Ethnogenesis

Hungarians are not turks, neither they are turkic. their language has syntaxic parallels
with turkic languages- just because finno-ougric and turkic languages are
related. But semitic and indo european languages have similar parallels too. 
Language doesnt mean ethnicity. this was the main drawback of the "ethnogenesis"
theoricians. We should start by accepting that ethnic-based nationalism is quite
new and people didnt care all that much about their neighbours or
consorts'ethnicity back then. 
Asian leaders like Genghis Khan or Attila continuousy added new allies and paid
soldiers to their ever-growing army while advancing to the west. These were
later called under common names, "tatar" being one of them. They included a lot
of asian and turkic stock along with finno-ougric speakers and indo-european
speakers as well. Today members of Karahitai tribe (definitely turkic) live near
Van. They fled Asia at the beginning of the 20th century and were settled in the
territories of the Ottoma empire. Today there are tribes speaking their native
language, which is turkic; and there are a couple of villages speaking kurdish,
which is indo-european because their immediate neighbours were kurds ad
intermarriages occurred since both parts were muslims.
So the language spoken doesnt say a lot about ethnic past and people are rather
practical than nationalist in their choice of partners and language spoken! 
cheers. and dont divide, unite