Translation:You drink the beer, he makes the dinner.
This might be too meta, but why are there a definite conjugation AND two articles (definite and indefinite ones) in hungarian? Isnt that redundant? I mean by using one of the two conjugations you must use one of the two articles. If it is possible to drop the person pronoun because it is known from the conjugation form, why that isnt the case with the article?
With the definite conjugation, you must use the definite article. Except when you can drop it. For example, in some cases when the object is in a possessed form. "Látom arcodat" - I see your face. Definite article dropped. The indefinite "egy" can be dropped more frequently.
These tools have been handed down to the language. Maybe they had a more important role at one point. Now, language being as good using all tools it is given as it is, some of these tools are now used for emphasis and nuance. Maybe this is one of those things that only a native can use correctly.
These conjugations certainly went through a lot of change during the times. Ask your question a few hundred years from now and you may get a completely different answer. Or people won't even understand the question. "Articles? What articles??"
Some bonus info here:
In the past tense, the first person singular definite and indefinite conjugations are identical.
Also, as we know, with "-ik" verbs, the present tense first person singular definite conjugation is usually the same as the indefinite conjugation.
So those two situations can make good use of the definite article in distinguishing the definite from the indefinite.
Otherwise, it may be (I am not sure, this is just a total guess) that the definite-indefinite happened earlier and the articles appeared later for a different reason. Or the other way around. And they found a good match in one another.
Also, for example, proper nouns are frequently used without a definite article. "Látom (a) Pétert". Some people prefer with, other people prefer without, a definite article.
As I can see from a few articles online, the definite and indefinite articles usually arise more or less naturally from within a language. Usually, from the demonstrative (English: "that" -> "the", Hungarian: "az" -> "az"/"a", etc.). So, this is a natural process. But there could be significant outside influence, as well. As magyars came into their current location in Europe, the language started to develop more rapidly. Many new words were made, many words were picked up from other languages, the grammar became richer, a lot of cultural influence happened (Latin!), and somehow the definite and indefinite articles came to be. Traces of them can already be found in the earliest written documents, from the 14th-15th centuries, but they probably started appearing much earlier.
Another thing I read is that Hungarian split from its closest relatives at least 3000 years ago, so there was lots of time for these languages to go their own way. For some reason, Finnish did not have the need for those articles to appear. I certainly don't know why. It would probably take a professional linguist.
Languages are usually redundant for multiple reasons. First, they weren't designed purposefully and consciously. :) Second, redundancy of information can be a benefit with communication - if you lose something, you still may be able to decipher to message.
Other than that, from what I read, definite conjugation is an older feature than articles - also, it used to work differently than it does now so probably the very development of articles influenced the use of definite conjugation.
And I don't know... I think this "you can drop something thanks to some feature" is just a retrospective rationalization. As vvsey pointed out: this "dropping" often makes a stylistic difference. Of course everyone likes to save a couple of words in speech but it's far from universal what one considers ambiguous or clear enough.
For example, anton_t13 said articles weren't needed because their native language has no articles. I know there are languages like this (I am learning Polish and I learned Latin at school) but I cannot consider a sentence with the articles missing just as unambiguous. And at the same time, I could just use "Látsz?" for "Do you see me?" and wouldn't feel anyone was missing. :D
I think some languages without articles can use word order to distinguish between definite and indefinite nouns. I see that in Turkish and I think that is also happening in Finnish (correct me if I am wrong).
Other than that, Turkish uses a fun trick with direct objects: if it is definite, it gets the accusative suffix; if it is not, it doesn't. As if Hungarian said "vacsora csinál" for indefinite, and "vacsorát csinál" for definite. I wonder if Hungarian ever did that, before articles and specific conjugations. It may have.
While true, there are times that we don't hace to have the parallel - i just got home, grabbed a beer, and realized someone was making dinner and get up to help. Beside me, a third party say "you drink the beer, he/she is making dinner." (implying they do not need help) In that situation, keeping the parallel structure would actual make the sentence sound less natural, as i was not yet drinking, but he/she is already in the middle of making food, and so needs and "-ing" verb.