# látom magamat vagy látom engemet



## vesteralen27

látom magamat vagy látom engemet.

I have a doubt with these sentences, Wich one is correct and why, or both are correct? 

For exemple, I can interpretate: "látom magamat a tükörön" like "I see myself in the mirror". And a little difference is the interpretation of: "látom engemet a  tükörön" like "I see me in the mirror".

I hope someone can help me. Saludos.


----------



## NagyKiss

Again I'm not the one to give you answers, but I can suggest a correction or two.
"engemet" is not correct because "engem" is already an accusative form of "én", so you do not need to add "-et" to "engem".
And I think that the first version is the correct one - "látom magamat a tükörön".


----------



## P&B

The correct version is: "Látom magam(at) a tükör*ben*." "magam" is a reflexive pronoun in Hungarian (=myself). The subjective form is "magam", the objective form is "magamat", which can be shortened to "magam" - this is why both can be used in the above sentence. As spoken language generally tends to be short, the shorter form (in my view) is more often used.
I can only confirm what NagyKiss wrote above:
"engem" is the objective form of "én" and thus incorrect here. "She can see *me* in the mirror. = Ő lát *engem* a tükörben." is a correct sentence. The form "engemet" does not exist, only in rare dialects (it would sound uneducated, as it is a "double-accusative": the objective  form of an objective form).


----------



## francisgranada

vesteralen27 said:


> ... "látom magamat a tükörön" ...


"Tükrön" could be used as well, but in the sense of _on the mirror_, for example if my face were painted on the surface of the mirror for some reason. In case of the reflected image "tükörben" is the correct form (as stated by P&B).

P.S. In Spanish, in the 1st a 2nd person the personal pronouns are used in function of the reflexive pronoun, unlike in Hungarian. But in the 3rd person the difference is evident both in Spanish and Hungarian:
látja magát a tükörben - se ve en el espejo
látja őt a tükörben - lo/la ve en el espejo


----------



## vesteralen27

Hi, I am reading a book, and in the book comes "magamat" and "engemet", and also "tégedet", so, thanks for the aclaration of this point.


----------



## Zsanna

P&B said:


> The form "engemet" does not exist, only in rare dialects (it would sound uneducated, as it is a "double-accusative": the objective  form of an objective form).


I am sorry, even though I can see why you think so, I cannot agree (see any handbook of grammar or just my quotation in this thread in post no.5):
a) "engemet" exists (OK maybe not used nowadays in normal everyday speech in most of Hungary, still, it is not an incorrect form in itself)
b) it is not a "double accusative" (the same way as you explained about "magam" in your post no.3)
c) I wouldn't say it sounds uneducated either, although it is not "elegant"


----------



## francisgranada

Zsanna said:


> ... c) I wouldn't say it sounds uneducated either, although it is not "elegant" ...


Szia, Zsanna. I agree, however, I also have sometimes the impression of a certain uneducatedness and I think I can explain why. Many people whom I noticed to use "engemet" use also forms like "tégedet", "őtet" (=őt), "mink" (=mi), "tik" (=ti), "eztet", "aztat" etc. It's surely not a "rule", but I have this experience in East Slovakia, so eventhough the form "engemet" is not _a priori _erroneous, I think in certain contexts/situations today it may sound so.

To be fair, these forms may appear in dialects and older texts without having any negative or "uneducated" aspect, of course.


----------



## Akitlosz

Én látom magamat a tükörben. = I see myself in the mirror.
Te látsz engemet a tükörben. = You see me in the mirror.

Én látlak tégedet a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror.
Te látod magadat a tükörben. = You see yourself in the mirror.


----------



## Akitlosz

Engemet is correct. Totally correct. You're wrong.

It's never a mistake to use the sign of the object in the Hungarian language. Engem and engemet are both correct. You may make a choice freely.


----------



## gorilla

Remember that we are writing to foreigners here and they don't know much about the topic. Let's not mislead them. The "engemet" and "tégedet" forms do have certain negative connotations in the heads of some people. The present-day standard and elegant (media) language that you hear in the news and read in newspapers only use "engem" and "téged".

"Engemet" and "tégedet" are of course still correct, but I'd suggest foreigners to learn "engem" and "téged" as the primary forms.


----------



## Akitlosz

Engemet and tégedet are stronger, but longer, engem and téged are shorter, but weaker.

It's simple.

*The choice is yours and FREE!*


----------



## franknagy

Hi,
Let me add my examples about the omitted default presonal pronouns.

[QUOTE Akitlost]Én látom magamat a tükörben. = I see myself in the mirror.
Te látsz engemet a tükörben. = You see me in the mirror.

Én látlak tégedet a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror.
Te látod magadat a tükörben. = You see yourself in the mirror.[/QUOTE]

The "téged(et)" is superflous because the *-lak,lek suffix means the subject=I and the object=you, so the addition of personal prounouns in 1) unnecessary 2) change the meaning of the sentence.*

The correct phrase is simply:
Látlak a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let me explain with the common dialog among happy lovers:
- Szeretsz? = Do you love me?
- Szeretlek. = I love you.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you add any personal pronoun the dialog expresses that the asking person is
(a) disappointed
(b) in doubt
(c) jealous.

Example of case (a):
- Szeretsz te [egyáltalán]? 
- [Hát persze, hogy] szeretlek tégek.

Example of case (b):
- Szeretsz te engem?
- Igen, szeretlek téged.

Example of case(c): 
- Engem szeretsz? 
- Csak téged szeretlek. 

Regards 
   Frank


----------



## bibax

My Hungarian textbook lists:

engem(et)
téged(et)
őt
minket or bennünket
titeket or benneteket
őket

However there is no example with engemet/tégedet in the texbook. On the other side the forms bennünket and benneteket are used. Reportedly they have lesser stress (despite the fact they are longer).


----------



## olaszinho

bibax said:


> My Hungarian textbook lists:
> 
> engem(et)
> téged(et)
> őt
> minket or bennünket
> titeket or benneteket
> őket
> 
> However there is no example with engemet/tégedet in the texbook. On the other side the forms bennünket and benneteket are used. Reportedly they have lesser stress (despite the fact they are longer).



The same occurs in my Hungarian texbook, but probably the grammar for foreigners is a bit simplified or more standard. I liked Franknagy's explanation, particularly this example: "The correct phrase is simply: Látlak a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror." Anyway, I'd like to know other native speakers' opinion in this regard.


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Olaszinho.

Other examples:

- Kit látsz (a tükörben) ?
- Téged látlak (a tükörben).  "It is you whom I can see (in the mirror)"

- Látsz engem  (a tükörben) ? 
- Látlak téged (a tükörben).  "I do/can see you (in the mirror)". 
_Téged _is not necessarilly important here, but this may be a more "exact" answer to the question. Something like "E _tu_ mi vedi?" "Sì,_ io_ ti vedo" in Italian (the pronoun "io" is not necessary here)                                

- Most nem értlek téged. "Now I don't understand you" 
For example, because _you/your behaviour ... _seem to be different from what _you/it... _used to be. So "you (_téged_)" is somehow emphasized or mentioned explicitely. 

I think that it is not incorrect to use "téged" in any case, but it may be superfluous and/or, according to the word order, the meaning can be slightly different.

(Parliamo delle sfumature, ma a volte importanti dal punto di vista della comprensione precisa/buona traduzione, ecc ...) 

P.S. As to _engem _versus _engemet_, I have already expressed may personal viewpoint (post #7). However, I don't think that _engemet/tégedet_ are _a priori_ erroneous, of course.


----------



## NagyKiss

francisgranada said:


> - Látlag téged (a tükörben).  "I do/can see you (in the mirror)".



Ez van az elírás - "látlag"?
Is this a typo?


----------



## francisgranada

NagyKiss said:


> Ez van az elírás - "látlag"?
> Is this a typo?


Persze !... Спасибо  (I have corrected it).


----------



## NagyKiss

Nincs baj és köszönöm a javítást


----------



## francisgranada

Szívesen . Amúgy az oroszban is kihagynánk a _lenni  _(_быть_) igét ebben az esetben, úgyhogy nem is olyan nehéz ez a magyar nyelv  ...


----------



## Zsanna

Frank, you are right and still not quite. This is where Hungarian can get really complicated...


franknagy said:


> ...[QUOTE Akitlost]...Én látlak tégedet a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror.
> Te látod magadat a tükörben. = You see yourself in the mirror.





franknagy said:


> The "téged(et)" is superflous because the *-lak,lek suffix means the subject=I and the object=you, so the addition of personal prounouns in 1) unnecessary 2) change the meaning of the sentence. -> No, 1. it is not necessarily superfluous. (I would still prefer téged as tégedet sounds a bit "countryside"-ish but even if it is, it is not wrong grammatically and in the right context it may even be the best form to choose.) I have to admit that I find it difficult to explain why. If we exclude the case when it is accentuated (an easy to understand situation), even then it can have its place in the sentence even though you were right in that the verb conjugation expresses already a 2nd pers. Sing. (or Plural) object .
> 2. I wouldn't say either that inserting téged changes the meaning of the sentence.
> What is the difference between these sentences (in a neutral tone)? (Because there has to be something...)
> *Látlak a tükörben.
> Látlak téged a tükörben.
> *I think it is simply in the words: the second is more detailed than the first. It is more usual in written language and may sound a bit "elevated" in an oral form. But the difference is still slight and more visible in a context (the way the whole text is written or the way the speaker communicates in general or in the given situation).*
> 
> The correct phrase is simply:
> Látlak a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror.*->I wouldn't say that this is the only correct possibility. But it certainly sounds better to my ears (exactly because it's simpler) - in a neutral context - than the one above. But it may be only because in a written form you don't think immediately of all the possibilities, circumstances a sentence can express/be used in.*


----------



## franknagy

Hello Zsanna,


Zsanna said:


> *No, 1. it is not necessarily superfluous. (I would still prefer téged as tégedet  sounds a bit "countryside"-ish but even if it is, it is not wrong  grammatically and in the right context it may even be the best form to  choose.) I have to admit that I find it difficult to explain why. If we  exclude the case when it is accentuated (an easy to understand  situation), even then it can have its place in the sentence even though  you were right in that the verb conjugation expresses already a 2nd  pers. Sing. (or Plural) object .
> 2. I wouldn't say either that inserting téged changes the meaning of the sentence.
> What is the difference between these sentences (in a neutral tone)? (Because there has to be something...)
> *Látlak a tükörben.
> Látlak téged a tükörben.
> *I think it is simply in the words: the second is more detailed than  the first. It is more usual in written language and may sound a bit  "elevated" in an oral form. But the difference is still slight and more  visible in a context (the way the whole text is written or the way the  speaker communicates in general or in the given situation).*
> 
> The correct phrase is simply:
> Látlak a tükörben. = I see you in the mirror.*->I wouldn't say that this is the only  correct possibility. But it certainly sounds better to my ears (exactly  because it's simpler) - in a neutral context - than the one above. But  it may be only because in a written form you don't think immediately of  all the possibilities, circumstances a sentence can express/be used in.*



Let me separate the "téged/tégedet" question from the "is it superflous" question.
1. "téged/tégedet" 
The +et in tégedet and engemet is an analogy of other Accusative personal pronouns.
I don't mean these +et syllables such and error like "ezt+et", "azt+at", "őt+et" because eve poets use them to get correct number of syllables or rhymes.

2. The "is it superflous" question is more complicated.

There are cases when we have to express whether the object is "you alone"  or "both/all of you".
In these case the "téged" or "titeket" is absolutely necessary.

Let me analyze your example:
Látlak a tükörben.
Látlak téged a tükörben.

The second has the place in an short story of a beginner writer who is paid by the number of the words.

I have an example when the emphasized personal pronouns cannot be omitted.  
Let us suppose that there are two twin sisters Amália and Beáta an I am not sure which one have seen in the mirror.

I am asking Amália: 
- Téged láttalak a tükörben meztelenül? = Have I seen you naked in the mirror?
She is answering:
- A bal vagy a jobb mellbimbómban volt a piercing? = Was the piercing in my left or right nipple?
I am responding:
- A balban. = In the left one.
Amália:
- Akkor nem engem láttál, hanem Beátát. = So you have seen not me but Beáta.

Watch the word order: 1. Téged 2. láttalak, 1. nem 2. engem 3. láttál !!!
There is a strict rule in the Hungarian language that the most important part of the sentence, the new information precedes the predicate.

Greetings
    Frank


----------



## Zsanna

There is no disagreement between us about what you wrote above. 

The point is that I put the accent on another thing. (It may not have come out clearly from the long explanation that I tried to formulate with precision.)

To sum it up: "téged/et" is not necessarily superfluous (in the given example) even if there is no accent on it or it doesn't make the difference between the 2nd persons in the Sing./Plural. My attempt of explanation for it: see my previous post. (Some correcting or adding to it are welcome!)


----------



## Akitlosz

No. I do not agree with you.
  My sentences are correct *too*.

The usage of the personal pronouns is *never* a mistake in the Hungarian  language. Not obliging, but not prohibited. The personal pronouns makes the  message *always* stronger.


----------

