Deep Subordination

When building complex sentences, Hungarian allows you to extract an element from the embedded clause and move it to the main clause's focus or topic position. Crucially, if it moves to the focus position, the extracted word must land immediately before the main verb. This is only possible with a specific, limited class of verbs known as 'bridge verbs' (e.g., mond, gondol, akar, hisz, tud).

1. The Anticipatory Pronoun and Island Constraint: The main clause often contains a pronoun (like azt) that points to the hogy-clause. However, to extract a word into the main clause, this anticipatory pronoun must be dropped. Its presence turns the hogy-clause into an island that blocks extraction.

2. Definiteness Override: A hogy-clause acts as a 3rd-person definite accusative object, so the main verb usually takes the definite conjugation. In the accusative-agreement pattern, the main verb instead agrees with the extracted word. This is not the only attested pattern: some constructions retain agreement with the clause. For example, extracting an indefinite word like kit forces the indefinite conjugation (Kit akarsz, hogy meghívjak? = 'Who do you want me to invite?'). If the extracted word is not accusative (e.g., kivel), the verb remains definite because Hungarian verbs only agree with accusative objects, so the matrix verb defaults to agreeing with the hogy-clause.

3. Case Switch (Focus Raising): When extracting the subject of the embedded clause, it often changes from nominative to accusative in the main clause. This also forces the indefinite conjugation on the main verb if the extracted subject becomes an indefinite accusative object (e.g., Kit akarsz, hogy nyerjen? = 'Who do you want to win?').

4. First- and Second-Person Agreement: Extracting a 2nd-person pronoun triggers the specific -lak/-lek suffix on the matrix verb, which is a crucial proof of the definiteness override (e.g., Téged akarlak, hogy eljöjj. = 'I want YOU to come.').

5. Subjunctive Mood: If the main verb expresses a wish or request, the embedded verb must be in the subjunctive mood.

Do not confuse this with wh-scope marking, where a dummy mit is used in the main clause while the actual question word stays in the embedded clause (Mit gondolsz, kivel találkoztam? = 'Who do you think I met?'). Both are natural, but true extraction integrates the word directly into the main clause's structure.

Case-Retaining Alternative: A fronted embedded subject can remain nominative, particularly as a contrastive topic: János mondtad, hogy jön a partira (Of János, you said that he would come to the party). Compare accusative Jánost mondtad, hogy jön a partira. Acceptance and preferred readings vary across speakers; do not mechanically change every extracted subject to accusative. With a retained anticipatory azt, the clause elaborates that pronoun instead of directly filling the matrix argument slot; this creates the structural boundary responsible for the extraction restriction in the construction taught here.

Agreement Variation: Both Két almát mondtad, hogy vettél and Két almát mondtál, hogy vettél are documented: the definite mondtad agrees with the clause, while indefinite mondtál corresponds to the fronted indefinite object. Learn the accusative-agreement pattern without treating every alternative as an error.