Talk:Hungarian language

Umlaut

A discussion has been opened at Talk:Umlaut (diacritic)#Hungarian that editors of this article may be able to resolve. I notice that the statement challenged is also stated in this article and is also uncited. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Section "Word order"

The neutral word order is not SVO but SOV (János almát eszik. or Péter könyvet ír.) The example sentence is not the best as the neutral order would be János almát lát. but it's not commonly said, so this sentence may look like it has SVO order but that is not the neutral order for other common sentences. Unlike English, questions aren't formed by changing word order but either by different intonation or using an -e question suffix (János lát almát? János lát-e almát? Does János see any apples?) with word order changing the focus in questions too (Az almát látja-e János? Is it the apple that János sees or something else?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.255.77.221 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

In the "Word order" section of a language article, I expect to be shown how a sentence works, and not necessarily how a name works. For example, in a normal English sentence the subject is first, then the verb, and then the object (this order is often abbreviated SVO).

It would be helpful to see the proper way to make an ordinary sentence in Hungarian, and it would also be nice to see details like "if the sentence is a question" etc. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi TooManyFingers, I think the word order is free, just speak higher tone and move forward which word is in the focus.

"megyek az állomásra" "I go to station" neutral

"ÉN megyek az állomásra" "I go to the station" emphasizing that I (not you)

"Az ÁLLOMÁSRA megyek" "I go to the station" emphasizing the station, important to where I go OrionNimrod (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope something like this can be included at the very beginning of the "Word order" section, because it is much more important for understanding how the Hungarian language works, even though the proper form for a person's name is a common problem for English speakers. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason for deleting intermediate subgroups

Because this led to an edit war on the page about the Finnish language, I thought that I'd leave my justification on the talk page for removing the intermediate subgroups between Uralic and Hungarian.

WP:TRUTH means that it doesn't matter whether subgroups like Finno-Ugric actually exist; it must be verifiable that there is a scholarly consensus that they exist.

It's possible to cherry-pick sources that say that these subgroups exist, particularly older sources, but equally there are other sources that deny the existence of any intermediate subgroups between Uralic and Hungarian. So what is needed is an expert overview of the different proposals that explains the scholarly consensus.

The book "The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages" qualifies as such a reference, and here is what it has to say:

"It is generally accepted that the Uralic language family comprises [Saamic, Finnic, Mordvin, Mari, Permic, Samoyed] and the Ugric group, which is sometimes also derived from an intermediate proto-language. However, there is no consensus on further groupings or subdivisions within Uralic." (emphasis mine)

On Ugric specifically:

"Many linguists would now derive these shared linguistic features from Sprachbund-like mutual areal influences rather than a common proto-language (see chapters 1.2 and 2.7; Salminen 2002)." Stockhausenfan (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This might be worth taking to WP:LING, but I do not believe we actually follow a standard of only-consensus for what to give as infobox classification; fairly widely supported + ongoingly debated subgroups are often included too with a "?", e.g. Tibeto-Kanauri; ditto unclear top-level families such as Niger-Congo above Atlantic-Congo. For the purposes of Hungarian this would yes probably mean including Ugric. (Separate Finno-Ugric though has yes not been really defended in decades now.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The key lies in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Do we say in this article that Finno-Ugric and Ugric have been entirely abandonded/rejected by general academic consensus? As of now, this article writes about Ugric: "it is no longer clear that it is a valid group"; and about binary split into Samoyed and Finno-Ugric: "that is now frequently questioned". It is a key fact about Hungarian that it is described as nested in the two intermediate subgroups Ugric and Finno-Ugric in many good sources, including fairly recent ones. All of us are aware about the recent trend to favor the null hypothesis for the internal classification of Uralic leading to a rake model (again in many good sources), but does that mean that Ugric and Finno-Ugric shouldn't get a mention in the infobox?

On a sidenote, lede- and infobox-heavy editing alone is not a healthy thing when our articles totally misalign about the evaluation of the Ugric branch. In Ugric languages, there is zero mention of recent doubts, while Ob-Ugric languages makes a much better job. –Austronesier (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

etymology of kovász - sourdough

Is it related to some slavic languages? It reminds me of Kvass and on "fermentation" in other slavic languages? Bulgarian: квас = sourdough (квасвам = to ferment). The inserted "o" in k(o)vász is typical for hungarian words of slavic origin. --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, as we do have listed on Wiktionary too; cashes out to Old Hungarian *kuwās(u) from early Common Slavic *kwās(ŭ).

Noting here at this point that a longer section or perhaps even article on loanwords from Slavic might be a good idea (cf. Slavic loanwords in Romanian). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Adj király katonát

Please check the translation in the footnote to The Princess (1983 film). My googlungarian sucks :-) --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC) If it makes sense in English then it's correct, it's what it means. It is the exclamation used in the childrens' game and the name of that game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.255.77.221 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Word order examples

The examples are very "syntethic" at best, and in some cases completely incorrect. E.g. "Látja János az almát" only works as a question... 2A02:6B6F:EB44:6B00:8408:EC42:C0BD:B106 (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Considered to be

@Are2The2: Why should we change the clear and unambiguous statement Hungarian is a member of the Uralic language family to a more ambiguous Hungarian is considered to be a member of the Uralic language family? "Considered" is on the list of common weasel words. Here it could be interpreted either as a redundant statement of scholarly consensus (this point is expressed more clearly without the addition) or it might suggest that the status of Hungarian is open to debate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Controversial content

The current revision of the page contains this: "The classification of the Hungarian language as Uralic has historically been the subject of intense debate, with some scholars proposing that Hungarian is a member of the Turkic language family. Historically, the language was written using the Old Hungarian script, an alphabetic writing system born from the Old Turkic script. Moreover, a significant number of lexical and morphological correspondences have been noted between Hungarian and Turkic languages."

While not strictly wrong, in my opinion this, particularly the phrasing of that last sentence with "moreover", gives the "Hungarian is Turkic" position more credence than WP:UNDUE would allow us. Especially when it's referenced to the following statement by Angela Marcantonio:

"Supporters of the Uralic theory consider the Finno-Ugric/Uralic origin of Hungarian as settled since this Ugric-Turkish Battle, although, in reality, the data reported in this regard from both camps are not decisive…it contains a statistically significant number of lexical as well as morphological correspondences with Turkic, and, to a lesser extent, Mongolian and Tungusic."

Needless to say, Marcantonio's statement is nonsense.

IMO either this should be rewritten or the "moreover a significant..." section should be removed, but an IP editor reverted my removal of it, so I've started a talk page discussion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

To further explicate my view on this, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. We have an example of what an encyclopedia of Uralic might look like: the Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages. That book has 66 pages of references, yet not a single one of the references is to any book or paper by Angela Marcantonio, evidently because the experts who compiled that text knew that Marcantonio's views and publications on Uralic were not credible. I don't see why her texts keep getting referenced on Wikipedia. Stockhausenfan (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed that claim, as it fails WP:FRINGE. It is not an academic view and does not have linguistic support. FRINGE is clear that marginal views should not even be mentioned. Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

To the edit-warring IP. This is the place to discuss. As per WP:BRD, your material should not be reinserted before there is consensus here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)