"Kiket hallasz?"

Translation:Who do you hear?

July 5, 2016

This discussion is locked.


"Kiket hallasz?"

The lesson's 'answer' is "Who do you hear?".

My answer "Whom do you hear?" was marked 'wrong'.

May you rest in peace, whom; even linguists don't use you anymore.


We still use it here.


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??


I can imagine there are cases where you're asking for serveral things, e.g. "what are your favourite bands".


Ah, ok, that would make sense. I just haven't seen it in that context yet. Most sentences say "what are you looking for?" or "what do you see?" ....which have no need to be plural.


That's possibly because you are thinking in English where you don't distinguish number. If you are Hungarian and there are amy people alking you'd naturally say "kiket"


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"


I presume kit/kiket is singular/plural distinction like you can find in Swedish vem/vilka.


Are all pronouns declined like regular nouns in Hungarian?


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


No pain, no gain.


whom do you hear?


what is the differencd between kik and kiket?


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.


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.


Bravo I have just mentioned it many times here on Duo In this course Hungarian is primary not English but the administrators make Hungarian more difficult learning it for us NonEnglish speakers inzisisting on English idiomatic phrases.It's nice but more often frustrated


"Whom" is falling out of use and nowadays "who" can always be used as both subject and object pronoun.


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.


Using "who" is simply wrong (and very sloppy English). "Who" is used as a subject; "Whom" as an object.


Using "who" in the object position is widely accepted by now. "Whom" is losing ground. Have a look at the usage notes here.


Why isn't it hallsz?


The infinitive is hallani

Some verbs get an extra vowel, to make it easier to pronounce

én hallok, te hallasz, ő hall, mi hallunk, ti hallotok, ők hallanak.

another verb like this: ő tüsszent, te tüsszentesz. (you sneeze)

(on the other hand, állsz also contains llsz, and it still remains "állsz" and does not get an extra letter.)

-One more reason: if you hear were te hallsz we could not really hear the difference between hallsz and halsz. But (te) halsz, or (te) meghalsz means "you die".


Should read "Whom do you see?" Who is the D.O., therefore "whom."

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