"Átugrom a folyón!"

Translation: I am jumping across the river!

[MacLomain]

What's wrong with I'm jumping over the river?

[JBaer1]

Could someone explain why folyó requires the ´n´ at the end? I thought that ending would suggest ´jumping in´. Or, if the river is considered the direct object receiving the action, I could see it becoming folyót with the ending to show it was the object. I am officially confused (but enjoying learning such a complex language).

[Linda38047]

The n is not replacing ban-ben (in) but -on (on). When I jump across it, I have the river underneath me, so I am ON it.

Átugrom a folyón: I jump across the river (from shore to shore)

Beugrom a folyóba: I jump into the river (getting wet)

Ugrom a folyóban: I am jumping in the river (I was already in it when I started my jump)

[JBaer1]

That is a super helpful explanation. Thank you so much!

[ElieElKhou1]

Why is "ugrik" in the definite conjugation here? Why not "Átugrok a folyón" instead? As far as I can tell there is no definite object.

[ion1122]

It is not in the definite. Remember, the -ik verbs conjugate with -m in the first person even in the indefinite.

[ElieElKhou1]

Right, thank you!

[majoaile]

is this river narrow?

[exchange03]

is it possible "atugrom a folyo" ?

[Xenocider]

You need to add a "t" at the end of "folyó", meaning that is the subject of your action. "Átugrom a folyót". But semantically it is the same sentence.

[ion1122]

Yes. But the -t (accusative marker) is added to indicate the object, not the subject, of the action.

[Tielbert]

How is it possible? In other explanation they said that át- preverb requires -on ending.

[deactivated user]

It's an -ikes ige. The form is not different in definite/indefinite with I. But átugrik can be transitive, although simply 'ugrik' can't. the prefix modifies the meaning.

Átugrasz a folyón - átugrod a folyót.