Hungarian Language Course
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Orthographies in Grammar Books
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0565.v1 Tomislav Stojanov, [email protected], [email protected] Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistic Republike Austrije 16, 10.000 Zagreb, Croatia Orthographies in Grammar Books – Antiquity and Humanism Summary This paper researches the as yet unstudied topic of orthographic content in antique, medieval, and Renaissance grammar books in European languages, as part of a wider research of the origin of orthographic standards in European languages. As a central place for teachings about language, grammar books contained orthographic instructions from the very beginning, and such practice continued also in later periods. Understanding the function, content, and orthographic forms in the past provides for a better description of the nature of the orthographic standard in the present. The evolution of grammatographic practice clearly shows the continuity of development of orthographic content from a constituent of grammar studies through the littera unit gradually to an independent unit, then into annexed orthographic sections, and later into separate orthographic manuals. 5 antique, 22 Latin, and 17 vernacular grammars were analyzed, describing 19 European languages. The research methodology is based on distinguishing orthographic content in the narrower sense (grapheme to meaning) from the broader sense (grapheme to phoneme). In this way, the function of orthographic description was established separately from the study of spelling. As for the traditional description of orthographic content in the broader sense in old grammar books, it is shown that orthographic content can also be studied within the grammatographic framework of a specific period, similar to the description of morphology or syntax. -
Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the Morphosyntax of Case and Agreement
Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement András Bárány Downing College, University of Cambridge November 2015 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Voor ⴰⵎⵓⵛⵛ Contents Declaration ix Acknowledgements xi Abbreviations xiii List of Tables xv List of Figures xvii 1 DOM, case and agreement 1 1.1 Introduction .................................... 1 1.2 Differential object marking ........................... 2 1.3 Person features and hierarchies ........................ 5 1.3.1 Hierarchies and functional approaches to DOM ......... 9 1.4 Case and agreement ............................... 10 1.5 Theoretical assumptions ............................. 14 1.5.1 Cyclic Agree ............................... 14 1.5.2 Agree can fail .............................. 17 1.5.3 Syntax and morphology ........................ 18 1.6 The sample of languages ............................ 21 Part I Differential object marking in Hungarian 23 2 DOM in Hungarian 25 2.1 Introduction: Hungarian object agreement ................. 25 v Contents 2.2 The distribution of object agreement ..................... 27 2.2.1 Direct objects and subject agreement ................ 28 2.2.2 Direct objects that trigger object agreement ............ 33 2.2.3 “Unexpected” object agreement ................... 43 2.3 Summary ...................................... 45 3 A hybrid analysis of object agreement: syntactic structure and π-features 47 3.1 Introduction .................................... 47 3.2 Towards an analysis ............................... 48 3.2.1 Problems for semantic approaches ................. 48 3.2.2 Problems for syntactic approaches ................. 50 3.2.3 Syntactic structure and person features .............. 53 3.3 Evidence from possessive noun phrases in Hungarian .......... 58 3.3.1 Types of possessors: nominative, dative, pronominal ...... 58 3.3.2 Non-specific possessives and dative possessors .......... 61 3.3.3 Possessed noun phrases and object agreement ......... -
Hungarian Style Guide
Hungarian Style Guide Published: February, 2019 Microsoft Hungarian Style Guide Contents 1 About this style guide............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Recommended style references .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Microsoft voice .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Choices that reflect Microsoft voice ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Flexibility ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Word choice................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.3 Word-to-word translation.................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.4 Words and phrases to avoid ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Sample Microsoft voice text.................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Address the user to take action ................................................................................................. -
Creation of a Corpus with Semantic Role Labels for Hungarian
Creation of a corpus with semantic role labels for Hungarian Attila Novák1;2, László János Laki1;2, Borbála Novák1;2 Andrea Dömötör1;3, Noémi Ligeti-Nagy1;3, Ágnes Kalivoda1;3 1MTA-PPKE Hungarian Language Technology Research Group, 2Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics Práter u. 50/a, 1083 Budapest, Hungary 3Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Egyetem u. 1, 2087 Piliscsaba, Hungary {surname.firstname}@itk.ppke.hu Abstract the given text, and this ability is closely related to the ability to answer questions. Therefore, our In this article, an ongoing research is pre- aim is to create a system that is actually capable sented, the immediate goal of which is to cre- ate a corpus annotated with semantic role la- of formulating relevant questions about the text it bels for Hungarian that can be used to train processes. To do this, many distinctions need to a parser-based system capable of formulat- be made that are not present in syntactic annota- ing relevant questions about the text it pro- tion currently available for Hungarian. This article cesses. We briefly describe the objectives of presents the first phase of this work, which aims to our research, our efforts at eliminating errors create an annotated corpus where the annotation in the Hungarian Universal Dependencies cor- contains all the features needed to generate ques- pus, which we use as the base of our an- notation effort, at creating a Hungarian ver- tions concerning the text. bal argument database annotated with thematic roles, at classifying adjuncts, and at match- 2 Shortcomings of the traditional ing verbal argument frames to specific occur- analysis rences of verbs and participles in the corpus. -
Grammar Overview / Nyelvtani Összefoglaló
Szita Szilvia – Pelcz Katalin: MagyarOK 1. kötet Grammar overview / Nyelvtani összefoglaló GRAMMAR OVERVIEW Nyelvtani összefoglaló a MagyarOK c. tankönyv 1. kötetéhez Szita Szilvia – Pelcz Katalin - All rights reserved. Minden jog fenntartva. 1 Szita Szilvia – Pelcz Katalin: MagyarOK 1. kötet Grammar overview / Nyelvtani összefoglaló TABLE OF CONTENTS The vowel harmony p. 3 The verb tenses p. 4 Verb forms in the present tense: Indefinite conjugation p. 5 Verb forms in the present tense: Definite conjugation p. 10 The verb van (lenni): Conjugation, negation, all tenses p. 12 The past tense: Past tense in the first person singular p. 15 Modal verbs I: tud, akar, szeret, szeretne p. 16 Modal verbs II: lehet, kell p. 17 The infinitive p. 18 Prefixes indicating directions p. 19 The article I: The definite article p. 21 The article II: The indefinite article p. 21 The plural of nouns p. 22 The direct object I: Meaning p. 24 The noun as direct object II: Types of the indefinite direct object p. 27 The noun as direct object III: Types of the definite direct object p. 26 The indirect object p. 27 Prepositional phrases: With whom? With what? By what? p. 27 Possessive endings p. 29 Possessive structures p. 32 More than one ending p. 33 Adverbs of place: Endings and postpositions p. 34 Adverbs of time p. 37 The adjective p. 40 Plural of the adjective p. 41 Suffixing adjectives p. 42 The numeral p. 43 Personal pronouns p. 46 The demonstrative pronoun p. 48 Conjunctions p. 49 Question words p. 50 The word order p. -
Hungarian Object Agreement with Personal Pronouns
HungarianObjectAgreementwithPersonalPronouns AndrásBárány 1. Introduction Hungarian has subject agreement in person and number in finite clauses with all subjects and object agreement with a proper subset of direct objects. Agreement and accusative case marking are dissociated, as direct objects generally have overt accusative marking while agreement is triggered only by direct objects with a certain property. Recently, Coppock & Wechsler (2012); Coppock (2013) have argued that some lexical items are specified for a feature [def] that triggers agreement, while other researchers argue that the syntactic structure of the direct object determines agreement: when it projects a DP, there is object agreement (Bartos, 1999, 2001). (1) illustrates the basic contrast between an indefinite direct object and a definite one. The definite determiner is taken to be specified for the feature [def] (Coppock &Wechsler, 2012; Coppock, 2013) or to turn the noun phrase into a DP (Bartos, 1999, 2001); these properties trigger agreement according to the respective authors (object agreement is glossed as obj). (1) a. Lát-ok egy sajtburger-t. b. Lát-om a sajtburger-t. see-1sg.subj a cheeseburger-acc see-1sg.obj the cheeseburger-acc ‘I see a cheeseburger.’ ‘I see the cheeseburger.’ The topic of this paper is the distribution of agreement with personal pronoun direct objects. While third person personal pronouns always trigger agreement, first and second person pronouns do so only partially, as shown in (2), where there is object agreement in (2a), but only subject agreement in (2b). (2) a. Lát-om ő-t. b. Lát-; engem. see-1sg.obj s/he-acc see.3sg.subj I.acc ‘I see him/her.’ ‘S/he sees me.’ While there is no object agreement in (2b), I will argue that all personal pronouns trigger agreement in principle, but that it is not spelled out in all cases. -
The Hungarian Language a Short Descriptive Grammar
The Hungarian Language A Short Descriptive Grammar Beáta Megyesi Hungarian, also called Magyar, traditionally belongs to the Ob-Ugric languages (e.g. Khanty and Mansi) of the Finno-Ugric branch of Uralic. Hungarian is the official language of the Republic of Hungary, and has approximately fifteen million speakers, of which four million reside outside of Hungary. In this paper a description of Hungarian phonology, morphology and syntax follows. The sections are based on Benkö & Imre (1972), Rácz (1968), Olsson (1992) and Abondolo (1992). 1.1 Phonology Hungarian has a rich system of vowels and consonants. The vowel inventory consists of 14 phonemes of which one can distinguish 5 pairs, consisting of short and long counterparts; these are i - í, o - ó, ö - ö, u - ú, ü - ü. The remaining four are e - é and a - á. Short vowels, if they are marked, take an umlaut (¨), while long vowels are indicated by an acute (´) or with a double acute accent (´´) which is a diacritic unique to Hungarian. Long vowels are usually somewhat tenser than their short counterparts with two exceptions; e is low while é is higher mid and á is low whereas a is lower mid and slightly rounded (Abondolo, 1992). Vowel length is independent of prosodic factors such as stress. The vowels may be interconnected through the laws of vowel harmony which means that suffixes, which may assume two or three different forms, usually agree in backness with the last vowel of the stem. In other words, front vs. back alternatives of suffixes are selected according to which vowel(s) the stem contain(s) (Benkö & Imre, 1972). -
A Contrastive Study of the English and Hungarian Article. the Hungarian-English Contrastive Linguistics Project, Working Papers No
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 121 072 EL 007 535 AUTHOR stephanides* Eva TITLE A Contrastive Study of the English and Hungarian Article. The Hungarian-English Contrastive Linguistics Project, Working Papers No. 5. INSTITUTION Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.; Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Linguistics I nst. SPONS AGENCY Ford Foundation, New York* N.Y.; Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. PUB DATE 71$ . NOTE 132p. AVAILABLE PROM Dorothy Rapp, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1611 N. Kent St., Arlington* Virginia 22209 ($3.00) EDRS PRICE ME-$0.83 HC-$7.35 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS Applied Linguistics; *contrastive Linguistics; *Determiners (Languages); *English; *Form Classes (Languages); *Hungarian; Interference (Language Learning); Language Instruction; Morphology (Languages); Second Language Learning; Synchronic Linguistics; Syntax ABSTRACT This is a two-may contrastive analysis of the use of the article in English and Hungarian. The study works in both theoretical and applied contrastive linguistics by stating the rules governing determination and developing a methodology for analysis, and by noting language acquisition difficulties to reduce language learning interfe,.ence. Part One deals with means for expressing determination in English and Hungarian noun phrases* contrasted from the standpoint of article use. The main differences concerning the relation of demonstratives and possessive determiners to articles are discussed. In noun classification, the system of English countable and uncountable nouns is contrasted with Hungarian. The distinction between English quantifiers "much" and "little" and numericals "many" and "few" is analyzed. Individual and non-individual features of Hungarian countable common nouns are observed. Part Two gives a contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian articles showing usage rules and examples. -
On Hungarian Morphology Andr ´As Kornai
ON HUNGARIAN MORPHOLOGY ANDRAS´ KORNAI Abstract The aim of this study is to provide an autosegmental description of Hungarian morphology. Chap- ter 1 sketches the (meta)theoretical background and summarizes the main argument. In Chapter 2 phonological prerequisites to morphological analysis are discussed. Special attention is paid to Hungarian vowel harmony. In Chapter 3 a universal theory of lexical categories is proposed, and the category system of Hungarian is described within it. The final chapter presents a detailed descrip- tion of nominal and verbal inflection in Hungarian, and describes the main features of a computer implementation based on the analyses provided here. 1 0. Preface 3 1. Introduction 5 1.1 The methods of the investigation 6 1.2 Summary of new results 8 1.3 Vowel harmony 9 1.4 Summary of conclusions 12 2. Phonology 14 2.1 The feature system: vowels 14 2.2 Consonants 23 2.3 Vowel harmony 29 2.4 Syllable structure 47 2.5 Postlexical rules 53 2.6 Appendix 57 3. Words and paradigms 67 3.1 Some definitions 67 3.2 The lexical categories of Hungarian 76 4. Inflectional morphology 81 4.1 Conjugation 81 4.2 Declension 106 4.3 Implementation 116 4.4 Conclusion 147 5. Bibliography 149 2 0 Preface This thesis was written in 1984-1986 – the first publicly circulated version (Version 1.4) was defended at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS) Institute of Linguistics in September 1986. An extended Version 2 was submitted to the HAS Scientific Qualifications Committee in August 1988, and was formally defended in September 1989. -
Inflectional Marking in Hungarian Aphasics
BRAIN AND LANGUAGE 41, 165-183 (1991) Inflectional Marking in Hungarian Aphasics BRIAN MACWHINNEY Carnegie Mellon Universiry AND JUDIT OSM~N-&I Hungarian Academy of Sciences How do aphasics deal with the rich inflectional marking available in agglutinative languages like Hungarian? For the Hungarian noun alone, aphasics have to deal with over 15 basic case markings and dozens of possible combinations of these basic markings. Using the picture description task of MacWhinney and Bates (1978), this study examined the use of inflectional markings in nine Broca’s and five Wemicke’s aphasic speakers of Hungarian. The analysis focused on subject, direct object, indirect object, and locative nominal arguments. Compared to nor- mals, both groups had a much higher rate of omission of all argument types. Subject ellipsis was particularly strong, as it is in normal Hungarian. There was a tendency for Broca’s to omit the indirect object and for Wernicke’s to omit the direct object. Across argument types, Wemicke’s had a much higher level of pronoun usage than did Broca’s. Broca’s also showed a very high level of article omission. Compared to similar data reported by Slobin (this issue) for Turkish, the Hungarian aphasics showed an elevated level of omission of case markings. Addition errors were quite rare, but there were 14 substitutions of one case marking for another. These errors all involved the substitution of some close semantic competitor. There were no errors in the basic rules for vowel harmony or morpheme order. Overall the results paint a picture of a group of individuals whose grammatical abilities are damaged and noisy, but still largely functional. -
Proceedings of LFG10
PARTICLE VERBS IN COMPUTATIONAL LFGS: ISSUES FROM ENGLISH, GERMAN, AND HUNGARIAN Martin Forst , Tracy Holloway King , and Tibor Laczko´ † † ‡ Microsoft Corp. , University of Debrecen † ‡ Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2010 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ 228 Abstract We present the ways in which particle verbs are implemented in two rela- tively mature computational grammars, the English and the German ParGram LFGs, and we address the issues that arise with respect to particle verbs in the developmentof a computationalLFG for Hungarian. Considerations con- cerning the ParGram LFG implementation of productive Hungarian particle + verb combinations raise questions as to their treatment in the other two grammars. In addition to providing analyses for English, German, and Hun- garian particle verbs, we use these phenomena to highlight how constraints on available lexical resources can affect the choice of analysis and how de- tailed implementations of related phenomena in typologically different lan- guages can positively guide the analyses in all of the languages. 1 Introduction In a number of languages, especially Germanic and Finno-Ugric, there are classes of verbs commonly called “particle verbs” (Ackerman, 1983; Pi˜n´on, 1992; L¨udeling, 2001; Toivonen, 2001; Booij, 2002).1 Particle verbs are verbs whose meaning and argument structure depend on the combination of a (base) verb and a particle. Of- ten the meaning and argument structure of a particle verb are not compositional, i.e. it is not predictable from the combination of its components, but it must be listed in the lexicon. An example of a meaning expressed by such a particle verb in English, German, and Hungarian2 is shown in (1). -
Hungarian Grammar
TRÜBNER'S COLLECTIOB OF SIMPLIFIED GRAMMARS HUNGARIAN GRAMMAR C. ARTHUR & ILONA GINEVER HUN GARIAN GRAM MAR ARTHUR AND ILONA GINEVER HUNGARIAN GRAMMAR TRÜBNER’S SIMPLIFIED GRAMMARS OF THE PRINCIPAL ASIATIC AND EUROPEAN LANGUAGES HINDUSTANI, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC. By the late E. H. Palmer, M.A. Second Edition. 5s. BASQUE. By W. VAN Eys. 3s. 6d. MALAGASY. By G. W. Parker. 5s. MODERN GREEK. By E. M. Geldart, M.A. 2s. 6d. ROUMANIAN. By R. Torceanu. 5s. TIBETAN. By H. A. Jaschke. 5s. OTTOMAN TURKISH. By J. W . Redhouse. 10s. 6d. SW EDISH. By E. C. Otte. 2s. 6d. PALI. By Edward Muller, LL.D. 7s. 6d. SANSKRIT. By Hjalmar Edgren, Ph.D. 10s. 6d. ALBAN IAN. By P. W . 7s. 6d. SERBIAN. By W . R. Morfill, M.A. 4s. 6d. LANGUAGES OF THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS. By George Bertin, M .R.A.S. 5s. PANJABI. By the Rev. W m. St. Clair Tisdall, M.A. 5s. TELUGU. By Henry Morris, F.R.G.S. 10s. 6d. KHASSI. By H. Roberts. 10s. 6d. GUJARATI. By the Rev. Wm. St. Clair Tisdall, M .A. 10s. 6d. BULGARIAN. By W . R. Morfill, M.A. 5s. H AUSA. By the Rev. C. H. Robinson and Major J. A. Burdon. 5s. net. HINDI. By Canon F. P. L. Josa. 4s. net. HUNGARIAN GRAMMAR BY C. A R T H U R a n d ILONA GINEVER LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO. LTD DRYDEN HOUSE, GERRARD STREET, W. 1909 The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson Co. At the Ballantyne Press, Edinburgh PREFACE M a n y people are under the wrong impression that Hun garian is a difficult language to learn.