# Can someone tell what's the purpose of the word "legyek"?



## thunderbirz

How can you command yourself to do something. Nem értem.


----------



## Zsanna

I think it is not connected to Hungarian (I can think of sentences in English and in French with the equivalent) and I can imagine that in Finnish there must be some equivalent, too... You'll see. (Hopefully.)

It is the imperative form of the verb of existance conjugated in the 1st person Sing. As imperative is used in various cases in Hungarian, I just give an example where it expresses a demand for advice (with some surprise or indignation):

A: Légy okos és körültekintő. = Be smart and careful.
B: De hogy legyek okos és körültekintő? Nem ismerem a helyzetet egyáltalán! = But how shall* I be smart and careful? I don't know the situation at all.

_*Shall_ could probably be replaced by _should_, _can _and _could_ according to the context and the exact meaning of B.


----------



## thunderbirz

So basically it means "I must be" in future tense?


----------



## Zsanna

I didn't mention _must_ because it didn't fit my example but it is true that it can imply general obligation, too.

Imperative doesn't have present/past and future possibilities, this form is used in all verb tenses (the sentence uses). (Formally it is in the present. I know it looks very much like the future "leszek" but the form may simply come from the infinitive: lenni.)


----------



## thunderbirz

Sigh, it's like trying to explain color to a blind person. I give up.


----------



## Zsanna

OK. Then think of this example in English containing a verb in imperative:

Be good!
He told me to be good.
He will want me to be good.

Is _be_ in different verb tenses? No, it is not. It stays an order that is/was/will be expressed in different moments in time. 
And in each case it expresses the speaker's wish for me to act in a certain way from the moment of speaking onwards. (Immediately or later.)


----------



## thunderbirz

I actually didn't mean that it was in future tense but that the word shall means that something happens in future. Think about this, "Mene pois" or "Go away" but saying that to yourself... doesn't sound right at all. Could you give me another example in Hungarian where the word "should" can't replace the 1st person imperative verb.


----------



## frugnaglio

Hi, of course it's not used to issue commands to oneself. The name 'imperative' is misleading.
I think that giving a definition of the meaning of this mood is quite difficult. I might seem simple or intuitive to Hungarians, but its various uses can be expressed in rather different ways in other languages. For example, in different contexts it can be translated with the Italian imperative or the subjunctive or the indicative or a different construction altogether. I remember I had your same doubt about the “first person imperative” at first.
So you should probably just look at the different ways in which it's used, and form your idea of it from that. It will turn out to be a coherent picture.
The sense that is always present in some form is “having to (do something)”.

_Azt akarják, hogy odamenjek._ They want me to go there.
_Elkísérjelek?_ Shall I accompany you? Should I accompany you? Do you want me to come with you? Would it be better if I came with you?
_Nem tudom, hogy visszatérek-e._ I don't know if I will return. _Nem tudom, hogy visszatérjek-e._ I don't know if I should return. I don't know whether to return or not.
_Nem tudom, kitől kérdezzem._ I don't know whom to ask. _Kitől kérdezzem?_ Who should I ask? (Who could I ask?)

In none of these examples it has an imperative sense.


----------



## SReynolds

That's because Hungarian _does_ have a subjunctive mood, it's the same thing as the imperative mood, whether you consider the two to be a single entity based on conjugation or a different thing on the basis of grammatical function is entirely up to you (here's a Wikipedia article, an article and a paper on this topic in Hungarian.). There is a small difference between the conjugation of the two moods which is only apparent when a coverb is attached to the main verb. This is discussed at the end of the post. *There's also a paper which seems to explain this a lot better than I have managed to do so, it also gives you a list of verbs that usually take the subjunctive and/or the infinitve.*

Structures taking relative clauses that express necessity, obligation, duty or a circumstance that's desirable usually take the subjunctive in Hungarian. Similar structures often take the present subjunctive in English as well:

_It is imperative that I *be* calm. = Elengedhetetlen, hogy nyugodt *legyek*.
It is important that you tell me the truth. = Fontos, hogy *elmondjad *az igazságot. 
We asked that it *be* done yesterday. = Azt kértük, hogy tegnapra *legyen *kész. _(this sentence takes the subjunctive in English but is considered a form of reported speech in Hungarian, so the imperative mood is used instead of the subjunctive)
_That he *appear *in court is a necessary condition for his being granted bail. = Az, hogy *megjelenjen *a bíróságon, szükséges követelménye annak, hogy óvadékot kapjon.
I am running faster lest she *catch* me. = Gyorsabban futok, nehogy *elkapjon*.
He wrote it in his diary in order that he *remember*. = Beleírta a naplójába, hogy *megjegyezze*._

Although the two meanings of the verb _insist_ don't translate well into Hungarian, the different meanings they convey depending on whether the verb is in the subjunctive or the indicative is clearly visible:

_I insist that he be here. (I want him to be here.) = Ragaszkodom ahhoz, hogy itt *legyen.*
I insist that he is here. (I am certain that he is here.) = Itt kell lennie._

There are obviously cases where English doesn't use an imperative but the structure still refers to an obligation or a command. The equivalent sentences in Hungarian do usually to take the imperative, however:

_The doctor told me to take the medicine twice a day. = Az orvos azt mondta (nekem), hogy *szedjem be* a gyógyszert naponta kétszer.
_
The English imperative also translates into Hungarian perfectly, even in the case of archaic expressions:

_So help me god. = Isten engem úgy *segéljen.* (segéljen is an archaic variant of segítsen. _It's only really used in this one expression (Google). _)
Long live the King. = Soká(ig) *éljen *a király!_

Good wishes (especially those collocated with _may_) and expressions indicating purpose take the subjunctive in Hungarian (in Hungarian, they're often used with _ahhoz, hogy,_ _azért, hogy_, or simply _hogy, _in English, they can be expressed by a variety of different expressions including _may/might/shall/should/can/could_, _to+infinitve_, _in order to_, _so that_, _in order that_, or the subjunctive):

_*May* the force *be* with you. = Az erő *legyen* veled!
*May* all your wishes *come* true. =  *Válj(on/ék)* valóra minden kívánságod!
*May *god *bless* you. = Isten *éltessen!* _(_éltet _is the causative form of the verb _él_, the whole sentence literally means: _Let god make you live_, it's a wish commonly said when a person has a birthday, for example)
_We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation *might* live. = Azért jöttünk ide, hogy ezen a harcmezőn felavassuk a végső nyugvóhelyét azoknak, akik ehelyt az életüket adták (azért), hogy a nemzet tovább *éljen*.
God forbid that the same thing *happens* again. = Isten ments, hogy ugyanaz a dolog *előforduljon*.
He wrote it in his diary in order that he *remember*. = Beleírta a naplójába (azért), hogy *megjegyezze*.
Without further ado = (Azért,) Hogy ne *szaporítsuk* tovább a szót
He worked very hard *to pass* the exam. = Keményen dolgozott (azért), hogy *átmenjen* a vizsgán.
You need to live in Hungary for 10 years *for you to become* a Hungarian citizen. = Tíz évig kell Magyarországon élned ahhoz, hogy magyar állampolgár *legyél*.
I didn't come *to listen* to this for hours. = Nem azért jöttem, hogy órákig ezt *hallgassam*._

Sentences expressing an offer, suggestion or choice also take the subjunctive. I think your specific sentence is an example of this. The following sentences are upfront suggestions:

_Should I open the window? = *Kinyissam *az ablakot? 
Should I let you go? = *Elengedjelek?*
Should I pay in cash? = Készpénzzel *fizessek*?_

It's important to mention at this point that only offers can be used in this way. For example, if I wanted to _order_ someone to open the window, I'd say something like:

_Kinyitod az ablakot? = (Lit: Do you open the window?) Can you open the window?
Kinyitnád az ablakot? = Would you open the window?
Ki tudnád nyitni az ablakot? = Could you open the window?
Nyisd ki az ablakot! - Open the window._

However, it would be very strange to ask _Kinyitnám az ablakot?_ if I offered someone to do the same thing.

The following sentences are more metaphorical, but still fall under this category. They usually convey an inner dilemma with regard to the actual choices one has:

_How am I supposed to be calm? = Hogyan *legyek* nyugodt? _(I would not expect an actual reply to this question from someone.)
_Should I commit suicide? Should I kill myself? = *Legyek* öngyilkos? *Öljem* meg magam?
I don't know if I should come back. = Nem tudom, hogy *visszatérjek*-e._

Verbs or verb phrases expressing remote possibilites can also take the subjunctive in Hungarian, but they can also take the future tense or the conditional mood. The latter two can be used in the case of non-remote possibilities as well, so it's really not important to learn this usage:
_I find it impossible that the government *would* introduce the new law. = Kizártnak tartom, hogy a kormány *bevezesse* az új törményt. _or _Kizártnak tartom, hogy a kormány *be fogja vezetni* az új törvényt.
He can't believe that someone could be capable of this. = Nem tudja elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes *legyen*. _or _Nem tudja elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes *lenne*._

Verbs expressing allowance or denial also take the subjunctive if they're followed by a subordinate clause:
_I'll let you finish. = Megengedem, hogy *befejezd*.
He has the right to appeal in court. = Joga van ahhoz, hogy *fellebbezzen* a bíróságon. _(although this can be considered a verb that happens to be conjugated with _ahhoz_, which incidentally takes the subjunctive, as presented above)
_My classmates prevent me from being able to concentrate in class. = Az osztálytársaim akadályoznak abban, hogy az órán koncentrálni *tudjak.* 
I don't allow you to go out with your friends. = Megtiltom, hogy *elmenjél* a barátaiddal._

Verbs expressing hypothetical willingness or wishes can be followed by the subjunctive when followed by a subordinate clause:
_He tries to become a good runner. = Igyekszik, hogy jó futó *legyen*.
I desire only to be left in peace. = Csak arra vágyok, hogy békén *hagyjanak*.
He's longing to find out the truth. = Szomjazik arra, hogy *megtudja* az igazságot._

*In case you haven't noticed, I was careful to distinguish between the subjunctive mood and the imperative mood throughout this post. That's because there is a small difference between the two moods.* The coverbs in Hungarian don't detach from the main verbs when the subjunctive is used:

_He ordered us to go home. = Felszólított (arra), hogy *menjünk haza*.
He allowed us to go home. = Megengedte (azt), hogy *hazamenjünk*.
He ordered us to eat the soup. = Megparancsolta (azt), hogy *együk meg* a levest.
We began eating the soup. = Hozzáláttunk (ahhoz), hogy *megegyük* a levest._

As you can see, sometimes it is possible to use both, depending on whether you consider the clause to be an example of a direct or an indirect statement.

_He insisted that we tell the truth. = Ragaszkodott ahhoz, hogy *mondjuk el* az igazságot. _(It almost feels like the person is actually saying these very words, it's a lot more direct.) or _Ragaszkodott ahhoz, hogy *elmondjuk* az igazságot. _(This is more like a general statement that might appear in a narrative.)

_She wanted her husband to be released from prison. = Azt akarta, hogy a férje *kiszabaduljon* a börtönből._ (this is indirect) _Azt akarta, hogy a férje *szabaduljon ki* a börtönből. _(this is weird and not idiomatic, the direct nature of this sentence is actually quite comical, it almost feels as if the man could get out of jail if he tried hard enough)


----------



## frugnaglio

Wow, you do like to write, eh?



SReynolds said:


> That's because Hungarian _does_ have a subjunctive mood, it's the same thing as the imperative mood, whether you consider the two to be a single entity based on conjugation or a different thing on the basis of grammatical function is entirely up to you



And indeed, I prefer to call it subjunctive or imperative according to the different uses. But it's often presented as imperative, while presenting it as subjunctive would be more intuitive to speakers of languages with a subjunctive.

Now that I read all of your examples, there are a few usages I didn't know about:


SReynolds said:


> _My classmates prevent me from being able to concentrate in class. = Az osztálytársaim akadályoznak abban, hogy az órán koncentrálni _*tudjak.*


and this:


SReynolds said:


> Verbs or verb phrases expressing remote possibilites can also take the subjunctive in Hungarian, but they can also take the future tense or the conditional mood. The latter two can be used in the case of non-remote possibilities as well, so it's really not important to learn this usage:
> _I find it impossible that the government *would* introduce the new law. = Kizártnak tartom, hogy a kormány *bevezesse* az új törményt. _or _Kizártnak tartom, hogy a kormány *be fogja vezetni* az új törvényt.
> He can't believe that someone could be capable of this. = Nem tudja elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes *legyen*. _or _Nem tudja elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes _*lenne*_._


This was until now the main difference I thought there was between the Italian and the Hungarian subjunctive, and apparently it is not so: Italian uses it to express unlikeliness, and I didn't know that Hungarian did too!
So I have a question about tenses. How do you express the same thing if it refers to the past? I mean if the subordinate clause is in the past, but not the main clause. For example:
_He can't believe (today) that someone (in the past) could be capable of this._ Can you still use *legyen* and the meaning has to be clear from the context, or do you have to avoid the subjunctive and say _Nem tudja elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes *lett volna*_?


----------



## SReynolds

This is a bit difficult to answer. I can answer your first question instantly: _no_, _legyen_ does not work here, it's only really used to express future possibilities that are very remote from the speaker's point of view.

The problem is that I would not use the past tense here, or in English, for that matter. You need to distinguish between those cases where _would, could, etc._ are used to form conditional sentence and those where they're the subjunctive forms of their respective main verbs (_will, can, etc._).  One of the definitions of _would_ in the dictionary I consulted is:

_Used to impart a sense of hesitancy or uncertainty to the present; might be inclined to. Now sometimes colloquially with ironic effect._

So, just to throw in a couple of examples:

- Hallottál a tegnapi gyilkosságról? (_Have you heard of the murder yesterday?_)
- Igen, szörnyű, hogy mik vannak. Nem tudom elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes lenne. (_Yes, it's horrible. I can't believe that someone could be capable of this._ Could [the subjunctive form of can] and _lenne_ in this case expresses disbelief, not a past action, as in _was able to_.)

- A középkorban sok kínzási techikát alkalmaztak. (_A lot of torture methods were used in the middle ages._)
- Nem tudom elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes volt. (_I can't believe that someone was capable of this._ We know it happened, but it's still horrible that that someone did it.)
OR
- Nem tudom elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes lett volna. (_I can't believe that someone could have been capable of this._ Again, we express disbelief by using the conditional mood (_lett volna_) in Hungarian and the subjunctive mood in English.)

Just to give you some examples of future events as well, here's two more examples:

- Állj be a garázsba. A múltkor ellopták valakinek az autóját az utcából. (_Park your car in the garage. Someone stole someone's car from the street the other day._)
- Nem fogok beállni, nem tudom elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes (_Ø/_lenne/legyen). (_I won't. I can't believe that someone is/would be/should be capable of this. _Using _legyen_ and _would/should _implies a more remote possibility, but in Hungarian, all of these can be used with practically the same meaning. Again, _would_ is the subjunctive equivalent of _will_ and _should_ expresses a more remote possibility than _would_, akin to the Hungarian _legyen_.)

- Az emberiség egyszer el fogja hagyni a Naprendszert. (_Mankind will leave the solar system once._)
- Nem hiszem. Nem tudom elhinni, hogy valaki erre képes lesz. (_I don't think so. I can't believe that anyone will be capable of this._)


----------



## franknagy

The Hungarian grammar taught for native Hungarian does not know the Subjunctive mood.
It states only the Imperative mood.
_This mood has however forms for each person_ unlike in the Indoeuropean languages where the Imperative has form for thou, you and in Russian for we.
This mood is taught for foreign students as _Imperative and Subjunctive mood. This way the students can understand that the mood is has perfect conjugation from I to they._


----------



## SReynolds

What do you mean by _perfect conjugation_?

Aside from that, franknagy is correct, when you take Hungarian classes in Hungary, you only learn about the indicative, the conditional and the imperative mood, but then again, most native speakers wouldn't actually realize the difference between the imperative and the subjunctive and knowing the difference wouldn't add anything substantial to their knowledge anyway.


----------



## Zsanna

*Moderator's note:*
*Please note that this thread is about the "purpose of legyek", not all the possible implications of imperative in Hungarian (no matter how interesting it is becoming). I would also like to remind you that long explanations tend to go off topic (sooner or later) so please just keep close to the subject as much as possible.*


----------



## frugnaglio

(To Zsanna: sorry, I had began to write this reply before your intervention... I'm just posting this and then I'll stop drifting off topic!)

Thank you! This is much more that I asked for, and your examples are great!

(on a side note, I think that
- Az emberiség egyszer el fogja hagyni a Naprendszert  =  _Mankind will leave the solar system *one day*._
- _Mankind will leave the solar system _*once*  =  Az emberiség egyszer fogja elhagyni a Naprendszert. (csak egyszer, mert majd elveszíti az űrhajó-építési képességét)
Not meaning to correct your English – and as I'm not a native speaker I might well be mistaken on this – but just as an exercise in Hungarian for me. Which pushes me to open a new thread.)


----------



## francisgranada

frugnaglio said:


> ... And indeed, I prefer to call it subjunctive or imperative according to the different uses ...


So am I.  I think the Hungarian term _felszólító mód_ is intended to cover (even if not fully) both the uses/aspects: _kötőmód_ (_subjunctive_) and _parancsoló mód_ (_imperative_).

Mod note:Answer to OT deleted, no SMS language, please


----------



## francisgranada

However, one of the reasons may be the non-existence of the _consecutio temporum_, i.e. the tense of the subordinate clause is "seen" from the point of view of that of the main clause and not from the "absolute" point of view.  E.g.:

Azt *akarom*, hogy boldog *legyen*.
Azt *akartam*, hogy boldog *legyen*.
Azt *fogom akarni*, hogy boldog *legyen*.

In all the above examples the present form _legyen_ is used (and this seems to be "sufficient" in most of the practical situations) because the "real" tense of _legyen_ is not seen from "now" (from the present moment), but in relation of the tense of the verb _akarni_ in the main clause.

In other words, in Hungarian the _grammatical present_ in the subordinate clause essentially expresses the _contemporaneity_ with the main clause and, eo ipso,  the _grammatical past_ expresses the _anteriority_.

Mod note: OT deleted


----------

