# hely, mell, térd low-vowel nouns?



## entangledbank

Can someone tell me why the likes of _hely, mell, térd_ are listed (in the very good Routledge Essential Grammar) as low-vowel nouns, rather than 'regular' nouns? That is, they use the linking vowel from the _e/a_ set rather than from the _e/o/ö_ set. But if they're monosyllables with the stem vowel _e_ or non-shortening _é_, the result is the same in either case: _helyek, mellek, térdek_. It's the same with the accusative ending, I believe. So what is the difference between these and regular nouns like _szék_, where there's also no shortening? Am I  missing something?

Could it be the difference between the two sounds of _e_, hidden by the standard orthography?


----------



## Zsanna

I'm afraid I cannot and for several reasons...

The first being that they are _not_ low-vowel nouns but high-vowel. (It may be difficult to choose the right linking vowel at times but it is much easier to establish whether a particular vowel is high or low.)
I do not know of any (easily visible) reason why those words could be considered as "not regular" or what the difference may be between them and e.g. _szék_. (For me there is none.)

I don't think it could even be because of the different sorts of _e_ sounds that may hide behind (although I don't think there is such a possibility in your examples) because both belong to the high-vowel category.

So, having ruled out the possibilities I can think of, could it be just a typo?

However, it is not clear to me on what basis they make a difference between the "_e/a"_ and the "_e/o/ö_ set"... Perhaps you could come back on that?


----------



## frugnaglio

Hi!
Well, in the case of _hely_ it's clearly in the _e/a_ group, because otherwise its accusative would be _helyt_ and not _helyet_.
But I remember I had your same doubt about _térd_ when I was using that book (which, by the way, is really good! Especially the section on word order was a terrific help to me).
I supposed it was because of the underlying open _e_/closed _ë_ distinction, but if Zsanna says it's high-vowel... who knows...


----------



## frugnaglio

Zsanna said:


> IHowever, it is not clear to me on what basis they make a difference between the "_e/a"_ and the "_e/o/ö_ set"... Perhaps you could come back on that?



It's very useful for a learner of the language to know there are two basic kinds of declension, the _a/e_ type used by nearly all adjectives and some two hundred or so nouns plus the ones in _-alom/elem_, and the _o/e/ö_ type used by nearly all nouns and a few adjectives (nationalities, and a very small number of other adjectives, like _boldog_). Knowing this means you'll be able to decline an adjective correctly even if you've never met it before (not a nationality? not in that small group? then it's _a/e_: _zöldek_ and not _zöldök_). There's also the way the accusative is formed: the _a/e_ type always inserts a vowel, the _o/e/ö_ type doesn't: _halat_ but _dalt_.


----------



## frugnaglio

Zsanna said:


> because both belong to the high-vowel category.



Hmm I have a doubt... Zsanna, do you use “high” and “low” referring to vowels as translations of “magas” and “mély” respectively? This is NOT their meaning! “High” and “low” refer to the openness of the mouth: they mean “closed” and “open” respectively. _U_ and _ü_ are both high vowels. The two sounds of _e_, for the speakers who make this distinction, are a high vowel and a low vowel.
It'd be interesting to know if a speaker who makes this distinction pronounces _térd*e*t_ with the more open kind of _*e*_ – this was the original question's sense.

(magas = front, mély = back)


----------



## entangledbank

Well thank you both. I'll remain puzzled, but relieved that I'm not missing anything that I need to know for basic inflection. I was wondering if there was some other case or possessive suffix that was sensitive to the difference.


----------



## Zsanna

frugnaglio said:


> Hmm I have a doubt... Zsanna, do you use “high” and “low” referring to vowels as translations of “magas” and “mély” respectively? This is NOT their meaning!


I'm not very familiar with these categories in other terms (than in Hungarian and in French, never had the chance to have a look at REG mentioned above, either) so it is important to decide what we mean by what term. (I did English phonetics in English but it doesn't help much here.) 
So I use the Hungarian terms translated (well or badly) into English...(I can't help feeling though that another meaning to "low and high vowels" would be very confusing to me in this context.) But obviously, in this case one should know the book in question to be able to judge.


frugnaglio said:


> It'd be interesting to know if a speaker who makes this distinction pronounces _térd*e*t_ with the more open kind of _*e*_ – this was the original question's sense.


There again, "the more open kind of e" puzzles me a bit. Do you mean the _ë_? (It is _closed_ as far as I know, at least more than the _e_ sound.) I was thinking of it because in the Szeged dialect you could say _térdök_, maybe even _helyök_ (however, not really _mellök _as far as I can tell) and our ö-s are said to come (often) from this ë. I hope this helps...

But again, I still don't see the point about the a/e and o/e/ö type distinction. There are so many complications possible with the choice of the linking vowels... Does this distinction help e.g. in deciding when to use e.g. okos*o*k and okos*a*k? (To mention a fairly easy case.) 
SOS. I cannot even decide whether my question is off topic or not.


----------



## frugnaglio

Zsanna said:


> There again, "the more open kind of e" puzzles me a bit. Do you mean the _ë_? (It is _closed_ as far as I know, at least more than the _e_ sound.)



Of course, the _ë_ is the more closed of the pair. So I meant the other one.



Zsanna said:


> I was thinking of it because in the Szeged dialect you could say _térdök_, maybe even _helyök_ (however, not really _mellök _as far as I can tell) and our ö-s are said to come (often) from this ë. I hope this helps...



Hmm, if you had only quoted _térdök_ I would say it helps because it means that _térd_ shouldn't be in that list. But your _helyök_ muddies the issue again... 



Zsanna said:


> But again, I still don't see the point about the a/e and o/e/ö type distinction. There are so many complications possible with the choice of the linking vowels...



The reason for the distinction is the same reason for any distinction in studying the grammar of any language. In English you learn that ray -> rays but belly -> bellies. It's kind of the same thing.
Which complications are you talking about? Could you expand on this subject?



Zsanna said:


> Does this distinction help e.g. in deciding when to use e.g. okos*o*k and okos*a*k? (To mention a fairly easy case.)



Well, my Hungarian is pretty limited and I don't know if _okos_ has a specific use as a noun... but since you are citing it, I guess it does. So, _okosak_ is the normal plural of the adjective, and _okosok_ must be the plural of the noun. If this is right... then this distinction actually works!


----------



## Zsanna

frugnaglio said:


> Of course, the _ë_ is the more closed of the pair. So I meant the other one.


 I'm afraid I don't know of any other. 



frugnaglio said:


> Hmm, if you had only quoted _térdök_ I would say it helps because it means that _térd_ shouldn't be in that list. But your _helyök_ muddies the issue again...


 Providing it really exists. I am not really sure about that.



frugnaglio said:


> The reason for the distinction is the same reason for any distinction in studying the grammar of any language...


 I understand that. I just don't understand the contents, the basis for the distinction but that is a private interest here which would deserve a new thread. (See there.)



frugnaglio said:


> Well, my Hungarian is pretty limited and I don't know if _okos_ has a specific use as a noun... but since you are citing it, I guess it does. So, _okosak_ is the normal plural of the adjective, and _okosok_ must be the plural of the noun. If this is right... then this distinction actually works!


 Right solution.


----------



## frugnaglio

Zsanna said:


> I'm afraid I don't know of any other.



I must have expressed myself in a strange and incomprehensible way... If _e_ has two sounds (for some speakers), namely _e_ and _ë_, I was referring to _e_.

See you on the other thread for the rest!


----------



## SReynolds

frugnaglio said:


> Well, my Hungarian is pretty limited and I don't know if _okos_ has a specific use as a noun... but since you are citing it, I guess it does. So, _okosak_ is the normal plural of the adjective, and _okosok_ must be the plural of the noun. If this is right... then this distinction actually works!



This is precisely the case. Adjectives can function as nouns in certain cases to refer to the members of a specific group. I know absolutely nothing about this whole vowel-harmony thing aside from being a native speaker and having an intuitive understanding of it (I also know the mnemonics _autó_ and _teniszütő_ for the front/back vowel categories):

_szegény (poor, adj, s) - szegények (poor, adj, pl)
egy szegény (a poor person, noun, s) - a szegények (the poor, noun, pl)_

_okos (smart, adj, s) - okosak (smart, adj, pl)
egy okos (not used, noun, s) - az okos*ok* (those that are smart, noun, pl)_

_vak (blind, adj, s) - vakok (blind, adj, pl)
egy vak (a blind person, noun, s) - a vak*ok* (the blind, blind people, noun, pl)_

_boldog (happy, adj, s) - boldogok (happy, adj, pl)
boldog (Blessed (Catholic title), noun, s) - boldog*ok* (beatified people, noun, pl)_

Boldog and okos seems to be conjugated differently (the accusative of _boldog_ is _boldogot, _the accusative of _okos_ is _okosat_) so this may be the reason why the two plurals differ.

A good example of this behavior can be found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says the following to his disciples:



> Blessed are *the poor in spirit*, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
> Blessed are *the meek*, for they shall inherit the earth.
> Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.





> Boldogok *a lélekben szegények*, mert övék a mennyek országa.
> Boldogok, akik szomorúak, mert majd megvigasztalják őket.
> Boldogok *a szelídek*, mert övék lesz a föld.
> Boldogok, akik éhezik és szomjazzák az igazságot, mert majd eltelnek vele.


----------



## Zsanna

frugnaglio said:


> I must have expressed myself in a strange and incomprehensible way... If _e_ has two sounds (for some speakers), namely _e_ and _ë_, I was referring to _e_.


I have found (in the Nyelvművelő Kézikönyv II.vol.1073 old.) what you meant: in the dialects using ë (in the pronunciation only!), when the linking vowel is e, it indicates that the word is an adjective (e.g. szőrmések - decorated with fur, in the plural) and when the original word is used as a noun, the linking vowel will be ë (e.g. szőrmésëk - people who sell fur).


----------



## frugnaglio

Zsanna said:


> […]



Wow… I am almost sorry if I pushed you to make a serious research on this! However, now we only need a szőrmésëk-pronouncing person so we can ask her if it's térdek or térdëk… hmm, we can leave this as a mission for the OP.


----------



## Zsanna

I didn't have to start from page 1. (In fact, the page was marked and the right sentence was even highlighted by me some time ago...)

But if our local ö corresponds as it should, I would say it could work because this _szőrmésëk_ would be pronounced as _szőrmésök_ round here, too.


----------



## franknagy

(magas = front, mély = back)
I think *térd, könyök, köldök* are regular.
*Cél* and *héj* are irregular because they tke back suffixes.


----------



## frugnaglio

SReynolds said:


> This is precisely the case. Adjectives can function as nouns in certain cases to refer to the members of a specific group.



Of course, but the point about _okos_ was that it has two kinds of declension, one for the noun and one for the adjective. For most adjectives this doesn't happen: you have the _zöldek_ (the political party), not _zöldök_; you have _szűzek_ and not _szűzök_; if you want to say “the serious ones” it's _a komolyak_ and not _a komolyok_.  _Okos_ looks like an exception.


----------



## SReynolds

Now that you mention it, you're right. I really should pay more attention to details like that!


----------



## franknagy

entangledbank said:


> Could it be the difference between the two sounds of _e_, hidden by the standard orthography?



There are some dictionaries like the Értelmező Szótár (Explanatory Dictionary) which use the  ё-e characters.
Sorry to say, the ё sound was missing from the NE dialect, which was spoken by Ferenc Kazinczy who reformed the Hungarian spelling in the 19th century.
E and Ё are phonemes!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/audi-hu/conversations/messages/79389


----------



## francisgranada

franknagy said:


> Sorry to say, the ё sound was missing from the NE dialect, which was spoken by Ferenc Kazinczy who reformed the Hungarian spelling in the 19th century.


 This is true, but is this the reason? ... I have some Hungarian  books printed in the 17th and 18th centuries and none of them distinguishes the e/ё in spelling. Neither the Károli's nor the Káldi's Bible distinguishes these two phonemes in spelling, though both were printed long before Kazinczy's reform. I think Kazinczy simply maintained the traditional orthography in this case.


----------



## franknagy

frugnaglio said:


> Hmm, if you had only quoted _térdök_ I would say it helps because it means that _térd_ shouldn't be in that list. But your _helyök_ muddies the issue again...


1) _ok/ök -> uk/ük_ change:
The plural 3rd of the possesive which is now "helyük, fiuk" used to be "helyök,fiok".



frugnaglio said:


> _zöldek_ (the political
> 
> party), not _zöldök_; you have _szűzek_ and not _szűzök_; if you want to say “the serious ones” it's _a komolyak_ and not _a komolyok_. _Okos_ looks like an exception.



Nations: török_ö_k, görög_ö_k.



francisgranada said:


> This is true, but is this the reason? ... I have some Hungarian  books
> 
> printed in the 17th and 18th centuries and none of them distinguishes the e/ё in spelling. Neither the Károli's nor the Káldi's Bible distinguishes these two phonemes in spelling, though both were printed long before Kazinczy's reform. I think Kazinczy simply maintained the traditional orthography in this case.


Interesting: Kazinczy forced so many changes. If he had been born im conty Somogy then he would have introduced the ё.
Maybe he liked the symmetry, that each short vowel has to have long pair, and vica versa.
AEIOÖUÜ
ÁÉÍÓÖUŰ

The _i<->í, u<->ú, ü<->ű_ contrasts are not present in all dialects, and they swap in several cases:
tíz<->tized, út<->utak, szűz<->szüzen.


----------



## gorilla

As a native speaker who doesn't use ё, I don't feel any difference between szék and térd. They both require a linking vowel because and ending -k or -d always requires it. And since the linking vowel can only be -e- in this case, there is no place for further distinctions (at least in the standard variant without ё).


----------



## francisgranada

I'd like to add for completeness that those linking vowels have often (not always) etymological origin, i.e. they once belonged to the stem itself, even if they have notably changed their original quality due to various sound shifts that have occurred during the last more than 1000 years. For example,  today we say _vár*a*t_ and _fehér*e*t _(not *_várt_, *_fehért_) because - according to the written documents - yet in the 11th century these words had a final vowel : _vár*u* _and _fehér*ü *_(of course, without diacritical signs in the original manuscript).


----------



## entangledbank

Revisiting this after seven years (and knowing no more Hungarian than I did then), I've noticed another difference mentioned in that same book. It relates to whether the third person possessive suffixes include _-j-_. It says this is complicated, and a matter of tendencies rather than strict rules, but words ending in consonant clusters include _-j-_ but low-vowel nouns don't. So _a kertje_ "her/his garden", a regular noun ending in a cluster, but if being a low-vowel or irregular noun outranks that here, it would be _a térde_ "her/his knee(s)". Is this correct - another reason to group _térd_ with the low-vowel nouns?


----------



## entangledbank

I've come to the conclusion that it's a misnomer, but there's no obvious name for this group of nouns. It's a large group - large enough that I'd want to call it Type 2 or something, rather than irregular - but with no single defining feature. Perhaps it should be split up into overlapping groups. There are, I think, four distinguishing features:

1. The plural and similar affixes take low-vowel _e/a_ harmony rather than high-vowel _e/ö/o_. This doesn't make a difference to words such as _hely_ that I originally asked about.
2. The accusative _-t_ requires a linking vowel after some sounds in phonetic environments where they normally _don't_ - liquids, nasals, and sibilants, basically.
3. The possessive suffixes do not take _-j-_ in phonetic environments where they normally _do_ (such as after clusters).
4. About half the words with a long vowel in the final syllable shorten it in (most?) inflection.

This is a disparate collection of features, and I don't know if there's any word that shows all four.


----------

