- Eszik-e, vagy isszák a magyar hieroglif írást? -
Figure 1. The bilingual text of Énlaka records the exact same sentence, Egy (az) Isten (One [is the] God), once alphabetically (bottom left) and once with word-signs, hieroglyphically (top right).
Introduction
The number of short texts written in the Hungarian hieroglyphic script is almost overwhelmingly large. The number of those deciphered and published so far already amounts to several hundred. For instance, the number of script relics that settle the question of Hun-Hungarian identity is also approaching fifty. This is a field of expertise whose results are waiting to be utilized. Without them, the most important questions of prehistory cannot be properly answered. Yet, the "profession"—which does not even exist in the field of rovology (runology)—is not keen on utilizing these hieroglyphic script relics. The reason for this may be that the existence of Hungarian word-signs, which can be proven by sources and a series of script relics, is a living refutation of the Finno-Ugric misconceptions regarding the origin of the Székely script, as well as the unfounded preconceptions taught at universities worldwide about the origin of writing. Writing did not emerge 5,000 years ago due to the birth of the state, but at least 50,000 years ago to serve the needs of the ancient religion. Since they are unable to provide a substantively and rovologically well-founded refutation of my claims (the attempts of Sándor Csúcs, Zsolt Máté, and Tamás Janurik all failed miserably), they may find it best not to speak of it at all.
The Necessity of Utilizing Rovology
The four main areas of prehistory research are historical sources, linguistics, genetics, and archaeology.
Regarding historical sources, rumors have it that their possibilities are exhausted because a radically new interpretation of long-known historical sources is hardly imaginable anymore. This, of course, is not true, because in principle, Hungarian hieroglyphic texts would also belong here, forming a significant, new group of historical sources, and their utilization is expected to bring significant changes to historiography.
Linguistics (glottochronology, comparative linguistics) also belongs here. By examining vocabulary, grammatical structure, and loanwords, it helps determine the cultural relations of a population, their former neighbors, and the origin of the language. However, the aforementioned limitation applies here too, meaning that the possibilities of the available written material are not exploited, or it expands only slowly. The explanation of the available linguistic material has hardened into dogmas, which hinders the interpretation of the linguistic conditions of the earliest times.
The results of genetics are exact, yet in vain if the same results can be interpreted in multiple ways. For instance, among those rooted in traditional Hungarian prehistory, a degree of uproar followed Tibor Török's recently published, seemingly U-turn position on the origin of the Ugrians. Previously, he highlighted the Hun connection (thus the traditional standpoint preserved by our chronicles) based on the bone material from Karos. More recently, however, it seems as if the Obi-Ugrians (the protagonists of the Finno-Ugric prehistory that has been dominant since the Surrender at Világos) are definitive for him.
His English-language paper was published under the title Integrating Linguistic, Archaeological and Genetic Perspectives Unfold the Origin of Ugrians on mdpi.com (I thank László Nagy for the Hungarian translation). The title in Hungarian: A nyelvészeti, régészeti és genetikai szempontok integrálása feltárja az ugorok eredetét. It is fitting to add to the title that the Obi-Ugrians were never called Ugrians throughout history. The ethnonym Ogur or Ugor belongs to the peoples of the Hun type, which was merely gifted to the Khanty and Mansi by Finno-Ugric linguists, thereby concealing the weaknesses of their histories concocted behind desks. Therefore, when the author speaks of Ugrians, even interpreting the title is not easy. The public—and perhaps Tibor Török as well—may consider the Obi-Ugrians to be Ugrians, or perhaps considers them also as Ugrians, contrasting this name with the Huns, even though the word originally referred precisely to the Huns (cf. Figures 9–12!). This disarray, which manifests even in the naming conventions, stems from the flawed linguistic foundation of Tibor Török's conclusions.
The uproar is due to the fact that neither the author (whose genetic knowledge I do not question), nor the "profession" that does not even exist in the field of rovology, nor the audience is capable of properly weighing the facts, such as taking into account the surviving hieroglyphic Hun and Sarmatian linguistic relics. Anyone who does not care about utilizing the hieroglyphic texts gathering dust on museum shelves is beating around the bush or is at the mercy of those who do. This also means that conclusions regarding language and identity based on genetic data are not always worth taking as a decisive factor. It is a known fact that language and identity are not fixed by genes. Consequently, genetic results can be twisted and turned in linguistic explanations however the current wind blows.
According to Tibor Török, "Genetic data show that the proto-Hungarians mixed with early Sarmatians and early Huns." Based on his article, he considers the ancestor of the Khanty-Mansi groups to be proto-Hungarian, but perhaps not the other two. Yet it is a known fact that all three groups are ancestors of today's Hungarians. Based on the picture provided by Tibor Török regarding the Seima-Turbino culture, his position needs refinement. Namely, these small Khanty-Mansi populations developed from trading posts founded by Hungarian-speaking Sabirs. At the same time, the geneticist seems to assume that the Huns and Sarmatians were not Hungarian. This, however, is a fundamentally contradictory idea, since it was precisely the Sabir-Huns from whom the ancestors of the Khanty and Mansi adopted the Hungarian language. That is to say, we seem to find the error upon which Tibor Török, the geneticist, built this linguistic house of cards. For he actually has no data whatsoever regarding the Hungarian character and identity of the genetic group he refers to as proto-Hungarian—even if it could potentially be true. From where on earth does Tibor Török get the idea that his chosen genetic group deserves the name proto-Hungarian? Did he adopt it from the authors he cited, who in turn built upon "genome data"? Obviously, they do not have data regarding the Hungarian identity of this group either, as genes do not record language even for their sake. Meanwhile, there are hieroglyphic script relics that testify to the Hungarian language of the population of the Seima-Turbino culture, but Tibor Török refuses to know about this. In reality, therefore, the author merely undertook to serve linguistic reconstructions and linguistic conclusions, although he had no real professional reason to do so. It is important to clarify this because—based on the hieroglyphic script relics—the solution also emerges that all three groups spoke Hungarian, or a language related to Hungarian.
Based on their hieroglyphic linguistic relics, the Huns spoke Hungarian.
The early Sarmatians (Medes) similarly left us texts that can be read in Hungarian. They are also descendants of the Sabir-Hurrian peoples, and at the same time ancestors of the Hungarians, as evidenced by the Mitanni-Mada/Mede-Hungarian ethnonym correspondence and the occurrence of the Sabir ancestral sentence-sign among the Sarmatians.
Naturally, genes know nothing of these linguistic connections. In this paper, Tibor Török merely coats with a genetic glaze and echoes the existential security-providing misconceptions of linguists who refuse to hear anything about Hungarian hieroglyphic script relics.
The situation is similar with archaeology. Based on their style, Tivadar Vida and others could classify the Avar finds of Kölked as Germanic. Based on the exact same archaeological finds, László Révész could explain the bones of the Hun-conquerors of Karos first as Hungarian, and later as foreign. Meanwhile, there are hieroglyphic texts that can be read in Hungarian on both the Kölked and the Karos finds. Following these examples, it is time to pay closer attention to these hieroglyphic texts. However, the majority of readers—due to the surprising characteristics of the writing system and general ignorance regarding rovology—stand before them utterly perplexed.
The Honor of Creativity
Illiterates like to view creativity as reading something into a text that is not there. However, even without seeing them, it would be appropriate to assume from the outset that among the readings of hieroglyphic texts, there might also be verifiable and valid insights. "Of course," they never undertake the task of verification.
An intelligent person recognizes the systematic, lawful connections existing among the things of the world. This entitles us to the hope that a few people will notice the formal similarity and semantic connection between the known Székely signs, the folk, regnal, and religious use of signs, as well as the hieroglyphs of archaeological finds. This provides the opportunity to read the hundreds of surviving hieroglyphic Scythian, Sarmatian, Hun, Avar, and Conquest-era linguistic relics.
However, based on the research of Péter Veres, only 4% of researchers are creative. An additional 6% are capable of reproducing what they learned from their teachers. As for the rest, the 90% (who make up the backbone of the "scientific consensus," always ready to burn the current Giordano Bruno), it is better not to speak of them at all. This explains why, although we look at the same thing, we do not always see the same thing.
For instance, I can read the pictorial and hieroglyphic sentence-sign Egy Isten (One God) from Énlaka (see the upper right corner of Figure 1!), about which Klára Sándor says it is merely decoration, and according to István Vásáry, we do not even have logograms. The two of them are the authors of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences' (MTA) rovás-corpus, the latter being its editor.
The Failure of a Linguistic Critique
Most recently, Tamás Janurik scrutinized my claims regarding the Lyukó hieroglyph on the pages of academia.edu. The title of his article: A lyuk és a tyúk esete a szkíta-hun-székely-magyar főistennel (The Case of the Hole and the Hen with the Scythian-Hun-Székely-Hungarian Supreme God). In this piece, he tried to find a flaw in the assertions of my writing titled Egy paziriki csodalény szkíta hieroglifái (The Scythian Hieroglyphs of a Miraculous Being from Pazyryk). However, the professor and his supporters were unable to make comments of professional value because they know nothing about the results of the history of writing research; they merely labeled me with epithets such as charlatan, garbage, troll, demented, absurd, idiot, non-scientific, and the like. Of course, the matter—as we shall see below—backfired. For during the debate, it turned out that their claims are typically untrue, and their historical linguistic conclusion regarding the "ly" sound is erroneous and has nothing to do with the known facts (2).
They also build upon an unfounded stereotype when, for instance, contrary to what is contained in my articles, they assume that in my view, the Hungarian language has remained unchanged since the Stone Age. They criticize my articles without ever having reviewed them.
In other cases as well, what the professors charge me with has very little to do with what I actually said. For example, they mention instances of the morphological variations of the word Lyukó that are based on the blinkered, at most 1,000-year-old Finno-Ugric dataset. Meanwhile, the word-signs with which I deal—which may be millennia older than that—do not even indicate the exact phonetic form of the word (establishing it requires a special procedure, see the method applied in the case of the two Tărtăria signs!), so I cannot really be held accountable for it. We do not measure with the same yardstick; we are not talking about the same thing.
Another significant difference is that, unlike them, I build upon a dataset that is at least 15,000 years old, a broader (trans-linguistic family) perspective, and an expanded methodology. They know nothing about this because they have no conception of the Stone Age origin of the Székely script, the Székely-identical sign set found worldwide, and the probability calculus proving the genetic connections between the sign sets. In reality, they do not even know my writings or my standpoint; they merely try to apply to me their generic, anti-dilettante system of arguments (their Zsirai-style, Finno-Ugric tavern-like vocabulary of epithets).
However, the hope of success without effort that they anticipated did not materialize in this case either; in fact, it became the stumbling block of the entire academic pseudo-science. For Tamás Janurik's position is obviously erroneous and untenable. I summarized this situation in the article titled Válasz Janurik Tamásnak Lyukó ügyben (Reply to Tamás Janurik in the Matter of Lyukó). I have not received a counter-reply so far, as it cannot be easy to answer it. He would have to admit that linguistics was wrong regarding the appearance of our "ly" sound, because due to Finno-Ugric preconceptions, they deliberately ignored and continue to ignore our rovás linguistic relics. In our case, the fact that the "ly" rovás sign in the Nikolsburg alphabet was recorded in an era when, according to official historical linguistics, such a sound and letter should not have existed.
The overview shows a rather bleak state of affairs. For the time being, this "scholarly" company is incapable of digesting significant discoveries in the history of writing and language. A rapid advancement of science cannot be expected from them—for instance, a credible answer to the question of Hun-Hungarian identity, using the linguistic data available to us (e.g., the Hun language read in Hungarian).
Yet, the aforementioned 4+6=10% can be reason enough for me to describe the characteristics of the Hungarian hieroglyphic script to aid understanding. The reader can find more detailed information in the volume titled Magyar hieroglif írás (Hungarian Hieroglyphic Script). In the present article, I give only a brief overview of the rules of the Hungarian hieroglyphic script, because the masses of readers (that certain 90%), due to the low level of general knowledge regarding rovology, regularly stumble over the peculiarities of the script, and some of them even start to bellow.
Characteristics of the Hungarian Hieroglyphic Script
This requires thinking through the very concept of writing (writing is the recording of thought with signs). Everyone applies this definition without any trouble in everyday life when having to choose between doors where one has a pictogram depicting a woman and the other a man. It also evokes thoughts and provides adequate information in everyday contexts if a cockade rosette depicts the Hungarian coat of arms, a swastika, or perhaps the five-pointed red star. However, when it comes to being academic, people mostly expect script relics consisting of letters arranged in lines, similar to the Latin script. Yet, we cannot prescribe to our ancestors what type of script relics they may or may not leave to us. It is we who must rise to the task and understand what has remained to us. And understanding does not come without learning, thinking, time, and work, nor in the absence of the necessary IQ.
One must also come to terms with the fact that the word hieroglyph does not mean "Egyptian." I have met trained historians, and even an Egyptologist—not to mention the masses of common folk—who knew this incorrectly. According to dictionaries, this is a Greek compound word where hieros means "sacred" and glyphe means "carving." It means signs of religious significance, and such signs also exist in the Hungarian sign tradition. In the works of historians of writing, they do not only speak of Egyptian hieroglyphic script, but they also mention Hittite hieroglyphic script, Urartian hieroglyphic script, Byblos pseudo-hieroglyphic script, and Cretan hieroglyphic script. A Russian history of writing researcher named Viktor Drachuk wrote about steppe hieroglyphs, and articles in the literature also report on Maya hieroglyphs. In these hieroglyphic scripts, we generally find twenty or more signs that are identical to Székely signs. This raises the question: if our signs are hieroglyphs in those hieroglyphic scripts, why shouldn't we use the word hieroglyph for the exact same signs here at home, when this is the only correct and precise technical term? Just because the professional knowledge of the "experts" is at a low level?
The signs of hieroglyphic script relics typically denote not sounds, but words—meaning they are not letters, but logograms (word-signs). Although, by all indications, this is difficult to digest even for the most well-known experts of academic science (István Vásáry explicitly denied it in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences' [MTA] rovás-corpus), our word-signs exist regardless. Veit Gailel left us his record from the 1500s, according to which the Székelys also possess word- and sentence-signs. A long-known sentence-sign of ours formed from word-signs, for instance, is the Egy Isten (One God) ligature from Énlaka (Figure 1), which, however, neither the Institute of Hungarian Research (MKI) nor the MTA rovás-corpus was willing to mention as existing. Word-signs do not indicate the exact phonetic form (declension/conjugation) of the word, which allows for, or requires, a flexible reading. In ancient scripts, it is natural that a sign can have multiple meanings. We have no reason to consider this same attribute a flaw in the case of the Hungarian hieroglyphic script, which ultimately originates from the Stone Age.
In some script relics (for example, on the blast pipe fragment with rovás signs from Bodrog-Alsóbű), a more modern endeavor can be observed: in order to record the phonetic form of the word, the word stem is recorded with a word-sign, while the declension/conjugation is recorded with letters (Figure 6).
Figure 2. Benkő Elek and Sándor Klára, authors of the MTA rovás-corpus—based on their critique written about it—read our book, on the cover of which I present, and inside of which I decipher, the Énlaka Egy Isten sentence-sign; they are also aware of Veit Gailel's data regarding the Székelys' word- and sentence-signs—yet they do not deem this script relic of ours, or our word-signs in general, worthy of even a mention, perhaps because it refutes the Finno-Ugric preconception regarding the alphabetic nature of the Székely script (ultimately, the Semitic derivation).
The Reconstruction of Acrophony
The initial sound, or the first consonant, of these words known from the Székely script (the original sign-name, the word-value) is known. The hieroglyphs of the Hungarian folk, regnal, and religious sign sets have good formal equivalents in the mostly alphabetic Székely script. When we look for the word-value (the phonetic form of the word) of these hieroglyphs, the first sound or the first consonant is already known. The "j" from the word jó (good), and the "ty" from the word atya (father) are already available to us at the very start.
On our painted Easter eggs, our archaically decorated pottery vessels, in the Hungarian coat of arms, on the Holy Crown, on the coronation mantle, and in the frescoes of our Árpád-era churches, as well as on Hun, Avar, and Conquest-era archaeological finds, we find a unified hieroglyphic sign-system and script usage, which is the direct precursor to the mostly alphabetic Székely script. Starting from this, building upon the initiatives of predecessors (e.g., the Sumerian-Hungarian comparisons of Elemér Novotny and László Götz), we carried out the reconstruction of acrophonies in the '90s with Péter Simon, Sándor Forrai, and István Szekeres. In the case of some Székely word- and sentence-signs, reconstruction was not even necessary because almost the entire form of the word or sentence survived. Such is the "us" (ős - ancestor) word-sign and the "tprus" (tapar us - "Sabir ancestor") sentence-sign in the Nikolsburg alphabet as well. These only had to be read.
For the reconstructions, several continuously known word-signs of our folk, regnal, and religious sign sets could be utilized (such is the meaning "country" [ország] and phonetic form of the triple mount preserved by heraldry).
We were also aided by the semantic clusters and, in some cases, the phonetic forms of similar signs in logographic scripts (an example of the latter is the Chinese shen ["young plant"] word-sign, whose shape precisely matches the shape of the Székely "zs" rovás letter, from which the stem of the Hungarian word zsenge [tender/young] could be inferred).
The description of the acrophony reconstructions can be found in the volume titled Magyar hieroglif írás.
Figure 3. Avar strap-end from Pécs (Szajk?) featuring a symmetrical anthropomorphic representation formed from signs; its reading, together with the circular sign found at the very top, is: Lyukó a nagy, ragyogó király szár (in modern Hungarian: Lyukó a nagy, ragyogó király úr [Lyukó the great, radiant king sire]).
Hieroglyphic script relics often do not form a line, but a picture (Figure 3). For those who can only start out from the Latin script learned in primary school as a baseline and do not really manage to step beyond it, the biggest difficulty in comprehension regarding the majority of hieroglyphic script relics may be their pictorial nature. Yet—like it or not—the signs of script relics were not always arranged into lines. Lines formed from signs were only discovered by humanity around 5000 BC. Prior to that, the signs were either scattered seemingly randomly across the available surface, or they were arranged into a larger picture (depiction convention). These pictures formed from signs illustrated the most important messages of the ancient religion. Among the most beautiful and interesting examples of depiction conventions are the word-signs used for depictions of gods and rulers (Figure 3). The custom where each word-sign corresponds to certain details of the body developed back in the Stone Age (Figure 4/a).
Figure 4/a. The word-signs of the 7,500-year-old cow statue from Szentgyörgyvölgy are placed on individual sub-surfaces of the writing medium (on the body regions of the cow statue), and this same sign usage can be observed in the case of the Árpád-era ring with a king's head.
Figure 4/b. Gold ring with a king's head from the first half of the 11th century with the sentence: Ragyogj, jóságos, nagyságos Lyukó ten országa! (or perhaps Ragyogj, jóságos, nagyságos Lyukó ten uraság!) [Shine, gracious, majestic realm of Lord Lyukó! / Shine, gracious, majestic lordship of Lord Lyukó!], photographic graphic.
Figure 4/c. The decipherable hieroglyphs (pictorial word-signs with ancient religious connections) of the symmetrical sentence on the 11th-century ring with a king's head.
Figure 4/d. The hieroglyphs of the symmetrical sentence on the 11th-century ring with a king's head and their parallels found in the Székely script (and in the case of the triple mount, in Hungarian heraldry).
The word-signs scattered across hieroglyphic script relics must be organized into a sentence. The concluding act of deciphering a hieroglyphic script relic consists of this. One must construct the sentence or sentences that best fit the given set of word-signs, the pictorial context, and other circumstances. The word-signs do not follow each other in a line, nor do they indicate declension/conjugation, so the word order of the sentence and the appropriate declension/conjugation must be found as well. After reading several script relics, based on accumulating experience, this leads to an increasingly certain result. Fortunately (or unfortunately?), the sentences are not too long and not too complicated, so there is almost always a possibility to approach the correct reading, the solution that appears to be uniquely redeeming.
Figure 5. The sabretache plate of Tiszabezdéd (center) and its sentence-sign representing the sky-high tree (world tree) with the reading Dana ős nagy szár a zsenge sar (in modern Hungarian: Dana ős nagyúr a zsenge úr [Ancestor Great Lord Dana is the Young Lord], left), as well as the Székely "d", ős, "sz", "n", and "zs" rovás signs corresponding to the elementary hieroglyphs (right, from top to bottom).
The time horizons of hieroglyphic writing are significantly larger. Overcoming the aforementioned difficulties allows for the discovery of a new group of sources, which offers a glimpse into tens of thousands of years of culture. In contrast, universities to this day erroneously teach that writing was invented by the Sumerians approximately 5,000 years ago. Although this has long been refuted by known script relics (for instance, the 15,000-year-old signs of Mas-d'Azil, among which there are 20 identical to Székely signs, as well as the 49 Székely-identical signs of the 6,000-year-old Tordos-Vinča culture), academic "science" did not stumble over these facts. They invented the concept of a "pre-writing sign system," and by all indications, no one was bothered by the fact that such a thing cannot exist even in principle. Despite this, the majority of professionals and dilettantes alike immediately dismiss it when they hear that, in my view, writing (the earliest set of signs) is at least 50,000 years old. They know from the sheer magnitude of the number that I must have lost my mind. They do not realize that they are simply unfamiliar with the history of writing and the latest discoveries. Such is, for example, the 10,000 to 40,000-year-old sign set found by Genevieve von Petzinger in caves across the world's continents, which she also—correctly—considers to have originated through monogenesis in a single ancient center in Africa. Among decipherable script relics, the earliest at the moment is the simple inscription on a small mammoth ivory figurine, the 38,000-year-old Lion-man of Hohlenstein-Stadel.
Figure 6. The reading of the mixed-system rovás relic from Bodrog-Alsóbű from bottom to top: Nagyon nagy Lyukónak [To a very great Lyukó] (the declension of the latter word was spelled out with letters).
If the reader was able to accept the listed characteristics of this ancient script of ours, and is familiar with the Székely signs, as well as their hieroglyphic equivalents from the volume titled Magyar hieroglif írás (knows which word-sign a Székely letter developed from), then they can set about interpreting the decipherable decorations found on artifacts from the Migration Period or the Conquest era, and even on the folk pottery of American Indians.
Notes
(1) According to Tivadar Vida, the grave goods from the Avar cemetery of Kölked-Feketekapu display a Germanic culture, their anthropological type is clearly Mongoloid, and genetically they are of Inner Asian origin. Referencing this, Csanád Bálint asks: "Now, what counts: the culture they lived in and showed to their community, or their thousands-of-years-old DNA spanning untraceably many historical turns?" He obviously thought that their culture, as manifested in the archaeological artifacts, counts against genetics. This could even be true, since a genetic result can be explained in just as many ways as an archaeological one. However, explanations given about archaeological finds or the genome remain unfounded until the texts on the finds are read. And if the Avars of Kölked left us hieroglyphic texts in the Hungarian language (similar to the Avars and the Huns), then the position of both Tivadar Vida and Csanád Bálint is erroneous, because they were unable to read and take into account the script relics testifying to the Hungarian language and culture of the Avars. These Kölked texts can be read in Hungarian, which, in light of the similarly Hungarian hieroglyphic texts of the Avars and Huns, does not contradict the genetic result but rather reinforces it. Therefore, no ground remains for the squeamishness of academic pseudo-science.
The case of the Hun-conquerors of Karos provided a similar lesson.
From these examples, it is obvious that reading and taking into account the hieroglyphic texts is an urgent task. In its absence, assertions born out of public funds only reveal how the "profession" blends into the landscape and harbors preconceptions.
(2) In our hieroglyphic texts from the Scythian, Hun, Avar, and Conquest eras, I read the equivalents of our circular, dot-centered "ly" rovás sign as lyuk (hole), Lyukó, based on acrophony reconstructions carried out in the '90s (grounded, among other things, on an occurrence in Kazakhstan). However, this did not win the agreement of Professor Tamás Janurik. He argued that according to the findings of linguistics, "even in the late Old Hungarian period, the word lik did not have a lyuk pronunciation; it is difficult to accept that millennia before—back in 'the Scythian era of the Hungarian language'—this word would have been pronounced as lyuk." However, "linguistics" is notorious for refusing to consider as existing, and to take into account, the data recorded with the Székely script (let alone its precursor, the Hungarian hieroglyphic script). Therefore, its assertions are unreliable, which in our case is easy to verify.
The Hungarian linguistics defines the time boundaries of the late Old Hungarian period from 1301 to 1526 (from the extinction of the House of Árpád to the disaster of Mohács). The precise grammatical description, internal division, and the still-authoritative time limits of the period were laid down by the academic-level foundational work on linguistic history produced under the editor-in-chiefship of Loránd Benkő.
The title of the work: A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana (Historical Grammar of the Hungarian Language, abbreviated as TNyt.) Volume II.
Volume II/1: A kései ómagyar kor. Morfematika [The Late Old Hungarian Period. Morphematics] (1992).
Volume II/2: A kései ómagyar kor. Mondattan, szöveggrammatika [The Late Old Hungarian Period. Syntax, Text Grammar] (1995).
Editor-in-chief: Loránd Benkő; editor: Erzsébet E. Abaffy; main chapter authors and contributors: Katalin D. Bartha (verb formation), Erzsébet E. Abaffy (verbal personal inflection), Lea Haader (subordinate clauses), Judit Balázs, Adrienne Dömötör, and Vilmos Farkas.
I had the fortune of personally discussing with Loránd Benkő why linguistics does not take into account the linguistic relics written in the Székely script. To this, he gave the answer commonly voiced at the time: because the script relics written in the Székely rovás script are not old enough to be considered linguistic relics. When I argued that the 7,500-year-old cow statue of Szentgyörgyvölgy is old enough to be taken into account, I received the reply from him: "That may be, but I don't have time for this." The professor's death, which occurred shortly thereafter, unfortunately prevented us from continuing the conversation.
The failure of the linguistic relic exhibition organized at the National Széchényi Library in 2009 then proved to the entire profession that we do indeed possess linguistic relics written in the rovás script. Since then, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (András Róna-Tas), the Eötvös Loránd University (Erzsébet Zelliger), and the Institute of Hungarian Research (Bence Fehér) have also spoken about rovás linguistic relics. Albeit, because of the word-signs contained within them, they cannot even read them correctly.
Figure 7. On the turul fibula of the Gisela Treasure, on the cloacal opening of the bird, the sentence-sign with the reading Lyukó ten ("God Lyukó") makes it clear that Lyukó is a god.
The error of linguistics can be proven most simply by the fact that the Nikolsburg alphabet—which includes our "ly" rovás letter—was created in the late 1400s (that is, in the late Old Hungarian period). This rules out the widely voiced linguistic position that our word lyuk and Lyukó, as well as the soft "l", could not yet have existed in the late Old Hungarian period. If it had not existed, there would obviously be no "ly" rovás sign in the Nikolsburg alphabet. Why on earth have an "ly" rovás letter if there is no "ly" sound in the language?
Yet the situation is even more terrible—as far as the credibility of the findings of linguistics is concerned.
We remember that Sumerian was lied about for a hundred and fifty years as an unrelated isolate language, despite the basketfuls of emerging Sumerian-Hungarian parallels. Building upon this bluff, the term Sumerian-Hungarologist was used as a derogatory word back then, with which they labeled the researchers of our true linguistic history, outstanding figures who deserved esteem. And then, all of a sudden, Simo Parpola classified Sumerian into the Uralic languages based on five thousand identical etymons.
It is just the icing on the cake that in the meantime, it turned out regarding the Uralic peoples: neither our language nor our bodies originated in the Urals. Contrary to Finno-Ugric dogmas, we arrived from Hun territories, from the vicinity of Mongolia, along with our Sumerian-related words. However, our prehistory, which can be branded with the Sabir name, did not begin in Mongolia.
We can still remember András Róna-Tas's pronouncement from a few years ago, according to which Hungarian prehistory can only be researched with scientific standards within the territory specified by him with geographical latitude and longitude data (in the Urals and its vicinity). Well, this academic delusion is also refuted by the discovery of a Turkish researcher, which simultaneously affects the question of the "soft l".
In his 1990 volume (Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihî İlgisi...), Osman Nedim Tuna established a strict, fixed-sequence phonetic rule system, which states that the sound changes between Sumerian and Turkish words operate with mathematical precision. From the texts of clay tablets, through purely theoretical and phonetic means, he deduced that in the most ancient layer of agglutinative languages, the soft "l" phoneme continuously transformed into "j".
According to Osman Nedim Tuna's theory, a palatalized (softened) "l" phoneme existed in the Sumerian language, which the makers of Sumerian cuneiform tablets—in the absence of a suitable finer character—recorded as a plain "l". Filtering into Proto-Turkic and the early layers of agglutinative languages, this soft sound developed in two ways:
- In word-initial position, the "l-" sound became unstable and transformed into a "j-" (y-) sound, or wore away completely.
- In the middle and end of words (lambdacism/rotacism): plain Sumerian "l" in Turkish often changed into an "s" sound, and "r" changed into a "z" sound. In contrast, the softened "l" remained on the "j" track.
In Turkish–Sumerian comparisons, the following basic roots verify this sound law: Sumerian lu / lu-g ("to wash, clean") → Turkish ju- / yuğ- / yık-: The Sumerian initial l- became a pure y- (j) in Turkish. Sumerian la-l ("to stretch, extend") → Turkish yay-: Likewise the change of the word-initial soft l' into j.
Although Osman Nedim Tuna primarily focused on the Turkic languages, the independent, autonomous model of the Hungarian language and the Székely script (the Hungarian word lyuk) is the most living proof of the sound law established by Tuna. In the Hungarian language to this day, the "ly" grapheme preserves the historical memory of the soft "l" (l'), while in pronunciation this sound—exactly obeying the Tuna law—softened (palatalized) into a "j" sound. The meaning of the word ("cavity, opening") and its phonetic development fit perfectly into this layer inherited from the Eurasian macro-linguistic families.
Based on these, it can be assumed, or rather established, that based on the "ly" rovás letter of the Nikolsburg alphabet, the Hungarian "ly" sound existed in the late Old Hungarian period. And based on the regularity demonstrated by Tuna, it was a characteristic of the Hungarian language in the preceding millennia as well.
Therefore—whether Professor Tamás Janurik permits it or not—I shall continue researching the occurrences of the divine name Lyukó in hieroglyphic texts. As for Finno-Ugric linguistics, it is as if it does not even exist, or sometimes goes on sick leave, when it is this easy to be convinced of the groundlessness of their assertions propagated in textbooks.
Bibliography
Borbás Barna (2022): Bálint Csanád régész, akadémikus az Árpád-házi kiállítás átírásáról [“This is Pure Anti-Science” – Archaeologist and Academician Csanád Bálint on the Rewriting of the Árpád Dynasty Exhibition] (valaszonline.hu)
Genevieve von Petzinger (2015): Why are these 32 symbols found in ancient caves all over Europe? (video)
Gőtz, László (1994): Keleten kél a Nap, Kultúránk a történelmi ősidőkből [The Sun Rises in the East: Our Culture from Historical Ancient Times], Püski Kiadó, Budapest
Janurik, Tamás (2022): A lyuk és a tyúk esete a szkíta-hun-székely-magyar főistennel [The Case of the Hole and the Hen with the Scythian-Hun-Székely-Hungarian Supreme God] (academia.edu)
Novotny, Elemér (1985): Sumér-magyar nyelvtörténet (I–III. kötet) [Sumerian-Hungarian Linguistic History (Volumes I–III)], Vienna
Osman Nedim Tuna (1990): Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihî İlgisi ve türk dilinin yasi meselesi [The Historical Relationship Between Sumerian and Turkic Languages and the Question of the Age of the Turkic Language] (academia.edu)
Simo Parpola (2016): Etymological Dictionary of the Sumerian Language, Winona Lake, Indiana: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Pp. xliv + 426; xxviii + 436.
Simo Parpola (2010): Sumerian: A Uralic Language (I), in L. Kogan et al. (eds.), Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53 e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Vol. I, Pt. 2 (Babel und Bibel 4/2, Winona Lake, Indiana): 181–210
Török, Tibor: Integrating Linguistic, Archaeological and Genetic Perspectives Unfold the Origin of Ugrians (This article belongs to the publication Population and Evolutionary Genetics and Genomics 2023 Special Issue Feature Papers)
Varga, Géza (2017): Magyar hieroglif írás [Hungarian Hieroglyphic Script], Írástörténeti Kutatóintézet, Budapest
Varga, Géza (2017): A temporius-téveszme diadalútja [The Triumphal March of the Temporius Delusion]
Varga, Géza (2018): Az énlakai Egy Isten mondatjel [The Egy Isten Sentence-Sign of Énlaka]
Varga, Géza (2018): A Gizella kincs turulos fibulájának hieroglifikus szövegei [The Hieroglyphic Texts of the Turul Fibula from the Gisela Treasure]
Varga, Géza (2018): Az MTA apanázsának csökkentése és a magyar címer elemeinek hun eredete [The Reduction of the MTA's Appanage and the Hun Origin of the Elements of the Hungarian Coat of Arms]
Varga, Géza (2018): Villach "világ" neve és a Tordos-Vincsa kultúra Bél ak ligatúrája [The Name of Villach "World" and the Bél ak Ligature of the Tordos-Vinča Culture]
Varga, Géza (2018): A Bodrog-alsóbűi rovásfelirat újabb olvasata: Nagyon nagy Lyukónak [A Newer Reading of the Rovás Inscription from Bodrog-Alsóbű: To a Very Great Lyukó]
Varga, Géza (2018): Veit Gailel a székely szó- és mondatjelekről [Veit Gailel on the Székely Word- and Sentence-Signs]
Varga, Géza (2018): Mit jelent Róna-Tas András professzor úr szájából a véletlen? [What Does Coincidence Mean from the Mouth of Professor András Róna-Tas?]
Varga, Géza (2018): A kölkedi avar boglár magyar hieroglifái [The Hungarian Hieroglyphs of the Avar Brooch from Kölked]
Varga, Géza (2018): Nemetz Tibor matematikus rovológiai jelentőségű valószínűségszámítása [The Probability Calculus of Mathematician Tibor Nemetz with Significance for Rovology]
Varga, Géza (2018): A borjú elbődülése, a finnugrista jelzőosztogatás és a tudományos igényű kritika [The Bellowing of the Calf, the Finno-Ugric Label-Distribution, and Critique with Scientific Demands]
Varga, Géza (2018): Pécsi vagy szajki avar szíjvég hieroglifikus felirattal [Avar Strap-End from Pécs or Szajk with a Hieroglyphic Inscription]
Varga, Géza (2019): Karosi hunfoglalók, Révész László és Török Tibor nézeteltérése [The Disagreement Between the Hun-Conquerors of Karos, László Révész, and Tibor Török]
Varga, Géza (2019): A Mas d' Azil-i jeles kavicsok [The Marked Pebbles of Mas-d'Azil]
Varga, Géza (2019): Csúcs Sándor és a nyelvtudomány megtermékenyült [Sándor Csúcs and the Fecundated Linguistics]
Varga, Géza (2020): A tatárlakai táblák "atya" and "szár" szójelének hangzósítása [The Vocalization of the "Atya" and "Szár" Word-Signs on the Tărtăria Tablets]
Varga, Géza (2020): Lyukó napisten nevének magyarázata egy kazahsztáni ogur-szabír jelvény segítségével [The Explanation of the Name of the Sun God Lyukó Implemented Through an Ogur-Sabir Badge from Kazakhstan]
Varga, Géza (2020): Az Osservatorio Letterario 2010-es cikke az OSZK meghamisított nyelvemlék-kiállításáról [The 2010 Article of Osservatorio Letterario on the Falsified Linguistic Relic Exhibition of the National Széchényi Library]
Varga, Géza (2021): Genevieve von Petzinger kőkori szövegeinek magyar olvasata [The Hungarian Reading of Genevieve von Petzinger's Stone Age Texts]
Varga, Géza (2022): Lapul, mint tudományos konszenzus a fűben? - válasz Bálint Csanádnak [Lurking Like a Scientific Consensus in the Grass? – A Reply to Csanád Bálint]
Varga, Géza (2022): A székely írás eredeztetését akadályozó módszertani hibák [Methodological Errors Obstructing the Derivation of the Székely Script]
Varga, Géza (2022): Zelliger Erzsébettel és Janurik Tamással beszélgetünk az academia.edu-n [Conversing with Erzsébet Zelliger and Tamás Janurik on academia.edu]
Varga, Géza (2022): Királyfejes gyűrű a XI. század első feléből a "Ragyogj jóságos nagy Lyukó ten országa!" mondattal [Gold Ring with a King's Head from the First Half of the 11th Century with the Sentence "Shine, Gracious, Majestic Realm of Lord Lyukó!"]
Varga, Géza (2022): A "Királyok és Szentek – Az Árpádok kora" kiállításon említés nélkül hagyott hieroglifikus nyelvemlékeink [Our Hieroglyphic Linguistic Relics Left Without Mention at the "Kings and Saints – The Age of the Árpáds" Exhibition]
Varga, Géza (2022): Janurik Tamás bottal köszönt [Tamás Janurik Greets with a Stick]
Varga, Géza (2022): A tiszabezdédi honfoglalás kori tarsolylemez hieroglifikus mondatának olvasata [The Reading of the Hieroglyphic Sentence on the Conquest-Era Sabretache Plate of Tiszabezdéd]
Varga, Géza (2022): Horváth-Lugossy Gábor féligazságai a hun-magyar azonosságról, Szent Mártonról és az őshonosságunkról [Gábor Horváth-Lugossy's Half-Truths on the Hun-Hungarian Identity, Saint Martin, and Our Indigenous Origin]
Varga, Géza (2021): A németországi Stadel-barlang 38 000 éves oroszlánemberének jelei [The Signs of the 38,000-Year-Old Lion-man from the Stadel Cave in Germany]
Varga, Géza (2023): Szemellenzős rovológia, Zelliger Erzsébet az MTA rováskorpuszáról [Blinkered Rovology, Erzsébet Zelliger on the MTA Rovás-Corpus]
Varga, Géza (2023): Joggal bírálja-e Fehér Bence az MTA rováskorpuszát? [Does Bence Fehér Rightly Criticize the MTA Rovás-Corpus?]
Varga, Géza (2024): Zsirai Miklós bukása és a világfa vita [The Fall of Miklós Zsirai and the World Tree Debate]
Varga, Géza (2024): Egy vita elmaradásának következményei - hozzászólás Türk Attila és Sándor Klára Magyar Nyelvben megjelent dolgozataihoz [The Consequences of a Missed Debate – A Contribution to the Papers of Attila Türk and Klára Sándor Published in Magyar Nyelv]
Varga, Géza (2024): A Szent Korona egy Dana égi földje olvasatú térbeli mondatjel [The Holy Crown is a Spatial Sentence-Sign with the Reading "The Heavenly Land of Dana"]
Varga, Géza (2024): Török Tibor a Szejma-Turbino kultúra magyar őstörténetben játszott szerepéről [Tibor Török on the Role Played by the Seima-Turbino Culture in Hungarian Prehistory]
Varga, Géza (2026): Magyar történelem a szabír ős ten mondatjel előfordulásai alapján [Hungarian History Based on the Occurrences of the Sabir Ancestral God Sentence-Sign]
Varga, Géza (2026): Válasz Janurik Tamásnak Lyukó ügyben [Reply to Tamás Janurik in the Matter of Lyukó]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Az MTA rováskorpusza [The MTA Rovás-Corpus]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Szkíta tartalom [Scythian Content]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Szarmata tartalom [Sarmatian Content]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Hun és avar tartalom [Hun and Avar Content]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Honfoglaló tartalom [Conquest-Era Content]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Hímes tojások jelei [Signs of Painted Easter Eggs]
Varga, Géza (n. d.): Cserépedényeink szimbolikája [The Symbolism of Our Pottery Vessels]
Veres, Péter (2003): A kreativitás aránya és eloszlásának jellege az etnikumban [The Proportion of Creativity and the Nature of its Distribution within the Ethnic Group], Népi kultúra – Népi társadalom, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Néprajzi Kutatóintézetének Évkönyve, XXI.
Varga Géza
Javítandó linkek
1. Rész: Bevezető és Az ogur/ugor probléma
- csodálatos és megalapozott prekoncepcióknak \(\rightarrow \) unfounded preconceptions
- integrálása feltárja az ugorok eredetét \(\rightarrow \) Integrating Linguistic, Archaeological and Genetic Perspectives Unfold the Origin of Ugrians
- vö. 9-12. ábra! \(\rightarrow \) cf. Figures 9–12!
2. Rész: Nyelvi és genetikai kapcsolatok
- hieroglifikus hun és szarmata nyelvemlékek \(\rightarrow \) hieroglyphic Hun and Sarmatian linguistic relics
- Szejma-Turbinó kultúráról \(\rightarrow \) Seima-Turbino culture
- szabír-hurri népek leszármazottai \(\rightarrow \) descendants of the Sabir-Hurrian peoples
- kölkedi \(\rightarrow \) Kölked és karosi leleteken \(\rightarrow \) Karos finds
3. Rész: Tudományos viták és kritikák
- Vásáry István \(\rightarrow \) István Vásáry
- A lyuk és a tyúk esete... \(\rightarrow \) The Case of the Hole and the Hen...
- Egy paziriki csodalény szkíta hieroglifái \(\rightarrow \) The Scythian Hieroglyphs of a Miraculous Being from Pazyryk
- két tatárlakai jel \(\rightarrow \) the two Tărtăria signs
- Válasz Janurik Tamásnak Lyukó ügyben \(\rightarrow \) Reply to Tamás Janurik in the Matter of Lyukó
- Magyar hieroglif írás c. kötetben \(\rightarrow \) volume titled Magyar hieroglif írás
4. Rész: Jelrendszerek és akrofónia
- Veit Gailel \(\rightarrow \) Veit Gailel
- Szentgyörgyvölgyi tehénszobor \(\rightarrow \) Szentgyörgyvölgy cow statue
- királyfejes gyűrű \(\rightarrow \) ring with a king's head
- Simo Parpola \(\rightarrow \) Simo Parpola
5. Rész: Jegyzetek
- „Ez vegytiszta tudományellenesség” \(\rightarrow \) “This is Pure Anti-Science”
- Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihî İlgisi... \(\rightarrow \) Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihî İlgisi...
