For me, only goodbye is hard to pronounce.
once you know the rules, everything will be easy to pronounce. Hungarian letters are always pronounced the same way (unlike in all other language that I know)
Well, there are differences on etimology and grammatical base, because our ortography tries to reflect the grammatical structure, too; and we assimilation (? is this the right English term?) that may be familiar for those who learn Italian or Welsh, where we pronounce the "stronger" consonant in a group – but this is also easily predictable and based on quite well defined rules.
Phonological assimilation is the term, but you mean the verb which would be assimilate, or "use assimilation" or something like that.
Of course, that was a kind of typo, I tried to find the right word and missed the other :) It should be "we use assimilation".To make it clear because I am still not sure about the terms, here is an example. "With this" in Hungarian is "ez" + "-vel" suffix. Since the "°ezvel" would sound horribly, v changes to "z" (and always the suffix changes) to "ezzel". This example has one more thing to observe: many Hungarians miss the rule in the brackets up there, and say "°evvel". This is incorrect but it is so frequent that nobody would care. For other words assimilation is more strictly follows the rule.
(Since asterix converts to italic here, I used ° sign to mark the incorrect versions.)
I would agree with Edelweiss73 in that 'evvel/avval' is not incorrect but less literate. Consider 'ebben/abban', which is the archetype of regressive assimilation (the ending influences the word, not the other way round) - you just cannot say 'ezben/azban'. This 'evvel/avval' uses the same logic. Just when and why this logic can/must be applied is not answered by linguists - they simply say that both 'ezzel/azzal' and 'evvel/avval' are correct, and experience shows that the latter is more frequent in less literate environments.
Sorry, I have to disagree, "evvel" is not incorrect, though it is felt to be non-standard by probably the majority of native speakers. It sounds less educated to many people, but it is correct.
Edelweiss73: nem győztél meg teljes mértékben, bár valamennyire igen. Egy blogbejegyzés, még ha szakmai blog is, nem igazán forrás nyelvi szabályokra. Viszont az "ahhoz", "akkor" viselkedése elgondolkodtatott. Megpróbálok még utánanézni, addig meg duzzogva elfogadom, amit írtál :D
Interesting. Often in Indo-European languages, when the pronunciation of two consonants is assimilated, the spelling is usually changed after some time to reflect it. At least, the spelling was changed until modern times when the spelling of most languages is set in stone because of dictionaries, the internet, etc. More recent shifts in pronunciation just leave everything looking like it's spelled wrong. ;)
Your explanation of how words get constructed in Hungarian helps a great deal, thanks! Much better than simply memorizing phrases without knowing the exact meaning of each word. Köszönöm
Edelweiss73: could you give me a reference? The rule is, that always the suffix changes the vowel, as far as I know. This means that "evvel" is definitely wrong, even if some (quite a lot) people use it.
On the other hand, language is changing, developing all the time. Back in a century, the definite article "a" was a mistake (it was expected to be "az" and after a while they started to write it with an apostrophe to show the missing "z". It was quite a time that the abbreviated form got a foot in the door. Perhaps "evvel" is one of the first words that invalidate the mentioned rule.
HeruMornie: a probléma ott kezdődik hogy tulajdonképpen mi is a hiteles forrás a nyelvi szabályokat illetően? :) (Nádasdy tanítványa voltam.)
russian (and basically every other cryllic language like serbian and bosnian) are pronounced as they're spelt too.
Almost... We cannot really say 'включить', so we say something like "фключить". You find this also in Hungarian: we cannot really say 'vasgolyó' (iron ball), so we say, easily and comfortably something like "vazsgolyó" (or важгойо in Cyrillic). But, when you hear "vazsgolyó" in a dictate, the rules of ortography are to be observed and you would put down 'vasgolyó'.
Other examples are Finnish or Italian, etc.
Yes, this is called voicing assimilation. It's hard to pronounce в and к together because в is voiced and к is voiceless. Similar situation with the Hungarian word in the example.
is that translating hungarian into cryllic alphabet? or is that actually russian or another cryllic language (sorry i'm hopeless with this lmao)
включить is a Russian word. Transliterated, it would be vklyucheet, with the v (в) being pronounced more like an f (ф). It means to turn on, enable or include. важгойо is an approximate transliteration of vazsgolyó/vasgolyó. To English speakers, it may be more readily understood as vazhgoy'o. See:
My translator (not on Duolingo) says viszontlátásra is "see you soon" as well... hmmph.
Etymologically, this is more or less what it means as it comes from viszont (“again”) + látás (“sight, seeing”) + -ra (“on, onto”, sublative case suffix).
Yes, it technically means "see you again" (no mentioning of how soon, though), and the complete form of the expression is "A viszontlátásra!", which sounds like saying "to our seeing each other again!" as a toast and drink. No wonder, we, Hungarians like to drink. :)
Everyone who offers morpheme breakdowns in this language deserves lingots.
"Viszontlátásra" is the English "Goodbye", which is more formal than "Bye".
my mum says it is actually more like, 'until next we meet'. She chuckled at me when i said it to her on the phone, the context was off you see!
Because the "thanks" means "köszi" or "kösz". This is an informal and shorter word for köszönöm.
That's what I remember children say a lot. I asked about "kösz" in another thread, thanks for explaining!
I'm with others on here that viszontlatasra (sorry, English keyboard) would do well with another translation being "see you later".
Both "See you later" and "Good bye" are formal, your answer doesn't make any sense.
"See you" is less formal than "See you later" or "See you soon" This is more like "I will see you again." which is a bit more formal, but it doesn't say when, which is probably why he wanted to put "see you", but you can see a difference in register.
Closest English phonetic approximation: KUH-suh-nuhm SAY-pen, VEE-sunt-lah-tahsh-rah
I would change it to SAY-pen, as it's /ɛ/ not /i/. Also, the final syllable is more of an a in the back of the throat than a u. Otherwise, it's a pretty good approximation.