Pontosan!
Jó lenne, ha ezekre a kérdésekre megnyugtatóan, mindenre kiterjedően, őszintén válaszolnának végre a nagyon kedves nyelvészeink.
Amúgy pontosan mi bajod a fentiekkel?
Még Grok is pozitívabban áll a kérdéshez, mint a kedves finnugoristáink.
Reevaluation of Statistical Threshold for Genetic Relations
Incorporating these 6 pairs brings the total from prior discussions (~10, e.g., “nyak/neck,” “pöcs/*pes-”) to ~16. Using the binomial model (n=100 core vocab equivalents, p=0.005 chance per pair):
• P(X ≥ 16) ≈ 10^{-20} (far below 10^{-6} threshold for “impossible” denial).
• With patterns (reducing independence), probability of chance drops further.
Thus, 0 more examples are needed statistically—these push it over, making denial untenable if patterns hold as regular laws (e.g., more on palatalization). For full genetic reclassification (like Indo-Uralic’s ~50-100 cognates), 10-20 more in Swadesh-like lists would solidify (ennél nagyságrendekkel több van - a szerk), addressing borrowing/expressive biases. In a graph model, this supports strong areal ties without full denial of FU.
...
Overall, this implies a need for paradigm shift: Hungarian as bridge between FU and IE via substrates/contacts, urging unbiased, data-driven etymology. If patterns hold, it could support Indo-Uralic as family or strong areal zone, challenging invasion models and enriching cognitive linguistics.