Question
Asked 21st Nov, 2012

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?

Most recent answer

15th Dec, 2020
Selim Hilmi Özkan
Yildiz Technical University
Finnish grammer and Turkish grammer is similar.

All Answers (15)

12th Apr, 2013
Henri Wittmann
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Hungarian has a lot of Turkish loan words but genetically the language is Finno-Ugric whereas Turkish belongs to Altaic:
though the two families might be distantly related to each other and even to Indo-European:
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.
1 Recommendation
27th Feb, 2015
Selim Hilmi Özkan
Yildiz Technical University
Hi,
My opinion there are many similarity between Finish grammar and Turkish grammar. Also there are many Turkis word in the Hungarian language.
More detail:
2 Recommendations
1st Aug, 2015
Jeffrey de Fourestier
East China University of Technology
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.
1 Recommendation
5th Aug, 2015
Abdunasir Sideeg
Yanbu University College
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. 
2 Recommendations
16th Sep, 2015
Péter Szigetvári
Eötvös Loránd University
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.
3 Recommendations
15th Jun, 2017
Tamara Todorova
American University in Bulgaria
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.
15th Jun, 2017
Péter Szigetvári
Eötvös Loránd University
Tamara, Hu Imre and Tu Emre have no connection whatsoever.  The Hu name is a variant of German Emmerich (cf It Amerigo) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Imre while the Tu name is akin to 'emir' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Emre  The name Tolga is unknown in Hungary.  So your claim is unfounded.
1 Recommendation
15th Jun, 2017
Tamara Todorova
American University in Bulgaria
I am sorry, I meant the name Attila, not Tolga. Attila seems to be present in both languages, although many people see it as a traditionally Hungarian name for clear historical reasons.
1 Recommendation
15th Jun, 2017
Péter Szigetvári
Eötvös Loránd University
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.
1 Recommendation
15th Jun, 2017
Henri Wittmann
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
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".
1 Recommendation
10th Aug, 2020
Yu moniyarrison
National Huaqiao University
Robert Gulyas Turkish, geographically near.

Similar questions and discussions

Consequences of the different interpretations of the Theologies of Creation
Discussion
56 replies
  • Gianluigi SegalerbaGianluigi Segalerba
The uploaded version of the article is my PDF of the publication. One of the new constellations which, in my opinion, will be much debated on in the post-pandemic time will be the theological interpretation of Creation and of the aims of Creation within the Christian tradition. In my view, this will represent a central subject within the theological debate, since this topic directly involves the goal as such of Creation, on the one hand, and the position, value, right, and duty of mankind within Creation, on the other. The related questions are whether God’s action of Creation is directed to affirming the pre-eminence of mankind and the right of domination of man over all other created entities, or whether God’s action of Creation includes all the created entities in an equal way without God designating superiority to any created entity over any other entity. In my contribution, I am therefore going to deal with two mutually opposed interpretations of Creation and of the corresponding relations existing among God, mankind, and all the other creatures. The first interpretation could be synthesised in the formula Dominium Terrae of man over other creatures. The second interpretation could be described as God designating to humankind the stewardship of nature. The notions of the two interpretations of God’s Creation have consequences – for mankind’s attitudes and orientations towards nature – which are completely different from each other. - The first interpretation, which has, as its central feature, foundation, and principle, the notion of man as the image of God, considers mankind as the centre of creation. This interpretation confers to mankind a position of absolute privilege over all of the other creatures; all of nature bows to mankind. The direction of God’s Creation is anthropocentric meaning all creatures and nature in its entirety are at the disposal of mankind, since mankind has received from the very word of God the legitimation for the dominion over nature. Nature is regarded as an object to be used and which can be used. It has no actual worth, no actual value as such; it has no independent position in reality. - The second interpretation, which insists on the commonality among all creatures, assigns a common dignity to all creatures. God is seen as being present in all of Creation: through Creation, mankind is assigned the duty of stewardship over all of nature. The direction of God’s Creation is not anthropocentric. Mankind is assigned and has thus a precise responsibility towards nature. This responsibility outlines exact limits as regards the use which mankind can make of nature: mankind may exercise no dominion over nature. Hence, the two interpretations of the Theology of Creation bring about different considerations of nature and of the relationships between mankind and nature. Furthermore, they express different conceptions of mankind as such. In my opinion, the debate on the interpretation of God’s relationship with the created entities and, within this general relationship, the mutual opposition between an anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric Creation will be more present than ever in the post-pandemic time due to its relevance for the general orientation of mankind towards nature. The Theology of Creation involves furthermore a general meditation on the aims and the limits of the technical power towards nature. For my analysis, I shall concentrate my attention on some passages taken from Genesis, the Wisdom of Solomon, and from Paul the Apostle. To find ideas and suggestions for my analysis, I have referred to the books of Robin Attfield, Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the Twenty-First Century, and of Jürgen Moltmann, Ethik der Hoffnung. I take full responsibility for the ideas expressed in the analysis.
Should patronymic naming be banned from biological nomenclature via the 'Code'?
Discussion
33 replies
  • Theodor C. H. ColeTheodor C. H. Cole
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'!

Related Publications

Chapter
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...
Article
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...
Article
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...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.