Chicago ) wrote:
: Is there a newsgroup where immigration and all its ramifications once a
: person gets to the USA is discussed.
: Thank you!

misc.immigration.usa
--
 *********************************************************************
     Paranoia! Even Goya...                   
       couldn't draw ya... --T. Pynchon       Minneapolis MN USA
 *********************************************************************
                   >>>Tour d'Ivoire: 612-425-0554<<<

In article >  (Alexander Bossy) writes:
>Not only do the Szeklers not have the self-government that they crave, 
>but neither do the ethnic Romanians - it was just months ago that 100 
>opposition mayors were summarily thrown out of office at Illiescu's 
>order.  The problem isn't one of ethnic persecution.  It is one of a 
>fundamentally undemocratic regime in Bucharest.

And given the polls recently posted that give Iliescu about twice as
many voters than his main concurrent, it is not likely to change in the
next five years...

-- Olivier

In article > CLARY Olivier,
 writes:
>Let us exclude 1 and 2 not adjacent (Megy a tanár be a tanterembe)
>and order 2-1 without anything before (),
>it leaves 10 possibilities.

You should not exclude these:

Megy a tanár be a tanterembe.
Megy be a tanterembe a tanár.
Megy a tanár a tanterembe be.
Megy be a tanár a tanterembe.

These are perfect sentences.

Tamás

CyberTeddy's  WWW List of all.culture
Society, Environment, Lifestyle and net.resource
Point your browser to:
http://www.interport.net/~ednorman/list.html

In article > T. Kocsis, 
writes:
>You should not exclude these:

Uh, i've just realized it was discussed in an
other thread, sorry.

Tamás

In article > CLARY Olivier,
 writes:
>Első nagy hiba: hiszel a magyar szótáraknak. Hidd el, van tapasztalatom:
>a létező francia-magyar szótárak még rosszabbak, mint az angol-magyar
>szótárak!

Na, most megnyugtattál... Karácsonyra vetettem meg magamnak a
Halász Előd féle Francia-Magyar, Magyar-Francia szótárt, a köze-
peseket. 

Tamás

In article > Arlene Proebsting, 
writes:
>I heard that a lot of people have had their luggage stolen when flying 
>into Ferihegy airport.  Is this still a problem?  

Dunno, I haven't heard of it.

>Also, how much should it cost to take a taxi from the airport to the 
>center of town? 

It costs a goddamn lot. Only one taxi company got the right to
carry passengers away from Airport.  You have to pay accordingly
where you go because they have district charges. The chepast one
was last year 1200 Ft. Can you imagine that ? Five minutes drive
costed 1200 Ft !!!! If you went to Buda it was well above 3000 Ft.
 
>Is there a way to ensure that you are not getting  ripped off ?

I think you even have to pay more if you don't speak Hungarian.

There is a bus line (red 94 or ninety something) which goes
to the terminal of blue metro from the Airport. It is fast but
don't go too frequently.

(I prefer calling my relatives to pick me up)

Tamás

In article > 02,  writes:
>1/ if you know this stuff so well you could have been of more help 
>  and explicitely show I was wrong.

Check the number of syllables in each line. It varies
from line to line and this alone excludes hexameters.

Tamás

In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote:
>
>Not only do the Szeklers not have the self-government that they crave, 
>but neither do the ethnic Romanians - it was just months ago that 100 
>opposition mayors were summarily thrown out of office at Illiescu's 
>order.  The problem isn't one of ethnic persecution.  It is one of a 
>fundamentally undemocratic regime in Bucharest.

Unfortunately, when it comes to attitudes toward the Hungarians, there
is hardly any difference between the current official Bucharest attitude
and that exhibited here on s.c.r. by most of those, who oppose the
Iliescu regime.  So a change in Romanian government would hardly matter
for the Szeklers.

Joe

net.CyberTeddy ) wrote:

CyberTeddy's  WWW List of all.culture
Society, Environment, Lifestyle and net.resource
Point your browser to:
http://www.interport.net/~ednorman/list.html

In article > CLARY Olivier,
 writes:
>I wanted to keep it easy :-) No, in fact, I could not see very clearly its
>use as compared with an emphatic _bemegy_ in its place (in opposition to
>_kimegy_): perhaps in opposition to _jo~n_?... Soon you will build up a
>little story to give a possible context for

>_Megy a tanar be_... :-)
      2         3      1


Megyen a szegény ember, fel Budára, Mátyás király elibe...
    2                    3             1

Tamás :) :) :)

In article > Janos Szamosfalvi,
 writes:
>: 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; without it, sentences wouldn't make any 
>sense, ar at least they would sound a bit weird. 

That 't'  makes the word order free here. The object of the
sentence is indicated by this 't'.  Attention: the transitiveness (?)
is bound to *word*. In the same English sentence you find the
object by its place in the sentence, the transitivenes sis coded
into the structure of sentence.

So the  world order of Hungarian sentence bears less semantical
meaning than the same sentence in English, German or French.

A kutya látja az embert.
A kutya az embert látja.
Latja a kutya az embert.
Latja az embert a kutya.
Az embert latja a kutya.
Az embert a kutya latja.

In case of English we have only one valid solution:

The dog sees the man.

Tamás

Arlene Proebsting ) writes:
> I heard that a lot of people have had their luggage stolen when flying 
> into Ferihegy airport.  Is this still a problem?  

   Personally I had no problem with my luggage, having traveled there for
the past several summer. 

> 
> Also, how much should it cost to take a taxi from the airport to the 
> center of town?  Is there a way to ensure that you are not getting 
> ripped off?
> 
    Take the Airport Minibus. They transport up to 8 people and it costs
the same to any destination in the city. (Last figure I have is 800
Forints, less than $10.) There are signs at the airport for it.
	R.L.

In article > T. Kocsis > writes
:
>That 't'  makes the word order free here. The object of the
>sentence is indicated by this 't'.  [...] In the same English
>sentence you find the object by its place in the sentence, [...]
>So the  word order of Hungarian sentence bears less semantical
>meaning than the same sentence in English, German or French.

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)
-- Olivier

Sorry Wally, I cannot blame it on anybody else.:-)
Regards,Jeliko

> Jeliko ) wrote:
> : "Words of the World Unite. You can loose nothing but your meaning."
> : Regards,Jeliko

> Is this your quote Jeliko? I love it. I delight in this use of 
> reconfiguring of established  formula. I would like to use it and to 
> attribute it correctly, so that I why I ask if you are the author of 
this 
> gem.

> -- 
> Wally Keeler					Poetry
> Creative Intelligence Agency			is
> Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

 wrote:
: In article >,
: Wally Keeler > wrote:

: >Therefore, there is exceedingly little risk 
: >of having to defend Belgium, as compared to the risk of having to defend 
: >Hungary. I would like to be more assured that such a risk is minimized 
: >below a thresehold. 

: In other words, you are only willing to defend those who need no
: defending?  Figures.  I have a feeling that Russians might be aware of 
: this, too, encouraging them even more to be agressive with their closer 
: neighbors.
: Joe

Interesting point. It is the fact that NATO IS defending Belgium that the 
likelihood of its being attacked is minimal. I am sure that you are 
correct in your feeling that Russia is aware of this. I am not so sure 
about the aspect of "encouraging" them. If NATO began to express a hasty 
interest in bringing Hungary into the family, this may encourage Russia 
to make some pre-emptive moves to stop it, claiming that such a move by 
NATO is agressive by virtue of NATO's expansion, of its bringing into its 
sphere of influence more territory at the expense of Russian security. 
While I do not support this reasoning by Russia, nevertheless, it is a 
likelihood. NATO exists to maintain the peace as well as security of its 
member states. It makes no sense to risk this peace without due prudence 
to all circumstances. I much prefer the evolutionary process of bringing 
Hungary into the family. It would be safer for the well-being of all. 
Hungary has experienced war first-hand, and consequently it should be 
well-aware, more so than Canadians, of the horrible price in treasure and 
youth that war can bring. Canadians have never been invaded, bombed or 
occupied, so we have absolutely no lessons to teach anyone on that score 
-- quite the reverse, we have much to learn from others. 

I prefer that Hungary prosper. If it can prosper outside the family of 
NATO and thereby avoid any provocation of Russia, then we all win. Russia 
is in such a state that it is best to let it wallow in its own 
decrepitude. In the meantime, let Hungary evolve into a full-blown 
Western member of all social, economic and political links, and once 
those are strong, we can ease in stronger military links.

Is this ok with you? 


-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Liviu Iordache writes:
> Jeliko writes:

> >"The Magyars (note modernization of name!)

> The original manuscript reads "The Ugri..." and
> "...this territory was called Ugor'ska. Cross' initial
> translation was incorrect because instead of "Ugri" he
> used "Huns".  Dvornik  corrected the  mistake but his
> translation "The Ugri (Magyars)..."was later on
> simplified to "The Magyars..." Can you provide
> evidence for a similar, although suspiciously
> selective, Vlakhs-->French metamorphosis?

> >passed by Kiev over the hill now called Hungarian, and
> >on arriving at the Dnieper, they pitched camp. They
> >were nomads like the Polovcians. Coming out of the
> >east, they struggled across the great mountains
> >(See previous quote where the mountains are already
> >referred to as *Hungarian*)

> 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. The Carps had already
> vanished sometime in the 4th or 5th centuries. However,
> 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.

Well, 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.


> >and began to fight against the neighboring Vlakhs and
> >Slavs. For the Slavs had settled there first, but the
> >Vlakhs had seized the territory of the Slavs. The
> >Magyars subsequently expelled the Vlakhs, took their
> >land, and settled among the Slavs, whom they reduced
> >to submission. From that time this territory was
> >called Hungarian.
> [...]
> >covering a large area known to have been occupied by
> >Slavs at that time, but it is not correct to restrict
> >this area to the lower Danube,

> In my previous post I specifically stressed your
> misinterpretation of my statements. However, it is
> obvious that  my message didn't get through. Let's make
> another attempt:

> For the area depicted above (p.62 in Cross'
> translation) my guess was Transylvania, if the Nestor's
> Vlakhs are Romanians (as all the scholars suspect), or
> Moravia, if the Vlakhs are Jeliko's Franks. I have
> pointed to the lower Danube as a possible location for
> the area where the Vlakhs did violence to the Danubian
> Slavs (p.53 not 62). This is why I agree with
> Winnifrith (1987) that Nestor vaguely suggests a
> northward movement for his Vlakhs, a fact that has made
> the Romanian historians not very enthusiastic to cite
> Nestor.

The Franks considered the Moravian as vassals, and at times they in fact 
were. Particularly in the Pannonian area where Pribina and Braslav were 
local fiefs the vassalage is fairly well known. Thus the Franks considered
that uo to the Danube (approximately the borders of Pannonia) was their 
domain. heck, everybody always streched the claimed boundaries in those 
days (and even today to some extent) so I am not surprised that as far as 
the Franks were concerned they considered that thier domain was bordering 
the Bulgarians who were in TS and on the lower Danube. 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.

> >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

> Nestor is very ambiguous when he stresses that the
> Vlakhs were SUBSEQUENTLY expelled. Practically, there
> is no way one can say if the Hungarian expedition in
> Thrace took place before or after the Magyars expelled
> the Vlakhs, whatever "expel" means in this context.

Lets see what the original says. The Laurentian text is " Po sem zhe Ougri 
prognasa Volchi i nasledisha zemlyu u sedosha s Sloveni, pokorivshe.....
I nachasha voevati Ougri na Greki i poplenisha zemlyu.... This sems to 
indicate what happened first and waht came afterwards.


> Formation of the Hungarian state was not part of
> Nestor's main concerns and, for this reason, the brief
> summary of its beginnings is certainly misleading. You
> suggest that all the events described at page 62 fit
> within a lousy 10 years time period (888-898) and that
> the history of this short time period is presented as a
> very rigorously ordered sequence of events. A short
> analysis proves that your assumption is at least
> questionable.

I agree that nestor was somewhat confused, particularly as far as dates 
were concerned. As an example he has Simeon die in 942 while it is fairly 
well agreed that Simeon died in 927. But eventwise, the indication of what 
happened in sequence is not too bad.


> If Nestor is taken literally, one should note the
> multitude of events in which the Ugri are involved
> between the years 888-898. In 889, driven by the
> Pechenegs, they pitched camp at the Dnieper and lived
> there until 892 when Arnulf, king of the East Franks,
> hired their services in the fight against Sviatopluk,
> the Moravian duke. However, only after the band sent to
> Arnulf reported back two years later, carrying the good
> news about the suitable new homeland, the Magyars
> struggled en masse across the great mountains
> (Carpathians), probably in 896.

> The events which led to the permanent settlement of the
> Hungarians in the Danube basin toward the end of the
> 9th century are particularly associated with the
> relations between the Byzantine Empire and Bulgarians.
> 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, the description of the borders is quite clearly described by him. They 
were also in the lower Danube area if by that time the border was the lower 
Danube between the Tourkoi and the Bulgarians. 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 and only 
later did they switch to the Frankish side against Svatopluk (possibly 
switching several times).That, before they entered and occupied the 
Carpathian basin, they were just east of the Carpathians is fairly well 
accepted by most historians. (See The Cyril/Methodius Legend date for about 
860 and the then still Bulgarian allied activity on the Danube in 836/838 
(Some thinks 831/832) regarding the escape of Macedonians by ships to 
Constantinople. The war against Simeon was in 894/896. However the first 
war as allies of Arnulf against the Moravians took place in 892 first and 
not in 906. The war in 906 was to finish off what was left of northern 
Moravia and Czehia long after Arnulf's death in 899. So the events look as 
follows: 
                                                                          
         892 alliance with Arnulf against Svatopluk
         894/896 alliance with Leo against Simeon invasion of Bulgaria
         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
Thus they were capable of placing armies at several places at close 
intervals in spite of some defeats of some of those armies, which makes the 
assumed "catastrophic defeat" by the Petsenegs somewhat questionable. 
Anyway between 892 and 899 they have defeated both the Pannonian Moravians 
and the Franks and (and expelled the Franks), in 907 dealt a major defeat 
on the western combination Franks and Bavarians at Bratislava. As a side 
trip they have initially defeated Simeon (several hundred miles away)
with whom the Byzantines were not getting anywhere by themselves.


> Thus, if the Tale is read literally, in only two years
> (896-898) the Magyars fought against the Vlakhs and
> Slavs, reduced the Slavs to submission, expelled the
> Vlakhs, made war against the Greeks, Czechs, and
> Moravians, and  grabbed a huge land area, extending
> from Bohemia to Salonika. Sounds unbelievable,
> especially because for a century following the conquest
> of their new land the Hungarians remained pagans and
> maintained a predominantly loose tribal organization.

Hmm, the Huns and the Avars and later the Mongols were also pagans and that 
did not prevent them from doing the same thing in even shorter time 
periods.:-)

> According to your interpretation of Nestor's text, the
> Magyars seized Thracian and Macedonian territory
> sometime between 896 and 898.                                           I 
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 and 
sundry western folks. Particularly on dates, I would hesitate about using 
Nestor who even places the alliance with Leo against Simeon in 902 and has 
the Hungarians in 898, in Kiev.

> In reality the only
> Magyar expedition in Thrace and Macedonia that somehow
> fits within these time limits was the 895 war against
> the Bulgarian tsar Simeon. However, in 895 the Magyars
> fought the Bulgarians not the Greeks, they had not yet
> entered the Carpathian basin, and they had not yet
> expelled any Vlakhs. Actually, the Magyars never
> literally "seized" Thrace and Macedonia. Only in the
> 10th century, marauding expeditions of Hungarian troops
> repeatedly ravaged Byzantine territory, and in 958 they
> were defeated by imperial troops in Thrace. However,
> these events are post 898.
You may call the Balkan excursions unimportant but even Nestor assigned a 
whole year to the events in 934 and 943 and others do the same for 959, 961 
and so on. That the date is post Frank expulsion does not change the 
meaning of fighting subsequently in the Balkans. Although because the 
Frankish/Pannonian wars were going on at the same time, yopur assumption 
that the initial Nestor reference is to the contra Simeon war is also 
possible.

> 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.

> One can safely conclude that 898 is, according to
> Nestor, just the year when the Magyars BEGAN to fight
> against the Vlakhs and Slavs and that all the other
> events, expelling of the Vlakhs, the reducing to
> submission of the Slavs, and the marauding expeditions
> against other people took place SUBSEQUENTLY (also, see
> below my comments on the date of Methodius' designation
> as Archbishop of Sirmium)
Well, if you take Nestor's dates with the appropriate rock of salt, I have 
little problem with what you write, considering that I am still convinced 
that the Nestor Volochs were Franks.

Please note that the Popes were notorious for naming folks "archbishops" of 
areas which were long gone from under their control. (I think even in 
recent days they named "archbishops" for cities or regions where nary a 
catholic resides)

> Furthermore, Nestor is generally vague about the order
> of these events.

> ...to be continued...
> Liviu Iordache
Here also, 
Regards,Jeliko

Sorry Steven, but I wrote what I meant. Some things have a loose meaning, 
but I like it with the lose also.:-)
Regards,Jeliko

> Yes, but please note that the word "loose" is not what
> the meaning of the statement requires. The word should
> be "lose" (loose means not tight, lose means not to have
> something any more . . .). Of course, this could be
> an intentional mistake, for the sake of humor, as it were,
> but strictly speaking, the statement should be:

> "Words of the World Unite. You can lose nothing but your meaning"

In article >,  (Wally Keeler) s
ays:
>
>Jeliko ) wrote:
>: "Words of the World Unite. You can loose nothing but your meaning."
>: Regards,Jeliko
>
>Is this your quote Jeliko? I love it. I delight in this use of 
>reconfiguring of established  formula. I would like to use it and to 
>attribute it correctly, so that I why I ask if you are the author of this 
>gem.
>
>-- 
>Wally Keeler                                    Poetry
>Creative Intelligence Agency                    is
>Peoples Republic of Poetry                      Poetency


Yes, but please note that the word "loose" is not what
the meaning of the statement requires. The word should
be "lose" (loose means not tight, lose means not to have
something any more . . .). Of course, this could be
an intentional mistake, for the sake of humor, as it were,
but strictly speaking, the statement should be:

"Words of the World Unite. You can lose nothing but your meaning"

In article >,
    (Chicago) wrote:
>Is there a newsgroup where immigration and all its ramifications once a
>person gets to the USA is discussed.
>Thank you!

If you are interested in migration policy issues, here are two sources.

1.
The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., has started a new 
mailing list devoted to the discussion of immigration policy in all its forms. 
The list, called immigration-policy, is open to academics, graduate students, 
policymakers, journalists, and others interested in sober, sensible discussion 
of American immigration policy, whatever their point of view on the issue.

The list is intended for, say, debates about labor-market or demographic 
impacts of immigration, information requests for scholarly articles or 
newspaper stories, conference or hearing announcements, etc. The list is not 
moderated, which is to say the list owner does not examine each message before 
it is mailed out to the subscribers. But it is a closed list, so each 
subscription request is approved by the list owner. This is not to censor 
opinion, but to keep the quality of the discussion as high as possible and 
keep out the kooks so prevalent elsewhere on the Internet.

The list owner is Mark Krikorian, , Executive Director of the Center 
for Immigration Studies, 1815 H St. N.W., Suite 1010, Washington, DC20006, 
(202) 466-8185; (202) 466-8700 (fax).

If you're interested in joining the list, send e-mail to:       
               

with the message:
               subscribe immigration-policy


2.
MIGRATION NEWS: This is a monthly magazine, NOT a discussion group.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Migration News summarizes the most important immigration and 
integration developments during the preceding month.  
Topics are grouped by region:  North America, Europe, Asia, 
and Other.
There are three versions of Migration News.  The paper copy 
has about 8,000 words; the email version 12,000 to 14,000 
words; and the gopher version 14,000 to 18,000 words.  
The purpose of Migration News is to provide summaries of 
recent immigration developments that can be read in 60 
minutes or less.  Many issues also include a special report, 
abstracts of selected papers, and articles and information on 
recent research publications.  
Distribution is by email.  If you wish to subscribe, send 
your email address to: Migration News 
>
Current and back issues can be accessed via gopher in the 
Migration News folder at:  gopher://dual.ucdavis.edu.
There is no charge for the email Migration News.  A paper 
copy of Migration News is available by mail for $30 domestic 
and $50 foreign.  Make checks payable to UC Regents and send 
to: Philip Martin, Department of Agricultural Economics, 
University of California, Davis California 95616 USA. 
Migration News is produced with the support of the University 
of California-Berkeley Center for German and European Studies 
and the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

In article >  () writes:
>From:  ()
>Subject: Re: NATO expansion
>Date: 28 Jun 1995 06:47:49 GMT

>In article >,
>Wally Keeler > wrote:
>> What is in my interest to risk my son's life or the 
>>lives of many Canadian youths to defend the territorial integrity of 
>>Hungary. I ask this only because this is what it often boils down to.

>Fair point, but I might counter: what is Belgium or Italy to Canadians?
>Or any other European country for that matter? 

>Joe

Liviu Iordache writes:
> Jeliko writes:

> >(besides there is no directional information for the
> >*expelling*).

> I don't see how this lack of precision helps the Frank
> case. Moreover, if one persists in a literally
> interpretation of Nestor's text, no other historical
> document records the expelling of the Franks from
> Moravia between 896 and 898. Actually, a pre-898
> expelling of the Franks is extremely improbable because
> in 898 the Magyars are the allies of the Franks during
> the Arnulf's expedition against the ruler of the Po
> valley. Moreover, at the time of the Magyar arrival
> Moravia was not under Frankish rule.

First of all please remember Nestor's dating habits. Second of all (while 
Tony Pacek would surely disagree) Pannonia was somewhat Slavic and under 
Frankish control under Pribina and Braslav who were vassals of the Franks
(Moravia proper was also at times, but that is another story) However, even 
the Bulgars were at that time partly Slavs as represented by subsequent 
Hungarian placenames and even the inclusion of many church words from 
Bulgarian (South Slav) into Hungarian.


> >"There was at that time
> >but one Slavic race including the Slavs who settled
> >along the Danube, and were subjugated by the Magyars,
> >as well as the Moravians, the Czechs, the Lyakhs...."

> The Slavic race included, according to Nestor, the
> Danubian Slavs, the Moravians, the Czechs, the Lyakhs,
> and the Polyanians (Russ). You suggest that the
> Danubian Slavs were actually living not on the lower
> Danube but in the central Danubian basin. One should
> note that the Moravians where living in the same area.
Even if you just read Porphyrogenitus, the indication is that many other 
Slavs lived in the area. The Carolingian chronicles list even more. Thus 
your reduction of all the Danubian Slavs to Moravians does not match the 
records.


> If Nestor states that there was at that time but one
> Slavic race why is he using two different names,
> Danubian Slavs and Moravians, for the same people,
> living in the same area? Moreover, why he ignores
> completely the Slavs settled in the lower Danubian
> basin?
I am not saying he ignores them but the prevalence of Slavs in the 
lower Danubian area - in Nestor's time- was mainly Bulgarian. As far as I 
know almost everywhere where Avars were found there were Slavs also (and 
some Bulgarians, at least in Pannonia ,but those Bulgarians were probably 
before they became Slavicised) 


> >Further on page 63 "Prince Kotsel appointed
> >Methodius Bishop of Pannonia..." Again not on the
> >lower Danube!

> This event is not directly related to the Vlakh issue
> (more relevant is, I think, the fact that Nestor uses
> interchangeably  the names Danubian Slavs and Danubian
> Bulgarians) Anyhow, the event is incorrectly dated
> (read Introduction: Chronology) and you misinterpret
> its significance. I'll comment on this issue only
> because it strengthens my assertion that Nestor
> includes in this time period (888-898) events that
> actually took place both before 888 and after 898 (see
> above my comments on the dating of the Magyar
> expedition in Thrace).
I agree with the problem of the Nestor "dating game" but what does that 
have to do with case? It still can show that there were Slavs and Franks in 
the Carpathian basin and subsequently one of them stayed the other was 
expelled. As I have stated earlier Nestor is confusing the Bulgarians even 
with the Khazars, which for his time of writing is not a browny point.

> In 869-870 Methodius was consecrated Archbishop of
> Sirmium. The decision to restore the ancient
> Metropolitan See belonged to Pope Hadrian II. What
> motivated Hadrian was the news that the Bulgarians, who
> had accepted  the jurisdiction of Rome in 866, had now
> returned to that of Byzantium. Thus, especially viewed
> from Rome or Sirmium, the main target of this religious
> operation was the lower Danubian people. Kocel (or
> Kotsel) sent a special messenger to Rome requesting the
> Pope to join Pannonia to the new diocese.

Lets look at the background of the events. In that time period, the Franks 
are allied with the Bulgarians against the Moravians. The Bulgarians start 
flirting with Rome so Rostislav decides that he maybe getting into a tight 
place so he sends delegation to Constantinople to counteract the the 
Frankish/Bulgarian alliances strengthening by the Bulgars also taking up 
the Roman version Christianity. Pribina and after him Kocel are manuvering 
between the Franks and the Moravians (Please remeber it was the Moravians 
who chased Pribina "za Dunaj") So the Pannonian Slavs are pushing Methodius 
toward Rome and away from the Byzantines. The original arrangements were 
with the participation of Pope Nicholas I who dies in 867 and Pope Hadrian 
II "inherits" the problem. In 868 Cyril and Methodius arrive in Rome. Cyril 
dies in Rome in 869. While Methodius is in Rome, Pope Hadrian receives a 
letter from Kocel to send methodius to his domain (they probably met on the
way to Moravia thru Kocel's locality earlier). The Pope not very up to the 
local geopolitics (happened later too :-)) addresses aletter to everybody 
and his brother (nephew would be more appropriate) Rostislav, Svatopluk and 
Kocel, thus Methodiuys named to the see of St Andronicus in Pannonia, i.e.
Sirmium (that place was merrily occupied by the Bulgarians at that time!).
As stated earlier the Popes repeatedly named Archbishops to places that 
were long gone from their control (a whole selw of places for example in 
Asia Minor until quite recent days). Methodius who although did not go near 
Sirmium, did not do well in other places either and landed in Frankish jail 
until 873, when he is released due to Pope John VIII intervention. Kocel is 
threatenend by his boss to be a good boy and submits to the Salzburg 
archbishop Thotmar who consecrates his new church in 874 in Pettau. You are 
correct that Kocel probably died around 876. The years aside, the only 
bishop at the times who was assigned to the Slavs (other than the Bulgarian 
area) was with the Pannonian and Moravian Slavs, only titularly named to 
Sirmium, but to my knowledge never residing there. (Maybe the good brothers 
should have stayed with the Khazars and the Hungarians who were a lot nicer 
to them according to the sources :-). just immagine the complaints of the 
then Christianized Hungarians about the sundry later Christian neighbor 
"barbarians", but I should not get into the "what if" version!)
By this time the Bulgarians were back in the Byzantine fold (for a time 
being) and supposedly Methodius visited Constantinople and emperor Basil in 
the early 880s to deliver some Slavic church books and a Slav deacon. 
Methodius died in 885, not 884, but the date was April 6. The significance 
of the Methodius event does not have to be tied to any particular date, the 
case rests with that the significant Danubian Slav center was in 
the Pannonian area and not on the lower Danube.


> Methodius died in April 6, 884. Therefore, even if one
> assumes that Kocel had the power to appoint bishops, at
> the time indicated by Nestor (888-898) Methodius'
> nomination was an impossibility. Not only that
> Methodius was already dead but Kocel himself had
> already lost his life in 876 in a battle against the
> Croat prince Domagoj.

I am certainly not a believer that everything that was written in Nestor 
(or any other chronicle) is holy writ as a matter of fact one can make 
sense out of them by comparing their sources and as many other events that 
are known. But I am not the one who picks single sentences from extant 
chronicles and then try to build a major history on it. It is exactly what 
I am arguing that Nestor for example made many mistakes in dates, names of 
people, etc. aside from the plane inventions. It appears that whenever he 
played with the Greek origined sources ( although some of the problems 
could have been the original Bulgarian transcribers of the "Hamartolus"
Chronicle) the case became worse rather than better.

> >where this "original"
> >Slavic land is placed in the Tales is not what is
> >currently Romania, but mainly Pannonia and the
> >Carpathian basin.

> Present-day Romania includes a big chunk of the
> Carpathian basin. Sirmium, now Metrovica (or Srem in
> modern Croatia), on the Save, some 37 mi from the
> confluence of that river with the Danube, is at the
> southernmost corner of Pannonia. During the Roman times
> Sirmium was at the boundary between Pannonia Inferior
> and Moesia Superior. Around 890 was at the boundary
> between the Moravian and Bulgarian empires. 

Here we disagree, it was aborder between the Frankish and the Bulgarian 
realms. Pribina, Kocel and braslav were Frankish fiefs.
>Anyhow,

> stressing that the "original" Slavic land was Illyricum
> doesn't help the Frank case. Let's summarize Nestor's
> information and keep in mind that his primary source is
> Byzantine:

>           "Over a long period the Slavs settled beside
>           the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian
>           lands now lie. From among these Slavs parties
>           scattered..."(p.52-53) and "For in that
>           region is Illyricum [...]where the Slavs
>           originally lived." (p.63)

> It is known that in modern Croatia between the rivers
> Drava and Sava and in the so-called Banat on the Danube
> certain places (Vuka, Vrbas, Vucica) have borne Slavic
> names from the 2nd century onwards. These occurrences
> are probably related to a sporadic and isolated initial
> Slavic penetration.                                                 

While we are getting a little away from the subject, I have a very large 
problem with the ascribing to Slavs locality names prior to the V century.


> However, during the 5th century
> and the beginning of the 6th, a new wave of Slavs
> started to push toward the lower course of the Danube.
> According to Byzantine historians they started to cross
> the river after 517 and these Byzantine writers have
> placed on record many impressions of numerous Slavic
> incursions into the imperial territories during the
> reign of the Emperor Justin (518-527).

> It seems clear now, I hope, that what Nestor suggests
> as the "original" Slavic land is just the area where
> the 6th century penetration of the SOUTH Slavic branch
> into Illyricum was recorded by the Byzantine
> historians.

> The geographical distribution of the oldest Slavic
> toponyms in the Balkan Peninsula presents a picture of
> the 6th century penetration of the Slavs. These
> toponyms are to be found mainly in the region of the
> rivers Timok and Morava, and in the territory of Nis-
> Sofia. This means that these two regions constituted
> the main gates of the Slavic infiltration into the
> Byzantine territory (Georgiev, V., 1965, The Genesis of
> the Balkan People, Slavonic Review, 285-297)

Both locations are away from the Danube certainly not centered on the 
Danube, although in area where Latin speaking Vlachs did reside at that 
time, but in this area there were never Hungarians expelling Vlachs even if 
at times they were suzerains over Slavs, but tjhos edays were much later 
than the Povest.


> Therefore, the "original" land (present-day Croatia,
> Banat, and northeast Bulgaria), where the Vlakhs
> attacked the Danubian Slavs and did them violence, is
> mainly on the lower Danube.

The Slavs were there from the Saxon lands on the Baltic to the Balkans 
centered on the Carpathian basin. You cannot continuosly ignore the Slavs 
that were further north and whom were a significant soceity during those 
days.

> A small part of this area, Pannonian Croatia was under
> Charlemagne's influence but there was no violent
> encounter between Franks and Slavs because in 788 the
> prince Vojnomir, delighted to escape the Avar danger
> forever, recognized Frankish sovereignty. There was no
> attack and no violence when the Franks took over the
> Pannonian Croatia. Moreover it was not the Magyars but
> the Bulgarians that "expelled" the Franks from this
> area.
I am not aware of Frankish Bulagarian wars in the time period relating to 
the Hungarian arrival, if anything at that time there are several written 
records that an alliance existed between the Franks and the Bulgars contra 
Moravia. There is no indication that any area south of the Danube in 
Pannonia was anything but Frank suzerain territory after the Avars were 
defeated by the Franks.



> Although the Franks continued to exercise for a while
> their supremacy in Dalmatian Croatia,  from 803 onwards
> the Bulgarians  ruled over a large part of Illyricum
> including Macedonia, Pannonian Croatia, and the city of
> Sirmium. Also, neither Croatia nor Moravia were under
> Frankish rule when the Magyars arrive in the Carpathian
> Basin.
Is that why Braslav under Arnulf's orders conducts the Hungarians to Italy 
to attack Berengar?


> >For the year 899-902 "The Emperor Leo
> >incited the Magyars against the Bulgarians, so that
> >they attacked and subjugated the whole Bulgarian
> >country".

> As a matter of fact, this event took place BEFORE the
> Magyars entered the Carpathian basin (see above or
> check  Urbansky,A.B., 1968, Byzantium and the Danube
> Frontier: A study of the relations between Byzantium,
> Hungary, and the Balkans during the period of the
> Comneni. Twayne Publishers, New York, pp.174)

Naturally, but it is another Nestorian dating game and not relevant to the 
discussion. This is the 894/896 war, however by that time there were 
frequent Hungarian incursion as allies of one side or another into the 
Carpathian basin, initially most likely through the Bulgarian controlled 
area as allies of Svatopluk and later possibly noth of it to avoid 
upsetting the Frankish/Bulgarian applecart but finally certainly through it 
because they were at war with the Bulgarians themselves as a result of the 
war on Leo's side.
> Later,

> Liviu Iordache

It is fun, but time consuming, to run the discussion , thus my delays in 
responding. Please do not take anything that I am writing or when I am 
responding as disrespectful of your case.

Regards,Jeliko

A newsgroupba kikuldott felhivasomra nagyon sok es nagyon ertekes
valaszokat kaptam. Az LBJ School, a KPMG vezette konzorcium es a magam
neveben is szeretnem ezuton megkoszonni az erdeklodest es
segitokeszseget, ami a levelben emlitett programot erintette. A
konzorcium penteken benyujtotta a palyazatot, amirol dontes nehany heten
belul varhato. Az eredmenyt, mihelyst tudomasom lesz rola, megirom a
newsgroupba.
	

				Udvozlettel			Mosonyi Krisztian

 wrote:
: In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote:
: >
: >Not only do the Szeklers not have the self-government that they crave, 
: >but neither do the ethnic Romanians - it was just months ago that 100 
: >opposition mayors were summarily thrown out of office at Illiescu's 
: >order.  The problem isn't one of ethnic persecution.  It is one of a 
: >fundamentally undemocratic regime in Bucharest.

: Unfortunately, when it comes to attitudes toward the Hungarians, there
: is hardly any difference between the current official Bucharest attitude
: and that exhibited here on s.c.r. by most of those, who oppose the
: Iliescu regime.

	I'm glad to see that you now recognize that Romanians can have 
different opinions.  Since that recognizes our individuality, it 
humanizes us.  That is a start.  Nonetheless, I don't agree with you.  
While many people have posted less than complimentary things about 
Hungarians on s.c.r., if you pay close attention what most are concerned 
about is a recognition that the pre-WWI Hungarian government was not 
nearly as tollerant as you paint it out to be.  Once that fact is 
recognized, the biggest source of tension (as seen from Romanian eyes) 
between the two peoples will be removed.  I don't see such a simple 
recognition of historical reality as being enough for Iliescu and his 
ultranationalist allies.

:  So a change in Romanian government would hardly matter
: for the Szeklers.

	No, Joe, it would profoundly affect the Szeklers, and all other 
Romanians.  A democratic government will recognize the rights of all of 
its citizens.  It won't remove local elected officials because it 
disagrees with them (or because they are of the "wrong" ethnic 
background).  It will permit, and hopefully even encourage, a free press, 
instead of trying to censor or limit it.  It will allow all issues to be 
raised and discussed, including your pet project of autonomy.  While it 
is unlikely to grant the last, it will still remove most of the irritants 
which lead to your constantly raising it.  Finally, it will decentralize 
the state, allowing local communities, including the Szekler dominated 
ones, to manage their own affairs without exesive central interference.

	Alexander

In article >,
T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>
>Check the number of syllables in each line. It varies
>from line to line and this alone excludes hexameters.

I wasn't claiming hexameters; only that the poem had a definite, though
uneven rhythm to my ears which the Babits translation captured, IMHO.
BTW, I no longer remember the names of various rhythms, such as
hexameters, or jambus (or exactly which is which).  That's why I wrote
initially that I was not really knowledgeable about these technical
terms.  I just notice it when it's there.

I think this thread originally started by someone's request to translate
a Hungarian poem.  The examples of Poe translations were meant to
underscore that it takes a poet to translate a poem well.  I think the
Hungarian poets were pretty good at this, as the examples illustrated.
I wish there were as good English translations of many Hungarian
classics, such as Petofi's "Szeptember vegen".

Joe

heard rumor about Mr. Viktor Molnar of US U'j Vila'g being harmed in Budapest
does anyone have details?

emil

In article >,
Wally Keeler > wrote:
>
>I prefer that Hungary prosper. If it can prosper outside the family of 
>NATO and thereby avoid any provocation of Russia, then we all win. Russia 
>is in such a state that it is best to let it wallow in its own 
>decrepitude. In the meantime, let Hungary evolve into a full-blown 
>Western member of all social, economic and political links, and once 
>those are strong, we can ease in stronger military links.
>
>Is this ok with you? 

No, but do I have a choice?  It is probably the likeliest scenario, in
any case.  I would prefer Hungary (and her neighbors) not be forever 
West's comfortable buffer zone. 

Joe

CLARY Olivier ) wrote:

: And given the polls recently posted that give Iliescu about twice as
: many voters than his main concurrent, it is not likely to change in the
: next five years...

	Don't take polls to seriously, especially when they come from a 
less than democratic country.  When the Sandanista agreed to free 
elections in Nicaragua, all of the polls showed them easily winning 
EXCEPT those in which the poll taker wore an UNO pin.  In other words, 
the population thought that the poll takers were likely to be Sandanista 
informants unless they clearly showed that they were opposed to the 
Sandanista.  Similar fears are likely to exist in Romania now.

	It is also worth remembering that at this point the 
neo-communists are only still in power because of ultra-nationalist 
support.  That means that the choice facing the electorate will be 
between the democrats on one side, and all of the non-democratic forces 
on the other.  If the electorate decides to "kick the bums out" as they 
so richly deserve to be, then it will kick all of the non-democrats out.

	Alexander

In article >,
Steven C. Scheer > wrote:

> Please let me know which Clint Eastwood movie
>you are talking about. I would like to check it out.

OK, since no one else volunteered the answer to the puzzle, here it is:
It was the movie "Play Misty for me."

Joe

In article >,
Andrew Boros-Kazai > wrote:
>
>Igen, Homan Balint kultuszminiszter volt a kerdezett idopontban, s utana is:
>Ez egyesek szerint tulhosszu ido, masok szerint nem.  :-) ?
>Egyebkent Homan nem az ostrom alatt halt meg, hanem bekeidoben (?), a vaci
>fegyhazban, ahova a magyar Nep(?)birosag kuldte mint "haborus fobunos." 

Hat ez is csak azt bizonyitja, hogy a torteneszek jobb, ha tavolmaradnak
az aktiv politizalastol.  De kulonben nehezen tudom elkepzelni mit is
muvelhetett Homan, mint kultuszminiszter, ami miatt haborus fobunosnek
szamitott.  Megis, hany ember elete szarad a lelken?  Jo, el tudom
kepzelni, hogy a kormanyban valo maradasaval a Szalasi rendszernek
nyujtott legitimitast, de eleg az a "haborus fobunos" vadhoz?
Ilyen alapon Meray Tibor es Aczel Tamas is megerdemlik ugyanezt a
megtisztelo cimet a koreai haboru propogandajaban vallalt szerepukert.
Oket nem csak, hogy nem vonta senki felelossegre, de Meraynak most is
nagy azsioja van mertekado magyarorszagi korokben.

>Erre IS illik emlekeznunk.

Hat most ezt meg is tettuk.

Pannon J.

 (Steven C. Scheer) writes:

>Kedves Miklos!

>Ez az egesz talan az en hibam, illetve nem, mert Te
>ertettel felre valamit. Minden esetre en emlitettem
>eloszor a hexametereket (melyek valoban szinte lehetetlenek

 Hat... koszonom. :)   

 Szegyenemre mondva, en azert egy jo kozepiskolaba jartam. 
  
>angolul, csak Longfellow probalkozott egyszer meg veluk),
>de maskulonben nem a hexameterekrol volt szo. Tehat

 Hm. Akkor hogy hangzik a Homerosz angolul??

>amikor Te hexametereket kerestel (pl. az "Annabel Lee"
>cimu versben), akkor egy "wild goose chase"-re mentel,
>ahogy ezt angolul mondjuk. Persze ennek a Kocsis nevu

 Igen, a hetvegen utananeztem. ;) Megyek elasni magam. 

>kell egy kis faradtsag a dologhoz . . . ) Minden esetre
>azota megneztem a Home Page-edet is, gratulalok, egy
>nagyszeru valami. 

 Ezt kis koszonom. :) Sajnos pont a "veleje" (a munkam ismertetese)
 van meg romokban. :)

>mert en irodalom tanar vagyok, tehat az ertes/felreertes 
>"osszefuggesei" mindig is fontos szempontoknak szamitanak,
>Te viszont fizikus vagy . . . kulonben bizonyara ismered
>a "Chaos" elmeletet is, ami engem is nagyon erdekel . . . 

 Nem a szakteruletem, de valamit tanultunk rola az egyetemen, ill.
 olvastam rola "ismeretterjeszto" szintu cikkeket. :) 

 Irj nyugodtan maganemilt, ha gondolod. :) 

 A felreerteseket inkabb az informacioelmelet felol lehetne megkozeliteni. :)
 Vagy a jatekelmelettel. De egyik se fizika. 

 
>Na jo, hat engedd meg, hogy barati udvozletem kuldjem
>innen messzi del-nyugat Indianabol . . . 

  Reszemrol is udv az "ohaza" szekesfovarosabol. :)

>Pista

 P. Miklos

-- 
 Pm
>----
 Miklos Prisznyak   (KFKI RMKI Theor. Dep. Budapest, Hungary H-1525 P.O.B 49)
                     WWW page:    http://sgi30.rmki.kfki.hu/~prisz/prisz.html