Enhavo de la numero 2/novembro de EVENTOJ
  *****************************************

  Pag^o 1.
  --------

  - Leg^propono pri Esperanto En Francio

     La  13-an de oktobro la Komunista Frakcio en la Nacia Asambleo
     de  Francio  deponis  leg^proponon pri E-o, kiu estis oficiale
     registrita la 20-an de oktobro sub n-ro 2289.

  - Internet estas nehaltigebla!
     Kiu  ne  uzas  la  eblecojn kaj avantag^ojn de la nova informa
     supers^oseo  -  definitive postrestas! Ekde antaunelonge ankau
     UEA hacas TTT-pag^ojn...

  - Omag^e al Andreo Cseh
     Aperis  memorlibro  pri  Andreo  Cseh,  omag^e al lia 100-jara
     naskig^datreveno.  Inda  por  la  intereso  de  la  internacia
     komunumo.

  Pag^o 2.
  --------

  - Novspeca informmaterialo pri Esperanto
     FEL  badau  presos  A-4  informfoliojn pri 12 temoj ligitaj al
     E-o,  servanta  la  propagandon  de E-o. La celo estas, ke oni
     traduku  g^in  al  la  naciaj  lingvoj,  kaj  uzu  ilin  en la
     propaganda laboro.

  - Uzo kaj misuzo de la delegita reto
     C^u  la  publika adresaro de la Delegita Reto estas utiligebla
     ankau por monkolektado? - Konsiloj de CO de UEA.

  - Ne ploru - agu!
     C^u  kresko  au  malkresko  en  la  lastaj 20 jaroj? Interesaj
     vidpunktoj uzante la statistikaj^ojn de la UK-partoprenantoj.

  - Solidareco helpis
     En  1914 estis konstruita 5 metra (!) monumento al Zamenhof en
     Franzensbad,   kiun  la  naziistoj  likvidis.  En  1991  estis
     dekovrita  kaj  inaugurita  memomrtabulo tie, kiu baldau estis
     disrompita   far   nekonitoj.   En  fino  de  1994  Asocio  de
     E-Handikapuloj renovigis la memortabulon...

  Pag^o 3. (Faka aplikado)
  ------------------------

  - Internacia Akademia Konferenco pri Scienco kaj Tekniko.
    En C^inio en 1996, konferenco, ekspozicio, kurso.

  - E-lingva eldonejo en Elzaco
    Funkciado de kla Eldonejo Pirilo lau la principo de TAKE...

  - Agrikulturi en Esperanto
    Fondig^is Internacia E-Agrikultura Grupo en augusto.

  - Heraldika listo
    En Doneck estas eldonita "Ilustrita vortaro pri heraldiko"

  - Kultura Servo en Malagasio
    Resumo pri la agado en 1994-95.

  - Ili frenezas, tiuj egiptoj
    Prezento kaj komentoj pri la nova Asteriks-volumo.

  Pag^o 4. (Arang^oj)
  -------------------

  - AEROB, 8-10.12.95. Bratislava. (Antaukristnaska E-Renkonto)
  - Zamenhofa Semajnfino, 16-17.12. Zagrebo
  - Jubileo en Bydgoszcz, 27.04.-05.05.96. Bydgoszcz, Polio
  - IJK en Germanio!
  - Venu kaj MIRu! 29.03.-02.04. Zagreb
  - Kulturaj monatfinoj en KCE...
  - OSIEK-konferenco en 96 en Tatraj montoj, Slovakio
  - Samtempe 4 arang^oj en Sztaszow, Polio
  - Infana Kongreseto en 96, kadre de la UK...

  Pag^oj 5-6. (Movado)
  --------------------

  - Tritaga Ago-tago en Romo
    Partopreno de e-istoj en la "Espolingua 95".

  - Irlandaj Europarlamentanoj
    Reagoj de kelkaj parlamentanoj pri la lingva problemo

  - Senpaga kurso en la kimra
    Aperis la unua (?) kurso-materialo en la kimra lingvo.

  - Kiel oni diras mongole?
    Sukceso por plurjaraj preparoj en Mongolio.

  - Kion vidante diru mi...
     Parlamentano  asertas,  ke  "...en EU estu komuna lingvo - kaj
     g^i estu la angla..."

  - Librokupono por novaj membroj...
    Japana E-instituto allogas novajn membrojn al interesaj^oj...

  - Surprizo en televido
    Svisa elsendo pri la funkciado de Esperanto

  - Televide pri internaciaj lingvoj en Britio
    En la angla oni parolas pri "aliaj internaciaj lingvoj"

  - ILEI-rubriko: Listo de korespondaj kursoj: preparata

  - KONKURSO: Belartaj konkursoj de UEA.

  Pag^o 7.
  --------

  - Fine de la mondo
    Kiujn interesas la E-novaj^oj de aliaj mondopartoj

  - C^u nur hobiumado?
    Reagu al negativa aserto en germania revuo Katholisches Digest

  - Gazetoj: Brazila Heroldo

  - Korespondi deziras
    7 adresoj el 5 landoj.

  - Listo de kotizperantoj de Eventoj

  Pag^o 8.
  --------

  Esperanto  en Radio: Radio Vieno intencas eldoni bros^uron kun la
       plej interesaj siaj elsendaj^oj.

  Interese: - Camilo Jose Cela kaj la hispana lingvo
            - C^u ekzistas komuna pralingvo?

  Movada humuro

  Anoncetoj (nekomercaj anoncetoj estas senpagaj)

  / / / / / /

  - Hungara suplemento (por hungariaj abonantoj)
    Kopio de 2-pag^a pozitiva artikolo pri la teknika sistemo de la
    Budapes^ta E-Domo, aperinta en PC-World, nov/95.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------
               EVENTOJ: La plej ofta Esperanto-gazeto!
                      C^u ankau vi legas g^in?
         / pk. 87, H-1675 Budapest, Hungario
  ----------------------------------------------------------------

Sandor Olah ) wrote:
: In article >,  (AND Books) wrote:
: >harmadik napja gyaloglok 200,000+ komputeresekkel itt Las Vegasben, edig 
: >Recognicion kivul (akik mar 8+ eve itt jarnak), csak Dr Mihaly Koltai s 
: >reggi ism Endre Simonyi kivul keves magyaral talalkoztam... hol vagyunk? 
: >ja... politizalunk! miert nem talalkozunk?
: >
: >janos
: >
: >
: Felolem talalkozzunk de csak akkor ha Torontoba less a COMDEX
elinte'ztem, jo:vo"re COMDEX Torontoban lesz!

In article >, 
ymtl.ca (Cours 6412) writes:
|> Matyas ) wrote:
|> 
|> : First, I made the statement above because once again a thread (the title o
f 
|> : which has been mainained) was diverted to the "classical" who got what fro
m who
|> : and when and generally who did more wrong to the other, topics which as we
 
|> : should know by now don't lead anywhere. I'm only sorry for those who aren'
t
|> : able to argue about anything else... 
|> 
|> O.K, so the discussion should be about minority rights.
|> 
|> :                                                 But even if I don't want t
o
|> : get into an argument about numbers again, I doubt it that your statement a
bout a
|> : Romanian majority in "Northern Transylvania" is true or documented. And do
n't
|> : blame it on the scientific library of CERN again.
|> 
|> So, after blaming the others for diverting the discussion to historical issu
es
|> you are now diverting a discussion about minority rights to the issues of
|> numbers and percentages.

Sorry, Mr. Alb, but you seemingly didn't follow the thread carefully because th
e
absolute majority issue wasn't brought up by me. The above quote was merely an
answer to it.


|> Like saying "lets talk about the rights of the hungarian minority. But actua
lly
|> hungarians were not a minority in Northern Transylvania. And if today 
|> by any chance they are this is due to assimilation". 
|> You have doubts about the romanian majority in Northern Transylvania.
|> You can also have doubts about the romanian majority in Transylvania today,
|> 80 years ago, 300 years ago or 1000 years ago. 
|> While you are advocating minority rights, you smear
|> that hungarians could "deserve" Transylvania (they came here first, in a
|> desert land and have been there a majority until the fatal year 1918).


Please support these with quote from my postins. If possible in context. Otherw
ise
there is no point in what you are writing and even less worth answerin it.

|> 
|> 
|> : Matyas
|> 
|> Cristian Alb
|> 

Matyas
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    
If you have any problems, address them to          

You claim that Attila the Hun has no connection to Arpad, and that the 
word Hun has no connection to Hungarians.
I would appreciate if you could send me the title and author of the articles
or books that backs up your claim.

Thank you,
Attila Csokai

Eugene  *fraer* ) wrote:
: May be you are able also to shed a light on the original meaning of 
: words "slav" and "rus".  Wojtek in the previous post assosiated the word 
: slav with "slovo" - speach.  But in russian it is assosiated with "slava" -
: glory.


I cannot believe that you have never heard the the most common 


: As for the word "rus", its meaning is never been clear.  AFAIK The original R
us 
: live near Kiev and campained against Konstantinopol, but I don't know even 
: were these people Slavik or Nordic by origin.  Also there were areas named Ru
s in
: Checkia, Serbia, and even Hungary. 

Exactly, Nordic. Maybe Rus is Ross (horse).

On Nov 29, 1995 04:31:52 in article <Re: Recognizing unfairness>,
 (Cours 6412)' wrote: 
 
> Isn't the classic romanian saying 
>"codrul e frate cu romanul" (forrest is romanian's brother) some kind 
>of cultural reminescence of times when romanians were seeking shelter 
>in woods and mountains ? 
 
Hi Cristian: 
 
It also recalls the Roman saying (I think quoted by Ovid) that "the
mountain is the Dacian's friend". 
 
Alexander

There are two theories about the meaning and origin of the word Rus.
Some think that Rus is derived from ruotsi, the Finnish name for Swedes, 
the other think that it derived from the name of a tribe from southern 
Russia -- Rukhs-As.

Begemot I

On 30 Nov 1995  wrote:

> Jorma Kyppo  > wrote:
> 
> >The result was that car did stop and I saw it was filled by six
> >gypsies. The driver opened the window and shouted angrily in
> >Slovak: "What are you doing, are you some Hungarian or what!!?"
> >I was thinking to answer, that no, just a cousin, but then thought
> >that better not. 
> 
> And Slovaks keep saying that most of the Gypsies in Slovakia are
> Hungarian Gypsies, making up much of the half million of Hungarians
> there.  What's wrong with this picture? 

1. Those six Gypsies could belong to the minority whose members do not 
   consider themselves Hungarian.

2. I am Slovak and I have never said anything about this issue. So 
   please, don't speak for me. Thank you.

> Joe Pannon


Peter Hakel

Yes I do.You are absolutely correct.It was a jew however,who 
posted the "being ashamed of Hungarian" smokescreen,and then 
called everyone else a semite.Be on your guard!
All the best

A fellow Hungarian

In article >,  says...
>
>Jarmo Ryyti ) wrote:
>> The Hungarians have a hard time in Slovakia.
>> The Finns and Saamis in Sweden.
>
>If Finnish language would have same rights in Sweden like
>Hungarian language has in Slovakia it would be a paradise
>compared with the present situation.
>
  Jorma, it is nice that you are engaged in an East-Europian
country, as Slovakia, it is actually a lot more then usual.
And if it's Slovakia, there is nothing wrong with that. But for
being taken seriously, you MUST be more confident with the issues
you comment.
  Living in Sweden, I don't see any repression of the Finnish
language here, it's not forbidden to use it, as the Hungarian is
in some neighboring countries. In fact, on almost everything you
buy, you can find information in Finnish, you find Finnish scools,
kindergartens, your children have right to special teacher in
mothertounge. (Hemspraakundervisning). All this, inspite that
almost all the Finns came on their own will to Sweden. Those
parts (Tornedalen, Haparanda), there original Finns are living,
those are bilingual. OK the Swedes in Finnland got it better,
but the Swedes treatment in Finnland is exceptionally good.
At the same time Sweden has some large national minorities
of other kind, while Finnland has only the Swedes. Yes I know,
two years ago Finnland let 50 (fifty !) refugees in, from other
countries. I wouldn't concern them as minorities.
  Now how does this paradise you claim look like?
Pupils from those few Hungarian scools in Slovakia are not
wellcome to highscools and universities, by definition. Don't
ask me to point to the law, it's no law, it's just practice.
Speaking Hungarian in common places can be stopped anytime buy
any Slovaks, saying: it's Slovakia, speak Slovakian ! It happens
so often, that Hungarians don't dare to challenge their environment,
they often speak Slovakian to each other.
  Previously you compared Hungary to Sweden as former colonisator
of Slovakia / Finnland. This is more than unfair. From the 16th century
Hungary was a colony of Austria, with very limited influence over it's
own territory.
Large parts of todays Slovakia has never had any Slovakian population at 
all.
How can a country colonize it's own people/territory ? During those
hundreds of years Slovaks lived under the Hungarian crown, they were
respected, in some terms even privileged people, living in peace with
other nations. But when the Turks left Hungary and Austria took over,
the Habsburgs took advantage of the "divide et impera!". They moved
nationalities around and tried to raise hostilities between them.
This culminated at the end of the last century. The peace in
Trianon, and Hungarys acting during WWII did not help to better
understanding eighter. There should be more power used to get this
nations closer to each other, instead of writing so ungrounded
acusations about colonizing.
  Can the Russians say that Finnland colonized Karelia, which is
now back to it's lawful owner? Tell me about this please !

  You have all the chances to see these things more objective.
Use your "being outsider" for being fair.

Kippis
//Laszlo

Tomas Drgon ) wrote:
> In article >, Jorma Kyppo
> > wrote:

> > The result was that car did stop and I saw it was filled by six
> > gypsies. The driver opened the window and shouted angrily in
> > Slovak: "What are you doing, are you some Hungarian or what!!?"
> > I was thinking to answer, that no, just a cousin, but then thought
> > that better not. 
> > I found the situation very absurd, a Slovakian gypsy blames a Finn,
> > who understands Slovak, claiming rasistically, that he's kind of
> > Hungarian...
> > I didn't know if I should laugh or cry, but it was a good lesson.
> > racism is very relative matter.
> This has a little to do with racism. The expression "to talk like a
> Hungarian" (rozpravas jak Madar) is a slang expression for talking
> nonsense. So don't take that "Co si Madar, ci co" too personally.

Good point, but still: in a way it is same like if I call a black man
as "neekeri" in Finland. It is not at all always a racist expression,
but the object just don't know it always...

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland

Ok here what I have. They are all tapes.

Bikini: Mondd El  (It's hard to classify, kind of punky)

Napoleon Boulevard:  Julia Nem Akar a Foldon Jarni  (pop"konnyuzene" trying
                                                        to be)
Frederika:  Frederika  (A young girl, light pop, not bad for first try)

Presser Gabor:  Csak Dalok  ( Solo effort of Pici, kind of LGT
                                but not like Electromatic)

All tapes are $10 US or $15 CAN including shipping. This is a general idea.

E-mail me if you are interested.

In article >  "Alex" writes:

>          The OCCIDENT IS SUPERIOR NOT BECAUSE IS SO ADVANCED.....
> 
>  IS BECAUSE "THIS" OCCIDENT EXPLOIT HUNDREDS OF YEARS "THESE 
> 
>                                 BARBARIANS"
> 
> 
> You write : Why you don't want to join the "GREAT ENGLISH 
> 
> CIVILIZATION", you end by telling us almost like a menace, if you 
> 
> don't agree you will be assimilated from this "great civilization" . 
> 
>                         Cute, ah ?
> 
> Barbarians must to be assimilated if they will don't obey ! Hmmm.... 
> 
> after my poor knowdlege of history was someone who tell us the same
> 
>  thing and his name was : ADOLF HITLER .
> 
> Be careful, i don't want to say, you are Hitler ! I want only to show

But but but but but ..... thats IT! What he's saying is: dont be stupid, be a
smarty, cmon join the NAZI PARTY!
 
>  you the possible consequence of your idea . You don't tell us 
> 
> something NEW , so please understand CORRECT what i wrote .

...snip

>                             
> 
> 
>                              Kobori Gheorghe Alexandru

Even though I don't understand Alex fully due to the language problem, I'm 
afraid you have to be all the way in accord with what he's saying on this one. 
There's no way, just no way, in a hundred years, anyone from a young country - 
with an 'EASY history', for want of a better desription - like Canada
- can understand the full historical/political implications and legacies of a '
country like Romania, or any balkan country for that matter, whose people, 
centuries before Canada even existed, captured a Byzantine Emperor, later 
brought the Ottoman Empires conquest of Europe to its knees, faced countless 
barbarian invasions, faced the 3 satanic treacherous or blood thirsty beasts 
that are 3 different evil empires (all destined for the scrapheap of history) 
that surround her on all sides, and still managed to even exist.

As for the 'outright scandal' of Romanian villagers going out and burning
some gipsy houses in a fit of rage - in the 20th century! - over some 
altercation or other which resulted in a poor old man getting stabbed by some 
gipsy boys, this is NOT so bad as the outright scandal of the ritualised 
beating and torture that African-Canadians get from the police, or what some 
innocent Somali boy suffered at the hands of the Canadian (UN mission) army 
until he was killed. The pre-meditation and sheer contrivance makes 
Canadians much worse than Romanians, ... using bogus and pompous 
'Wally-judgement'.

In conclusion, its not worth the bandwidth, because although we have some 
useful input, and even entertainment on usenet from Wally, his ivory-towers 
high-horse is still only made out of Canadian balsa-wood. Light-weight 
historical-political-social awareness makes for a refreshing, but still naively
lightweight appreciation of just about anything. Ignore, or laugh when the 
high-horse collapses.  

Next, back to the usual soc.culture.* stuff ... for now, I'll make like a 
hockey stick, and 'get the p-uck outta here'! (Dont you love that one?)

-- 
Grigore

"Some of us have ..... better things to do."    ...  J. Hawkes.

 (Lech M) wrote:

<Some good discussion about Slavs in Polish>

I don't know Polish, and based my understanding on knowledge of 
Ukrainian.

As far as I understand in this article the author derives the 
Anglo-German word "slave" from "slav", because Slavs were main
source of slaves for neighboring nations. 
One of the proofs also was that one well-known medieval person 
was a Jewish slave trader who supplied Slavic slaves to the 
Arabic Spain. 



PS Otlichnyj material dlja Purebred-Sovka.

DISCLAIMER: Written above expresses opinions of the fraer only, 
and even other fraers would not agree with this.

Eugene  *fraer* ) wrote:
> As for the word "rus", its meaning is never been clear.  

I agree, next I'll give the explanation that I've seen most
often here in the north.

> AFAIK The original Rus 
> live near Kiev and campained against Konstantinopol, but I don't know even 
> were these people Slavik or Nordic by origin.  Also there were areas named Ru
s in
> Checkia, Serbia, and even Hungary. 

The name "rus" originates to Swedish vikings, that established Novgorod (Holmga
rd)
some thousand years ago. There already was a village or trading place populated
by slavs, that came from south, earlier, when they asked Rurik and his brothers
to rule the place. Novgorod wasn't during those days only slavic, but many
finnougric tribes were also living nearby and in a way Novgorod was created
(to simplify a bit) like present EU, a combination of slavs, swedes and finnoug
ric.

The place where Rurik came was Roslagen, and it has been said that they were ca
lled
"rus" because of that. The Finnish name for Sweden is "Ruotsi" and probably
has the same origin. The Finnish name for Russia is "Vena"ja"".
So Finns call Sweden by the same word, which the other world calls Russia!

The Swedish connection with Russia continues: still Ivan the Terrible was an
ancestor of Rurik!
And because Romanov family comes from Prussia or Poland, and Stalin was from
Georgia, it seems that the only real Russian leaders during last 1000 years
have been Boris Godunov, Lenin(?), and all the guys from Chruchev to today..

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland

Liviu Iordache ) wrote:
>  (George Szaszvari) wrote:
> >Huns were Turkic and the Magyars were Ob-Ugrian from the Urals (the word 
> >Hungarian being an unfortunate corruption of Ugrian, which now leads many
> >simpletons to equate Hun with Magyar.)
> Actually, the name-forms "Ungari" and "Hungari" are derived not from
> the original name of the Uralic (Finno-Ugric) Megyers, but from the
> alternate name of the Bulgarians (i.e., Onogurs). 

So far I've heard, the words "bulgar", "bolgar" and "volga" are the same
fennougrian origin.
The origin of Bulgarians is also very complicated and mixed. You can find
there roots in Slaves, Turks, finnougrians, etc..

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland
jormajytko.jyu.fi

Hi all, I'm a young Italian man; my name is Piermaria Sogaro,
 Piero for friends.
 I was many time in Hungary: Keszthely,Heviz,Balatongyorok etc.
 I loved very much Balaton and their nice people.
 I think I'll come near Xmas. I would like to correspond 
 with some nice people (female or male) living near Balaton
 for a agreable correspondence and some informations...
 I'm sorry because my english is very bad: I speak better
 French or Italian.
 If someone would like to correspond with me contact me
 at :  
 Thanks all,                      Piero.

Subject: Re: Canada vs. Romania

Sorin Voinigescu > writes:
>Your example is misleading because, if everything would be the same in
>Canada and Romania, then Romanian children would be allowed to study in
>Romanian, even in Harghita, as is the case of any English-speaking,
>Canadian-born family that moves to Quebec. With immigrants it is another
>matter. They chose to immigrate to Quebec. They had the option of
>immigrating to some other part of Canada where the language of instruction
>is English.

Dan Pop wrote:
|If I understand this correctly, in Quebec some Canadian citizens are more
|equals than the others?

I am a Canadian citizen. My seven year old son is a Canadian citizen. I
move to Quebec -- my son is entitled to an education in English. He can get
it.  He is equally entitled to an education in French. He can get it. This
is in Quebec. This is equal. Who is more equal here Dan?

A Romanian citizen immigrates to Canada with their seven year old son. The
immigrant is free to choose where to live in Canada. 

1. The immigrant chooses to live in Alberta -- the son will be educated in
English.

2. The immigrant chooses to live in Quebec -- the son will be educated in
French.

2a. If the immigrant son had attended a private English language school in
Romania, then he could obtain English education in Quebec where such
schools exist -- obviously there will be no English education available in
small communities where only two or three students want English.

2b. If the immigrant son had attended a private French language school in
Romania or didn't, then he could obtain French education outside Quebec
where such schools exist -- obviously there will be no French education
available in small communities where only two or three students want
French.

If a Budapest Hungarian moved to Cluj, will his son be educated in
Hungarian?

If a Budapest Hungarian moved to Constanta, will his son be educated in
Hungarian?

-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

 (Jorma Kypp|) wrote:

>
> The New Magna Charta


>Now, let's imagine, that all this could be possible. That we could draw 
>objective ethnic etc. borders all over the Europe, Africa and Asia, 
>including very complex Caucasus, Bosnia and Middle-East. 
>Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark, independent Sorbia near Berlin, separated 
>Trans-Sylvania to Hungary, free Basqueland between France and Spain, 
>independent Catalonia, Bretagne, Wales, Scotland, Sardinia, Lappland, 
>Skne, Carelia, Komi, Udmurtia, Tatarstan, Chechenya, Krim, Moravia, 
>Sachsen, Bayern... Yes, here is the Europe of regions.
>

The present political division of Europe is a holdover from
the days of 19th century Romanticism, when it was thought that
each ethnolinguistic group should have its own state.  Such a
system cannot, of course, solve the problems of the numerous
regions you mention, to say nothing of minorities.  
I believe that the future of Europe is Euroregionalism. But  I am
not sure how or even if this can be effected  (c.f. the hostility
towards thios idea in soc. culture.czecho-slovak).  

Kevin Hannan

I post this my older article in these newsgroups as it might
enlight some of my ideas about those general problems, that
touch also all kind of "language laws".
(There's a small possibility, that you will get this article
 as tripled. If so I apologize, the reason is that s.c.estonia
 is moderated group and I tried to crosspost this article
 also there)

 The New Magna Charta

(2 Jan 1995)

There is no solution for problem of right ethnic borders in the world. 
Erlands ideas about borders in Bosnia are acceptable only because there 
anyway is war and the situation is unstabile. But to suggest to change 
for example the border between Hungary and Serbia is very dangerous, 
though there are living a lot of Hungarians in Serbia. Then we should 
start a process and we don't know when to finish.

But let's think about an ideal model, that we could really change all the 
borders in Europe (and world) without violence. Anyway there would be a 
lot of areas which are difficult. We should decide if the states should 
be connected or not. If we want them to be connected then a great amount 
of people should leave their homes and move to other place to live. We 
would have a kind of home-land- system like in South-Africa. Or in other 
case, most of the states would be unconnected. And more. There are also 
other than ethnic reasons for borders, like in Bosnia the religion. 
Bosnian muslims, Serbs and Croatians are both ethnically and 
linguistically almost the same nation. At first they were divided by 
Catholism and Orthodox religion (Rome and Bysant) and later Orthodox were 
divided to Christians (Orthodox) and Islamic (by Turks).

Now, let's imagine, that all this could be possible. That we could draw 
objective ethnic etc. borders all over the Europe, Africa and Asia, 
including very complex Caucasus, Bosnia and Middle-East. 
Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark, independent Sorbia near Berlin, separated 
Trans-Sylvania to Hungary, free Basqueland between France and Spain, 
independent Catalonia, Bretagne, Wales, Scotland, Sardinia, Lappland, 
Skne, Carelia, Komi, Udmurtia, Tatarstan, Chechenya, Krim, Moravia, 
Sachsen, Bayern... Yes, here is the Europe of regions.

But who has right to which land. Who has right for Israel/Palestina. The 
Jews who lived there ca. 4000 years or the arabs who lived there after 
them 2000 years? So it was 2000 years ago, but what if we logically 
change the world as it was 1000 years ago. All the Europeans had to leave 
America and leave it for Indians. The whites, Dutch and Englishmen had to 
leave South Africa and leave to Bushmans. Yes, that's right! Also today's 
majority, the Zulus and other Bantu nations had to leave back to north. 
And Russia. All the Russians had to travel back to Central Europa, Poland 
and Ukraina and leave Moscow for Mordvians and other Finnish tribes. New 
Zealand would be only for Maoris and Australia for aboriginals, etc, etc. 
In this case EU would really be "a home of Europeans" for it is easy to 
see through the history that there has never been a "yellow danger" or 
"black danger", but "white danger". It's just the Europeans who have 
spread all over the world. And now back to my subject.

In Estonia there are living almost half a million Russians. Do they have 
right to live there? Where can we draw the line? Is it that you must have 
born there? And what then about your parents? Can we make the limit to 
the amount of generations? But how many, 1, 2, 3,...? If a nation X 
tomorrow occupies a country Y and removes there a new population. Then, 
after how many years, after how many generations we can say that they 
have a right to live there. I think, that it is sensible to try find a 
common solution though it sure is tough. For in other case any kind of 
solution in Bosnia or in Caucasus is just a plaster.

In his book "Paneuropa" (1923) Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi suggested one 
solution, a new magna charta for nations, as there were made magna charta 
to stop the religion wars in Europe. Freedom to be that nation you want 
no matter where you live. But of course it isn't that simple like with 
religions for if we want to give people right to save, if they want, 
their language and culture, we have restrict the majority to flew over 
the minority. And that is difficult without getting to apartheid and 
discrimination.

This is an interesting question. Is it necessary, and how much, to 
shelter languages and nationalities, as we shelter rare species and 
nature. Is the variety of nations also part of nature and its balance, 
that should be sheltered. Anyway there has always been species who die 
for ever and languages, that die. But world with one creature, man, with 
one spoken language is another, awful extreme. Where is the optimum, 
where we should draw the line and can there be found any strategy to do 
it? Before we start to solve the problem, we should know what it is.

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa, Finland

George Szaszvari wrote:
:Correct. It might actually be worth regularly posting a FAQ, explaining to 
:all the poor souls who frequently betray their ignorance by believing that 
:Huns and Magyars are one and the same thing. 
:Hungarian being an unfortunate corruption of Ugrian, which now leads many
:simpletons to equate Hun with Magyar.)

Mark Cristian wrote:
|That is certain, but makes sense as far as verbal aggression goes! Think
|of the 'HUN' that keeps on tormenting us in the dawn of the twenty first
|century!

Wally Keeler wrote:
>As one of those poor souls and simpletons George is referring to, it is my
>pleasure to become less of a simpleton because of this Hunyar thread. A
>FAQ would be enlightening. The education I'm getting will be useful for
>the future. This is enrichment! Nevertheless, as befitting the new
>millenium, Atilla the Pun and his sister, Flotilla the Fun, will continue
>to cruise the Danube tormenting the local stiffbacks and toxic effluvium. 

George Szaszvari wrote:
=Wrong river...try The Thames (you know, in the land of America's greatest
=ally...) Quoting stuff about another's verbal aggression is a bit rich 
=coming from someone who recently described someone else as a *Romanian 
=slime ball*.....anyway, I've been learning a lot more about aggressive
=postings in the Yugo/Croatia/Bosnia ngs, which isn't so funny....

"Romanian slime ball" is sandbox quality stuff. I thought you'd be more of
a high grade FUNgarian to match a PUNgarian like me, but you disappoint me,
I guess you're a DUNGarian after all. If you can't be well-Hungary and give
us a Joejob, then it's off to the NUNgary for you. ;-)

from Flotilla the Fun to the Canadada Armadada

This is your Ambassadada speaking -- dipoemacy!

Out of con text:    HUNGary
               BUNGary
               LUNGary
               DUNGary
               SUNGary
               FUNgary
               PUNgary
               SUNgary
               BUNgary
               GUNgary
               RUNgary
               RUMgary
               BUMgary
               HUMgary
               GUMgary
               SUMgary
               HungWARY
               HungVARY
               HungVERY
               HungOVARY
               HungHOARY
               HungHAIRY
               HungDAIRY
               HungFAIRY

As a comparitive measurement of wit, creativity, humor, put the above list
in CONtext -- define each term.

You have 5 minutes:
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                       You
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                      are
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                   beginning
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                  
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                    to
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                                                   imagine
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                     a                               result
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tickfor
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick     
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick                     your
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
tick
patience...
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
trick
fools

-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

 (Jorma Kypp|) wrote:

>The Swedish connection with Russia continues: still Ivan the Terrible was an
>ancestor of Rurik!
>And because Romanov family comes from Prussia or Poland, and Stalin was from
>Georgia, it seems that the only real Russian leaders during last 1000 years
>have been Boris Godunov, Lenin(?), and all the guys from Chruchev to today..

The Godunov family originated from a Tatar murza (a petty prince) who 
went to Moscow's service and was baptized a century before Boris.  Lenin
was a quarter Kalmyk (a west Mongol tribe), a quarter Jew (PBS, where 
are you?), a quarter Swede (Sweden rules!), and I am not sure about the 
fourth quarter (German, Chuvash (a Christian Turkic tribe) and/or 
Russian?).

But seriously, all of them were surely Russians, including the early 
Rurikides.  I think the last prince who could speak both Old Russian 
and Old Norse was Jaroslav the Wise (d. 1054).

-- 
Ed Ponarin  --  üÄŐÁŇÄ đĎÎÁŇÉÎ

Don't even dare to think that my employer endorses these opinions!

Kippis Laszlo writes to Jorma:

>  Previously you compared Hungary to Sweden as former colonisator
>of Slovakia / Finnland. This is more than unfair. From the 16th century
>Hungary was a colony of Austria, with very limited influence over it's
>own territory.
>Large parts of todays Slovakia has never had any Slovakian population at
>all.

Please note, Turkish rule preceeded the Austrian rule and subsequent
Magyarization by several centuries. In reading Evlije Celebi's To3ro3k
vila1gutazo1 Magyarorsza1gutaza1sai, vol I, 1660-1664 and vol, II, 1664-
1666, Budapest 1904, and 1908 it is rather clear that the impartial
Turkish author referred to To1t vila1jeti -meaning Slovak country-
and named its rives Va'g (Va'h) Ipol (Ipol~) Garam (Hron) and Tisa
in volume I, pg 89, I pg. 354, II pg 213, II pg 148, and pg 376.

So please, in the future when tempted to refer to Slovakia as Felvidek,
know that history would not be served because in the 1660's, which is
over a century before the the beginnings of Magyarization, the Turkish
rulers of Hungary, referred to Slovakia as Slovak Country.

Second, in reading Ludwig Fekete's Tuerkische Schriften aus dem Archive
des Palatins Nikolaus Eszterhazy 1606-45, Budapest 1932 and also Velics-
Kammerer's Magyarorsza1gi to3ro3k defterek, vol I 1543-1635 vol II 1540-
1639 it is quite apparent that during the days of the Turkish rule
the name Toth belonged amongst the most numerous in Hungary.

The turkish documents make reference to numerous settlements, which are
at present located outside the territory of Slovakia about which Velics-
Kammerer wrote "lako1i ko3ru3lbelu3l fele re1szben szla1v neveket viselnek"
in translation "of the citizens about half have slavic names" in vol II
on pg 145, and even Buda was referred to as Budin, also slavic in vol II,
on pg. 532.

All disclaimers apply. Not speaking for Ford.

Keresem Europa Kiado cimet (Konyv kiado), regi cime: Vorosmarty ter 1, 
1051 Budapest.
Akarmilyen informaciot rola nagyon koszonom!

In article >,  (Dan Pop) writes:
|> In >  (Matyas ) writes:
|> 
|> >Do you check your "facts", Dan? For instance, where did you get your inform
ation
|> >that none of the members of the HDUR is Romanian?
|> 
|> Care to name some HDUR deputees and/or senators who are Romanians?

You were talking about members, and as a consequence so did I...

|> 
|> Dan
|> --
|> Dan Pop
|> CERN, CN Division
|> Email:  
|> Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    
If you have any problems, address them to          

I post here one of my older articles as it enlightens some
general problems connected also with "language laws".

The New Magna Charta

(2 Jan 1995)

There is no solution for problem of right ethnic borders in the world. Erlands 
ideas about borders in Bosnia are acceptable only because there anyway is war a
nd the situation is unstabile. But to suggest to change for example the border 
between Hungary and Serbia is very dangerous, though there are living a lot of 
Hungarians in Serbia. Then we should start a process and we don't know when to 
finish.

But let's think about an ideal model, that we could really change all the borde
rs in Europe (and world) without violence. Anyway there would be a lot of areas
 which are difficult. We should decide if the states should be connected or not
. If we want them to be connected then a great amount of people should leave th
eir homes and move to other place to live. We would have a kind of home-land- s
ystem like in South-Africa. Or in other case, most of the states would be uncon
nected. And more. There are also other than ethnic reasons for borders, like in
 Bosnia the religion. Bosnian muslims, Serbs and Croatians are both ethnically 
and linguistically almost the same nation. At first they were divided by Cathol
ism and Orthodox religion (Rome and Bysant) and later Orthodox were divided to 
Christians (Orthodox) and Islamic (by Turks).

Now, let's imagine, that all this could be possible. That we could draw objecti
ve ethnic etc. borders all over the Europe, Africa and Asia, including very com
plex Caucasus, Bosnia and Middle-East. Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark, independe
nt Sorbia near Berlin, separated Trans-Sylvania to Hungary, free Basqueland bet
ween France and Spain, independent Catalonia, Bretagne, Wales, Scotland, Sardin
ia, Lappland, Skĺne, Carelia, Komi, Udmurtia, Tatarstan, Chechenya, Krim, Morav
ia, Sachsen, Bayern... Yes, here is the Europe of regions.

But who has right to which land. Who has right for Israel/Palestina. The Jews w
ho lived there ca. 4000 years or the arabs who lived there after them 2000 year
s? So it was 2000 years ago, but what if we logically change the world as it wa
s 1000 years ago. All the Europeans had to leave America and leave it for India
ns. The whites, Dutch and Englishmen had to leave South Africa and leave to Bus
hmans. Yes, that's right! Also today's majority, the Zulus and other Bantu nati
ons had to leave back to north. And Russia. All the Russians had to travel back
 to Central Europa, Poland and Ukraina and leave Moscow for Mordvians and other
 Finnish tribes. New Zealand would be only for Maoris and Australia for aborigi
nals, etc, etc. In this case EU would really be "a home of Europeans" for it is
 easy to see through the history that there has never been a "yellow danger" or
 "black danger", but "white danger". It's just the Europeans who have spread al
l over the world. And now back to my subj!
ect.

In Estonia there are living almost half a million Russians. Do they have right 
to live there? Where can we draw the line? Is it that you must have born there?
 And what then about your parents? Can we make the limit to the amount of gener
ations? But how many, 1, 2, 3,...? If a nation X tomorrow occupies a country Y 
and removes there a new population. Then, after how many years, after how many 
generations we can say that they have a right to live there. I think, that it i
s sensible to try find a common solution though it sure is tough. For in other 
case any kind of solution in Bosnia or in Caucasus is just a plaster.

In his book "Paneuropa" (1923) Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi suggested one solutio
n, a new magna charta for nations, as there were made magna charta to stop the 
religion wars in Europe. Freedom to be that nation you want no matter where you
 live. But of course it isn't that simple like with religions for if we want to
 give people right to save, if they want, their language and culture, we have r
estrict the majority to flew over the minority. And that is difficult without g
etting to apartheid and discrimination.

This is an interesting question. Is it necessary, and how much, to shelter lang
uages and nationalities, as we shelter rare species and nature. Is the variety 
of nations also part of nature and its balance, that should be sheltered. Anywa
y there has always been species who die for ever and languages, that die. But w
orld with one creature, man, with one spoken language is another, awful extreme
. Where is the optimum, where we should draw the line and can there be found an
y strategy to do it? Before we start to solve the problem, we should know what 
it is.

Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa, Finland

Dear Alex, 
Your best bet is to take the shuttle buses which run evey half hour from
Ferihegy Airport into town.  There are two types:  one costs 300 Ft. (at
least it did in July), and this will take you to the center of the city,
called Deak ter.  The other one will take you anywhere you want to go, train
station, hotel, etc., for a little more money; I think about 800 Ft. per
person.  For this, you may have to wait around until they gather enough
people.  When you are in the baggage claim area, you will see the desk for
this service.  They will be helpful and speak English.  Taxis are also an
option but are much more expensive, and the buses are quite comfortable.  
Hope this is useful.
--Shannon Morris

Lukasz Bielecki > wrote:
>(poprawione)
>
>alazer wrote:
>> Przebywajac w Szwecji slyszalem od Szwedow ze "Slav" pochodzi od
>> skandynawskiego slowa "slav" - niewolnik.  Nazwa ta podobno zostala nadana
>> przez Vikingow przywozacych niewolnikow z wojen na obszarach zamieszkalych
>> przez Slowian.  Czy kto prawda?
>
>Jest dokladnie na odwrot, to jest pierwotnie byla nazwa wlasna Slowian
>ktora w staroslowianskim musiala brzmiec mniej wiecej "Slovene".
>
>Za czasow rzymskich wielu niewolnikow przywozono z terenow slowianskich, tak
>ze nazwa jaka okreslal sie ten lud, zwany tez przez Rzymian Veneti
>(moze to nazwa jakiegos spokrewnionego plemienia, to jest dzis niejasne)
>stala sie synonimem niewolnika - po lacinie sclavus, po grecku sklabos
>i stad w nowszych jezykach: ang slave, wloskie schiavo (i od tego 
>dialektalne wloskie ciao, rozpowszechnione jako pozegnanie, tak jak 
>slowko serwus oznaczajace sluge, jak polskie wyrazenie "sluga unizony").
>
>Jak mowili na niewolnikow Wikingowie, tego nie wiem, ale na pewno okreslenie
>sclavus=niewolnik jest duzo starsze niz Wikingowie, siega pierwszych stuleci 
>naszej ery.
>
>To co napisalem powyzej jest stosunkowo pewne, ciekawsza sprawa jest
>to, dlaczego wlasciwie Slowianie nazywaja sie Slowianie! Interpretacja 
>wywodzaca ich od "slowa" jako synonimu zrozumialej mowy jest tylko
>domyslem, niewykluczone tez (jak pisal np. Z.Stieber w Gramatyce 
>Porownawczej Jezykow Slowianskich) ze pochodzi od jakiejs nazwy 
>geograficznej (rzeka, jezioro?) podobnej do "slowo" - koncowka -ianie
>jest dla takich konstrukcji typowa.
>
>Lukasz Bielecki

Lukasz --  although I am sure that what you wrote was important to the 
Usenet groups of German, Russian,Bulgarian,Hungarian and other groups, 
unfortunately I can't read it and most likely some of the other people 
can't either.

If you want other's to understand your contribution, I think English will 
reach a lot more people.  If you write in Polish, it's best to restrict 
it to the Polish discussion group only.  That's what I do in Hungarian 
with the soc.culture.magyar group.

Good luck to you...


Charlie Vamossy

 (Alexander N. Bossy) wrote:
> 
 
>It also recalls the Roman saying (I think quoted by Ovid) that "the
>mountain is the Dacian's friend". 
>

What is even more interesting to remember is that Ovidiu, writting
about the Getae (Dacians) from his place of exile at Tomis on the
Black Sea coast, bemoans their ignorance of Latin  "Nesciaque est
vocis quod barbara lingua Latinae." [Ovidius Naso, Publius, 1922 ,
Tristia, R.Merkel et al. (eds.), Leipzig. 

This is quite a blow for the "theory" of pre-Roman-conquest
romanization of the Dacians ;-)

Liviu Iordache

Wally Keeler ) wrote:
: Subject: Re: Canada vs. Romania

: Sorin Voinigescu > writes:
: >Your example is misleading because, if everything would be the same in
: >Canada and Romania, then Romanian children would be allowed to study in
: >Romanian, even in Harghita, as is the case of any English-speaking,
: >Canadian-born family that moves to Quebec. With immigrants it is another
: >matter. They chose to immigrate to Quebec. They had the option of
: >immigrating to some other part of Canada where the language of instruction
: >is English.

: Dan Pop wrote:
: |If I understand this correctly, in Quebec some Canadian citizens are more
: |equals than the others?

: I am a Canadian citizen. My seven year old son is a Canadian citizen. I
: move to Quebec -- my son is entitled to an education in English. He can get
: it.  He is equally entitled to an education in French. He can get it. This
: is in Quebec. This is equal. Who is more equal here Dan?

: A Romanian citizen immigrates to Canada with their seven year old son. The
: immigrant is free to choose where to live in Canada. 

: 1. The immigrant chooses to live in Alberta -- the son will be educated in
: English.

: 2. The immigrant chooses to live in Quebec -- the son will be educated in
: French.

: 2a. If the immigrant son had attended a private English language school in
: Romania, then he could obtain English education in Quebec where such
: schools exist -- obviously there will be no English education available in
: small communities where only two or three students want English.

This is notify everyone that 2a is wrong. It is not the case in Quebec. 
The immigrant son would be required to attend a French language school. 
The equality factor applies only to Canadian citizens.

: 2b. If the immigrant son had attended a private French language school in
: Romania or didn't, then he could obtain French education outside Quebec
: where such schools exist -- obviously there will be no French education
: available in small communities where only two or three students want
: French.

: If a Budapest Hungarian moved to Cluj, will his son be educated in
: Hungarian?

: If a Budapest Hungarian moved to Constanta, will his son be educated in
: Hungarian?

: -- 
: Wally Keeler					Poetry
: Creative Intelligence Agency			is
: Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

 (Rostyk Lewyckyj) wrote:
>   O.k. Is there any connection between the word   slava  = english fame
>   and slav which is the root of all this discussion? If so what is the
>   derivation?
>   Also is the word   slovo = word  derived from the same root? and if so how?
>   How about  Slovak and Slovenian? 

   Look: glorious=famous - the one who's known, spoken about.

       glory --- fame --- rumour --- talks --- word
          ^                                 ^
          |                                 |
       slava                              slovo
   slavjane  (Slavs)                 Slovaks, Slovenians

   So, I think, both Slavs(Slovaks,Slovenians) and the word "slava"
(glory) originate from the same root "slovo"(word). (Cf. "oslavit',
"durnaja slava")

- Smirnov

O.k. Is there any connection between the word   slava  = english fame
and slav which is the root of all this discussion? If so what is the
derivation?
Also is the word   slovo = word  derived from the same root? and if so how?
How about  Slovak and Slovenian? 
--Rostyk

Another note--there really isn't a "main" railroad station in Budapest.
 There's a southern station, a western one, and an eastern one, all of which
offer service to different locations domestically and internationally.  Check
with the people at the airport as to which station you should leave from,
depending on where you want to go.
--Shannon

The ethnonym "slavjane" (Slavs) poses a number of difficulties when 
we try to penetrate the phonetic/derivational shape of the word and find 
some meaning in it. This phenomenon is not unique to "slavjane"; such 
difficulties are encountered with most of the names for tribes, tribal 
unions and nations.  The trouble comes from the fact that a great 
number of ethnonyms are given to people by their neighbors and/or 
enemies.  

A.  The first group of difficulties involves the various phonetic and 
derivational shapes of the ethnonym:

1.  From the very beginning of the Slavic literature (9th century), 
the root of the word appears in two shapes, "slov-/slav-".  The 
alternation a/o in the root (slov-/slav-)  can be explained by the length 
of the vowel in the original word. Long *a and *o yield "a" in all Slavic 
dialects; short *a and *o yield "o".

2.  There are also two forms for the suffix, "-En-/-jan-".  It is not clear 
which phoneme was denoted by the letter "E": the long "e", a phoneme 
which was already unstable in all Slavic dialects and was having 
different outcomes, or a phonetic string "j+a". By the late 10th century 
we see the alternating forms "slovEne/slavEne/slovjane/slovEne".  
Different outcomes in different Slavic languages suggest that both 
variants existed: Czech "slovAnsky (< *slovJAnskij) vs. Kashubian 
"slovInski" of Polabian "sluovEnske (< *slovEnskij).

3.  There are also different derivational patterns: suffixes "-En-/-jan-" 
and  "-ak-", the latter attested in the ethnonym "slov-ak" for masculine 
(which, however alternates with "slov-en-ka" in feminine). One may 
surmise that the suffix -ak- for masculine is a derivational innovation in 
the Slovak language, and need not be considered in examining the 
earliest shape of the ethnonym.  It has been suggested that the 
derivation "Slovak" parallels the Polish derivation "Polak" from an 
earlier tribal name "Poljane".  

B.  The second group of difficulties arises with the early Latin and 
Greek generic words for the Slavs, Latin "Sclaveni" and Greek 
"Sthlabenoi". Some researchers believe that the Greek word is a 
borrowing from Latin; the substitution of the sound  -th- for the Latin 
sound -k- (sClaveni), in the first syllable of the Greek word, would be 
explained by the phonetic rules of Byzantine Greek.

In later Latin writings new forms appear: "Slaveni" and "Slavi", with 
the -k- sound dropped. One very important consideration: the Latin 
forms "sclavus" or "slavus", meaning "a slave, a person in bondage", 
so far have not been dated relative to the appearance of the Slavic 
tribes in history. 

Such a date is extremely important. If the Latin word "sclavus" 
meaning "a person in bondage" existed before the ethnonym entered 
Latin, the discussion would take quite a different direction. The general 
area where the early Slavic tribes appeared is in today’s Ukraine, along 
the Pripjat River. This is just beyond the northernmost boundary of the 
Roman Empire and its short-lived province Moesia Inferior. We know, 
from historical sources, of periodic uprisings of enslaved persons in the 
Roman Empire; we also know of the Roman custom of expelling 
troublemakers beyond the Empire’s borders. Thus one could postulate 
the existence of an area north of the Roman border, with a harsh 
physical environment, such as the marshes along the Pripjat River, 
which the Romans might have called "Sclavia" ("the land of the 
runaway slaves"). The consonantal cluster *scl-, since it violates the 
syllabic rules of early Slavic, would have been simplified by the 
"runaway slaves" themselves into *sl-, whence the unattested place 
name *Slavia.  From here the derivation of "slovjane/slavjane" is quite 
straightforward:  the suffix *-jan- in early Slavic denotes inhabitants of 
an area: egip’t (Egypt) > egipt-jan-e (Egyptians), pol-je (field, plain) > 
pol-jan-e (people of the plain). So from *Slav-i-a one would expect the 
corresponding form for the inhabitants of the region to be 
slavjane/slovjane, depending on how the Slavs perceived the length of 
the vowel, as a long or a short *-a-.  This excursion is absolutely 
hypothetical: there is no evidence of the existence of a land situated 
north-east of the Roman Empire which was called by the Romans 
"*Sclavia". Until such historical evidence is found, this easy derivation 
remains solely in the realm of the possible.

C.  The third difficulty arises from the fact that the root "Slav-" in the 
Middle ages was used in the names of specific Slavic tribes (and later - 
nations), and also in the generic name for all Slavic-speaking people. 
The earliest records on tribes called "slovjane/slavjane" come from the 
Vita of St. Cyril, where a specific Slavic tribe in the vicinity of the 
Byzantine city of Thessalonike is referred to by this name; and from 
the Russian Primary Chronicle (the Laurentian Chronicle) which give 
the same name to the tribe living in northwestern Russia, around the 
town of Novgorod.  Byzantine sources give a great number of tribal 
names for the unwanted settlers in the Empire. The authors of the 
Russian Chronicle also enumerate the major Slavic tribes who were to 
become the early (Kievan) Russian people. Thus, we can relate the 
Germanic word Wenden to the east Slavic tribe Vjatichi (<*vent-ik-i), 
which is usually explained as a derivative from the River Vjatka. 
Another interesting caveat about early Slavic tribal names: all East-
Slavic tribes enumerated in the Russian Chronicle, except for the 
Vjatichi, appear in earlier Byzantine sources as "the seven Slavic 
tribes" who settled by the seventh century in Byzantine Upper Moesia, 
the area between the Danube and the Balkan mountains, and created a 
federation. So, was there an incorrect interpretation of the geography of  
earlier historical sources or did some Slavic tribes actually split in two, 
with half the tribe moving north, the other half - south?

With the formation of early Slavic nations most tribal names except the 
ones with the root Slov-/Slav- were forgotten. A powerful contributing 
factor was the existence of the Old Church Slavic language, called 
"slavjanskij/slovjanskij" in memory of the tribe near Thessalonike (in 
Slavic - Solun) where the language was first conceived. And as this 
artificial, literary language was originally created to serve the Moravian 
(Western) Slavs, it had to include important features of the Moravian 
dialects; this must have given the language a broader base which later 
made it suitable as the literary language of a great percentage of the 
total Slavic speaking population. The linguistic kinship of all Slavic 
languages is strongly felt even today, a millennium later, and Old 
Church Slavic in its own way contributed to the preservation and 
mutual borrowing of the common building elements of the Slavic 
languages.

One fairly common effort in historical Slavic linguistics is to derive the 
root Slav-/Slov- from the forgotten name of a river (as a derivative of a 
hydronym). Arguments in support of such a derivation are other river 
names: the Old Russian nickname for the river Dniepr, "Slovutich", the 
name ""Sluja" for a small river near Smolensk; the Polish river names 
"Slawa", "Slawica"; the Serbo-Croation "Slavnica", etc. This would 
link the Slavic root with the Greek word "klyzw" (to wash),  Latin 
"cluo" (clean) and "cloaca" (sewer).

Very interesting, but rejected by most Slavists, is the suggestion that 
"Slavjane" is a name given to them by the Goths: just as the Slavs 
might have called their Germanic neighbors "Njemci" (<"njemyj", 
unable to speak or speak clearly), the Goths  might have called the 
Slavs "mute", from Gothic "slawan" (to be quiet, mute), "gaslawan", 
"anaslawan" (to be quiet).

Slavists reject a connection with the word "slava", meaning glory; the 
derivation from this root with the suffixes -jan- or -ak- is impossible. 
This is a typical late folk ethymology, similar to the contemporary 
Russian folk ethymology connecting "privatizacija" (privatization) with 
*prihvatizacija (from the verb prihvatit’ - stealing, putting your hands 
on something that does not belong to you).

Some of the efforts to explain this ethnonym border on the bizarre.  For 
instance, it has been suggested that the early Slavs must have preferred 
compound personal names ending in -slav, like "Stani-slav", "Vjache-
slav", inspiring  their neighbors to call them all "the Slavs" somewhat 
the way the English were inspired to call the Irish "the Micks" ["It’s an 
Irish trick it’s true/ I could lick the Mick that threw/The overalls in 
Mrs. Murphy’s chowder!"]

Recently, more Slavists support the thesis that  "slov-jan" might be 
derived from "slov-o", meaning word. Such a derivation, however, is 
suspect on grammatical grounds: the other derivations from "slov-" 
(meaning "word" rather than "knowledge") are from the extended root 
of the word, *slov-es-, as in "slov-es-en-", "slov-es-n-yj", "slov-es-n-
ost-". The great Roman Jakobson lent credence to this derivational 
hypothesis. He cites a parallel with the Albanian ethnonym "shkipetar" 
related to the verb "shkiponj", understand, and believes that the 
opposition "njemci" ("mute’, generic for foreigners) versus "slovjane" 
("understanding the word," meaning "our" people) is a strong 
argument in support of such a derivation.

And yet, none of these explanations is fully satisfactory.  It may well 
be that the ethnonym "Slavic" is of unknown origin and cannot be 
etymologized with our present knowledge of history, geography, and 
linguistics.  

Ilya Talev

Tony Pace > wrote:

>Turkish author referred to To1t vila1jeti -meaning Slovak country-
>and named its rives Va'g (Va'h) Ipol (Ipol~) Garam (Hron) and Tisa
>in volume I, pg 89, I pg. 354, II pg 213, II pg 148, and pg 376.
>
>So please, in the future when tempted to refer to Slovakia as Felvidek,
>know that history would not be served because in the 1660's, which is
>over a century before the the beginnings of Magyarization, the Turkish
>rulers of Hungary, referred to Slovakia as Slovak Country.

Yes, yes, yes, Tony ...  And we also know that Pennsylvania has an Amish
Country and California a Wine Country.  The conclusion is obvious.

Joe Pannon

On Nov 27, 1995 03:39:38 in article <Re: Recognizing unfairness>,
 ()' wrote: 
 
 
>Why does he bother to answer in such long tirades to somebody whose 
>writings he considers a drivel? 
 
Because drivel unanswered threatens to become the standard for historical
discourse on s.c.m. and s.c.r. 
 
 
>>   How many ethnic Romanians do you believe lived in Moldavia and
Wallachia - 
>> and Transylvania, for that matter - in 1365 when Moldavia broke free
from 
>> Hungarian suzerainty? How many in 1389 when Wallachia broke free from 
>> Hungarian suzerainty? 
> 
>I don't know.  Do you?  Please tell us if you do. 
> 
>>   Do you beleive that one third to one half of 
>> Romanians died durring the Black Death, as happened accross the rest of 
>> Europe?  How many died while the Mongols stormed through both Moldavia 
>> and Wallachia on the way to Orsova?  How many died when the Mongols 
>> returned to Central Asia after the attacks on Buda and Pest?  How many 
>> died in breaking free from Hungary? 
> 
>You obviously must know, so don't keep us hanging in suspense, pleeze!!! 
 
The point, Joe, is that my statement that "tens of thousands [of
immigrants] per year" were needed to sufficiently populate Romania for
Romanias to do what they did in the next few centuries stands.  The total
lack of any shred of evidence to support that kind of huge migration over a
few centuries is the death knell of Out-of-Illyria as a credible historical
theory. 
 
>BTW, my guess is that more city and plain dwelling people died from both 
>the plague and the various invasions than mountain dwelling shepherd 
>folks.  No proof, just an educated guess.  Do you have a better guess? 
 
I'd need a lot more evidence to give any credibility to your claim that
being "mountain dwelling shepherd folks" offered any immunity from the
plague.  Different modes of livelihood may have resulted in the pandemic
infesting different populations at different speeds, but it would not
change the overall mortality. 
 
I fully share your belief Romanians have a higher survival rate because
they could flee into the mountains when the Mongols invaded.  But, if you
want to use it to claim a reduced number of Romanian casulaties from the
Mongol invasion of Europe, then you must also accept the legitimacy of my
argument that exactly the same factors led to a reduced casualty rate among
the Latin-speaking Dacian population compared to the Latin-speaking
Pannonian population. 
 
>>     In making up your numbers remember that Moldavia and Wallachia 
>> had to have a sufficiently large population to be able to throw off the 
>> Hungarian yoke and maintain a comparatively successful campaign against 
>> the Turks starting at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 and continuing on and

>> off at least until the assassination of Prince Michael the Brave. 
> 
>I like the kind of "proofs" you like to serv up again:  "... had to have 
>sufficiently large population to be able ...".  As if that was the only 
>conceivable reason.  How about just "not worth the trouble?" 
 
Why would the Hungarians have considered the conquest of Bosnia-Herzegovina
worth the trouble in 1328, and yet did not consider Moldavia worth the
trouble in 1365, and Wallachia in 1369?  After all, Wallachia is based on
the rich Danubian plain, while Bosnia-Herzegovina is almost exclusively
mountains. 
 
> BTW, those 
>relatively successive campaigns against the Turks were quite often 
>international efforts, sort of crusades, if you will, even if the brunt of

>the effort may have been bourn by one or two countries threatened most. 
 
Care to name an international cursade in the Balkan area after the fiasco
at Nicopolis? 
 
>Huh!  You are digging yourself even deeper in your hole, Alexander. 
>Since you are only a lawyer, I can understand that the concept of 
>compounded interest might be beyond your comprehension.  It's too bad, 
>because it might give you a hint how even a relatively small percentage 
>of interest can multiplay the original amount quite handsomely over just 
>a few decades.  Now consider human reproduction, especially at a time when

>women were kept pregnant during most of their fertile years (no 
>contraception, no abortions then!)  Even with the high mortality rate, it 
>still produced quite a few offsprings per copuple who reached adulthood. 
 
Actually, both contraception and abortions are quite old in human history. 
The Romans, for example, had both.  Most societies know that women don't
get pregnant while they are lactating.  Consequently, breast feeding is
used as a contraceptive by any pre-modern cultures.  If you wlant to argue
that, during the Middle Ages Romanians were unaquainted with either
contraceptives or abortion, how about gathering some evidence. 
 
>One should look at modern day examples of how even relatively small rate 
>of immigration by a highly reproductive ethnic group can make a noticable 
>presence in the population just in a few decades.  Just look at the 
>high visibility of Turks in Germany these days.  They sure did not migrate

>to Germany by the tens of thousand for hundreds of years to Germany. 
>Most of them are young and already born in Germany. 
 
1) What percentage of the population are they?  2) Are they learning the
majority population's language, or is the majority population learning
their's? 
 
>> If you want Out-of-Illyria to be more than the fairy-tale that it is, 
>> you've got to have facts and explanations to support it. 
> 
>Hey, I really don't care if Romanians came from the planet Pluto. My 
>original objection was to the Daco-Roman continuity theory, maintaining 
>that it was unproven. 
> 
>The Out-of-Illiria theory only came up because of the question "if not
from 
>Transylvania, then where from?"  So I am really more interested in 
>shooting down the continuity arguments than proving anything about 
>Out-of-Illiria. 
 
This, Joe, is a complete cop-out.  Romanians came from somewhere.  All of
the concrete evidence points to continuity. There is no other theory that
fits the available data.  You have just acknowledged that in dumping
Out-of-Illyria.  If you don't want to accept Romanian continuity, then
you've got to come up with a better explanation of the existing
archaeological and documentary evidence.  Obviously , you cannot. 
 
>  Besides, I humbly admit, that I couldn't do it better 
>than Liviu has done already.  However, one does not need to have Liviu's 
>rich set of references to shoot down your arguments; 
 
My view of Liviu's references has gone down considerably.  He posted a list
of several books that he said did not accept Romanian continuity.    I read
about one third of Winnifrith's "The Vlachs: the History of a Balkan
People" (it focuses on the Latinized populations of  Greece, Yugoslavia,
and Bulgaria, not of Romania.)    Not only does the index, under the
heading of  "Romania and Romanians"  have a subheading of "confused with
Vlachs", but on page 74 he mentions that a Latin population remained in
Dacia after the defeat of the Emperor Maurice in 602, and on page 53 he
goes so far as to discuss whether or not Romanians migrating south in the
10th Century augmented the Vlach population in Macedonia, without
mentioning any possibility that no Latin-speaking population remained north
of the Danube at the time. 
 
I flipped very quickly through Laszlo Peter's "Historians and the History
of Transylvania."  While it certainly did mention Out-of-Illyria, (in
Appendix I it refers to Out-of-Illyria as "a concious forgery of history")
as far as my quick browsing of the volume went, its focus was on the use of
the theory of Out-of-Illyria by the pre-1919 Hungarian government to defend
minority Hungarian rule over the Romanian majority in Transylvania. 
 
As of yet, I haven't had a chance to even glance at the three other books
and articles that he mentioned.  Once I've finished the first two, and had
a chance to look at the last three, I will respond to them. 
 
>Because as Liviu so pointedly wrote to you: 
>> Your use of statistical data is mostly unsound, failing to provide 
>> appropriate context or comparative framework and little or no means to 
>> determine if what is said is the norm or only one irrelevant exception.
On 
>> the whole, even where there is reason to suspect that what you claim may

>> be correct, the evidence is just not sufficient. Lastly, your defense of

>> the continuity theory is seriously flawed methodologically: you
repeatedly 
>> assume that arguments used to illustrate your points amount to proof of 
>> those arguments. The frequent use of unsupported and often undocumented 
>> "evidence" means in the end that the reader has no real way of 
>> establishing the validity of what is being said. 
 
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Joe.  Let me quote you from
above: 
 
>BTW, my guess is that more city and plain dwelling people died from both 
>the plague and the various invasions than mountain dwelling shepherd 
>folks.  No proof, just an educated guess.  Do you have a better guess? 
 
>You keep proving the above truism with almost every article you post. 
>I tell you what:  why don't we both stop posting about it and let's 
>instead tune in to guys who really know this stuff:  Liviu, Jeliko, *S*, 
>and who ever might come up later. 
 
After I've stormed your rampards, and set fire to your keep you want me to
withdraw my forces and leave the field to your allies?  Why?  I just won. 
You've publicly abandoned your futile attempt at defending Out-of-Illyria 
 
>>     You told me that you had a book, conveniently in Hungarian, that 
>> claimed that Romanization could not possibly have happened in 160 years.

>> Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, you reopening it.  If you don't 
>> think so, too bad. 
> 
>Too bad, because it was you who challenged me first to name a book 
>published in recent years from ANY author.  I would otherwise not have 
>mentioned Hungarian author which was the one handy at the moment. 
> 
>Besides, wasn't it you who wrote the following just a few days ago: 
> 
>>     No, books writen by anyone.  Unlike you, I don't beleive in 
>> gentically testing authors before reading their works. 
 
My complaint isn't about the author's ethnicity.  My complaint is that
neither I, nor most readers of the Usenet, can read it.  So, we are left to
hoping that you've given an accurate discription of the author's views. 
 
>>     But, you just denied that Romanization took place.  Or were you 
>> just quoting your Hungarian-language book in order to take up bandwidth?

> 
>You are again misrepresenting what I said which was not whether 
>Romanization took place or not during the Roman occupation, but whether 
>any Latin civilisation remained there to provide the basis for the 
>continuity theory.  As I said earlier, Pannonia was occupied even longer, 
>yet no Latin culture survived there after Romans withdrew from the Limes. 
 
No.  You said that your author claimed that Romanization could not have
taken place in such a short time.  I posted a long FAQ proving that it did.
 Do you know of any evidence that I left out that would support a
conflicting argument?  If so, please post it, and it will be incorporated
in the FAQ. 
 
Once we've finished discussing the Romanization of Dacia during the Roman
Occupation, we can move on to the Barbarian Invasions.  But, this time
round, I'm not going to let you keep jumping to another historical period
whenever I start cornering you.  Let's finish the Roman period - that is if
you have anything to say on the matter. 
 
>>     Mountains and forests make good places for locals to hide in. 
>> Plains do not.  It isn't supprising that Dacia's Latin population 
>> survived Pannonia's. 
> 
>But that survival in the forests and mountains is only a supposition, 
>without any conclusive proof. 
 
It's good enough for you, when it comes to the Mongol invasions.  Why then,
and not during the Barbarian Invasions?  Do I detect a double standard
here? 
> 
 
>>   But, your arguments are based on ideology, not on reason, so I
shouldn't 
>> expect you to recognize the self-evident without my much-needed aid. 
> 
>I think it's obvious that the continuity theory is nothing BUT ideological

>in nature, 
 
Continuity has evolved during the past 100 years, as new evidence has been
uncovered.  For example, the Slavic influence is now recognized. 
Out-of-Illyria hasn't changed.  You yourself admitted in your post that it
was just created as a counter-argument against Romanian continuity.  It
was, and is, without historical, archaeological, or documentary support. 
 
> its purpose being to create a historical underpinning for 
>grabbing Transylvania.  Pure and simple. 
 
The 14 Points (to which Austria-Hungary surrendered) contained a call for
self-determination.  That is why Transylvania was awarded to Romania.  The
14 Points did not contain any demand that any area populated by another
population one or two thousand years ago be awarded to the original
population groups.  Consequently, I find this argument against Romanian
continuity to be particularly weak.

 (Alexander N. Bossy) wrote:

>The total
>lack of any shred of evidence to support that kind of huge migration over a
>few centuries is the death knell of Out-of-Illyria as a credible historical
>theory.

I posted plenty of circumstantial evidence for the migration. While
none of them can be called "the smoking gun" we all are looking for,
it is worth mentioning  that you have never addressed the presented
facts directly, preferring to venture into long and tiresome
unsupported speculations. However, just to prove how far away from
reality is your "total  lack of any shred of evidence," I'll make
reference just to the only genuine popular tradition, concerning the
Romanians' origin,   preserved as a written  historical document. I
dare to say that this evidence is very close to a "smoking gun." I
posted this text some time ago, and it was received with almost total
silence, perhaps an indication, I like to think, that it has raised
questions that make the Romanian readers of this newsgroup
uncomfortable with some traditional interpretations of their own
past.The excerpt represents the beginning of the oldest Muntenian
chronicle, attributed to Stoica Ludescu, as it was reproduced  in
Calinescu's "History of Romanian Literature." It is  a very powerful
proof for the fact that, at least  before the 17th century,  among
Romanians had existed a popular tradition preserving the memory of at
least one migration wave coming  from south of the Danube. 

>>>>But in the beginning it was inhabited by the Romanians who came northwards.
	So crossing the Danube, they settled down at Turnul Severinului,
	others in the Hungarian country on the Olt and on the Mures and on 
	the Tisza, going as far as Maramuresh. And those who had settled 
	down at Turnul Severinului went further to the foot of the mountains
	as far as the Olt, others went down on the Danube and filling all 
	places reached the outskirts of Nicopolis. Then, the high-born boyars 
	were selected and of them they chose as their great ban, that is, 
	their head, one of the Basarab family. And the first princely 
	residence was at Turnul Severinului, the second was at Strehaia,
	the third at Craiova. And they ruled over those places for a long 
	time. And in year 6798 since Adam (1290) there was in the Hungarian 
	country a voivode called Black Radu Prince, herzog of Almas and 
	Fagaras, who rose with all his house and many peoples, Romanians, 
	Catholics, Saxons, all kinds of men, going down the Dimbovita and 
	founding a new country.<<<<

I think this evidence  worths infinitely much more consideration than
naive arguments based on "Romanians love the forest and so did the
Dacians" or "Gee boy, I think the cap of that Dacian on Trajan's
column looks exactly like the cap of Baci Istvan  from Prislop." 

>My view of Liviu's references has gone down considerably. 

Well, I would be glad to say at least that the feeling is mutual, but
this would be a totally unfair statement as you have never provided
any reference. However, I might consider posting some professional
reviews of the works I referenced, just to give you time to reconsider
your hasty view.

>He posted a list
>of several books that he said did not accept Romanian continuity.

Ohhhh, Alexander, this is very low! It is my turn now to be extremely
disappointed. I have criticized the information quality of your
articles, but, up to now, I always thought high of your fair play. 
Do you understand where I'm hinting? Let me help you:

 (Alexander Bossy) wrote:

>>     In this respect, it is worth mentioning that, despite strenuous effort,
>>I failed to find any history books or articles in English or French, written
>>after 1980 that even mentioned the possibility that modern Romanians
>>are not primarily descendant from the original Roman-Dacian mixture.

And I responded :

>>I can provide some references but without claiming that the list is exhaustiv
e 
>>because my effort of putting these titles together was anything but strenuous
.

Therefore, I did not say that those books "did not accept Romanian
continuity," although some of them indeed reject it. My list of
references was a counterweight to your whining that "despite strenuous
effort I failed to find any history books in English or French,
written after 1980 that even MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY THAT MODERN
ROMANIANS ARE NOT PRIMARILY DESCENDANT FROM THE ORIGINAL ROMAN-DACIAN
MIXTURE."

Those books I have sent you to, are written in English, after 1980, an
mentioned plenty of times that the fucking nonsense called theory
Stinks with capital S from Sucks.

Anyhow, I can see now that definitely you have some Balkan and/or
Byzantine blood in your veins but not enough to balance the lack of
subtility. If you got the impression that I'm seriously pissed, at
least now  you're correct.

>I read
>about one third of Winnifrith's "The Vlachs: the History of a Balkan
>People" (it focuses on the Latinized populations of  Greece, Yugoslavia,
>and Bulgaria, not of Romania.) 

Sure, but haven't we went together over the fact that both Romanian
historians and linguists accept that Romanians, Arumanians, Istrians,
and Meglenites evolved together initially but divided into two
branches  sometime around the 9th century? What is Winnifrith's
opinion on the "theory of Daco-Roman continuity?"

>Not only does the index, under the
>heading of  "Romania and Romanians"  have a subheading of "confused with
>Vlachs", 

This may work in the law court, where probably the jury knows as much
history as you do, but it doesn't work here. Why don't you quote the
paragraph indexed at that entry?

>but on page 74 he mentions that a Latin population remained in
>Dacia after the defeat of the Emperor Maurice in 602, and on page 53 he
>goes so far as to discuss whether or not Romanians migrating south in the
>10th Century augmented the Vlach population in Macedonia, without
>mentioning any possibility that no Latin-speaking population remained north
>of the Danube at the time.

Yeah, but, as it is very obvious even from your very distorted
summary, no reference is made to a possible Dacian ancestry of those
Latins. 

> 
>I flipped very quickly through Laszlo Peter's "Historians and the History
>of Transylvania." 

You've read "about one third" from one book, "flipped very quickly"
through another one, and jumped hasty to unfair practices. Way to go,
Alexander ! Let's see what you actually missed by flipping too
quickly:
 
> While it certainly did mention Out-of-Illyria, (in
>Appendix I it refers to Out-of-Illyria as "a conscious forgery of history")

Anybody recognizes the "wooden-tongue?" Why don't you take a second
look  at the book and share with everybody who are the authors whose
"article" was reproduced in Appendix I, or  II as a matter of fact,
where and why were those  lame rebuttals published, and who paid for
the publishing of the second one  as a full-page advertisement in
"The Times? " 

>as far as my quick browsing of the volume went, its focus was on the use of
>the theory of Out-of-Illyria by the pre-1919 Hungarian government to defend
>minority Hungarian rule over the Romanian majority in Transylvania. 

This is your own conscious forgery Alexander. Peter's book was spawned
by the controversy surrounding research published in 1986, not
pre-1919. Don't you think it would be also interesting to share with
everybody the content of Appendix III and IV, eventually who are the
authors whose articles were reproduced there, and where have been
published those articles initially? 

> 
>As of yet, I haven't had a chance 

That's true, you never had a chance, but this is no justification for
the conscious and naive distortion of facts you are practicing now.

I wrote:
>>> Your use of statistical data is mostly unsound, failing to provide 
>>> appropriate context or comparative framework and little or no means to 
>>> determine if what is said is the norm or only one irrelevant exception.
>>>On the whole, even where there is reason to suspect that what you claim may
>>> be correct, the evidence is just not sufficient. Lastly, your defense of
>>> the continuity theory is seriously flawed methodologically: you
>>> repeatedly  assume that arguments used to illustrate your points amount to 
proof of 
>>> those arguments. The frequent use of unsupported and often undocumented 
>>> "evidence" means in the end that the reader has no real way of 
>>> establishing the validity of what is being said. 

You have progressed since then, but not in a positive direction. 

> I just won. 

Yeah, but I don't think anybody wants your trophy.

Adrian Precup-Pop > wrote:
>The CIA man Wally Keeler has had an argument with Dan Pop about the
>suitability of a Canadian model in improving the treatment of minorities
>in Romania. 

Dan has a kill-file on me, consequently, he does not have a clue about any
of my responses to his posts. An argument needs interplay, and since Dan
abstains from playing, there is no argument.

>I would like to jump into the discussion and try to show some aspects in
>which Romania should not attempt to follow Canada's example.

Now this is a most welcome attitude.

>1. Language of education - the Quebec model.
>The idea that rights of one minority can be better protected by
>discriminating measures in places where it forms a local majority is
>morally wrong. 

Morality is irrelevent. Political practicality, economic practicality,
cultural practicality, legal practicality are some of the elements that
play a part, but not morality.

In the context of North America, the Quebecois constitute a minority, a
very small minority. In this frame of reference, the term local, could be
applied to the political area referred to as Quebec. In the context of
Canada, the Quebecois constitute a minority, and to refer to Quebec as
local in this context begins to sound absurd. The next term of reference
would be that "local" applies to a municipality (city, town, village). It
could be argued that a ten-block area of a city would constitute something
local. The "local majority" that you are referring to is what?

>How can a minority expect to be treated fairly if, in
>regions where the roles are reversed, it behaves the other way around?
>I am referring to the fact the children of immigrants to Quebec cannot
>be sent to schools where the language of instruction is English, unless
>they can prove that they have been educated in English before.

The children of immigrants to Canada are up for grabs. If it is important
for immigrants to Canada to have their children be instructed in English,
then when they immigrate they can chose to live in the 75% of Canada where
English education is available for their children. Quebec acknowledges that
"continuity" is important, consequently, it will provide English education
to those who have been educated in English prior to their arrival in
Quebec. Quebec has declared itself to be a French culture, so immigrant
children who arrive in Quebec with a Romanian or Swahili or Tibetan or any
non-English education are up for grabs. Quebec decides and prevails that
they will be educated in French. If the immigrant parent does not like
this, they are free to live in the other 75% of Canada. If the immigrant
parent lives in Toronto, they can chose to send their child to either
English or French schools. My seven-year-old son will be getting French
immersion next year -- it will be his third language. A friend of mine who
was born in Canada of Scotish parents, decided to enroll his son in a
Chinese immersion class. This is one of the heritage classes throughout the
city which is paid for by the Board of Education. You can be educated in
virtually any language in Toronto. (These are supplementary to English or
French, not replacements). His blond-haired blue-eyes son is the only round
eye in the class of Chinese. I like this.

>Should we follow this example and ask a young Romanian family with
>children moving to Harghita, perhaps to a new job, to send the kids to
>Hungarian schools only? 

The flaw in this arguement, is that immigration is not involved. The
movement is within the same country. I can take myself and my son to live
in Quebec City, and because my son has had education in English he is
entitled to the continuity of that education. Likewise, if a Romanian
family immigrates to Canada with a three year old son, lives in Toronto for
5 years while their son goes to English school for a couple years, then
when the family moves to Quebec, they will be entitled to continue their
son's education in English. If an immigrant family wants to come to Canada,
then they should take responsibility beforehand to learn a very few things
before arriving.

>Or, as Joe would say, this in any case would amount to colonising the
>sacred Hungarian land and the move itself should be banned? 

Joe may be well-Hungary, but he lives in Seattle where their Space Needle
is a wet-noodle compared to Toronto's CN Tower. Ergo: mine is bigger than
his, so you can safely disregard his colon comment.

>(see again the Quebec example in being the only province with its own
>Department of Immigration, with its special rules and points system).

Ok, so . . .

-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency