"Nem várok a fán, hanem lemászom a földre."

Translation:I am not waiting in the tree, but climb down to the ground.

August 22, 2016

This discussion is locked.


So many things wrong with this. The tenses in the two clauses should match. "Waiting on" a tree would generally mean that you're waiting for the tree to do something. Probably they mean "waiting in" a tree.


------- i'm not waiting in the tree, i'm climbing down to the ground . . .

Big 25 dec 17


Waiting on a tree means only that you are attending to the needs of the tree, such as a waiter or a butler would be doing. Wait on and wait for are not synonymous, although current US informal speech is very fuzzy on this.

You are right that there is an inconsistency between waiting and climb. Either use the present continuous throughout or don't.


why vároK and mászoM


Mászik is an -ik word, vár is not.

This -ik thing is kind of a mess, some verbs gained an -ik, other lost theirs. Originally in Old Hungarian there was a proper reason to you these -ik's. You see, the word order was SOV back then, & the accusative case was used only for definite obejcts, so indefinite objects were in the nominative. "Fa tör." was ambiguous because it could be either "Ő fát tör." (it breaks wood) or "A fa törik." (the wood breaks) (there were no articles back then, either.) So people started using "Fa törik." to mean the latter, so "Fa tör." could mean just the former.

Why does mászik have an -ik ending? I have no idea. Perhaps there were verbs mász & mászik, & they somehow meant different things, or perhaps there was just a verb mász that changed into mászik for some reason (because mász is relatively short?).

Anyway, -ik verbs take -m in first person singular present tense indicative mood in both indefinite & definite conjugation.


Thanks a lot. I really love these informations that explain the current situation.

SOV was standard? Wow. All languages are changing, but to go away from such an important core part in a language seems huge and now use no specific word order at all. Was this due to turkish influence or invented alone?

Edit: I currently read a book about German and how it evolved. Those famous German articles are kind of a new invention (there was simply nothing in old Germanic) and turned into an integral part of the language. Seems like many languages made huge changes.


I wrote what is abive * ... TO the ground) and it was rejected : they wanted ONTO. But " az utcara" is only and always TO the street. Is there ANY logic


And this time I wrote ONTO and it was rejected : they wanted TO. Are they just doing it on purpose to drive us crazy?


-re should usually translate to onto. It has the exact same purpose.
The problem is English quite often changes to "on" or "to" if it is not necessary to use the more exact "onto" preposition. The second problem is the course creators had no good idea when this has to happen and when it should not.

I have not either, since I am not a native speaker. I guess "onto" should be good here (we move to a surface after all), but "to" seems also plausible.

Learn Hungarian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.