Hungarian Random Grammar Issues

Phrasebase Archive

Return to the HUNGARIAN Archive
Forward to the Current HUNGARIAN Discussion


stromfi
Monday 05th of June 2006 02:11:55 AM
Random Grammar Issues: Hi Everyone!

Palacsinta had suggested to start a thread like this .....
I really thought it was a great idea, so here it is. :)

And here is the first issue that led to the creation of this topic:

A poharam a te poharad mellett van.

.... ... the sentence could be written this way as well: A poharam a poharad mellet van. or A poharam a tiéd mellett van.


I would like to ask some questions about this, though. In dutch I would tend to avoid repeating the word glass in this sentence, which is why i suggested replacing it. While grammatically correct, dutch speakers prefer not to use the same word twice in a sentence. Does this mean you don't have to do this in hungarian?

And when do you use "tied" and when "tiéd"?

Repeating the same word in the same sentence or just a few sentences apart is indeed not very stylish. As a matter of fact, in school we are always reminded to avoid it in compositions as much as possible. Nevertheless, in this case I don't find that the repetition makes the sentence clumsy, awkward or repetitive. On the other hand, however, in the following sentence I would try to avoid using the same word to improve style: Nem, nem tudok palacsintát sütni, de tudok magyar perecet sütni.

I think the difference between the two sentences is that while in the first you actually alter the form of the word, therefore avoiding actual repetition, in the second one you use the word exactly as you did just a few words back.

As for the use of tied vs. tiéd, there is no difference. You will find that in Hungarian there are a lot of words that have two versions; an accented one and non-accented one. Here are some examples:
Hanyas? - Hányas?
Hanyadik? - Hányadik?
törölköz? - törülköz?
seper - söpör
tietek - tiétek


palacsinta
Monday 05th of June 2006 08:01:37 PM
Great!

Köszönöm szépen, stromfi. :)
This helps a lot.
And yes, i've noticed the two versions before, although the only one i know was masnapos/másnapos. ;)

While we're on the subject of adding or removing accents - I get a little confused about that. I know there are rules when you should and shouldn't do it, but most of the time I just randomly put some á's in because I know they're supposed to go in somewhere.

So, here is what I know:
- it doesn't apply to all letters, I think just a and e.
- if your word ends in an e or an a, it changes into é or á if you add a suffix.
- If you have a word ending é or á, you change them into e and a.
- if there's an é or á in the last syllable of the word, you drop it when you have a possessive ending.

I don't know though in what other cases it happens. I know it's not always. Take magyarország - magyarországon. You don't have to lose the á when you add a "on" suffix.

Further suggestions, anyone? :)


stromfi
Wednesday 07th of June 2006 10:04:27 AM
Hi Palacsinta,

Interesting issue you brought up again: changes that occur in noun stems when adding possessive endings.

I'm afraid some of the things you mentioned have to be corrected though.

You were right about this one:
if your word ends in an e or an a, it changes into é or á if you add a suffix

You weren't right about this one:
If you have a word ending é or á, you change them into e and a. Could you give an example? I cannot think of any noun that ends in an é or an á except kávé, and it will retain the accent no matter what suffix you glue to the end: kávéba, kávéval, kávénak, kávét, etc.

I'm afraid the next one is also not true:
if there's an é or á in the last syllable of the word, you drop it when you have a possessive ending. It's true for certain nouns, but it's not true for others. The following nouns, for example, will keep their é's and á's: barát, plakát, lapát, vásár, beszéd, legény, ebéd, testvér, remény, lepény, etc.
On the other hand, in these ones the é's and á's will change to e and a: madár, kanál, tehén, veréb, kerék, fenék, etc.

As for másnapos, it has only one version: the accented one. If you had seen it without the accent mark, it must have been a typo.

Once again, it was great to hear from you! Come back with more! :)




palacsinta
Friday 30th of June 2006 12:12:17 AM
Another random matter i'm wondering about.
I read that in the definite conjugation of verbs sometimes the last consonant of the stem is doubled.

For example: hoz

hozom
hozod
hozza
hozzuk
hozzátok
hozzák

What i would like to know (and what my stupid grammar book didn't mention of course :)) is: when does this happen?
Is it only with verb stems ending in -s and z?

And what really confuses me: sometimes you get consonant doubling in the 1st and 2nd person plural, but not in either 3rd person.

Like the conjugation of vés:

vésem
vésed
si
ssük
vésitek
vésik

Is this another case of "just start learning this by heart" or is there a logic to this phenomenon? :D


Sandor
Friday 30th of June 2006 07:39:36 AM
There is logic to this. The double consonant is a result of an the assimilation of the 'j'. Properly, the definite endings are:

-om
-od
-ja
-juk
-játok
-ják

The rules are that you would not have a 'j' follow 's', 'z', or 'sz'. With vés, the endings are slightly different. There is only 'j' in the first person plural.

-em
-ed
-i
-jük
-itek
-ik

Examples would be:

olvasom olvassa
iszom issza
keresem keressük

A similar thing happens with the -val / -vel ending. If it follows a consonant, the consonant is doubled:

Péter Péterrel
tojás tojással

Now, a random grammar question of my own. What determines the linking vowel for the plural when choosing between 'a' and 'o'. It seems fairly "random" to me.

házak
diákok

Is there any logic to this or is it as random as I think...


palacsinta
Friday 30th of June 2006 10:43:47 PM
Köszi Sandor. Most értem. :)

As for the plural a or o linking vowel, i am not sure that there is a logic to it. However, there are certain word types that always take an a instead of o.
At least, this is what my grammar book says about it:
- words ending in -alom always have an a. Example: akalom - alkalomak
- those irregular words that take a v into the stem when they're conjugated also have the -ak suffix. Example: ló - lavak
- words with a long vowel in the last syllable that is shortened when conjugated also take an a. These are words like the ones Stromfi mentioned below. Example: nyár - nyarak

This is all i know on the subject. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this? :)

For grammar issues you can also check out these sites at answers.com

http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-grammar
http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-language
http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-grammar-verbs
http://www.answers.com/topic/hungarian-grammar-noun-phrases

I found them when i was googling around for more information and they look very promising.


stromfi
Friday 07th of July 2006 06:27:11 AM
Jár vs. Megy

To Sándor (and to anyone else who'd like to know about the difference between "jár" and "megy"):

To explain the difference between these two verbs, I think the best thing would be to look at two, seemingly similar sentences. For example:

Nem megyek egyetemre. vs. Nem járok egyetemre.

While the first sentence expresses someone's future plan regarding uni (I'm not going to university), the second one tells the general truth about someone's (present) life in regards to higher ed (I don't go to university).

Similarly:

Nem megyek a könyvtárba. vs. Nem járok a könyvtárba.

While in the first one the speaker tells us that he/she is not going to the library, the second one tells us that the speaker doesn't go to the library.

Jár also has the meaning of visiting a place, that's why we use it in sentences like:

Jártál már a Parlamentben?
Nem jártam még Miskolcon.
etc.
Note: In these sentences you could also use "voltál", "voltam" respectively.

We also use "jár" in the following context:
Éva három éve jár Gáborral.(jár valakivel = go out with someone/date someone)
Nem jól jár az órád. (Your watch is not correct.)

I know this answer is not exhaustive and that you probably have more questions about "jár" vs. "megy", so don't hesitate to ask further.



stromfi
Sunday 16th of July 2006 09:09:12 AM
Suffixes

Here's another iteresting question brought up by Sándor after seeing the following posting in our "Helyes vagy helytelen" grammar game:

____ tudom, hogy lesz osztálytalálkozó.

a. Ágiról
b. Ágiból
c. Ágitól


Stromfi, could you give an explanation of the "alternative" uses of -ból, -tól, -ról? I only know the literal meanings:

-ból = from inside
-tól = from the proximity
-ról = from the surface of

The only "detail" I know is to never use -ból / -ba with people.

When you use the -tól/-t?l suffixes with a person, it can mean the following two things:
1. the person is the source of whatever you are talking about. For example: Ágitól kaptam ezt képet. (I got this picutre from Ági.) Ágitól tudom, hogy megérkeztél. (I know from Ági that you arrived.) As you can see, in both examples Ági is the source; she's the one where both the picture and the information come from.
2. you come from the house of the person in question. For example: Honnan jösz? Ágitól.

As for the -ról/r?l suffixes, they can also be translated as "about". For example: Az egész falu Ágiról beszél. (The whole village is talking about Ági.) Ez a történet Ágiról szól. (This story is about Ági.) 12 éve semmit nem hallottam Ágiról. (I haven't heard anything about Ági for the past 12 years.)

And last let's see those -ból/-b?l/-ba/-be suffixes!
The only "detail" I know is to never use -ból / -ba with people.
Well, actually there are a few phrases where we do use these suffixes with a person. For example:
ömlik valakib?l a szó (somebody is gushing with words)
ömlik valakib?l a panasz (somebody is gushing with complaints)
ömlik valakib?l a hülyeség (gushing with silliness/stupidity)
ömlik valakib?l a szeretet (gushing with love)
ömlik valakib?l a mondanivaló, etc. (gushing with things to say)
(Note: you can replace "ömlik" with "d?l", "folyik" or "árad". If you look these words up in your dictionary, you will see that all of them are associated with "water" or "liquid")

kést döf valakibe (thrust a knife into someone)
beleszeret valakibe (fall in love with someone)
belebolondul valakibe/bele van bolondulva valakibe (fall/be head over hills with someone)
belebukik valakibe/ bele van bukva valakibe (fall in love with someone - slang)
belebotlik valakibe (bump into someone)
beleütközik valakibe (bump into someone)

Don't hesitate to ask further. I'll be happy to help. :)


palacsinta
Sunday 16th of July 2006 03:17:10 PM
Can someone explain a bit further about the "helyes vagy helytelen" question Sandor made? I didn't have a clue which one it was - le, ki etc. There's just too many of those coverbs and i keep getting confused...





Sandor
Sunday 16th of July 2006 09:20:45 PM
Certainly! First, thank you very much Stromfi, the other uses of the -ból, -tól, -ról endings now make sense! What I kept running into was books explaining the literal meanings, but nothing ever stating some of the other meanings / uses. One book I have actually said that there are other meanings and the student must memorize those meanings as they come across them...


Now, on to coverbs. The coverbs I used further indicate immediate direction of the verb. I will only go into the literal meanings of them (as with the endings, I'm sure they have "other" meanings as well). As I stated earlier, the verb prefixes indicate immediate direction of the verb. You're right, there are a lot of coverbs. Here's a list of what I think Hungarian school children learn (at least this is according to a Hungarian language teacher I once had):

be - into
ki - out of
le - down
fel - up
meg - expresses completed qualities
el - expresses completed qualities, also means away from
át - across or over
rá - onto the surface of
ide - here, to this point
oda - there, to another point
szét - apart
össze - together
vissza - round trip, there and back

The teacher I had made us memorize these prefixes and recite them every day.

You use the coverbs to better define what is going on. For example:

Megyek a házba.
I am going to the house.

Bemegyek a házba.
I am going into the house. (ie, I am entering the house).

As you can see, the first sentence indicates that you are heading to the house. The second sentence indicates that you are at the house and are entering it; it indicates immediate sense of direction.

When using the coverbs, it is important that the directional suffixes match the coverb you are using. By directional suffixes, I mean the -ba, -ból, ... So, for the example I gave in the game, it is important to look at the suffix used.

Originally posted by Sandor

Melyik a helyes?

A pincer a két üveget az asztalra ____________.

a. leteszi
b. felteszi
c. beteszi
d. kiteszi



The suffix used in this example is -ra. A rough translation is the waiter is putting 2 bottles onto the table. We know that answers c and d can be immediately ruled out because those both indicate movement to and from the inside of the table. So, that leaves us with le- (down) and fel- (up). In most situations, a waiter is going to be taller than a table and the motion will be downward motion. In that case, the answer would be a.

You can have situations where fel- (up) could be used with -ra (onto).

A polcra a könyvet felteszem.
I placed the book up onto the shelf.

This indicates that the shelf is above my head and I had to reach up to put the book on it.

An example of some of the others are

odamegyek - I go over there
átmegyek - I go across (ie I go across the bridge)


This might sound a bit childish, but I found the best way to learn the most common ones (be, ki, le, fel) was to walk around with a book, pick it up or put it down or walk into a room... and actually say the sentence associated with the motion. For me, this reinforced the meanings.

My understanding is that they really do use the prefixes (a lot). It is important to know them. Also, there are other rules associated with the prefixes that indicate whether they are attached to the verb or separated from it.

I hope this helps.


palacsinta
Friday 24th of November 2006 11:42:39 PM
Alright, here is another thing that puzzles me. It is not always clear to me when to use an article and when to drop it. The same goes for using the plural form.

Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean.

If I want to say I like chocolate, do I say "chocoládét szeretem" or "a chocoládét szeretem"? And furthermore, if I dropped the article, would it be "chocoládét szeretek"?

When i talk about something in general, what do i do?
"is there milk in the fridge?"
"i've never seen kangaroos"
"this is the first time i've worn a pink t-shirt" (true at the moment :p )
"what are you doing?" - "i am listening to music"

What really puzzles me is when to use plural or not. One of the sentences i used in a game here was "the person below me has blue eyes". However, in Hungarian you use the singular for this! The same thing happened when i mentioned something about skates. For a dutch person this is rather illogical; you have two feet, don't you? Is this only the case in possessive form, or do you use the singular form for more things, even though you are talking about more than one object (like eyes or shoes)? Does this always happen when you mention something in general or is there a rule of thumb for this?

And to combine the two questions above: what happens when i say something like "i don't like horses"? Do i use the singular or the plural, with or without article and defined or undefined conjugation?

Greetings from a very confused little pancake...


Kresimir
Saturday 25th of November 2006 01:42:50 AM
Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean.

If I want to say I like chocolate, do I say \"chocoládét szeretem\" or \"a chocoládét szeretem\"? And furthermore, if I dropped the article, would it be \"chocoládét szeretek\"?

Csokoládét szeretek, if it is general. If you're refering to a particular chocolate, say, the one you're just eating, or that your friend recommended you, you'd say "Szeretem a csokoládét".

When i talk about something in general, what do i do?
\"is there milk in the fridge?\"
\"i've never seen kangaroos\"
\"this is the first time i've worn a pink t-shirt\" (true at the moment :p )
\"what are you doing?\" - \"i am listening to music\"

Van-e tej a h?t?szekrényben? (Here, definite article would mean "Is the milk, we've talked about, in the fridge?)
Soha nem láttam kengurúkat. (Definite article would mean "The kangaroos that have escaped the city ZOO.", for instance.)
El?ször viselek egy rózsaszín? polót. (You're using undefinite article here, because it is just "some" shirt. If you used definite one it would mean that there is this certain pink T-shirt everyone already knows it exists, but now you're for the first time actually WEARING it.)
Mit csinálsz? - Zenét hallgatom. (Definite article because it's "music" in general.)

Of course, indefinite articles are impossible by words such as "tej" (since it's a matter), and "zene" (as a phenomenon), and by "kenguruk" because it's plural, and plural does not have indefinite article.

What really puzzles me is when to use plural or not. One of the sentences i used in a game here was \"the person below me has blue eyes\". However, in Hungarian you use the singular for this! The same thing happened when i mentioned something about skates. For a dutch person this is rather illogical; you have two feet, don't you? Is this only the case in possessive form, or do you use the singular form for more things, even though you are talking about more than one object (like eyes or shoes)? Does this always happen when you mention something in general or is there a rule of thumb for this?

When you're talking about things that come in pairs, or even in bigger quantities (suck as teeth), you use singular if you want to refer to them both. Plural in such case means just many such things, not necessarily connected between them. Thus, "cip?k" are "shoes" as many shoes on a pile, "lábak" are simply "legs" of many different people...but if you want to refer to one single pair of shoes/legs, you use singular. However, if you want to refer to only ONE HALF of the pair, then you either use "egyik" ("one of a group") or "fél" ("half"). So, if someone has one black shoe, and the other of some other colour, then "az egyik cip?je fekete" or "a fél cip?je fekete".

And to combine the two questions above: what happens when i say something like \"i don't like horses\"? Do i use the singular or the plural, with or without article and defined or undefined conjugation?

If you dislike horses in general, then you use plural, of course without article (definite article would mean you dislike a particular group of horses), and indefinite conjugation (since there is no definite article). If you don't like certain horse, you'd use singular, definite article, and, you already guessed it, definite conjugation.


Ildiko
Saturday 25th of November 2006 05:11:10 AM
Hi Kresimir,

It's wonderful to see a new face on the Hungarian forum and that you are joining this thread. Please come and do so more often, and try our language games as well.

Having read your answers to Palacsinta's questions, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with some of the things you wrote.

Originally posted by Kresimir

Csokoládét szeretek, if it is general. If you're refering to a particular chocolate, say, the one you're just eating, or that your friend recommended you, you'd say \"Szeretem a csokoládét\".

No one would say "Csokoládét szeretek." If you like chocolate in general, you would say "Szeretem a csokoládét." As a matter of fact anything that you like in general follows this structure. (Szeretem + definite article + what you like.)Ex.: Szeretem a zenét. (I like music.) Szeretem a kutyákat. (I love dogs.) Szeretem a napsütést. (I love sun shine.) Szeretem a sz?kéket. (I love blonds.)

Van-e tej a h?t?szekrényben?

Is there milk in the fridge? = Van tej a h?t?ben? There's a difference, however slight it is, between "van" and "van-e". One of the uses for "Van-e" is in reported speech to report Yes/No questions. For example: "Van tej a h?t?ben?" This is a Yes/No question, which in indirect speech would be: Megkérdezte, hogy van-e tej a h?t?ben.

Mit csinálsz? - Zenét hallgatok. No need for article, because the verb (hallgat) and the noun without the article (zene) make one phrase which expresses a complex action. Further examples would be: Mit csinálsz? Vacsorát f?zök./Levelet írok./Könyvet olvasok. Note that in each sentence the verb has indefinite conjugation. By the way, here's the reference it comes from: http://bme-tk.bme.hu/other/kuszob/b_viszo.htm#B.7.1. 7.1.2.2.1.2.

If you dislike horses in general, then you use plural, of course without article (definite article would mean you dislike a particular group of horses), and indefinite conjugation (since there is no definite article).

This is absolute nonsense! If it was true, the sentence would be like this: Szeretek lovakat.
No one speaks like this in Hungary. As I've mentioned it in the first point, if you like or dislike something in general, it follows this structure: Szeretem + definite article + what you like. As you can see, it's exactly the opposite of what you are saying: the verb is in definite conjugation and you do use a definite article. So the example sentence with the horses would be: Szeretem a lovakat. Just like: Szeretem a kutyákat. Szeretem a madarakat. Szeretem a halakat. Szeretem a kígyókat. etc.
Note that since we are talking about things in general, you use the plural form, unless you talk about uncountable things such as music, milk, sun shine. (Szeretem a zenét. Szeretem a tejet. Szeretem a napsütést.)






palacsinta
Saturday 25th of November 2006 06:42:59 AM
Well, at least it's good to see I'm not the only one having trouble with the grammar....

Welcome back Egérke/Kresimir! So they made you admin, huh? Nice. :)
I do hope you will be coming back often to the Hungarian forum, your input is well appreciated.


Kresimir
Monday 27th of November 2006 08:58:39 PM
No one would say "Csokoládét szeretek." If you like chocolate in general, you would say "Szeretem a csokoládét." As a matter of fact anything that you like in general follows this structure. (Szeretem + definite article + what you like.)Ex.: Szeretem a zenét. (I like music.) Szeretem a kutyákat. (I love dogs.) Szeretem a napsütést. (I love sun shine.) Szeretem a sz?kéket. (I love blonds.)

OK, now I'm getting confused as well. I myself also had problems with the artucle, and after careful studies I came to the conclusion I wrote above. If it is not correct, then I have a question: why on earth it has to be definite here? Why is it "a csokoládét", when it is no specific chocolate you're talking about?

Is there milk in the fridge? = Van tej a h?t?ben? There's a difference, however slight it is, between "van" and "van-e". One of the uses for "Van-e" is in reported speech to report Yes/No questions. For example: "Van tej a h?t?ben?" This is a Yes/No question, which in indirect speech would be: Megkérdezte, hogy van-e tej a h?t?ben.

I know about the use of -e in indirect speech, however I have heard it been used in colloquial speech in sentences like the one I wrote, so it is as least substandard form, but it obviously DOES exist. I used it several times myself in company of other Hungarians, and I never got corrected. Who's to blame?

Mit csinálsz? - Zenét hallgatok.

Typing mistake.

Further examples would be: Mit csinálsz? Vacsorát f?zök./Levelet írok./Könyvet olvasok. Note that in each sentence the verb has indefinite conjugation. By the way, here's the reference it comes from: http://bme-tk.bme.hu/other/kuszob/b_viszo.htm#B.7.1. 7.1.2.2.1.2.

One more question. If the question were Mit szeretsz?, is it possible in that case to answer Csokoládét szeretek.? As well as Mit olvasol? - Olvasom a könyvet.?

This is absolute nonsense! If it was true, the sentence would be like this: Szeretek lovakat.

No, "Lovakat szeretek."
Well, is it absolute nonsense then? What I see, is that if the object precedes the verb, then it's without article. If it follows the verb, then it has definite article.


Ildiko
Tuesday 28th of November 2006 11:03:21 AM
Hi Kresimir,

Great to hear from you again! It's nice to see that this thread is active again.

why on earth it has to be definite here? Why is it "a csokoládét", when it is no specific chocolate you're talking about?

Rules are just guidelines and there are exceptions to them. Not to mention, what works in one language, might not stand in another. It would take the challenge and fun out of language learning! ;) By the way, there are other instances in Hungarian when you have to use the definite article even though you are not talking about something specific, but something in general. For example, while in English you say "People are different from animals in that ....", in Hungarian you use a definite article with both general nouns. So, it would be like this: Az emberek abban különböznek az állatoktól, hogy ...." Believe me, when I learned English I struggled enough to remember and follow the English logic behind using articles. Their rules didn't make sense to me, but ... c'est la vie!

So, why on earth it has to be a definite article? Well, I suspect the culprit is the verb "szeretem". To the quesion "Mit szeretsz?", the answers will follow the format I've mentioned in my prevoius reply. (Szeretem a csokoládét, a csirkét, az édességeket, a gyümölcsitalokat, etc.) Now, if we replace this verb with another transitive verb (see in examples) the article disappears.
"-Mit eszel?"
"- Csokit eszem."
"- Mit iszol?"
"- Kakaót iszom."
"- Mit kérsz?"
"- Csokit kérek."
So, with these verbs you do get the structure you've concluded from you observations.


I know about the use of -e in indirect speech, however I have heard it been used in colloquial speech in sentences like the one I wrote...... I used it several times myself in company of other Hungarians, and I never got corrected. Who's to blame?

Do you think it's possible that they speak a regional dialect? I know, for example, that the Latin American Spanish is rather different from the Castellano they speak in Spain. While in Spain "vosotros" is the norm, my Latin American students always smile when I use it and they say it sounds funny and archaic. Could it be that something similar is going on here? Just a thought.

One more question. If the question were Mit szeretsz?, is it possible in that case to answer Csokoládét szeretek.? As well as Mit olvasol? - Olvasom a könyvet.?

If you answer the way you suggest it (Olvasom a könyvet.), your listener will automatically come back and ask you WHICH ONE. So, as it is now, the answer is incomplete. A complete answer would be: Mit olvasol? - A könyvet, amit t?led kaptam kölcsön.

What I see, is that if the object precedes the verb, then it's without article. If it follows the verb, then it has definite article.

It's great to learn a language through observations and then drawing conclusions form them. Learning by self-discovery is always more memorable than just learning from a book. However, we have to be careful how we draw conclusions so as not to sound categorical, because there might be parts we've overlooked:
"Vajat tettem a tésztába. - Tettem vajat a tésztába." (No article, regardless where the object stands.)
"A ment?ket hívom." - "Hívom a ment?ket." (Definite article, regardless where the object stands.)
"Az uzsonnádat kidobtam a szemétbe." - "Kidobtam az uzsonnádat a szemétbe." (Definite article, regardless where the object stands.)
"Egy gólyát láttam a háztet?n." - "Láttam egy gólyát a háztet?n." (Indefinite article, regradless where the object stands.)




Kresimir
Tuesday 28th of November 2006 07:57:27 PM
Rules are just guidelines and there are exceptions to them. Not to mention, what works in one language, might not stand in another.

Of course, but every language has its logic. I'm trying to figure out what the logic of Hungarian is.

Believe me, when I learned English I struggled enough to remember and follow the English logic behind using articles. Their rules didn't make sense to me, but ... c'est la vie!

Since I'm a speaker of a language that has no articles at all, it is even more complicatefd for me.

So, why on earth it has to be a definite article? Well, I suspect the culprit is the verb "szeretem". To the quesion "Mit szeretsz?", the answers will follow the format I've mentioned in my previous reply. (Szeretem a csokoládét, a csirkét, az édességeket, a gyümölcsitalokat, etc.) Now, if we replace this verb with another transitive verb (see in examples) the article disappears.

Yes, but the verb has its form "szeretem" BECAUSE of the article, not the other way round...

"-Mit eszel?"
"- Csokit eszem."
"- Mit iszol?"
"- Kakaót iszom."
"- Mit kérsz?"
"- Csokit kérek."
So, with these verbs you do get the sructure you've concluded from you observations.

But just because the word order is different.

Do you think it's possible that they speak a regional dialect? I know, for example, that the Latin American Spanish is rather different from the Castellano they speak in Spain. While in Spain "vosotros" is the norm, my Latin American students always smile when I use it and they say it sounds funny and archaic. Could it be that something similar is going on here? Just a thought.

Perhaps.

If you answer the way you suggest it (Olvasom a könyvet.), your listener will automatically come back and ask you WHICH ONE. So, as it is now, the answer is incomplete. A complete answer would be: Mit olvasol? "A könyvet, amit t?led kaptam kölcsön."

While "Szeretem a csokoládét." wouldn't raise a question "Which one?"?

You haven't answered the other question: is it possible to say "Csokoládét szeretek.", with verb in the beginning and thus without article?

"Vajat tettem a tésztába. - Tettem vajat a tésztába." (No article, regardless where the object stands.)
"A ment?ket hívom." - "Hívom a ment?ket." (Definite article, regardless where the object stands.)
"Az uzsonnádat kidobtam a szemétbe." - "Kidobtam az uzsonnádat a szemétbe. (Definite article, regardless where the object stands.)
"Egy gólyát láttam a háztet?n." - "Láttam egy gólyát a háztet?n." (Indefinite article, regradless where the object stands.)

OK, now this is confusing. And I simply refuse to learn it by heart, I'd rather try to figure out the pattern.


Ildiko
Wednesday 29th of November 2006 12:34:46 AM
Hi there again, Kresimir :)

You haven't answered the other question: is it possible to say "Csokoládét szeretek.", with verb in the beginning and thus without article?

So, "Szeretek csokoládét." instead of "Csokoládét szeretek.?" No, none of the two are correct. Sorry! If you want to see why, please revisit the previous posts.

While "Szeretem a csokoládét." wouldn't raise a question "Which one?"?

Yes, that's right. "Szeretem a csokoládét." states what you like in general (choclate), therefore asking "which one" would be unnecessary and illogical. However in the case of "Olvasom a könyvet.", though you do use a similar structure (verb with definite conjuagation followed by a definite article and a noun in the object form) we talk about one secific book, but as it is right now, it's not specific enough for your listener, to know exactly which one you mean. That explains why they would ask you "which one". As I've mentioned it before, I believe that the reason behind this confusing phenomenon lies with the verb. If you use "szeret" or any of its synonyms or antonyms, and you follow it by a definite article, plus the object form of the noun, you will be talking about likes and dislikes in general: Imádom a barackot. Ki nem állhatom a telet. etc. But if you use other transitive verbs with a definite article followed by the object form of the noun, you will be talking about something specific. Festem a konyhát. Tapétázom a kis szobát. Felhívom a lányt, akivel a buliban találkoztam. etc.


I'm sure it must be really confusing for people who try to learn Hungarian, but I think for many of them these pointers would be enough. Of course, you're a linguist, so you want to know the whys and the underlining sense behind this language. I wish you all the best for your quest to figure out the patterns.




Kresimir
Wednesday 29th of November 2006 01:56:44 AM
So, "Szeretek csokoládét." instead of "Csokoládét szeretek."? No, none of the two are correct. Sorry! If you want to see why, please revisit the previous posts.

No. JUST "Csokoládét szeretek". There is no sense in revisiting previous posts, since you only gave me examples, not the RULE.

As I've mentioned it before, I believe that the reason behind this confusing phenomenon lies with the verb. If you use "szeret" or any of its synonyms or antonyms, and you follow it by a definite article, plus the object form of the noun, you will be talking about likes and dislikes in genral: Imádom a barackot. Ki nem állhatom a telet. etc. But if you use other transitive verbs with a definite article followed by the object form of the noun, you will be talking about something specific. Festem a konyhát. Tapétázom a kis szobát. Felhívom a lányt, akivel a buliban találkoztam. etc.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Obviously, the verbs that express emotional attitudes have different sintactical treatment. The same holds true in Finnish, where you should use partitive if you express the object of the verb referring to emotion, even if it comprises the whole object, not just part of it.

Thanx.


palacsinta
Wednesday 20th of December 2006 05:18:40 PM
Yes, another question that fazes me. :)

From the az utánam következ? topic:
"Az utánam következ?nek kedve lenne téli álmot aludni."

Right. I understand that you have to use the -nek ending (which i forgot :P)), but why are you using the conditional conjugation of lenni? Is that equivalent to szeretném...?
Also, if i wanted to use kedve with a non-verb expression, is that possible? And what would i use as a suffix in that case?

Hm.
Come to think of it, it's pretty hard to use this expression without verbs in english too; i guess it must be a dutch thing. ("Ik heb zin in...." can just as easily be used with or without a verb, just a noun will suffice)

So, could i use neke kedve van with just a noun? Like in dutch "Ik heb zin in een ijsje" ("I feel like (having) icecream").

Good thing you speak Dutch, Ildiko, I'd have a really hard time trying to explain this otherwise...



Ildiko
Thursday 21st of December 2006 11:34:14 PM
Hi Palacsinta,

Great to have you back in this thread again with yet another good question. :)

Ik heg zin/geen zin in .... would be translated into Hungarian as "Van/Nincs kedvem + infinitive". You don't need to use a pronoun, like you would in Dutch or English, because the possessive ending that you stick at the end of "kedv" will indicate who you're referring to. So, instead of "Nekem kedvem van ....ni", you would say "Kedvem van ...ni."

Could you use a noun instead of an infinitive? You could, but it's not so common. If you wanted to use a noun, it would get the "ra/re" ending. So, "Heb je zin in een biertje?" would be "Nincs/Van kedved egy (pohárka) sörre?"

As for the use of 2nd conditional, I used it because the probability of us humans going into hibernations is very small, even though sometimes it would really be great. :)

Thanks again for the questions, Palacsinta. If you have more, don't hesitate to come back. Looking forward to hearing from you! :)




Return to the HUNGARIAN Archive
Forward to the Current HUNGARIAN Discussion

Archive