Omission of accusative?
Dear fellow learners,
yesterday I found an older and pretty cheesy Hungarian pop song on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNnFGRXayS0 . Its chorus repeats the sentence "Darabokra törted a szívem".
Now, my problem is that I don't really get the logic of that sentence. It seems pretty obvious to me that there are very clear semantical structures:
Darabok + ra = into pieces törted = [dropped "you"] broke [definite past conjugation] a szív + em = my heart
But shouldn't there be some kind of accusative applied to "my heart", as it can't be the subject of the sentence? Like "Darabokra törted a szívemet"
Or is this some kind of passive mood / colloquial speech / irregular case with possessive endings?
It is a good question. The accusative suffix may be omitted after the possessive suffix, but only in 1st and 2nd persons. Both solutions are correct. (http://www.e-nyelv.hu/2008-06-30/a-t-targyrag-elhagyasa/)
Thank you, this is very very helpful. Unfortunately I didn't find anything on English speaking websites. :)
|1||A kutya||megharapta||a gyereket.|
|2||A gyereket||megharapta||a kutya.|
'The dog bit the child'.
It is known, the grammatical cases are indicated by suffixes in Hungarian, that is why the word order may be varied. The word order:
|3||A kutya||megharapta||a gyerekem(et).|
|4||A gyerekem(et)||megharapta||a kutya.|
'The dog bit my child'.
Here, the possessor (az én 'my') is in the first person (or might be in the second and even in plural). The possessed object (gyerek 'child') takes the possessive suffix and optional the accusative suffix. Still, the two sentences have the same meaning and not ambiguous.
|5||A kutya||megharapta||a gyerekét.|
|6||A gyerekét||megharapta||a kutya.|
'The dog bit his child'.
But when the possessor is in the third person (in singular or plural), the possessed object have to take both the possessive and the accusative suffix.
But without accusative, (7) and (8) are ungrammatical.