Which grammar is Hungarian grammar closer to: Finnish or Turkish?
I've read through a Turkish grammar recently and I was amazed how similar Turkish grammar is to Hungarian. The relationship between HU and FI is an established fact, but I have a suspicion that it has been overemphasized (for political reasons?) historically, whereas the morphological similarity between HU and TR has been unduly little spoken about by mainstream researchers. There is an assumption that in the Middle Ages but during the translation of the Bible in the 16-18 centuries the latest, either FI or HU or both languages adopted linguistic structures (like the relative cause, introduction of the article, suffixation of the possessor instead of the possessed) that show Indo-European influence in both FI and HU and this makes them more similar than they were. But I feel that HU still shows more similarity to TR than to FI. As I don't speak either TR or FI I cannot tell for sure. Maybe there are people out there who know better?
However, none of these hypotheses of lumping together into "macro-families" established families such as Finno-Ugric, Altaic or Indo-European are widely accepted. Whatever the superficial resemblances between Finno-Ugric, Altaic or Indo-European, the emerging consensus among linguists is that they are to be attributed to contact-induced typological convergence over a time span of several millennia.
There remains the question as to how many Turkish words were absorbed into Hungarian because Turkish occupation of the eastern parts of Europe that became the Austro-Hungarian empire. This did not happen in Finland.
The relationship between Hungarian and Turkish is that of cultural contact during the Ottoman period, whereas the relationship between Hungarian and finish is that of genetic affinity. Unlike lexical items which are usually transfered from one language to another through cultural contact, grammatical simarities couldn't be the result of contact between languages; they have always genetic origins.
The majority of Turkish loans in Hungarian are much earlier than the Turkish occupation of much of Hungary in the 16th--18th centuries. They don't come from the language called Turkish today., but others like Chuvash.
They sound amazingly the same, Turkish and Hungarian. There are similar words in both, and some names are shared. For example, male names like Imre (Emre in Turkish) and Tolga. Bulgarians are said to be a Turkic nomadic tribe, too, and we live between Turkey and Hungary but we have no such names and speak a completely different language.
The etymology of Attila is unclear (Gothic or Turkic). It is noteworthy, however, that this name was not used in Hungary before the 20th century, it can hardly be used as an argument for a relationship that has ended several centuries earlier.
In any case, the question was about the grammar of the two languages, names are rather superficial phenomena.
Describing Attila and Genghis Khan as Proto-Turks or Proto-Hungarians were rivalling theorizings attempting to construct national identities in the area and gave rise to predilections in naming one's offspring. There is no reason to see Attila "as a traditionally Hungarian name for clear historical reasons".
BIOPAT e.V., for example, offers to name new species at wish for a donation of at least 2600 Euros (who do these organisms 'belong to'?). One can dedicate a scholarly work, as a book or journal article, to a person – but a living organism? Wouldn't it be preferable to adhere to the common practice of allocating descriptive names and to ban anthropocentric patronymic names and 'graveyard taxonomy' from biological nomenclature via the 'Code'!
In Chapter 2 we re-examined the notion of grammaticality, arguing that it was ultimately a projection or epiphenomenon of standardization. From that perspective, the grammar constructed by a professional linguist is simply an alternative codification to that provided by a normative grammarian, superior perhaps in terms of the quality of the analysi...
The aim of this study is to give a description of the linguistic position of the negative genitive in written Russian and to explain the relationship between different factors. It is demonstrated that the negative genitive still holds its position as the stronger case in negative clauses with 69 percent of all sample cases in the genitive, as compa...
The major concern of the paper are ontological questions regarding ' ‘language’ and conceptual problems arising with the idea of ' ‘change’ that are never carefully clarified in diachronic linguistics. These theoretical clarifications, however, are a prerequisite for giving a successful theoretical account of language change. It is tried to shed so...