Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4782
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Topspeed » 21 Apr 2022 06:17

gebhk wrote:
20 Apr 2022 10:21
How come no one in Finland knows about it ?
I can't speak for Finland as a whole. However clearly a very long list of Finnish linguists, some of whom I have quoted, both alive and dead, knew this and know this. As no doubt do the staff and students of the departments of Uralic studies in Helsinki and Turku (part of the wider Copius project), as do my friends in Tampere who are not linguists. So certainly not 'no one'. :D

Ironically, the only major figure in the Uralic area of linguistics that I know who argues there is no such a thing as the Uralic language family is an.....Italian, Prof Angela Marcantonio.

Given that you have agreed with me that Finnish is a Uralic language in 139 below, why are we coming back to this nonsense de novo - and I would extend this question to everyone from that point onwards.

Perhaps we could return to the actual subject of this thread instead - and thank you Peter89 for a succinct summary. The only thing i would disagree with is that there is no distinctive genetic relationship - Lamnidis et al found that Nganasan-like ancestry is found in many groups of modern, mainly Uralic-speaking populations. There are also genetic markers found with high frequency in modern uralic-speakers than can be described as characteristic. However, I think you may be saying that there is no genetic test that differentiates between a Uralic speaker and non-Uralic speaker and with that i would agree entirely. That is because what we are looking at is a continuum and not a set of pigeon holes.

I think, also, that you hit the nail on the head, when you say the Nazi attitude to the Hungarians was ambivalent. This is an inevitable consequence when policy is driven by blind faith in some ideology rather than by reality. When the reality clashes with the faith, there is inevitable internal conflict, both individually and within the group as a whole.
Finnish is not an uralic language.

On the other hand some language groups near Urals are loosely related to finnish. No common words but apparently some cultural ties or similarities.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1794
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Peter89 » 21 Apr 2022 08:27

Topspeed wrote:
21 Apr 2022 06:17
Finnish is not an uralic language.
Are you ready to review your opinion if teachers of the University of Helsinki think it otherwise?
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by gebhk » 21 Apr 2022 08:46

Finnish is not an uralic language.
OK, so back to this after agreeing the opposite was the case in #139. If it is not a Uralic language, what language group does Finnish belong to then? Please don't say Finno-Ugric, bacause that is either a subgrouip of Uralic or a synonym for Uralic. We've done that one.

While somewhat irrelevant to the above question, but
No common words but apparently some cultural ties or similarities.
is far from the mark. Languages are not classified just on the basis of Lexicography (albeit, contrary to what you say, Uralic languages, including Finnish, have many similar words across the board) but also grammar (not least a case system unique to Uralic languages and from which the case systems of all modern ones derive) and phonology. Entirely in opposition to your thesis, in many details Finnish has more similarities with extant Eastern Uralic languages than it does with some neighbouring Uralic languages, for example the Sami group.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by George L Gregory » 21 Apr 2022 21:32

Topspeed wrote:
20 Apr 2022 06:44
George L Gregory wrote:
16 Apr 2022 23:05
Sid Guttridge wrote:
16 Apr 2022 15:49
Hi Peter89,

You say, "We have almost all the answers in this topic".

And they are?

Cheers,

Sid.
Estonians, Finns and Hungarians speak Uralic languages.

Topspeed doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about and makes absolutely no sense.
How come no one in Finland knows about it ?
They do and other people have explained that to you already.

Stop flogging a dead horse. Unless you have any thing to contribute to this article, I see no point in you just asking pointless questions and repeating the same denial that’s just worded in a different way.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by George L Gregory » 21 Apr 2022 21:34

Topspeed wrote:
21 Apr 2022 06:17
gebhk wrote:
20 Apr 2022 10:21
How come no one in Finland knows about it ?
I can't speak for Finland as a whole. However clearly a very long list of Finnish linguists, some of whom I have quoted, both alive and dead, knew this and know this. As no doubt do the staff and students of the departments of Uralic studies in Helsinki and Turku (part of the wider Copius project), as do my friends in Tampere who are not linguists. So certainly not 'no one'. :D

Ironically, the only major figure in the Uralic area of linguistics that I know who argues there is no such a thing as the Uralic language family is an.....Italian, Prof Angela Marcantonio.

Given that you have agreed with me that Finnish is a Uralic language in 139 below, why are we coming back to this nonsense de novo - and I would extend this question to everyone from that point onwards.

Perhaps we could return to the actual subject of this thread instead - and thank you Peter89 for a succinct summary. The only thing i would disagree with is that there is no distinctive genetic relationship - Lamnidis et al found that Nganasan-like ancestry is found in many groups of modern, mainly Uralic-speaking populations. There are also genetic markers found with high frequency in modern uralic-speakers than can be described as characteristic. However, I think you may be saying that there is no genetic test that differentiates between a Uralic speaker and non-Uralic speaker and with that i would agree entirely. That is because what we are looking at is a continuum and not a set of pigeon holes.

I think, also, that you hit the nail on the head, when you say the Nazi attitude to the Hungarians was ambivalent. This is an inevitable consequence when policy is driven by blind faith in some ideology rather than by reality. When the reality clashes with the faith, there is inevitable internal conflict, both individually and within the group as a whole.
Finnish is not an uralic language.

On the other hand some language groups near Urals are loosely related to finnish. No common words but apparently some cultural ties or similarities.
FGS, why do you keep denying such a basic fact? Is this down to your ignorance or are you just trying to wind people up on this forum? Even Finnish linguists agree it’s a Uralic language. When asked to provide that it’s not a Uralic language you don’t have any evidence, why is that?

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by George L Gregory » 21 Apr 2022 21:36

Topspeed wrote:
21 Apr 2022 06:17
Finnish is not an uralic language.
You have been repeating the same claptrap for 11 pages now!

Why haven’t you provided any evidence to support that claim?

I’m not sure if you’re just trolling or if there is an agenda behind you denying an stabilised fact, but it is becoming ever so tiresome to read the same piffle.

I suggest you either start providing evidence to support your unfounded claims or just stop posting on this thread the same unfounded claims over and over again.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4782
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Topspeed » 22 Apr 2022 01:45

Then again uralic languages are a branch of the finno-ugric languages.

Is this better definition ?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1794
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Peter89 » 22 Apr 2022 07:54

Topspeed wrote:
22 Apr 2022 01:45
Then again uralic languages are a branch of the finno-ugric languages.

Is this better definition ?
No, it is not.

A teacher of the University of Helsinki confirmed to me that Uralic is a term corresponding to Finno-Ugric, and that there are no competing theories about the origin of Finnish this fact is taught at schools and quite often discussed, mentioned in media. She meant in Finland.

I think we can close the case, or you may contact professionals from the academic sphere yourself.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by gebhk » 22 Apr 2022 09:30

Then again uralic languages are a branch of the finno-ugric languages.
Is this better definition ?
Firstly it is not a definition but a name.
Secondly Finno-Ugric is either a branch of Uralic not the other way round or, in the minority view, it is a synonym of Uralic as described by Peter 89. Either way, I would concur with Peter89 that your insistence that a universally accepted name is wrong just because you don't like it is geting tiresome and you should take up the conversation with linguists.

Peter89
I believe your academic friend is only partially right. As I understand it, the term Finno-Ugric was coined for the whole family and this was reasonable because Samoyedic had not yet been discovered and the whole family consisted of just two branches, the Finnic and Ugric named after the languages spoken by the greatest number of people in each group - Finnish and Hungarian respectively. I assume the alternatibe term, Fennic, encompassed Estonian too, but that is just supposition on my part. Thus Finno-Ugric (or fenno-Ugric) is a somewhat dated term when used in this context.

Subsequently the Samoyedic group was discovered and, initially, the consensus view was that this was a third group of the family which had split off the main stem before the main stem split into the Finnic and Ugric groups. Since Samoyedo-Finno-Ugric is a bit of a mouthful, the synonymous (and more recently coined) term 'Uralic' came into usage as a name for the entire family while Finno-Ugric remained in use to describe the non-Samoyedic branches. This traditional view has been challenged more recently by a minority of scholars who maintain that Samoyedic languages did not branch off from the main stem very early but, in fact, branched off the Ugric group later, after the family had already split into Finnic and Ugric. In the view of these scholars, therefore, the Uralic family contains only the Finnic and Ugric groups (Samoyedic being a sub-group of Ugric) and that therefore the old-fashioned term Finno-Ugric for the whole family remains an appropriate synonym for Uralic.

The important points however are firstly that the latter is a minority view and secondly that none of the scholars that hold this view, as far as I can tell, consider the term Uralic incorrect or that only Finno-Ugric should be used instead. They consider the two terms interchangeable and this seems to be reflected in their writing. Topspeed seems to be in a minority of one in holding the view that the term Uralic is wrong. Ultimately he is welcome to his unique usage of language but he needs to accept that the rest of thw world is not obliged to accept his lexicographic invention and we should move on.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1794
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Peter89 » 22 Apr 2022 10:52

gebhk wrote:
22 Apr 2022 09:30
Then again uralic languages are a branch of the finno-ugric languages.
Is this better definition ?
Firstly it is not a definition but a name.
Secondly Finno-Ugric is either a branch of Uralic not the other way round or, in the minority view, it is a synonym of Uralic as described by Peter 89. Either way, I would concur with Peter89 that your insistence that a universally accepted name is wrong just because you don't like it is geting tiresome and you should take up the conversation with linguists.

Peter89
I believe your academic friend is only partially right. As I understand it, the term Finno-Ugric was coined for the whole family and this was reasonable because Samoyedic had not yet been discovered and the whole family consisted of just two branches, the Finnic and Ugric named after the languages spoken by the greatest number of people in each group - Finnish and Hungarian respectively. I assume the alternatibe term, Fennic, encompassed Estonian too, but that is just supposition on my part. Thus Finno-Ugric (or fenno-Ugric) is a somewhat dated term when used in this context.

Subsequently the Samoyedic group was discovered and, initially, the consensus view was that this was a third group of the family which had split off the main stem before the main stem split into the Finnic and Ugric groups. Since Samoyedo-Finno-Ugric is a bit of a mouthful, the synonymous (and more recently coined) term 'Uralic' came into usage as a name for the entire family while Finno-Ugric remained in use to describe the non-Samoyedic branches. This traditional view has been challenged more recently by a minority of scholars who maintain that Samoyedic languages did not branch off from the main stem very early but, in fact, branched off the Ugric group later, after the family had already split into Finnic and Ugric. In the view of these scholars, therefore, the Uralic family contains only the Finnic and Ugric groups (Samoyedic being a sub-group of Ugric) and that therefore the old-fashioned term Finno-Ugric for the whole family remains an appropriate synonym for Uralic.

The important points however are firstly that the latter is a minority view and secondly that none of the scholars that hold this view, as far as I can tell, consider the term Uralic incorrect or that only Finno-Ugric should be used instead. They consider the two terms interchangeable and this seems to be reflected in their writing. Topspeed seems to be in a minority of one in holding the view that the term Uralic is wrong. Ultimately he is welcome to his unique usage of language but he needs to accept that the rest of thw world is not obliged to accept his lexicographic invention and we should move on.
She is not my friend (tho she is very friendly and answered immediately), she's a random teacher so any bias are excluded. The question was whether Finnish is an Uralic language. Yes, it is. And it is taught in Finland, discussed in media, etc. The topic we discuss here in unnecessary length is not a topic of academic or intellectual debate.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by gebhk » 22 Apr 2022 11:24

With your last post I have no argument. My admittedly overlong previous reply was about something different that you said - namely that
Uralic is a term corresponding to Finno-Ugric
which is a minority view among linguists and is very much a subject of acedemic debate.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4782
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Topspeed » 24 Apr 2022 20:55

gebhk wrote:
22 Apr 2022 11:24
With your last post I have no argument. My admittedly overlong previous reply was about something different that you said - namely that
Uralic is a term corresponding to Finno-Ugric
which is a minority view among linguists and is very much a subject of acedemic debate.
What does this has to do with Finns in Nazi propaganda ?

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4782
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Topspeed » 24 Apr 2022 20:56

gebhk wrote:
22 Apr 2022 09:30
Then again uralic languages are a branch of the finno-ugric languages.
Is this better definition ?
Firstly it is not a definition but a name.
Secondly Finno-Ugric is either a branch of Uralic not the other way round or, in the minority view, it is a synonym of Uralic as described by Peter 89. Either way, I would concur with Peter89 that your insistence that a universally accepted name is wrong just because you don't like it is geting tiresome and you should take up the conversation with linguists.

Peter89
I believe your academic friend is only partially right. As I understand it, the term Finno-Ugric was coined for the whole family and this was reasonable because Samoyedic had not yet been discovered and the whole family consisted of just two branches, the Finnic and Ugric named after the languages spoken by the greatest number of people in each group - Finnish and Hungarian respectively. I assume the alternatibe term, Fennic, encompassed Estonian too, but that is just supposition on my part. Thus Finno-Ugric (or fenno-Ugric) is a somewhat dated term when used in this context.

Subsequently the Samoyedic group was discovered and, initially, the consensus view was that this was a third group of the family which had split off the main stem before the main stem split into the Finnic and Ugric groups. Since Samoyedo-Finno-Ugric is a bit of a mouthful, the synonymous (and more recently coined) term 'Uralic' came into usage as a name for the entire family while Finno-Ugric remained in use to describe the non-Samoyedic branches. This traditional view has been challenged more recently by a minority of scholars who maintain that Samoyedic languages did not branch off from the main stem very early but, in fact, branched off the Ugric group later, after the family had already split into Finnic and Ugric. In the view of these scholars, therefore, the Uralic family contains only the Finnic and Ugric groups (Samoyedic being a sub-group of Ugric) and that therefore the old-fashioned term Finno-Ugric for the whole family remains an appropriate synonym for Uralic.

The important points however are firstly that the latter is a minority view and secondly that none of the scholars that hold this view, as far as I can tell, consider the term Uralic incorrect or that only Finno-Ugric should be used instead. They consider the two terms interchangeable and this seems to be reflected in their writing. Topspeed seems to be in a minority of one in holding the view that the term Uralic is wrong. Ultimately he is welcome to his unique usage of language but he needs to accept that the rest of thw world is not obliged to accept his lexicographic invention and we should move on.
I agree it is a name.

I think all american indian tribes are also finno-ugrig....at least Uralic.

If there is fenno languages they'd be livonian, estonia, karelian, ingerman...and finnish.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by George L Gregory » 24 Apr 2022 22:57

Topspeed, unless you have something that is worthy to read, please stop posting such absolute nonsense.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4782
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Re: Estonians, Finns and Hungarians in Nazi propaganda

Post by Topspeed » 30 Apr 2022 05:49

I never post anything related to nonsense...as you do..starting from your fake name and address.

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”