If Singapore is repressive, I wish they would make my whole country 
(America) just like Singapore!

FREE BOOKS!

A small but rather good collection of Hungarian books (both in
Hungarian and in English, mostly older, some valuable, mostly in
quite good condition) is available for the asking.
We recently inherited this library from relatives but have no room
for it. We would like to find a nice home for them, preferably
a public home, like a college or public library, a Hungarian school,
a club, whatever.
Naturally, we would prefer a single home but are willing to send
them to different addresses.
If interested, please respond to this e-mail address:



Thank you!
Pass the word, tell your friends about it. Feel free to cross-post it to 
other 
groups.

(Beszelunk/irunk magyarul is.)

> writes:
 
>His father was born in Budapest, but he was born in a different country.
 
 
 
>Can he apply for Hungarian Citizenship?
 
Provided that your friend's father was born a Hungarian citizen (most likely he
was) your friend is already a Hungarian citizen, but not registered as such. 
He should contact the nearest Hungarian Embassy or consulate and ask them to
send him forms
to either 1. get a citizenship certificate or 2. a Hungarian Passport (which
also doubles as a citizenship certificate).
Most likely he will have to submit original copies of his father's birth
certificate, marriage certificate as well as his own.  If he cannot furnish
originals, he can give the dates, places, etc. and Hungarians, for a fee will
research and record them.
 
BTW> the US acknowledges dual citizenships, provided your friend dows not
insist on becoming a general in the Hungarian Army or get himself elected as
Prime Minister or such.
 
Vamossy Karcsi

In >  (Andras Nagy)
writes: 
>
>Since it came up recently, I have a question too.
>I was born in Budapest I am now an US citizen.
>I never "rejected" my hungarian citizenship.
>What is my status ?? Dual citizen ? Do I need
>a visa and how long could I stay in BP or could
>I get a work visa ? Obviously I will never give
>up my US passport, just like to go back for a
>year or less. Any usable info will be appreciated.
>Cheers
>Andra's

Dear Andras,

Under Hungarian law, there is no such thing as rejecting your
citizenship.  You can apply to be released from citizenship and if it
is granted, then you loose your citizenhip.  In the alternative, your
citizenship can be taken away by a governmental act or court order. If
your citizenship was not taken away when you skipped Hungary, then you
are still Hungarian citizen.  

You can re-claim your citizenship through the Hungarian embassy.

As a US citizen, you do not need a visa to visit Hungary.

Yours,

Gabor M.

I am trying to compile a table of translations of the word "wolf" from 
the many different languages.  Any help with magyar and or any other 
countries would be greatly appreciated.
Please e-mail to 

Example

Language     Translation     Pronunciation
______________________________________________
Spanish      lobo            loh-boh

Thanks in advance!
Shane Holmes
Coordinator
ADK Wolf Project

In article >,
Charles Vamossy  > wrote:
> 
>BTW> the US acknowledges dual citizenships, provided your friend dows not
>insist on becoming a general in the Hungarian Army or get himself elected as
>Prime Minister or such.

Even that can be overlooked sometimes, as was the case with Panic, the
former premier of Serbia, also a US citizen.

Joe

In article >,
Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq > wrote:
>
>A jovoben a Usenet soc.culture.magyar csoport cikkeit (az ott is megjeleno
>HIX ujsagok kivetelevel) megtalaljatok a HIX SCM nevu ujsagjaban.

No csak, no csak!  Meg a vegen azt is megerjuk, hogy a HIX supervisort
ert negativ kritikak is megjelenhetnek ilyen modon a HIXen.  Vagy ezt is
felreertettem volna?  (Hat azert annyira azert nem vagyunk nyitottak,
igaz?)

P. Jozsi

In article >,  (Thomas Jordan) wrote:

> Edwin David  Latham ) wrote:
> : The .44 Magnum Doughnut wrote:
> : > > > Case in point, drug offenders are hung within one week after
> : > > > conviction in Singapore. No appeals. End result, there is no
> : > > > drug problem in Singapore. I suspect that murder convictions
> : > > > are dealt with in the same manner.
> : >
> : > > You just shot yourself in the foot, Doe Nut.
> : > >
> : > > If there's no drug problem, how can they be killing drug offenders?
> : > > If there are drug offenders, how effective is this deterrent?
> : >
> : > My statement re: Singapore clearly addresses the 'volume of incidence'
> : > issue. Naturally, it is not 100% effective. The stupidity of the human
> : > race knows no bounds. Case in point, people living in OddstrayliaHell(TM)
.
> 
> : You said "there is no drug problem in Singapore". "No drug problem"
> : is not the same as "a reduced drug problem". Backing off?
> 
> : How much other crime in Singapore (or Usa for that matter) is committed
> : by drug offenders trying to avoid the consequences at law?
> 
> You're missing the point, Edwin. Singapore is one off the most oppressive 
> regimes in asia. People get executed for all sorts of things there. 
> Doughnut gets off on that. 
> 
> 
> 
>  --
> T. P. Jordan,
> Research Assistant,
> Networks Research Group,
> De Montfort University
> Leicester
> Email: 
> Tel: (0533) 551551 x8099.
>  - Eric Cantona is innocent! 

How can Cantona be innocent when it is clear to everyone on the t.v
evidence that he did commit a crime. There is no argument about that

KENNETH FISHER RIBA

In article >  (Shane Holme
s) writes:
>From:  (Shane Holmes)
>Subject: Help with translation...
>Date: 31 May 1995 05:22:06 GMT

>I am trying to compile a table of translations of the word "wolf" from 
>the many different languages.  Any help with magyar and or any other 
>countries would be greatly appreciated.
>Please e-mail to 

>Example

>Language     Translation     Pronunciation
>______________________________________________
>Spanish      lobo            loh-boh

 Hungarian    Farkás       farkaasjh

 Dutch           Wolf           Wolf
>Thanks in advance!
>Shane Holmes
>Coordinator
>ADK Wolf Project

In article >,
T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>
>A Usenet spontaneitása vész el ezzel, pont az a dolog,
>ami miatt szívesebben írok ide, mint a HIX-re; pont az,
>ami a Usenet báját, szubkultúra jellegét adja. 

Igen, de vannak a HIXen egy paran, mint Zoli es P.G., akik ha valaki
elaztatasarol van szo, akkor az alvasukat is felaldozzak a regi
archivumok kutatasaert.  Nagyon helyesen lattad, hogy az ilyen "smoking
gun" kent elohuzott regi szovegek altalaban hiteltelenek, mivel hianyzik
beloluk az a szovegkornyezet amiben eredetileg megjelentek.

>Az archivált újságszörnyszülött nem fogja tudni tükrözni
>azokat az emberi (baráti, haveri vagy akár ellenséges) kap-
>csolatokat, amik az állandó résztvevők között --soxor a hát-
>térben, emilen keresztül --kialakultak, és ami nélkül a le-
>mentett anyag torz, értelmezhetetlen, halott, kétes értékü
>információtömeg.

Hat ez aztan telitalalat volt!  Eszembe juttatja azt a mar tobbszor
orrom ala dorgolt esetet, amikor en "allitolag" privat leveltitkot
arultam el az egyik prominens HIXezorol (hogy papaja MSZMP tag volt).
Pedig az eredeti kontextusban az nem olyan egyszeru ugy volt.
No de nem akarok belemenni a reszletekbe megint, mivel az illeto nevet
sem akarom ujra nagydobra verni.  Aki annak idejen FORUMozott, tudja
mirol van szo, s a velemenyek rola ugyis a pa'rtok szerint oszlanak meg.

P. Jozsi

>
>1983    Nostalgia
>          original screenplay
>
On the subject of Tarkovsky, does anyone know where I can get a copy of
Nostalgia?  It is the only post-Steamroller film of Tarkovsky's I
haven't been able to locate.  Thanks.

My husband and I are planning on staying in Budapest from September 18 to Octob
er 9. We
don't want to stay in a hotel or bed and breakfast, but rather rent either a ro
om or a
flat. I understand that you can rent places from an organization (can't remembe
r the name)
If anyone can give me information about this organization or if they know of pl
aces
themselves, I would appreciate any help. Please email the price ranges and the 
location. 

Thanks in advance.

Diana

In article > James Halliday,
 writes:
> Yeah i think it's Singapore and in a few of the other Countries around which
>  are considered "modern" you can be held without charge for an indefinite
>  period of time.

Like Italy,  for example...

Tamás

Kedves Pannon Jozsi es Kocsis Tamas,
bar nekem is vannak problemaim a HIX-szel, hadd emlekeztesselek 
benneteket a kovetkezo dolgokra :

1, Hollosi Jozsef, Fekete Zoli, e'n es egyaltalan aki akarja, archivalni tudja
   a soc.culture.magyar irasait, ha lesz HIX csoport ha nem
2, A HIX, mint olyan, rengeteg embernek nyujt kapcsolatot, meg ha egy sokak 
   szamara tulsagosan nem megfelelo politikai kornyezetben is
3, Jelenleg egyikunk sem nyujt (vagy nem tud nyujtani) egy jol mukodo
   alternativat, ami szerintem sokkal jobb megoldas lenne ellensegeskedes
   helyett

Magyarul, az uzenetem az lenne, legalabb probaljunk meg pozitivan hozzaallni
ehhez a kerdeshez. Hogyan lehetne egy olyan forumot letrehozni, ami 
fel tudna venni a versenyt - egy joindulatu versenyre gondolok - a HIX-szel,
vagy barmi mas hasonlo, egy kisebb csoport kore koncentralodo listaval ?
(Azt hiszem nem kell kihangsulyoznom, hogy a sajtoszabadsag szempontjabol,
 ami manapsag Magyarorszagon ismet tamadasoknak van kiteve , a USENET, mint
vita
 es informacios forum sokkal megfelelobb mint egy nehany ember altal menedzselt
 lista ) .   
Nekunk is, itt a USENET-en, erdeklodesi csoportok szerint szerint kellene 
strukturalni a magyar ujsagokat. Ez az amivel szerintem sokan egyetertenek.
A HIX olvasoi, a USENET-re iro'k es a konformizmusra torekvo szamitogepes
buzgomocsingok.  

Az altalam javasolt felosztas a kovetkezo lenne, (legyetek szivesek
kiegesziteni, megvaltoztatni, stb. ), peldaul :

soc.culture.magyar          kultura, tarsadalom		
soc.genealogy.hungarian     csaladfa, szarmazas kutatas
soc.couples.hungarian       tarskereso szolgalat
talk.politics.hungarian     vad politika
rec.humor.hungarian/magyar  viccek, humor, szatira stb.
...
 
Mindezen csoportok moderalas nelkul dolgoznanak, ketiranyu elektronikus posta
 - USENET kapukkal, hogy barki szamara elerhetoek legyenek.  

Mas, a HIX jelenleg sok olyan informaciot kozvetit, ami kozvetlenul kuldheto
lenne a  kapun keresztul a soc.culture.magyar
vagy mas magyar csoportokba . A kovetkezo ujsagoknak nem feltetlenul kellene a
HIX-en keresztul eljutni a soc.culture.magyarra. Kerdes az, mi fontosabb nekik,
a HIX-szel valo egybefonodas vagy egy szeles, zabolatlan reteg elerese.  
 
MOZAIK    -    , 
HUNGARY   -   bit.listserv.hungary 
HIRMONDO  -   ?
NARANCS   -   

Minden jot es varom valaszaitokat,
Gotthard

--
personal email,          mailto:
Hungarian-American list, mailto:  
WWW,                       http://www.glue.umd.edu/~gotthard

Sergey Malov ) wrote:
> The whole list is:
> 	* The Childhood of Ivan (Ivanovo detstvo); based on some novel, but
> 	 I can't say it for sure; 
Bogomolov "Ivan" 

> 	* Andrej Rublev;
> 	* Solaris; based on Stanislav Lem novel with the same name;
> 	* The Mirror; autobiografic movie;
> 	* Stalker - 1979; science-fiction novel of A. and B.Strugackij put in a
> basis, but the plot is very different;
> 	* Nostalgia - 1982;
> 	* Sacrifice - 1985;
> Best regards,

> Sergey

In article > Gotthard Saghi-Szabo 
d.edu> writes:
>soc.culture.magyar          kultura, tarsadalom		
>soc.genealogy.hungarian     csaladfa, szarmazas kutatas
>soc.couples.hungarian       tarskereso szolgalat
>talk.politics.hungarian     vad politika
>rec.humor.hungarian/magyar  viccek, humor, szatira stb.
[...]
>Minden jot es varom valaszaitokat,

Standard news.groups valasz:
"1.annyi a forgalom soc.culture.magyar -on, hogy kellene tobb csoport kozott
   osztani? sokak szerint ez csak akkor javasolt, ha tobb mint napi 100 cikk
   van
 2.ez mind szep es jo hogy magyar, de akkor ne bosszantsanak minket a fo
   (ertsd elsosorban USA-bol olvasott es irott) Usenet-en, erre valok a
   nemzeti hierachiak, kulonben is hallottam egy uj hun.* -rol"
Tehat gyakorlatilag keves az eselyed hogy egyik is jojjon letre.
De lehet probalkozni, talan tevedek.

Szemely szerint nekem tetszik a politics, esetleg a genealogy ha van ra igeny.

-- Olivier

----------------------------------------------------------------------
     >Liviu Iordache > wrote:
     >
      wrote:
     >
     >>second, the anonymous chronicler of king bela (I or II?) mentions 
     >>latin-speaking folksin transylvania at the arrival of king istvan I 
     >>there.  also, the russian chronicler Nestor, the persian chronicler 
     >>Gardisi, which i mentioned in more detail in previous posts.  in 
     >>addition, the byzantine chroniclers Cinnamus and Nicetos Choniates 
     >>mention the presence of latin-speaking people in prresent-day 
     >>romania between the Xth and the XIIth centuries.
     >
     >There are several incorrect and/or incomplete statements here:
     >
     >1. It is not known if Anonymus was the cancellor of King Bella III 
     >who died in 1196, or King Bella II who died in 1146. 
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     you're right - thanks for the correction (i had only troubles with all 
     those bellas - too many of them :-)  maybe i'll be lucky again and 
     find some in budapest this summer :-)  
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >2. Nestor wrote at the beginning of the 12th century and his 
     >reference to the Vlachs is geographically vague.  Moreover, he 
     >suggests a northward movement of his Vlachs and clearly states that 
     >before the maghyar arrival the "country" (Transylvania !?) was 
     >initially inhabited by Slavs from whom the Vlachs had seized the 
     >power.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     ok, here is the english translation of the original text (Laurentian 
     Text, p.62 - thanks Tamas :-):
     
     "(date 888-898) The Magyars passed by Kiev over the hill now called 
     Hungarian, and on arriving at the Dnieper, they pitched camp.  They 
     were nomads like the Polovcians.  Coming out of the east, they 
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     struggled across the great mountains, and began to fight against the 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     neighbouring Vlakhs and Slavs.  For the Slavs had settled there first, 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     but the Vlakhs had seized the territory of the Slavs.  The Magyars 
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
     subsequently expelled the Vlakhs, took their land, and settled among
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     the Slavs, whom they reduced submission.  From that time this 
     territory was called Hungarian."
     
     now i'll make a few comments:
     
     1.  i do not think the geographical reference given by Nestor is that 
     vague.  we know where the magyars came from originally, we know their 
     route, and we know their destination.  the only mountaneous chain in 
     their path west of the Dnieper is obviously the Carpathians. 
     
     2.  nowhere in the text Nestor SUGGESTS a northward movement of the 
     Vlakhs.  he merely states that the Vlakhs seized territory where Slavs 
     lived across those mountains.  the northward movement deduction is 
     like data extrapolation for an unknown equation - it simply is a "shot 
     in the dark". 
     
     also, there are 2 geographical possibilities for where the land of the 
     Slavs laid according to Nestor - either in present-day transylvania 
     or, across the Apuseni mountains in the pannonian plain.  if it was in 
     the pannonian plain, then Nestor points out to latinized folks 
     inhabiting that region BEFORE the magyars.  if it was in transylvania, 
     Nestor could merely refer to a land there where, indeed, Slavs settled 
     first, and Vlakhs took it over from them.  this does not contradict 
     the theory that latin-speaking folks did not inhabit in transylvania 
     prior to the slavs, but only that portion of transylvania was occupied 
     by the slavs FIRST. 
     
     anyway, the main point is that 2 independent chronicles at the time, 
     namely the Anonymous chancellor of King Bela III AND The Nestor's 
     chronicle mention the presence of latin-speaking people in the inner 
     Carpathian basin (ie. Transylvania) BEFORE THE MAGYAR ARRIVAL THERE.  
     This is the main point of convergence in both chronicles.    
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >3. Gardisi lived in the 11th century.  He refers to a people called 
     >N-n-dr.  The location is again vague.  Nor can we be certain that the 
     >N-n-dr of Gardisi were necessarily Latin speakers.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     i agree with most of what you state.  for more clarity, Gardisi 
     referred in his chronicle to a christian people called RUM ("az Rum"), 
     stating that they were more numerous than the magyars, but weaker.  
     geographically, he placed their territory by a large river and towards 
     the land of the slavs.  
     
     well, here i agree with you that the geographical reference by Gardisi 
     is vague.  however, we can still deduce that he referred to 
     latin-speakers by mentioning them as RUM, and by placing them next to 
     the magyars and by a large river (assuming the Danube).  were there 
     other latin speakers in close neighborhood to the magyars and living 
     by a large river then (other than the Vlachs)?
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >4. Cinnamus was the secretary of Manuel Comnenus.  In 1167 he 
     >mentions Vlachs in an army which Leo Vatatzes was leading across the 
     >Danube.  These Vlachs were collected south of the Danube.  It is just 
     >speculated that they were possibly romanians.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     Cinnamus mentions that, during the preparation for an attack on the 
     Hungarians, the byzantine emperor:
     
     "[he] ordered Leo by surname Batatzes, who led a force from abroad, 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
     among many other sorts a large group of Vlachs, who are said to be
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     former colonists from the people of Italy..." (John Kinnamos, Deeds of 
     John and Manuel Comnenus, Columbia University Press, p.195).
     
     as a comment to the above text, Cinnamus clearly mentions that the 
     force led by Batatzes, and which included Vlachs, was FROM ABROAD 
     (meaning from outside the byzantine empire).  so he does not 
     specifically state that they were collected south of the danube.  and 
     by mentioning "from abroad", we can, again, make a deduction that they 
     were possibly collected north of the danube.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >5. Choniates mentions that in 1164 Andronicus Comnenus, leaving 
     >Mesembria for the North, fell in the hands of some Vlachs.  These may 
     >be Vlachs in Romania or Vlachs in Bulgaria.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     I agree here.  Choniates mentions that the byzantine emperor 
     Andronikos fell in the hands of Vlachs when reaching "the borders of 
     Galitza."  it seems to be a controversy of where Galitza was located 
     geographically.  some sustain that it refers to the province of 
     Galitzia north of present-day Moldova, and others maintain that it 
     refers to a region in the Morava Valley (south of the Danube).  if 
     time permits, i'll investigate this further.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >Your conclusion that the 4th and 5th references prove the presence of 
     >latin-speaking peopple in present-day Romania between 10th and 12th 
     >centuries represents an overstatement.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     i don't believe i stated that based SOLELY upon the chronicles of 
     Cinnamus and Nicetas Choniates we can conclude that romanians 
     inhabited their present area of residence.  
     
     i am, however, stating that ALL ABOVE SOURCES TAKEN TOGETHER give an 
     indication of the presence of latin-speaking folks in romania PRIOR or 
     AT THE ARRIVAL OF THE MAGYARS in the region.  as jeliko also 
     mentioned, and i agree, the most important thing is to look at the 
     convergence tendencies in the available information, rather than at 
     the divergencies.  and the convergence-in-information rules show us 
     vlach presence in present-day romania from the 10th to the 12th 
     centuries.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >Keep in mind that the Byzantine sources had no problem in recording 
     >the presence of Vlachs south of the lower Danube.  The "silence of 
     >the historians" is very selective because the only Vlachs they failed 
     >to mention prior to the 11th century are the North-danubian Vlachs.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     well, the byzantines first ever mention of vlachs was in the Xth 
     century, if i'm not mistaken and yes, they mentioned the vlachs living 
     south of the Danube.
     
     given this fact, 2 points can be made:
     
     1.  although vlachs lived in the balkan peninsula (ie. south of the 
     danube) for centuries, they were mentioned as late as the 10th century 
     for the first time.  shall we then conclude that they did not exist 
     there PRIOR to then?  of course, not.  which brings me to the next 
     point.
     
     2.  the byzantine chroniclers, being the official scribes of their 
     kings and emperors, usually documented events that had a direct 
     bearing upon the empire, events of mainly military nature, of 
     conquests or of defeats that affected the state directly.  in this 
     process, they also documented the ethnicity of the folks with which 
     their state came into such a contact.  
     
     for instance, there were numerous references to the avars in byzantine 
     and western chronicles since they obviously were a redoubtable enemy 
     and neighbour for centuries.  however, after the middle of the VII-th 
     century, when their power greatly diminished and were not a political 
     and military factor of importance to the byzantines, they became 
     virtually ignored in the chronicles.  the same pattern also follows 
     other invaders of the carpatho-danubian basin in the waning days of 
     their power.  but the fact that the chroniclers did not mention those 
     people after they ceaseed to be a threat does not imply that they 
     ceased to exist.
     
     and in the same vein, the vlachs started to be mentioned quite heavily 
     in the byzantine chronicles in conjunction with the rise in power of 
     the 2 vlach brothers, John and Asan, which led a vlach-bulgar 
     rebellion that threatened the empire.
     
     the latin-speaking population in transylvania was not a threat of any 
     kind to the byzantines.  they lived quite isolated from them by the 
     carpathian and transylvanian alps.  they were of no or negligible 
     importance to them.
     
     -cristian

On 31 May 1995, CLARY Olivier wrote:

> Tehat gyakorlatilag keves az eselyed hogy egyik is jojjon letre.
> De lehet probalkozni, talan tevedek.
> 
> Szemely szerint nekem tetszik a politics, esetleg a genealogy ha van ra igeny
.

Olivier,
meg ha keves is az esely, meg lehet probalni, ha a tobbseg itt az 
s.c.m-en ugy gondolja. Vegul is, lattad, ha az egesz magyar 
olvasokozonseg tamogatna az otletet, konnyen keresztulviheto 
lenne a szavazas . Egyebkent ezek csak nagyon kezdeti javaslatok, 
es a celja hozzaszolasok, kritikak gyujtese - mint peldaul a tied. 
Koszonom a valaszt, most mar tudom, hogy legalabb kettonknek tetszik a 
talk.politics.hungarian letrehozasa :) 
Minden jot,
Gotthard

--
personal email,          mailto:
Hungarian-American list, mailto:  
WWW,                       http://www.glue.umd.edu/~gotthard

----------------------------------------------------------------------
     >T. Kocsis > wrote:
     >
      writes:
     >>
     >>second, the anonymous chronicler of king bela (I or II?) mentions
     >>latin-speaking folks in transylvania at the arrival of king istvan I 
     >>there.  also, the russian chronicler Nestor,
     > 
     >Nestor mentioned "Vlakhs" two times in his chronicle.  
     >Russian Primary Chronicle [Laurentian Text]:  
     >p.62
     >"(date 888-898) The Maygars passed by Kiev over the hill now
     >called Hungarian, and on arriving at the Dnieper, they pitched camp. 
     >They were nomads like the Polovcians. Coming out of the east, they 
     >struggled across the great mountains, and began to fight against the 
     >neighbouring Vlakhs and Slavs. For the Slavs had settled there first, 
     >but the Vlakhs had seized the territory of the Slavs. The Magyars 
     >subsequently expelled the Vlakhs, took their land, and settled among 
     >the Slavs, whom they reduced submission. From that time this 
     >territory was called Hungarian." > /*---*/
     >
     >The second one is more complicated however. First you must
     >know that in early Slavs Vlakhi, Vlasi were used for the Italians. 
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     well, not italians but latin-speaking people.  south slavs called them 
     "vlachs", but eastern slavs called them "volochs".  the fact that 
     various chroniclers mention "vlachs/volochs" in the balkans and within 
     the carpatho-danubian basin leaves little doubt that they were 
     speaking of the ancestors of the present-day romanians.
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
      
     >From the text it is clear that the Slavs came earlier than Vlakhs.  
     >Then the Vlakhs were *expelled*  by the Hungarians.
     > 
     >Explanation: The region was then subjugated by the Frank Empire, and 
     >Nestor refers to them as Vlakhs. That time their language
     >was quite near to Latin....
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     interesting explanation, tamas, but i'm afraid i'm not going to buy it 
     ;-)
     
     well, i agree, Nestor mentions that the Slavs came in the land beyond 
     the Carpathians first, and the Vlachs came after and subjugated them. 
     there are 2 geographical possibilities for where the land of the Slavs 
     laid according to Nestor - either in present-day transylvania or, 
     across the Apuseni mountains in the pannonian plain.  if it was in the 
     pannonian plain, then Nestor points out to latinized folks inhabiting 
     that region BEFORE the magyars.  if it was in transylvania, Nestor 
     could merely refer to a land there where, indeed, Slavs settled first, 
     and Vlakhs took it over from them.  this does not contradict the 
     theory that latin-speaking folks did not inhabit in transylvania prior 
     to the slavs, but only that portion of transylvania was occupied by 
     the slavs FIRST. 
     
     anyway, the main point is that 2 independent chronicles at the time, 
     namely the Anonymous chancellor of King Bela III AND The Nestor's 
     chronicle mention the presence of latin-speaking people in the inner 
     Carpathian basin (ie. Transylvania) BEFORE THE MAGYAR ARRIVAL THERE.  
     This is the main point of convergence in both chronicles.
     
     also, i don't think transylvania was ever under the frank rule - i'll 
     check (or you do it) how far the boundaries of the frank empire 
     stretched back then.  the assertion that Nestor referred to franks 
     when mentioning the vlachs is quite weak and un-substantiated, in my 
     opinion.    
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >Actually the text is prettily against your theory. Those Vlakhs are 
     >either Daco-romanians then the theory of continuity does not stand 
     >because they came later than the Slavs and were expelled anyway very 
     >soon.....
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     the chronicles mentioned by me in the previous post, namely 
     Anonymous', Nestors', plus Gardisi's, Cinnamus', and Choniates' are a 
     very strong indication that latin-speaking folks (ie. vlachs) 
     inhabited the carpatho-danubian basin BEFORE THE MAGYAR ARRIVAL.  
     
     i never assserted that these chronicles are ENOUGH to prove daco-roman 
     continuity.  In order to formulate a daco-roman continuity theory 
     (along with the mix between daco-romans and slavs, thus giving birth 
     to the romanian nation in the carpatho-danubian basin), the following 
     points must be made:
     
     1.  that the romans did not exterminate the dacian autochtonous 
     population after their conquest of Dacia.  in previous posts, i showed 
     why this scenario is likely.
     
     2.  that the roman domination of Dacia Traiana was enough to latinize 
     the dacian population, and to create a new latinic people from the mix 
     of the dacians with the roman colonists.  check previous posts again.
     
     3.  that the roman administration withdrawal from Dacia Traiana did 
     not cause a full abandonment of that territory.  check previous posts 
     again.
     
     4.  that archeological finds sustain the continuity theory.  
     
     5.  that a mix of latinized folks with slavs in the carpatho-danubian 
     was likely.  see previous posts.
     
     6.  that these folks inhabited that region before the magyars arrived 
     there.  see above and previous posts.
     
     7.  that linguistic and toponymic factors support this theory.  see 
     previous posts.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     >or they are not Daco-romanians: then the Nestor chronicle does not 
     >say one word of Daco-romanians moreover excludes them from the 
     >region which belonged to Slavs before Franks and Hungarians.  
     >Tamas
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     Nestor referred to latin-speaking folks in the area.  these folks were 
     the ancestors of present-day romanians.  he did not differentiate 
     between daco-romanians and vlachs.
     
     -cristian

Ronald Fritts ) wrote:

: >
: >1983    Nostalgia
: >          original screenplay
: >
: On the subject of Tarkovsky, does anyone know where I can get a copy of
: Nostalgia?  It is the only post-Steamroller film of Tarkovsky's I
: haven't been able to locate.  Thanks.
Ronald -- where have you found all the rest of them???

Susan

> How about creating one group under s.c.m and gatewaying the hu.* groups
> into that subgroup?    It would be a bit cacophonic since all hu groups
> would  end up in a single one, but it would definitely be better than 
> nothing.  
 Jozsi mentioned that he's considering a HIX list gatewaying hun.*, and I 
guess that could go under s.c.m.hix (although some of hun.*, such as 
local sales and other domestic-only stuff would be rather misplaced in 
the worldwide hierarchy, IMHO). 

 Zoli  (note my old full address @bcuxs2 is retired)
"For my assured failures and derelictions, I ask pardon beforehand of my
betters and my equals in my calling." - Rudyard Kipling

hellooo hellooo folks,
     
     after all those sweaty debates and various verbal wrestling matches, 
     it's finally time to relaaaaaax in......you guess it......Budapest, of 
     all places.
     
     so, is anyone outthere from this maaaahhhhhhvelous citadel that can 
     give me some tips on a variety of relaxing activities and situations 
     (thanks to gabor_the_aztec_love_god for his tips)......oh, and also 
     the surroundings but, pleeeeeaase, not as far as the sea of Balaton 
     because time will not permit, and i cannot surf, anyway....
     
     so stuff like cute little side streets, neighborhood hangouts, bars, 
     cafes, international bookstores, museums, art galleries, parks, 
     restaurants, czardas hangouts (maybe outside the city), baths (gellert 
     and....), etc.etc.
     
     much obliged to y'all for any gracious and candid suggestions.
     
     -cristian
     
     ps: i know i'll be sadly missed by y'all, but a man gotta do what a 
     man gotta do.....(sorry for the cliche ;-)
     
     pps: and jeliko, take it easy man, and don't worry, i'll be back in 
     mid-july.....hasta la huego, amigo!

Frans_Szabo ) wrote:
: In article >  (Shane Hol
mes) writes:
: >From:  (Shane Holmes)
: >Subject: Help with translation...
: >Date: 31 May 1995 05:22:06 GMT

: >I am trying to compile a table of translations of the word "wolf" from 
: >the many different languages.  Any help with magyar and or any other 
: >countries would be greatly appreciated.
: >Please e-mail to 

: >Example

: >Language     Translation     Pronunciation
: >______________________________________________
: >Spanish      lobo            loh-boh

:  Hungarian    Farkás       farkaasjh
                    ^
         it is  farkas   and   farkash

Cristian writes:

      >The second one is more complicated however. First you must
>      >know that in early Slavs Vlakhi, Vlasi were used for the Italians. 
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      well, not italians but latin-speaking people.  south slavs called 
them 
>      "vlachs", but eastern slavs called them "volochs".  the fact that 
>      various chroniclers mention "vlachs/volochs" in the balkans and 
within 
>      the carpatho-danubian basin leaves little doubt that they were 
>      speaking of the ancestors of the present-day romanians.
>      
Well not exactly, the Hungarians even today call the Italians Olasz from 
Vlasi, the vl change came into being the same way as Olah from Vlah.
The word itself is an interesting derivation and apparently it was used to 
designate people who spoke another language. The word was first used for 
the Celts in the form of Volcus. It is not clear whether the Goths or the 
Slavs started to use it for Latin speakers but it is the word used for
Wallonia (French speakers by Germanic speakers) Galatians (Celtic speakers 
by Greeks) Welsh (Celtic speakers by Romans) and as Vlach or Wallach in the 
Greek and Gothic documents. The Hungarian use by Anonymus was 
Blacus,Blachii,Blasii and Blacorum, apparently he just could not make up 
his mind or possibly he tried to differentiate, who knows. Anyway in his 
time there were Vlachs in Transylvania, what he knew about who were there
several hundred years before is another question.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>       
>      >From the text it is clear that the Slavs came earlier than Vlakhs. 
 
>      >Then the Vlakhs were *expelled*  by the Hungarians.
>      > 
>      >Explanation: The region was then subjugated by the Frank Empire, 
and 
>      >Nestor refers to them as Vlakhs. That time their language
>      >was quite near to Latin....
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      interesting explanation, tamas, but i'm afraid i'm not going to buy 
it 
>      ;-)
>      
>      well, i agree, Nestor mentions that the Slavs came in the land 
beyond 
>      the Carpathians first, and the Vlachs came after and subjugated 
them. 
>      there are 2 geographical possibilities for where the land of the 
Slavs 
>      laid according to Nestor - either in present-day transylvania or, 
>      across the Apuseni mountains in the pannonian plain.  if it was in 
the 
>      pannonian plain, then Nestor points out to latinized folks 
inhabiting 
>      that region BEFORE the magyars.  if it was in transylvania, Nestor 
>      could merely refer to a land there where, indeed, Slavs settled 
first, 
>      and Vlakhs took it over from them.  this does not contradict the 
>      theory that latin-speaking folks did not inhabit in transylvania 
prior 
>      to the slavs, but only that portion of transylvania was occupied by 
>      the slavs FIRST. 
>      
Well not exactly again, the Tales of Bygone Days (it is not clear what and 
how much Nestor wrote) should be read in whole and not only segments. The 
translations do not help at times either, in the original, the Tales 
describes who lived where and the Vlachs are placed in Western Europe near 
the see with the British Isle, unfortunately some translators corrected 
the name to the names of the folks as used today in the preamble, which 
fuels the oft claimed mistake. So it is obvious that the Tales are talking 
about the Franks and not somebody else. The nearest area to the Pannonian 
basin was the East Frankish empire so the Tales are describing the Frankish 
incursion into the pannonian basin and the subjugation and partial 
expulsion of the Slavs who lived there with the Avars. The relevant wars 
are well described by the contemporary chroniclers.
The reference of the area although more Western Hungary, i.e. Pannonia was 
referred to as the Pastures of the Romans long before eve the Roman Dacian 
wars by several chroniclers, although later it was called the wasteland of 
the Avars also. Chroniclers were doing a lot of copying those days also.



>      anyway, the main point is that 2 independent chronicles at the time, 
>      namely the Anonymous chancellor of King Bela III AND The Nestor's 
>      chronicle mention the presence of latin-speaking people in the inner 
>      Carpathian basin (ie. Transylvania) BEFORE THE MAGYAR ARRIVAL THERE. 

They are not independent chroiclers, Anonymus, if as considered was King 
Bela's notary, was very well aware of what was written by Russian (Kievian)
writers because of the close relationship between the Bela's (whether he 
was Bela III's or one of the other Bela's notary) realm and the Kievian 
area, Halich (Galicia) and several princedoms had multiple marriages with 
the Hungarian ruling house, if anything the eastern relationship was the 
best in those days.
As a matter of fact Anonymus was aware of the other Russian chronicles also 
because he merged several of them in his description of the folks percieved 
by him to be present in the area. You should also read Anonymus in full 
because he mentions Vlachs(?) only in a particular area where there are 
records of Romanian settlements only much later. Other chroniclers are very 
specific about Slavs (Timocani) and Bulgarians in the TS area. 
I have additional ideas why Anonymus wrote what he wrote but that has to 
wait for some other time.
>      This is the main point of convergence in both chronicles.
>      
>      also, i don't think transylvania was ever under the frank rule - 
No it was not. The Franks were in western Hungary basically what was 
Pannonia. TS was under the Bulgars as shown by the correspondance between 
the Franks and the Bugars about not shipping salt to the Moravians who were 
at war with the Franks, (there were no other salt supply areas in the 
region!) Eventually there was warfare between the Bulgars and the Franks 
also.

>i'll 
>      check (or you do it) how far the boundaries of the frank empire 
>      stretched back then.  the assertion that Nestor referred to franks 
>      when mentioning the vlachs is quite weak and un-substantiated, in my 
>      opinion.    

Not if you read the whole of the Tales and check the original.      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      >Actually the text is prettily against your theory. Those Vlakhs are 
>      >either Daco-romanians then the theory of continuity does not stand 
>      >because they came later than the Slavs and were expelled anyway 
very 
>      >soon.....
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      the chronicles mentioned by me in the previous post, namely 
>      Anonymous', Nestors', plus Gardisi's, Cinnamus', and Choniates' are 
a 
>      very strong indication that latin-speaking folks (ie. vlachs) 
>      inhabited the carpatho-danubian basin BEFORE THE MAGYAR ARRIVAL.  
I think we put Nestor out of the way. I'll discuss Anonymus in more detail 
later and we will take the others one at the time.

>      
>      i never assserted that these chronicles are ENOUGH to prove 
daco-roman 
>      continuity.  In order to formulate a daco-roman continuity theory 
>      (along with the mix between daco-romans and slavs, thus giving birth 
>      to the romanian nation in the carpatho-danubian basin), the 
following 
>      points must be made:
>      
>      1.  that the romans did not exterminate the dacian autochtonous 
>      population after their conquest of Dacia.  in previous posts, i 
showed 
>      why this scenario is likely.
The Roman chronicles do not show much mercy toward the Dacians and a large 
part of the incoming legions and even settlers were not native Latin 
speakers.
I have no problem with your theory that the Vlachs were mixed with Slavs at 
some time, the Serbian, Bulgarian chronicles and even the crusaders 
chronicles (Villeharduin) describe it well
Howvever there is no proof or strong indication that the cooperation 
occured in TS.

>      
>      2.  that the roman domination of Dacia Traiana was enough to 
latinize 
>      the dacian population, and to create a new latinic people from the 
mix 
>      of the dacians with the roman colonists.  check previous posts 
again.
>      
Same here, if needed I can repeat all the contraindications for the Roman 
times.

>      3.  that the roman administration withdrawal from Dacia Traiana did 
>      not cause a full abandonment of that territory.  check previous 
posts 
>      again.
>      
You are probably right here, however the most likely to leave were the ones 
who were Romanized, the shepherds in the mountains were the least likely to 
succomb to Romanizing influence in the cities. Even later the Romanian 
population was very meager in the cities.

>      4.  that archeological finds sustain the continuity theory.  
>      
I strongly disagree with this interpretation of the archeological findings, 
there are some (but very few) finds which indicate that funeral methods 
similar to the Dacians occured after the Roman withdrawal, but those 
findings indicate a very primitive life style and not by themselves prove
latinized dacian continuity.

>      5.  that a mix of latinized folks with slavs in the 
carpatho-danubian 
>      was likely.  see previous posts.
>      
No disagreement here except we both use different time frames.

>      6.  that these folks inhabited that region before the magyars 
arrived 
>      there.  see above and previous posts.
>      
Well as far as the Slavs are concerned there is no doubt, just read the 
chronicles, archeology, toponyms, etc.,


>      7.  that linguistic and toponymic factors support this theory.  see 
>      previous posts.
Same here for the counterarguments.      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      >or they are not Daco-romanians: then the Nestor chronicle does not 
>      >say one word of Daco-romanians moreover excludes them from the 
>      >region which belonged to Slavs before Franks and Hungarians.  
>      >Tamas
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      
>      Nestor referred to latin-speaking folks in the area.  these folks 
were 
>      the ancestors of present-day romanians.  he did not differentiate 
>      between daco-romanians and vlachs.
>      
As the full text of the tales indicate you are not correct.

>      -cristian
      We'll continue when you get back.
Regards,Jeliko.

In article >,
Janos Szamosfalvi > wrote:
>I don't think the RFD about creating a subgroup for HIX would be 
>as inflammatory as the renaming was.   A sure YES from me since I 
>don't read HIX and the articles just clutter the newsgroup.

I don't see any reason to create a separate .hix group. The traffic is
minimal. If you don't want to see hix articles, why don't you use a KILL
file? Not rocket science...

Gyula

-- 
Gyula P. Szokoly ) -------------------------------\
|  When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according|
|to your principles; when I am  stronger than  you, I take away  your freedom|
|because that is according to my principles.                 -- Frank Herbert|