A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, és térképet visz.

Breakdown of A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, és térképet visz.

és
and
barát
the friend
-hez
to
-om
my
hegy
the mountain
utazni
to travel
térkép
the map
vinni
to take
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Hungarian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Hungarian now

Questions & Answers about A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, és térképet visz.

Why is there A before barátom, even though barátom already means “my friend”?

In Hungarian, possessed nouns (like barátom = my friend) normally take a definite article when they are used as a simple subject or object.

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik.
    = My friend is traveling to the mountains.

Leaving out the article is possible but sounds either:

  • more literary/old-fashioned (Barátom a hegyekhez utazik.), or
  • like direct address (Barátom, gyere ide! = My friend, come here!).

So in neutral, everyday sentences, you usually say A barátom, not just Barátom, when it’s the subject.


What exactly is the difference between barát and barátom?
  • barát = friend (no possessor indicated)
  • barátom = my friend

The ending -om is the possessive suffix for “my” on a consonant-ending noun:

  • barátom – my friend
  • barátod – your friend
  • barátja – his/her friend

So barátom literally means friend-my.


Where is the word for “he” or “she” in this sentence?

Hungarian normally drops subject pronouns, because the person is clear from the verb ending.

  • (Ő) utazik(He/She) travels / is traveling

Here, utazik is 3rd person singular, so it already tells you “he/she/it”.
Adding ő is only for emphasis or contrast:

  • Ő a hegyekhez utazik, nem én.
    = It’s *he/she who is traveling to the mountains, not me.*

In the neutral sentence, you don’t say ő.


What does utazik mean, and why does it have -ik at the end?

utazik comes from the verb utazni = to travel.

  • ő utazik = he/she travels / is traveling / will travel (with future time expression)

The -ik is part of a verb type called “-ik verbs”. In modern usage you mostly see -ik in the 3rd person singular present:

  • én utazom / utazok – I travel
  • te utazol – you travel
  • ő utazik – he/she travels
  • mi utazunk – we travel
  • ti utaztok – you (pl.) travel
  • ők utaznak – they travel

So the -ik is just the normal 3rd person singular ending for this verb, not a separate word.


Could I say A barátom a hegyekhez megy instead of A barátom a hegyekhez utazik? What’s the difference?

You can say A barátom a hegyekhez megy, but there is a nuance:

  • megy = goes, any kind of going, often on foot, neutral about distance.
  • utazik = travels, usually suggests a journey, often by car, train, bus, plane, etc., or at least some distance.

So:

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik.
    → Sounds more like a trip or vacation, a real “journey”.

  • A barátom a hegyekhez megy.
    → Grammatically OK, but more neutral “goes to the mountains” (not highlighting the travel aspect).

For “going on a trip to the mountains”, utazik is the more typical choice.


What does the ending -hez in hegyekhez mean?

-hez is a case ending meaning to, toward (called the allative case).

Breakdown:

  • hegy – mountain
  • hegyek – mountains (-ek = plural)
  • hegyekhezto/toward the mountains (-hez = to)

The ending has three forms because of vowel harmony:

  • -hoz after back vowels:
    • házhoz – to the house
  • -hez after front unrounded vowels (e, é, i, í):
    • hegyekhez – to the mountains
  • -höz after front rounded vowels (ö, ő, ü, ű):
    • nőhöz – to the woman

So hegyek + hez → hegyekhez.


Why is it hegyekhez (plural) and not hegyhez (singular)?

Because here “the mountains” means a mountainous area/region, not one specific mountain.

  • a hegyhezto the mountain (a single mountain)
  • a hegyekhezto the mountains (the mountain region, like “in the mountains”)

This is the same idea as English “the mountains” used as a general destination for hiking, skiing, etc.


What’s the difference between hegyekhez, hegyekbe, and hegyekre? All of them look like “to the mountains”.

All three translate with English “to”, but the nuance is different:

  1. hegyekhezto(wards) the mountains (allative, -hoz/-hez/-höz)

    • Emphasises the direction/approach to the area or to somewhere by the mountains.
    • Literally: toward the mountains.
  2. hegyekbeinto the mountains (illative, -ba/-be)

    • Very common for “going to the mountains” as a region (for a trip, holiday, etc.).
    • A hegyekbe utazik. is often the most natural way to say He is going to the mountains (as a region).
  3. hegyekreonto the mountains (sublative, -ra/-re)

    • More about going up onto the mountains or onto hilly terrain.
    • Also used with events/occasions (koncertre megy – goes to a concert).

The sentence with hegyekhez is grammatically fine and means going (at least) to/toward the mountains; in many everyday contexts, Hungarians would more typically say a hegyekbe utazik for “is traveling to the mountains (as a region)”.


Can I change the word order in the first part? For example, is A barátom utazik a hegyekhez also correct?

Yes, both are possible, but the emphasis changes slightly.

Neutral-sounding version (about your friend, where he’s going):

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik.
    Topic: A barátom (we’re talking about my friend)
    New information: a hegyekhez utazik (what he’s doing/where)

Variant:

  • A barátom utazik a hegyekhez.
    Here, utazik is closer to the focus position, so there’s a bit more emphasis on the fact that he is traveling (as opposed to staying home, for example).

Other orders are also possible with different emphases, e.g.:

  • A hegyekhez utazik a barátom.
    It’s to the mountains that my friend is traveling (emphasis on to the mountains, maybe in contrast with some other place).

As a learner, Subject + Destination + Verb (like in the original) is a good neutral pattern to start with.


In térképet visz, why does térképet end in -t?

The -t is the accusative case ending, marking the direct object of the verb.

  • térkép – map
  • térképet – map (as a direct object) = a map

Hungarian usually adds a linking vowel before -t if the noun ends in a consonant:

  • térkép + -et → térképet
  • asztal + -t → asztalt (table → table as object)

So térképet = a map in “takes a map”.


Why is there no word like egy (“a / one”) before térképet?

In Hungarian, with a simple, indefinite singular object, you often omit egy if you don’t want to emphasise the number:

  • térképet viszhe takes a map (neutral)
  • egy térképet viszhe takes *one map* (emphasis on “one”, or introducing it a bit more strongly)

So the sentence without egy is completely normal and does not mean “some maps”; it still means “a map” in English terms, just without stressing the “one”.


Why is the verb visz and not viszi, even though there is an object?

Hungarian has two verb conjugations: indefinite and definite, depending on the object.

  • visz – 3rd person singular indefinite
  • viszi – 3rd person singular definite

You use definite conjugation when the object is specific/definite (with a/az, a demonstrative like ez/az, a proper name, or a possessed noun, etc.):

  • A térképet viszi.He takes *the map.* (we know which map)

You use indefinite when the object is indefinite or non-specific, like here:

  • térképet viszHe takes a map. (no article, non-specific)

So: indefinite object → visz, definite object → viszi.


What exactly does visz mean? How is it different from hoz (“bring”) or visz magával?

Basic meanings:

  • visztake / carry (away from the speaker’s location)
  • hozbring (toward the speaker’s location)

The direction is important:

  • Elviszem a könyvet.I’ll take the book (away from here).
  • Idehozom a könyvet.I’ll bring the book here.

In your sentence:

  • térképet visz – he is taking a map with him, carrying it along.

You may also see:

  • visz magával – literally takes with himself/herself, explicitly stressing that the object goes along with the person.
    • Térképet visz magával.He takes a map with him.

In many contexts, visz alone already implies “take (along)”.


Why is there a comma before és here? Is it required?

In standard Hungarian punctuation, when és connects two short clauses with the same subject, you usually don’t write a comma:

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik és térképet visz.

Many native speakers and especially textbooks influenced by English do put a comma, as in your sentence:

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, és térképet visz.

This is common and widely understood, but if you aim for strict modern style, it’s more typical without the comma in this case. So:

  • Required? → No.
  • Acceptable with comma? → Yes, but many editors would remove it here.

Could I drop és and just write A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, térképet visz?

Yes, that is possible:

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, térképet visz.

This is called asyndetic coordination (listing actions without “and”). It sounds a bit more literary or stylistic, like listing what he does:

  • My friend is traveling to the mountains, (he) takes a map.

In everyday, neutral speech or writing, you’d more often keep és:

  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik, és térképet visz. /
  • A barátom a hegyekhez utazik és térképet visz.