Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian (EDH)

ALFRÉD TÓTH : ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF HUNGARIAN (EDH)
18. Conclusions
Chapter 16: Hungarian = Austronesian (incl. Mon-Khmer, Australian and Tasmanian): 3%
Chapter 17: Hungarian = Mayan: 11%
If we order these languages according to the percentages of their genetic relationship, we get:
Hungarian (100%) > Chinese (61%) > Turkish (55%) > Tibeto-Burman (ca. 50%) > Dravidian (36%)
> Munda (33%) = Etruscan (ca. 33%) > “FU” languages (31.9%) > Japanese (23%) > Mayan (11%) >
Bantu (8%) > Caucasian (7%) > Austronesian (incl. Mon Khmer, Australian and Tasmanian) (3%).
We can now draw the following conclusions:
1. The two “Turanian” languages Hungarian and Turkish show naturally a high percentage of genetic
relationship (55%), while the relationship between Hungarian and the other “Turanian” language
considered in this book, Japanese, is rather low (23%). Perhaps, this is a hint to do further research
in order to control if Japanese is really an Altaic language or not. Like Sumerian and Hungarian, all
“Turanian”, i.e. Ural-Altaic languages are agglutinative.
2. While the genetic relationship between Hungarian, Turkish and (probably) Japanese is not a
surprise, Kőrösi Csoma Sándor’s theory of a very significant Hungarian-related population in Tibet
is fully confirmed (ca. 50%). Like Sumerian and Hungarian, Tibetan is an agglutinative language, but
strangely enough with ablaut (apophony).
3. A surprise is that Dravidian has a higher percentage (36%) of genetic relationship than the Munda
languages (33%). But nevertheless, von Hevesy’s idea that the Munda-Khol family must be
accepted as another member of the “Finno-Ugric” languages, is confirmed. Both Dravidian and the
Munda languages are agglutinative like Sumerian and Hungarian.
4. Since the idea, that Etruscan and Hungarian may be genetically related, is pretty old, it is not a
surprise, that both languages share ca. 33% of their cognates. Like Sumerian and Hungarian,
Etruscan is agglutinative.
5. The “FU” languages, that share between 10% and 31.9% of their word stock, have already been
explained as genetically not related to Hungarian, their common vocabulary and certain grammatical
features, e.g. agglutination, being considered as borrowed.
6. A surprise are the 11%, that Hungarian shares with the Mayan languages. They are even 1% closer
related to one another than the two allegedly closely related Samoyed languages Naganasan and
Selkup. There can be no doubt, that there is a genetic relationship between Hungarian and the
Mayan languages, which may probably also explain, why the Mayan languages are agglutinative, too.
7. Bantu (%), Caucasian (7%) and Austronesian (incl. Mon Khmer, Australian and Tasmanian) (3%)
can hardly be considered genetically related to Hungarian, even Bantu and Caucasian are
___________________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright Mikes International 2001-2007, Alfréd Tóth 2007 - 746 -