Check this out: "Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Tettetett tettek tettese, te!"
- Te tetted = "You did it"
- e = Archaic form of "this"
- tettet = To pretend to do something.
- tettetett = "pretended"
- tett = The act of doing something.
- tettet = Object form of "act"
- tettek = Plural form of "act"
- tettes = One who has commited something.
- tettese = Said person belonging to something.
Did you do this pretended act? Offender of pretended acts, you!
I am having trouble remembering the meaning of alatt (I keep confusing it with fölött). Any hints on how I could tell these two words apart?
Also, I keep confusing lent and fent. Does any of you have any hints on how I should learn those 4 words?
"Lent" reminds me of the Latin word "lent," which means "slow." So I think of that as being "down" or "below." "Fent" rhymes with lent and is its opposite, "up" or "above."
I just had to flat-out memorize the others!
I hope that helps a little!
Thanks for the hint! I took a different tack on it: in Czech "dole" means down/below, so I had to memorize: dole-> lent (down,below); its opposite is fent.
alatt and fölött are giving me trouble, so I connected fölött to fent and then assumed that alatt is the opposite of fölött. Whew! :-D
I know this was a while ago but you could use the dots above fölött to remember above
So long as you can remember that it is 'fölött' and not "folott"! Yes, this as well as alatt, fent, lent, bent, kint, mellett, között, elött and mögött are quite hard to remember, more so than the equivalents in German or the Romance languages. No easy mnemonics and some would be quite the opposite, eg fent reminding me of the English Fens - but they are low down - or kint(erior) - but it's exterior! Just more grist to the learning mill, I suppose.
Well, if you can't remember it's fölött and not folott then you basically don't know the word, to be honest..
Right... Now that you asked I need to admit that this is far from logical indeed. In German and in Russian this postposition attracts different cases: 'unter dem Baum' and 'под деревом', respectively.
It's the same with Finnish "puun alla". (Do you see the similarities with the Hungarian version?) The only difference is that we use different cases with preposition/postpositions, so it's even possible to put a verb between the tree and the postposition (though very rare and strange) because the different endings still tell what functions the words have in the sentence. Whereas, I suppose, in Hungarian there is never any alternative to saying 'a fa alatt'.
Jos olen ymmärtänyt sinut oikein, mikä olisi esimerkki sille, kun verbi on sanojen 'puun' ja 'alla' välissa (suomen kielessä, siis)?
Yes, you are absolutely correct - 'fa alatt' and 'puun alla' are both composed of words of Uralic origin, thus they are older than the Finnish and the Hungarian languages!
@fmk64 I have to reply here as we ran out of conversation levels. There are several ways to say the sentence so that it still works that I can think of: 'Omena puun on alla', 'omena alla on puun' and 'puun on alla omena'. All of these seem poetic and archaic and strange, but in the right context they could still work. But 'puun on omena alla' does not work in my opinion.
Interesting - I have never come across any of these. They must be rather rare if Google search resulted in zero hits for all of them. If not with omena and puu, can you show an axample of this construct from Finnish poetry?
Sorry, not out of the blue, it's just an intuition I have that especially in poems/song that were written about a hundred years ago these kinds of structures were used because of the rigid metrics and rhyme requirements of poetry (that didn't really fit Finnish language all that well). if something comes to mind, I'll let you know :) And if you feel like continuing this discussion, send me a message on my profile page, so we don't clutter this thread any further. After all, this is not about Hungarian any more.
It's just a matter of perspective. Hungarian is almost flat in this sense, not many postpositions take "cases" and actually most "cases" aren't even "cases" but rather words with postpositions that have turned into suffixes over time. Why would it be any more logical to conceptually combine e.g. a location with direct or indirect objects?