About the sound-modifications
The sound-modifications have by nature lightened or weighted forms. For instance, how easy nature changes our articulation by having a cold. But even the easy changes are only possibilities; they happen or not in a word. If changes happen, even then, it may develop randomly further into many directions. But, the “total impossible” changes happen often as well. There is therefore, no hint for general enforcement upon a change.
This is understandable; the real life doesn’t overexert itself in order to make the work of future office-holders easier.
The changes, can naturally be seen only after they happened. It is more then foolish to investigate them in reversed direction. We may receive good help by observing the accomplished changes, because they can be used for explanations and verifications.
Before all, let’s speak about the sounds.
The sounds build two different groups, worlds.
1. vocals and
2. consonants
Vocals = magán-hangzók, self/alone-sounding.
There are two sort of the:
a. Magas (high = front vowels): e, i, ö, ,ü, é, í, ő, ű and
b. mély (deep = back-vowels): a, o, u, á, ó, ú.
The in our pronunciation even today important sound ë is seldom used, in schools not taught. This way many our words converge. For instant: ment (rescue) somebody from water is not the same than ‘ő mënt’ (he left, departed). Our seven vocals had earlier front/back, short and long variants. We had in total 28 vocals but in Latin are only 5.
Hungarian ears are very sensitive for the difference of front and back vowels. For this we always adapt the vocals inside a word, except in complex words. We don’t tolerate spellings like megyok, latek instead of megyek and látok (I am going), but both ways are understandable. Nyilam or fiam (my arrow, my son) tell us that there was earlier a back vowel ï also, just we don’t write it anymore. Our language remembers them and we always assimilate them well: csikos <chikosh> (striated) but szikes <sikɛsh> (saline soil).
We may free exchange the vocabulary in words if we obey the assimilation rule, the meaning wont change much, except the few special cases, this is the reason for our several dialect-areas with ‘í’, ‘a’, ‘ő’. Budapest today belongs to the ‘e’ <ɛ> dialect area. Kiszpinz–készpénz (cash), söpör–seper <shɶpɶr–shɛpɛr (sweep), magyar–megyer <madjar – mɛdjɛr> (Hungarian), or rauzsalevíl <raužalɛvíl> (rose leaf).
Our vocals play a very important role in refining of the sense of our words:
Libeg – lebeg – lobog
(dangle, flicker) (float, hover) (wave, flatter)
The vowels point to the size, dimension by getting deeper (front <> back)
kis – nagy <kish-nadj> (little- large)
közel – távol <kɶzɛl – távol> (near – far)
ekkor – akkor <ɛkkor – akkor> (now – (long time ago) and so forth
and the stages between:
ez, it, ide, idéz, ime, ihol (this, it, to here, quote, behold, see!)
Or hoz: onnan ide (he brings from there to here)
Visz: innen oda (he brings from here to there)
Vés: kis mélyedést (chisel little hole)
Vás, váj: nagy mélyedést (scoop large hole)
If not looking for fineness, we can write our words just with consonants:
b . l . d . g . sz . l . t . s . n . p . t!
Kiss Dénes introduced this kind of investigation method.
Letting out the vocals we receive the word’s frame and this way the words can be easier evaluated. The old Hungarian writing (rovás) and the old Egyptian demotic writing use both this method. The vocals are not written if there are all front-vowels. Any change of sound-order has to be written.
In the following examples, we write with large letters the written and small letters the slipped vowels.
HARMATZIK
HARMaToZIK (dew falls)
HRVADZIK
HeRVADoZNaK (withering)
Old Egyptian example from the Rosette stone:
KLOPTR
KLeOPaTRa
AMN RMSZSZ
AMoN ReMeSZeSZ
(Therefore, we call the name of the pharaoh (faro) wrongly Ramses.)
We call this a syncope or elision of vocals. This is based on the rule that we can put any vocal on the place of the omitted one.
We learned from this that the difference of vocals is not very important by comparing words:
Szörcsög, szürcsög, szorcsog, szircseg. <sɶrchɶg, suerchɶg …> (slurp) can be spelled as we like it. Or, don’t wait for the explanation of the words: szőcs – szűcs <suech-sɶch>, lik-luk-lék, sippant-szoppant, csepül-csépel <chɛpuel-chepɛl> (furrier, hole, take a sniff, thresh/thrash).
2. By spelling a ‘con-sonant’, one of the vocals is sounding with it as its name tells us.
There are two different type of consonants:
- zöngés (voiced sonant) and
- zöngétlen (voiceless, breathed) consonants.
For instant, d, zs, g, z… can’t be spelled without vibration of the vocal cord.
Spelling c, t, h, p, s, … our vocal cord is not vibrating. These are the voiceless, the breathed consonants.
The both kind of consonants can be out in pairs: are we spelling ‘g’ without vocal cord’s vibration, it becomes rather a ‘k’ (gör – kör).
Sounds with very similar formation can easily change their place. Try to pronounce these three sounds: b, m, p. We don’t need to much change of our lips’ position to spell them.
In the followings we see some consonants’ modifications which have very little influence on the words’ meaning. The words remain in the same word-cluster.
b<p and m>p change:
búb <> púp (hood, hump)
bizgál <> piszkál (z>sz and g>k change) (poke, badger)
lombos <> lompos (leafy, shaggy)
máll <> páll (crumble, decompose)
d>t, p>f, b>f, g>k changes:
dug <> tukmál (stick, force to accept)
zsupol.<> zsufol <žufol-župol> (stuck)
bodor <> fodor (curly, flounce)
gobé <> kopé (rascal)
s>cs, s>sz, t>c, z>sz …changes:
sajka <> csajka <shayka, chayka> (bowl, boat shaped bowl)
visz <> visel <visz, vishel> (carry, wear)
piti <> pici (petty, tiny)
zökken <> szökken <zɶkkɛn, sɶkkɛn> (jerk, leap)
szák <> zsák <sak, žak> (hand net, sack)
The sound ‘l’ is quite remarkable: spelling soft: ‘j’, twirl tongue: ‘r’,
Spelling voiced: ‘z’ :
mell <> mejj (brest)
lány <> jány (girl)
lom <> rom (junk, ruin)
szál <> szár (thread, stalk)
mál, mél <> méz, máz, mesz, mész (honey, glaze, lime)
Man can assemble even a row of easily realizable sound changes, on which way the sounds can travel easily forth and back: gy>d>t>c>sz>z>zs>dzs>cs, but it can change even into h> and >k:
vigyor> vidor> vicsor> vihor > vikor (grin, showing bare teeth, grim)
Nature makes more sound changes difficult like: gy>z, sz, but it can be realized through the line: gy>d>t>c>z>sz like
roggyan> rozza > rosszan <rodjan, rozzan, rossan> (tottering, shaky).
Many times the speaker goes not even through the lightened way: the ‘s’, ‘sz’,’r’ or ‘v’ are certainly not close to ‘h’, but still will be changed:
szörpöl <> hörpöl <sɶrpɶl, hɶrpɶl> (slurp)
szuny <> huny <sunj, hunj> (close the eyes)
sorvad <> hervad <hɛrvad, shorvad> (wither, waste away)
sápog <> hápog <shapog, hapog> (quack)
The ‘cs, ty, p, k sounds are not quite close, but we like to change them occasionally:
loccsan <> lőttyen <lochchan, lɶtjtjɛn> (splash, spill)
locsog <> lotyog <locsog, lotjog> (lap, gossip)
szürcsöl <> szürtyöl <suerchɶl, suertjɶl> (slurp)
szörtyöl <> szörpöl <sɶrtyɶl, sɶrpɶl> (slurp)
horkan <> hortyan (snort)
The sounds ‘s’ and ‘cs’ may become ‘f’ or ‘j’ as well:
sodor > fodor <shodor, fodor> (current, drift, flounce)
sanyar > fanyar <shanjar, fanjar> (tart, sour, misery)
feslik > fejlik <fɛshlik, feylik> (come unsewn)
csacsog > fecseg <chachog, fɛchɛg> (prattle, chatter)
We don’t continue the presentation; it’s recognizable that there is a way from every sound to any other sound. Thus, investigating the history of words only by looking their sound-changes, won’t bring more as we would try to ‘filter out’ the red vine’s colour by using a flimsy filter.
Furthermore, for some reason, linguists tell that the vowels only fall out of the words. If it is true, we shouldn’t have words anymore, but we do, because words not only decline, they may become expanded as well.
See some examples for expansion and declining:
ilyet – ilyent <iyɛt – iyɛnt> (such)
rohad – rothad (rotting)
enyh – renyh – lanyh – lanygy – lágy – ágy(ék) (mild, sluggard, lazy, pliable)
kegyelmed – kelmed – kend <kɛdjɛlmɛd, kɛlmɛd, kɛnd> (you)
bódog – boldog (happy)
csónak – csolnak <chonak, csolnak> (boat)
sirám – siralm (misery)
göb – gömb <gɶb , gɶmb), (globe)
szőrcs – szőcs, szűcs <sɶrch, sɶch, suech> (furrier)
rogy – romgy – rongy <rodj, romdj, rongj> (drop, sink, rag)
éjszak – észak, éjszaka – éjszaka – északa – iccaka (north, night)
iszen – hiszen <isɛn, hisɛn> (but, since)
Further, the word can even turn:
sivít – visit <shiviit – vishiit> (scream)
röhög – hörög <rɶhɶg – hɶrɶg> (guffaw)
bog, bög – göb <bɶg – gɶb> (knott)
gubó – buga (cocoon)
pót – top (s.th. getting on the top of s.th.:toprongy /fromhere
Eng. ‘top’, reversed: pót-ol: (retrieve). Tap, two layers touch each others: tapló, tapasz, tapogat, taps, tapéta, tapad. (tinder, plaster, palpate, applause, wallpaper, stick)
mosolyog – somolyog (smile)
töpörödött – pöttöm, potom <tɶpɶrɶdɶtt-pɶttɶm> (shrivelled, tiny)
kis, kicsi – csak, <kish, kichi, chak> (small, little, only)
sekély – sík <skey, <shɛkéy – shiik> (shallow, flat)
pucér – csupér – csupasz, csupán <puczer, chupas, chupan> (nacked, nude, purely)
rezeg – zireg, zörög, z>cs: csörög < rɛzɛg,zɶrɶg> (quiver, cratle).
The sounds can become mixed up:
csutak – csutka <chutak-csutka> (wisp, core of s.th.)
ugr – rug (jump- kick)
zűr – zrí <zuer> (confusion)
töpör – törpe <tɶpɶr, tɶrpɛ> (shrivel, dwarf)
morzsál – mozsár – rozsmál – zsurmol < moržal, žurmol> (crumble, mortar, crumble/shell)
pelyh – pehely <pɛyh-pɛhɛy> (down)
kalány – kanál (spoon)
kenyér – kereny <kɛnjer – kɛrɛnj> (bread)
naspola – lasponya <nashpola – laspony> (naseberry)
csimbók – boncsik <chimbók – bonchik> (knott)
csalamádé – csadajmálé <chalamádé–shadaymálé> (mixed pickles)
The sounds in the words may be modified, declined, and multiplied, but they could stay as well unchanged for year-thousands! And even in not small numbers:
Úr (sir)
Isten (ős-ten) (God = is-ten = endless-ancestor)
ős (ancestor)
lélek (soul)
har (rush up, stands out …)
ár (price, flood, awl, puncheon)
néne (older sister)
Emese (name)
eme (this)
barka (pussy willow)
szűr <suer> (felt cloak, filter)
szab (cut, limit)
sír (cry, grave)
tír (tér) (place, space)
csata (battle)
kád (bath tub)
kapa (hack)
más (other)
pap (priest)
rég, rege (far past, sage)
dug (stick)
zabla (bridle)
bő <bɶ> (loosely fitting)
magas (high) and so forth
We can bring here a bunch of only little changed words through thousands of years:
| dingir | tündér | (fairy) |
| asdi | esd | (ask, plead) |
| izi | izzik | (glow) |
| aru | ár | (price, merchandise) |
| retu | rét | (meadow) |
| igi | igéz | (enchant) |
| edin | edény | (pot, vessel) |
| kuruny | kereny > kenyér | (bread) |
| szur | szűr | (felt cloak) |
| ursag | ország | (country) |
| gula | gyula | (Julius) |
and so forth.
If knowing the changes of alphabets and orthography, than are the most deviations seen above not real. Later we will present some old-Egyptian and old-Greek words as well. We will see after all how characteristic this speed of change is for our language. Among the words, several 1000 years old, man can only find few which have been really modified.
The previous examples for sound-modifications or lastingness were taken only from the Hungarian language. These changes can be just partially generalised for every language, because different languages have quite different modification customs. In words taken over from the Hungarian happen sometimes for Hungarians unthinkable changes. The reason for this is mostly that who takes over our word, does not understand its real sense. In many cases the pronunciation changes are for us meaningless.
The best possibility for recognition turns up, if we are able put other words with similar changes parallel to it. Do we find that reversing one kind of change by several words gave Hungarian words than those have bin taken from Hungarian.
See one word in several languages the ‘szarka’ (magpie):
Hung. Sumer Finn Slovak
Szarka szarraku harakka sztraka
It happened an sz>h change between the Sumerian ‘szarraku’ and Finn ‘harraka’, like ‘huny – szuny’ (sleep) in Hu. The Hung. ‘szarka’ lost its second vowel like in the words ‘három – harm’ (three) and ‘hangozó – hangzó’ (sounding).
But how was the Slovakian ‘straka’ built? See the following figure: living out the ‘t’ and put ‘a’ before ‘r’, we receive the word ‘szarka’:
The question is, this word modification is really true? Can we bring more examples for this in the Slovak vocabulary than our theory of modification should be accepted as true. See more examples:
csorbít – strobit (notch, chip) szörböl – srebat (slurp)
It can be seen here that Slav people like two or more consonants in succession or omit vocals. See Slovak examples for it:
S k r i k o t szt r k o t a t sz m e t
r i k o l t cs ö r ö g tet sz e m é t
(shout) (he rattlers) (garbage)
The following example for sound modification stands in many books. It shows that for the Hungarian ‘z’ stands in Finn the letter ‘t’. This happens in several words with different meanings and it points to the same origin of these words.
Finn: Hungarian:
sata száz (hundred)
kota ház (house)
vete víz (water)
mete méz (honey)
If these are true – however these are basic examples in the school – than the following English – Hungarian word-pairs originate from a common language as well.
English: Hungarian:
snow hó
snort hortyan
snooty hetyke (beképzelt)
snag hegy (kiáll, szikla)
Are we not willing to accept the proofing power of this last comparison than we have to reject the previous Finn comparisons, but this would be foolish in both cases. We can’t freely choose between certitudes by our mood.
Let us seen more examples! In the last comparison, the Hungarian letter ‘t’ changed in English to the duple sound ‘sn’. In the first step I will show you, why anybody shouldn’t have aversion against the discovery about having so many Hungarian words in the English vocabulary.
The ancient basic root ‘Ho’ is the basic word-root in all of the following examples. Its sense is: takar, befed (cover, roof over) and through this: óv, véd (protect, shield), rajta van, túlemelkedik-valamin, kiáll, (it is on s.th., rise above, stands out, break forth, even sound, water, power or s.th. else.)
Extending Ho in different ways, many-many words were created in Hungarian, in the ancient pre-nostraic language:
HO – on – contracted = hon (home, land)
hun > huny (a szemet >close the eyes, protect them), otthon (at home)
Ho-ag >//like szalag, állag: ribbon, consistency//,contracted: hág, felhág, meghág, hágcsó
(rising, rope ladder, ascending, standing out) and so forth.
Hag > g>gy hegy (peak, mountain) here: peak of mountain.
Ho-or /like seper, kever/ contracted hor: rising and loosing ‘h’:
orr, orca, orom (nose, face, ridge of house, peak of mountain)
Hir, horkol, harsány, harag and hirig (news, snore, strident, anger and beating up)
Ho-at //like huzat, csapat (draught, troop)// contracted:
Hat: is upon s.th., covers.
Ho-od //like higgad, heged (sober, scar over)//, contracted:
Hod > had: (military), hodály: (sheep fold), híd (bridge)
g>gy: hagy (leave, permit), hogy (that)
HO-op //like kalap (hat), hup// contracted:
Hop, hup (outstanding)
Ho-az //like falaz, (build a wall) vizez (make wet)//, contracted:
Ház, haza: óv, véd, befed (protect, defend, cover)
Stop here and try some English words:
‘hoar’ = dér, zuzmara, hóharmat (rime)
(overlie, cover)
‘hoard’ = accumulated assortment means : magasodó hordalék
‘hoarders’ = áruhalmozó (stockpiler).
It is the same word as the Hungarian ‘hordár’ (luggage carrier).
‘herald’ = hírnök, kikiáltó. He has to have a strong, loud voice.
‘harangue’ = szónoklat, beszéd, beharangoz (announce loudly)
It could mean felloval (urge), izgat (agitate) as well in Hungarian: ‘hergel’.
‘hood’ = csukly, kámzsa. (it covers)
‘heap’ = halom, kupac, hepe-hupa, huppanó it means protub-erance.
‘hat’ = kalap, sapka, fejfedő they cover on the top.
‘house’ = ho-az contracted= ház. It defends and covers.
‘hair’ = haj from har after r>j change..
This word can be cover, defend, lofty, overgrow.
‘hog’ = give relief. Think about hogback = hegybak. Therefore
hog = hegy (mountain).
However ‘height’ = hegy = understanding elevation as well.
If the elevation is very large than we call it ‘huge’.
It is interesting to hover above the meadow and a hovel in the meadow.
‘Ho’ does have a variant with ‘v’ = ‘hov’ as most Hungarian basic words. The meaning of ‘ho’ and ‘hov’ is identical, like the Hung. hő–höv, tő–töv, cső–csöv <chɶ–csɶv> (heat, base, pipe) and so forth.
Therefore, hor = hovor.
//In Hung. csűr – csavar <chuer-chavar>, jós – javas <jós- javas>, hűs – havas <huesh-havash, lés – leves <lesh-lɛvɛsh> (twist, seer, cool, juicy)//
hover(ing) above a hovel = mansion = house
hover loosing ‘h’ = over. In Hungarian ‘hever’ = rest lazy on something.
English remembers the past here better. We can not say anymore that a bird lays lazy (hever) in the air over the meadow.
We can see after these that by being immersed in the mystery of Hungarian words, we will understand the deeper secrets of adequate English words as well.
And now, being well prepared, let see the words having had ‘sn>h’ change. First see the details and after it the common picture.
- ‘snow’ = hó
Because its meaning, we are sure, the basic root Ho is behind it. The meanings-pair of snow: ‘hoar’ strengthens our statement. Now is the question, can we find more proof for it? (It is motivating that hó is in Slovak ‘sneh’.)
- ‘snort’ = hortyan <hortjan>
Changing sn>h in snort we receive the following variants: hort.
It looks first unknown, but spelling ‘t’ softly as ‘ty’ <tj> = hort = horty.
From horty > hortyog,
hortyol,
hortyan. Therefore, the sn>h change brought us the Hungarian word-form carying the English meaning.
- ‘snooty’ = beképzelt, felvágós. After sn>h change = ‘hooty’.
Again, on the first glance not recognized, but after changed ‘t’ to ‘ty’ and used front vowels we recive:
hetyi = ‘hetyke’ with the English meaning of ‘snooty’, like hetyegő.
We can read in the Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary at the head-word “HETYKE, lásd HEGYKE”: “Rátartósan, nyalkán, kevélykén lába-hegyen lépegető” (standoffish, dashing, haughtily). He tries to look out-standingly: “carry one’s nose high”.
- ‘snag’ = everything standing out from somewhere.
After sn>h change =‘hag’ and its pair in English is ‘hog’. The difference between hag is like an outstanding stone, and the hog is more a hump.
We finish proofing here, since our demonstration stated that the ancient basic root ‘Ho’ is standing in its middle. The ‘sn>h’change is real. It is recognizable not just word by word, but the whole system is organized till to the small details. We saw the perfect functioning of a rule in a system and can point to our axiom IX :
If a rule works in a system, then it exists. (IX. Axiom)
If a rule regularly performs in a system, we can’t question the reality of that system either.
Therefore, we met a real language manifestation:
the deep and overall contact of the English and Hungarian vocabulary.
We could see the pronunciation can change, even in one language, in so many ways that looking for prefabricated sound-modifications in different old or new languages won’t bring right results in linguistics.
For this reason, the readers don’t have to learn all the possible sound-modifications in order to understand the following chapters. Anyway, a sound-modification can only be cat in act after it happened.
Thus we can only use them as afterwards-explanations to help us and the readers in better recognition and understanding the identity of the examined words
Appendix:
I know everybody has read about unexpected discoveries and, like the previous English-Hungarian word-presentations, people were sceptical, even when the proof was manifold and total. Being cautious is natural, though I haven’t just presented a few random words, but rather illustrated a deep connection between both vocabularies. The following should make matters clearer.
The sound ‘l’ is a ‘guest-sound’ in several European languages. If ‘l’ is really only a guest-sound in a given word than loosing it won’t change its meaning. (Hungarian examples: tódul-toldul, sirám-sirálm, csónak-csolnak, bódog-boldog, szottyan-szlottyan (rush to, lament, boat, happy, fancy to do sg.).
Therefore, leaving the sound ‘l’ out of an English word and we receive a Hungarian word with same meaning: the ‘l’ was only a ‘decorating’ colourful sound in that English word and both words are identical. Let’s try the word ‘black’:
Eng.: -l b>v, b>f: Hung.:
Black back vak vak (blind)
Fak fak-ó (dun-coloured)
Fek fek-ete (black)
Here, these appear correct, but by the general theorem that one proof is no proof, we need more examples to support our theory.
The next presentation reveals more than we would have expected: in many other words we can see the addition of the letters ‘c, s > cs’ (ch) that also happen to change. Many of the words reveal two independent changes. This, together with the amount of word-pairs, tells us that those words appeared a long time ago in the English vocabulary; however, these are originally from the common ‘proto-Nonstratic’ language, now known as Hungarian:
Eng.: -l k, s, sz>cs <ch> Hung.:
clapper capper csapper csapó, csappantyú (clapper
claver caver csaver csevely, fecseg, locsog
clean cean csean csín, csini, tiszta, tisztán
cling cing csing csüng
clip cip csip csip: csipesz
clang cang csang cseng
cloud coud coud köd, felhő
cleat ceat ceat csit, csat
clatter catter csatter csatt, katt
climb cimb csimb csimb, csimpasz(kodik)
clump cump csump csompó, csomó,¸comb
plash pash pacs pos, pocs (posvány, pocsolya
slat sat csat csatt, csett, csattog, csetten
slacken sacken csacken csökken, lassít
slapping sapping csapping csapás, ütés, csattanás
slew sew csew cső – csav > csavarodás
sleek seek – sík, sima
slick sick csik csík, sík, siklik, csík-hal
sluttish sluttish – szuttyos, szutyis, szurdos – Oldgreek: ‘surtis’
sluggish sluggish csuggis csügg, csüggedt
slobber sobber csobber csobogó, csöpögő
slope sope csope ‘csapott’: lejtő
slop 1 sop csop csob: tócsa, csobbanó; <csop-pocs> pocsolya
slop 2 sop – süp, süppedő, sülyed
sloth soth – soty, sotyog, lassú
sloush soush csous csúsz, csosz-og
slurp surp – szörpöl> szürcsöl
slurpy surpy – szörp, sűrü lé
slurry surry – sűrű, szűr, sűrít
bleb beb – búb, buborék
blubber bubber – buborék, búb, púp, buk, bukkanó
bulk buk – bak: hát > fűrészbak
balk bak – bak, bakhát (dülő a földek között: baulk)
Note: Presenting the identical change of four words is already a proof in linguistic literature, but 3 examples are often enough. (As an example, the linguist Zoltán Gombocz created 72 sound-modification rules hap-pened in 200 words and became quite successful by it.) We surpassed above with almost uniformly modification of our 31 words the quota of 3-4 examples many times by receiving the Hungarian counterparts. We presented certainly a real happening sound-modification.
We should add to the group the first presented ‘black’ = vak, fak, fek words pair as well.
We can make our proofing stronger, for instance: it is impossible that the modification happened only in words, where the ‘l’ just a decoration sound is/was. Thus, we have to find words (with Hung. origin) in which the ‘l’ was/is not just a decorating sound.
For example, the sounds c-l, b-l, s-l … could have become neighbours after they lost the vowel between them (like kolostor = ‘cloister’):
Eng.: + i, a: k, sz>cs: b>p: Hung.:
blink bilink – pilink pilling, pillog, pillong
p >v: villong, villog
sly saly csaly csel, csali
clink cilink csilink csiling
clang calang k>g galang (giling – galang)
There are examples for other (not ‘l’) decorating sounds:
The decorating sound is here ‘s’:
Eng.: no ‘s’: c, s>cs: Hung.:
slush lush lucs lucs, locs, lucsok locs-pocs.
sluttish luttis – laty, in Hung. laty = lucs
latyak = lucsok
sling ling – ling, leng, lengő (swinging )
slum lum – lom, rom (junk, ruin)
The ‘b’ and ‘f’ can be decorating sounds also:
Eng.: b-, f-: d>gy: Hung.:
bland land langy langy, lágy
blare lare – lár, lárma
blaze laze – láz, láng, lobogó tűz (flamming)
block lock – lakat, elzár, eltorlaszol
flank lank – lanka, side for inst.: hill-side,
lankad = lágyul (soften)
The proof is therefore complete, is rather multiple.
The result can’t be negated by telling “we knew it differently”.
We can state: we discovered and proved that a large part of the English vocabulary is coming from the once common proto-nostratic language (now Hungarian). This part amount of the vocabulary is of course older then the imperial-Latin influence.
Exploring these words depends on the linguist’s ingenuity.
The above estimation is not overdoing. We will see more of it later in chapters 33-34.
It follows from our previous statements that in the early development of the language named today English, must have been participating a folk speaking clear ‘Hungarian’. Which folk was it?
We wait for the linguists and historians to name this folk’s group.
