elvész, elvesz, elveszik?

< Previous | Next >


Senior Member
Czech (Prague)
Móra Ferenc: A CSALÓ

Egyszerre aztán Pétör elvész, s néha öt perc is beletelik, mire újra felbukkan kócos buksija a látóhatáron.
Egyszerre aztán Pétör elvesz, s néha öt perc is beletelik, mire újra felbukkan kócos buksija a látóhatáron.

In my textbook (Maďarština pro samouky, 1968):

Egyszerre aztán Péter elveszik, s néha öt perc is beletelik, mire újra felbukkan kócos feje a látóhatáron.

Which form is correct. According to my dictionary, elvész is correct (inf. elveszni, with short e). I suppose it means that "Péter disappears/is disappearing" (present tense) and not something else.
Last edited:
  • arlett

    Hello bibax,

    In my opinion, they are all fine to use.
    Originally, the correct form is elvész - though I must admit, it sounds literary and somewhat old-fashioned (to me at least), but it's grammatical.
    Elvesz is not the most natural-sounding in your example above, but it's deemed correct.
    Elveszik is fine and that's what I would use in normal speech (though in your example elvész sounds fine as the whole sentence is a little stilted.)

    However, elvesz or elveszik can be tricky as the verbs elveszni (to get lost or disappear) and elvenni (to take away / snatch) can be conjugated similarly, so the exact meaning depends on the context.

    The meanings are:

    elvész - he/she disappears
    elvesz - 1) he/she disappears 2) he/she takes sg away
    elveszik - 1 ) he/she disappears 2) they take sg away

    Even with that, I suggest that you use elveszik instead of elvész as the latter has a little old-fashioned ring to it.


    Senior Member
    Czech (Prague)
    Thanks. So Móra Ferenc originally used the form elvész and the author of the texbook (Blaskovics József) deliberately changed it to the more natural-sounding form elveszik. IMHO elveszik is more regular than elvész (elveszni: elveszek, elveszel, elveszik, ..., elvesztem, elvesznék, no other form with long é, only elvész), elveszni/elveszik looks like a common regular ik-verb.

    EDIT: Now I've realized that the 1st person sing. would have to be elveszem (ik-verb), not elveszek. Which form is correct?
    Last edited:


    Senior Member
    I agree with arlett.

    is imo more archaic or literary but all 3 are correct. I think to be/get lost is a slightly more accurate translation, disappear is rather eltűnik.

    It is not a true ikes verb, elveszik is considered to be a vernacular form, but to be honest, it sounds to be the most natural to my ears.

    But as it is not a real ikes verb, elveszem is incorrect in 1st person singular.

    The present indicative conjucation is:

    1. elveszek
    2. elveszel
    3. elvesz/elvész/elveszik (all 3 are theoretically correct)

    1. elveszünk
    2. elvesztek
    3. elvesznek
    < Previous | Next >