Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1977 (5. évfolyam, 13-15. szám)
1977 / 13. szám
ARTICLES and PAPERS (Continued) ment of the lower nobility against Andrew’s patronage of foreign noblemen and certain magnates and his son Beta’s restiveness lest some of the regalia be alienated before he can assume the throne. The Golden Bull expressly binds the king not to bestow “whole counties or any other dignities as estates or possessions in perpetuity.” There does not seem to have been such a clause in the coronation oath, but the Holy See proceeded on the premise that such an oath had been sworn - as indeed it had in clause XVI of the Golden Bull. □ MacWhinney, Brian, “Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formations by Hungarian children.” Journal of Child Language 2 (1976) 65-77. This study examines the relative contributions of rotememorization, analogic formation, and rule-operation in the production of plurals by Hungarian children. Fifteen actual roots were matched to a rhyming nonsense root. It was found that rote-memorization could not account for the plurals of nonsense items; and though the experiment was structured to maximize analogies, there was no clear-cut evidence on the operational role of analogy. The importance of ruleoperation as an explanation of word formation was evidenced by the fact that children producing responses characteristic of a given stage of morphological learning, did not produce responses for later stages. Dr. MacWhinney is at the Department of Psychology, U. of Denver. □ Kachinske, Timothy C. "Semantic and Syntactic Choice in the Poetry of Mikiás Radno'ti,” was delivered at the annual meeting of the Midwest Modern Language Association, St. Louis, Mo., November 6, 1976. He examines two poems: Két karodban and Péntek, arguing that the gentle tone of the one and the forceful tone of the other are carefully worked out in semantic and syntactic choices. Sentence unit and repetition are also significant, and thus any translation should take these aspects into consideration. Key words are the verbs: ringatózik, van, and átölel, as well as átesik in the last sentence. These have not been adequately rendered in English; an earlier translation by Polgár-Berg- Marks in particular, loses the strength of faith expressed in Ke't karodban. Péntek uses verbs that stress action rather passivity - even the verb van being used in a catenative sense. Kachinske is at the U. of Minnesota, Duluth. □ Miska, John, “Notes on Canadian-Hungarian Poetry,” Contemporary Verse Two, 105:11 (December 1976) 48. Miska presents four authors who write in Hungarian and publish in Canada. Ferenc Fay, author of several volumes of poetry, writing in the tradition of the Occidentalists, as Babits, Jo'zsef, Kosztolányi, and Toth, Another equally talented writer of the same generation is Tamás Tuz, a priestpoet who uses this pen name for Lajos Makko'. He published eight volumes of poems, a collection of short stories and a book of literary essays. The third and fourth writers represent a somewhat younger generation who left Hungary at a tender age. Among them László Kemenes Géfin and György Vitéz (Nemeth) are especially noteworthy. Miska says, that literary experts in Hungary proper must “have come to the conclusion that these poets know how to write. They have advised their poets to take a close look at the forms and techniques developed by these dissident poets.” Miska is head of the Lethbridge Research Station Library, Lethridge, Alberta. □ Woytak, Richard A. “Polish-Hungarian Relations and the Carpatho-Ukrainian Question in October 1938,” East Euro-MISCELLANEOUS NEWS The Immigration History Research Center at the U. of Minnesota awarded nine grants-in-aid in an international competition. Among the awardees were Dr. Paula Benkart, Lecturer, Department of History, Ohio State U., for the study of “Immigrant Perspectives on American Protestantism: Hungarians and Poles;” and Dr. Julianna Puskas, Senior Researcher, Inst, of History, HAS, for research on the topic, “Hungarian Immigration to Hungarian Communities and Organization in the United States, 1880-1945.” □ Dr. Tibor Körtvélyessy returned from a one-month study of the nature and scope of Hungarian physical anthropology. He also developed a long-range research project in cooperation with Hungarian physical anthropologists. The study was (Continued on page 9) pean Quarterly X (Fall, 1976), 367-374. Woytak examines the aftermath of the Munich Agreement and particularly Polish- Hungarian relations. He points out that while Poland wished for Hungarian support of her territorial claims in the Carpatho-Ukraine, and warned against Hungarian reliance on the Germans, the Hungarians did not cooperate with the Poles to the same extent, i.e. “independent Hungarian action was ‘escaping (Polish) hands’ and . . .increasing German influence was jeopardizing Warsaw’s southern strategic position.” Thus, though a common Polish-Hungarian boundary was achieved on March 15,1939, Hungary did not regain all of her territorial irredenta and Nazi Germany emerged as the dominant power in Eastern Europe. Dr. Woytak is at the U. of California, Santa Barbara. □ Winchester, Betty Jo, "Hungary and the Austrian Anschluss,” East European Quarterly. X (Winter 1976) 410-425. Hungary’s effort for security, for an expanded market for its agricultural products, and for regaining part or all of the territories lost in World War I, were dominant governmental objectives. An independent Austria, friendly to Germany, was desirable, but even stronger was the desire to secure German support for Hungarian irredenta. As German power increased Hungary's policy toward its neighbors became more flexible. Even the possibility of a Danubian federation or, at least, closer economic ties between the Little Entente and the Rome Pact countries was discussed. The hope of forming a block to counter German expansion resulted in the idea of a Third Europe. Austria was conspicuously absent from discussions contemplating resistance against both German and Russian expansion. When it happened, the Hungarian government and press approved of it, but privately there was considerable apprehension. The explanation for the ambivalence lay partly in Hungary’s revisionism and its military weakness: if the great powers were unwilling to intervene, Hungary certainly could not consider defending Austria against the Reich. Winchester feels that while Hungary could not have prevented the Anschluss, she did not have to oppose “rapproachement between the Little Entente and the Rome Pact or between the Little Entente and Austria alone.” The wisdom of pursuing revisionism to the exclusion of other options, however understandable, forced Hungary to go against its wishes by cooperating with Germany and eventually allying itself with the Reich in World War II. The author is at the University of Hawaii. □ 8 NO. 13, 1977 HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER
