1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Hungarian
  4. >
  5. "Azokból a tálakból esnek ki …

"Azokból a tálakból esnek ki az almák, amelyek az asztalon vannak."

Translation:The apples fall out of those bowls which are on the table.

August 27, 2016



Almost got it right with only one eensy weensy error. I mistook falling with eating.


I like that comment, LOL


I do that too, sometimes.


I wrote amelyik instead of amelyek. It was marked wrong and in google it is both times which.


What do you expect, if English doesn't make a distinction :)

amelyik is singular, amelyek is plural.

In German, you would also make a distinction between der Teller, der auf dem Tisch steht and die Teller, die auf dem Tisch stehen even if in English it would always be "the plate(s) which is/are on the table".


:-) OMG...... I had no idea, that this could be the plural. Thank you very much!


Sometimes the course will also show you amelyikek, which seems to be the plural of amelyik... but don't be tempted to use it yourself :) It's been mentioned a few times here in the comments that this form amelyikek is not really correct.


Thank you for the hint. I have answered everything of the last Hungarian lesson in a non-duo-conform way and i am quite fed up with it at the moment. But tomorrow is a new day.


Is there any way to skip all those Dir lessons?


Unfortunately not. I find them pretty tedious, too.
You could, however, switch to the mobile app for that. It might reduce the stress factor by a lot. And it gets easier after them, until you hit the personal forms for the spatial suffixes and postpositions. :´)


I'm using mobile app already. I wanna go further, but I can't get through all those annak azok etc. I've stuck for a week already.


Tough luck, then, I guess. ^-^'
You can do it with enough dedication and maybe writing the correct answers down.


Cut and paste? I've not tried it, but that's the first thing I thought of.


I would have said, ".... bowls that are on ...." Would that have been acceptable?


Douglas, that's a good expression as well.


Does anyone know if there is a distinction between 'that' and 'which' in Hungarian here? In English, 'which' is only used for additional but unnecessary information


I think the explanation at the bottom of the lesson overview explains this nicely: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/hu/Directional-Conjunction-2


'which' is not only used for unnecessary information. It depends on the comma whether it is unnecessary/redundant (non-restrictive) or important (restrictive) additional information. i.e. restrictive and non-restrictive side clauses.


I don't like eating apples which don't taste good. (I like eating apples in general, but not those that don't taste good.) I don't like eating apples, which don't taste good. (I don't like eating any apples, because (to me) they don't taste good.)

I'm sure there are better examples out there, but that's the best I could come up with within a few minutes.

Sidenote to the sidenote:

Sorry, I know this is a Hungarian course here. I just though some people might find it helpful for this exercise.


It looks like the person who wrote that explanation (at the bottom of the lesson) is the same as the one who came up with all those crazy sentences in the exercises.

Or, to put it their way, that person, who wrote that explanation, is that same one, as that one, which came up with all those crazy sentences in those exercises.

Either way, I would approach it with some caution.


Yes, "that" is preferable in a restrictive clause. The "correct solution" is wrong. Reporting.


I don't think which is wrong here.


Why is it "those bowls" here? In every other sentence/exercise here abbol & co were translated to "from the" when they had a subclause following.


I don't understand why the previous ones are translated to "from the" when the construction in Hungarian seems to indicate "from those" or "from that."


I am not a Hungarian speaker, but I asked someone about this. As he said it is not "from those/that" because a subclause is following. The subclause defines the noun already a bit closer so there is no need for the 'pointing' articles. But again - I am not a native speaker, I have no idea if this is right or not.


Actually, that makes sense, thanks. However, I translated this to " The apples fall out of the bowls..." and it was marked wrong because... you guessed it, it was expecting "...fall out of THOSE bowls."


...and I made the same stupid mistake a week later! Should "the bowls" be accepted? I will report if so.


"The bowls" should be accepted. "Those bowls" should be accepted. It doesn't make a difference in English because the existence of the subordinate clause already makes the bowls special.


I think that is THE correct answer!


I don't know if that's right, as I said. But you can. If it it is right like that, they will ignore it and if it is wrong like it is, then they hopefully change it


How do I tell whether the clause refers to the bowls or the apples?


The relative pronoun (here amelyek) is always paired with a demonstrative (here azokból). In this sentence the demonstrative goes with bowls, not with apples, and therefore the relative pronoun does too.

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