"akik a megálló előtt állnak"
Translation:who stand in front of the stop
32 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
1387
yes, but its not supposed to be one in hungarian either. This is just one part of compound sentence.
That's true.
It doesn't claim to be one, though: there is no capital letter at the beginning nor a full stop at the end.
It's just a portion of a sentence.
Yes - but everywhere else Duo asks complete sentences.
In many languages, it is difficult to translate sentence fragments. Context makes everything clear.
Not everywhere else; I have seen individual nouns a lot, and even sentence fragments I have seen in other places as well.
I agree that they are often more difficult to translate out of context than an entire sentence.
Words like:
ki vs aki kik vs akik mi vs ami mik vs amik
Just cannot be determined only from a fragment.
Additionally, other word and translation choices are determined from the context of the whole sentence.
It is inappropriate that some of the Hungarian lessons use so many sentence fragments rather than complete sentences.
If it was a question it would be "Who stands at the stop?" - capital letter, question mark, and "stands" not "stand".
I hear you Judit294350 - it's just frustrating that you have to guess and figure this out....
- 1574
Because they're not standing at the stop, but in front of it, előtt. The translation with "at" is most likely a mistake.
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.
- 1574
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.
- 1574
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.
- 1574
No, the grammar here is correct, because it's not a complete sentence. Read the above comments.
- 1574
Not exactly. Questions that begin with "who" or "what" only need a "do" (or another auxiliary verb) if the question word is asking about the object. If it's about the subject, you don't need to add an extra verb:
- Who called you? ("who" is the subject, Who did the calling?)
- Who(m) did you call? ("who" is the object, Who was being called?)
- What happened?
- What do dogs eat? (we're asking about the food of dogs)
- What eats dogs? (we're asking about what has dogs as food)
- 1649
So the suggested translation is "at the stop"? "in front of" is thankfully accepted, but at is not előtt, right?
- 1574
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.)
- 1649
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.
- 1574
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.
- 1574
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.