The verb "to be" in Hungarian is
van (3rd person),
lenni (infinitive).
Use When the verb is used as a
copula i.e. if one speaks about
what someone or something
is, it is omitted in the third person singular and plural of the present tense. The verb is required in all other tenses ("volt", "lesz") and persons ("vagyok", "vagy", "vagyunk", "vagytok"), and also when speaking about
where or
how something is, or to emphasize the existence or availability of something the verb is required too. There is a hierarchy according to which the "van" verb is omitted. Lets name these hierarchical steps the steps of "van's omission" • Would there be a verb in the sentence in the first place? - if so, then "van" might be omittable in the
next steps • Is the subject in third person singular form? - if it is, then it might be omittable in the
next steps • Is the sentence
not passive voice? - if it is
not, then it might be omittable in the
next steps • Is the sentence present tense? - if it is, then it might be omittable in the
next steps • Is the subject
not possessed? - if it is
not, then it might be omittable in the
next step • Is the subject
straight this, or that? - if it is, then "van"
must be omittable by this time • "Van" is proven to be impossible to omit
against all the effort in the
previous steps Examples: •
A több az jobb ∅. - The more, the merrier
∅ • (both English, and Hungarian are using no verbs: "van's omission" 1. step) •
Péter orvos ∅. – Peter
is a doctor (
Who, or
what is Peter?) • (speaking about what someone
is: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Péter jól van. – Peter
is well (
How is Peter?) • (speaking about
how someone is: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Péter itt van. – Peter
is here (
Where is Peter?) • (speaking about
where someone is: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Péter Juliskánál van. – Peter
is at Juliet (
Where is Peter?) • (speaking about
where someone is: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Péter Juliskáé ∅. – Peter
is Juliet's (
Whose is Peter?) • (speaking about what
possesses something: "van's omission" 5. step) •
Péter jó fiú ∅. - Peter
is a good boy (
Is Peter a good boy?) • (speaking about
is someone something: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Péter orvos volt. – Peter
was a doctor (Who
was Peter?) • (speaking about
was someone something: "van's omission" 4. step) •
Orvos vagyok. – I
am a doctor (Who am
i?) • (speaking about am
i something: "van's omission" 2. step) •
Az ég kék ∅. - The sky
is blue. (
What color is the sky?) • (speaking about something's attribute: "van's omission" 6. step) •
A szobor kőből van. - The statue
is made out of stone. (What the statue is made
of?) • (speaking about what is something made
of: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Szoborból négy van. - There
are four statues. (
How many statues are there?) • (speaking about
how many are there of something: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Kék vagyok. - I
am blue. (What color am
i?) • (speaking about am
i something: "van's omission" 2. step) •
Az ég vagyok. - I
am the sky. (What am
i?) • (speaking about am
i something: "van's omission" 2. step) •
Ő Péter ∅ - He
is Peter (
Who is that person?) • (speaking about what someone
is: "van's omission" 6. step) •
Az ajtó zárva van - The door
is closed (Is the door lock
ed?) • (speaking with passive voice: "van's omission" 3. step) •
A bolt nyitva van - The shop
is open (Is the door open(-
ed)?) • (speaking with passive voice: "van's omission" 3. step) The non-copula form of
van is also used to express the equivalent of "There is/are": •
Van orvos a szobában. –
There is a doctor in the room. The negation of the third person
van (plural
vannak) as a non-copula verb is the
suppletive nincs (plural
nincsenek): •
Itt van Péter. – Peter
is here. •
Nincs itt Péter. – Peter '''isn't''' here. Hungarian has no verb which is equivalent to "to have". Instead, ownership/possession are expressed in various other ways including to use "van" with a possessive suffix on the noun. This makes possessives in Hungarian very different to English: • Van egy könyve
m -
I have a book • Van könyve
m - (Meaning is lost during translation) • In English it would roughly be translated to one of these (maybe all of these even): • ~
I have the book • ~
I do not lack at least one of
my books • ~
I have all the books at
me that are necessary in this context • That is because the word for book can also be meant plural here without "i", and "k" marks, and because there is
no article • Könyve
im vanna
k - I have book
s • Contrary to "Van könyvem" in this case books are plural explicitly, and this makes translation possible to English while meaning is preserved • (Meaning is lost during translation) -
I have the book • In Hungarian there is
no "Van a könyvem" because the English version is not accusative, but invariant (does not regard it), however in Hungarian the word for book must
not be in accusative case when using "van" to possess with. Also "van" does
not mean "to have"
word for word • The Hungarian version would roughly be ~megszerezte
m a könyvet~ which in English would roughly be "
I have got the book" • Birtoklo
m a könyvet is a good candidate to translation, but that would rather mean "
I possess the book", or "
I own the book" with both translations are treating book in accusative case (marked with "t") • Az a könyvem van, amelyik... - I have the book, which... • In this case the word for book is no longer in accusative case, and is possible to say with definite article, and "van" verb in the same clause
Conjugation Like the verb "to be" in many other languages,
van is irregular. It comes from three (or four) bases:
vagy- (or
van-),
vol-, and
len-. These overlap to some extent with the verb
lesz ("become"). As it cannot have an object (except in passive voice), it does not have definite forms. It is the only verb in Hungarian which has a future form. There is little difference between the two conditional forms. In theory,
lennék etc. are preferred when an option is considered as possible (e.g.
Ha otthon lennék, "if I were at home") and
volnék etc. are preferred when it is considered impossible (e.g.
Ha rózsa volnék, "if I were a rose"), but the limits are rather vague. It is probably not by chance that the former is akin to the future form (
leszek), which might still become true, and the latter to the past form (
voltam), which is already determined. In practice, the
lennék series is somewhat more frequently used in both senses.
Notes Currently it is arguable whether "van" is the only present tense verb for "to be" considering "volt", and "lesz" with each of their own conjugations to their respective tenses. • For example, the verb "lesz" is arguably a better candidate to be the base form of infinitive verb "lenni" with its past tense is arguably "lett" • "volt" is arguably a better candidate to be the base form of infinitive verb "volni" • Also both "volt", and "lesz" are arguably the base forms of "volna", and "lenne" • Also considering "lehetett volna", and "volhatott volna" use cases, or conjugations of each of these verbs beside the other clues makes the respective "lesz", and "volt" verbs susceptible to rather be present tense verbs themselves instead of them past, and future tense conjugations of the "van" verb • This actually would be parallel to the English "will" auxiliary verb that is also arguably a present tense verb itself too with past tense "would", but that is used in future tense sentences • Despite any of this "lesz", and "volt" verbs can be interpreted as the future, and past tense conjugations of the "van" verb
indeed to a near impossible to foretell extent • One such extent is that the "van" verb will often be missing in present tense when its namely conjugations "volt", and "lesz" are present in their respective tenses given the same sentence in a different tense • Another such extent is that only the namely present tense "van" possesses a counter opposite word "nincs", and in other tenses these phenomena are composite using the word "nem" (meaning no, not) with the respective verbs "lesz", or "volt", but an expected conjugation to the word "nincs" • Another such extent is that the "van" verb is expected to
always miss from third person with the subject of a sentence "is" something, except it does
not always miss. When the subject is missing (passive voice), "van" is not missing • For example, in "A bolt be van zárva" - "The shop is closed" passive voice sentence the present tense "van" verb is present in the third person singular form, yet the subject is missing, so the lacking of it can not link the subject to its complement the linguistic theory copula suggests
here (There is no such thing alone as "A bolt bezárva" (although there might be when such things are listed one after the other - with explicit context)) • Another such extent is that with "van" verb existence can
not be emphasized for the same reason it is missing, yet no verb is absent in Hungarian language when it must be emphasized. • For example "Ő okos" (She is smart) with emphasization: "Ő az okos" (She is the smart) - no "van" verb • The only other emphasization possible in the "van" verb's case is the "bb" suffix, and the "leg" + adjective + "bb" structure this case, not mentioning that the word "nincs" can not be emphasized the same. • For example "Ő okosabb" (She is smarter), and "Ő a legokosabb" (She is the smartest) - no "van" verb • In other words "van" is not even vaguely present, or meant in these sentences, so it is way too likely that it does not mean "to be" in English, yet it can be translated to it keeping a selective context in mind • "Van" is more like "there is" in English compared to "to be", but not exactly • Translation of "van" is somewhat similar to the Spanish words' to "to be" translation, except "van" is mainly present in Spanish "estar" verb's case, with a few exceptions of Spanish "ser" verb's case, otherwise it is missing implicitly in the Spanish "ser" verb's case • Exceptions of Spanish "ser" verb's case: • Hungarian "vagyok", "vagy", "vagyunk", "vagytok" cases are told the Spanish "estar" verb's case, not "ser" • Passive voice in these languages are using the opposite "to be" verb. In Spanish it is "ser" unlike in Hungarian in which the used verb for passive voice is closer to (if not exactly) Spanish "estar" • Looking at the Spanish using specifically different verbs for cases from which exactly "van" is expected to be just "omitted", verbs "vagyok", "vagy", "vagyunk", "vagytok" are arguably the conjugations of "vagy", but "van" (it is worth mentioning that possessions, and passive voices also include conjugations of "vagy" with "van"
not omitted in Hungarian) ==External links==