1.10.1. Sentences expressing possession
Of the two structures available for languages of the world, i.e., have- and be-sentences, Hungarian uses the latter type exclusively to express possession. According to the widely accepted analysis in Szabolcsi (1986/1992,
< previous page page_156 next page >
reasons of specificity. She argues that the object of possession in sentences expressing possession (or “possessional sentences” for short) must be nonspecific, and if the possessor stays in the possessive NP it can only be specific, as shown by the (in)definite conjugation in this language.
(456) a. Nem olvast-ad/*olvast-ál [Péter vers-é-t]
not read-2SG.DEF/read-2SG.INDEF Peter poem-POSS-ACC ‘You haven’t read Peter’s poem.’
b. Péter-nek nem olvast-ad/olvast-ál [vers-é-t]
Peter-DAT
‘You haven’t read any poem by Peter.’
‘You haven’t read Peter’s poem.’ (archaic)
By extracting the possessor in an existential sentence, it is possible to satisfy the “nonspecificity criterion”
possessional sentences have to observe.
(457) a. *Van [Péter vers-e]
is Peter poem-POSS b. Péter-nek van vers-e.
Peter-DAT is poem-POSS
‘Peter has a poem.’
c. *Van-nak [Péter vers-e-i]
is-PL Peter poem-POSS-PL d. Péter-nek van-nak vers-e-i.
‘Peter has (some) poems.’
Since the possessive noun phrase shows concord between the possessor and the agreement marker on the possessed noun, the existential predicate van ‘is’ agrees only in number with the possessed head of the noun
phrase, which in turn agrees with the possessor in number and person, in addition to its own number expressed by the possessive plural affix -i.
(458) a. Nek-em van vers-e-m.
DAT-1SG is poem-POSS-1SG
‘I have a poem.’
b. Nek-em van-nak vers-e-i-m.
DAT-1SG is-PL poem-POSS-PL-1SG
‘I have poems.’
< previous page page_157 next page >
DAT-2SG is poem-POSS-2SG ‘You have a poem.’
d. Nek-ed van-nak vers-e-i-d.
DAT-2SG is-PL poem-POSS-PL-2SG ‘You have poems.’
e. Nek-i van vers-e
DAT-3SG is poem-POSS.3SG ‘S/he has a poem.’
f. Nek-i van-nak vers-e-i
DAT-3SG is-PL poem-POSS.3SG-PL ‘S/he has poems.’
g. Nek-ünk van vers-ünk.
DAT-1PL is poem-POSS.1PL ‘We have a poem.’
h. Nek-ünk van-nak vers-e-i-nk.
DAT-1PL is-PL poem-POSS-PL-1PL ‘We have poems.’
i. Nek-tek van vers-e-tek.
DAT-2PL is poem-POSS-2PL ‘You have a poem.’
j. Nek-tek van-nak vers-e-i-tek.
DAT-2PL is-PL poem-POSS-PL-2PL ‘You have poems.’
k. Nek-ik van vers-ük.
DAT-3PL is poem-POSS.3PL ‘They have a poem.’
l. Nek-ik van-nak vers-e-i-k.
DAT-3PL is-PL poem-POSS-PL-3PL ‘They have poems.’
Note that, in accordance with the rules of omission of pronouns in general and in possessive constructions in particular, the pronominal possessors in all of the examples above can be suppressed. Obviously, the possessed object can be modified by an adjectival phrase, a numeral, or by any other means possible for such nominals provided they remain nonspecific. Furthermore, negated possessional sentences are formed with the third person forms of the (suppletive) negative counterpart of the verb of existence, i.e., nincs(en) ‘not is’ and nincsenek ‘not are’, while future and past tenses
< previous page page_158 next page >
(459) a. (Nek-em) nincs sok vers-e-m.
DAT-1SG not-is many poem-POSS-1SG ‘I don’t have many poems.’
b. (Nek-tek) nem lesznek érdekes vers-e-i-tek.
DAT-2PL not will-be interesting poem-POSS-PL-2PL ‘You won’t have interesting poems.’
Finally, mention must be made of possessional sentences with nonpronominal third person plural possessors, since they have two inflectional versions, of which the plural variety is the same as the one with the pronominal possessor, while the one with the singular suffix follows the inflection used inside the noun phrase, and is labelled as
nonstandard, though it is widely used even in educated Hungarian.
(460) a. [A fiúk-nak a vers-e/*vers-ük] érdekes volt.
the boys-DAT the poem-3SG/poem-3PL interesting was ‘The boys’ poem was interesting.’
b. A fiúk-nak volt egy érdekes %vers-e/vers-ük.
‘The boys had an interesting poem.’
1.10.2–5. Restrictions in possessional sentences
There are, in general, no differences in the expression of alienable vs. inalienable, temporary vs. permanent, present vs. past possession, or between the expression of possession of persons, animals, or things. The same be-sentence is used in all types, though minor differences can be discerned.
For example, paired body parts (and paired objects associated with them) are often referred to in the singular, which is related to perceiving every paired organ as a single “whole”. Note here that a one-eyed or one-legged person is usually referred to as “half-eyed” or “half-legged”.
(461) a. Péter-nek jó szem-e van.
Peter-DAT good eye-POSS.3SG is
‘Peter has good eyes.’
b. Anna levette a cipő-jé-t.
Anna took-off the shoe-POSS.3SG-ACC
‘Anna took off her shoes.’
Some relations are so much tied to possessive constructions or possessional sentences that the possessed noun, which expresses the relation
< previous page page_159 next page >
inflected forms.
(462) a. Anna-nak van báty-ja/húg-a.
Anna-DAT is brother-POSS/sister-POSS
‘Anna has an (elder) brother/(younger) sister.’
b. *A báty/húg…
Szabolcsi (1986/1992), following Hadrovics (1969), summarized the relationship between possessive noun phrases and possessional sentences. Compare the following list, in which the relations represented are (a) possession, (b) relation, (c) part-whole, (d) *measure, (e) source, (f) *property, (g) *action nominalization, (h) agent-object, (i)
*identity, (j) *ad hoc relation. Starred subtypes are not possible as possessional sentences.
(463) a. Péter verse
‘Peter’s poem’ Péternek van verse.
‘Peter has a poem.’
b. Péter húga
‘Peter’s sister’ Péternek van húga.
‘Peter has a sister.’
c. az asztal lába
‘the table’s leg’ Az asztalnak van lába.
‘The table has legs.’
d. a tej literje
‘a liter of (the) milk’ *A tejnek van literje.
*‘Milk has liter(s).’
e. a vad nyoma
‘the beast’s trace’ A vadnak van nyoma.
‘The beast has a trace.’
f. a diadal mámora
‘the ecstasy of triumph’ *A diadalnak van mámora.
*‘Triumph has ecstasy.’
g. Péter megvizsgálása
‘Peter’s examination’ *Péternek van megvizsgálása.
*‘Peter has examination.’
h. Péter üldözője
‘Peter’s pursuer’ Péternek van üldözője.
‘Peter has a pursuer.’
i. London városa
‘London’s town’ *Londonnak van városa.
*‘London has a town.’
j. Péter minisztere
‘Peter’s minister’ *Péternek van minisztere.
*‘Peter has a minister.’
(e.g., the minister that he talked about)
Finally, as regards past vs. present possession, it is possible to use a possessional sentence in the present tense with reference to what is
appar-< previous page page_160 next page >
(1986/1992) reports.
(464) a. *Lord Byron-nak van kalap-ja.
Lord Byron-DAT is hat-POSS ‘Lord Byron has a hat.’
b. Lord Byron-nak van olyan kalap-ja, amelyet nem such which.ACC not
állítottak ki.
exhibited.3PL PFX
‘Lord Byron has a hat that hasn’t been exhibited.’