# 2nd-p. o.	büntetlek



## angeloegabri

Good day to everyone 
Can anyone please explain to me what "2nd-p. o.	büntetlek" means?
What does that "o." mean?
This now is for the verb büntetni, but it occurs for every Hungarian verb, so I think that that 2nd-person must have a particular use in Hungarian.
Thank you very much in advance


----------



## numerator

Second-person object.
"I am punishing *you*."


----------



## Panceltic

As mentioned above, it’s a special 2nd-person object form. Hungarian has a separate form (-lak/-lek) where the subject is 1st person and the object is 2nd person.

szeretni = to love

szeretek = I love ...

szeret*lek* = I love you

elfelejt = to forget

elfelejtettem = I forgot ...

elfelejtette*lek* = I forgot you

etc.


----------



## angeloegabri

Oh thank you very much, numerator  and Panceltic  now the mistery is solved for me!
(And I was completely wrong!  I thought it were a special  verb-2nd person plural ending!)
So, instead, "lak/lek" is a suffix!  It has nothing to do with what I thought!  It's a suffix!
(And I guess "o." means "object", or something like so.)
Thank you both very, very much


----------



## Panceltic

I wouldn’t say it’s a suffix, it _is_ an ending (the -k signifies 1st person after all).


----------



## angeloegabri

You are right, Panceltic, it's an ending, not a suffix 
Thank you very much 
Have a good day!


----------



## angeloegabri

And now  -  numerator  and Panceltic   -  I have a supplementary question 
Is that "2nd-p. o." used also for a "plural you"?
I mean:  let's suppose that three friends of mine are staying behind a thick hedge, I could hear their voices but I couldn't see them because of the hedge;  would that phrase be  -  more or less   -  "Hallak [your voices] de nem látlak [you three] mert a vastag sövény"?


----------



## Zsanna

Yes, it would be hallak téged (I can hear _you_ - the person I'm talking to) or hallak titeket (same in English but the _you_ is in the plural). The "l" indicates the second person (Sing. or Pl.) being the object of the action.
It is only for the second person/s that we have this "trick" in the conjugation.


----------



## AndrasBP

Zsanna said:


> it would be hallak téged (I can hear _you_ - the person I'm talking to) or hallak titeket (same in English but the _you_ is in the plural).


Yes, but while "téged" can be omitted, you do need "titeket" to express "I can hear/see you (*plural*)".


----------



## Zsanna

I used the personal pronouns to make it clear that the verb forms are the same in the Sing. as well as in the Pl.
Without any context, and in general, I would think it is safer to use the personal pronouns in either case.
On the other hand, in angeloegabri's example (no.7), even if the objects are in the plural, it is not necessary to insert the "titeket" (because of the context), wouldn't you agree?


----------



## AndrasBP

Zsanna said:


> On the other hand, in angeloegabri's example (no.7), even if the objects are in the plural, it is not necessary to insert the "titeket" (because of the context), wouldn't you agree?


No, sorry, I disagree.
Regardless of the context, "titeket" is necessary if the object is plural.


----------



## angeloegabri

Thanks, Zsanna and AndrasBP!
Your messages are unbelievably useful for me.
Thank you


----------



## francisgranada

AndrasBP said:


> Regardless of the context, "titeket" is necessary if the object is plural.


I agree in general, but I can imagine a colloquial dialog like this:
- Látsz minket?
- Igen, látlak.


----------



## AndrasBP

francisgranada said:


> - Látsz minket?
> - Igen, látlak.


No, I don't think that works in my Budapest dialect.


----------



## Zsanna

AndrasBP: this is really strange.  (And I cannot find any justification for it linguistically, either.)


----------



## AndrasBP

Zsanna said:


> AndrasBP: this is really strange.


I agree it's strange that we disagree. 

However, I've found that Szilvia Szita, author of books for learners of Hungarian, agrees with me. 



Zsanna said:


> (And I cannot find any justification for it linguistically, either.)


I'm not sure what kind of "justification" you have in mind. 
Hungarian grammar is full of weird stuff we have no justification for.


----------

