# Valakinek vs valakié



## ausermilar

Hello!


In an old interview to a kulak, the farmer is asked about "his cows" and answers: "nekem nincsenek, csak a szövetkezetnek vannak".
The meaning, OK, no problem: he's saying "I don't have, only the kolhoz has".

In my own language the aswer would be simply "there are only those of the kolhoz" (meaning that nobody else is allowed to have those animals): "nekem nincsenek, csak a szövetkezetéi vannak".

Have both answers the same meaning in Hungarian?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Zsanna

Hello,
The difference in the construction is the following: vki*nek* *van* vmi*je*= *to have* and vki*é* = (it is) *his* (*hers*, *its*), it belongs to him (her, it).
In your original example the answer was (as you wrote): I don't have any, it is only the cooperative that has some.
Your suggestion: I don't have any, _only those of the cooperative_ or _there are only the cooperative's_.
Do they have the same meaning? In a way yes (the both express belonging), but not quite.
The *-é* is used to state who is the owner of a property.
E.g.
A: Ki*é* ez a könyv? (=Whose book is this?)
B: Péter*é*. (= It is Peter's.)

A: Van könyved? (= Do you have a book?)
B: Nekem nincs, ez Péter*é*. (No, I don't, this one is Peter's.) (There is a book in my hand, so I feel obliged to explain whose book it is.)

Your sentence sounds a bit strange but it is possible to use it.
E.g. If cows are needed (for their milk) and you mean that you can't help the person (because you don't have any fresh milk, not having any cows) but in the whole settlement it's only the cooperative's cows that can "come into the picture". (Sorry, it is not a very good explanation because it is not common to say it like this.)


----------



## francisgranada

ausermilar said:


> "nekem nincsenek, csak a szövetkezetéi vannak"


According with the explanation of Zsanna, I'd like to add my personal observation. This sentence does not correspond very well to the situation you have described, because it could be interpreted as "I don't have cows (for whatever reason: I never had any, they died, I'sold them, etc....), only the cows _belonging to the cooperative farm (kolkhoz)_ do exist". It's not same  as "I don't have cows, only the kolhoz has cows (including those that _belonged to me or to other people_)".  





> .... In my own language the aswer would be simply "there are only those of the kolhoz" ....


The literal translation to  your language is not possible, because there are no possessive endings in Portuguese. However, I think in the given context "Eu não as tenho, só há vacas da cooperativa (kolhoz)" is not exactly the same as ""Eu não as tenho, só a cooperativa tem vacas".

(I hope there are not too many errors in my Portuguese examples .....)


----------



## ausermilar

francisgranada said:


> According with the explanation of Zsanna, I'd like to add my personal observation. This sentence does not correspond very well to the situation you have described, because it could be interpreted as "I don't have cows (for whatever reason: I never had any, they died, I'sold them, etc....), only the cows _belonging to the cooperative farm (kolkhoz)_ do exist". It's not same  as "I don't have cows, only the kolhoz has cows (including those that _belonged to me or to other people_)".  The literal translation to  your language is not possible, because there are no possessive endings in Portuguese. However, I think in the given context "Eu não as tenho, só há vacas da cooperativa (kolhoz)" is not exactly the same as ""Eu não as tenho, só a cooperativa tem vacas".
> 
> (I hope there are not too many errors in my Portuguese examples .....)


Your sentences in Portuguese are OK and we'd rather say the first one, to stress that the only owner of cows is the cooperative and nobody else can have them. Thanks.


----------



## francisgranada

ausermilar said:


> ... we'd rather say the first one, to stress that the only owner of cows is the cooperative and nobody else can have them.


I understand you. In a Romance language, probably I'd use the first one, too.  Then the difference may consist in the fact that the possessive endings  in Hungarian are used mostly/typically with persons and that they may be more "expressive" or "stronger" than the Romance constructions with the preposition "de". See for example "essa pessoa é de Portugal": it would be very strange (if not impossible) to translate this in Hungarian as "ez a személy Portugáliá*é*" (this would mean something like "the owner of this person is the State of Portugal") ....


----------

