July 04, 2008 by Vándorló Budapest

It's the "devil's own language". As Chico Buarque noted in his (2004) novel Budapest, Hungarian is 'rumoured to be the only tongue in the world the devil respects.' The novel's opening sentence portends the general theme of despair: "

"It should be against the law to mock someone who tries his luck in a foreign language..."

I've got a lot of sympathy with that position, but no sympathy for those expats who use it as an excuse not to really try. That said, most weeks, in my never ending attempt to expand my linguistic colonisation of Hungarian (or Hungarian's colonisation of my mind), I manage to say something really stupid and embarrassing.

• Szarok meaning 'I am shitting'
• Instead of sarok meaning 'corner'

• Kézimunka literally 'hand-work', which should mean 'needlework' or 'embroidery' but practically means 'hand-job' p.s. despite my guess being technically correct, this was obviously not the right word to use. And be warned, dictionaries are very coy about this so will let you walk blindly into these social faux pas without even hinting at alternative meanings
• What I should have said was 'kézm?vesség' meaning 'handicraft' or 'handmade'
  

Funny huh? You should have been there when I said the last one, I was talking to my friend's mother at the time.

But all that aside, even taking perfect knowledge into account you can still come a cropper when trying to communicate across the language-culture divide. Unfortunately, there is yet another level of complexity that just can't be planned for. Well, there are plenty more levels of complexity, but let's just keep this discussion nice and shallow, shall we?

Even if what you are saying is perfectly respectable, correct and normal you can still manage to offend or amuse a native speaker with your efforts. That's because innocent words in one language resemble something embarrassing or appalling in another.

Linguists and anthropologists have even studied these transnational transgressions, particularly were one culture then starts avoiding saying certain words in one language because they know they sound rude in another. This avoidance behaviour has come to be known as avoiding 'intercultural taboos' (see also "Interlingual Word Taboos", American Anthropologist, 53(3) 338-344, 1951).

To cut to the chase here's a short list of some of the words that don't sound quite right to either Hungarian or English speakers:

English to Hungarian

• Church sounds like 'csöcs', which means 'breasts'
  
• Cookie sounds like 'kuki', a childish way to refer to male genitals
  
• Chalk sounds like 'csók', which means 'kiss'
  
• Bus sounds like 'basz', particularly when said by someone with an American accent, which means 'f**k'
  
• Thing sounds like 'fing', which means 'fart'
  

Hungarian to English

• Puszi = Literally 'kiss' but used as a way to say goodbye, so more like 'love and kisses'. Sounds like 'pussy'.
• Fakanál = 'wooden spoon', though pronounced something like 'f**king hell' with a Liverpool accent.
• Sajt = 'cheese', though sounds like 'shite' pronounced with an Irish accent
• Pisztráng = 'trout', though is pronounced 'piss-trang'
  

The upshot of this is that people really do avoid pronouncing these words properly even when they are desperate to sound native otherwise. Hungarians generally have a problem saying 'w' and use 'v' instead, they never aspirate their plosives enough, and really can't get a grip with sticking out their tongues enough to make a decent 'th' sound. But when it comes to saying 'thing' they wouldn't even want to try. Who in their right mind wants to practice saying something that sounds increasingly like 'fart'? Fingom sincs! (see below)

Useful Vocabulary

• Fingom sincs - 'I haven't got a clue' (literally, 'I haven't got a fart')
• Halvány lila fingom sincs - a more colourful version of the above (literally, 'I haven't a pale violet coloured fart')
• Puszipajtás - 'buddy', basically a friend you know well enough to hug (non-gender specific).
  

May 22, 2008 by Vándorló Budapest

Yes, before you start, this is all unbelievably tedious. Again I'm posting up comments that should have remained just that, but as it happens there is a liberal (cough) loose with a penchant for redacting anything that calls other people's attention to her haughtiness.

As a side story, a musicologist with a loose pen and sloppy thinking then starts going off on one thinking I am someone else. The back story isn't really worth recounting. Fill in the pieces for yourself.

All that said, I take offence to people taking offence and deleting my comments without even trying to engage (at any level) in a conversation. So here is the comment thread from another post lovingly reconstructed for your delectation.

Comments

Eva, you often repeat that you distrust the Hungarian branch of Gallup ("Gallup is occasionally off by ten points."), but you have to learn to revise your opinions based on evidence.

You last repeated this statement in the run up to the referendum when you commented:

"Médián is talking about 46%, Gallup 54%, Marketing Central 33% and Publicus, whoever they are, 68%. (At every election we have, I suspect, a bogus polling company. This time it seems to be called Publicus. I have an idea whose brainchild this was.) As for Gallup, Gallup of Hungary is usually so far off that it is not worth taking them seriously. It's a shame that Hungarian Gallup is tarnishing the name of this oldest American polling company." (your post from March 7th, 2008)

The final turnout was 50.48%, which made the Gallup prediction the closest.

You don't seem to have revised your opinion or knowledge base based on plain stark fact.

Posted by: dinayekapelye | May 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Dinayekapelye,

You can't refute "occasionally" with one instance where Gallup were on the money.

Do have evidence that Gallup are never or rarely 10% off?

Or more interestingly, that Eva's preferred pollsters "(Századvég, Médián, Marketing Centrum, Tárki, Szonda Ipsos)" have similar margins of error?

Unless you have the evidence or the argument to support your criticisms, please don't waste our time.

Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 at 01:57 AM

Adrian,

Your understanding of scientific knowledge and progress is unfortunately based on the very outdated (but widely used) model of monotonic logic and Popper's empirical falsificationist approach.

Having said that Eva's reasoning is based on the approach Popper worked so hard to prove misguided, that of the justificationist approach (dependent on either panrationalism which Eva favours or irrationalism).

Your logic is neither here nor there. I merely pointed out that one needs to revise one's opinions based on evidence or at least be more cautious, or better still clearly acknowledge one's bias.

And to answer your next question the model of reasoning you should be using if that of non-monotonic models such as Bayesian logic/probability.

For the record, I didn't refute or attempt to refute anything, I merely drew attention of an existing dataset that could help in revising opinions based on probabilities.

That said, it would be great to have the data and statistics as you outlined. My feeling is (to revert to abductive reasoning) that there would be little or no statistical difference between the main polling companies.

Posted by: dinayekapelye | May 21, 2008 at 02:35 AM

[Redacted here: comments on another discussion thread removed]

Water polo, anyone?

Posted by: Dumneazu |May 21, 2008 at 03:00 AM

Dumneazu,

As you appear interested in exploring this issue further I can recommend "I was a Teenage Logical Positivist (Now a Septuagenarian Radical Probabilist)"
Dick Jeffrey's PSA Presidential Address (1998) link http://www.princeton.edu/~bayesway/KC.tex.pdf

Though in your case that would be "... quinquagenarian..." - well, perhaps not. I think the teenage logical positivist is still dominant.

Posted by: dinayekapelye | May 21, 2008 at 04:21 AM

Hey, [Redacted], I'm not saying you are stupid, just extremely unethical, as befits a libertarian. Heck, a 3.50 in Economics is nothing to sniff at, is it?

But to the bemused spectators out there, V-who-can't-be-named seems to think it is fun to post his latest comments using the name of my band (the Hungarian klezmer band Di Naye Kapelye) with a hyper link to my photo from my band's web page. (I guess he gets a kick out of "outing" a Yiddish folklorist. Who would have thunk!)But then, all publicity is good publicity! Buy the CD, [Redacted]!

If anybody is interested in who V/[Redacted] is in the real world, I'm happy to divulge.

Posted by: Dumneazu | May 21, 2008 at 04:47 AM

Dinayekapelye,

"I merely pointed out that one needs to revise one's opinions based on evidence or at least be more cautious, or better still clearly acknowledge one's bias."

It's hard to imagine how Eva could be more cautious than by qualifying her point about Gallup than with "occasionally".

What do you mean by 'bias' here? The statistical meaning - she's a historian, not a statistician or a philospoher of science: or the ordinary one, in which case her bias, after the many thousands of words she has written is plain enough to anybody who has bothered to read them, and doesn't need any further comment. Why this insistance that she be bias free?

The rest I didn't understand, but I don't think you wanted me to understand, I think you just wanted to awe me with a display of technical langauge. Sad.

Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 at 06:46 AM

[Redacted here: comments on another discussion thread removed]

Adrian,

It is not my fault you cannot follow a conversation. I have pitched my argument at the level of a reasonably intelligent postgraduate. This is not a blog for dullards. I make no excuses for your educational level, that is not my problem. You are simply wrong to assert that I don't want you to understand, I would love nothing more than to have a conversation reciprocated in kind. If you insist on assuming that I or anyone else has not got passed a 101 course in statistics and probabilities (which your reply inferred) then what do you expect?

The words/concepts/phrases you probably had difficulty with were: monotonic logic, Popper, empirical falsificationist, justificationist, panrationalism, irrationalism, non-monotonic, Bayesian logic/probability, abductive reasoning. You can simply look these up, if you don't know what they are. It would take chapters if not books to write my replies if I couldn't assume (which I do) that we are all ridiculously over-educated.

You are quite right Eva uses the hedging statement "occasionally", she also adds "in my opinion", "I personally" another hedging statement ("...some are better than others. I personally find Gallup the least reliable"). The statement from the 7th March goes further though and is marked with fewer hedging statements ("Gallup of Hungary is usually so far off that it is not worth taking them seriously. It's a shame that Hungarian Gallup is tarnishing the name of this oldest American polling company"). So here we also have the words "usually" as a qualifier.

In linguistics, particulary in the field of pragmatics hedging statements are studied in detail. What is worth noting is that these adjectives, adverbs, subclauses act along Gricean principles (search under the term 'Gricean Maxims' to learn the basics) to give additional information about the veracity, certainty, verisimilitude, completeness etc... of an utterance.

But these qualifying statements work at more than one level, particulary as part of a larger and ongoing communicative act (such as an online web log). Whilst Eva is making these statements she is also sure that you and everybody knows who she is and her academic background. As such, most individuals are less inclined to call to question the implicit assumptions she encourages you to make n.b. I do not assert by this that she either knows or understands the nature and manner in which she communicates this information, she is after all a historian, not a linguist, psychologist, logician or orator. For her, after years in academia, she simple presents information and ignores contrary information/statements.

So yes, Eva makes it clear that these are her personal opinions, that is and was not in doubt. Even though she claims that Gallup Hungary is 'tarnishing the good name' of Gallup in general it is a personal opinion. If you are happy with that, then fine, it's hardly worth taking further.

Might you concede in return that one might conceivably revise one's opinions in line with experience and evidence to the contrary? Or are we all doomed to stick to our beliefs no matter what? Worse still not acknowledge or answer for our errors of fact or judgement. As it happens historians belief systems, line of reasoning, use of facts and logic have to obey the same principles as everyone else's, even if their methods differ. You are simply restating panrationalism.

Dumneazu,

You are mistaken. I'm afraid your anger clouded your judgement somewhat. I am not who you assume I am.

I am not your friend Bufo bufo. What is more I have never met any of the established Pestiside or expat crowd. Although I know who you all are etc... It doesn't take much if you spend most of your time hacking (in its positive sense, not destructively) away on computers. So please don't bother to divulge any information for my gain.

A simple look at the content and style of my writing would have told you that I was not who you thought. There are plenty of lexical analysis tools freely available that would statistically confirm this. Our (mine and Bufo bufo's) idiolect are markedly different in structure and vocabularly.

And I presume you know who I am, even though we haven't met. I have never tried to hide it and it is completely obvious to anyone who isn't a complete 21st Century dimwit.

As you remarked on my "affected erudition" and basically accused me of proving by my comments that my level of discourse was of the same content and quality as the worst of Fidesz and Orbán without showing a willingness (or ability) to respond to the actual content of what I wrote, then I thought it amusing. Obviously you didn't.

It had nothing to do with your ethicity, caste, creed, religion or otherwise either - which you again inferred. You couldn't be more wrong on that point. As it happens I already know your music and would also recommend the CD.

I'm interested that you called what I did 'unethical' though. I wish you would say more. I am not familar with the model of ethics you refer to, so presume it is a home grown variety, as such I need to know how linking to your webpage constitutes a breech of ethical contract (assuming we had a such a contract).

The only theorist I can think you must be referring to is that of Emmanuel Levinas' ethical hermeneutics. For the benefit of Adrian: Levinas argues that the pursuit of knowledge is secondary to our 'ethical duty to the other'. Dumneazu, am I on the right track, or was this just a flippant remark meant to arouse sympathy from the audience and direct revulsion against me? Booo, sisss

"- I foresee, Mr Deasy said, that you will not remain here very long at this work. You were not born to be a teacher, I think. Perhaps I am wrong. - A learner rather, Stephen said. And here what will you learn more? Mr Deasy shook his head. - Who knows? he said. To learn one must be humble. But life is a great teacher."
- 'Ulysses' by J.J. p.41

Oh, there I go again. It's a kind of Tourette's. Or may be I'm just a Szent fazék, after all.

n.b. It happens that dispite Eva's claim to the contrary my posts were blocked by her comment filter. That is because I mentioned Bufo bufo by his nom-de-plume. This effectively swallowed my posts. Eva's claims to the contray are simply wrong, though it was a side effect of her campaign to redact comments she found unfavourable.

p.s. Additional words/concepts/phrases to look up (for the benefit of Adrian): hedging statements, Gricean Maxims, pragmatics, hermeneutics, bufo bufo, lexical analysis, idiolect

Posted by: YouKnowWho | May 21, 2008 at 11:40 PM

YouKnowWho. Your last comment is deleted. I don't allow insulting comments to appear on this blog.

Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | May 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM

YouKnowYou

Thanks for dumbing things down for me. I managed to understand nearly everything you wrote.

I'm familiar with Grice having studied him both in Philosophy as an undergraduate, and in Linguistics as a postgraduate. Could I draw your intention to his conversational maxims - especially of quantity - and suggest you try to use them in your future posts.

P.S. I enjoyed the quote form Ulysses.

Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 at 02:30 PM

A comment on comments

Comments on my blog, these are currently turned off. This is simply because I am messing about with a server-database cluster and am having timing and lock problems with complex database queries. I have this almost sussed, but until it is streamlined and working to perfection (with the help of hibernate and memcached) I will be keeping the service threadbare. Once everything is fully tuned comments will be back on.

April 11, 2007 by Vándorló Budapest

"Once upon a time and a very good time it was therewas a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo..." (source)

Hopefully the title and that quote will have frightened off the riff-raff (came to us via Middle English riffe raffe, from rif and raf, meaning 'one and all').

There was some welcome news a few weekends back from my old hangout of Szombathely, a (small) city in the West of Hungary (population about 80,000). They finally inaugurated a statue to the memory of one of the town's literary geniuses Weöres Sándor.

For most people Weöres Sándor is known for his children's verse, that borders on nonsense, plays with sound, onomatopoeia and striking images. His was the first verse I learnt by heart in Hungarian after arriving here. It was, for me, the only way to get to grips with the language, but was utterly useless for everyday speech. Babbling like a child, reciting silly tongue twisters, 'if the whole world were a Blackbird...'. Yep, useless. But that was more than half the fun.

The great thing about Sándor's poetry is the liberties he takes with language and sounds. Recently I took a car journey with some friends that have a three year old girl. Listening to her talking to herself I couldn't help noticing how different her nonsense talk was from that of an English toddler. Over and over she practiced her long, elaborate rolled 'R's, then 'Zs', 'Dzs' and 'Gy' sounds. She was playing with the very sounds non-native speakers find hard to master. It was sound for sound's sake and pure enjoyment in speaking and making sub-language patterns. It was beyond language, or perhaps, more fundamental than it.

Child's speech tends to be stream-of-consciousness stuff. They try to say what they think or feel, without the filters of adult language. In literature, just like Picasso trying to recapture the essence of 'primitive' art, it took a while for writing to master the stream-of-consciousness writing technique.

An early master of this (a forerunner to Joyce) was the Hungarian writer Krúdy Gyula, demonstrated in many of his works such as Szindbád

But Joyce tends to get the credit for mainlining the technique. Which is fitting, as for some reason, Hungary and Hungarian is peppered throughout his works. You can't really understand parts of Finnegans Wake without some Hungarian:

it came straight from the noble white fat, jo, openwide sat, jo, jo, her why hide that, jo jo jo, the winevat, of the most serene magyansty az archdiochesse, if she is a duck, she's a douches, and when she has a feherboiir snot her fault (available online).

OK, so this might look like nonsense to you, but it is language of a different order, perhaps we're back to the child's speech. In amongst the (near) English are Hungarian words like 'jo' (good), 'magyar' (hungarian), 'feher' (white) and 'bor' (wine).

The Hungarian links in Joyce are even more prominent than this. Obviously the central character of Ulysses is Leopold Bloom, related to Virág Lipoti of Szombathely (see also Magyar Radio's piece for a wider discussion of some of the links to 'hungulash' (in Hungarian).

It's not just the use of the Hungarian language that link Joyce and Weöres, it's the way language is used and subverted.

Just take, for example, that first problematic word in Ulysses Chrysostomos, which "refers to a field of semantic possibilities rather than a single adjective". Put simply, its meaning defies simple analysis. It's babbling at a higher level. Nonsense for adults. It lies somewhere beyond our love of dictionaries and certainty. Beyond our ability to know and understand. It hints at something grander, endlessly more pleasurable to experience, because you keep having to come back to mull over these possibilities of meaning.

And so it is with child language. It's out there running its parallel course to conscious explicit thought. It's at the point when all those internal moods and ideas are looking for words to express themselves. It is the very same as Joyce continually try to grasp at in his exploration of the subconscious through language. Exposing that which "cannot be rendered sensible by the use of wideawake language, cut and dry grammar and goahead plot."

Joyce and Weöres remain two great favorites of mine, but I tend to keep them under wraps. In everyday conversation it's best not to show your enthusiasm for speech and language that should get you locked up. It is nonsense, but magnificent none-the-less.

Anyway, if Joyce isn't your thing and you have yet to learn Hungarian you can always read a parody by David Lodge, The British Museum Is Falling Down (that's not a recommendation, though - far from it).

So, with all that I've just written you now know the answer to the puzzle: What connects Athenian frogs, a dislike of entrails (Joyce hated them despite them playing a part in Leopold Bloom's breakfast) and the Amber Road? Try it on someone else and see if they get close.

Useful words and phrases

• Virág: means flower, hence the name 'Bloom' in Ulysses.
• borostyánkő: 'amber road', this is the important Roman trade route that ran through Szombathely, connecting Italy to the Baltic States. Perhaps the basis for another post sometime.
• csőcselék: riff-raff
• paraszt származású: 'of peasant stock' which is what Krúdy Gyula was.
• konkordancia: 'concordance'
• impresszionisztikus: guess, it ain't hard
• realizmus: yep, another easy one
• szürrealizmus: not getting any harder
• groteszk: same again.
• abszurd: and again

n.b. A great way to explore many texts is through hypertext markups of literary corpora and concordances such as intratext.com. You can explore some of Krúdy Gyula's works there.

For some cheat sheet notes on the meaning of the title of this post refer to Cliff Notes on the Proteus chapter of Ulysses. I slightly changed the wording to match my own life philosophy. Others have also played around with the ideas.

You can enjoy reading a lot of Weöres Sándor online at the Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár