Dhanak~enwiki (talk | contribs) About "have" in Hungarian |
m →About "have" in Hungarian: Even Marácz admits that the lack of "have" is common in Finnish and Hungarian |
||
Line 479: | Line 479: | ||
--[[User:Dhanak|Dhanak]] 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
--[[User:Dhanak|Dhanak]] 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
||
:AF, even Marácz admits that the lack of "have" is common in Finnish and Hungarian: |
|||
::''Both languages express possession with the use of copulative verb instead of the “habeo” structure. [...] The lack of genitive and a possessive structure in Finnish is mutual in the Magyar and in Finnish languages...'' |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Check your facts|Check your facts]], [[Wikipedia:Quote your sources|Quote sources]]. |
|||
:[[User:Nyenyec|Nyenyec]] 17:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:05, 3 December 2004
POV changes from "Antifinnougric" user
The anonymous editor calling himself Antifinnougric from IP 217.235.204.95, also the author of the Antifinnougric article (marked for deletion) has made changes to include his criticism in the following edits: [1]
- Now anonymous or named? Can't you decide?
He has made or tried to make changes to pages to the Finno-Ugric languages page, to the German version of the same article [2], the Hungarian version of the article hu:Uráli nyelvcsalád and some other pages.
He claims that:
- Hungarian has no grammatical cases at all.
- Estonian has no vowel harmony.
The first is simply not true, please refer to Hungarian language, List of grammatical cases.
- Thank you for calling my attention for that. Hungarian has no grammatical cases at all. This is true. Hungarian expresses relation with endings, and does not maintain cases. Foreign analysts use to create artificial cases for their understanding, Hungarian itself never. The same is true for Sumerian. Antifinnugor 19:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Others of his often used claims are of questionable scientific authority (e.g. AFAIK south Estonian used to have vowel harmony in some dialects [3]) and so far he failed to quote any scientific publications that would support his claims.
Please also refer to Talk:Finno-Ugric languages
- we are speaking here about present languages, therefore it is absolutely true, that present time Estonian does not have wovel harmony. Anything other would be wrong information for the reader of the encyclopedy.
I'm no linguist but I'd like to see his changes reviewed by someone with a background in the subject.
Thanks, Nyenyec 17:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Even if you are not a linguist, you state on your home page, you are Hungarian, and in this case you should have learned HUngarian grammar. You should not need a linguist for such a trivial thing. A shame for you. Antifinnugor 15:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As was repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on Talk:Finno-Ugric languages, the claims of 217.235.204.95 (now registered as User:Antifinnugor) are for a large part simply wrong, and in any case not backed up by any reliable sources.
- this is simply hostility, Mr Nyenyec, you showed against me many times on many pages, and no argument of any kind. Antifinnugor 19:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As such, they must be considered original research at present. I will pull them out of the article for now. — mark ✎ 16:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We must provide true facts to the encyclopedia reader. The cases in Hungarian and the Estonian vowel harmony are simply wrong information. Antifinnugor 19:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cases in Hungarian
To preserve the credibility of the information contained on the Uralic language page, as well as the entire Wikipedia encyclopedia, it should be suggested that individuals only enter information on subjects that they know something about.
More specifically, if one is going to edit information regarding the Hungarian language it would be advised that they not only speak it, but also have a clear understanding of the grammar, rules, and language in general.
The individual in question wrote, “Hungarian has no grammatical cases at all.” The complete lack of any knowledge regarding the Hungarian language is blatantly obvious in this comment. If Hungarian does not have cases (esetek), as this author writes, I would truly like to know how a person speaking Hungarian is able to describe locations or states of being.
The question of whether or not there exists such a thing as the Finno-Ugric language subfamily is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Nor are the similarities between the languages within the group. However, it is obviously clear that Hungarian does have all four of the characteristics (that were previously listed). Hungarian (1) is undoubtably an agglutinating language, (2) there is no question whatsoever that there is vowel harmony, (3) it obviously has no grammatical gender, and (4) grammatical cases are the only way that Hungarians are able to convey locations, states of being, etc. in their language.
The author concludes that since English does not have grammatical gender, the lack of grammatical gender in Uralic languages cannot be a characteristic of the family. There is absolutely no logic in that conclusion!****** That is just like saying “Blueberries lack the color orange. Therefore the lack of orange color in apples cannot be a characteristic common to all apples.” WHAT?! By the way, presence of or lack of grammatical gender does not imply relationship. Look at English and German. They are related, but English has no gender, and German has three genders.
There will always be opposing viewpoints on the origins of language, and how they are related to one another. This author is completely entitled to hold his or her own belief on the existence (or lack of) of the Finno-Ugric language group. The relationships between different languages can vary for many different reasons, which is part of the reason why languages are so difficult to classify.
However, making completely false comments about a language leads visitors of Wikipedia to learn inaccurate information, and then share this false information with others. From many sources they hear that Hungarian probably has the most cases of any language (absolutely true). Then they hear the COMPLETE opposite on Wikipedia that Hungarian has no grammatical cases (absolutely false).
The point is that Hungarian clearly has grammatical cases. Take the word“lake” for example. In Hungarian, the word “lake” is tó. The only way to describe the lake in relation to other things or vice-versa is to alter the noun. In English, prepositions are added. These are separate words that come before the noun to indicate the state of the noun. To describe something relating to the lake, you would add a few words before the word “lake”. However, in Hungarian the word changes.
- English: (in [the] lake), Hungarian (tóban)
- English: (into [the] lake), Hungarian (tóba)
- English: (by [the] lake), Hungarian (tónál)
- English: (about [the] lake), Hungarian (tóról)
- English: (on [the] lake), Hungarian (tavon)
Also note that when the case changes the noun, vowel harmony is present (common throughout the language). (in the lake = tóban) while (in the garden = kertben)
Answer me this: What does the author call these, if they aren’t cases? Possibly, he might call them “agglutinated inflected postpositions.” Then again, that’s what a case is. Rather than adding SEPARATE words to describe the state of a noun like in English, cases change the noun in some way or another. Whether it is the addition of an agglutinated suffix like tóban, or a complete change in the spelling of the noun like tavon. If “in the lake” was written “tó ban”, it could be argued that, yes, Hungarian doesn’t have cases, but the mere fact that it is one word proves that Hungarian does use grammatical cases. Furthermore, this is shown without even a shred of doubt in the situations like tavon where the entire word changes.
An example of a more common case in other languages is the accusative case.“Ball” in English is “labda” in Hungarian. When an action is being done to the ball (I kicked the ball), the word “ball” stays the same again. However, in Hungarian it would become (megrugtam a labdát). The word labda actually changed to labdát. In Hungarian, “a” is considered a separate letter from “á” which furthers the point that the word undergoes a change.
An even better example of complete word alteration is the famous Hungarian wine “Bull’s Blood of Eger”. In English, even though the wine is definitely from somewhere, the city name Eger remains the the same. In Hungarian, “Bull’s Blood of Eger” is “Egri Bikavér”, even though Eger is the name of the city in Hungarian. When a Hungarian says the name of the city, they say “Eger”, but when they describe something that is from Eger, they would say “Egri …
I have just given indisputable proof of the existence of the grammatical case in the Hungarian language. I would like for the author of the aforementioned statement to somehow prove that Hungarian does not use cases.
Furthermore, I learned Hungarian as a native language, so the information I gave is not an assumption or a theory. It is fact.
I have found a website that explains the cases in Hungarian, Finnish, and English. http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/nouncase.htm It shows the entire declension of a noun in each language if the case exists in that language. Interestingly, for the examples in Finnish and Estonian, the declension of the noun usually results in the agglutination of a suffix to the word. I am not saying this is a case in all, or even most of the language, but all three languages (including Hungarian) haves declension (otherwise known as cases).
Final note: I hold nothing against the author as a person and I do not imply any aggression towards him by writing this. However, I hope in the future that he takes the time to learn about something before altering its Wikipedia page, and that he does not assume that “point of view” = fact.
Sincerely, a Hungarian speaker
Hungarian grammar never speaks about cases in Hungarian. Cases are used by foreign linguists for they own understanding, like. e.g. Collinder. Cases are not part of Hungarian Grammar. Read any Hungarian grammar book, it will enlighten you. Antifinnugor 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Are you saying "this terminology is wrong" or "what you are describing doesn't actually exist?". Whether a language has cases is independent of the terminology some people choose to use to describe that language. You don't cite these grammars, of course, and I expect the next time I consult a Hungarian grammar it will describe Hungarian's rich case system, no doubt using the word "esetek" the way you describe legal cases in Hungary too. Your argument seems to be "the truth of whether Hungarian has cases depends on who is making that claim", which is false. Mk270 10:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am saying both."this terminology is wrong" or "what you are describing doesn't actually exist". Hungarian never used and does not use this terminology. We understand, what cases mean, but we do not use them. Collinder created for his own joy cases for Hungarian, you can look at them, but they would not help you at all, if you want to learn Hungarian, the opposite- they would make your life unnecessarily hard, and give you nothing for that disadvantage. Antifinnugor 20:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antifinnugor may not agree that Hungarian has cases, but the English Wikipedia states otherwise. I quickly found other Hungarian sources (if you don't believe "foreign analysts") in Hungarian:
- Hungarian Wikipedia article listing and describing about cases ("esetek") in Hungarian: hu:Esetek a magyar nyelvben
THis cleraly shows at the end, that cases are only for alien linguists. Antifinnugor 06:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This references the grammar book: HungaroLingua Gyakorlati magyar nyelvtan; Új magyar nyelvtan (Which I didn't check, but it should have a description of cases, too).
Surely not. Antifinnugor 20:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Also, cases in Hungarian are mentioned in the Pallas Encyclopedia written at the end of the 19th century. (look for keyword "Eset").
As I told you, we must understand, what cases are, if we learn foreign languages. That's why Pallas takes the time and place, and explains them for the Hungarian reader. 20:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Quoting from the cited Pallas article Eset:
- A magyarban s a rokon nyelvekben nincs külön vocativus, de van e helyett sok más, szorosabb értelmü eset
- which translates roughly to: "Hungarian and related languages have no vocativus, but instead of that they have numerous other, more strictly used cases" – this sentence clearly states, that Hungarian has cases. It follows that your claim that the article describes cases only to let Hungarians understand this notion in foreign languages is clearly wrong. Please stop saying that Hungarian has no cases. You may call them as you like (endings, agglutination, whatever), but that doesn't change the fact of their existence in Hungarian. --Dhanak 21:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you use the term in a different way, but cases (esetek) are present in Hungarian and the literature (not only foreign analysts) describes them as such. Nyenyec 21:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- yes, the word is present in Hungarian, since we must understand foreign languages, nobody denies that. The point is, that Hungarian grammar does not use cases at all. Antifinnugor 20:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The links I mentioned above seem to contradict this. There is an ongoing discussion about this in Hungarian language, maybe this could be clarified there first. Again, I'm not a linguist but I do speak Hungarian and the Hungarian sources I mentioned talk about cases in the Hungarian language. Nyenyec 22:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, they do not contradict. Hungarian grammar speaks about endings, "indoeuropean" grammar speaks about cases. Cases are not part of the Hungarian grammar. Antifinnugor 09:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Copied from above:
- this is simply hostility, Mr Nyenyec, you showed against me many times on many pages, and no argument of any kind. Antifinnugor 19:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I try not to be hostile and I don't revert or change your edits in the English or German WP as I promised before. But you have a very unique view of the world about linguistics, and sometimes claim things which in my opinion are simply not correct,
- if in your opinion any of them is not correct, please argue, and explain , why Antifinnugor 09:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
or at least contradict other articles in the Wikipedia or other works on the subject.
- As you know, the Earth is a tray, and the Sun is moving around. :-) Antifinnugor 09:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In these cases I'd like to see that someone with the proper background verifies or corrects your statements.
Peace, Nyenyec 21:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you speak Hungarian, why don't you take and read the simplest Hungarian grammar book for Hungarians? Antifinnugor 09:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
List of cases in Hungarian
Quick translation from the Hungarian page: hu:Esetek a magyar nyelvben. It references the books Gyakorlati magyar nyelvtan (Practical Hungarian Grammar) and Új magyar nyelvtan (New Hungarian Grammar). I can't check the books personally, since I'm not in Hungary right now, although it would save a lot of time.
- nominativus: tó lake
- accusativus: tavat lake (accusative)
- dativus: tónak to (the) lake
- instrumentalis-comitativus: tóval with (the) lake
- causalis-finalis: tóért for (the) lake
- translativus(-factivus): tóvá into (a) lake (as in "change into a lake")
- inessivus: tóban in (the) lake
- superessivus: tavon on (the) lake
- adessivus: tónál at (the) lake
- illativus: tóba into (the) lake
- sublativus: tóra onto (the) lake
- allativus: tóhoz to (the) lake
- elativus: tóból from within the lake
- delativus: tóról from on top of the lake
- ablativus: tótól away from the lake
- terminativus: tóig up to the lake (As in "we go up to the point where the lake is but no further")
- essivus-formalis: tóként (as a lake) (As in "we treat it as a lake")
- essivus-modalis: tóul (like a lake) (As in "it behaves like a lake")
Further cases:
- genitivus: tónak (a …je) – same as dativus
- distributivus: tavanként for each lake
- distributivus-temporalis: naponta every day (nap = day)
- formalis: emberképpen as a man (ember = man)
- sociativus: ruhástul with clothes on (ruha = cloth)
- locativus: Pécsett in Pécs (Pécs is a city)
- temporalis: órakor at ... o'clock (óra = hour)
- (modalis-essivus: világosan, hárman, sokan) – clearly (világos = clear), three (as in "three of us came", three = három), many (as in "many of us came", sok = many)
- (multiplicativus: ötször) – five times (öt = five)
Hope this helps. Nyenyec 21:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
reverting
Someone from the
Vanderbilt University Address: ITS Address: 143 Hill Center Address: PD Box 34 City: Nashville
Very likely Mr. David Hanak. Simply reverted the page without arguing. Please don't behave like that. The information in the features needs refinement to be correct. Thanks, Antifinnugor 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I do not deny that I reverted the article, nor did I wish to conceal my identity. My reasons were manyfold. First, the removed content contained very much debated claims (such as Hungarian has no cases – so far only Antifinnugor has this claim), and its style and formulation did not match the requirements of Wikipedia. Two, it was him/her who repeatedly put these claims back in the article, although the debate here had been far from finished and he had not (yet) succeeded in convincing the editors that this content should be there. I will, however, refrain from repeating it, because I wouldn't like to start an(other) edit war. --David Hanak
The whole section Antifinnougor added ranges from false ("There is no common basic vocabulary in these languages") to utterly irrelevant ("Palatalization is also present in English or Russian"). It has no place here. - Mustafaa 21:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Mustafaa: since there is NO COMMON VOCABULARY, this must be said.
If you think, there is one, please enumerate the common words in the whole group. Palatalization is in the typology, please read it again, thanks --af
Typology problems
My problems with Antifinnugor's latest additions (Antifinnugor's addititons in italics, my comments right below):
- a lack of grammatical gender
- Like English
- It is irrelevant whether English has or doesn't have grammatical gender. It is still a common feature of this language group.
- Like English
- no separate possessive pronouns
- Hungarian has separate possessive pronouns (enyém, tied, ...)
- The word enyém means mine, tiéd is yours. IIUC, however, posessive pronouns are my, your, etc., which truly don't exist in Hungarian, we use the regular pronoun and agglutinate the object of posession instead. (I don't know about the other languages in the group, would someone enlighten me?)
- Hungarian has separate possessive pronouns (enyém, tied, ...)
Therefore I suggest these additions to be removed.
--Dhanak 22:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We say in Hungarian: Az en kabatom, not simply kabatom, therefore en is a separate possesive pronom in this case. It has double role.
Antifinnugor 20:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- However, „en” is not a separate posessive pronoun, since it is the regular pronoun used also for other purposes. Maybe the problem is that the word „separate” is ambiguous here, whether it means a pronoun standing by itself, separated from other words, or a dedicated pronoun for expressing posession. In the former sense, Hungarian does have separate posessive pronouns, in the latter sense, it does not. --Dhanak 21:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We also say az en kabatom, if we emphasize, that it is OUR coat. Antifinnugor 06:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Besides that this is also common in all agglutinating languages: no separate possesive pronom, since the noun itselv shows the possesion. No need for that. Antifinnugor 06:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- An addition: you say az én kabátom only when you want to emphasize that the coat (kabát) belongs to me, as opposed to someone else. On the other hand, when the purpose of the sentence is to state something about the coat itself, we only say a kabátom piszkos (my coat is dirty), without any separate pronouns. --Dhanak 21:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that's correct. Antifinnugor 06:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Antifinnugor's deletions
Honestly, I find it simply outrageous that Antifinnugor, while s/he calls it unacceptable when someone removes one or two debated sentences and rephrases others added by him/her, deletes an entire section of the page without discussing it here and coming to an agreement with other editors first. He also added an external link to Dr. Marácz's article a second time, so now it appears twice on the page. I cannot accept this kind of behavior, and the only reasons I'm not reverting this modification immediately are that (1) I want to avoid edit wars at all cost, and no doubt s/he would put the changes back soon enough, (2) I'm desperately trying to avoid accusations of deletionism. --Dhanak 21:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You, who simply deleted anonymously, from ther Vanderbilt University my page without argumentation, have, of course the right to cry like that. Antifinnugor 06:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- See below the reason. Antifinnugor 06:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reasons of my previous (and so far only) revert are readable above, in the section titled reverting, but for the sake of clarity, I repeat them here, unmodified. (At that time, I was still unregistered.) --Dhanak 16:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I do not deny that I reverted the article, nor did I wish to conceal my identity. My reasons were manyfold. First, the removed content contained very much debated claims (such as Hungarian has no cases – so far only Antifinnugor has this claim), and its style and formulation did not match the requirements of Wikipedia. Two, it was him/her who repeatedly put these claims back in the article, although the debate here had been far from finished and he had not (yet) succeeded in convincing the editors that this content should be there. I will, however, refrain from repeating it, because I wouldn't like to start an(other) edit war. --David Hanak
Let me also point out, that the current version of the article contains debate-like sentences, which obviously should not be there. Again, I do not remove them lest Antifinnugor accuse me of deleting parts of „his page” (which of course he has no right whatsoever to claim ownership of). --Dhanak 16:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
typology
- extensive use of independent suffixes, a.k.a. agglutination
OK, Also there in all agglutinating languages
- a large set of grammatical cases (13 - 14 cases on average)
Not true for Hungarian
- unique Uralic case system, which the case system of all modern Uralic languages are derived from
o nominative singular has no case suffix (a feature also found in languages such as German) o three-way distinction in the local case system
NOT True for Hungarian
Modern makes no sense. Modern means not keeping traditions? All features not present in Hungarian
- vowel harmony (recently lost in standard Estonian, but exists in dialects. Also exists in Turkish)
- a lack of grammatical gender (a feature found in many languages around the world, including English)
- negative verb, which exists in all Uralic languages, e.g. Nganasan, Enets, Nenets, Kamassian, Komi, Meadow Mari, North Sami (and other Samic languages), Finnish, Estonian, Karelian, etc. (Some innovative languages have lost personal suffixes, e.g. Hungarian.)
Not in Hungarian Word innovative wrong
- palatalization (a widespread feature worldwide, notably common in the neighboring Slavic languages)
Irrelevant
- basic vocabulary, including body parts (e.g. eye, heart, head, foot, mouth), family members (e.g. father, mother-in-law), animals (e.g. viper, partridge, fish), nature objects (e.g. tree, stone, nest, water), basic verbs (e.g. live, fall, run, suck, go, die, swim, know), basic pronouns (e.g. who, what, we, you, I), numerals (e.g. two, five)
Very few common words, also these not common in all languages
- possessive suffixes
In all agglutinating languages
- no separate possessive pronouns
In all agglutinating languages
- dual, which exists e.g. in Samoyedic, Ob Ugrian and Samic languages, although not in Hungarian.
- plural markers -j (i) and -t have the same origin (e.g. in Finnish, Estonian, Erzya, Samic languages, Samoyedic languages). Hungarian, however, has -i and -k. In the old orthographies, the plural marker -k was also used in the Samic languages.
Different suffixes, no common feature
- no verb "have"
Not true for Hungarian
Therefore this list is full of not common features and confusing. The only really common feature is still agglutination, that is common in all agglutinating languages, like Turlish, Persian, Armenuan, Sumerian, Basque, Etruscian, etc... Antifinnugor 06:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Typology debate
I think the root of the problem is that Antifinnugor tries to attack the theory about the uralic languages so desperately that he gets even more radical than the linguists he quotes (and also makes a lot of mistakes in the attempt).
Even Marácz does not deny these common characteristics.
- Neither do I. I doubt,(and lot of others), that this artificial, mini group exists. Ther are agglutinating languages, and these little group has nothing special, Do you understand now? Antifinnugor 09:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What he claims is that, although they exist, they don't serve as evidence for the grouping of Hungarian with Finnish and Estonian.
- I claim, that only agglutination is the common feature. Besides of that Hungarian has so different dictionary to Finnish, that they are in fact very far, however they are relatives, but not in this artificial context. Do you understand?. Antifinnugor
Here's what I suggest. Leave the list of common characteristics as it is accepted by the majority of linguists. The views and criticism of Marácz and Marcantonio could be listed separately as an alternative/minority viewpoint, either here or on a separate page.
Antifinnugor, please, if you claim something like Hungarian not having any cases,
- This is in every Hungarian grammar book. You speak Hungarian, dont you? Why not read one finally? Antifinnugor 09:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hungarian using a possessive pronoun,
- Every other agglutinating language uses possessing suffixes, Turkish, etc. Understood? Antifinnugor 09:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
etc, please, please, please cite your sources. Please be specific, name your references and even better, quote them here. This would save time for everyone, including you. I checked the article by Marácz and he claims no such things.
I think it's also useful to read the Verifiablity page:
- Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.
Thanks, Nyenyec 18:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Possessive pronouns
I noticed above an argument about whether Hungarian has possessive pronouns. To quote:
- User:Antifinnugor says "Hungarian has separate possessive pronouns (enyém, tied, ...)"
- Dhanak responds "The word enyém means mine, tiéd is yours. [If I recall correctly], however, posessive pronouns are my, your, etc., which truly don't exist in Hungarian, we use the regular pronoun and agglutinate the object of posession instead. (I don't know about the other languages in the group, would someone enlighten me?)
Well, according to the article on possessive pronouns, mine and yours are independent possessive pronouns, while my and your are determinative possessive pronouns.
Question: in the Typology section of the article, is it correct to say that Uralic languages have no possessive pronouns of either type? Or do you mean simply that Uralic languages don't have independent possessive pronouns?
Dbenbenn 22:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (who doesn't know anything about linguistics, and is just passing through)
- Dbenbenn, thanks for the clarification. Naturally I withdraw my objection. --Dhanak 23:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the word "separate" in front of the term "possessive pronoun". In the Uralic languages, possession is expressed with the genitive of the personal pronouns. This means there are no separate possessive pronouns like in German (nom. mein, acc. meinen, dat. meinem, gen. meines) or Russian (nom. мой, gen. моего, acc. мой/моего, dat. моему, instr. моим, prep. моём). If there are possessive pronouns in Hungarian, please tell me which they are and how they are declined. --Hippophaë 11:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstand something, since I'm not a linguist. But in Hungarian the (for the lack of a better word) possessive pronoun enyém (mine) is declined. Thus nom. enyém, acc. enyémet, dat. enyémnek, gen. enyémé, etc. However, enyém, tiéd (yours), etc. are independent possessive pronouns, unlike mein in german. Hungarian lacks determinative possessive pronouns, as discussed above, we say az én kutyám (the I dog-my) or simply a kutyám (the dog-my). Hippophaë, what do you think? --Dhanak 20:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In Hungarian there are only independent possessive pronouns like "mine, yours" etc., and in the book A Practical Hungarian Grammar (ISBN 9634720374) they are simply called possessive pronouns (p. 90). They are used in the predicate, just like in English. To express possession Hungarian basically uses possessive suffixes (p. 71-72): ház house, házam my house; Pista háza Steve's house. Note that they always occur at the end of the possessed noun (not at the possessor, like in most other languages). These three phrases can all be declined, just like "with/to/from etc. my/Steve's house". There are no determinative possessive pronouns like "my, your" etc. in Hungarian. The possessor can, however, be emphasized in two ways: (1) if it's a personal pronoun like "I, you" etc., with the normal personal pronouns, (2) if it's any noun like "Steve, table" etc., with adding the dative suffix to it. So "my house" can be translated either as házam, or as az én házam (én is "I", in the nominative, az is "the"). "Steve's house" can be either Pista háza with Pista in the nominative again, or Pistának a háza with Pista in the dative case (a is "the" again). The suffixes marked in bold are in themselves enough to mark the relationship of possession. – Ask me if there is anything else unclear. --Adam78 22:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hippo, please stop your terror
Hippo, please do not delete: - Mr. Maracz link - Finnish-Hungarian ground word list - The text of the critic. It is short, but true.
What you do is blind terror. Are you really that primitive, and without arguing, you just eliminate others work;
ín is not vein in Hungarian.ín is leader/sinew/tendon in English, but not vein. Please stop including erroneous words. Or correct the English word and the others also. Your list is simply wrong.
Please argue, your deleting terrorism is senseless. Obvoiusly you will continue this forever- let's see, who has more patience, the terrorist hippo, or the rest of the world.
The finish Hungarian word list is not specific finish words with this or that origin, but fundamental words, that are contained in every language. Please do not delete them, they illustrate both languages elementar, original words.
Antifinnugor 11:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Has Godwin's Law ever been updated to refer to terrorism yet? If not, it should be. - Mustafaa 20:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Antifinnugor, I appreciate your cooperation, but please do not write on subjects which you are not familiar with.
- Hippo, you think, you are god, and you can decide, who is familiar with what subject and who is not?
If you have questions or want to discuss the topic, use the talk page instead of adding comments and questions in the article.
- Hippo, yes, please do that.
You should also notice that the reader of an encyclopaedia is not interested in the personal opinions of the authors. --Hippophaë 20:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hippo The user is especially not interested in your god-like cockyness, but is interested in real facts. Your wrong typology and even worse erroneous word lists just propagate your lack of knowledge of the subject. Sorry to say that, but someone must tell you the truth.
- Hippo, please stop your terror and primitive rowdyness. 20:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-i for plural in Hungarian
First I corrected the page where it said Hungarian, however has -i and -k to denote plural, by removing the -i. Then (thanks to Nyenyec for pointing it out) I realized that -i is indeed used for plural, more specifically as the plural form of the possessive declination. I.e., kutyája = his dog, kutyái = his dogs, even though it is at the end of the word only in third person, i.e., kutyám = my dog, kutyáim = my dogs, etc. Sorry for the confusion. --Dhanak 22:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hippo, do you shame Finnish language?
Hippo, whenever I put the list of some simple ground words onto the page, you delete. Do sou shame the Finnish language, your mother tongue? By parroting about my "incompetence" and other personal insults again me you only reveal your simple mindedness and ill behaviour. Antifinnugor 15:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here some of the ground words in Finnish and Hungarian.
English | Finnish | Hungarian | English | Finnish | Hungarian |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
father | isa | apa, atya | mother | äiti | anya |
brother | veli | fivér | sister | sisar,sairaanhoituja | nõvér |
leg | jalka, jalan | láb | fire | tuli | tûz |
earth | maa, multa | föld | forest | metsikkö, metsä | erdõ |
lake | järvi, meri | tó | sea | meri | tenger |
way | tie, ajotie | út | path | kuja, polku | ösvény |
god | jumala | isten | luck | onni | szerencse |
border | raja | határ | grass | ruoho | tenger |
family | perhe | család | child | lapsi | gyerek |
tooth | hammas | fog | nose | nemä | orr |
language | puhekykky, kieli | nyelv | milk | maito | tej |
About "have" in Hungarian
AFU repeatedly claims that Hungarian has a word for "have". For those not speaking Hungarian, I'd like to clarify things a bit. To some extent, he is right. Hungarian does have a word bír, as in nem bír jelentőséggel (bears no significance) but its use in this sense (bír "primarily" means can, is able to) is very-very limited. A Hungarian native speaker would never say something like *Pista kutyával bír to say Steve has a dog. In fact, right now I can't think of any other meaningful use of bír than the previous example. One can also say rendelkezik (to have control over, to possess) as in nagy vagyonnal rendelkezik for has control over a great wealth, but it is a formal expression, saying Pista kutyával rendelkezik sounds pretty awkward (just like its English equivalent: Steve possesses a dog). I'm sure (would someone confirm?) that Hungarian is not alone in this, and Finnish, too, has similar words to express possession in such rare cases.
To sum up, Hungarian has no real equivalent of "have", which could be used nearly as often and with as much ease as in English.
--Dhanak 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- AF, even Marácz admits that the lack of "have" is common in Finnish and Hungarian:
- Both languages express possession with the use of copulative verb instead of the “habeo” structure. [...] The lack of genitive and a possessive structure in Finnish is mutual in the Magyar and in Finnish languages...
- Check your facts, Quote sources.
- Nyenyec 17:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)