Greetings to all!
     I am leaving for Budapest on Sunday July 9; I apologize for 
posting this so late. I would appreciate information about temporary 
internet hookups there (July 11-30, Aug. 11-14). I have a secondary 
question about Hungarian Mac resources.
     I especially need to be able to upload and send files to my 
home university in Bloomington, Indiana. I would like to be able 
to telnet to a unix machine there and check mail, as well as to 
ftp either from a mainframe or from my own computer (see below 
for hardware specs). However, I could also have mail forwarded 
to an address from which I couldn't telnet.
     I am carrying a Mac Powerbook 145B and  US Robotics 14,4K 
baud modem. I have no special cables; my relatives there have 
a very old (i.e., non-modular) telephone installation (4-plug 
round wall plugs on the phones), but I might be able to find 
a friend's apt. with a more modern installation, if it matters; 
everybody seems to be getting a phone now.
     Can anyone suggest an internet provider which would be 
suitable for me? I would also be willing to go somewhere and 
use a stationary terminal. Since I am a university professor, 
perhaps ELTE would provide a temporary courtesy account? 
(Some of their machines are fingerable, which I assume means 
true Internet connections.) Or I could pay some reasonable 
fee for a remote connection.
     What hardware problems will I face? I have already 
mentioned the phone plug problem; can I expect my modem 
to function there? Anything else that occurs to you?
     Finally, two related questions about Mac resources 
in Budapest. First, I would like to be able to find a place 
where I can print, at reasonable cost, Mac files to a 
Postscript printer (or emulator, I suppose). I need special 
fonts, which I will have with me. I can also generate .ps 
files including the fonts, which might be printable from 
Windows machines. (I have successfully created .ps files 
on the Mac and printed them from an OS/2 machine. Second, 
I would like to investigate the possibility that a Hungarian 
Apple dealer might be able to sell me some fonts from a full 
installation of the local version of System 7.5.1. I have 
three TrueType fonts from Apples International System 7.0.1, 
which is available via ftp from ftp.apple.com: Times CE, 
Courier CE, and Helvetica CE. These are VERY useful because 
they include all the diacritics used in several Central European 
languages, including Hungarian. Does Apple provide other 
such fonts in Central Europe? I'm especially anxious to get 
a Palatino CE, if one exists.
     Magyarul beszelek, de nem annyira jol, hogy kellemes 
beszelni peldaul a modemokrol! (Szlav nyelvesz vagyok.) 
     Koszonom elore!
     George Fowler
     

Liviu Iordache writes:

.. 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. 

OK so now you agree that at the time which the "Hamartolus" Chronicle
covered, i.e. up to mid X century, the Hungarians were NOT at the Kama 
river.


> 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.
And by the time Asen revived Bulgaria, there were no Slavs in the area 
north of the Danube it was overrun first by Petsenegs later by Cumans and 
the good Nestor does not write about these folks as "who now occupy the 
specific land", even though the Russians had more than close contact with 
both of these folks and surly knew where they were living at that time.
See other descriptions for the area which are in fact contemporary to the 
times, like Alfred the Great written at the end of IX century: ...To the 
east of them is a country of the Wends, who are called Sysyle; and south 
east, at some distance,the Moravians. These Moravians have to the west of 
them, the Thuringians and Bohemians and part of the Bavarians. To the south 
of them, on the other side of the Danube, is the country Carinthia south to 
the mountains called the Alps. To the same mountains extend the 
oundaries of the Bavarians and the Suebians; and then to the east of 
Carinthia, beyond the desrt is the country of the Bulgarians and to the 
east of them, the country of the Greeks" As far as Pannonia is concerned, 
administrativly it was under the count of Carinthia under the East Frank 
empire and the
"desert" between it and the Bulgars can be only the current Hungarian area 
west of the Danube where lo and behold Alfred says the Bulgarians are. 
Please note that Moravia is north of the Danube. The Slavs who lived in 
Carinthia were not shown as part of Moravia. Their dux Pribina was actually 
chased out by the Moravians  in 833 from the north of the Danube area by 
Moimir. " In cuius spacio temporis quidam Priwina exulatus a mimaro duce 
Maravorum supra Danubium venit ad Rabodum"  He became christian in Tra
smauer and swore fealty to Ludovicus. He was reporting to comes Ratpod as 
far as the pecking order was concerned. As a matter of fact he died in a 
war on the side of the Franks against the Moravians.

A fairly detailed description is given in Conversio Bagvariorum et 
Carantanorum for the relationship between the Franks and the Pannoian Slavs
this document details the relationship between the Pannonian domains and 
the East Frankish rulers. But lets quote some from Section VI "Tunc vero 
Sclavi post Hunos inde expulsos venientes, coeperunt istis partibus Danubii 
diversas regiones habitare. Sed nunc Huni inde expulsi sunt, et illa pars 
Pannonie ad diocesim Iuvavensem conversa est, edicendum putamus." This same 
document states that Pannonia was under Frankish rule continuously since 
796.


> >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.
Well the above quotes refute your theory as does the Fulda Chronicle for 
892 "Rex equidem assumptis secum francis,baioriis, alamannis, mense iulio 
maravam venit, ibi per IIII. epdomas cum tanta multitudine ungariis eciam 
ibidem ad se cum expeditione venientibus, omnem illam regionem incemdio 
devastandum versabatur. Missos etiam suos inde ad bulgaros et regem eorum 
laodomir ad renovandam pristinam pacem cum muneribus mense septembrio 
transmisit et ne coemptio salis inde maravanis daretur, exposcit. Missi a
tem propter insidias zuuentibaldi ducis terrestre iter non valentes habere, 
de regno brazlavnis paer fluvium Odagra usque Gulpam dein per fluenta save 
fluminis bulgaria perducti, ibi a rege honorifice suspecti, eadem via 
venerunt, cum muneribus mense reversi sunt." or from 893:
"Avari, qui dicuntur Ungari in his temporibus ultra Danuvium pergrantes 
miserablilia perpetravere. Nam homines et vetulas matronas penitus 
occiendo, iuvenculas tantum, ut iumenta, pro libidine exercenda secum 
trahantes, totam Pannoniam usque ad internecionem deleverunt."


> >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.

Well lets just keep quoting the  Annales Fuldenses. Who is the boss in 
Pannonia in 896 "Imperator pannoniam cum urbe palaudarum tuendem brazlovni 
duci sou in id tempus commendiavit." It is sure not the Moravians. What 
started the downfall of the Moravia in 898 "inter duos tratres gentis 
Marahensium, moymirum videlicet ac Zentobolchum eormque populum dissensio 
atque discordia gravissima exorta est," 899 "Iterum autem expeditione 
ordinata tempore hiemali Bawariorum principes cum suis fines Marahabitorum 
ffo
titer atque hostiliter invaserunt et manu valida loca illorum desertantes, 
predamque colligentes domumque reverentes habentes ea....."
In the meanwhile for 900 "Interea vero Avari qui dicintur Ungri tota 
devastata italia.... Ipsi namque eadem via qua intraverunt, Pannoniam ex 
maxima parte devastantantes, regressi sunt",for 901 " Interdum vero Ungarii 
australem partem regni illorum Corantanum devastando invaserunt."

The net effect is that all of the discussion relates to Slavs in Pannonia 
under Frankish control bordering the Bulgarians and the Hungarians coming 
in and besides creating royal havoc expelling the Franks from control of 
Pannonia settle on top of the Pannonian Slavs. The wars against Moravia 
proper, i.e. north of the Danube starts subsequent to these events as even 
Nestor indicates it.


> >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.                                              
Let's see that means that all of the above cited chronicles disappear into 
thin air. I beg to disagree and claim that the case is very strongly 
supported.

> 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 am sorry but all current historians have to build their case on the same 
meager and sometimes contradictory documents. What opinion they come to on 
the basis of the same documents is only another opinion unless they have 
some unavailable to others information.
I do not understand your stress on the "now" the Bulgarians originally 
settled on top of the Slavs and the Hungarians did the same, thus the area 
covered where the Slavs lived at one time is covered by the area that in
Nestor's time was occupied by the Hungarians and the Bulgarians. It so 
happens that the area that was eventually occupied by the Hungarians was 
also settled by Slavs and neighbored that of the Bulgarians at the end of 
the IX century.  In no place does tie Nestor the various statements 
together to indicate that the Vlach attack was anywhere near the the area 
where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. He specifically speaks of 
the Vlakh attack on the Danubian Slavs. It is soley your assumption that th
se Danubian Slavs were on the lower Danube that creates the problem. Such 
case is not shown anywhere by anybody contemporary to the times. So it does 
not make any difference whether it is the IX century or the XII century he 
is claiming. However, if there were any Slavs in the lower danube after the 
IX century they were attacked first by Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs and 
Cumans and if that was the case then Nestor probably would have heard about 
it. I am sorry but the more information you bring in the we
ker is the case for the Nestor Volochs being related to current Romanians.



> >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?

Well as you can see from the above the Hungarians were quite at home inside 
the Carpathians before the Simeon pro and contra event. Kocel probably died
inthe late 870s so for twohundred years later Nestor placing it in the 
880-890 bracket is not too bad (he pulled worse boners) I am sorry, but I 
am not aware of any part of Nestor that calims that Simeon beat the (butts 
or any other part of) Hungarians. The only entry I am aware of for 899-902 
where it is discussed that the Hungarians  "conquered the Bulgarians so 
that Symeon took refuge in Silistria" You sure it is not some wishful idea 
you are stating :-) Note, I am not questioning that the Pechenegs an
the Bulgarians did attack and defeated some Hungarian armies after Symeon
made peace with Leo.


> >>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.
As you can see from the Fulda chronicle they were quite merrily present 
inside Pannonia before then. Does Urbanski have  heretofore unkown by 
others sources? Besides which Regino of Prum, a contemporary, places their 
arrival in Pannonia in 889.



> >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.
You are correct it was Rastislav, but the net effect is the same.

> 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.
Again you are confusing Moravia with the pannonian fiefdom of the Franks, 
which was under continuous Frankish control from the VIII century. And yes 
the country was ruled by the Volochs i.e.the Franks as it is very clear 
from the Conversio and the Fulda Chronicle. Nestor clearly states that 
after they conquered the danubian Slavs and expelled the Volochs was when 
they attacked the moravians and the Czechs. The events actually fit. 



> >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"
Actually Symeon lost two battles, and after the peace with the Greeks he 
defeated the army under Levente and the Petsenegs allied with the 
Bulgarians attacked the settlements of the Hungarians, you should read the 
rest of the entries of the Fulda Chronicle.


> 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.
Apparently you suspect wrongly according to Regino and the Fulda Chronicle.


> 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.
This is your assumption and it is not confirmed by the records. They very 
likely crossed through TS also but the records claim that they settled in 
Pannonia proper see Regino for 889" The Hungarian people then were driven 
out of these regions and away from their own home by a neighboring people, 
the Pechenegs, because the Pechenegs surpassed them in numbers and bravery 
and because as we have explained, their inherited lands were insufficient 
to accomodate their swelling numbers. having thus been put to flight by the 
violence of the Pechenegs the Hungarians bade their homeland farewell and 
set out to seek..... First they roamed the deserts of the Pannonians and 
the Avars and sought their daily food by hunting and fishing. Then, by 
frequent and destructive inroads they broke though the borders of the 
Carinthians, Moravians and Bulgarians...." Thus it is even questionable how 
much actual connection was between the Petseneg and the Bulgarian wars.



>      2.The 895 alliance between the Magyars and
>           Sviatopluk it is not mentioned by any
>           chronicler. Actually, Sviatopluk died in 894.
Please note Svatopluk had a son also Svatopluk who was asisted by Arnulf 
and Co.     
>      
       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.
Well the "harassment" is described very differently by both Regino and the 
Fulda Chronicle or is that your translation for "multa miserablia" or  
"illam regione incendio devastandam" for 892 and 894. Or for the Annales 
Hildesheimenses: "Factum est bellum magnum inter Bawarios et Ungaros" for 
893

>      4.There is no report concerning an "expelling" of
>           the Franks by the Magyars.
Again see the Fulda Chronicle. What is the Frankish control of Pannonia 
after 899? Zilch.



> >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?
See above quotes or even better please read the references in toto.



> >>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<<<
The assumption is yours that they were expelled south. I have repeatedly 
stated that they did not do so, particularly because there was subsequent 
Hunarian expansion to the south also. You cannot pick and choose from a 
source and take the part thatvfits your argumenta sa holy writ while 
claiming that all other parts are BS. The only folks who were in fact 
expelled from Pannonia were the Franks, i.e. Nestor's Vollochs.


> 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.
No all I stated that if your interpretation of Nestor is right and the 
expelling took place in the direction to the south then why does Nestor 
state that the Hungarians had control of the lands to where they just 
expelled the Vollochs. Nestor may have cooked some dates and some facts, 
but lets not assume that he was stupid. You have to follow his writing and 
look at his indicated sequences, that was what he knew and not what we can 
unravel now.


> >>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 repeat the 906 war was against the Bavarians and all of their allies at 
Bratislava, the armies were led by Liutpold who was the actual ruler after 
Arnulf because Louis the Child was only 14 years old as amatter of fact he 
was also killed there as were many of the East Frankish lords and bishops. 
You cannot claim that to be the battle solely between the Moravians and the 
Hungarians
Moravia fell apart thereafter into Ostmark, Czezh and Hungarian control. 
But by then the ruler in Moravia was by the Frankish comes Richarius and 
Udalricus. The south of the Danube Slavs or Danubian Slavs were overcome 
sooner.(Note that some records show 907 and not 906 for the Bratislava 
battle)
I repeat my statements for current histories if they are not based on the 
extant records, what is the absis for the opinions?
> >I am still convinced that the Nestor Volochs were
> >Franks.

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

Yes there is, I got hold of Prof Lykachev the current Russian expert on the 
Povest and supposedly the facsimile copies will be coming. Then we can see 
hwere the Vollochs are placed among the nations described.

PS I hope you don't mind the Latin quotes, it should be easy for a Romanian 
:-)
Regards,Jeliko

LingNet -- "The Linguist's Bulletin Board System"
Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center

1.  General.  LingNet is the first BBS devoted to serving the needs of 
military linguists.  LingNet serves field sites, Defense Language
Institute (DLI) students and instructors (military and civilian), and other
organizations/agencies (military and civilian) that desire foreign language
information.  
2.  Basic services.  The basic services offered through LingNet: Messaging,
public and private; foreign language programs, to include word processors,
instructional programs, and games; foreign language materials, to include
survival kits, DLI developed materials (to authorized agencies), and
materials available through other agencies (CALL, NSA, FSI); SCOLA
information, and other DLI information.
3.  Access instructions:  Dial-in access:  Dial LingNet at DSN 878-6120, 
commercial (408)242-6120. After you have a connection, hit your enter key
two or three times to bring up the login prompt.  At the login prompt, type
"lingnet" (without the quotes) to connect to the system.  Internet access:  
Telnet to lingnet.army.mil (or 160.133.253.253) to establish your account.
The first time you connect, by phone or by Internet, you will enter "new" 
(without the quotes) at the prompt asking for your User-Id.  The system will
put you into a New User questionnaire.  After you fill out this questionnaire,
there is a short message with the system help file attached. 
     Depending upon your answers to the questionnaire, you will be given
either Civilian or Military Linguist (Milling) access, normally within 24 
hours of your first call.  If you are a Military Linguist, you will fill out 
an additional short poll (4 questions), then you will have access to the rest
of LingNet.
          If the system prompts confuse you, or you have a question, you can
request a chat with the System Operator (Sysop) at almost any time by typing
"/p Sysop" (without the quotes).  The Sysop is normally on duty from
0730-1630 PST and will help you out.  Again, we highly recommend you download
the BBSUSER.DOC file when you first log on to help you with system use.
OTHER INFORMATION
The following points of contact are provided for your information:
LingNet BBS Sysop:  878-5180 (voice)
FAX:  878-5512 (Attn LingNet; this is a multi-user fax)
Backup FAX:  (408) 649-5167 (commercial only)
These are DSN numbers; commercial prefix is (408) 242-xxxx.



.... Linguists:Try LingNet BBS-(408)242-6120/lingnet.army.mil/DSN 878-6120
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

In article >,
Hermes  > wrote:
>
>And the Serbs are realy the only neighbours we have, that have not stabbed
>us in the back.

Perhaps because they knew that you were better at that. 

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

That's no answer.  Nationalism and the notion of statehood to every
distinct ethnic group is a fairly recent idea.  Being able to found and
maintain a statehood requires a certain degree of awareness of national
consciousness, including a national leadership cadre that could make it
work.  Many nationalities, among them the Slovaks, only achieved it in
the last century.  But even then, they were only pushing for autonomy
within Hungary.  The idea of total separation happened only in this century,
on Czech instigation.

As to how independence can work for nations that get it before they are
ready for it, just look around in Africa.  But then, much of this may be
the result of the inherited colonial borders that do not coincide with
ethnic boundaries.  Familiar story, eh?
>
>I sure you found very easily the maps where Hungary extends over most of 
>Central and Eastern Europe ;=)

Indeed, but they are all by Western authors and publishers.
>
>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 !

What do you have against that ragtag band of mostly university students
whose resistance forced a real plebiscite in Western Hungary which the
Western politicians would not want to do initially?  And most of all,
what does anything I am writing have to do with Mein Kampf?  If
anything, your style is the one resembling storm trooper brashness.

Joe Pannon

--
Michelle Sandler

Hi,

Could someone please give me the correct address and telephone number for
the Hungarian Cultural Center on Rutgers campus in Piscataway, New Jersey.

Thank you very much.

Steve

On 7 Jul 1995, Kriza Gyorgy wrote:

> This is sick talk. 

Wow, how very intuitive ! That is precisely the point. I was answering
(feeding his own medicine) the heavily biased postings that Mr. Panon
likes to bestow upon us ;=)

m. cristian

In >  (Kriza Gyorgy) writes
:

>I heard PM Gyula Horn on the yesterday evening news on MTV1 (MTV = Magyar 
>TV). He talked about the need of reducing the budget deficit. One measure he 
>suggested is the introduction of visa obligation with respect to "some of 
>our neighbors to the South-East." He explained that this would help 
>controlling black labor. 

If the Hungarian PM thinks that a Hungarian from Transylvania needs a
visa to visit his friends/relatives/etc in Hungary, what could you
expect from Funar?

Is Hungary building a new iron curtain?

Well, let's hope that this suggestion will never become a reality.
>
>I remember the first time I was in Romania in 1966, we did not need a 
>passport. 
>
The dark ages of Kadar and Ceausescu :-)  Well, even a visa is better
than having them back :-)

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

In article > Kriza Gyorgy,
 writes:
>That one taxi company charges 56 Ft/km. 1200 Ft for a five-minute ride means 
>an average velocity of 260 km/h. I think you pay more than 1200 Ft, because 
>out of town you have to pay aller-retour, and the ride takes about 30 
>minutes.

No, you misunderstood me. They do not have kilometer charge. I think
the tactics behind is that the Airport is over the  border of Budapest,
it is in the country ;-) 
There is a big Budapest map by the taxi station on a pillar where the
differently charged district are coloured accordingly. The first, chea-
pest district starts at the boundary of Budapest (2 minutes drive from
the airport) and ends at Határ út. I used to stay at my relatives who
live 5 minutes drive from the Airport. That costed me once 1200 Ft by
taxi. This system could have bene modified recently. My experience is
one year old,  happened  last summer.

Tamás

In article > Liviu Iordache,
 writes:
>However, Gyorffy did not mention three important facts:
>(1)that the every day language of the late 9th century
>East Franks was German, Latin being just the official
>language;

German in the 9th century ??? Come on, it is a very easy
target...

>(2)that the Hungarian name for Romanians was
>Olah(i), a people whose every day language was a
>romance language,

No, definitely not. The 'olasz' -Italien is the older
word, much older than the 'oláh' in Hungarian. Both
words' roots in the 'valch'  but the 'olasz' came into
the language through Slavic language form 'vlasi', which
means the Hungarians did not live together with
romance volks. The 'oláh' name came later when the
Vlachs appeared in Hungarian populated areas and
their name made its way to Hungarian directly; thats
why it differs from the  'olasz'. Our language kept the
ending 'ch' -> 'h' sound but changed the first letter,'v'
to 'o' again.

>and (3)that tens of Middle-Ages
>place-names and geographical names containing the
>equivalent of the ethnic name Vlach (Vlas, Vlase,
>Vlasovo) still exist in present day Croatia, Serbia,
>Banat, Bulgaria, and Muntenia.

And in Switzerland (Wallis) and I am not going to talk
about the similar names in France.

Tamás

In article > T. Kocsis > writes
:
>A Kapu egy éppen végetért, tízrészes cikksorozatá-
>ról szeretnék pár sort írni.
>(Szekeres István: Régmúltunk írásjelekben)

Nagyon zavaros ez az egész, úgy látom. Például:

[...]
>3. A hun írásjelek ideográfikus jelntésének feltá-
>rásával több kínai jövevényszó létét sikerült bizo-
>nyítani nyelvünkben
>("cse"-lőke = celőke,
>s^eng = zseng -e, .ül)

Csak így, magyarul a zsenge, zsengül? (a másikat nem értettem)
Csaknem magyarok a kínaiak? :-)

[...]
>Ez a rész elég zavaros számomra, de a Szerző szerint
>a hunok a magyarok voltak....

Igen, már kezdem érteni, milyen fajta a Szerző...

[...]
>Tehát:
>hunok = koraavarok = székelyek

"Tehát"? Nem láttam ebben semmit, ami eziránt vinné a gondolatot: talán
túl rövidre foglaltad össze? Lehet, hogy van valami a "székely = hun"
legendában, de hogy ez bizonyítaná be... :-(

-- Olivier

Concert, Mon. July 17, 7p.m.
Hungarian American Cultural Center
26257 Goddard Rd., Taylor, MI

Tickets $15, in advance only
Contact:  Violet Misangyi 313-278-2629
               Linda Enyedy 810-352-0927

Meta performs tanchaz-style Hungarian folk music, as well as its own
interpretations of folk material ("Heavy Meta").  The group features
singer and primas Salamon Beata; Beran Istvan on kontra, furulya, bagpipe,
and tarogato; Nagy Zsolt on violin and kontra; and Mohacsy Albert on bass,
hurdy-gurdy, uta gardon, and koboz.  In addition, Meta will be joined by
two muscial masters:  Balogh Kalman on cymbalom; and Halmos Bela, one of
the founding fathers of the tanchaz movement, on violin.  

Meta will also be performing in Madison and Milwaukee, Wis.; Columbus,
Oh.; and Washington, D.C., among other cities.  Don't miss it! 

And while I'm here, a plug for Hungarian Symposium.  As someone who has
attended camp for almost ten years now, let me encourage anyone even
vaguely interested in traditional Hungarian music, dance, and culture, to
join us for a week of fun next summer.  You'll have a wonderful
time--hearing soul-stirring music, meeting great people, and dancing till
the wee hours.  My God, what else is there?!

soc.culture.magyar

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From:        (Dan Pop)
..........................
>I remember the first time I was in Romania in 1966, we did not need a 
>passport. 
>
The dark ages of Kadar and Ceausescu :-)  Well, even a visa is better
than having them back :-)

Dan Pop
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Eh, Interesting association, but I think the two were hardly alike.
Kadar came out of the  '56 Hungarian uprising with blood on his hands
and maybe a guilty conscience made him encourage the " goulash
communism".  
With Ceausescu was quite the opposite.  The '68 stunt
he pulled when the Czechoslovaks got some unwelcomed visitors was
an excuse to start a "dementia" at a grand scale.

By the way, what's going on with the "goulash capitalism" these days ?

The latest reports show results almost as mediocre as  Ilic & Co.
experimentation  with privatization of "mamaliga factories" !

Adrian

Wolfgang Rackebrandt ) wrote:

: 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."

Hungarian is probably one of the hardest European language to learn 
for a non-native speaker, so it's not hard to imagine that you were 
corrected by others.   Actually, the correct word order may depend 
not only on the intended meaning, but also on the preceeeding and 
following sentences' word order.

There are many correct ways to say "the dog sees the man" in Hungarian,
and even though there may only be one that fits into a particular 
context, all of them are correct.  (they were all listed in a
previous post)

Although this freedom may imply a context sensitive grammar, I would 
rather think about some higher order, inter sentence grammar rules.
  
If you say something in a sentence in a certain way, then the next 
sentence have to comply with it, so some restrictions are placed on 
that sentence based on the preceeding one.

CLARY Olivier ) wrote:
: In article > Hermes
 > writes:

: I do not see any encouragement to troubles, and I do see the refusal to
: change borders of Croatia, Bosnia etc, after their authorities decided to
: leave the federation. Because accepting the principle of border changes
: would bring up lots of territorial claims in Central Europe and Balkans,
: probably causing wars: this is what Western Europe fears.

	Hi Oliver:

	The problem with the whole Western approach to Yugoslavia is that 
it was really hyopocritical.  If the territorial integrity of states is 
paramount, then the Yugoslav army should have been permitted to put down 
illegitimate insurections.  On the other hand, if government rests on the 
concent of the governed, then the Serb majority areas within the 
PROVINCES of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina should have been granted the
self-determination not to join the STATES of Croatia and 
Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Forcing them into new states because it suited 
Germany's aim of carving as large a sphere of influence was not only 
immoral, it was also stupid.  Unfortunately, it turned out even worse 
than I immagined at the time.

	Alexander

 wrote:

: 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. 

	Victorian Britain had a huge colonial empire.  Part of its 
transformation included giving it up - including those parts of the 
United Kingdom itself which wanted independence.  If the Austro-Hungarian 
Empire was to have experienced similar political developments, it would 
now be shorn of everything but Austria and Hungary.

	Alexander

In > 
(Michelle G Sandler) writes: 
>
>
>--
>Michelle Sandler

>
When?  Where? How much?

>> |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 has always been my impression that the treaties at the end
of WW1 were intentionally punitive, and consequently were
deliberately insensitive toward the losing side (insofar as
anyone can be said to "win" a war).
-- 
---------------------------|------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Holt            | Disclaimer:  This isn't always my opinion;
Richmond, Virginia         | sometimes it's my cat's thoughts.
U. S. A.                   |                (Is it Friday yet?)
---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------

 wrote:
: In article >,
: Hermes  > wrote:
: >
: >The thing that matters, is that
: >Serbs are a majority in Vojvodina as well as in Kraina.

: That's probably true, but I was talking about Voivodina's history, not
: about what is today.  But from what I know, you may be right about the
: Serb majority there now.  Especially since the recent ethnic cleansing.
: However, I suspect that even in Voivodina there are areas with local 
: Croat majorities, just as those with Hungarian majorities.  
: Of those regions with local Croat majorities that are bordering Croatia,
: it would be reasonable to attach them to Croatia.

	Does this new-found willingess to consider self-determination 
mean that you have finally come to understand why Romanians reject your 
whole pre-WWI Transylvanian political theory?  If it does, then all of 
these Transylvanian threads have been worthwhile.

: Since Voivodina was not given specifically to
: either Serbia or Croatia by international treaties, partition of 
: Voivodina along ethnic lines seems to me justified after the collaps 
: of Yugoslavia.  This would be in line with the principle of
: self-determination, don't you think? 

	If I may paraphrase: "Since Voivodina, Transylvania, Slovakia, 
Croatia, etc. were not given specifically to either Hungary or Austria by 
international treaties, partition of the Austro-Hungarian Empire along 
ethnic lines seems to me justified after the collapse of the Dual 
Monarchy.  This would be in line with the principle of self-determination."

: >'Inherited', what a sad euphemism ! Inherited by killing, burning, destroing
: >a peoples culture and imposing catolicism by force.  No better than all the
: >lame aspersions you cast upon the Serbs today. 

: Second, the personal union (through royal blood lines) was normal by the
: standards of the contemporary feudal system.  So much so that to my
: knowledge the legitimacy of Croatia's status within the Hungarian
: kingdom was not challenged by the "international community" until the
: fall of Austro-Hungarian Empire.

	So, Hungary's claims on neighboring countries are based on "the 
standards of the ... feudal system."  Wake up, Joe, feudalism is dead.  
Even feudal families like mine realize that.  We now live in a world 
dominated by democracies.  Popular will should be dominant.

: More of the same, with an additional dose of self-projection. 
: (Well, along the lines: "we wanted to get Transylvania, so they must
: want to get if from us, too."  Or: "We want to get back Bessarabia, so
: they must be wanting to get back Transylvania.")

: It might be an interesting project to study why Romanians go into these
: fits whenever Hungarians want to set the historical record straight.
: Or at least present their version of it.  Romanians, like their recent
: protest over some Hungarian foreign ministry pamphlet shows, immediately
: are assuming Hungarian revisionist aspirations from it.  I wouldn't be
: surprised if such study would also conclude that these Romanian protests
: are just another manifestation of self-projection.  After all, they
: started their preparation for their grab for Transylvania with
: historical justification, this is what Hungarians must be doing
: whenever they talk about history.  It fits, doesn't it? 

	In case you forgot, Hungary's claims to Transylvania this century 
have always been historical.  It was the reason why the Romanian 
population was "voluntarily" Magyarized before WWI.  It was why half of 
Transylvania was handed over to Hungary by the Vienna diktat durring 
WWII.  While Romania also has historical claims to Transylvania, 
Romania's real claims are based on popular will.

	Alexander

 wrote:
: In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote
:
: >
: I wrote:

: >: Of course, Vojvodina belongs to neither the Serbs, nor the Croats,
: >: historically speaking.  It was part of Hungary until the end of WW I,
: >: after which it was given to the Serb-Croat Kingdom (later called
: >: Yugoslavia) by the peace diktat. So it was not given to either the Serbs
: >: or Croats separately, but to both of them jointly.

: No.  It means that Vojvodina belongs to neither the Serbs, nor the Croats,
: historically speaking.  It was part of Hungary until the end of WW I,
: after which it was given to the Serb-Croat Kingdom (later called
: Yugoslavia) by the peace diktat. So it was not given to either the Serbs
: or Croats separately, but to both of them jointly.

	I'm glad to see that you can still parot yourself so expertly.  
But, if Vojvodina wasn't given to either the Serbs or the  Croats, but to 
them JOINTLY, and now they aren't living in one state any more, does that 
mean that "Vojvodina belongs to neither the Serbs nor the Croats" and 
should be returned to "its rightful owners", the Hungarians?  If not, why 
are you telling us that Vojvodina historically belongs to Hungary?

: This just goes to show how little you know about history. 
: The relation of Croatia to Hungary was about the same as Hungary's to
: Austria.  Croatia was never considered integral part of Hungary and was
: never treated as such.  Just like in the case of Austria and Hungary,
: Croatia's crown was inherited by the Hungarian kings, way back in the
: 12th century.

	Joe, you should avoid historical arguments.  You can't win them.  
In 1102, when King Koloman of Hungary, having consolidated Hungarian 
control of Croatia, had himself crowned king of Croatia, he asserted the 
triple claims of conquest, inheritence and election.  And, his "rights" 
to Croatia came in just that order.

: >then, if you incorporate all of these territories with non-Hungarian 
: >minorities will you resort to the "voluntary Magyarization" of 
: >yesteryear?  No wonder your neighbors fear you, which is a shame since 
: >most Hungarians don't have your revanchist views, and thus make good 
: >neighbors.

: I thought we were talking about history, i.e., how it was, not how it
: will or should be

	If you were talking history, then why did you put up the 
claim that Vojvodina belongs to Hungary.  Use of the word "historically" 
to define how it belongs to Hungary does not negate your claim that it 
BELONGS TO HUNGARY.  If you went that it used to be part of Hungary, you 
would be right, and I wouldn't have posted a response to your post.  But, 
you didn't post that.

:.  But no matter what the subject, you can only think
: one thing, right?

	Talking to yourself again, Joe?

	Alexander

CLARY Olivier ) wrote:

Regarding an old question about English:

Old-English:     450 - 1050
Middle-English: 1050 - 1450
Modern-English: 1450 on
 
There's a period called Early-Modern-English:  1450 - 1700

CLARY Olivier ) wrote:
: In article > Mark Cristian > writes:
: >What if 'authorities' in Alsacia and Lorena decided to leave France ?
: >Perhaps to strike out on their own, or to join Germany ? 

: They are not in a federative frame. But even as they are: if elected regional
: councils had a majority for that, there could be a referendum like a few
: years ago in New-Caledonia (which had been negative)

	Would border areas which wanted to remain within France be forced 
out because the territorial integrity of Alsace or Lorraine is more 
important than the will of French citizens?  Permit me to doubt it.

	I also fail to see why provinces should be given the right to 
secession if they are given greater autonomy, but not if they are given 
less; after all, people with more autonomy should feel less need to 
seperate than those forced to live in a unitary state they see as foreign.

: - but it would not make 
: a lot of a difference when you already just drive through the border almost 
: without noticing (Schengen agreements). I wish it would be the same at the 
: Hungarian-Romanian border, it would mean real progress towards democracy!

	Amen to that,
	Alexander

Dan Pop ) wrote:
: In >  (Kriza Gyorgy) writ
es:

: >I heard PM Gyula Horn on the yesterday evening news on MTV1 (MTV = Magyar 
: >TV). He talked about the need of reducing the budget deficit. One measure he
 
: >suggested is the introduction of visa obligation with respect to "some of 
: >our neighbors to the South-East." He explained that this would help 
: >controlling black labor. 

: If the Hungarian PM thinks that a Hungarian from Transylvania needs a
: visa to visit his friends/relatives/etc in Hungary, what could you
: expect from Funar?

: Is Hungary building a new iron curtain?

	Let's be fair.  It isn't just Hungary's fault.  Hungary, Poland 
and the Czech Republic expect to enter the EU before more eastern states 
do.  The EU is obsessed with border controls (since the internal borders 
are so much freer).  If Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic expect to 
be admitted, they had damn well better follow European standards.  And, 
Germany did sign an interesting agreement with Romania about gypsies a 
few years back...

	Alexander

In article >, 
 says...
>
>
>
>On 4 Jul 1995  wrote:
>
>> No.  It means that Vojvodina belongs to neither the Serbs, nor the 
Croats,
>> historically speaking.  It was part of Hungary until the end of WW I,
>> after which it was given to the Serb-Croat Kingdom (later called
>> Yugoslavia) by the peace diktat. So it was not given to either the Serbs
>> or Croats separately, but to both of them jointly.
>> Capiche?
>
>Highly irrelevant neocolonialist verbiage.  The thing that matters, is that
>Serbs are a majority in Vojvodina as well as in Kraina.
>

Is history highly irrelevant? 


>> The relation of Croatia to Hungary was about the same as Hungary's to
>> Austria.  Croatia was never considered integral part of Hungary and was
>> never treated as such.  Just like in the case of Austria and Hungary,
>> Croatia's crown was inherited by the Hungarian kings, way back in the
>> 12th century. 
>
>'Inherited', what a sad euphemism ! Inherited by killing, burning, 
destroing
>a peoples culture and imposing catolicism by force.  No better than all the
>lame aspersions you cast upon the Serbs today. 


What are you talking about? Who destroyed what people's culture? Who imposed 
"catolicism" on whom? 


>
>> Slovakia, of course, was always an integral part of Hungarian Kingdom
>> and achived her first formally independent statehood only in this
>> century.  ... and I don't want to get here into another fruitless debate
>> about the Great Moravian Empire, which the Slovaks consider their
>> original state. 
>
>No doubt, 'inherited' by the Hungarian crown selflessly desiring to 'help'
>the Slovaks with a better government.
>

This is sick talk. 

>> Well, if you want to continue your shadow boxing,
>> I am no game.  How is that for another revanchist view?
>> Joe
> 
>Right, you would just have to bleed to death, for revanchism is your 
>blood ! You can't help it. As they say, if it looks like a revanchist, if 
it
>walks like a revanchist and it squacks like a revanchist, it must be a 
>revanchist !
>
>m. cristian

In article >,  says...
>
>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.
>

I can imagine that statistically the situation is worse than, say, at Zurich 
airport, but the fraction of lost luggage is still so low that you don't 
need to worry about that. (This is from my own experience.)


>>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.
> 

That one taxi company charges 56 Ft/km. 1200 Ft for a five-minute ride means 
an average velocity of 260 km/h. I think you pay more than 1200 Ft, because 
out of town you have to pay aller-retour, and the ride takes about 30 
minutes. 


>>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.
>

This is exactly the reason why only one company is allowed to take 
passangers at the airport. If something like that happens, now it can be 
traced back to the company. It's true that one has to be careful with 
taxi drivers in Budapest. Rules of riding a taxi are simple. You pay against 
a printed receipt showing the distance and the kilometer charge. These 
kilometer charges should be (and are) posted in teh taxi. You have to make 
sure the meter starts with the right amount (also posted). You also have to 
make sure that out of the typically three different km charges (day, night, 
long distance) the driver uses the right one. This may be more difficult for 
a foreigner. 

Black economy is wide-spread in Hungary. Hungarians often pre-negotiate the 
price. You pay less, and the driver will not pay the taxes. (Moreover, the 
meter will accumulate a "rolling distance", and the charges are deductible 
from the driver's income.)



>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)
>


If nobody picks me up, I take the shuttle bus to go downtown (Erzsebet 
ter, next to the Deak ter metro station) for 350 Ft. It goes every 30 
minutes. That blue bus (94?) takes you to the Kobanya-Kispest metro and 
train station for 35 Ft, if it helps. 

>Tamás

Gyorgy

In article >,  says...
>
>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 a hexameter there are two kinds of metrical feet: 
dactylus (long--short--short) and spondeus (long--long). In principle, a 
hexameter should end with a dactylus and a spondeus. That makes five 
syllables. The remaining four feet can be either of the two. That is, the 
number of syllables in a hexameter varies between 13 and 17, but even 
Homeros wrote all-spondeus hexameters with 12 syllables. (A nagy Homerosz is 
szundikal neha.)

Gyorgy

In article >,  says...
>
>In article > Mark Cristian > 
writes:
>>What if 'authorities' in Alsacia and Lorena decided to leave France ?
>>Perhaps to strike out on their own, or to join Germany ? 
>
>They are not in a federative frame. But even as they are: if elected 
regional
>councils had a majority for that, there could be a referendum like a few
>years ago in New-Caledonia (which had been negative) - but it would not 
make
>a lot of a difference when you already just drive through the border almost
>without noticing (Schengen agreements). I wish it would be the same at the
>Hungarian-Romanian border, it would mean real progress towards democracy!
>-- Olivier


I heard PM Gyula Horn on the yesterday evening news on MTV1 (MTV = Magyar 
TV). He talked about the need of reducing the budget deficit. One measure he 
suggested is the introduction of visa obligation with respect to "some of 
our neighbors to the South-East." He explained that this would help 
controlling black labor. 

I remember the first time I was in Romania in 1966, we did not need a 
passport.