"The man is wearing a black shoe, a black shirt and a watch."

Translation:A férfin egy fekete cipő, egy fekete ing és egy karóra van.

July 3, 2016

This discussion is locked.


Do you really mean "one shoe"?


I think it should be "black shoes" in English. You can use singular in Hungarian when meaning a pair. Though I would say it without "egy". "A férfin fekete cipő van." "egy" seems to emphasise that it is indeed only one. I guess only the author knows the truth.


Exactly. I think in Hungarian one would say "a férfin fél cipő van."


I'm not sure about that. I really thought about one half of one pair of shoes now. :D But generally yes, "fél" can be used like that. "fél karja van", "fél szeme van", cipő would work better like this too, "fél cipője van" but that's not what I meant. We often use singular when we mean a pair. For example: "Nyisd ki a füled!" (Open your ears!)


I had also heard that Szép a szemed! is used to mean "You have beautiful eyes!" (rather than "a beautiful eye").


When will we change suffix for subject and for predicate?? Can we say " A ferfi egy fekete cipőben......


I saw this report: A férfi egy fekete cipőben, egy fekete ingben, és egy karórában van.

However, this does not work. A férfi fekete cipőben és fekete ingben van. So far it is fine. But you cannot use ...-ban van for karóra. I think it is because it is a smaller thing, so you are not in it.

So, "A férfi .... -ban van" works for cipő, ing, póló, bakancs, csizma, nadrág, szoknya, ruha, kalap, sapka, kesztyű, kabát...

"A férfi .... -ban van" does not work for: karóra, nyaklánc, sál,

But "A férfin x van" construction works for all of the above.

Maybe we could say A férfi fekete cipőben és fekete ingben van és karóra van rajta.

[deactivated user]

    Uh am I missing something or why is this guy only wearing one shoe?


    Why can't I write "a férfi fekete cipőben ... van"? And another question: is egy necessary in all these cases, even with cipő?

    1. Because you can't write "karórában" - see jzsuzsi
    2. It accepts an egy-less answer now.


    Is it really wrong to put "van" right after "férfin"?


    The English sentence says:

    The man is wearing a black shoe, ...

    When it should obviously be "The man is wearing black shoes," since you wear shoes in pairs. Well, at least nothing hints at the man having lost one shoe.


    Lots of translation variations missing here...


    Dagnabbit. I am still unable to figure out when to use ferfi vs ferfin.


    Well, there are about 20 different suffixes that translate English prepositions, "-n" (with possibly a linking vowel) is just one of them. It means in general "on". In this case "on the man there is...", which is the Hungarian way to say what one is wearing. And it's "férfi".


    Why not cipoban,,,,


    Did you do the full sentence?

    A férfi egy fekete cipőban, egy fekete ingben és egy karórában van.

    I think that is how the grammar should be in that case, but correct me if I'm wrong.


    Cipó is a small bread or a big roll.


    Why van not vannak? I put "a férfin vannak" at the end rather than "A férfin... van" as they suggest, but it was otherwise the same as the given answer.


    This time I wrote exactly the same as the given answer except that I put vannak instead of van and it was marked as wrong. Is it to do with numbers taking singular verbs?


    vannak is for when the subject noun is in plural, otherwise it's van (unless if it's negative, then nincsenek/nincs is used)


    férfi van, férfin van, férfiak vannak, férfiakon vannak, sok férfi van, két férfi van


    But doesnt the -n on férfi make it the object? I thought of this sentence being worded in Hungarian thinking as, "The [list of things] are on the man." And therefore, "vannak" is appropriate, because the list of things are the subject. No?


    Ebben a mondatban fölöslegesek a határozatlan névelők!

    Learn Hungarian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.