1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Hungarian
  4. >
  5. "Azoknak, akik szegények, kev…

"Azoknak, akik szegények, kevés a pénzük."

Translation:Those who are poor have little money.

December 13, 2016



Money is not countable (coins and bills are, but money is like sugar, or water). So in English we use little in that context, not few. Few is only used for countable items. Few books, few coins...


------- looks like you convinced 'em to make the change . . .

Big 26 aug 18


"Those who have little money, are poor" is not accepted. Surely "Those who are poor have little money" and "Those who have little money, are poor" is a distinction without a meaningful difference.


------- i'm with you, gertjie . . .

Big 14 aug 19


Isn't "van" missing?


No, it is not. "Kevés" is the predicate itself. In Hungarian, you don't always have a verb in the sentence. The predicate (what we are stating) can be a verb, can be some other type of verb, or can be the combination thereof.
Let's take a very simple example:
"Az autó zöld." - The car is red.
Here, the car is the subject, and the predicate, what we are stating, is "zöld". Meaning "is green" in English. You may have seen this already in other exercises. This is the third person, and the verb "van" is "missing". It is not actually missing, because it must not be there.
Én zöld vagyok. - first person
Te zöld vagy. - second person
Ő zöld. this person. No "van".

So, the above is what is happening here.
The money is little - "A pénz kevés."

"Kevés a pénz." - Little is the money.

"A szegényeknek kevés a pénzük." - Poor people's money is little.

We could restructure the sentence to make "kevés" a simple modifier (adjective) of the subject. Then we would have a "van" as the predicate:
"... kevés pénzük van." - literally, little money of them there is. I.e. they have little money.


but isn't "van" missing because of the English translation "have"? "neki van penze", etc?


As I said above, if you read it, it would be "kevés pénzük van", that is a more literal translation of "they have little money".
But in "a pénzük kevés" or "kevés a pénzük", there must not be a "van".

These are the literal translations:
"Kevés pénzük van" -They have little money
"Kevés a pénzük" - Little is their money
"A pénzük kevés" - Their money is little

In English, the usual way to say it is "They have little money".


How do you explain it quite often:
It is a translation of another sentence. ;-)

Literal translation here is I think:
The money of those, who are poor, is little.

I don't know if that is super unnatural for English, but if I have to have "have" in the translation, which Hungarian does not use, it is a (maybe purposefully) confusing choice of the lesson.

I believe other aki sentences used this format:
Azoknak a pénzük kevés, akik szegények.
Is there a reason why this might not be the prefered form here?

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