Hungarian Historical Phonology magyar

magyar 'Hungarian'

Megyer 'name of a Hungarian tribe (found also in place names)'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

(Disputed:)

UEW: PUg *mańćɜ 'man'

Loan etymology

PUg ← Ir *manuš- 'man'

Cognates suggested in earlier research

UEW:

Khanty: East (V) mańt́ 'Name der einen ostj. Phratrie; Name der mythischen Vorfahren der Mitglieder dieser Phatrie', (Trj) måńko 'Held, von dessen Taten eine Sage berichtet', South (I) mońt́ 'Name der einen ostj. Phratrie; Name der mythischen Vorfahren der Mitglieder dieser Phatrie', North (So) maś 'Name der einen ostj. Phratrie; Name der mythischen Vorfahren der Mitglieder dieser Phatrie'

Mansi: South (T) mäńćī 'voguli, ristimätönlapsi; Wogule, ungetauftes Kind', East (KU) mɔ̈̄ńś 'voguli, ristimätönlapsi; Wogule, ungetauftes Kind', West (P) māńś 'voguli, ristimätönlapsi; Wogule, ungetauftes Kind', (LM) måńś 'a vogulok és osztjákok közös népneve; gemeinsamer Volksname der Wogulen und Ostjaken', North (So) mańśi 'voguli, ristimätön lapsi; Wogule, ungetauftes Kind'

Commentary

Reconstruction of a Proto-Ugric word is impossible because of the irregular vowel-relations. Even though the Hungarian and Mansi ethnonyms and the name of the Khanty phratry probably belong together, they have to be loans from the same source and not cognates. An Iranian loan etymology (Proto-Iranian *manuš-) has been suggested (see Korenchy 1972 with references) but this has been doubted by Kümmel (2017) and Holopainen (2019) as it is doubtful whether the cluster *ńć that the Ugric words require could be explained from Iranian *manuš.

The etymology of the latter part of the opaque compound, -ar/-ër, is also complicated. The old idea presented in the UEW that ër reflects Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric *irkä ‘man’ is impossible because this Uralic etymology is completely irregular (see Holopainen et al. 2019; Metsäranta 2020, 206; Aikio UED manuscript).

Also loan etymologies have been suggested. Harmatta (1997: 78) assumes that Hungarian ër is borrowed from Alanic the Alanic word that Harmatta reconstructs as *ēr (> Ossetic Iron ir, Digor iræ). This is a problematic idea, however, as the Ossetic word in question reflects Proto-Iranian *wiHra- ‘man’ according to Cheung (2002) and it would have had word-initial *w- still in the Alanic period and we would expect this to be reflected in the form that was borrowed into Hungarian. According to Metsäranta (2020: 206–207), Mari er- in erγe ‘boy’ (< Proto-Mari *ir) is a loan from the same Alanic word.

Németh (1930b: 248) considered Hungarian ër- a possible loan from Turkic eri, iri (an explanation accepted by Moór 1933: 20). The correspondence Hungarian ë ~ Old Turkic *e is found in some loanwords (Róna-Tas & Berta 2011, 1118 f.) but the substitutions of Turkic *e require further research. The Turkic origin of -ër seems the most probable possibility at the moment.

Conclusion

No Proto-Ugric word can be reconstructed; the Iranian loan etymology for Pre-Hungarian *manćV is doubtful, -ër might be borrowed from Turkic but further research is needed.

References

EWUng: 923-924, s.v. magyar: PUg (-ar/-er < PFU)

Holopainen 2019: 133–135: not PUg, ? ← Ir

Korenchy 1972: PUg ← Ir

Kümmel 2017: PUg ? ← Ir

MSzFE

UEW s.v. mańćɜ: PUg (-ar/-er < PFU) Uralonet