# Purpose of '-nek' in a few expressions



## Lazar_Bgd

Dear all,

I am puzzled by the '-nek' suffix in the following example from the Akadémiai Kiadó dictionary:

Sok pénzének kell lennie = he must have a lot of money.

Why the -nek suffix on 'pénz'? Wouldn't it be all right to say 'Sok pénze kell lennie'?

Also, what is the purpose of '-nek' in the following example that I found in an online 'magyarkönyv':

'Hosszú téli estének majd nézegetni fogjuk Lillával a filmet meg a képeket, ...'

Should this be just taken as an idiom?

Thank you!


----------



## AndrasBP

Dragi Lazare,

All I can say is that the verb 'kell' works with the suffix '-nak/-nek', whether the subject is a personal pronoun (1) or any other noun (2):

1)
*Nekem *ma dolgoznom *kell*. = I have to work today.
*Neked kell *ez a könyv? = Do you need this book?
Miért *kell nekünk *ennyit fizetni? = Why do we have to pay so much?

2)
Péter*nek* ma dolgoznia *kell*. = Peter has to work today.
A lányod*nak* *kell *ez a könyv? = Does your daughter need this book?
Miért *kell *a turisták*nak* ennyit fizetni? = Why do tourists have to pay so much?

Also, when the subject is not a person:

Sok idő*nek* *kell *még eltelnie ahhoz, hogy ezt elfelejtsük. = A lot of time needs to pass in order for us to forget this.

The suffix '-nak/-nek' is also necessary when 'kell' is used with an adjective:

Erős*nek* *kell *lenned. = You have to be strong.
Péter*nek* erős*nek* kell lennie. = Peter has to be strong. (both the subject and the adjective takes -nak/-nek!)



Lazar_Bgd said:


> Wouldn't it be all right to say 'Sok pénze kell lennie'?


No, that is not correct. The subject of this sentence is not 'he' as in the English translation 'he must have a lot of money', but 'pénze' (= his money).
'His money must be a lot' is closer to the original Hungarian structure.


Lazar_Bgd said:


> 'Hosszú téli estének majd nézegetni fogjuk Lillával a filmet meg a képeket, ...'


That is probably a typo. It should be 'hosszú téli esté*ken*' (= 'on long winter evenings')


----------



## Lazar_Bgd

Kedves András,

Nagyon szépen köszönöm!



AndrasBP said:


> Also, when the subject is not a person:
> 
> Sok idő*nek* *kell *még eltelnie ahhoz, hogy ezt elfelejtsük. = A lot of time needs to pass in order for us to forget this.



I knew about the cases you mention under (1) & (2) but this is news to me, so thanks a lot for elucidating! 

So, if we included the name of a person into this sentence from the dictionary, it would be: _Péternek sok pénzének kell lennie._ Just as a matter of interest: If 'pénz' is the subject in this sentence, what is 'Péter'? Indirect object...?



AndrasBP said:


> That is probably a typo. It should be 'hosszú téli esté*ken*' (= 'on long winter evenings')



Yeah, you're right. This book is fully of typos (but then again it's in public domaine). Thank you!


----------



## AndrasBP

Lazar_Bgd said:


> _Péternek sok pénzének kell lennie._


This sentence may be grammatically correct, but it sounds clumsy. We seem to avoid structures where there are two nouns with '-nak/-nek'.
You can avoid them by saying: 'Péternek sok pénze kell, hogy legyen.' *(kell, hogy + subjunctive/imperative)*. 



Lazar_Bgd said:


> If 'pénz' is the subject in this sentence, what is 'Péter'? Indirect object...?


Erm... yes, most probably...


----------



## Lazar_Bgd

Excellent, this is now a complete mini-course on how to use (or not) '-nak/-nek' in combination with 'kell' and 'lenni'.

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Zsanna

Just a little thought about the role of _Péter_nek in the sentence: I would rather think it is some sort of a complement of the subject (_pénze_) because Péter (= owner) and pénz (= propriety) are connected by this possessive relationship. (Meanwhile there is no object in the sentence, there cannot be any with the verb "to be".  )

It is interesting to see that the suffix _-nek_ (= dative suffix indicating the owner) after Péter in the sentence (coming from the expression "to have"= vki*nek* van vmije) coincides with the same suffix (only formally, because it is not in the same meaning at all) used in _vmi*nek* kell lennie_ (more or less = there must be something) and the first is probably more "important" than the second when both words (Péter and pénz) appear in the sentence.


----------

