Transitivity and Case Government: Forms and Core Pattern

A Hungarian verb comes with a valency frame: it determines how many participants are expressed and which case marks each one. A direct object is normally accusative, a recipient is commonly dative, and many verbs select a lexical case that cannot be predicted from their English translation. Finite transitive verbs also distinguish indefinite from definite objects in their endings.

This page maps the core forms. See transitivity usage for communicative settings and transitivity contrasts for difficult frame choices. Examples are neutral modern standard Hungarian unless labeled.

Accusative direct objects

The accusative is marked by -t, usually with a harmonic linking vowel when the stem requires one: könyv-et, ablak-ot, gyerek-et, sör-t, kávé-t. Stem alternation can accompany the suffix, as in kéz → kezet and ló → lovat; these are noun patterns, not changes caused by the verb.

Both objects have -t, but the verb ending differs. Könyvet is an open, bare object, so olvas uses indefinite agreement. A könyvet is identified, so olvassa is definite.

The present paradigm of olvas displays this two-way agreement:

The same opposition continues across tense and mood. Some cells are syncretic—the first-person past olvastam can belong to either series—whereas other cells show it overtly: olvastak/olvasták “they read something/they read it” and olvasnának/olvasnák “they would read something/they would read it.” Surface identity in some persons does not remove the grammatical distinction.

Recipients and beneficiaries: dative -nak/-nek

Three-participant verbs commonly pair an accusative theme with a dative recipient. English word order alone does not show these roles, but Hungarian case does.

In egy képeslapot küld, the theme is indefinite, so the verb is küld. In a kulcsot ... odaadom, the theme is definite, so the verb is odaadom, with the directional prefix oda-, stem ad, and definite ending -om. The dative recipient never decides the definite conjugation.

The recipient can be pronominal: nekem, neked, neki, nekünk, nektek, nekik.

Definite elmagyaráznád is controlled by ezt a szabályt, not by dative nekem.

Lexically selected cases

Many Hungarian verbs require a particular nonaccusative case. Learn the verb together with a model question and phrase.

Although a villamosra, a csapatban, and az eredménynek are semantically specific, none is an accusative direct object. The verbs therefore remain in the indefinite series: várunk, bízom, örülök.

English prepositions do not map consistently either. English “listen to music” has a preposition, but Hungarian uses accusative zenét hallgat. English “answer the question” has no preposition, but Hungarian uses válaszol a kérdésre.

Valency-changing prefixes and related verbs

A prefix can create a new lexical frame. Beszél valamiről means “talk about something,” whereas megbeszél valamit takes an accusative object and means “discuss something.”

The prefixed verb is definite megbeszéljük because a költségeket is accusative and identified. Prefixes do not always change transitivity, however: ír valamit and megír valamit are both transitive. Record the whole verb and its frame.

Productive causatives

The causative suffix -(t)at/-(t)et adds a causer: ír → írat, olvas → olvastat, épít → építtet, dolgozik → dolgoztat. The choice reflects vowel harmony and stem shape; some distributions must be learned with the verb.

With an intransitive base, the caused participant can become accusative:

With a transitive base, its original object remains accusative and the person made to act is commonly instrumental:

In the second sentence, a novellát remains the direct object and selects definite elolvastatta. A diákokkal marks the causee. Hungarian avoids assigning two ordinary accusative roles within this causative frame.

Lexical anticausative/transitive pairs also differ without a productive causative suffix: Az ajtó kinyílt “The door opened” versus Júlia kinyitotta az ajtót “Júlia opened the door.” Learn these as related but separate lexemes.

Segmentation exercise

1. könyv-et olvas-ok: noun + accusative; verb + 1sg indefinite because the bare object is open.
2. a könyv-et olvas-om: accusative object plus 1sg definite ending because the article identifies it.
3. Anna-nak ad-ok egy jegy-et: dative recipient, 1sg indefinite verb, indefinite accusative theme.
4. oda-ad-om Anna-nak a jegy-et: prefix + stem + 1sg definite, dative recipient, definite accusative theme.
5. a busz-ra vár-unk: sublative complement + 1pl indefinite; there is no accusative object.
6. el-olvas-tat-ta a diák-ok-kal a novellá-t: prefix + causative verb + past 3sg definite; instrumental causee and definite accusative original object.

Common Mistakes

Key Takeaways

• Direct objects are accusative; definite third-person direct objects additionally select definite verb agreement.
• Dative recipients do not control the definite conjugation; the accusative theme does.
• Lexical government must be learned verb by verb because English valency is unreliable.
• A specific phrase in a nonaccusative case does not trigger definite agreement.
• Prefixation may change a verb's meaning and case frame, but does not do so automatically.
• Causatives add a causer and redistribute the causee and original object across cases.
• The finite verb jointly encodes subject, object reference, tense, and mood, while any prefix follows clause-level placement rules.