Translation:There is water in that where there is no rice.
Even to a native speaker of English, the Hungarian sentences sometimes make more sense than the mangled English translations found here..
I thought this is saying "In this one, there is water, and it is in this one in which there is no rice" , in other words you are asked about a collection of different bowls "Which one has water in it?" and you reply "There is water in this one in which there is no rice" or probably more naturally in English "Theres water in the one without rice".
Isn't the Hungarian sentence "Víz van, amiben nincs rizs" the equivalent of "There is water in which there is no rice"?
This sentence is just a little bit messy. Intentionally or not, I don't know. But the Hungarian does not match the English. Anyway...
Your sentence "There is water in the one without rice" translates to "Abban van víz, amelyikben nincs rizs".
There is a distinction between "ami" and "amelyik".
"Ami" - "what", as in "the thing that"
"Amelyik" - "(that) which"
More or less.
Now, the "ami" version:
"Abban van víz, amiben nincs rizs."
I don't know the most natural way of saying this, but something like this:
"Water is in things that don't have rice in them."
Yes, this is not even talking about a single container that has water. Let's take a warehouse full of various containers. How can you tell if a container has water in it? Check for rice! If it has rice in it, then you know it does not have water. That is what this sentence says.
"Water is in what does not have rice".
This is kind of weird to me, but that is what this sentence says.
The sentence "Víz van, amiben nincs rizs" is incomplete. In this kind of sentence, Hungarian requires an extra element. The word "amiben" or "amelyikben" cannot stand alone. It needs a partner. Think of it like this:
"that thing/one" ... "that/which" - "az (a dolog)" ... "amelyik"
"the thing" ... "that" - "az" ... "ami"
You have to place the two parts in the two clauses. And they will both be conjugated to fit in their respective clauses. So that is how you have:
- "ABBAN van víz, AMIBEN nincs rizs" - "Water is in THAT THING IN WHICH there is no rice"
- "AZT kérem, AMELYIK zöld" - "I want THAT ONE WHICH is green"
- "ABBAN van víz, AMELYIKBEN nincs rizs" - "THAT ONE has water IN WHICH there is no rice"
- "AZT kapod, AMIT érdemelsz." - "You get THAT WHICH you deserve"
These elements are both required, there is no omitting them. And you see the kind of crazy translations that come from a literal translation.
I really doubt it,, but in any way, there is no use for this phrase at all...