ON THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB LÄSZLO ANTAL 1. Every Hungarian grammar - according to international grammatical tradition - stubbornly states that "verbs are words which express action, events or existence". As we can see, this is a typical definition of tradi- tional linguistics, based upon rough semantic criteria. We know that traditional linguistics tried to define every word class with the help of the meaning, or, more precisely, a special kind of meaning, i.e. class meaning. In contrast, structuralism accentuates the formal nature of grammar, and thus it tries to define everything, including the word classes, with the help of formal criteria. There are linguists who maintain that in the case of the different word classes we look in vain for a common element or component in the mean- ing of their members. Moreover, they maintain the view that the final essence of the word class lies in the structure of the language, not in some alleged class meaning. This is the view of Diderichsen, for example, who declares: "The vain attempts of traditional grammar to find a common semantic denominator of every part of speech and every grammatical form show that such highly abstract meanings have their origin in the particular structure of Indo-European languages." 1 The same scepticism was expressed by Whorf: "In English we divide most of our words into two classes, which have different grammatical and logical properties. Class 1 we call nouns e.g., 'house, man'; class 2 verbs, e.g., 'hit, run' Our language thus gives us a bipolar division of nature. But nature itself is not thus polarized. If it would be said that 'strike, turn, run' are verbs because they denote temporary or short-lasting events, i.e. action, why then is 'fire' a noun? It also is a temporary event. Why are 'lightning, spark, wave, eddy, pulsation, flame, storm, phase, cycle, spasm, noise, emotion'nouns? They are temporary events. If'man'and 1 Diderichsen, P., "The Importance of Distribution versus Other Criteria in Linguis- tic Analysis", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1958, pp. 181-82. Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library Authenticated | 128.148.252.35 Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
Transcript
ON THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB
LÄSZLO ANTAL
1. Every Hungarian grammar - according to international grammaticaltradition - stubbornly states that "verbs are words which express action,events or existence". As we can see, this is a typical definition of tradi-tional linguistics, based upon rough semantic criteria.
We know that traditional linguistics tried to define every word classwith the help of the meaning, or, more precisely, a special kind of meaning,i.e. class meaning. In contrast, structuralism accentuates the formalnature of grammar, and thus it tries to define everything, including theword classes, with the help of formal criteria.
There are linguists who maintain that in the case of the different wordclasses we look in vain for a common element or component in the mean-ing of their members. Moreover, they maintain the view that the finalessence of the word class lies in the structure of the language, not in somealleged class meaning. This is the view of Diderichsen, for example,who declares: "The vain attempts of traditional grammar to find acommon semantic denominator of every part of speech and everygrammatical form show that such highly abstract meanings have theirorigin in the particular structure of Indo-European languages."1
The same scepticism was expressed by Whorf: "In English we dividemost of our words into two classes, which have different grammatical andlogical properties. Class 1 we call nouns e.g., 'house, man'; class 2 verbs,e.g., 'hit, run' Our language thus gives us a bipolar division of nature.But nature itself is not thus polarized. If it would be said that 'strike,turn, run' are verbs because they denote temporary or short-lasting events,i.e. action, why then is 'fire' a noun? It also is a temporary event. Whyare 'lightning, spark, wave, eddy, pulsation, flame, storm, phase, cycle,spasm, noise, emotion'nouns? They are temporary events. If'man'and1 Diderichsen, P., "The Importance of Distribution versus Other Criteria in Linguis-tic Analysis", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1958,pp. 181-82.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
6 LÄSZLO ANTAL
'house' are nouns because they are long-lasting and stable events, i.e.,things, what then are 'keep, adhere, extend, project, continue, persist,grow, dwell', and so on, doing among verbs?"2
Another author, however, whose standpoint is not very far from thestructural point of view, maintains just the contrary view: "Wir habengesehen, dass der Unterschied, der sich zwischen Wörtern verschiedenerArt als solcher zeigt, auf dem Unterschied der Bedeutungsformen beruht,dass Wortarten in Wahrheit Bedeutungsarten sind. Wenn es sich aberso verhält, dann sind auch die Charaktere des Substantivs und des Ad-jektivs Charaktere von Bedeutungen, semantische Charaktere, die denLautzeichen eigentlich nur mittelbar, in Abhängigkeit von den Bedeu-tungen, deren Träger sie sind, zukommen."3
Now it is clear that we cannot claim in a short paper to solve a com-plicated and much debated problem which relates to another subject.We should like, however, to express some cursory thoughts about theproblem of word classes and about the possible use of semantic criteria ingrammar.
If we accept the view that word classes are semantic categories, thenwe automatically accept that the meanings of the members of a singleword class have common elements. In this case, however, it would be thetask of the grammarian to discover in the meaning of every single wordthat common element with the help of which the word in considerationcould be assigned to a specific word class. In other words, the gram-marian would have to find in the individual meaning the common mean-ing. Is this procedure feasible?
When we use the term "meaning", it is always the first task to clarifywhat we mean by this term. If we disregard the old conceptions of meaningto the effect that meaning is a concept or image, some form of psychicalknowledge in the mind of the speaker, and we accept that meaning isan objective entity which has as its task the regulation of the sign's use,then we have to agree that the investigation of meaning is fraught withgrave difficulties.
If meaning is an objective but non-physical entity, then it cannot beobserved directly and we have to operate on the basis of suppositions orhypotheses. If meaning is that which regulates and prescribes the correctuse of the signs, then there are extra-linguistic denotata, with the help ofwhich we can draw conclusions about the meaning. The denotata are,2 Whorf, B. L., Language, Thought, and Reality (1956), p. 215.3 Telegdi, Zs., "Bemerkungen zu einigen Theorien bezüglich der Wortarten", ActaLinguist. Hung., VIII/1, p. 28.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB 7
however, extra linguistic things which lie outside the sphere of linguistics.The old traditional form of linguistics completely overlooked this dilem-ma and operated on the basis of the denotata instead of the meaning. Wefind such definitions, for example, in the unilingual dictionaries as chair ="something to sit on". Now, it is clear that the thing on which we cansit is not the meaning of the word chair, but only its denotatum. Themeaning is that which makes it possible to denote with the quoted signthis commonly known thing.4
In general, every definition of a word class which operates on the basisof semantic terms involves a grave tautology. We repeat, for example,the well-known old definition of the verb: "Verbs are words which expressaction, events or existence." But what sort of action or existence? Is itmechanical or biological, for instance?
If we accepted the definition furnished by mechanics to the effect thatan action is something which is connected with a movement, then everytime we wished to decide whether a given word was a verb or somethingelse, we should have to refer to the expert in mechanics. Even then, how-ever, we could only state that the word in consideration was a verb if itsatisfied his own requirement to the effect that it denoted somethingwhich was an action from the point of view of mechanics.
The following argument could, however, be put forward: The verbexpresses an action not from the point of view of mechanics or of anyother non-linguistic science, but from the particular point of view of aparticular language. In this case, however, the definition is simply atautology, because we can only decide whether the word in question is averb or not by asking ourselves whether it is expressed by a verb or bysomething else.
As we have stated above, we look in vain for some common elementin the denotata of the members of a word class, because 1) the denotatumis not identical with the meaning, and 2) the denotata do not belong to thelanguage. The linguist cannot therefore decide what is common inthem.
Hence we are simply incapable of grasping the class meaning if weapproach it from the standpoint of the individual meanings of the singlemembers. What is the sole criterion on the basis of which we can suppose4 This quotation occurs frequently in literature. Recently the Soviet scholar Lomtevcorrectly stressed that this has been the untenable practice in lexicology until recenttimes and can be seen, for example, in the definitions given in unilingual dictionaries,which are preferred to the simple indication of meaning by means of rough denotata.See his article in the collection Problema znacenija v lingvistike i logike [The Problemof Meaning in Linguistics and in Logic] (Moscow, 1963), p. 36.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
8 LÄSZLO ANTAL
that such a class meaning still exists? It is not the similarity in the deno-tata and, hence, in the individual meanings, but the fact that certaingroups of words show a great similarity in their usage in the sentences.It is the similar behaviour of certain groups of words in the sentencewhich leads us to suppose the existence of a class meaning, i.e. a purelyformal feature. We are, thus, in a paradoxical situation in the case ofthe class meaning, because it is not the similarity of individual meaningsbut the formal similarity of the distribution of words which authorizesus to maintain the view that such a special kind of meaning exists.
As we have said, the great uniformity which is observable in the behavi-our of the members of the same word class can derive from a common classmeaning. But the only factor which supports this hypothesis is the quotedformal uniformity, not some observable similarity in the individual mean-ings. It follows from this that, even if the essence of the word class isbased upon a common class meaning, the procedures by means of whichwe can assign a concrete word to a word class can only be formal. Inother words, every grammar has to characterize the word classes in for-mal and not in semantic terms.
Thus, we have to distinguish between the essence of the word class andthe definition of the word class. Although word classes may contain spe-cial types of meaning, their definition cannot be given in terms of meaning.
It was an important discovery on the part of transformational analysiswhen it was realized that speakers interpret the meaning with the help ofform and not the form with the help of meaning. The practice of tradi-tional grammar was, in essence, a vain attempt to characterize the lin-guistic forms on the basis of their meaning. This approach has failed.Structural linguistics, on the other hand, proceeds from the form to themeaning. "The modern linguists", Hughes correctly states "have perceivedthat the forms of language must be classified according to their observablecharacteristics, not according to 'what they mean'. For - while by nomeans denying that they mean something - how can we know the meaningof a linguistic form other than by the form itself?"5
2. As we have noted above, any word class, including the verb, can becharacterized in semantic terms. All this naturally also refers to theHungarian verb. Instead of attempting to define it semantically, we willinvestigate those morphological, and therefore also formally describable,features which exclusively characterize the verb forms. First of all we5 Hughes, P. John, Review of Potter's Modern Linguistics, in Word, 1959, No. 3,p. 494.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB 9
shall introduce the reader to the paradigm of an ordinary Hungarian verb,as presented by traditional grammars. We shall use as an example theverb enekelni (= "to sing").
PRESENT INDICATIVE
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
enekelek (= "I sing", etc.) enekelem (= "I sing (some-enekelsz enekeled thing)", etc.)enekel enekeli
enekelnek (= "I sang", lit. "I enekelnem (= "I sang (some-enekelnel would sing", etc.) enekelned thing)", lit. "Ienekelne enekelne would sing (some-
thing)", etc.)
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
10 LÄSZLO ANTAL
enekelnenk (— "we sang", lit. "we enekelnenk (= "we sang (some-enekelnetek would sing", etc.) enekelnetek thing)", lit. "weenekelnenek enekelnek would sing (some-
thing)", etc.)
PAST CONDITIONAL
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
enekeltem volna (= "I had sung" enekeltem volna (= "I had sungenekeltel volna etc.) enekelted volna (something)",enekelt volna enekelt e volna etc.)
enekeltünk volna (= "we had enekeltük volna (= "we had sungenekeltetek volna sung", etc.) enekeltetek volna (something)",enekeltek volna enekeltek volna etc.)
enekeljünk (lit. = "that we sang", enekeljük (lit. = "that we sangenekeljetek etc.) enekeljetek (something)", etc.)enekeljenek enekeljek
INFINITIVAL
enekelnem (e.g. iLnekelnem kell = "I have to sing", etc.)enekelnedenekelnie
enekelnünk (e.g. Enekelnünk kell = "We have to sing", etc.)enekelnetekenekelniük
PARTICIPLES
PRESENT PARTICIPLE
eneklö (= "singer")
FUTURE PARTICIPLE
enekelendo (lit. = "which has to be sung")
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB 11
PAST PARTICIPLE
enekelt (= "sung")
GERUNDS
PRESENT GERUND
enekelve (= "singing")
PAST GERUND
enekelven (= "having sung")
INFINITIVE
enekelni (= "to sing")
3. In Section 2 we have seen the paradigm of the Hungarian verb as pre-sented by traditional grammar. It is evident, however, that a great manyof the quoted forms cannot belong to the verb in the light of a structuralanalysis.
Here also, as everywhere in linguistics, it is the first task of structuralanalysis to remove those mixed phenomena which belong to another levelof language or do not belong to language at all.
With regard to the so-called future we must assert emphatically thatit cannot be a part of the Hungarian verb's paradigm. As we have seen,this alleged future consists of the infinitive of the verb in question andthe present indicative of the verbfogni (= "to hold"; e.g. enekelni fogok(= "I shall sing"); mennifogok (== "I shall go"), etc. Now, it is clear thatthis "future" is a syntactical construction which has nothing to do withverb morphology. Were we to accept the view that this construction is anorganic part of the paradigm, we should have to assume that every time aninfinitive appears together with the finite forms of another verb we arefaced with a pattern of inflection. Thus the constructions enekelni akarok(= "I want to sing"); enekelni szeretek (= "I like to sing"), etc. wouldboth be patterns of inflexion and in addition to a future tense we shouldhave a "desiderative", an "optative", and so on.
Earlier the Hungarian verb paradigm had a real future, the suffix ofwhich was -and- or -end-, e.g. enekelendek, enekelendesz, etc. In his Hun-garian Grammar, Hall declared that "This tense ... is at present an almostwholly obsolete book-form".6 We are able to state, however, that it6 Hall, R. A., Hungarian Grammar (= Supplement to Language), Vol. 20, No. 4(1944), p. 44.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
12 LÄSZLO ANTAL
has also disappeared completely from our book-language, and if a speakerwithout linguistic training meets it, he can hardly understand it.
in just the same manner as the future, the so-called past conditionalis also not a morphological but a syntactical construction. This construc-tion consists of the past of the verb in question and the present conditionalof the verb lenni (= "to be"). The verb lenni is in many respects defectiveand irregular, its present conditional (in the third person singular) beingvolna. Form this are derived the constructions enekeltem volna; enekeltelvolna, etc. Between the two members of this type of construction, i.e.between the past of the verb in question and the conditional of the verblenni (which is volna) other words can occur, which clearly shows that thequoted construction is the sum of two independent words and thus hasa distinctly syntactical character. Here I should like to add the Trager inhis article on the morphology of the French verb eliminated the con-structions fai donne\ il aura donne, etc., from morphology, correctlyreasoning that these constructions belong to the sphere of syntax.7
4. It is evident, furthermore, that the three participles cannot belong tothe paradigm of the verb. Each of these participles (eneklo; enekelendoand anekelt) contain a derivative suffix and not an inflectional suffix.We have to accept, however, that the paradigm is the sum only of thoseforms which contain the same root but have different inflectional suffixes.In the case of the participles we are faced with forms which can possessthe ordinary inflectional suffixes of the nouns; in other words, they arethe bases of new non-verbal paradigms.
If we accept that nouns derived from verbal roots are members of theparadigm of the verb, we also have to accept that those verbs which arederived from nominal roots are also members of the paradigm of thecorresponding noun. Or, to use a Latin example: if we maintain that theforms laudatus, laudandus, etc., are members of the paradigm of the verblaudare, we also have to maintain that the verb forms duco, dud, etc.,are members of the noun dux.
We repeat: The paradigm is the sum of those forms which have thesame root; i.e. they differ only in their inflectional suffixes. Derived formscannot belong to the paradigm of the word of which they are the deriva-tives.
The three Hungarian participles can be provided with all those suffixeswhich are characteristic of the Hungarian noun. They can take the casesuffixes (e.g. eneklönek = "to (the) singer"; eneklovel = "with (the)7 See Language, XXXI, p. 515.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB 13
singer"; etc.), the plural suffix (e.g. eneklok = (the singers") and the pos-sessive suffixes (e.g. eneklom = "my singer"; enekloje = "his singer";etc.). It is evident that an element which has a normal nominal declen-sion cannot be a verb form.
The same also holds true for the gerunds. From the point of view oftheir distribution, these gerunds are adverbs. As I have shown elsewhere,the suffixes by means of which the gerunds are derived from the verbroot coincide completely with other adverbial suffixes. (The suffix -va,for instance, coincides completely - from a distributional point of view -with the suffix -stul. The suffix -stul can be added to nominal roots;its meaning is "together with": kutyastul = "together with the dog". Thesuffix -να can be added to verb roots. But the result of the derivation isjust as much an adverb as it is in the case of the suffix -stul. The two typesof suffix coincide in that they denote the absolute end of the word; i.e.they cannot be followed by another dependent morpheme.)
5. Has the infinitive (enekelni = "to sing") any place in the paradigm ofthe Hungarian verb? A typical feature of every Hungarian verb form isits close syntactical relation with the corresponding personal pronoun(e.g. en enekelek = "I sing"; δ enekel — "he sings"; etc.). The infinitivecan never appear in this position, i.e. it cannot play the role of a verbalpart in a syntagm, the nominal part of which is a pronoun. There-fore, we also have to exclude it from the paradigm of the Hungariannoun.
6. As we have seen in the preceding sections, the future, the past condi-tional, the infinitive, the participles, and the gerunds cannot be parts of theverbal paradigm. They are in part syntactical constructions (as the futureand past conditional) and in part derived froms (as the participles andgerunds), but the process of this derivation does not result in verb forms.
As a necessary consequence of the above-mentioned facts, the para-digm, of the Hungarian verb - contrary to the outlined view held bytraditional grammar - contains only the following patterns:
PRESENT
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
enekelek enekelemenekelsz enekeledenekel enekeli
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
14 LÄSZLO ANTAL
enekelünkenekeltekenekelnek
SUBJECTIVE
enekeltemenekeltelenekelt
enekeltünkenekeltetekenekeltek
PAST
enekeljükenekelitekenekelik
OBJECTIVE
enekeltemenekeltedenekelte
enekeltükenekeltetekenekeltek
CONDITIONAL
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
enekelnek enekelnemenekelnelenekelne
enekelnenkenekelneteknekelnenek
enekelnedenekelne
enekelnenkenekelnetekenekelnek
IMPERATIVE
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
enekeljek enekeljemenekeljelenekeljen
enekeljünkenekeljetekenekeljenek
enekeljedanekelje
enekeljükenekeljotekenekeljek
INFINITIVIAL
enekelnemenekelnedenekelnie
enekelnünkenekelnetekenekelniük
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB 15
Now, we see that the so-called infinitivial differs from the other fourpatterns because it does not show the polarization into objective andsubjective conjugation. (The so-called subjective forms are used if thesentence does not contain an object or if it contains one, but this objectis undetermined; e.g.: Mostanaban gyakran enekelek = "I sing oftenlately"; Egy dalt enekelek = "I sing a chanson" if a determined objectis present, the so-called objective is used: A regi dalt enekelem-"l singthe old chanson".
Now, we have noted that the so-called infinitive cannot have a syntac-tical relation with pronouns. In the same way, the forms of the so-calledinfinitivial cannot appear together with a pronoun; they can be used onlytogether with certain auxiliary verbs; e.g.: Mennem kell = "I have togo"; Menned kell = "You have to go", etc. Because of this, the formsof the infinitivial cannot be regarded as real verb forms in the stricktestsense of the word.
Thus, there are only four patterns with which we have to concern our-selves from this point on: the present, the past, the conditional, and theimperative. The traditional Hungarian grammars state that there arethree moods in Hungarian, the indicative, the conditional, and the impe-rative, and there are three tenses, namely, the present, the past, and thefuture. This conception can be represented in the following diagram:
INDICATIVE CONDITIONAL IMPERATIVE
PRESENT
PAST
FUTURE
As we can see, this conception is very unsymmetrical, because it assumesthe existence of three tenses in the indicative, two tenses in the condi-fional, and only one in the imperative. If we take into consideration thefact that the future and the past conditional are not parts of the paradigm,then the diagram can be modified in the following way:
We have to assume the existence of two tenses (present and past) in theindicative, but only one each in the conditional and in the imperative.
Because of the above-mentioned fact, I earlier expressed the view thatin the paradigm of the Hungarian verb there are two moods (conditionaland imperative) and two tenses, namely, present and past. But mood andtense exclude each other, because every form which belongs to a mood
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
16 LÄSZLO ANTAL
does not belong to a tense, and vice versa.8 This conception is, however,as unsymmetrical as that of traditional linguistics, only in another sense.Our description will be more correct and more simple, if we give up theold distinction between moods and tenses and speak exclusively in termsof tenses. Thus, the Hungarian verb has four tenses,9 namely a) present,b) past, c) conditional, and d) imperative.
7. Every Hungarian verb form belongs either to the subjective or to theobjective comjugation; it belongs to one of the four tenses and to one ofthe six persons. Thus, every verb form can be represented by a numberwith three digits. Let the subjective conjugation be 1 and the objective 2;let the present be 1, the past 2, the conditional 3, and the imperative 4;let the first person singular be 1, the second person singular 2, and so onup to the third person plural, which will be 6. If the verb root is denotedby R, the form enekelek = R.I.LI., because it is subjective /!/, present /!/and first person singular /!/; the form enekelted = R.2.2.2., because it isobjective /2/, past /2/, and second person singular /2/; the form enekelnek= R.2.3.6., because it is objective /2/, conditional /3/, and third personplural /6/; and so on. These formulae can be applied in the process ofmechanical translation or in some other computational analysis of theHungarian language.
Let us now return to the so-called infinitivial. If we try to apply theabove formulae to the forms of the infinitivial, we obtain the followingresults: These forms are neither subjective nor objective, and they do notbelong to any of the four tenses. Thus, the first two digits of their numberwould be 0, and only the third digit representing the person could besupplied; e.g., einem = R.0.0.1; elned = R.0.0.2; and so on up to elniükwhich would be R.0.0.6. All this again shows how loosely the so-calledinfinitivial is attached to the verb.
8. The characteristic markers of the four tenses are as follows:The present has no characteristic marker; the root is immediately fol-
8 See my "Gondolatok a magyat igeröl" [Some Thoughts about the Hungarian Verb],Magyar Nyelv, LVII, No. 3, pp. 273-279.9 As I see it, Lotz maintains the old distinction. In a recent paper he declared: "InStandard Hungarian, there are two tenses in common use: Present and Perfect. Theyare distinguished in two moods; in the Indicative and in the Conditional" ("SemanticAnalysis of the Tenses in Hungarian", Lingua, XI, 1962, p. 256). Hall, however, ismore correct in omitting the idea of "mood" and assuming the existence of five tenses.Four of these are identical with my tenses; the fifth is the future, but, let it be said inhis defence, not the periphrastic future with the verb fog, but the old extinct future withthe suffix -andl-end.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 8/19/12 11:56 AM
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUNGARIAN VERB 17
lowed by the corresponding inflectional suffixes, e.g. enekel-ek (= "Ising").
The past's characteristic morpheme is the -t-, e.g. enekel-t-em (= "Isang").
The characteristic marker of the conditional is -«-, e.g. enekel-n-ek(= "I sang").
The characteristic morpheme of the imperative is -j-. It has manyvariants, as has been shown recently by Lotz.10 Our example containsthe ordinary basic variants: enekel-j-ek (= "that I sang").
9. There are numerous syncretisms between the imperative and the indi-cative present. For example, enekeljük is the first person plural of theobjective conjugation of the present ("we sing (something)"), but at thesame time it is also the first person plural of the objective conjugation ofthe imperative ("that we sing (something)"). These forms, however, arehomonymic only on the level of the word, its morphemic structure clearlybeing different:
There are some cases, however, where two forms with two differentpatterns are also homonymic in respect of their morphemic structure.Thus, the first person singular of the past tense has the same form bothin the subjective and objective conjugations - enekeltem. In the same way,the forms of the imperative are identical in the first and second personsingular both in the objective and subjective conjugations: enekelnenk("we sang" and "we sang (something)") and enekelnetek (= "you sang"and "you sang (something)").
Eötvös UniversityBudapest
10 Lotz, J., "The Imperative in Hungarian", American Studies in Uralic Linguistics(Bloomington and The Hague, 1960), pp. 83-92.
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller LibraryAuthenticated | 128.148.252.35
