1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Hungarian
  4. >
  5. "Valamennyi ember elmegy a mo…

"Valamennyi ember elmegy a moziba, de nem sok."

Translation:Some people go to the cinema, but not many.

June 23, 2018



please, what is the difference between "valhány" and "valamennyi"? i found the translation for both with "some"

  • 456

Valahány and valamennyi: the difference is the same as between hány and mennyi.

Hány: countable. Hány alma van az asztalon? How many apples are on the table? Valahány alma. Some apples

mennyi: usually uncountable. Mennyi víz van a pohárban? How much water is in the glass? Valamennyi víz.

You can also use valamennyi for countable things too. Valamennyi alma van az asztalon. Valamennyi ember...

But you cannot say valahány víz.


Note, sometimes "valamennyi"/"valahány" can mean "all". In speech, when you emphasize "valamennyi"/"valahány", it will mean all.
"VALAMENNYI almát megettem." - I ate all the apples.
"Ettem valamennyi spenótot." - I ate some spinach.

Oh, and it seems that, in this sense, both "valamennyi" and "valahány" would be used with countable things only. I cannot say "Megettem VALAMENNYI spenótot" and mean that I ate "all of it". It will always mean "some of it".


Köszönöm szepem for this fast answer. It helps me.


Some but not many? Is this only weird for me? Since "some" already means "not many", right?
Wouldn't "Some people go to the cinema, but many do not" be more logical, because it would not describe twice the same (small) group of people. The purpose of a proper but?

How would I say that in H?
Valamennyi ember elmegy a moziba, de sok nem el. ?


No, "valamennyi" does not necessarily mean a small number. Just like "some" does not, either. At least not always. It is simply an undetermined number/amount/quantity. I can say something like this:
"Some people are tall, others are short."
It only means that not all of them. Maybe not even that. It simply means a certain, undetermined, number. Simply, it is not zero.

So, in that sense, it is perfectly normal to say "some, but not many". Or, in Hungarian, "valamennyi, de nem sok".

"Some people go, but many do not."
To me, it only gives "some" a sense of "not many" in reference to "many do not". Now we have something to compare to. Without "many", our "some" is just a number we do not know.

In H, you do not need "el" at the end. It makes no sense without a verb.

"Valamennyi ember elmegy a moziba, de sok nem (megy (el))."


But some is certainly not 75% (or 51%. Below that I don't know, it is unspecified after all and probably a guesstimate...) of the people? Some means immediately fewer than many.

"Some people go to the cinema" would never mean to me any number that could mean a lot or many. Some is already a few, whatever the actual number is. So stating "some are not many" like this sentence sort of does when you remove the "unnecesary" words sounds weird.

Also with "some people are tall, others are short". I would think of both groups not being many, both attaching to the unspecified "number" "some" because if any of the groups would be a majority, I would word it differently in a contrasting sentence:
Many people are tall, some are short (though).
The majority of people are tall, some are short (though).
Numerous people are tall, (but) some are short.


OK, let's make it 10%.
10% of a hundred is not many.
10% of one million is many.

Anyway, "some but not many" carries extra information and makes perfect sense to me.


Very interesting!

I always thought of those quantifiers to be relative. So (some) 10% is (not many) 10%! Might mean some, might mean many to me. No matter the sample size. Or actually the sample size needs to be known to fill those quantifiers even vaguely with sort of a number.
But the important differentiator is for me in what is usual or expectable, while being still very vague.

"He ate many apples", certainly doesn't mean 100k, but already 10% of 100 would qualify a "many" to me! Since the average dose of apple is probably 1 or let's be generous and say 2. If you know that this person devours apples like a maniac, maybe 10 would not be many, or if those apples are tiny, but if we talk about regular apples, and a person with regular eating habits (and also not of someones lifetime consumption!), 10 (in one meal) sounds like many, or would you disagree?
And "he ate some apples" would mean more than 2, since that would be said by two or a couple, and "not many" would possibly fall in the same region? No huge amount but pretty much whatever some means? Some=not many?

He ate some apples, but not many. How many would you guess, without the clause, how many with the clause? Would you actually reduce your guess? Increase?

So what extra information do you get here by "some, but not many"? (to me it sounds like, "alright but not bad")

Some of 100 people might mean something around 10? (please correct me) And not many is around that same number as you stated in your comment? So here the sentence stays logical, but does not give any extra information with this clause?
Some of 1mio is possibly up to or more than 100k? Which is anyway irrelevant. Because you said 100k of 1mio would be many? That would then not fit into the sentence since "some people go, but (those) are not many". Our group can't be that big. So indirectly the extra information is that we don't talk about 1mio people to have a valid sentence? But where becomes the sentence then valid?
Somewhere between 100 and 1mio? But where? What is the number we are talking about since "some" and "not many" have to be equal and they both offer no information beyond there vague numberlessness. Where is this sweet spot, where "some" and "not many" fit and we still get extra information (whatever that should be)

I hope I did not misrepresent what I interpreted out of your comment, but in every way I try to look at it, it makes zero sense to me.


Well, I need some time to digest this... :)

But we know since Einstein that everything is relative. One hair on top of your head is not many by any standard. One hair in your soup is way too many.

I was hoping that my comment would make at least some sense to you, if not a lot of sense.

But, see, zero sense is none of those, unfortunately.

Anyway, it may make sense if you are willing to agreee that "some" is not necessarily a small amount/quantity. I think so, and I believe (or hope) there are quite a few people who would agree with me on that.

If you have some time, type in your favorite search engine:
"some meaning".


OK, I give up. You refuse to accept the existence of other meanings of "some". There is nothing more to discuss here.


I gave a very specific definition in my very first answer to you: "some" is simply an undetermined number/amount. Period.

It is not in the same race with "many". There is no direct correlation between "some" and "many".

Here's what google comes up with:

some/sʌm,s(ə)m/ determiner
1. an unspecified amount or number of.
2. used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
3. (used with a number) approximately.
4. (pronounced stressing ‘some’) a considerable amount or number of.
5. (pronounced stressing ‘some’) at least a small amount or number of.
6. (pronounced stressing ‘some’) expressing admiration of something notable.


That is all the answer I can give. You need to reexamine your own understanding of "some", because it is simply incorrect.
I do not need you to bend down. I just want to move on from this pointless discussion, because it is wasting my time.

(Just checked: m-w, cambridge and oxford dictionaries all agree with the above definition. None of them mentions it relative to "many". No surprises there.)


Well, this is a quote from Merriam-Webster:
"I have some money left, but not much."

But then my answer to your question in your first comment is this:

Yes, this is only weird to you.

"Some" does NOT specifically mean "not many".

See you in other discussions.


Certainly I agree that some is not necessarily a small number (relatively speaking, it can be super tiny), it is just some number, very much like not many. Which is exactly my point? It is redundant information. Both are vague, not many meaning just that; not many, and some imho already means never many, because the word many exists to express it is more than some, i.e. many.
And several, a couple, a few are more or less equally unspecific. It might be a little absolute number or an actually big number but adding a second meaningless quantifier doesn't make it any clearer or more meaningful to me. Adding context would though.

I lost some/much money at gambling. 50000 Dollar!
Said by a student might mean he is indepted many years and ashamed, and he would use much. Said by a millionaire and he might tell it as a funny anecdote and use some.

Anything else than "many people go to the cinema" is catastrophic for big budget supposed to be blockbuster movies. But a 10000 Dollar low budget movie is happy about some people coming to watch it. Not many? No idea what it adds.


For definitions, you can simply check a dictionary. As I mentioned above, just do a search on "some meaning".


Why isn't "el" translated? Does it have a perfective meaning here? But if so how can it be explained ? ( I am used to perfective meaning in Russian but obviously it is not the same in Hungarian)


What does the perfective mean? It means taking the whole, complete action as one unit, one entity, without care for its inner details. So, no getting ready, no leaving, no being on the way, no arriving. Just the whole action as an elementary unit. That is what "elmegy" means here. So how do we translate that to English? I guess the best option is just "go".


Thank you. I see it's the same as in Russian and it helps!


You are welcome. And it's good to know, thanks!

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