The Hungarian language is totally different in vocabulary and grammar
from the Teutonic, Latin, Slav, or Celtic languages. Between Russian
and German, or between Russian and English there is much affinity,
both groups of languages belonging to the Aryan, or Indo-German class
of idioms. Between Hungarian and German, or Hungarian and Slav, there
is no affinity whatever. The Hungarians have indeed inserted some
Slav and German mortar into crevices left open by an occasional decay
of the Hungarian material; but the structure and functions of the
Magyar language are totally alien to either Slav or German idioms.
It is an agglutinative language, the root of words being almost
invariably formed by their first syllables, unto which all affixes
and pronouns are soldered according to a fairly regular process of
word and case-formation. In Aryan languages the root is, as it were,
subterranean, and frequently hard to lay bare. In Hungarian the root is
always transparent. The vowels have a distinct musical value, and do not
resemble the musically indeterminable vowels or diphthongs of English
or German. Consonants are never unduly accumulated, as in Bohemian;
and strong accents on one syllable of a word are unknown. Generally,
the first syllable of the word has a heavier stress on it. Hungarian
is rich both in its actual vocabulary, especially for outward things
and phenomena, more especially still for acoustic phenomena; and in its
prospective word-treasury. In few languages can new words, expressing
shades and phases of meanings, be coined with greater ease. This facility
applies to abstract terms as well as to material ones. It is probably
not too much to say, that for purposes of Metaphysics or Psychology
few languages offer so ample a repository and laboratory for terms as
does the Magyar language. Although far from being as adapted for rhyme
as English or German, yet Hungarian has many and sonorous rhymes. On
the other hand, it crystallizes with readiness into all the metres of
Greek or Latin poetry. A peculiarity of Hungarian (and Finnish) are the
diminutives of endearment and affection.
The origin of the Hungarian language has been, and still is, a matter of
great discussion between the students of philology. It is certain that
Hungarian is not an Aryan, but an Ugor (Ugrian) language, belonging to
a vast group of languages spoken in parts of China, in Siberia, Central
Asia, Russia, and Turkey. We here adjoin the genealogy of the Hungarian
language as given by Professor Simonyi, of Budapest, who is considered
one of the greatest living authorities on the history and grammar of the
Magyar language. He says that Hungarian, together with Vogul, Ostiak,
Siryenian, Votiak, Lapp, Finnish, Mordvin, and Cseremiss (spoken in
the north and north-east of Russia) form the Ugrian language-group.
This group is closely akin to four other groups, viz., the Samojed; the
Turkish or Tartar; the Mongolian; and the Tungusian, or Mandchu groups.
These five large groups are called the Altaic languages, and are all
derived from an original Altaic idiom. Their mutual relations are shown
in the following diagram taken from Professor Simonyi’s work:
Archaic Altaic
|
+-----------------+-----------------+
| |
Northern Branch Southern Branch
| |
+------+----------+ +-------+---------+
| | | |
Archaic Samojedic Archaic Ugrian Turkish and Mongolian Tungusian
|
+----------+-----+-------------------+
| | |
Southern Ugrian Lapp Northern Ugrian
| |
+------------+------------+ +-----------+---------+-------+
| | | | | | |
Finnish Mordvinian Cseremissian Siryenian _Hungarian_ Vogul Ostiak
Esthonian Votiak
It will be seen that Hungarian is in near relation to Finnish and also
to Lapp, as had been recognized already by the Jesuit John Sajnovics
(1770), and proved by the great traveller, Anton Reguly. It is,
however, also related to Turkish; and this explains why the leading
neo-philologists of Hungary (Budenz, Paul Hunfalvy, and Arminius Vámbéry)
are, the two former in favour of a Finnish, the latter in favour of a
Turkish origin and kinship of both the Hungarians and their language.
Amongst the numerous students of that vexed question, no one has done
more to excite the admiration of his compatriots and foreigners, and the
applause of scholars, than Alexander Csoma de Kőrős, who sacrificed his
life in the monasteries of Thibet in the noble attempt at discovering,
by the laborious acquisition of Central-Asiatic languages, the origin
of the Magyars. We confess that we entertain but scant sympathy for the
belief in races and racial persistency. Wherever the Hungarians may have
come from, and whether or no every one living Hungarian can trace his
descent to one of the clans invading Hungary at the close of the ninth
century is, in our opinion, immaterial. As a matter of fact, very few
Magyar noblemen can trace their family beyond the year of the battle of
Mohács (1526). It is quite different with the language of the Hungarians.
Its origin and character are, on the whole, pretty clear, and from the
knowledge of its relations to kindred idioms, many a valuable conclusion
may be drawn regarding the rise and nature of Hungarian Literature in the
past and in the present. The greatest patriot of Hungary, Count Stephen
Széchenyi, has tersely expressed the immense influence of language on
the nation in the words: “Language carries the nation away with it.” Our
whole view of Hungarian Literature would be different if for instance the
opinion of erudite Matthew Bél (Belius) as to the Hebrew origin of the
Hungarian language had proved to be true. It would likewise essentially
alter our conception of Magyar literary works if the opinion of
Podhorszky as to the close relation between Hungarian and Chinese would
not have been found untenable. But the physical origin of the Hungarians
themselves is, at best, only an idle inquiry into insufficient records of
the past.