Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 594
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-03-01
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Hungarian Diminutives [corrected spelling] (mind)  72 sor     (cikkei)
2 Steven Forbes and the Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  103 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Health insurance (mind)  73 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  136 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  117 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Status quo or no (mind)  51 sor     (cikkei)
9 Jan.22 U.S.News articles (fwd) (mind)  104 sor     (cikkei)
10 education uplifting? (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Health insurance (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Hungarian Diminutives [corrected spelling] (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  60 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Health insurance (mind)  197 sor     (cikkei)
15 I NEED A CANADIAN VISA (mind)  5 sor     (cikkei)
16 I NEED A CANADIAN VISA (mind)  5 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: WWI (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
18 888-HUNGARY (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
19 Magyar, Sumerian, etc. Archeology, Linguistics Studies, (mind)  336 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Hungarian Diminutives [corrected spelling] (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Poland (was: Re: Hi) (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: 888-HUNGARY (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
23 Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Hungarian Diminutives [corrected spelling] (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 00:54 25/02/96 -0500, Martha (Bihari?) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Feb 1996, Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq wrote:
>
>> >Isn't it nice that the middle name will still occupy the same spot?  :)
>>  Actually, we don't really sport middle names the way Americans do, and the
>> closest thing to it would be a second given name (that a few possesses)
>> which would not be in the same spot ;-)
>
>Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooops!
>
>It has been a l-o-n-g week and it is far from being over!  Of course, you
>are right about the *position* of the middle name!  And it *would* be the
>second given name.  Thanks for catching this mistake.
>
>In my family it is not an exception, but a rule, for my generation ('30s)
>to have a second given name, that made me come to my conclusion.  I
>guess our parents saw a possible later need for this in their crystal ball...
>
>Martha
>

Hello again, Martha, Zoli, and other members of the List -

1)      If the "second given name" is not located in the same place it is in
the West, then where is it located? Given that the family name is first and
the Christian name comes after that, I cannot figure out from your comments
where it * would* go.

2)      You indicate that it is unusual for a Hungarian to have a middle
name. Many Hungarians are Roman Catholic, and I thought it was the general
practice for Catholics to have several names, often three or four, being
Christian names, saints' names, and so on. Why did this practice not take
hold in Hungary?

3)      What about the situation where a Hungarian does have *two*  "middle"
names? What would they represent? Here in Southwest Nova Scotia it is quite
common to have a young boy named after both grandfathers. Was there a custom
similar to that in Hungary? In other words, was there a traditional practice
related to how a family would decide to name a new baby? It is also common
around here to call someone by their "middle" name rather than their first
name.  For example, my husband's name is "James Arthur Smith," but if you
ever called him "James" or "Jim" he would have no idea you were referring to
him. Again, was there ever a similar custom in any regions in Hungary?

4)      I received a private e-mail note indicating that in Hungarian my
last name would indeed be *Toronyo"r* but without the *r* on the end - in
other words *Toronyo"*. Does anyone have any comments on whether that is
right, or whether that might be an optional form of the name?

5)      Although it *is* nice to find out that there are some instances of
the name Johanna or Hanna appearing in Hungarian, I have noticed that it is
not common at all. In fact, my Nagyszo'ta'r, which lists most Hungarian
names, does not list the name at all. Frankly, I find that the relative
rarity of the name surprising, since it is a variation of the names "John,"
Johannes," and so on (meaning "Beautiful gift of Jehovah"), which is
supposed to be the most common name in the world (at least the Western
world, I presume). There are many Hungarian names (Endre, Lajos, Laszlo, and
so on) which are Magyarized versions of Western names, so I would have
assumed (admittedly a dangerous practice) that the same thing would have
happened with John  and Johanna and their variations. Does anybody have any
comment on this?

I have enjoyed all your comments so far, and it is nice to have some
reflection on these matters from people who actually know what they are
talking about!

U:dvo:zlettel,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Steven Forbes and the Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Forgive me all, but I simply could not resist.  While I agree with
Andra1s Kornai's comments, it nevertheless tickled my funnybone.

He wrote:

>...Flat Eearth at least has the merit that to the
>naive observer it really appears to be so. The Sumer-Hungarian
connection
>does not even have this kind of appeal. Nevertheless, I expect these
people
>to persist, much as flatearthers persist.

>....Your hopes are misplaced. Among real Sumerian researchers this
work is
>discussed as little as Flat Earth is duscussed among real astronomers.
>
>Andra1s Kornai
>

Does this mean that if Steve Forbes is elected, he will not only
introduce a Flat Tax (for people who live in flats and sing flat songs
about the Flat Earth written in a-flat) but will also sign a
Sumerian-Hungarian-American Friendship Treaty as a sign of flattery?

May the gods protect us all from an extreme case of flatulence.

Charlie Vamossy

from the flatlands of White Plains, NY
+ - Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

>What's Ruhlen's basis for his claims?  How old are _his_ sources?  Some
>authors just keep citing the same old stuff, in lots of fields, without
>updates or any new materials.  I'm sure if you think about it, you can
>remember many un-updated textbooks, encyclopedias (or parts), or modern
>"popularizations," for many subjects.
>
>

Ruhlen's work is very recent. The book I mentioned, "A Guide to the
World's Languages, Vol. 1: Classification" was originally printed in 1988
and revised and reprinted again in 1991 by Stanford University Press. The
1991 paperback version includes a thorough update to that year of
comparative linguistics and is extensively documented. What apparently
escaped your notice in the post I made was my comment that if there was
any kind of connection between Sumerian and Magyar, Ruhlen would have
pointed it out. Ruhlen specializes in a theory of comparative linguistics
called nostraticism, which is very controversial. In short, he and Joseph
Greenburg and a handful of other linguists believe that they can
reconstruct proto-languages that link together whole language families
that are now considered to be unrelated by most mainstream scholars of
comparative linguistics. Ruhlen, I repeat again, would be very, very
disposed intellectually to publicize any work linking Magyar with Sumerian
if he thought it was credible. That he does not, that he in fact lists
Sumerian as a language isolate, speaks powerfully against your argument.

I, for one, would like to know why you've gone for this Sumerian-Hungarian
theory like a bass on a ten-pound test line. I'd like to see some
vocabulary lists, some analysis of morphology, phonology and syntax --
some kind of solid empirical evidence that would allow me to see for
myself whether there is some kind of palpable, organic connection between
Sumerian and Magyar. A couple of megabytes of book and journal citations
that have no bearing on the subject at hand won't suffice. Have fun.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Calm down. Buchanan will be in there right up until the
convention, but I don't think he'll get the nomination.
+ - Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 06:55 PM 2/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>At 11:16 AM 2/28/96 -0800,Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker - 
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Yup, you're right. Good thing I didn't question the Romanians' claims to
>>>be descendents of the Romans. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
>>>Spanish, Italian, French or Portuguese can easily see for themselves that
>>>Romanian is descended from Latin.
>>>Sam Stowe
>
>What??? I do speak Romanian and used to speak Latin but what does this topic
>have to do with Spanish, etc.?
>
>
>>Agreed.  So is Albanian, and we know that people _never_ moved around in the
>>Balkans, or the rest of Eurasia, at any time in the last 200, 1000 or more
>>years, right?  ;-)
>
>No, Albanian is not.

Really, then perhaps you'd like to take that up the Albanian community, and
a group of intellectuals mostly around several San Francisco universities
and their obviously erroneous linguistics PhD friends.   As Albanians can be
sometimes at least as temperamental as Hungarians--and I've experienced more
than enough of that, trust me, you're welcome to any confrontations with
Albanians and their friends--especially in San Francisco, these days. ;-)

Anyhow, Here's what an article edited by Dr. Geoffrey Hull reprinted in the
last Albanian Catholic Bulletin (1994) had to say (page 163 of reprint,
unabridged paragraph):  Quit laughing, please at least long enough to read
it.  I initially thought it was pretty wacky too, but it didn't seem to be
from the usual bunch of Timothy Leary type East European nationalists. ;-)

"Complicating the problem of Albanian's origin was an apparent structural
difference between modern Albanian and Illyrian (its consensus regarded
predecessor).  The former is definitely an eastern (Indo-European) or
"satem" language, whereas the latter seems to have been of the western or
"centum" type.  These eastern affinities inclined some scholars like Carlo
Tagliavini, Gustav Weigand and Henrik Baric to seek the origins of Albanian
in the language of the Thracians, another Indo-European people inhabiting
ancient Moesia (the territory of modern Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria).
Finally a compromise theory suggested that the Albanian language may have
forme din a region, probably Dardania (modern Serbia) where the Illyrian and
Thracian languages converged.  According to the Austrian Albanologist,
Norbert Jokl, it was in this zone (the Nish-Sofia-Skopje triangle) that the
Albanian and Romanian languages (both spoken by Thraco-Illyrians) were
formed before spreading to later regions."

Then again on page 165, here's another interesting paragraph:

"Whatever resistance there had initially been to Roman rule, it is clear
from the linguistic evidence that with time, the Illyrians were completely
absorbed into Latin civilization.  Indeed so Roman did daily life become in
both urban and rual Illyria, that Latin words for all sorts of things found
their way into the local language.  By the end of the Roman period, Illyrian
had died out completely in the Roman-built cities and towns of Illyricum,
and although the old language lingered on in the rural areas it had (like
the ancestor of Welsh in Roman Britain) lost a huge part of its ancient
vocabulary."

The article is about 9 pages and has as many footnotes from a variety of
sources ranging in time from 1854 to 1982.

Don't ask how a Hungarian American ends up with the Albanian Catholic
Bulletin.  It's a long story.  And I have no idea how I even remembered an
article that I think I read once--and as I recall at a time when due to
health problems I was sleeping about 20 hours a day, and virtually
sleep-walking otherwise.  It must have stuck in my mind as a little funny
and unusual, like a wacky dream...

 And who said anything about movement or lack thereof? I
>didn't.

I'm just teasing a couple of people who probably are already groaning and
rolling on the floor, with this one. ;-)
>
>>Say, does this mean ancient Magyar is actually Celtic? ;-)
>
>No...:))))))))))) (although I am not a linguist).

I have a great idea! Let's leave this entire debate to professional
linguists, preferably somewhere else.  The last thing in the world I need to
do is remember any other weird bits of trivia to start any more fussing, or
is it "fustian" on this list. ;-)

Thanks for the cute reply, though.  Much enjoyed it. A few more genial
postings like this and my sense of humor might completely recover.  I've
been much toooo serious this past couple of days.

Sincerely and not terribly seriously,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA





>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - Re: Health insurance (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Gabor;

Thank you for this thoughtful and friendly reply.  Gee, my week is finally
beginning to look up for a change.  This reply is also helpful to some work
that I and a major Congressional candidate are doing to craft a proposal.
Essentially we do think the U.S. needs a national plan--with no one, and no
condition--left out.  However, you're right the biggest problem is how to
provide it.  The Republican Congress is leaning toward using the private
insurance companies.  I think that's a possibility--but they need some
checks and balances also.  I think doctors and patients ought to have a lot
more say in patients treatment than far too often they are being given by
insurance companies these days.  And that one-day maternity hospitalization
is highly likely to get struck down--this year.  They went too far on that one.

By the way, to other readers in this group, this is not to say that in some
other country a government run plan cannot be high quality care and cost
effective, it's just that the U.S. itself doesn't have such a great track
record on many national government run programs.  Even many Democrats are
getting a bit wary of these things--which is something I never thought I'd
see 24 years ago.  Our Congresspersons are human beings just like most
others, and they are simply more likely to vote for whatever makes them feel
most comfortable about putting their names to, and doesn't raise voter
acrimony.  We're likely to get a national health plan, but one that uses
many existing systems and structures.  I just hope we can talk them into a
heck of  a lot more checks and balances between them, and some realistic
cost controls.

At 06:55 PM 2/28/96 -0800, you wrote:

>I stand corrected, indeed the working poor do not have health insurance. I
>do not remember the numbers, but during the Hillary-plan debate it occured
>to me that it would be much less expensive than the proposed plan to
>increase taxation by the amount required to insure the working poor and just
>give them the money to buy their own insurance.
>I am and always will be opposed to government managed health insurance. It
>never worked in Eastern Europe, it is on the brink of bankruptcy everywhere,
>neither the doctors, nor the patients like it.
>I agree with Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker about the lack of sufficient work in the
>computerized patient record. A lot of work is being done in the field, and
>based on what I know about the subject  I expect that within the next decade
>things will change drastically.

Trust me, if this is one thing I can expedite--I'm darned well going to do
so with a vengeance.  I hate filling out the same blankety-blank form for
the umpteenth time and seeing a doctor then ignore it for the umpteenth
time--and then ask me verbally to tell him what I have just spent 15 minutes
answering on said form...  You have no idea how close I came to ramming one
of these things down one doctor's throat after the third time it happened in
one week.  Especially since he also ignored a complete file, and referral
notes, that had been also transferred to him some days before the
appointment...  I'm amazed at the self-control I managed to dredge up at the
last minute in this instance--didn't think I had it in me. ;-)

>Last time I was in the hospital, the plastic bracelet they attached to me
>wrist had my name and a bar code on it. Since no one scanned it (while I was
>awake) I assume they only use it in the morgue. It's a good start (or end?:-).

My guess is the bar code is to make us think they know what they're doing,
but is actually just a printer inking cartridge malfunction... ;-)  Either
that or it's the price code for the operation... ;-)

Sincerely,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA


>

>
>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:03 PM 2/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>> Felado :  [United States]
>>
>> Have you ever read Dr. Badiny's et al's book?  Also have you ever visited
>> the little old church at Tihany where one of the first kings is buried?
>I'm sorry Cecila but Pe1ter Hidas is on much more firmer ground about this
>one than you are. Badiny, Bobula, etc. are certifiable cranks, and have
>been so certified by a large variety of Sumerologists. Read Ge1za Komoro1czy's
>"Sumer e1s magyar" (published in the "Gyorsulo1 Ido3" series of Magveto3
>Publishing in 1975) to see why.

First I don't read Hungarian.  My father had nothing but contempt for his
history and background, and wished to bury it.  Second, you are citing a
Hungarian publication from a communist controlled era.  I still remember
what University of Georgia professor Dezso Benedek--who tried to teach
history in Hungary--and has several degrees had to say about the quality of
history, including publications in Hungary from that time period--when he
himself was imprisoned for not teaching history within the confines of
communist ideology.  Perhaps Dezso is wrong, but I prefer not to be the one
to tell him that.
>
>> >>"Thus we succeeded in proving that the Sumerian language did not die
out but
>> >>in fact, did survive in the scattered Hungarian language remains in the
>> >>Latin Chronicles Literature of the 10-12th centuries A.D."
>> >
>> >No Hungarian document survived from these centuries. Hungarian language
>> >remains of the following centuries are Hungarian language fregments and not
>> >Sumerian. Their grammatical structure is Finno-Ugric and so is their
>> >vocabulary.
>>
>> Sorry, but Dr. Badiny refers to several, the introduction to at least one
>> set of German translations of the Matthias Corvinus chronicles also refer to
>> some of the items going back to the first Arpad kings, ( I found this set at
>> the U of MN rare books archives), and the church at Tihany shows tourists a
>> piece of about 12th century literature.
>Dr. Badiny has it wrong. The description of the situation given by Pe1ter
>Hidas (namely that only fragments survive from the period, and these are
>thoroughly Finno-Ugric, is quite correct, however much we might disagree
>about the prehistory of the language. Note also that this period is
>separated by millenia from the latest Sumerian material.
>

Yes the Hungarian documents are fragments, but the fragments do exist.  Also
Badiny compared the root words often of the oldest known Hungarian with the
Sumerian and listed a number of pages of the comparisons.

>> Just because you, personally, Peter, have not acquainted yourself with
>> either the latest, work, or recent proceedings from the foremost
>> international society of researchers into a given subject doesn't mean that
>> the information or concepts are wrong.
>I think you have it backwards. The foremost experts on this subject are
>now dismissing, and have always dismissed, the Sumer-Magyar connection as
>absolute nonsense.

Can you post part of a 1990's proceedings of the Society of Sumerologists as
to this?  I was told by professors at several U.S. universities that this is
the most authoritative body.  Also, how do you explain how so many esteemed
anthropologists, then could continue to write things contradicting McNeish
for 20 years, then finally start changing their writings?  McNeish wasn't
wrong, it just took awhile for a lot of good people to discard comfortable
prejudices--and this is what other anthropology professors and writers
themselves, said; it's not just my opinion.  Ditto with the tectonic plates
theory, etc.
>
>> I am quite sure this question will continue for at least another 10-15
>> years--judging from what I've seen regarding other issues in the field of
>> history and anthropology--and that there will always be an element that
>> refuses to accept whatever finally becomes an established scientific
>> consensus, just as we still have the existence of a "flat earth society."
>Sure it will continue. Flat Eearth at least has the merit that to the
>naive observer it really appears to be so. The Sumer-Hungarian connection
>does not even have this kind of appeal. Nevertheless, I expect these people
>to persist, much as flatearthers persist.
>
>> I just hope the discussion is going better at the universities among real
>> Sumerian researchers--and not just those who like to try to interpret their
>> work--or worse, just summaries of their work--than in this discussion group.
>Your hopes are misplaced. Among real Sumerian researchers this work is
>discussed as little as Flat Earth is duscussed among real astronomers.

Again, after literally seeing what happened with the McNeish-Puleston, etc.
research, I'll withhold my judgement at least another 20 years. I have some
first hand memories of the tectonic plate discussions, also...  It's been my
experience that career academics are just as human as the rest of us.

As I told someone else, however, if my husband's blasted company ever goes
public, I darned well intend to finance a really comprehensive study--by the
"creme de la creme" of every darned discipline I can think of to try to
expedite an end to this and few other related questions and claims.  I've
done some modest funding of a few other things, so it's not a new habit, and
I do find scientific procedure fascinating.  Even at the age of 12, I used
to keep copious notes of my rocketry and mineralogy experiments--even
measured the depth of the craters in my ceiling where the corks and test
tubes periodically embedded themselves.  I'm not going to "buy proof of an
opinion"  I darned well want the truth, but at least by going after it
myself, whatever it turns out to be I can say I did pursue the truth.

I may have to discard Badiny, et al in the future, but it is my right to
hold the opinion that it may be premature to do so now, based upon my own
experience of similar situations in both the anthropology and geology fields.

I will not suggest that anyone else go by solely my experiences or anyone
else's, but I hope we can respect one another's opinion and the right to one
based upon respect for one another's experiences.

Sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker

By the way, the Puleston I referred to is the late Dennis Puleston, PhD,
University of Pennsylvania, professor at U of MN.  He died on a trip to find
additional evidence of Michael Coe's theories about the Mayas--since after
20 years, many professors still chose to believe Michael's brother William's
theories, although William wasn't the Maya expert Michael really was.
Dennis had also accompanied McNeish on several of his archeological digs,
and was a friend of his.  I've always thought it was a darned shame he never
got to live long enough to see so much of his, and his friends' work
vindicated.  I liked him very much.  That memory is still a bit raw...












>
>Andra1s Kornai
>
>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Sam;

First I want to thank you for a much more uplifting posting.  I knew you had
it in you.

At 07:45 PM 2/28/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In article >, Tony and Celia
>Becker > writes:
>
>>What's Ruhlen's basis for his claims?  How old are _his_ sources?  Some
>>authors just keep citing the same old stuff, in lots of fields, without
>>updates or any new materials.  I'm sure if you think about it, you can
>>remember many un-updated textbooks, encyclopedias (or parts), or modern
>>"popularizations," for many subjects.
>>
>>
>
>Ruhlen's work is very recent. The book I mentioned, "A Guide to the
>World's Languages, Vol. 1: Classification" was originally printed in 1988
>and revised and reprinted again in 1991 by Stanford University Press. The
>1991 paperback version includes a thorough update to that year of
>comparative linguistics and is extensively documented.

Thank you.  This is what I wanted to read in the first place, that Ruhlen
himself was indeed using sources later than 1975.  This is helpful.

 What apparently
>escaped your notice in the post I made was my comment that if there was
>any kind of connection between Sumerian and Magyar, Ruhlen would have
>pointed it out. Ruhlen specializes in a theory of comparative linguistics
>called nostraticism, which is very controversial. In short, he and Joseph
>Greenburg and a handful of other linguists believe that they can
>reconstruct proto-languages that link together whole language families
>that are now considered to be unrelated by most mainstream scholars of
>comparative linguistics.

Much better explained, Sam. Thank you, again.

 Ruhlen, I repeat again, would be very, very
>disposed intellectually to publicize any work linking Magyar with Sumerian
>if he thought it was credible. That he does not, that he in fact lists
>Sumerian as a language isolate, speaks powerfully against your argument.

Question:  Has Ruhlen been working with Chomsky?  Chomsky did think Sumerian
had some connection to Hungarian; that was in an article in 1993 or 1994
(heavy lifting in the garage that the Dr. says "no" to for a while longer,
and "U.S. News and World Report" still isn't on AOL, darn it.  He had a
couple of other interview articles, too, but there was only one with a lot
of  colorful charts.  I'm hoping I've remembered which magazine it was
correctly or it will be months before my garage and study get settled again.
>
>I, for one, would like to know why you've gone for this Sumerian-Hungarian
>theory like a bass on a ten-pound test line.

It wasn't just Badiny et al, but if I told you the whole story, which also
involves among other things, an Iranian who may or may not still be alive,
you'd never believe it, anyway.  Besides, as I've said, I don't believe the
last word--either way--has been said yet.

Tell a lot of old people--and younger folk who have spent at least 10 years
listening to hard rock every chance they get--volume turned up to
ear-shattering--to buy "programmable hearing aids" and I might have enough
money a whole lot sooner to finance the study to end all studies--at least
for our generation.

 I'd like to see some
>vocabulary lists, some analysis of morphology, phonology and syntax --
>some kind of solid empirical evidence that would allow me to see for
>myself whether there is some kind of palpable, organic connection between
>Sumerian and Magyar.

Again, Badiny et al's book had pages and pages of that stuff.  I thought
about simply scanning in the entire book and uploading it, but everybody
keeps telling me that even an obscure Argentinian publishing company would
likely sue my kiester from here to the outer planets.

 A couple of megabytes of book and journal citations
>that have no bearing on the subject at hand won't suffice. Have fun.

Agreed.  Hence the serious hope and plan to finance a thorough definitive
study incorporating all the relevant disciplines.  I wonder if they'll let
me at least watch some of the research, tests and data processing...
Unfortunately they probably won't if my husband ever tells them about my
tendency to build up--and discharge--large amounts of static charges at all
the worst moments...  I do remind him that I have yet to knock out a
door-to-door salesman like my mother once did, but considering he's _still
repairing_ my main computer he doesn't yet seem quite convinced...

>Sam Stowe
>
>P.S. -- Calm down. Buchanan will be in there right up until the
>convention, but I don't think he'll get the nomination.
>

I hope you're right.  It was a little unnerving when there were some recent
"educational television" specials on TR (and William Jennings Bryan) and FDR
(and Huey Long) and they pointed out that a lot of the things "influential"
people did to stop earlier demagogues are now illegal...  I hope those who
still have the most potential influence haven't suffered the degree of loss
of imagination most of the "boob tube" generation has.  Edmund Burke also
has a disconcertingly uncomfortable habit of popping up in my memory lately,
also.  If I hadn't seen a couple of disastrous near misses in previous
political arenas, it wouldn't bother me so much, but I've seen some real
"lulus" that happened with only a few votes' margin.  Remember I spent over
20 years in the Democratic party before now...  Remember what Will Rogers
had to say about the Democratic Party?   Trust me, he was right!

Again, thanks for the much nicer reply.  Much appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA


>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - Re: Status quo or no (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
> Try substituting military hardware, overall steel production, just to have a
> nation be the same as some other.  Then remember people were deciding that
> their nations should compete in this manner.  Some of these people claimed
> not to be capitalists, yet did compete.  How much military hardware is too
> much, how much steel of poor quality?  Why keep producing all this?  Isn't
> there greed in power and influence among nations as well?

In the West military production makes a lot of money for
private capital, and there is no chance of employment for
those who are employed in this massive and crazy industry.
In the USSR you cannot claim some sort of personal greed
for this artificially created competition.  Most of the
"elite" still had an ideological "belief" in their system,
and wanted to prove it better - and until the burocracy and
the madness of a  totalitarian structure allowed it - they
worried the US greatly (50s, 60s).  Later on they had no chance
of keeping up - and this is what basically broke their back.
I still think, that secret accounts must have been miniscule,
I am curious of your figures, you should let us know some data
without names. If that would be the case, how come there were
not much "insider" capital to buy up things?


> Sorry, but I
> don't think greed is limited to just money.

Whatever ment power in a particular society, it was in
big demand.  That's why we should look for ways of
practical democracy, that is not a distributer of things,
but distributer of power.


>
> Agreed. It _is_ easier for a controlling elite to hide things in a closed,
> secretive, controlled society than in an open society.

Well, in most capitalist ones there is no need to hide, you can
do all your looting (except shops)  legally.  And if you break
a few laws, there will be an enquiry costing more to society, than
the embezzlement...


> Yet, some of these
> closed societies in which a considerable amount of private wealth has been
> hidden

I am still curious about the proportions, I think it is not
comparable with the differences in say the US - see forwarded text.

Eva Durant
+ - Jan.22 U.S.News articles (fwd) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

To illustrate the paradise on earth and it's
cheering trends for the future, that all Hungarian
should follow unquestioned.
(summary)

>
> There were two articles and an editorial about employment and
> distribution of wealth in the United States.  I won't summarize the
> editorial, but a couple of things mentioned were of interest:
>
>       1. The 500 S&P Index companies have increased earnings by 20% each
>          of the past 4 years.  CEO salaries rose 13% per year, and the
>          Dow Jones 30% in 1995.
>
>       2. "Between 1991 and 1995, 2.5 million workers lost their jobs in
>          restructurings, `a carnage without precedent for a U.S. economy
>          in the midst of ongoing recovery.'  True, more jobs have been
>          created than destroyed, but payrolls are growing much more
>          slowly in this expansion than in previous ones."
>
> The first of the articles is mostly political in nature, describing
> polls, voter frustration, the rise of Ross Perot, etc.
>
> The second article has a lot more meat.  There are many charts, which I
> can't reproduce here for you.  I will skim some and just indicate what
> others are:
>
> 1. Ratio of average CEO salary to average worker's
>
>         1973-75, 41 to 1
>         1987-89, 141 to 1
>         1992-94, 225 to 1      info from The Crystal Report
>
> 2. Indexed productivity and compensation showing a close relationship
>    from 1950 to about 1984, when the two began to diverge, with
>    compensation dropping below productivity.
>
> 3. Total U.S. trade as a share of gross domestic product.
>
> 4. Change in average earnings by education level (1979-92).
>
> 5. U.S. corporate outlays for high-tech equipment (1985 to est.in 2000).
>
> 6. Share of net worth held by top 1% of households
>
>         In 1925  U.K. 59.1%, U.S. 29.9%, Sweden 39.3%
>         In 1990  U.K. 18%,   U.S. 35.7%, Sweden 20.7%
>
> 7. Changes in average family income (1977-92) from poorest fifth (-17%)
>    to the top 1% (+91%).
>
> 8. Changes in average household incomes (1973-94 in 94 dollars) from
>    poorest fifth ($7,981 to $7,762) to richest fifth ($83,271 to $105,945).
>
> 9. Percentage of families at various incomes 1969 and 1994.
>
> 10. Real median family income 1970 to 1994 in `94 dollars.
>
> 11. Real weekly earnings in manufacturing 1970 to 1994 in `82 dollars.
>
> 12. Professions in which the top 1% derive income.
>
> 13. Largest layoff announcements 1993-96  (a list).
>
> 14. Share of wealth held by top 1% of families 1945-92
>
> 15. Share of stock in public companines held by individuals (1989).
>
> 16. Share of residential real estate (primary dwellings) held by
>     individuals (1989).
>
> Some of the above charts were bar-type, just not easily translatable.
>
> There are a number of anecdotal examples in the article to illustrate
> that the emphasis in employment today is on "knowledge workers" as
> opposed to simple production, resulting in the need for worker retraining
> and more education.  The point is made that pay raises are going
> disproportionately to those in top positions.
>
> "A new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
> Development shows that America has the most unequal distribution of
> income among the advanced industrialized nations."
>
> "According to New York University economics professor Edward Wolff, the
> share of total wealth held by the richest 1 percent of families nearly
> doubled between 1979 and 1992.  Today, a full 42 percent of all
> marketable assets rest in the hands of a select group that holds a
> minimum of $2.3 million per family.  Meanwhile, the median family, with
> wealth of about $52,000, inched up by less than 10 percent between 1979
> and 1992.  Middle-income Americans have most of their assets in their
> home and their savings, while the rich keep a higher percentage of their
> wealth in financial instruments such as stocks and bonds.  Housing prices
> haven't kept pace with the torrid stock market, and the middle class has
> virtually stopped accumulating savings.  While the wealthy have been
> running up huge gains in the stock market, middle-income Americans have
> been running up credit-card debt to compensate for stagnating wages.
> Americans still picture Britain as the epitome of the class-based
> society, but wealth is far more concentrated among the upper crust in the
> United States today than it is in the United Kingdom."
>
> There is an historical analysis of how we got to this position, and much
> discussion of job elimination due to competition, deregulation,
> takeovers, etc.
>
+ - education uplifting? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I don't think in recent years there were a lot
more highly educated people employed in the
computer industry, reorganisations mean older
staff "released" and younger (lower paid)
engaged.  So the idea, that if everyone was
well educated - which is a utopia in the
present system - than everything would be fine,
is as wrong as any other such solutions to
the evergrowing problems of unemployment and poverty.

I wonder if they show the series "Wheener's America"
in the US, running on BBC at the moment.
I'd be surprised if democracy would go as far as that...
Eva Duurant
+ - Re: Health insurance (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> I am and always will be opposed to government managed health insurance. It
> never worked in Eastern Europe, it is on the brink of bankruptcy everywhere,
> neither the doctors, nor the patients like it.


Hm?  Everyone was fairly happy with the NHS system here (UK)
until the tories decided to save money.
In Hungary - as I mentioned - in the 80s, it was comparable
(personal experience only of Kaposvar/Rochdale (Lancs))
with UK, and better than Greece.
So I think that it works better than any private-based system,
and is far cheaper.  It would be even cheaper, if pharmaceuticals
were in the public domain...


Eva Durant
+ - Re: Hungarian Diminutives [corrected spelling] (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:45 AM 2/29/96 -0500, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:

>2)      You indicate that it is unusual for a Hungarian to have a middle
>name. Many Hungarians are Roman Catholic, and I thought it was the general
>practice for Catholics to have several names, often three or four, being
>Christian names, saints' names, and so on. Why did this practice not take
>hold in Hungary?

As ususal, I may not know what I'm talking about, but most, if not all
Hungarians that I know, have middle names.  Mine in George.  I got that name
when I was confirmed (not to be confused with committed!)  However, most
Hungarians tend not to use their middle name.  I never do.  It only appears
in my email address because we had to come up with eight letters for our
email and 'jgszalai' worked well.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Jim;

At 10:55 AM 2/29/96 +0000, you wrote:

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:43:42 -0500
>> From:    Stowewrite >
>> Subject: Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs
>>
>> In article >, SorG Farkas
>> > writes:
>>
>> >As far as I know, no one disputes the Romanians' claims of being the
>> >descendants of the Romans (as a matter of fact the Romanian language is
>> very
>> >close to Latin and the territory was occupied by the Romans). What is
>> being
>> >disputed by some is the Dac descendence.
>> >
>> >Gabor D. Farkas
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yup, you're right. Good thing I didn't question the Romanians' claims to
>> be descendents of the Romans. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
>> Spanish, Italian, French or Portuguese can easily see for themselves that
>> Romanian is descended from Latin.
>> Sam Stowe
>>
>>
>
>And of course nobody disputes that the Mexicans and the Brazilians are
>descendents of the Romans.  After all, they speak Latin languages!
>
>jim (still lurking)
>
>
>James D. Doepp
>University of Miskolc (Hungary)
>Department of Economic Theory
>
>
>
>"Mr Turnbull had predicted evil consequences,...
>and was now doing the best in his power to bring
>about the verification of his own prophecies."
>
>A. Trollope
>
>Loved this posting!  Thank you very much! ;-)

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA

P.S. Did you see what I dredged up out of the cobweb covered dark recesses
of my trivia memory about some Albanian claims? ;-)


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - Re: Health insurance (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Eva and Group;

At 12:20 PM 2/29/96 +0100, you wrote:
>> I am and always will be opposed to government managed health insurance. It
>> never worked in Eastern Europe, it is on the brink of bankruptcy everywhere,
>> neither the doctors, nor the patients like it.
>
>
>Hm?  Everyone was fairly happy with the NHS system here (UK)
>until the tories decided to save money.
>In Hungary - as I mentioned - in the 80s, it was comparable
>(personal experience only of Kaposvar/Rochdale (Lancs))
>with UK, and better than Greece.
>So I think that it works better than any private-based system,
>and is far cheaper.  It would be even cheaper, if pharmaceuticals
>were in the public domain...
>
>
>Eva Durant
>
A polite question:

Is it possible that government run health care programs are more feasible
and work better in some countries, like many European ones because there is
both a tradition of at least some well-run other programs and trust by the
people that they can be well run by the government?  Consider the history of
the U.S. almost from its inception?  Did we ever _really_ trust our own
government to know what's best for us and manage something nationally?  Why
all the checks and balances, if there was inherent trust?  Also consider
some of our known "boondoggles."

Yes, we put a man on the moon--but also burned to death needlessly 3
astronauts, and blew up another 5--with really stupid things that should
have been thought of and caught before they became a real problem.  On the
whole, however, the space program is generally considered a success.
Nevertheless, it is but a fraction of the budget, one of the smaller programs.

We built a great interstate system, but it's falling apart and not very
earthquake sound.  Yet, there are civil engineers that said we needed better
and stronger--and had the proposals to do so--for earthquake protection, and
many other experts said we needed to provide better for maintenance and
change.  Being penny-wise and pound-foolish, this was not done.  Ditto for
the entire public school system, particularly in California.

Then there's welfare--and by this I mean _all of it_ corporate, farm
subsidies, eximbank, the lower classes, the elderly, etc., etc..  It was
supposed to take care of temporary needs--or supplement or be complete long
term support for people who really and truly could not take care of
themselves in varying degrees, which technically is a much smaller minority
than currently being so classified.  Are you all aware that there is
virtually no "needs testing" for social security and medicare, for instance;
that many truly wealthy elderly get it anyway?  Many programs had lofty
goals of ending poverty by job retraining, assistance to small businesses,
etc., etc.  But they were separate individual programs whom no one insisted
talk to one another and virtually no one demanded examination by of existing
programs to avoid duplication of efforts or to determine if it could be
incorporated into an existing program and just have the existing one changed
a bit to do more, or better.

First this aggregate was/is was indeed all a hodge-podge largely randomly
thrown together.  Some good ideas, some not.  There was no single overall
cabinet departmental goal ever established, no objectives within the goals,
no cross-checking of programs, no timetables for results and evaluations and
no evaluations.  All we've done is keep adding new programs to the old.  The
result--the biggest darned give away to all kinds of permanent dependencies
outside of a communist superpower.  The best description I've ever heard of
_all_ the combined "welfare" giveways in all the various cabinet departments
today, is from an older person who exasperatedly said one day, "it's like
Fibber McGee's closet--a complete mess that just keeps getting worse and no
one dares open it without wearing a helmet, at least."

What makes this worse, is the majority of Americans do have a sense of this,
and most--even the rich elderly--will, and do say, that if their darned
representatives would only hold all the subsidies to the same goals and
objectives of taking care of either temporary needs, or real long term needs
or supplements--and insist on a bit more individual and collective
responsibility to minimize landing in situations that create these needs,
that they would go for accepting less in programs that might benefit them
most.  That is they would go for a needs test for social security and
medicare, if a similar one were also applied to corporate farmers, for
instance.  They do understand that _anyone_ can be encouraged to feel--and
take advantage--of a dependency.

Anyhow, while I see evidence of mistrust of and frustration with governments
sporadically in France, Germany, etc. with the strikes and huge rallies, I
do have to ask is the trust indeed sporadic, or is it endemic to the point
of reluctance to vote for huge government programs?  Please remember most of
our (U.S.) programs did not originate with Congressional committees, but
strong Presidents, instead...

How about some other people's experiences and observations and thoughts,
here?  And can we please keep it polite and respectful, this time?  A bit of
humor is always welcome, but please be good natured and don't make/minimize
personal character attacks.  I fled some other usenet, etc. groups, and
avoid certain organizations' meetings because I got tired of too many
supposedly well-educated and civilized people behaving like the worst
cartoon images of neanderthals.

This group has some excellent rules regarding out-and-out racism, for
instance, and profanity.  But even "outlandish" ideas, or observations,
deserve the respect of a fair hearing--and those who post them do not
deserve to have their character maligned and be personally ridiculed.  Not
all ideas that are a "minority view," "previously unheard of--by any
individual," or "unusual" , or those who post them, deserve to be called,
"crazy, ridiculous, racist, jingoist, etc."  From what I see, most of the
people on this group are college educated--or very well read (Abe Lincoln
was certainly no idiot and the idea of self-education did not die with him),
and while they do represent variances in the political spectrum are
basically good people.  They're not neo-Nazis, closet Stalinists, or rabid
fanatic supporters of Buchanan, LaRouche, or Gus Hall, or various types like
those.  It's not fair to anyone to immediately assume the worst motives,
intentions, or character.  We're all about equal in education; and probably
most of us have experience with "generally regarded as good--or better"
colleges, or at least "grag" departments within colleges.  We've sometimes
read the same books and had similar experiences, but sometimes we read
different books, have different experiences.  We all exercise individual
judgement based upon life-long experiences to base our beliefs, and test
theories.  No one is truly superior to any other, here, that I can see.

I joined this discussion group to both learn of other people's experiences
and readings, and thoughts and to share my own for an exchange of ideas, and
occasional some insights from among intelligent people to try to apply
toward solving some real-life problems.  I am still very much a political
activist.  However, I am not a President, or a multi-millionaire, or a
Congressional leader.  I have to work with and through whatever is out there
already--and in this country primarily--but not exclusively.  I've been
darned effective in more than 25 years, but clearly see there is a long way
to go in a lot of things.  I'm trying to move mountains--of people--as well
as things, and it isn't easy.  Imagine trying to move a mountain of
jello--and keep it from all disintegrating or self-destructing...  I deal
with people: irrational, emotional, a hodge podge of fantasies and
insecurities, of superstitions, prejudices and illogical beliefs, a mixture
of good education in some fields, lousy in others--but with strongly held
beliefs which they freely express and upon which they can--and darned well
do--act _about nearly anything anyway_ all the time.  If I'm going to
convince them to change behavior in a certain way; first I must know what
they believe most strongly and come up with some darned good arguments and
experiments to counter it, if necessary, in the first place.  Sometimes it
means biting my tongue until it bleeds and suspending a large amount of
disbelief.  Sometimes it means using the known five senses and hoping I've
got a couple more reliable ones at critical moments besides.  I've been
doing this ever since I can remember.

Now if you want to think I'm nuts to come here and try to both learn,
exchange ideas and have a discourse with what I thought were intelligent,
decent people who deserve to be a part of trying to make things a bit
better, you have a right to that opinion.  Perhaps I am a dreamer to think
that someplace in this whole wide internet there are people who care about
these things and have both enough self-respect--and respect for others--to
be willing to see discussions as a real place for real communications and
development and exchange of ideas.


Now perhaps someone else has a different opinion; that perhaps we ought to
defer to someone or another.  Perhaps he or she has good reasons for that.
Fine, state so, and the reasons, but just remember, all the rest of us have
the right to exercise our individual judgement and either accept or disagree
with that idea, too.


Now, regarding the personal insults, etc..  Of course we're never going to
be perfect in this respect, a little of this stuff will from time to time
creep in, but we can certainly do more to minimize it.  Perhaps just before
we push the transmit keys, we ought to take a deep breath, look one more
time at our posting and ask, "if someone on this group who is well-educated
and I would like to both respect and have the respect of were to send this
to _me_, how would _I_ feel?"  For even the best of us, it is darned hard
not to react to nearly an entire paragraph of what California courts and
psychologists describe as "mental and verbal cruelty."  (This is not to say
California courts are always--or even usually--correct; the term does exist
in other states with similar meanings, but I happen to live in California at
the moment and thus have more daily familiarity with this
politico-geographical entity.)

Anyhow, many thanks for those who have read this posting and especially
those  who might seriously consider anything I've written--at least as one
idea of many possibilities.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA
e-mail: 

P.S.  I hope you will forgive me if I thought highly enough of you all--many
weeks ago--to recommend to a major Congressional candidate, a couple of
community leaders who are interested in developing multi-ethnic relations
for political purposes, and a couple of Congresspersons that they subscribe
to this and the HL group--or at least check into us periodically through Web
Pages.

I want you to know, I still feel you are worthy of attention, but I sure
hope  to see more of the best of you than some of the postings lately.  I
was beginning to wonder if Shannon Yeh had been visiting some people and
rubbing off a bit much.

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - I NEED A CANADIAN VISA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Can anyone tell me how to get a visa to live and work in Canada? My girlfriend
is in Hungary and she wants to come to Canada in the summer. We don't know hoe
to get a visa so that she can work here. Please help.

                                Varga Istvan
+ - I NEED A CANADIAN VISA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Can someone tell me how to get a visa to live and work in Canada? My
girlfriend is in Hungary and she would like to come to Canada, but we don't
know how to get a visa that would allow her to work here. Can anyone help us?

                                        Varga Istvan
+ - Re: WWI (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

> Hungarians are such a tiny
>community already we'd be on the "endangered and forget it" list, if they
>had such a thing for humans, anyway.  We probably won't exist as an
entity
>in another generation or so, so none of the concerns discussed in this
group
>or the Hungarian Lobby matter.  Whatever isn't done by any real or unreal
>enemies will be done by our own and our good friends.  Right Sam, Joe,
etc.?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
>San Jose, CA, USA

I agree with Richard -- Hungary does seem to be ready and willing to move
forward and join the West. Some of the folks on this list, however,
aren't. And most of them live outside Hungary. Go figure.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Gee, Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker, once again I urge you to calm down.
Apparently it's not easy being the voice of a nation, at least judging
from your most recent posts. You need to pace yourself in case some
Romanians or British Tories show up here.
+ - 888-HUNGARY (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Would anyone know who to contact per this great new, toll-free
phone number?

Beginning on 3/1/96, 888 numbers will work just like 800 numbers
do.

Thank you


+ - Magyar, Sumerian, etc. Archeology, Linguistics Studies, (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Sam (and Andras, Peter, et al);

Sam, you asked me a very good question yesterday evening, that I had to
think about more before giving you a full reply.  I also spent the better
part of today risking my knee Dr.'s wrath by pulling down and going through
all my archeology/anthropology books, and finding the magazine holders, and
going through more than 10 years of Archeology magazine.  My study, garage,
and dining room now look about like the time the tornado went through.  I've
washed my hands now, at least half a dozen time to remove dust, printer's
ink, cobwebs, and whatever else accumulates in 8 years in either a garage or
some of the less frequented sections of my bookshelves.  It's a real test
for the hand lotion, now.  I've also had about 6 hours sleep, so I'm not
going to claim this is the all time greatest posting I'll ever make.

Here's what I learned which I hope helps explain why I'm at least interested
in considering an off-beat theory:

First, the sum total of post WWII to about 1990 archeology, physical
anthropology, etc.--new discoveries, excavations, etc. for East/East Central
Europe, and most of Central and West Asia, most of North Africa, etc.
(Eurasian "heartland")--compared to West Europe, South Europe (Rome, Greece,
primarily), The Semitic "Holy Lands," China, India, and even the Americas,
is roughly comparable in total to comparing what we know and have discovered
about the planet Pluto in comparison with the whole rest of the solar
system--Earth included.

As just a couple of examples of the sheer paucity of information collected
during the era of "modern anthropology": In over 10 years of "Archeology"
magazine, there are exactly 6 articles citing research that have anything at
all to do with any recent excavations.  In the 1980, _Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Archeology_, you would think a huge ice sheet or something blanketed all
of Eurasia from roughly eastern Israel, central Turkey, Iran to just about
the center of China up until just about the time of Christ.  (and then the
ice sheet came back for another roughly 1000 years).  There is almost
nothing about these areas.

Now why is that?  Perhaps because of political and ideological differences
between governments, and assumptions about the period of time, or the people
now in existence in given areas, that much research into antiquity was
"unimportant," or "not relevant to current political or social ideology."

I would like to pass on to you what numerous, numerous archeologists and
ancient history professors have told me right up until the present--in fact
this is being taught as one of the cardinal rules of "non-profit
organization" (of which colleges are but one type) fundraising.  This is
donors usually give to something or someone that gratifies the donor's ideas
of himself or herself--to make the donor feel good about himself or herself.
Darned few donors give to anyone for anything to just  "find the truth."  If
it's engineering they have a business project in mind, or a problem to be
solved.  If it's archeology--prove the linkeages of my people's illustrious
ancestry, find a royal tomb with lots of gold and jewels to showcase in a
museum with my name on it.  If you think that Native Americans couldn't
possibly have been in the New World before 13,000 years ago, then by all
means fund only digs that go no further down than layers of 13,000 years
ago.  That's a fine way to reinforce the hypothesis.

Fund the studies as individual "snapshots" of a site--unless you're trying
to prove continuity to your donor's ethnicity--or what he thinks of his
ethnicity.  All other civilizations except those in someone's already
preconceived continuity existed in vacuums.   Most of today's non-West
European civilizations came out of the dust only in Christian times and
couldn't possibly have sophisticated antecedents--an ebb and flow in their
own histories like West Europe. (At least one "ebb" being the "dark ages"
for instance.)

The fact of the matter is darned few people have ever tried to link modern
East Central European nations or ethnicities with any of the dozens of
ancient, isolated "dead" civilizations that did exist in areas that are now
non-Semitic, non Egyptian, non-Chinese, non-Hellenic, non-Celtic, non-Roman.
If West Europe can develop a consensus of thousands of years of cultural and
linguistic, and even political continuity, based upon an extensive body of
research in several disciplines including hundreds of digs in its
hypothetical areas, every year, why cannot a similar timeline of continuity
exist for non-West European or non-Mediterranean or non-Chinese, or
non-Indian civilizations?

Badiny, et al, are not much better (if any) than most of the other so-called
researchers on the Sumerian subject and their statements of continuity or
non.  Darned near all the artifacts, materials, etc. are from digs before
1946.  A lot has been lost, a lot never found; because the donor-supported
pre-modern archeologists (glorified tomb and temple robbers is what many
modern types call them today) weren't even looking for much.  Sure we have
thousands of tablets--from a few specific sites, a few specific time periods
where we thought gold could also be found, or a huge architectural wonder,
or some such grandiose thing.  Then look at the governments in a lot of
areas.  If a government publicly expresses a theory of history and
development, insists upon it as fact--does one really think it will either
itself finance--or allow foreigners--to do research just anywhere?
Governments are comprised of people--people have egos.  Look at what's
happened with the various "attempts" to find--or at least determine if it
ever might have existed--Noah's ark?  No profane activities on a "sacred
mountain" allowed, thank you very much.  The religious and social beliefs of
current leaders in many areas right up to today limit or influence what
research is permitted--and what the researchers themselves are often
permitted to say.

Years ago, an ancient history professor of mine, did think that there was
something of a connection between Hungarians, indeed most Finno-Ugric and
even Turkic Altaic groups and cultures and ancient Sumeria.  He told me of
some research that was going on, and some that was essentially a
re-evaluation of existing materials and sources.  He admitted it was a
"minority" view, but believed that over time, some degree of connection
would be proved.  Now this gentleman was no "cracked pot" but a friend and
associate of many, many notable archeologists and ancient historians,
enjoying many a dinner, luncheon, and private discussion with them, besides
letters, and in earlier years having accompanied a number of them on their
digs.  He was on of the first professors to ever encourage me not to be
ashamed of being a Hungarian and to state he believed all nations had a far
more ancient history and at times illustrious history than what was then
popularly--and even academically--accepted.  He encouraged me to read and
ponder the "minority" works and viewpoints, and "try not to overlook, or
dismiss anything in the search for the truth."

However, Tom Jones wasn't the only person to get me thinking about
this,--thinking please, not deciding yet.  I also became acquainted with a
few Iranians, one of whom is probably dead (hard to verify him, or the late
Tom Jones, either for that matter), and one of whom may well be in a
position to use what he believes to guide Iranian foreign policy.  Remember
what I said about research for government purposes, that might bolster
already held beliefs--or accepted traditions?  Well, according to these
gentlemen, there is a group of Iranians themselves that believe there are
connections between all the "Turanian" peoples--including Magyars, and the
Sumerian and other empires.  They claimed they had their own sets of
researchers out doing a few digs and that their work showed some
connections.  Now again, this is verbal, and I have not been able to find
anything published in Western materials from Iranian sources and digs--that
is where everything was funded, done and written by the Iranians themselves.
It may be yet, that when normal political relations are restored and a
greater exchange of academic materials begins to redevelop, we may have a
few surprises there--assuming the work is given any credibility by Western
colleges--and their donors.  Considering the education and political power
of one of these sources, I don't feel I should dismiss his statements out of
hand, either.  Let's put it this way; he's good, very good at a lot of
things and has done several things that shall we say "surprised" all the
major powers.  He bases all his efforts on detailed research--and he knows
how to do research according to "accepted Western scientific methods."  I'm
not at liberty to identify this person.  First the name he used while in the
U.S. was not his real name.  I think I know what it really is, but it is a
guess.  Second, he holds a high position in Iran--at the center of power.
Third, my own government would prefer most of his activities--especially
those in the U.S.--to keep a low profile--his simply being here for almost 3
years is a source of some embarrassment to the State Department.  --Let's
put it this way, you'll have to ask George Bush about some of the "fine
print" implementation of the Iran-Contra deal--that he neglected to mention
to either Congress or his White House successor...

Ask almost any Native American what he or she thinks of White, Western
anthropology, archeology and a huge number of claims about Native Americans.
There is some good work, but on the whole, they're not yet impressed and
think the West is still trying to bolster existing prejudices and
preconceptions.  Now would anyone like to tell the Hopi, or the Sioux (I can
tell you where AIM headquarters is), or the Cherokee that their attitudes,
or perspectives are  "ridiculous?"  As iconoclastic, and nonconformist I
might often be, this is not something I'd try to do.  I already had one
confrontation with AIM 20 years ago that I had not even precipitated (it was
actually a case of mistaken identity--on their part), but just that one was
bad enough to wish to avoid a deliberate repetition.

The research necessary to make a thorough examination and any
conclusions--either way--is simply too limited as yet on the issue of most,
if not all, East/East Central European modern ethnicity linkages to most
ancient empires of the past.  What exists, even though it's bits and pieces
from a few temples, tombs and palaces from a few tiny slices of over 3,000
years of history of Sumer, is valid, just not complete enough.  The
linguistic studies are valid, but determination of what is most likely to
change over time--vowels, consonants, first syllables, last, whatever--is
also not complete--and may even vary from people to people.  Genetics are a
wonderful possibility.  However the current near-region "snapshot" tests of
mummies and nearby existing populations needs to be greatly expanded.  They
need to consider all possible migration, warfare, conquest and trade
patterns that could be from the time of the most ancient burials in
question--and those that might have come before, elsewhere, and all the
populations (possible descendants) that _could_ have been in the area--or
made contact with those that could have been in the area.  The current
genetic sampling is very poor.  As good as some of those people are, they
literally don't even seem to be aware of the ethnic existence of East and
East Central Europe--or anything in West Asia, beyond Turks, Russians,
Chinese or Semitic peoples.  It sometimes makes me wonder if they think we
all popped out from under cabbage leaves recently.

For example: the Sinkiang mummies about which there have been both several
articles and a television special since 1994.  There are actually burials
across a fairly wide range of time, actually, especially when combined with
an earlier expedition, and a Russian expedition "nearby" (ice
graves/mummies).  There are also graves that had bones, grave goods, even
bits of clothing, food, etc. that have been found for early Magyars (Attila
Kiss), Avars (Attila Kiss), Sumerians (National Geographic photographed the
last big find over 25 years ago), Phrygians, Hurrians, Hittites, etc..  Why
aren't these all being compared?  Every darned article, chapter and book
I've looked at (more than 50 magazines, and books since last night) always
looks at all these cultures, incidents of excavation etc. in a vacuum.

And, I'm not the only person to notice this problem also.  I think the best
expression of this, that most people in this group _might_ accept, comes from
a University of Michigan professor of anthropology, Henry T. Wright, written
in 1989.  ("Archeology," Jan.-Feb. 1989 special issue, "From Mesopotamia to
Mesoamerica," pages 46-8, and 96-100) (unabridged paragraphs).

        "What we will see in the Near East in the immediate future is a long
overdue integration of the regional archeological and textual record, along
with new approaches to excavation.  Humanistic archeologists, with their
keen interest in textual records, have devoted decades to the investigation
of the great urban centers, understandably focusing on the great
institutions where texts are more likely to be found: palaces, temples, and
the like.  In contrast, th few anthropological archeologists concerned with
the archeological record of early Near Eastern civilizations have spent much
time salvaging information about landscapes before the evidence is destroyed
by modern agriculture.  They have had little chance to use the precise
excavation techniques (such as representative excavation sampling,
microstratigraphic control, special recovery methods for plant remains,
etc.) developed by prehistorians working on early villages that can shed
light on daily activities.  Somehow the time and funds must be found to
apply the methods developed for early villages to the early urban centers
and their subsidiary settlements.  We need to recover texts in firm
association with the evidence of storehouses, workshops, and homes--not only
on major sites but on rural estates, border forts, etc. if we are to have a
complete picture of political and economic changes.

        Such innovations will require a breaking down of institutional and
disciplinary barriers to research in the Near East.  Not only is better
communication needed between humanistic and anthropological archeologists,
but there is also a need for better understanding between research
archeologists and the local administrative archeologists concerned with
safeguarding each nation's ancient heritage in the face of modern
development.  Each group in each country has different ways of recording
information from archeological surveys and excavations, different programs
of publication, and different standards for the curation of archeological
remains.  Tragically, most archeological samples in the Near East are
discarded after brief study simply because museum space is unavailable.  The
reanalysis of artifacts, soil samples, etc. as new techniques are devised
will rarely be possible until the Egyptian policy of requiring the
construction of large storage facilities at the site be generally adopted."


In other words, linguistics is not enough.  Neither is linguistics combined
with a sketchy, individualized archeological record.  Thus, nobody's
theories at the  moment for some very large area of the world, and many
modern peoples carry any more weight--or deserve to be easily
dismissed--than anyone else's.

Badiny et al, may not be really proven--but neither are they yet adequately
disproven.

However, there was a personal question in all this.  Why me?  Why should I
care about some relatively obscure segment of overlooked archeology for a
people that probably won't exist in another generation--and to whom my own
father would prefer I forget I'm even related?

Well, I spent 21 years of the first part of my life caught between a rigid
church upbringing and rigid social class expectations of behavior--often
insisted upon without giving me any logical reasons, and the paradox of two
parents within all this who had both been in the U.S. military in World War
II--Asian-Pacific Theatre (not exactly the best place to be in that war...)
Almost daily, I heard two expressions--which they _really did mean_: "the
difficult we do at once, the impossible just takes a little longer" and;
"'can't, won't, don't, isn't and didn't' don't _do_ anything--what counts is
not what's said but what is done."  I think it was inevitable, under the
circumstances, that I developed as an activist-iconoclast and frequent
non-comformist...

A few examples of my development as such:  age 11-12: ended rocketry club
when we found the cigar cannister rockets (with fuel from a supposedly
harmless chemistry set--Father forgot about a nearby shop I could take my
allowance and extra earnings to to buy things _not_ originally in the
set...) were occasionally landing on a nearby freeway and causing accidents
(actually the problem was they were landing on the _cars_ on the freeway),
dissolved away the top glaze of Mother's kitchen sink trying to develop a
better paint remover for a friend whose father had roped him into helping
strip and repaint house and garage--Father tried to drain some beets which
resulted in this discovery--it really was a lovely shade of magenta pink for
several days, though. (The sink turned out to be the least of what happened:
the stuff was so acidic we had trouble finding any kind of a container that
would hold it long, and it not only removed several layers of paint from a
test sample of a garage door--but put a hole the size of a football right
through the door and you don't want to know what it did to the brush or a
patch of concrete driveway...), and then there was the incident I got to
meet the city's chief of police, captain of the fire department and two FBI
agents all in one day over a science paper I wrote--just to show it might
possibly be able to be done: "How to build an atomic bomb in your back
yard."  The problem was, according to these guys in the blue suits--and
sunglasses--they'd checked out the idea of the experiment, as written, with
some lab on the West coast and it turned out to be feasible.  Needless to
say, they were rather concerned I might be actually considering doing more
than just writing about it...

Let's see, after that; I climbed to the top of one of the granite plutons in
Yosemite on Tioga Pass Road--barefoot.   A few years after that, chased an
estimated 600 pound bear away from my husband with mostly my temper and a
canoe paddle--and startled my husband so badly that he nearly bolted into
the same bushes as the bear afterward.  Then a couple of years later climbed
Mt. Lassen in shorts and tennis shoes: hint-have you ever seen shredded,
really shredded, rubber right through to insoles and feet?  Then before the
bear, there was this archeological site called Hovenweep in the "four
corners" area (we never were 100% sure what state it was in) that had no
direct roads to it--only a part time jeep trail; that is, inbetween
rainstorms wherever the  ranger's jeep had last tracked.  Well, we made it
to the site in a Toyota sedan--through a couple of rainstorms.  You don't
want to know how...  By the way, I was the last person with formal
anthropological training to even photograph the site.  The only excavation
of it was a partial, barely started more than 35 years ago, that ended with
the death of two members--including the expedition head in a flash flood...

Oh yes, then there was the paper I did for one of Dennis Puleston's
archeology classes in which we not only had a $5 bet on it, but I promised
to change the anthropology double major and drop it to a minor if I did not
succeed in the intention of the paper.  The paper?  Showing with credible
evidence that the existence of a continent such as Atlantis in the Atlantic
could be a real possibility.  I not only won the bet, I got an "A" on the
paper...--and later an offer to publish it.

Anyhow, if this and a few other debates are still going on by the time I
finish developing my husband's latest start-up company, I do indeed intend
to  pull together the expeditions and research to do the most comprehensive
darned study and analysis possible.  And people who know me very well, can
tell you that although it may take longer than I'd like, I do keep my
promises-and I don't give up or quit easily.  I also don't have a reputation
of needlessly butting brick walls.  They often surprisingly have a "window"
or a crack in them, and I have no firm explanation for how I can sometimes
sense a crack or window might even be around.  So anyone who wishes, is
perfectly free to (and probably will) be skeptical, or enjoy a chuckle and
wonder.

Hope this answers a few questions without resulting in too much more
ridicule and insults.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA

e-mail: 




N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
+ - Re: Hungarian Diminutives [corrected spelling] (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Johanne,

Let's suppose your middle name is Louise.

In Hungarian it would be Tournier Johanne Louise.

In other words, only the place of the family name is different.

Greetings,
Martha
+ - Re: Poland (was: Re: Hi) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker wrote:

>George Antony wrote:
> >Well, then carefully keep away from Hungary too, or obtain more information
> >to be able to make more realistic comparisons.
> >
> >For Poland and Hungary are much closer to one another in pollution, law and
> >order situation, bureaucratic hassles, public infrastructure, prices, etc.,
> >etc., etc., than they are to China, Russia, Miami or Cancun.
> >
> >Besides, being a Hungarian used to be a great plus in Poland that ensured
> >extra hospitality and little favours along the the way.  It still may be.
> >Ditto in Turkey that I found one of the most fascinating and hospitable
> >countries I ever visited, but of course also chaotic, polluted, dangerous,
> >with bad public infrastructure.  Either of them was much more fun than
> >Switzerland: clean, clockwork everything, beautiful scenery with grumpy
> >locals.
> >
> When have you last visited any of these?

I last went to Hungary in 1995 and every 1 to 3 years before.  Recent info
about the others is second hand, my own travels were a couple a decades ago.

> it is all relative and a
> matter of which poisons/hazards one can tolerate better.  My own preference
> is for the "poison" of KisGepard's (I'm not even going to try to get behind
> my husband's computer work in progress at the bookshelf for the souvenir
> book that would enable me to check that spelling--every time I even look in
> that direction at least 3 items tumble off something in between) triple
> chocolate torte on a sunlit afternoon in Vorosmarty Square.  ;-)

True, the Polish tradition in pastries and tortes is not quite like the
Hungarian one.  I can recommend a full Polish breakfast, though, complete
with various cold meats, cheeses, fish, pickles, rye bread, etc.  If it
sounds too healthy, you can start on the Wodka Wyborova already with
breakfast ;-).

George Antony
+ - Re: 888-HUNGARY (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Lori,

> Would anyone know who to contact per this great new, toll-free
> phone number?
>
> Beginning on 3/1/96, 888 numbers will work just like 800 numbers
> do.

If they will work on the same principle, dial 1-888-486-4279.

Good luck!
Martha
+ - Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:43:42 -0500
> From:    Stowewrite >
> Subject: Re: Magyars, Sumerians, and Uygurs
>
> In article >, SorG Farkas
> > writes:
>
> >As far as I know, no one disputes the Romanians' claims of being the
> >descendants of the Romans (as a matter of fact the Romanian language is
> very
> >close to Latin and the territory was occupied by the Romans). What is
> being
> >disputed by some is the Dac descendence.
> >
> >Gabor D. Farkas
> >
> >
>
> Yup, you're right. Good thing I didn't question the Romanians' claims to
> be descendents of the Romans. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with
> Spanish, Italian, French or Portuguese can easily see for themselves that
> Romanian is descended from Latin.
> Sam Stowe
>
>

And of course nobody disputes that the Mexicans and the Brazilians are
descendents of the Romans.  After all, they speak Latin languages!

jim (still lurking)


James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory



"Mr Turnbull had predicted evil consequences,...
and was now doing the best in his power to bring
about the verification of his own prophecies."

A. Trollope

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS