# To be



## FRENFR

Hello.

I find it strange that you do not use 'van' for 'it is'.  Lady FRENFR not being a professional linguist cannot give me a good reason for why you would not say "öt van magas", for example.  You would say 'öt magas'  (that wasn't the example, I can't remember the example - but it's the same rule, no?)

So, the question is:

Where can I say "it is", using van, rather than just adjective noun?

Thank you!


----------



## Zsanna

Hello FRENFR,

You can use it in various situations, the easiest is probably in there is (/are) constructions.

E.g.
There is a dog in the picture -> Van egy kutya a képen./A képen van egy kutya. 

(There are dogs in the picture -> Vannak kutyák a képén./A képen vannak kutyák.)

Some other, more idiomatic expressions:

It's all right or Somebody is well (not ill). -> Jól van.
It's OK (as it is)/everything is "in order"/fine. -> Rendben van.
What's up?/ What is it? (not very polite but very "basic") -> Mi van?
That's the case./This is the situation. -> Ez van.
Something is still to come -> valami még hátra van.

P.S. 'öt magas' doesn't exist


----------



## FRENFR

Thanks very much, again.  All noted.

öt magas should mean it (is) tall/high, no?

How does one use 'it is + adjective'?


----------



## Zsanna

You're welcome.
(I hope there'll be other examples, too... Better even: some nice linguistic summary.)



FRENFR said:


> öt magas should mean it (is) tall/high, no?


No, in this form it means "five tall". (*It* would be translated more naturally by "az"... when at all.)
(He/She)_It is tall_ would be just _Magas_.



FRENFR said:


> How does one use 'it is + adjective'?


It would be better to start a new thread for this. We could bring together a nice collection of uses and examples, just ideal for a thread.


----------



## Ateesh6800

FRENFR said:


> "... a good reason..."



There is an excellent reason for omitting "van". It is the principle of economy.

Full sentences would be:

"Én magas vagyok."
This is redundant; the verb is conjugated and the subject can only be "én".
So we normally say "Magas vagyok."
Unless we want to emphasize a contrast:
"Én magas vagyok, de te...?"

Same with "Te magas vagy.".
Same with "Mi magasak vagyunk.".
Same with "Ti magasak vagytok.".

Now:

*"Ő magas van." / "Apám magas."
*"Ők magasak vannak." / "A zsiráfok magasak."
Here the logic is somewhat different. Language simply decided to use the zero morpheme instead of van/vannak.

This is not unusual; Russian does the same as far as I remember.

The rule of economy goes like this: "Say a thing as simply as possible as long as it does not cause confusion."

Now why a language is economical at one point and not another is an entirely different historical matter. But the answer is: "Pista magas." is more economical to say "Pista magas van."

*A.*


----------



## Zsanna

Ateesh6800 said:


> There is an excellent reason for omitting "van". It is the principle of economy.


I don't think it is as simple as that but the original question was trickier because FRENFR asked about _when to use it_ and not when or why to omit it.



Ateesh6800 said:


> "Én magas vagyok."
> This is redundant; the verb is conjugated and the subject can only be "én".
> So we normally say "Magas vagyok."


This is not clear. Economy alone does not explain why the short "én" is dropped and the longer "vagyok" stayed. (OK, it sounds stupid for all those who studied Hungarian linguistics but let us not forget that when somebody has just started  Hungarian, he may not need a lot of linguistics with it at the same time.)


----------



## Zsanna

Further cases for the use of _van_:

To express *to* *have* (/to own) -> valakinek van valamije (= somebody has something) 
- where the owner (= the first word out of the three) is often omitted but if it is there, has to have the suffix -nak/-nek, 
_- van_ is always there (or _vannak_ if the following is in the plural) and 
- the possessed thing has the possessive suffixes (these suffixes express also the owner, this is why it can be omitted from the beginning).
e.g.
I have a problem = (nekem) van egy problémám
I have problems = (nekem) vannak problémáim


To define the *material* something *is from*: valami valamiből van
The table is from wood = Az asztal fából van.

To define the *part of the day* (we are in now): 
It is morning/noon/evening, etc. = Reggel (or délelőtt - for the whole period until noon) van./Dél van./Este van. 

N.B. For expressing the time (e.g. It is 5 o'clock.) you don't use _van_ necessarily (5 óra./5 óra van.)

To define somebody's* place* *or* the *position* of something: valami/valaki valahol van (something/somebody is somewhere)
The Parliament is in Budapest. = A Parlament (Buda)Pesten van.
Kate is in the garden. = Kati a kertben van.

I'm sure the list could be continued.


----------



## Ateesh6800

Zsanna said:


> FRENFR asked about _when to use it_ and not when or why to omit it.



I beg to disagree.  This is what FRENFR wrote, _verbatim_:



			
				FRENFR said:
			
		

> Lady FRENFR not being a professional linguist cannot give me *a good  reason* for why *you would not say* "ő van magas", for example.



In fact, this _is_ a question about the reason _why the verb is *dropped* _sometimes.

My answer in more detail and, hopefully, with more accuracy:

*(1)* There is no "good reason" in the sense of a "logical rule" that would explain this feature of Hungarian, or that would give you and easy way to remember when you can and when you cannot omit the verb.

*(2)* However, there is a good *fundamental* reason: the principle of economicalness, a force that is very much at work in the way any language develops. The way Hungarian has developed is this: "in the present tense, conjugate the verb "lenni" in all six persons (singular and plural 1st, 2nd, 3rd), but drop the verb when it's in the 3rd person." Or: "Apply a zero morpheme instead of van/vannak." It's a _deletion rule_ you just have to learn. It makes language more economical: you have to say fewer words without creating any misunderstanding.



Zsanna said:


> This is not clear. Economy *alone *does not explain why the short "én" is dropped and the longer "vagyok" stayed.



I never said it economy is the *only* explanation.  I said it is *an excellent reason*. I'd be happy to see if there are any more reasons or explanations. 

In fact, the principle of economicalness has converted English from a language that conjugates its verbs and has a rather free word order into a language that barely conjugates its verbs but has very strict word order. Fewer verb forms mean better economy. Restrictions on word order, on the other hand, does not cost you any energy.

And again, economicalness is not the only reason. We all say things differently than out parents just to establish out unique identity (even if that means less economy).


----------



## Zsanna

OK, ok. 
However, what I thought the _real_ question was this:
"Where can I say "it is", using van, rather than just adjective noun?"
(This was the one with the question mark and the one that had meaning... Sorry, but when learning a language there is no point in asking any question beginning with "Why...?" unless one specialises in linguistics.)

_I _beg to disagree about the economical aspect because meanwhile it is a working principle in all languages, in the case of using (or not) the "van", I don't think it applies. 
To put it in nutshell (I have already mentioned this in the parallel thread: To be + adjective (+/noun)): I think the reason is _firstly_ somewhere around the fact the we use the third person Singular as a starting point in a lot of cases (conjugation - see verb forms in a dictionary, structure, word building, etc.). 
The use of "van" seems more like an exception so statistics also support the idea that "at the bottom" you start off with a "naked" form that you "dress up" little by little if a new meaning or shade turns up necessary to be expressed. This is my hunch, at least.


----------



## Ateesh6800

Zsanna said:


> "... when learning a language there is no point in asking any question beginning with "Why...?" unless one specialises in linguistics."



We don't agree (and we don't have to). 

All the kids I have ever seen acquire their first language spent years (literally) asking "Mi az?" and "Miért?" questions all the time. No kid aged two to four ever asked me (or anyone else in my presence) "When do I say this or that?" or "What is the rule I need to follow?" or "When do I drop the verb?"

All the "Why?" questions are fully legitimate. They might not be answered easily (which is why my Mom used to have stock responses like "Mert a kismacska szőrös" etc.) but they activate the investigative mind.

There are very different language learners and the strength of a forum like this is in getting so many perspectives on things. 



Zsanna said:


> "... in the case of using (or  not) the "van", I don't think it applies"



I accept that this is what you think.  One word less is still one word less. 



Zsanna said:


> "... I think the reason is _firstly_  somewhere around the fact the we use the third person Singular as a  starting point in a lot of cases (conjugation - see verb forms in a  dictionary, structure, word building, etc.).



There is potential in this hunch. In other terms: in Hungarian, the non-marked, "naked" form of the verb is usually its present tense intransitive third person singular form. It is the verb root plus a zero morpheme. But how this explains the dropping of the verb is so far unclear to me. 

With friendship:

*A.*


----------



## FRENFR

Finally I can correct two wonderful linguists 

We say "I beg to differ", not I beg to disagree.  Nobody would say this in the UK (at least).  This is undeniable.  (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/I+beg+to+disagree  -  even this changes to 'beg to differ'  )

Apart from that, I've noted your examples and I study when I can.  I just need to get the confidence (stupid of an interpreter/entertainer to say, right!?) to speak and use what I am learning.

Yesterday, a man came to fix the air conditioning unit here.  I was nervous and prepared Google translate (it's pretty good actually - I have a lot of experience thanks to Hungarian!!!!!)  It was a disaster, him trying to explain things even though I can't understand 1%.  Why?  He knew I was English.

It infuriates me that I can't communicate and drives me to learn more and more.  Unfortunately, I have had so many translations recently from the EU; as well as writing an essay for my current degree (English Language and Lit.).  Hard to focus.

But I write alot in my notebook and read in the evenings.  Help from this site is invaluable to me, so thanks a bunch


----------

