Translation:The book falls to the ground next to the table.
This sentence really highlights the inconsistency of this Hungarian course.for me If it's the book NEXT to the table it falls TO the ground......however If it's the book BY the table it falls ONTO the ground.......and not visa versa. How are we to know? I find myself just going over and over old ground simply because of these inconsistencies. Hajó.....can be a ship or a boat Hegy....can be a mountain or a hill Üzlet....can be a shop or a store Etc, etc, etc A car can STAND or PARK on the street. We don't lie ONTO the ground in English and we don't play ON trees we play in them........... sure add both answers, but please add them. I have reported these discrepancies everyday for months. but I'm still struggling to move forward because of them. I know these people are volunteers, and should be encouraged, but I'm seeing more and more new sentences being added with flying óvónő's, and/or elongated nonsensical construction, while these older translations are still full of inconsistencies and errors. I would simply like to spend 30/45 min a day working on this Hungarian course, but I'm just going over and over the same old, same old, and for far too long. I know that I can't be the only one suffering with this frustration. Happy studying to all :)
I have trouble picturing the scene. If the book is next to the table before it falls to the ground, where is it, exactly? Floating in the air? I guess it could be on a chair or something. But it would have made more sense if the sentence was more like, "The book, which is on the table next to the flowers, falls to the ground."
I put the book falls to the ground next to the table and it wasn't accepted. I can see why present continuous might be favoured to suggest a present event rather than a past one but falls is still present tense. Moreover, in English, the model answer reads badly. We would refer to the direction of travel first and then locate it in relation to the table.
Ok. I was wondering about this too and you've answered it. But then, how would I say "The book beside the table is falling to the ground" in Hungarian? I would like to know both versions so I can distinguish them. Whilst that might sound implausible, maybe use "the curtain beside the table is falling to the ground" (which distinguishes it from the curtain away from the table (that is not falling to the ground)).
First of all, "a könyv az asztal mellett" is fine, as long as it is alone. The cohesion within the phrase is weak. It will only work as long as there is no stronger outside force to tear it apart. Like in our sentence here. We have a verb after it and, all of a sudden, it is not "the book beside the table" anymore but rather a book that falls to the ground beside the table.
Because that verb grabs the word or words in front ot it, makes it its own, makes it the word in focus: "az asztal mellett a földre esik".
This phenomenon will mostly happen when the phrase is followed by a verb. In other cases it may pass.
"A könyv az asztal mellett poros." - "The book beside the table is dusty."
It is okay. There are better ways to say this, but it is okay. Not with verbs though. They will break up that phrase.
"A könyv az asztal mellett szárad." - "The book is drying beside the table."
That is, verbs that are not themselves emphasized. If the verb itself is emphasized, then that destructive force is not tearing up the phrase:
"A könyv az asztal mellett kinyílik." - "The book beside the table is opening."
Verb with a preverb intact, it has the emphasis, the sentence works with this word order.
There are many many sentences like this in this course, and one can clearly see the confusion this is causing all English natives.
Here is one famous example:
"Ezek a cápák a mély tengerekben vadásznak."
There is a long discussion there on this topic.
Anyway, back to your question. How can we say it differently. There are various ways:
"a könyv az asztal mellett" - the book beside the table - works when no outside force breaks it up
"az asztal mellett levő könyv" - the book being beside the table - safe to use, it clearly shows the connection
"az asztal melletti könyv" - same
That "-i" in "melletti" makes it work like an adjective.
Or, if you want to make it easy, just simply change the word order:
"az asztal mellett a könyv" - beside the table the book.
It will work in most cases, and make your life easy. People will not likely misunderstand you.
But your safest way is
"Az asztal melletti könyv a földre esik."
"Az asztal mellett lévő könyv a földre esik."
vvsey - you wrote: az asztal mellett a könyv - beside the table the book."
That sounds like a word-for-word translation of the Hungarian.
If you wanted it to sound more like English, could you say, "The 'beside the table' book"? Or even "the beside-the-table book"? That is, you are distinguishing this book from another one (the on-the-table book)? This is also a weird word order for English, but at least I understand what it means.
A new post here caused me to re-read everything. Every time I re-read things I understand things a little better. But then I have more questions. Are you still about vvsey (I will accept answers from anyone though of course)? On the link that you posted you gave the following example... ========================================== Let's take another sentence, with a very similar structure: "This man eats in the restaurant" - "Ez a férfi az étteremben eszik." Does this mean that the man is in the restaurant? Does this mean that he is a "restaurant-man?" I don't think so. I only read that this man, when he eats, he does it in the restaurant. ==========================================
Duo has been accepting both simple present and present continuous as translations.
"Ez a férfi az étteremben eszik." - This man eats in the restaurant "Ez a férfi az étteremben eszik." - This man is eating in the restaurant.
The latter translation assumes that the man is in the restaurant now and eating. So maybe Duo shouldn't be accepting present continuous form as correct translations in these cases.
There's a distinction to be made between what the words say and any imputation which might arise from those words. The sentence alone says, "This man is eating in the restaurant" (present continuous) or, alternatively, "this man eats in the restaurant," (simple present). Both are correct but the imputation to be derived from each could be rather different. With present continuous it sounds like no more than a statement of current fact. With simple present there's the suggestion that the man does it as a matter of habit. Habits, in Hungarian, are often preceded by, for example in first person present, szoktam. Szoktam enni az étteremben. I usually eat in the restaurant.