"We play where you play."
Translation:Ott játszunk, ahol te játszol.
Where did the "ott" come from?
There is no "there" in the English sentence, nor is there any "here/there" direction implied in the English sentence.
Even if an "ott" version is acceptable, why isn't "Mi játszunk, ahol te játszol" also acceptable?
Unlike in English, you need to construct sentences like this with separate clauses in Hungarian. You define a place in the first clause ("we play there, at this place"), which you describe in detail in the second clause ("where you are playing"). You'll see that more often throughout the course in forms of ott.., ahol (there where), or az.., ami (that which).
"Mi ott játszunk, ahol te játszol" is also acceptable.
It is required because it is an important component of the comparison. There is emphasis on "you". This is especially true when the activity is the same (you play, we play).
If they were different activities, I could better imagine the sentence without "te":
"Ott játszunk, ahol olvasol."
But then suddenly the emphasis is not on "you" but on what you are doing. The location is identified by the kind of activity you perform there. So, "te" is optional.
"Ott játszunk, ahol olvasol, nem pedig ott, ahol írsz".
Here, the comparison is clearly focused on the activity.
Thanks! I wasn't sure if something like that would be the case, so it seemed like a good one to ask on.
To ask a different question, could one then drop the verb? "Ott játszunk, ahol te"?
Shouldn't mi in the first phrase, then, to complete the comparison? Or is the ott fulfilling that role?
No, "mi" is not needed (optional), because there is no emphasis on it. You could emphasize it if you wanted to. As in "I don't know about other people, but WE play where YOU play.
"Mi ott játszunk, ahol te játszol."
Or, if WE are the ones who play there, not other people:
"Mi játszunk ott, ahol te játszol".
But in the sentence above, "OTT" is the emphasized word. And the comparison is between locations. So, yes, it fulfills the role.