On 5 Jul 1995, CLARY Olivier wrote:

> I wish it would be the same at the Hungarian-Romanian border, it would 
> mean real progress towards democracy! > -- Olivier

It will be ! As the Hungarians mature as a people, they will undoubtedly see
the wisdom of joining us under the sovereignity and superior leadership 
of a Romanian king (or president). Just as in the good old days of the 
Corvins ! Hell, we will even let them keep most of their wine and women ! 
Except for Tokay. And they can keep the women, for whom in his right mind 
wants that wretched, spunky loud mouthed breed !

m. cristian

Don't be upset by the truth which You found in Joe's letter,  from 4th of 
July, because what he was writing is a part of the real history. You guys 
you have a lot to learn about the European history, culture etc., 
especially if you are from  romania, slovakia or yougoslavia. you're 
blindfolded by the fascist ideas of matica slovenska or romania mare. 
Learn from ukraine !!!
m. cristian wrote:
"Inherited by killing, burning, destroying
a peoples culture and imposing Catholicism by force."
You know, you are very funny, because you wrote exactly what your beloved 
ceausescu did for about three decades, or what happened in march 1990 in 
the hungarian city of marosvasarhely from erdely, or even this days in 
the hungarian city of kolozsvar. And by the way, don't forget to mention 
antonescu, maniu etc.
gallicus

In article >,
Teodor A. Lungu > wrote:
>
>What site switching are you talking about?
>During World War I the Central Powers tempted Romania to side with them by 
>offering to restore Bessarabia. The scales were tipped in favour of the Allies
, 
>however, by counteroffers of Transylvania and Bukovina, as well as by the 
>Francophile sentiment of the Romanian people, so that by 1916 Romania was figh
ting
>as Russia's ally.

Indeed, there was no switch in a sense that Romania fought on both side
during WW I; but it is true though that at the start of WW I Romania was
an ally of the Central Powers, but declined to enter the armed conflict
when the war started.  It was counted on though as a friendly neutral
country.  Then, in 1916, without any provocation, Romania entered the
war against her former allies, on the side of Entente, attacking the
virtually undefended Transylvania.  The background of this, of course,
was the secret treaty signed between Entente and Romania, promising
Transylvania and Partium (all the way to the river Tisza!) in exchange
for entering the war.  However, the secret treaty conditioned that offer
on Romania not signing a separate peace treaty with the Central Powers.
Romania did not keep this provision, because when she was pushed back
from Transylvania all the way to Bucharest, she did sign a peace treaty
thus making the secret treaty with Entente null and void.  Romania
reentered the war only toward the end, when the defeat of Central Powers
was at hand.  

In the final analysis, Romania managed to get most of the territory
promised her in the secret treaty anyway, but in my opinion not so much
because of that voided treaty, but because with her largely intact army
and her role in crushing the Hungarian Soviet of Bela Kun was able to
make her position stick.

Joe Pannon

In article >,
Christopher Hunt Schiffhauer > wrote:
>Hi.  My friend is having his birthday on July 7th.  His name is Andrew
>Freeman and he'll be 21.  He is really interested in your topic, and,
>regardless of your own interests, would love to get e-mail from any of you
>wishing him a happy birthday.  Thanks a lot.

I find these kind of requests rather korny.  Is it just me who feels
like this?

Joe

What the anonymous **S** (who seems to be a historian) said on soc.culture.
romanian seems plausible (I know very little about this period), do s.c.m
readers agree?
-- Olivier

In article >  writes:
|The West has never certified the theory of Daco-Roman origin and
|continuity, nor that the Romanians precedeed the Hungarians in
|Transilvania. All the West did, was to recognize that,
|demographically, there were more Romanians than Hungarians in
|Transilvania ( a fact accepted by all sides ), that since 1867
|Hungary had persecuted the Romanians in Transilvania, that in 1920
|Romania promissed to do otherwise with regard to minorities. Given the
|wishes expressed by the Romanian population of Transilvania, the
|promisses made to Romania in 1916 and the fact that Hungary was on the
|losing side of WWI, France and Great Britain gave Transilvania to
|Romania, as an act of political pragmatism, rather than historic justice.

In article >,
Hermes  > wrote:
>
>BS like beauty may be in the eye of the beholder. The Serbs found it worth
>their while to have a fight over what you contemtuosely term as BS.

It's reassuring to know that you align yourself with the Serbs, the
object of contempt for most of the Western world.
>
>> Well, since there was no such thing as "Slovakia" on maps before the
>> 20th century, your comment is just another of your nonsensical
>> ramblings.
>
>Right, before the 20th century it was called Magyaorszag in blatant disregard
>for the majority Slovak population.

Why, do you have any reliable info that the Slovaks wanted to live in
their own state before the 19th century?  If you do, please share it
with me by all means.

>You are sadly deluding yourself. We always had Transylvania, exept for a
>historicaly brief span of Magyar circumvention.

Too bad the rest of the world is not aware of it.  I've been looking, and
looking at all kinds of historical world atlases, but I can't find any
indication of what you are saying.
>
>Words, words, words. You have no regard for truth, historical or otherwise,
>but for your self serving, hare brained historical fantasies.

This reminds me the insane asylum where all the inmates think they are
the doctors and the doctors are the patients.

> You are hostile
>to the self determination of the nations of Eastern Europe,

But it was I who suggested plebiscite (a real one, not like the phoney
Alba Julia meeting).  So how am I against self-determination? 

> and just as your
>nazi mentors you are abusing and inflaming the 'minority' issues in those
>countries.

Oh dear!  And who would be my nazi mentors?  At least if am told I have
mentors, I'd like to know who they are. 

> A transparent regret for the 'good ol' times of the 
>Austo-HUNGARIAN empire, and a desire to revive that dinasaurus.

Actually, I am not for the Austro-Hungarian Empire at all, which only
came about because the Hungarians were not strong enough to break away
completely from Austria, and the Austrians were also not strong enough
to keep the status quo.  So it was a compromise.  Of course if it
existed today as it did then, it would indeed be a dynosourus.  But so
would be Victorian England.  They have changed, Austria-Hungary would
have changed, too.  But it was at the time a very viable economic unit,
virtually selfsufficient.  Calling it a dinosaurus again shows how
ignorant you really are about history. 

Joe

In article >,
T. Kocsis  > wrote:

>betegen is a semmi hatalmat nem jelentő Elnöki Tanács
>tagjának tesznek meg. 1955-ben, mindenkitől magára hagy-
>va, hosszú betegség után hal meg."

Erdekes, hogy mennyire szetvalt Homan es Szekfu eletutja a kezdeti
kollaboracio utan.  Azert az nem volt valami szep tole, ahogy letagadta
Homant, amikor valmit segithetett volna rajta. 

Koszonet ezert is, Tamas.

P. J.

[NOTE: earlier I attempted a crosspost with hun.news which apparently 
didn't make it thru to these groups; my apologies if eventually a 
duplicate copy turns up. Incidentally, in general such crossposts with 
gatewayed email lists are to be avoided - I'm only trying it in order to 
make the article go into the Usenet periodical posting archives!]

Archive-name: hungarian/pointer
Soc-culture-magyar-archive-name: pointer
Bit-listserv-hungary-archive-name: pointer
Version: 0.81 (beta)
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: 1995/07/05
URL: http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/hungarian-faq-pointer

 This document summarizes network-related resources of Hungarian
interest, which are accessible via email. Some of the most readily
available sources of information can be found in the archives of
periodical information postings to Usenet; these documents are commonly
known as FAQs (from Frequently Asked/Answered Questions). Knowing the
name of the file you can retrieve it by sending email to
 with the command "send
usenet/news.answers/<ARCHIVE-NAME>" in the message (without the quotes,
and with substituting the actual name for <ARCHIVE-NAME> in the pattern
shown above) - for example, to get the document described below, use

 send usenet/news.answers/hungarian-faq

 To learn more about the RTFM server just send the command "help" to it
- it will provide step-by-step intstructions on how to use the
archives, on retrieving indexes and so on.

 "Hungarian electronic resources FAQ" is a comprehensive collection
dealing with email, FTP, WWW and other Internet tools; its archive name
is 'hungarian-faq' (and the mail-server command to get it is shown in
the example above).
 If you only have direct access to email then, in order to use the
other tools, you'll need the methods described in "Accessing The
Internet By E-Mail" (Archive-name: internet-services/access-via-email).
 To get a general introduction to Usenet (with some guides to Internet 
as well - and explanation of how they are different, too) see
"Welcome to news.newusers.questions!" (Archive-name: news-newusers-intro).
 For a guide to finding someone's e-mail addresses, see the "FAQ: How
to find people's E-mail addresses" (Archive-name: finding-addresses).
Do notice that it's usually inappropriate to send such blanket requests
to mailing lists; the search tools available give much better chance to
locate addresses sought than posted queries in any case!

 The hungarian-faq describes several email lists related to Hungary;
only a brief summary is shown here. Please keep in mind that
subscription requests (and other administrative communications) should
be directed to the server address, NOT to the lists themselves.

Server: 
 List:  (the HUNGARY LISTSERV list)

Server: 
 List: HOL (Hungary Online)

Server: 
 List: hungary-report

Server: 
 Lists: OMRI-L (Open Media Research Institute Daily Digest)
        MIDEUR-L (Middle European discussion list)

Server: 
 List: cet-online (Central Europe Today On-Line; email )

Server: 
 List: CERRO-L (Central European Regional Research Organization)

Server: email to  (Hollosi Information Exchange)
 Lists: HIX is a collection of several separate lists, including
  - MOZAIK, a collection of news items in English
  - various discussion forums in Hungarian language
  - SCM and HUNGROUPS, which are email-accessible archives of the Usenet
    newsgroup soc.culture.magyar and the hun.* national hierarchy,
    respectively; to get a directory listing of these archives (as well
    as that of other HIX lists), send email to  with
    "arch" in the 'Subject:' line. Note that the SENDDOC utility takes
    its parameter from the 'Subject:' of the message (unlike many other
    servers, like the ones described previously, which use the body)!

 Note that this document is available on the
 <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>; homepage for the "Hungarian
electronic resources FAQ" at the HIX WWW-server.
 The latter also provides access for the full FAQ via 
 'finger ', and for this brief pointer you are
reading via 'finger ' (notice that you
will likely need to redirect the output to a pager or a file in order
to read it).
--
 Zoli , keeper of <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>;
 <'finger '> for its new home!
"For my assured failures and derelictions, I ask pardon beforehand of my
betters and my equals in my calling." 		- 	Rudyard Kipling

Olivier writes and quotes:

> What the anonymous **S** (who seems to be a historian) said on 
soc.culture.
> romanian seems plausible (I know very little about this period), do s.c.m
> readers agree?
> -- Olivier

> In article >  writes:
> |The West has never certified the theory of Daco-Roman origin and
> |continuity, nor that the Romanians precedeed the Hungarians in
> |Transilvania. All the West did, was to recognize that,
> |demographically, there were more Romanians than Hungarians in
> |Transilvania ( a fact accepted by all sides ), that since 1867
> |Hungary had persecuted the Romanians in Transilvania, that in 1920
> |Romania promissed to do otherwise with regard to minorities. Given the
> |wishes expressed by the Romanian population of Transilvania, the
> |promisses made to Romania in 1916 and the fact that Hungary was on the
> |losing side of WWI, France and Great Britain gave Transilvania to
> |Romania, as an act of political pragmatism, rather than historic 
justice.

It is  accurate as far as  I am aware of the events.

Regards,Jeliko

On 6 Jul 1995  wrote:

> It's reassuring to know that you align yourself with the Serbs, the
> object of contempt for most of the Western world.

As many of us find the 'Western world' worthy of contempt, for it them
that are the perpetrators of wrongdoings in the 'former' Yugoslavia.
And the Serbs are realy the only neighbours we have, that have not stabbed
us in the back.

> Why, do you have any reliable info that the Slovaks wanted to live in
> their own state before the 19th century?  If you do, please share it
> with me by all means.

Right ! They were bending backwards to be under Magyar domination, and Buda
was their Mecca !

> Too bad the rest of the world is not aware of it.  I've been looking, and
> looking at all kinds of historical world atlases, but I can't find any
> indication of what you are saying.

I sure you found very easily the maps where Hungary extends over most of 
Central and Eastern Europe ;=)

> This reminds me the insane asylum where all the inmates think they are
> the doctors and the doctors are the patients.

Them Slovacs that were suddenly infected with the idea of independence, must
indeed be a sad mental case as well ! 

> But it was I who suggested plebiscite (a real one, not like the phoney
> Alba Julia meeting).  So how am I against self-determination? 

It would not worry me. At same time the people could be asked to decide if
they want Mihai I back, and close that can of worms.

> Oh dear!  And who would be my nazi mentors?  At least if am told I have
> mentors, I'd like to know who they are. 

Your folk may have been 56 ers, raised by the Rongyos Garda ! I would not
be surprised if you kept the Hungarian translation of the Mein Kamph under
your pillow !

Hi,

People (if they are aware of it), may be wondering why New Zealand is
"kicking-up such a fuss" over french nuclear testing in the
south-pacific.

Well, despite New Zealands strong nuclear free policy, there is also the
matter of the Rainbow Warrior,

The sequence of events was ...

1.  french blow up the rainbow warrior, one man dies.
2.  french deny all responsibility.
3.  New Zealand police arrest two of the french terrorists.
4.  france demands their release.
5.  New Zealand court sentences them to many years in prison.
6.  france puts economic sanctions on New Zealand, blocking all
    access to European Community trade.
7.  New Zealand and france agree to let the terrorists serve the
    rest of their sentence in a french military prison in the
    pacific.
8.  france almost immediately frees them, UN doctors examine the two
    agents and conclude there were no grounds to re-locate them to
    mainland france
9.  All french military involved with the sinking were decorated.

As you can plainly see, New Zealand has a strong argument against the
french, and NZ has no desire for it to happen again.

France had/has an active policy of sabotage on any Greenpeace ship
(Greenpeace owned the Rainbow Warrior, and are strongly against nuclear
anything).  However, it chose to blow-up this ship, in an NZ harbour,
and then dictated to NZ about what NZ could do.
If more french were aware of this (and not brainwashed by the
government), I wonder how they would act!

This is indeed strange behaviour as,  thousands of New Zealand troops
died defending france in world wars 1 & 2

                                   BBK.
           
           ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»
           ş    EMAIL ADDRESS:      ş
           ÇÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĶ
           ş     "You're damned if you do and you're damned      ş
           ş            if you don't" - Bart Simpson             ş
           ĚÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍą
           ş      Pretty Good Privacy V 2.6.2 FINGERPRINT:       ş
           ş  03 C2 DC C6 6D BC 2E BE  71 E1 40 84 2B 1E 4C 47   ş
           ČÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍĽ

 (Janos Szamosfalvi) writes:

>I think such little nuances carry no importance in relation to the basic 
>meaning.   You cann get the same effect with intonation, etc.

No, they don't have any influence on the _basic_ meaning, but they 
determine word order.

>: Order is not "free" more than it is in English, 

>No.   Why do have "t" at the end of the object?   Because it's 
>required in Hungarian

Yes, and it is the _definitive and exceptionless presence_ of (for
example) -t whenever a noun is in the accusative case (or resp. all the
other suffixes whenever they are required) that enables Hungarian word
order to fulfil other functions than, for instance, English word order,
where words are not conjugated/declined consequently. 

Wolf
-- 
Wolf Rackebrandt             |         Die Hoffnung ist ein sicherer Weg zu  
        |  unangenehmen Ueberraschungen, aber das Herz 
http://www.snafu.de/~lupus/  |          freut sich, wenn es einen Traum hat.

 (CLARY Olivier) writes:

>Hungarian word order does not bear this particular meaning of designating
>which is the object, but it bears much more meaning than in English (see
>previous post)

I am not sure whether one can say that it bears 'more meaning' than in 
English. I would say: it bears other aspects of the meaning of the 
sentence than it does in English.

Wolf
-- 
Wolf Rackebrandt             |         Die Hoffnung ist ein sicherer Weg zu  
        |  unangenehmen Ueberraschungen, aber das Herz 
http://www.snafu.de/~lupus/  |          freut sich, wenn es einen Traum hat.

A Kapu egy éppen végetért, tízrészes cikksorozatá-
ról szeretnék pár sort írni.
(Szekeres István: Régmúltunk írásjelekben)

"A "későavar" betüjelrendszer keverék jellegű, melynek
(29 jelváltozat) két fő összetevője a hun (13) és a
török (9). Legalább két török nyelv tükröződik a je-
lek hangértékeiben A 6 ideográfikus jelentéssel nem
(elégségesen) bizonyítható hangértékü jelből 2 a hun
(minuszinszki) jelek közül ismeretes, egy pedig az
ótörök jelek közül. Kettő észak-arabnak tűnik, egy
pedig ismeretlen. A jelrendszer alapja hun, mely je-
lek közül több már erősen egyszerüsödött (romlott),
mint a 'ló' és a 'szárnyas jelek' rajzai.Ezek a jelek
a székelyeknél teljes épségükben őrződtek meg.
[..]
A "későavar" jelrendszerrel összevetni a székelyek
írását már nem lehet; az jelentős részben eltérő,
más jelekből áll, a az azonos jelek is romlott álla-
potban vanak meg a "későavar" jelrendszerben. Îgy a
székelységnek a "későavarokkal" való felemlítése is
teljes mértékben kizárható.
A hunok és a "koraavarok" a rendelkezésre álló bi-
zonyítékok (feliratos csontrajzok, régészeti leletek
írásjel díszítései) alapján ideografikus képírással
rendelkeztek. A koraavarok mŕr nagy lépést tettek
meg a betűírássá való átalakulás sorĺn, amikor a
"későavar" népesség beköltözése a folyamatot mega-
kasztotta, mivel az új népesség kultúrája dominánssá
válhatott. E népesség személy- es településnevei
őrizték meg a 'ma', 'mada', és 'da'-tövű helységne-
veinket, melyek a "későavar" korból származóknak te-
kinthetők. Ezért teljesen helytelen es igaztalan, hogy
a székelyek írását "magyar írás"-nak nevezzük. A
székelyek írásrendszerében a "Hung fán" kompletten
található, míg a "későavar" jelrendszerben csak a
"tűz" jele, az is török nyelvű akrofóniával."

A Szerző következtetése a kövertkező:

Sumér irásjelek -> Hun és Kinai írásjelek -> Török
írásjelek

1. A Sumér íráskultúra megjelent északon, az Urál-
ban (Irbit-parti sziklarajzok). Később keleten (a
kínai írástörténet kezdetén) - s ez egy olyan kul-
túra és népáramlási folyamatot bizonyít, mely az
i.e. IV-III. évezredben zajlott - bizonyíthatóan
először északi, majd keleti irányba a dél-szibériai
styeppeövezetben. Elsősorban a folyamat bizonyítható,
mely valószínüleg több hullámban haladva érte el a
Sárga-folyót. E történelmi találkozásról már a kínai
hagyományok és legendák szólnak, mely azonos a kinai
állam kezdeteinek es a kínai írás történetének ha-
gyományával, legendájával. Mégsem hihetjük ezt a né-
pewt sumérnak. [..]
2. A kínai írástörténet egyes Jin-kori es ku-wen í-
rásjelei - melyek a székely-hun betűjelrendszerben
is találhatók - azonos ideográfikus jelentéssel
vannak mindkét írásban. Ezen kívül azonos a "teknős",
mint világmodell felhsználása is, de a hun írástör-
ténetben teljesebb, kiterjedtebb, több írásjle for-
rása. [a betük a lerajzolt teknös részei. K.T.]
3. A hun írásjelek ideográfikus jelntésének feltá-
rásával több kínai jövevényszó létét sikerült bizo-
nyítani nyelvünkben
("cse"-lőke = celőke,
s^eng = zseng -e, .ül)
[..]

5. Itt a Szerző "hun" szót 'ijjas nép'-re vezeti
vissza a 'Hung-fan'-ból az írásjelekből meg a kínai
kiung/kung -íj szóból .(Harmatta János 'király' je-
lentéssel, iráni eredetűre vezette vissza a szót)
Ez a rész elég zavaros számomra, de a Szerző szerint
a hunok a magyarok voltak....

7. Az írástörténetünk tükrében azt is jól látjuk, hogy
egyre "törökösebb" néprészek érkeztek a Kárpát-meden-
cébe. Îgy a "későavar" jelrendszer népében már "asszi-
milálatlan" török nyelvü is lehetett, mely gyorsan fel-
szívódott az új nyelvi környezetben.
8.Árpád népének eddig még nem került elő jelentős írás-
történeti emléke, csak egy nyílvessző rajza. E rajz a
"későavar" jerendszerbe sorolható, annak török hangér-
tékű részébe.

Tehát:
hunok = koraavarok = székelyek



Tamás

 (CLARY Olivier) writes:

>In article >  (
Janos Szamosfalvi) writes:
>>	A kutya la'tja az embert.
>>	Az embert la'tja a kutya.

>That is exactly what it is about: supposing a neutral sentence (no stress
>on the part before _la'tja_), first sentence is the more frequent situation
>of subject = theme, second sentence has the object as introduction (theme):
>  - you will say something about the man
>  - then you say it: the dog sees him

Yes, the man is rheme, the dog is theme.

But I do disagree in one little point:

>How you say it depends on how you see it, 

I don't think it does depend on this, because that would mean that word 
order is free after all: you can see it the way you want to see it, can't 
you?

But experience from speaking Hungarian to Hungarians shows that you can't 
see it the way you want, because very often they say: "No, you can't put 
it like this in this situation." - And when I answered: "But that's 
the way I saw it when I formed the sentence." - they said: "Yes, perhaps 
you did see it this way, and in principle the sentence is correct like 
this, but it is not correct in this situation."

As you write, it depends

>on what you are or were primarily
>speaking about (the dog or the man)

Exactly!

>Order is not "free" more than it is in English, the only thing is that
>there are many more possibilities, which express distinctions that English
>either does not express (they are implicitly understood just like _engem_
>"me" in _Szeretsz?_ "do you love me?"), or express in other ways, not by
>word order.

Yes, precisely! 

Wolf
-- 
Wolf Rackebrandt             |         Die Hoffnung ist ein sicherer Weg zu  
        |  unangenehmen Ueberraschungen, aber das Herz 
http://www.snafu.de/~lupus/  |          freut sich, wenn es einen Traum hat.

Hatha valakit erdekel az alabbi allasajanlat.  Figyelem: en csak
tovabbitom ezt a hirdetest az egyetemi newsgroup-bol; az allassal
kapcsolatos kerdeseket, CV-ket nekem ne kuldjetek!

Ha valaki csak ugy altalaban az itteni doktoranduszkepzesrol
erdeklodik, annak esetleg tudok segiteni.  (Szombaton ket hetes
szabadsagra megyek.)

Udv,
  Andras

|> PhD student (m/f)
|> for research in the area of Network Control and Management in Optical
|> Networks
|> 
|> One of the projects on Advanced Communications Technologies and Services (AC
TS)
|> of the EC where the CTIT participates focusses on broadband interactive
|> systems in cable television networks by using optical techniques.
|> High-density wavelength multiplexing will be applied for partitioning the la
rge
|> subscribers group into smaller groups. 
|> 
|> In collaboration with other project partners, you will have to identify and
|> define the network control functional specifications. You will have to
|> design  and analyze a control architecture to allocate the available
|> wavelengths  to the optical  network units in such a way that some quality
|> criteria are optimized.
|> You will have to  design and evalute a  network management system for a tria
l
|> and use this experience to identify issues associated with the 
|> implementation  and evolution to a full network management system for a
|> commercial system.
|> 
|> What we ask for and what we offer:
|> You have an M.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science. Besi
des
|> your research work, you will have some educational tasks for at most 20% of 
your
|> time. 
|> 
|> You will be appointed within the CTIT as a PhD student ("AIO") during a peri
od of 4
|> years. Your salary will be Dfl. 2078 monthly in the first year, increasing t
o Dfl. 3710
|> monthly in the fourth year. 
|> 
|> More information:
|> You may contact Dr. ir. S.M. Heemstra de Groot, phone +31 53 893760, email:
|> .
|> More information concerning the appointment within the CTIT can be obtained 
from
|> Prof. dr. ir. I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, scientific director of the CTIT, phone +3
1 53
|> 893766. 
|> 
|> Applications
|> Applications, including a curriculum vitae, should be addressed to:
|> Prof. dr. ir. I.G.M.M. Niemegeers
|> CTIT/University of Twente
|> P.O. Box 217
|> 7500 AE Enschede
|> The Netherlands
|> 
|> You may also submit your application by e-mail to the address 
|> , mentioning "AIO vacancy Tobasco".

Wednesday, June 5th, the Washington Post has started a three part 
daily series  about the possible extension of NATO membership for four 
Central-European  states , namely Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and 
Slovakia. The last part will be published tomorrow .

Gotthard

--
Hungarian-American list, mailto:  
WWW,                       http://www.glue.umd.edu/~gotthard

Good Day:

Yesterday I send a note asking for assistance in reading the back of 
photos I have in order to find my family living in Hungary.

Good News!  I have found them and do not need someone to translate the 
photos.  I have a friend I meet on the internet coming to visit and read 
the photos.

I am, however, looking for someone who speaks Hungarina who lives in the 
Bakersfield, California area.  My sister would like to meet someone who 
could help her translate.  Is there anyone who would be willing to assist 
her?  Please e-mail me at     if you are willing to help.

Sincerely,
Tomie

Itt a kovetkezo allasajanlat, ezt is a helyi news-bol olloztam. 
Mivel ezt mar hozzank (UT, Hollandia) is ugy tovabbitottak, erre meg
inkabb ervenyes a figyelmeztetes: az allasrol nem tudok semmit, csak
azert tovabbitottam, mert gondoltam, hogy van akit erdekel.  Minden
kerdest a hirdetes aljan levo cimre kuldjetek.

Andras

--- itt vagd le ---

                 THE COMPUTING LABORATORY
                 ========================
             UNIVERSITY OF KENT AT CANTERBURY
             ================================

        Computer Science PhD CASE award available
        -----------------------------------------

         Type Management in Distributed Systems
         --------------------------------------

A British Telecom sponsored PhD CASE studentship is expected to be available 
commencing October 1995 for work in Type Management in Distributed Systems.
The student will join an expanding research group investigating both
theoretical and practical aspects of distributed computing.

The purpose of the CASE studentship is to investigate issues concerning the
management of services within distributed systems. Within such systems, type
managers are central to browsing and trading functions, which search for and 
accept services offered within a distributed environment. The proposed
research is expected to combine both theoretical (eg type theory) and practical
approaches (eg ANSAware, Corba platforms) to type management. 

Applicants must hold a good first degree in Computer Science or a closely 
related subject. 
A suitable applicant would possess either a strong grounding in distributed
systems or a strong mathematics and computing background.
This research area offers the potential for stimulating and challenging 
original research, within the bounds of two world renowned research groups:
the Networks and Distributed Systems group headed by Professor Peter Linington
and the Theoretical Computer Science group headed by Professor David Turner.

                GENERAL INFORMATION
                ===================

The Computing Laboratory has an international reputation for computing
research.  There are approximately forty people on the research staff,
with a similar number providing support and computing services.

Students are normally expected to present their work-in-progress to a
wider audience a number of times during their studies, and are
encouraged to attend appropriate conferences and seminars.

Research students have full access to the computing facilities of the
laboratory.  In addition, each postgraduate office is equipped with
personal computers and X-terminals allowing direct access to central
computing.

The laboratory's main areas of research are:

        + Networks and Distributed Systems
        + Parallel Processing
        + Software Tools and Electronic Publishing
        + Functional Programming and Theoretical Computer Science
        + Database Technology and Object Management
        + Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems
        + Numerical Computation, Simulation and Visualization

For detailed information regarding the PhD research area described above,
please contact:

H.Bowman or J.Derrick
Computing Laboratory,
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent. 
CT2 7NF

or email:  or .

> Jeliko writes:

>>Nestor simply meant to be very precise in his
>>geographical descriptions. He used the Byzantine
>>description of the lands of Iaphet as an opportunity
>>to stress the 12th century toponymy. Hamartolus
>>didn't know of any Hungarian Mountains because in his
>>epoch the Ugri (Magyars) still dwell on the upper
>>waters of Volga and Kamna rivers. Hence, Nestor felt
>>necessary to anticipate a bit and included the
>>Hungarian Mountains (12th century name for the
>>Carpathians) among Iaphet's biblical estates.

>as discussed in the response for Part I, the Greek
>Chronicle used by Nestor was stopped in the middle of
>the Xth century at which time the good Ugrian folks
>were a littel closer than the Kama.

Exactly for this reason it is necessary to accept that
Nestor changed the toponymy and referred in his
geographical descriptions to the 12th century
geopolitical situation, an epoch when there was no
Hungarian-Bulgarian boundary inside the Carpathian
Basin. Your effort, to push the time frame back in the
11th century by claiming than Nestor literally copied a
previous Bulgarian translation, is fruitless. During
the 11th century lower Danube was the north boundary of
the Bulgarian Empire ruled by Tsar Samuel and, after
1018, of the Bulgarian lands incorporated into the
Byzantine Empire.

>The Franks considered the Moravian as vassals, and at
>times they in fact were.

We disagree here. It is important neither  what the
Franks "considered" nor that "at times" Moravians were
under a very vague Frankish suzerainty. The fact that
matters here is that when the Magyars entered the
Carpathian Basin Mojmir II ruled over an independent
Moravian Empire until 906 when he fell in the battle
against the Magyars. Therefore, Moravia was not the
country mentioned in Nestor's chronicle as settled by
the Slavs and ruled by the Vlakhs. The situation in
Moravia doesn't fit the events described by Nestor.
Hence, there is no support for the assumption that
Nestor's Vlakhs were actually the Franks.

>as far as the Franks were concerned they considered
>that they domain was bordering the Bulgarians who were
>in TS

One may accept that The Russian Primary Chronicle
recorded the bias, if any, of a Greek, a Bulgarian, or
a Russ but what the Franks considered is, again,
irrelevant. At the time of the Magyar arrival Tisza was
the boundary between the Moravian Empire and a loosely
Bulgarian-controlled Transylvania.

>Now if we add that the "Hamartolus" Chronicle used by
>Nestor was a Bulgarian translation (as many of the
>critics seem to agree) than the Bulgarian lands were
>possibly expanded even more and the term "where the
>Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie" can be
>interpreted as the Carpathian basin more than Moesia
>or Wallachia.

This interpretation, based on too many unsupported
assumptions, is groundless. Nestor described the
"original"  Slavic land as "where the Hungarian and
Bulgarian lands NOW ›that is, 12th century| lie." He
mentioned the city of Sirmium as part of this
"original" land and Georgiev (1965) showed that this
"original" land (where the Byzantine originally
encountered the Slavs) actually extended, along the
Danube, from Croatia to Banat and northeastern
Bulgaria. Moreover, this is the exactly the area that a
biased 11th century Bulgarian translator would
emphasize rather than the territory between the
Carpathians and Tisza, an area in which the Bulgarians
had never shown any particular interest.

>I agree that nestor was somewhat confused,
>particularly as far as dates were concerned ›...| But
>eventwise, the indication of what happened in sequence
>is not too bad.

Really? According to Nestor the Magyars had their butts
kicked by Simeon AFTER their 896 cross of the
Carpathian passes, the DECEASED Kocel appointed the
DECEASED Methodius as bishop in 898, and you still
claim that the sequence of events is not too bad?
Aren't you a bit too generous here?

>>In 895 the Emperor Leo VI invited the nomadic Magyars
>>to enter in alliance with the empire and invaded
>>Bulgarian territory ›Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De
>>Administrando Imperio|
>>          Note that the Hungarians were then situated
>>          in the lowlands between the Carpathians and
>>          the lower Danube (Urbanski, 1968)

>Whatever Urbanski says it is very difficult from
>Porphyrogenitus to claim that they were only on the
>lower Danube (Bessarabia, Moldavia) area after
>897,

You misread the paragraph. Urbanski referred not to the
area occupied by the Magyars AFTER 897 but to the one
inhabited by them in 895.

>However their first incursion into Frankish areas was
>in 862 (see Bishop Hinkmar's comment about "unknown
>Ungar enemy" and their alliance was first with
>Svatopluk against the Franks

The Moravian ruler who hired the Magyars against Louis
the German was not Sviatopluk but Ratislav (846-869).
It is Ratislav that in 863 received the "cultural"
mission sent to him by Byzantium and headed by Cyril
and Methodius.

>However the first war as allies of Arnulf against the
>Moravians took place in 892 first and not in 906.

My point was that Nestor's Vlakhs were not the Franks
simply because Nestor claimed that the Slav country was
occupied in 896-898 but in reality the Magyars did not
conquered the Moravian Slavs until 906. Moreover,
according to Nestor, when the Magyars arrive the
country was ruled by Vlakhs; another fact that points
against the "Frank interpretation". Starting with 874
Moravia was not anymore under Frankish rule.

>So the events look as follows:
     >892 alliance with Arnulf against Svatopluk
     >894/896 alliance with Leo against Simeon
     >896 Simeon submits to Leo turns on Hungarians
     >895/896 defeat by Pecehenges east of Carpathians
     >895 alliance with Svatopluk against Arnulf,
          occupation of E Carpathian basin
     >899 alliance with Arnulf against Berengar,war
          in Italy, Arnulf dies, occupation of Pannonia
     >907 Defeat of Bavarians/Franks at Bratislava
          without any other alliance

This chronology is not very exact. I'll comment briefly
on it because apparently it constituted  the foundation
of your next conclusion.

The Bulgaro-Greek war broke in 893 and in 894 Leo
called the Magyars. Both Tabari and the Annales
Fuldenses recorded that the Magyars were defeated in
895. In 895 Simeon combined with the Pechenegs cut the
Magyars to pieces and forced them to migrate in Hungary
at the end of the same year. Because you questioned the
proportions of this defeat let's read from Georgius
Monachus:
          "But Symeon did not deign to speak to Leo,
               but held him in restraint. And marching
               out against the Magyars, who had no
               backing of help from the Greeks, but
               were caught unawares, he slaughtered
               them all, increasing his truculence."

and from Annales Fuldenses ›ad. ann. 895|:
          "the Avars ›i.e. the Magyars| invading the
               territory of the Bulgarians, were
               defeated by them and a large proportion
               of them killed"

The Magyars entered Hungary late in the year 895.
According to Constantine, after Sviatopluk death
›Sviatopluk died in 894| his sons lived in pace one
year and after that they were fighting among themselves
when the Magyars came and destroyed them altogether.
However, it seems that Constantine condensed the
history after the death of Sviatopluk.  After 895 the
Magyars harassed Pannonia, possibly being send by
Mojmir II, as the Bavarian bishops were complaining to
the Pope. I suspect that 899 is just the year of their
first big raid in Pannonia. However, the Moravian state
did not actually disappeared till about 906 and in the
next year the Magyars occupied Pannonia , having
defeated  a German force sent against them.

To sum up:
     2.The Magyars, heavily defeated by Simeon and his
          allies the Pechenegs, retreated into the east
          part of the Carpathian Basin. They took
          advantage of a twofold opportunity: (a)the
          Bulgarians never showed too much interest in
          that area, and (b)the civil war had just
          started in Moravia.

     2.The 895 alliance between the Magyars and
          Sviatopluk it is not mentioned by any
          chronicler. Actually, Sviatopluk died in 894.

     3.899 is just the year of the first big Magyar
          raid in Pannonia. Moravia was occupied in
          906, Pannonia in 907 and the German force
          sent against the Magyars was defeated in the
          same year. Prior to 899 the Magyar scouts
          harassed Pannonia but no war was actually
          recorded, neither against the Germans nor
          against the Moravians.

     4.There is no report concerning an "expelling" of
          the Franks by the Magyars.


>Anyway between 892 and 899 they have defeated both the
>Pannonian Moravians and the Franks and (and expelled
>the Franks),

This conclusion it is not rooted into true historical
facts. With all due respect I must add that it is also
generally vague and ambiguous. What do you mean by
"Pannonian Moravians"? What document recorded the
"expelling" of the Franks?


>>According to your interpretation of Nestor's text,
>>the Magyars seized Thracian and Macedonian territory
>>sometime between 896 and 898.

>I did not claim that. The only claim is that after the
>defeat of the Danubian (Pannonian) Slavs and the
>Franks they had wars with the Greeks

>>>Jeliko writes: ›...|it is clearly stated that the
     Vlakhs were "expelled" from the area and to where
     would they have been expelled if the Hungarians
     took Thrace and Macedonia<<<

Based on a forced literally interpretation of Nestor's
text, you reasoned that the Vlakhs  were not the
Romanians because it would meant that they were
expelled in the direction of an area subsequently
seized by the Magyars. Showing that Nestor did not
recorded a perfect sequence of events I rejected this
argument.

>>Also, let's add here that the attack against the
>>Moravians took place in 906 not between 896 and 898.

>Sorry here you are wrong per the available records, by
>then the war was against everybody to the west of
>Hungary.

I do not think there is a problem here. Dvornik,
Macartney, and Britannica Online :-} all indicate the
same year, 906, for the falling of the Moravian state.


>I am still convinced that the Nestor Volochs were
>Franks.

"Still" indicates that there is still hope...:-}

Regards,

Liviu Iordache

Noverem keres egy fiatal lanyt aki a kozelben levo collegeban tovabb akar 
tanulni.  Teljes ellattassal es $125.00 heti fizetessel.  Kozepes Angol nyelv 
tudas szukseges, minimum egye evre.

Valaszt kerunk E-mail 

My Sister is looking for a young girl to watch two little girls, 6 and 3 years 
old.  The Ideal candidate will be someone interested in attending the near by 
college.  Room and board are included in addition to $125.00 per week.  
Basic conversational English is required.  Must be available for at least a 
year.

E-mail responses to