I'm a little confused. Is "eleget" in the accusative? The object of "festek?" That seems odd to me - as an English speaker, I would consider "enough" to modify "paint." It's a description of how I paint, how much I paint. But in this sentence, it's like "eleget" is a thing, something that someone paints (or doesn't).
"I don't paint apples." "I don't paint children." "I don't paint enough." Hard to wrap my head around that.
"Nem festek eleget." means exactly what "I do not paint enough." means. Yes, in Hungarian, it is in the accusative. But that's just it, that is how Hungarian does this thing.
As for me, I think the "enough" in the English sentence is also the object of "paint", in the lack of a noun that it could refer to. But I am no authority on that.
A different situation would be if there were a qualifier in the sentence.
I do not paint nicely enough. - Nem festek elég szépen.
Compare these sentences:
This much is enough - Ennyi elég.
Give me enough money - Adj (nekem) elég pénzt.
Give me enough - Adj (nekem) eleget.
This money is enough - Ez a pénz elég.
This is enough money - Ez elég pénz.
This is enough - Ez elég.
I do not paint enough portraits - Nem festek elég portrét.
I do not paint enough - Nem festek eleget.
I would rather say: " I don't have enough paintings." - Nincs elég festményem. or simply I don't paint too much/often. - Nem festek gyakran.
I read that, yes! I can understand smurr22's confusion over this, because I think we might think of it differently in English. Maybe a linguist or someone well-educated in languages would be able to recognize "enough" in the English sentence as an object, but it wasn't obvious to me. I was thinking of it as the modifier (adjective) of the understood but unspoken noun. Since different languages have their own way of constructing sentences, I wouldn't say that the Hungarian is wrong, but it was hard for me to grasp it, at least a year ago.
Yes, it can be confusing to English speakers, with the accusative not marked at all in most cases. It is like trying to explain all those different English verb tenses to Hungarians.
Anyway, it is definitely a direct object in Hungarian, and it needs an accusative ending.
And my argument is that it is also a direct object in English, in the role of a pronoun.
Consider "You do not paint enough people." There "enough" is an adjective rather than an adverb, no?
So it is easy to see how (in Hungarian, but perhaps also in English), you can parse the same word different ways:
1. You do not paint often enough. (adverb)
2. You do not paint enough stuff. (adjective)
3. You do not paint enough. (pronoun? adjective used as a noun, which some languages allow?)
"Enough" could be parsed as the direct object. However, from a native-speaker point of view, it is an adverb, modifying the verb "paint". This can be illustrated by comparing "I do not paint enough" and "I do not paint sufficiently / adequately / satisfactorily". Alternatively, consider the parallel construction "I do not walk enough", where "enough" cannot be an object (direct or indirect).
Nota bene: This is purely a statement about English grammar. I have no argument regarding the Hungarian part of speech for eleg, which is clearly used as a nominalized adjective in this case. :) I merely wish to point out that, from a native English-speaking perspective, the Hungarian Nem festek eleget comes across more like "I don't paint enough things", where we need an explicit noun in the English to resolve the initial impression of "enough" on its own here as an adverb.
I agree with Bastette54. In this sentence, enough should not get the accusative ending. If by enough, they mean to be satisfied or to accomplish some sort of goal or skill-level it should be stated. This cannot be inferred from the sentence. Yes, one might say this in English in an informal conversation, but enough is not an object. Although, I greatly appreciate vvsey's comments. I often learn more from vvsey's comments than from the lesson. There are 8 valuable, useful things to know how to say right there. Thank vvsey! By the way, is that ET (circa 1981) as your photo-identifier?
Smurr22, first of all, thank you for saying I look like E.T. I hope you look like The Sleeping Beauty. :)
On "enough" being, or not being, an object, this is a really interesting issue. I never would have thunk such an issue would arise here.
To me, "enough" is "a sufficient number/amount". As in:
How many did I give you? I gave you two. I gave you five. I gave you a lot. I gave you a sufficient amount. I gave you enough.
In which of these would you say the part after "I gave you" is modifying the verb?
I would say: in none of them. I say the part that comes after "I gave you" is the direct object of the verb. Without exception.
With the particular case of "enough", I think there is an un-mentioned "thing", that is understood. And I think that would make the word "enough" a pronoun. A pronoun is something that can take the place of a noun. And, as such, I think, it can also be the direct object of a sentence. And take the accusative ending in languages that mark the accusative.
Now, I may not be the ultimate expert on English Grammar, but I have never heard of such a thing as "enough" modifying a verb. Check google, or check a good grammar book. Mine says this, roughly:
"Enough can be used several ways in a sentence.:
- It can qualify an adjective or adverb (warm enough, quickly enough)
- It can be used as a determiner with a noun (enough bread)
- and it can be a pronoun (enough of this, that is enough)
Our sentence, above, is clearly the third case, to me. Enough is used as a pronoun.
"Like most other 'determiners', enough can be used as a pronoun alone, without a noun. Enough is enough. That's enough, thank you."
Finally, it says: "Enough can be used as a complement of the verb be when the subject is a pronoun. ..."
Nowhere does it mention anything like "enough" modifying a verb. I don't think there is such a thing. Otherwise, how would you explain the difference between these two sentences:
"I don't drink enough water."
"I don't drink enough."
In the first sentence, it clearly modifies the noun "water". How about in the second one? It suddently changes affiliation and becomes the modifier of the verb? I don't think so. Instead, as it stands without a noun, it takes over the role of a noun, acting like a noun itself. Hence, it is a pronoun.
Just like in our sentence above: "I do not paint enough."
Please argue with me and tell me I am wrong, if you think so. But my belief in the above is firm enough. :)
PS. My ultimate guide on English Grammar is "Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan.
Well stated, vvsey. My reaction is that in English "enough" can be an adjective, a pronoun, or an adverb:
1. We ran out of pictures to sell because you did not paint enough pictures.
2. We ran out of pictures to sell because you did not paint enough.
3. You drink a lot but you do not paint enough.
In 1 I feel the word as an adjective and in 3 as an adverb. A sentence like 2 I feel ambivalent about. You did not spend sufficient time painting (adverb), or you did not produce a satisfactory number of pictures (pronoun).
Re the DL sentence we are given here, by itself and out of context, "I do not paint enough", my first reaction is to treat "enough" as an adverb. I'm not sure why.
In may be because this sentence is a general statement in the present tense. If the sentence had been "I have not painted enough", I would be more inclined to accept "enough" as a pronoun.
But even that sentence depends on context. For example, in the sentence "I've played lots of computer games this month but I have not painted enough" I would feel "enough" as an adverb.
ion1122, thank you for that. While I think I see where you are coming from, I still maintain my view that "enough" is simply the direct object and not an adverb.
If it were an adverb as you say, then it could answer to questions like "How?". Moreover, it could have its own modifiers:
How do you paint? I paint slowly. I paint happily. I paint enough. In fact, I paint VERY enough.
If "enough" were an adverb, then the above sentences would be perfectly fine. But they are not. Because "enough" is not an adverb.
It is just that "enough" can assume various roles depending on how it is used (discussed above in detail), and there is some "cross-contamination" there between these distinct roles.
"I paint fast enough."
"I paint enough."
In the first sentence, "enough" modifies an adverb. So in the second sentence "enough" must be an adverb itself. Well, that's where I disagree. In my opinion, in the second sentence, "enough" stands for "a sufficient amount/number". Hence, it is a pronoun. And that's independent of whatever verb tense we happen to use.
We may just need to settle on disagreeing on this point. Which is fine with me. :)
Or we could invent a new word: "enoughly". And that would indeed be a real adverb. ;)
In my sentence 3, do you see "a lot" as an adverbial phrase, or as a noun preceded by the indefinite article?
I see it as a pronoun, ie. something that stands in for a noun. I paint many. I paint five. I paint a lot. All the same to me, grammatically. And all of them would be in the accusative in Hungarian.
Yet, I sense what you mean. But I still feel it is just "cross-contamination". If you said "I paint a lot of the time", that would be different. Because then "a lot (of)" is not a pronoun anymore. And you may say "I paint a lot" is short for that. Yet it is really not, in my opinion.
We could do the same with "enough". I paint enough vs. I spend enough time painting (or I paint "enough of the time"). One is an object, the other is not.
Btw, this is a really interesting conversation!
OK, I give it to you (thanks), "enough" can be an adverb.
But that just means I just need to extend my understanding of what an adverb can do.
But the rest still stands: I think the "enough" in our sentence here is a pronoun, not an adverb.
Typical examples (from M-W) of "enough" as:
"enough food for everyone"
"he is qualified enough"
"she sang well enough"
"had enough of their foolishness"
"enough were present"
To me, "enough" here means "a sufficient amount/number", which clearly makes it a direct object. At least in Hungarian it does.
Apparently, there are various types of adverbs.
The words "slowly", "beautifully", "effectively" are adverbs, and can be used with "paint", modifying that verb. They answer to the "How?" question.
And "very" and "enough" are also adverbs, yet, they cannot be used the same way. They are rather used to qualify adjectives, adverbs (and maybe other types of words).
"I paint very slowly"
"I paint fast enough".
And "enough" can also be a pronoun, where it stands in for a noun (phrase), having an implied "amount" in there somewhere, hence pronoun.
"I do not paint enough." = "I do not paint a sufficient amount".
This is very clear to me, according to my logic.
And, in my mind, this definitely makes "enough" here a direct object.