4 ms·

I long suspected that Hungarian was the most separate from the rest of the European languages.

by 0-_-0 8y ago

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
Hungary’s lexical stock is indeed an unusual mixture of its Uralic inheritance, West Old Turkic loans, early Slavic loans, and Ottoman-era Turkish loans. At the same time, so much of the modern Hungarian language is the result of intellectuals creating calques on German terminology during the 19th-century language reform. (To the point that already knowing German will massively help learners to memorize Hungarian verbs.) This represented a big rupture in the language, and it is part of why pre-19th-century Hungarian looks so different.
jcranmer 8y ago
Most European languages are Indo-European. The exceptions are: * Basque, a language isolate which is generally considered by many to be the sole surviving remnant of pre-Indo-European languages in Europe. * The Balto-Finnic languages (not to be confused with the Baltic languages!), primarily Finnish and Estonian, of the Uralic language family. * The Saami languages, another part of the Uralic language family, of the indigenous peoples of northern Scandinavia. * Hungarian, yet another Uralic language, although this one seems geographically out of place. * Depending on how you divide the borders of Europe, there are representatives of Turkic languages in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. There are also some Kartvelian languages and other language isolates in the Caucasian region (primarily Georgia)--note that Armenian is Indo-European. Indo-European languages are though to originate from the steppe region on the North side of the Black and Caspian Seas, and then get diffused through various waves of linguistic migration into the rest of Europe. Uralic languages probably originate in the northern forest zones of Russia (eventually being pushed out of their homeland by the Slavic branch of Indo-European). At some point, the language migrated onto a steppe confederation which eventually settled in Hungary, which is why it seems out of place. About 1500 years ago, give or take, the steppe confederations shifted from Indo-European dominance to Turkic dominance, which is what prompts the rise of Turkic languages on the margins of Europe.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > Depending on how you divide the borders of Europe, there are representatives of Turkic languages in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. There are representatives of Turkic well within a mainstream definition of Europe: West Rumelian Turkish in the Balkans, Gagauz in Moldova, Crimean Tatar in Crimea, and (though perhaps now departing from the mainstream definition) several Turkic languages in European Russia north of the Caucasus such as Karachay-Balkar and Mishar Tatar.

I long suspected that Hungarian was the most separate from the rest of the European languages.

by 0-_-0 8y ago

I long suspected that Hungarian was the most separate from the rest of the European languages.

Hungary’s lexical stock is indeed an unusual mixture of its Uralic inheritance, West Old Turkic loans, early Slavic loans, and Ottoman-era Turkish loans. At the same time, so much of the modern Hungarian language is the result of intellectuals creating calques on German terminology during the 19th-century language reform. (To the point that already knowing German will massively help learners to memorize Hungarian verbs.) This represented a big rupture in the language, and it is part of why pre-19th-century Hungarian looks so different.

jcranmer 8y ago

Most European languages are Indo-European. The exceptions are: * Basque, a language isolate which is generally considered by many to be the sole surviving remnant of pre-Indo-European languages in Europe. * The Balto-Finnic languages (not to be confused with the Baltic languages!), primarily Finnish and Estonian, of the Uralic language family. * The Saami languages, another part of the Uralic language family, of the indigenous peoples of northern Scandinavia. * Hungarian, yet another Uralic language, although this one seems geographically out of place. * Depending on how you divide the borders of Europe, there are representatives of Turkic languages in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. There are also some Kartvelian languages and other language isolates in the Caucasian region (primarily Georgia)--note that Armenian is Indo-European. Indo-European languages are though to originate from the steppe region on the North side of the Black and Caspian Seas, and then get diffused through various waves of linguistic migration into the rest of Europe. Uralic languages probably originate in the northern forest zones of Russia (eventually being pushed out of their homeland by the Slavic branch of Indo-European). At some point, the language migrated onto a steppe confederation which eventually settled in Hungary, which is why it seems out of place. About 1500 years ago, give or take, the steppe confederations shifted from Indo-European dominance to Turkic dominance, which is what prompts the rise of Turkic languages on the margins of Europe.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> Depending on how you divide the borders of Europe, there are representatives of Turkic languages in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. There are representatives of Turkic well within a mainstream definition of Europe: West Rumelian Turkish in the Balkans, Gagauz in Moldova, Crimean Tatar in Crimea, and (though perhaps now departing from the mainstream definition) several Turkic languages in European Russia north of the Caucasus such as Karachay-Balkar and Mishar Tatar.