Hungarians Don’t Have

Hungarian has no verb “to have”. I mean there are bír (to own, to possess), birtokol (to have in possession), rendelkezik (to have command over), but these are rare and official, used mostly in legal context. Can’t say a lányom kék szemekkel rendelkezik, however this is correct both grammatically and semantically, just sounds as if my daughter would have some blue eyes in possession, got them from somewhere, and now she is the only legal owner of them.
  A lányomnak kék szeme van.
  “For my daughter blue eye is.”

owner-DAT possession-POSS copula

where owner is who has something, possession is the thing the owner has, and copula is the verb “to be”, in the appropriate conjugation. DAT means the dative suffix, and POSS means the corresponding possessive suffix.

The owner (a lányom) takes the dative according to vowel harmony: a lányomnak. The dative suffix is -nak, -nek. Any attribute, article, counter does not match, only the noun itself takes the suffix: a tizenkét éves lányomnak.

The possession (kék szeme) takes the possessive. Only the noun, again, any attribute or counter (két kék szeme) does not match, only the noun takes the suffix. There are many forms of possessive suffixes, but only a subset of these can be used. According to the numbering given in the linked article,
  – groups 7 to 12 for one possession: nekem házam van, neked házad van, neki háza van etc.
  – groups 13 to 18 for more possessions: nekem házaim vannak, neked házaid vannak, neki házai vannak etc.
  That’s all. So, you need only these ones for “to have”.

There are a lot of forms of the verb “to be”, in all numbers, persons, tenses and moods, no doubt. But you need only the third person singular forms for one possession and the third person plural ones for more possessions. The conditional is used with words like ha (if), the conjunctive/imperative expresses commands or wishes, and the conjugated imperative isn’t used in this structure at all.

Having a flexible word order, you can arrange the structure six ways, since it has three elements. Of course, you must move the complete elements at once, you can’t move articles and attributes on their own, they stick to the nouns they belong to.
  1. Péternek háza van.
  2. Péternek van háza.
  3. Háza van Péternek.
  4. Háza Péternek van.
  5. Van Péternek háza.
  6. Van háza Péternek.
  What’s the difference?
  The 1st phrase is the most neutral one, it simply states a fact Péter has a house.
  2nd one, depending on the accented word, means either
  – Péternek van háza, you misunderstood me if you believed it’s somebody else who has a house;
  – Péternek van háza, comparing to József who is homeless.
  3rd one, háza van Péternek, notices how great it is he has a house.
  4th one, háza Péternek van, with an emphasis on a house and a bigger emphasis on Péter, states it’s him who has a house – the cottage is owned by someone else.
  5th and 6th ones, practically meaning the same, need the verb to be accented, van Péternek háza or van háza Péternek states yes, he does own a house, don’t believe to any rumors doubting his ownership.

2017.02.17., 20:27
  ~~DISCUSSION~~