"Ez a busz a repülőtérre megy."
Translation:This bus goes to the airport.
31 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I can not agree. This translation confuses me.
Is the bus entering the premises of the airport (edit: right now)? That is what I understand under the Hungarian onto / re.
Is this bus (the number 617) driving to the airport? The airport just being a stop on its route (edit: and not the current action that is happening?)
Edit: it is both
Baby steps, as you say. I'm not sure which lesson this is, but I guess it's something like "Sublative 1"? When you get to after "Preverbs 1", the movements will get much more detailed or convoluted, much like the example phrase you gave with the suitcase.
Hungarian prefixes and suffixes work a lot differently that English prepositions. English is very imprecise. You say "I'm going to the zoo", and that can mean either you're entering it or you're just waiting around in front of it. English doesn't care. In Hungarian (and in German) it's more precise: Elmegyek az állatkertbe - Ich gehe in den Zoo; Elmegyek az állatkerthez - Ich gehe zum Zoo.
Let me try to translate your text there (no guarantees about the naturalness):
I pick up the suitcase off ("from" would be better) the ground - Felemelem a bőröndöt a földről
I move it (over) to the bed and lay it on(to) it - Odahozom az ágyhoz és arra fekteti le
I step to the cabinets and take out some of my clothes - Odalépek a szekrényekhez és kiviszek néhány ruhámat
and then go back to the bed and put those clothes into the suitcase - és visszamegyek az ágyhoz és azt a ruhát beteszem a bőröndbe.
It's all pretty straightforward. The verbal prefixes give you the directions: fel- - up (auf-, herauf-); oda - over to (hin-); ki - out (aus-, heraus-); vissza- - back (zurück-).
And the noun suffixes tell you which object is involved in what way: -ról/-ről - from the surface of (von); -hoz/-hez/-höz - to the outside of (zu); -ra/-re - to the surface of, onto (auf); -ba/-be - to the inside of, into (in).
Short form: I put the suitcase on(to) the bed and put my clothes in(to) it. - Leteszem a bőröndöt az ágyra és belé teszem a ruhámat.
You don't even need to know that "long form". It's just a good vocabulary exercise.
And for this sentence, "Ez a busz a repülőtérre megy", there are no steps in between. You aren't getting on the bus, the bus doesn't stop at the hotel, you just realise that this bus is going to the airport, likely stopping there. There is no "-hoz phase", because the bus is not going to stop just outside the airport. There might be a felé involved, because the bus is probably going towards the airport, but that's not important because we know the bus is going to end up in the airport.
If you're asking about why Hungarian uses -re for airports instead of -hez or -be, it's because they are called repülő-tér - lit. "flight square" (Flugplatz). And since squares are pretty flat things, you go "onto" them in Hungarian.
Hungarian describes not only present events but planned events in the present tense. Can this be called precise in any objective judgement? Dreams come true present tense?
But that is a core feature of the language. And I have no problem with that! All prepositions in English have to follow that actual present tense logic. You drive onto something when it actually happens. Hungarian is sometimes ahead of itself so case suffixes have to be too. You drive onto something, either now or it is just a plan (and this seems to be the case in this example here. Two meanings are possible. Which was my initial question. Which was answered in a similar example).
There is no real difference in the (im)precision, they just handle similar things differently. As does German. Which is weird too. When present tense does not mean present tense...
English has the same precision as Hungarian and German if used properly. And outside of this duolingo course I never had problems to understand it.
I try it again:
"It drives first to the hotel for its first stop... / H: hoz?"
One stop IS at the hotel on this airport line.
The bus drives to the hotel before it drives to its important airport destination.
The second to is still re, never had a problem with that, but what about the first to?
Hoz? or What is it?
If you want the bus to go to the hotel, it would be szállodához or hotelhez, yes. The bus is not entering the hotel, but stays outside. (The hotel is a building while the airport is a whole area.)
A busz a szállodához áll meg, mielőtt elmegy a repülőtérre. - The bus stops at the hotel before it goes to the airport.
And in this translation you can also see why you sometimes need future sight with the verbal prefixes - you need to finish one task (stopping at the hotel) before you can start the next one (going to the airport). Additionally to the prefixes changing the meaning of the verb: áll - to stand; megáll - to stop, come to a halt.
But the final (or intermediate) station is exactly the important bit? What action it describes.
That's what differentiates -re from -höz (or be)?
The bus is headed to the airport, also enters the area, and this action is in Hungarian onto from start to finish?
There is no -höz phase before the actual -re event?
Hungarian go onto the airport is equivalent to English go to and arrive/ stop at the airport?
I am not sure what your problem exactly is. Using -ra/-re means that the action is starting outside of the target area and ends up on its surface (usually on top of it, like with térre). If you use -hoz/-hez/-höz, you start outside of the target area and end up at or by it, fairly close, but not inside or on top.
How you get there is not of primary interest. It's just important where you end up:
- az autóba - into the car - ins Auto
- az autóra - onto the car - aufs Auto
- az autóhoz - to the car - zum Auto
There isn't any more to it.
I try to iterate it differently:
Usually prepositions (+suffixes) are taught one by one, babysteps!, and then in compound movements; you think you can walk? you better are able to run now!
The latter did not happen here so far- maybe later? and is of interest!- since it is imho crucial to understand the nuances of prepositions better.
I pick up the suitcase off the ground, i move it (over) to the bed and lay it on(to) it. I step to the cabinets and take out some of my clothes and then go back to the bed and put those clothes into the suitcase.
(I hope those are even correct.)
Short: I put the suitcase on(to) the bed and put my clothes in(to) it.
(Or: i packed my suitcase... no prepo. at all...)
Once you know the long form, the exact details become less important.
But here I just learned the latter version(s) and i don't know where "onto" in this scenario actually begins and ends.
(I step on(to?) the bus. / Hungarian re?)
It drives first to the hotel for its first stop... / H: hoz?
...and then heads to the airport. / H: höz? or does it become already re here?
Then it enters (into/onto) (both and none possible?) the airport's premises. / H: re?
(When it arrives at the actual stop... / H: nal) (...you step out of the bus. / H: ból)
These are the, not necessarily, intertwined details, that are not explained very well if we look only on each single movement one at a time.
->You get to the airport (via bus). / H: re (+ sol)
This is all we look at, i suppose, but i am not sure if i can take the somewhat vague rules and apply them to the steps that are in between.
ALL the steps combined in Hungarian seem to be described by "onto/re" although there are "to/hoz" sequences in between? English describes the whole movement with "to" and not with "at", which is the actual important descriptive destination (of our bus tour). Hungarian uses the last bit, the "re" (onto) and not the "höz" (to) like English does?
I think certain verbs need/allow certain prepositions. In both languages.
But the general description of a journey is in English (always/ usually?) to a place (the journey, the direction, to some "vague" place as its target, is more important than the "implied" arrival in, into, on, onto, at, next to said place) while in Hungarian it seems to be the other way around, it depends on the final arrival place. If we end up on a surface type of place or inside of something or just near it?
I'd even say it is not a matter of precision it's just a different approach what details the language deem to be important. Sort of on which moment on the timeline we are looking. Hungarian looks onto the finish line, and English more onto the middle.
You speak German? or are German? Either way you probably know the joke Austrians make about Germans that go to school, while we go into it.
German German: Ich gehe zur Schule.
Austrian German: Ich gehe in die Schule.
And: "auf die Schule" is not impossible, "auf die Uni" even common. German is weird within its official dialects different.
A punchline English possibly only get when they understand the nuances of each dialects use of those prepositions.
I think Hungarian does even the same as Austria: "onto" university, but "into" school.
This so should be in the tips - to avoid some confusion with onto/to/on in the English translations))) In this particular case why does a bus end up On the airport? Is this a thing about airports in Hungarian? I think I can get behind the logic of it with planes though. Is it just something to remember? Towards the airports (but not ending up inside or by by them) is always repülőtérre?
-be is the movement counterpart of -ben and -re is the movement counterpart of -n.
So the basic meaning of -be is "into" (movement ending up inside something) and that of -re is "onto" (movement ending up on top of something).
However, the usage of -ben and -n is not exactly the same in Hungarian as "in" and "on" in English; for example, you would use a megállóban for "at the bus stop" and a repülőtéren for "at the airport", i.e. literally "in the bus stop" and "on the airport".
And so you would use a megállóba for "to the bus stop" (if you are going there to wait for a bus) and a repülőterre for "to the airport".
But with things such as a házba "into the house" and az asztalra "onto the table", the usage is the same as in English.
I'm not Hungarian :)
But I think it would be similar to a Hungarian who says "I want to go onto the airport" or "Wait for me in the bus stop" in English - you'd chuckle at the obvious foreigner mistake but you'd probably understand it. There's only a limited number of things a tourist might want to say, after all.
Things might be a bit odder if you talk about going "onto a house" or putting a book "into the table", though.
I was a bit surprised a repülőtérre meant "to the airport" rather than "into the airport" because you use repülőtéren to indicate being at (or in) an airport.
Is it often correct to use -be/-ba and -re/-ra to indicate going to, but not in or on top, of something? (I thought that's what -hoz/-hez/-ho:z was for.) Or is a bus/other form of transport's destination just an exception?
As RyagonIV said, it's idiomatic with "airport" because it is derived from something like "airfield" which is flat, something you stand "on" and go "onto".
A bit like how in English it's idiomatic to ride "in" a car but "on" a bus, even though you're not sitting on top of the roof!
I think the problem here lies with the English language. It isn't as precise with location prepositions as Hungarian is with its suffixes.
- We are going to the zoo. - Elmegyünk az állatkertbe. (Because we end up inside.)
- I go to the airport. - A repülőtérre megyek. (Because I end up on it. Notice how repülőtér is derived from tér which is a very flat thing.)
- You go over to the mountain. - Odamész a hegyhez. (Because you end up at the base of it.)
In English, you just go "to" a lot of places, but in Hungarian you have to differenciate your relative position to those places. That creates a few problems, though, because for instance "to the airport" can translate to either repülőtérre or repülőterhöz, depending on if you're doing business at (inside) the airport, or if you're just hanging around close to it.
The same trouble also accounts for "at", translating to -ban, -on, or -nál. And "from" can refer to either -ból, -ról, or -tól.
Thanks. I understand you use -ben/-ban to indicate being inside of various buildings/places and -n/-on/-en/-ön for others.
My question might have been a bit unclear. Attempting to rephrase, if we're assuming the bus likely stops outside the airport, but doesn't go inside it, is it still correct to say a busz megy a repülőterre?
My surprise was at seeing the sublative in a sentence where it seemed the allative would make more intuitive sense (because the bus goes to, but not inside, the airport).
Remember that an airport is not only the buildings, but a large area in general. It's a tér, a square.
But I think the easier thing to think about is: does the bus have something to do with the airport? Does the stop that it's going to belong to the airport? If something has business to do at the airport, I'd say "repülőtérre". Using -hoz with places like that sounds to me like I'm just randomly nearby.
...re means onto. Why does it suddenly mean to?
Prepositions do not map 1:1 between languages.
Consider how even in English, you ride "in" a car but "on" a bus, even though they are both vehicles.
In Hungarian, an airport is a kind of tér "field", and in Hungarian, you are "on" a tér and go "onto" one, while in English we say that we are "at" an airport and we go "to" one.
So in the case of a repülőtér, you have to translate -re with "to" and not with "onto".