Possibility of Sumerian being a precursor to Hungarian language?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:38 PM
As I'm Hungarian-American (with fluent parents and grandparents), this is something that interests me on a cultural level. It seems like the "link" between the two has been oppressed and dismissed throughout history, mostly due to ideological reasons. It seems any momentum this theory gained throughout history has been suppressed at key points throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and especially today (where it's all but discredited entirely by mainstream critics).

From the bit of research I've done, it shows that to accept Sumerian as no longer a language isolate, a considerable revision of Hungarian (Magyar) history has to happen, but the evidence for such exists in debatable quantity depending upon where you look.

This is really interesting, it's almost a conspiracy theory imbedded in one of the most linguistically homogenous cultures in the world.

What do you guys think about all this?

There are MANY sources out there, but this is the most compelling, complete, and believable:

The Sumerian Question

Food for thought, Enrico Fermi said in a famous quote that Hungarians were aliens. Not in a literal sense (most likely
), but because of the complexity of Magyar accretion from various different tribes, cultures, and civilizations. Are we Scythian (and to that matter, were Scythians REALLY Indo-European?), Hunnish (and were they 100% Turkic), Finno-Ugric as believed in mainstream history, a conglomerate of all the above? And is there a definite, undeniable link between Magyar and Sumerian (there are a few key words with shocking similarity, not just the fact that both are agglu. languages) It's really an interesting subject.

As a disclaimer, this is merely a layperson's interpretation of the research. I'm by no means an expert on this, it's merely something very intriguing to me. I also readily believe there are many half-truths and falsehoods in modern accepted history (for various reasons), so I'm more inclined to believe there -may- be some truth in all this.

edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by SaosinEngaged

If there is any relationship between Hungarian and Sumerian (I don't know enough about linguistics to comment), what about the possibility that they are not parent-and-child but sister languages?
Supposing the ancestors of both were living around the Black Sea, then one half went north and the other half went south? A lot more practical than one homeland colonising the other directly.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:57 PM
If you want to claim that the precursor to the languages in Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Ukraine are all Sumerian...


posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:01 PM
Is it not samoyedic? and a derivative of proto-samoyed languages? the talk of the mountains

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:15 PM
Believe me, if I have any reputation on ATS it's that I don't usually fly off the handle in believing outlandish claims (the majority of the time, anyway).

For personal reasons, lately I've been delving into Magyar history and happened upon this fringe theory. I spent the past couple days viewing various sources before coming to the conclusion that, you know what? There actually is a compelling amount of evidence to suggest a possible link. Does that make it true? Likely even? Absolutely not. Skepticism always prevails.

I'm just raising the question and posting a very interesting read for those who may like this topic.
edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:38 PM
The only thing that we can be sure of surrounding the Indo-Europeans of the Danube and the Black sea, is that many early cultures and / or clans came together and mingled, bred and moved on. They spread in every direction, as far South East as the Ukraine and Moldova, and as far North West as Scotland. They share many traits, culture, religious outlooks and little bits of language here and there, place names, basic words etc. Language and writing are a cultural place marker, left there by local teaching and the whatever government was in place at the time. I'm sure we've all spent many a day studying this very subject and most likely came to the same conclusion, we're all pretty much the same.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:41 PM
As recent archaeological discoveries have shown, Sumeria is not the oldest civilization, there were many ancient civilizations much older, in Anatolia, and eastern Europe, and central Eurasia.

The Germans and Scandinavians had their own written language, so the origins of all these languages remains shrouded in history.

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:47 PM
Very interesting thread. I have Finish and Hungarian friends, so we decided one day to let them meet and try to understand each other. No luck! Thy were both agreeing that the languages are not similar , or the similarities are insignificant. I would not rush into saying "myth busted" but this was quite an interesting experiment

As you started to study a bit more on Hungarian ancestry , i was just wondering - who were the Magyars , and who were the Huns ? As I understood, Magyars were a Germanic population, Huns were Mongolian. Modern Hungary supposed to be a mix of two ? Also, how can this be traced in modern day populations?

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:51 PM

The principal results of the research conducted so far on the Sumerian-Hungarian relationship have indicated that these languages have over a thousand common word roots and a very similar grammatical structure (37). In his Sumerian Etymological Dictionary and Comparative Grammar, Kálmán Gosztony, professor of Sumerian philology at the Sorbonne, demonstrated that the grammatical structure of the Hungarian language is the closest to that of the Sumerian language: out of the 53 characteristics of Sumerian grammar, there are 51 matching characteristics in the Hungarian language, 29 in the Turkic languages, 24 in the Caucasian languages, 21 in the Uralic languages, 5 in the Semitic languages, and 4 in the Indo-European languages.

Excerpt from the link in the OP.

Should have attached this in my first post, but figured it'd just be best for people to read the brief section I linked to grab the context and pick up the whole picture. Either way this is one of the most compelling excerpts.

edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:51 PM
Sorry, another track here:


Cuneiform tablets claimed to be 1000 years older than Summer , found in the mountains of Romania. I guess some history puzzles could be solved by DNA tests: testing the oldest skeletons available in various parts of the globe, then tracing their modern ancestry, then analyze the language they speak . I bet most of the countries do not match the initial population haha.
edit on 27-5-2012 by Romanian because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by Romanian

Ooh, very interesting. I'm going to go through all that info now. Thanks for pointing me to it.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:28 AM

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
If you want to claim that the precursor to the languages in Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Ukraine are all Sumerian...


Those languages are all derived from an Indo-European prototype were they not? And that actually includes Sumerian.....Therefore, we need the one (s) before Sumerian.

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:02 AM
I really don't know much about the Hungarian language, but I can tell you about ancient agricultural crops.

The area that used to be Yugoslavia to the south is one of the few regions outside Mesopotamia that grew Boeoticum einkorn wheat. That's important because einkorn wheat is the first grain that humans ate and humans stopped eating it thousands of years ago. In most areas it grows wild where it was imported in the past. Or it sprouts up as a "weed" in new crops planted over the top of an ancient einkorn field.

Since people stopped eating einkorn wheat before Ancient Greece and before the Roman Empire, the presence of the grain denotes lost origins of different groups. Ancient Mesopotamia grew Boeoticum einkorn wheat as their first domesticated grain. However most of the rest of the Mediterranean did NOT grow Boeoticum from Mesopotamia, instead they grew Aegilopoides einkorn wheat from the Aegean.

Albania coast, Croatia coast, Italy coast all the way south to Apulia region grew Aegilopoides einkorn. Yet Yugoslavia had Boeoticum einkorn from Mesopotamia. That means at some point in the past, a Mesopotamian group who grew Boeoticum must have made a boat colony somewhere off the coast and moved inland with their Boeoticum einkorn crop, while the rest of the coastal area of the Adriatic grew Aegilopoides instead.

As for Hungary, I don't know which ancient einkorn wheat they grew. Don't know if they grew Boeoticum like Yugoslavia and Mesopotamia did... or if they grew Aegilopoides like Apulia Italy, Croatia and Albania. But perhaps someone could have a look around to see which type of einkorn they grew in the past and properly subtype it to figure it out.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
I'm from Estonia and have read about Sumerian sharing many words with the Estonian language. There's even whole sentences that can be understood by Estonians.
Estonian is a Finno Ugric language like Hungarian, so I guess we all got similiar roots.


Sumeria was one of the first white nations, pretty interesting, isn't it?
edit on 13-8-2012 by vares because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:58 PM
There are many problems with the idea that Hungarian is a form of Sumerian.

The first is the fact that modern linguistics recognizes no such connection. Any theory of Hungarian origins must also offer an explanation of all the Uralic languages ie Finnish, Estonian, etc. Instead Sumerian supporters try and make a connection between Hungarian, Mongolian and Sumerian while ignoring all the Uralic evidence. The idea that Hungarian is similar to Sumerian first surfaced in the 19th century before the development of modern linguistics. This lack of scientific revue allowed it to gain a decent sized following without having to offer much in the way of proof. The Uralic theory replaced the Sumerian theory in the west because of its superior amount of verifiable evidence. It's acceptance in Hungary was involuntary because the Uralic theory was presented in a form that contradicted Hungarian legends that claimed a Persian origin. This contradiction was not due to the Uralic theory being wrong but was simply due to the fact the Uralic theory was incomplete. It assumed that since there was an east to west migration of Uralic speakers then the proto-Uralic language must have originated in a straight line east of the Ural Mountains. Thus the name 'Uralic Languages'. No evidence of the proto-Uralic language has ever been found in this region but as I said before this doesn't make the Uralic theory wrong, only incomplete. DNA evidence points to the possibility that the Uralic languages developed in South Asia over 4,000 years ago, migrating north in separate groups, who then migrated west from Asia with Hungarians being the last to leave South Asia. This simple addition to the Uralic migration pattern is consistent with both the Uralic theory and the Hungarian legends.

The next is that Sumerian supporters assume that the Hungarian language and the written script called Rovas, evolved at the same time. If Rovas is an evolution of Sumerian you would find continual evidence of its existence for thousands of years as it evolved. There is no such archeological evidence. The evidence instead points to Rovas being a relatively new development in Hungarian culture compared to its spoken language.

Another problem Sumerian has is that Sumerian supporters frequently pull words from unrelated languages to show a similarity to Hungarian. For example the Hungarian leader Arpad is believed by Sumerian supporters to be named after a Sumerian city because there was a city near Sumeria called Arpad. The problem with this idea is that Arpad the city is actually in Syria and is a Hebrew word from the Old Estimate word Arphad, meaning to spread out. There is no connection between Sumerian and the Semitic languages. Sumerian supporters argue everyone is wrong except them. They argue Sumerian and Semitic languages are related and that Hungarian and the Uralic languages are not related.

My research has pointed to the possibility that all the Uralic laguages and not just Hungarian are an adaptation of Sanskrit. Because a comment to a blog is not enough space to fully discuss such a topic if you want more information you can go to [snip]. But in a nutshell the overwhelming amount of DNA and cultural evidence pointing to South Asia / East Persia can not be ignored. If the DNA evidence is correct then the proto-Uralic language must be from South Asia. The most influential language in South Asia has been Sanskrit.

The Uralic languages do in fact share common words with Indian languages, and Hungarians being the last to leave South Asia have the closest pronunciations to that of Indian languages. For example the word for dog in Sanskrit, Hindi, Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian is kukkura, kutta, kutya, koira, and koer in that order. But it is the words that share conceptual meanings that are in the greatest abundance. For example the Hungarian word for father, apa, is not from the Sanskrit word for father but instead appears to be from the Sanskrit word meaning to sow his seed, vApa.

Explaining this another way. The Hungarian word for duck, ‘kacska’ has no resemblance to the Estonian word for duck, ‘part’ and only a slight resemblance to the Finnish word for duck, ‘sorsa’. If the languages are related you would expect the words to be similar and ‘sorsa does have a slight resemblance to ‘kacska’. However, if we consider the main observational characteristic of ducks being water, we find a much closer connection between the languages with the Estonian and Finnish words for irrigate being ‘kastma’ and ‘kastella’ respectively. Taking the Hungarian word for duck, ‘kacska’ and using the same method of comparison that was done for Finnish and Estonian and applying that to Sanskrit we find that the Sanskrit word for water is ‘kaSTha’. With ‘kaSTha’ becoming ‘kacska’, ‘kastma’, ‘kastella’.


posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by SaosinEngaged

The Hungarians
It is also true that the Hungarians of today look European.But their
roots are Mongolic.

From Britannica
Languages of the world)
"Racially the Uralic people present an unhomogeneous picture.In
they may be considered
a bland of Europeans and Mongoloid types,with the more western
groups(especially the Hungarians,Baltic-Finnic and Erzya Mardvin
being strongly European and those of the Urals primarily Mongoloid".
From " De Administrado Imperio"by Constantine Porphyrogenitus
"These eight clans of the TURKS(Hungarians) do not obey their own
particular princes...,They
have for their first chief the prince who comes by succession of
From The Hungarian Chronicle(1095AD):
"We (Hungarians) are descendants of the great Huns of Attila".
From "The Mongols" By Jeremiah Curtin
"Five groups of Mongols have made themselves famous in Europe:The
with their mighty chief Attila,the Magyars,The Turks or Osmanli,the
invaders of Russia..."
From "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" By Edward Gibbon.
"The(Hungarians) are distinguished by the Greeks under the proper and
peculiar name of Turks,
as descendants of that people who had conquered and reigned form China
the Volga (referring to the Mongols)".
Gaspar Heltai (1575)
"The huns, who we call now Magyars, when they lived in Scythia they were all hunters" At 373 they started to fled from Scythia and arrived to Pannonia where they settled near the river Tisza"
The most interesting source about the Hunnic descendance of the Magyars is Mahmud Tercüman's codex. He wrote it to the turkish sultan Suleiman the first at 1543 AD.
Tercüman gave us a very detailed history how the Huns became Magyars, how they invaded europe and how they settled to Pannonia later on in a second wave. He gave us direct continuity between Attila and later kings of Hungary, who he consider as one royal dinasty, and its exactly what the older codexes wrote about.
From "The Cambridge Medieval History" edited by J.H.Hussey.
"The form ovyypoi,from which are derived the various names current to
day among the people of Europe(Old Church Slavonic,UGRI;
GHERESI,and so on)comes from the Turkic ethnic name ONOGUR meaning
From "The Thirteenth Tribe" by Arthur Koestler.
"We also hear of a fearful encounter which St.Cyril,the Apostle of
Slav,had with a Magyar horde in 860,on his way to Khazaria.He was
his prayers when they rushed at him luporum more ululantes-HOWLING IN
From "Britannica"(Languages of the world).
"Recent study indicates that it is posible to speak of a Uralic
type,an intermediate stage between the European and the Mongoloid,the
basic features of which are medium-dark to dark hair and eye
colour,relatively small stature and often a concave bridge of the
(Hungary is part of Uralic racial type).
From "Britanica" Hungarian.
"The proto-Hungarians were apparently an ethnic blend of
and Turkish peoples living in western Siberia...The Hungarians were
scourge of Europe,raiding as far afield as Bremen,Orleans and
Constantinople(the English word OGRE-a men eating man,hideous cruel
a corruption of HUNGAR,attests to their notoriety).
From "1000 years of Hungary" By Emil Lengyel.
"(Hungarian) Folklore speaks about NIMROD the giant,who had two
and HAGAR.The former was the ancestor of the HUNS,and MAGOR was the
ancestor of the MAGYARS."
"The experience the Magyars left with the Western world was so
that even generations later people form the West saw the Hungarians
apocalyptic monsters. Bishop Otto of Freysing spoke of the exterior of
Hungarians as ‘ferocious' at the time of the Crusades
Their eyes
sunken,their stature is short,their behavior wild,their language
barbarous,so that one can either accuse fate or marvel at divine
for having permitted these monsters the possession of an enchanting
From "History of Hungary" By Denis Sinor
"Though, geographically speaking, of European origin, the Hungarians
settled in the Danube valley were,spiritually and materially,
and belonged to the great Central Euroasiatic cultural family whose
members lived dispersed form the Danube to China, from Persia and
India to
the Arctic. The Hungarian bows and arrows...were of exactly the same
as those used in Central Asia. As nomadic peoples generally do, the
Hungarians disliked towns,and even houses,to which they preferred
According to Otto von Freisingen, as late as the middle of the
century, summer and autumn were still spent under tents".
"It is, however quite certain that the Mongoloid type was well
among them (Hungarians), and that they were, on the whole, of rather
stature, with short legs, bowed through continuous riding".
From George Kedrenos (12th century).
(Describing the events which took place in 895).
"The Emperor had sent the Patrician Skllerous to the Turks WHO were
(Oungroi) to convince them to cross the Danube and attack the
(At this time the Hungarians used to live somewhere near Bug river,in
place called Etel-Kuzu).
From John Zonnaras (12th century).
(Describing the events of 895).
"The Emperor convinced the Turks who lived near Danube and who ARE
(Oungroi) to start war against the Bulgars".

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 04:39 PM
a reply to: MagyarOrigins

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 05:01 PM
a reply to: MagyarOrigins sorry, but kacska is borrowed word from Slovak - kacka (Czech kachna etc.) is same with word bear what is in Hungarian medve and in Slovak medved and there are many borrowings in Hungarian for words that were not common for nomadic tribes which Hungarians maybe were when they came to carpatian basin. But this doesn't brake the possible Sanskrit connection bcs. There are many similarities between Slavic and Sanskrit (clearly more than Hungarian also from grammar sight) but this is known since 19 century. I speak little Hungarian so I saw more grammar similarities to e.g. turk language which I studied for short time than to Sanskrit. But sankrit vs. Slavic grammar similarities surprised me like scholars in 19th century. Hungarian is very nice and very interesting Lang and similarities to sumerian could not be so simple declined. I say it although I hate many stupid Hungarian theories.

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 05:45 PM
Firstly the OP claims this truth has been suppressed since the 18th Century, when in fact, Sumerian wasn't even first translated until 35 years into the 19th Century. So there goes the conspiracy theory

Secondly all languages have hundreds of similar sounding words. For instance Scots Gaelic and Akkadian have over 600 similar words and there is no connection between them. Most languages have over 250,000 words. English has over 1,000,000. So what you're actually talking about here is statistics. Not facts.

Thirdly, Iranian speaking peoples and early Uralic tribes were in contact from the 4th millennium BCE. So in all probability there are a large number of loan words spread by the Iranians from Sumerian into Hungarian. This is increasingly likely as the Sumerians being technologically innovative named the things that they invented and those names stuck with those items when they jumped the culture divide.

edit on 22-7-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 06:12 PM

originally posted by: Marduk
Firstly the OP claims this truth has been suppressed since the 18th Century, when in fact, Sumerian wasn't even first translated until 35 years into the 19th Century. So there goes the conspiracy theory

Secondly all languages have hundreds of similar sounding words. For instance Scots Gaelic and Akkadian have over 600 similar words and there is no connection between them. Most languages have over 250,000 words. English has over 1,000,000. So what you're actually talking about here is statistics. Not facts.

Two current/modern cultures both speaking Spanish share many words. The word cabronesis a perfect example. You can't even get 5 Spanish speaking people to form a consensus on what this word means. In addition to the below it also means friend, buddy. I hope ATS

cabrón, el ~ (m) (hijo de putacanalla)
scoundrel, the ~ Noun
#, the ~ Noun
scamp, the ~ Noun
bastard, the ~ Noun
cad, the ~ Noun
cabrón, el ~ (m) (bribónmal bichomala bestiatunante)
sly dog, the ~ Noun
stinker, the ~ Noun
scoundrel, the ~ Noun
skunk, the ~ Noun
screw, the ~ Noun
rascal, the ~ Noun
cur, the ~ Noun
cabrón, el ~ (m) (hijo de putagilipollaspollabuchesacobrutogilipuertaspichagranujaimbéciltronerapatán)
asshole, the ~ Noun
#head, the ~ Noun
jerk, the ~ Noun
bastard, the ~ Noun
cabrón, el ~ (m) (apestosograciosopícarocochinodiablillochocarreropayasoasquerosomofetapuercobromistabufónbribónguasónmala bestiacerdocanallamal bicho)
rogue, the ~ Noun
‐ a deceitful and unreliable scoundrel
rascal, the ~ Noun
‐ a deceitful and unreliable scoundrel
cabrón, el ~ (m) (sodomitahijo de putabuchetronerapollagilipollassacobrutopichagranujaimbécilpatángilipuertas)
#head, the ~ Noun
jerk, the ~ Noun


Nonetheless, still an interesting thread.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in