Re: Hungarian tense, aspect, mood...

The 'l' in 'szeretlek' etc I've always viewed as an infix of sorts rather
than as being attached to the -ek part of the suffix.

Why?

Because 'szeretek' exists on its own; *szeretl obviously does not; it must
be 'szeretlek'.

In both cases the -ek is performing the same function, that is, indicate
the subject as first person singular. It is the -l- infix which makes the
distinction of meaning here - indicating 2nd person object. 'szeretek' is
indefinite, yes, and 'szeretlek' definite, but as has been mentioned, the
2nd person object is of necessity definite.

> [First of all, I'm sorry not to answer here the possible
> reflections to my latest posting. I've missed the CONLANG digests
> on the weekend, and I'm now trying to recover them...]
>
> On 25 Apr 2004 Javier BF <<uaxuctum@...>> wrote:
>
>> -lek/-lak (as in _szeretlek_ 'I love you'). This bipersonal suffix
>> strikes me as very odd since it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the
>> schemes of the Hungarian conjugation. Where did it come from? Are
>> there other similar bipersonal suffixes in Hungarian?
>
>   The IE (and Semitic) languages tend the mark the definite objects
> by an article. On the contrary, Finno-Ugrian (FU) languages behave
> in a different manner. There are two major FU solutions (both are
> related to the direct objects*):
>
> - using different set of case suffixes on indefinite and definite
> nominals (e.g. Hungarian accusative marker _-t_ was originally a
> suffix for "definite accusative"**; it's usually still omitted
> after possessive suffixes, because the possessive nouns are
> definite yet; e.g. _la'tom a bara'tom(at)_ 'I see my friend', lit.
> see-I-him/hir/it the friend-mine-(ACC));
>
> - using different set of conjugational suffixes: and this is the
> background of the quoted problem.
>
>   Of course Hungarian has similar bipersonal suffixes: they form a
> separate paradigm, called "definite conjugation". The difference
> between the indefinite and definite paradigm is that the latter
> refers to definite 3rd person direct object while the former not
> (used without direct objects, or with indefinite direct objects),
> e.g. indefinite _szeretek_ 'I love (in general)' vs. definite
> _szeretem_ 'I love him/her/it'.
>
>   It seems to very "logical" to extend this system to the 2nd
> person direct objects. Thus, the Hungarian language has begun to
> develop a paradigmatic series for 2nd person objects***, and the
> _-lak/lek_ is the very first element of this system.
>
>   But meanwhile Hungarians settled in the Carpathian Basin and they
> met with IE languages that use definite article. Here they adopt
> this IE concept and, therefore, it was no longer necessary to mark
> the definite object on the verb. This is why the language gave up
> to complete the series referencing the 2nd person.
>
>   However, from a systematical point of view, the paradigm is
> complete: the missing forms are borrowed from the indefinite
> series; this is why we may omit the 2nd person object in phrase
> _szeret_ 'he/she loves you'.
>
>   * It seems that the indefinite/definite distinction is important
> for the FU languages only in case of direct objects.
>
>   ** A similar distinction exists in Finnish: roughly speaking,
> indefinite direct objects are marked by partitive case and only the
> definite direct objects are marked by the accusative.
>
>   *** 2nd person objects are always definite, thus there's no need
> for indefinite counterparts.
>