I understand now why the "kal" ending and I am still struggling with the "zott". What I don't understand is that we have to guess and use constructions that (to my knowledge) were not yet introduced. If they were, then it is my mistake and this comment should be disregarded
János a [lány + -ok + -val] [talál + -kozik + -ott]
- ok : plural suffix
- val : instrumental case
- kozik : reflexive suffix
- ott : past tense suffix
correct me if i'm wrong, but so far we were only ever introduced with -ok suffix (and sort of with a past suffix, but not this one). So why is this here
wizwisdom mentions the "instrumental case"? When and how is it required? By the way, I love mizinamo's concise explanation of the past tense formation at the end of this discussion thread now.
the "instrumental" case -vel/-val is just the analogue of the English preposition with. Literally, this sentence translates as Janos met with the girls.
In Hungarian you meet with someone. That -kal is the -val, -vel suffix, the "v" of which is assimilated by any preceding consonant.
You must decide, is Janos in english John, or not? sometimes he is, sometimes he's not. it's not fair, if Leslie is Laszlo, Janos should be John
Well, one of the lots of beta bugs ;-)
But translating names I would avoid. It is nice to know about the equivalents. In some cases the differences are minimal; so it is ok for me to be called "András" instead of Andreas.
But if a Hungarian with the Name Győző or István has to get used to be called "Victor" or "Stephen" it must be like geting another personality for him - additional to the wrong pronounced family names ;-)
You didn't understand what I meant. Sometimes the site allows Janos as John and sometimes it doesn't. And I would like to know why. And when I say Eva, like in Hungarian, and I write Eva in English, they say is wrong. And sometimes I write Eve, and again, it's wrong. From their point of view.
Every sentence has to have acceptable alternatives added by hand.
That means some sentences may accept both "big" and "large" or both "János" and "John", while others only have "big" or only "János"... depending on how many alternatives the developers have added to that sentence.
A missing alternative does not necessarily mean that "they" think something is wrong. It may simply indicate that an acceptable alternative has not been added yet.
Two reasons why a sentence may not have a given correct alternative added yet are because the person adding the translations did not think of that wording or that word order (it's surprisingly difficult to come up with all possible synonyms or permutations of something on the spot) or lack of time -- since there are thousands of sentences, you can't do everything at once.
Reporting missing alternatives during this beta period can help increase the number of accepted translations.
Do you mean that Leslie was actually accepted as the translation for László in any of the sentences? I've heard that it's anglicized as such, but... it's wrong. László has Slavic roots (from Vladislav), while Leslie is of Celtic origin.
Yes, several of the sentences accept "Leslie" for "László" (a few even expect this translation).
Name equivalencies do not always have their basis in a common origin - for example, according to a Wikipedia article, the Irish name Áine is often considered the equivalent of the English name Anne or Anna, though the two only have the shape in common and have no common origin.
Actually you ca "meet with" - slightly different meaning to just "meet" - but close enough.
Well, no preposition is called for with "meet" when you mean "to encounter" or "to make the acquaintance of someone or something".
Does the suffix koz add a specific shade of meaning, like how gat/get represent a repeated action? or does it always change depending of the verb?
The suffixes -kozik, -kezik, -közik (and -kodik, -kedik, -ködik) often make a verb reflexive (borotválkozik - to shave oneself; törülközik - to dry oneself with a towel). It's possible that találkozik was created the same way, but it's not a reflexive verb anymore.
Wow! It works in the exact same way as in Turkish:
Bulmak = To find
Buluşmak = To meet (Not for the first time!)
-uş being the reciprocal suffix here.
This is getting really confusing and really really frustrating. The tips and note say the -t- part is added before the person, and yet here there’s another vowel and a geminated consonant. What gives?
There are apparently three classes of verbs by how they form their past tense; just adding -t- is one of them (probably the simplest one), while others att -ett -ott -ött either in the third person singular only, or in all persons.
találkozik is in what that page calls "Group C" -- its stem does not end in one of "-s -l -r -n -ny -j -ly" so the third person singular is not just -t; but its stem does not end in two consonants or in -ít, so the -ott ending is not present in all persons of the past tense, just the third person singular.
can someone explain the talalkozott verb? where does this suffix come from, how to conjugate it, etc. I don't think we had previous xperience with it and I seem to fail on every question with it.
If you look above the thread you will find the answer :-)
But because of Christmas Eve I give a detailed summary :-)
talál = to find
This is the stemm of the verb as you find it in the dictionary, and it is identical with the 3rd person singular present tense. The infinitive form you build with adding the suffix -ni
találni = to find
ő talál = he finds / she finds
To make the verb reflexive there are different suffixes in the hungarian language.
Here it is built with: -koz
So the stemm of the reflexive verb is now: találkoz
Together with the infinitive suffix: talál-koz-ni = találkozni
The meaning of it "to find each other", in english you normally say "to meet".
In the dictionary you will find "találkozik" instead of "találkoz", because it is an ik-verb. Allthough the verbs in the 3rd person singular usually don't have an ending, there is a groupe called "ik-verbs" have the ending -ik.
találkozni = to meet
ő találkozik = he meets / she meets
And now finally the step from the present forms to the past forms:
The 3rd person singular of the past is formed with the suffix "-ott": találkoz-ott
ő találkozott = he met / she met (he has met / she has met
Have a look also at:
thanks a lot. The main problem is that we haven't gone through pretty much none of the suffixes listed there and now we suddenly go to past reflexive ik verb thrown in the bunch
Thank you Andreas305, I definitely feel like a ship at sea with the introduction of past tense, but your above explanation helps somewhat. I am finding this learning curve very steep at present, not helped by the fact that it's a long, long time since I was in either secondary or tertiary education! But, patience is a virtue ....
The cause is a speciality of the Suffix -val / -vel.
You use it only in this form, if it is connected with a noun ending with a vowel:
béka (frog) - békával (with the frog)
lámpa (lamp) - lámpával (with the lamp)
If the noun is ending with a consonant, the -val / -vel changes its "-v-" into the ending consonant of the noun:
asztal (table) + val = asztallal (with the table)
asztalok (tables) + val = asztalokkal (with the tables)
The same also happens with the pronouns ez and az:
ez + vel = ezzel (evvel is possible, too)
az + val = azzal (avval is possible here as well)
Thanks! I thought that the last consonant simply 'swallows' the 'v' from -val & -vel.
By the way: the same happens also with -vá / -vé.
víz + vé = vízzé
"A bor nem válik vízzé" = Wine does not turn into water.
is the definitive conjugation lost when the verb is conjugated in past tense ? :)
You only use definite with the accusative. This has -val - so you use the indefinite.
No, definite conjugation still exists in past tense. :)
But there's no direct object in this sentence, so it's not used.