Víz is in accusative, so it is the object of the sentence, which implies that you are thanking someone for the water.
The accusative suffix is -t, the e is only there to make pronounciation easier. It can also be -öt, -ot and sometimes -at according to the rules of vowel harmony.
but surely for this new sentence the only noun being refered to is the water making water the subject right?
No, the subject is "I" -- "I thank (you for) the water".
That subject "I" is contained in the ending -öm.
It could also be "Köszönünk a vizet", for example, if several people together all thank someone for the watter -- "we thank" with -ünk ending for subject "we".
Not 'Köszönünk a vizet' but 'Köszönjük a vizet' because there is an object in the sentence. 'Köszönünk'='we say hello'
You can find accusative/object and nominative/subject in English pronouns, such as I/me.
"Thank God for me" – Jim Sterling
This shows that the last word is indeed accusative, as "Thank God for I" just sounds wrong.
You are right, but please note that the verb in the plural should also indicate that it has an object. The correct form is 'köszönjük'. Making a distinction is important, for example: 'köszönök neked' means 'I say hello to you', while 'köszönöm neked (hogy segítesz)' means 'I thank you (for helping me)'.
I'm no expert in Hungarian, but to me it looks like köszönöm is actually already the first person singular conjugation of the verb "to thank," so it really means "I thank." In English, we would say "(I) thank you for the water," so "you" is in the accusative case, and "water" is in a prepositional phrase. In Hungarian, it looks like they put the thing being thanked for in the accusative. Therefore, "I thank the water" actually translates to "I thank (you) FOR the water."
"Vizet" is the accusative form for water, so this sentence would translate appropriately.
I may be wrong here though, so if someone knows better, do please tell me :)
Köszönöm is actually the first person singular conjugation of the verb "to thank" (köszönni). In English "I thank you for the water", you is actually in the dative case (as it would be in Hungarian if we wrote it in full, "Köszönöm neked a vizet", neked being the dative form of te. And yes, the thing you are thanking for in English is in the accusative case in Hungarian.
Hmm, I don't know how you can claim that the "you" in "thank you" in English is in the dative case when we never morphologically distinguish accusative from dative. Yes, it may have been dative in Old English and it's dative in German, but it's a meaningless question in English.
True, but it wouldn't really make sense if it were accusative. The thing that I'm thankful for isn't you. I'm thankful for the water.
Hmm, it sounds like your assuming that the thing you are thankful for is somehow still more of a direct object than the person who is thanked, even though in English the thing is introduced by a preposition and not an object at all and the only possible object role is the person. Is your reasoning because when there are two objects, most sentences in most (nom-acc-dat) languages will end up with a person in dative and an inanimate thing in accusative?
In English, when there is only one possible object role, it's really a moot point as to whether the object is accusative or dative. We can see a difference when there are two object roles, because the dative object must precede the accusative (or else be replaced by a prepositional phrase).
What would you say about the phrase "to trust somebody with something"? In German, the phrase is "jemandem [DAT] etwas [ACC] anvertrauen". In English, the structure is like "thank" ... a person as the only object role and a thing (or a person, maybe a baby, for example) introduced by a preposition?
What about "to cast someone in a play/film"? Would you say that "someone" is dative and the play or film is a more logical accusative role that English happens to have as a prepositional phrase?
(I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just interested by your views.)
It's still dative case even if you don't make a distinction in your language.
If you mean like "Thanks to the water I'm not thirsty" then it would be " A víznek köszönhetően", which is a little bit complicated for this level.
I agree with akidaki, either "a víznek köszönhetően" (or even "a víznek hála"; not literal translation, but the meaning is the same in this context), or it can also mean "köszönet a víznek" (this would be the case if, for example, you would like write a poem or something and name it "köszönet a víznek" which would be about expressing your thankfulness to the water :D)
again I was marked for misstake because wtore without "the" :) Often I think that in fact I'm learning here not Hungarian, but English :)
We're here to learn Hungarian, and simple English errors should be ignored. – But this sentence did clearly include "a", which means "the".
Time to change your keyboard layout to Hungarian, or modify it to allow typing óöő (dead keys works wonders).
Is it not literally "I thank the water?" I see how the accusative makes the action of thanking have an implied "for" but it still sounds funny
yes, literally it indeed means "thank you the water" because "thank" in this case governs the accusative case in Hungarian. Thank you FOR the water would literally be something like "köszönöm a vízért" which doesn't make much sense.
Why could it not mean, having been asked for example, if you want water or tea, "Thank you, the water."/