"I do not see any lángos."
Translation:Én nem látok lángost.
I wouldn't translate "I do not see any lángos" as "Én nem lángost látok". It's closer to "What I see is not lángos", even if the grammatical construction isn't the same. Or, if we want to keep the construction similar (which Duo usually does), then "I don't see a lángos" could be an acceptable translation of this sentence in my opinion. Hungarian word order can often be altered for emphasis while the corresponding English sentence is left untouched, but here that's not the case. I'm not telling you not to report this, but if I were on the team, I would not make it accepted.
As a beginner, I am here to learn a language and its basic grammar to be able to have a simple conversation. Maybe at a later stage I will be interested in stylistic analysis. My point is: if the answer is grammatically correct, it should be accepted. According to Stuttgart3 it is.
I'm sorry, it's difficult for me to decide who is interested in what kind of information. Hopefully someone else will find that comment more helpful.
Looking at these sentences again after a week, with more experience in explaining the nuances of Hungarian word order, I would also say that rogeriomonteiro1's answer should be accepted. Still, it's necessary to explain the subtle differences in meaning (as Stuttgart3 did), as word order is an important tool of expression in Hungarian.
Back to the sentences: the actual difference between them was that a different word was negated: "nem" always refers to the word/phrase that follows it.
I hope my blabber didn't make you any less eager to learn this language. :)
Sorry, but this is very simple. The answer may be a valid Hungarian sentence, but it is not a correct translation.
As always, "nem" negates what comes after it. Therefore:
A - "... nem látok ..." - means "I do not see".
B - "... nem lángost ..." - means "not lángos".
The rest is just dressing.
A - What is it that "I do not see"? - "lángost". Én nem látok lángost.
B - What do I see? "Not lángos" - "nem lángost". Én nem lángost látok.
Only the 'A' version is a correct translation here, in my opinion.
Let's try a question, sometimes it helps a lot.
What do you see? Is it lángos?
No, it is not lángos (that I see), but a horse.
Do these two sentences really mean the same thing:
- I do not see any lángos.
- (No), it is not lángos that I see.
Because that sounds a bit weird. "Semmi" is similar to "not any", but not exactly. It also means "nothing". And we can not translate word for word here. The translation above (I do not see any lángos. - Nem látok lángost.) is actually pretty accurate.
For emphasis, you can use "semmiféle" or "semmilyen": "Nem látok semmiféle lángost." It is a good answer when someone keeps insisting that there is lángos:
But there is lángos! Look again!
Én nem látok semmiféle lángost.
You can also use "egy sem" - not even one:
Én egy lángost sem látok. - I do not see even one lángos.
Interestingly, "semmi" can work with other words - like mood, strength, energy - but, for some reason, it sounds weird with "lángos".
Nincs semmi kedvem/erőm/energiám. - I don't have any mood/strength/energy.
Update: instead of "semmi", you could use "semennyi"! Now that one actually means "not any":
"Én nem látok semennyi lángost."
Good! But "semennyi" is also optional here, unnecessary. Unlike "not any" in the English sentence.