Just out of curiosity...in what context would one really use words like "miket" or "kiket" ?? I mean, when you're asking "What/who(m)?" you usually don't know if the thing in question is plural so when would you actually say it in the plural? Is there really a difference between "Kit hallasz" and "kiket hallasz"?? aside from the obvious??
There are cases when you can assume the number (singular vs plural at least) of the answer. "Miket láttál", "kikkel találkozol", etc. Or something is named after a set of people (a nation, a family, whatever) and you want to ask a question about it, it's only natural you would ask the question "kikről nevezték el..." and not "kiről nevezték el"
A couple of question pronouns (and their relatives) are declined like normal nouns, which makes them fairly fun to use. Most prominently mi and ki, of course. You can say kivel - with whom (-val/-vel = with), or mikor - when (-kor indicates points in time), for instance.
Personal pronouns, on the other hand, are a bit more complicated to decline. Sneak peek: 'with me' is translated as velem, 'vel' being the suffix for 'with', as seen above, and -em being the possessive form of I.
And of course I forgot about demonstrative pronouns (ez and az). Those also get declined just like normal nouns, with the 'z' getting assimilated often. So you have ezek and azok for the plural (these and those), for instance, but erre and arra for the movement on top of something (onto this and onto that, respectively, with -ra/-re being the suffix in question).
Lots to learn. :D
kik is the nominative case, kiket the accusative case.
In traditional English, it's the difference between "who?" and "whom?", i.e. you would use kik when you're asking after the subject of a verb (Who can see Tom?) and kiket when you're asking after the object of a verb (Whom can Tom see?).
This translation is most certainly incorrect. It does accept "whom do you hear" which was my translation, but suggested "who do you hear" as another correct translation. It's the equivalent of saying "Do you hear he and she?".
I tried to report it, but was only given options relating to the audio quality and Hungarian syntax.
You are sort of right about that, and will probably be completely right in a generation or two into the future, but there are still plenty of people who know the difference grammatically. Even I feel awkward saying something like "For whom are you waiting?" as opposed to the incorrect "Whom are you waiting for?" or the completely incorrect "Who are you waiting for?" but that's equally a question of a dangling preposition as a direct object interrogative.
It's a shame because universities churn out streams of miseducated people with degrees who could not come close to passing the examination to matriculate out of the 8th grade 100 years ago and yet people who only complete high school are not considered to be educated despite the fact that it is possible learn everything you need to know to perform most white collar jobs by being a diligent student in high school.
There's a scale between something like old Mandarin Chinese, Farsi, Turkish, or even classical Latin, where proper grammatical speech and writing were unattainable without decades of intense study, and situations where lack of basic grammatical knowledge leads to constant confusion and misunderstanding. It's very much up for debate where abandoning and confusing objects and pronouns and separating prepositions falls on that scale.
None of those sentences are wrong. The "who/whom" distinction is still made by some, especially if a preposition is right in front of it, but most people only use "who" in any case. It is widely accepted now, as stated in the Usage Notes here. As such, "who" will follow the path of abolishing the subject/object distiction in English, like with nouns in general and the pronoun "you" (which started out as the object case of the plural "ye").
The other thing is the rule that prepositions shouldn't end sentences (or clauses, more specifically), which is just not how the language is or ever has been used. That rule was very baseless, didn't agree with English's roots as a Germanic language, and never caught on among the common people to this day, so it can safely be ignored.
Rules should reflect how the language is used, not the other way around. Use changes, languages develop, if you like it or not. And I don't think a test from 100 years ago would be a good scale for these things. Societies tend to move forward, not backward.
I'm not sure I agree with the usage notes. I'm not a young person, but still not so many years away from university, where I would be corrected if I structured sentences that way in a paper. There's a difference between speaking in a modern vs. archaic or anachronistic manner and simply being ignorant about grammar.
In the context of learning the language, I think it's advisable to learn the language properly and then go forth and speak and converse however seems appropriate to the situation.
I guess Ryagon was too polite so let me "rephrase": having to read all these English self-rants is very boring and it feels completely unnecessary. Take your personal offense somewhere else, write an article about it in Cambridge, I don't know. We don't need it here on Duolingo whatsoever, especially not in a course that's supposed to teach Hungarian and not English anyway.
Hallgat is 'to listen to', yes. The suffix -gat/-get is a frequentator, you can say. It indicates that something is done more often and/or with more intensity. Mos - to wash; mosogat - to wash up, to do the dishes. Or: beszél - to speak; beszélget - to talk to one another. And just like that is turns hall - to hear, into hallgat - to listen to.
It has pretty little to do with 'usually'.