Talk:Old Hungarian script/Archive 1

Hungarian???
If it`s "Székely rovásírás", than why is it translated as "hungarian runes" and not as "Szekely runes"???? Especially since they had been used solely in Transilvania, not in Hungary, and by szekely, not by magyars.


 * It has been used by all Hungarians but Transylvania was the last region to give it up completely. BTW the Székely script is not the only version of this runaic script; there is also the pálos rovásírás, used by the St. Paul monastic order. Alensha 12:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations
Is it possible to get some of the illustrations of actual inscriptions such as found in the Hungarian Wikipedia article on this script? http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_rov%C3%A1s%C3%ADr%C3%A1s Doc Rock 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins
If, indeed, the Székely script derives from or has common roots with the Orkhon Turkic "runic" script, then its "long roots" would appear to go back, rather, to the Sogdian script (cf. for example, my article, Dr. Edward D. Rockstein, "The Discovery and Decipherment of the Turkish Runes," Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 18, 1989, pp. 328-331) Doc Rock 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Variants
Are't there more variants? Nikolsburg alphabet (and the Nikolsburg alphabet on the Nagy Szent Miklós art treasures--in an unidentified language, possibly Pecheneg?) for example? Doc Rock 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nikolsburg alphabet is not a "variant". It is the first complete list of all characters. They are slightly differ from newer Rovás characters - the latin letters of the time are different from today's ones, too!


 * "Nagy Szent Miklós" - correctly Nagyszentmiklós, Hungarian never slice up settlement names -. The treasure's inscriptions are not to be associated with these letters. Several solutions have been came to scene - and every of them says that the others are incorrect. I suggest that the inscriptions can not be read with the Rovás alphabet. Cserlajos 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pauline runes
It would be good to give a scholarly reference for the Pauline runes, lest a skeptic dismiss the idea as being on a par with the supposed Norse runes in Minnesota... (I'm not saying that the Pauline runes are fakes or non-Hungarian, just that this article cites no basis for the claim.)

--128.8.89.68 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that there was no contact before the Spanish-Inca war of 1531 between Europeans and natives in what is now Ecuador, it seems slightly unlikely that there were people born in 1473 who were still alive by the time the Hungarian missionaries began working in the Viceroyalty of Peru – including the missionaries themselves. Even if we assume that missionary work started only two years after natives and Spaniards first met (how likely is that?), and that Hungarians arrived and made the inscriptions in the same year (again, how likely is that?), then the person referred to must have been 60 years old – which was probably about as old as people could get, with epidemics imported from Europe killing the natives, and the unfamiliar climate and environment troubling any missionaries. It all looks like wishful thinking on Hosszú's part, but perhaps the Hungarian article has other references. 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though average ages of people in earlier centuries were lower than nowadays, there were still plenty of people who made it into their 80s, 90s and beyond. I agree, though, that a reference is needed. Is there one on the Hungarian version of this page? Cbdorsett 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the Hungarian article does not have other references. Also, it is now a complete mess (okay, not a complete, but fairly more motley than the English one) needing cleanup. When I wrote about the Pauline runes, I had had no other resources except Hosszú's "wishful thinking"s (I have to note, his pages is still the best resources upon the runes - they lack the Sumerian-Hunnish-Hungarian-Quechua theory etc.) and the contours on his page. Even if the transliteration is correct, even if not, the section should be rewritten, since as an example, we should put an iscription from Hungary out. Or not?  Cserlajos  (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin
The evidence presented by the following paragraph does not convince me of the relation between the Orkhon script and the Rovás. I've heard that conclusion elsewhere, and I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I just don't see proof from the arguments made here:
 * "Around 600 AD, the yet illiterate Hungarian tribes moved southwest from their earlier territories to the coastal region of the Eastern Black Sea. The Hungarian Runes are almost certainly related to the Orkhon or Turkic Runic script.

Says who?


 * "This is supported by the Hungarian tribes' early geography propinquity [Is this supposed to be "proximity?"] to the Göktürks."

So what? At various times in history they were near Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Mongolic, and maybe Greek peoples. It doesn't follow, from the evidence presented that the Turkic influence was the source of the writing.


 * "Moreover, thirteen of the Hungarian rovás glyphs closely resemble characters of the Orkhon script.

Which ones? I don't count 13 convergences. I see a lot of resemblance in overall appearance between Futhark and Rovás; they seem to show a greater resemblance to each other than with Orkhon. Some prominent features of the Orkhon script are absent in Rovás, e.g. reduplicated characters, and the use of dots or other small characters detached from the main sign.

I'm not arguing that German Runes and Rovás are necessarily closely related; it's just that the evidence presented by this section of this article is hardly convincing. If someone can correct this, please do. InFairness 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)!


 * There are no characters among the Futhark and Rovás that closely correspond in both shape and sound. Allegedly, scholars believe there are such correspondences between Orkhon and Róvas. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement "There are no characters among the Futhark and Rovás that closely correspond in both shape and sound" does not address the point I made about a VISUAL correspondence. I made NO reference to any sound correspondence. My point is only this: The article should explain who and why they said that Sz Runes are descended from Orkhon runes. The connection is not obvious visually (at least to me). It may be true, I am just asking an expert to explain this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InFairness (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I could see some characters who might plausibly be derived from similar characters in Orkhon, but there are few obvious examples, apart from Orkhon S² and Rovás eSz. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a genetic relationship between Runes and Old Hungarian but it is distant. Old Hungarian derives from Old Turkic, which in turn descends from Aramaic, deriving from Phoenician. Runes derive from North Italic, which through Old Italic I think also derives from Phoenician. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nikolsburg alphabet an incunabulum?
Judging from the jpeg, this looks like a manuscript, not a printed work, hence it is not properly an incunabulum.

If anybody is in a position to verify this supposition, I suggest the word "incunabulum" be replaced by "manuscript".

66.183.175.33 (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)RW
 * The nikolsburg alphabet was written onto the parchment endpaper of an incunabulum (which was printed in 1483). I have clarified this in the article. Szabi (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

unreferenced material
looking throgh this article, I find there is a lot of unverified material pulled off the internet, in particular details on inscriptions. Since this is apparantly a topic of popular enthusiasm in Hungary, that's far from reliabe, and raises any number of red flags. Thus, what evidence do we have that the script became part of "folk art" and remained in use into the 19th century? The article makes a lot of unverifiable claims on the dates of individual inscriptions, but it stops short of pointing out a specific inscription dated to the 19th century. This article urgently needs to be based on proper WP:RS, or we'll need to remove the unverified claims. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pálos rovásírás
Our account of the Pálos rovásírás is due to a single online essay written by one Hosszú Gábor. Hosszú Gábor is also responsible for the "Community of the Hungarian Rovas (Runic) Writers (MRK)" website recently pushed by. He is also the author of the single hit for the term on google scholar. Gábor is apparently an assistant professor at an University of Technology and Economics (i.e. an amateur). We seem to be dealing with an, ahem, unilateral discovery here. I am afraid we'll have to remove the section again unless some independent confirmation can be shown. Incidentially, the persistent recurrence of Gábor's name makes it rather likely to my mind that the "Turoslangos" account is operated by Mr. Gábor as well. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Túróslángos means 'cheese scone'; it does seem that this editor is Gábor Hosszú. He is a senior lecturer on the Department of Electron Devices at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. (Hosszú is the family name.) The other recent editor, Wajaskifli, is vajaskifli 'butter crescent''. -- Evertype·✆ 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

so I suppose we'll blank the "Pauline" section for now. If there is only one author aware of the existence of this script, and the same person adds it to Wikipedia, that's pure WP:OR. I thought Gábor was the given name, but google gives the name as H Gábor, which had me confused. I have no idea why geocities.com pages should come up with google scholar btw., I though the point of google scholar vs. google web was to focus on academic publications. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Various passages (homokmégy-halom, folk-art)
''There are archaeological findings from the 10th century, for example, from Homokmégy[9] The latter inscription was found on a fragment of a quiver made of bone. Although there have been several attempts to interpret it, the meaning of it is still unclear. — The inscription is found on a reinforcement'' of a quiver (once wooden) made of bone, not the quiver itself was made thereof. Also, this inscription is clearly not written in Old Hungarian Script. See the article by Gábor Vékony in Rovás és Rovásírás). So that image (and that passage) does not belong there.

Concerning folk-art, this might or might not be true, however, most proponents of this view belong to the less serious field. One should consder removing that passage, especially as it lacks citation. Szabi (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know why, but somehow I was not logged in. Just for the record, the edits from the IP 77.118.56.11 around midnight of 9th/10th November are by me. Szabi (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From an anti-nationalist
Hello guys! If you read this, I know you will delete it, I'm talking now exactly to You.

I posted the last "weasel words", that Evertype deleted, about the Carpathian-Basin "theory".

I'll be short I promise, and I'm not a primitive angry nationalist, there wont be hatewords you can be sure. Just a few minutes of your time, please.

However, I'm a journalist, I'm definitely far from being a linguist. I simply have been absorbing the Hungarian language, from the craddle, my mother was a Hungarian teacher. Most of you, being non-Hungarians, are talking about this topic, from a scientific point of view. (for example, Evertype writes: "Szekler-Magyar Rovásírás", I dont know what Szekler is (mentioned twice above, so its not a mistype, the only reason for that if this is the german version of "szekely"), but you state it if you read it from the Bible or something, as the only possible truth, as the name of Hungarian Old Scripts. It's okay, nobody will offend you for that, because you just cannot know this, if you are not hungarian.

You are just like a scientist, looking at the Moon, as a far object, through his telescope and thinks he knows it very well. But he never touched it, nevcer smelled it.

I do touched and smelled Hungarian, with time I became a journalist, and as a hobbi, I'm a lyricist for some bands in Hungary.

I have to tell you, I hate nationalists, and I think, they have diverted many nice, and ancient Hungarian value into something which now has the meaning: "nationalist".

Many of these Carpathian basin-, Hungarian-Sumer connection-, etc. theories are sounded by nationalists, that's true. Moreoverly, these "theory-makers" can never "stop" with these kinds of theories, they allege things like Jesus was not jewish but Hungarian, etc, so we can agree, they are stupid, most of the times. If they could focus on parts of their theories, which can be also true, and not to mix them with crazy ideas about Jesus and planet Syrius, maybe..Maybe, if serious linguist in Hungary just would take a closer look on a few things, instead of instantly sniffing at it. Unfortunately, this is not the case, all other theories about the ancient Hungarians are treat like "nationalist" and "amateur" theories. Nationalist, because Hungarians says them, and amateur, because people who says them are not the part of the "leite" linguists community, which - just like every communinty - has the characterictic of closing out the one thinking differently.

But I cannot understand a point of view, like yours, when you write in the style that suggests, all the other theories then the Turic origin are coming for sure from nationalists. Is it impossible for a Hungarian, to allege theories to the world about HIS language, and in the same time he is not be thought a nationalist? I think it shouldn't be impossible, so you should try to express yourself differently in the article.

What you allege, is not else, just the PRESENT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE about this topic, just not too clever people say things like "sure", "obivously", and do general statements about what they you cannot be sure of (f.e. when you allege, everyone who doesnt believe the Turkic theory (because it is just a theory as well), is "amateur", AND nationalist).

So to get to the point: As a Hungarian, I "feel" the similarities, I can "smell" them when I look at them. I see the photo of signs on (just one from the many) Sabaean inscription here on Wiki page, and right after I look at rovásírás, I just cannot imagine, who can be so blind, not to see any similarities. Mabye Im stupuid, because maybe every experts knows, this is not possible. I believe there are people like that, but I hope they dont think they KNOW EVERYTHING. The one who is clever, never thinks he knows the truth. He know just possibilities.

As far as I understand, you are saying that, THERE ARE similarities, but obviously, just an amateur can say things like that, because this and that and that....sorry for the word, this is bullshitting.....If something looks like a cow, it mouws like a cow, it gives you milk, then IT IS a cow. You are like a guy from the city, who had read a lot of book about the cow, and after he went to famrers and told them the animal they were milking is an EMU, and "obviously" not a cow.

So I suggest to pull your nose out of the sand of your prejudices, before you make general and negative statements on what you might not like so much personally. This is not a collection of YOUR thoughts, it is the collection of ALL thoughts.

All of these have the right to be known, readers can decide after a short investigation, which one to believe, and only time can tell us, by new excavations and investigations, which one of us were right, but definitely not You.

So please, if you are an expert, please, tell me, why this theories are impossible. Please give me facts about that. Also give me facts please why Tartaria tablets cannot be related to Hungarian script, just as two example. I promise you, I will learn from this, I dont want to deny it any way I'll accept it if it seems logical and true, but I havent read any argument but "obviously", and "nationalists", and "amateurs", which I cannot accept as a thinking being.

From the "Magyars" article of Wikipedia: "According to a genetic study published in 2000 in the American academic journal Science, the ancestors of Hungarians appeared in Europe around 40,000 years ago and genetically, the most closely related ethnic groups are Poles, Croats, Ukrainians, and other surrounding ethnic groups. However, historian András Róna-Tas notes that no historic conclusions may be drawn yet based on genetic research." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.200.8 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My mail: zoltanddf @ gmail.com

Thank you for reading it and answering Zoltan, an amateur antinacionalist from Hungary 80.98.200.8 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * People who study writing systems know that superficial similarities are not significant. Sure, some of the characters in Sabaean look similar to those in Old Hungarian. Indeed, some characters in Runic look like Old Hungarian. And all three scripts are related, all having derived ultimately from Proto-Semitic. The interesting thing is HOW they are related, and in the case of Old Hungarian, it was Aramaic-derived scripts heading east towards Siberia, changing and being modified by Turkic speakers, and then being picked up by Hungarians and brought back into Europe. This is simple, demonstrable, mainstream linguistics. It is respectful of history, and of Hungarian language and culture. -- Evertype·✆ 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Foto Caption feat. Székely Rovásírás and 'Welcome' vs 'BUGAC'
Just a NOTE to Editor: The caption "Welcome sign in Old Hungarian script for the town of Bugac, Hungary, 2010" is incorrect. It is not a "welcome sign"; according to the Székely Rovásírás presented in the very article in which the fotograph and caption appear, the sign actually reads "BUGAC". ~2K12/VII/07 Charlietsif (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

[Untitled]
Excuse me, but whatever happened to the images that Lufi2 uploaded? FYI, none of them are copyrighted in any way, and therefore can safely be uploaded and lined

i have the hungarian runes alphabet as a jpg image. (no idea if copyrighted, probably not!) how can i link it to this article??????????

I added images with the letters and numbers. Mind you, graphical representations of writing systems/alphabets cannot be copyrighted! Fortunately... (Yet?)

--Lufi2 08:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be a welcome addition to actually name some inscriptions which are reasonably well dated. --Pjacobi 11:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are *any*, mainly because it was written on wooden sticks. --80.99.62.187 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And also destroyed by St. Steven's thugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.250.181 (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

NEW SECTION REQUEST: In popular culture
how about collecting pop culture occurences of the Rovás script in a new section

ex: "Halo of the Sun" in the Silen Hill series (https://silenthill.wikia.com/wiki/Halo_of_the_Sun) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.11.81 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Parent is said to be younger than this
The parent (Old Turkish Script) is listed as from 8 CE, and Old Hungarian Script is listed as 7 CE. Back to the future baby! Duopixel (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's no difference at all. If the first example we have of OTS is one lousy year more recent than our first example of OHS, and we have otherwise good evidence that OHS developed from OTS, we've got our case for it. That's like saying "Woman A can't possibly be woman B's mother. Woman B came in here and showed me her ID ten whole minutes before woman A showed up with her ID!" Right... not. --Thnidu (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of reference Feb 2007
I disagree that the following reference should be deleted from the article:
 * "* Antal Károly Fisher: Hun-magyar írás ("The Hun-Magyar Writing"), in: Heisler J. Könyvnyomdája, Budapest, 1889 (analyzes writings from 12 findings dated between 1501-1753)"

The reason given was that the citation was "unused". If the article is relevant to the subject of the article, it contributes to the value of the article. I think it should be restored. Any thoughts? Cbdorsett 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. The book is not allowed to be known about for it is not properly anti-Hungarian. Dr. klara sandor IS. See: http://finno-ugristik.univie.ac.at/aktuelles/news-einzelansicht/article/vortrag-prof-dr-klara-sandor-szeged/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=69430&cHash=ad6a044a10980334d7c59e229ee11177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.250.181 (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Translate please. ,--Thnidu (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Image contradicts text
In the "Characters" section, there is the following passage: "The alphabet does not contain the letters for the phonemes dz, dzs of modern Hungarian, since these are relative recent developments in the language's history. Nor does it have letters for Latin q, w, x and y." However, the image of the alphabet under that does include characters given Latin equivalents DZ, DZS, Q, W, X, and Y. Which is correct? &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * These letters are recent inventions. Whether you consider the 20th century extensions as authentic is a question of preference I guess. Some people insist that this alphabet is still actively used and the recent developments are authentic. There are even separate groups who think the others are ignorant and aren't using/extending the writing system properly according to traditions. Others think of the alphabet as an essentially extinct writing system that was artificially revived and modern changes are "fake". Good luck finding some neutral sources to decide such politicized debates. Qorilla (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've edited the text so that it makes sense. This section still needs citations adding though. Dadge (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious "Origins"
§ Origins is tendentious and unsupported... Thnidu (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is so far from being a Good Article it's sad. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

How about Avar or proto-Bulgar language in Nagy Szent Miklós?
Hey have you ever considered the fact that in the 9th century, after the fall of the Avar state, Eastern Pannonia and Banat, along with Transylvania, were in the Bulgarian state (still pagan and not yet slavicized)? Pechenegs, he! The Nagy Szent Miklós golden treasure is Bulgar, isn't it? So, if there are runes there, it's more logical they are Bulgar (or Avar). Both languages used Turkic runes, and Pechenegs came following the Magyars to the Northwestern Black Sea region and couldn't make it (in an organized manner) to Banat, for an obvious reason, the Magyars were there already! 85.11.148.52 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:OR, WP:FORUM. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Amazingly??
I don't see how the addition of "amazingly" contributes any information other than the anonymous author's emotional reaction to something. We already have "however" - what do we need "amazingly" for?

Unless the author wants to explain the idea in a sentence or two, I think it should be reverted.

Cbdorsett 06:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naming debate
The name is debated (Old Hungarian): there are more proposals with different names for the same script (Szekler-Hungarian Rovas). One of the proposal's title (Old Hungarian Script) uses word which should be avoided according to an Unicode statement: „However, some are concerned that the English word old has the connotation of being worn out or deteriorated through age. Furthermore, the consensus at meetings UTC #114 and WG2 #52 was that it is unnecessary to make a contrast in name between a script and a writing system (which does not need encoding)." Source: N3424R (Lisu Script, 2008-04-22). The reason why the Szekler-Hungarian Rovas is preferred - it can be found in the proposal N3527. Wajaskifli (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is by no means "debated". The name of the script is well-established in the English language. Unicode does NOT recommend what you say it does; you did not understand the context of the reference to Lisu. "Szekler-Hungarian Rovas" is not preferred in the English language. Your saying so does not make it so. Your logic is false, and you are not doing your script any favours as far as getting it encoded. And that argument belongs elsewhere. -- Evertype·✆ 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Old" as in "Paleo-". The translation of "Old Hungarian" would be Ősmagyar. English appositions are sometimes ambiguous, in this case, it's "(Old Hungarian) script", not "Old (Hungarian script)" (c.f. German Altungarische Schrift, not *alte Ungarische Schrift). dab (𒁳) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

cut from article:
 * The term Old Hungarian is well-established in English linguistic literature on writing systems.[Diringer, David. 1947. The Alphabet. A Key to the History of Mankind. London: Hutchinson's Scientific and technical Publications. Pp. 314-315. Gelb, I. J. 1952. A study of writing: The foundations of grammatology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 142, 144. Gaur, Albertine. 1992. A History of Writing. London: British Library. ISBN 0-7123-0270-0. P. 143. Coulmas, Florian. 1996. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. ISBN 0-631-19446-0. Pp. 366-368.]

we don't need to pile up five references to establish the common term. We'd need a single reference lending credibility to the "Hungarian runes" designation. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, the "debate" extends outside the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia is being used as a weapon in the debate, which is bringing in "counts" as though that would make the difference. There are 4 references there, not 5; the first two are certainly not to be deleted. Ultimately, the problem is what "translation equivalents" are. In Hungarian they call it rovásírás or magyar rovásírás or skékely rovásírás or székely-magyar rovásírás or rovás. All of this is quite fine. The problem is that in English, the established term for the script is Old Hungarian. It has been called this for at least six decades. The correct translation for any of the Hungarian terms (all of which refer to this script) is simply "Old Hungarian". -- Evertype·✆ 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sure, I don't dispute any of this. The burden of producing references is on those wishing to dispute the status quo. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm going to put that back in again. It really does need to be there right now: you've seen edit warring here and there where attempts to introduce "Szekler-Hungarian Rovas Writing" have been made. You may choose to pare it down to two references, but multiple references are not out of order on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you consolidated them into a single reference first in the article. All right. -- Evertype·✆ 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who really want to learn more, because this Wikipedia article is heavily controlled by Evertype: Old Hungarian - the erroneous name for Rovas script: http://wiki.rovas.info/index.php/Old_Hungarian_-_the_erroneous_name_for_Rovas_script Bye, Rovosaman (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE-the above link is dead/domain gone - probably for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You are using a version of the Wikipedia logo for your website. That logo (including alterations) is trademarked and copyrighted (all rights reserved) by the Wikimedia Foundation . The use of that logo or a derivative work is not allowed on any other website except those published by the Wikimedia Foundation without express written permission. . I'm quite sure you do not have it because using it to falsely imply to readers that your website is one of the Wikipedias or is connected in any way with the Wikimedia Foundation is not allowed. Incidentally, there are multiple editors who have this article on their watchlists as well as the related ones in which you and and your associates have consistently tried to push your point of view, fringe theories, websites, and publications. Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Competing theories
Some nationalist Hungarians try to compare Old Hungarian with Anatolian Hieroglyphs, with Sumerian, with Chinese, etc. in order to "prove" and "enhance" the "antiquity" of the script. This is pseudo-science. It is not based on structural similarities (in glyph and phonetic repertoire) but on superficial glyph similarity. Citing Gelb and Diringer and Laroche is absolutely ridiculous. There is no credible "competing" "theory" about the origin of Old Hungarian. It is derived from Old Turkic, demonstrably so. -- Evertype·✆ 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've read and seen the "evidence" in the Hungarian nationalist works and it is shoddy scholarship.  If you carefully examine the references for these writings, you will see that they all basically derive from a single author and his positions.  It is Hungarian nationalism and not serious linguistics. (Taivo (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
 * The Carpatian "theory" has been put back in again, with just as many ridiculous apologetic weasel words. -- Evertype·✆ 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For any nationalist agendists, I'd love to put them into a room with the people they claim relation/descent from - one especially amusing instance would be more or less "pure" ethnic Magyars facing ancient Sumerians. I'm positive the claims would evaporate instantly. - HammerFilmFan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)