Comment by goto11

The original paper by Simonyi actually does describe prefixing with datatype. E.g. b for byte, ch for character, w for word, sz for pointer to zero-terminated string.

He specifically states:

The basic idea is to name all quantities by their types (...) the concept of "type" in this context is determined by the set of operations that can be applied to a quantity. (..)

Note that the above definition of type (which, incidentally, is suggested by languages such as SIMULA and Smalltalk) is a superset of the more common definition, which takes only the quantity's representation into account

So he is comparing to early object oriented languages where presumably Hungarian notation is not needed anymore because the type system of the language itself is rich enough to constrain the set of valid operations on the value/object.

So the "metadata" encoded in the Hungarian prefix is exactly what would be called type in a modern language. The idea of Hungarian was valid in a language with a insufficiently expressive type system.

I think the term "Typed Hungarian Notation" is really weird. Hungarian Notation is a workaround for a limited type system. "Typed Hungarian" is just... typed code.