bandwagon

I hope it's not too late to jump on it...



Ľudovít Štúr speaking before the Hungarian Assembly. In a speech held on January 15th, 1848, he advocated the use of vernaculars (other than Hungarian, naturally) in education and proposed to amend the legislation under debate accordingly.
Image source: www.stur.sk





Michal Hodža, one of the authors of the 1852 ortography reform which established the so-called "etymological principle". This included the introduction of the letter "y" (absent in Štúr's codification), a move widely criticized, especially by Slovak schoolchildren.
Image source: www.stur.sk



Now let's see if anybody gets this one... :o)
Image sources:
Original image: hethitologie.de
The cuneiform character: John Heise's Akkadian page.

And finally, a big lolthanks to lolpresident for the inspiration. The one with Bush and Topolánek - priceless. And the bukkit category is a masterpiece of the lolart.

solution

WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE AHEAD!

And the correct answer to last week's puzzle is [drumroll]

büdös = IPA: [bydøʃ].

Of a total of 25 participants (both online and off-line), the correct answer was provided by [drumroll]

No one.

Which certainly does not surprise me, because there ain't no way in hell the first consonant is a voiced bilabial stop (and, accordingly, no participant identified it as such) and neither vowel is rounded (almost everybody heard [i] and [ɛ] / [e] respectively). Now I am familiar with the word büdös, but this particular phrase is one I had never heard before and had it not been for my buddy smiki who explained it to me, I would never have guessed. I wonder why. My initial suspicion, i.e. the 'cartoonish' voice quality which makes it sometimes hard to watch South Park even in English, was invalidated by the fact that I didn't have any comprehension problems with the rest of the episode. So what is it? Regional accent? Some sort of (suprasegmental) devoicing and derounding doesn't sound very likely...

But hey, everybody's a winner here and here is your prize. Let's start with the full transcript and the translation:

Cartman: Kis türelem [kiʃ tyrɛlɛm]
Teacher: Gyerünk, Eric! [ɟɛryn̪k ɛrik̪]
Cartman: Büdös picsába! [bydøʃ pitʃaːbɒ]
Kyle: Ha ha!
Cartman: Kus, Macesz! [kuʃ mats̻ɛs]

Cartman: Just a minute! (lit. A little patience!)
Teacher: Let's go, Eric!
Cartman: Aw fuck! (lit. Into the stinky cunt!)
Kyle: Ha ha!
Cartman: Shut up, dude!

The most interesting thing about this exchange - and the reason it attracted my attention - is the translator's choice. In the original English version, when prompted to step up, Cartman replied with his trademark "Goddammit". (A) picsába! is a common enough way of expressing dissatisfaction or disappointment in Hungarian, but it is also several degrees above "Goddammit" in strength and lack of social appropriateness. Knowing the Hungarian dubbing industry, I would expect A francba! "Dang it!" or something along those harmless lines.

Speaking of translation strategies, check out an excerpt from the episode 5x11, which also features the term picsa. This time as a translation of English "What the fuck was that?", i.e.

Mi a picsa volt ez? [mi ɒ pitʃɒ volt ɛz]
what DEF cunt was this

While not necessarily a bad translation, there is a slight difference in meaning here. In English, the "the fuck" part of WH- interrogative expressions acts as a modifier or intensifier (also see here). That would be best translated using the all-purpose expletive a picsába (see below). Asking Mi a picsa volt ez? in Hungarian amounts to inquiring as to the type of the thing or phenomenon encountered. Mi a picsa volt ez therefore means something like "What kind of a cunt was this?".

Another interesting thing is the use of the Illative (-ba/-be) indicating direction into an enclosed space. Both picsa "cunt" and fasz "dick, prick" often appear in Hungarian abuse language in the Illative. On their own or preceded by the definite article a they function as interjections and can be translated as "Fuck!" or "Fuck that!". Often, however, they appear preceded by verbs in the imperative, such as in the time tried recommendation Menj a picsába! "Go fuck yourself! (lit. Go into the cunt!)" and its anatomically impossible variety Menj a faszba "lit. Go into a prick!". This usage closely mirrors that of Czech and Slovak. In Slovak, the same structure (albeit expressed analytically by means of a preposition) and the same word are used: Do piči! or Do piče! as interjections, Choď do piči! or the more intensive Bež do piče! lit. "Run (in)to a cunt!" as full imperatives. Taboo words connected with reproduction are not that common in Czech. Instead, Czech relies on terms and expressions associated with excretion. A Czech would therefore say Do prdele! "lit. Into an ass!" or Do řiti! and Jdi do prdele! or (much less commonly) Jdi do řiti!

Growing up, I never heard the phrase büdös picsába, nor did I ever hear someone mutter or yell a faszba. It's not that my folks and neighbors are especially polite, far from it. They just opted for a different approach: the third member of the unholy trinity, the ancient verb bászni "fuck" (1st. pers. sg. ind. baszom) and a noun in the Accusative. Baszom az istenét (lit. "I fuck God") is, together with Baszom a Krisztus-Máriát / a Krisztusát, still my father's favorite. Baszom az anyád(at) ("... your mother"), baszom az apád(at) ("... your father") and baszom a világot ("... the world") are just a few other options for those not willing to sin against the Second Commandment. Softer versions can be obtained by omitting the verb - az anyád, az apád, a Krisztusát etc. Such forms have even been borrowed into Slovak as azapát, azaňát and kristušát. Readers of Jaroslav Hašek will surely find all of this familiar, though the author of Good Soldier Švejk might have gotten his case or possessive suffixes wrong. Even the Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian version Jebem ti majku! "I fuck your mother!" can be found mentioned in Švejk.

The similarities mentioned above raise many fascinating questions concerning linguistic contact, common inovations and area linguistics. The etymology of the word piča (SK)/picsa (HU) /pička (HR/BiH/SRB), for example, is a big unanswered question. Similarities such as the Illative structures mentioned are striking and even the differences, such as the aforementioned difference between reproduction based taboo vocabulary and excretion based taboo vocabulary, are truly fascinating. Someone ought to do a real study.

Speaking of comparative scatology and scatological language contact: even the ever popular imperative baszd meg "fuck you" was borrowed into Slovak and Czech as both an interjection bazmek! and a masculine noun bazmek meaning "thingie, device, gizmo". Just to give you an idea of the currency this borrowing from Hungarian enjoys all over the former Czechoslovakia: my hometown Košice is still jokingly referred to as Bazmek city. And check out and ctrl+f this Czech forum on overclocking and this hardware discussion board. Oranžovej bazmek, now that's a typical one.

And finally, here is a little gem smiki found while researching büdös picsába on the internet for me: a rézfaszú bagoly. This one deserves a full treatment:

réz = copper
fasz = dick, prick
-ú = an adjective-forming suffix
bagoly = owl

Thus:
A rézfaszú bagoly = A copper-dicked owl.

Dunno about you, but I laughed all day. And that was before I found out there is a t-shirt you can order with the full version, i.e. Vigyen el a rézfaszú bagoly = "May a copper-dicked owl take it". 2600 forints equals aproximately $14. Pity they only deliver to Hungary...

Now excuse me, I have to get back to the kibaszott work. Vigyen el a rézfaszú bagoly, indeed.

cartman

Hey folks, anyone up for a little game?
Excellent! So here is the board and the pieces:

A - a brief excerpt from an episode of South Park dubbed into Hungarian.
B - a transcript in both standard Hungarian ortography and IPA:

Cartman: Kis türelem [kiʃ tyrɛlɛm]
Teacher: Gyerünk, Eric! [ɟɛryn̪k ɛrik̪]
Cartman: (X) picsába! [(X) pitʃaːbɒ]
Kyle: Ha ha!
Cartman: Kus, Macesz! [kuʃ mats̻es]

Now (X) marks the spot with the treasure we're after. It's a single word consisting of two syllables spoken between 00:00:03 and 00:00:04 and what I want from you, boys and girls, is to provide a transcription below in the comments using any transcription method you like. Everyone who provides the correct transcription, wins.
Warning: speakers of Hungarian need not apply and are asked not to spoil it for everybody else.
The lucky winner(s) will receive my eternal gratitude, a brief lesson in Hungarian and the knowledge that they succeeded where others (such as myself :o) had failed.

Good luck!

easter

Mark 16:6:

Онъ жє глагола имъ: нє ѹжасайтєсѧ: ˀɪ҃иса ищєтє назарѧнина распѧтаго: воста, нѣсть здѣ: сє, мѣсто, идѣжє положиша єго:

Христос воскрес, everyone!

islamic

I have been worshipping at the altar of Language Log for quite some time now. Normally, all I can do is stand aside, marvel and try to learn. But today, reading Bill Poser's post "Political Correctness, Linguistic Incorrectness", I just had to pause, think hard and finally respond. Since Lameen took the first step and published his reaction, I decided to throw in my €0.02 and republish parts of the email I sent to Bill Poser earlier today. But first, a brief recap:

Bill Poser's post is a passionate reaction to an article in the Telegraph which reports that

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.
Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

The article also specifies the phrase "Islamic terrorism" as one of those to be replaced by more PC alternatives. Bill Poser draws the rather incomprehensible conclusion that

The EU really thinks that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

and, in Lameen's words

seeks to justify the term "Islamic terrorism" by saying that "Dozens of terrorists have explicitly said that they are Muslims and that their motivation was Islam. Moreover, there is clearly widespread support among Muslims for terrorism."

Bill Poser supports this by quoting two polls centered around support for suicide attacks against civilians and specifically Americans which purport to show that Muslims support such actions. Lameen retorts by quoting another statistic which shows that a large number of Americans support bombing of civilian targets and wonders whether

Americans' killings of Muslim or Muslim-looking civilians ought to be termed "patriotic terrorism"

Well, ought it?

Lameen also makes one very important point:

The likes of Al-Qaeda wrongly describe their own terrorist acts as jihad in order to make them appear legitimate to other Muslims; for Western governments to publicly accept this characterisation is about as sensible as it would be for Muslim critics of Bush to start losing no opportunity to call him a true American patriot...

Needless to say, I absolutely agree. I am also very sorry to see that Bill Poser has fallen into the same trap many pundits and pseudoexperts cannot seem to avoid: he appears to be taking the "terrorist" rhetoric at face value. To parody a Slovak "expert" on Middle Eastern affairs (may his arse itch and his hands be so short he could not scratch it!): "They say they kill for Islam. Well golly gee gosh aw shucks, they say it, then it must be true! Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist!" Please. We are scientists. No matter how emotionally affected we are, we must always question the first impression, always dig deeper, never believe we know it all and understand everything. If we do, what do we become? Pundits, I fear. And I don't know how about you, but I'd be better off in a pine box on a slow train back to Georgia Košice.

And now for my original comments: first of all, I cannot help but notice that Bill Poser has failed to define "terrorism". I can only conclude from his statistical examples that by that he means actions like suicide bombings against civilians. If I'm correct, then I must confess that I find the comparison he uses rather puzzling. He is in fact equating a group people whose distinguishing characteristic is a fight for/against something (Roman Catholics/Evangelicals - abortion) with a group of people whose distinguishing characteristic is the use of certain tactics (Muslims - suicide attacks). Please forgive me if the phrase "apples and oranges" sounds more than appropriate.

My second objection to Bill Poser's conclusions is based on his attempt to take the logic behind the alleged EU guidelines ad absurdum:

By the same token, "Christian opposition to gay marriage" does not imply that all Christians are opposed to gay marriage or that Christians are particularly associated with opposition to gay marriage.

That is true. But isn't it also true it's the Christians who are particularly associated with opposition to gay marriage and abortion? Consequently, there are two ways to understand the phrase "Christian anti-abortionists":

(1) people who oppose abortion who are (happen to be) Christians.

and

(2) people who oppose abortion because they are Christians.

In other words, (1) provides a description, while (2) indicates a causal relationship. In this case, both interpretations would be correct, as the majority of Christians are bound by the tenets of their belief and the teachings of their churches to oppose abortion.

Similarly in case of "Islamic terrorism", when I hear this phrase, I understand it to mean

(3) people who comitted terrorist acts and who are (happen to be) Muslims

whereas a faithful Fox News viewer or LGF reader might actually hear

(4) people who comitted terrorist acts because they are Muslims.

While (3) certainly is correct in any sense of the word, (4) is probably not. There are two reasons why this may be so - the first one (all major authorities of Islam have denounced terrorism and terrorists) is still rather controversial and will be best left for experts to pronounce final judgement on. The other reason is far more interesting and hinges on the answer to the following question: do Muslims commit terrorist acts because the commandments of their faith order them to? Does a Hamas suicide bomber blow himself up because the Qur'an tells him so or does he actually hope to contribute to a bigger cause? Do the "insurgents" in Iraq drive trucks full of explosives into US Army checkpoints just because the Imam said so or do they see it as another step in achieving a goal? It seems they do. Hamas is - at least nominally - fighting for an independent Palestine state. Various factions in Iraq are either trying to get the US troops out or to wipe out each other. Even Bin Ladin's final goal was the overthrow of the Saudi royal family.

That being so, doesn't it mean that there is a small but significant difference between the semantic content of the word "Christian" in "Christian anti-abortionists" and "Islamic" in "Islamic terrorist"? My answer would be yes. In fact, my observations indicate that the adjective "Islamic" in "Islamic terrorism" is not a purely descriptive one, but is very often used to point out the causal relationship between Islam and terrorism. Needless to say, this a) distorts reality (to believe that, say, a Hamas suicide bombing and an attack on US troops by the Badr Corps share the same cause is sheer lunacy) and b) is designed provoke an emotional response. That's just not helpful and only desirable to those with their own dark motives.

Here I would like to point out that it is by no means certain that the EU Commission and/or Parliament are in fact banning the term "Islamic terrorism". I'm a cynical SOB and I hate journalists, I will therefore not believe a word The Telegraph prints until I get independent confirmation. Especially not if their description of the terms prohibited by the "secret handbook" (my, my, my, what an interesting choice of words...) sounds too recycled. But even if the EU did adopt such a policy, the use of terms like "ostrich-like approach" and "stupid and dangerous" to describe such steps would still be rather unfortunate. In these times of empty rhetoric, rejecting meaningless terms and nonsense phrases like "Islamic terrorism" in favor of more accurate descriptions would be most welcome. Holding on to them is irresponsible.