Template talk:hu-conj
-lak/-lek[edit]
Shouldn't the -lak/-lek suffixed forms be in the Indefinite row? I know it is "definite" in sense, but in Hungarian grammar verbs with personal objects are conjugated in indefinite form:
- Ő lát téged <- the lát form is in the indefinite row.
- Én látlak téged <- the látlak form is in the definite row.
Opinions? Qorilla 19:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Carol Rounds, Hungarian: An Essential Grammar, page 25: "There is one more personal form in all moods and tenses we shall include here in the definite conjugations (though not because the object is inherently definite). A unique verb conjugational form (-lak/-lek) exists for verbs when the subject is én and direct object is a second person pronoun (téged, titeket, benneteket). With any subject other than én, however, second person objects occur with indefinite conjugations." --Panda10 22:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on authors. I don't know which is the more frequent way. If we include it in the definite then we introduce a single exception to the rule that téged goes with indefinite.
- Pete István: nyelvtudomány műhelyéből: 2) A -lak/-lek-es ragozást végül is azért soroltam az alanyi ragozáshoz, mert az 1. és 2. személyő személyes névmással kifejezett tárgy használata nem E/1. személyő alany esetén csak az alanyi ragozás keretében lehetséges: Erika szeret engem (téged, minket, titeket, benneteket is) – Te szeretsz engem (minket, bennünket). A „határozott ragozás” műszó azért sem szerencsés, mert a határozott, határozatlan és általános alanyú mondatok ismeretében azt is feltételezhetnénk, hogy ez esetleg az alany határozottságára utal. Qorilla 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on authors. I don't know which is the more frequent way. If we include it in the definite then we introduce a single exception to the rule that téged goes with indefinite.
- Another link: Magyar igeragozó --Panda10 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Even the linguists are divided: [1] További megoldatlan problémát jelent az 1. személyű igén 2. személyű tárgy esetén megjelenő -lak/lek rag, mely nem illik sem a tárgyas, sem a tárgyatlan paradigmába; esetlegességnek tűnik a grammatika rendszerében. (Tompa (1961) és Rácz (1961) a tárgyas paradigma részének tekinti. Keszler (2000) felfogásában az általános (azaz az alanyi) paradigmába tartozik.)
More derived forms; auxiliary tenses really needed?[edit]
I have two suggestions. We have cetrain non-verb derived forms in the table already: infinitive and participles. In conjugation tables I usually see two more derivations which are universal and productive for all verbs: the potential (-hat/-het) and the “gerund” (-ás/-és). I think we should also list these. And of course if we find other such universal derivations, those too.
The other one: Are the "volna" and "fog" forms truly needed? I think the conjugation table is quite big and hard to look at (nehezen áttekinthető) and these versions just take up space but give no additional information, it is just repetition. I think if someone looks at the table, they'd like to find conjugated forms which give information, and will be able to construct the "volna" and "fog" forms with about zero effort from that. Qorilla 12:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Adding the -hat/-het form would be fine. Removing the volna/fog rows is also fine. But I would not add the -ás/-és forms. I don't feel they belong here. --Panda10 20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)