1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Hungarian
  4. >
  5. "The director is unfortunatel…

"The director is unfortunately not young."

Translation:A rendező sajnos nem fiatal.

July 18, 2016



Unfortunately? Aging has its benefits.


I used the word igazgató for director. Is this correct also?


Igazgató and rendező don't mean the same, but they are both translated to "director", so yes, it's correct.


When do we need a "van" do describe an Adjective in 3. Person Singular or Plural (Ö / Ök)?

"A rendező nem fiatal van". Does this sentence exist?


No, that does not exist. 3rd person + adjective implies that you do not need "van".

Here is a longer post about this: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/16545319


"sajnos, az igazgató nem fiatal" is it incorrect?


It's a correct translation and should be accepted.


Although that comma placing is quite English... :P


I answered "A rendező nem sajnos fiatal" and it was marked incorrect. How do you figure out the word order here?


Nem negates the next word, therefore you said "not unfortunately, the director is young"


Further to what Tielbert said, I would add that the English that Duo gives is not the best. It should be, "Unfortunately, the director is not young" = "Sajnos, a rendezõ nem fiatal". The 'sajnos' needs to modify the whole sentence.


Yep, unlike the Hungarian version where you can put sajnos everywhere as long as you don't split stuff that belongs together (like articles or negation). And you definitely don't even need a comma for that.


Why is "A rendező sajnos nincs fiatal.", wrong?

When do we use "nincs" and when "nem" to negate 3. Person Singular?


This is virtually the same question as "when do we use van" since "nincs" replaces "nem van" while nem+{zero copula} is simply left as it is. So my question is: do you understand why it would be "A rendező fiatal" rather than "A rendező fiatal van"?


I have read VVSeY's Comment now, and I understand why it is "A rendező fiatal". It is because the "fiatal" describes a Subject.

You can give a fex examples though, for this issue if you want. :-)


I think you get the main rule now. I can't think of a case where "Someone is {adjective/noun}" would contain "van" in Hungarian. ("Az apám orvos", "A színésznő nagyon gazdag", "Minden szombaton ő a DJ")
On the other hand, if you have an adverb instead (typically describing location), nothing can go wrong with using "van" ("Itt van a fodrász", "A kalapács a fiókban van", "Dubai az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben van" - truth to be told, sometimes there are better suited verbs than "van" when describing location but this is the structure).
So far, a good explanation is: there are no other verbs that can take nouns/adjectives (in the nominative) - the only linking verb in Hungarian is the to be verb, and when it's used as a linking verb, "van" and "vannak" aren't used. When there's no linking going on, it starts to behave like a normal verb.
Then there are structures of mere existence, also with "van" - this includes environmental conditions ("Hideg van" - "It's cold", literally more like "There is cold" or the same way, "Meleg van" or even "Büdös van" (when something stinks))
AND also possession (it's like "there is my something (for me)" literally, "I have a car" - "(Nekem) van egy autóm", mind the possessor marking on the possessee btw).
And you can encounter cases where native speakers don't always use "van" for some reason. :P With words like "hol"/"itt"/"ott", "van" is dropped sometimes, just like "ennek semmi értelme" (~it makes no sense) sounds okay to me, although this sentence technically should contain "nincs" somewhere (words like "semmi" can only stand in a sentence that's negative without them as well).


"János nincs jól: szédül!"


Do you want to explain this sentence?

It looks very similiar to "A rendezö nem fiatal", but uses an nincs. It it because jol is an Adverb?


Yes, the "On the other hand, if you have an adverb instead..." clause applies. "van"+{adverbials of manner} express current condition, more precisely, I think it's rare to use for anything but people and how they are at a certain point in time.
Copula sentences are much more general/generalizing, not for a single moment. "Jól vagyok" is a nothing special sentence for "I'm fine/ok" while "Jó vagyok" is a pretentious kinda statement about being good in some sense, either morally or by looks.


Why is it that in another translation it is 'soför nincs egyedül' yet here it is 'rendezõ nem fiatal'? Is there some distinction about the condition of being 'alone' compared to 'young'?


"egyedül" is an adverb in Hungarian, and "fiatal" is an adjective.

A sofőr fiatal. A rendező fiatal. A rendező magas. A sofőr öreg. (adjectives - no "van" )

negating it: A sofőr nem fiatal. A rendező nem fiatal. A rendező nem magas. A sofőr nem öreg.

A sofőr egyedül van. A rendező egyedül van. A rendező jól van. A fiú rosszul van. (adverbs - yes, include van)

negating it: A sofőr nincs egyedül. A rendező nincs egyedül. A rendező nincs jól. A fiú nincs rosszul.


Thank you, that's very helpful. Having thought this through I will consider 'how' the person is - alone, happy, sick etc. and 'what' is the state of the person - young, tall, etc.


...or is it because the 'rendezõ has the 'A' (is) before it?

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