"A tigris a zebrára ugrik."
Translation:The tiger jumps on the zebra.
31 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
It doesn't really have to do anything with egy. It's very very rare that consonants get turned into other consonants while building words. (gy -> g)
Egész + ség + ed + re
Complete + [noun] (completeness = health) + your + onto = "(on)to your health!"
This is also a prime example of a word which contains one each of all three suffix types. -ség is a képző (changes the word's core meaning), -ed is a jel (gives more information about the properties of the word), and -re is a rag (defines the grammatical role of the word).
I guess after all the flying kindergarten teachers we've been yearning for some normalty. :)
Zebra can also refer to a pedestrian crossing, because of the similarly black-white striping. So it may be a more common occurance in Asia to see a tiger jumping onto a crosswalk because he's all about safety in traffic.
The translation offered by Duolingo is indeed "The tiger jumps on the zebra." However, "onto" is more accurate than "on", because we want to convey that the tiger is pouncing onto the zebra, not using the back of the zebra as a trampoline. I agree with RyagonIV in this respect. English distinguishes between static prepositions, such as "on" or "in", and prepositions of motion, such as "onto" or "into." In the tips for this section, there is written this bizarre sentence: "Mari sits down onto the chair - which sounds a bit odd in English." This does not sound odd in English at all; it is perfectly normal and the proper way to convey the motion involved as opposed to being on the chair and not going anywhere. If it were rather "Mari sits down on the chair", that would mean that Mari does be down (compared to standing) and on the chair sitting, rather than that she goes down to become seated on the chair.
"The tiger jumps the zebra"? Okay, it might make sense in English, especially if you use a word like "pounce", but ugrik is, like most other -ik verbs, (almost) strictly intransitive. It doesn't take direct objects.
Also you'd need a definite form of the verb in your example.
I would not say that, sorry. Many "-ik" words can take direct objects, with either the definite or the indefinite conjugation. Just a few examples, very basic ones:
"Eszik" - "almát eszik" - "eszi az almát"
"Iszik" - "almalét iszik" ...
"Játszik" - "játékot játszik" ...
"Vacsorázik" - "zsíroskenyeret vacsorázik"
Maybe these are indeed the minority, and most "-ik" words are indeed reflexive/intransitive. (Update: yes, that seems to be true, the "-ik" type of conjugation used to belong to reflexive and passive verbs. Later it got extended to other verbs. (Source))
But I can even add a direct object to "ugrik":
"Nagyot ugrik", "hármat ugrik", "fejest ugrik", "ugrik egy hátraszaltót", "most ugorja a tripla szaltót", etc.
No, the problem is something else. It just does not make any sense to say "zebrát ugrik". How can a jump be a zebra?
But you can jump over a zebra, which can be expressed with the accusative:
"Átugrik egy zebrát" or "átugorja a zebrát".
But to jump onto something, that needs "-ra"/"-re".
And to jump a car, you need a "bika" in Hungarian:
"Bikázza az autót" - "jumps the car".