Hungarian Word Root System

Hungarian has a word root system that has been known for centuries, but for political reasons certain people made sure that the Hungarian people had never really known about it up until now. In the recent years we’ve rediscovered this fundamental aspect of our language.

Linguists say that languages change quickly. That’s only true for young languages like those belonging to the Indo-European branch. Because the story of the settlement of the Magyars in Hungary (Honfoglalás) is a big fat lie and we’ve always known that, some Hungarian linguists and archeologists didn’t rest to prove it wrong. We’ve found houses made of stone in Hungary buried under a considerable amount of soil. Interestingly enough, those houses are 7500 years old. Meaning Hungarians have always lived in the Carpathian Basin and certain groups had migrated to other territories, but the ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ population stayed in Hungary. Forget the Finno-Ugric lie. Nobody capable of critical thinking believes that today.

Nowadays we can clearly prove the Scythian-Hun-Avar-Hungarian continuity. Bad luck for those trying to suppress our history for a thousands years now.

The Hungarian language is the evidence for the fact that we’ve always lived where we live now. To be more precise, its root system is the evidence. Such a complex language can only develope in a closed land protected from foreigners for thousands of years and more.

Honestly, I don’t know if this knowledge helps you understand Hungarian better or confuses you more, but I’ll give it a try.

Our ancestors didn’t write or say anything in vain. The word roots are built up with a vowel + consonant or a consontant + vowel + consonant combination. (VC or CVC)

These roots have their own meaning and the ones that lost their meaning by now (but had it long ago) are shaded with suffixes to create new meanings in the same category the word roots were originally intented to express.

Roots that kept their meaning in themselves are like ég (sky), tér (space)…

Roots that don’t mean anything in themselves are like ker-. This root refers to something circular, enclosed: kerek (round, circular), keret (frame), kert (garden).

          The fundamental meaning of the word is expressed by the consonants, the vowels refer to distance, space, earth-bound or celestial quality. Therefore linguists capitalize the consonants: KeR, éG, TéR…

For example the a-e, á-é word pairs are extremely common. Take a look at this:

tér (space) – tár (to open wide)
>TéR has an é because the sky and the earth is one big space. TáR has an á because you open something wide on the ground.

ég (sky) – ág (branch)

>éG has an é because it refers to the sky itself, áG has an á because it’s on the ground attached to a tree and the branch reaches towards the sky.

It’s clear that we can’t talk about German, French and Slavic loan-words. Our word root system proves that 95% of our words belong to the original Hungarian vocabulary. Foreigners and especially the Vatican want to make us believe that Hungarians were a herd of uneducated people and when (Judeo) Christians arrived and spred their love with iron and fire, suddenly we formed a civilized nation. Apparently the Vatican has really smart people. Hungarians have always been Christians, only Christianity was a positive thing with no blood-shed unlike that blood-thirsty Bible with crucifictions, inquisitions and holy wars. What is so holy about any war? I’m having trouble understanding that part.

Our Hungarian alphabet (runic alphabet if you will) also proves that ordinary people in the ancient Hungary could write and read just our priests, while in the highly developed west only priests could write and the ordinary people were illiterate.

A simple archaeological find proves that our ancestors talked pretty much like we do now 3000 years ago. On a piece of stone, among other words, somebody wrote gyümölcs (fruit) with the Hungarian alphabet. He wrote it with ü and ö just like as we pronounce it now. 3000 years ago! If you read a text from 400 years ago, say, something from Bálint Balassi, there is no need to change one letter in it because it sounds like we speak today. Try to do that with a text from Shakespear. Give it to some English students and ask them if they can understand it without explanation.

Unfortunately, Christians had burnt everything they found, so there’s very little left above the ground. Under the ground archaeologists have found a good number of artifacts with our original Hungarian alphabet. Today a considerable number of Hungarians have rediscovered it (including me) and at least we use it to keep it alive.

The other interesting feature of the Hungarian language that it thinks in images. The word spoken evokes the image of what we talk about. It also heavily relies on dual meanings. Just an example:

ég (sky) – ég (to burn)

What’s the connection between the ég noun and the ég verb? Our ancestors saw that a big fiery ball was up there and it seemed to behave like fire – it burned. And it’s still burning today. So what’s up there? It’s the sky (ég) where the sun burns (ég).

A Nap az égen ég. – The sun burns in the sky.

Other example:

láng (flame) – leng (to swing, to wave)

What does the flame do? It swings, waves as it’s blown by the wind.

A láng leng. – The flame is swinging.

Another aspect of our word roots is the reversal of the root (szófordítás). Our ancestors made up the word mag (seed). They shaded its meaning with different vowels and consonants:

mag – seed > meggy (sour cherry)…

Then they reversed the word root to shade its meaning even further or to reverse the meaning. In this case mag became: MaG <> GaM (no meaning today)>GoM (no meaning today) > GoMb (button) > GoMba (mushroom)> GYüMölcs (fruit). These words refer to an object that has a seed or it reminds us of the shape of a seed.

So much for one breath. If you’re interested in more, here are some links for you:
> Things start getting interesting from page 4.

Omitting Pronouns in (In)Definite Conjugation

In English you always need to use any pronoun (direct, indirect, demonstrative…) irregardless of whether the verb refers to an indefinite or definite object/person.

I’m writing a letter. I’m writing the letter.

The object is ’letter’ and our verb ’write’ is the same in both sentences. The indefiniteness and definiteness of ’letter’ are expressed with the indefinite and definite articles ’a, the’. Here’s the Hungarian translation:

I’m writing a letter. – Írok egy levelet.
I’m writing the letter. – Írom a levelet.

As you can see, the Hungarian verb ’ír-write’ has two different conjugations. The indefinite conjugation requires the -ok suffix in 1st person singular present tense, whereas the definite conjugation in the same person/number/tense is formed with the -om suffix. The indefinite and definite articles are used accordingly.

So far so good. But what if we get a question like ’Are you writing a/the letter’? How do you answer that question?

Are you writing a letter? – Yes, I’m writing it.
Írsz egy levelet? – Igen, azt írok.

Are you writing the letter? – Yes, I’m writing it.
Írod a levelet? – Igen, azt írom.

The pronoun ’it’ refers back to ’a letter’ and ’the letter’. In the same way, the Hungarian demonstrative pronoun ’az’ turns into an accusative pronoun ’azt’ to refer back to ’egy levelet’ and ’a levelet’.
And that’s when omitting pronouns becomes relevant. In everyday language, we do tend to ”forget” saying certain pronouns when the context is clear and we know for sure what we are talking about. So the above-mentioned answers can be turned into:

Igen, írok. Igen, írom.

It is more common, though, that we leave out pronouns when the verbs are in definite conjugation. Since the definite conjugation already refers to the object, there is no confusion about the context. Let’s see more examples with other pronouns, too. So that you know what I omit, I’ll parenthesize the pronouns. It is also evident from the examples that English has to use those pronouns.

-Látod a lányt? – Igen, látom (őt).
-Can you see the girl? – Yes, I can see her.

-Akarjátok az új ruhákat vagy sem? – Nem, nem akarjuk (azokat).
-Do you want the new clothes or not? – No, we don’t want them.

The problem starts when there seems to be no context like in this question:

-Látod? – Can you see it?

We translate it with ’can you see it’ because ’látod’ is obviously in definite conjugation. The speaker knows exactly what he sees and that’s why he’s asking ’Látod?’.

-Látod? – Can you see it?
-Semmit nem látok. Te mit látsz? – I can’t see anything. What can you see?
-A boltot. – The shop.
-Igen, már látom. – Yes, I can see it now.

The other person answers ’nem látok’ in indefinite conjugation because he cannot see anything. And ’anything/nothing’ is something indefinite. So is ’something’, by the way :). Then he asks ’mit látsz’ in indefinite conjugation because he still cannot see anything. Finally, the speaker clarifies ’boltot’. So the other person answers ’látom’ in definite conjugation. Now he knows exactly what he sees. It does not matter if the answer is affirmative or negative. The same rules apply.

That’s why you give such answers:

-Nem értek semmit. -Az egyenletet így kell megoldani. Már érted? -Igen, értem.
-I don’t understand anything. -The equation has to be solved like this. Do you understand now? -Yes, I understand (it).

This is a good example for native English speakers because as you see the verb ’understand’ does not require ’it’ when you answer. Yet you know exactly what you understand.

-Érted? – Do you understand?
-Értem. – I understand.

Let’s take a look at more examples:

-A bank elveszi a házadat. – Nem hagyom.
-The bank is going to take your house. – I’m not going to let (it happen).

-Tessék a visszajáró! – Köszönöm.
-Here’s your change. – Thank you.

The verb ’köszön’ has two meanings ’to say thank you’ and ’to greet’. If it means ’to say thank you’, it is transitive, so Hungarian people thank something, and not thank for something. On the other hand, if you greet someone, it is transitive in English, but it requires an indirect object in Hungarian. Actually, we say ’greet to someone = köszön valakinek’.

-Köszönöm a visszajárót! – Köszöntem önnek, amikor bejöttem? – Igen, ön mindig köszön nekem.
-Thank you for the change. – Did I greet you when I entered? – Yes, you always greet me.

The difficulty also lies in the different use of verbs in English and Hungarian. A verb that is transitive in English might be intransitive in Hungarian and viceversa. In the above-mentioned sentence you can’t use ’köszön’ in definite conjugation because it is not transitive. It cannot require an object.
Let’s contrast indefinite and definite conjugation with ’ért’.

-Érted? – Mindent értek.
-Do you understand? – I understand everything.

’Minden’ is indefinite or general, so ’értek’ is in indefinite conjugation.


As languages do not consist of rules that always make sense, we have to be prepared to learn odd things. That is the case with accusative pronouns if you conjugate verbs in definite mode. To make this problem tangible, I’ll use the accusative pronouns ’őt’ and ’engem’.

Látom őt. – I can see him.
Látod őt. – You can see him.
Látja őt. – He can see him.
Látjuk őt. – We can see him.
Látjátok őt. – You can see him.
Látják őt. – They can see him.

’Lát’ is in definite conjugation in every number/person. But what if we use ’engem’?

Lát engem. – He can see me.
Lát téged. – He can see you.
Látja őt. – He can see him.
Lát minket. – He can see us.
Lát titeket. – He can see you.
Látja őket. – He can see them.

’Lát’ is used in definite conjugation only when referring to the accusative pronoun in 3rd person singular and 3rd person plural. In any other number/person (engem, téged, minket, titeket) ’lát’ is in indefinite conjugation.

This goes for ’őt, őket, önt, önöket, maga, magát’. That is, for polite forms, too.

If there is an accusative pronoun, one would think it is definite. Well, it’s no use asking why it is that way. It just is. I couldn’t find any explanation why this phenomenon had developed the way it is. Something for you to struggle with :). So let’s ask more questions and give the right answers.

-Érted a szabályt? – Igen, értem (azt).
-Do you understand the rule? – Yes, I understand (it).

-Érted őket? – Igen, értem (őket).
-Do you understand them? – Yes, I understand them.

-Értesz engem? – Igen, értelek (téged).
-Do you understand me? -Yes, I understand you.

-Látjátok őket? – Nem, nem látjuk (őket).
-Can you guys see them? – No, we can’t see them.

-Látnak minket? – Nem, nem látnak (minket). Önt viszont látják.
-Can they see us? – No, they can’t see us. However, they can see you, sir.

Not going to be here

Hi everyone,

Sorry for not keeping my promise. I told you I’d write more and I didn’t. Excuses are not my cup of tea, so all I say is that work didn’t quite let me dispose of my time as I wanted.

I’m going to the UK for a couple of month. I don’t know how much time I will have over there, so this time I don’t promise anything.

If you continue liking this blog, then for you, apparently, learning Hungarian is a fun thing and I owe you a big ‘thank you’ for that. 🙂

That’s all for now.


Best wishes to all


2014 in review

The stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 15,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 6 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

It’s Santa’s Time Once Again

Hi, everyone!

I know I neglected the blog a little bit due to time issues. I want to change that next year and I hope you’ll still be with me.

Despite all that, thank you very much for visiting and following my blog.

Hoping that the year 2015 will be at least as good as 2014,

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!