In article >,
Gotthard Saghi-Szabo > wrote:

>Otherwise, I can only regard your action as a personal initiative,
>that might go evetually through with only non-Magyar help ;-(
Well of course it is a personal initiative -- what did you expect, the
Hungarian Parliament petitioning Usenet for redress?  And if it gets through
with non-Magyar help, so much the better! You seem to miss the point
completely: s.c.{m|h} is not primarily for Hungarians (who have plenty of
ways to interact) but for foreigners seeking information about Hungary and
Hungarian people/things/customs/etc. The effect of the "magyar" name is to
make the group hard to find for the majority of the English-speaking people
who don't know the first thing about Hungary.

>I would choose quite the opposite, and using this opportunity on USENET
>to make 'Magyar' more popular and widely known.
Sure, 15M- Hungarian speakers make the case for changing the language of
300M+ English speakers, why not. While we are at it, let's also push for
their changing from "nose" to "orr".  It is a fine word, and most speakers
of English would have little trouble switching.

>We should rather initiate referendum for changing the other Magyar group's
>name to bit.listserv.magyar from bit.listserv.hungary .
The name follows the naming convention for listserv-based lists, so you would
need to campaign on the list for the change, not here.

>'Magyar', otherwise is getting more into the mind of especially American
>public, thanks to e.g. articles in the Washington Post.
On a three hundred million word frequency count on the Wall Street Journal
the word "Magyar" occurs exactly 9 times. The word "Hungary" occurs 788
times, the word "Hungarian" 420 times. Compounds such as
"Hungarian-speaking" or "Hungarian-born" are also present, but even if we
discount these the word "Magyar" has a little less than three quarters of
one percent of the frequency of "Hungary".

The temerity of English-speaking journalists knows no bounds when it comes
to using the words of their language rather than the words of some other
language: for example, they use the word "Farsi" 30 times and the word
"Iranian" 2796 times. "Suomi" is used twice, "Finland" 413 times.
"Deutschland" occurs 20 times, "Germany" 9364 times. Perhaps we should seek
the support of the Iranians, the Finns, the Germans, and practically
every other nation on Earth and make this a general campaign...

>Hungarian         -    Magyar
>Hungary                   -    (Magyarland - as Ireland or Szekelyfold ...)
>Hungarian Kingdom  -   Magyar Kingdom
>Hungarian Republic -   Magyar Republic
Sure, Gotthard, sure. I also have this nice bridge to sell you, it's called
the "Chain Bridge" or "La1nchi1d". While Webster's might do you a favor
and define "Magyar", notice that it will use "Hungarian" to define "Magyar"
and not the other way around.

Andra1s Kornai

Am seeking names/addresses of Clown groups, Clown magazines, and Circuses
in Hungary.  Would like to contact them to send me their photos.
Any assistance would be appreciated.  Please respond to 

Thank you.

I have a nice apartment to rent in Pest. Modern appliances and new washer.
Its in the IX district and I would rent for one year at $300.00USD per
month. It will be available May 1, 1995.
Phil Dietrich

On 26 Feb 95 02:09:28 +0200, paul > wrote (abridged):

>What does Xenophobia have to do with not wanting foreigners (people with not
>interest in the well being of your society, just of his own pocket) to
>control major parts of a economy?

Usually, when people buy shares, invest in companies, set up businesses,
it's not for well being of the society, but for their own pocket. (At least,
I do it so and peole whom I know do it so...) Well being of the society
is not an abstract concept but goes through well being of people's own
pockets. Sorry, it's simply so.

>the production of oil in the middle-eastern countries in the early part
>of this
>century (Hess-British, Shell-British, Standard Oil-US, etc)?
>In that case it was
>demonstrated that foreign dominance could result in a mass exidus of
>capital and
>especially of profit, when foreigners control an industry.

Let's remark that without foreign investment of the petroleum companies,
there still would be nothing else in Middle East than sable and desert.
One can dislike foreign dominance, exodus of capital and profit, but only
after the capital has been brought in the country, well invested, produced
a huge added value, and created wealth, isn't it? It has been invested
out there because it was the most profitable place to do so, and because
investment decisions are being made that way. If there is no more interesting
investment opportunity in the country, capital has to have a possibility to
go where it is profitable.

>Cautiousness against foreigners is not xenophobia.
>Xenophobia is a deep dislike of foreigners; prejudice.  realising the real
>risks introduced by foriegners is wise.

Xenophobia is an IRRATIONAL dislike of foreigners. Wise can be defined in
many ways, the above one is one of them, so after all, why not.

>I think that foreign investment is not the most important thing to develop
>the Hungarian economy.  Freedom is.

Good point.

>The US developed in a very short time not
>because
>of foreign investment, but because of the freedom to start a business.

There were many conditions different, though, like, for example, environment
was for free, nature was reasonably supposed to be infinite, there were not
so much people per square kilometer as in Central Europe, a country that
has just be colonized and was in need of infrastructure, the dimensions of
that country... At that time, even the concept of "foreign investment" had
no such meaning as today;-)

Hungary, like other post-communist countries, suffer of scarcity of cash
and bring there fresh money from outside of the economy is a ballon of
oxygen for the economy.

In a global economy, when looked at regardless of national boundaries,
there is an ocean of low technology, of mediocre performer businesses
(the above two are not necessarily identical) with high-technology islands
that usually is high profitable and create the most added value per dollar
invested, per square meter of land taken, per employee,etc.
If such business is set up in a country like Hungary, everyone wins, even
the State budget because such a business will bring much taxes paid both
directly and indirectly via money of employees and supplying firms spent
locally. Instead of "Cautiousness against foreigners", not to say
xenophobia, identifying win-win situations and taking profit of them
is the real issue. If someone wins, it's not necessarily because
someone else had to loose...

If we look at what added value Hungary (and other post-communist countries)
really has, then it's cheap brainware. That's really an asset to build on.

Roman Kanala

On 27 Feb 95 12:11:54 +0200, paul > wrote
under subject Re: Re,: Foreign Investments:

>In the US and Russia (to take 2 economies with extremely different levels
>of development)
>small business is the largest producer of new jobs.  Granted. in russia most
>companies are substantially foreign owned by small investors, but there are a
>substantial number of russian people, mostly ex government officials (whic
>makes
>you want to know where they got the money), who are starting
>small businesses.
>And this is happening today.

Good point. Small and middle firms are more dynamic, more inventive,
accepting to take more risks than mammuths. They also are more vulnerable,
especially in post-communist countries, where societies are
undercapitalised.

In Switzerland, for example, the biggest part of small and medium entreprises
are high-technology societies, they employ, if I remember it correctly,
about half of total workforce but produce more than two-thirds of the GDP
(sorry, no time to check the figures in statistics, but for quick
orientation these numbers should serve as well).

However, small entreprises cannot bring to life nuclear power plants,
railways, mines, steelworks, they cannot produce automobiles nor exploit
an airport, etc. for one simple reason: they cannot invest enough.

Small is beautiful was "in" back in late seventies, today even the
"left" economists admit role of big capital cannot be replaced in
an economy.

If there is no cash in the country, the only way to get it
is getting it outside of the country.

Roman Kanala

In article >,  (Andras
Kornai) writes:
 [... most of his jeremiad about respective uses of Hungarian and Magyar
      omitted ...]
|> .... While Webster's might do you a favor
|> and define "Magyar", notice that it will use "Hungarian" to define "Magyar"
|> and not the other way around.
|>
|> Andra1s Kornai

DEFINE Hungarian
DEFINITION 0
Hun-gar-i-an \,he{nj}-'ger-e^--en, -'gar-\ n
(1553)
1a: a native or inhabitant of Hungary: MAGYAR
1b: a person of Hungarian descent
2: MAGYAR 2
-- Hungarian adj


DEFINE Magyar
DEFINITION 0
Mag-yar \'mag-,ya^:r, 'ma^:g-; 'ma^:j-,a^:r\ n
[Hung]
(1797)
1:a member of the dominant people of Hungary
2: the Finno-Ugric language of the Magyars
-- Magyar adj

This is on-line Webster, though. Perhaps Andras Kornai has got
another Unabridged and Revised one.

Nit-pickingly,
--
Tamas Gaal >, Tel: (+33 1) 39-63-57-38 Fax: -53-30
Smail: INRIA, Rocquencourt, BP 105, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France

Tamas Gaal wrote:

: This is on-line Webster, though. Perhaps Andras Kornai has got
: another Unabridged and Revised one.

Listen, the point of Hungarian vs Magyar is user-friendliness.  We
want to appeal to more people.

I suggest soc.culture.hungary-happy.land.of.gypsies.and.goulash to
further the name recognition.

--Greg

 writes:
>
> On 26 Feb 95 02:09:28 +0200, paul > wrote (abridged):
>

> >The US developed in a very short time not because
> >of foreign investment, but because of the freedom to start a business.
>
> There were many conditions different, though, like, for example, environment
> was for free, nature was reasonably supposed to be infinite, there were not
> so much people per square kilometer as in Central Europe, a country that
> has just be colonized and was in need of infrastructure, the dimensions of
> that country... At that time, even the concept of "foreign investment" had
> no such meaning as today;-)
>

Tut tut.  Shows how much we are influenced by US revision of their own
history. In fact, foreign investment had as much to do with developing
the US as all those other factors.  It is little acknowledged by the
Americans that much of their mining, railway, and heavy industry was
developed either directly by British loans and investment, or
indirectly  by the robber baron financiers of Wall Street borrowing
money from British financial houses to reinvest in the US.  The
Americans were generally smart enough to get investment in the form of
bonds and notes rather than stocks... once the loan is repaid,
ownership is American.  Stock investment means control remains in the
hands of the shareholders.
 Once upon a time I read somewhere that the King Ranch (the biggest
cattle spread in the World) in Texas was owned entirely by a British
firm. As were a number of other large ranches which the US likes to
think were developed by hardy pioneers rather than shrewd British
financiers recognizing a quick buck.  It gives you a different outlook
on the romantic cowboy legend when you realize they were simple wage
employees of some London lord.  (It was a long time ago I read this,
but I believe i is accurate)
   Nevertheless, the point is that foreign investment did indeed play
a large role in making America what it is today, as foreign investment
might well do for the Visegrad countries.


> If we look at what added value Hungary (and other post-communist countries)
> really has, then it's cheap brainware. That's really an asset to build on.
> Roman Kanala

   Yup. That is what will save those countries if they are only smart
enough to recognize it.  They have highly-educated,
highly-enterprising people who will work for birdseed.


    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

Though I think, this discussion is a storm in a tea pot, and maybe the word
"hungarian" would be better than "magyar" from the practical point of view,
I still would vote for the keeping of the word "magyar", since it more
properly describe what I am.

Sandor

Six week free trial subscription to Hungarian Hirlevel available on request.

Send name and Fax number or snail address to

I would like to see your apartment when I am in Budapest during the last
two weeks in April if this would be convenient for you.  I would be happy
to meet with you as soon as I arrive. Planning to move to Budapest for 3-5
years.  Thanks.

The following is from the February 1 issue of Le Monde, under the
headline "Nationalisme roumain".

Ever since its "revolution" of December 1989, so atypical in the East,
accompanied by violence and ambiguity, Romania has always retained its
difference. The nationalist hysteria which has reigned in Bucharest for
the past ten days is only one more illustration of this. President Ion
Iliescu, it is true, condemned on Monday, January 30th the "extremist
remarks" made by one of his government allies against the significant
Hungarian minority in the country. But this position taken by the head
of state is as tardy as it is unconvincing.

Officially, this latest flare-up in tensions was provoked by the
decision of the party of the approximately 1.7 million Hungarians of
Romania, the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (DAHR) to form
a "Council of Locally Elected Deputies". For a political party, such a
development should come as no surprise. But the nationalist movements
immediately seized the occasion to denounce it as an attempt at
"separatism" and the Minister of Justice even threatened to ban the
DAHR, which represents the largest ethnic minority in Europe. The
bidding war escalated to the point that a representative of the party in
power demanded a meeting of the Supreme Defense Council, while another
political leader called for the imposition of a state of emergency in
Transylvania.

While it is undeniably true that the DAHR in keeping vague its demands for
autonomy is providing its enemies with arguments, the hysterical and
frequently xenophobic reactions which have followed the creation of the
DAHR council are totally disproportionate. The specter of a
"dismemberment" of Romania is not borne out by an examination of the
facts. First, Romanians of Hungarian extraction are a minority in
Transylvania. Second, the only two counties in which they form a large
majority are located inside the country, hundreds of kilometers from the
Hungarian border. Finally, there is no irredentist movement in Hungary,
apart from a handful of marginalized extremists.

Rather than posing a serious threat to the integrity of the state, the
Hungarian minority essentially serves as diversion. How can one fail to
notice that this new campaign against the DAHR has come on the heels of
an accord which reinforces the collaboration between the party in powewr
and three extremist, ferociously anti-Hungarian factions? In this way,
the smokescreen created by such artificial polemics has permitted those
in power to pursue, out of view, the removal of numerous mayors from
major towns, including Brasov, which are essentially controlled by the
the opposition. Since 1990, 160 mayors have been dismissed in this
fashion. It is here where the real stakes of this crisis are to be
found: by keeping alive the danger of Hungarian "separatism", using
politically unpalatable allies as their intermediaries, Romanian
authorities find an easy pretext for opposing any decentralization of
power, which is the keystone of true democratic transformation. Indeed,
is not "the Hungarian question" really nothing but a "Romanian
question?"

>From: 
>This is spookie!! Why do we need moderators? I'd rather hear offending
>opinions than be oblivious to them. Things are not all that nasty here as
>to require moderation. It seems to me there is more to lose then to gain!!


Count me in here!  There has not been a domonstrated need for moderation.

Paul Gelencser

>>In the US and Russia (to take 2 economies with extremely different levels
>>of development)
>>small business is the largest producer of new jobs.  Granted. in russia most

>However, small entreprises cannot bring to life nuclear power plants,
>railways, mines, steelworks, they cannot produce automobiles nor exploit
>an airport, etc. for one simple reason: they cannot invest enough.

Yes, however the point was to get people employed, and to start the
creation of capital.  With this, tax income will increase without
increasing the tax rate since there is more stuff to collect taxes on.
Im not pushing 'trickle down economics' on the US model since the
US economy is already developed.  I Hungary there is so much the people
need, and so much opportunity to provide it that 'trickle down' should
work there.  Also, since the level of technical knowledge is so high,
there is great opportunity for software development for export, taking
advantage of the lower cost of labor.

Things like the Tungsgram factory of General Electric are what I have in
mind - low tech, easy to start, everyone in Hungary has to buy light bulbs,
and there is a stable international demand for the product.  I undersatnd
Tungsgram has had some problems lately (not exactly sure what though),
but the concept is valid.  As a contrast, there is no need to start a
plant for the production of luxery cars for the domestic market, since
there is obviously no need for that - yet.  Other products would be
household supplies (cleaners, toilet paper, soap, towels, linens, etc)
clocks, toys, umbrellas, and all other common everyday items, especially
those things that were scarce during communist days.  Loans to farmers
to buy more efficient equipment would also help the economy as well as
improve the food supply - the cost of food may increase somewhat due to
the farmers need to pay off his loans, but over the long haul improved
efficiency is the only way to go.  I idea here is to create jobs
as fast as possible - jobs that people can live on, not the Hungarian
equivalent of poverty level employment that exists in the US, but real
living wage jobs.  Maybe a Hungarian TVA or NRA (National Recovery Act),
which seems to have worked well in the US.  What I'd like to avoid is
selling off the whole country (again, my example of total foreign control
of the middle eastern oil fields in the early 20th centrury - not
good for the native people and economy).  Not that Hungarian executive
are necessarily more patriotic to Hungary than foreign execs, but the
govenment can deal with a domestic company more easily than a foreign
one (remember the US problem with the Japanese computer chip industry
dumping chips on our market below market price to kill our industry
in that area?  Why should they stop - how can the US make them?)


Paul Gelencser

Roman Kanala wrote:

>>the production of oil in the middle-eastern countries in the early part
>>of this
>>century (Hess-British, Shell-British, Standard Oil-US, etc)?

>there still would be nothing else in Middle East than sable and desert.
>One can dislike foreign dominance, exodus of capital and profit, but only

In the case of middle eastern oil fields, the actions of the western
countries went further than to bargain hard on revenue sharing.  They
took a take-it-or-leave-it attitude with the governmets, as well as
outright refusing to pay to the gov't it's fair share (and to land
owners on whose land they were drilling).  They used their economic strength
to say 'we can hold out longer than you can' along with straight forward
cheating to get every penny they could.  You could say this was partly
because the locals didn't know better (didn't understand the value of
their resource) but the real issue is economic power and control.
We see this today in south-east Asia, where western companies are
harvesting a native tree for production of some large scale product (
don'r remember the tree or the product - I think the tree was bamboo, but
I cannot imagine what you'd make of bamboo).  The harvesting is large
scale, and the economic damage is huge, but why should the company execs
care, they don't live there (economic and environmental damage are huge).
Also, western companies are sending toxic waste to S.E. Asia, since there
are no regulations for it's disposal there, so the cost is little
more than the cost to send it there.  Again, why not, they don't live
there.  Have you ever noticed that toxic waste dumps and incinerators
are never put into rich neighborhood, but in poor and highly populated
places - those with power rule in their best interest.  Hungarian owners
would not necessarly make decisions based on patriotism, but they will
be less inclined to lay economic waste since they have to live there.

Paul Gelencser

Let me point out to my accomplice ;-( Andras that we're dealing with an
emotional attachment to the idea of transplanting 'magyar' into the
English language, therefore sarcasm is unlikely to help (not that I don't
have some particularly funny bits in mind to apply if logic won't
prevail: some involves "Dobos-torta" in second-level hierarchy names, so
be warned ;-))!
 While I'm touching upon the field of emotions let my suggest this to
those fond of angol nyelvujitas: have a look at Seton-Watson's notorious
treatise to see how dubious an achievement it is to introduce ambiguity
into the language where there hadn't been any. Employing the artificially
induced "Magyar vs. Hungarian" dichotomy (see eg. the Romanian denial that
Szekelys would be Magyars) is something I do not wish to see promoted.
 There's also this strange irony: rejecting s.c.h in favor of s.c.m means
keeping the charter that explicitly calls for using English language only
(you can look it up in ftp://ftp.uu.net/
usenet/news.announce.newgroups/soc/soc.culture.magyar). And there's one
more thing worth noticing in the original s.c.m vote archived above,
speaking of them non-Hungarians. There were dozens of votes for the
group from accounts belonging to users with non-Hungarian names. While
some of those may have been Hungarians using someone else' account, it seems
likely that non-Hungarian participation was important in creating s.c.m
in the first place. Note that the vote was rather close, with 164 "yes"
votes opposed to 36 "no"-s, when a 100 more YES's are needed over NO's.

>[...]
On 28 Feb 1995, Andras Kornai wrote:
> Gotthard Saghi-Szabo > wrote:
>[...] You seem to miss the point
> completely: s.c.{m|h} is not primarily for Hungarians (who have plenty of
> ways to interact) but for foreigners seeking information about Hungary and
> Hungarian people/things/customs/etc. The effect of the "magyar" name is to
> make the group hard to find for the majority of the English-speaking people
> who don't know the first thing about Hungary.
 I would emphasize that it is for Hungarians as well, and they may have
almost as much trouble finding the group due to its name not conforming
to the Usenet convention. For more reading on this topic, at the end of
this post below my .sig I include excerpts from a draft guideline on naming
Usenet newsgroups, to wit: "group names should use English"!

> >I would choose quite the opposite, and using this opportunity on USENET
> >to make 'Magyar' more popular and widely known.
> Sure, 15M- Hungarian speakers make the case for changing the language of
> 300M+ English speakers, why not.
 That none of the other nations - including the Chinese, Spanish, Russian,
German and French, are we at 3B yet - uses Usenet newsgroup names that way,
should say something about the soundness of that approach. And keep in mind
that for many Usenetters English is not their first language, they (we !)
have got enough trouble without adding the struggle with non-standard
usage.

Zoli , finger  for the charter of s.c.h
* Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
* form of politics, because the stakes are so low."  He didn't know
* Usenet: welcome to the next level.             (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)

From: 
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers, news.groups, news.admin.misc
Subject: DRAFT FAQ: Guidelines on Usenet Newsgroup Names

Usenet news group names are structured, hierarchic, taxonomic but not
definitive.  They are intended to help users find what they want and news
administrators manage their systems, to the benefit of their users.
[...] Helping users
        The group name is often the only clue the user has about the group
        ==================================================================
        without reading a selection of articles from the group.  There are
        currently over 1300 Usenet news groups, and well over 10,000 groups
        including all the other news hierarchies from alt to zer.  It is
        not possible for users to read every group to find out which are of
        interest to them.   Similarly, even a very popular group will only
        be read by 1% of all Usenet users.  So the name has to make sense to
        the 99% who are not reading the group.   It should be clear enough
        to avoid users posting "what is this?" articles, and to ensure that
        those who *would* like to know more about the subject do recognise
        ==================================================================
        the group's purpose and start to read it and join in.  Also, bear in
        mind that Usenet is global, that users come from many different
        cultures, and that for many, English is not their first language.
[...]     - Use English words in group names.  The articles in a group should
        use whatever language is appropriate for that group, but group names
        should use English as that is the one language that can be
        understood by almost all Usenet users.
        =====================================

Jan George Frajkor wrote:

>> >The US developed in a very short time not because
>Tut tut.  Shows how much we are influenced by US revision of their own
>history. In fact, foreign investment had as much to do with developing
>the US as all those other factors.  It is little acknowledged by the
>Americans that much of their mining, railway, and heavy industry was
>developed either directly by British loans and investment, or
indirectly  by the robber baron financiers of Wall Street borrowing


Not one of those industries you mentioned was developed by a foreign
company coming in, taking control, and doing the development.  The
owners were American born, as was most of the labor, though there
was significant labor provided by those sub-human central and
southern Europeans - this was the time of the first wave of Hungarians
to the US.

You are right that some money in the form of loans and bonds came from
England, but never was the initiative foreign.  There was significant
technical knowledge provided by European engineers and skilled people,
but then this was during the initial deveopment of the US, and during
the time technology was first developed in the US.  Also, the US grew
out of Europe, and therefore has and had strong ties to Europe so to
say there was significant European involvement in the devopment of my
country is not a source of embarrasment by any means.

In the US in the 19th century, devopment occured due to the initiative
of people who were trying to get away from cities and to become
self sufficient.  They started small farms to support themselves.
Investors followed the people - the settler didn't depend on products
supplied by businessme, and therefore the best that businessmen could
do was to provide thing for the peopl in order to make a profit.
There is no major self sufficiency movement in Hungary - people are not
leaving Budapest to start small farm.  They want and need te products
companies offer, and are therefore subject to the economic power of
those companies.

The point is, though the present development of Hungary and the
deveopment of the US are not similar in most respects, since the
institution didn't exsit in the western US for companies to control
the economy (there was no real economy at first), the possibility of
a country devoping from within has been demonstrated by the US model.
What is necessary is to identify the opportunities for internal
deveopment which exist in Hungary, and to use those to re-build the
country.  Cheap labor and technical skills such as computer software
development and an entrepreneurial people are the asset, as are the
wine industry and the few remaining sources of mineral resources
(the Rumanians are holding the rest for safe keeping :)  ) such as
copper.  These things can be used to develop he country, and offer
export opportunities, which is the real key.

Paul

I guess it's time for me to point out that the original Subject was
misleading, because no "moderation on Hungarian groups" was suggested (and
therefore no question of "offending opinions" arose - a good thing, too,
since opinions can't offend anyways).

Zoli , finger  for the charter of s.c.h
* Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
* form of politics, because the stakes are so low."  He didn't know
* Usenet: welcome to the next level.             (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)

On Mon, 27 Feb 1995  wrote:
> This is spookie!! Why do we need moderators? I'd rather hear offending
> opinions than be oblivious to them. Things are not all that nasty here as
> to require moderation. It seems to me there is more to lose then to gain!!

Greg,

+: > 'Magyar', just like 'Hungarian', is
+: > an acceptable English word, although the former one is less known.
+:  Although it's acceptable, it's not really English, is it.

+Yes. It. Is.
 Ah. You! Stole it? Can Dan Rather pronounce it?! Does Connie understand it?!

+ I myself don't see the need to dumb down scm to sch.
 You mispelt 'internationalize'...

Zoli , finger  for the charter of s.c.h
* Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
* form of politics, because the stakes are so low."  He didn't know
* Usenet: welcome to the next level.             (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)

Kedves Szamosvari ur!
Valaszara szeretnek valasszal visszavalaszolni.  Volna mod arra, hogy egy
leirast kapjak a farsang koruli halottas jatekokrol?  Igaza van, hogy
eredtileg ezek nem reszei a ciganyok szokasainak, de konnyen meglehet,
hogy az Amerikaba kikoltozott ciganyok egy olyan szokast hoztak magukkal,
amit elodeik eppen ezekre a ghalottas jatekokra alapoztak.  Mit gondol errol?
Valaszat elore is koszonom
Sabharwal Arjun.

On Thu, 23 Feb 1995, Somosvari Bela wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 1995, Arjun Sabharwal wrote:
>
> > I am writing a thesis about this subject.  Can anyone help me gather info
> > on this topic.  Both English and Hungarian responses are welcome.  I am
> > new to the newsgroup so I would like to welcome you to it.  it's is a
> > great way to keep in touch.
> >
> Ez a szokas nem cigany nepszokas.  A teltemetes- tavaszvaras
> korebe tartozo nepszokasok elnevezese. Az elnevezes ahhoz kapcsolodik,
> hogy egyes helyeken a farsangot bezaro utolso napi bal vegen (hushagyokedden)
> -temetven a vigassagot  a husveti bo:jt megkezdese elott-a zenekar es vigado
>
> kozosseg jelkepesen eltemeti a nagybogot mintegy kifejezve, hogy
> mostantol nincs zene a bojt csendje kovetkezik.
>         Ebben az idoben tobb hasonlo teltemetesi szokas is van ami
> hasonlo halottas jatek csak szalmababot, tekenot visznek vegig a falun
> amit aztan csendben eltemetnek, vagy a szalmababot azutan elegetik.
> Nemelykor elo szemely jatssza a halott szerepet.
>         A 'bogotemetes' kifejezest ezekre kozos megnevezeskent is szokas
> hasznalni.
>         Ennyi, de en nem vagyok szakember ezen teruleten es mar olvastam
> itt olyasmirol vitat, hogy aki nem ert hozza ne szoljon bele
> (to:rte'ne'szek?)
> Ezert ezt csak mint segito szandekot tekintsd ezt az irast es ha valami nem
> helyes, akkor itt a nyilva'nossa'g segit kijavitani.Reme'lve'n, hogy
> szakemberek is olvastak a ke'rde'sed, meg ezt is amit en irtam, csak me'g
> nem telt ideju:k a hozza' szola'sra.
>         U:dvo:zlettel: S.B.
>                         The only reader.
>  (sometimes making sratches as above one)
>

My pocket Webster on the other hand goes as:

*Magyar* n. member of ruling class of Hungary. [native]

Do we want such an undemocratic word to be spread ;-)?! More to the point,
isn't it the vocabulary of Usenetters rather then their dictionaries what
should count in this debate!?

Zoli , finger  for the charter of s.c.h
* Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
* form of politics, because the stakes are so low."  He didn't know
* Usenet: welcome to the next level.             (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)

Csak hosszas kesessel szivarognak at ezek a keresztpostak, ime:
On Sun, 26 Feb 1995, Gabor J.Toth wrote:
> >Egy uj csoport letrehozasa, vagy egy csoport kettevalasztasa
> >alatalaban akkor javasolt, ha a napi posta eleri a kb 200-as szamot.
> >Jelenleg ez egyik magyar csoportban sincs igy.
>
> Ebben teljesen   igazad van. Ami gondolkodasra  serkentett  az az, mikent
> lehetne  a jelenleg  szinte kizarolag   HIX-en keresztul torteno   magyar
> nyelvu/kozonsegu  vitat    az USENET-re atterelni.   Ennek   ugyanis,  en
> elsosorban technikai okokbol,  masok  a sokat emlegetett   cenzura miatt,
> nagyon orulnek.
 Az "atterelesnek" abban az ertelemben, hogy mostantol mindenki news-t
hasznaljon email helyett, a fo akadalya hogy a Usenet egyszeruen nem
erheto el (avagy csak dragan) sokak szamara. Jelesul odahaza igen keves
helyen talalni. Raadasul meg ahol van is Usenet kevesebb mint a helyek
ketharmada kapja az s.c.m csoportot!

> >A csoport feldarabolasa   helyett, egyeb  javaslatokat  is figyelembe
> >kellene venni, pl.
> >- egy hu.* nemzeti halozat letrehozasat, ahogy Fekete Zoli javasolta,
> >[...]
> Mint erre mar valaki ramutatott, egy hu.* csoport jo esellyel csak otthon
> lenne foghato.
 Ez nem teljesen igaz, miutan jonehany nagy amerikai (es, gondolom bar
azokrol nem tudok, europai) kozpont is az egvilagon mindent tart,
nemettol skandinavon keresztul japanon at uj-zelandiig. Gondolom, ha
csak Ausztriaig kibuliznak valakik otthonrol a terjesztest, onnan mar
konnyeden eljutna barhova. Sot elvileg az USA-ban is kezdemenyezheto a
dolog, csak nehany sysadmin beleegyezese kell a tamogatashoz. Nem hiszem
ugyan, hogy lenne pelda nemzeti halozat kulfoldi inditasara, de mi
valoszinu a vilagranglista elejen allunk a kulfoldon elok szamat az
otthoni halozat kiepitettsegehez viszonyitva ;-<...

Zoli , finger  for the charter of s.c.h
* Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
* form of politics, because the stakes are so low."  He didn't know
* Usenet: welcome to the next level.             (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)