Talk:Kuruc

Is there any evidence that the word kuruc(z) was really used in 1514? My Hungarian etymological dictonary (a.k.a. TESz, 1970) states that the word was first mentioned at the end of the 17th century (and that it denoted the Dózsa-insurrection not earlier than 1742). It clearly refutes the crux-etymology. What etymological sources do historians have to support it? And should linguists's opinions about etymology not prevail? Fransvannes 08:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have checked these things a long time ago for the German language article. I have used several sources, one of them said (I really do not remember which one) that the matter was long disputed but is "solved" now and this is what it said (from your contribution I derive that it is not solved yet :)) ). Anyway, I remember having read a Hungarian (i.e. Latin) historical text from the 17th/18th century saying explicitely that it was used that way during the Dozsa insurrection. Juro 18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree that a 17th century text does not provide evidence for the meaning (and the use at all) of this word in 1514? Fransvannes 16:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that that is the proof, I only mentioned that as a remark. But, people in the 17th century were definitely closer to 1514 then we are, had documents we do not have anymore, and there was no reason to invent something like that (this is a purely "technical" question). Also, you certainly cannot expect from me that I will go to libraries now to check all possible primary sources just to proove to you what I have read in secondary sources...Just add the quote from the etymological dictionary, after all that is also a source. I have used history texts. Juro 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the text according to the article of the Encyclopeadia Britannica - Hungarian version that I think a highly reliable source. It denies Bel's crusader theory, and claim that next to the Magyars there were many Slovak, Ruthenian and Romanian kuruc. Zello 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that there were MORE Slovak and Ruthenian kuruc than Magyar? Zello 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the Rákóczi uprising, there were no Magyars there except for the nobles, because the uprisings were organised (by coincidence) from and took place in territories inhabited by ethnic Ruthenians and Slovaks. Actually, this is quite self-evident, but if you are asking about the source, if I remember well this particular point was in the synthesis of History of Slovakia (6 volumes) of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Juro 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a short section about the beginning of the uprising. You can see that it started in the Hungarian and Romanian inhabited Partium and only later spread over the northern counties. Zello 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) You wrote a typical Hungaro-centric text (ignoring anything that happend outside present-day Hungary), (2) what you cite is only an unimportant episode, the important events happened afterwards (and actually you should know that), (3) the place of meeting does not determine the ethnic composition of the people who came there or joined later, (4) the description of the role of Partium is somewhat weird, (5) most importantly - see the first external link : it even says that they were explicitely Slovaks. And the page is even public domain (as long as its address mentioned), so you can just copy it and we have a nice article - I would do it myself, but I have no time. Juro 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The beginning of the uprising is not unimportant at all. It shows that the first kuruc army didn't came together from the Slovak inhabited countries. I mentioned in the article that after the uprising spread over Northern Hungary a lot of Slovak and Ruthenian joined them. The sentence is the translation of a section from Ágnes R Várkonyi's book about the Royal Hungary. She is the best expert now in the field of the 17th century, Rákóczi Uprising etc. She states that the kuruc army in the Partium was mainly composed of three groups of fugutivies: small nobles (probably mainly Hungarian), végvári soldiers and Protestants (the other two group should contain peoples with different ethnic origins, but among them again a lot of Magyars). Zello 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously do not know elementary things concerning the kurucs: I repeat, the important parts kurucs history are all the events AFTER 1672, i.e. mainly the Thokoly and Rakoczi uprising, what you are saying is absolutely ridiculous already from the logical point of view (i.e. even if I ignore tha fact that you do not know the facts) - the people who met there did not have a Magyar majority and above all they were completely replaced by other persons later. Also, there were parallel uprisings in other places, I cannot believe that you really believe that what you have written was the only/most important thing that happened. The event you choose to mention in the article is absolutely unimportant, it is only important in the sense that it was at that time that we start to call those guys kurucs, that's all. And whatever book you are using (and just I do not believe you that this is what is written there), in Slovakia this is a central part of its history, so you can be sure, I know all the necessary details. Finally, if you are not ready to write/copy a normal text, I will have to do it myself (again and again), "thanks". Juro 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is not the most important part of kuruc history only the beginning. I translated yet only the first sentences because we had a debate where the uprising started. Later we can improve the article to follow the course of the Thököly and Rákóczi uprisings. Of course I also know all the necessary details and both of us can go on with the story as our free time and other wikiworks allow. I only wrote an introduction about the year 1672. Zello 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Györke
Name: it is from the personal name Györk which is a diminutive version of Georg (-ke is the most important diminutive in Hungarian language). It was used as a Hungarian personal name in the Middle Ages, the most famous person was Csák Györke, the standard-bearer of King Charles I who was killed in the battle of Rozgony. Today it is a common Hungarian surname. Other Hungarian village names from Györk - Galgagyörk, Hévízgyörk, Vámosgyörk (all in present-day Hungary).

Village: first mention in 1323 as Gurke. In the 14th century: villa Gyurke and other versions. The Slovak name, Gyurkov is first mentioned in 1773. In the 18-19th centuries both name version are used. In Fényes and Lipszky the village is called Györke or Gyurkov. According to Fényes in 1851 a mixed Hungarian-Slovak village with 150 Catholic and 230 Reformed people. Obviously the later are the Magyars and the former the Slovaks (the religious difference exist even today). According to Vály (1799) Magyar village in Abaúj county with Reformed population. This is the oldest data I have. Later census data: in 1910 Magyar majority, in 1921 48 % Magyar but after that rapid decline. Today only a small percent of the population are Hungarian but they have a local school.

Typical Hungarian surnames from village (all families belonged to the Reformed Church): Kurucz, Vitéz, Varga, Pető, Jakab, Makó, Gédra, Gulyás.

Hungarian local toponymy: Csapiga, Hegybevégek, Agyagos, Répaföld, Kiskötél, Nagykötél, Rétek, Nádasok, Hosszacskák, Dombkák, Alsótanórok, Felsőtanórok, Topolyák, Pusztaszőlő, Csontos (all are lands around the village).

Zello 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the sound is -ď- (-gy- in Hungarian), and in the past it was written "g"/"gy" etc. even in Slovak texts (there was no centrally united spelling for Slovak until the early 19th century).

Next, there are several villages of the same name in Slovakia (Ďurkovce etc.), the name of all of them is originally Slovak (Ďurk- comes from Ďurko/Jurko - originally Ďurek, in the 18th century also spelled "Gurk" or "Gurc" or "Gurko"- which is a diminutive of Juro/Ďuro, long form Juraj = George, even today it is normal part of the standard language - not only of names and not only of surnames; -ko (changed in -ke here) is the standard Slovak ending for diminutives; I assume this diminutive has been taken over to Hungarian) and - at least in the case of the other villages - this is completely undisputed (in toponymy the -ď- even serves as a proof for the fact that this is a West Slavic, i.e. Slovak, and not South Slavic name). In other words the "Gurke" (phonetically Dyurkov > Dyurke [the o(v) to e change is quite common in Hungarian]) form is already a slightly magyarised name of a Slovak village - I told you that this is going to be very very complicated.

And as for "Hungarian local toponymy" - firstly, e.g. Topolyák is a Slovak name and the other (Nagykötel, Répaföld, Puszta...) also definitely look like typical Slavic names, secondly, irrespective of this: Slavic, Magyar, Romanian etc. villages were situated "alternatingly", the names of the neigbouring settlements say nothing in this context.

And finally your "analysis" of the religions of Slovaks and Hungarians is completely wrong. Firstly, even today there are bothe Catholics and "reformed people" (whatever exact confession that is supposed to mean) in Slovakia, but secondly and most importantly - Slovakia was a largely protestant country in the 16/17th century and it was only afterwards that it was turned into a Catholic country again. In other words, you cannot make such conclusions.

In sum, we have a typical case here: an originally Slovak (Serb etc.) village got Hungarian inhabitants at some time (unfortunately, we do not know when), we know the situation since the 19th century, but we definitely do not know the details for the 17th century. And the situation can be "180°" different from that in 1850. Juro 19:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found some details: Firstly, According to a conscription of churches of 1746 the inhabitants spoke Hungarian and Slovak, but predominantly Hungarian. The name at that time was (in modern speling) regularly Gyurk(e) - so I suppose we write "Gyurk(e) (modern Hungarian Györke, Slovak Ďurkov)". Juro 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No doubt "Gyurke" can be an old "pure" Slovak name - but similarly it can be an old "pure" Magyar one. We have the same Latin personal name as a base (Georg, György, Györk, Juro) and a similar diminutive ko/ke in both language (-ke is Finno-Ugric in Hungarian, oldest language strata). BUT in the case of THIS village Gyurkov is the Slovak version, Györke is the Magyar one. And all the old forms are the -ke forms...


 * Sorry, but in this particular case (the name Ďurko) it CANNOT, you have chosen the wrong case for such speculations - in this particular case, the ethymology is very clear (at least outside Hungary), and if it was not, it is proven by other villages of the same name in Slovakia (as I have mentioned above) and other Slavic languages. But let's say, that, indeed, this is irrelevant for our topic. I was just reacting to your ridiculous attempt to derive something from Hungarian surnames derived from one of the most frequent Slovak personal name (which, of course, you did not know).


 * One more thing: Let me repeat what I said above: both G(y)urko, and G(y)urk, and G(y)urek, and G(y)urkov are Slovak versions.

Try to understand that the same name existed in Hungarian and exist now in the name of several Hungarian villages. Zello 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then that part of the names is originally Slovak (West Slavic) - after all, like most names of historic settlements in northern and eastern present-day Hungary - that does not change anything. I could add here that the same name occurs in Russian and other Slavic languages, if what I said above is not enough for you...Juro 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In THIS village Slovaks are Catholics, Magyars are Protestants. In other villages and regions it can be exactly the opposite, although Slovak Protestants are not typically Calvinist they are Lutherans. Magyar Protestants are typically Calvinist as in Györke.


 * Who says that - you?? Which part of what you or I have said above was mentioning a distinction between Calvinists and Lutherans?? I stick to my statement - either you have a text saying that all Protestants in Ďurkov where say Hungarians (which you don't) or otherwise keep your speculations for a book for children.


 * Report from the Slovakian Magyar newspaper Gömörország http://www.gomororszag.sk/261.html for this village. In general http://www.hhrf.org/egyutt/DOTARSN.HTM#t3 where you can see that 80 % of the Calvinists in Slovakia are Magyar even today. Calvinism were indeed an almost exclusively Hungarian religion all over the KoH. Zello 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all: How can you say "even today"??? What kind of argument is that?? Are you seriously extrapolating the present-day religious situation after decades of Communism, centuries of recatholisation etc., changes of frontiers and population and above all after 350 years to the 17th century??? And in addition, are you seriously extrapolating the religious situation of a whole country to a tiny village??? Secondly: It is YOU who was claiming - without a slightest proof - that this particular village is special in terms of religion - you were claiming that because you thouht it would fit into your argumentation. When I asked for a proof, you did not answer and you suddenly reversed the way of argumentation and now you are claiming that the religious situation in this tiny village fullly corresponds to the general situation in Slovakia "even today"....You have to decide how you are going to argue at least. Thirdly: Let me sum up the facts and non-facts: In 1746 (note: NOT in the 1670s), the village had almost 50% Calvinists, the rest were Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Greek Catholics and Jews. These are the only facts. We do not know whether this was a "typical" village, in which the Calvinists would be Magyars and Lutherans Slovaks etc., we know nothing. It is perfectly possible that all the Calvinists in THIS village were Slovaks (using you initial way of argumentation), anything is possible. Any direct conclusions from religion (not to mention present-day religion) to the ethnicity of such a hamlet are absolutely wrong, ridiculous and inacceptable - and I am saying this not because of this hamlet, but as a matter of principle.

Very simple. Generally speaking:

1, Calvinist are almost always Hungarians

2, but Hungarians can be also Calvinist and Roman Catholic (seldom Lutheran)

and

3, Slovaks can be Lutheran and Roman Catholic (seldom Calvinist).

I gave a link that in this village Hungarians are Calvinist and Slovaks Catholic. Zello 00:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No you gave absolutely nothing...You are confusing the present with the 19th century and with the 17th century, and average data for a country with data for 100 people in a particular village. So: are you at least able to answer this very simple question?: Who or what says and on what grounds that all the Calvinists in THIS HAMLET were or were not Hungarians/Slovaks in the 1670s, who or what says and on what grounds that all the Catholics THIS HAMLET were or were not Hungarians/Slovaks in the 1670s, etc. (the situation 100 years later or today or of Slovakia as a whole is completely irrelevant) - have I put it simply enough?  (Again: This is a matter of the principle that we apply rational thinking here, I do not care about this particular village)Juro 01:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This was the situation in the 18-19th centuries, and the situation is quiet typical (one of the usual patterns). Do you have any evidence that in this village people changed relgion and ethnicity in the 18th century? No, you dont... Zello 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(Give some data about the spread of Calvinism in 17-19th centuries among Slovaks. How much Slovak followed this religion in the given period?) Zello 01:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe a small introduction in logical thinking will help: Even if 95% of Slovaks were (which they were not) Lutherans even in 1675 (which we do not know), that does not imply anything for these 100 people in question. Secondly, even if we knew the exact religion-ethnicity distribution for 1750 (which we do NOT, because the oldest - the 1746 - data say nothing in this respect), that does not imply anything for the situation in the 1670s, because in such a small settlement even one family makes a huge difference (this does even apply to some big towns, so what you are attempting here is just ridiculous). Now, what I am saying is that we know nothing, what you are saying is that it is possible to simply extrapolate the situation 200 later backwards in time and in addition the AVERAGE situation of a huge territory to a little hamlet. This necessarily implies that it is you who has to provide at least the slightest evidence for what you are claiming (namely that it is possible to simply extrapolate the situation 200 later backwards in time and in addition the AVERAGE situation of a huge territory to a little hamlet); my statement (namely that there is no data) is evidence per se. Juro 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * According to your logic when we don't have certain proofs that a village was populated by Magyars than it was populated by Slovaks, even that later data indicate otherwise. I say that when we don't have certain proofs (as usual in the 17th century) that we should deduce from the later data and compare with the general situation. I think your logic is biased towards a prejudice that Magyars always arrived later. Zello 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are always automatically transferring your way of thinking to me. I have never said what you are suggesting above: Once again: I say the only thing we know is that the name was Guyrke (Gwurke etc.) in the 1670s (not yet Györke). That is point one - regarding this village. Everything else is your personal speculation. Point two: For the future, this way of extreme personal speculation (namely that it is possible to simply extrapolate the situation 200 later backwards in time and in addition the AVERAGE situation of a huge territory to a little hamlet) is inacceptable - not only for the naming issue. Such speculations might be acceptable in Hungarian popular texts, but not in any serious neutral text. Just stick to the facts.Juro 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The local toponymy is the toponimy of the given village, not the neighbouring ones. Agyagos etc. are the lands of Györke. I'm not able to image how can be a Slovak name Hegybevégek, Agyagos, Répaföld, Rétek, Nádasok, Hosszacskák, Dombkák, Pusztaszőlő, Csontos...


 * So, you mean parts of the village? Because "local toponymy" normally means the neigbouring objects. Anyway, when did these settlements (?) became part of the village? From which time are these names? etc. etc...This is not decisive for this particular case, because we have clear statements, it is only important as a precedense.


 * These are the names of the village fields. Zello 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And my questions? Are you suggesting you have the names of village fields for the late 17th century? (and I am quite sure, at that time these were NOT the fields of this village) Juro 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The oldest given data from the 18th century says that Györke is a Magyar or Magyar-Slovak village with Magyar majority. The Calvinist parish was established here in the 16th century. It seems that Slovaks appeared here somewhere around 1740 and their percentage slowly growed in the following centuries until they became a majority. The village was called Györke even in the 18th century. Zello 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the village has a "magyarized" Slovak name, then the Slovaks cannot have appeared there only in the 16th century. Secondly, the text mentions the late 17th century - which source says that the name was Györke (in this particular form, i.e. with an ö) at that time? I have only found G(y)urke...And assuming that Slovaks came there "around 1740" only because the oldest source that has been preserved is from 1746 is highly primitive - sorry, but there is no better word for this. Juro 21:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first argument is not true so all the speculation lacks any foundation. The village has a name that can be Magyar or Slovak, the oldest forms are the Magyars, and the first written sources inducate Magyar majority. The case is absolutely clear. Zello 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first argument IS true - the name has a Slovak stem and a probably Magyar ending (a regularly distored West Slavic ending). Secondly, one of the medieval names is Gyurky, which is a Slovak name (a geographocal plural). Thirdly, the oldest source dealing with the ethnicity of the village stems from 1746 and it says what I have cited above, but THIS ARTICLE deals with a time some 75 years before 1746 and since any single new family arrival/departure in such a tiny village completely changes the ethnic structure in terms of percentages, we know absolutely nothing and everything you have invented above is pure speculation without any - not the slightest - real grounds (at least not from what you have said above). It is perfectly possible that the ethnic structure changed 10x over the 75 years in question (the name, however, would not change so often - probably). Juro 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Györk is a common medieval Hungarian name derived from Latin Georg. This a fact. There was no need to borrow it from Slavs who perhaps also borrowed from Latin. Zello 00:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "there was no need" in etymology, whether there was a "need" or not, the name HAS been taken over from Slavic, that is a fact (whether the Slavs themselves took it from Latin is irrelevant). Juro 01:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Present any evidence that Györk was borrowed from Slavic and not directly Latin in Hungarian. Zello 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Györk, Gyurk - that's the point. I could cite some Slovak books, they would not help you, so let me give a simple hint - the oldest Slovak early medieval forms are - using modern Hungarian spelling - Gyur(e)k and Gyurko (Jurko etc.) - now compare this - phonetically- with the Latin Georg, which one is closer to Gyurk (not Györk)? And, by the way, I have not noticed the existence of a native "Latin" population in Hungary whose popular diminutive names could be taken over to Hungarian (unless you recognized the existence of Romanians and they have something like that in their language - I have no command of Romanian to answer this).Juro 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Juro 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In present-day Hungarian György (Georg) is called lovingly Gyuri and Gyurka so the form is still living. More than half of the Hungarian names were borrowed from Latin without any native Latin population. No wonder, it shows the influence of the church. But it doesn't really matter whether it was directly borrowed from Latin or indirectly through Slavic. After it became a Hungarian personal name in the early Middle Ages Hungarian villages were called so as more than three villages prove in present-day Hungary. Zello 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does not matter, but you have opened the topic and asked about it, so I have answered. I can only say that I have a book on Slovak toponymy, which always mentiones disputed cases and Hungarian views, but all names on "Gyurk-" are presented as undisputably Slovak. Secondly, it still holds that "Gyurk" is closer Guyrk than "Georg" is to Gyurk... But, OK, we can conclude that we have agreed that we disagree :). The real point is: do you agree with (I mean agree, not necesarily like) the current text version or not? Juro 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Gyurke was used in contemporary documents as the village name, I have no problem with it.

We can write a very informative article about the village from our discussion :) Zello 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Juro is not even conscious how inlogical and biased are his comments and only shows his Slovak nationalism! He comments on the origin of Hungarian names but lacks knowledge of Hungarian language or linguistics thus his remark has void value because to assert something on Hungarian word formation or origin first of all you need be familiar with Hungarian at least on linguistics grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Müteferrika (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)