Janos Szamosfalvi ) wrote:

: You check *your* facts.  The new border was drawn in a way that very 
: few Rumanian ended up in Hungary, but lots of Hungarian (not including
: Szeklers) ended up in Rumania.

	It is always better to be on the winning side, as both our 
peoples have certainly learned over the past fifty years.

:  According to the last official count 
: before WWI, Rumanians had a slight majority in TS.

	The last Hungarian census (1910) gave a figure of 918,217 Magyars and 
1,472,021 Romanians in Transylvania.  The first Romanian census (1930) 
gave a figure of 826,796 Magyars (of whom 540,000 were Szekely) and 
1,657,923 Romanians.  The real figures fell somewhere between these 
figures.  The Hungarian census counted anyone who spoke Hungarian as 
ethnic Hungarian, regardless of ethnic self-definition, and, of course, many 
Hungarians left Transylvania before the 1930 census was taken.

: Then how come there are so many oficially acknowledged minorities in 
: HU?.  Of course, their numbers are relatively small, but there is not 
: a single law that forces their members to give up their language or 
: heritage.

	Since Hungary is now so homogeneous that it has the luxury of
setting a good example.  Unfortunately, bordering countries have taken 
the pre-1919 Hungarian example of minority relations to heart.

: Nobody left....   you know, I find this a bit sarcastic -- how many 
: jews or German (Saxon) left in Rumania?   What happened with them -- 
: maybe you can enlighten us.  ;-)

	The friendly communists sold them, at so many dollars per head to 
the Israeli and German governments respectively.  Since that government 
did not reflect the wishes of the Romanians, but rather that of the 
Soviets, and to a lesser extent of the Western powers, it is grossly 
unfair to blame Romanians for its actions.

	Alexander

Dan Pop ) wrote:

: Anyway, for some obscure reasons, the Hungarians from USA and Canada seem
: seem to despair orders of magnitude more than those from Transylvania.

How do you know this?   Do you have Hungrarian friends, perchance?

I happen to know 3 families and a few other persons here in the Seattle 
area who came from TS, and I didn't hear very many good things from them 
about Romania.

The alt.or hungarian group may ansver youyr ?

In the last message Mozilla (15659 soc.culture.romanian:26563) wrote
>The alt.or hungarian group may ansver youyr ?

I wish you would explain what you meant by "youyr". Is this a new
Ro(u)manian word? Also, what is the "alt.or "h(H)ungarian"(Hungarian should
be spelled with capital "H") group may answer about it?

 wrote:
: > From:  (Alexander Bossy)
: >  wrote:

: > : Why not ask the native how they want the name of the country to
: > : be spelled?
: > 
: >         Spoken like a true American: rational and pragmatic.
: > Unfortunately, those are not strengths in South-Eastern Europe. :-(
: > 
: >         Alexander

: Alexander,

: Watch out though.  Most Hungarians consider their country and
: themselves to be part of CENTRAL Europe.
: Geographicaly, they are right, if you consider the Urals to be at the edge
: of Europe, and for that matter Romania is also CENTRAL.
: I think that Central-Southern is the best description of both countries.  
: It's a longer way to Lapland than Crete.
: As far as mentality, ... it really depends on the amount of "palinka"
: (tuica, rachiu, slibovita, etc.) ! (If you know what I mean !)

	Hi Adrian:

	Usually, I do consider Hungary to be a Central European country 
(though with a more than a little of the Balkans admixed into the 
culture).  Budapest, like Prague and Vienna, is one of the great capitals 
of CENTRAL Europe.  But, this debate is 100% Balkan.  The whole point of 
this debate is to annoy Romanians by taking the Roman out of us.  The 
friendly relations between our mutual southern neighbors shows both where 
that kind of an attitude comes from, and more omminosly, where that kind 
of an attitude leads to :-(.  (Though, in fairness, I do believe that 
both Hungarians and Romanains are a little too rational to let their 
mutual annymosities get that far out of hand.  Anyway, we've succeded so 
far.)

	Alexander

This time there's no war, so the rUmanians can't join the winning side at
the last minute to gain territory.  What are they doing here?  Are they
trying to move their border further west?

Haven't they already stolen enough territory?

They're not going to get anymore.  Why don't they just stay home and
manufacture their history in peace.

Tom Angi

Dear fellow Hungarians,

I need a few economic facts about Hungary.

I would like to know what the current inflation rate in Hungary is these
days.
What are the interest rates the banks are paying on deposits in Forints?
And what about on deposits in Dollars? Can capital be moved freely in and
out of the country?

 If someone took a couple of minutes to answer, it would be greatly
appreciated.

Kosonom,

Frank Kemeny

>This time there's no war, so the rUmanians can't join the winning side at
>the last minute...
>Haven't they already stolen enough territory?
>
>They're not going to get anymore.  Why don't they just stay home and
>manufacture their history in peace.
>
>Tom Angi

How right you are Tom! They didn't really "steal" Hungarian territory, they
snuck in in the back door when the world was not looking. They infested
Hungary and now try to spread like a disease.

I agree with you, they are not going to get any more unless we are stupid
enough to let them without speaking up. Of course, they have the current
Hungarian Communists on their side, but I don't believe the Horn government
will last long enough to help the Iliescu conspiracy.

Janos:)

In article >,
Tom Angi > wrote:

>Actually, I think Vlachia is a much better way to spell it, or, even better,
>
>                    OLAJORSZAG
>
>RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA
>
>ruMANIA ruMANIA
>
>What are you going to do about bub?

Are you the Mihai Dima of SCM?
If you're so frustrated, why not check out the "Bikini of the Day" as (H)Adrian
says to do. (It's more fun than spelling "RUMANIA", but of course, you may not
be interested in pretty girls.)
This thread is quite amusing.
What's the next topic: is Suomi the official spelling for a country in the
English language? Should Mexico be pronounced as "Meksiko" (as in English) or
"Meheeko" (as the people there pronounce it)? Should Ciudad de Mexico be used
instead of Mexico City when using English, or Mexikovaros, when using
Hungarian? Or are all these correct? Or does it matter?
I suggest everybody take a vacation in Acapulco on Disco beach, I don't think 
you'll care about anything after that. ;-)

Gabor
Aka. Bird Jaguar, Lord of the Mayas at Yaxchilan
(BTW, is it Moctezuma? or Montezuma? or something else?)

In >  (Janos Sza
mosfalvi) writes:

>Dan Pop ) wrote:
>
>: Anyway, for some obscure reasons, the Hungarians from USA and Canada seem
>: seem to despair orders of magnitude more than those from Transylvania.
>
>How do you know this?   Do you have Hungrarian friends, perchance?

Yes, of course.  Even relatives.
>
>I happen to know 3 families and a few other persons here in the Seattle 
>area who came from TS, and I didn't hear very many good things from them 
>about Romania.

I happen to know families in Cluj and they didn't seem particularly
worried.  Of course, they knew pretty well that they couldn't sell me
the usual hostile propaganda, which is good only for export to people who
have no clue about Romania's realities and are ready to buy anything
about the Hungarian and Gypsy "discrimination", "genocide", "oppression",
etc in Romania.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

Tom Angi ) wrote:
: This time there's no war, so the rUmanians can't join the winning side at
: the last minute to gain territory.  What are they doing here?  Are they
: trying to move their border further west?
: Haven't they already stolen enough territory?
: They're not going to get anymore.  Why don't they just stay home and
: manufacture their history in peace.
: Tom Angi
 probably and we are all going to be "displaced" netters, like my father
 was a "displaced person" from Transylvania.
 Cheers 
 Andras

In article >,
Tom Angi > wrote:

>Actually, I think Vlachia is a much better way to spell it, or, even better,
>
>                    OLAJORSZAG
>
>RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA RUMANIA
>
>ruMANIA ruMANIA
>
>What are you going to do about bub?

Are you the Mihai Dima of SCM?
If you're so frustrated, why not check out the "Bikini of the Day" as (H)Adrian
says to do. (It's more fun than spelling "RUMANIA", but of course, you may not
be interested in pretty girls.)
This thread is quite amusing.
What's the next topic: is Suomi the official spelling for a country in the
English language? Should Mexico be pronounced as "Meksiko" (as in English) or
"Meheeko" (as the people there pronounce it)? Should Ciudad de Mexico be used
instead of Mexico City when using English, or Mexikovaros, when using
Hungarian? Or are all these correct? Or does it matter?
I suggest everybody take a vacation in Acapulco on Disco beach, I don't think
you'll care about anything after that. ;-)

Gabor
Aka. Bird Jaguar, Lord of the Mayas at Yaxchilan
(BTW, is it Moctezuma? or Montezuma? or something else?)

Hello.  My name is Michael Orso and I am an American University student 
studying Communications.  I am interested in teaching conversational 
english in Hungary, preferably Budapest.  I was wondering if anyonre 
could perhaps provide me with some helpful info about institutions and 
contacts that may hire.  I will be coming to Hungary in Dec. and can 
arrange to be interviewed then!  Thanks alot!!!

Michael A. Orso

 wrote:
: Matthew Peter Muresan  > wrote:

: >	Then, American, and later British speakers realised that Rumania
: >is somewhat nonsensical, especially given the official spelling of the
: >country's name in the local language, which has been Romania for as long
: >as modern historiography can remember; let alone the conspicuous and
: >undeniable roman origins of the Romanian nation.

: Actually, it's quite deniable, and even by your reasoning it's the 
: Italians who should have copywrited that name.  

	Hi Joe:

	Are you now arguing that non-Latin speaking Illyrians marched across 
Hungary where they first heard Latin, both in Hungarian churches and read 
it in Hungarian state documents, no doubt, and recognizing Magyar 
superiority, promptly adopted it?

: I think it is every language's sovereign right to call countries
: anything it wants.  Romanians have no business telling how their country
: should be called in English, just as Americans have no right to tell how
: New York should be called in Romanian.  However, by belly-aching about
: it long enough, a country can influence such changes in the language of
: other countries.  This has been especially successfully done in the last
: few decades when Peking became Beijing, Cambodia became Campuchea, you
: name it.  So Romania is on the same track now and given the general
: trend of political correctness and aversion by mainstream western 
: publishers of controversies, the renaming is succeeding.

	You ignore two important facts: first etymology.  Like it or not, 
Romania means "land of the ROMANS".  Roman is speled with an "o", not a 
"u".  Therefore, RUmania makes no sence.  That is precisely why the Soviets 
liked the "u" spelling.
	Second, Romanians have spelled Romania ROmania since the switch back 
to the Latin alphabet last century.  It isn't a question of switching from 
Peking to Bejing, Constantinople to Istanbul, or let alone from St. 
Petersburgh, to Petrograd, to Lenningrad, and back to St. Petersburgh.  
It was, is and will remain ROmania.

	Alexander

In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote:
>
>	Are you now arguing that non-Latin speaking Illyrians marched across 
>Hungary where they first heard Latin, both in Hungarian churches and read 
>it in Hungarian state documents, no doubt, and recognizing Magyar 
>superiority, promptly adopted it?

Oh, do we have to start that again, Alexander?  Romanians are no more
of Roman stock than Bulgarians are Slavic.  Both of them adapted the
language of their neighbors at some time in their history.

>	You ignore two important facts: first etymology.  Like it or not, 
>Romania means "land of the ROMANS". 

That's right!  And from that it's obvious that this name is part of
history creation.  With such a name it's so much easier to convince
ignorant foreigners of Daco-Roman continuity.

> Second, Romanians have spelled Romania ROmania since the switch back 
>to the Latin alphabet last century.

It was no doubt a spontaneous, natural thing and had nothing to do with
the Romanian nationalist intelligentsia codifying the rules of grammar.

Joe

In article >,  (Alexander Bossy) writes:
|> Janos Szamosfalvi ) wrote:
|> 
|> : You check *your* facts.  The new border was drawn in a way that very 
|> : few Rumanian ended up in Hungary, but lots of Hungarian (not including
|> : Szeklers) ended up in Rumania.
|> 
|> 	It is always better to be on the winning side, as both our 
|> peoples have certainly learned over the past fifty years.

Was this supposed to be a joke? The few Romanians I know in Gyula are pretty
happy to be on that side... ;-)

|> 
|> :  According to the last official count 
|> : before WWI, Rumanians had a slight majority in TS.
|> 
|> 	The last Hungarian census (1910) gave a figure of 918,217 Magyars and 
|> 1,472,021 Romanians in Transylvania.  The first Romanian census (1930) 
|> gave a figure of 826,796 Magyars (of whom 540,000 were Szekely) and 
|> 1,657,923 Romanians.  The real figures fell somewhere between these 
|> figures.  The Hungarian census counted anyone who spoke Hungarian as 
|> ethnic Hungarian, regardless of ethnic self-definition,

exactly as did and still try to do the Romanians (I witnessed the last census).

|> and, of course, many 
|> Hungarians left Transylvania before the 1930 census was taken.

It is probably true that the reality was somewhere in the middle, but I have tw
o
problems with this:

1. Transylvania is only to the east of the Kiralyhago/Piatra Craiului, that is
the so called Partium doesn't belong to it. What did these numbers really cover
?

2. I don't like the distinction between Szekely and Magyar when it comes to
analyze a census. I am Szekely that is Magyar (aren't the olteni, moldoveni,
oseni, etc. not Romanians?).

3. I don't know exactly the number of inhabitants in todays transylvania, but i
t
is should be about 7-8 million. I wonder if someone could give me some numbers
on the dynamics of the population (Romanian/Hungarian) in the last 65 years.

[...]

|> 
|> : Nobody left....   you know, I find this a bit sarcastic -- how many 
|> : jews or German (Saxon) left in Rumania?   What happened with them -- 
|> : maybe you can enlighten us.  ;-)
|> 
|> 	The friendly communists sold them, at so many dollars per head to 
|> the Israeli and German governments respectively.  Since that government 
|> did not reflect the wishes of the Romanians, but rather that of the 
|> Soviets, and to a lesser extent of the Western powers, it is grossly 
|> unfair to blame Romanians for its actions.

.... and the remaining fled without looking back after the "...lution" from the
original democracy on its way. On the other hand wishes of many Romanians have
been expressed several times even in public, that all the "strangers" should
leave.


|> 
|> 	Alexander


Matyas
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to .
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to .

Hello:

I'm referring to the Hungarian archives in Budapest which have records
including parish records, cencuses, land registration, muster rolls and
civil registration records among other things that could be useful in
doing genealogical research. I was wondering if people are allowed in
to look at the records. Any information would be appreciated.

Gyorgyi
-- 
**************************************************
*   \/  St. Petersburg, Fla. *
*                      (oo)                      *
*      H & G            ()          Always       *
*      Brown         {{{  }}}      Look Over     *
*                      _||_      Your Shoulder   *
**************************************************

And here is the proof:

Article 14566 of bit.listserv.slovak-l:
From:  (Igor GAZDIK)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Subject: Re: Bilingual schooling
Date: 1 Oct 1995 19:28:17 GMT
Organization: -
Lines: 55
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup98-066.swipnet.se
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14

"In article >, valent says...
">
" (Igor GAZDIK) wrote:
">
">(deleted)
">
">>">(according to the ministery of education)is the "insufficient 
"knowledge 
">>"of the
">>">slovak language among the hungarian children, which in turn makes 
"more 
">>"difficult
">>">their later studies and their getting on in the society".
">>
">>     this, i think, is a horrible wastage of funds and effort.   why
">>     should slovak taxpayers finance the education of enemies amongst
">>     themselves....?                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
">      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
">
">Very strong words!!! How about those Hungarians who live in Slovakia 
"and 
"pay
">taxes in Slovakia? Do you consider them enemies? 
 
      does taxation constitute a bond of friendship in any way?
      what do you consider some nobodies who travel abroad (for
      slovak money) to put slovakia down?   or take part in screaming
      chauvinistic and irredentist jamborees where they don't even
      call slovakia by her name?   

"It's a 
">good start for a civil war, this kind of rhetoric I'd say.

      irredentism is an even better start for a civil war. or, i
      should rather say clean-up.   nobody can deny the beneficial
      long-term effect of the czech approach 

">                
">>
">>     70% of the "hungarians" are romanis.   these need a lot of help
">>     towards integration and social development.   the rest can 
">>     go back to the pusta.   the side effect of it would be a sharp
">>     increase of the average iq in two states simultaneously.
">>
">
">You must be joking, mr. Gazdik. I just can't believe somebody who's 
"intelligent
">enough to learn how to post articles from his computer culd be such a 
">stereotypical thinker.

       for stereotypes i suggest you re-read your own posting.   i don't
       know where you see the joke.   to me it is sad.

> ------------------------------------------------------

Don't you just feel good about it?

Joe

On 1 Oct 1995, Alexander Bossy wrote:

>  wrote:
> : Matthew Peter Muresan  > wrote:
> 
> : >	Then, American, and later British speakers realised that Rumania
> : >is somewhat nonsensical, especially given the official spelling of the
> : >country's name in the local language, which has been Romania for as long
> : >as modern historiography can remember; let alone the conspicuous and
> : >undeniable roman origins of the Romanian nation.
> 
> : Actually, it's quite deniable, and even by your reasoning it's the 
> : Italians who should have copyrighted that name.  

[...]

> 	You ignore two important facts: first etymology.  Like it or not, 
> Romania means "land of the ROMANS".  Roman is spelled with an "o", not a 
> "u".  Therefore, RUmania makes no sense. That is precisely why the Soviets
> liked the "u" spelling.

Uh-oh, I'm afraid you miss his point here.  He denies the relationship
between the Roman colonisation at 101-106 AD, and the name "Romania", in
first place!  In other words, he denies the continuity of the Romanian
people.  What he's trying to say probably is that at some point everyone
died in what is now Romania, then the Huns came and found nobody there. 
Unfortunately, later on, a bunch of Slavic people, and other things came
around, and kicked out the legitimate Magyars from around the Carpathians. 
We're not Romanians, for Christ's sake!  We're slavs, albanians, turks,
gypsies and indians, all 23 million of us.  Our language hasn't got 
anything to do with Latin!  It resembles Mongolian much more 
conspicuously.  Trying to convince him of the contrary would amount to 
beating a dead horse.

> 	Second, Romanians have spelled Romania ROmania since the switch back 
> to the Latin alphabet last century.  It isn't a question of switching from 
> Peking to Bejing, Constantinople to Istanbul, let alone from St. 
> Petersburg, to Petrograd, to Leningrad, and back to St. Petersburg.  
> It was, is and will remain ROmania.
> 
> 	Alexander

		-Matei Petru Muresan

...........................................................................
Matthew Peter Muresan, Trumbull;                         Yale-College 1996
Datae:Coll:Yalen:Nov:Port:R:P:Conn:Nov:Angl:Kal:Oct:A:D:MCMXCV:Coll:CCXCIV
...........................................................................

In article >,  (Dan Pop) writes:
|> In >  (Janos 
Szamosfalvi) writes:
|> 
|> >Dan Pop ) wrote:
|> >
|> >: Anyway, for some obscure reasons, the Hungarians from USA and Canada seem
|> >: seem to despair orders of magnitude more than those from Transylvania.
|> >
|> >How do you know this?   Do you have Hungrarian friends, perchance?
|> 
|> Yes, of course.  Even relatives.
|> >
|> >I happen to know 3 families and a few other persons here in the Seattle 
|> >area who came from TS, and I didn't hear very many good things from them 
|> >about Romania.
|> 
|> I happen to know families in Cluj and they didn't seem particularly
|> worried.  Of course, they knew pretty well that they couldn't sell me
|> the usual hostile propaganda, which is good only for export to people who
|> have no clue about Romania's realities and are ready to buy anything
|> about the Hungarian and Gypsy "discrimination", "genocide", "oppression",
|> etc in Romania.
|> 

Are your friends and relatives of the iuliu furo or ioan fazekas kind? I doubt 
it 
that other Hungarians living in Romania are not worried about what is going
on. I admit though that it's not only the Hungarians that have a hard life now.
..

On the other hand, I don't only know three or four families there, but still li
ve
there and I must tell you that the situtation of the Hungarians is much worse
than the average due to discrimination of all kind. I know that this word
irritates you but it is a fact and not propaganda as you try to put it. I would
agree with you if you were saying that the Hungarian immigration often overreac
ts
on the issue, but this is natural beacuse it only shows that they care (members
 
of the Romanian immigration use to overreact in the same manner when it comes t
o 
their country and/or nation - propaganda?).

Regards,

Matyas 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to .
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to .

In article >,  (Scott 
Laws) writes:
|>  
|> : > The spelling "Rumania" is prefectly correct in refering to the country
|> : that
|> : > lies to East of Hungary!
|> : > 
|> : > The spelling "Romania" is advocated by those who accept the theory
|> : of
|> : > Daco-Rumanian continuity.
|> :  
|>   Wrong in most cases countrys refer to a country by its offical name.  
|> Romania is the offical english.  Rumania is hopeful thinking by 
|> those historical denial.
|> 
|> 

I see this silly thread going on and on in total contradiction with the its 
title.

But I feel that Mr. Laws' comment is the right one. There were times when the
English spelling of the country's name was different, but now Romania is the
official name. It doesn't matter why those who decided on this spelling did it.
The only thing that matters is that people want their country/nation to be 
called
like that. The fact that dictionaries accept the other two versions allow for
their usage, but I don't think that everybony who does so wants to irritate the
Romanians.

On the other hand here are two examples which contradict somewhat this attitude
:

1. Some of the same guys posting on this thread, a few months ago supported the
Romanian government's decision to regulate the "official" use of the name for
Romas/Gypsies, against their will, traditions and internationally accepted
practice (see a dictionary for Roma, Romany).

2. Both my father, sixty something years ago, and my son, just a few years ago,
were registred in their birth certificates as "Matei", although the parents 
wanted them to be called "Matyas" (I was somewhat luckier). The claim was that 
there is no such name in Romanian as "Matyas". But gentemen we are not 
Romanians!

Regards,

Matyas
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to .
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to .