>>289814 (OP)

1. Венгро-английский и англо-венгерский двусторонний словарь.
http://szotar.sztaki.hu/en/
2. Словарь венгерского сленга:
http://www.wikiwand.com/hu/Magyar_szlengszótárak_listája
3. Венгро-английский и англо-венгерский двусторонний словарь.
http://www.lexilogos.com/english/hungarian_dictionary.htm
4. Мультиязыковой словарь (есть пары венгерский — русский и русский — английский):
http://www.webforditas.hu/index.php
5. Много полезного можно найти здесь:
http://myhungary.net/
6. Еще один полезный сайт:
http://www.magyarora.com/english/
7. Несколько учебников можно найти здесь:
https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=Hungarian
8. Литература и учебники:
https://vk.com/topic-1811730_29200013
https://vk.com/topic-77131123_30907479
8 Самоучитель + аудио: (есть еще более новый, за 2012 год.) (для любителей потрогать омжно найти в Читай-городе)
http://www.twirpx.com/file/286723/
http://www.twirpx.com/file/215243/
9. Есть еще такой УМК (сука, когда появится аудио-комплект?)
https://www.chitai-gorod.ru/catalog/book/815855/
https://www.chitai-gorod.ru/catalog/book/841254/
https://www.chitai-gorod.ru/catalog/book/966850/

Пока что всё.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22PK4sXhcpM

Nyújtózkodik a zúzmara,
megdermed az idő.
Elcsitul a jelen, és
megnémul a jövő.

Csak üldögélek tétlenül,
lekapcsolom magam.
Bámulok a semmibe,
így minden rendbe' van.

Míg vesztegel a pillanat,
idebent csak pörög
egy végtelen magnószalag
a szemhéjam mögött.

Néha jó, néha rossz, néha nem.
Néha nem foglalkoztat semmi sem.
Végül minden végső helyére kerül,
maradok -- ott, ahol voltam - egyedül.
Beborítva sugarakkal,
szemben állok a Nappal.

Köröttem légüres tér,
riadtan tátogok.
Hűvös fénnyel izzanak
lámpás csillagok.

Egymást követve fagynak el
a kimondott szavak.
Szilánkokra törnek, aztán
szertefoszlanak.

Magam leszek a zúzmara,
a hóval olvadok.
Elillanok, akár a tél,
akár a sóhajok.

Néha jó, néha rossz, néha nem.
Néha nem foglalkoztat semmi sem.
Végül minden végső helyére kerül,
maradok -- ott, ahol voltam - egyedül.
Beborítva sugarakkal,
szemben állok a Nappal.
https://lyricstranslate.com

>>638236
Праугорский язык, вполне вероятно, вообще никогда не существовал. Это мусорная нафталиновая классификация из 19 века.

Subsuming Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty under the Ugrian branch, and Mansi and Khanty as its Ob-Ugrian subbranch, is a hypothesis that has been discussed more extensively in the literature than any other detail of the standard binary classification. Honti has published several impressive and at the first sight conclusive lists of well over 20 features shared by Ugrian languages (Honti 1979: 7–19, 1998a: 353–355, 1998b: 179–181). Nevertheless, the most central arguments presented in favour of Proto-Ugrian as a language distinct from Proto-Uralic need to be contested. In what follows, the phonological features presented by Honti are briefly discussed.

The system of sibilant consonants has changed in all Ugrian branches along similar lines, and it can be assumed that we are dealing with an ancient development. It is, however, often ignored that the changes in the sibilant system are not restricted to Ugrian but also occur in Samoyed, to the extent that Mansi and Samoyed show identical reflexes of Proto-Uralic sibilants. There is therefore a good reason to regard the specific development of the sibilants as an areal feature characteristic of all eastern Uralic branches, that is, Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty, and Samoyed, rather than a specifically Ugrian innovation.

The velarization and fricativization of k before back vowels is not shared by all Ugrian varieties, so Honti (1998a: 353) attributes it to Proto-Ugrian allophony. It must be said categorically that there cannot be evidence for phonetic innovations in a proto-language if they are not somehow reflected in all of its descendants. Notably, allophony of this sort is likely to be either universal or, if language-specific, irreversible.

The reflexes of intervocalic ng as ngk are not equally distributed among the Ugrian branches, and a sporadic development whose background remains unexplained does not serve well the purpose of postulating a proto-language.

The idiosyncratic reflexes of the words for ‘eye’ and ‘heart’ are arguably among the best pieces of evidence for a close connection between the Ugrian branches, but here again little is known about the processes that created the apparently irregular forms. The reflexes of reconstructed clusters of a lateral or a fricative plus m are not uniform either in Ugrian or more widely in Uralic, which points to the need of further detailed studies in Uralic historical phonology.

In the word for ‘three’ we do not really know whether forms with l or r are older. Janhunen (2000: 61) suggests that r might be original and forms with l based on the analogy of numeral ‘four’. In any case, the Ugrian branches show different reflexes, so from the point of view of Proto-Ugrian it is proof to the contrary.

The assumption of a velar, illabial, non-low vowel common to all of Ugrian does not prove anything if it cannot be shown that it emerged as an innovation, and thanks to recent comparative studies we know that it is more likely to be a retention from Proto-Uralic (Sammallahti 1979: 57–59; Janhunen 1981: 227–228; cf. Abondolo 1996), or, if this is not the case, it is an innovation shared by Samoyed.

The position of a palatal labial vowel ü in early Uralic remains unsettled, but whichever stand we take to this question, there are no signs of a Ugrian innovation.

In other words, the first proposed innovation, the restructuring of the sibilant system, is not exclusive, because it involves not only Ugrian but also Samoyed, while the second one, the velarization and fricativization of k before back vowels, is not inclusive, because it does not cover all of Ugrian. The latter argument is also valid for the change of Proto-Uralic w to a voiced velar fricative, which Honti (1998a: 353, 1998b: 179) has recently included in the list of Ugrian features on the basis of Khanty reflexes. The attempt to explain the reflexes elsewhere as being subsequently reverted may prove circular. The other phonological features refer to sporadic developments or individual words which, while potentially indicative of the closeness of Ugrian branches, can be seen as marginal arguments at best for Ugrian proto-language

There are as many as 14 morphological features discussed by Honti (1979: 9–12; cf. Honti 1998a: 354, 1998b: 180–181). It is not possible to go into the details here, but it can be maintained that while these features do lend support to the idea of Ugrian unity in a broad sense, they remain indecisive either because the age and background of the morphological markers in question are poorly known, or because they cannot be shown to be innovations, or because there are parallel developments in other branches. For instance, forms of a noun meaning ‘side’ develop into postpositions and further into case suffixes also in Samoyed. Also the opposition of subjective and objective conjugations is a prototypical feature of Samoyed, and the Ob-Ugrian, especially Khanty, systems resemble the Samoyed system more closely than they resemble the Hungarian one. One of the characteristic features of Ob-Ugrian is the passive, but the passive suffixes are different in Mansi and Khanty, a situation strongly suggesting an areal rather than a genetic connection, while the Khanty suffix seems identical with the Samoyed reflexive suffix, whose functions are reasonably close to the passive.

In favour of the Ob-Ugrian hypothesis, Honti (1998a: 352–353; cf. Honti 1998b: 183–184) has presented no phonological but only five morphological arguments. They require reservations similar to those presented above.

Honti (1979: 12–19) presents further six arguments for Proto-Ugrian concerning vocabulary (cf. Honti 1998b: 178–179). The problem here again is that the mere presence of a word in a language tells us little of possible lexical innovations. Conclusive evidence based on lexical material can only be obtained by studying the loss and replacement of words. Within the long lists of Ugrian words, there may in fact be several cases suggesting a true innovation, for example the word for ‘fire’, but mostly it is impossible to say if they represent formerly more wide-spread words or perhaps parallel borrowings from a common source.

It would be utterly foolish to insist that there were no features suggesting close links between Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty. On the contrary, especially within lexicon the Ugrian languages differ from the rest of the language family to the extent that Gulya (1994) has described Ugrian as a ‘hole’ in the family tree. While it is true that many Uralic words have been replaced by neologisms in Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty, this has mostly occurred separately in each of the three branches, and, of course, many old words have been lost in other Uralic branches as well. The lexical differences between Mansi and Khanty are also notable, as Kálmán (1988: 400) has pointed out.

Since there is little evidence for Proto-Ugrian as a genuine genetic unit, this is a good place to resort to the concept of ‘areal genetic unit’, which was launched by Helimski (1982) with reference to Finno-Volgaic and Finno-Permian, but which in my view suits equally well Ugrian and Ob-Ugrian, as well as Finno-Saami and Volgaic. Areal genetic units differ crucially from strictly genetic units, that is, branches deriving from a distinct proto-language, in that they can overlap with each other. We are therefore free to recognize areal genetic units that contradict with the standard classification, for instance, Finno-Mordvin, Mari-Permian, Permian-Hungarian, Hungarian-Mansi, and Khanty-Samoyed, as well.