Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper examines the semantics of -AN-suffixed numerals and quantifiers in Hungarian. The main aim is to provide a compositional analysis that captures the wide variety of uses of -AN-marked numerals. While in the literature -AN has been treated as an adverbial suffix, I claim that the -AN-marking on numerals and quantifiers is a different mechanism than its phonologically similar adverbial counterpart. I present a number of grammatical phenomena in support of the assumption that -AN is associated with the [+plural] and [+human] features and I propose that they are realized as a presupposition. I argue that -AN is a predicate at type <e,t>, λx: HUMANS.(x) and show that -AN-suffixed numerals are complex predicates that presuppose a plurality of human beings and have the cardinality property provided by the numeral. In accounting for all positions -AN-marked numerals and quantifiers occur in, two main categories emerge: the predicative position and adnominal pronominal constructions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper
    1983 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy41. 159–219. 10.1007/BF00350139
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bende-Farkas, Ágnes
    2014 From A-quantification to D-quantification: Universal quantifiers in the sentence and in the Noun Phrase. InKatalin É. Kiss (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 83–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709855.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709855.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2019The semantics of Old Hungarian floating mind ‘all’. Paper presented at the11th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian, ICSH11, Bucharest, June 7. https://bit.ly/3pIfXg9 (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Borer, Hagit
    2005In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brisson, Christine M.
    1998 Distributivity, maximality and floating quantifiers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University PhD dissertation.
  6. Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke
    1999 The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. InHenk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110804010.145
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.145 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1998 Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics61. 339–405. 10.1023/A:1008324218506
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506 [Google Scholar]
  8. Csirmaz, Aniko & Anna Szabolcsi
    2012 Quantification in Hungarian. InEdward L. Keenan & Denis Paperno (eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language, 399–465. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2681‑9_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dékány, Éva K.
    2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. Tromsø: University of Tromsø PhD dissertation. https://bit.ly/3wAMU1h (Accessed14 June 2022)
  10. Dékány, Éva & Aniko Csirmaz
    2018 Numerals and quantifiers. InGábor Alberti & Tibor Laczkó (eds.), Syntax of Hungarian: Nouns and noun phrases, vol.21, 1044–1150. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://bit.ly/3wyEreQ (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dékány, Éva & Veronika Hegedűs
    2015 Word order variation in Hungarian PPs. InKatalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference, vol.141, 95–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/atoh.14.04dek
    https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.04dek [Google Scholar]
  12. Dowty, David R.
    1987 Collective predicates, distributive predicates and all. InAnn Miller & Zheng-sheng Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the 1986 Eastern States Conference on linguistics, 97–115. Columbus: Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dowty, David R. & Belinda Brodie
    1984 The semantics of “floated” quantifiers in a transformationless grammar. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics31. 75–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1992 Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete [The structure of the simple sentence]. InFerenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan: Mondattan [A structural grammar of Hungarian: Syntax], vol.11, 79–177. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. É. Kiss, Katalin
    2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511755088
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755088 [Google Scholar]
  16. Elbourne, Paul D.
    2005Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Frege, Gottlob
    1960 On sense and reference. InPeter Geach & Max Black (eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, 2nd edn., 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell. https://bit.ly/3Cc0FV4 (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gil, David
    1982 Distributive numerals. Los Angeles: University of California PhD dissertation.
  19. 2013 Distributive numerals. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/54 (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Groot, Casper de
    2017 The essives in Hungarian. InCasper de Groot (ed.), Uralic essive and the expression of impermanent state, 325–351. Amsterdam: John Bejnamins. 10.1075/tsl.119.14deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.119.14deg [Google Scholar]
  21. Gyuris, Beáta
    2002 The semantics of contrastive topics in Hungarian. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University PhD dissertation.
  22. Hegedűs, Veronika & Éva Dékány
    2021 The internal syntax of PPs. InKatalin É. Kiss, Veronika Hegedűs, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver & István Kenesei (eds.), Syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and postpositional phrases, 193–250. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv1kmj874.6
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1kmj874.6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heim, Irene
    1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite NPs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.
  24. Heusinger, Klaus von
    2002 Reference and representation of pronouns. InHorst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds.), Pronouns: Representation and grammar, 109–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 10.1075/la.52.09heu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.52.09heu [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofweber, Thomas
    2005 Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetic. The Philosophical Review1141. 179–225. 10.1215/00318108‑114‑2‑179
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-114-2-179 [Google Scholar]
  26. Höhn, Georg F. K.
    2017 Non-possessive person in the nominal domain. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.
  27. 2020 The third person gap in adnominal pronoun constructions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics51. Article 69. 10.5334/gjgl.1121
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1121 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ionin, Tania & Ora Matushansky
    2006 The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics231. 315–360. 10.1093/jos/ffl006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl006 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018Cardinals: The syntax and semantics of cardinal-containing expressions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8703.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8703.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi
    2000Hungarian. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Krifka, Manfred
    1989 Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. InRenate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110877335‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-005 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1992 Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. InIvan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–52. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Landman, Fred
    1989a Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy121. 559–605. 10.1007/BF00627774
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627774 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1989b Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy121. 723–744. 10.1007/BF00632603
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00632603 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1991Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3212‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3212-1 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2000Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4359‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2003 Predicate-argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. InMartine Coene & Yves D’hulst (eds.), From NP to DP: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases, vol.11, 211–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.55.10lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.55.10lan [Google Scholar]
  38. 2004Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470759318
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759318 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011 Boolean pragmatics. InJaap van der Does & C. Dutlih Novaes (eds.), ‘This is not a Festschrift’: A Festschrift for Martin Stokhof. www.vddoes.net/Martin/articles/Fred.pdf (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lasersohn, Peter
    1995Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8581‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lengyel, Klára
    2000 A melléknév [The adjective]. InBorbála Keszler (ed.), Magyar grammatika [Hungarian grammar], 142–151. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Link, Godehard
    1983 The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. InRainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwartze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110852820.302
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 [Google Scholar]
  43. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry251. 609–665.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Longobardi, Guiseppe
    2005 Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft241. 5–44. 10.1515/zfsw.2005.24.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2005.24.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Maling, Joan M.
    1976 Notes on quantifier-postposing. Linguistic Inquiry71. 708–718.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Marácz, László
    1986 Dressed or naked: The case of the PP in Hungarian. InAbraham Werner & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality: Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen 1984, 223–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.12kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.12kar [Google Scholar]
  47. Matushansky, Ora
    2006 Why Rose is the Rose: On the use of definite articles in proper names. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics61. 285–308. https://bit.ly/3079O4m (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2008 On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy311. 573–627. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9050‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Oravecz, Csaba, Tamás Váradi & Bálint Sass
    2014 The Hungarian Gigaword Corpus. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 1719–1723. Reykjavik: ELRA. https://bit.ly/3Gr2EY3 (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Peredy, Márta
    2010 Nincs van [No copula in 3sg]. InZsuzsanna Gécseg (ed.), LingDok 9. Nyelvész-doktoranduszok dolgozatai, 145–172. Szeged: JATE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Postal, Paul M.
    1974On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Roehrs, Dorian
    2005 Pronouns are determiners after all. InMarcel den Dikken & Christina M. Tortora (eds.), The function of function words and functional categories, 251–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.78.10roe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.78.10roe [Google Scholar]
  53. Rothstein, Susan
    2009 Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics11. 106–145. 10.1163/187666309X12491131130783
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130783 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2012 Numericals: Counting, measuring and classifying. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung161. 527–542. https://bit.ly/327a5W1 (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9780511734830
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511734830 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schvarcz, Brigitta R.
    2014 The Hungarians who say -nyi: Issues in counting and measuring in Hungarian. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2022 Nouns, numbers and classifiers in Hungarian. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University PhD dissertation.
  58. Schwarzschild, Roger
    2011 Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. InSuzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.), NELS 39: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 661–678. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharvy, Richard
    1980 A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review891. 607–624. 10.2307/2184738
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2184738 [Google Scholar]
  60. Simon, Eszter & Bálint Sass
    2012 Nyelvtechnológia és kulturális örökség, avagy korpuszépítés ómagyar kódexekből [Language technology and cultural heritage, or, corpus building from Old Hungarian codices]. Általános Nyelvészeti TanulmányokXXIV1. 243–264. https://bit.ly/3dF250F (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Szőke, Bernadett
    2015 Az értelmezős szerkezetek vizsgálata a magyar nyelvben [Exploring appositive constructions in Hungarian]. Szeged: University of Szeged PhD dissertation. 10.14232/phd.2766
  62. 2018 Appositive constructions. InGábor Alberti & Tibor Laczkó (eds.), Syntax of Hungarian: Nouns and Noun Phrases, vol21, 896–932. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://bit.ly/3wyEreQ (Accessed14 June 2022)
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tompa, József
    1968Ungarische Grammatik [Hungarian grammar]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 10.1515/9783111358628
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111358628 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wohlmuth, Kata
    2019 Atomicity and distributive reference. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra PhD dissertation.
  65. Zweig, Eytan
    2006 Nouns and adjectives in numeral NPs. InLeah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), NELS 35: Proceedings ofthe 35th conference of the North East Linguistic Society, 663–675. Amerst: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): -AN-marking; numerals; quantifiers; word formation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error