# Meg- prefix



## J.F. de TROYES

As I am studying verbal forms crosslinguistically, I have taken a keen interest in the previous threads about the perfect prefix meg-. However its use is still puzzling me, when  I read the following sentences in a book for French people to learn Hungarian :

I- 1- Oda érkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európábol.
    2- Délután négibor megérkeznek autóval a fiatalok.

II- 1- A magyar nép érkezett Azsiaból Közép-Európába.
     2- Szerencsésen megérkeztem Magyarországra.

Would it sound weird, if the meg-prefix would be omitted in I sentences ? If not, what's the difference of meaning ? Instead, could we add it in II sentences ?    Thanks a lot.


----------



## francisgranada

1. In Hungarian all the prefixes are separable from the verb and they can have various positions in the sentence, depending on which word/part of the sentence is emphasised. E.g. both "Holnap *meg*érkezem" and "Holnap érkezem *meg*" (_Tomorrow I arrive/I arrive tomorrow_) are valid. I.e. the prefixes behave (at least to a high degree) as independent words, typically maintaining their  (etymologically) adverbial character and meaning.

2.  The prefix *meg *makes the verb perfective. Thus, if it is not important to underline the perfectiveness, then the prefix is not used/can be omitted. E.g. "Holnap érkezem" (_Tomorrow I arrive/I arrive tomorrow_).

It's  hard to explain the difference in English, neverthless I'll try it ... When saying "Holnap érkezem", the importance/emphasis lies on the proper "arrival, coming", while in case of "Holnap *meg*érkezem" the nuance of "I'll be there" is added (=_my arrival will be accomplished_). The omission (better: not usage) of a prefix can lead to the change of the word order, but this depends on the context.



J.F. de TROYES said:


> Would it sound weird, if the meg-prefix would be omitted in I sentences ? If not, what's the difference of meaning ? Instead, could we add it in II sentences ?


It wouldn't sound weird, but the meaning would be slightly different:

Oda érkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából. - "the trains arrive (used to arrive) there ..."
Oda *meg*érkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából. - "the trains arrive and reach there ..." (for example, to the contrary of other places/stations  where it happens that for some reason the train does not arrive/reach)

A magyar nép érkezett Ázsiából Közép-Európába. - "it was the Hungarian nation that (had) arrived ..."
A magyar nép *meg*érkezett Ázsiából Közép-Európába. - "the Hungarian nation arrived (and reached the place where they are now) ..."

The most idiomatic version, i.e. a simple constatation without any context, could be:
A magyar nép Ázsiából érkezett Közép-Európába. - "The Hungarian nation arrived from Asia to Middle Europe"

(The above translations in English are _ad hoc_, perhaps someone can give you  better translations ... )


----------



## Zsanna

The use of Hungarian preverbs - especially _meg_ and _el_ - is very complex because a) they may not have an indipendent meaning to start with (_meg_ certainly doesn't) b) a lot of things can influence their usage (e.g. verb tenses, sentence structure or sort, etc.). Even if we could give the difference in the meaning for your sentences (like francis tried above), it could not be comprehensive and valid for all the possible permutations. (Let alone the fact that I don't think they are the best examples to illustrate the difference you are trying to find out. (Nevertheless, I'll try... See the summaries in bold type.)

I.
1- Oda érkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából. -> A normal way of expressing where the trains arrive from Western Europe (*Description of a fact*.)
  - Oda megérkeznek... -> There is a stress on "oda" (= there) to express that that is the only place where the trains _actually_ arrrive (= will arrive surely). (Because they don't arrive to other destinations - maybe because of snow or any other problems.) (*Precising the condition/place where the action can be/will be complete.*)
To be honest, I find this sentence slightly odd but said with the right intonation (to express the stress), it is OK.
The "perfective" (value) here is not really the right term because the verb is conjugated in the present. M. Jean Perrot (see here p.96) calls it "résultatif à incidence future". (As opposed to the "perfective" or "accompli" in French - i.e. an action carried out until it is fulfilled - when the verb is conjugated in the past.)

2- Délután négibor négykor megérkeznek autóval a fiatalok. - This sentence could be part of a plan set out (e.g. by the organisers of a summer camp): ... We'll start the preparation for the reception at 9.a.m., the tents will be set up by 2 p.m. (etc, etc.) Young people will arrive at 4 p.m.(etc., etc.) The welcoming party will start at 9 p.m. (*A certain action will be acccomplished at a given time*.)
However, it is not the only interpretation one could give to this sentence.
As opposed to: Délután négykor érkeznek autóval a fiatalok. This is more like an answer to what is going to happen at 4 p.m. or informing somebody about the same thing. (*Description of an event*.)

II- 1- A magyar nép érkezett Ázsiából Közép-Európába. (= "It was the Hungarian people who arrived from Asia in Central Europe".)
A bit strange sentence to me but it makes sense if there is an accent on "A magyar nép". However, it supposes that only Hungarians arrived in Europe from Asia (which is false). (If we want to inform people where Hungarians came from, I'd rephrase the sentence like this: A magyarok Ázsiából érkeztek (Közép-Európába).) (*Describing a fact*.) In French, I'd use the Imparfait "Les hongrois arrivaient de l'Asie..." - not necesssarily because it's right* (in English you couldn't say "were arriving" - though for another reason) but to contrast the usage with the following which would be in the Passé Composé in French/Present Perfect in English:

2- Szerencsésen megérkeztem Magyarországra.
I have arrived to Hungary sound and safe. (Je suis arrivé/e...) (*An action has been accomplished.*)

I'd say that in this second pair of sentences the difference is that you could not add the preverb where there isn't and vice versa (although for different reasons!):
A magyar nép megérkezett Ázsiából Közép-Európába. (Although grammatically correct, historically it is false: we haven't just arrived.)
*Szerencsésen érkeztem Mo.-ra. (I would think it is not a possible form.)

*Please correct if it is wrong


----------



## franknagy

> The prefix *meg *makes the verb perfective.


The Hungarian language knows the distinction of the perfective and imperfective verbs. This distinction is not so essential as the in the Russian совершенный  <---> несовершенный вид but widely used.
There are other Hungarian prefixes, too, making the verbs to perfective ones: 
*el-, le*, fel-, szét ...*


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Great ! You have all been helpful thanks to your interesting comments.I do understand the point is uneasy to explain due to the various effects of using or not this prefix. But I think it's becoming clearer to me. Am I right if I say that generally speaking, using the imperfective form merely denotes the fact or event, while adding meg- or some other prefixes expresses something more ?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Oops! I've sent my thread before  adding  what I wanted .



Zsanna said:


> M. Jean Perrot (see here p.96) calls it "résultatif à incidence future". (As opposed to the "perfective" or "accompli" in French - i.e. an action carried out until it is fulfilled - when the verb is conjugated in the past.)
> 
> Thank you for the link I am interested in ; I haven't had yet enough spare time to read the text.





Zsanna said:


> II- 1-* A magyar nép érkezett Ázsiából Közép-Európába*. (= "It was the Hungarian people who arrived from Asia in Central Europe".)
> A bit strange sentence to me but it makes sense if there is an accent on "A magyar nép". However, it supposes that only Hungarians arrived in Europe from Asia (which is false). (If we want to inform people where Hungarians came from, I'd rephrase the sentence like this:* A magyarok Ázsiából érkeztek (Közép-Európába*).) (*Describing a fact*.) In French, I'd use the Imparfait "Les hongrois arrivaient de l'Asie..." - not necesssarily because it's right* (in English you couldn't say "were arriving" - though for another reason) but to contrast the usage with the following which would be in the Passé Composé in French/Present Perfect in English:



You are using the imperfective form as well. Is the difference of meaning due the lexical choice or the world-order ? In French we'd say : _Les Hongrois viennent / le peuple hongrois vient d'Asie_ ( Description ) or _Les Hongrois sont venus / le peuple hongrois est venu d'Asie_ (  venir= to come) ( Event) , or with arriver= to arrive ),_ Les Hongrois sont arrivés / le peuple hongrois est arrivé d'Asie_ ( Event ).



franknagy said:


> The Hungarian language knows the distinction of the perfective and imperfective verbs. This distinction is not so essential as the in the Russian совершенный  <---> несовершенный вид but widely used.
> There are other Hungarian prefixes, too, making the verbs to perfective ones:
> *el-, le*, fel-, szét ...*



Do you mean that some verbs can be used with or without such prefixes ? Could you give some examples ?  Thanks a lot.


----------



## francisgranada

J.F. de TROYES said:


> ... Am I right if I say that generally speaking, using the imperfective form merely denotes the fact or event, while adding meg- or some other prefixes expresses something more ?


More or less yes, however I wouldn't call it _imperfective _form, rather _basic _or _unmarked  _form (or something like this), as they do not bear any imperfective marker.

All the prefixes (especially when written together with the verb***) render the verb perfective plus give them an adverbial (mostly locative) meaning. E.g._ le-_ (down),_ fel-_ (up), _be-_ (in, into),_ ki-_ (out), _el-_ (off, away), _alá-_ (under), etc... The prefix _*meg*-_ is special in the sense that it doesn't modify the meaning of the verb, only makes it perfective (it is kind of an "abstract prefix"). 





> Do you mean that some verbs can be used with or without such prefixes ? ...


In theory, all the verbs can be used without or with whichever prefix. "In theory" because some combinations actually may have no practical sense.

*** As I have written in my post #2, " ...   the prefixes behave (at least to a high degree) as independent words, typically maintaining their (etymologically) adverbial character and meaning". It means that the word order slightly changes the meaning of the sentence itself, but not the proper meaning of the verb and the prefix. I suggest you to discuss the _Hungarian word order_ in a separate thread as it is a quite complex matter.

P.S. I'd say that the Hungarian prefixes behave - to a certain degree - like the German so called separable prefixes (_aus-, bei-, mit-, nach-, zu- ..._) but differently from the German  inseparable prefixes (_be-, ge-, ent-, er- ..._) and the prefixes in Romance (_de-, a-, ad-, in-, con- ..._) and Slavic (_v-, do-, po-, od-, za- ...._) languages.


----------



## francisgranada

Zsanna said:


> 1- Oda érkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából. -> A normal way of expressing where the trains arrive from Western Europe (*Description of a fact*.)
> - Oda megérkeznek... -> There is a stress on "oda" (= there) to express that that is the only place where the trains _actually_ arrrive (= will arrive surely).


 In my opinion, "oda" is stressed equally in both of the sentences. Btw we can also say "Oda érkeznek meg a vonatok Nyugat-Európából"; in this case the perfective aspect would be expressed, though not  emphasized.  Instead, in case of "Oda megérkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából" the perfective aspect is emphasized.


----------



## Zsanna

As to the general approach to the use of _meg_: I would think that there is surely a difference in the meaning between the forms with and without.
However, as _meg_ has lost its original _mögé_ (more or less: behind)/ _vissza_ (back) meaning, it is not possible to give it a meaning anymore, therefore no easy way to tell such a difference - at least to start with. (Lexical approach = 0 results.)

There are two more approaches dealt with usually: aspect (aspektus) and "action quality" (_akcióminőség_ in Hungarian).

To make things short, I'd just mention 3 of this latter (to provide a new approach):
- egyszeriség (more or less: to express that the action happened once): e.g. _megkavar_ (carries out one circular movement with a wooden spoon -> one possible meaning)
- kezdet (denoting the start of something): e.g. _megkondul_ (when a bell starts to ring)
- eredményesség (result*): eg. _megír_ ("has written" /the action is complete)

*not the same as _teljesség_ (perfection), e.g. _bejár_ (covers an entire area by walking), _beken_ (covers an entire surface with e.g. paint) - this is why I think one should be careful using "perfective" when describing the use of _meg_.


----------



## Zsanna

francisgranada said:


> In my opinion, "oda" is stressed equally in both of the sentences.
> You are probably right but even so there is a difference in the tone and also in the pause before "megérkeznek". (Also, you can see it from the translation that there is focus on the predicate which is in close relation with the adverb. This is why I still feel that _oda_ is important almost as much as the action itself if not more.) In fact, the real stress is on the verb this is why the preverb can stay before the verb. (Without the stress the sentence just sounds weird).
> 
> Btw we can also say "Oda érkeznek meg a vonatok Nyugat-Európából"; in this case the perfective aspect would be expressed, though not  emphasized. Instead, in case of "Oda megérkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából" the perfective aspect is emphasized.
> I am not sure whether linguistically it would be formulated like that... I don't think it is an aspect that is emphasized.


----------



## Zsanna

J.F. de TROYES said:


> You are using the imperfective form as well. Is the difference of meaning due the lexical choice or the world-order ? In French we'd say : _Les Hongrois viennent / le peuple hongrois vient d'Asie_ ( Description ) or _Les Hongrois sont venus / le peuple hongrois est venu d'Asie_ (  venir= to come) ( Event) , or with arriver= to arrive ),_ Les Hongrois sont arrivés / le peuple hongrois est arrivé d'Asie_ ( Event ).


I'm sorry (it's a bit late), thank you for the French. Meanwhile, I got lost a bit in all these examples, so could you rephrase the question, please?


----------



## franknagy

francisgranada said:


> "Oda megérkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából"


This sentence can mean that the given railway station is not blocked a collapsed tunnel unlike the other.
*"Menj a Keleti pályaudvarra! Oda megérkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából. A Déli pályaudvarra nem érkeznek vonatok. Az le van zárva."
= Go to the Eastern Station. The trains are arriving there. No trains arrive at the Southern Station. That is closed.*


----------



## francisgranada

Zsanna said:


> ...  There are two more approaches dealt with usually: aspect (aspektus) and "action quality" (_akcióminőség_ in Hungarian).
> 
> To make things short, I'd just mention 3 of this latter (to provide a new approach):
> - egyszeriség (more or less: to express that the action happened once): e.g. _megkavar_ (carries out one circular movement with a wooden spoon -> one possible meaning)
> - kezdet (denoting the start of something): e.g. _megkondul_ (when a bell starts to ring)
> - eredményesség (result*): eg. _megír_ ("has written" /the action is complete)



In all the above examples the prefix _meg _makes the verb *perfective *and this is the substance from the point of view of the original question (in my opinion). The action quality is rather given byt the verb itself, e.g. _kondulni  _is _a priori_ an inchoative verb. Btw. _megkavar  _doesn't necessarily indicate one only circular movement, e.g. "_jól megkavartam a levest"_ can mean also 3 or more circular movements, but not a durative "kavarás" ...


----------



## Zsanna

It is true that _meg_ indicates _befejezettség_ (translated mostly as "perfective") but it is not exclusively the case (e.g. see here) and it is important to indicate when somebody wishes to find out more about "meg", even if the topic is too vast for us to discuss it fully here.

Your example of "jól megkavartam a levest" (= I stirred the soup well) doesn't indicate how many times it happened: so either once but "well" or several times but the number of stirring is not important (in a normal situation, it isn't), this is why it is not indicated by anything else but "jól".
This indication (= jól/well) is important because it gives extra information about the way the action was carried out. (Therefore modifying the verb's original meaning but without interfering with the use of the preverb or its meaning!)
Equally, if you say e.g. "three times", logically, it again indicates that the action was completed not once but in so many steps. That is, the entire movement has been carried out x times. (In which "equation" the entrie movement = megkavar.)


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Zsanna said:


> - eredményesség (result*): eg. _megír_ ("has written" /the action is complete)
> 
> *not the same as _teljesség_ (perfection), e.g. _bejár_ (covers an entire area by walking), _beken_ (covers an entire surface with e.g. paint) - this is why I think one should be careful using "perfective" when describing the use of _meg_.



Interesting. I think aspectual values are uneasy to be mastered. German people don't easily cope with the French imperfect and passé composé ( present perfect ) and it's the same for French people when we have to differentiate between  _I have lived here for a week_ and _I've been living here for a week_.

Reading various examples is the only means to get a better understanding of such forms.



franknagy said:


> This sentence can mean that the given railway station is not blocked a collapsed tunnel unlike the other.
> *"Menj a Keleti pályaudvarra! Oda megérkeznek a vonatok Nyugat-Európából. A Déli pályaudvarra nem érkeznek vonatok. Az le van zárva."
> = Go to the Eastern Station. The trains are arriving there. No trains arrive at the Southern Station. That is closed.*



I think the context is realy useful to explain why an aspectual form is preferred to another. It seems to me that indeed the prefix emphasizes the fact : trains are arriving in this station and not in another.

One more question : in his study about hungarian prefixes, J.Perrot quotes _megáll_, but also _megmegáll . _Are duplications of preverbs usual or rare ?


----------



## franknagy

[QUOTE="J.F. de TROYES, post: 16626751, member: 43013"


One more question : in his study about Hungarian prefixes, J.Perrot quotes _megáll_, but also _megmegáll . _Are duplications of preverbs usual or rare ?[/QUOTE]
Yes, the duplicated prefixes are usual. *They mean interrupted and repeated action, (A) without or (B)with change of direction.*
The correct spelling of duplicated prefixes contains an _obligatory hyphen: 
(A) meg-megáll _(a settenkedő macska)_, ki-kinéz _(a postást váró anya)_, vissza-visszatér _ (a kiütés a bőrön_), meg-megrázza _ősz szakállát (a Télapó)_.  
(B) Föl-le járkál (_a szobában). _Ide-oda sétál _(a beteg házastársa a kórház folyosóján). _Ki-be ugrál_ (a földszinti ablakon). *Note the space between the prefix and the verb in this case.*


----------



## Zsanna

The duplication of the preverbs is not frequent, neither rare, in my opinion. (I would think it rather enters another category: needed or not.)

When it is used, it is very useful and stylistically interesting. Now, it would probably occur more in written language. (The first, that comes to mind is Attila József's poem: Mama.) It gives a perfect description of how the action is stopped and started again. You can even imagine the movement it involves.

About franknagy's last point: föl, le, ide, oda are not prefixes but they illustrate well that it is not only preverbs that can be duplicated.


----------



## franknagy

Zsanna said:


> About franknagy's last point: föl, le, ide, oda are not prefixes but they illustrate well that it is not only preverbs that can be duplicated.


Some of these mentioned words are prefixes (igekötők) and but others are independent words showing direction because the frontier is fuzzy.

*These words originally meaning direction have lost their original spatial meaning and used to modify the original meaning of the verbs. *

kikészül (somebody gets a nervous breakdown)

kikap (the child is punished)

rászed (a banker or a swindleris  plundering somobody)

szétesik (1. a car falls to parts; 2. somebody collapses mentally)


The following joke contains prefixed verbs having double interpretation.
- Mi a legdemokratikusabb ruhadarab ?
- A melltartó. [The bra.]
- Miért?

- A csüggedőket felemeli. A széthúzókat összetartja. A hatalmaskodókat _el_nyomja.

Translation:
- Which is the most democratic piece of clothing?
- The bra.
- Why?
- It raises the exanimate ones. It holds together the disaccordant ones. It suppresses the dominating ones.


J. F. could you understand the joke?


----------



## Zsanna

We don't disagree about the point, frank.  (Only terminology: preverb= igekötő.)


----------



## franknagy

francisgranada said:


> P.S. I'd say that the Hungarian prefixes behave - to a certain degree - like the German so called separable prefixes (_aus-, bei-, mit-, nach-, zu- ..._)



The Hungarian preverbs may have 3 positions, not only 2 as in the German.
_Take care of the correct insertion of the_ [space!] _character during writing._
A) [preverb][verb] ,
B) [verb][space!][preverb],
C) [preverb][space!]{[modifier] | [auxiliary verb][space!][main verb].

Example for case C) with modifier:
"Meg ne fordulj!"  = "Do not turn back." (Boys say this each other if they see a girl having fine figure from behind. The girl may have ugliy face.)


Examples for case C) with auxiliary verb:
"Meg kell tenned."  = "You must do this."
"Ki szabad nyitni az ajtót."  = "You are allowed to open the door."

*The problem arises when the auxiliary verb has an own meaning as a main verb, and it may take the same prefix as the main verb.*

Fog = 1. to hold 2. auxiliary verb of the Future tense. 3. tooth
Megfog = to grasp, to catch
Lefog = to hold down.
Kifog = 1. to fish out 2. trips up  on me.

"Megfogom a nyulat." "I catch the hare."
"Meg fogom sütni a nyulat." = "I shall roast the hare."
"Meg akarom fogni a nyulat" = "I want to grasp the hare."

Nay: "Ki fogom fogni azt az átkozott fogascetet. Nem fog kifogni rajtam még egyszer." = "I will fish out that damned toothed whale. It won't trip up on me once more."


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

franknagy said:


> The following joke contains prefixed verbs having double interpretation.
> - Mi a legdemokratikusabb ruhadarab ?
> - A melltartó. [The bra.]
> - Miért?
> 
> - A csüggedőket felemeli. A széthúzókat összetartja. A hatalmaskodókat _el_nyomja.
> 
> Translation:
> - Which is the most democratic piece of clothing?
> - The bra.
> - Why?
> - It raises the exanimate ones. It holds together the disaccordant ones. It suppresses the dominating ones.
> 
> 
> J. F. could you understand the joke?




I think I do ! Thanks for starting a fun grammar.


----------

