||Re: AD TE NEKED (mind)
|| 30 sor
||Re: National Character (mind)
|| 80 sor
|| 52 sor
||Merry Christmas (mind)
|| 4 sor
||Re: Gypsies (mind)
|| 21 sor
||Travel to Hungary (mind)
|| 8 sor
||Re: Travel to Hungary (mind)
|| 10 sor
||Re: National Character (mind)
|| 46 sor
||Re: Gypsies/Hungarian (mind)
|| 52 sor
|+ - ||Re: AD TE NEKED (mind)
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Michael D Shafer wrote:
> I have a quick translation to ask:
> I want to say 'he gives the stars to you', it is a title
> for an artwork.
> I wanted to say it in an old-fashioned way so I tried,
> 'ad tehozza'd a csillagokot', /from orszagh laszlo, 1953/
> which I thought was like 'he gives unto thee thyself the stars',
> but I was told this is wrong and I should say,
> 'ad te neked a csillagokot'
> Isn't there an old fashioned or obsolete way I can say this?
Well, you have not really spelled out the context, such as who the 'he'
is who gives the stars to you, but your problem is grammatical:
Neked adja a csillagokat
would be the best solution, and no, there happens not to be an obsolete
way to say this particular sentence.
Louis J. Elteto
Portland State University
|+ - ||Re: National Character (mind)
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Gabor Fencsik wrote (in reply to Bela Liptak):
> I don't know what to make of the claim that Hungary is an "open" culture.
> Open to what? Open compared to what? Is it more "open" that the
> "Anglo-Saxon" cultures you are measuring it against? Or is the word
> "open" being used in a non-standard sense, like the word "assimilation"?
> Care to elaborate?
It would appear from his last message that Prof. Liptak only posts to this
list, but does not read it, at least not regularly. If that is so,
arguing with him may miss the point, so to speak.
If I'm not mistaken, Prof. Liptak sometimes thinks in Hungarian when he
writes English. While I would not apply the word to an entire society
(only Mr Soros has done that with his Open Society, but in a different
sense, and only in English), we do say in Hungarian that so-and-so is a
'nyilt ember' - an open man, which means not that he is open to new or
different ideas, or to other people's views, but rather that he
openly states his beliefs, opinions, and yes, quite often even his
prejudices; in other words, the 'nyilt ember' is frank, candid, speaks
his mind, like the straight shooters of the American West. That this is a
typical feature of the Hungarian character is of course a cliche, but one that
has some truth to it for all that. A corollary to this is that Hungarians
sometimes ascribe 'Anglo-Saxon' reserve or the German 'drei Schritt' to
hypocrisy. Which brings us to Mr Fencsik's concluding paragraph:
> there is
> still something to be said for hypocrisy as a civilizing force. There
> is a great deal of difference between someone who is daydreaming about
> raping little girls, and someone who acts on those impulses. Similarly,
> one who is a racist at heart but learnt to hide it has at least
> internalized the fact that there is something shameful about being a
> racist. This is undeniably a step forward. As Aristotle said in his
> Nicomachean Ethics, if you would like to be virtuous but don't know
> where to start, it is best to go ahead and behave as if you were virtuous
> already. Hypocrisy is not as good as the real thing, but it is better
> than nothing.
> Gabor Fencsik
Aristotle meant simply: virtue is acquired through practice, that
virtue is a habit; which is not the same thing as saying those who are
practicing to become virtuous are hypocrites. As for the would-be rapist,
it would be better for all were he to talk about his daydreams. Not a
very good or fair argument, that. The racist remark is more to the
point, but even here it is the social unacceptability of the words, and
therefore the thoughts, that may eventually have a salutary effect in
changing thinking, attitudes, and actions. The man who speaks no
unspeakable thoughts even though he thinks them is not civilized on
account of his hypocrisy; it is, rather, the society in which he lives
that is civilized, in deeming the unspeakable thoughts unspeakable, and
making them eventually unthinkable. In that sense, if Mr Liptak were indeed
implying that racist speech, and therefore racist thinking, is more acceptable
Hungarian society than in the 'Anglo-Saxon' world, he would be pointing
an accusing finger at the very society he is seeking to defend. And of
course that is not his intention.
Hypocrisy is probably merely another malapropism here. Yet there are real
cultural differences at work: if you compare what is (and what is not)
discussed at an American social gathering with what you might hear at its
Hungarian equivalent, the cultural differences between 'nyilt magyarok'
and 'not so nyilt' American WASPS (who still furnish the standard), that
becomes clear very quickly. To the WASP, the Hungarian sounds uncivilized
in such circumstances, as does the Italian, the Spaniard, the Russian and
the Pole, and even the Frenchman. For the latter, the WASP cocktail party
may be simply boring. It's ok to spar, to argue among Hungarians; in
America, WASP custom dictates that we avoid anything that smacks of
personal opinion. Usually.
But enough cliches. Hungarian 'openness' does not make Hungarians better
than 'Anglo-Saxons'; nor does the 'Anglo-Saxon' looking down his nose at
the Hungarian make him more civilized than the Hungarian. Only more
conceited, perhaps, particularly when the tilt of the nose
is a virtue acquired through assimilation, imitation and practice.
Louis J. Elteto
Portland State University
|+ - ||Gypsies (mind)
There are many interesting articles on the Gypsy question. Let's start with
>Re: attached discussion, I would comment that it depends. It
>depends on the people that you associate with whether prejudice,
>of any kind, is socially acceptable behavior. I know of a lot
>of people, yes Hungarians, for whom it is not.
Of course! But the fact is that according to all sociological studies and
opinion polls the prejudice against Gypsies is overwhelming. About a year and
a half ago there was a survey (it was commented on in HVG, but unfortunately
it would take me ages to find the right issue) which showed that no other
group, including Chinese, Arabs, is as despised as the Gypsies.
And that leads me to Joe Szalai's observation:
>The 'problem' may be a cultural one, but who's culture? Hungarian culture
>or Gypsy culture? The Jews in Hungary had, and continue to have, a
>permanent address and workplace, etc. Why are they harassed? Is their
>problem a cultural one as well?
According to the same survey there is no comparison between the two groups.
To the question: how would you feel if your daughter/son married a . . .
most people would welcome a Jew in the family or as a neighbor but when it
comes to Gypsies, believe me the attitude is not the same.
>What is this 'socially acceptable or unacceptable' means?
Are you pulling our leg?
Jim Doepp, commenting on my comment on anti-Gypsy prejudices:
>It is easy to condemn the anti-gypsy attitude in Hungary. Before doing
>so (and I believe it should be done) one must really try to understand
>the background to the "gypsy problem".
May I remind everybody that I didn't make a value judgment when I said that
anti-Gypsy attitudes are strong in Hungary. I simply stated a fact.
Of course, Jim is right: there is a serious "Gypsy problem" in Hungary and
not just in Hungary but in all countries where Gypsies are numerous. I cannot
comment on the causes of this problem because I simply don't know enough
about the topic. Those stories Jim related are obviously true and here and
there one can read about others in the papers. If I recall that communists in
the early years tried to settle the Gypsies--settled them in other people's
houses in the villages and putting Gypsy families in apartment houses in the
cities. If I recall things didn't quite work the way they imagined it. What
is the right approach? I have no idea.
|+ - ||Merry Christmas (mind)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all! Also, wishing a fabulous Adam and
Eve day to all Adams and Evas!
|+ - ||Re: Gypsies (mind)
On 22 Dec 95 at 14:18, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
> Of course, Jim [Doepp] is right: there is a serious "Gypsy problem" in
> and not just in Hungary but in all countries where Gypsies are numerous.
> I cannot comment on the causes of this problem because I simply don't
> know enough about the topic. Those stories Jim related are obviously true
> and here and there one can read about others in the papers. If I recall
> that communists in the early years tried to settle the Gypsies--settled
> them in other people's houses in the villages and putting Gypsy families
> in apartment houses in the cities.
I think it's important not to confuse "culture" with "condition." Is it
part of Romani _culture_ to tear up floor boards for fuel, or is it the
_condition_ (of being cold or needing to cook, perhaps) that they live in?
The things that make a culture (language, music, art, ethic beliefs, etc.)
objectionable as expressed by Roma? Or is it the actions of individuals
(perhaps large numbers of individuals) that are condemnable? Generalizing
individual actions to describe a group culture seems terribly flawed.
|+ - ||Travel to Hungary (mind)
My sister-in-law is about to travel to Hungary for an extended period to
seek treatment for her 5-year old son with cerebral palsy. She has a
number of questions about the availability of certain items and other
cultural stuff, including some laws, etc. Is this newsgroup the correct
place to post such questions, or is there another place or Website or
whereever where we can get some answers? Thank you for a quick reply.
|+ - ||Re: Travel to Hungary (mind)
you get a whole lot of info about hungary, including interactive stuff at
http:/hix.mit.edu. Note that there is no www in the address. If you have
IRC capability join the hungarian channel, called magyar. While most of the
chat there is in Hungarian, almost everybady speaks English too. Of course,
the IRC is the most valuable since you are on line live with people from
|+ - ||Re: National Character (mind)
In one of his apologetic pieces on the acceptability of racist hate
speech in Hungary (or lack thereof), Bela Liptak offered a classification
of societies into "open" vs. "hypocritical" ones. I have responded with
a defense of hypocrisy as a civilizing force, quoting Aristotle in the
process. Louis J. Elteto comments on my response:
> Aristotle meant simply: virtue is acquired through practice, that
> virtue is a habit; which is not the same thing as saying those who are
> practicing to become virtuous are hypocrites.
No disagreement here. I simply accepted Bela Liptak's classification of
human societies for the sake of argument, without agreeing with his
premise at all. I don't have much use for the classification itself,
or for speculations about "national character" in general. E.g.,
> ...if you compare what is (and what is not) discussed at an American
> social gathering with what you might hear at its Hungarian equivalent,
> the cultural differences between 'nyilt magyarok' and 'not so nyilt'
> American WASPS (who still furnish the standard), that becomes clear
> very quickly. To the WASP, the Hungarian sounds uncivilized in such
> circumstances, as does the Italian, the Spaniard, the Russian and the
> Pole, and even the Frenchman. For the latter, the WASP cocktail party
> may be simply boring. It's ok to spar, to argue among Hungarians; in
> America, WASP custom dictates that we avoid anything that smacks of
> personal opinion. Usually.
I know plenty of Americans who are likewise bored to tears at a WASP
cocktail party of the kind we all know and dread. As to whether
Hungarians are in general more free-wheeling, let-it-all-hang-out, frank,
candid, or whatever, compared to their American brethren, all I can say
is it depends. It depends on the amount of alcohol imbibed at the
cocktail party, for one thing. More to the point, it depends on the
social situation. In a general conversation where nothing personal is
at stake, you may be right. But let the conversation turn to something
that cuts much closer -- like a retarded child, or a terminally ill
relative -- and you might find the situation reversed. Or consider the
conversations between a Hungarian doctor and a dying patient, or
between the doctor and the dying patient's relatives, or between the
patient and his family. Would you expect to find more openness about
the situation in Hungary than you would in the U.S.? Or is it more
likely that Hungarians would demonstrate their vaunted delicacy, and
reluctance to call a spade a spade, so unlike those uncouth WASPs?
|+ - ||Re: Gypsies/Hungarian (mind)
Janos Zsargo wrote:
>May I ask you why they should? Would you marry someone who is 'too
>different' from your ideals? Or would you let anyone to live in your
>appartment whose life-style is 'too different' from yours?
No. I would not marry someone who is 'too different' from my ideals. But
that difference would have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. And yes, I
would allow anyone to live in my appartment who paid the rent, didn't wreck
the place, and allowed me eight hours of quiet at night.
Janos also asks:
>OK. Let me ask, what are those unaccepted 'significant(?) differences' in
>the case of gypsies?
Well, I don't know. I see no significant differences in people. Colour,
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, nationality,
religion or lack thereof, etc., etc. are not significant to me. They are
mere nuances. They are what makes life interesting. Unfortunately, some
people with personal insecurities sometimes create hell for those who are
'not like them'.
>I think the antisemitism is not a serious problem
>recently in Hungary. I have met a lots of people who dislikes (and not
>hate!) gypsies but very few who has the same feeling toward Jews.
Lets hope that anti-semitism is not a serious problem in Hungary today. My
experience of anti-semitism is limited to a very off colour 'joke'(?) that
someone told me in Budapest, an insult hurled at my partner and I as we left
the large synagogue on the small ring road in Pest, and anti-semitic
comments I heard from Hungarians in Hamilton Ontario while I was growing up.
It's interesting that some writers to this list say that anti gypsy feelings
in Hungary are more serious than anti-semitic sentiments. In the Hungarian
community in Hamilton I thought it was just the opposite. I think that what
must have happened is that people shifted their hatreds from gypsies to Jews
because being anti gypsy in Hamilton would seem 'irrational'. There just
isn't a visible gypsy community there that I'm aware of. There isn't a
visible jewish community there either but that didn't seem to stop some
Hungarians from fearing that they may be 'jewed' in some stores. (I also
find it interesting that some people talk about being 'gyped' in a store.
Being 'jewed' or 'gyped' mean more or less the same thing to those who use
such terms. The dictionary says that gyp is probably from the Greek meaning
gyps, a vulture. I don't mean to disagree with Webster's but could gyp in
some way be from gypsy?)
I believe that the problem is not which group of people some Hungarians
dislike. The problem is, why? Of course the problem is not unique to