Talk:Zsófia Bosnyák

Hungarian names for places before 1867

As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 [1], using Hungarian names for cities etc. before this date is anachronistic. Since the Latin name that was used at the time can scarcely be found, we should list all the places with their modern names. For a general discussion on the topic please visit this discussion at my talk page Wladthemlat (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a very strange personal definition of "anachronistic". For example the name Bratislava, did not even exist before 1919, and thus it's use for any period before that time is highly anachronistic, as the name wasn't even invented yet! Using a personal talk page as a forum of discussion is of course gives the possibility for heavy POV pushing and more personal interpretation instead of following wikipedia guidelines and practices established by the community. Sp I don't suggest anyone should use a highly POV personal talk page for this purpose. Hobartimus (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually you contradict the very sources you quote. Hungarian became the official language of Hungary in 1844 and not in 1867 (with portions of administration already being converted to Hungarian from Latin prior to 1844). The thing is that before that time either the city's Latin name was used in official documents (provided it had one, such as Posonium, Cassovia, Tyrnavia etc.) or in the absence of such name (only the more prominent cities had such) the Hungarian name of the town was used. This is also confirmed by contemporary maps, such as the Comitatus Posoniensis one from the mid-1700s (made by no one else than Samuel Mikovini himself AFAIK), which displays all the village/town names in Hungarian, most of them in German too and only a few in what seems to be a Slavic language with Polish ortography. Therefore I strongly advise against the usage of Slovak terms, especially the ones which were made up after 1919 (or what's worse during the anti-Hungarian hysteria after 1945) for the fact that the official names were the Hungarian ones. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The source clearly emphasizes 1867, but ok, 1844 is more appropriate, not a big difference though.

Exactly, there were varieties of names and languages used (just as you confirm with "Hungarian, most of them in German too". It is not question of using Slovak names, it's a question of using modern names to denote the location to make it easier for the reader. As Hungarian was not official, the use of Hungarian names on that particular map is most likely circumstantial, please provide source that proves otherwise (i.e. that Hungarian names were used en bloc and in all cases), because map lists the names in German. If there were more variations on the name used (and in the case of Slovak towns Slavic name use is documented, e.g. for Banska Bystrica [2]) please explain why Hungarian should be preferred and if so, why modern not contemporary Hungarian names (spellings) are used.

"official names were the Hungarian ones." is not true, it was Latin ones, Hungarian was not an official language at the time.--Wladthemlat (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of Wladthemat. The guideline (Wikipedia:HU-SK#Naming_convention) is not about using Hungarian or Slovak it's about using both in a pre 1918 setting. The first instance of a city name is mentioned both must be present, only order or later use is affected by the circumstances. The issue of Latin was discussed at the time but it was deemed rather unhelpful to our readers, as Latin is a dead language, while Hungarian and Slovak are both living languages and thus they take precedence to Latin. It's also a more simple solution to only use two periods, before and after 1918. Hobartimus (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's obvious from your post (as well as your attitude and actions on other articles) that you hardly know anything about the history of Hungary, which (up until 1918) is YOUR history as well, no matter how much you deny this fact. It's also a fact that Hungarian was THE de facto most dominant language throughout the country (with the exception of Croat-Slavonia of course) WAY before 1844. This is evidenced not only by the map by Mikoviny linked above (it's from 1757 for god's sake!), but also by the first Hungarian word fragments found in Latin text from the 12th century ("Fehervaru rea meneh hodu utu rea"). I know it's hard (if not outright impossible) for you to realize, but the Kingdom of Hungary WAS dominated by Hungarians right until the end. Sure, Latin was the official language, but nobody has used Latin in its private correspondence. Sure, there were some non-Hungarian letters as well, but nevertheless Hungarian was the dominant language even in most parts of Upper Hungary (up until the Ottoman rule that is).

Usage of "contemporary" Hungarian names WOULD be "anachronistic", because up until the end of the 18th century there was no standard Hungarian and hence there wasn't a standardized orthography either. This meant that essentially EVERYONE has spelled the city names differently (e.g. "Poson, Posony, Pozon, Pozsony"), which explains why are there so many variations of the city names, not only in Hungarian but Slovak as well (this is touched upon in the newspaper you've linked too). That's why it's pointless to use names mentioned in contemporary sources from before 1844 in any of the articles. On the other hand essentially all of the names used after 1844 are more or less the same as the modern Hungarian names (the only major change in Hungarian orthography since was the dropping of "cz" in favor of "c") so I still don't see any reason against their usage (besides the fact that if it was up to you Hungarian wouldn't be used on EN WP at all just like on DE WP and SK WP.....).

As for the naming convention by Elonka it's a fairly good compromise on this issue, but it should NOT be misinterpreted intosomething like "if it's proven that the person in question has Slovak ancestry, he/she's almost Slovak and hence we can replace ALL occurrences of Hungarian town names with Slovak ones", because that's what e.g. Bizovne (but not only him) tends to do. Instead it means that IF we're dealing about count Batthyány (which's pronounced [bɑcːaːɲi] and NOT "Baťán" like it's spelled by that moronic linguistic institute of Slovakia which doesn't have a single capable person in it) then his birthplace should be Pozsony and NOT Prešporok (and DEFINITELY not Bratislava). On the other hand when we're dealing with members of the Slovak intelligentsia from the 19th century then we should refer to the place of their study as "Prešporok". That's what Elonka's proposal is about. And definitely NOT about proving that Mednyánszky (who has even spelled his name like that), Petőfi, Jedlik, Liszt (!), Bartók (!!!) and others who have declared themselves to be Hungarian but had the "misfortune" of being born in present-day Slovakia, having some Slovak ancestry or (nota bene!) having a name that shows some similarity to some meaningful Slovak word, were Slovak. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, the map you've quoted is pretty much irrelevant. It's evident that the map's a modern one (i.e. it's probably from the 2nd half of the 20th century) and that it's been made either by Americans or British. Also if you take a closer look you'll see that the German names are used not only for Hungarian town names but for those of other countries as well. The point is that your map doesn't tell ANYTHING about the usage of the town names in Hungary itself. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to deny anything, vice-versa, since history of KoHU is history of many nations (and languages) it's ridiculous that you are trying to monopolize it as if it were Magyar history only. Name places were used in Hungarian as well as German, Slovak, Romanian, etc. So please, provide RSs that support your claim that Hungarian name use was absolutely prevalent even in the times the official language was Latin (it was so for a reason, you know). Also, for en.wiki it's English RS use what counts, so the map is very relevant, if English disregards Hungarian names and uses German ones, we should follow suit, even if you don't like it. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that you always keep repeating the TYPICAL arguments used over and over again by all the "nation-conscious" Slovaks? Hungary (or Hungarians for that matter) did NOT monopolize the history of Greater Hungary. It just happens that ONLY Hungary perceives its history as his own WITH all of its upsides and downsides as well. What Slovaks do is that they take some parts of the history of KoHU and put them together in a way which somehow ALWAYS makes the Hungarians look like they were the bad guys and the Slovaks as the "innocent, oppressed masses which were in a millennium-long oppression". And you ignore/diminish events which were of REAL significance. This is more and more noticeable in Slovak historian books as they progress to the 19th century. And don't tell me that it isn't true or similar BS like that as I've seen it with my very eyes in the history books which we were supposed to learn from. It was the series published by Orbis Pictus Istropolitana and it was basically a Slovak history book translated into Hungarian. And as far as the history of Hungary in the 19th century's concerned the book was completely useless. E.g. it has completely omitted the conspiracy led by Ignác Martinovics (which lead to paranoid restrictions by the Habsburgs) or the "era of reforms" (reformkor) and it has also dealt with the revolution of 1848-49 on little more than a half page (the rest was filled with an illustration depicting the "declaration of the Slovak people").

If you REALLY perceive history of Hungary before 1918 as your own then tell me, why is it that the moronic lingustic institute mandates the disfiguration of names of historical people from Hungary who have died prior to 1918? Nobody has EVER (mis)spelled the names such as Batthyány, Kossuth, Bocskay, Rákóczi, Palugyay etc. the way it is mandated by THE governing body of Slovak orthography. Many times these transcripts have no logic in them either, because the "transcripts" aren't even phonetic. What purpose could this serve other than a conscious effort to limit the Slovaks' perception of the fact that these were Hungarian names, making it impossible (or at least VERY hard) to do ANY research in the archives regarding these figures and hence aid in the creation of a "parallel history" of Slovaks which has nothing to do with the truth? Also, if you say that you adhere to the Latin tradition, why is it that universities in Bratislava (especially the Commenius one) use this idiotic (and very annoying) pig Latin adjective of "Bratislavensis" (instead of the term "Posoniensis", which's been used for centuries)? Could it be for the same reason "Pozsony" is still forbidden to be used in official documents (e.g. grade reports)?

I've already sent you a link to a map that's been made by Mikoviny in the 18th century (so it's genuine AND contemporary). In 1757 the country was ruled by Maria Theresa and there hasn't been ANY sign of the adoption of the Hungarian in official use (it has happened only later, by the end of the 18th century, especially after Joseph II was pushing for German). Therefore the map DOES display the way city/town names have been used in the times before Hungarian became official. Obviously you still can't accept this fact and hence you're asking me for additional evidences. But if you dismiss a PRIMARY source which clearly states that the most dominant terms were the Hungarian ones I'm sure you'll be ready to dismiss any other evidence I'd supply (e.g. codexes, medieval books etc.) so I don't see any point in supplying further evidence.

I think it's time for you to realize that this "Latin has been adopted for a reason" thing (also a popular argument of the Slovak nationalists) is a MYTH. It isn't and couldn't be true for the fact that the languages spoken by the peasantry were absolutely IRRELEVANT at the time when Latin was adopted. Latin as an official language was adopted by St. Stephen for the fact that it was the de facto lingua franca of Europe and the language used by the Western Catholic church as well. Therefore (along with Catholicism) St. Stephen deemed its adoption necessary for long-time survival of Hungary (i.e. essential for Hungary to be accepted by its neighbors as a peer and don't perceive it as a threat anymore). And Latin has remained a prestigious language for many centuries even after the first Hungarian books began to appear (early 16th century). So NO, Latin was NOT adopted for the reason of being an "easy" language for communicating between various minorities. I'm not saying that this aspect did NOT play a role in persistence of Latin, but the role was minimal. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty please, could you stick to the point for once, I really couldn't care less about your anger over whatever institution or person if it's not directly connected to the dispute. That only peasantry spoke non-Magyar languages is a Hungarian myth, or was Adam Franz Kollar a peasant? You have provided no sources supporting your position, until you do, please don't be offended if I won't reply. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To the point? Up until now you've pretty much ignored ALL of the points I tried to make in ANY of the discussions I had with you. The institutes and their policies I've cited served only to emphasize the fact that you do not, would not and WILL NOT endorse the usage of Hungarian town names no matter what and no matter how logical would that seem. You know at times I wonder how come you didn't propose renaming of various Hungarian towns to their Slovak names (e.g. Pécs to Päťkostolie, Esztergom to Ostrihom, Miskolc to Miškovec or even Győr to Ráb - though the latter term isn't used by Slovaks either-) as that'd surely seem more "logical" and "reasonable" for you.

Why the abrupt jump from the time Hungary was established (with Latin as its official language) to the time when Adam Franz Kollar lived? Besides I've read in one of our schoolbooks on Slovak literature a rant about the fact that "Slovak nobility has denationalized itself" so looks like besides a few bored Slovak priests, poets and novelists nobody has cared about Slovak at all. And this isn't a myth but a fact that's been evidenced in Slovak's attitude regarding the fights in 1848-49 as well. Because besides the company around Stur and his friends who were tricked by the Habsburgs into resisting the Hungarians there were many more ethnic Slovaks who fought along with the Hungarians.

Once again I have to say that the English map you've presented is somewhat irrelevant. It's a modern map with German names for towns not only in Hungary, but also in Poland and other places. They'd be okay if we won't be dealing with historical context, but unfortunately we do. And English was NOT the lingua franca of Europe at the time when these historical events took place. And besides, most of the contemporary sources do NOT refer to these places using their German names either. It's almost always either some "latinized" version of the Hungarian name or the Hungarian name itself with either a (somewhat) Latin transcription or (a somewhat) Hungarian orthography. This is evidenced not only in private correspondence (the text itself is hard to understand even for a native Hungarian speaker, but it clearly contains the words "váradi", referring to Nagyvárad/Oradea and "Zádorlaka" which refers to Zádorlak/Zădăreni), but also in fragments of Hungarian text (with the famous "fehervaru rea meneh hodu utu rea" i.e. military road leading to Fehérvár) which is in fact Hungarian text found in Latin context. Then there's also the founding letter of the Lelesz abbey, which contains exclusively Latin text with Hungarian town/village names (all of them in present-day Slovakia and spelled in the manner detailed above e.g. Helmech - Királyhelmec, Lelez - Lelesz, Beyle - Bély, Gerus - Géres etc.). Sure, they ARE different from the modern Hungarian names, but the usage of the contemporary names (especially due to lack of standardized orthography) WOULD be anachronistic indeed. Somehow however I have a feeling that you'll dismiss these evidences (just like you did with EVERYTHING else I've done) and you'll just stick to your Slovak nationalist hogwash you're so keen on propagating... -- CoolKoon (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is all anecdotal evidence, I am not claiming that Hungarian names were not used, but rather that they were not used exclusively, so a more general summary from a reliable source that the hungarian names were indeed absolutely dominant is necessary. Not to mention that the names in the founding letter don't have their etymology explained, so the option that Hungarian language incorporated Latin (or other) words is still viable (as in the case of Villa Nova Bystrice -> Besztercebanya, where Bystrica is a slavic word used in Latin context and incorporated into Hungarian [3])Wladthemlat (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence?!?!?!?! More general summary than the evidence above (neked semmi se elég, baszki)?! Look, as far as the etymology of the words (mentioned in the letter) is concerned, they surely aren't derived from the Slovak names (e.g. Kralovsky Chlmec) out of the fact that there were NO Slovaks living in the area at all (and hence the towns had NO SLOVAK NAMES at all). Most of the Slovak town/village names in southern Slovakia are modern constructs anyway which were forged at the height of the anti-Hungarian hysteria after 1945 in an attempt to hide the Hungarian nature of every single village and town in Slovakia (especially idiotisms such as "Sturovo", "Kolarovo", "Sladkovicovo", "Kvetoslavov" etc. which reek of blind Slovak nationalism). I hope you don't want to use these confabulated names from after 1945 to compare them to town names from ancient times, do you?

All in all, looks like you would never ever agree to the usage of Hungarian town names in present-day Slovakia. Fortunately Fico's not in power either (for now) and even if he were he won't have power over Wikipedia no matter what. So Elonka has created a naming convention which every editor should adhere to. Sure, it's not omnipotent and there might be cases when it's useless, but it's better than nothing and definitely WAY better than your proposal of elimination of Hungarian terms from all the articles as much as possible. So here's the deal: take it or leave. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant an actual quote from a RS on the use of Hungarian place names and their dominance, as you very well know. Listing examples and counter-examples leads nowhere. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And what would a reliable source look like according to you? Perhaps a written statement from the 16th century in Slovak by a scholar who'd use Hungarian town names in its text? It's such a pity that no such source exists because there was no Slovak at the time and even Slovak history/literature books talk about "Slovakized Czech" from that time at most. Or would quoting the ORIGINAL Latin source be sufficient? Or how else do you expect for me to prove that Hungarian town names were THE official ones even prior to 1844 if your treat ANYTHING I supply as "anecdotal evidence"? -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend not to know, a quote from a historian (preferably an English native speaker, for neutrality) that says what you say, primary sources are unacceptable, as you sure know. If not, read WP:RS, thanks. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Drzme sa faktov. Bola pred rokom 1867 oficialnym jazykom latincina? Bola. Preto treba pouzivat moderne slovenske nazvy kedze pouzivanie latinskych nazvov by bolo anachronizmom. Niektori ludia na cele s Viktorom Orbanom, pripadne priaznivci Jobiku si nevsimli spravodlivy Trianon ale to je len ich problem :) --Bizovne (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tak dobre, naozaj sa drzme faktov. Pred rokon 1867 uradnym jazykom URCITE NEBOLA latincina. Skor nemcina po potlaceni revolucie v rokoch 1848-49. PRED 1844 latincina BOLA uradnym jazykom, ale uz pred 1844 sa zacalo s postupnym prechadzanim na madarcinu.

Este stastie, ze ty so svojimi sudruhmi zo Sumracnej ste si vsimli "spravodlivy" Trianon, ale udalosti v 1989 nie. Priaznivci Viktora Orbana ci JobBiku s tym ale nemaju nic spolocne, takze laskavo sa zameriavaj na FAKTY.

Tvoja argumentacia nema logiku (ani hlavu ci patu) ocividne ani v slovencine, nie to este v anglictine. Kedze pred 1844 bola v Uhorsku uradnym jazykom latincina, treba pouzivat moderne slovenske nazvy?! Akoze ako mozu tieto dve tvrdenia suvisiet?! To je ako keby som povedal ze "pijem vodu z vodovodu a preto by som mal hrat pocitacove hry cely den".

Nastastie Elonka myslela aj na maniakov tvojho rangu a preto prisla s naming convention co ma usmernit aj tvoje snahy o komolenie dejin (a mien historickych osob). Pekne si to precitaj a rob si svoje upravy podla toho, lebo moze sa ti stat, ze nedodrzanie tych pravidiel ti bude niekto vycitat vo forme bloku...... -- CoolKoon (talk)

I agree with the unaltered use of Elonka- convention, as it provided a reasonable guideline as to the handling of naming issues in biographies. I am not happy about Wladtemplat's recent campaign to delete Hungarian placenames from biographies of clearly Hungarian persons. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was plenty of discussion at the time when the guideline was made. Now we only need to enforce it by reverts when necessary. That is actually not a hard thing to do reverts with clearly marked rationales and edit summaries referring to the guideline are not really reverts in the traditional sense, but simple following of the rules. Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)