Learn Hardcore Hungarian: A főnök is tudja, hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak. - The boss also knows that health is important for the colleagues.

Hungarian is always comes right after the word it belongs to.
Here, A főnök is means “the boss also / the boss too” (as opposed to, say, the workers, HR, etc.).

If you moved is somewhere else, it would change what is being emphasized as “also”:

A főnök is tudja… – The boss also knows… (others know it, and the boss does too)
A főnök tudja is… – more like The boss even does know it / does indeed know it (emphasizing the knowing, a bit unusual here)
A főnök tudja, hogy az egészség a kollégáknak is fontos. – The boss knows that health is also important to the colleagues (here is would belong to kollégáknak).

Why is it tudja and not just tud?

Tudja is the 3rd person singular definite conjugation of tud (to know).

tud – “he/she/it knows” with no specific, definite object
tudja – “he/she/it knows it / knows that X” with a definite object

In this sentence, the whole clause hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak acts as a definite object (“that health is important for the colleagues”).

So Hungarian uses the definite form:

A főnök tudja, hogy… – The boss knows that…
(literally: “The boss knows it, that…”)

What is the role of hogy in this sentence?

Hogy is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a clause, like English “that”.

The structure is:

A főnök is tudja, hogy …
= The boss also knows that …

Everything after hogy is the content of the knowing:

hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak
= that health is important for the colleagues

Why do we say az egészség and not just egészség?

Hungarian often uses the definite article (a / az) with general concepts like “health”.

az egészség – literally “the health”, but often used where English would just say “health” in general.

Using az egészség here gives a more natural, slightly more concrete feel, similar to English:

He knows that *health is important…
~ He knows that (the) health is important…* (in a generic sense)

You can also see egészség fontos without the article in some contexts, but with abstract nouns, the article is very common and sounds natural here.

Why is it az egészség and not a egészség?

Hungarian has two forms of the definite article:

a before words starting with a consonant
- a kollégák
az before words starting with a vowel
- az egészség (starts with e)

So it’s purely a matter of sound / pronunciation, just like English a / an.

Where is the verb “is” (the copula) in az egészség fontos a kollégáknak? Why isn’t there a van?

Hungarian usually drops the copula “van” (the equivalent of “to be”) in present tense, 3rd person singular/plural, when it links a noun or adjective to a subject.

So:

Az egészség fontos a kollégáknak.
literally: Health important for the colleagues.
means: “Health is important for the colleagues.”

You would not say:

~Az egészség van fontos a kollégáknak. – incorrect here

Van would appear if you need to emphasize existence, location, or in other tenses/persons:

Fontos az egészség? – Is health important?
Igen, fontos. – Yes, it is (important).

Why is it fontos a kollégáknak and not something like fontos a kollégák számára or fontos a kollégákhoz?

The structure fontos valakinek with -nak/-nek is the most natural way to say “important to/for someone”.

fontos a kollégáknak
= important for the colleagues / important to the colleagues

Other options:

fontos a kollégák számára – also correct, a bit more formal or emphatic, literally “important for the colleagues (for the benefit of them)”
a kollégákhoz means “to the colleagues (towards them)” in a directional sense, not used here

What does the ending -nak on kollégáknak mean?

The ending -nak / -nek marks the dative case in Hungarian.
This case often corresponds to English “to” or “for”.

kolléga – colleague
kollégák – colleagues (plural)
kollégáknak – to/for the colleagues

So a kollégáknak means “for the colleagues / to the colleagues”, which matches the pattern:

fontos valakinek – important to/for someone

Can you break down the word kollégáknak morphologically?

Yes:

kolléga – colleague (singular)
kollégá + k → kollégák – colleagues (plural)
kollégák + nak → kollégáknak – to/for the colleagues (dative plural)

So the full form is:

a kollégáknak = “for the colleagues”

Why is it fontos and not fontosak? In English we say “important” but how does agreement work?

In az egészség fontos a kollégáknak, the subject is az egészség (singular: “health”), so the predicate adjective fontos is also singular.

Even though kollégáknak is plural, that word is in the dative (an indirect argument), so it does not control agreement.

The structure is:

[Az egészség]SUBJECT [fontos]PREDICATE [a kollégáknak]DATIVE

Hence fontos (singular) is correct.

Could we change the word order inside the subordinate clause, for example: hogy a kollégáknak fontos az egészség?

Yes, you can say:

A főnök is tudja, hogy a kollégáknak fontos az egészség.

This is also correct and natural.

Subtle difference in nuance:

hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak – neutral, “that health is important for the colleagues”
hogy a kollégáknak fontos az egészség – slightly more emphasis on “for the colleagues”, like “for the colleagues, health is important”

Hungarian word order is flexible and often used to show focus and emphasis, not just grammatical roles.

Could we say A főnök tudja azt is, hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak? How does that differ from A főnök is tudja…?

Both are correct, but the emphasis shifts.

A főnök is tudja, hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak.
– Emphasis: “the boss also” (others know it, and the boss does too)
A főnök tudja azt is, hogy az egészség fontos a kollégáknak.
– Emphasis: “that as well / that too”
This suggests there are other things the boss knows, and among those things, he also knows that health is important.

So:

is after főnök → “the boss too”
is after azt (“that”) → “that too / that as well”

Is kollégáknak always used with a (the article), like a kollégáknak?

Not always, but very often.

In this sentence, a kollégáknak means “for the colleagues” in a definite, specific or generic-but-known group sense (e.g. the colleagues in this company).

You could theoretically omit the article in some contexts (especially in more general, indefinite, or headline-like styles), but in normal spoken and written Hungarian a kollégáknak is natural and standard here.

So:

fontos a kollégáknak – natural, “important for the colleagues”
~fontos kollégáknak – possible in some looser, more general statements, but sounds less complete here.

How is főnök pronounced, and does the long ő matter?

Főnök is pronounced roughly like:

fő – similar to “fuh-” but with a long, rounded “ő” (like a long version of German ö)
nök – with the same ö sound, but shorter

IPA: [føːnøk]

The long vs. short vowel is important in Hungarian:
főnök (boss) is different from a hypothetical fonok (which would be pronounced with a short “o” and would mean something else or nothing).

So you do need to keep the vowel length contrast: ő is long, ö is short.