Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T05:26:35.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Equational Sentence in Hungarian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Thomas A. Sebeok
Thomas A. Sebeok*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The equational or nominal type of sentence, defined here simply as one without a verb or copula, is a common feature of Hungarian syntax. According to grammars, chiefly pedagogical, and even some scientific ones, the copulas van and vannak are omitted in certain cases and are regularly used in certain others. Descriptively, of course, such a negative statement of the rule is quite satisfactory; but for reasons to be justified below, the following formulation, more exhaustive than usual in grammars and positive in approach, will be adopted.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 19 , Issue 4: October-December , December 1943, pp. 320 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © 1943 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 For example, Robert A. Hall Jr., An Analytical Grammar of the Hungarian Language 97 (Baltimore, 1938). I wish to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Professor Hall for his helpful suggestions in connection with this article.

2 Roman Jakobson, Das Nullzeichen, Bull. du Cercle Ling. de Copenhague 5.13 (1938–9), wrote that in Russian the 'Kopulaverbum im Präsens ist in Gegenüberstellung mit dem Präteritum eine Nullkopula.' Hungarian behaves in a very similar way. Charles Bally drew an important theoretical distinction between 'le signe zéro, la sous-entente et l'ellipse.' He defined the first as 'un signe revêtu d'une valeur détérminée, mais sans aucun support matériel dans les sons.' On the other hand, 'la copule ... est sous-entendue au présent indicatif dans les langues où son absence est facultative à cette place,' as in Latin stultior sum ~ ego stultior, and in Hungarian in certain poetic expressions as in the quotation from Petőfi below. As for ellipsis, it is 'la reprise ou l'anticipation d'un élément qui figure nécessairement dans le contexte ou est suggéré par la situation,' as in English Peter is good, but Paul [is] bad. Cf. Copule zéro et faits connexes, BSL de Paris 23.1–6 (1922).

A. Sauvageot, De quelques aspects de la fonction prédicative, J. de Psychologie 35.185–96 (1938), rightly stresses the importance of accent and syncope in some equational phrase types; but when he adds that these two ‘tiennent lieu d'une sorte de “copule”‘, he misses the essential point, as he does in contrasting the Russian system with the Hungarian; yet he comes very close to the correct formulation several times in this paper, which would be of much greater value to the linguist were it not specifically addressed to a psychological audience.

3 Mondattani vázlatok. I. A hiányos mondatok, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 25.1–18 (1895), and Alany és állitmány, Magyar Nyelvőr 29.1–6 (1900).

4 Robert Gauthiot, La phrase nominale en finno-ougrien, MSL de Paris 15.201–27 (1908–9) is an excellent attempt to deal with the subject and I am indebted to it. But Gauthiot uses only a single argument and toward the end of his article he indulges in certain generalizations in which I cannot follow him.

5 The reader is reminded that the following chief language groups belong here (most of them having several dialects and this list being by no means exhaustive): Ugric : Magyar, Vogul, and Ostyak; Finnic: Finnish, Karelian, Esthonian, Lapp, Cheremiss, and Mordvin; Permian: Syryenian and Votyak. Finno-Ugric and Samoyede are collectively known as Uralic. This last is often connected with the so-called Altaic family, but decisive evidence for this is still lacking.

6 Miklós Zsirai, Finnugor Rokonságok 86 (Budapest, 1937); Gauthiot 203–6.

7 Gauthiot 206–9; Zsirai, loc.cit.

8 Gauthiot 219; Hans Jensen, Finnische Grammatik 1.74 (Hamburg, 1934).

9 Gauthiot 219–20.

10 T. E. Uotila, Syrjänische Chrestomathie mit Grammatikalischem Abriss und Etymologischem Wörterverzeichnis 100, 123, 158 (Helsinki, 1938); Zsirai, loc.cit.; G. S. Lytkin, Syrjänische Sprachproben, J. S. f.-ou. 10.29–30 (1892); Gauthiot 209.

11 Yrjö Wichmann, Wotjakische Sprachproben, J. S. f.-ou. 19.1, 8, 77 (1901); Zsirai, loc.cit.; Gauthiot 211.

12 Zsirai, loc.cit.; Arvid Genetz, Ost-tscheremissiche Sprachstudien, J. S. f.-ou. 7.1 (1889).

13 Zsirai, loc.cit.; H. Paasonen, Die sogenannten Karatajmordwinen oder Karatajen, J. S. f.-ou. 21.10, 20 (1903); Proben der Mordwinischen Volkslitteratur, J. S. f.-ou. 12.81, 114, 130 (1894).

14 Samojedisch und finnisch, zweite mitteilung, FUF 13.159 (1913).

15 Tungusisch und finno-ugrisch, J. S. f.-ou. 39.13 (1923).

16 Gauthiot 221 refers to ‘l’ opinion singulière mais trop répandue que le finno-ougrien ne distingue pas le verbe du nom'; and see K. B. Wilkund, Finnisch-ugrisch und indogermanisch, Le Monde Oriental 1.54 (1906). On the other hand, cf. Zsirai 83–5.

17 Also see K. B. Wilkund, Nomen-verba im lappischen, J. S. f.-ou. 10.210–6 (1892).

18 Ibid. 210, with further references on the subject.

19 Über den ursprung der personalsuffixe -n und -nak, -nek im ungarischen, FUF 5.61 (1905).

20 Zur geschichte der Tempus- und Modusstammbildung in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen, J. S. f.-ou. 2.182, a basic work.

21 Finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft2 119 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1922). See also another basic work, József Budenz, Az Ugor Nyelvek Összehasonlitó Alaktana, Part 2, passim, esp. §§61 f. (Budapest, 1894).

22 B. Delbrück, Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen 3.121 (Strassburg, 1900).

22a On the atlas cf. István Papp, Piano d'un Atlante Linguistico Ungherese, Bollettino dell'Atlante Linguistico Italiano 2.1–16 (1935).

23 On the equational sentence in Indo-European see Delbrück, op.cit.; Hermann G. Jacobi, Compositum und Nebensatz 89 (Bonn, 1897); and especially Antoine Meillet, La phrase nominale en Indo-Européen, MSL 14.1–26 (1906–8). Meillet remarks that the facts of Finno-Ugric ‘présentent par eux-mêmes avec les faits indo-européens un parallélisme très interessant, qui résulte de la nature des choses.‘ For Slavic see his Slave Commun 416–7 (Paris, 1924), and the identical opinion in Wenzel Vondrák, Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik2 2.431–2 (Göttingen, 1928). Gauthiot says that the Russian development is due to borrowings from Finno-Ugric. But it can also be explained internally; cf. Roman Jakobson, Les enclitiques slaves, Atti del III. Congresso Intern. dei Linguisti 384–90 (Firenze, 1935). For Czech cf. esp. Frant. Trávníček, Věty Nominální, vol. 2 of Neslovesné Věty V Češtině (Brno, 1931), a thorough study.

24 Collected by Zolnai in Mátyusföld Nyelvjárása 103, and by Magyar Nyelvőr respectively, and discussed with further examples by Simonyi and others, in the latter journal 29.231, 47.51, 55.137.

25 János Prohászka, A van használata a névszói állitmány mellett, Magyar Nyelvőr 55.138, and cf. 26.306 of the same journal.

26 Cf. Magyar Nyelvőr 23.57, 30.280, 34.69, and 55.137.

27 Magyar Nyelvőr 47.99.

28 Magyar Nyelvőr 30.433.

29 By Simonyi from Kecskemét. Magyar Nyelvőr 14.225.

30 Simonyi, Magyar Nyelvőr 47.51, and his Helyes Magyarság 314, cited by Prohászka 138.

31 For the controversy cf. Magyar Nyelvőr 23.134, 170, 229; 24.423; 25.463; 26.306; 27.87; 28.296, 547, 575; 29.239; 30.433; 55.138; and so forth.

32 Magyar Nyelvőr 33.256.

33 Magyar Nyelvőr 29.2, 47.50, and 55.137.