# Negative forms in expressing age



## Ajace

Sorry....
I prefer don't open another thread for a simple question, and I use this my old thread....

If I ask
"_Kàroly màr 60 èves?_"

The correct (negative) answer is

"_Nem, Kàroly mèg nincs 60 èves_"
or
"_Nem, Kàroly mèg nem 60 èves_"?

Thanks!


----------



## Csaba

Ajace said:


> Sorry....
> I prefer don't open another thread for a simple question, and I use this my old thread....


Well well maybe it's better if you open another thread - that way people will know how important our little language is 


> If I ask
> "_Kàroly màr 60 èves?_"
> 
> The correct (negative) answer is
> 
> "_Nem, Kàroly mèg nincs 60 èves_"
> or
> "_Nem, Kàroly mèg nem 60 èves_"?
> 
> Thanks!


Both forms are correct and are in usage. (nitpick: Nem, Károly még nincs 60 éves, Hungarian diacritics are acute, not grave)


----------



## Ajace

> Well well maybe it's better if you open another thread


Ah, ok! Sorry...
I'll remember it in the future threads!




> Hungarian diacritics are acute, not grave


I know, but our keyboard has only "_é_" and so....


Now I go to read the section "Help with writing accents"
(I see it only now  )

And naturally.... thank you!
Yesterday I read the sentence with "nincs" in an exercise and I thought it was wrong, because in the question there is not "van".


----------



## Zsanna

It is (again) a good question, Ajace. 
I'm afraid a bit more complex answer may be necessary so be prepared!

If your question was in an exercise, I suppose it meant to suggest that you should use “nincs”. There is a special reference to this in one of my books (= Nyelvművelő Kézkönyv). 
E.g. to a question like *Van sok pénzed?* (_Do you have a lot of money?_) the correct negative answer is *Nincs* (as opposed to *Nem*). 
(It is not a mistake you’d hear often, though. And also, you could always go around it and say: Nem sok pénzem van, hanem sok bajom. _It's not of money that I have a lot but of problems._ - a construction you could use in most other cases like this.)

Apart from this, what seems to me is that in some cases (including your example) although you’ll find “nem” as a normal word of negation, the use of “nincs” is also possible and it may express a personal *opinion* or *assessment*:

Laci 30 éves. _Laci is 30_. (= Expressing age)
– Laci nem 30 éves. => normal negation (30 is negated, not a verb), as good as a _fact_
– Laci nincs 30 éves => negation of the person’s state of age (meaning he is not as old “as that”, it may be just an _opinion_)

You can see the same thing in some other constructions (that may or may not have the “van” in the 3rd person appearing in the affirmative):
8 óra (van). _It is 8 o’clock_. (= Time of the day)
- Nem 8 óra van, hanem 9. _It is not 8, it’s 9_. (Definite, a fact.)
- Nincs (még) 8 óra. _It is not 8 (yet)_. (Vague, could be an opinion.)

Jó az idő. _It is nice_. (= Weather)
- Nem jó az idő. _The weather is not good_. (Definite, a fact.)
- Nincs jó idő. _It is not nice_. (Suggests more the speaker’s opinion about the weather.)

100 forint. _It costs/is 100 Forints._ (= Price)
- Nem 100 forint. _It is not 100 Forints_. (Definite, a fact.)
- Nincs 100 forint. _It is not as much as 100 Forints._ (Could be the speaker’s guess/ assessment suggesting it must be less than that – in fact it usually like this – the personal assessment always indicates *less* than mentioned.) 

The cases when you don’t have *van*/*vannak* and you are not going to meet the problem above are these: 
When expressing quality (colour, shape, size, state etc.) e.g. nagy < – > nem nagy (the moment you introduce „nincs” the idea of _there isn’t/it doesn’t exist_ appears which is obviously not what you meant originally)
nationality (magyar < - > nem magyar), profession ( orvos < - > nem orvos) name (Mari < - > nem Mari), giving your opinion about sg (helyes < - > nem helyes)


----------



## Andris

Just to (again) follow up on the excellent explanation of Zsanna, I may try to explain a possible logic behind the rule.

Nincs - literally - means "there is not" or "to have none". In the cases Zsanna mentions, you may discover this logic, even if it's not entirely underpinned by the grammar:

Laci nincs 30 éves -> he *does not have* 30 years. If he were 31 or more, he would have those 30 years. 

Nincs 8 óra -> (the day) *does not have* 8 hours (yet). If the time was 9:00, the day would already have the 8 hours and even more.

Nincs 100 forint -> the article in question *does not have* the worth of 100 forint. If it cost 101 forint, of course, it would have the worth of 100 forint too.

As for "nem jó az idő" and "nincs jó idő" - I think the situation is a little bit more vague here. These two expressions mean quite the same, there are only very slight differences between the two. 

I think the difference lies in the fact that "jó idő" is an expression on its own. The two words are not separable (as is "rossz idő", "szeles idő", "esős idő", etc.), and together they constitute the subject of the sentence. The weather, in general, would be "idő", which, of course can be declared good or bad, but in that case the adjective would be the predicate. This would worth another thread, but for a native ear, in an everyday conversation, "nincs jó idő" or simply "rossz idő van" would sound more natural. 
However, if I'd like to emphasize the continuous quality of the weather, I would use the other one. "Nem megyek ki, amíg ilyen rossz az idő" -> "I don't go out as long as the weather is so bad". I don't know why, though.


----------



## Ajace

Excellent!
^_^




> If your question was in an exercise, I suppose it meant to suggest that you should use “nincs”



The exercise is about when we have:
- to use of "van" and "vannak"
- to erase "van" and "vannak"

and when we have:
- to use "nincs" and "nincsenek"
- to use nem (without van and vannak)

In that document there is this (very short) explanation:

Use van and vannak when Lenni mean "to stay"
(e.g. it responds at the question "hol?" [where?] or "hogy van?" [how is]

Don't use in other cases.

In negative form it's the same:
If the affermative sentence wants "van" or "vannak" we have use nincs (or nincsenek)
If the affermative sentence DOESN'T want "van" or "vannak" we have use nem.

So... that question don't use van and I thought that I have to use "nem"

Your explanation is very better, thank you both!


----------

Hungarian has a lot of "nuances" in its sentences....
[E.g.: The words order in sentences can show many different emphases]

And I find in this language great courtesy and "udvariasság".
I'm always afraid to seem rude or unkind with my weak knowledge of it!


----------



## Zsanna

Andris, thanks for your contribution!
Is there a special reason why you used *have *when *be* would be more customary in English? (Some influence from the French...?) 
But, apart from that, I agree with you, there is place for rethinking/reorganising these things, especially as it is not really done in any grammar book/book of linguistics (as far as I know).
The trouble is that it is very difficult to find clear-cut rules, one just discovers tendencies, if any. (Especially if you want to answer quickly here.)

As for the "idő", however, I think I meant something slightly different.
The affirmative sentence was : Jó az idő. (The negation was based on that.)
So the fact the we feel "jó idő" as one idea, shouldn't change anything here because in the sentence above, the two words are separated: one is a predicate and the other is the subject of the sentence.


----------



## Zsanna

Glad that you didn't find it discouraging! It was a bit more detailed maybe than necessary...


Ajace said:


> ...
> In that document there is this (very short) explanation:
> 
> Use van and vannak when Lenni mean "to stay"
> (e.g. it responds at the question "hol?" [where?] or "hogy van?" [how is]
> Don't use in other cases.
> In negative form it's the same:
> If the affermative sentence wants "van" or "vannak" we have use nincs (or nincsenek)
> If the affermative sentence DOESN'T want "van" or "vannak" we have use nem.


 
Now, I don't quite agree with that (what happens when you can use _both_ like in my sentences above?) but it may be worth discussing in another thread (e.g. "The most important usage of van/vannak and their negation") because when I prepared the above little "work" I have noticed that there is not a straightforward correspondance between actual appearance or not of van/nak and the use of "nincs" in the negative equivalent. 



Ajace said:


> Hungarian has a lot of "nuances" in its sentences....


Yes, unfortunately, you are right. This is why I'm not sure how useful it is to enter into detailed explanations but to counterbalance things, you can be sure that Hungarians are not going to complain about mistakes as long as they understand what you mean. (Although I'm sure that we are not as good listeners as Italians but maybe with time that'll come, too.)



Ajace said:


> And I find in this language great courtesy and "udvariasság". You really surprised me there... but if you've been lucky so far, let us hope that it'll last!)
> I'm always afraid to seem rude or unkind with my weak knowledge of it!
> Don't worry, it takes a lot before a Hungarian would feel that - if ever... and especially not for linguistic reasons!


----------

