"A gyerekek az asztalnál ülnek és esznek."
Translation:The children are sitting at the table and eating.
18 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I wrote "The children are sitting and eating at the table" as a translation, and it corrected me with the above sentence. But I'm not sure whether to report this, because even though the two sentences seem equivalent, I'm wondering if my phrasing isn't as good, or natural sounding. If I get responses saying that my translation is OK, I'll report it, but I wanted to check here first. Thanks.
Your sentence differs a little bit from the English one. The sentence is made up of two parts: "sitting at the table" and "eating". They are not "eating at the table". But obviously, both sentences mean practically the same, the DL translation is just more precise.
DL must have corrected this as they accepted this translation "sitting and eating" at the table. I also think that it is more natural to link both verbs and separate the location where both actions occur.
I was thinking along those lines, and I tried to say that, but I couldn't quite put into words why I thought "sitting at the table" and "eating" were separate things. Thanks for explaining that, I know what you mean.
I think this issue could be argued both ways. I would say the difference is practically negligible, both should be accepted. They may not be eating at the table but they are eating at the table anyway, since they are already sitting there. :)
To me as a native English speaker, the most natural translation would be: "The children are sitting eating at the table".
64
Maybe the creators would like to emphasize that '-nál, -nél' is usually translated 'by'. But I think the Hungarian phrase 'az asztalnál' equals with the English one 'at the table'
- 2293
May I get an expert opinion please? Is there some subtlety that eludes me in the Hungarian sentence that indicates ülnek must be actioned first, then esznek? I took it as the actions being equal thinking that the whole purpose of the children sitting at the table was because it was lunchtime. My answer, "The children are sitting and eating at the table." was accepted, but I'm curious why it would be interpreted as a two-part action. What am I missing? I'm still earnestly trying to think like a Hungarian - but obviously not smart enough yet!
Well, you have to sit at the table to eat, no? That's why ül is mentioned first. "I'm eating and sitting at the table" sounds a bit weird, doesn't it? Though that might be okay if you sat down while chewing.
You don't want to choke, though. :)
I think DaleEnlight might be asking why is it "sitting at the table and eating," rather than "sitting and eating at the table." That topic is discussed a lot up above.
- 2293
Thanks RyagonIV for your comment, but Bastette54 thank you, is correct. I was querying why would you would say "sitting at the table and eating" rather than both actions being sequential but equal, as "sitting and eating at the table." Hard to explain in English, could never manage to do so in Hungarian.
Just staring at this and wondering:
How would we say, "The children at the table are sitting and eating.
Would it require "Az.. amelyik?"
I am thinking "A gyerekek ulnek es esznek amelyik az asztalnal"
Sorry I am such a beginner and being a bit confused I think.
The above sentence could also translate as "The children at the table ...", depending on your emphasis of the sentence. But you can also do it with such a relative clause:
- A gyerekek, amelyek az asztalnál vannak, ülnek és esznek.
or - Azok az gyerekek ülnek és esznek, amelyek az asztalnál vannak.
- The children that are at the table are sitting and eating.
Don't forget that you need a verb in the relative clause. It sounds a bit odd, though, identifying the children as "being at the table" first, and then saying that they are sitting. Better would be:
- Azok a gyerekek esznek, amelyek ülnek az asztalnál. - The children that are sitting at the table are eating.