Wiktionary:About Hungarian/Participles

This project page contains discussions and to-do lists for standardizing Hungarian participle entries.

This list is a work in progress. It can be modified as the project develops. Discussions should be maintained below this list.

1.  Done: Change heading from ===Verb=== to ===Participle=== for:

   adverbial participles (114 in Category:Hungarian adverbial participles), test entry: alapozva

   future participles (21 in Category:Hungarian future participles), test entry: tanulandó

   present participles (679 in Category:Hungarian present participles), test entry: ábrázoló

2.  Done: Create new heading ===Participle=== for

   past participles (428 in Category:Hungarian past participles), test entry: adott

   verbal participles (16 in Category:Hungarian verbal participles), test entry: lakta

   Specifications: If the ===Verb=== heading has two definition lines (past tense and participle), create a new ===Participle=== heading. Move the participle definition under the new ===Participle=== heading along with additional definitions, examples, derived terms, declension. Leave the past tense form under the ===Verb=== header.

   If the original ===Verb=== heading has only a single definition, a past participle, change the heading to ===Participle===.

   If the original ===Verb=== heading has only a single definition, a past tense, no action is required.

3.  Done: Change headword from {{head|hu|verb form}} to {{head|hu|participle}} if the heading was changed to ===Participle===.
4.  Done: Categories: Currently the Category:Hungarian participles contains only subcategories, no entries. This will be changed in the new system where all participles will be listed in the main participle category AND in their appropriate subcategories.
5.  Done: Change definition from {{hu-participle}} to {{participle of|hu}} with the appropriate parameters: past, pres, future, adv, verbal.
6.  Done: Section order should be: Verb, Participle, Adjective, Noun
7.  Done: Other items to be migrated from old to new: id and t parameters in the template, label before the template, English translation, qualification, examples, declension, synonyms after the template.
8.  Done: Correct etymology gloss from present participle suffix to present-participle suffix in the following entries: álló, beérkező, bejövő, betörő, bevásárló, búvó, csavargó, csengő, daráló, dobogó, dugó, ébresztő, elismerő, elnyomó, előhívó, eltérő, építő, fájó, fakasztó, fárasztó, fedő, fejlődő, fekvő, felező, felháborító, felszálló, feltaláló, felügyelő, fertőző, fluoreszkáló, fordító, fúró, fűtő, halló, haló, hangzó, hódító, hordozó, illó, ivó, jegyző, kerülő, kezelő, kiemelkedő, kifejező, kimenő, kimerítő, kiterjedő, körültekintő, lakó, megálló, megbocsátó, megújuló, menő, mérő, nyugtalanító, osztó, őrző, robbanó, rovó, szabó, szedő, szelő, szereplő, szerető, szorzó, tartó, távolító, tenyésztő, tüntető, ugró, undorító, ülő, varró, vérző, visszataszító
9.  Done: Move Verb section from the bottom in the following entries: faragott, felhalmozott, felkészült, felújított, fertőzött, feszült, fogadott, foglalkoztatott, foglalt, főtt, garantált, gondozott, gyanúsított, halmozott, hamisított, határozott, helyezett, hervadt, higgadt, hitelesített, írott, ismert, ismételt, izgatott, izzadt, jelölt, kandírozott, kedvelt, kedvezményezett, kérdezett, készített, kialudt, kiemelt, kifejezett, kihalt, kitalált, kizárt, kódolt, koncentrált, korlátozott, kötött, küldött, megelégedett, megengedett, meghatározott, megkérdezett, megválasztott, mellékelt, menekült, mérgezett, regisztrált, rejtett, újjászületett, visszafogott
10. Red link in etymology: andalító, átkelő, böngésző, buzgó, csavargó, eljáró, elkövetkező, elnyelő, felnyúló, feltűnő, felugró, feszélyező, gyújtogató, gyűlölködő, hitelező, kábító, keményítő, kijelző, kikötő, kisegítő, kitérő, kitevő, könyvelő, különálló, lenyúló, lerakó, meghajtó, meghúzódó, porlasztó, ragadozó, rakodó, részegítő, szembetűnő, szerteágazó, szurkoló, üdítő, visszataszító, hitetlenkedve, ideértve, kimérve, higgadt, visszafogott, artikulált, átvitt, begyepesedett, bélelt, bevált, derivált, dühödt, elkötelezett, elvont, érettségizett, ingerült, jogosult, kedvezményezett, kidolgozott, kiegyensúlyozott, kikért, konjugált, korhadt, korlátolt, központosított, lehullott, megkent, megszállott, megszokott, összetett, pattogatott, pottyant, pörkölt, prostituált, rafinált, strukturált, származtatott, visszafogott
11. Green or missing comparative/superlative (some of these forms may be questionable or rare): értetődő, fakasztó, félő, fizető, oszló, ölő, tükröző, tűrő, kandírozott, kizárt, döntött, ellátott, fent, foglalt, hitelesített, húzott, hűlt, készült, kizárt, kötelezett, központosított, lekerekített, megnyújtott, megújult, ment, perforált, pörkölt, strukturált, száműzött, szentelt, színlelt, tisztelt, várt

Moved from User talk:Adam78. Panda10 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Starting a new thread, the other is too long. I'm wondering if we really need to add a verbal participle definition to every single definite past form. Isn't it a similar situation as the exaggerated adjective forms? For those the recommendation was not to add them (even though they are valid forms), only in special cases where a good quotation can be found. Panda10 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10

• If you mean that it cannot be formed from every verb, then yes, I agree, it shouldn't be added to every verb form because it doesn't always exist, it is not always used.
• If you mean that it's self-evident and predictable just like exaggerated adjectives are (possible to be created from any comparable adjective), in that case I don't agree, for the same reason: it doesn't always exist, it is not always used.

And for the very same reason, I suggest that it should be added to every definite past-tense form where it makes sense, where it can be meaningfully used, as its existence or its lack may be informative. I think there are semantic criteria for whether it can be formed. (Maybe the verb has to have a resultative sense, e.g. lát and néz are not resultative so this sense of látta, nézte might not be possible.) Adam78 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. The next question will be the etymology of these forms. If -ta/-te has the same etymology for the past definite as for the verbal participle, then we can keep them together. And I know you said above that we don't have to separate them. Is that still the plan? Panda10 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 Yes, to me it seems they could be treated under the same etymology. Moreover, I suppose they should be treated as "forms", rather than distinct lemmas, since even Nagyszótár doesn't provide separate entries for alkotta etc. (See also the first sense at áldotta.) And if they're treated as forms, they need to be verb forms. It means they would be not only under the same etymology but also under the same POS header. Is that right?

Would you like to make decisions about the nouns as well? Their case may well be different. For example, alkonyodta, állta, aludta, and beállta are separate entries on their own, namely nouns. Adam78 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

For the nouns, see beállta. I think that's an appropriate presentation. Sorry for being repetitive but I'm still struggling with the suffix presentation. We have three definitions for -ta/-te: personal suffix, verbal-participle suffix and noun-forming suffix. Do these have the same etymology? Even if they have separate etymologies, we can still combine the two forms under one ety by saying in the etymology gloss: -ta (past-tense and verbal-participle suffix). Users can look up the details on the suffix entry page. Panda10 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 Yes, we could do that, at least until something contradictory (and convincing) comes up. Adam78 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I just discovered elhunyta, an entry on its own, despite the fact that elhunyt (as an adjective) exists. It's reassuring to see after we eventually did the same thing with holta. Adam78 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

While editing lakta, I realized that (1) the participle would be rather hidden, despite the fact that it's the primary sense of this term, and (2) the derived term emberlakta belongs only to that and not the past-tense verb form, so I made a separate header for the participle. In its template, I entered the same thing that is added by the participle template anyway ({{head|hu|verbal participle}}). I think the structure is much clearer this way. Do you agree? Adam78 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine but are you ready to apply this new standard to every participle? Past, present, future, adverbial and verbal? And as a consequence, are you willing to implement separating the form entries by etymology? Panda10 (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 To your first question, I tend to say yes, I think this would be preferable. If I recall correctly, past participles already have multiple headers if an adjective and/or a noun was created from them (e.g. alkalmazott). (The header of present participles could be replaced with the help of a bot admin. However, I'd like to know first why the POS "participle" as such is hardly ever used. Does it have any particular reason? Or it was just simpler this way?)

However, I don't understand your second question: one and the same etymology can include multiple parts of speech, thus multiple headers, so this separation wouldn't be necessary. We could still supply the etymology in a combined form, only once, at the very top of the whole entry. Adam78 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The multiple headers that you refer to are for the adjective and noun senses besides the original verb form. But we never separated the verb form from the participle. They are still together in alkalmazott. But now you separated it for verbal participles. So I assume you are willing go through the hundreds of entries to apply the new standard. A new rule cannot be introduced for a few entries. It has to be applied as a standard for all similar entries. The question of etymology. You're right. An etymology definitely can and should serve multiple headers that belong to that etymology. But in this case, the etymology is different, it just looks the same. Zaicz separates the past-tense and past-participle suffixes because their etymology is different. We've been going around and around this subject. I know it's not easy to decide because it involves tons of work. Panda10 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 I found a similar matter concerning Russian participles. Unfortunately, there didn't seem to be a conclusive answer on that occasion. However, the insights described there may be of use for us.

On the other hand, the etymology volume by Zaicz et al. was in my hands yesterday or two days ago, and I got the impression that the past-tense verb form and the past participle do have the same etymology. A hal főtt example I brought up above shows the same thing. So I don't think we should multiply our troubles by splitting the etymology.

I find it somehow weird that the past participle is so much closer in meaning to the adjective than to the past-tense verb, and yet it is classified together with the latter. If it has to be separate from the adjective (and it has to), it should be equally distinct from the verb. What do you think?

NB: If and when we come to a conclusion, I think we can request a bot admin to help us, so the number of entries involved shouldn't be a decisive factor. Adam78 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So other languages have similar problems. It was good that you've found it. Too bad we don't know how it was resolved. We will have to come up with our to do list.

1. Part of speech: Change from the current ===Verb=== to ===Participle=== for adverbial participles (114), future participles (21), and present participles (680).
2. Part of speech: For past participles (428) and verbal participles (16): If the ===Verb=== header has two definition lines (past tense and participle, note: sometimes there is only the participle or just the past tense), create a new ===Participle=== header. Place the participle definition under the new ===Participle=== header. Use whatever headword will be agreed to at a later step. Leave the past tense form under the ===Verb=== header.
3. Categories: Currently the Category:Hungarian participles contains only subcategories, no entries. This is fine to keep this way.
4. Headword: Currently {{head|hu|verb form}}. If we keep it, it will keep the forms in Category:Hungarian verb forms.
5. Definition: Currently {{hu-participle}} which also categorizes the entry into its appropriate participle category. The Wiktionary project standards usually don't recommend this practice, normally the headword determines the categories, but this is an old template, even its name is non-standard (should be hu-participle of).

That's all I could come up with. Feel free to add/modify. Panda10 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 It looks good, thank you very much. As I was searching Wiktionary for similar discussions (I tried "participle" "POS" "beer parlor" site:wiktionary.org in Google), I found another discussion there, which may be of interest to us. It turned out that "Participle" is used in Latin, Greek, and Lithuanian (aside from German), which are linked in the discussion, and Serbo-Croatian is implicitly mentioned; I came across some Participle headers there too. (It gives an interesting reason for the English-language treatment of participles as verbs: that they are often part of the predicate. Well, in Hungarian it only holds true regularly for adverbial participles and occasionally for future participles, I think, but not typically for the other types.)

I started to wonder again whether they should be treated as lemmas in Hungarian, at least to some extent, e.g. based on A karácsonyfát plafonig érőnek képzeltem el (page 233) and Én gyorsan elintézendőknek látom ezeket az ügyeket (page 248), although this section concludes with the following: A „tiszta szófajiságú”, valódi melléknévi igenevek – úgy tűnik – semmiféle toldalékot nem hordozhatnak. Képzőjük legtöbbször nemcsak szófajkötő, hanem szóalakzáró is. If I say A megbeszélt megoldásokat megvalósítjuk, az elhalasztottakat pedig feljegyezzük, I don't think we could immediately label it as a genuine adjective, that is, we could still provide declension tables for participles, and we shouldn't rely on creating the "Adjective" section every time, only to supply a place for the declension. In some other cases, the participle sense is less commonly used (e.g. átlátszó or átfogó) or possibly doesn't exist at all (átmérő), though this is only the exception.

By the way, earlier I started moving the "Verb" sections to the top of the entry, before the "Adjective" (and/or "Noun") sections, in every entry (e.g. changing the current order in jelölt, where the past-tense form is given last: this should be the first instead!), since the precondition for the homonymic adjective (and noun) to exist is that a participle must come into being first. This should be also completed, if possible. – Also, sometimes the declension of the participle should be inserted: elkövető is a noun in az ilyen bűnök elkövetői (as shown by the possessive construction) but I think it is a participle in az ilyen bűnöket elkövető emberek as it has its own object. Again, this latter form can be inflected like an adjective or a noun, e.g. félt az ilyen bűnöket elkövetőktől, so I think it's a good practice if the declension table is inserted for the participle as well, no matter if the adjective and/or the noun is supplied afterwards.

Anyway, it's one more reason to move them out of the "Verb", since otherwise their own forms would be "forms of (verb) forms". Therefore, I think they should be also removed from the category of "verb forms"; they will be collected in "Hungarian participles" and if somebody really wants to, they can still create the own forms of participles in "participle forms" (like érőnek or elhalasztottakat, above), supposing they have definitely not become adjectives. Adam78 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Which source did you use for the quotations and page numbers? The steps you listed sound good to me. If you don't want to add the participles to verb forms, then the headword declaration should be either {{head|hu|participle}} (do we want that?) or {{head|hu|xxx participle}} (which is double categorization since the hu-participle template also does the same). By the way, ping doesn't work if you add it afterwards. It needs a signature. Panda10 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 (Sorry for the omitted notification.) Ötödik, átdolgozott kiadás, 2006 (given at the end), though the copyright notice at the beginning says 2000. You can find the sections I cited from the contents as well:

• Szófajtan > Az alapszófajok > Az igenevek > A melléknévi igenév > 2. A melléknévi igenév mondatbeli szerepe > 2.3. A melléknévi igenév mint határozó.
• …… > Az igenevek > Az igenevek morfológiai tulajdonságai > 3. A melléknévi igenév morfológiai tulajdonságai.

If we are positive that the subcategorization done by {{hu-participle}} remains in place, then maybe we should use {{head|hu|participle}}. After all, there might be some benefit to having alkotandó, alkotó, alkotott, alkotta, and alkotva next to each other. I was wondering if we could omit {{head}} (as it's added by a template anyway) but I'm afraid it's not an option; is it? Adam78 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've found it, I needed the book title but I figured it was Magyar Grammatika. I don't understand your question about omitting {{head}} - why would you want to do it? It is not an option, it has to be there. I went through a lot of participles and have lots of questions. Should we move this topic to the {{hu-participle}} discussion page? Unless you don't mind long discussions here.

1. Only past participle under Verb, no past tense: dühödt, esküdt, hibbant, ingerült, írott, kedvezményezett, rafinált, sápadt, szökött
2. Verb section is still on the bottom: faragott, felhalmozott, felkészült, felújított, fertőzött, feszült, fogadott, foglalkoztatott, foglalt, főtt, garantált, gondozott, gyanúsított, halmozott, hamisított, határozott, helyezett, hervadt, higgadt, hitelesített, írott, ismert, ismételt, izgatott, izzadt, jelölt, kandírozott, kedvelt, kedvezményezett, kérdezett, készített, kialudt, kiemelt, kifejezett, kihalt, kitalált, kizárt, kódolt, koncentrált, korlátozott, kötött, küldött, megelégedett, megengedett, meghatározott, megkérdezett, megválasztott, mellékelt, menekült, mérgezett, regisztrált, rejtett, újjászületett, visszafogott
3. Two past participles and two past tenses: igyekezett
4. There is already a Participle header: volt
5. Just a reminder: lakta has been already changed but still uses {{head|hu|verbal participle}}
6. létrejötte: a verbal noun?
7. How to handle multi-words: örökbe fogadott
8. Order of parts of speech in an entry: Verb, Participle, Adjective, Noun?
9. Sometimes there are two participles: igyekezett, veszett
10. If we request a bot, the past participles have to be moved with their examples and declension: kért
11. Sometimes after the past participle template there are definitions: szánt
12. Sometimes there is an English translation after the template: szökött, this should rather be in an example
13. There is a qualifier after the template: támadott
14. adózó uses a different template, it looks good: {{inflection of|hu|adózik||pres|part}}
15. The future participles also use a different template (except tanulandó): {{future participle of|hu|ad||to give}}

I will have to go through the present participles. Panda10 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10

• I asked my question about {{head}} because it's superfluous in this case, as it's automatically added by the template. It's just extra typing. Never mind.
• Yes, we can move this discussion (along with the other related section above) to the discussion page of {{hu-participle}}. (My {{ping}}s can be omitted.)
• Your insights are very good. Thank you.
  1. Szökött can be a past-tense verb form, as well, and maybe rafinált too, in a chemical sense. For the others, let's not insist on the past-tense sense if it's non-existent. Or if it does exist (i.e., if it is attested, despite our native-tongue intuition), we can add it with the label {{lb|hu|rare}}.
  2. Shall I start moving the verb section to the top? This group of 54 verbs is not that bad.
  3. Igyekezett, veszett – igyekszik/igyekezik and vész/veszik are actually alternative forms of only two verbs, so there is no point in presenting them as four. (It's different from ért, where ér and érik are indeed two distinct verbs, so their coinciding forms need to be kept different.) We can add the second verb form after the first, followed by something like …… {{n-g|or}} {{m|hu|igyekezik}} so that the result should look all right.
  4. Volt has a particle sense (another can of worms), which is different from a participle.
  5. Thanks for the lakta reminder; OK, let's change it {{head|hu|participle}}, if we do decide on this solution.
  6. Létrejötte: yes, a verbal noun.
  7. Multi-word phrases: I guess we don't need to do anything special with them, aside from adding them to the right subcategory of Hungarian phrases, in this case, adverb-adjective phrases, where it is already. For the record, Magyar helyesírási szótár gives the following information on it: „örökbe fogadott gyermek; de: az örökbefogadott”. (Probably based on AkH.¹² 108. b). Also, Section 135 may be relevant in similar cases.)
  8. Verb, Participle, Adjective, Noun – yes, exactly in this order. This is how conversion works, I believe.
  9. Igyekezett, vesztett: see above.
  10. Kért etc.: indeed, definitely.
  11. szánt etc.: yes, they need to be moved together.
  12. szökött etc.: I don't think I agree on this: these are not actual usage examples, just translations, definitions, or equivalents. "Usage example" should be kept for cases when there is more context, at least a collocation. However, we could agree on how these additional definitions are formatted. Perhaps I'd suggest the colon, like I recently did at kérés (although it's a verbal noun, but still), so that it can be separate from the result of the {{hu-participle}} template. (For this reason, a comma may not be the best choice, while a semicolon would make it appear as distantly related, which is not quite true, again.)
  13. támadott, yes; good to know.
  14. adózó – a good hit; let's use this.
  15. Future participles: in fact, the {{inflection of|hu|tanul||fut|part}} works on future participles as well. I suppose we should use this template wherever possible. Adam78 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If we decide to use {{inflection of}} instead of {{hu-participle}}, the old template will eventually be deleted with its talk page, so I'd rather move this conversation to a safer place. Maybe I open a project subpage under Wiktionary:About Hungarian called Participles. Yes, it would be very helpful if you could start moving the verb sections. By the way, the {{head}} template allows additional categories with the cat2, cat3 parameters. In case we need it. I misread Particle as Participle at volt, it wasn't too hard after looking at so many participles. :) I went through the present participles and will add my comments to the new project page. Panda10 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 I've finished moving the verb section to the top in the entries you listed. I've also added {{R:ErtSz}} wherever it was possible and I occasionally made some other (mostly minor) changes as well (specified in the edit summaries). Adam78 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 OK, thanks. I don't know if you noticed, but a bot ran last night and changed all instances of hu-participle and hu-inflection of. From now on the participles should use {{participle of|hu}} and not {{inflection of|hu}} since this is what the bot did. But I think it's a better template for participles. Panda10 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78, Panda10 If you need any help, please let me know. If you don't like {{participle of|hu}}, I can change all instances to {{inflection of|hu}}; I just used {{participle of}} because the result is shorter. Benwing2 (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 No, it's absolutely fine, thank you. I just wasn't sure how it affected the work ahead of us. I'm very grateful to @Panda10 that she oversees and handles the issue; she's much better at the big picture and organization than me. Maybe she'll contact you, if you don't mind, for some bot help when we are at that point. Adam78 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78, Panda10 Go ahead when you're ready. Things like e.g. changing headers or headwords are very easy to do by bot. Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I prefer {{participle of}}, a much better choice than our previous plan, so thank you for making that decision for us. I've created a new section for the bot requests below. Thanks for helping us out. Panda10 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Please make the following changes by bot:

1. Only for entries in Category:Hungarian present participles: For each section that contains the {{participle of}} template, please change the heading from Verb to Participle and change the headline from {{head|hu|verb form}} to {{head|hu|participle}}. In a few entries the section name and headline template might already be correct since we did test this option manually.
2. Only for entries in Category:Hungarian past participles: If a Verb section contains two templates, both {{inflection of}} and {{participle of}}, please create a new Participle heading with {{head|hu|participle}} headline and insert these two lines above {{participle of}}. The goal is to separate the participle from the verb section which contains the past tense of the verb. The order of the two sections should be first Verb, then Participle. In some entries, there is only one of them. If there is only {{inflection of}}, no changes are needed. If there is only {{participle of}}, the existing heading and headline needs to be changed but no new section needs to be created.

Thank you! Panda10 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10, Adam78 These changes should be implemented. Re #2 above, there were a few entries with {{participle of}} listed before {{inflection of}}; I took the liberty of swapping them before splitting them apart. Benwing2 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Thank you again for your help! Panda10 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Thank you! It's great to see them in a separate format. I've already created the first "participle form" entry (keltek), which wouldn't have been possible as long as it's a verb form. Adam78 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)