I cant able to give any meaningfull informations to the (surprisingly turned) disscussion about blood-types. Anyway, the main issue of this article is on the hungarian language and not on the hungarian blood types (excluding for those of you who have taken overly seriously my humorous-initiated words regarding the B. Schecter article mentioned beauties). BUT if we are speaking about blood types we need to take into consideration the followings.



When we are examining the mentioned theory (also, a version of it has highlighted in blue in the longest quote above, thanks for Laura) we need to understand: according to this theory one – or more - branch of the pre-magyars (pre-hungarians, pre-szekelys) had left the Carpathian Basin some thousand years ago to different directions: most of them to the east (to lands of ancient Mesopotania, present-day Mongolia, etc…) and some of them has journeyed back to the fabled ancient homeland in the Carpathian Basin… where they have found the remains of the original tribes, the szekelys (you can found some information about the even int he english language wikipedia, search for Székely ) who even retained some from the ancient rune script (… to remember: this has been the help for linguistics to deciphering the sumerian writing, quoted by Laura) and also (quoted by me, I think as a surprise to many) it helped to decipher even egyptian hieroglyphs in the past! Because the wandering hungarian – over thousands of years – have mixed with others, its natural, that the blood-types need to show as mixed. The really important issue is the common heritage and the language (… when the hungarian tribes arrived back from the east about 1120 years ago into Pannonia and they found the magyar szekelys they has communicated without problem – and we are communicating with them even today as our brothers/sisters)! Note: after Trianon (in 1920) the old hungarian Transylvanian areas connected to Romania: the szekelys are living there until now (as minority, decreasing in numbers and suppressed continously by romanian government – tries to forbid even the right to study in school in their own language – because they are the living antithesis to the romanian governmental favored opinion-making thet the romanians has the original ancestral roots in Transylvania). So, back to the blood type question: based on these mentioned facts, maybe it would be the most learnful experience – from the viewpoint of blood type comparison – to check the most old-rooted magyar-szekely transylvanian families’ blood the sharing of the 0 / A / B / AB types! Because of the mentioned examples (by Laura and by go2) are shows the modern/mixed hungarian blood-types share and havent including the szekelys… I think it would be difficult to check it because the romanian government will fight against this kind of comparison if they realise the purpose (note: in Wikipedia you find some DNA-infos regarding the szekelys but the 0/A/B/AB comparison naturally misses). But again: the main issue of this article isnt blood type comparison but to point highly interesting anomalies about the hungarian language (its past, its present).



Probably you have realised: when I quoted from various people their opinion about the origin and merits of the hungarian language I have choosen mostly those non-hungarian people who have the possibility in their life to study intensively the hungarian language and compare it to many different languages. I would like to add here another very interesting article to you, to follow the course of this direction.

As shown above, different pre-magyar branches has left the Basin to another directions: you will find more explanation about this in a fully quoted article below. Note: the main purpose of this article is to give correction to the conclusion in the book by Mario Alinei but it will worth your time to read it fully over because it disscuss many interesting and relevant issues of importance to give clearing on some question about the main theory in this thread. A certain Mario Alinei – prominent professor in linguistic in Italy – has written a book 6 years ago about his important discoveries between the etruscan and the hungarian language. Before I follow here is the wikipedia article about him:

Mario Alinei (born 1926, Turin) is Professor Emeritus at the University of Utrecht where he taught from 1959 to 1987, currently living in Impruneta. He is founder and editor of Quaderni di semantica, a journal of theoretical and applied semantics. Until recently, he was president of Atlas Linguarum Europae at UNESCO.

Alinei has authored hundreds of publications and is a well known scholar in the field of dialectology. He is also the main proponent of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, which contends that the Indo-European languages originated in Europe and have existed there since the Paleolithic.

Some of his main linguistical contributions, which were instrumental in creating the Paleolitcic Continuity Theory, regarded tendencies towards the conservation of languages, as opposed to the theories of "biological laws" of linguistic change and the method of lexical self-dating.

Alinei was a pioneer in the use of computers in linguistics. According to Pavle Ivic "Alinei is one of the not so numerous European Linguist who already in the early sixties were willing and able to apply the results of technological innovations to the study of language".



Mr. Alinei has written about the evidences of the connection but his final opinion has been that the etruscan language had been the archaic form of hungarian. Because Alinei hasn’t much information outside his main field of experience – linguistics – László Botos (prominent leader of the Institute of Hungarian Studies) has written an open answer to him in which he gives relevant datas to clear: so, the hungarian has been the archaic form of the etruscan! Quote from László Botos:





Opinion about the Surprising Results of Dr. Mario Alinei’s Research



by László Botos



This surprising work, which heralds a new era, is worthy of praise because it states that the language of the Etruscans, the founders of Rome, on which the whole civilization of Europe was built, was the language of a Magyar-speaking people. In spite of the outstanding nature of Dr. Mario Alinei’s book: Etrusco: una forma arcaica de Ungherese (Ősi Kapocs) (Ancient Bond), as a pioneer work, it requires some corrections. We believe that Dr. Alinei, an open-minded scholar who truly researches the truth, when he was writing his book did not know the information we are about to offer him. We hope that, after it has been brought to his attention, he will write an addendum to correct the omissions from the original work.



In his book, we read that, after the Baden age, between 3000 and 2000 BC, the tribes coming from the south with the knowledge of mining, smelting, and metal-working, went toward the west as a well-armed equestrian people, and as Etruscans, occupied a part of the present land of Italy. All this is very questionable.



The UNESCO publication in 1963, Prehistory and the Beginnings of Civilization by Sir Leonard Woolley and Jacquetta Hawkes, points out two centers of civilization, which supposedly predated the Körös Culture of the Carpathian Basin. According to the view of Dr. Etelka Toronyi, the Natufian Culture could not have predated the Körös Culture, as the aforementioned book states, because it cannot be regarded as an independent cultural center. In the Natufian Culture there cannot be found any trace of the remains of the most primitive settlements, only the tools of a simple agricultural people. The writers of the UNESCO publication date this culture to 8000 BC, which is in the Neolithic Age. The culture of the Carpathian Basin dates back to the Paleolithic Age, 25-30,000 years ago. They demonstrate with tables that the Jermo or Jericho culture also predates the Körös culture. Etelka Toronyi writes that this is mistaken[1] because the art of ceramics, which separates the Neolithic from the Paleolithic era, is not present in the lowest level of Jermo, which is supposedly older than the Körös Culture. Ceramics are the measure of a cultural standard. The ceramics excavated in the city found on the second cultural level of Jermo or Jericho may be the same age as those of the Körös or Erösd cultures but they are more primitive than those of Körös or Erösd; the walls of the clay pots found in Jermo II. are thick, formed by hand and the glazing is of poor quality. The ceramics found in Kökénydomb in the territory of Körös and those found near the Iron Gate were turned on a wheel and had decorations in relief.



The pre-Szeszklo or ancient Szekler building technique, the potter’s wheel and ceramics glazed at high temperatures were all brought to the Balkans, across the islands of the Aegean Sea, to Asia Minor and from there to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. According to the observations of Etelka Toronyi, the artisans, who practiced the art of glazed ceramics, discovered how to smelt metals. Only those people who were able to make glazed ceramics, which required a temperature of 1700 degrees Celsius, could have discovered the smelting of metals. Moreover in their territory pure copper and other metals could be found. Therefore the first mines in Europe were found in the Carpathian Basin and in the largest numbers in Europe. Just for this reason, there was no necessity for tribes to bring mining and smelting knowledge from the south.



The ancient Szeklers lived in a territory, Transylvania, where not only copper but also tin could be found in veins and in ores. Therefore, we can make the conclusion that the Szekler people were the first people to discover bronze. This statement is supported by the large number of bronze artifacts found in the Carpathian Basin. The fact that almost every tool made of copper, found in the Carpathian Basin, was a replica of polished Stone Age tools, allows us to conclude that the Proto-Szeklers used copper at a very early period in history. The copper objects found in Transylvania were of a very high level of workmanship seen nowhere else in the world. Bracelets, arm-ornaments, brooches and buckles were found in large quantifies. Dechelette, the famed French Bronze-Age researcher made a list of the locations and ages of the articles found. This list shows that the most primitive Bronze Age objects in Western Europe date to 2000 B.C. but in the Carpathian Basin, the bronze objects made by the Szeklers date back to 4000 B.C. and a bronze adze found in the county of Torontal, which is inscribed with the Szekler Runic Script, dates back to 5000 B.C.



Jan Briand compared the bronze findings of Asia and Europe and stated that the adzes, spiral brooches, bracelets and buckles from Transylvania are the most remarkable remains of the Bronze Age.[2] The rich appearance of the bronze articles and their many different forms lead us to conclude that the Proto-Szeklers were the first to make bronze from copper and tin. Not only on the basis of archeology can we state that the creators of the pre-historic culture were the Proto-Szeklers, but we can prove from the metrical analysis of anthropology that the direct descendants of the Proto-Szeklers are the present-day Szeklers and Magyars. A bronze adze found in Tordos witnesses to the fact that the first forms of writing existed in the Carpathian Basin, 7000 years ago. We can be sure that the inscription on the bronze adze is really a form of writing because the objects excavated at Tordos by Zsófia Torma, ceramics and round seals, are inscribed with markings identical to those on the bronze adze. These ceramics and round seals are dated to be from the same period as the adze. This important collection of articles inscribed with the Runic Script was studied by Dr. Matthias Fehér whose conclusions were published posthumously by his wife, in two volumes.[3] The Szekler Runic Script of today shows a strong resemblance to the script on the bronze adze of Tordos and the ceramics and seals excavated by Zsófia Torma.



John Dayton's research supports the conclusions of Etelka Toronyi: "The European Bronze Age preceded that of the Near East. The same pattern is apparent in the development of glazing and its allied craft, metallurgy."[4] Writing of the production of bronze artifacts in the Near East, he says: "Tin does not exist in the Near East and came from China or from Europe (Bohemia)"[5] He points out that native copper did not exist in Egypt and that in Central Europe and the Carpathians, large quantities of native copper, gold and silver are to be found.[6]



Kálmán Miske, a Hungarian archeologist, already in the early 1900’s, informed us of the results of the excavations at Velem St. Vid in Hungary. He offered indisputable proofs that Bronze Age mining contributed to the spread of bronze artifacts in Western Europe.[7] Antimony was mined in the Rohonc Mountain in Burgenland (Western Hungary) near Velem St. Vid. This Hungarian territory was given to Austria in 1920 at the Treaty of Trianon. The antimony mines are still in use today. The Hungarian name for the mining area was Szalonak. Its present name is Schlaining. The majority of the artifacts found in the three excavations at Velem St. Vid are presently on display in the museum at Szombathely. There must have been a large population at Velem St. Vid in the Bronze Age for John Dayton, quoting Kalman Miske, says: "This site has also yielded tuyeres, crucibles, and some fifty stone moulds, mostly for socketed axes, and must have been a very important production centre."[8] He later says: "Evidence is in fact accumulating for trade over a large area of Western Europe during the Third Millennium."[9] Most of the Bronze Age artifacts, hand-wrought or cast in a mold, which can be found in the museums of Western Europe, originated from Velem St. Vid. Miske mentions that, already in the Bronze Age, bronze was made from an alloy of copper and tin but the Velem St. Vid process was an exception because it used antimony instead of tin. It is an indisputable fact that antimony bronze was developed at Velem St. Vid. John Dayton supports this conclusion and again reinforces the fact that antimony is not mined in the Near East.[10]



Elemer Csobánczi writes that an artifact of antimony and gold was found in the grave of the Egyptian Pharoah Kheneri of the Second Dynasty. He quotes A.R. Burne who says that the two metals, gold and antimony, can only be alloyed by the use of a catalyst, a third metal called Tellurium. Geologists have found only three places where the three metals can be found together, in natural form - in Australia, North America and in Zalatna, Transylvania. We can conclude that the Egyptians received these metals from Transylvania.[11]



Gordon Childe states that, in the Bronze Age, the alloy electrum was made of two parts gold and one part silver. This process was known in only four places, the Carpathian Basin, Troy, the Caucasus and Mesopotamia.[12]



The ancient name for Szombathely indicates the nature of the ancient people who inhabited this region. The original name was Szabaria which means a settlement of Szabir/ Szubar people (Subareans). The Subareans were a Mesopotamian people and the accepted theory of diffusion states that they migrated from Mesopotamia to the Carpathian Basin. Dayton, however, proves that "From a geological point of view and in view of the archeological evidence, the Hungarian/Bohemian Basin offers all the elements for the discovery of metallurgy."[13] He also states "It is also quite clear that the metallurgical wealth of Mesopotamia was developed from Central Europe."[14] Dayton contends that the movement of peoples was the reverse of that accepted by historians. His theory is that, because of an intense drought at the end of the Fourth Millennium in Europe, "there was a movement of peoples into the Mediterranean and Near East, if not into Egypt."[15] The ancient people, already in the Bronze Age, using sailboats, reached the island of Crete, Asia Minor, Egypt and Africa.



It should be no surprise that the Carpathian Basin was a densely populated area during the Bronze Age, when we consider that man had lived in this area for millennia. Archeologists have found human remains of 94 people dating back 2.5 million years. The skull found at Vertesszőllős dates back 450,000 years.[16] In the Neolithic Age, one of the most important materials used by ancient man to make weapons and tools was obsidian. Three obsidian mines were found in the Carpathian Basin, at Tarcsal, Tokay and Csitar, where large numbers of tools were manufactured. By natural progression the population increased and this area was densely populated in the Bronze Age. Elek Fényes writes that the trade routes for obsidian and salt began in the Carpathian Basin and that amber, shell and silk routes crossed the Carpathian Basin. It is a known fact that trade routes always passed through populated areas.[17]



The main requirement of the economical production of an article is that the raw material should be worked close to the place it was mined, thereby reducing the expense of transportation. This was all the more important in an era when the finished product was transported by carriage on bad roads. The amulets found at Tartaria in Rumania, (formerly Tatarlaka, Hungary), are proof that civilization originated in Transylvania. An ancient form of writing on these amulets, which date back to 5000 B.C., places the discovery of writing in Transylvania rather than in Sumer. Similarly the invention of the wheel can be credited to the ancient people of the Carpathian Basin. "The earliest certain evidence for a wheeled vehicle comes from the pottery model of a wagon found at Budakalász in Hungary, in a Baden Culture burial of about 2900-2400 B.C."[18]



Zsófia Torma tells us that this wagon was a "burial wagon" in which the people of the Carpathian Basin used to send their loved ones to the afterlife, just as the Vikings sent their dead on their journey in ships.[19] She points out that, according to the research of Nandor Fettich and Stuart Piggott, many wagons have been found in the Carpathian Basin and in Mesopotamia. This would indicate that the people who migrated from the Carpathian Basin not only travelled by wagon but also brought with them their burial customs to Mesopotamia.



John Dayton says: "It is also curious that the horse and the first wheeled vehicles (probably pulled by oxen) also appeared in Europe during the early part of the Third Millennium, perhaps about 2800 B.C. The horse is of the Asiatic type, the Tarpan or the Przewalski horse, and so it appears that the farmers and pastoralists who spread into Europe during the Fourth Millennium with horses, originated in the steppes of southern Russia or central Asia, and not necessarily in the Near East."[20] He mentions that in 1950, Piggott pointed out that a domesticated horse appears with the Copper Age in Hungary, with the Tiszapolgar/Baden culture.



Calvin Gebhart, in The Races of Mankind, states that the Szeklers are the oldest and purest branch of the Magyars. Elemer Csobánczi says that the ancient populace of the Carpathian Basin has survived to the present day in such groups as the Kalotaszeg Magyars, the Szeklers of Erösd, the Barkok and the Torockok.[21]



In the Bronze Age, because of over-population and drought, some of the Proto-Szeklers and Proto-Magyars migrated from the Carpathian Basin in carriages and they populated territories which at that time were not populated or just sparsely populated. They carried with them their ancient culture and technical knowledge, their religious views, customs, legends and folktales and, in different eras, when they were in distress, they returned to their ancient land under different names and found refuge in the Carpathian Basin. They even came back as conquerors or returned to give help to their brothers who were in trouble in their ancient land, for example, the Avars returned to help the Huns and the Magyars returned to aid the Avars.



Modern unbiased linguists appear to prove the Sumerian-Magyar connections. Sir Leonard Woolley, in the lowest cultural level of the city of Ur, discovered well-developed bronze objects which had no primitive characteristics. This indicates that a new ethnic group appeared in this territory and brought with them the knowledge of bronze metallurgy. In the upper and topmost levels, the bronze artifacts completely disappeared, according to Woolley. Etelka Toronyi explains that, at that time, a new conquest or war cut off the route to the territory from which the Sumerians were obtaining the tin, necessary for the manufacture of bronze. John Dayton says: "Glazing dies out in Mesopotamia after the conquest of Babylon and Persia by Alexander, to reappear with the Parthians in the first century B.C."[22] The ethnic group of people who carried with them the knowledge of the process of making bronze were the ancestors of the Szeklers, the Proto-Szeklers. This is proven by the fact that the bronze objects found in Sumer were completely identical in composition to those of the Carpathian Basin. The spiral motif, which is so characteristic of the Carpathian Basin bronze objects, can also be found on the bronze artifacts of the Sumerians. Every stage in the development of bronze can be found in the Carpathian Basin. This is why we can state that the Szekler emigrants took with them the knowledge of the production of bronze to Mesopotamia.



Constantine Porphyrogenitus writes: "Those Magyars who left Etelköz and travelled east are called Sabirs"[23]



In the second millennium B.C., the war between Babylon and Assyria took place on the territory of the Sabirs in Mesopotamia. In the time of Hammurabi, the horse was introduced as a means of waging war with chariots and horsemen. At that time, a well-equipped group of equestrian nomads, whose origin was unknown, appeared in Mesopotamia from Central Asia. They were the Scythians and Turanians whose main strength was the cavalry. Hammurabi adopted the custom of using the horse and chariot from the Kassites. The implementation of this new way of making war must have had great importance because Hammurabi, in his writings, boasted of the numbers of horses and chariots he possessed. When Hammurabi lost power, the equestrian Kassites took over and remained for almost 500 years on this territory, which we now call the Babylonian empire. The Kassites called their empire KUR-TEN-IZ, the country of TENIZ. Their strength was their superior cavalry. The Kassites divided their empire into territories inhabited by equestrian tribes. Their center was the city of Assur on the bank of the River Zab. In the Sumerian language, Assur was ASSZA-UR and means "horse-lord".



This is just a fragment of the enormous amount of written, not hypothetical material, which we have at our disposal. The evidence found in the Carpathian Basin and in the South allows us to conclude that one group of the ancient Magyar-speaking people, who migrated out of the Carpathian Basin towards the south, settled in the present territory of Italy, as Etruscans, establishing Etruria. We can demonstrate numerous examples of such settlements, during the migration of peoples who spoke agglutinative languages, in prehistory as well as in recorded history. If we speak of a migration from the south towards the north, that can only mean a resettlement or homecoming. The data does not show any Finno-Ugric origins. The connections with the existing Finno-Ugric languages do not indicate that the Magyars originated from the Manszi people, but rather indicate that they lived together with the two ancient peoples, or were their neighbors, or that the language similarity was a result of the spread of the Körös Culture. In a similar manner, the knowledge of bronze-working spread to Western Europe, which is why so many Magyar root-words are to be found in the European languages. The Magyar language was the giver and not the receiver. This is conceivable, given that their culture was superior to that of the surrounding peoples.



Unfortunately, we have to state that Dr. Alinei ignored the influence of the much older Körös Culture (not Slav or Illyrian) on the Villanova Culture, which is a later development. The Carpathian Basin should be examined as a geographical and ethnic entity. It is to be hoped that Dr. Alinei will take these points into consideration.



[1] Toronyi Etelka: A Kárpáti-medence a kulturák bölcsője és a magyarok őshazája. (The Carpathian Basin, the Cradle of Cultures and the Homeland of the Magyars) Buenos Aires,1974



[2] Briand, Jan: L'Age du Bronze, Paris, 1959; Toronyi, Etelka: Op.Cit.



[3] Fehérné, Walter Anna: Ékírástól a Rovásírásig, Buenos Aires, 1975.



[4] Dayton, John: Minerals, Metals, Glazing and Man, London 1978, p. 50



[5] Ibid. p.50



[6] Ibid, p. 75, 80



[7] Miske, Kalman: Die Bedeutung Velem St. Veist als Praehistorischen Guss-Statte mit Berücksichtigung der Antimon-Bronzfrage. Archiv für Anthropologie, Neue Folge, Braunschweig, Vol.2, part 2, 1904, pp.124-128.; Dayton: Op.Cit.



[8] Dayton, John: Op.Cit. p.66



[9] Ibid: p.72



[10] Ibid: p.142



[11] Csobánczi, Elemér: Ősturanok, Garfield, N.J.p.55-56; Burne, A. R.: Minoans, Philistines and Greeks, London, 1930, p. 78.



[12] Childe, Gordon: The Bronze Age, p.29; Csobánczi, Elemer: Op. Cit. p. 53



[13] Dayton, John: Op. Cit. p. 122



[14] lbid: p. 161



[15] Ibid: p. 163



[16] Howells, William W.: "Homo Erectus", 1966; Human Ancestors, Scientific American, 1979, p.85



[17] Fényes, Elek: Magyar geológia szótár



[18] Dayton, John: Op.Cit. p.179



[19] Torma, Zsófia: Sumer Nyomok Erdélyben, Buenos Aires, 1972, p.202



[20] Dayton: Op. Cit. p. 178



[21] Csobánczi, Elemér: Op. Cit. p. 51



[22] Dayton, Op. Cit. p.46



[23] Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperii. 38.; Zakar: Op. Cit. p.48



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I has started this article because I myself has been very surprised when I has found these datas about the paleolictic roots of my mother language (yes, I am a hungarian). Simply, I wanted to share the informations with those of you who are mayhapes interests in it and I tried to select mostly non-hungarian opinions for you about the interesting merits of the language (which merits seems to be able to modify the thinking methods of the brain and to increase highly the consciousness on many level from logic/creativity to communicate between hungarian speakers the human emotions much more clearly). It has been an added surprise to me when I have realised: maybe – maybe – the language has these merits because its roots had been created by the original European (cro-magnonian) civilisers.

Laura has given a link above: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunspir/index.htm

…a sub-link in it has some mixed words about the hungarian language. I copy here some words from it (sorry, it will repeat Grimm and Ebersberg who I quoted before from another source but it also other quoted such as Bain:

“Hungarian has no gender, nor any word to express the idea "to have" as an auxiliary verb. Pronounced, it is perfectly phonetic'. The language possesses one peculiarity unknown in most other languages: the power of expressing a complete sentence (subject, verb. object) with a single verbal conjugation. For example: szeretlek (I love you); látom (I see him, her or it); verem (I strike him, her or it). One verb can also express a sentence with an indefinite object: szeretek, látok, verek which mean simply "I love," "I see," "I strike." This defining of verbal action gives the language great exactness of meaning coupled with extraordinary conciseness, making an objective pronoun with the verb unnecessary. In the illustration of this quality note below,. how concise the poem in its original Hungarian is, as compared to its English language translation. “

(…)

“ R. Nisbet Bain, a savant with the British Museum who was extraordinarily proficient in languages, once described a Magyar sentence as "a miracle of agglutinative ingenuity."

Ebersberg, a famous Austrian linguist, stated that "the construction of the Hungarian language is as if it had been created by a task force of linguists striving for conciseness, regularity, harmony and clarity."

Last, but not least, one of the world's greatest philologists, Jakob Ludwig Karl Grimm, recommended Hungarian as the ideal universal language.

To those who happen to know Hungarian. congratulations!”





And here lies my main message to you.

Shijing has questioned before: „I am curious to know what your main point is, and how this is relevant to the other things being discussed here?”

My answer is two-folded. At first, even the book of Laura (The Secret History of the World) has theorising about the real european originators of the civilisation (they are the ’cro-magnonians’) and as I now somewhere it is mentioned even in this Forum. Maybe these new informations are interesting addendums to that theory… (especially because) At second: I hadnt find disscussion about the hungarian language here before and it has given me the tip that most of you hasnt even notes about its interesting ancient roots and – most importantly, according to my opinion! – about its manifold qualities to the thinking/consciousness processes of the human brain. Myself, I hasnt easy way to prove these to you because my birth-language is hungarian: yes, I have heard many times from foreigners that our language one of the (or the!) most difficult to learn for them but I havent heard many years about the manifolds exceptional merits of it until I havent read some foreigner birth-languaged experts’ (incl. linguistics’) opinions regarding its plain-hidden wonders.

I think: If any of yours – I mean , if even one of yours – has seems to find the possibility of serious self-improvement in learn hungarian… and – most importantly – after when he/she has mastered the language and will find that it has really and significantly improved his/her thinking processes (as many quoted person has declared this from scientists to any others from the previous eras) then I have pleased because I has been a ‘helping signpost’ for those fellow spiritual traveller(s). Even, it wont be important that I pleased or not: the paramount importance will be the favorable result of the use of this pre-language on you – your improved consciousness.



----------------

p.s.:

To Shijing:

Until 1993 there has been the public opinion inside the borders of Hungary (based on some mis-massed, confusing theory) that the hungarian/szekely rune script has derived from the Old Turkish script. In 1993 Géza Varga has published his work (english-titled as: The Origin of the Hunnish Runic Writing). The book has changed the official viewpoint: now, the officially approved origin on the szekely runic script is that „unidentified, undeclared”. But sadly, tha mainstream schoolbooks - and it seems, for some reason, wikipedia also - has using the outdated datas about it, yet…

http://ikint.uw.hu/konyvek.htm#origins (If you roll the page, below you will find the english languages preface to the (english versioned) book).