Talk:lettünk


 * Do you have any suggestion concerning this entry? Please improve it as you find best. – I think something similar should be implemented in as well, that is, inserting some reference to the respective (past-tense conditional) form of  (and incidentally, that of "Latvian"). Adam78 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding lettünk volna is a little confusing to me because the other conjugation tables do not contain this structure (e.g. mentünk volna, etc.), so I'm wondering if it is really needed at van and whether it should be even mentioned here, as well. Other than that, it looks good. Panda10 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To the question on whether it's needed at van: lettem etc. are exceptional, since they're suppletive forms: they derive from a different stem than several other forms (the vagyok series and the voltam series). What's more, compound forms like lettem volna are irregular in a different way, since their basis is not the past tense (the voltam series): voltam volna is not much used (though it occurs). I think this two-fold irregularity deserves mentioning both in the entry of and in the derived entries of the  series, even if we decide to omit the compound forms elsewhere (which is not evident, see e.g. the conjugation of gehen the German Wiktionary). On the other hand, the usage examples are included to show that this sense of cannot derive from the verb  because it has a different meaning ("to be" rather than "to become").

What is indeed predictable and a remaining question is the second, "construed with volna" sense under "Etymology 1", because that subjunctive past can be regularly derived from the indicative past of "lesz" in the sense "to become". The existential verb as such and its interrelation in Hungarian with the verb "to become" may be a ground for some redundancy, though. Adam78 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is fine as it is now. Thanks for updating the others, as well. Panda10 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)