# Poetic dropping of "t"s and "a"s



## Nghi2

Szervusz!
I've noticed that in some poetry - for example, in  Péterfy Bori's "Téged nem" - situations where it would appear that 'akit' would be required use simply 'aki'. 

Téged nem:
"Szeretem azt a nőt
Aki melletted lettem

Similarly, in the "Nemzeti dal", there are places where 'aki' seems to be required, but only 'ki' is used.

A nemzeti dal:
"Kárhozottak ősapáink
Kik szabadon éltek-haltak
...
Sehonnai bitang ember
Ki most, ha kell, halni nem mér"

Is poetry granted special... lenience to maintain poetic flow, or is there something I'm missing?

Köszönöm szépen a segítséget!


----------



## francisgranada

I think there is no dropping of the object marker: 

 "Szeretem azt a nőt, (*én*)* aki* melletted lettem"



> Is poetry granted special... lenience to maintain poetic flow ...


You are right. In the past this was normal also in the common speach. If you realize that the word _aki_ is composed of "a" and "ki", it is quite understandable that "ki" could be used also without the article "a/az". In older texts this "aki" is often written separately: _a' ki.
_


----------



## Zsanna

I don't know P.B.'s poem but even if in those quoted lines there is no missing direct object suffix (= t), the title may be an example and it would be a fairly good one, too. It is exactly in personal pronouns (in Acc.) where the "t" can be dropped - even in normal everyday language. In fact, the form without "t" is used more often (except in the 3rd persons where it is absolutely important!) - in the singular at least - and sounds more natural that with it. But it would concern only two persons all in all.
See the forms in question (and the suffixes in brackets...):

Singular: engem(et), téged(et), őt
Plural: minket, titeket, őket  (impossible to use them as objects without the "t")

As for *ki* instead of *aki*, the first is not used in normal, everyday speech only in literary works with a special indication of higher register (választékos), old (régies) or popular (népies) language.


----------



## Nghi2

Hmm... I think I understand... some of this, anyway.

Köszönöm szépen.


----------



## Puppancs

Szia Nghi2,

"Szeretem azt a nőt, aki melletted lettem." is equivalent with "Szeretem azt a nőt. Aki melletted lettem."
'Akit melletted lettem' makes no sense.
Look the simpliest sentences what I can imagine: Szeretem a nőt, aki vagyok. Szeretem a nőt. Aki vagyok. - I love the woman who I am. As you wouldn't say 'whom I am' we don't say 'akit vagyok'. 'Nő' get the -t suffix.

 "Sehonnai bitang ember,
Ki most, ha kell, halni nem mer. . ."

Anyway, Hungarian poets have the right to write as the way as they just want without any rule or restriction.

Üdv:
p.


----------



## francisgranada

Puppancs said:


> ...  Anyway, Hungarian poets have the right to write as the way as they just want without any rule or restriction


Not only Hungarian  ... On the other hand it doesn't mean that poets can write totally agrammatically, of course.

Szia Puppancs, Welcome to the Forum!


----------



## Zsanna

I think, the point is that "aki" is the full form (and not a short one without the "t" of the Accusative) because it is connected to the verb that comes after it: *lettem*, which is an intransitive verb (= it cannot have an object) whose full form is: valaki lettem. 
This complement does not take any suffixes. (Ember lettem - I became a man, szép lány lett belőle - she turned out a beautiful girl, tolvaj lett - S/he became a thief, etc. - all the complements are in the nominative form.)

You may have thought that as it (= aki) follows "szeretem", it could be an object in the sentence, too (like "azt a nőt") but the point is that it is not connected to that verb.


----------



## Nghi2

Oh! I understand the phase now.


Nagyon szépen köszönöm!


----------

