# Where are you taking me?



## lluvioso1

Hello,

I want to say *informally* to a person *"Where are you taking me? Please, can you take me somewhere far away from them?"*

Here is my try: *"Hová viszel? Kérlek, el tudnál vinni valahová messzire tőlük?"*

Is it correct? I am not sure if indefinite 2nd person singular informal verb conjugation is the right choice for both *visz *and *tud*.

Thank you.


----------



## AndrasBP

lluvioso1 said:


> Is it correct? I am not sure if indefinite 2nd person singular informal verb conjugation is the right choice for both *visz *and *tud*.


Yes, both "viszel" and "tudnál" are correct.


----------



## elroy

Interesting.  So "me" is not considered definite?


----------



## AndrasBP

elroy said:


> Interesting.  So "me" is not considered definite?


Yes, it is a rather strange grammar feature. 
If an indefinite form of a transitive verb is used without an explicit object, the meaning "me" (=engem) is usually implied.

Hová viszel (engem)? = Where are you taking me?
Hallasz (engem)? = Can you hear me?
Szeretsz (engem)? = Do you love me?
Nem hívtál (engem). = You didn't call me.


----------



## elroy

AndrasBP said:


> Yes, it is a rather strange grammar feature.


Interesting.

Hebrew requires the preposition את ("et") before definite direct objects, so in a way, you can think of [verb + את/"et"] as equivalent to the Hungarian definite conjugation, and [verb + *∅*] as equivalent to the indefinite conjugation.

ראיתי ילד ("raiti yeled") = I saw a boy.
ראיתי את הילד ("raiti et ha-yeled") = I saw the boy.
ראיתי את שרה ("raiti et Sara") = I saw Sara.

Direct object pronouns all start with אות- ("ot-"), which is etymologically derived from את ("et"), or את- ("et-"), which is also (and more obviously) derived from את ("et").  This means that direct object pronouns are considered definite, unlike in Hungarian.

ראיתי אותו ("raiti oto") = I saw him.
ראיתי אתכם ("raiti etxem") = I saw you [plural].


----------



## AndrasBP

elroy said:


> This means that direct object pronouns are considered definite, unlike in Hungarian.


Only the *first *person direct object pronouns ("me" and "us") go with indefinite verb forms, the others require definite ones.

Szeret*sz* (engem)? = Do you love me?

but:

Szeret*ed* (őt)? = Do you love him/her?

It's mind-boggling for learners.


----------



## elroy

AndrasBP said:


> Only the *first *person direct object pronouns ("me" and "us") go with indefinite verb forms, the others require definite ones.


----------



## francisgranada

Terminologically, the _definite _and _indefinite _conjugation are not quite correct, that's why today rather the terms "általános igeragozás (=general conjugation)"  and "határozott igeragozás  (=definite conjugation)" are used.

I know that this does not resolve all the problems , but it may help  to understand better the logic of the Hungarian grammar.



elroy said:


> Interesting.  So "me" is not considered definite?


I´d say that in case of "me" there is no need to accentuate the _definiteness_, or to distinguish between the two possibilities. It is spontaneously considered a "general conjugation", the same way as e.g. in case of intransitive verbs (that do not have any object), e.g. _megy, áll, sétál, fut, jár, eszik_, .....


----------



## numerator

AndrasBP said:


> Only the *first *person direct object pronouns ("me" and "us") go with indefinite verb forms, the others require definite ones.



But @AndrasBP, don't 2nd-person objects also require indefinite forms?
My understanding is that the definite verb forms are only used with *3rd-person definite objects*_._

You were focusing on 1st-person subjects but that obscures the issue because then there is a special form (_-lak/-lek_) for 2nd-person objects. But suppose we look at 3rd-person subjects:

_Hová visz? _is, to me, ambiguous between _Where is he/she taking_ _*you*__? and Where is he/she taking *me*?_
(and, using the polite 3rd-person form of address, _Where are you (stranger) taking me?_)

_Hová visz a barátod nyaralni? _- does not mean I expect your boyfriend to take *me *somewhere...

_Semmi gond, nem lát a tanár_ could equally mean _No problem, the teacher can't see you / the teacher can't see me / can't see _(intransitive - is blind)...

I'm asking other native speakers to confirm as my _nyelvérzék_ has just been proven distinctly regional by another thread


----------



## numerator

I haven't seen the term "general cojugation" but I agree it is more apt than "indefinite conjugation".


----------



## Zsanna

Hello numerator,
Your _nyelvérzék_ is right and your examples are flawless (n.9). AndrasBP just tried to answer you strictly according to the question in your original post (as it is required here).


numerator said:


> But @AndrasBP, don't 2nd-person objects also require indefinite forms?


They would, but mostly sentences like that are meaningless when the subject and the object are both second person (Singular or Plural), the same applies when the subject and the object are both 1st person (Singular or Plural, subject or object) (1), except when reflexive pronouns are used (2).

Both subject and ojbect are 1st person (Singular or Plural - I don't give an example here for all the permutations)
1. *Viszek/látok engem/minket. (It does not exist: I carry/see "me" or "us", neither if the subject is 1st person Plural.)
2.   Viszem/Látom magamat or magunkat. (Direct conjugation with the reflexive pronouns: I carry/see myself or ourselves.)

Subject: 1st pers, object: (Singuar or Plural) 2nd pers.
1.  Visz*l*ek/Lát*l*ak téged/titeket (The *l* indicates that the object is _you_ -Sing. or Plural- a "special feature" in our conjugation.)
      I carry/see you.

Both subject and object are 2nd pers. (Singular or Plural)
1.  *Viszel/Látsz téged/titeket. (It does not exist: "You carry/see you.")
2.   Viszed/Látod magadat/magatokat. (Direct conjugation with the reflexive pronouns) You carry/see yourself or yourselves.

Subject: 3rd person (Sing. or Plural), object: 1st or 2nd person Sigular or Plural -> indirect conjugation
E.g. Lát engem, de téged is. (He can see me but you as well. - This may not be a happy translation...)
      Visz minket és titeket is. (He'll take/carry us and you - all of you - as well.)

Subject: 3rd person (Sing. or Plural), object: 3rd person (Sing. or Plural) -> direct conjugation




numerator said:


> _Hová visz? _is, to me, ambiguous between _Where is he/she taking_ _*you*__? and Where is he/she taking *me*?_
> (and, using the polite 3rd-person form of address, _Where are you (stranger) taking me?_)


You are right but in a face to face conversation such sentences tend to be clear (context, mimics etc. are great helpers). However, in a written form one has to be careful to be clear enough.

Edit: I used "direct conjugation" (why...?) by which I meant (according to the old terms) "objective conjugation".


----------



## francisgranada

numerator said:


> I haven't seen the term "general cojugation" but I agree it is more apt than "indefinite conjugation".


See for example here (in Hungarian).


----------

