- Forum >
- Topic: Hungarian >
- "Nem vagyok kint soha."
53 Comments
Yes, Hungarian uses double-negatives with words like never, nobody, nowhere, etc.
23
You can even take it to the next level:
Nem akarok semmit. - I do not want anything - Literally: I do not want nothing.
Nem akarok semmit sem. - I can only say this literally: I do not want nothing, neither.
It is not necessarily a more emphasized version. I think they are more or less interchangeable. So it would be:
Nem akarok semmit (sem).
Would "Nem akarok semmit sem" be like saying "I don't want anything either"?
The either part in that suggests that there are multiple people and we are answering if we want something and then when it gets to me then I just say that like the one before me, I also do not want anything. So in that regard I would rather translate that to "Én sem akarok semmit sem."
Maybe easier to look at it this way:
A: Do you want some water?
B: No, thanks, I do not want anything. "Nem, köszönöm, nem akarok semmit."
A: Maybe some apple juice or orange juice ?
B: No, i do not want anything (at all). "Nem, nem akarok semmit sem."
Though I have to admit that I would translate the "at all" differently, but maybe for an example it is good enough. Long story short, you are presented with multiple choices, not just one, and you indicate that you want neither of those and in general nothing at all.
Such as 'Nie mamy nic do stracenia' - we do not have nothing to lose (Polish) or Nous ne mangions jamais - we never eat (French)
The french sentence is actually in past tense, so it translates to "We never ate".
Does soha (or other negative adverbs for that matter) ever occur without the double negative?
what is wrong with: I never am outside? (I did read all the other comments)
It's incorrect English. In English, the adverbs of frequency, such as "never" generally appear before the verb but they come after auxiliary verbs and also the verb "to be", even when it's not being used as an auxiliary.
I never eat.
I never have time.
I have never eaten. (Comes after have as an auxiliary)
I will never eat.
I will never be eaten. (Only after one auxiliary verb)
I am never late. ("Am" is not an auxiliary here, but it functions like one.)
I wouldn't mind if incorrect English could be used. I'm here to learn Hungarian, not English.
If I do a grammatical error in English, that still shows that I understood the text, it should be accepted.
I would mind indeed! Why waste your energy learning bad habits and dodgy English in the process? Wouldn't you rather be improving two languages at the same time? Slå två flugor i en smäll liksom...
It is quite annoying to get an error on something I knew the answer to, but just made a minor grammatical error in English. am = is = are in all cases, unless it would imply something else.
What are you talking about? Am, is, are is the rare example of English NOT being equal in all persons (I guess it's what you are referring to as 'cases' here). God natt!
The thing is, making mistakes in English is not because any of us would be "lazy to English". It's because it takes a lot more concentration to translate from a foreign language, into another foreign language. That we don't use by choice, we use it exactly because we have no choice. So maybe... it's really just annoying when I know the word right in my language but I make a dumb mistake at mapping it to English because I'm mentally tired for that.
Well I, as a native (British) English speaker, accept that, whatever cleversome non-native speakers may tell you, you are indeed here to learn Hungarian; learning English has its own courses. By the way, though, it's 'make (not do) a grammatical error'. Also, I think you meant 'conjugations,' rather than 'cases' unless you were thinking of 'instances', but I understood your gist. (And, I made up the word 'cleversome'; it doesn't exist but I think ought to, to express 'would-be clever'.)
"I never am outside?" is not ungrammatical in English, just not the usual phrasing, and tends to be used in certain contexts, such as expressing disbelief. It's best not to say things are ungrammatical when they merely happen to be less common.
For some reason, though I know it is correct, 'Nem vagyok kint soha' seem improper. I would have said 'Soha sem vagyok kint'
I've used both: Soha nem vagyok kint. and Nem vagyok kint soha.. Although, each have a slightly different meaning based word order placing a greater emphasis on the first word. The difference is subtle, however noticeable. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong :D I would love a native to chime in here? Thanks!
I think that would mean: I am not outside. Correct me if Im wrong I only just started and am willing to learn!
i am thinking the same as u... hmmm... but there is the word "never" so the meaning is different in context probably.
What is the question ? If they represent a good translation for the english sentence ? Or looking for differences between them ?
this sentence sounds to me that i've never been outside... like never ever been... never. hmmmm
That would be 'Nem, nem vagyok kint soha'. There is not that extra 'nem' for the 'No'. So literally, it's just "I am never outside'. It conveys the same meaning alright, but there is a slight difference in nuance between 'No, I am never X' and just 'I am never X', isnt't there?
Because 'no' is basically a sentence by itself, while 'not' is just a negator. The sentence is 'I'm not never outside', think of it like saying 'I ain't never' in african american english.
No, because the "nem" is negating the 'soha' (never). It would basically mean "i am outside not never". And if that feels weird, then you are correct, it feels very weird in hungarian too.
This is not how you translate languages. :) Especially not to English. (Fun fact, take your sentence and translate it word by word to Romanian: Nu sunt afară niciodată - it means exactly what the original Hungarian sentence, so maybe it isn't Hungarian being weird)
