Causatives, Passives, and Impersonal Strategies: Meanings and Usage

Hungarian has a productive morphological causative, but it does not have a productive everyday passive matching English be + past participle. Speakers choose among a causative verb, an active clause with an omitted or generic agent, a third-person plural verb, and a -va/-ve + van result-state construction. The right choice depends on whether the clause foregrounds causing, the completed event, an unknown actor, or the state left behind.

The forms page gives the full suffix patterns. Here the constructions are organized by communicative purpose.

Arranging for someone to act

The causative suffix -at/-et/-tat/-tet adds a causer to the base verb. Its everyday range includes ordering, arranging, allowing, and paying for a service. Context and the relationship between participants determine the exact force.

The base újraír “rewrite” is transitive. Its original object remains accusative (a bevezetést), while the causee is marked instrumental-comitative (a szerzővel). The causer is the nominative subject and controls the finite ending.

This is not reciprocal “with me.” In a causative built on a transitive verb, velem identifies the person who actually performs the opening, while a számat remains the object. Hungarian morphology therefore keeps the three roles distinct even when information structure changes their order.

When the base verb is intransitive, its original subject commonly becomes an accusative causee:

There is no independent direct object of fut “run,” so accusative a játékosokat can mark the induced runner. Learners should acquire common causatives as complete case frames, because lexicalized verbs and particular meanings can resist a mechanically predicted analysis.

Services: “have something done”

Hungarian causatives are especially natural when the causer commissions a service but does not perform it personally. The worker is often irrelevant and omitted.

The definite objects select definite conjugation: megjavíttatom, levágatta. English uses “have/get + object + participle,” but Hungarian packages causation inside the finite verb. The surface object is not the agent: the washing machine undergoes repair, and the omitted professional carries it out.

The same form can describe coercion or permission:

Nothing in the suffix alone encodes “make” versus “let.” With felolvastat, authority and the assigned text favor compulsion; the second context favors permission or enabling. If that distinction matters, Hungarian can add enged “allow” or kényszerít “force.”

Reporting an event without naming the actor

Contemporary Hungarian normally avoids the old morphological passive. A very common alternative is an active third-person plural verb whose subject is generic, unknown, or deliberately backgrounded.

The Hungarian clauses are morphologically active: an understood “they” closed or will publish something. English idiomatically prefers a passive because the affected object is topical. Hungarian simply places that object early if the discourse is about it, while the verb ending supplies an unspecified human agent.

An explicit institutional actor is often clearer than any impersonal strategy:

Hungarian information structure lets a módosítást become the topic without changing voice: A módosítást a bizottság hagyta jóvá means “It was the committee that approved the amendment.”

Describing a resulting state

The adverbial participle in -va/-ve plus van/vannak describes a state resulting from a completed action. It answers “What state is it in now?”, not “What happened?”

These sentences do not assert who locked or signed. A time adverb referring to the current resultant state is natural. To narrate the signing event, use an active verb: Tegnap aláírták a szerződést “The contract was signed yesterday.” For the broader participial system, see Adverbial Participles.

The old passive in modern texts

Forms in -atik/-etik survive in set expressions, deliberately archaizing prose, legal parody, and a few solemn formulas. They are recognizable but not productive neutral choices.

Writing A jelentés elkészíttetik for ordinary “The report is being prepared” sounds archaic or bureaucratically affected. Contemporary formal Hungarian uses A jelentést elkészítik, Készül a jelentés, or names the responsible institution, depending on meaning. The resemblance between passive -atik/-etik and causative sequences is historically and formally real, but register prevents free interchange.

A short dialogue

The first answer foregrounds the owner's arranging role through megjavíttattam. The second describes the brakes' current state with ki vannak cserélve. If the mechanic's completed action mattered, the speaker could instead say A szerelő a fékeket is kicserélte.

Formal and informal preferences

In everyday conversation, speakers commonly use a generic plural or a result-state expression:

Formal writing may still use an active institutional subject or an agentless plural, not necessarily an English-like passive:

The plural bírálják el is standard impersonal formal usage. The old passive would add an unwanted archaic flavor.

Common Mistakes

Key Takeaways

• Use the causative suffix to add a causer; case marking distinguishes causer, causee, and original object.
• Let context distinguish coercion, permission, and commissioned service, or state the distinction with a separate verb.
• Prefer active reformulation or generic third-person plural for modern agent-backgrounding.
• Use -va/-ve + van for a resultant state, not as a universal event passive.
• Treat -atik/-etik as rare, archaic, or stylistically marked rather than productive neutral voice.