"A turisták az erdőkbe mennek és pihennek."

Translation:The tourists are going into the forests and resting.

October 18, 2016

This discussion is locked.


This is incorrect. It should be: The tourists are going into the forest and resting.


The Hungarian sentence uses plural. Erdőkbe= into the forests. erdőbe=into the forest.


thats not english..... its either: the tourists are going into the forests and (they) rest or the tourists are into the forests and they are resting


Do you need the article in front of "tourists" in the English translation? (My answer, marked incorrect, was "Tourists go into the forests and rest".)


Yes. This is hardly a general fact about tourists, so you better use the article in English.


The sentence structure in English implies it is a general fact about tourists whether you use the article or not. If ‘forest’ were singular then it would no longer be a generalisation


This... doesn't really make sense.


Maybe...but it is the way English works


I think the fact that both forests and tourists are plural makes it not so much a generalisation as a statement that tourists are all going into forests. If either tourist or forest were singular, it becomes a statement about one tourist or one forest. There may be a grammatical rule here but I don’t know it, it may be just usage


I mean, if you say "the tourists" and "the forests", wouldn't it be about a certain group of tourists and certain forests? What exactly makes it sound like a generalisation? How would you make it specific?


To RyagonIV,

"Tourists" can be a generalization or not of tourists as you picture them. If not, we'd have said "some tourists" for not all tourists or "the tourists" for a specific group. To make it more of a generalization it would be "all (of) (the) tourists". All "the" is doing here is making it more visceral, clearly describing experience.

As for "are going" versus "go", both are current and despite what you may have been taught both can be for multiple instances. "Are going" describes a state which is temporary and that this situation may come to change, but "go" one that is permanent.

Forest is a very broad term for areas with woods. Making it plural here makes instances of tourists going into them plural in different areas over a wide region, so necessarily a generalization.

I hope this helps more than it confuses. All variants are correct in English if spoken appropriately with confidence; whether they're correct as translation here is another matter . . .


Nem vagyok tökéletes angoltudó, de az angol tényleg ennyire különbséget tesz "to" és "into" között? Mi lenne akkor a "to" fordítása? Amennyire én tudom, szövegkörnyezettől függően ugyanúgy lehet -ba -be, mint -hoz -hez -höz.


To the forest valami olyasmit jelentene, hogy valaki elmegy az erdő közelébe, környékére. Hol ott az into az arról árulkodik, hogy az emberek gyakorlatilag bemennek az erdőbe.


the tourists go into the forests and rest rejected??


The correct translation is ‘the tourists go into the forests and rest’. If you use present continuous tense in that sentence you imply the tourists are continually in a state of going into forests and resting, like some sort of endlessly repeating movie clip


It's usually the other way around - present progressive is used for one-time actions: "He is eating a hamburger". And simple present is used for ongoing states or habitual actions. "He eats breakfast in his room every day." "She just keeps growing."


It’s not that simple. What you’re saying is correct but it’s more than that. Present continuous is something that is happening now, a state of being here in the present. Simple present describes actions that are current


Can we translate "The tourists go and rest into the forests."


Zbl, that won't work. You cannot "rest into something" in English, because "resting" doesn't describe a motion.

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