"Where can you have lunch?"

Translation:Hol tudsz ebédelni?

September 25, 2016

This discussion is locked.


why is "Hol tud ebédelni" not also correct, for the formal second person?


It's not incorrect by any means, probably it just had not been added at the time you wrote the comment. (I'm not sure whether it has been added since then.)

Edit: It's accepted now.


To me the meaning of the English sentence looks very different from the literal translation of the Hungarian phrase. Is it a set phrase or something like this?


It seems pretty direct to me.

Hol - where
tudsz - can you
ebédelni - have lunch, eat lunch


Oh, but maybe the confusion may come from the word "tudni". It is used for both "know" and "can" (be able) in Hungarian.

I can read. - Tudok olvasni.

The formula is "tudni" with conjugation plus a verb in the infinitive form.

When the verb has a preverb, then the conjugated form of "tudni" comes between the preverb and the verb:

El tudom olvasni.
Oda tudok menni.
Fel tudsz állni?
Meg tudjátok csinálni?

When these things are negated, then the "tud" part is negated and the verb fuses again:

Nem tudom elolvasni.
Nem tudok odamenni.
Nem tudsz felállni?
Nem tudjátok megcsinálni?


Thank you both for your replies. I did not know that "tudni" means "can", as well :)


Ditto KrisWD's comment. Tudni is often glossed as "to know; to know how to do something". Knowing how to do something is a little like being able to do it -- but it's very different from "can", and it really didn't make sense in the context of the sentence "Where can you have lunch?"


Yes, OK. Well, it means both "to know" and "to be able to". I said it somewhere else: all meanings of "can" are not covered by "tudni" though! I would say as far as "can" can be replaced with "be able to", "tudni" also covers "can".

Meanings of "can" that are not covered have to do mostly with permission. As in "you can have it", "come on, you can't do that", etc. These are covered mostly by the "-hat"/"-het" suffix that you attach to the verb before the personal suffix.

"meg tudod csinálni" - you can (are able to) do it
"megcsinálHATod" - you can (may or are permitted to) do it
"Ezt nem csinálhatod velem!" - you can't do this to me!
"A tiéd lehet" - you can have it (literally: it can (is allowed to) be yours)


Replying here as we reached the bottom of the reply tree. Yes, that is correct, "tudni" is used for both.
I can say "nem tudok úszni", because I have never learned how to swim or because I do not have the time. Or because I broke my leg. The same way as you can say them all with "can".
And if you need to clarify what you are talking about, then you simply explain: I know how to swim but I don't have time right now. Or I broke my leg.
You can say "I can (am able to) swim, but I can't right now." Something like that.
In Hungarian:

"Tudok úszni, csak most nem tudok." - I can swim, only now I can't.

"Tudok úszni, csak nem érek rá." - I can swim, only I don't have the time. "Nem érek rá" is a common way of saying "I don't have time (right now)".

"Tudok úszni, de eltörött a lábam." - I can swim but my leg is broken.



ErikAnderson3 - sorry for the late reply. I would say this "tudni" thing is really ambiguous. Yes, there is an ability part of it, there is also a learned part of it, and there is a current condition part of it. "Tudni" can cover any and all of it. It depends on the actual activity, context, and who knows what else.
Yes, if my leg was broken, I could say "Nem tudok futni."

And how about this one: I can read (because I learned how to read) but I cannot read in the dark.
"Tudok olvasni, de sötétben nem tudok (olvasni)."
This is really quite as ambiguous as "can" is.

And there are some verbs where we don't use "tudni" at all. Or only in some specific meaning. Most importantly, with hearing and seeing.
"I don't/can't see/hear." - "Nem látok/hallok."

And this topic is even more complex, but those are really fine details, better learned in real life, talking to people.

(Oh, and I just realized that I had replied already. Oh well, this is another take on the same.)


Excellent additional detail, thank you. So tudó is both "knowing something" and "being able to do something, having the ability to do something". There is some overlap, in the sense of "knowing how to do something", but the underlying "ability" sense is separate from knowledge. Is that correct? For example, would you say "nem tudok futni" if your leg was broken?


Looks like what you call a 'preverb' is the prefix in a separable verb in German, with the important difference being that the preverb can precede the main verb whereas in German the prefix gets kicked to the end of the main clause or simple sentence but wil recombine with the verb in a subordinate clause . I hope that's right anyway; my German is rusty and I am also doing that course.


Can someone tell me the difference between "hol" and "hova"?


"Where at" and "where to".


Honnan: from where. Answer will contain -ból/-ből, -tól/-től or -ról/-ről.

Hol: where (without movement). Answer will contain -ban/-ben, -n/-en/-on/-ön or -nál/-nél.

Hova: to where. Answer will contain -ba/-be, -ra/-re or -hoz/-hez/-höz.


Parallels English 'whence', "where' and 'whither'.


I'm also confused about the use of "tudni". I thought 'hat' was the way to go in the sense of "being able to". What's the difference between "Ma ebédelhetek veled" and "Ma tudok ebédelni veled"?


Well it wasn't. "Tud" is more "able to", if anything and "-hat" is more "I get the choice/oppurtunity, either by statistical propability or by permission", so it's more like "may" in a way. I don't there is a clear line between them in your example, though.


Thank you. Are both sentences correct to use here? "Ma ebédelhetek veled" and "Ma tudok ebédelni veled"?


First off, let's agree that having lunch is not a matter of ability anyway. Besides, the tud version sounds more practical. "I can organize my business so that we have lunch together" while the hat version is more like "nothing really contradicts this, there is a greater than zero probability, I'm allowed..." So, when you make an offer, you may go with the second, picturing the possibility, while if you were asked to do so, you may prefer the first, expressing that you can manage it.


Why is "Hol birok ebédelni?" not Ok?


It sounds very much like having lunch was a matter of "concentrated power of will" and you really needed brute force. :D


I got suggested "Hol tudtok ebédelni?" When I put "tudok" as an answer. I don't know what "tudtok" means.


"tudok" is singular first person, "tudtok" is plural second person


Can one use 'lehet' instead of tudsz?


Yes, in the sense that it will also be a valid sentence. The same way, you can use "breakfast" instead of "lunch".

But "tudsz" is second person, "lehet" is third person.
"Where can you have lunch?" vs "Where can lunch be had?" (Or "Where is it possible to have lunch?")


Can someone explain to me why Duolingo rejected my answer "Hol tudsz te ebédelni?"?

I understood leaving the pronoun out was optional, usually DL doesn't mind about them in other sentences so I'm wondering if this sentence is wrong, or just a missing translation? Or is the pronoun in the wrong place?


Just a missing translation. But adding "te" is optional indeed. (In fact, I would say adding it, rather than leaving it out, is optional. I.e. leaving it out is the normal way. Unless you have a reason to add it.)

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