The first person who raised her voice was Klára Sándor, a linguist and former member of parliament (SZDSZ). She has a great sense of humor, which she could amply demonstrate in this case. She makes stupendous fun of Pál Schmitt. If possible, I recommend reading it in the original because of the verbal jokes she makes.
Zsófia Mihancsik didn't dwell on the "linguistic chapter" of Schmitt's theses, most likely because she wanted to have an expert comment on them. Surely she was counting on Klára Sándor, a member of the Galamus Group. Well, it came and it is hilarious. The upshot is that "the cultivation of language" (nyelvművelés) is not really part of the work of a linguist who believes that "the language should be left alone." Don't try to defend it from its enemies who in the eyes of the "cultivators" seem to be its very speakers. Language cultivators are compared to scientists who claim that the world is flat; they go against the natural development of language.
She points out that there were periods in modern Hungarian history when the cultivation of language was included in the activities of linguists, but these times were usually marked by heightened nationalism (the 1870s and after). Or during the communist period, when it was supposed to serve socialist patriotism. According to Sándor in western linguistic circles it is a commonplace that "language cultivation is the last bastion of open discrimination"; it is called "linguicism." She brings up as an example the Slovak language law that included punishment for wrong usage in the Slovak language.
Sándor claims that "language cultivation" is especially prevalent in times of centralization or times when one party has a dominant position. At the time of ethnic discrimination in the 1930s, language cultivation was called "language purification," during the communist era "unification of the language," while in the soft dictatorship "language cultivation with a human face." Therefore, Sándor finds it perfectly logical that, at a time when the country is supposed to think as one, language cultivation is moving center stage.
What does Schmitt suggest be included in the constitution? (1) The Hungarian language is a basic (national) treasure of the Hungarian Republic. (2) The Hungarian Republic with all the instruments at its disposal supports (must support) all the efforts for the cultivation and protection of the Hungarian language. (3) The cultivation, protection, and development of the Hungarian language is a basic duty of the state.
As for the first suggestion, it is hard to figure out what to do with it unless the state wants to set up a language law, something similar to the Slovak one. As for the second, Sándor sees a renewal of the language cultivation of the 30s and 50s all the way to the end of the Kádár regime, until "those books and articles written in cursed foreign languages" reached the Hungarian public and linguists realized that what some of their colleagues were doing had nothing to do with linguistics. But if Schmitt's suggestions are followed, the mistaken notion of language cultivation will be elevated to the level of the written constitution. Such a move could result in setting up a language police who would bar foreign words from the vocabulary. Instead of e-mail (emil), one would have to use "villanyposta," instead of blog "villanynapló," instead of marketing "piacozás" and so on. (Actually such attempts were made during the first Orbán government when they passed a law that made it compulsory to use Hungarian words in store fronts. The law since died a quiet death.) As for the third point, one really wonders what that could possibly mean in practice. Will cabinet meetings begin by going through all the grievous mistakes made against the purity of the Hungarian language? Will it mean setting up language-cultivating institutes?
Language is a very important instrument: "the controlling, the imprisonment, the extermination of our thoughts can be achieved only through language." For example, take this sentence found in Schmitt's proposal: "Our mother tongue creates a sentimental solder between Hungarian and Hungarian regardless of where they live on the globe."
Let's stop here at the "sentimental solder." In the original: "érzelemrokonító forraszték." What is a forraszték? What especially is érzelemrokonító forraszték? A Hungarian today is baffled because we no longer have such a word as "forraszték." We can guess that is has something to do with soldering, but in today's Hungarian it is called "forrasztás." No wonder that Klára Sándor became suspicious and looked around on the "net, not the világháló," as she pointedly made clear! And behold, she found three references to "forraszték." In a manifesto published in Debrecen on May 1849 against the Russian army that had just invaded Hungary at the request of Franz Joseph I. In a German-Hungarian mining glossary from 1872 as the translation of Endlötung which means solder.
But Sándor found the strange combination of "érzelemrokonító forraszték" in one of Lajos Kossuth's speeches addressed to the members of the Diet on March 3, 1848. Kossuth used the expression to describe his belief that the "future of our dynasty depends on the unification of the empire's various nationalities which can be achieved only through the creation of a constitutional state which in turn will create a soldering effect among ethnic groups." A rough translation, but this is what Kossuth most likely had in mind. Quite a difference between Kossuth's message of unity of purpose of different nationalities and the exclusive "soldering" of sentiments between Hungarian and Hungarian. No wonder that Klára Sándor finished her article saying "Poor, poor Lajos Kossuth, poor, poor bourgeois state and liberal democracy."