Translation:The bus pulls in behind the hotel, from which a burglar runs out.
I think the bigger problem is the use of "ami", which really should be "amelyik".
On parking, I guess there is a difference between parking your vehicle and just pulling over or pulling up to some place and stopping, presumably waiting for passengers to load/unload or some such event. What would be the best way of saying that in English?
Well, "pull over" is probably the least ambiguous. "Stop" could work if it's explicitly followed by a phrase that makes it clear that the vehicle is only temporarily stopped ("We stopped at the curb to drop him off") ; otherwise it may be interpreted as "park".
In either case, cars definitely don't "stand" in English (except for Transformers :P), and nothing "stands in behind" (except for maaaaaybe the idiomatic sense of "to act as a substitute for someone" that they aren't using) - that phrase makes zero sense to a native English speaker.
Not quite. Cars are said to be standing if the motor is still going while the driver has the car stopped. Have you not seen the signs that say "no parking or standing?" Standing is when the car is not moving but the motor is running. Driver may or may not necessarily be in the car.
Thank goodness. I am having trouble deciding whem to use "ami-" versus "amelyik-".
Parking a car denotes a careful positioning of the vehicle before shutting it off. Pulling up to denotes simply stopping the vehicle from moving. At this point you have not turned off the ignition. One can also pull into a parking space, but again, the car is still running therefore it is not parked. A car that is not moving is said to be "standing."
As you can see, many Hungarians are also having problems using "ami", "amely" and "amelyik" properly. Some people don't even bother matching plural with the plural forms. But there is a "correct" way. The problem is, it is not a simple rule. We can describe the basic guidelines but there are many special cases or exceptions. So don't beat yourself up if you don't get it right all the time. It is OK.
If you want, read through the discussion here, I tried to explain the basics:
As for the bus, all we know is that it pulls into a place behind a hotel. My guess is it is to drop off or pick up passengers, like a bus would do at a bus terminal.
No, the burglar runs out of the hotel, not the bus.
The relative pronoun 'amelyik' or 'ami' (plus appropriate ending) refers here to 'szalloda'. We know that because it is 'szalloda' that is highlighted in the first clause and modified by the postpositions there. (Here the postposition is 'mógé'.)
a mögé a szálloda mögé = behind that hotel (literally, 'that behind the hotel behind')
Whenever you see a combination like that, with a double use of the postposition in the first clause, you can assume that it is the referent to which the relative pronoun in the next clause refers.
The English translation that DL gives us uses the verb 'stands', but from looking at the Hungarian sentence, probably 'parks' would have been a better translation.
In other words, the bus has not been just sitting/standing there for a long time. It is moving into position behind the hotel even as we speak. (It is 'parking', in other words.)
We know motion is involved because 'möge' is used as a postposition instead of 'mögött'. The latter would be used if this were a static situation.
The verb here is 'beáll', not simply 'áll'. The prefix 'be-' helps convey the idea of motion and also the idea that the action is completed (perfective).
Here the prefix has been split from the beginning of the verb. That happens in Hungarian in certain contexts. The purpose of the split is to allow some element other than the prefix to occupy the spot just before the root verb, in order to emphasize what is in that spot. Here the effect is that the bus has parked behind the hotel, of all places -- the very hotel from which a burglar is emerging.