Talk:Himnusz

Untitled

In the English Wikipedia, I think the English text should come first. Also, I think the primary article title should be in English - the non-English title should be a redirect. -- Dwheeler 09:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is not a place to post source texts like this. --mav

Well, I am innocent M'Lord, I didn't create it, only seen the link from Hungary and since it looked ugly I de-uglified it.

I'll gladly move the English up (not that I would think you couldn't do it :)), but I cannot comment on its availability in Wikipedia. It was inserted by Mr. or Ms. 68.13.78.221 and probably s/he had a reason to do it. To me it seemed logical, but I haven't checked whether other country pages include their anthems or not.

Ok, I checked, see National anthem page and the country pages. They're widespread.

By the way it is not possible to put this into Hungarian language wikipedia since it don't and can't exist (until Gods have time to covert it, which is not RSN). --grin 10:52 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Hungarian -> Romanian

Quote: The tune of the Israeli national anthem (called Hatikvah) was significantly influenced by traditional Hungarian folk music.

Possibly, but Hatikvah is generally believed to have been based upon Romanian folk tunes. -- Picapica 16:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OFF: I would like to ask somebody, if it is a big probelm i have my question here? this is my 1st wiki action. so i would like to ask someone about this: i reckon the differencies between the meaning of "nép"(people) and "nemzet"(nation) are articulated badly in the translation. how can i have a contact with any editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centraleuropeanagent (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're in the right place! Yes, "nép" and "nemzet" are distinct words. However, in English, "this people" sounds... off. It would not be said by a native speaker. Since "nation" and "people" are largely synonymous, there should not be an issue... no? Korossyl (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Title of this article

Is there any reason why the title of this article is "Isten, áldd meg a magyart" instead of "Himnusz" (which currently redirects here)? — KovacsUr 21:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the page to its correct title. — KovacsUr 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the correct title is Himnusz a magyar nép zivataros századaiból. (I bet not too many people call it that, though. :-) Alensha 21:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

First Verse, Literal Translation

In the first line, "a magyart" cannot be translated to "the Hungarians;" it's a single noun. The most direct, literal translation would be "the Hungarian." "The Hungarian" is an abstract concept, closer to "the nation of Hungary" than it is to "the Hungarians." In the third line, "feléje" indicates the direction; literally, "toward it;" "Extend your guarding arm" would have to come from "Nyújts védő kart." The second line is a bit trickier; "Jó kedvvel, bőséggel" is grammatically ambiguous. It could indeed refer to God blessing the Hungarian nation by giving it the traits of "grace and bounty;" it could also refer to God, in His grace and bounty, giving Hungary unnamed blessings. Either interpretation seems to be valid; it's no grounds to insult the translator.
There's also this consideration: Though both translations here are free, they're both also sourced and attributed. I'm not absolutely sure that they can (or should) be changed. I may be wrong about this point, though.
Korossyl 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a characteristic of Finno-Ugric languages (such as Hungarian) to use the singular to refer to what Indo-European languages (such as English) put in the plural (e.g., 'Almát veszek' = 'I'm buying apples.'). It makes much more sense to translate "Isten áldd meg a magyart" as "God bless the Hungarians" than "the Hungarian," even if it's not a word-by-word gloss of the line. — Emiellaiendiay 09:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

-- If there's no disagreement, then, I'm going to revert all the changes done to the translation. As said, I don't believe that it is fully legal to alter a sourced text - akin to changing a quotation. The quote may be wrong, but it's still the work of the author, so either the author should be contacted to change it, or it should be thrown out altogether. Due to the inadequacies (or rather, idiosyncracies) of the other translation, I believe the literal work adds significant value to the article. If there is disagreement on this point, let's discuss it here first.
Korossyl 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the literal translation, which I think is poor. But you're right to leave it as is, since it's a quote of someone else's work. This is what the first stanza means to me. You can take it or leave it. I think it's closer to literal:

God, (please) bless the Hungarian
(with) good humor and wealth/affluence
Reach toward (the Hungarian) with a protective hand,
if enemies threaten;

    --Now it gets tricky to translate, the words are literally: 
    left fate who past rips   and this is followed by:  
    bring on-top happy season --

Your first line "left fate who past rips": 'Bal' doesn't only mean "left" (as opposed to right), and in this case you need to take the other meaning, which is "unfortunate" as in 'baleset' which means "accident" ('eset' means "case", as in something that happened). "Past" is equivalent to 'múlt'. 'Régen' doesn't mean "past". In this case it's a shortened version of 'régóta'. The literal translation is "since a long time" or shorter "long" if you rearrange the sentence as I'll describe after the discussion of 'akit'. 'Tép' is similar to "rip" but in this case "tear" is a closer fit. "Rip" would better translate to 'eltép'. It's a one off action. "Tear" can be ongoing. 'Akit' doesn't translate to "who". It enforces the direction of power - what does act on what, so we need a "by" in the english translation. In this case the 't' at the end of 'akit' means that "fate" is the subject in power and that the "fate" does act on the object. In this case the object are the hungarians and therefore 'akit' could be translated to "whom" as in "whom unfurtunate fate tears since a long time" or just change the order of words to better suit the english grammar: "who is torn by unfortunate fate since a long time" or possibly "who's long torn by unfortunate fate". If you would translate it word by word it'll sound like Yoda speaking :) "unfortunate fate whom since long tears".

Your second line "bring on-top happy season": 'Rá' or the poetic/archaic 'reá' of the original Himnusz means "upon" [him]. "On top of" [something] is a valid translation only if we talk about spatial positions. That's not the case here. Maybe you have heard arabs say in english "peace be upon him" when they talk about their prophet. We use 'rá' here in such a figurative sense, so it has to be translated to "upon". 'Víg' literally translates to "joyful". 'Esztendő' is just a synonym for 'év' which means "year". "Season" means 'évszak' or in some cases 'idény' as used in seasonal sports. So, this line would translate to "bring a joyful year upon him" or word by word "bring upon him a joyful year".

It's a pity I don't have enough time to correct the whole text of the literal translation... It'd be a bloody master peace :)

It's an ill fate that tears at one from the past,
so bring (us) a happy season,
The people have paid for their sins
(Forgive them) for the past and (forebear them) in the future!

There's a lot in Hungarian that's "understood" and if I think it's "understood" but not literally there, I've placed it in parentheses. It's also a language with "formal/polite" and "casual/informal" forms of speech. Guess which one is used to talk to God? That's why I added "please" for example. Though the "please" would only be in the tone of voice.

--72.92.145.16 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you translate ked as grace. "Jó kedvvel, bőséggel" would mean something along the lines of "With good mood and richness" or "With good cheer and abundance". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.6.154 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your translation of "Bal sors akit régen tép" is inaccurate. Word by word is translates as "Left fate whom long ago tear". Left in some languages is equivalent to Bad just as Right means good. Anyway a good translation of that line would be "Whom long ago was torn by bad fate". 65.102.202.63 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Literal translation

I think there are a few mistakes in the translation.

• "feléje" doesn't mean "toward", it means "over" ("föléje" in modern Hungarian)
• "szánd meg" doesn't mean "redeem", it means "pity" - the translator doesn't seem to understand the poem

Actually, it means "award him with", here  Doc aberdeen  17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Kunság" isn't the "plains of the Kuns", it's called "Cumania" in English
• I don't think that "hő" means "cold".

Hő means "mere"  Doc aberdeen  17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lelkesa 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, huh? Besides that I've never heard those words defined as such, those definitions really don't seem to make much sense here... Korossyl 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Learn some Hungarian then come back. 65.102.202.63 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Korossy1, I saw you translated kedd as "grace". I think you have it confused with kegy. Kegy is grace, while kedd means mood, temper, humor. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think I was thinking "kegy." It took it to mean more along the lines of "humor", as in, "In your good humor and with bounty." That's awfully clunky, though. "Grace" I did not mean as "kegy", however, but as in "In his good graces." In this sense, "grace" approaches "humor" or "mood," and I thought it was a nearly poetic expression that didn't actually depart from the literal sense. No? Korossyl (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese transliteration and translation

匈奴国(马驾)国歌

http://bbs.xiongnu.net/viewtopic.php?t=105

http://www.pkucn.com/archiver/?tid-120228-page-3.html

天佑马驾(匈奴),降福乐.

助其正业,御强虏.

天数千载延大祚,将与好时运.

悲痛亦有时,悔误尽洗脱!

Isten, áldd meg a magyart

伊支丹敖德麦阿马驾 (天佑马驾)

Jó kedvvel, bôséggel,

优竭维被时校 (降福乐)

Nyújts feléje védô kart,

月迟发里耶微堆葛 (助其正业)

Ha küzd ellenséggel;

呵撅自爱兰时校 (御强虏)

Balsors, akit régen tép,

报硕士阿揭利干贴 (天数千古延大祚)

Hozz rá víg esztendôt,

霍思罗微改斯天夺 (将与好时遇)

Megbûnhôdte már e nép

麦弁活台马来聂 (悲痛亦有时)

A múltat s jövendôt! (1823)

阿暮拖尺约完夺 (悔误尽洗脱)

A real translation

Here is a real translation of the first stanza. Itt van egy igaz forditásat az első strófaról. God, bless the Hungarian, With good cheer and abundance, Extend towards them a defensive arm, If they struggle with the enemy; Whom long ago was torn by bad fate, Bring unto them a merry year, Suffered already for their sins this people, Of the past and future! 70.59.7.12 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little too literal like you read from a dictionary, are you a native speaker? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The translation on the main page is trying to be 'middle English' not to say 'Shakespearean'. It's really bad, also changes the meaning:
1) very much 'God' focused whereas the original is not. Being a 'hymn' is just a vehicle, a framework to tell the 'story'. It's not a real prayer.
2) inserts words that are not in the original and can not be derived from the meaning. Example: "Heirs of Bendegúz, the knight" where 'knight' is totally wrong. It has a special meaning in English, does not apply to Bendegúz. Not at all. If anything at all he was a king. Not a knight.
While 'heirs' is not particularly wrong it is used more as a legal term applying to aristocratic inheritance.
Also, such expression as "Bendegúznak vére" does exist in English: 'Blood of Bendegúz' or 'Bendegúz's blood'.
And so on the mistakes are plenty.
IE: the translator doesn't seem to have basic understanding neither the English nor the Hungarian history/culture/language.
Besides, not many speak, understand or appreciate Shakespeare or middle English any more. Above translation is not perfect but better than the one on the main page.
Yes, I am a 'native' speaker. Both languages. Whatever that means when talking about English as a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Literal Translation

I say this as the writer of the "literal translations" that appear on Himnusz, Szózat, and Nemzeti dal: I personally like them, and believe that they are the most literal possible. I am, however, sometimes wrong. The translation of the Himnusz, for instance, had some problems which were pointed out to me. After some debate, I had to agree I was wrong.
That's not the reason I oppose changes to these translations. Those are sourced and cited to me, and they appear on my website ([1], [2], and [3]). These ought to be treated as lengthy quotes, not general Wikipedia content. That is, they ought not to be changed. I know it sounds like I'm being egocentric or vain, but if they are changed, they can't carry my name. I don't want my name removed, either; any visitor to my site will think I stole and bastardized a translation from Wikipedia.
Also: unsourced translations are original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. If the translation is changed, my name has to be removed, and the translations become inadmissible.
In other words, I'm kinda tired of defending these translations. If they're terrible, then remove them and replace them with something else. If they're just mediocre, at least they're more literal than the ones that Wikipedia has right now (Nemzeti dal doesn't even have one). But please, no more changes just to fix a minor error here or there; due to the circumstances, it's not possible.
These are quotes. Even if they're wrong, they shouldn't be changed, unless you can replace them with something better.
Korossyl (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the words you chose could've been better, you should look at your translations again and improve any faults you think you made. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the translations are your own, even if they are on another website, they still constitute WP:OR. The only exception to citing your own work is if it is peer-reviewed. Translations are an iffy thing, however. BUT, if your translation is wrong, it is wrong and should be corrected. If a translation is corrected here, the change can have a footnote with your original indicated and it is still clear that it is not your translation, but is a correction. This is extremely common in translated works and other works where a correction is required for some reason or another. (Taivo (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Is this article about the Himnusz or about the Hungarian national anthem?

I mean if the article is called "Himnusz" I don't expect informations about Szózat, Rákoczy March, etc. If this article is about what is considered the Hungarian anthem, then of course, these have there place, but otherwise historically and artistically the Himnusz has nothing to do with these other poems and songs. 188.36.204.193 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The Himnusz is the national anthem of Hungary, and the article is about the Himnusz. There is a paragraph and a sentence about other "anthems," discussed with regards to their place and primacy relative to the Himnusz. This all seems to be pertinent and appropriate information. No? Korossyl (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. A paragraph and a sentence? I see three paragraphs about other anthems, interrupted by a paragraph about the Himnusz. You should at least shorten and consolidate those three paragraphs, as the article is indeed about the Himnusz, not about Szózat, Rákóczi March, Nemzeti dal, and Szekely Himnusz.

DIBA--176.94.44.42 (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The title is still difficult

No doubt the page was written by people with Hungarian connections, interests, etc. Why can't it be called,"The Hungarian National Anthem"? In fact, that's what I searched for. Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)