Translation:The famous hotel is where the old school is.
Why is the more formal and less ambiguous "The famous hotel is there, where the old school is" not correct? I realize that there are colloquial ways of conveying simple concepts in all languages, but my solution is grammatically correct as well as eliminating any possible misconception that that hotel could be a renovated old school building, or built partly on the old school yard, or actually replacing a school that used to be there.
Yes, really. . Ott went by way of poetic licence? Nah, probably just missed. Thanks Big Wayne. :)
The ott … ahol is a standard Hungarian construction (ie you must have the ott to match the ahol in this type of sentence) - but it does not translate into standard English (you CAN put it in but it sounds odd).
I prefer my translation, "The famous hotel is where the old school was", any support. One cannot have both in the same space. i concede : )
I would understand this as they are next or close to each other. On the same street, for example.
The Hungarian sentence would also use past tense in the second clause if the meaning was what you suggested: "A híres szálloda ott van, ahol a régi iskola volt."
Agree, if it means standing in its place, having been rebuilt on the spot. But what if someone is pointing down the street at the hotel which is adjacent to the old sshool, or just down that way. This is ambiguous. Either could ne right, I wrote “was” as well.
This sentence does not have to mean that a building was replaced by another one. It just means that a building is closeby to another one. There is no past tense in this sentence, therefore a "was" can not be used. You can prefer your version, but it's simply not correct. Not in Hungarian, not in English.