"This man is inside, and that man is outside."

Translation:Ez a férfi bent van, az a férfi meg kint.

June 30, 2016

This discussion is locked.


Why is "ez a férfi bent van, az a férfi pedig kint" wrong?


It is correct. "Meg" and "pedig" in this context are interchangeable


Exactly. Reported.


And how do you say "that apple"? Az az alma?


Yes. Exactly.


Thank you! It makes sense, but what if i want to say something like "That is the apple..."? Won't it be the same "Az az alma"?


Yes, it would. Context comes to your help.

Which apple is the sweetest? That apple. - Az az alma. (pointing to the apple in question)

Which one is the apple. That one is the apple. - Az az alma. (and not this other object)

If you translate the context, it is clear which one you are saying. Also, in speech, they are stressed differently. In the second case, you put much more emphasis on the first "Az". You would also do that in English: THAT (one) is the apple! Right?

And if we go to the accusative, it is very clear in Hungarian:

(I want) that apple - Azt az almát (akarom/szeretném).


Uhh, yes. Sorry. You're right. I'm pretty tired yesterday. :) So. That apple means "azt az almát" and that is the apple means "az az alma". :)


It's ok) Thanks again! But now it seems more complicated than I thought. What does exactly "az a férfi" mean? "That man" or "That is the man"? Shouldn't it be "azt a férfi" (or even férfiT??)


Uhh. I think I won't be able to explain it properly. :) So. Here is a link about hungarian accusative case: http://www.hungarianreference.com/Nouns/-t-accusative.aspx I hope this helps. :)


Thanks for the link. But I still don't get why we should use the accusative case for "That apple"? For example: "That apple is big". How to say it correctly in Hungarian? It doesn't look like accusative at all))

I would use accusative only in sentences like this: "I want that apple".


They aren't by any means. Yes, you are right, there is a certain degree of ambiguity. "This is the end" is "Ez a vég", which is the same as "this end". But then again "az ember" can mean both "the person" and "that is (a) person" (indefinite articles are used less than in English). The context always makes the meaning clear. Note that "that is that person" is "az az az ember".


We shouldn't. You are perfectly right: "azt az almát akarom". "That apple is big" is "az az alma nagy".


Köszönöm szépen! So again... how do you say "That is the apple"? "Az az alma"? And "That apple" would be "Az az alma" too? Sorry if my questions are stupid or annoying)


Oh, I think I got it now! Thank you for your explanation)


My pleasure :)


Mikis: the first or second az, depending on what you want to express.


Please, do not up- or downvote posts in this thread, because that changes their order and makes it difficult to follow the subject.


Which az is stressed more in "az az az ember"?


why do you have to use meg in this sentence?


The meg here emphasises a difference between the two men. You could also translate the sentence as "This man is inside, whereas that man is outside."

It's also possible to use pedig instead of meg.


I'm having trouble understanding where the 'and' (meg/pedig) has to be placed in a sentence. Alo, why are there so many different words for 'and', and how to know which one to use?

Would really appreciate the explanation!


For an explanation it helps understanding how a Hungarian sentence is usually constructed. I'll do it at the example of "Ez a férfi bent van."

While English uses a subject-verb-object construction, Hungarian is rather a topical language. It uses the form "topic - focus - verb stem - rest". The topic is what the sentence is generally about. In this case we're talking about "this man". The focus is the new piece of information we want to convey. Here we want to explain where the man is - inside. The focus position is always in front of the verb, which is van here.

So in this sentence above you have two clauses, each with a topic and a focus. You could spell it out as: Ez a férfi bent van, az a férfi kint (van). The verb doesn't need to be repeated, since it's the same in both clauses. Kint slips into the focus position even though there is no verb behind it, because it has the same purpose as the (focused) bent, describing the location of the respective topic.

And this is where pedig comes in. Pedig (in this meaning, at least - it has another one) is placed behind the topic of the second clause. Its purpose is to contrast these two topics - they are similar and could do things the same way, but there is one key difference between them, which is spelt out in the focus. There are two men, one is inside, but in contrast, the other one is outside.

In consequence, pedig can be translated as a number of more or less contrasting conjunctions in English: "and", "but", "whereas", or "on the other hand".

The other use of pedig is as a normal conjunction, as the first item in a subordinate clause, where it means "although" or "even though": Nem akarok aludni, pedig fáradt vagyok. - I do not want to sleep even though I'm tired.

Meg is pretty interchangeable with pedig in this contrasting meaning, and uses the same position, after the topic in the second clause. It makes the contrast slightly less prevalent.

Meg is also often used when listing things: "Almát akartam venni, tojást meg kenyeret" - "I wanted to buy apples, eggs and bread." It is also used to mean "plus" in calculations. And finally, meg- is also a verbal prefix (which can appear as a separate word in many cases).

És is the usual, baseline "and". You can use it for listing items, connecting phrases, or as a conjunction between clauses. It works just like "and" in English.


Small fix: "Nem akarok aludni, pedig vagyok fáradt." -> "Nem akarok aludni, pedig fáradt vagyok."


Yes, thank you. I was originally planning on putting it that way, but for some reason I switched it around. I'll rectify that.


Thank you so much for this elaborate, in depth and incredibly generous reply. It's posts like these that can really help me learn this language the right way. Thank YOU sir!


You mean "which is spelt out in the focus", don't you?


Yes, thank you, that's precisely what I meant. I'll edit it. :)


Why do we use 'a' twice here? What does this sentence mean:

Ez ferfi bent van, az ferfi pedig kint.

  1. Could you also say "...az pedig ferfi kint?"


That sentence is wrong, and the answer to your question is no. We do not use "a" twice, it's just that the demonstrative adjective "this" is "ez a/ez az", while "that" is "az a/az az". "A/az" by itself is the definite article, and "ez", "az" by themselves are pronouns. In your sentence "ez férfi" means "this is a man".


U forgot the a


Why is it 'az a férfi meg kint' not 'meg az a férfi kint'? I'm confused as to why the 'and' is after the noun.


Because it's not an "and", at least not in the traditional sense. That would be és.

Meg is more of an "on the other hand". It is placed after the topic of the second clause, so usually it's the second item in that clause.


I think because the emphasis is on inside and outside.


Why is "Ez a férfi bent van, meg a férfi kint" wrong?


To stay parallel with "ez a férfi" - "this man", you also have to say "az a férfi" - "that man". Az is the demonstrative pronoun "that", and the a following it is the definite article.

Additionally, while it's possible to use meg in this position to mean "and" or "plus", if you're making a contrasting statement, it's better to put it behind the topic of the relative clause, similar to pedig: "... az a férfi meg kint".


Yeah I've been having the problem where to put meg and pedig in a sebtence because it has always been wrong. I got so frustrated that I stopped using these two words altogether. Any good explanation or hints as to where one should put meg and pedig? I think it doesn't hinder intelligibility but it would be nice to get it right nonetheless.


In a sentence like this, where they mean "whereas/on the other hand", just before the second term in the juxtaposition: "...bent... ...MEG/PEDIG kint".


Someone just asked about the difference between those words. See if the replies there help.


Can't you say "van" in the second part of the sentence? Because I wrote "ez a férfi bent van, az a férfi pedig kint van" and wasn't accepted.


You can repeat the van here. It sounds a bit doubly, redundant, but it's grammatically okay.


Köszönöm szépen :)


What even is the distinction between meg & pedig? They seem to be used whenever


Why do we use Ez a and Az a in this conext, not just Ez and Az? Because it is people?


We would use the extra definite article even in case of objects. "This lamp is..." -> "Ez a lámpa...". Hm... https://magyartanulas.github.io/this_that_articles/ has some more examples, even one where the extra article is not needed, though it doesnt seem to give a reason on the why.


Couldn't it be "itt férfi van bent, és ott férfi van kint"?


The english sentence doesnt have "here" and "there", it has "this man" and "that man" so your version is far from the solution.


Why 'és' is not accepted here? I understood from other comments that pedig/meg has a contrast to it, but wouldn't the simple addition make sense also?


Feels a bit off, but the more I think about it... yeah, it could work.


A magyar nyelveben ha lehet, nem használunk kétszer egy szót ugyanabban a mondatban! Ez a férfi bent van az pedig kint.

Learn Hungarian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.