23 Comments
191
yes, but its not supposed to be one in hungarian either. This is just one part of compound sentence.
- 341
Because they're not standing at the stop, but in front of it, előtt. The translation with "at" is most likely a mistake.
- 341
It is correct English if you're aware that this is just a fragment of a sentence:
We are watching the people who stand in front of the stop.
Azokat az embereket nézzük, akik a megálló előtt állnak.
No, it's not. "megálló" is also used for tram stops and for smaller train stations. There is the specific word "buszmegálló" for bus stops. Both "stop" or "station" should be accepted here, I think; if they aren't, that should be reported as a missing translation that should be accepted.
- 426
So the suggested translation is "at the stop"? "in front of" is thankfully accepted, but at is not előtt, right?
- 341
It should say "in front of", but it doesn't. Yes, the postposition előtt means "in front of". "At the stop" is expressed with "a megállóban". (Which is literally "in the stop". English is weird.)
- 426
I am wondering now, where the front of a stop even is. A stop has no real orientation in itself? People can usually come from all directions, it is more or less a point.
"(valahány buszok), amik a megálló előtt állnak" would make more sense. They have a route/ lane/ halt area to drive/use, so a direction relative to a station.
- 341
For me, a general "in front of the stop" means "on the street". The stop is facing towards the street, where the action happens.
But you're free to interpret it differently. If you're going to the stop, then "in front of the stop" can mean "just before you reach the stop". If you're looking towards the stop, it can refer to the people that stand in your line of sight. Context does a lot of work here.
If this is supposed to be introducing us to relative clauses (as I imagine) then perhaps giving an antecedent (i.e., the people who stand at the stop) would be much more helpful, and it would be clear that it is not a question.
There's also no mention of any of this in the lesson notes. I don't think the "no capital, no period" thing is good enough indicator of what we're dealing with here.
Really appreciate all the hard work you guys have put into this course, but this particular sentence-fragment lesson is very frustrating and should be revised/deleted.
- 341
Since this is just a lone relative clause and akik is plural, it should be "who are".
- (Azok az emberek nézzük,) akik a megálló előtt állnak. - (We are looking at the people) who are standing in front of the stop.
- 165
Duo, the English sentence has an error. It should read, "Who stands in front..."
- 341
No, the grammar here is correct, because it's not a complete sentence. Read the above comments.
- 341
The "who" here is plural, and since this is just a relative clause, that plurality has an actual effect on the verb.
- (Az,) aki ott áll. - (The one) who stands there.
- (Azok,) akik ott állnak. - (Those) who stand there.
