1549 messages over 194 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 46 ... 193 194 Next >>
Kisfroccs
Bilingual Pentaglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 5409 days ago
388 posts - 549 votes 
Speaks: French*, German*, EnglishC1, Swiss-German, Hungarian
Studies: Italian, Serbo-Croatian
| Message 361 of 1549 28 March 2011 at 9:39pm | IP Logged |
maxval wrote:
Interesting!
Let me tell the example of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire!
There were 10 official languages in the country (German, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Italian, Ruthenian, Romanian, Croatian, Serbian) and the governments working languages were 2: German and Hungarian. However in the Austrian-Hungarian Army there was only 1 command language: German! The official explanation was that if there was more than one command language, then this would possibly cause many misunderstandings in a situation of war.
But in Switzerland there are no wars, so this is not a trouble for the Swiss Army... :-) |
|
|
You would be surprised : Switzerland. In Switzerland, the legal ages to shoot are 10 and 14 years. After the army service, every man has the right to have his firearm in his house, in order to defend the country. That means, in nearly every house in Switzerland you will find a firearm. In some more. Army has a strong tradition in Switzerland, although it's being questionned these days... We are an armed neutrality. That means we won't interfere in conflict, but we will defend ourselves
EDIT: N.B. it is strongly questioned because there isn't an enemy anymore (after the Cold War). And I don't know if it's really that useful to have a firearm in order to defend the country... if it will work. But I'm not against shooting, I do it myself sometimes.
Edited by Kisfroccs on 28 March 2011 at 9:48pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
| maxval
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Bulgaria
maxval.co.nr
Joined 5073 days ago
852 posts - 1577 votes
Speaks: Hungarian*, Bulgarian, English, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Latin, Modern Hebrew
| Message 362 of 1549 28 March 2011 at 9:54pm | IP Logged |
Kisfroccs wrote:
The Iron Curtain may have fallen, but it's still two worlds I think. Don't you think ?
|
|
|
This is a problem earlier than the Iron Curtain. The countries and the nations in West were formed by a different way, than in the East. Now I have no time to explain it, maybe tomorrow will write about this a little more.
Kisfroccs wrote:
We still haven't understood how the "highway" in Bulgaria works. The Otoban :) (nice word !). Could you explain ?
|
|
|
In Bulgaria there is flat tax paid for 1 week or 1 month or 1 year. There is no other taxes for using the highways. In Serbia you pay every time you use a highway.
Edited by maxval on 28 March 2011 at 9:56pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
| hribecek
Triglot
Senior Member
Czech Republic
Joined 5349 days ago
1243 posts - 1458 votes
Speaks: English*, Czech, Spanish
Studies: Italian, Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Toki Pona, Russian
| Message 363 of 1549 29 March 2011 at 12:57pm | IP Logged |
Maxval, I was wondering if you could clarify the differences between the 'ról/ről' and 'tól/től' endings?
I think I understand 'ból/ből'
Köszönöm előre
1 person has voted this message useful
| maxval
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Bulgaria
maxval.co.nr
Joined 5073 days ago
852 posts - 1577 votes
Speaks: Hungarian*, Bulgarian, English, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Latin, Modern Hebrew
| Message 364 of 1549 29 March 2011 at 5:01pm | IP Logged |
hribecek wrote:
Maxval, I was wondering if you could clarify the differences between the 'ról/ről' and 'tól/től' endings?
I think I understand 'ból/ből'
Köszönöm előre |
|
|
In the "place" type endings there is always three versions:
A. Moving to the place,
B. Being at the place,
C. Moving from the place.
There are three subtypes of "place" type endings:
1. "inside the object" - as "in" in English,
2. "on top of the object" - as "on" in English,
3. "at the object" - as "at" in English.
This info is well known for you.
So, every subtype has three version.
1.
A. -ba / -be
B. -ban / -ben
C. -ból / -ből
2.
A. -ra / -re
B. -n / -on / -en / -ön
C. -ról / -ről
3.
A. -hoz / -hez / -höz
B. -nál / -nél
C. -tól / -től
For example:
- "házból" means literally "from inside the house"
- "házról" means literally "from the top of the house"
- "háztól" means literally "from the house" in the sense then you are were not inside the house, only "at" the house, and you move from there to other place
The speciality of -ról / -ről is that it has double meaning, it means not only "from the top of the object", but also means "about the object".
I am not sure whether my explanation was good enough, plz ask if something is not clear!
There is also a 10th "place" type ending, its -ig - it has ALMOST the same (but not the same!) meaning that -hoz / -hez / -höz. It is the "B" type, as per the categorization used by me.
Edited by maxval on 29 March 2011 at 5:06pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
| maxval
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Bulgaria
maxval.co.nr
Joined 5073 days ago
852 posts - 1577 votes
Speaks: Hungarian*, Bulgarian, English, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Latin, Modern Hebrew
| Message 365 of 1549 29 March 2011 at 5:28pm | IP Logged |
maxval wrote:
1.
A. -ba / -be
B. -ban / -ben
C. -ból / -ből
2.
A. -ra / -re
B. -n / -on / -en / -ön
C. -ról / -ről
3.
A. -hoz / -hez / -höz
B. -nál / -nél
C. -tól / -től
|
|
|
I will try to give you sentences, so you can understand better the differences:
1.
A. Bemegyek a házba, bent van a feleségem, vele akarok beszélni. I go into the house, my wife is inside, I want to talk to her.
B. A házban vagyok, ülök egy széken. I am in the house, I sit on a chair.
C. Kimegyek a házból, meg akarom nézni miért ugat a kutya a kertben. I go outside from the house, I want to see why the dog is barking in the garden.
2.
A. Felszereltem a házra egy műholdantennát. I mounted to the house (to the roof) a satellite antenna.
B. A házon van egy brit zászló, mert ebben a házban lakik a brit nagykövet. On the house (on its outer part) there is a British flag, because the British ambassador lives in this house.
C. A házról levették a brit zászlót, mivel a brit nagykövet máshová költözött. They removed the British flag from the house, as the British ambassador moved to other place.
3.
A. Odamegyek a házhoz, megnézem, hogy rendben van-e a fal. I go to the house (without entering inside) to check if the wall is in order.
B. A háznál egy ember vár, csönget, szeretne bemenni. At the house a man is waiting, he rings the bell, he would like to enter.
C. A háztól a kerti medencéig a távolság 12 méter. The distance from the house (from the outer part of it) to the garden pool is 12 meters.
Also:
-ról / -ről in other sense:
Látod, erről a házról beszéltem neked tegnap! Do you see, I was talking yesterday to you about this house!
-ig:
A kutya megijedt, egészen a házig futott. The dog got scared, it ran up to the house.
Edited by maxval on 29 March 2011 at 5:33pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
| maxval
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Bulgaria
maxval.co.nr
Joined 5073 days ago
852 posts - 1577 votes
Speaks: Hungarian*, Bulgarian, English, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Latin, Modern Hebrew
| Message 366 of 1549 29 March 2011 at 6:15pm | IP Logged |
Kisfroccs wrote:
maxval wrote:
Kisfroccs wrote:
in other words: how a Swiss-German considers himself, as an ethnically German person who lives in Switzerland or as an ethnically Swiss person whose native language is German? As an ethnically Swiss person whose native language is Swiss-german.
Does that answer your questions ? :)
|
|
|
Yes. And this is very interesting! There is like a wall between Eastern and Western Europe in this sense, a wall bigger that the Iron Curtain.
This Swiss situation is simply IMPOSSIBLE to happen in Eastern Europe.
For example a Hungarian from Slovakia will NEVER identify himself as a Slovak with Hungarian language or even as a Slovak with Hungarian ethnicity. He will always say that he is a Hungarian living in Slovakia and he will emphasis on the fact he is NOT a Slovak in any sense, he is only a citizen of Slovakia, but nothing more.
I think that the Western European version is much better, this is why there are almost no ethnic conflicts in Western Europe. |
|
|
And don't understand : I will never identify myself with being French, it's simply impossible. Or a Swiss-german will never say that he is German. He is Swiss, and his native language is not German, but Swiss-german. In the CAE test I did, I could choose Swiss-german as a mothertongue (but my mothertongue is French, and German from my mother).
French happens to be the language of Switzerland, France, Belgium and Luxemburg. But I will never identify myself as these. Even the French I speak is my identity : I do not speak the French they speak in France :).
But you are right, in Switzerland the conflicts are futile in comparison what happens in the East. And a lot of people in the West are not aware of the fact that there are a lot ot ethnical conflicts in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania etc. Conflicts between minorities, roms, ethnical and political problems (Nagy-Magyarország for instance). The mentality are not the same I should add. Really not. The Iron Curtain may have fallen, but it's still two worlds I think. Don't you think ?
By the way, I was in Sofia, and your photos reminded me of mine :). I came from Niš, Serbia, and from there to Sofia with the car. Rila was beautiful, really. But Bulgaria was a bit too cold for me after being in Serbia and Hungary were we had a warm welcome. (I was in Pécs and in Niš) And it was really a shock to see all these cars from western europe :). We still haven't understood how the "highway" in Bulgaria works. The Otoban :) (nice word !). Could you explain ?
Kisfröccs |
|
|
So, I said that I would give my explanation about the differences between Eastern Europe and Western Europe on the question of nation/ethnicity.
The root of this difference is the fact that the formation of the modern countries was 100-200 and even more years earlier in the West than in the East.
Nationalism is a new phenomen, it didnt exist before the end of the 18th century.
It the West the modern countries were formed BEFORE the era of nationalism. So first a concept of nation was formed, and then, later nationalism was linked to this concept. This is why a Swiss-German and a Swiss-French feel themselves as Swiss, and their linguistic differences dont matter. Or in Britain is the same. Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Irishmen were united as "British". The linguistic differences were something of second class importance. When the era of nationalism came later, it didnt destruct the already existing nation concepts.
In the East the situation was totally different. There were three big multinational empires, the Austrian, the Russian and the Osman. They didnt have any common nation concept, there was no common Austrian, Russian or Osman nation, people were Austrian, Russian and Osman "subjects", but not part of a common "nation". So in the era of the nationalism, every ethnic group in these big empires developed a separate national identity. And every ethnic group began to fight to build a "nation" for itself, on the base of ethnic national identity. When a group succeeded in its fight, only people of the same ethnic considered the new country as a "homeland", people of other ethinc groups considered themselves as "foreigners" in a "foreign country".
For example Slovaks didnt want to be part of Hungary, they wanted their own country. When Slovaks separated from Hungary, and Czechoslovakia was formed after the WWI, Slovaks didnt feel confortably either as they still didnt have their "own" country. They continued to fight to have "Slovakia". They used this possibility every time they had a chance for it: first in 1938, and later in 1993! But the country "Slovakia" was a homeland only for ethnic Slovaks, people of other ethnicities didnt feel much in common with this "Slovak country". This is why Hungarians in Slovakia dont really identify themselves with this country, they continue considering themselves as "foreigners" living in a "Slovak country".
The same happens with other ethnic groups too.
Now there are modern regulations about minority rights and other similar things, but it doesnt change the mentality.
For example most Hungarians think that the ultimate "dream" of an average Swiss-French person is to separate the Swiss-French lands from Switzerland, unite with his French "brothers" and be part of France. When I say to a Hungarian, that in reality Swiss-French people feel themselves as SWISS and not as FRENCH, he thinks this is not logical and this is even unnatural!!! Why they dont want to "unite" with their "brothers"??? And even they dont want to unite, why they dont feel themselves as French nationals???
A sport example.
When there is a football match at the World Cup between Switzerland and France, a Swiss-French football fan will support Switzerland. For a Hungarian this is some kind of strange nonsense. When there is a football match between Hungary and Romania, a member of the Hungarian ethnic minority in Romania will support Hungary, not Romania! If the match is between Romania and for example Austria, then he will support Romania of course, but if it plays against Hungary, he feels obligated to support his "own" country, and its Hungary in this case, not Romania.
Edited by maxval on 29 March 2011 at 6:19pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
| Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7156 days ago
4228 posts - 8259 votes
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish
| Message 367 of 1549 29 March 2011 at 9:04pm | IP Logged |
maxval wrote:
Kisfroccs wrote:
maxval wrote:
Kisfroccs wrote:
in other words: how a Swiss-German considers himself, as an ethnically German person who lives in Switzerland or as an ethnically Swiss person whose native language is German? As an ethnically Swiss person whose native language is Swiss-german.
Does that answer your questions ? :)
|
|
|
Yes. And this is very interesting! There is like a wall between Eastern and Western Europe in this sense, a wall bigger that the Iron Curtain.
This Swiss situation is simply IMPOSSIBLE to happen in Eastern Europe.
For example a Hungarian from Slovakia will NEVER identify himself as a Slovak with Hungarian language or even as a Slovak with Hungarian ethnicity. He will always say that he is a Hungarian living in Slovakia and he will emphasis on the fact he is NOT a Slovak in any sense, he is only a citizen of Slovakia, but nothing more.
I think that the Western European version is much better, this is why there are almost no ethnic conflicts in Western Europe. |
|
|
And don't understand : I will never identify myself with being French, it's simply impossible. Or a Swiss-german will never say that he is German. He is Swiss, and his native language is not German, but Swiss-german. In the CAE test I did, I could choose Swiss-german as a mothertongue (but my mothertongue is French, and German from my mother).
French happens to be the language of Switzerland, France, Belgium and Luxemburg. But I will never identify myself as these. Even the French I speak is my identity : I do not speak the French they speak in France :).
But you are right, in Switzerland the conflicts are futile in comparison what happens in the East. And a lot of people in the West are not aware of the fact that there are a lot ot ethnical conflicts in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania etc. Conflicts between minorities, roms, ethnical and political problems (Nagy-Magyarország for instance). The mentality are not the same I should add. Really not. The Iron Curtain may have fallen, but it's still two worlds I think. Don't you think ?
By the way, I was in Sofia, and your photos reminded me of mine :). I came from Niš, Serbia, and from there to Sofia with the car. Rila was beautiful, really. But Bulgaria was a bit too cold for me after being in Serbia and Hungary were we had a warm welcome. (I was in Pécs and in Niš) And it was really a shock to see all these cars from western europe :). We still haven't understood how the "highway" in Bulgaria works. The Otoban :) (nice word !). Could you explain ?
Kisfröccs |
|
|
So, I said that I would give my explanation about the differences between Eastern Europe and Western Europe on the question of nation/ethnicity.
The root of this difference is the fact that the formation of the modern countries was 100-200 and even more years earlier in the West than in the East.
Nationalism is a new phenomen, it didnt exist before the end of the 18th century.
It the West the modern countries were formed BEFORE the era of nationalism. So first a concept of nation was formed, and then, later nationalism was linked to this concept. This is why a Swiss-German and a Swiss-French feel themselves as Swiss, and their linguistic differences dont matter. Or in Britain is the same. Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Irishmen were united as "British". The linguistic differences were something of second class importance. When the era of nationalism came later, it didnt destruct the already existing nation concepts.
In the East the situation was totally different. There were three big multinational empires, the Austrian, the Russian and the Osman. They didnt have any common nation concept, there was no common Austrian, Russian or Osman nation, people were Austrian, Russian and Osman "subjects", but not part of a common "nation". So in the era of the nationalism, every ethnic group in these big empires developed a separate national identity. And every ethnic group began to fight to build a "nation" for itself, on the base of ethnic national identity. When a group succeeded in its fight, only people of the same ethnic considered the new country as a "homeland", people of other ethinc groups considered themselves as "foreigners" in a "foreign country".
For example Slovaks didnt want to be part of Hungary, they wanted their own country. When Slovaks separated from Hungary, and Czechoslovakia was formed after the WWI, Slovaks didnt feel confortably either as they still didnt have their "own" country. They continued to fight to have "Slovakia". They used this possibility every time they had a chance for it: first in 1938, and later in 1993! But the country "Slovakia" was a homeland only for ethnic Slovaks, people of other ethnicities didnt feel much in common with this "Slovak country". This is why Hungarians in Slovakia dont really identify themselves with this country, they continue considering themselves as "foreigners" living in a "Slovak country".
The same happens with other ethnic groups too.
Now there are modern regulations about minority rights and other similar things, but it doesnt change the mentality.
For example most Hungarians think that the ultimate "dream" of an average Swiss-French person is to separate the Swiss-French lands from Switzerland, unite with his French "brothers" and be part of France. When I say to a Hungarian, that in reality Swiss-French people feel themselves as SWISS and not as FRENCH, he thinks this is not logical and this is even unnatural!!! Why they dont want to "unite" with their "brothers"??? And even they dont want to unite, why they dont feel themselves as French nationals???
A sport example.
When there is a football match at the World Cup between Switzerland and France, a Swiss-French football fan will support Switzerland. For a Hungarian this is some kind of strange nonsense. When there is a football match between Hungary and Romania, a member of the Hungarian ethnic minority in Romania will support Hungary, not Romania! If the match is between Romania and for example Austria, then he will support Romania of course, but if it plays against Hungary, he feels obligated to support his "own" country, and its Hungary in this case, not Romania. |
|
|
This matches neatly with my observations of many Eastern Europeans and is the neatest and most honest explanation why Western Europeans tend to get into trouble when they get involved in Eastern European affairs (and why many Eastern Europeans never seem to understand fully the geopolitical thinking of Western Europeans).
Following along maxval's comments about nationalism in the eyes of an Eastern European I note that some of the most nationalistic Croats whom I've ever met are from the predominantly Croatian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Somehow they feel that they have to prove their "Croatianess" (even though they have lived all of their lives outside Croatia and have only gone to Croatia on short visits) to the point of supporting the idea of splitting Bosnia-Herzegovina with each ethnic group then getting its "own" country (or at least attaching itself to the larger and presumed "motherland"). This contrasts strongly with what I saw in Finland when I met Swedish-Finns. Few if any of them have any desire to form their own country or welcome "liberation" by the Swedish army. On sports they told me that when Finland plays Sweden in a hockey game, they'll gladly support only Finland and wear the Finnish jersey or paint their faces with Finnish flags. They would feel weird supporting Sweden in these matches even though their mother tongue is Swedish and acknowledge that their families/ancestors have assimilated a good deal of Swedish culture and at one time identified themselves more closely to the former Swedish overlords than the Finnish subjects.
2 persons have voted this message useful
| maxval
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Bulgaria
maxval.co.nr
Joined 5073 days ago
852 posts - 1577 votes
Speaks: Hungarian*, Bulgarian, English, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Latin, Modern Hebrew
| Message 368 of 1549 29 March 2011 at 9:54pm | IP Logged |
Chung wrote:
maxval wrote:
Kisfroccs wrote:
maxval wrote:
Kisfroccs wrote:
in other words: how a Swiss-German considers himself, as an ethnically German person who lives in Switzerland or as an ethnically Swiss person whose native language is German? As an ethnically Swiss person whose native language is Swiss-german.
Does that answer your questions ? :)
|
|
|
Yes. And this is very interesting! There is like a wall between Eastern and Western Europe in this sense, a wall bigger that the Iron Curtain.
This Swiss situation is simply IMPOSSIBLE to happen in Eastern Europe.
For example a Hungarian from Slovakia will NEVER identify himself as a Slovak with Hungarian language or even as a Slovak with Hungarian ethnicity. He will always say that he is a Hungarian living in Slovakia and he will emphasis on the fact he is NOT a Slovak in any sense, he is only a citizen of Slovakia, but nothing more.
I think that the Western European version is much better, this is why there are almost no ethnic conflicts in Western Europe. |
|
|
And don't understand : I will never identify myself with being French, it's simply impossible. Or a Swiss-german will never say that he is German. He is Swiss, and his native language is not German, but Swiss-german. In the CAE test I did, I could choose Swiss-german as a mothertongue (but my mothertongue is French, and German from my mother).
French happens to be the language of Switzerland, France, Belgium and Luxemburg. But I will never identify myself as these. Even the French I speak is my identity : I do not speak the French they speak in France :).
But you are right, in Switzerland the conflicts are futile in comparison what happens in the East. And a lot of people in the West are not aware of the fact that there are a lot ot ethnical conflicts in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania etc. Conflicts between minorities, roms, ethnical and political problems (Nagy-Magyarország for instance). The mentality are not the same I should add. Really not. The Iron Curtain may have fallen, but it's still two worlds I think. Don't you think ?
By the way, I was in Sofia, and your photos reminded me of mine :). I came from Niš, Serbia, and from there to Sofia with the car. Rila was beautiful, really. But Bulgaria was a bit too cold for me after being in Serbia and Hungary were we had a warm welcome. (I was in Pécs and in Niš) And it was really a shock to see all these cars from western europe :). We still haven't understood how the "highway" in Bulgaria works. The Otoban :) (nice word !). Could you explain ?
Kisfröccs |
|
|
So, I said that I would give my explanation about the differences between Eastern Europe and Western Europe on the question of nation/ethnicity.
The root of this difference is the fact that the formation of the modern countries was 100-200 and even more years earlier in the West than in the East.
Nationalism is a new phenomen, it didnt exist before the end of the 18th century.
It the West the modern countries were formed BEFORE the era of nationalism. So first a concept of nation was formed, and then, later nationalism was linked to this concept. This is why a Swiss-German and a Swiss-French feel themselves as Swiss, and their linguistic differences dont matter. Or in Britain is the same. Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Irishmen were united as "British". The linguistic differences were something of second class importance. When the era of nationalism came later, it didnt destruct the already existing nation concepts.
In the East the situation was totally different. There were three big multinational empires, the Austrian, the Russian and the Osman. They didnt have any common nation concept, there was no common Austrian, Russian or Osman nation, people were Austrian, Russian and Osman "subjects", but not part of a common "nation". So in the era of the nationalism, every ethnic group in these big empires developed a separate national identity. And every ethnic group began to fight to build a "nation" for itself, on the base of ethnic national identity. When a group succeeded in its fight, only people of the same ethnic considered the new country as a "homeland", people of other ethinc groups considered themselves as "foreigners" in a "foreign country".
For example Slovaks didnt want to be part of Hungary, they wanted their own country. When Slovaks separated from Hungary, and Czechoslovakia was formed after the WWI, Slovaks didnt feel confortably either as they still didnt have their "own" country. They continued to fight to have "Slovakia". They used this possibility every time they had a chance for it: first in 1938, and later in 1993! But the country "Slovakia" was a homeland only for ethnic Slovaks, people of other ethnicities didnt feel much in common with this "Slovak country". This is why Hungarians in Slovakia dont really identify themselves with this country, they continue considering themselves as "foreigners" living in a "Slovak country".
The same happens with other ethnic groups too.
Now there are modern regulations about minority rights and other similar things, but it doesnt change the mentality.
For example most Hungarians think that the ultimate "dream" of an average Swiss-French person is to separate the Swiss-French lands from Switzerland, unite with his French "brothers" and be part of France. When I say to a Hungarian, that in reality Swiss-French people feel themselves as SWISS and not as FRENCH, he thinks this is not logical and this is even unnatural!!! Why they dont want to "unite" with their "brothers"??? And even they dont want to unite, why they dont feel themselves as French nationals???
A sport example.
When there is a football match at the World Cup between Switzerland and France, a Swiss-French football fan will support Switzerland. For a Hungarian this is some kind of strange nonsense. When there is a football match between Hungary and Romania, a member of the Hungarian ethnic minority in Romania will support Hungary, not Romania! If the match is between Romania and for example Austria, then he will support Romania of course, but if it plays against Hungary, he feels obligated to support his "own" country, and its Hungary in this case, not Romania. |
|
|
This matches neatly with my observations of many Eastern Europeans and is the neatest and most honest explanation why Western Europeans tend to get into trouble when they get involved in Eastern European affairs (and why many Eastern Europeans never seem to understand fully the geopolitical thinking of Western Europeans).
Following along maxval's comments about nationalism in the eyes of an Eastern European I note that some of the most nationalistic Croats whom I've ever met are from the predominantly Croatian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Somehow they feel that they have to prove their "Croatianess" (even though they have lived all of their lives outside Croatia and have only gone to Croatia on short visits) to the point of supporting the idea of splitting Bosnia-Herzegovina with each ethnic group then getting its "own" country (or at least attaching itself to the larger and presumed "motherland"). This contrasts strongly with what I saw in Finland when I met Swedish-Finns. Few if any of them have any desire to form their own country or welcome "liberation" by the Swedish army. On sports they told me that when Finland plays Sweden in a hockey game, they'll gladly support only Finland and wear the Finnish jersey or paint their faces with Finnish flags. They would feel weird supporting Sweden in these matches even though their mother tongue is Swedish and acknowledge that their families/ancestors have assimilated a good deal of Swedish culture and at one time identified themselves more closely to the former Swedish overlords than the Finnish subjects. |
|
|
Yes, your comments about the Swedes in Finland are absolutely true. A big part of them even dont call themselves "Swedes", they prefer "Swedish-speaking Fins".
I personally have a strong anti-nationalist political position. When talking about that, many Hungarians say I am a "traitor" or an "anti-Hungarian activist". Or when they discover that I am not of Hungarian ethnic background (In reality only 1 of my 8 great-grandparents was ethnically Hungarian, and even he was in reality with Cumanic roots), they say "yes, we understand you, you are with Hungarian native language, but you have no Hungarian BLOOD, this is why you cannot understand OUR HUNGARIAN CAUSE, you are a Hungarian speaking foreigner and nothing more, you learned well OUR language, but you dont FEEL by the HUNGARIAN WAY, better you go back to the homeland of your ancestors, Hungary is not for people like you who lack the HUNGARIAN SPIRIT". This is not a joke!
There were/are Hungarian nationalists who speak about "strong Hungarians" and "weak Hungarians". The "weak Hungarians" are those who speak Hungarian as a native language, but havent "assimilated" the Hungarian "spirit". Even the national Hungarian poet of the 19th century Sándor Petőfi was qualified as "weak", as in reality he was ethnically Slovak on maternal side, and Serbian on his paternal side, so 0 % of "Hungarian blood".
All this stuff must be funny for a Western European and even funnier for an American or Canadian. But this is absolutely "normal" for a Serbian, Albanian, Polish, etc.
So America is a happy place. There everyone who considers himself American, is considered an American by other people. I know Cuban-Americans because of my Cuban connections, and I know Cubans in Florida who speak English ten times less than I speak English, and they are still recognized as Americans by every one.
In Hungary you can have a pure white skin, look like a Hungarian, speak Hungarian as a native speaker, even have a Hungarian name, and still to be counted as "non-Hungarian".
And I personally have absolutely no chance, as I have a non-Hungarian name... :-)
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.4375 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
Language Learning Forum : Multilingual Lounge
Printable version
