"You get off these horses."
Translation:Ezekről a lovakról szálltok le.
"Leszálltok ezekről a lovakról." - is also perfectly fine.
It all depends on what we emphasize. If we emphasize the verb itself, then it stays intact: "leszálltok". If we emphasize the word or phrase in front of the verb (as in you get off these horses), then the verb gets split: "Ezekről a lovakról szálltok le."
The English sounds imperative to me: "Hey, you! You get off these horses!" Otherwise, the speaker is telling the listeners what they are doing - and wouldn't they already know that?
I guess it could be part of a set of instructions: "First you... and then you... and then, you get off these horses." Still odd.
Hmm. "You get down there right now, young miss!" definitely sounds imperative to me. It's just hard to tell in English, because the verb doesn't change. But I would think the difference between "szálljatok le" and "szálltok le" would be the same as the difference between "get down!" and "you are getting down," respectively.
"You get down there right now" might sound harsh, but it's still the grammatical indicative. There's a clear distinction between imperative an indicative in English as well: the English imperative doesn't use the subject pronoun, "you".
Other than that, every language I encountered so far has this pseudo-imperative use of actually indicative sentences, if you speak it in the right tone. "You are not touching that" - "Nem érinted meg azt" - "Das fasst du nicht an" - "Tú no tocas esto" - "Det rører du ikke ved"
I think the "pseudo-imperative" can actually be harsher than the real one. Perhaps because you have to use a harsher tone with the pseudo to make it imperative. With the real imperative, you can be more civilised.
I like "There will be silence!", and
"Idejössz!", "Nem mész innen?!" - a question used as an imperative.
But the most curious thing is that English doesn't really have a third person imperative. Or a first person one. There are ways around this, but they are not the same.
In Hungarian, you can use the imperative in any person.
Yes, you could talk to yourself in the imperative if you wanted. But one thing is that it is available and another is if you use it.
Here is the conjugation of "leszállni" in the imperative, indefinite:
"Én szálljak le"
"Te szállj le"
"Ő szálljon le"
"Mi szálljunk le"
"Ti szálljatok le"
"Ők szálljanak le"
The pronouns can be omitted, of course.
We can use these in various ways. For example:
"She wants me to get off." - "Azt akarja, hogy szálljak le."
And I can tell you to get off:
Or I can express that I want him to get off:
"Let's go!" - that is what I call a work-around.
"Let us go" - technically, we are asking our imaginary friend (a second person) to give us permission to go.
"Let there be light!" - Who should let the light be?
What I am saying is that these are not technically/grammatically imperative, only used as such. And if "Let us go!" is a first-person imperative, then so is "Let me go!". But, technically, they are not.
So, English has a few work-arounds:
"I want you to ..."
"Tell her to be there ..."
"Let it be!"
"So be it!" - that is the closest to an actual third person imperative I can think of
"May you live happily ever after"
This is kind of what Hungarian does with the passive voice There is no real passive voice anymore, but there are tons of "works-around".
That's interesting. So you could talk to yourself in the imperative, ie, order yourself to do something, and you'd use the first person conjugation in the imperative? In English you can give yourself orders, but you'd speak to yourself in the second person.
English has a first-person imperative in the plural, for example, "Let's go!"