The forms page shows how formal noun phrases, postpositional frames, impersonal predicates, and hedges are built. This page asks what those forms accomplish in administration, law, and scholarship. The best choice follows the discourse job—defining a stable category, recording a procedure, identifying evidence, limiting a claim, or guiding a non-specialist reader—not an English word-by-word equivalent.
Register is distributed across the text. A public notice, a court submission, and a research article may all use dense nouns, yet they differ in address, responsibility, information order, connectors, and permissible ellipsis.
Naming a procedure or narrating an action
Nominalization is especially useful when a process has become an institutional object: it can be scheduled, regulated, repeated, or referred to from another section. Kérelmek elbírálása “assessment of applications” can label a workflow phase; adatkezelés “data processing” can name a legally defined activity.
A kérelmek elbírálása a beérkezés sorrendjében történik.
Applications are assessed in the order in which they are received. (formal administrative)
A bizottság kedden bírálja el a három sürgős kérelmet.
The committee will assess the three urgent applications on Tuesday. (formal, concrete event)
The first sentence classifies a general procedure; the nominalized subject helps it function as a rule. The second tells readers who will perform a particular action and when, so the finite verb is more informative. English permits heavy chains such as the review of the implementation of the policy. Hungarian can build an equally dense possessive chain, but it should do so only when each relation belongs to a stable technical concept.
A program végrehajtásának éves értékelése szeptemberben kezdődik.
The annual evaluation of the program’s implementation begins in September. (formal project administration)
Here the chain is useful because végrehajtás and értékelés are separately recognized stages. In instructions for participants, Szeptemberben értékeljük, hogyan hajtották végre a programot may be easier to process.
Identifying the logical relation
Complex postpositions are not ornaments. They classify the relation between the opening phrase and the main claim.
- X alapján names evidence, a rule, or another basis.
- X érdekében names a purpose being pursued.
- X ellenére introduces an obstacle that did not prevent the result.
- X tekintetében limits the domain in which a statement holds.
- X következtében presents X as a cause, often with an adverse or consequential flavor.
A laboratóriumi mérések alapján a két minta összetétele eltér.
According to the laboratory measurements, the composition of the two samples differs. (academic evidence)
A személyes adatok védelme érdekében a mellékletet külön fájlban küldjük.
To protect personal data, we are sending the attachment in a separate file. (formal purpose)
A hiányos dokumentáció ellenére a vizsgálat határidőre lezárult.
Despite the incomplete documentation, the examination was completed on time. (formal concession)
Because English in terms of is highly elastic, learners often overuse tekintetében. Hungarian A költségek tekintetében nincs változás is possible (formal), but plain A költségek nem változtak is usually sharper. Use tekintetében when a domain genuinely contrasts with another: the plan may be acceptable financially but problematic legally.
Backgrounding and restoring the agent
An impersonal construction is useful when the procedure, result, or inferential limit matters more than the individual actor.
A rendelkezés a korábbi ügyekre is alkalmazható.
The provision can also be applied to earlier cases. (legal possibility)
A jelenlegi adatokból nem következtethetünk a teljes népességre.
We cannot generalize from the current data to the entire population. (academic authorial plural)
The modal adjective alkalmazható describes applicability without committing to an agent. The first-person plural in the second may include the researchers and readers in a shared methodological constraint. It is more candid than an empty nem lehetséges következtetést levonni when the authors are responsible for the inference.
Administrative texts often use generic third-person plural when the institution is obvious: A kérelmet nyolc napon belül továbbítják “The application is forwarded within eight days.” When responsibility is disputed, the agent must return: A jegyző továbbítja a kérelmet “The clerk forwards the application.” Agent suppression is a discourse choice, never proof of neutrality.
Calibrating an academic claim
Hedges encode different limits. Lehetséges, hogy marks possibility; valószínűleg marks probability; az adatok arra utalnak, hogy makes an evidential inference; nem zárható ki, hogy keeps an alternative open; a vizsgált mintában restricts the domain. Combining compatible limits can be precise, but piling them up can make a claim unreadable.
A vizsgált mintában a korábbi tapasztalat valószínűleg csökkentette a hibák számát.
In the sample examined, prior experience probably reduced the number of errors. (academic, population and certainty limited)
Nem zárható ki, hogy az eltérést részben a mérési eljárás okozta.
It cannot be ruled out that the difference was partly caused by the measurement procedure. (academic)
These sentences do not display politeness toward facts. They state exactly which inference the evidence licenses. In contrast, a statute defining an obligation should not hedge merely to sound cautious: A kérelmező köteles bejelenteni a változást is appropriately categorical if the legal norm is categorical.
Citation frames also distribute responsibility:
Tóth (2021) amellett érvel, hogy a kategória történetileg változó.
Tóth (2021) argues that the category has varied over time. (academic attribution)
Tóth (2021) adatai alapján ugyanakkor a változás üteme régiónként eltérhet.
On the basis of Tóth’s (2021) data, however, the rate of change may differ by region. (current author’s inference from cited evidence)
The first attributes an argument to Tóth. The second identifies Tóth’s data as the basis but makes the current writer responsible for the cautious conclusion. Szerint is neutral attribution, not automatic endorsement and not proof.
One event in three settings
The same missed deadline is packaged differently according to audience and purpose.
| Setting | Natural wording | What it foregrounds |
|---|---|---|
| conversation | Lekéstük a határidőt, úgyhogy újra be kell adnunk. | shared event and practical consequence |
| administrative notice | A határidő elmulasztása miatt új kérelmet kell benyújtani. | general procedural consequence |
| internal accountability | A pénzügyi osztály késve küldte meg az adatokat, ezért új kérelmet nyújtunk be. | agent, cause, planned response |
Lekéstük a határidőt, úgyhogy kezdhetjük elölről.
We missed the deadline, so we can start over. (informal conversation)
A benyújtási határidő elmulasztása esetén új kérelmet kell előterjeszteni.
If the submission deadline is missed, a new application must be filed. (formal administrative rule)
The formal version uses a stable condition and procedural term. It would be unnatural between colleagues who both know what happened. Conversely, the conversational version lacks the precision expected in a rule. English speakers should not carry casual úgyhogy and omitted institutional roles into formal prose unchanged, but neither should they “upgrade” a friendly update into a legal notice.
A revision dialogue
– Szerintem túl sűrű ez a mondat. Ki hagyja jóvá a módosítást? – A dékán. Akkor nevezzük meg, és bontsuk ketté.
‘I think this sentence is too dense. Who approves the amendment?’ ‘The dean.’ ‘Then let’s name them and split it into two.’ (editorial discussion)
Suppose the draft says A szabályzat módosításának jóváhagyását követően kerül sor a közzétételre. A reader-centered version is:
A dékán jóváhagyja a szabályzat módosítását. Ezután az egyetem közzéteszi az új szöveget.
The dean approves the amendment to the regulations. The university then publishes the new text. (plain formal prose)
The revision restores two agents, converts jóváhagyását and közzétételre into verbs, and replaces a nested temporal relation with ezután. A legal definition may need the original nominal category; an email to affected students probably benefits from the revision.
Common Mistakes
⚠️ A kérdőív szerint a résztvevők elégedettek.
Potentially misleading in a methods report: a questionnaire is an instrument, not normally a speaking authority.
✅ A kérdőívre adott válaszok alapján a résztvevők többsége elégedett volt.
On the basis of the questionnaire responses, most participants were satisfied. (academic)
❌ Az átláthatóság alapján közzétesszük a jegyzőkönyvet.
Incorrect relation — transparency is the purpose here, not the evidential basis.
✅ Az átláthatóság érdekében közzétesszük a jegyzőkönyvet.
In the interest of transparency, we are publishing the minutes. (formal)
⚠️ Megállapításra került a bizottság által, hogy hibás az adatlap.
Grammatical but translation-shaped and overpacked: the agent is known, so the passive-like frame is unhelpful.
✅ A bizottság megállapította, hogy hibás az adatlap.
The committee established that the data sheet was incorrect. (clear formal prose)
❌ Kovács szerint az elmélet biztosan talán helyes.
Incoherent calibration — surely and perhaps pull the claim in incompatible directions.
✅ Kovács érvei alapján az elmélet valószínűleg helyes.
On the basis of Kovács’s arguments, the theory is probably correct. (academic)
Key Takeaways
- Use nominalization to name stable procedures and concepts; use finite clauses to narrate accountable actions.
- Longer possessive chains are worthwhile only when their internal concepts remain clear.
- Formal postpositions label evidence, purpose, concession, cause, or domain; they are not interchangeable decorations.
- Agent-backgrounding serves procedure and inference, but responsibility sometimes requires an explicit actor.
- Academic hedges must match the strength and source of the evidence.
- A citation frame distinguishes attribution, evidence, and the current author’s own inference.
- Reader-centered revision can remain fully formal while replacing dense nouns with agents, verbs, and explicit logical links.
Now practice Hungarian
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Hungarian →Related Topics
- Administrative, Legal, and Academic Prose: Forms and Core PatternC1 — Build the characteristic noun phrases, postpositional frames, impersonal predicates, calibrated hedges, and citation structures of formal Hungarian prose.
- Formal Address, Email, and Public Interaction: Contrasts and Learner TrapsB2 — Choose among formal and familiar address, request patterns, correspondence formulas, and public-facing styles without sounding inconsistent or needlessly cold.
- Spoken Fillers and Academic Signposting: Meanings and UsageB2 — Use Hungarian fillers, repairs, resumptions, paired arguments, summaries, and academic signposts according to turn structure, evidence, and register.
- Reported Speech and Evidential Distance: Meanings and UsageB2 — Report claims naturally in Hungarian while managing viewpoint, relative time, source attribution, and degrees of speaker commitment.
- Dative Possessors and Nested Possession: Meanings and UsageB1 — Use dative possessors to highlight owners, separate long phrases, express affected relationships, and clarify nested Hungarian possession.
- Complex and Emerging Formal Postpositions: Meanings and UsageC1 — Use Hungarian formal relational expressions naturally for evidence, purpose, institutional framing, dimensions, and topic scope.