Agreement, Coordination, and Ellipsis: Contrasts and Learner Traps

Hungarian agreement alternations reveal how a phrase is grammatically built and how a speaker presents its referent. A numeral phrase is morphologically singular, an overt plural is plural, and a coordination can show formal or semantic agreement depending on its position and discourse status. Ellipsis is acceptable only when listeners can reconstruct the missing material with the right lexical content and inflection.

The core paradigms are on the forms page; the usage page develops their discourse functions.

Quantified singular versus overt plural

The first subject has plural -k and selects plural megérkeztek. The numeral in the second blocks noun plural marking, and singular látogató selects singular megérkezett. Semantic plurality does not override the morphosyntax.

Predicate adjectives show the same distinction:

English has plural nouns and plural are in both translations. A learner who translates the English surface form will overmark Hungarian. The quantifier already expresses number, and Hungarian avoids additional plural morphology on the head.

Quantification versus coordination

Numeral phrases and coordinated singular phrases both refer to more than one entity, but they do not agree alike.

Preverbal coordinated human topics naturally trigger semantic plural agreement. Singular tart would be possible in some construals and orders, but plural is the robust neutral choice here. Postverbal coordination allows proximity agreement more readily:

Singular tart agrees with the first singular conjunct in a predicate-internal pattern. Plural tartanak remains possible if the pair is foregrounded as a group. This variation is documented rather than an error to be “corrected” universally.

Person resolution versus polite third person

When a coordination includes the speaker, first-person plural wins:

When it includes the addressee but not the speaker, second-person plural wins:

Polite ön is different. Semantically it addresses “you,” but grammatically it is third person:

Using second-person dolgoztok with ön mixes address systems. In a formal message, either keep ön with third-person forms or, where appropriate, switch the entire interaction to informal te and second person.

Attributive invariability versus predicate agreement

Attributive pontos has no plural ending; predicative rövidek agrees with plural válaszok. Word order can obscure this diagnostic because a focused predicate may precede the subject:

Capital letters represent contrastive stress only. Rövidek remains predicative and plural although it precedes the noun. Function, not adjacency, controls agreement. An adjective replacing an omitted noun behaves differently again:

Here rövid-ek-et carries plural and accusative because it heads the noun phrase. It is neither an invariant modifier nor a predicate adjective.

Repeated case versus a genuinely shared head

Case suffixes are bound morphology and normally repeat on separately coordinated nouns:

Omitting the first locative ending—Budapest és Pécsen—does not create neutral wide-scope suffixation. A postposition, being an independent word, can scope over a coordinated phrase:

There is only one előtt, and it relates to the whole coordination. A single suffixed head is also possible when modifiers are coordinated:

Here many speakers understand a shared head construction, though repeating vizsgán is clearer when the two exams are being treated as distinct events. Economy must not undermine recoverability.

Gapping versus simple omission

Good gapping establishes parallel contrasts:

The second conjunct reconstructs választotta. Both remnants align: subject with subject, accusative object with accusative object. Compare a nonparallel continuation:

Without special context, the intended missing proposition is unclear: did Márk choose something on the terrace, choose the terrace, or do something else there? Repeating enough material repairs it:

Gapping is not licensed merely because a verb occurred earlier. The remnants must support a coherent parallel relation.

Definite agreement under object ellipsis

The missing object remains grammatically definite, so the answer uses definite elküldtem. With no specific prior object, the indefinite form has a different interpretation:

English uses “did” in both answers, concealing Hungarian object agreement. Ellipsis removes pronunciation, not the definiteness feature that selects the conjugation.

Register and processing load

Dense gapping and backward sharing can be elegant in edited prose but difficult in speech. Formal writing accepts balanced structures such as:

The final verb is shared backward across three parallel clauses. In conversation, speakers often repeat it or split the sentence. Conversely, informal answers may be extremely elliptical because the immediate situation supplies the content: Melyiket kéred? – A kéket. “Which one do you want? – The blue one.” Register does not set a simple more-versus-less ellipsis scale; recoverability and processing conditions do.

Decision tree

1. Does a numeral or quantity word directly modify the noun? Keep the noun and agreement singular.
2. Is the subject overtly plural? Use plural verb and predicate agreement.
3. Are singular subjects coordinated? Prefer plural for a preverbal human topic; recognize singular closest-conjunct agreement especially in predicate-internal or postverbal configurations.
4. Does a coordinate include én or informal te? Resolve to first-person plural or second-person plural respectively. Keep polite ön third person.
5. Is an adjective modifying an overt noun, predicated of it, or replacing it? Choose invariant, agreement, or noun-like suffixation accordingly.
6. Can each ellipsis remnant be paired with a parallel correlate? If not, repeat the predicate or head.
7. Is a case suffix meant to cover separate nouns? Repeat it; do not treat a bound suffix like a postposition.

Diagnostic exercise

Choose the natural standard form.

1. Négy hallgató jelentkezett / jelentkeztek.
2. Önök készen áll / állnak?
3. A régi épületek szépek / szép.
4. “In Győr and Eger”: Győr és Egerben / Győrben és Egerben.
5. Complete: Anna almát kér, Bence pedig ... → körtét is sufficient if “asks for” is the intended parallel.

Answers: (1) jelentkezett, because numeral + singular noun takes singular agreement. (2) állnak, third-person plural with polite önök. (3) szépek, a predicate agreeing with overt plural épületek. (4) repeat the case: Győrben és Egerben. (5) körtét licenses gapping because subject and accusative object contrast in a parallel clause.

Common Mistakes

Key Takeaways

• Grammatical form, not headcount alone, controls quantified agreement.
• Coordinated-subject agreement is genuinely sensitive to position and discourse interpretation.
• Polite addressee pronouns remain third person.
• Predicate and headless adjectives inflect; attributive adjectives do not.
• Bound case suffixes repeat on separate conjuncts, unlike a postposition with scope over a coordination.
• Ellipsis preserves agreement and case requirements and needs a recoverable parallel structure.