Translation:The athlete who is swimming under the bridge is young.
We really need a grammar point on all the aki(k)/ami(k)/amely(ek)/amelyik/etc. and clauses, and that sentences follow similar patterns OR accept all valid answers. At the moment this module is more about trying to remember each sentence, in terms of pronouns & structure, rather than learning the language.
It makes sense to me too to use "aki" since we are talking about a person. Ki úszik a híd alatt? A fiatal sportoló.
Should "That athlete who swims under the bridge is young" be correct? If not, why not? (It seems like it should be "that athlete" instead of "the athlete")
In English, "the athlete who ..." already sufficiently qualifies the athlete, I think -- saying "that athlete who ..." seems doubly-specific to me.
Unless it's specifically "that" athlete, as opposed to "this" athlete. Perhaps there are many athletes swimming under the bridge, and I'm pointing at a specific one.
"az a" == "the"? Since when? Didn't we just learn it means "that"?
Also, I get the difference between "ami" and "aki", but what's the difference between "ami" and "amelyik"?
It's not supposed to teach you "az a == the" but "az a ..., aki/amelyik ... == the ... who/which ...".
Similar to how "... ott, ahol ..." translates to "... where ..." (e.g. Ott sétálok, ahol a nő úszik "I walk where the woman swims") -- Hungarian has an additional pointing word (az, ott) which is not needed in the English translation of this kind of sentence.
That does not mean that az or ott are untranslated IN GENERAL -- just that this kind of relative sentence works differently in the two languages.
Confused, surely "amelik" translates as "which" so how do we get "who" here?
I thought it was that young athlete who swims under the bridge, but it was marked wrong.
That is because it isn't "the young athlete" rather, "the athlete is young". Slightly different meaning. Completely different construction.
Shouldn't this be translated as "The one that swims under the bridge is a young athlete"? In all the other cases the thing in the first clause of the sentence is the subject of the second part.
No. It is literally "that athlete is young who swims under the bridge". And "athlete is young" is not the same as "young athlete" - the subject is "that athlete" - not "the young athlete". "young" is what he is. Which athlete? The one swimming under the bridge.