"The boy is not below, but above."
Translation:A fiú nem lent van, hanem fent.
14 Comments
775
why not "a fiú nem lent hanem fent"? also what is the difference between nem and nincs?
With location, you need "Van" or "Nincs", depending on the context. "Nem" is "No" and the particle used for negation, whereas "Nincs" is the opposite of "Van", used for "There is not" and "He/She/It isn't", when you'd use "Van" in the affirmative (except for emphasis).
So can this sentence be rephrased using ‘nincs’? (Maybe ‘A fiú lent nincs hanem fent.’ or ‘A fiú lent nincs hanem fent van.’?)
Almost.
"A fiú nincs lent, hanem fent van." - Still a bit unusual because you wouldn't use "nincs" in a contrasting sentence like this. But probably many Hungarians use it like that anyway.
Logically, a "hanem" type sentence goes like this:
Not (statement A) but instead (statement B).
"Hanem" stands for "but instead" or "but rather".
So:
A fiú NEM (lent van), HANEM (fent(van)).
The boy NOT (is below) BUT RATHER (is above).
Now, with "nincs", there is a slight problem. It includes the "NOT" part and also a part of "statement A". Because "nincs" means "NOT is" or "is NOT". "is" is part of "statement A". So the logic gets violated a little bit. But language and logic do not always go hand in hand. Anyway, if you want to use it that way, use it like this: "A fiú nincs lent, hanem fent van." - with "van" included in statement B.
"Nincs" is perfectly OK in these sentences:
"A fiú nincs lent".
"A fiú nincs lent, és fent sincs". - Not below and not above, either. "Sincs" means "is also not". "Also nincs".
So the contrast is what makes the use of "nincs" impossible or not so natural?
Or perhaps the better way to explain it (per my understanding) - nincs only replaces "nem van" if it's connected lime this. It wouldn't replace nem lent van since "lent" comes between nem and van.
Sometimes the meaning of a word is not given before an exercise is offered. One has to choose the word at random.
I wrote " Nem lent van a fiú, hanem fent" and it said it was correct. Is this still saying the same thing?
