Talk:Hungarian grammar

My grammar questions
I've written a lot of stuff but I'm not a native speaker and I've only studied Hungarian grammar from a language learner's point of view, never as a linguist, so I need some help, please! Also, my examples always need checking for errors.

Does the "in need of attention" label still apply? If it does, please be specific. I lost the plot trying to read all the discussion on the Hungarian language page. (The case /suffix /ending terminology probably still needs tightening up. It certainly seems strange to have a section on endings which are not cases but to have case names for each of them!)

Is there a logical or traditional order for the "cases" to be listed in?

Would Hungarian correctly be classified as an ergative language?

'ház' isn't a great choice for the examples because it is one of the group which uses 'a' as a link vowel with -o/-e/-ö suffixes. It looks very odd as an illustration! Can anyone suggest an example that follows the standard patterns and can be used with the rarer suffixes such as -nként and -stul?

Would anyone like to write a new section about telling the time? (Assuming we're allowed to address that under "Grammar".) I lived in Hungary for 3 years and never mastered it! There's something about a difference between eg 8.10 as the time now, and for a time in the past or future.

Areas where I'm uncertain and really need to be checked:
 * 1) Use of definite and indefinite articles. Not confident enough to write anything!
 * 2) Use of subjunctive
 * 3) Participles
 * 4) Translation for 'szokott' and more examples
 * 5) Use of -va/-ve. Can this be used generally as an adverb or only with 'van'? If the former, please provide examples! If the latter, should it really be classed as an adjective? (or a predicative adjective?)
 * 6) Are the vowel harmony options correct for -nként?
 * 7) Are there proper grammatical terms for the categories which I've kind of made up a name for? These include:
 * 8) *-lak/-lek
 * 9) *Suffixes with possessive suffixes
 * 10) *Special verb suffixes

Questions:
 * 1) Is duplication really used with postpositions too?
 * 2) Is 'vannak' omitted in the same circumstances as 'van'?
 * 3) Is -képp(en) excluded from the list of suffixes for a reason or is it just an omission?
 * 4) Are there any other suffixes which use the oblique stem? (see below)
 * 5) Does the object have to be singular for -lak/-lek or can it be plural?
 * 6) Does the form kiéi exist, eg "Whose are these?"?
 * 7) What's the correct translation of "It's Kati's."? Katié van. / Katié. / Az Katié. / Ő Katié. ...
 * 8) I think there's a difference between English and Hungarian something like a singular noun is used when plural possessors each have one of something (eg 'a féjünk' = 'our heads'). Is this correct? Does it only apply to parts of the body or does it apply to anything, eg 'a tollunk' = 'our pens'? Or does it only apply in certain grammatical contexts, eg 'We all shook our heads.'
 * 9) When -ott/-ett/-ött are used for position at a place, what are used for movement to and from? (eg Is it Győrre and Győrről /Pecsre and Pecsről?)
 * 10) Is 'mint' a preposition? I can't think how else to classify it.
 * 11) What are all the possible variations for the -stul/-stül suffix? Does it use a link vowel with consonant-ending stems? What does it really mean?
 * 12) Does -onta/-ente have a third variation of -önte, at least in theory? This would seem logical to me.
 * 13) For -ul/-ül, I can think of the following examples: magyarul, angolul, (other languages), peldául, rosszul, rendetlenül ... So it looks like it can be suffixed to either a noun or an adjective. Is that right? If so, would forms such as 'beszélek magyarul' be considered as noun or adjective suffixes? Does it have productive power as either a noun or adjective suffix or is it better considered to be a word derivation suffix? (I'm making a distinction between a productive suffix such as -ás/-és which can be put onto pretty much any verb stem to make a noun, and a suffix such as at/-et which only makes a noun from specific verbs.)
 * 14) I think the suffix -vá/vé can sometimes be put onto adjectives, eg kissé, eléggé. What do these mean and how they are used? Is it a productive pattern or limited to a few words? Gailtb 06:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers
Thank you for your help in the article and your insightful questions!


 * Actually, I'd rather remove the "in need of attention" label. It was put there probably by Gubbubu, because he is convicted that the theory about the Turkic origins of Hungarian is serious enough from a linguistic point of view and that "cases" as such shouldn't be used in connection with Hungarian, but these issues are not treated accordingly in the present version of the article. If you are not afraid of a possible revert war (and a lengthy debate) with him, feel free to remove the label. :-)
 * I know of no traditional or classic order for the Hungarian cases; I've never seen such a reference. (The only thing I know is that the Positional suffixes should be mentioned separately as well, like they are now.)
 * To my best knowledge, Hungarian is not an ergative language, because the subject of intransitive verbs is in the same case (nominative) as the subject of transitive verbs, and the object of transitive verbs is in a different case (accusative), just like in English. For example: Pista fut. ("Steve is running", intrans. verb, Pista is nom.) Pista kenyeret eszik. ("Steve is eating bread", trans. verb, Pista is nom.), Péter látja Pistát ("Peter can see Steve", trans. verb, Pista is acc.).
 * A better sample word instead of 'ház'? Maybe kalap: kalapot, kalapok, kalapon; [poss. sing.] -om, -od, -ja, -unk, -otok, -juk; [poss. pl.] -jaim, -jaid, -jai, -jaink, -jaitok, -jaik. It also has the advantage of having the -j even in all the plural possessive forms (as opposed to házaim etc). Kalaponként and kalapostul also exist. It can be replaced in the article.
 * I'll try to sum up the time expressions soon.

To the questions among the areas you feel uncertain:
 * 5. -va/-ve can be used generally as well, eg úszva jött ide ("he came here swimming")
 * 6. -nként: kabántonként ("per coat"), sálanként (per scarf"), könyvenként ("per book"), görögönként ("per Greek"), kesztyűnként ("per glove"). So -anként is missing from the variants.
 * 7. proper terms:
 * -lak/-lek: I don't know any terms or descriptions better than "definite conjugation, 1st person singular subject, 2nd person object"
 * "Suffixes with possessive suffixes": benned and the similar forms are actually suffixed forms of the personal pronouns. Benned can be tebenned ("in you") as well. (Benne, "in it", can be paralleled with ebben, "in this", ez + ben, which is more regular as far as form is concerned.) Maybe the term "Personal pronouns with suffixes" could be used; I can't found any more specific term. The fact that they are formed with the case suffixes plus the possessive suffixes is another question.
 * -hat/-het: "modal suffixes" (A Practical Hungarian Grammar, ISBN 9634720374, p. 62), -at/et/tat/tet: causative suffixes (p. 61)

To your questions:
 * 1) ez alatt a ház alatt, yes, it exists (e ház alatt is also possible, but it's somewhat archaic and its usage is limited)
 * 2) Yes, it is: Ők tanárok ("They are teachers") but Ők jól vannak ("They are well") or Tanárok vannak a szobában ("There are teachers in the room").
 * 3) It's just an omission, but its use is rather similar to -ként.
 * 4) Yes, but not among those considered cases: dolognak, dologgal, dologért, dologgá, dologig, dologként, dologul, dologban, dolognál, dologba, dologra, dologhoz, dologból, dologról, dologtól. On the other hand: dolgonként, dolgostul [in theory] *dolgott [but it doesn't exist], *dolgonta [an actual example: hetente from hét], and a regular again: dologkor (?). Also: levelenként, levelestül, *levelett [non-existent], levelente (?) plus the regular last one: levélkor. So the other suffixes requiring the oblique stem are: Distributive case, Sociative case, Locative case, Distributive-temporal case.
 * 5) It can be plural too, eg Szeretlek titeket ("I love you people")
 * 6) Yes, it exists. (The -éi ending on whatever word is, however, simplified sometimes in colloquial speech to -é, perhaps because some people find -éi too affected.)
 * 7) Katié or Az Katié.
 * 8) Yes, there is such a difference indeed. It applies to anything, eg tollunk = "our pens" (if each person has only one pen). I think it's used quite broadly.
 * 9) Győrött, Pécsett: see Locative case, not mentioned cases are only other words with the ending -vár (Kolozsvár, Székesfehér), which behave the same way as Kaposvár.
 * 10) * to and from: Pécsre, Vácra, Kaposvárra (Kolozsvárra, Székesfehérvárra), Vásárhelyre but Győrbe, similarly Pécsről, Vácról, Kaposvárról, Vásárhelyről but Győrből.
 * Yes, it may well be a preposition, however uncommon in Hungarian it be.
 * 1) Yes, -stul/stül has a linking vowel in these cases, eg kalapostul, székestül, görögöstül. These variants can be inserted in the article.
 * 2) * It means "together with", "along with", but its use is restricted. Eg. Kalapostul beleesett a vízbe ("He fell into the water with his hat on"), Családostul elköltözött ("He moved away along with his family").
 * 3) Theoretically -önte is possible, the above book mentions it, but I can't think of any other uses of this suffix like naponta, hetente, havonta, évente (per day/week/month/year), among which it doesn't occur. It's not possible with óra, perc or másodperc and is replaced by -nként with them, and since there aren't any other simple bases for time periods, I don't think -önte could practically occur anywhere, but you can insert it, in case I'm wrong.
 * 4) Yes, -ul/-ül can be added to nouns as well as adjectives that mean languages. In beszélek magyarul it's appended to the adjective, in my opinion. I think this suffix has productive power since it can be used with any noun if the main verb requires that case. I looked up the form könyvül in Google (which first sounded strange to me) but I found several examples, among them with the following verbs: "serve as sth.", "use as sth.", "accept as sth.", "recommend as sth.", "acknowledge as sth.", "order as sth." [like in "the minister ordered a book as a way of illustration in teaching history"], "keep as sth.", "choose as sth.". The last is perhaps the best example: kedvenc könyvéül/ételéül/játékául/újságjául etc. választotta ("he chose it as his favourite book/food/game/newspaper etc."). So I think it's productive, even though it can be usually replaced by another suffixes, mostly -ként (or -nak/nek with választ).
 * 5) Kissé: "somewhat, to some extent"; eléggé: "quite, fairly". Examples: Kissé meglepődött azon, amit látott, "He was somewhat surprised at what he saw", Eléggé népszerű a diákjai között, "He is quite/fairly popular among his students". I think this use of vá/vé is not productive at all, since I can't recall any more examples of it with adjectives.

I wonder if you will update the article accordingly. -- Adam78 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Futurity and oblique stem
For me, as a linguist, "tense" properly refers to morphological changes to the verb stem, so leszek is a future tense but fog + infinitive is not. Fog is a model auxiliary. See the article under Sources for the more accurate description of the 2 (main) tenses as past and non-past. (English is like Hungarian in this way. Academic grammatical descriptions refer to past tense and non-past tense. There is no future tense, just various ways of expressing futurity.) Ok to revert? In fact, strictly all the references to "present" tense should be changed to non-past, but that's probably pedantic rather than helpful. A note under "Moods and tenses" would be helpful.

The oblique stem section needs some work. Firstly, the definition needs to say it is a non-predictable stem change. The info about lengthening of vowels for ora etc does not belong in this section because it is entirely predictable. The oblique stems are ones which we poor learners have to learn individually. The examples with -on/-en/-ön/-n are surprising. This needs more explanation. I wonder if there is any pattern. (By the way, could you provide an example where short o is lengthened before noun suffixes? I've never seen that vowel being included in the lengthening rule before.)Gailtb 06:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers
I believe you; I also recall what you're saying. In this case, my edit was wrong; I'll thank you for reverting it. However, it is strange for me to call fog a modal auxiliary since it has little modality. Could it rather be called a "temporal auxiliary" instead? I think this type exists, isn't it?

You are right about the oblique stems as well; thank you for the clarification.

The superessive case is treated in my grammar book (Practical Hungarian Grammar, mentioned above) as a separate member of the Hungarian nominal lemma, which has to be learnt with the individual words. Actually, it seems to me that this case only remains identical with the nominative in the 1st type, otherwise it will use the oblique stem. I think this is the pattern, so it might not be necessary to learn it with each and every word.

Short -o lengthened? Actually, it only occurs in those foreign words which are not treated as loanwords, eg allegro, Cicero, peso will be allegrót, Cicerót, pesót. It only affects writing, since these o ' s are pronounced long with and without suffixes equally. Loanwords as such are written with long ó ab ovo, eg metró, videó, magnó, sztereó, diszkó, fotó, euró. Actually, this lengthening rule affects short ö ' s as well, eg Malmö will be Malmőt, so it should be inserted in the article.

Adam78 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I can update in a few days time if no-one else does it first. I also have a list of topics still to write up. Could I ask you to think again about an example noun, though? The forms such as "kalapja", ie using "j" after a consonant in the possessive endings are the exception rather than the rule. (One of the points I still need to write up.) The info about the vowel lengthening belongs on the phonology page not here since it is primarily a phonological rather than a grammatical process. Gailtb 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know statistics about the possessive suffixes, but I thought it was easier for the reader to remove a letter than inserting a plus -j into the words they find. Do you think the barátja/barátai or the lakása/lakásai type is more typical? (Lakásostul and barátostul both exist; the -nként is not critical.) Maybe lakás is better, isn't it? -- Adam78 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The lakás type is definitely much commoner. Let's use that. Gailtb 21:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A few more questions

 * 1) Is there a distinct difference in Hungarian between 'egy' used as the indefinite article and 'egy' used for the number one? (Eg English uses different stress as well as a different word.)
 * 2) Do the towns outside Hungary which used to be part of the empire and /or have Hungarian names (eg Pozsony) use -ban/-ben or -on/-en/-ön/-n?
 * 3) For a Hungarian, is there any logic to why the indefinite conjugation is used with a 1st or 2nd person object (which is surely definite)?
 * 4) The example Késon van. was corrected to Keso van. but this no longer illustrates the point. I want an -on/-en/-ön/-n adverb which can be used with van. Is Korán van. correct? If not, please suggest a correct example.
 * 5) Tízen vannak. or Tizen vannak.?


 * Yes, there is different stress in Hungarian, too, e.g. Egy EMber van csak itt "There's only a person here" (not an object or an animal that we expected) but EGY ember van csak itt "There is only one person here" (not more people, as we expected).
 * 1) Both occur: Pozsonyban, Bécsben, Nagyszombatban, Brassóban, Trencsénben etc. but Marosvásárhelyen, Nagyváradon, Kolozsváron, Csíkszeredán, Aradon, Kassán, Eperjesen, Lőcsén, Bártfán, Újvidéken etc.
 * No, they just seem to coincidence.
 * 1) Későn van (written with ő) doesn't exist to my knowledge. Korán van is, however, correct.
 * 2) Tízen vannak. with long í (despite the fact í is pronounced short here).

Adam78 02:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Where do you think I could insert the section about expressing time? Do you simply mean the case of negyed hét (6:15), fél hét (6:30) and háromnegyed hét (6:45)?
 * 2) I think it could be included that the 3rd person plural possessive relation is only marked once, either on the possessor, or the possession: az ő (!) asztaluk "their table" but a gyerekek asztala (!) "the children's table".
 * 3) Do you think vocabulary issues could be inserted into this article, or into Hungarian language?
 * 4) *For example that in Hungarian there exist separate words for younger brother, elder brother, younger sister and elder sister (öcs, báty, húg, nővér), as well as for brother and for sibling/s (fivér, testvér) (there used to be one for sister as well, néne, but it's been replaced by the one for elder sister).
 * 5) *Beside, separate words exist for father, grandfather (up to this point, it's obvious), great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather and great-great-great-grandfather (apa, nagyapa, dédapa, ükapa, szépapa).
 * 6) *A third interesting point may be the difference between piros and vörös (both "red" in English), where the first usually refers to lighter red, inanimate, joyful and/or neutral things, and the second to darker red, animate, serious and/or emotionally involved things (approximately). Since these attributes don't overlap in every case, their usage is not entirely regular but these tendencies exist.

Adam78 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Gailtb 10:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I think I've improved the stuff on genitive but there's more room for improvement. To explain my changes: I removed the comment about English because it wasn't accurate - with forms like "the number of books", the "of" which marks genitive is on the possessed noun. I also removed the comment that Hungarian does not mark the possessor because the possessive suffix (-a/-e/-ja/-je) is obligatory. I think I would question whether a genitive case exists at all in Hungarian - I would rather say that there are constructions which express possession.
 * 2) I'm not quite clear what you're trying to say above about the possessives. Have I covered it in what I wrote or not?
 * 3) According to my textbook, -at/-et is used for stems of one syllable (eg hoz). Does that seem right to you?
 * 4) Tízen vannak. is really a suprise. Do you also use the nominative stem for Húszon vannak. even though the oblique stems are used for tizenegy, huszonegy etc?
 * 5) We need a new section on "Expressing time". I guess that could come after adjectives/adverbs since time is often adverbial. Within that is "Telling the time" and "Duration structures" - the Hungarian equivalent of English "for" is pretty complicated! I have it on my to-do list. I'd like telling the time to include 5 and 10 past the hour which is what I found really difficult.
 * 6) I think the vocab points should be on the language article in the vocab section since they aren't really to do with grammar. The stuff about red is particularly important - I seem to recall that Hungarian is unique in having 2 basic words for red. (I'll try and check that and get a reference later.)


 * 1) It's OK, thank you.
 * 2) I tried to clarify the section about Possessive suffixes; please have a look on it.
 * 3) Not exactly, but my corrections weren't entirely right, either. I revised this section, incorporating both factors.
 * 4) Tízen vannak need, in fact, not be such a surprise, since the superessive case regularly uses the nominative (regular) stem with vowel-shortening bases, as opposed to other stem types (eg kenyér, kenyeret but kenyéren, levél, levelet but levélen etc). I clarified this part as well in the article.
 * 5) *"Húszan vannak" is the correct form (because it has the -a- base like ház), formed from the nominative stem indeed. The exceptions may be tizenegy, huszonegy and the others, to my mind.
 * 6) I'd appreciate if you started the time section because you can structure information better and you see the problem points better than I do.
 * 7) Do you have an idea how the vocab things could be inserted into the Hungarian language page (and its "Lexicon" section) so that they don't look too haphazard?

Adam78 20:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Gailtb 23:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Can the possessive forms be used without the definite article, ie are the following correct?
 * 2) *Lakása szép.
 * 3) *Ő lakása szép.
 * 4) Thanks for the clarification on the parents' flat. I didn't know that! I think the info belongs in the next section on "Possessive construction with 2 nouns", though.
 * 5) I've started writing some info about time expressions which I'll publish in a week or 2. Do you want me to write about telling the time too? If so, you'll have to tell me how to say the time in the following:
 * 6) *It's 8.05 now.
 * 7) *I met him at 8.05 yesterday.
 * 8) *I'll meet you at 8.05 tomorrow.
 * 9) I guess you could add a sub-section on "Noteworthy lexical items" or something like that within the vocab section.
 * 10) Berlin, B and Kay, P (1969) Basic Color Terms, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press compared colour terms in almost 100 languages. Among these Hungarian was unique in having 2 basic colour words for red, so you can at least claim that this is something unusual. (They are basic in the sense that you cannot say piros is a kind of vörös or vörös is a kind of piros. In English, scarlet is a kind of red, therefore not a basic colour word.)


 * 1) Without the personal pronouns, yes, but it sounds somewhat poetic, literary; it's stylistically marked. (Although there is a recent tendency in colloquial speech that people omit the leading definite article (source in Hungarian), which may sometimes overlap with the above rule. But it only applies to the beginning position, and otherwise the lack of the article will be noticeable.)
 * 2) *With the personal pronouns, no, it's not possible (unless as an obsolete variant eg in church songs).
 * 3) I'm glad I could give you some novelty. :-) I'll move it to its place.
 * 4) I'd be grateful if you wrote about time expressions, because I don't know what difficulties it implies for non-native speakers. – The three example sentences in Hungarian are the following:
 * 5) *Öt perccel múlt nyolc. OR Nyolc óra öt perc [van].
 * 6) *Tegnap nyolc óra ötkor (OR nyolc után öt perccel) találkoztam vele.
 * 7) *Holnap nyolc óra ötkor (OR nyolc után öt perccel) találkozunk.
 * OK, thanks!
 * 1) Thank you that you've looked it up.

Adam78 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think the sample word levél could be removed from the "Oblique noun stem" section? I don't think it adds anything to the topic, since it has the same stem as hét. Adam78 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, levél is redundant now.

If you're writing about family relationships, you might want to look first at Family and the category "Kinship and descent". I've no idea whether the claims of uniqueness made for Serbian are true. Gailtb 04:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. – Could you please explain the part in the article about features of Hungarian similar to the tripartite system? It's rather unclear for me. Adam78 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Time etc

 * 1) I had a go at writing about time but it needs lots of checking and expansion. Also, how would you say these:
 * 2) *"I didn't sleep for 36 hours."
 * 3) *"I didn't go home for 2 years."
 * 4) Is it true that you can use ő to refer to a thing or do you always use az? Eg "I've lost my bag. It's red."
 * 5) I think the table of common stems would be better if you leave out the possessive suffixes on nál and allat. They're the same morpheme as the possessive suffix on nouns so I think they make the evidence for what you're saying unbalanced. And I think you could include the indefinite conjugation too, because in the plural it's evidence of the same thing (and the singular shows that this rule doesn't apply across the board).
 * 6) Oh dear! If you don't understand what I was trying to say about tripartite systems, then I don't suppose anyone else will. Please rewrite it! A tripartite system is one where there is a 3-way distinction between the subject of an intransitive verb, the subject of a transitive verb and the object. As we know, Hungarian uses the Ø and -t morphemes to mark the noun as being subject or object. However, on the verb, it marks 2 different kinds of subject (eg with -k or -m). There is then overall a 3-way distinction. It must be noted that the 2 kinds of subject are marked on the verb but not on the noun itself. (And of course that the 2 kinds of subject are not exactly the same as in a tripartite system because of the treatment of the subject of an indefinite object.)
 * 7) I've got something wrong on the plural possessive suffixes. Do these have variants with -j too? If so, where? Gailtb 20:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm very glad that you started this section – thank you! I didn't have any ideas what are to be clarified. To your questions:
 * 2) *36 órán át nem aludtam. But Másfél napig or másfél napon át nem aludtam. – so the "-n át" variant is sometimes interchangeable with the -ig variant.
 * 3) *Két évig nem mentem haza.
 * 4) It's a good question: in unsuffixed forms, you can't use ő for things, only az. (In your example, "I've lost my bag. It's red.", we don't use any pronouns: Elvesztettem a táskám. Piros.) – However, its suffixed forms (which have little morphological resemblance, eg nála, benne, rajta, tőle, hozzá) are widely and commonly used for things as well, if they are not stressed/emphasized, eg Tud róla. ("He knows about it.") Az is used (with or without suffixes) if the pronoun is stressed, cf. it vs. that in English. For example Arról tud, hogy itthon maradsz, de arról nem, hogy a barátaidat is elhívod. ("He knows about the fact that you stay at home but not that you invite your friends too.")
 * 5) Of course they are the same morphemes on the stems – all are basically the same morphemes. What I meant to show in the table was that the same suffixes can be added to a wide variety of words, so the question is whether the -nál and alatt types are distinct enough from nouns, and I think they are so they should be left (or at least one of them). On the other hand, I have nothing against inserting the indefinite conjugation; it's good to show the exceptions as well.
 * OK, thanks – I thought it was some hidden trace of ergativity; I didn't suppose it was only about the indefinite/definite conjugation. I'll try to include its explanation.
 * 1) Actually, I'm afraid the term "plural possessive suffixes" is ambiguous: it can mean (1) the "their table" or asztaluk type or (2) the "his tables" or asztalai type. (The "their tables" or asztalaik type is formed from the latter, so it doesn't need separate discussion.) I'll answer both, because they are slightly different and they may need some description in the article too. (I'll only speak about words whose singular possessive forms are with -j, because those without -j never take -j in either kind of the plural.)
 * 2) The "their table" type: Where the singular form has -j, the plurals are traditionally without -j, but currently there is a strong tendency towards using -j. For example: padja: paduk or (more recently) padjuk, filmje: filmük or filmjük etc. In most cases, they are practically interchangeable, but the variants without -j sound somewhat more conservative. Using the -j in the plural is also better because some of the words (maybe 20-30%) sound strange or even wrong without the -j in all styles, eg forint: forintjuk, bolt: boltjuk, pár: párjuk, papír: papírjuk, only with -j. Nevertheless, counter-examples sometimes occur. To put it short, -j may be a good thumb-rule.
 * 3) The "his tables" type: Usually wherever the singular possessive has -j, the plural will have -j too: padja: padjai, filmje: filmjei, boltja: boltjai, kalapja: kalapjai etc. For some words, the plurals without -j are slightly more common (despite the -j in the singular): krémje: krémei. Their "classic" forms are without -j and the moderns are with it, but considerable individual variance exists; the tendency is towards using -j again. Finally, there is a small and rather exceptional group which can only be without -j in the plural: barátja: barátai (in fact, I haven't found any more examples). This latter type may be the only one which really needs attention of the language learners (beyond the singular possessive type of the word).

-- Adam78 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"a" link vowel

 * I'm a bit confused about what you've written. Are you saying that házon is correct rather than házan?
 * Even so, I think it's clearer just to say that these words are an exception rather than listing the a suffixes as one of the options. They are definitely exceptions. And if you do list them, you need to do it across the board - noun plural suffixes, possessive suffixes, numeric suffixes, ... everything with that link vowel (except -n?) Gailtb 10:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely; házon is correct, házan is not.
 * I don't agree, because in that case I don't know how users/readers could find out which suffixes have a variant with -a- and which suffixes don't. (I don't think they need to be mentioned at so many places.) They form a separate group, that's true, but the -a feature of this group is not reflected in every suffix (as you were misled, too, by the non-existent *-an variant). That's how these variants are taught by teachers of Hungarian as a foreign language.
 * One is supposed to differentiate between the superessive suffix -n/-on/-en/-ön and the "Modal-essive #1" suffix -an/-en, like szomorúan, "sadly", which doesn't mean "on the sad one", szomorún. Another example: vidáman means "cheerfully" but vidámon means "on the cheerful one".
 * It's also important since this -a link vowel appears after other suffixes in normal back-vowel words: asztalokat, asztalomat, asztalaimat, so these must be differentiated from the irregular házat type.
 * Besides, this latter type includes very basic words like most body parts (mouth, tooth, chin, brain, hair, neck, back, finger, stomach, liver, leg/foot, sole) and everyday objects (bed, pen/feather, butter, wall, fish, iron, gold, house, castle), furthermore, all the back-type vowel-dropping and vowel-shortening words like nyár > nyarat and ajak > ajkat, so the student should be made really aware of their existence all through the grammar.

Adam78 19:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had a first go at writing up my understanding of all this, but of course it'll need your native eyes to sort out my examples. If you think that the a option should be added when all the suffixes appear, please go ahead and add it.

I also wondered a bit more about the oblique stems - do you say dologotok or dolgotok?

Then I got very confused about the use or not of oblique stems with numbers - are the following correct?

Furthermore, your point about the a vowel with asztalomat etc is something that we haven't covered. Please could you write something about that too - in what situations is it used? /Does it just apply to the accusative suffix? Gailtb 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

PS Should the section on the infinitive also be changed from "possessive" to "personal" suffix? Gailtb 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Thank you for your additions. Even if they are not correct in some places, they mean an invaluable help for the overall improvement of the article.
 * 2) *All right, I'll try to add the a stem wherever needed.
 * 3) dolgotok is used.
 * 4) I've corrected the chart (it's terribly complicated indeed, I admit).
 * 5) *Pronunciation differs from the written forms in the words marked with asterisks: their first vowel is pronounced short.
 * 6) The rule about -at/-et in normal words is that only these two accusative forms can be used in relative stems, that is, after plural or possessive suffixes (rather than directly on the stem). For example: görög|öt but görög|ök|et and görög|öd|et, barát|ot but barát|ok|at and barát|ai|tok|at. This really should be included in the article.
 * 7) *I think it only applies to the accusative suffix. Let's try the superessive: görögön and also görögökön and görögödön, baráton and also barátokon and barátodon. Or let's try the allative case: göröghöz and also görögökhöz and görögödhöz, baráthoz and also barátokhoz and barátodhoz. So ö and o are seemingly retained after all the other suffixes, and aren't changed to e and a, respectively.
 * Yes, I'll do it soon; thanks for reminding me.

PS. Do you think a collection of exceptional words in various aspects should be helpful? I've been thinking about adding such a list to the Wikisource and linking it to the article, but I'm not sure it is worth.

Adam78 00:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Gailtb 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I hope we haven't been editing at cross-purposes this evening! It was a misunderstanding about the oblique stem with possessive endings - I didn't realise it applied across the board.
 * 2) Some of what I added about morphology may be more suited to the phonology page. I may move it in the future.
 * 3) I've never noticed before that the possessive suffixes are actually slightly different from the personal suffixes! And I think I may therefore have been wrong in my suggestion about the suffixed infinitives. You use o as a link vowel, eg dolgoznom /dolgoznod kell, don't you? So I guess you use ö for löknöm? Sorry!
 * 4) I wanted a number which would illustrate the a link vowel without vowel-shortening or vowel-dropping so it wouldn't cause confusion by illustrating other changes at the same time (in the same way as ház only has the a link vowel). I hope I've chosen correctly this time!!
 * 5) I'm wondering whether to add the fractions and ordinals to the chart of suffixes which use the oblique stem. These seem to be the only suffixes which have any kind of regular pattern with numbers, but not sure whether maybe numbers should just be ignored as "very irregular"!
 * 6) I've also wondered about the "suffix" which you've called "Modal-essive case" #1. It seems strange that anyone would even call an ending on an adjective a case (as in the example rövid). I wondered if it was really referring to -an/-en as used on quantity expressions.
 * 7) Just to check about the use of a/e link vowel for complex stems, would you say lakásomastul or lakásomostul?
 * 8) Another check - do you say az ő lakása for the emphatic form "your flat" if you're talking to maga?
 * 9) I think it would be a lot of effort to add a list of all the words which are slightly exceptional in some way or other. Not very sure that it would really be worth the effort.


 * OK, it's all right.
 * 1) Well, I think it closely belongs to morphology, too, so I think we should think over what to move to the phonology page. For example, I'm not sure that phonological changes which depend on morphology should be moved.
 * Yes, dolgoznom and löknöm are correct. – By the way, this again shows why the information about the two types of personal suffixes should be kept and clarified in this article, unambiguously stating which type is used for which functions. I don't mind if it's done in a different way than the chart I made (and you disliked) but somewhere it should to be described.
 * Yes, your updated example (nyolc) is correct.
 * 1) Maybe these could be described in the Numbers section, and a reference could be made there in the Oblique noun stem section.
 * 2) It's strange indeed, but maybe it's better to clarify it, at least in a brief footnote. – I don't actually know if the suffix of röviden and négyen are really the same; the fact is that they have the same endings. I think we don't have to state in the article that the latter is the same suffix as the former. I've found this suffix in a comprehensive Hungarian grammar (Magyar grammatika, ISBN 963-19-1686-3, p. 201) and these functions are treated together (its functions are given as adverb of manner, degree, status and numerical status – the examples are, among other ones, lassan megy ["go slowly"], mérsékelten kellemes ["moderately pleasant"], vidáman beszél ["speak happily"], tízen mentek el ["ten of them left"] respectively for the four functions). Actually, it's not uncommon for Hungarian suffixes to have meanings quite unrelated to each other, so we can treat them together, too.
 * 3) If I really wanted to say it, I'd say lakásomostul, but in fact, this suffix is not used along with any other suffixes. -Onként, -képp(en), -Onta, -kor, -An, -lAg, -szOr aren't used with other suffixes, either. (In Hungarian grammars, sometimes capital letters are used to express vowels of different quantity, like I used it now.)
 * 4) I'd say a maga lakása, az ön lakása. I hope I've managed to clarify it in the chart since your question.
 * 5) It's not a matter of effort, because I already have several word lists, and I think they should be shared with the public – also to see how frequent a certain exception is. For example, I didn't know there were as many as fifty towns in Hungary that use -bAn until I made a list of them and checked it. I think others may make use of these lists, or just to have an impression of how widespread certain features are. (Another example is the -a- stem where I argued with the importance of the specific words in this group.) I think it should be written on a separate page which can be referred to.

Adam78 14:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Gailtb 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea of öten etc as adverbs is interesting - I'd assumed they were noun forms but that is because of transferral from my mother tongue. They are adverbs if they can't take the noun stems, eg ötenben, ötennel. I've never heard those forms, but need your knowledge to confirm.
 * Also, please could you add a grammar book or two to the references - they seem to be being more strict about verifiable sources.


 * Öten vagyunk could be more faitfully translated like "we're of/in five" or something like this (maybe it can be compared to the English expressions "a palace of a house", "hard of heart", "a person of high rank" etc), which may explain the classification of these words as adverbs.
 * Indeed, the forms you mention don't exist, so these words are adverbs.
 * I've added some more reference.

Adam78 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, one can become very confused about Hungarian linking vowels, but maybe it is easier to understand with the following. Hope this can help :) --Sicboy 00:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Phonology: vowel harmony requires a suffix to have the following vowels in its allomorphs: a ~ e, o ~ e (ë dial.) ~ ö, ó ~ ő, u ~ ü (,...). The important ones here are a ~ e, and o ~ e ~ ö.
 * Suffixes: there are three types of suffixes according to their linking vowel (exceptions exist, as always):
 * Analytic: no linking vowel, no vowel shortening in stem. E.g -ban/-ben inessive, -hat/-het potential. These behave as if they were individual words: however complex the end of the stem is, it must not have a linking vowel, parkban 'in a park', görlhöz 'to a girl', etc. Verbs can have gaps here, if the sequence of consonants is totally agrammatic: *csuklhat 'he can hiccup', *hámljon '?'.
 * Quasi-analytic: only verb suffixes, they are like analytic, but can have a linking vowel if stem ends in two consonants, or -ít. (e.g. -nak/-nek PresPl3, festenek 'they are painting', etc.)
 * Synthetic: usually consist of one consonant, and almost always require a linking vowel, and these suffixes can trigger vowel shortening in stem, or syncope (e.g. -k Plur: madár:madarak 'bird', bokor:bokrok 'bush')
 * Stems: here is the main point: every stem selects which linking vowel to use before a synthetic suffix. All verbs select o ~ e ~ ö, and the majority of nouns does this as well. However, a number of (usually older) nouns, and most adjectives select a ~ e as linking vowel, and these are called opening stems (???, nyitótövek), because they have an open l.v. instead of the default mid one. Vowel shortening stems are usually (always?) opening stems: madár, bogár 'bug', etc. Suffixes, that can be suffixed further, like the plural, or possessive markers, are usually opening: asztalokat 'tables Acc', etc.
 * The plural suffix -k is almost perfect to test if a noun (adjective) is opening. Back words have -ok if not opening; -ak if opening. Front words with ö or ü in last syllable have -ök if not opening, -ek if opening. Front words with i,é,e in last syllable have always -ek in the standard, however their accusative can decide:
 * The accusative suffix is -t. It behaves like the plural, however, if the stem is not opening, and ends in a coronal continuant (?) (s,sz,z,zs,l,j/ly,r,n,ny), there is no linking vowel: e.g. ((SgNom:SgAcc:PlNom)) gáz : gázt : gázok 'gas' (not opening), however ház : házat : házak 'house' (opening). This feature can differentiate among front unrounded stems: méz : mézet 'honey' is opening, whereas géz : gézt 'gauze' is not.
 * The superessive is, to surprise, has a strange mixture of analytical and synthetic features. It is analytic, that is, it does not trigger vowel shortening (madáron), and its form is -on/-en/-ön/-n, which the linking vowel being the part of the suffix, and not the l.v. triggered by the stem, that's why madáron, házon, etc. Its synthetic feature is, however, that it triggers syncope: bokor ~ bokron.
 * There is a similar suffix, the -n adverbial suffix of adjectives (szép 'nice' : szépen 'nicely') and numerals (öt 'five' : öten 'five of them (?)'), which is very easily confused with the superessive. This suffix is synthetic, as it triggers the default l.v. of the stem: piros : pirosak (Pl) : pirosan 'red'; nagy: nagyok : nagyon 'big'

Suffix typology
Of course you'll be able to check examples in a way that I can't, but I don't think it's true that the only difference for personal suffixes is in the back vowel. I'll try and explain. Some suffixes use a/e and some use o/e/ö. Therefore to check which sort it is, we have to examine a regular back-vowel word and a front rounded word. As far as I know, suffixes cannot exist which have a/e/ö or which have o/e (without ö) (except 2nd plural sometimes!). So the use or non-use of ö as a link vowel is very significant in distinguishing between possessive and personal suffixes (fölöttem not fölöttöm). It's also important in distinguishing between -an/-en/-n and -on/-en/-ön/-n, eg öten /ötön. Gailtb 23:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal and possessive suffixes
I'm very sorry about this, but I'm not very happy with what we've now got about personal suffixes. I think it was clearer before. The current comparison chart is really stating much more general information. Some of this information, about which harmonic vowels parallel each other, is now given under Morphology. It applies to adjective suffixes as well as verbs and nouns. The rest of the information, about the consonants, is given under Typical sound elements for personal endings. Please can we revert? (Very sorry!) Gailtb 07:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind if we revert, supposing we can provide all the information given in this chart somewhere (anywhere) in the article. I think this chart does contain some info which is not yet discussed elsewhere. These two types seem to be useful (so as to avoid mixing up o and a as link vowels and to avoid the wrong use of ö), and I wouldn't like to refer to Type II as the "possessive type of suffix" when it has nothing to do with the possessive (eg as an infinitive suffix). The list of the various suffix types at the beginning of the article is good, but it doesn't help readers find out which to choose for the individual noun or verb suffixes. Do you have any idea where this information could be inserted? Adam78 12:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Page size
Sorry, I don't have any time to work on this for a few months, but I hope to come back to it eventually. I guess the starting point for cutting the page down would be to move "Noun phrases" and "Verbs" to separate pages and then see how the sizes look. Article size suggests that up to 50KB may be ok. Gailtb 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

#Suffix typology
Hello, I wanted to ask, what the difference between the 4th and 5th type of suffixes in that list shall be. It is not true that the Plural ending is always -ak, -ek, -k; there's the -ok (eg. családok) and the -ök variant (eg. rendőrök). Why did you present that in two groups and not in one? --Strommops ð 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
It would be helpful to provide some translations of individual words. For example, in the "Emphasis" section, János, tegnap, elvitt, két, könyvet, Péternek are mentioned, and while I can figure some of them out, some of them I cannot since I do not speak the language. I have a general interest in languages, and I can't fully understand what is being conveyed in the table without the individual words being mentioned (perhaps in a note above the table). It would make the subject more understandable to someone who does not know Hungarian.162.40.51.85 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction
An extreme example is the longest Hungarian word 'megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért' (means 'due to your continuous pretending to be indesecratable'. This word contains mass of inflexions, prefix, suffix, etc. The core of the word is 'szent', meaning "saint.")

I beg to differ here: just because Hungarian is an agglutinative language, this word should not be declared the longest. It is a non-sensical word itself, but just for the sake of argument I can give you a longer variant by adding one more possessive suffix: 'megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekének' which would then translate into something like 'to that of your continuous pretending to be indesecratable'. Nobody knows which is the longest meaningful Hungarian word, these two are surely imaginary ones.--Hhgygy (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungarian grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928153213/http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/250 to http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/250
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928153159/http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/253 to http://www.klett.hu/termekcsalad/253

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)