Talk:Hunnic language

Large Change

I made some large changes to this article. The existing content I merely rewrote (not all of it, just parts) in more neuteral language.

I also added information about a Hungarian dr. Csaba Detre's claims of new Hunnic language vocabulary and grammar information find.

Please feel free to whip it into shape. I do believe that the information that is there is worth keeping. Despite the obviousness of Detre's Hun - Hungarian sympathies, the actual vocabulary does not readily bend to his pseudoscientific aims and may therefore be real. (Being a Hungarian speaker familiar with this sort of pseudoscientific stuff, I would expect far more convincing Hun - Hungarian matches than Detre is able to present.)

Additional information about the existence/authenticity of the Codex Isfahan and Codex Crete would be good. Perhaps some Arabic wikipedia editors could help... Zacharia Rhetor does bring up some arabic pages, and, of course, Isfahan is in Iran.

--69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, How do you figure that none of the content I added was worth keeping in any form? Just curious.

Oh, and your "more ballanced" info is a bit off. On what source are you basing the statement that the Hun language is *at all* related to Hungarian? Csaba Detre's document (about which you removed all information) certainly suggests so. But I do not think it is widely accepted by any linguists.

Even the Turkic connection is rather weakly established on account of the extremely low number of vocabulary items (and next to no other information) we have from the language. --69.158.25.93 20:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would love to have Csaba Detre's research prove to be true :D But time will tell I guess. I can't find any information regarding this Isfahan Codex cited. I also agree we need some information on the page regarding the current theories and the words those theories are based upon. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you of the opinion, Stacey, that some information ought to appear about Detre's claims in this article? Perhaps in a more limited form, with additional information appearing in appropriately named (presumably newly created) wikipedia articles? --70.49.194.205 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I should note, regarding Detre, that he is almost certainly a quack. The actual data however, for the above noted reasons, does not immediately appear fabricated. --70.49.194.205 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some info should appear. I haven't made up my mind yet. But I have found this... http://hunnyelv.uw.hu/ or http://hunnyelv.uw.hu/Peto_Imre_Hun_nyelvi_tanulmanyok.doc Someone here who speaks Hungarian could better determine the information. Given the extensiveness of the information presented, I guess it looks invented. I don't think even the Codex Cumanicus is as extensive as Peto Imre's doc. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 04:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Imre Peto's document is essentially just a commentary on Detre's document. I would argue that the mere extensiveness is not a strong indicator of it being invented. The implied claim is after all the discovery of historical records on the Hun language. Zacharia Rhetor, I believe, specialised in "barbarians". The number of words is between 500 - 600. There is also some grammatical info.

Some of it looks to be an uncanny "match" for the Hungarian equivalent, others look totally unrelated. In yet other instances, it is obvious that Deter "extrapolated". The hun word (don't ask me to source it) known to mean "God" is something vaguely like "taingar". Deter's list has the following entry "ősapai, ősi, isteni(?): isathain(I), isztain(K)" which roughly means: "ancestor, ancestral, godly(?): isathain(I), isztain(K)". I strongly suspect that if his sources in fact exist, they gave no indication whatsoever that the words "isathain" or "isztain" are at all related to god or godliness. He made a tempting, if simple-minded, leap of logic by noting the similarity between the Hungarian word for God ("isten") and the alleged Hun word for ancestor. Could as easily be a false cognate as anything else.

As it is stated above, though they "looks Hungarianesque" in superficial ways, they are not readable as Hungarian... even though very differently spelled and grammatically archaic Hungarian dating back more than half a century is quite readily comprehensible. This is much more different.

If indeed it is a hoax, it is an unorthodox one. One popular pseudoscientific claim Hungarophilic linguo-quacks like to make is that Hungarian is remarkably consistent and unchanging, that variation between dialects and even over time is remarkably minimal in comparison to other languages. Without speaking on the merit of such statements, a person who believes such a thing would be satisfied by a fairly simple-mindedly distorted Hungarian syntax for his made-up Hun language.

The fact that he claims to distinct historical sources gives me hope, and the fact that the Detre document claims to be an extract from a book due to be published. Kind of want to call him and ask some questions... his number is in the phone-book... but the whole thing is a bit bizarre, and I'm kind of dredding the possible experience of far-too-obviously being told poorly constructed excuses for why none of my reasonable questions can be met with verifiable answers...

Having said all this, I think even if this is a hoax, it deserves some mention (maybe with a link to a separate article devoted to Detre's claims). It's not like the world is teeming with fake Hun-language discoveries... either way this is unique. --70.49.194.205 04:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

dr. Csaba Detre

He actually appears to be a legitimate and (seemingly respected) geologist. ( http://www.sulinet.hu/eletestudomany/archiv/1998/9827/foldunk/foldunk.html ) Tellingly though, he appears to have no linguistics or history qualifications/experience. --70.49.194.205 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he has an M.A. in General and Comparative Linguistics....

ALFRÉD TÓTH was born in 1965 in St. Gallen (Switzerland), his native tongue is Hungarian. Received two PhD's (1989 Mathematics, University of Zurich; 1992 Philosophy, University of Stuttgart) and an MA (General and Comparative Linguistics, Finno-Ugristics and Romanistics, University of Zurich 1991). Mr. Tóth is since 2001 Professor of Mathematics (Algebraic Topology) in Tucson, Arizona. He is member of many mathematical, semiotic, cybernetic and linguistic societies and scientific board member of eight international journals. Lives in Tucson and Szombathely where his family comes from. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Detre is not Toth. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant to write that about Toth, since he had written about Detre's work. Perhaps writing at 3:41am was a bit too late for me haha --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems more credible now

This page, which appears to have no relation to Csaba Detre or his work, speaks of the Codex Isfahan, describing it in a manner that gives credence to dr. Detre.

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/1000ad.htm

"The Magyar name is fund in the Caucasus Mountain area for well over 2,000 years before the Central European resettlement. Earliest linguistic evidence is from about 500AD, [b]from the codex from Iran, Isfahan[/b] cloister of Saint Thadeus of Nor Cjupa. (sorry about spelling, dont know the original and its not European orthography either. [b]In this document[/b] which was rewritten from older sources from about 500AD [b]a small dictionary and sentences are written that are understandable in Hungarian even today[b], if we accept a few minor changes like calling god by the term Theo, rather than isTEN. [b]It is attributed to the white Huns[/b], but is not Turkic in language. Some in the past claimed that the white Huns were eastern Ugrian and the Black Huns were Turkic in origin. This seems to confirm that along with other comments that early historians have written, such as the fact that the white Huns were Caucasian and white skinned and fair haired with cities and writing while the black Huns were eastern Turkic types, whose phisical appearance constitutes a heavy mixture of dissimilar racial types including the Pamir type, which probably was their source, then Mongoloid elements due to their move to the far east and mixing with Tibetans, Chines, Mongols and others, but in Europe they also had sizeable Caucasian types probably from local elements. This was not the case with the white Huns at all."

The texts (or words) are not readily understandable in Hungarian, contrary to the above. It is "attributed to the White Huns". So it sounds like that while there is no agreement, the Codex Isfahan may well contain a Hunnic vocabulary list and grammar information.

It is worth noting that this document is totally unknown in Hungary as an instance of "early Hungarian linguistic record". It is known only through Detre's work, and for not yet a full year. Regardless of whether or not it is Hunnic, I have considerable difficulty accepting it to be old Hungarian. I have a copy of "A MAGYAR NYELV kézikönyve" ("The Handbook of the Hungarian Language"), a 600 page linguistics work published by the Hungarian Scientific Academy (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia), and it does not have anything about the Codex Isfahan in it. This is rather strange, considering that if the Codex Isfahan contents are Hungarian, they are the oldest surviving record of the language. (and yes, there is mention of numerous other early records of Hungarian, all of which are from after 1000 AD though)

I am increasingly of the opinion, that information about Detre's document should make it into this article; however guardedly or hostilely qualified as "preliminary" or "questionable". Perhaps when Ghirlandajo is finished bulldozing the article, we could add something in, Stacey. --70.49.159.78 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The language (as suggested by the vocabulary and texts put forth by Detre) is also devoid of vowel harmony as far as I can tell... surely, unless vowel harmony is a "modern" acquisition, this cannot be Hungarian. Even seeing it related requires some odd assumptions... after all it appears that a fair bit of grammar and a meaningful percentage of (known) words have commonalities... but the lack of vowel harmony is puzzling. Perhaps one or the other is a creolised hybrid language... I don't buy it as ancient Hungarian though... --70.49.159.78 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In some way I assumed that the "millenia" website referenced above took it's information from Detre. But anyway, I'm also starting to agree that mention of Dr. Detre should be made. Other articles in Wikipedia mention other crackpot theories while managing to keep NPOV. I'd still really like to find out more about this Codex Isfahan. Regarding the vowel harmony, I was under the impression that ancient Hungarian didn't have it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I might add that Hungarians have not been able to do their own research on this topic until the past couple decades after the fall of Communism since scholars would be persecuted and condemned for going against the Hapsburg/Soviet propaganda of the "Ugrian Theory". That is why this research is only coming to light in recent times.

Further more, I don't know why every extinct language is always classified as being in the same group together. There is no evidence to prove that it is a Turkic language. Since there is little resource available other than this Codex, it could not at all be "Proven" to be...anything, let alone Turkic. More and more research is being done by Mongolians, Kazakhs, Chinese and other recently, and it is even the opinion of many Chinese researchers that Xiongnu=Huns=Today's Hungarians. Look about the Tongwancheng found near inner mongolia/shaanxi. Also watch /watch?v=WAo38hnqvkQ on youtube. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Codex was discovered in 1860...Professor Toth writes "Because I had first doubts, when I was confronted with Dr. Detre’s Hunnic word list, before I started my work on the present study, I asked an internationally acclaimed authority about his scientific judgement concerning the Isfahan codex. I show here the email, that Professor Kiszely sent me:"

Dear Prof. Alfréd Tóth! Replying for your answer: The Codex of Isfahan was found in 1860. It is a Hunnic-Armenic grammar and vocabulary. Lot of parts are published from this vocabulary, where the most ancient Hungarian words could be found and the whole Hungarian grammar is included. Its date is V. century A.D. There is a second exemplar in the Bibliothec of Jerevan, and there is a IX century Turkish translation too in the library of Jerevan. Csaba Detre lived as a geograph in Isfahan for twenty years, he is of Armenic origin, and he copied lot of parts from the codex. It is an existing reality, the Detre is a good scientist. Yours: Kiszely István

--218.20.119.88 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

alliance

The Huns were allied with the Magyars (Hungarians) - what does this mean ? the Huns from 400 were allied with the Magyars from 900 ? is there a historic source atesting this alliance ? Criztu 12:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were Magyars back in 400 as well. They were however in Asia. I vaguely recall that the Huns were thought to maintain contact with Asia, both with Huns living there, as well as with other people there known to them. Presumably that is the suggestion. --69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Means the Huns and Magyars were allies and or of the same origin. Magyars existed before 900 AD, they didn't pop up like grass in Karpatia. Their ancestors were likely together with the Huns of before that period. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hunnic language

The Magyars (Hungarians) in the 5th century were allied with Huns, and there is hystorical source for that.and one more thing: the hungarian language contains 90% of hunnic names,for example: Attila,Csaba, Szabolcs, Ellák, Zoltán,Aladár, Emöke and I could write more...

That's not at all true. What, you think Hungarian names are Jozsef, Erszebet, Matyas, etc.? Get real. Stop with your Romanian propaganda. Attila, Csaba, etc. are native Hungarian names. St. Stephen did not promote any kind of Hungarism at all as he ordered all their books written in the traditional Rovasiras script burned, forced the conversion of Christianity on everyone and adopted European culture. Don't know what you're smoking. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Everything I have seen on the topic states that there are less than four attested Hunnic words that are not proper names, for example strava, "funeral". Furthermore in the case of proper names, as for example Attila itself, I have seen numerous proposed etymological explanations, some of which link, for example, the Turkic ata "father" with the Gothic diminutive suffix -ila as found in e.g. the name Ulfilas. Therefore I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to state with any certainty to which language family Hunnic may have belonged.--KASchmidt 10:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! Changed the article to say that. --69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This article desperately needs sourced vocabulary lists. No one can say anything about the language unless the examples are given. Also it is not clearwhich kinds of Huns are being inferred here. The European Huns of Attila? The Huns of the Caucasus & Caspo-Aral region who bothered kingdoms like Armenia & Persia? Or the Huns that broke into northern India & Pakistan? Or the Huns that harrassed northern China? Each of these groups have names and terms which have survived and there is no reason to assume they all belong to the same language family. Lists please!

-- Unsigned

How widely is it agreed that the European Huns have nothing to do with the Indian and Asian Huns? They were nomadic people that temporarily had a near-Empire in Europe. I do not find it incredulous to assume they had wide presence in Asia as well.

Also, my understanding is that Huns were able to unite a lot of different nomadic people under their banners. So "being a hun" may well have been akin to "being Canadian". You have the protection of a state whose rules you follow and bear allegience to (unless you get pissed off, and ride with your family over to the next country/nomadic empire), but your language and culture may well be wildly different. --69.158.25.93 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Xiong-nu speaking a Turkic language

The jury is still out on this. Gathering evidence points to the possibility that they spoke a Yeneseian language, of which Ket is related/descended. Ligeti showed a Chinese transliterated Xiong-nu word meaning 'high boot' can be traced to Ket. See the talk page for Xiongnu for the reference. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Russian linguist, I believe Dul'zon, in Ketskiy Yazyk (Ket Language), stated that Ket and Hunnic are closely related, that the Ket and Huns left their home in what is now eastern Mongolia together and only split when they reached the Yenisei River. I also read in an older book on the Huns that the only affinity shown by the Hunnic language was to the Yeniseian languages. Mikenassau 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

black & white

There was 2 diferent nation of huns.
East(black): they languange is close the Kumi chuvas. It is remain in "codex chumanorum".
West(white): They languange is same the khazarsμαζαροισ/(VII.Konstantin) .

There is no definitive proof that the European Huns and the Ephthalites (White Huns) were related. What is "Kumi chuvas"? The Codex Cumanicus describes a z-Turkic language. The Chuvash language is r-Turkic. Therefore the Codex cannot contain remnants of Chuvash. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research moved to talk

Another emerging and disputed theory from the previously unknown Esfahan codex suggests that the Hunnic language was Ugric in character. This codex, from an Armenian monestary in Persia, was supposedly discovered in the 1970s but the discovery was suppressed. Conveniently the manuscript has disappeared since then and is thought to be for sale to the highest bidder. In the provisional edition of an upcoming publication on the topic, a few pages show that some words are very similar with the ancient Hungarian language. The Hunnic words were discovered accidentally and were written in ancient Armenian letters from the 4th or 5th century. The first major interpretations are under way by Dr. Csaba Detre.

*grin* --Stacey Doljack Borsody 07:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavic language?

Strava is said to be Hunnic word for "funeral". Despite Huns were allegedly a Turkic people, this word sounds rather Russian to me (AFAIK, Turkish doesn't have initial consonant clusters). Is it possible that the Huns were ancestors of Slavs?--Al-Bargit 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Strava is Czech for food. Maybe it means something in Russian too. 76.210.63.15 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't funeral in Hungarian "temetes"? --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course Huns were not Slavs. Slavs are white Europeans, Huns are Asian. Europeans borrowed many Hun and Magyar words, it is not necessarily the case that it is the opposite way. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, but the Hunnic strava means not that, but something like distress, a celebration with great revelling to depletion what was held as a mourning ceremony. There is a Hungarian word that means this: strapa. Dzsoker (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but the Huns being so powerful and having a large empire, came into contact with many different peoples. It is more than possible that it is other people who borrowed Hunnic words than simply Huns borrowing European words.

--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible and probable. For example Jordanes mentioned that some of the Goths had taken Hunnic names for themselves. Dzsoker (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 article

Hi, I just noticed that the editor who added the following paragraph to the article got the meaning wrong (the problem is with the part I've italicized below):

"1997 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica reasons that "It is assumed that the Huns also were speakers of an r- and l-type Turkic language and that their migration was responsible for the appearance of this language in the West. The r- and l-type language is now documented only by Chuvash, a language considered as a descendant of a Volga-Bulgarian language. The rest of the Turkic languages are of the z- and s-type". However, this is contrary to the 2007 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica which states that "Attempts at interpreting earlier materials as Turkic (e.g., the identification of Hunnic elements in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) have failed.""

The quoted sentence belongs to the Linguistic History subsection of an overview article of the Turkic language family. The subsection is two paragraphs long, first of which briefly talks about the interrelations within the family, and the second outlining the development of branches and the earliest written sources. The actual context of the cited sentence is as follows, at the beginning of the second paragraph (link to the whole text: [1]):

"The linguistic history of the Turkic languages can be followed in written sources from the 8th century on. Attempts at interpreting earlier materials as Turkic (e.g., the identification of Hunnic elements in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) have failed. The Uighur, Oghuz, Kipchak, and Bolgar branches were already differentiated in the oldest known period. In subsequent centuries, Turkic underwent further divergence corresponding to its gradual diffusion."

As I get this, the earliest written sources associated with the Turkic family date from the 8th century. The attempts as interpreting earlier materials (e.g. materials in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) as Turkic (e.g. searching for Hunnic elements within these sources) failed. As I understand, for trying to follow the history of Turkic languages in sources earlier than the 8th century, linguists refer to sources external to Turkic speakers of the period, such as 4th century Chinese sources, and within these, look for possibly noted Turkic elements, for the Chinese case Hunnic elements, as the Chinese of the period were in contact with Hunnic speakers.

I honestly believe that this was a misunderstanding of the cited source. Seeing that there is nothing contrary to the information presented in the prior edition of the same encyclopedia, I'm removing the last sentence. I hope I explained the situation clearly enough. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Gokturks did not build an empire until the Tang dynasty, hundreds of years after the Southern Huns had settled in Shaanxi, China, and the Northern Huns had migrated to Europe. Thus, the word Turk is not found in any ancient Chinese sources about the Huns.

--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Altaic template

Is it just me or does the Altaic template seem useless, especially applied on language pages where the Infobox clearly displays language association? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification of Hunnic and relationship with Hungarian

I support Sborsody's removing the bogus word list of unsourced "hunnic" words relating Hunnic to Hungarian. Consistent with that, I have eliminated form the article all references to Hungarian: Hungarian is a Uralic language, not a Turkic one, though it has a certain amount of Turkic loan-words. The Oghur languages to which Hunnic belongs are Turkic. There is no direct relationship between Uralic and Turkic though a distant relationship has once been assumed to exist via a hypothetical Ural-Altaic. Eklir (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian is not a Ugrian language, it has never been proven. There is no archaeological, anthropological, or any other kind of proof to conclude this. No written historical records exist saying this either. There is nothing to prove that Magyars lived in the area suggested by that theory, nor that they ever lived that way of life. The theory is based on just some basic words that are shared, yet there are hundreds shared with Mongolian or Turkic languages too that are basic. The grammar is also different from Finno-Ugrian languages. How can you say you shouldn't mention Hungarian, but you are so ready to label it as a Turkic language without even knowing anything about it? The codex of isfahan until proven to be false, should definitely be mentioned in here, with a caution about it being unverified. Don't forget though that under the Hapsburgs and Soviets, Hungarians were not allowed to research their own history, as those who opposed this theory were persecuted and condemned. Not until recently have they been free to do so, that explains why this is a recent occurence.

Also, many Chinese, Mongolian and other scholars now agree that the Xiongnu became the Huns, and Hungarians are their descendants. Look up "Tongwancheng" ancient Xiongnu city in Shaanxi province on google. Watch "On the Stellar Path" on youtube. There is a lot of research done in recent times that rebukes the Finno-Ugrian theory, which is hardly accepted anymore. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there isn't any archaeological or anthropological proof because the theory is linguistic! My native language is English but that doesn't make me ethnically English! And when you say the grammar is different from Ugrian it just shows your ignorance. If you ever looked at Mansi grammar you would see how close it is to Hungarian compared with Turkic or Mongolian. For example, Turkic and Mongolian do not conjugate verbs for direct or indirect objects nor do verbs in those languages have prefixes. Mansi does! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The suffixes, inflections, etc. are all different and do not correspond between Mansi and Magyarul. There is a nice page here on wiki you can compare grammar with that shows this antifinnougor or something like that. Also, linguistics alone cannot prove anything. Researching Magyars' history is an interdisciplinary study. As I said, there is much more proof against it (physical proof) than there is FOR it. If you don't know the history behind the FinnoUgrian theory, I encourage you to go to http://www.hunmagyar.org/tor/controve.htm#II.%20THE%20FINNO-UGRIAN%20THEORY and read about how it was created and propagated, and why. This is not a Hungarian view! --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An anonymously published text full of conspiracy theories. Well, some details may even be true, but I don't think that we can consider this site a reliable source. Are there any peer reviewed publications supporting its views? --Latebird (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it humorous that Xiaogoudelaohu is willing to dismiss Magyar and Mansi similarity because, in his opinion, there are suffixes and inflections that do not correspond but will readily accept that Magyar must be related with Mongolian or Turkic even though those languages do not have verbal systems like Mansi and Magyar. Cherry-picking evidence at its finest --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hun and Magyar languages are likely to be much older and influenced other languages. Magyars could also have come into contact with Ugrians on their trek westward from the east before settling in Hungary, not necessarily that they were Ugrians themselves, as speaking a language does not equal being a member of that ethnic group. I never said there aren't similarities with Mansi or Khanti, but it is clearly not identical--nor did I say it was identical to Mongolian or any Turk languages. There was clearly a lot of influence between several of those languages throughout history, but the Ugrian theory is becoming more and more questioned. Say what you want, but until you can provide additional proof or evidence from another field outside linguistics (e.g. archaeological, anthropological, historic records, etc.) then I guess your sarcastic comments will have to be your supporting argument. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

MagyarTurk, it is not vandalism to remove unsourced data that is in fact someone's fantasy. Go read the sources on Hunnic. All that is known of Hunnic are a bunch of names. Listing anything else could be considered Original Research. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Those words were added by some anonymous IP that's had only 2 edits to Wikipedia. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MagyarTurk keeps adding it back in. The list is: Tengri,Kut,Kız,Katun,Tug,Büyü,Orda,Bar,Böri,Tat,Tok,El,Kılıç,kezi,veri. MagyarTurk is now attempting to add Dr. Csaba Detre as a source for this. 1) These words don't even show up in Detre's list and 2) Detre's work is considered original research and unverifiable as discussed previously on this talk page. As much fun as the Esfahani Codex is, it hasn't been peer-reviewed. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added to MagyarTürk's talk page the following message:

You will be blocked again for disruptive edit-warring if you continue to revert consistently common-sense edits contributed to the Hunnic language article by users Sborsody (talk), 75.166.87.88 and myself. The Hunnic language article is not the place to express private beliefs about your own origins which cannot be substantiated scientifically.

Best, Eklir (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the Hun language was spoken from China to Europe, yet there is not a single mention of Xiongnu in the article. Furthermore, if you are going to claim it being spoken in China, then it should be known many Chinese and even Mongolian researchers today believe Huns are the ancestors of Hungarians (Magyars). I just bought several books on my trip to China on the subject (written not long ago), and while there are no English translations yet available, I could provide the names and backgrounds of said authors for anyone who is interested. One of the books even has two chapters in it titled "Not the ancestors of Turks" and "Not the ancestors of Mongols" --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FROM China ... not "in" China. The Xsiung-Nu were at the borders with China and constantly raided which brought them in conflict with the imperial Chinese armies.50.111.14.1 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Khan Diggiz plate inscription

What is this? Are there some other sources for it? As I see the publication appeared in 1995, did it gain some acceptation since then? Dzsoker (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) There are series of inscriptions in east Gothic or early Turkic on silver plates in runic script found near Kazan that mention Diggiz Qaghan, that appear to be in reference to Dengizich. The plates are real, and there are other artifacts as well that are clearly Hunnic associated with them from a period around when he would have died and later. Do not extrapolate too much from it but the artifacts are there, and some have inscriptions in a runic style alphabet. It would be great if we could get access to them and pictures of them from the Kazan museum or ministry of culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.197.7 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hunnic is Ugric

If some Turkic adopted few words from Huns who preceded them it does not change the obvious fact Hunnic language is Ugric . Why should ansectors of Hungarians talk on different language? Edelward (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Conjecture has no place in Wikipedia. What are the reliable sources to support your claim? --Latebird (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This what says in this article

• • All we know of the language of the Huns are names. Our sources do not give the meaning of any of them... **And it prooved that name of one of Hunnnic kings was

Mugel[1] (or Muageris) was the successor of Grod (or Grodas), a Hunnic ruler, from the neighborhood of the city of Bosporus [Boon Phoros: "cattle tax"] in Patria Onoguria. His reign lasted only 2 years, from AD 528 to 530. After him, the dominion of Patria Onoguria over northern Oghuric tribes, from the southern Russian steppes to the western Ukraine, diminished and were aggregated by the Pseudo-Avars before restoration under Gokturk rule.

Not so long ago, historical research concluded the term magyar[2] derived from the name of (prince) Muageris, by arguing that "Muageris" had to be a personal name taken from the descriptive designation of a people. Edelward (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again: what are the reliable sources to support those claims? Is that requirement really so hard to understand? --Latebird (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Easily accepted uncertainties

"reverted to Eurasian steppe - identification of Huns with Xiongnu is uncertain and even if true does not imply that they spoke the same language"

The article says that the Hunnic language is considered to belong to the "Oghur" branch of Turkic languages. It seems there is no problem making this statement without any evidence to support it. Perhaps I am missing something about how some theories are accepted without any evidence, yet other theories with evidence are omitted. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hunnic confederation consist of utrigur and kutrigur tribes. ogur turkic r sound transforms to z sound in modern turkic. so oghur people are oghuz people. and kutrigur means kotuz (nine) oghuz, utrigur means utuz (thirty) oghuz. oghuz or oghur words came from turkic ok (arrow). in turkic tribal confederations each clan represented with an arrow. like onok (ten arrows), onogur, tokuz oghuz tribal unions. so there is some evidence that suggest hunnic tribes contained at least large proportion of turkic stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.66.126 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The makeup of the Huns is unknown - anything else said is pure speculation.50.111.14.1 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent addition of Asian Hun phrase

The addition needs work. Here's what is at issue:

• No clear scholarly consensus that the language spoken by the European Huns and the Xiongnu are the same. Article does not indicate that. The convention used on Wikipedia so far has been to use the word "Hun" to refer to European Huns and "Xiongnu" to refer to Asian Huns. The recent addition confuses those terms.
• No clear scholarly consensus as to the identity of the language spoken by the Xiongnu. Article presents one theory.
• No clear scholarly consensus as to whether the language spoken by the Jie was indicative of the core Xiongnu speakers.

If we do not handle these issues, this article looks POV-ish. We need to decide if this article is going to focus only on the European Huns or try to bridge both. Quite a bit of information about the Xiongnu language is contained within the Xiongnu article. It could possibly be moved here if we decide to keep the wider scope. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Jie phrase has no place in this article as a consequence of the third issue. The Jie and the Turks are both said to be descended from separate tribes of Xiongnu. The claim that the Jie spoke a Turkic language, which has not reached a consensus among scholars, is as relevant to this article as the fact that the Turks spoke Turkic languages. I think we should either replace the new addition by a very brief summary or even remove it altogether. The entire addition was copy-pasted from an (earlier version) of the Jie people article and should remain in that article. Also I think it would be inappropriate to cover both the language(s) of the Huns and the language(s) of the Xiongnu in one article because there is no consensus on whether they are related. Daltac (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of any relevant language, so I have kept quiet so far on this addition. I'd like to support both Daltac and Sborsody and suggest that the articles and scope be kept clearly distinct under their present names - whatever genuine continuity may well have existed, there is a wide space and time between records of the two cultures. I'd suggest removing this new addition entirely. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we remove it then and keep this article focused on the European Hunnic language. The Jie people article would be the appropriate place for this information. I expanded the bit on the Xiongnu article about the phrase. The issue is that there are different interpretations of that phrase: several Turkic and one Yeniseian, and so the amount of detail is rather large. So on the Xiongnu article I chose to only summarize the Yeniseian theory, thinking it more encyclopedic. I'll note that there's no Xiongnu language article and perhaps such an article would be the appropriate place for such detail. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the phrase from this article. It is still available in the Jie people article. This article still needs some reorganization though. The current structure (two theories of affiliation under "lexicon and grammar") doesn't make much sense.Daltac (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of issues raised in the discussion:

• There is a concensus that Xiongnu is a one of the Chinese forms for the Huns. The equivalency of Chinese form Xiongnu and alphabetical form Hun was shown in 1948 by Henning, reconfirmed by Harmatta, and reflected in the works that trace the movement of the Huns from Asia to Europe. To reflect that fact, the modern scholars use the terms European or Western Huns and Asian or Eastern Huns.
• There is a general concensus that European or Western Huns spoke Turkic, that the Hunno-Bulgars (Bulgars) spoke Turkic, that the Caspian Huns spoke Turkic, that Khazars originated from the state of the Caspian Huns and spoke Turkic. A seminal work on the language of the European Huns was by O.Pritsak, widely accepted by the modern scholarship. Though the language of the Asian Huns is still being debated, the Turkic language is a main contender, the Hunnic, Turkic, Bulgarian, Chuvash and a layer in Hungarian are actively and productively used in modern scientific studies for a number of research objectives, for example philological works of A.Dybo. The Jie Hunnic phrase was analysed in a number of works, the results of the reconstruction, in my opinion, definitely belong to the article dedicated to the Hunnic language, it is the only phrase that reached us with phonetical rendition and translation of all individual words. It is even more needed because of the competing theories. Example of generally concurring four reconstructions by emminent scholars using the Middle Age Turkic language would not preclude examples, if any, of the reconstructions using other languages. The removal of it, on the other hand, deprives the readers not only of the substantial information pertaining to the subject, but also from the references that elucidate the subject. Removing specific linguistic info from the dedicated linguistic article is counterproductive.
• with the material cited from all the scholars (Taskin, Basin, Ramstedt, Von Gabain, Shervashidze) I hope it is clear that we are talking about solid scholarship, not POV.
• All the material about Jie identity comes from the Chinese annals, where the term Jie is used interchangeably with Huns/Xiongnu and Hu (some authors specifically comment that in some annals Jie is used only initially, and then as a rule is used Xiongnu for the Huns), every scholar who addressed the Jie phrase addressed it as a Xiongnu phrase, and precisely for that reason, to try to contribute to the subject of the Hunnic language, which also happend to be the subject of this article.
• Since we know that every effort is made to make every article maximally self-contained, size permitting, and the subject of the Huns is broken into two major articles, it would be reasonable to have the Hunnic phrase in both articles. Barefact (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I answer the most recent post in this discussion with a simple factual statement? No. I don't know who inserted the Jie sentence, but when I checked this site a few days ago it struck me as exceedingly odd. Even if the name of the Huns and the Xiongnu are very likely to be related, we cannot say the same thing about the peoples, let alone the languages they spoke. The Jie will have to be removed from this article. Trigaranus (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barefact

• Their is no consensus that the Xiongnu is the Chinese form of the Huns. It suffices to take a look at the competing theories in the two articles. The practice of referring to the Xiongnu as Eastern or Asian Huns is controversial and not applied by all scholars.
• A theory advocated by a few scholars qualifies perfectly for POV. One should also note that Ramstedt (1922), Bazin (1948) and von Gabain (1950) are all very old. Our knowledge of pre-Qieyun Chinese has deepened significantly since their works.
• Which annals are you referring to? In Chinese histories such as the Book of Jin and the Book of Wei, Xiongnu and Jie are treated as different people. These records describe Jie leader Shi Le as descended from a separate tribe (別部) of Xiongnu. Xiongnu, Jie, Xianbei, Di, and Qiang are generally known as the Five Hu. The only historic source in my knowledge that describes Shi Le as a core Xiongnu descendant is A New Account of the Tales of the World, which is not a very reliable historical source. There are many theories about the origins of Jie. Pulleyblank (1963) explicitly mentions the possibility that the Jie phrase is in a variety of Tocharian. Daltac (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• "A theory advocated by a few scholars qualifies perfectly for POV." Right. While there is general consensus that the Western Huns probably spoke a Turkic language, there is no consensus on the language spoken by the Xiongnu. Just take one look at the Xiongnu page and check the dates on the people who are researching the issue of Xiongnu language. What was the consensus back in the early 20th century, nearly 100 years later, is uncertain again. Who has reaffirmed Bazin, et al.? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is general consensus that the Western Huns probably spoke a Turkic language, can you name some of the scholars with this idea? In Wikipedia, eveything should be verified. Ignore this message if you already did it in the article or talk page. Kavas (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is a common knowledge that after W.Henning demonstrated back in 1948 (The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters, W.B.Henning, BSOAS 13, p. 644) that the alphabetical form of Hsiung-nu (there was no Xiongnu back in 1948) was Hun that it was accepted as a firmly established fact. Not that there is a lack of live and dead scientists who knew and advocated it before 1948, but in the last 60 years there was not a single scientist who challenged either the reading of the Sogdian Letters or the the conclusion of W.Henning on the alphabetical form of Hsiung-nu/Xiongnu. Anybody who edits Hunnic language undoubtly knows that. References to W.B.Henning and Sogdian Ancient Letters can be found in every language, including every Chinese and every Slavic, and I do not know of anybody who accused W.Henning in POV or scientific incompetence. I have not seen a single citation advocating that W.Henning was wrong.

• "Old" is relative, in comparison with Galileo, Ramstedt (1922), Bazin (1948), and von Gabain (1950) are very young, and it still rotates, as said the old Galileo. So, we call Ramstedt Bazin, and von Gabain old and pushing POV, and remove the evidence of their consensus, in the name of encyclopedity.

• As far as I know, no alternate theory produced an alternate reading in any alternate language, including Vovin and Eniseian, Pulleyblank and Tocharian, Pulleyblank and Eniseian, etc. If there is a credible reading, even by a single scholar, I am not even talking about 5 scholars (Ramstedt+Bazin+von Gabain+Shervashidze+Taskin = 5), it should be included in the article, othervise all that advocacy does not seem to hold the water. Alternate theories belong to historiographical, not to the factual section.

• A completely independent Hunnic/Turkic confirmation comes from the historical works of the Arabic and Persian writers, who recited the Turkic genealogical story in the "old" 13 c. AD. It was the "old" N.Bichurin ca. 1825 who first noted a striking coincidence of the sequence and scope of pra-Hun Maodun and pra-Turkic Oguz-Kagan conquests recorded by Rashid al-Din, Hondemir, and Abulgazi. None of them knew of the Huns and the Chinese annals and the Maodun back in the 13-16th centuries. After N.Bichurin, many other scholars attended the same subject, some of them completely independently and without any knowledge of the N.Bichurin's writings. And we should not be expecting a "new and improved" revision of Chinese annals or Middle Age writers changing their story. "Old" is not an argument in case of ancient history.

• On general consensus that the Western Huns spoke a Turkic language the most authotitative study was and remains that of O.Pritsak, 1982, "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan", it is listed in the article. It is also a well-known fact that nomadic descendents of the Huns spoke Turkic, without exception: Hunno-Bulgars (Bulgars, Kupi-Bulgars, Ak-Bulgars, Kara-Bulgars, etc), Caspian Huns, Savirs, Esegs, Akachirs, etc. The volume of literature on the subject is enormous, and definitely concentual. The Goths and Slavs were very important members of the confederation, the Visigoths were favorite courtiers at the Hunnic court, there was extensive marital linkage, and no doubt that Gothic and Slavic borrowings were included in the Hunnic lexicon, and vice-versa. O.Pritsak demonstrated that Western Huns spoke Turkic, and reconstruction of Jie Huns phrase demonstrated that Eastern Huns spoke Turkic. That is the reason to have the Hunnic phrase in both Eastern and Western articles.

• Sorry for a long tirade, many topics were raised. Barefact (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hunnic corpus

Does anyone watching this article have a source that includes our meager corpus of likely Hunnic words / names? I think they would make a nice addition to the article. At the same time, what about that Diggiz plate? Is there any further info to be had on it? Trigaranus (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I read that the word strava (meaning funeral) is the only Hunnic word to have survived. It survived because the Roman historian Priscus of Panium mentioned it in his account of Attila's funeral. I read this in the book The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome by Christopher Kelly on page 6. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject can give a better answer than this.-Schnurrbart (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed above. Strava is the purely Slavic word for food delicacies. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And it could also have been a word used by the Huns to mean 'funeral' - word-sounds appear throughout the world that are not related linguistically and have different definitions to those native speakers.50.111.14.1 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs a better source for the claim that Gothic was the lingua franca.

"For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin"

The above quote mentions that Hunnic, Gothic and Latin were spoken, not that the lingua franca was Gothic. A better source should be found to support such claims.

It is likely as the Goths were a big part of the Hunnic empire but that is besides the point as the source being used makes no mention of which language is the lingua franca, Hun, Latin or Gothic. If anything it mentions Hunnic, Gothic and Latin being equally spoken as well as the native languages of the various groups that made up the confederation. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkish name Onur is not related to Hunor. It is a French word "honneur". --78.183.235.226 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Gothic is mentioned as being spoken as a second language by (some) subjects of the Huns. I have rephrased the comment more cautiously. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gothic and Latin are also discussed as a languages along with Hunnic used by subjects specifically in the context of commercial dealings. It makes sense, you have the Goths in the court, multiethnic slaves from the pontic and other regions, and a large group of languages in the horde. It is a familiar pattern from the Eurasian steppe as per Mallory and Anthony and voluminous work in Chinese, Russian and western sources on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.197.7 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ármin Vámbéry's comment

I have removed a comment based on an 1882 reference, diff is http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Hunnic_language&action=historysubmit&diff=473492610&oldid=473414260. For several reasons I suggest that it should stay removed.

In full it was: "However, there is a controversial and maybe not correct opinion regarding the word kamos, according to Hermann Vámbéry it would resemble the Turkic kimiz, a drink made of milk. The incorrectness of this opinion is given by the fact that the Hunnic kamos is made of barley and not milk. Still, a linguistic affinity with Turkic is existent.<ref>[http://books.google.de/books?ei=xtUhT-XgJY22hAeevK3fBA&id=570FAAAAQAAJ&dq=Der+Ursprung+der+Magyaren%3A+Eine+ethnologische+Studie Ármin Vámbéry, Der Ursprung der Magyaren: Eine ethnologische Studie, F.A. Brockhaus, 1882, p.28]</ref>"

This strikes me as internally inconsistent (first it says that the words could be related and then that they clearly aren't), and it seems to be an inappropriate use of a comment from 1882, admittedly by someone far better at the relevant languages than I will ever be. We should be documenting current scholarly consensus, and live arguments if there are any, using current sources. Even in this field, 1882 is not current scholarship. A minor issue is that I cannot find the text "kamos" or "kimiz" in the Google Book reference given. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Using a source from 1882 to show linguistic affinity seemed a bit to me like trying to use Aristotle to talk about gravitational theory. He has his place in the history of gravitational theory, not in current gravitational theory. If there were no other, more recent sources talking about the linguistic affinity of Hunnic, then I'd be for using Vambery. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Classification within Turkic

I'm surprised that Hunnic is classified as specifically Oghuric/Lir-Turkic by all the sources. As argued by O. Maenchen-Helfen here (in my view convincingly), the proper name Dengizich reflects *däŋiziq (or *deŋiziq; I'm not sure what the first vowel originally was) "little lake". However, *däŋiz (or *deŋiz), from Proto-Turkic *täŋiz (or *teŋiz, as in Old Turkic of the Orkhon inscriptions) is incompatible with Oghuric: one should expect *täŋir (or *teŋir, compare the loanword Hungarian tenger from Oghuric) instead. The (Common Turkic) z points to a non-Oghuric branch, and (provided that the spellings of the ancient sources really reflect a Turkic d) the initial d even seems to point specifically to the Oghuzic branch (compare Modern Anatolian Turkish deniz, where the old *ŋ has merged with n), although the same development of initial t is apparently found in non-Oghuzic languages (Tuvan and Fuyü Gïrgïs) as well and thus may not be truly diagnostic.

(Note that this conclusion is strictly based on reasoning out of the available evidence; I was surprised by it myself, and I would be very interested to see the evidence cited by the sources for their differing classification; I am neutral politically and, lacking any personal connections with Turkey, have no horse in this game and am certainly not attempting to "prove that the Huns were the ancestors of the Turks (of Turkey)" or some such nonsense, just pointing something out.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Khan Diggiz plate

We have recently had the following removed on the grounds that it's a "bad source":

the inscription on the Khan Diggiz plate has been interpreted as giving the name of a known Western Hunnic king, Dengizich, son of Attila, in a form of Turkic.<ref>Azgar Mukhamadiev. "The Khan Diggiz Dish Inscription". Excerpts from the article "Turanian Writing", in: ''Problems Of Linguoethnohistory Of The Tatar People'', Kazan, 1995, pages 36–83 [http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/32WritingHuns/Diggiz3En.htm]</ref><ref>Muhamadiev A. ''"Ancient coins of Kazan"'', Kazan, 2005, pp. 37–41, ISBN 5-298-04057-8</ref>

It may be less than ideal, but it strikes me as reliable within Wikipedia's definition and at least slightly interesting in the context of this article. Should we perhaps have it back? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It strikes as nothing more but mythical in reliability. There's nothing scholastic about the source and it seems it was just added for the sake of pushing a hidden nationalistic agenda, which is not uncommon in articles like this.Qatarihistorian (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no indication that the source isn't scholarly and the use of "Turan" in the title appears historical, not nationalistic. The author is a member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, shows up as the head of the Ethnography and Archeology department of the Kazan Federal University, and has published works on numismatics of the Golden Horde. That said, the source doesn't call the object in question the "Khan Diggiz" dish. It references it by some archaeological catalog number, Dish 53, contrary to how the material is presented in Wikipedia. Also, it's the *website* that's a dubious source, not Mukhamadiev's work as a source. The website link goes to another page that purports to be the full Chapter 3 of the book. It is difficult to find the actual publication of Problems Of Linguoethnohistory Of The Tatar People, Kazan, 1995, pages 36–83, because the website itself is not scholarly. The website must have translated the article from Russian and didn't include the Russian title. So I think the Wikipedia article should have some mention of Mukhamadiev's work on translating Dish 53 without relying upon the onlinehome site. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I think once someone can find a proper source then why not. But it needs to be made sure that it isn't coated with a hidden agenda, which unfortunately seems to persist in these kinds of articles. Let's not forget mainstream academics studying Hunnic history know of only 3 Hunnic words and a few names here and there. The obscurity of Hunnic history makes it hard to come to a conclusion on its ethnic and linguistic origins. Some say they were primarily Turkic, others say Iranian, others Slavic, some even say Uralic, etc. Then to suddenly have an unknown source with a very suspicious title and background making claims about the Turkic form of Hunnic names is rather suspicious. If there can be a proper way to find this gentleman's book without having to go through nationalistic websites, it would perhaps give us a better indication of the man's original message. Sadly these nationalistic websites aren't to be trusted. Some even have a habit of trying to push something that the author in question may not have intended. I've already come across 3 dubious references in wiki articles today, unfortunately all of which are related in some form or another to the mythical Turanian pseudoscience.Qatarihistorian (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Problemy lingvoėtnoistorii tatarskogo naroda / (redkollegii͡a, M.Z. Zakiev (otvetstvennyĭ redaktor), F.G. Garipova). [2] --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's an issue of how much weight we give to that view. This article does need to go over the various hypotheses to justify its existence. The lead is adequately summarizing the (lack of) academic consensus. It's a bit odd that the Dikkiz plate is not discussed by anyone else (besides Mukhamadiev). When was it discovered? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC) There are a number of artifacts in the museum collections of Kazan that need to be independently verified for accuracy and it would be nice if you could get pictures of them to request to see the inscriptions I am sure it would help clear things up considerably. Some of the objects found in that collection are undeniable Hunnic cauldrons and ever early east gothic or what might be Hunnic inscriptions being interpreted as a Turkic language. It would be nice if someone here could ask the Kazan museum for photographs of the Hunnic objects in their archaeological collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.197.7 (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Caspian Huns

Dear Richard Keatinge, I do not understand your deletion of the referenced facts associated with the Hunnic language. If you have problems with any cited fact, we can discuss it further, but a wholesale deletion of the citation appears to be unjustified, rather the intent is to curtail the studies pertaining to the Huns and their language. You retained Pritsak's reference, for example, although Pritsak's study is miniscule in scope and the sources used, and was limited to the onomasticon, which is recognized to be only a supplementary material, to corroborate observations drawn from the other sources - historical, ethnological, archeological, etc. Please reconsider your deletion of the cited reference, or find reasons to refute any of the cited material. I will be more than glad to supply you with any additional pertaining material. Barefact (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The onomasticon is in fact all that we have of the Hunnic language, the subject of this article, and other evidence can at best indicate the relationships of that language. The subjects of Attila (and of other steppe conquerors) spoke a remarkable mixture of languages, and the later fragments of his empire may have regarded different languages as "Hunnish". As Peter Heather points out, all we can really be sure of is that the word "Hun" or a close variant referred for centuries and over a wide area to high-prestige groups of nomads. Gmyrya makes a good argument, but only arguments based on the onomasticon can be definitive. I did move your reference to the section on arguments for Turkic affinities, where it makes a good but not definitive point. I hope that makes sense. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My question was about your wholesale deletion of cited materials. You happen to switch to onomasticon and tra-ta-ta. If you have problems with any cited fact, we can discuss it further, but a wholesale deletion of the citation appears to be unjustified, and can't be danced around.

Next, in respect onomasticon, we have numerous names cited by L.Gmyrya, with sources, bibliography and review of scholarly views in each case. The volume of material is significantly larger than O.Pritsak's, details incompatibly less sketchy, and the sources are incompatibly wider. O.Pritsak 1982 work did not know of the L.Gmyrya 1995 work, he did not analyzed the Hun's onomasticon in the Caucasus, nor their religious affiliation, nor their interface with the Armenian missionaries, etc. So, why would one delete the pertinent material and replace it with a bland non-statement ref? If you have problems with the facts, let's discuss facts, instead of jumping into outright deletion.

Also, please note that references to multi-ethnicity and multi-linguality do not make sense when applied to empires, which by definition collect diverse ethnicities under one political roof. Chinese, French, Roman, Russian, Spanish, British, etc - all were multi-lingual, and remain so. England's elite was French-speaking for centuries, but that is not a reason to deny that English speak English. The allusion that Hunnish language was multi-lingual does not make sense either. Some may regarded different languages of England as Norman: English, Welsh, Scottish, some may regarded different languages of Hun Empire as "Hunnish": Slavic, German, Greek, Latin, etc. These some opinions do not make sense, they do not make the article credible, and in essence have nothing to do with the title of the article. Barefact (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

PS. For Peter Heather remark, it was Yu.Zuev who first noted that a dozen of eastern Turkic tribes in Chinese annals have -hun as part of their name, from insignificant to major tribes. The significance of that is that -hun in Turkic is "kin", i.e. they are kindred tribes. But that does not mean that the Huns did not exist, it is only a question how a common name for a group of related tribes became an ethnic name for one particular tribe. Although we know a particular name for that particular tribe, it was Luyanti. Barefact (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You give a good example about the kings of England speaking French for centuries, and the British language being distinctly different from English. Another would be the linguistic journey of the Mughals, named after Mongols, originally speaking a Turkic language, progressing via Farsi to Hindi... the language of Attila and his family was not necessarily the same as that of later people near the Caspian claiming the same name.

I do find your reference useful and quite possibly correct in its arguments. (An English version would be even better) I'll leave this mostly to others, but the reference to Gmyrya belongs, I suggest, where it is now - at the head of the section on Turkic affinities. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the good words. English version is available on the Net, the work has been translated. As far as Attila and his family, their language is irrelevant, like are irrelevant the home languages of Stewarts or Romanovs; we have only indirect indication that Attila's house was Dulo, and references to the dynastic tribes Uokil and Ermi (Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans) that apparently were maternal dynastic tribes supplying Hatuns (Queens), and only a tentative notion that Dulo and Tele is the same name (Ch. pyn. Tiele), for S.Siberian Turkic tribe(s). The Hunnic Language is a language of the people, not of a family. Please restore my deleted editing, since you agree with my citation. Barefact (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The language of Attila's people is the subject here, and your reference is to the language etc of later Caspian Huns. By the way, do you have a URL for Gmyrya's work in English? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with splitting hairs. Attila is in subject, his brother Bleda is not, his uncle Ruga is not, his grandfather Bulümar is not, where it leads to? Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans starts with Attila, but Ptolemy showed Huns in the Eastern Europe no later than 124 AD, and according to Egishe, Huns were in the Sanesan army fighting Persians in 150 AD. These Huns predate Attila by 300 years, are they disqualified Huns as "later Huns"? If any Huns are excluded, the criteria for exclusion need to be stated in the preamble of the article. I still do not see any reasons for deletion, please restore my contribution. For URL, I Googled "gmyrya huns Caspian" and it gave me half a dozen links for English. L.Gmyrya also published recently a sequel, 500-600 pages, where she dwells on details, especially religion and archeology, it is a most monumental monograph. I have a copy, but I do not think it can be downloaded from anywhere. In any case, her review of the sources is way above what any of the cited in the article luminaries and non-luminaries has done or did not do, the new monograph can't add much to the sources. Regards, Barefact (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Your search - "gmyrya huns Caspian" - did not match any documents. " says Google to me. I'd be really interested in an English translation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, one of the links that I get with the same search is here. It is a Table of Contents. Hope it works. For some reasons WP does not save the Google-produced URL. Barefact (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunnic corpus/wordlist + "vague" and "dubious" tags

"The literary records for Hunnish consist only of a few names and three non-Turkic words..."

1. Judging by the article, I guess this means "three words in total, all of non-Turkic origin". However, it could be read as "only three of the words used by the Hunnish were of non-Turkic origin".

1. However: a new work, Yeniseian Peoples and Languages, by Edward Vajda (2013) mentions: (1) a corpus of "270 known Hunnic words]" and (2) 15 Hunnic words said to be Yeniseian, likely Ket, in origin. At the very least I think there should be some mention of this broader corpus (and its dubious integrity if that is the case) as well as mention of the purported Yeniseian connection in the article.

Grant | Talk 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The comment is direct from an authoritative source. This article has a number of underlying problems. First, the "Huns" in most European work are specifically those under Attila or his close contemporaries. The word "Hun" (or something agreed to be more or less the same thing) designated a a variety of high-status nomads of the (rather large area) of the European steppe over centuries, and that is the definition used in a lot of non-European work. There is no scholarly agreement that all of these peoples spoke the same language and some evidence that at least some didn't.

Second, current nationalist feelings are strong; some people are very keen to claim Huns as their ancestors and linguistic kin.

Third, the records of (European) Hunnic really are scanty and the only three recorded words have been identified as probably Slavic or something similar. The European Huns had swept up a wide variety of tribes (Germanic-speaking Goths and Iranian-speaking Alans are attested in large numbers) and even if their leading clans had originally spoken something pre-Turkic when they left the borders of China, they might well have shifted language by the time they reached the Danube centuries later. Or they might be speaking a changed version of their original language, heavily mixed with other language families.

That said, we may need some brief mention of the Yeniseian idea. Do you feel inclined to do a bold edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do the edit... But I'd like to clear up the huge discrepancy between "three words" and "270 known Hunnic words" first. Otherwise it will sound odd when 15 Hunnic words that are possibly Yeniseian in origin are mentioned? Are there any clues in other sources about this? Grant | Talk 15:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Google won't show me the relevant pages of your reference. To my limited understanding Vajda is very much on his own when he identifies words as Yeniseian, or indeed as Hunnic. We would need caution in making sure that we mention his ideas in the context of their scholarly reception. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Those arguing for a Yeniseian linguistic connection rely on the links to the Xiongnu/Hsiung-nu. Personally, I think the evidence for a Yeniseian connection is less convincing than the "Turkic Hun/Xiongnu theory" , but I am far from an expert and I suppose the idea is plausible.

I do, however, think a broad definition of Huns and Hunnic is needed in this article: taking Attila and his peers as archetypal Hunnic speakers is even more tenuous than (say) taking Constantine the Great as the archetypal Latin speaker or Abraham Lincoln as the archetypal Anglophone.

Anyway, the Vajda reference is from his annotated bibliography. His source is two short articles from the late 1960s by A. P. Dul'zon, who apparently argues that some Huns, perhaps even the ruling elite, spoke a Yeniseian language. Dul'zon's source for the "known Hunnic words" is Pulleyblank (1963). A critical annotated version of Pulleyblank's list can be found here. He actually claims 278 words as Hunnic; while Pulleyblank work doesn't seem to be widely accepted, I think we need to deal with it in some fashion. Grant | Talk 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Is this an argument for an article entitled Languages that have been associated with Eurasiatic groups with a name resembling "Hun"? (I don't think we categorize Hindi as a Mongol language just because the later Mughals spoke it.) Some of the literature does take a broad definition of "Hun" but I think it's fair to say that there isn't a scholarly consensus, either on extending the definition over most of northern Asia and nearly a millennium, or that all these people actually did speak the same language. Not that including all these things is necessarily a bad idea, but it is one that will need some careful consideration. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The situation is actually the reverse of that Mughal example, because the Mughals were latecomers to Hindi, just as the vast majority of the Huns were latecomers to (e.g.) the Germanic languages. Similarly, while the Chuvash, who now speak a Uralic language are one of those peoples claiming descent from/kinship to the Huns, it seems likely that the Urals were one of many stopovers (and a de facto colony) for Attila's ancestors.

FWIW, I'm tempted to suggest that by the time the Huns reached Central Europe, Hunnic had become a makeshift lingua franca, i.e. a pidgin or creole of the vocabularies of disparate languages from families such as Altaic, Iranian, Uralic, Slavic and Germanic, all but incomprehensible to outsiders and obscuring the origins/ancestries of its speakers. (Much like the way, e.g., Caribbean English, which emerged among African slaves, can sound unfamiliar to native speakers of other forms of English, including Africans.) But of course there is no evidence for this, and we can't speculate.

I agree though that care is needed in improving the article. Where do we go from here? Grant | Talk 10:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Akocsg adding undue weight

User:Akocsg is continuing his POV editing by adding Turkic to the infobox, when clearly there are six different theories presented and referenced. Is Akocsg going to add the other theories to the infobox? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care "all theories." most important ones, a major theories. Turkic theory is the major one. You can't delete information like that. You doing wrong.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange how your friend Akocsg is quick to use Otto Maenchen-Helfen, yet when Otto is sourced in the lead stating, "According to authorities on the Huns, such as historian Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnic cannot be classified at present, and there is no consensus on its affinities. He just simply ignores that. Looks like cherry picking information to me. Looks like Akocsg is POV pushing and adding undue weight despite what a leading academic states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Akocsg is not my "friend." I didn't even see him/her before! Is this a "payback" or something? on the other hand; Yes, Maenchen notice that but we can't only base him. You already knew this I suppose.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you should remove Akocsg's edit using Maenchen-Helfen[3]. The "payback" is why you are here talking about me ("You are doing wrong"), nothing about the article. The proper way would be to discuss among numerous editors and find a consensus, since Akocsg was reverted by two editors. But, no, you show up, and start making statements, "You doing wrong", which lends nothing to a discussion. There are just as many sources stating something other than Turkic as there are stating Turkic. Therefore, there is no evidence that Turkic is the major theory. Even Akocsg stated, "Otto Maenchen-Helfen, who is considered a professional on Hunnic studies....", which was good enough for him since it lends to Akocsg's Turkic POV, but if the Maenchen-Helfen says something different then its, "Yes, Maenchen notice that but we can't only base him". My how the wind changes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, no one cares your theories about me. Sorry mate, firstly you "attacked" me with "he is your friend, you defending him!" stuff. And it is very suspicious. I do not have a personel problem with you. Just noticed. Beside, yes. Partly, he is wrong too. We can't move on only one person's words. But he is got the point. If you really read that article, you can see the major ideas.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And again. Nothing about the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hunnic Language Addition

MY SOURCES ARE RELIABLE. They all cite proper books written my university professors. Please stop removing my edits. What is better. Teaching everyone only 3 words, medos, kamos and strava, or teaching everyone c.30 words like I added, plus how to conjugate verbs in the present tense, plus a few verbs plus how to say, Ito be able to + infitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryAddict2000 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Saying your sources are reliable does not prove they are reliable.

Who is B. Lukacs? According to this[4], Bela is part of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Central Research Institute for Physics, Nuclear and Particle Physics Research Institute, Theoretical Physics Department. I see no specialization in linguistics. Therefore Bela Lukacs is not a reliable source for the Hunnic language.

Your link to a forum show a list of books which have no page numbers, and nothing in the post about these 3 books mentions Hunnic;

• Dynamique évolutionnaire des langues – (Zarytos /Tyros/, 1973)
• Lingua Punica -(Venezia, 1981)
• Les langues scythoides - (Zarytos-Tyros, 1985)

None of your "sources" check out. I am therefore reverting this information until you can provide a reliable sources to back your edit(s). Please do not restore your information, until you provide reliable sources on the talk page, thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU BLOODY IDIOTS WHO WANT THE WORLD TO BE IGNORANT. I'M REMAKING THE CORRECT ARTICLE ON MY USER PAGE OKAY?

And that is a convincing argument, name calling, all caps and no signature. :-) Which idiot (I'm just borrowing a word from him- or herself) wrote this? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Mukhamadiev, Azgar G. 1995. "The inscription on the plate of Khan Diggiz." In: In: Problems of the lingo-ethno-history of the Tatar people. Kazan: Tatarskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, pp. 36–83. (ISBN 5-201-08300, in Russian). Translated from the Russian into English, www.turkicworld.org.[6]

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN or WorldCat id on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hunnic language was Kuchean language

First, you have to understand who were the (European) Huns. They were not Xiongnu, nor they were Turks. Huns were conglomeration of Yuezhi-Usun-Asi tribes. Usuns were tochars who were turkisized as early as 4 BC and they spoke a form of Turkic language, Yuezhi are more controversial, probably they spoke a mixture of Tocharian - protoTurkic - protoMongolian. When these tribes move to Kazahstan, an Iranian substratum was added. In modern (Danube) Bulgarian language there are many tocharian words even today. Volga Bulgars probably originated from Usuns, they didn't practiced artificial cranial deformation, while Danube Bulgars have their origin in Yuezhi and their language was less Turkisized. 93.152.143.113 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for solving this centuries-old, complex problem. We'll be anxious to see your research in print, so that professors and scholars the world over can take a vacation to Hawaii .... 50.111.14.1 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Attila is Gothic

I'm too tired to search for sources, but someone could add the information that nobody knows Attila's Hunnic name. Attila is Gothic and means "little father". Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As with so many "facts", this etymology is plausible, but speculative and of limited notability. First-rate sources are absolutely necessary if we are to include it, and also a consensus that it's worth including. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Atta is Gothic for father, for instance „Atta unsar“, the beginning of the Lord's Prayer. And -ila is a well-known diminutive, for instance „Wulfila“, meaning „little wolf“. How much else do you need? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: There is consensus, but as I was when I first said that Attila is Gothic, I'm too sleepy to look up books, but you can study this

http://www.wulfila.be/

to your heart's content. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, I just glanced at the other comments on the talk page just now. I didn't realise that Hunnic was such a nationalistic theme for Turks and Hungarians, although I should have - after all Attila is a popular name in Hungary. But the Gothic interpretation is the commonly accepted one among scholars. See any grammar of Gothic, and note, of course, that we only have 1-2 words attested in Hunnic (one of the strava, as I recall, believed to be a borrowing) and a couple of personal names (not including Attila). Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sorte Slyngel:@Richard Keatinge: Look at Attila's etymology and learn something. The Gothic etymology was forced by Germans from Romanticism (I hope you know how much national revival in that time tried to revise national history). Of course due to geographical and historical reasons German etymology was more exposed than Turkic. There's no consensus among scholars on etymology, and "a couple of names", all those names, beside Huns Ragnaris and Laudaricus, have clear Turkic etymology. Those 3 words have Indo-European, ie. both Slavic and Germanic origin are possible.--Crovata (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

1. Attila is correct Gothic, so that part isn't in doubt.

2. Every historical linguist I've spoken to regards Attila as a Gothic name. Their view is based on linguistics, not nationalism.

3. We have no idea whether Attila would be correct Hunnic, since that language isn't attested.

Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is not to say that Attila didn't have a Hunnic name, just that Attila is whatever survives. Nota bene, Attila and the Norse name Atli are almost certainly not related. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Crovata: Sorry Crovata, I forgot to ping you. :-) I didn't know about this option - it seems useful. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you mention nationalism. It is not about nationalism, yet "traditional scholarship" which didn't review the ideas that emerged from the period of Romanticism. There's no certainity it is Gothic, for Attila the Hun there's no concensus if his name is genuine Gothic (little father), or just a Gothicized form of Hunnic ie. Turkic name attíl- < *etsíl < *es tíl (universal ruler), or that Att dervies not from Gothic atta but Old Turkic ata (father), and so on.--Crovata (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a point of national pride for many Hungarians as well as Turks to claim they are „descendants“ of the Huns. Don't ask me why, they just are. The fact that Attila is a popular name in Hungary stems from that - it has nothing to do with the name per se. There is certainty that Attila is correct Gothic whether the name is actually Gothic or not. To derive it from Proto-Ugric or Proto-Turkic requires a big leap of faith, whereas a Gothic provenance does not. Ata- or something along those lines is fairly common as denoting dad and it is not in the least improbable that the Huns borrowed the word. As for Hungarian names, I don't remember whether you mentioned those or whether others did, but the most popular Hungarian names are mostly borrowed. Árpád is an exception. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Uralic language?

I found a source and edited this article, and the source tells me Hunnic is a Uralic language.

Here is the source: (In Hungarian): http://filozofia.wplanet.hu/tag_va.html HorseSnack (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is entirely unsuitable as a source for an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hunnic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010204040700/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120104081516/http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/xiongnu to http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/xiongnu

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting

3oun= jyt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:67A:7E8F:6CEE:786A:E1B8:7E85 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hunlir tel as Hunnic name for Hunnic language?

The article claims that the Huns called their language Hunlir tel. But since we know only 36 words that are attributed to this language (33 of which are proper names), this seems to have no backing. So, does any person have a citation for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.116.59 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it, and in the meantime I have deleted it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Altaic

@Jingiby:, you recently added a link to Altaic languages into the lead of this article. The lead of the article Altaic languages, however, says that this theory is "now widely seen as discredited". I'm wondering whether it's appropriate to link to it then. I actually removed a similar link from the article Huns just yesterday for the same reason.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Uralic

Can anyone find any reliable sources claiming that the Huns spoke Uralic? If not, I think the section ought to be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The main section is about possibilities, not anything carved in a stone. This claims such , another source does not accept it to be verified , while this () states that according to some Hungarian historians the ancient and medieval language of the Huns largely resembled with the ancient and medieval Hungarians', based on their relationship.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC))

There's something clearly fishy about the first one: It's also published by the Hungarian Society of Holland (MIKES), which spreads pseudo-science promoting Hun-Hungarian relationships in a number of publications, and includes claims that Hungarian is related to Sumerian. It also talks about a "Isfahan Codex" in Hunnic having been discovered which isn't mentioned in any other source about the Huns. This can safely be discarded as fringe.

I can't speak to the other two.

My point is, we either need: 1) reliable sources claiming Hunnic was Uralic, or 2) reliable sources discussing the opinion of some that the Hungarians spoke Uralic. This goes beyond simply claiming the Hungarians are related to the Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the third source may worth to read - exactly what are the statement based on - , as I see the book should be bought, I did not find any online version. 2) -> according to the recent official classification Hungarian is treated as Uralic.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

I'm rather suspicious of the third source too really. Where did it you get the quote from? Surely there must be something in English, German, or some other common scholarly language if this theory has any serious supporters? None of the Hungarian historians who I've seen translated into English make any such claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I just checked the Hungarian Wikipedia on the subject ([5]), drawn from the "Trials on possible relationship" section.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

Any chance you can get your hands on the book?--Ermenrich (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will look onto it.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

References

"Turanian" writing

Can anyone verify that "Mukhamediev, Azgar (1995). Zăkiev, M. Z., ed. Problemy lingvoėtnoistorii tatarskogo naroda. Kazan. p. 195." is a reliable source? If not, the information provided from this source (which seems suspicious) should be removed from the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hunnic origin and hunnic language

Hungarian Turcologist Gyula Németh makes the following statement on the language of the Huns of Europe in his article titled What Language Speaked by Huns in 1939: Based on all these, we can say that the ruling clan of the European Huns and of course the Hun people also spoke the Turkish language, more precisely, they were Turkic as a people. [19 ] Lajos Ligeti also makes the following determinations about the language of the European Huns in the article Attila and the Historical Origins of the Huns: ... the conclusion that can be drawn from the existing ones, we are confronted with a Turkic-speaking people in both regions. [19] Péter Váczy supports Latin writers in Anthropology in his article Huns in Europe; Huns were Turks. But what was Turkish was not only their external appearance, but their language was also Turkish. makes the definition. [19]

Some historians such as Karl Heinrich Menges and Omeljan Pritsak have stated that the possible origins of the language are close to Mongolian or Turkic languages, based on special names in Hunca and for ethnological reasons. [20]  It was argued by Menges that this language might have been a combination of the Mongolian and Turkic languages. [20]  Pritsak 33 Hunca analyzed the proper name and claimed that the language was not Turkic, but could be a language found between Turkic languages ​​and Mongolian, closer to Turkic languages ​​such as Pre-Bulgarian and Yakut. [21]

Otto Maenchen-Helfen has argued that many Hunca proper names may have Turkic origin. [22]  Denis Sinor and Hyun Jin Kim also reached the same conclusion, although they stated that it is very difficult to classify the language due to the lack of resources, and claimed that at least part of the ruling segment is of Turkic origin.  [6] [23] Although historian Peter Heather described Turkic origins as the best guess, in 1995 [24] declared that he was skeptical about these theories [16] and stated that in 2010 Hunca was never known. [17] Metehan Uygur7 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

? Is there a change you want made? The fact that a bunch of scholars think that it might have been Turkic is already in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see it, but I'd appreciate it if you'd add what I wrote. Metehan Uygur7 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what you want added. If what you want added is "Huns were Turks" this is speculation and does not accord with how modern reliable sources treat them.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

In many topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Jingiby (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, then why you removed the mention of Eastern Iranian languages? You are contradicting yourself! @Jingiby:, here is a secondary source:

Alternative hypotheses include their identification with the speakers of Eastern Iranian (Bailey, 1985: 25) or groups of “Paleo-Asiatic”, namely Yeniseian, origin (Vovin, 2000, 2002; Vovin et al., 2016, an idea going back to Ligeti, 1950, and Pulleyblank, 1962).

Why mentioning Yeniseian but ignoring Iranian. That is in no way NPOV. But POV. Sorry, but what is your problem?Orange172212 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC) @Ermenrich: your thoughts, you seem to be the most reliable user here, unlike some other feelings motivated editors, which do not even care to read the respective sources. Pinging also @TaivoLinguist: recently involved in the discussion in Hunno-Bulgar languages.Orange172212 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider this quotes:

The Hunnic titles are common titles of the nomadic steppe world. Most of them are attested in Turkic, but their ultimate origins may lie outside the Turkic family, as is most likely the case for the title of khagan (χαγάνος, chaganus) < ? Middle Iranian *hva-kama- ‘self-ruler, emperor’ (Dybo, Reference Dybo2007: 119–120)... Following Benveniste (Reference Benveniste1966), Dybo (Reference Dybo2007: 106–107) considers Turkic *χatun ‘king's wife’ a word of ultimate Eastern Iranian origin, borrowed presumably from Early Saka *hvatuñ, cf. the attested Soghdian words xwt'w ‘ruler’ (< *hva-tāvya-) and xwt'yn ‘wife of the ruler’ (< *hva-tāvyani). For a possible Eastern Iranian etymology of another title, khagan, see Section 2.2.

And finally, this important quote about the Huns:

The few common nouns that were recorded as part of the European Hunnic vocabulary are all of local origin, and the personal names of the Huns include items that are connected to the Indo-European languages of Europe (Germanic and Ossetic, in particular). This implies a crucial role of Western Eurasian components in the formation of the Huns. The titles of the Huns are broadly related to the steppe nomadic world, but no specific connection with the early Turkic speakers of eastern steppe (respectively the Xiongnu as their historical and archaeological counterpart) can be firmly established on this basis. The ambiguity of possible interpretations is as much the case for the Hunnic personal names for which a Turkic origin was previously proposed. To sum up, while historical and archaeological evidence may imply the inclusion of some steppe component among the Huns, the very limited linguistic and genetic data do not provide support for linking this component with the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe, or the Xiongnu specifically.

Therefore the question, why you remove the mentioning of Eastern Iranian?Orange172212 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just have fixed the Eastern Iranian hypothesis. However I removed other changes, not supported by a source or questionable. Jingiby (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Hunnic language and Altaic languages connection disguss

Recent research has revealed that in chapter 96 of the Book of Han (Han-shu), entitled "Western Regions", the Xiong-nu gave the title "拊離 (fǔ-lí)" to a ruler of the Lesser Wu-sun Kun-mo, a descendant of a Xiong-nu princess, who was killed in 30 BC as a result of a throne dispute. In chapter 50 of the Tongdian, Chinese sources clearly define the meaning of "拊離 (fǔ-lí)" as "wolf". With this military-political title, the Wu-sun were declared the protector of the western region of the Xiong-nu territories. For the same reason, this title was given to the ruler of the western wing of the state in the Gokturks, Seljuks, Khwarazmians, Mongols and Anatolian Turkish beyliks. In addition, the word "böri" is a word used in all Turkic languages, Mongolic languages, Korean, Japanese, Manchu-Tungus with the meaning of "wolf". These results may have revealed a connection with Altaic languages, especially Turkic languages.

@Kansas Bear @Ermenrich Why is not this text about Hunnic language? --Philosophia091 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the bottom of this talk page for proper chronological ordering. I'm also pinging @Kansas Bear: and @Ermenrich: to let them know of the discussion. For my part, I'll say that your conclusion (These results may have revealed a connection with Altaic languages, especially Turkic languages.) is not obvious given the preceding content of the paragraph. You may need to draw those connections more clearly, and you will definitely need to cite a reliable source that has drawn those connections. (This is not just your own conclusion, is it?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no mention of Hunnic or Altaic in the paragraph presented. The Hunnic language is unclassified and has multiple theories. And per this:

• "Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer has denied any possibility of a relationship between the Xiongnu language and any other known language, even any connection with Turkic or Mongolian." --Di Cosmo, Nicola (2004). Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press.page 164. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say that the language of the Xiongnu is not the topic of this article. It's the language of the European Huns, which may or may not have been the same.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I understand my falses. Thanks for your recommandation. I move the text to Xiongnu page. Philosophia091 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Runic inscription from Syria"

@Mnkhprre: - why are you adding this here? There's nothing to suggest that a Runic inscription from Syria has anything to do with the language spoken by Attila's Huns. This is probably WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, not to mention WP:FRINGE.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

look, this inscription includes a commander name called "Κουρσίχ" in Greek. he was one of commander of Attila's eastern campaign. also it is a western branch of Siberian turkic language.

also look at;

https://medium.com/@ReporterOf/earliest-known-written-traces-of-the-western-hun-empire-in-syria-uncovered-during-excavations-by-192bb1fa98bd

https://www.academia.edu/39251975/Sura_Runic_Inscription Mnkhprre (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those are WP:RS.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You're relying on someone who is a medical doctor [6].--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, the actual RS you tried to add says nothing about Huns in the abstract and also dates the inscription to "between the 6th and 9th centuries". Kursich lived around 395. Attila died in 453. This inscription clearly has nothing to do with the Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)