"The other man is not rich, either."

Translation: A másik férfi sem gazdag.

[AlsEenPoffertje]

Another solution that shows up is "Nem gazdag az a másik férfi sem." Why is "az" included? How would you say "That other man is not rich either"?

[Shamarth]

It should be "Nem gazdag a másik férfi sem."

"Nem gazdag az a másik férfi sem." is really what means "That other man is not rich either."

[AlsEenPoffertje]

The solution listed for "the other man" included "az." Wish I would've known to report it. .

Thanks for the response! ^_^

Edit: I have reported it! :D

[spiraldancing]

What about "se"? "A másik férfi se gazdad." vagy "A másik férfi nem gazdag se." In casual conversation, I've picked up this version ... is it accurate? Should it be a valid answer for this sentence?

[Shamarth]

The rule is that se is used in imperative sentences, and sem in all other cases, but in spoken language (with the exception of imperative sentences, where you can't use sem) they are interchangeable. So, you're first sentence is natural in spoken language, but try not to use it in writing.

Your second sentence is incorrect; se and nem can only stand together if they mean "neither ... nor". "A férfi se nem gazdag, se nem szép."

[spiraldancing]

Danke y gracias

[Morse864051]

Why is "sem" not "nem".

[deactivated user]

I am not clear on when másik should be used and when más should be used.

[LexvanBuuren]

Isn't it right that másik is only use if nem is in the same sentence?