Re: Hungarian "gold"

>Some linguistic problems for the above etymology proposed
>'with a lot of efforts' by Hungarian linguists :

What the heck are you talking about? Show a li'l bit of respect.
Stop mis-behaving. You are here amongst grownups. Or do you
imply now that you're able to do away with Uralic linguistics?

>Hungarian arany as a loan from Avestan zaranya in some
>supossed 'Common-Finno-Uralic times' Despite the similarity of the
>two words raised some linguistic issues:
>
>a) In HUNGARIAN we don't have ANY LOST OF AN INITIAL Z-
>
>ZOLTAN IS STILL ZOLTAN and not Oltean :)...etc...

Zoltán is not a Magyar name, it is a Turkic name and a
magyarized variant of... Sultan.

>SO ZARANY would still be ZARANY and not ARANY...

Don't you understand that arany and all the other variants
are existant in virtually all Uralic languages in slightly
different variants? Hungarians did not start calling "gold"
arany because of Arie$.

>b) -any, -anjos are popular suffixes in Hungarian

How many time should I repeat to you that -anyos (and write
it with the ypsilon, or are you a dyslexic person; if so,
then I won't insist) is not a suffix. We talk about two
suffixes, [-any/-eny/-ény/-öny] and -[vowels]S. And in
the case of arany and other words, the endings, -any, -eny,
etc. look like the suffixes, but they have to be taken
together with the root, because they are older words -
the endings are actually not identical with the suffix.
For example oroszlán for "lion". If one pronounces it
oroszlány, one is tempted to understand "Russian girl".
But you get an "aha" if you see the Turkish equivalent
"arslan"; then you see that the ending -lán is something
different than what's typical Magyar.

So, it doesn't matter what happened in Hungarian with
the initial z- (if the loanword was ever introduced with
this consonant). What matters is only that arany is not
a Romanian, nor an Albanian loanword.

>so arany and aranjos indicate a root ar- not a root arany-

So, you're wiser and have more knowledge than the whole darned
bunch of dr.phil. in uralistics. :O)

>Finally I want to add that the above 'etymology' is a 'usual pro-
>hungarian ideological etymology'....for obvious reason :

You have no idea what that is, cu ce se mananca, and who
the heck am I, and how old I am (I could be your father).

>Any hungarian, including George

Esti lovit cu leuca.

>THE hungarians rejects today their own chronicle written by
>themselves: Gesta Hungarorum (written around 1200-1300). They
>consider their own chronicle as pure imagination with All the names
>specified inside as pure inventions only because at the moment at
>their arrival in Transylvannia (around 950-1000 so only 200 years
>before the times when their Chronicle was written), so only 200
>years after their arrival in Transylvannia Gesta Hungarorum (their
>own Chronicle) "talks" about

Who's the author of this ludicrous stupidity?

>"GELOU - DUX BLACHORUM as the Ruler of Transylvania"

And read the lips of the mainstream historians of today's
Romania, e.g. prof. Ioan Aurel Pop of Cluj-Napoca, who
maintain that even Gelou must have been of Turkic extraction
(along with Menumorout, Glad and Ohtum), despite that he
was the "duke" of "Blachi".

>Marius

George