Slovak: Aký pán sa je?

Concise

Senior Member
Hungarian
It is a hádanka. But from where does ‘sa je’ come? Normally I’d say it is reflexive version of either byť or jesť in 3rd person of singular.

But I could not find either byť sa or jesť sa in the dictionaries, not even here Pravopis - Slovnik.sk.

My best bet is: What kind of man eats himself? But it does not make sense considering that the answer of this hádanka is marcipán.

Could someone please explain it?
 
  • It is indeed jesť in 3rd person singular.

    Slavic languages can make a kind of passive voice using the reflexive pronoun (‘sa’ in Slovak).

    I’d translate ‘sa je’ as ‘is (being) eaten’ here.

    Another example: Aký jazyk sa používa na Slovensku? - What language is used in Slovakia? (not ‘is using itself’).
     
    Last edited:
    My best bet is: What kind of man eats himself? But it does not make sense considering that the answer of this hádanka is marcipán.
    Yeah. Such interpretation is, indeed, possible but since the riddle is aimed at the general public, one usually abandons it at the very beginning (or does not consider it at all) and opts for a more rational interpretation (at least that’s the author’s expectation/hope). The more rational interpretation is the one where pán functions as the grammatical patient rather than the agent. Another issue with the "What kind of man eats himself?" interpretation is that it would be very difficult for the author of the riddle to control the outcome as the answers could really vary: A very hungry one. / A confused one. / An intrigued one. etc.

    Aký pán sa je? = Aký pán je jedený? = Akého pána jeme? and perhaps even Aký pán sa jedáva? = What kind of pán is eaten?

    Q: What kind of pán is eaten?

    A:

    pán
    :cross: (no, as it would indicate some form of cannibalism and we haven’t reached that stage yet in Slovakia or perhaps we did in the past but it wasn't very sustainable :))

    Could the answer be something that contains the word pán then?

    vicišpán/zemepán/mocipán/milosťpán. . . :cross:(no, see above)
    propán :cross:(propane)
    tulipán :cross:(tulip)
    marcipán :tick:(marzipan)

    Notice that sa is used with both singular and plural nouns below as well as the verb tense that can change depending on what one intends to communicate.
    Zvratný tvar nezvratných slovies

    A. Pasívny zvratný tvar


    V týchto prípadoch zvratné tvary majú pasívny význam [...] synonymný so zloženým pasívnym tvarom. Preto možnosť zameniť zvratný tvar zloženým pasívom je kritériom jeho pasívneho významu:
    styk sa obmedzil = styk bol obmedzený,
    trusné jamy sa budujú = trusné jamy budované,
    ohlášky sa napíšu = ohlášky budú napísané,
    reči sa hovoria = reči hovorené,
    chlieb sa je = chlieb je jedený

    Zvratné pasívne tvary majú len osobné činnostné prechodné slovesá. Najčastejšie sú tvary 3. os. sg. a pl.
    Source: Morfológia slovenského jazyka. 1966, p. 388
     
    Last edited:
    In Visztula's defence, when dealing with riddles, it's often hard to tell what the "rational interpretation" is... The point of a riddle is often to violate one unspoken assumption or another.

    At any rate, it's good to keep in mind that sa, although usually called a "reflexive particle" or "reflexive pronoun", can, in fact, have several different meanings:

    (1) true reflexive: Umývam sa. Obliekajú sa. (myself, themselves)
    (2) reciprocal: Majú sa radi. Pobili sme sa. (each other)
    (3) passive: Vybudovalo sa nové ihrisko. (was built).
    This one doesn't work well with patients that are capable of being agents: Chlapec sa bije or Auto sa predbehlo cannot be interpreted passively.

    This is also the go-to construction to express that something is generally done or should (not) be done: Takto sa to robí/nerobí. Your riddle was in this category: Marcipán sa je. I would contradict Morfológia slovenského jazyka in that I don't think the passive participle can always be used to the same effect: Reči sa hovoria a chlieb sa je is a proverb, but Reči sú hovorené a chlieb je jedený is just a mess.

    (4) impersonal construction: Tancovalo sa do rána. V teplákoch sa do divadla nechodí.
    (similar to the passive but with intransitive verbs...)
    (5) change of state - I think that's called the mediopassive? Nahneval sa. (got angry - not: angered himself)
    ...
    and others, but the list is getting too long.

    Often only one or a few of these meanings are "natural" and learners can be excused for not guessing correctly which one it is!
     
    In Visztula's defence, [...]

    Often only one or a few of these meanings are "natural" and learners can be excused for not guessing correctly which one it is!
    :eek: You seem to have interpreted some of my post in a negative way which means that I messed up somewhere to even allow such an interpretation. Visztula said that it does not make sense and I said "yeah." I liked the interpretation and found it funny and expanded on it a little. If you interpreted it negatively that means that there is a chance that someone else did as well so I will need to find a better way to make my posts and the intention behind them clearer.
    Chlapec sa bije or Auto sa predbehlo cannot be interpreted passively.
    Chlapec je bitý. / Auto bolo predbehnuté. might work. The first one does not sound as good a replacement as the second one, though.
    Reči sa hovoria a chlieb sa je is a proverb, but Reči sú hovorené a chlieb je jedený is just a mess.
    :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Yes, they don't sound good but I think what they meant is that if you can replace them in your mind (not necessarily in your speech/writings) with their passive counterparts and achieve a similar meaning, then the said criterion is met. It should work as some form of "guidance" or a "rule."
    (5) change of state - I think that's called the mediopassive?
    Could be. I was actually trying to avoid the technical aspect in my post as well as I was worried that I would provide a technically incorrect input so I just quoted from Morfológia. I feel like the "Obliekajú sa." part could also be non-reflexive (similarly to the "pán sa je" construction above) but then again, one could always come up with some convoluted context in which their proposed sentence would work so there's also that.
     
    @morior_invictus No, no, I must apologize. My use of the word "defence", and the rest, was intentionally over the top, since there had clearly been no attack. Sorry if it came across the wrong way!

    I just think riddles are inherently difficult because you have to guess which aspect to "shift". Part of what makes this riddle difficult is, I think, making sense of "pán sa je" - because "pán" makes such a good subject (very much unlike "marcipán").

    And yes, everything else what you said.
     
    “ pán :cross: (no, as it would indicate some form of cannibalism and we haven’t reached that stage yet in Slovakia or perhaps we did in the past but it wasn't very sustainable :))”

    A real LOL happened recently. :)
     
    Ahojte chlapci!

    Aj ja som našiel vetu v mojej knihe, v tej je pasívny zvratný tvar v množnom čísle:

    “Pán učiteľ, nedali by sa vitamíny zo špenátu a mrkvy vložiť do cukríkov a čokolády?”

    I guess it is a nice one, because it contains “dať sa” with the meaning of “možno”. At least I love this sort of phenomena observed in languages.
     
    “Pán učiteľ, nedali by sa vitamíny zo špenátu a mrkvy vložiť do cukríkov a čokolády?”
    I believe this is a different grammatical phenomenon so I guess it should have its own thread.

    It is a variant of dať sa + verb in its infinitive form (". . . nedali by sa . . . vložiť. . . ?" = ". . .would it be possible to add. . . ?")

    ___________
    P.S.: Both "v mojej" and "vo svojej" sound fine to me.
     
    Last edited:
    Sure "dat' sa" is what you say, I could figure it out on my own earlier, but I thought that there was the same phenomenon, because the object is a sort of subject, so here there is also a sort of passive logics.

    In my sentence, "vitamíny" is in plural and "dat'" is, too. I thought that it was not a pure coincident. I guess that if vitamín was in singular then "dali" would change to "dal", that is "nedal by sa vitamín zo....".

    Am I not right?

    PS: In the weekend I checked a few threads on mo^j/tvoj/jeho/jej vs svoj, not just in Slovak, but also as regards Serbo-Croatian languague, and not just here in wordreference.com.
    What seemed to be sure for me is that each time when there is a possibility of ambiguity, you have to use svoj. On the other hand the chance of ambiguity is much lower in case of mo^j/tvoj than in case of jeho/jej.
    Some people says that you always have to abandon mo^j/tvoj if svoj works there, even if there is a possibility of ambiguity, some say, as you morior_invictus, that in this case one can choose either mo^j/tvoj or svoj.
     
    Sure "dat' sa" is what you say, I could figure it out on my own earlier, but I thought that there was the same phenomenon, because the object is a sort of subject, so here there is also a sort of passive logics.

    In my sentence, "vitamíny" is in plural and "dat'" is, too. I thought that it was not a pure coincident. I guess that if vitamín was in singular then "dali" would change to "dal", that is "nedal by sa vitamín zo....".

    Am I not right?
    You're right to say that if we changed "vitamíny" to "vitamín," "nedali" would change to "nedal," as far as the grammar goes, and that's a good thing. :thumbsup:

    As for your other point, here's why I think it's not the same phenomenon:

    nezvratné slovesá (non-reflexive verbs) - example: nakresliť (to draw something - e.g. a picture)
    zvratné slovesá (reflexive verbs)(verbs with either sa or si) - example: nakresliť sa (to draw a portrait/etc. of oneself)
    zvratné tvary nezvratných slovies (reflexive forms of non-reflexive verbs)(non-reflexive verbs with sa only that look like reflexive verbs but retain their non-reflexive meaning and are presented in a quasi-passive form) - example: Obrázok sa nakreslil ceruzkou. (The picture was drawn with a pencil.) --> as can be seen from the example, the main verb is in its reflexive quasi-passive form but retains its non-reflexive meaning.

    In your example (#8), the main verb is "vložiť" and "dať sa" is a modal verb (other modal verbs: môcť/chcieť/musieť. . . ).
    „Pán učiteľ, nedali by sa vitamíny zo špenátu a mrkvy vložiť do cukríkov a čokolády?“

    In its modal form, "dať sa" does not express what was done/is (being) done/will be done but rather what can/could be done or what one hopes can/could be done (i.e. dať sa = je možné / možno).

    Dá sa to ešte opraviť? (Can it still be fixed? / Is it still possible to fix it?) - Nedá. (No, it cannot. / it is not.)
    Dalo by sa to ešte opraviť? (Could it still be fixed? / Would it still be possible to fix it?) - Nedalo. (No, it could not. / would not.)
    iPhone-y sa nedajú opraviť keď sa pokazia. (iPhones cannot be fixed once they are broken. / It is not possible to fix iPhones once they are broken.).
    Nedá sa to ešte opraviť? (Can it still be fixed? / Is it still possible to fix it?) - Nedá. (No, it cannot. / it is not.)
    Nedalo by sa to ešte opraviť? (Could it still be fixed? / Would it still be possible to fix it?) - Nedalo. (No, it could not. / would not.)

    PS: In the weekend I checked a few threads on mo^j/tvoj/jeho/jej vs svoj, not just in Slovak, but also as regards Serbo-Croatian languague, and not just here in wordreference.com.
    What seemed to be sure for me is that each time when there is a possibility of ambiguity, you have to use svoj. On the other hand the chance of ambiguity is much lower in case of mo^j/tvoj than in case of jeho/jej.
    Some people says that you always have to abandon mo^j/tvoj if svoj works there, even if there is a possibility of ambiguity, some say, as you morior_invictus, that in this case one can choose either mo^j/tvoj or svoj.
    We are already straying too far from the main topic of this thread but to answer your implied dilemma, Panceltic's svoj is the only grammatically correct option in your case because the possessive pronoun you used indicated that the book belongs to the subject of the sentence (i.e. you). If it did not, you would need to use one of the following: môj, tvoj, jeho, jej, náš, váš, ich (môj, in your case). Having said that, the grammatically incorrect use of môj, tvoj, jeho, jej, náš, váš, ich in such cases is so common (and perhaps even preferred by some) that both versions sound fine to me.

    Požičal si odo mňa svoje auto.:cross: :thumbsdown: (the subject is he whereas the pronoun intended is my and thus, since the car does not belong to the subject of the sentence but to the person from whom the subject borrowed it, svoje is not only grammatically but also semantically wrong as it would indicate that the car is his)
    Požičal si odo mňa moje auto. :tick: :thumbsup: (for the reason stated above, moje is the only option here).
    Ten výraz som našiel vo svojom slovníku. :tick::thumbsup: (the subject of the sentence is I and since the dictionary belongs to the subject of the sentence - me, svoje should be used in order for the sentence to be grammatically correct and to adhere to the general rule)
    Ten výraz som našiel v mojom slovníku. :cross::thumbsup: (this sounds still fine to me even though Slovak teachers and linguists would probably frown upon it)
     
    Last edited:
    PS: In the weekend I checked a few threads on mo^j/tvoj/jeho/jej vs svoj, not just in Slovak, but also as regards Serbo-Croatian languague, and not just here in wordreference.com.
    What seemed to be sure for me is that each time when there is a possibility of ambiguity, you have to use svoj. On the other hand the chance of ambiguity is much lower in case of mo^j/tvoj than in case of jeho/jej.
    Some people says that you always have to abandon mo^j/tvoj if svoj works there, even if there is a possibility of ambiguity, some say, as you morior_invictus, that in this case one can choose either mo^j/tvoj or svoj.
    I'm not sure how it exactly works in the Slovak and Serbo-Croatian languages (probably similar), but in Polish there are possessive pronouns and particles dedicated for reflexive actions or possessive relations between subject and object - which are also used to form impersonate speech - and their usage is plain obligatory if only the contexts mandates it. This is different from English and Romance languages (I do not know about Hungarian), where regular possessive pronouns are used instead.

    For example, in Polish the phrase "*ja mam mój rower, Ty masz Twój rower, a on ma jego rower" ('I have my bycicle, you have your bicycle, and he has his bicycle') sounds plain awkward even though there is no ambiguity in the semantics. And it clearly discloses that the speaker is either a foreigner, or perhaps a native speaker who has grown up (or lived long) abroad and thinks in another language. The correct phrase would be "ja mam swój rower, Ty masz swój rower, a on ma swój" - and it's clear that three distinct bicycles are being discussed, because in each and every clause "swój" refers to a possessive relation between the subject and the object within that clause. After all, każdy ma swój rower (everybody has their own bike).

    Reflexive verbs function similarly:
    • ja się myję (I wash myself)
    • ty się myjesz (you wash yourself)
    • on się myje (he washes himself)
    • my się myjemy (we wash ourselves)
    • wy się myjecie (you wash yourselves)
    • oni się myją (they wash themselves)
    3rd person reflexive form is also used to form impersonal speech: "kurczak się piecze" ("a chicken is roasting", lit. "a chicken is roasting itself"), "zupa się gotuje", "grzyby się suszą", etc.

    As far as I can recall my past exposure to the Slovak language, the latter works similarly in the Slovak as well.

    BTW, the OP's "jaki pan się je - marcepan" would sound a bit peculiar, but I have an impression that I've heard it somewhere - perhaps as a regional joke (compare: "tam się nie je grzybów" - "mushrooms are not eaten there", "they do not eat mushrooms there").
     
    BTW, the OP's "jaki pan się je - marcepan" would sound a bit peculiar, but I have an impression that I've heard it somewhere - perhaps as a regional joke (compare: "tam się nie je grzybów" - "mushrooms are not eaten there", "they do not eat mushrooms there").

    Co ma wspólnego łyżka z jesienią? :)
     
    Ten výraz som našiel vo svojom slovníku. :tick::thumbsup: (the subject of the sentence is I and since the dictionary belongs to the subject of the sentence - me, svoje should be used in order for the sentence to be grammatically correct and to adhere to the general rule)
    Ten výraz som našiel v mojom slovníku. :cross::thumbsup: (this sounds still fine to me even though Slovak teachers and linguists would probably frown upon it)

    “Ak mi dáte svoj dolár, ja vám zaspievam svoj song.”

    Just a “backtest” of my understanding: svoj dolár is his dollar, while svoj song is my song, isn’t it?
     
    “Ak mi dáte svoj dolár, ja vám zaspievam svoj song.”

    Just a “backtest” of my understanding: svoj dolár is his dollar, while svoj song is my song, isn’t it?
    :thumbsup::thumbsup: (formal singular you) his/her or (plural you) their depending on the context but your understanding of the rule for "svoj" is spot-on.
     
    Aj ja som našiel vetu v mojej svojej knihe, v tej je pasívny zvratný tvar v množnom čísle:
    I don't agree with this correction ...

    1. "V svojej knihe" sounds surely bad.
    2. "Vo svojej knihe" would be correct, of course. But "V mojej knihe", in the given context, is usual and idiomatic as well, in my personal opinion ...
     
    I don't understand this correction ...

    1. "V svojej knihe" sounds surely bad.
    2. "Vo svojej knihe" would be correct, of course. But "V mojej knihe", in the given context, is usual and idiomatic as well, in my personal opinion ...

    Yeah, my bad – I forgot to change v into vo. But in my opinion, mojej sounds awkward.
     
    :thumbsup::thumbsup: (formal singular you) his/her or (plural you) their depending on the context but your understanding of the rule for "svoj" is spot-on.
    I faced three sentences below each other:

    1. Píšem priateľovi list.

    2. Posielam dcére balík.

    3. Budem telefonovat´svojej priateľke.

    A) Is it really simply facultative to omit ‘svoj’ at any time? Or does this possibility exist only in case of family members and people being close to us as in case of some Latin languagues (eg. in Italian ‘mia moglie’ (=my wife) can be (or has to ?) switched to ‘moglie’)?

    B) And is there additional message/meaning if we add it and if we omit it? Or is it just a stylistic tool?
     
    I faced three sentences below each other:

    1. Píšem priateľovi list.

    2. Posielam dcére balík.

    3. Budem telefonovat´svojej priateľke.

    A) Is it really simply facultative to omit ‘svoj’ at any time? Or does this possibility exist only in case of family members and people being close to us as in case of some Latin languagues (eg. in Italian ‘mia moglie’ (=my wife) can be (or has to ?) switched to ‘moglie’)?

    B) And is there additional message/meaning if we add it and if we omit it? Or is it just a stylistic tool?

    All 3 sound perfectly natural to me. The use of "svojmu/svojej" would be redundant in all 3 of the examples (because the fact that it's your friend/daughter/girlfriend etc, is clear from the context).

    I can imagine including "svoj" if it were somebody else (i.e. a 3rd person singular) saying these sentences, i.e.:

    1. Píše list (svojmu) priateľovi
    2. Posiela balík svojej dcére
    [This is to make it clear that it is HIS daughter he's sending a parcel to; not MY daughter]
    3. Bude telefonovať svojej priateľke [again, just to make it clear we are talking about HIS girlfriend; not mine]

    Hope this makes sense
     
    3 sound perfectly natural to me. The use of "svojmu/svojej" would be redundant in all 3 of the examples

    Actually the sentence no. 3 does include ‘svojej’. So it is redundant there, too. But redundancy does not mean that it does not sound natural….
     
    Actually the sentence no. 3 does include ‘svojej’. So it is redundant there, too.

    Correct. It's perfectly natural to simply say "Budem telefonovať priateľke". It's because it's automatically assumed that, by saying "priateľke", you mean your own girlfriend. If that was not the case, then you would be expected to clarify that in your sentence by saying, for example, Budem telefonovať jeho priateľke or Budem telefonovať kamarátovej priateľke etc.

    But redundancy does not mean that it does not sound natural….
    Never said it didn't. The use of "svojej" in "Budem telefonovať svojej priateľke", makes it sound (to my ears anyway) a tiny bit more formal than just saying Budem telefonovať priateľke. This might just be me though and other native speakers may not feel the same way but that is the only difference that I can think of. I am not aware of any examples where the use of "svoj" (or lack thereof) would change the meaning of the sentence significantly (in 1st person singular).
     
    Notice that sa is used with both singular and plural nouns below as well as the verb tense that can change depending on what one intends to communicate.
    Zvratný tvar nezvratných slovies
    A. Pasívny zvratný tvar

    V týchto prípadoch zvratné tvary majú pasívny význam [...] synonymný so zloženým pasívnym tvarom. Preto
    možnosť zameniť zvratný tvar zloženým pasívom je kritériom jeho pasívneho významu:
    styk sa obmedzil = styk bol obmedzený,
    trusné jamy sa budujú = trusné jamy sú budované,
    ohlášky sa napíšu = ohlášky budú napísané,
    reči sa hovoria = reči sú hovorené,
    chlieb sa je = chlieb je jedený

    Zvratné pasívne tvary majú len osobné činnostné prechodné slovesá. Najčastejšie sú tvary 3. os. sg. a pl.
    Source: Morfológia slovenského jazyka. 1966, p. 388

    Going back to the original subject, I faced some sentence where there is no noun which can function neither as the grammatical agent, nor as the patient.

    V novinách sa píše o …….”

    Since this sentence is different from those like “Koláč sa robí z múky.” and “Koláče sa robia z múky.” I wonder whether “V novinách sa píšu o …….” would be also correct or in this case only the singular form of the verb can be used.
     
    Going back to the original subject, I faced some sentence where there is no noun which can function neither as the grammatical agent, nor as the patient.
    I called these cases "impersonal constructions" in one of my comments above:
    (4) impersonal construction: Tancovalo sa do rána. V teplákoch sa do divadla nechodí.
    (similar to the passive but with intransitive verbs...)

    In these cases the verb is always singular (and, in the past tense, neuter gender).
    :cross: “V novinách sa píšu o …….”

    You can use a plural verb to express the same meaning, but you have to use a different construction then:
    :thumbsup:“V novinách sa píšu články o …….”
    :thumbsup:“V novinách [ľudia] píšu o …….”
     
    Thanks.

    It is a bit tough for me to make a distinction between impersonal contstructions (general subject / általános alany) and passive construction in some cases.

    Seeing a transitive or an intransitive verb helps, but lots of verbs are dual like robiť and písať.

    Of course, if there is no “object”, then it is definitely impersonal, but there is the question which language uses which grammatical person or persons to express impersonal.

    Crazy Hungarian uses 3 of the 6, and therefore I could not exclude that Slovak had not only 1 of the six.
     
    Last edited:
    But mayb emy problem comes from the fact that before starting to tearn Slovak the last language I had learnt was Italian and I got stuck at understanding whether there was any grammatical distinction between the impersonal usage of "si" and the passive usage of "si". It was explained that one can use the impersonal form "si" to express the passive.

    Italian Grammar Lessons: the impersonal form with ‘Si’
     
    Thanks.

    It is a bit tough for me to make a distinction between impersonal contstructions (general subject / általános alany) and passive construction in some cases.
    It seems that there is no substantial difference from the point of view of the usage of singular in this case.

    Slovak: v novinách sa píše, že ... (impersonal) = v novinách je napísané, že ... (passive)
    Italian: nel giornale si scrive che ... (impersonal) = nel giornale è scritto che ... (passive)
    Hungarian: az újságban (az) van írva, hogy ... (passive) = archaic: az újságban iratik, hogy ... (passive)
    English: it is written in the newspaper that ... (passive)
    Etc ...

    In all the above mentioned cases the singular 3rd person of the verb is used when no subject and object are explicitly present. I don't know if it helps, but try to understand these constructions intuitively, without thinking in grammatical terms like passive, impersonal, or whatever ...
     
    Last edited:
    Sure, there is no difference in the usage in Slovak and in Italian. It may be fully my mistake that I have not deeply understood when learnt Italian.

    And I felt now a slight distinction in the explanation, but again the “malfunction is in my device”. :)

    As regards your Hungarian examples let me add that
    “Az újságban (azt) írják, hogy ….”, ([They] write (it) in the newspaper)

    hence Hungarian uses the 3rd person in plural as the most common way to express impersonal subject/agent.

    I know that you know it, but let me share more about the Hungarian way of thinking about this matter.

    We can say “It is written correctly that …”

    a) not just using the 3rd person in plural
    “Úgy írják helyesen, hogy….” ,

    b) but also
    “Úgy írjuk helyesen, hogy …” (1st person in plural)

    c) and
    “Úgy írod helyesen, hogy …”
    (2nd person in singular)

    All the three forms express or may express impersonal usage, and of course, there are some differences between when we use a), b) or c).

    And in Hungarian there is the same impersonal subject/agent “az ember” as the English “one”, so there is a 4th option,

    d) also: “Az ember úgy írja helyesen, hogy….” (One writes it correctly that …)

    So we may use 3rd person in singular, too.

    That is finally the Hungarian use not 3, but 4 from the available 6 options. ;-)

    Sidenote:
    And although there may be lots of misunderstanding from the usage of 2nd person of singular to express an “impersonal person” I tend to use it in many cases without really addressing the person I talk to or write to.

    Eg. if I say “Ha hibázol, meghalsz.” (If you make a mistake, you are dead) there is an equal chance that I think of you, myself or a general subject/agent of the action.

    It depends on the precedent conversation, eg. who was the one who mentioned a dangerous sport, and who is the one who is practising this sport “you”, “me”, or just “some people” etc.

    So with this sort of chaotic Hungarian background it is simply suspicious that there is only one proper way/person to express the impersonal subject/agent in Slovak.
     
    Last edited:
    As regards your Hungarian examples let me add that
    “Az újságban (azt) írják, hogy ….” ... (3rd person in plural)
    Slovak: v novinách píšu, že ...
    Italian: nel giornale scrivono che ...
    English: They write in the newspaper that ...

    “Úgy írjuk helyesen, hogy …” (1st person in plural)
    Slovak: Správne píšeme ...
    Italian: Correttamente scriviamo ...
    English: We write (it) correctly ...

    “Az ember úgy írja helyesen, hogy….”
    Slovak: Človek správne píše ...
    Italian: Uno correttamente scrive ...
    English: One writes (it) correctly …

    All the above constructions are possible not only in Hungarian, but in Slovak, Italian, English, etc ... as well. In my opinion these are not "true impersonal" constructions, but rather some kind of "personalized substitutions". That's why these constructions do not fully or automatically substitute the impersonal constructions created by the reflexive pronoun or by the grammatical passive.

    For example, the Slovak "V noci sa spí" and the Italian "Di notte si dorme" cannot be translated as "Éjjel alszanak" or "They sleep at night" ...
     
    Last edited:
    Well, you are totally right. My drawback was that teaching grammar of different languages were different, even at the same time. Moreover since I am over 50, I learnt these languages in different decades.
     
    P.S.

    The "problem" is that the Hungarian and English reflexive pronouns do not correspond exactly to the Slovak "sa", Italian "si", Spanish/Czech "se", etc ....

    So the literal translation of "V novinách sa píše, že..." would be: "Az újságban írja magát, hogy..." and "In the newspaper (it) writes itself that ... ". These constuctions, of course, do not have any practical sense...

    *************
    For curiosity:

    The Slovak "sa" is the unstressed (enclitic) form of the pronoun "seba" (=magát, itself / himself / herself). Both "sa" and "seba" are in accusative. Interestingly, substituting "sa" with "seba" in impersonal expressions does not have any sense. So "V novinách seba píše ... " is equally non-sense like the Hungarian "Az újságban írja magát ..."

    (The same logic is valid also in Italian, Spanish, etc ...)

    ************
    The Hungarian adequate impersonal construction in case of transitive verbs would be the grammatical passive (3rd pers sg), rarely used nowadays. For example: "Adatik tudtára mindenkinek, hogy ..." in Slovak would be "Dáva sa na vedomie každému, že ...".
     
    Last edited:
    Back
    Top