"You are never here."

Translation:Sohasem vagy itt.

July 15, 2016

This discussion is locked.


Why not Nem vagy itt soha.


We have to use nem even though never already implies negation? I'm used to double negatives because of spanish but this seems a bit excessive


Oh, negation can never get too excessive in Hungarian :) You could even say: "Soha nem vagy sehol." = "You aren't never nowhere."

To answer your question, yes, the sentence would not be correct without nem.


Hungarians would love The Pogues' song 'Wild Rover' then: full of repeated negation.


Good song!

Another one:

Soha nem segítesz semmit sem ~ you never help nothing/anything neither (?)


You could think of it as "never" not being a moment in time. And "nowhere" not being a place. And "nobody" not being a actor. (Just like infinity isn't a number.) Stuff can only happen at a place, in a time, done by an actor. Since these words are exactly the lack of a place, a time and an actor respectively, it kinda makes sense to say it's actually the lack of action that's happening when they are involved. :P


I wrote "Soha sem vagy itt." Why is it not correct? I'm a native speaker...


Because they can't think of every possible sentence. But do report when your answer should have been accepted. As you're a native speaker, you are much needed.


Why not "Nem soha itt vagy."


Because nem must be directly before the negated word (vagy in this case): "nem vagy" must stay together.


It tells me "sosem vagy itt." What the heck!!! Some one plz explain


Soha nem, sosem, sohase, sohasem all mean "never" Sometimes they are interchangeable, but sometimes you have to use a certain version. You could write this sentence like: "Soha nem vagy itt." "Sosem vagy itt." "Sohasem vagy itt." And they all mean the same thing.


Do they all mean the same? I haven't seen any other combination - just soha nem.


I can't even think of a situation where they aren't all interchangable.


Soha + nem = sosem


please explian the order of words


we keep answering questions like this but honestly, I don't think we can get any better than this https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/23906912 and related stuff.
And anyways, you can see explanations of word order under pretty much every task, written by the same people. :))


Chapters in books are written on Hungarian word order. Once past "focus" the best way is to read lots of correct Hungarian sentences and try and get a feel for it.


"Te soha itt van." Was my answer. To my surprice you should add nem in the sentence. But then you actually would say: You are never not here. Wich means negative + negetive makes "positive", so in that case: Never and not cancel eachother out and would become: you are here. But I guess, that's not how it works in Hungarian. But I am looking for a confirmation. Anyone?


Negative + negative = positive - is true only in logic - not in languages. Double negatives are not uncommon in English (although frowned upon) and actually still mean negative - or even stronger negative. In Hungarian they are required in all cases.


Oh, just another thought. This fenomenon is often described as "double negative" as you noted - very wrongly, I should say. Because 1. You don't negate a single thing twice 2. there can be much more than two negative parts of speech in this setup. The actual difference is that "never" and "not" don't cancel eachother out - the only way they interact is that "never" requires "not".


First of all, that's not the only problem with your sentence. The right conjugation for singular second person is "vagy", not "van".
Second, "anti-words" (I mean the equivalents of "never", "nowhere", "nobody", "nothing" and so on) require negative predicates... so, the meaning of "Nobody nowhere doesn't do nothing neither" looking sentences doesn't alternate with every word that conveys negative information. It just has to be consistently negative because 1. there are no real equivalents of "any-" words in English, the only way it's covered is "I can do anything" like sentences. 2. positive verbs with "anti-words" are considered paradox because the stating of an action implies that it actually happens and you can't turn that mood by injecting words that make the action impossible to happen.
By the way, not only Hungarian works like that but also Polish, Romanian and probably a lot of other languages.


"Ö sose nincs itt" is marked as wrong, not sure why.


It is asking for second person - "you".


Ah I see, I was using 3rd person. What about "ön sose nincs itt" or "te sose vagy itt", would those work too?


I think "sose nincs" sounds quite meh overall. If you aim for something like "neither is not" literally, you should prefer "sincs" over "sem nincs" or "se nincs" and the likes. So I'd go with "Ön sosincs itt" or "Te sose(m) vagy itt".


Would you prefer this to the "official" answer?


There is a formality/distance difference between the two sentences, while being equally valid. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to "enforce" formal speech simply because it can be confusing from a grammatical point of view. I hope there is a lesson dedicated to formal speech at some point.


I said "Itt soha nem vagy" and got the red X. Nem is next to vagy.


I think it's worth taking a look at. It sounds rather rare but not exactly wrong in my opinion.


my reply was, "Soha nem vagy itt." The response was, "Another correct solution, 'Soha nem vagy itt.'" Really? What's the difference?


Don’t worry about it if it tells you that there is “another correct solution” which is identical; in my experience as a course contributor for a different course, that’s usually caused by the way that multiple possible answers are accepted.

Avoiding that “another correct solution” message usually means a lot more work for contributors in the way they write alternatives.


In English this would literally translate as "Never not i am here". It does not make good word order??


The English is not good English at all (and generally we do not repeat the negation).


Why not 'Te soha nem itt' .?


Because "te" requires "vagy".


I understand (partially) the Hungarian word order, but my problem is, how to know which part of the sentence in English is emphasized? Specially in this sentence; it could be YOU are never here, or You are NEVER here, or even You are never HERE. I think that intonation is more important in English, so it is kinda hard to translate some sentences well from English to Hungarian.


In many case in DL there are several ways to answer - and there are matching translations. It is mainly the double clause questions where your options narrow.


Because (as I, among others, have explained it here) this isn't really "double negative". It's not like "never" is "nem soha" in Hungarian, "nem soha" is pretty much the same as "not never" in English - in Hungarian, it's even valid grammatically since you can negate any parts of a sentence. (Not that I've ever heard a real-life sentence with "nem soha", for obvious reasons.)
It's much more like, you can't use soha in a positive sentence because that would sound paradox. This is not a problem since when you use "never", you typically have a negative sentence in your mind, the only thing you need to do differently is that now you don't replace the negative word with "never" as you would in English ("You are not here" to "You are never here") but keep it and simply add "soha" to the sentence ("Nem vagy itt" to "Soha nem vagy itt" or "Nem vagy itt soha", by your wish)


Why is sohase better than sohasem (it was accepted)?


I'm a tad confused why "van" is not required in this sentence. It usually seems required in any sentence where "ott", "itt" "lent" or "fent" are used.


Vagy is a conjugation like van (lenni is the infinitive).:
vagyok, vagy, van, vagyünk, vagytok, vannak
"You (sing.) are" is vagy.


Why not "Soha vagy itt"?


Why not "Soha vagy itt"?

You need a negative sentence to make soha mean "never".

Kind of like "He didn't tell me anything" has "anything" in a negative sentence but "He told me anything" doesn't have "anything" being negative.

So you need Soha nem vagy itt for "you are not ever here = you are never here".

(Or Sohasem/Sosem/Sohase vagy itt if you prefer.)


"sohasem itt vagyTok" I haven't seen "vagytok" only "vagyok" before and it absolutely does not explain the -t here?


vagyok - I am
vagy - you (singular) are
van - he/she is
vagyunk - we are
vagytok - you (plural) are
vannak - they are

Learn Hungarian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.