amazingly" contributes any information other than the anonymous author's emotional reaction to something. We already have "however" - what do we need "amazingly" for?

Unless the author wants to explain the idea in a sentence or two, I think it should be reverted.

Cbdorsett 06:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode

This script isn't part of Unicode or I just haven't found anything? How come some kind of support exists at Yudit (btw, written by a Hungarian author)? --193.77.86.240 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian???

If it`s "Székely rovásírás", than why is it translated as "hungarian runes" and not as "Szekely runes"???? Especially since they had been used solely in Transilvania, not in Hungary, and by szekely, not by magyars.

It has been used by all Hungarians but Transylvania was the last region to give it up completely. BTW the Székely script is not the only version of this runaic script; there is also the pálos rovásírás, used by the St. Paul monastic order. Alensha 12:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pauline runes

It would be good to give a scholarly reference for the Pauline runes, lest a skeptic dismiss the idea as being on a par with the supposed Norse runes in Minnesota... (I'm not saying that the Pauline runes are fakes or non-Hungarian, just that this article cites no basis for the claim.)

--128.8.89.68 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that there was no contact before the Spanish-Inca war of 1531 between Europeans and natives in what is now Ecuador, it seems slightly unlikely that there were people born in 1473 who were still alive by the time the Hungarian missionaries began working in the Viceroyalty of Peru – including the missionaries themselves. Even if we assume that missionary work started only two years after natives and Spaniards first met (how likely is that?), and that Hungarians arrived and made the inscriptions in the same year (again, how likely is that?), then the person referred to must have been 60 years old – which was probably about as old as people could get, with epidemics imported from Europe killing the natives, and the unfamiliar climate and environment troubling any missionaries. It all looks like wishful thinking on Hosszú's part, but perhaps the Hungarian article has other references. 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though average ages of people in earlier centuries were lower than nowadays, there were still plenty of people who made it into their 80s, 90s and beyond. I agree, though, that a reference is needed. Is there one on the Hungarian version of this page? Cbdorsett 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the Hungarian article does not have other references. Also, it is now a complete mess (okay, not a complete, but fairly more motley than the English one) needing cleanup. When I wrote about the Pauline runes, I had had no other resources except Hosszú's "wishful thinking"s (I have to note, his pages is still the best resources upon the runes - they lack the Sumerian-Hunnish-Hungarian-Quechua theory etc.) and the contours on his page. Even if the transliteration is correct, even if not, the section should be rewritten, since as an example, we should put an iscription from Hungary out. Or not? Cserlajos (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variants

Are't there more variants? Nikolsburg alphabet (and the Nikolsburg alphabet on the Nagy Szent Miklós art treasures--in an unidentified language, possibly Pecheneg?) for example? Doc Rock 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nikolsburg alphabet is not a "variant". It is the first complete list of all characters. They are slightly differ from newer Rovás characters - the latin letters of the time are different from today's ones, too!
"Nagy Szent Miklós" - correctly Nagyszentmiklós, Hungarian never slice up settlement names -. The treasure's inscriptions are not to be associated with these letters. Several solutions have been came to scene - and every of them says that the others are incorrect. I suggest that the inscriptions can not be read with the Rovás alphabet. Cserlajos 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about Avar or proto-Bulgar language in Nagy Szent Miklós?

Hey have you ever considered the fact that in the 9th century, after the fall of the Avar state, Eastern Pannonia and Banat, along with Transylvania, were in the Bulgarian state (still pagan and not yet slavicized)? Pechenegs, he! The Nagy Szent Miklós golden treasure is Bulgar, isn't it? So, if there are runes there, it's more logical they are Bulgar (or Avar). Both languages used Turkic runes, and Pechenegs came following the Magyars to the Northwestern Black Sea region and couldn't make it (in an organized manner) to Banat, for an obvious reason, the Magyars were there already! 85.11.148.52 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrations

Is it possible to get some of the illustrations of actual inscriptions such as found in the Hungarian Wikipedia article on this script? http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_rov%C3%A1s%C3%ADr%C3%A1s Doc Rock 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Origins

If, indeed, the Székely script derives from or has common roots with the Orkhon Turkic "runic" script, then its "long roots" would appear to go back, rather, to the Sogdian script (cf. for example, my article, Dr. Edward D. Rockstein, "The Discovery and Decipherment of the Turkish Runes," Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 18, 1989, pp. 328-331) Doc Rock 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of reference Feb 2007

I disagree that the following reference should be deleted from the article:

"* (Hungarian) Antal Károly Fisher: Hun-magyar írás ("The Hun-Magyar Writing"), in: Heisler J. Könyvnyomdája, Budapest, 1889 (analyzes writings from 12 findings dated between 1501-1753)"

The reason given was that the citation was "unused". If the article is relevant to the subject of the article, it contributes to the value of the article. I think it should be restored. Any thoughts? Cbdorsett 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

The evidence presented by the following paragraph does not convince me of the relation between the Orkhon script and the Rovás. I've heard that conclusion elsewhere, and I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I just don't see proof from the arguments made here:

"Around 600 AD, the yet illiterate Hungarian tribes moved southwest from their earlier territories to the coastal region of the Eastern Black Sea. The Hungarian Runes are almost certainly related to the Orkhon or Turkic Runic script.

Says who?

"This is supported by the Hungarian tribes' early geography propinquity [Is this supposed to be "proximity?"] to the Göktürks."

So what? At various times in history they were near Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Mongolic, and maybe Greek peoples. It doesn't follow, from the evidence presented that the Turkic influence was the source of the writing.

"Moreover, thirteen of the Hungarian rovás glyphs closely resemble characters of the Orkhon script.

Which ones? I don't count 13 convergences. I see a lot of resemblance in overall appearance between Futhark and Rovás; they seem to show a greater resemblance to each other than with Orkhon. Some prominent features of the Orkhon script are absent in Rovás, e.g. reduplicated characters, and the use of dots or other small characters detached from the main sign.

I'm not arguing that German Runes and Rovás are necessarily closely related; it's just that the evidence presented by this section of this article is hardly convincing. If someone can correct this, please do. InFairness 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)!

There are no characters among the Futhark and Rovás that closely correspond in both shape and sound. Allegedly, scholars believe there are such correspondences between Orkhon and Róvas. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Your statement "There are no characters among the Futhark and Rovás that closely correspond in both shape and sound" does not address the point I made about a VISUAL correspondence. I made NO reference to any sound correspondence. My point is only this: The article should explain who and why they said that Sz Runes are descended from Orkhon runes. The connection is not obvious visually (at least to me). It may be true, I am just asking an expert to explain this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InFairness (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I could see some characters who might plausibly be derived from similar characters in Orkhon, but there are few obvious examples, apart from Orkhon S² and Rovás eSz. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)