(Martin Magal) wrote:
>Hey Charlie!
>
>I think someone who is sincerely concerned about the good relations between   
  Slovakia
>and Hungary ought to know the backround of the Language Law being passed.
>
>Well, in your contribution to this group you mentioned that the Slovak-Hungari
antreaty has not yet been ratified by the Slovak parl=
iament. The reason for this is not the unwilligness (even on Meciarďs side) but
 the fact that the governing
>coalition has also members from the xenophobic National Party. They have put M
eciar before a simple choice: either his sheep in par=
liament ratify a new language law (which does not deal with usage of minority l
anguages and therefore does not exclude it, although =
frankly it is a puke..) or otherwise the National Party wont vote for the Treat
y ratification. I hope therefore that the Traety will=
 be ratified very soon. Afterwards we should look after that Parliament passes 
the minority-languages law which coul
>d sweep this problem from the table for some time to come.
>
>Best Greetings, Vislat
>
>Martin Magal 
>
>

Martin -- thanks for your posting and thanks for the clarification.  I 
sincerely hope that you are right and the Language Law, as it is on the 
book now (although not yet signed by President Kovac) is not the last 
item.  I must admit that I am confused by the necessity of this Law if in 
fact a Language Law for Minorities is in fact coming.  The Treaty itself 
(see Article 15) also contains extensive test on this subject.

I am, therefore, pessimistic that in a few weeks or months we will end up 
with a Language Law that applies to all Slovak citizens, including the 
Hungarian minority and very litlle else.  But, let's hope...

In the meanwhile, you will understand why many people are concerned.

Regards,


Charlie Vamossy

Mr.Szaszvari,
I would be very interested to hear indeed,where You get the 
idea that Huns are from (?) and magyars are from (?).Please be 
so kind as to explain and prove Hungarian ancestry.Thank you 
very much.

In article >, Dmitri Prokofiev > writ
es:
|> I believe that the word `nemets' had originally been applied to all
|> the foreigners (European?) in Russia, who just happened to be
|> mostly German due to the geographical proximity. 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Dima
|> 

Please, examine the map once again.

Wojtek
-- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wojciech R. Rypniewski		tel: +49-40-89902142
EMBL c/o DESY			fax: +49-40-89902149
Notkestrasse 85			E-mail: 
D-22603 Hamburg, Germany	WWW: http://www.embl-hamburg.de/~Wojtek/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article >,  
says...
>
>In article >, 
 says...
>>
>>How do you translate
>>
>>"Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year love from David" into Hungarian?
>>
>>thanks for your help!
>>
>>DAVID
>>
>To translate: Kellemes karacsonyi unnepeket es boldog uj evet kivanunk,
>
>  Davidtol
>
  Correction: if one person: kivanok  or if more an one person: kivanunk

Wishful scheming,romanian turd!

Csurka Istvan unnepi beszede a MIEP oktober 22-i tuntetesen.  - Idezet a Magyar
 Forum 1995 novemberi szamabol.
A Magyar Forum megrendelheto a kovetkezo cimen: 1092 Budapest, Radai u.322. I.e
m.4. Tel/Fax:215-8795.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------
Magyarok! Tisztelt tuntetok!
Azt hiszem ugy tiszteseges, ha tisztazzuk, van-e elegseges oka, alapja kormanye
llenes tuntetesunknek. Talan a gyulolet? Talan az 
inseg? Talan a politikai vereseg, amelyet elszenvedtunk? Nem, nem ezekert vagyu
nk itt. Bennunket egy felismeres es a nyomaban 
keletkezett erkolcsi felhaborodas hozott ide. Felismertuk, hogy ez a kormany ne
mcsk alkalmatlan az orszag vezetesere, nemcsak 
bloffolo es hazudozo, tehetsegtelen es hozza nem erto, hanem mindezek tetejebe 
szandekosan nemzetellenes. Tudom, ezek sulyos 
szavak. Ez olyan itelet, amitol egyarant elborzad, aki kimondja es az is, aki h
allja. Semmikepen sem a lazitas szandekavel mondom 
mindezt. Hiszen ez nyomorusagos helyzet. Ha peldaul egy csalad eletere vetitjuk
 vissza, akkor ez olyan, mintha a csaladfo csladirtast 
forgatna a fejeben, es ezert folyamatosan mergezne az oveit. Igy egy ezeregysza
z eves nemzet nem elhet. Nalunk nincsen 
zsarnoksag. Parlamentaris demokracia van, szolasszabadsag, es benne vagyunk az 
europai nepek csaladjaban, egyezsegeket 
kotunk veluk.
Latszolag minden rendben van a politikai elrendezodesben, a kormanyt magunk val
asztottuk, s megis, a szornyu ketseg felemeszt 
bennunket. A  magyar elet melyen egy nagy titok lappang, vam valami amirol nem 
beszelunk, es amit mindig elharitunk magunktol. Mi 
fele kozeledunk, milyen vegzet var rank ? Tehetunk-e ellene valamit, vagy jobb,
 ha megadjuk magunkat?
Legjobb gondolkodoink mar evtizedekkel ezelott kimondtak, hogy a magyar nep egy
re kisebb hatalommal, egyre kisebb vagyon 
folott rendelkezik sajat hazajaban. Nincs birtokaban a sajat kulturaja, es nem 
kepes donteni legfontosabb sorskerdesei felol. A 
magyarsagnak van szabadon valasztott parlamentje, intezmenyrendszere, es megsin
cs onrendelkezese. Mert olyan uralkodo retegei 
vannak sosozatban, amelyek idegen erdekek szolgalataba allitjak, kihasznaljak a
 nep johiszemuseget. Most ez a keptelen helyzet 
kiteljesedett. A magyarsag megrokkanve elte tul a szovjet gyarmati elnyomast, e
s amikor megnyilt elotte a lehetoseg, hogy 
valtoztasson ezen a helyzeten, elpuskazta.
Letrejott egy modern parlamentarizmus intezmenyrendszere, de a keret ures. Ugya
nazok uralmat jelenti a nemzet folott, akiket a 
rendszervaltozaskor le akart valtani. Ami lenyeges dolog ma ebben az orszagban 
a kormanyzat vezenyletevel tortenik, az tobbnyire a 
magyar nemzet eleterdekei ellen hat. A kormany retorikaja es a vele egyuttmukod
o sajto ezt eltakarja a tarsadalom elol. A kormany 
modernizacios programot hazudik, es kozben tonkreteszi a civil tarsadalmat, a n
emzet legfontosabb intezmenyeit. A nagy cel: minel 
elobb olyan allapotba juttani a magyar nepet, azaz elbutitani, maradek eleterej
et is elvenni, kulturajat megsemmisiteni, hogy aztan mar 
minden uralmat elturjon, megfogyatkozvan engedje at a hazajat idegeneknek, a be
telepitendoknek, es  engedelmesen szolgalja ki 
oket, elvegezven a masodrendu allampolgarokra harulo koztisztasagi es csatorna 
karbantartasi feladatokat.

    -------   Folytatasa kovetkezik -----

>   Can you put these in English or Chinese Or Tamil or Bahasa Malaysia
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should he put it in English?
Isn't he using a wonderful language?
(is it always a must to understand what someone writes?)

>Morris<

Peter Hakel > wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 1995  wrote:
>
>> In article >, Jan Gajdos 
.CNR.IT> writes:
>> > Roman Kanala writes:
>> > #
>> > # Right. This is the formulation I remember from the treaty of 1947:
>> > # the border is set to the middle of the main bed of Danube. It was
>> > # signed and ratified under auspices of the victorious Powers and remains
>> > # in force.
>> > #
>> >    And old main bed of Danube is on the same place as it was before !
>> 
>> Yes it is, but it's no more the main bed of the river anymore.
>> This is the point (one of points) that the Hungarians are putting
>> forward. On the other side, bringing most of waters to the Gabcikovo
>> artificial canal was in the project from the very beginning, so it's
>> not a new fact.
>> 
>> Roman Kanala
>
>  What about common sense? If you want to define anything, you have to 
>refer to something permanent. But what is permanent can be (and, in this 
>case, is) dependent on available technology. So the water goes through 
>the artificial channel, but the old main bed remains where it has always 
>been. Today's technology can direct the flow of water but the one which 
>would change history is still sci-fi. When the treaty was formulated, nobody 
>thought about the possibility of diverting such a big river, just like nobody 
>thought about landing men on the Moon. This alone, IMHO, makes the whole 
>argument of changing the border invalid. And, since diverting the river was 
>explicitely intended according to the treaty (as you write), it's even 
>ridiculous. When I heard this for the first time, I thought that Hungary ran 
>out of serious arguments and tries to hold on a straw to prevent drowning.
>
>
>Peter Hakel

I can certainly see your point, Peter, about the 1947 Treaty having no 
consideration or forsight about future dams and river diversions.  
Nevertheless, the Treaty stands.  When Slovakia unilaterally decided to 
divert the Danube, she could have and should have sought a revision of 
the Treaty, which is always possible with any treaty as long as both 
sides agree to the revision.  Not having done so, Slovakia clearly 
violated the Peace Treat of 1947.

As far as this item being a straw, I think that's the wrong term.  Far 
more serious ecological consequences are at stake.  But it doesn't hurt 
in front of a judge to show the other side acted illegally.

Regards,


Charlie Vamossy

-I learned in school that GER means Spear or Defend in old germanic.
This was long before any romans set foot in this area. So german is a
spear or defence man.

In article >,  says...
>
>Some students at Lundehaugen High School in Sandnes, Norway will try
>to find out what people with all kinds of cultures thinks about
>immigrants and immigration. Please answer the statements you want to
>and return it to me by e-mail: , and please use the
>subject "immigration"
>This questionary are crossposted to all soc.culture-groups.
>
>
>Answer statements with a number 1 - 6 where 1 mean AGREE, and 6 DON'T
>AGREE
>
>
>Are you an immigrant (Y/N)?
>y
>1. Immigrants are described as more criminal than other inhabitants!
>6
>2. Immigrants should adapt to aborigines' culture!
>6
>3. Aborigines should adapt to immigrants culture!
>6
>4. Immigrants should learn their new country's language before the
>government give them residence permit!
>6
>5. Immigrants should learn English before the government give them
>residence permit!
>6
>6. Immigrants that commit criminal actions should be expelled frim the
>country!
>'1
>7. Your relation to immigrants are tensed!
>1
>
>
>Please answer the statements and return to 
>
>
>Cordially
>
>Ingvald Haaland jr. and Ronny Lindal
>
>                                                   -Ronny
>
>
>Ronny Lindal                           Hotline: 906 48 157
>E-Mail:             Fax:     51 62 21 36
>WWW: http://www.netpower.no/~rlindal   BBS:     51 66 44 66
>

Mr.Szaszvari,
I would be very interested to hear indeed,where You get the 
idea that Huns are from (?) and magyars are from (?).Please be 
so kind as to explain and prove Hungarian ancestry.Thank you 
very much.

 (George Szaszvari) wrote:

>>>A romanian peasant from Transilvania once told me the following joke.
>>[bad-Hungarian vs. maverick-Romanian joke deleted]
>>
>>You want a recipe for Hungarian "goulash." Here it goes:
>>First, one must steal two chickens....:-)

>Why do you feel the need to stoop to quoting anti-Hungarian jibes? 

I don't think is something wrong with my joke, and no Hungarian soul
should feel offended. I equally love similar jokes that target the
Romanians because I think self-irony is the best drug against our
overinflated national sensitivity. 

>You 
>post the one about the Hungarian who said *let's kill him and steal...* 
>story as though this sums up the Hungarian mentality,

Actually, it wasn't my positing, and I didn't like it also [my summary
is self-explanatory]. Anyhow, I think you haven't followed too closely
this thread. 

> and now this 
>*steal two chickens...* thing...Are you so insecure that you feel you 
>need to try to diminish others before you can feel equal to them??? 

That's a very interesting point, but , after a brief reflection  I
reject it as unwarranted.  You can also back off for a moment and,
maybe,  reconsider your statement.

>it is all pretty low mentality stuff. Is this what you are really 
>made of?

Gee, most certainly not.

>Can you imagine Hungarians posting the huge number of magyar anti-Romanian 
>jibes on the 'net? 

Yes, I can imagine *some* Hungarians doing that.

>No doubt some lame-brain will retaliate to your abuse,

What are you talking about?  The only one calling my joke an abuse and
retaliating is you. 

>Come on: keep up standards and show everyone that 
>Romanians are better than that.

But George, even if one accepts *my* joke as being offensive, which is
not, why should *all* Romanians be blamed for my mistake. For example,
I might think that  *you* lack even a decent sense of humor, but I'd
never extrapolate this diagnostic to *all* Hungarians.

Take care,

Liviu Iordache

On 24 Nov 1995, George Szaszvari wrote:

> Correct. It might actually be worth regularly posting a FAQ, explaining to 
> all the poor souls who frequently betray their ignorance by believing that 
> Huns and Magyars are one and the same thing. 
> Hungarian being an unfortunate corruption of Ugrian, which now leads many
> simpletons to equate Hun with Magyar.)
> George 

That is certain, but makes sense as far as verbal agression goes !
Think of the 'HUN' that keeps on tormenting us in the dwan of the
twenty first century !

m. cristian

A friend of mine has asked me to get for him the e-mail address for the
Soros Foundation in Budapest.  If anybody has it, please send it to me.
If you also know the regular mail address, include that, too, please.

Thanks,
Joe Pannon

 (Ilya Talev) wrote:

>It IS puzzling, Dear Wojciech!
>
>It is PUZZLING because, as I demonstrated with the earliest
>written Slavic examples, it meant ANY FOREIGNER. What is
>puzzling is why the honor of being the utmost foreigner was
>bestowed on the German.
>
>Unfortunately, Polish is not the Slavic language where one can find
>early linguistic evidence on anything but a few personal names.
>Latin was the language of choice and what we know as early Polish
>writings dates from the beginning of the 15th century. Ergo: we
>DONT'T REALLY KNOW what the early Poles called the Germans.

Thank you for comprehansive explanations.
May be you are able also to shed a light on the original meaning of 
words "slav" and "rus".  Wojtek in the previous post assosiated the word 
slav with "slovo" - speach.  But in russian it is assosiated with "slava" -
glory.

As for the word "rus", its meaning is never been clear.  AFAIK The original Rus
 
live near Kiev and campained against Konstantinopol, but I don't know even 
were these people Slavik or Nordic by origin.  Also there were areas named Rus 
in
Checkia, Serbia, and even Hungary. 


DISCLAIMER: Written above expresses opinion of the fraer only,
and even other fraers would not agree with this.

In article >,  (Ilya Talev) wr
ites:
|> In article >,  says...
|> >
|> >In article >,  (Ilya Talev
) 
|> wri
|> >tes:
|> >
|> >|> 
|> >|> The word "nemets" [=German] in most Slavic languages is quite puzzling.
|> >
|> >It's not puzzling at all.
|> >The earlier version of the modern Polish name for the Germans, Niemcy,
|> >is 'Niemi'. This means 'mute', unable to speak.
|> >Contrast this with the the meaning of 'Slovo' - spoken word.
|> >Hence 'Slavs' mean 'those able to speak' or 'those who use speech'.
|> >
|> >Now the picture is clear: In the old days the Slavs divided people
|> >into two kinds: those whose speech they could undestand, ie other Slavs
|> >and those whose speech was incomprehensible to them. Those were presumed
|> >not to be able to speak at all (!), hence 'Niemcy', or 'Niemi'
|> >Apparently, it didn't occur to the early Slavs that the sounds their
|> >German neighbours were making was intelligable speech.
|> >
|> >Wojtek
|> 
|> It IS puzzling, Dear Wojciech!
|> 
|> It is PUZZLING because, as I demonstrated with the earliest
|> written Slavic examples, it meant ANY FOREIGNER. What is
|> puzzling is why the honor of being the utmost foreigner was
|> bestowed on the German.
|> 

Dear Ilya,
You are wondering why we don't call the Rumanians Niemcy? :)
The Germans probably WERE the 'utmost foreigners' to the early Slavs.
During their early expansion, the Slavs pushed deep into the lands
settled by the Germanic people. Then they were gradually pushed
back or absorbed. I am talking about the whole area betweed the Oder
and the Elbe, or roughly the area that used to be East Germany.
Note all the east German place-names with suffix -ow, or names
like Rostock. Even now there are indigenous Slavs in eastern Germany.
Traditionally, for reasons of geography, most pushing and shoving
in Europe is done in the east-west direction. To the west the Slavs
found densely settled Germanic tribes, to the east relatively unpopulated
steppes. To the Slavs the Germans were the most commonly encountered
non-Slavs.

|> Unfortunately, Polish is not the Slavic language where one can find
|> early linguistic evidence on anything but a few personal names.
|> Latin was the language of choice and what we know as early Polish
|> writings dates from the beginning of the 15th century. Ergo: we
|> DONT'T REALLY KNOW what the early Poles called the Germans.
|> 

I didn't mean to single out Poles in particular. It wouldn't make sense.
We are talking about times long before the Slavs differentiated into
anything resembling distinct nations, speaking distinct languages.
I suppose, you can use Church-slavonic records if you like, or any early
Slavonic sources. My examples were Polish only because I know the language
well. But I realise that the name N(i)emcy for the Germans is pretty
generic among the Slavs, much older than the Polish language.
Also the word for mute - niemy, with local variations (eg. in Russian
it's 'nemoy'), is a generic Slavic word.

|> Regards,
|> 
|> Ilya
|> 

I realise that I am not an expert and may be wrong (I could be wrong
even if I were and expert!). However, the relationship between
Niemcy (the Germans) and niemi (the mute ones) seems to be rather clear.

Anyway, I find it hillariously attractive to think of my early ancestors
wondering around the forest and bumping into various people, some of whom
they could understand and some they couldn't: hence SLOVianie and NIEMcy.
Pretty dim, eh? :)

Regards,

Wojtek
-- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wojciech R. Rypniewski		tel: +49-40-89902142
EMBL c/o DESY			fax: +49-40-89902149
Notkestrasse 85			E-mail: 
D-22603 Hamburg, Germany	WWW: http://www.embl-hamburg.de/~Wojtek/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Liviu,

My personal apologies for jumping in unfairly without understanding 
the thread of the thread (so to speak). My posting was an unjustified 
overreaction. 

God bless

**** George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK ***
*
** Spaceship Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Cybernautic address:  *
*
 * NW London Computer Club * Commodore=64 stuff wanted: tell me what you have *
 * Interested in secondhand chess books? Ask for my list * Collections bought *

In article >, Peter Aradi > writes
:
> Egy hossu vita it van az ugynevezett zsidotorvenyekrol, de senki sem
> emlekszik a pontos torvenyekre avagy datumokra. It a lista. A torvenyek
> szovegei is megvannak a konyvpolcomon. Ha valakit erdekel akkor elkuldom a
> szak- es torvenykonyvek cimeit.
> 
> 1920:XXV. A Tudomanyegyetemre, muegyetemre, a budapesti egyetem
> kozgazdasagtudomanyi karra es a jogakademiara valo beiratkozas
> szabalyozasaraol. (1920 Szeptember 28. Az ugynevezett numerus clausus
> avagy zart torveny.)
> 
> 1928:XIV. A feletti torveny modositasa. (1928. Aprilis 26.)
> 
> 
> 1938:XV. A tarsadalmi es gazdasagos elet egyensulyanak hatalyosabb
> biztositasarol. (1938 Majus 29. Az ugynevezett elso zsidotorveny.)
> 
> 1939:IV. A zsidok kozeleti es gazdasagi terfoglalasanak korlatozasarol.
> (1939 Majus 5. Az ugynevezett masodik zsidotorveny.)
> 
> 1941:XV. A hazassagi jogrol szolo 1894:XXXI Torvenycikk kiegesziteserol es
> modositasarol, valamint az ezzel kapcsolatban szukseges fajvedelmi
> rendelkezesrol. (1941 Augusztus 8. - Az ugynevezett harmadik
> zsidotorveny.)
> 
> 1942:XV. A zsidok mezo- es erdogazdasagi ingatlanairol. (1942 Szeptember
> 6.)
> 
> Udv
> 
> Aradi Peter
> Depertment of History
> University of Tulsa
> Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
add hozza hogy, 1940 szeptembertol mikor a magyarok "bevonultak eszak Erdelybe
egyetlen egy zsido diakot nem fogadtak fell az allami iskolakba
sot kizartak bennunket
Ezert peldaul letre hoztak egy "zsido Gimnaziumot" meljnek eletben maradt
tanuloi most unnepeltek meg az 50-ik szuletesnapjat
>

In article >,  (Liviu Iord
ache) says:
>
 (George Szaszvari) wrote:

>>Why do you feel the need to stoop to quoting anti-Hungarian jibes? 
>
>I don't think is something wrong with my joke, and no Hungarian soul
>should feel offended. I equally love similar jokes that target the
>Romanians because I think self-irony is the best drug against our
>overinflated national sensitivity. 

Aahh..self-irony! Then confine yourself to anti-Romanian jokes. (The
best jokes I've heard in this vein are undoubtedly Jewish...) Similar 
jokes about others tend to their irony and more like a jibe....

>> and now this 
>>*steal two chickens...* thing...Are you so insecure that you feel you 
>>need to try to diminish others before you can feel equal to them??? 
>
>That's a very interesting point, but , after a brief reflection  I
>reject it as unwarranted.  You can also back off for a moment and,
>maybe,  reconsider your statement.
>
>>it is all pretty low mentality stuff. Is this what you are really 
>>made of?
>
>Gee, most certainly not.

Glad to hear it!

>>Can you imagine Hungarians posting the huge number of magyar anti-Romanian 
>>jibes on the 'net? 
>
>Yes, I can imagine *some* Hungarians doing that.
>
>>No doubt some lame-brain will retaliate to your abuse,
>
>What are you talking about?  The only one calling my joke an abuse and
>retaliating is you. 

My posting is not *retaliation* [have I made any inane jokes about 
Roamanians? *;0) ] but a *request* (note the difference) to keep up 
standards and prevent the ng (or the thread, at least) degenerating into 
something distasteful disguised as *humour*.

>>Come on: keep up standards and show everyone that 
>>Romanians are better than that.
>
>But George, even if one accepts *my* joke as being offensive, which is
>not, why should *all* Romanians be blamed for my mistake. 

Your postings, of course, represent only the thoughts in your head, but
at the same time you purport to represent a/the Romanian point of view,
(or not?); Of course, nobody is saying anything about *all* Romanians, 
you do however act as spokesperson for the cause you represent when you 
post on a public platform like this ng...

>I might think that  *you* lack even a decent sense of humor, 

Actually, my sense of humour is pretty good, if I may be so bold as 
to claim such a personal quality (others could verify this, but that 
is, er, a bit difficult just now...) The point I'm making is that I 
got the impression that your *jokes* were starting to look as though
they were getting a bit insensitive and going beyond *good manners*
(and without wishing to seem like a self-appointed chairperson for 
the ng you might have noticed that I'm ready to upbraid any side in 
a discussion when they seem to go OTT. Perhaps I'm just becoming a 
crusty old stuffy bore, but I hope you appreciate the point...)

Take care,

George :)

**** George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK ***
*
** Spaceship Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Cybernautic address:  *
*
 * NW London Computer Club * Commodore=64 stuff wanted: tell me what you have *
 * Interested in secondhand chess books? Ask for my list * Collections bought *

Mr.Szaszvari,
I would be very interested to hear indeed,where You get the 
idea that Huns are from (?) and magyars are from (?).Please be 
so kind as to explain and prove Hungarian ancestry.Thank you 
very much.

"In article >,  
"says...
">

">>jano
">
">I find your misplaced mirth very sad.  I hope Hungary and Slovakia 
"never 
">find any reason to arm themselves against each other.  I sincerely hope 
">that your opinions reflect only a small minority in Slovakia.
">
">Regards,
">
">
">Charles Vamossy


       right.   as well as the big antalite majority across the natural
       bed of the danube.

 (George Szaszvari) wrote:

>Huns were Turkic and the Magyars were Ob-Ugrian from the Urals (the word 
>Hungarian being an unfortunate corruption of Ugrian, which now leads many
>simpletons to equate Hun with Magyar.)

Actually, the name-forms "Ungari" and "Hungari" are derived not from
the original name of the Uralic (Finno-Ugric) Megyers, but from the
alternate name of the Bulgarians (i.e., Onogurs). 

Liviu Iordache

In article >,  () says
:
>

>If anything, Liviu has been consistently at fight with most of his
>fellow Romanians pointing out "the errors in their ways" for which he is
>usually roundly condemned as some kind of "lackey" of the Hungarians.


You're right. I hadn't followed the thread closely enough and evidently
needed to get rid of some bile that day. I overreacted. My apologies.

Thanks,

George

**** George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK ***
*
** Spaceship Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Cybernautic address:  *
*
 * NW London Computer Club * Commodore=64 stuff wanted: tell me what you have *
 * Interested in secondhand chess books? Ask for my list * Collections bought *

Existing cultures preponderantly lyrical defy civilization. 
Transhumant Balkan cultures are defying the western civilization.   A
well-known classical German poet and philosoph admired this trace of the
Serbs. The Orthodox creed mystified Christ.  The Byzantine existence is
frozen in time. After a thousand years without change, the Balkans exist
outside the realm of the western civilization. The epic struggle of the
western world has no resplendence in it. 
The Romanian soul lives in the mitical  >Mioritic< space, the realm of
>Mester Kelemen<. 
Yes, there is a gap. 

Albu Bela

Mr.Szaszvari,
I would be very interested to hear indeed,where You get the 
idea that Huns are from (?) and magyars are from (?).Please be 
so kind as to explain and prove Hungarian ancestry.Thank you 
very much.

Jan Gajdos > wrote:
>CHARLES VAMOSSY wrote:
>>
>> Jan Gajdos > wrote:
>
>> >   And old main bed of Danube is on the same place as it was before !
>>
>>
>> The main bed of a river is where the majority of the water flows.
>>
>> While I am NOT advocating that Hungary take possession of the land that
>> seems to have been severed from Slovakia by changing the channel, but
>> it's an interesting question for those who practice international law.
>>
>     Charlie, I think this is wrong from very beginnig.  How can somebody
>define the border of the state by the flow of water ?  Then, for example,
>in a case of flood, the official borders are changing, or what ?
>
>       jano


Jano -- I don't know, only the Great Powers who wrote the Peace Treaty of 
1947 could answer that.  Nevertheless, they wrote it.

In case of a flood, the main channel would not necessarily change.

Rivers natuarlly changing course are a frequent cause of Treaty and 
Border updates, as far as I know.  Maybe there is a cartographer among 
us, who can tell us how this problem handled normally.

One last thought:  I certainly do not think that the situation created by 
Slovakia's diversion of the Danube should be exploited by the Hungarians 
to gain territory.  However, as the whole case is presented to the 
International Court at den Hague, it should be introduced as one of the 
several legal items to be discussed.

The really sad fact about the whole Gabcikovo-Nagymaros affair is that, 
as ususal, mainly the Austrians profit from it, while Hungary and 
Slovakia spend useless energy fighting each other.  The Austrians seem to 
have a lot of practice in doing that.  Wouldn't it surprise them one day 
if the countries they used to rule by dividing them stand together?  
Unfortunately, I see little chance for that.

Take care


Charles Vamossy

Jan Sapak > wrote on the Slovak list on 11/28/95:

>-Slovak president Micahl Kovac on tuesday signed a controversial language law,
>making Slovak the only state language and over-riding previous laws on the
>languages of minorities.
>
>A statement issued by the president's office said Kovac had signed  the law,
>approwed by parliament earlier this moth, despite the fact that parliament
>had not yet passed an additional law on the use of minority languages in
>official communicattions.
>
>     Jan

This is a very sad day in the Carpathian Basin, as both countries are 
struggling with economic woes, hoping for admission into the club of 
Europe.

President Kovac's action calls questionable the whole Treaty recently 
signed between Hungary and Slovakia, as the law directly violates 
several sections, especially Article 15.

The Slovak Parliament's reluctance to pass the Treaty, coupled with the 
speedy passage of the Language Law, seems to indicate that Slovakia does 
not wish to become a member of the European Union and accept its entrance 
requirements.

Hopefully, as the Eurostatesmen consider Hungary's application, they will 
note that the Hungarian Parliament has passed the Treaty already.

Charles Vamossy

Hello,

	I was just wondering if this Usenet is still in use???

							Later & Thanxs.....

							Barnabas

On 28 Nov 1995, CHARLES VAMOSSY wrote:

   [...]

> I can certainly see your point, Peter, about the 1947 Treaty having no 
> consideration or forsight about future dams and river diversions.  
> Nevertheless, the Treaty stands.  When Slovakia unilaterally decided to 
> divert the Danube, she could have and should have sought a revision of 
> the Treaty, which is always possible with any treaty as long as both 
> sides agree to the revision.  Not having done so, Slovakia clearly 
> violated the Peace Treat of 1947.

  OK, as you write, the 1947 Treaty had no forsight about future dams 
etc, nevertheless, it stands. But then also, the 1977 CS-H Treaty about 
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros had no forsight about future ecological disasters. 
Nevertheless, it stands, doesn't it? Since the parties did not agree on 
a revision or cancellation, Hungary clearly violated it by unilaterally 
stopping building her part of the project, and eventually destroying the 
Nagymaros dam. What I don't understand is why so often different and more 
strict criteria are used to judge Slovakia's actions than Hungary's, for 
instance. Since Hungary was first to allegedly violate some international 
treaty, let's discuss that first. Then we can discuss whether the Slovak 
reaction to this Hungarian step violated some other treaty. If we decide 
to be meticulous about treaties then let's be consistent.

  As Mr. Pannon said, it was OK for Hungary to abrogate the 1977 treaty, 
because (Czecho)Slovakia refused to change/cancel it, the treaty was 
harmful for Hungary, and it was concluded by the communists. I don't think 
that's the way to look at it. Should our signatures under the 1975 Helsinki 
Act be considered invalid, just because those were communist signatures? 
Should an abused wife, whose husband refuses divorce consider herself single 
just because they were married before communist authorities? I can't image 
the chaos created by this approach.

  Also, it would be good to know what that Peace Treaty of 1947 exactly 
says. Does it only say where the border is, or also that the border must 
not be "affected" by anything? I guess, it's the second case, because 
peace treaties usually contain formulations of that type, and also 
because otherwise moving the border would not violate the Treaty at the 
first place.  :-)

> As far as this item being a straw, I think that's the wrong term.  Far 
> more serious ecological consequences are at stake.  But it doesn't hurt 
> in front of a judge to show the other side acted illegally.

  You're absolutely right, let's talk about ecology, for example. That's 
exactly why I think (and I wrote here) that this "moving the border" thing 
is brought to this discussion artificially.

> Regards,
> 
> 
> Charlie Vamossy

  Similarly,


Peter Hakel

CHARLES VAMOSSY > wrote:
>Jan Gajdos > wrote:
>>CHARLES VAMOSSY wrote:
>>>
>>> Jan Gajdos > wrote:
>>
>>> >   And old main bed of Danube is on the same place as it was before !
...
>>> While I am NOT advocating that Hungary take possession of the land that
>>> seems to have been severed from Slovakia by changing the channel, but
>>> it's an interesting question for those who practice international law.
...
>Rivers natuarlly changing course are a frequent cause of Treaty and 
>Border updates, as far as I know.  Maybe there is a cartographer among 
>us, who can tell us how this problem handled normally.

>Charles Vamossy

I read in the NY Times or Daily News that the Supreme Court recently decided
a case over a disputed piece of land that was originally an island belonging to
Mississippi in the Mississippi river.  It now abuts Louisiana on the
Louisiana side of the Mississippi River.
This "island" is submerged for part of the year, but as the Mississippi has
changed course over the year, it is now not an island.  The basic argument
on Louisiana's part was that it was not a "regular" piece of land; rather it
was more like a sandbar and since it materialized on Louisiana land, it belonge
d
to Louisiana.  Mississippi, on the other hand, essentially maintained that
even though the island was submerged part of the year, it was the same island
that was originally belonged to it - Louisiana had just moved their boundary
until they bumped into Mississippi and now they wanted it, too.
Mississippi won.
                            Letting the astute reader determine the relevance,
                                             Csaba

Eugene  *fraer* ) wrote:
: 
: As for the word "rus", its meaning is never been clear.  AFAIK The original R
us 

It seems to me that it was always explained with the fact
that original Russians, presumably, had "light-red" hair --
"russyi" in Russian.

VI

Dmitri Prokofiev > wrote:

>I still do believe the Russian words for German (`nemets' and like) origin fro
m
>`nemoj' (Russian for mute) rather than from any mysterious tribe name. When I
>was learning German (not very profoundly, I must confess) I noticed that there
 
>existed an adjective `teutlich' meaning comprehensible, understandable, and
>sounding suspiciously alike the word `Deutsch'. So I am inclined to think that
>it is but another issue of the same general case. 

Some people also relate the word Slav (Slovaki, Slovene, Slovini, etc.) to the
word "slovo" ("word"); so the name meant "those who could talk", as opposed to
the "nemci", i.e. "those who could not".

-- 
Ed Ponarin  --  üÄŐÁŇÄ đĎÎÁŇÉÎ

Don't even dare to think that my employer endorses these opinions!