she pronounces "keREsel", shouldn't it be "KEresel"? it also sounds as if she stressed 'piros' in the last syllable too.
She's not stressing the second syllable in keresel, but that syllable has a higher pitch (or tone) than in a declarative.
That's not quite right — we still stress the first syllable, but the melody of keresel is different here because of the question.
Dihotomy questions, i.e. the questions possible to be ansvered by "Yes" or "No", are asked with emphasis at last but one syllable.
Why is there no "sz" at the end of the verb? Is this a different conjugation from the ones that do have "sz" in second person singular?
When a verb ends in sz, s, z, or zs, the suffix is not sz but a vowel plus l. That just happens for reasons of avoiding two similar sounds after one another.
Nouns which end in -a lengthen this vowel when they take a suffix:
- fák (plural)
- fát (accusative)
- fánál (adessive)
Thank you AndrsBrny for your explanation and clarification that 'piros fa' and 'redwood' are not considered equals. I've also gained a bonus with the knowledge that the mighty sequoias are known in Hungarian as 'mamutfenyő'. I'm enjoying the ride on this all encompassing Magyar learning curve! Duolingo deserves a 'thumbs up'.
No apology needed egyszervolt, but thanks. We're all here to learn, and just look at the trivia we can include along the way!
Unless it's autumn, trees are green. Should not the translation for piros fát be redwood? It was not accepted.
Hmm, I think that with the indefinite article a, it actually cannot be wood, but has to be tree, right? a wood, to the degree that it's acceptable, sounds to me like a forest, for which fa wouldn't be an accurate translation.
Actually, in strict terms, you are right. It's not really proper. But, for example if I want to put a log on the fire, I do say "Rakok egy fát a tűzre." So in general, this form is in use indeed.
But then, when you are talking about "red wood", it would be "a piece of red wood", not "a red wood", as "wood" in that sense is uncountable.
My query about the 'redwood' seems to have provoked an exercise in semantics. This was not my intention, merely to ask if redwood is acceptable. Thanks to AndrsBrny and egyszervolt for taking up the challenge, but I suspect the discussion is off on a tangent. Here is a wikipedia link describing the entire species of tall redwoods (the sequoias) which grow in the west of North America and also China. They are massive trees yielding red timber - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoioideae - but like so many natural resources, are under threat. This is what I meant by 'redwood'.
Sorry for the tangent and for not replying to you directly. "piros fa" actually really just means "red tree", so you can't use "redwood" there. That species is called "mamutfenyő" which literally means "mammoth pine". I think we were just trying to get some colour terms and accusatives together.
It's my bad, I didn't realize that it's a specific family of trees. Sorry! :)