1 Introduction

This paper documents the gradual disappearance of the passive conjugation from Hungarian grammar, and explains it by the emergence and the spreading of alternative constructions more transparent than the passive, which was encumbered by a large number of verb forms ambiguous between a passive and an active interpretation. It also discusses the patterns supplanting the passive construction, showing that the different discourse roles of the passive (promotion of the internal argument, demotion or elimination of the external argument, focusing of the external argument) resulted in different replacement solutions.

The analysis of the attrition and eventual disappearance of the passive conjugation contributes to the clarification of the role of transparency in diachronic processes. Striving to attain or maintain transparency has been claimed in many studies to be a potential trigger of grammatical changes (for an overview, see Haberli 2026). However, the notion of transparency has remained rather vague; it is unclear how it could be formalized or measured. According to Langacker (1977), transparency is a one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning. Slobin (1977) linked this notion of transparency with language acquisition. He argued that children acquire transparent structures easier than non-transparent ones, which may lead to the gradual decrease of opaque structures – provided the opaque structures have transparent alternatives. Transparency in Lightfoot’s (1979) Transparency Principle means the transparency of derivations; the principle expresses a preference for recoverable relations between the initial and surface structures of syntactic constructions. In present-day generative theory, this principle is subsumed by the principle requiring the economy of derivations and representations.

The present study relates the gradual disappearance of the passive construction to the observation that in Old and Middle Hungarian1 an increasing proportion of passive verb forms were ambiguous between a passive and an active interpretation. Ambiguity resolution has been shown to impose additional cognitive load upon the interpreter (see Kess & Hoppe 1981; Ferreira & Dell 2000; Swets et al. 2007; Martin & McElree 2018, among many others). Old Hungarian, however, already had alternative constructions with the same expressive power as the passive, the interpretation of which presumably required less cognitive effort. In the vein of Slobin (1977), I hypothesize that children acquired the alternative constructions sooner, which led to the gradual increase of these patterns in the primary linguistic data determining the grammars of subsequent generations, and, at the same time, to the attrition and eventual disappearance of the passive conjugation over time. In this approach, transparency (or, looked at from the opposite direction, opacity) is a scalar notion. The disappearance of the passive conjugation is not linked to the transparency of the passive construction dropping to a particular low scalar value; it is rather the consquence of the emergence and the spreading of more transparent alternatives.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the properties of the Hungarian passive construction, whereas section 3 deals with its origin. Section 4 documents its gradual disappearance over the past 600 years. Section 5 analyzes two factors that may have contributed to its opacity. Section 6 presents the constructions replacing the traditional passive. Section 7 points out distributional differences between the traditional passive construction and its various alternatives, and derives them from structural differences. Section 8 is a summary.

2 The Hungarian passive voice

The passive construction is not used anymore by present-day Hungarian speakers except for a couple of lexicalized passive verb forms but it is still part of their passive knowledge. The passive construction involves a verb bearing passive morphology, with its theme argument promoted to subject role, and its external argument either missing or figuring as an adjunct marked by ablative case or the postposition által ‘by’. (1) is a contemporary example containing a formulaic passive phrase:

    1. (1)
    1. A
    2. the
    1. tanya
    2. farm
    1. két
    2. two
    1. tulajdonos-á-nak
    2. owner-poss-dat
    1. nem
    2. not
    1. ad-at-ott
    2. give-pass-pst.3sg
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. a sors-tól,
    2. the fate-from
    1. hogy
    2. that
    1. saját
    2. own
    1. portá-já-n
    2. home-poss-sup
    1. ér-je
    2. overtake-obj.3sg
    1. a
    2. the
    1. halál.
    2. death
    1. ‘It was not given to the two owners of the farm by fate that death overtake them in their own home.’
    2. (https://mek.oszk.hu/21400/21478/21478.pdf)

The passive verb bears the -at/-et/-tat/-tet causative morpheme and an agreement morpheme of the unaccusative (originally middle) -ik paradigm. Similar causative-based passives are common in the Uralic, Turkic and Tungusic languages of Siberia (Nedjalkov 1993; Robbeets 2007; Zhornik 2018). The Romance passive construction involving the causative auxiliary and a reflexive pronoun, e.g. the French il s’est fait tuer ‘he was killed’ (Den Dikken & Dékány 2019), also represents the same type. Based on historical documents and present-day intuition, the passive paradigms of the verb keres ‘seek’ can be reconstructed as follows:

    1. (2)
    1.  
    2. 1sg
    3. 2sg
    4. 3sg
    5. 1pl
    6. 2pl
    7. 3pl
    1. Present:
    2. keres-tet-em
    3. keres-tet-el
    4. keres-tet-ik
    5. keres-tet-ünk
    6. keres-tet-tek
    7. keres-tet-nek
    1. Past:
    2. keres-tet-t-em
    3. keres-tet-t-él
    4. keres-tet-ett
    5. keres-tet-t-ünk
    6. keres-tet-t-etek
    7. keres-tet-t-ek
    1. Conditional:
    2. keres-tet-né-m
    3. keres-tet-né-l
    4. keres-tet-né-k
    5. keres-tet-né-nk
    6. keres-tet-né-tek
    7. keres-tet-né-nek
    1. Subjunctive:
    2. keres-tes-s-em
    3. keres-tes-s-él
    4. keres-tes-s-ék
    5. keres-tes-s-ünk
    6. keres-tes-s-etek
    7. keres-tes-s-enek

3 The origin of the passive voice

The passive voice in Hungarian must be Ugric heritage. It is present in the first surviving linguistic documents, and it is also present in Khanty and Mansi, the Ob-Ugric sister languages of Hungarian, although the passive morphemes themselves are different in every one of these languages (Zhornik 2018). In Khanty and Mansi, the passive construction is very frequent (Kulonen 1989; Kiparsky 2013), which has been argued to be related to the fact that these are strict SOV languages with fused grammatical functions and discourse roles (É. Kiss 2020). The Ob-Ugric subject is also the primary topic of its clause, whereas the object is either focus (in which case it is morphologically unmarked), or secondary topic (Nikolaeva 2001). The internal argument can assume the role of primary topic via passivization, with the external argument either suppressed (3a) or focussed (3b,c):

    1. (3)
    1. a.
    1. ittən
    2. evening
    1. ar
    2. many
    1. qoras-əp
    2. kind-adj
    1. naj-ət
    2. fire-pl
    1. wət’əɣt-at
    2. light-pass.pst.3pl
    1. ‘In the evening, many kinds of fire were lit.’
    2. (Khanty database)2
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mȧ
    2. I
    1. ťeťe-m-nə
    2. grandma-poss.1sg-loc
    1. nŏq
    2. up
    1. ä̌nəmt-ojəm
    2. raise-pass.pst.1sg
    1. ‘I was raised by my grandma.’
    2. (Csepregi 2023: ex. (100))
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. (məŋ)
    2. we
    1. măč
    2. guest
    1. jåɣ-nə
    2. people-loc
    1. jŏwt-ojəw.
    2. arrive-pass.pst.1pl
    1. ‘Guests are coming to us.’ Lit.: ‘We are come by guests.’
    2. (Csepregi 2023: ex. (105))

Non-referential, hence non-topical external arguments, too, are kept out of the position of subject-topic by passivization:

    1. (4)
    1. Kɔm
    2. man
    1. öät’i-nǟr-nə
    2. nothing-lat
    1. öät
    2. not
    1. kan-wə.
    2. stick-pass.3sg
    1. ‘Nothing sticks to the man.’ Lit.: ‘The man is stuck to by nothing.’
    2. (Mansi, Kulonen 1989: 185)

The passive voice is also common in early Old Hungarian (see (5a,b)) but its use is less prevalent than it is in present-day Khanty and Mansi – presumably because in Old Hungarian the discourse roles are divorced from grammatical functions already (É. Kiss 2014).

    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1. Es
    2. and
    1. hug
    2. that
    1. bezzug
    2. nevertheless
    1. oz-noc
    2. that-dat
    1. nues-tes-s-el
    2. name-pass-sjv-2sg
    1. ‘And that you nevertheless be named that’
    2. (Königsbergi töredék, early 13th c.)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. keseruen
    2. bitterly
    1. kynz-ath-ul
    2. torture-pass-2sg
    1. uos
    2. iron
    1. scegeg-kel
    2. nails-with
    1. wer-eth-ul …
    2. lash-pass-2sg
    1. ‘You are tortured bitterly, you are lashed with iron nails’
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Syrolm-om
    2. lament-poss.1sg
    1. fuhazat-um
    2. prayer- poss.1sg
    1. ther-thet-yk
    2. put-pass-3sg
    1. kyul …3
    2. outside
    1. ‘My lament, my prayer is exposed…’
    1.  
    1.  
    1. hul
    2. where
    1. yg
    2. so
    1. kynz-as-s-al
    2. torture-pass-sjv-2sg
    1. fy-om
    2. son- poss.1sg
    1. halal-lal.
    2. death-with
    1. ‘where you shall be tortured so, my son, with death’
    2. (Ómagyar Mária-siralom, end of 13th c.)

The earliest surviving book-length Hungarian document, Jókai Codex from 1372, abounds in passive verb forms, for example:

    1. (6)
    1. a.
    1. hana
    2. though
    1. ket-eztende-yg
    2. two-year-for
    1. ekkeppen
    2. this.way
    1. emberek-myat
    2. people-because
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. vtal-tatt-ot
    2. detest-pass-pst.3sg
    1. es
    2. and
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. meuet-tet-ett:
    2. laugh-pass-pst.3sg
    1. mendenkor
    2. always
    1. ynkkab
    2. rather
    1. alhatatoss-nak
    2. persevering-dat
    1. lat-tat-yk
    2. see-pass-3sg
    1. ual-a
    2. be-pst
    1. ‘though he was so detested and laughed at by people for two years, he was rather seen to be persevering’
    2. (Jókai Codex, 1372: 3)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Nemy
    2. some
    1. yfyosag-tol
    2. youth-abl
    1. ekesewlewt
    2. adorned
    1. gyermek
    2. child
    1. galamby
    2. dovelike
    1. tyztasag-ual
    2. purity-with
    1. es
    2. and
    1. angyaly
    2. angelic
    1. artattlansag-ual
    2. innocence-with
    1. ve-tet-ett
    2. take-pass-prf.3sg
    1. ual-a
    2. be-pst
    1. zent
    2. Saint
    1. ferencz-tewl
    2. Francis-abl
    1. zerzet-be
    2. confraternity-to
    1. ‘Some children adorned with dovelike purity and angelic innocence were admitted to the confraternity by Saint Francis’
    2. (Jókai Codex, 1372: 143)

Since Jókai Codex contains the Hungarian rendition of a Latin legend of Saint Francis, one might surmise that the passive verb forms were motivated by the Latin originals. However, passive verbs are also common in native Hungarian texts and free transpositions, e.g., in Saint Margit’s legend:

    1. (7)
    1. a.
    1. ha
    2. if
    1. valamelẏ
    2. some
    1. soror-tvl
    2. soror- abl
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. ban-tat-ÿk
    2. offend-pass-3sg
    1. val-a
    2. be-pst
    1. ez
    2. this
    1. zent
    2. saint
    1. zvz
    2. virgin
    1. ‘If this saint virgin was offended by some soror’
    2. (Margit Legenda, 1510: 36v)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. mykoron
    2. when
    1. eztendeÿg
    2. year.long
    1. gevtr-et-evt
    2. torture-pass-prf.3st
    1. volna
    2. be-cond
    1. negyed
    2. fourth
    1. napi
    2. day
    1. hydegleles-sel …
    2. fit.of.ague-with
    1. es
    2. and
    1. oruosok-nak
    2. doctors-dat
    1. jtylet-ÿ
    2. judgement-poss.pl
    1. zerent
    2. according
    1. mond-at-ÿk
    2. say-pass-3sg
    1. val-a
    2. be-pst
    1. kevzel
    2. near
    1. lennÿ
    2. be.inf
    1. belpoklos-sa
    2. leper-transl
    1. ezenkeppen
    2. so
    1. elhagy-at-ek
    2. abandon-pass-pst.3sg
    1. az oruosok-tvl …
    2. the doctors- abl
    1. ‘when she was tortured by fourth day fit of ague year-long and according to the doctors’ judgement she was near to having leper so she was abandoned by the doctors…’
    2. (Margit Legenda 1510: 88v)

Passive sentences also occur in private letters, albeit much less frequently. Old and Middle Hungarian private letters are almost invariably closed with the formula Adassék e levél… ‘Be given this letter (to) …’, but the spontaneous uses of the passive voice such as those in (8) are sporadic:

    1. (8)
    1. ez
    2. this
    1. samadas …
    2. account
    1. lat-tas-s-ek
    2. see-pass-sjv-3sg
    1. az kÿral-nal
    2. the king-at
    1. ees
    2. and
    1. mÿnd
    2. all
    1. az
    2. the
    1. wrak-nal
    2. lords-at
    1. mÿwel
    2. because
    1. az
    2. that
    1. mÿth
    2. what
    1. en
    2. I
    1. zol-t-am
    2. say-prf-def.3sg
    1. Jth
    2. here
    1. kÿral-nak
    2. king-dat
    1. talal-tas-s-ek
    2. find-pass-sjv-3sg
    1. wgÿ
    2. so
    1. ‘this account shall be seen by the king and by all the lords, because what I have said here to the king shall be found so
    2. (Old and Middle Hungarian corpus of informal language,4 Letter of J. Drággfy, 1524)

The above facts confirm that passive voice was an organic part of 13th–16th century Hungarian grammar, presumably inherited from Proto-Hungarian and Proto-Ugric. Whereas its use was common in the conservative, educated ecclesiastical register, it was much less common in private letters closer to the everyday, spoken language of the time, which suggests that it was a fading construction in that period already.

4 Decreasing proportion of passive verb forms in Old and Middle Hungarian

As passive voice is not present in contemporary Hungarian, the question arises when, at what rate it disappeared. A tentative answer to these questions can be obtained on the basis of the morphologically analyzed subcorpus of the Old Hungarian Database,5 the morphologically analyzed Old and Middle Hungarian Corpus of Informal Language,6 and the Hungarian Historical Corpus, a corpus of Modern Hungarian, containing texts created after 1772.7

In Jókai Codex from 1372, verbs bearing passive morphology make up 0.84% of all the words. There is reason to assume that this proportion is already lower than it was in SOV Proto-Hungarian and Proto-Ugric. It is significantly lower than the proportion of passive verbs in the present-day SOV Ob-Ugric languages. In the Khanty database of the Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics,8 containing 14 742 words, the proportion of passive verbs is 2,055%. In Old Hungarian, the VP was already head-initial, object-marking had been generalized to all objects, and subjects and objects could be preposed into the clause-initial topic position and into the pre-VP focus position with equal ease, which lessened the motivation to use the passive.

The proportion of passive verbs attested in Jókai Codex (0.84%) was decreasing at a growing pace in the late Old Hungarian period: in a group of five codices created between 1416–1516, containing Bible translations, religious reflections, and prayers (Müncheni Codex, Jordánszky Codex, Festetics Codex, Guary Codex, Könyvecse), the proportion of passive verbs among all words dropped to 0.47%. In the Old and Middle Hungarian Corpus of Informal Language, containing private letters and transcriptions of witness testimonies mainly from the Middle Hungarian period (1526–1772), representing the Vernacular Hungarian of the time, the proportion of passive verb forms is 0.25%.

The decline of the passive voice is apparent – though slower – within the ecclesiastical register, as well. I selected the first 150 passive sentences of the Gospels in Müncheni Codex, the first Hungarian New Testament, translated around 1416, copied in 1466. Then, with the help of Parallelbible.nytud.hu, a corpus of Old and Middle Hungarian Bible translations paralleled sentence by sentence, I checked the equivalents of these sentences in seven subsequent Bible translations, five from the 16th century, one from the early 17th century, and one from the 1970s, and counted the passive constructions in them. The numbers are decreasing. The decrease happened earlier in the Protestant translations, spelled in boldface:

    1. (9)
    1. The number of passive equivalents of 150 passive verbs of Müncheni Codex in s ubsequent trans lations:
    1.  
    1. Müncheni Codex
    2. Jordánszky Codex
    3. Pesti transl.
    4. Sylvester transl.
    5. Heltai transl.
    6. Károli transl.
    7. Káldi transl.
    8. Szent István T. transl.
    1. (1416):
    2. (1516):
    3. (1536):
    4. (1541):
    5. (1565):
    6. (1590):
    7. (1626):
    8. (1973):
    1. 150
    2. 120
    3. 102
    4. 104
    5. 102
    6. 113
    7. 129
    8. 6
    1. 100%
    2. 80%
    3. 68%
    4. 69%
    5. 68%
    6. 75%
    7. 86%
    8. 4%

The proportion of passive forms is lower in the Protestant Bible translations than in the Catholic Bibles presumably because the eccesiastical language of the Protestant church was closer to Vernacular Hungarian than the eccesiastical language of the Catholic church, influenced by Latin.

To document the further decline and disappearance of the passive voice in the Modern Hungarian period, beginning in 1772, I searched the Hungarian Historical Database. This 30- million-word corpus is not annotated, therefore, I only looked for the occurrences of the most easily identifiable and most frequent passive verb form: the present tense 3rd person singular passive verb, bearing the suffix -(t)atik/-(t)etik. (The list of the occurrences of -(t)Atik was obtained automatically, and the non-passive homonyms in it were filtered out manually.) I checked the occurrences of -(t)Atik in five ten-year periods: 1780–1789; 1830–1839, 1880–1889, 1930–1939, and 1980–1989, but the occurrences ran out in the 1930s; in the 1980s I found nothing except for a few passive set phrases.

    1. (10)
    1. The proportion of passive present 3SG verb forms in the Hungarian Historical Database
    1.  
    1. 1780–1789:
    2. 1830–1839:
    3. 1880–1889:
    4. 1930–1939:
    1. 0.21%
    2. 0.14%
    3. 0.04%
    4. 0.002%

The contexts in which the passive verbs occur are scientific, legal or religious texts in most cases – which suggests that at the beginning of the Modern Hungarian period, the use of the passive voice was already restricted to a special, learned register of Hungarian.

The decline of the passive can also be traced in Hungarian grammars. The so-called Debreceni grammatika, a prescriptive grammar from 1795, already proposes to recede from the use of the passive, recommending alternative constructions instead. Verseghy’s Hungarian grammar from 1805 and Schedel’s Hungarian grammar from 1847 still include the passive paradigms, but the passive voice is not even mentioned in the comprehensive Hungarian grammar of Simonyi & Balassa (1895), and in 20th century Hungarian grammars.

In sum: the passive voice was still an integral part of Old Hungarian grammar, but the rate of its occurrence was gradually decreasing throughout the Old and Middle Hungarian periods. The decrease advanced faster in the vernacular language than in the ecclesiastical register. In the Modern Hungarian era, its use came to be restricted to ecclesiastical, legal, medical, and scientific texts, until it completely disappeared in the early 20th century. The question arises what caused its extinction.

5 Why did the passive disappear?

As anticipated in the Introduction, passive verb forms were often ambiguous between a passive and an active reading, in which cases their processing required reliance on contextual information. The possibility of garden-path problems (i.e., a false initial reading and subsequent reinterpretation) increased the cognitive load of the parsing of passive sentences, and contributed to the preference of alternative constructions. Both components of the passive paradigm, the causative suffix and unaccusative agreement, involved problems contributing to the processing difficulties of passive verbs.

5.1 The problem of the causative suffix

As presented in section 2, passive inflection includes the -at/-et/-tat/-tet causative suffix. However, it is often unclear, and must have been unclear for Old and Middle Hungarian speakers, as well, whether -(t)At is part of the passive inflection, or – as a derivational suffix – it is part of the base verb. The source of the problem is that the -(t)At suffix is ambiguous (see Komlósy 1994; 2000; Horvath & Siloni 2011). When combining with agentive (transitive and unergative) verbs, it functions as a causative (or, in the terminology of Komlósy 2000, factitive) suffix, introducing an agent that manipulates the original agent of the base verb to do the action denoted by the verb, as happens in the case of dolgoz-tat ‘make someone work’ or nevet-tet ‘make someone laugh’. But -(t)At can also function as a transitivizing suffix, creating a transitive verb from an unaccusative, as happens in the case of forg-at ‘turn’, derived from the unaccusative forog, mozg-at ‘move’, derived from the unaccusative mozog, or változ-tat ‘change’, derived from the unaccusative változ-ik. In structural terms: -(t)At can be a v head merging with a V, yielding a transitive verb as in forg-at ‘turn’, and it can be a causative head merging with a v, yielding a causative verb, as in forgat-tat ‘make turn’. The causative – transitive distinction, however, can be blurred if the causative -(t)At combines with an unergative verb or a transitive verb with an implicit theme, and the -(t)At-marked verb denotes a regular transitive activity involving no distinct, incidental momentum of causation. Such causative verbs can easily be reanalyzed as simple transitive verbs with the agent of the base verb interpreted as a patient – see, for example, e-tet ‘feed’, i-tat ‘make/let drink’, al-tat ‘put to sleep’, hív-at ‘call, send for someone’, éhez-tet ‘let starve’, ül-tet ‘seat, plant’, ismer-tet ‘make known, familiarize’, kopog-tat ‘knock’, ütköz-tet ‘clash’, öltöz-tet ‘dress’, legel-tet ‘make/let graze’, siet-tet ‘make hurry, urge’, figyelmez-tet ‘make pay attention, warn’, etc. When interpreting these verbs, the intuition is – and must have been – uncertain whether the -(t)At suffix is the causative component of passive inflection, or it is a transitivizer and has to be spelled out again in passive sentences, i.e., whether ‘he was dressed’ corresponds to (ő) öltöz-tet-ett or öltöztet-tet-ett, or whether éhez-tet-ett is an active transitive verb with a pro subject and a pro object, or a passive verb with a pro subject, i.e.:

    1. (11)
    1. a.
    1. pro
    2. 3sg
    1. éheztet-ett9
    2. starve-pst.3sg
    1. pro
    2. 1sg.acc/2sg.acc
    1. ‘He starved me/you.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. pro
    2. 3sg
    1. éhez-tet-ett.
    2. starve-pass-pst.3sg
    1. ‘He was starved.’

In some cases, Old and Middle Hungarian speakers eliminated this problem by doubling the -(t)At suffix on passive verbs. The 150 passive verbs I selected from the Gospels of Müncheni Codex do not contain any doubling yet, however, in the subsequent translations the proportion of passive verbs with -(t)At doubling is fairly high:

    1. (12)
    1. Proportion of -(t)At doubling among the passive verbs selected from the Gospels in subsequent translations:
    1.  
    1. Müncheni Codex
    2. Jordánszky Codex
    3. Pesti transl.
    4. Sylvester transl.
    5. Heltai transl.
    6. Károli transl.
    7. Káldi transl.
    8. Szent István Társulat
    1. (1416):
    2. (1516):
    3. (1536):
    4. (1541):
    5. (1565):
    6. (1590):
    7. (1626):
    8. (1973):
    1. 0
    2. 19%
    3. 6%
    4. 25%
    5. 20%
    6. 12%
    7. 19%
    8. 0

The passive verbs displaying -(t)At doubling in the above corpus include: hív-at-tat ‘call-pass’, vág-at-tat ‘cut-pass’, elvét-et-tet ‘away.take-pass’, ismer-tet-tet ‘familiarize-pass’, kárhoz-tat-tat ‘condemn-pass’, gyötr-et-tet ’torture-pass’, hagy-at-tat ‘leave-pass’, hoz-at-tat ‘bring-pass’, kivet-tet-tet ‘eject-pass’, hány-at-tat ‘afflict-pass’, ad-at-tat ‘give-pass’, tör-et-tet ‘break-pass’, nyom-at-tat ‘press-pass’, ver-et-tet ‘beat-pass’, sóz-at-tat ‘salt-pass’, fog-at-tat ‘catch-pass’, mond-at-tat ‘say-pass’. One may surmise that these are passivized causatives verb forms, with the two -(t)At suffixes having distinct, causativizing and passivizing functions. In fact, the contexts exclude the passivized causative readings; they support the claim that these are simple passive verbs, with the first -(t)At (mis)analyzed as part of the stem, as illustrated in (13a–c):

    1. (13)
    1. a.
    1. Ki-c
    2. who-pl
    1. fèlèsėǵėk-èt
    2. wives-acc
    1. vo̗nc̣
    2. took
    1. Moabitidiak-at
    2. Moabites-acc
    1. Ki-k-nc̣
    2. who-pl-dat
    1. ėggic
    2. one
    1. hiuat-tat-ic
    2. call-pass-3sg
    1. ual-a
    2. be-pst
    1. Orpha-nac
    2. Orpha-dat
    1. 7
    2. and
    1. masic
    2. other
    1. Rvt-nac
    2. Ruth- dat
    1. ‘who took wives, Moabites, one of whom was called Orpha, and the other of whom was called Rut’
    2. (Bécsi Codex, after 1416: 1/1)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. De
    2. but
    1. miert
    2. why
    1. hoǵ
    2. that
    1. az
    2. the
    1. istenek
    2. gods
    1. itelet-e
    2. judgement-poss
    1. melsego̗s
    2. deep
    1. tengo̗rnek
    2. see-dat
    1. mondat-tat-ik
    2. say-pass-3sg
    1. ‘But why is it that the gods’ judgement is said to be a deep sea?’
    2. (Kazinczy Codex 1526–1541: 24v)
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. El
    2. away
    1. uétet-tet-ic
    2. take-pass-3sg
    1. az Isten-nec
    2. the god-dat
    1. ország-a
    2. kingdom-poss
    1. tuͤ
    2. you
    1. toͤl-etec
    2. from-2pl
    1. ‘God’s kingdom will be taken away from you’
    2. (Heltai 1565: F4v)

The uncertain status of verb-final -(t)At is also evident in Hungarian grammars from the Middle Hungarian period. Nova Grammatica Ungarica by Albert Szenczi Molnár (1610) presents the passive paradigm of the verb kér ‘ask for’ in two alternative versions: with a single (kér-et-ik) and with a doubled -(t)At suffix (kér-et-tet-ik). The discussion of the passive conjugation in the Hungarian grammar of György Komáromi Csipkés (1655: 108) also contains verb forms both with and without causative doubling (ver-et-em and ver-et-tet-em ‘(I) am beaten’, but Komáromi Csipkés – alone among all grammarians – regards the version with doubling a passivized causative. The so-called Debreceni grammatika presents two passive paradigms, those of the verbs zár ‘close’ and vesz ‘take’. In the paradigms of zár, the present and past forms contain a single causative morpheme (zár-at-ik, zár-at-ott), whereas the conditional and the subjunctive forms contain causative doubling: zár-at-tat-nám, zár-at-tas-sam. The passive infinitive is listed in two versions: zár-at-ni and zár-at-tat-ni. In Kolozsvári grammatika from the early 18th century, the list of passive verbs on p. 27v contains, in addition to such regular forms as szeret-tet-el ‘(yousg) are being loved’, tanít-tat-ol ‘(yousg) are being taught’, olvas-tat-ol ‘(yousg) are being read’, the doubled hall-at-tat-ott ‘(he) was heard’ (Lőrinczi 1998: 52). In Sámuel Fejérvári’s Institutiones, written between 1755–1773, p. 90, we find both szeret-tet-em ‘I am loved’, olvas-tat-om ‘I am read’, mutskol-tat-om ‘I am dishonored’ and the doubled ken-et-tet-em ‘I am anointed’ (Lőrinczi 1998: 195). Verseghy’s grammar (1805) incriminates the use of double -(t)At.

5.2 Problems with the agreement suffixes

The opacity of -(t)At-marked verb forms was aggravated by a further factor: the incompleteness and attrition of the -ik paradigms of subject-verb agreement. The passive verb takes an agreement morpheme of the -ik conjugation, the unaccusative conjugation of Old Hungarian. Most suffixes of this conjugation are obsolete in present-day Hungarian; they have been replaced by the corresponding suffixes of the default indefinite conjugation.10 In Old Hungarian, when the -ik paradigms were still more complete, they differed from the default indefinite paradigms in present singular 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, in conditional 1st and 3rd person, and in subjunctive 1st and 3rd person. In the paradigms of the verb lak-ik ‘stay, live (somewhere)’, shown in (14), the verb forms that bear morphemes different from the corresponding regular indefinite agreement suffixes are spelled in boldface:

    1. (14)
    1. Present tense
    2. lakom
    3. lakol
    4. lakik
    5. lakunk
    6. laktok
    7. laknak
    1. Past tense
    2. laktam
    3. laktál
    4. lakott
    5. laktunk
    6. laktatok
    7. laktak
    1. Conditional mood
    2. laknám
    3. laknál
    4. laknék
    5. laknánk
    6. laknátok
    7. laknának
    1. Subjunctive mood
    2. lakjam
    3. lakjál
    4. lakjék
    5. lakjunk
    6. lakjatok
    7. lakjanak

Where the morpheme is identical with that of the indefinite paradigm, the verb form is ambiguous between a passive and an active causative interpretation. Since Hungarian has not only subject pro-drop but also object pro-drop, these homophonies can lead to ambiguous sentences – at least when both the agent and the theme of the verb are human. For example:

    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1. Mi
    2. we
    1. is
    2. also
    1. meghív-at-t-unk.
    2. invite-pass-pst-3pl
    1. ‘We were also invited.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Mi
    2. we
    1. is
    2. also
    1. meghív-at-t-unk
    2. invite-caus-pst-3pl
    1. pro
    2. 2sg.acc
    1. / néhány ismerős-t.
    2. / some acquaintance-acc
    1. ‘We, too, had you/some acquaintaces invited.’
    1. (16)
    1. a.
    1. Ők
    2. they
    1. bűnös-nek
    2. guilty-dat
    1. ítél-tet-nek.
    2. judge-pass-3pl
    1. ‘They are judged to be guilty.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ők
    2. they
    1. bűnös-nek
    2. guilty
    1. ítél-tet-nek
    2. judge-caus-3pl
    1. pro
    2. 1sg.acc/2sg.acc
    1. / egyes-ek-et.
    2. / some-pl-acc
    1. ‘They have me/you/some people judged to be guilty.
    1. (17)
    1. a.
    1. Elfog-t-ak
    2. catch-pst-3pl
    1. pro;
    2. 1sg.acc
    1. pro
    2. 1sg
    1. most
    2. now
    1. őriz-tet-em.
    2. detain-pass-1sg
    1. ‘I have been caught; now I am detained.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Elfog-t-ák
    2. catch-pst-def.3pl
    1. pro;
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. pro
    2. 1sg
    1. most
    2. now
    1. őriz-tet-em
    2. detain-caus-def.1sg
    1. pro.
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. ‘He has been caught: now I have him detained.’

The passive verb forms in the English translations of (15b), (16b), and (17b) are misleading; the Hungarian sentences are active, containing accusative-marked objects. The lack of passive morphology on the verb is evident in examples with a 3SG subject, where the verb lacks the 3SG -ik suffix of 3SG present passive verbs; it bears a suffix cross-referencing both a 3SG subject and a definite object:

    1. (18)
    1. Egy
    2. a
    1. rendőr
    2. policeman
    1. elfog-t-a
    2. catch-pst-def.3sg
    1. pro,
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. és
    2. and
    1. most
    2. now
    1. pro
    2. 3sg
    1. őriz-tet-i
    2. detain-caus-def.3sg
    1. pro.
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. ‘A policeman caught him, and now has him detained.’

Some unaccusative morphemes different from the corresponding morphemes of the indefinite paradigm happen to be homophonous with verbal agreement morphemes of other paradigms. Namely:

    1. (19)
    1. néz-et-em:
    2. néz-et-ik:
    3. néz-et-né-m:
    4. néz-es-s-em:
    5. néz-es-s-ék:
    1. ‘watch-pass-1sg’
    2. ‘watch-pass-3sg’
    3. ‘watch-pass-cond-1sg’
    4. ‘watch-pass-sjv-1sg’
    5. ‘watch-pass-sjv-3sg’
    1. or
    2. or
    3. or
    4. or
    5. or
    1. ‘watch-caus-def.1sg’
    2. ‘watch-caus-def.3pl’
    3. ‘watch-caus-cond-def.1sg’
    4. ‘watch-caus-sjv-def.1sg’
    5. ‘watch-caus-sjv-def.3pl’

These homophonies can lead to further ambiguities. In (20), (21), and (22), the same verb forms are interpreted passively in the (a) examples, and actively in the (b) examples.

    1. (20)
    1. a.
    1. Elfog-t-ák;
    2. catch-pst-def.3pl
    1. pro
    2. 3sg
    1. őriz-tet-ik
    2. detain-pass-3sg/
    1. /őriztet-né-k
    2.   detain-pass-cond-3sg
    1. /őriz-tes-sé-k.
    2. /detain-pass-sjv-3sg
    1. ‘He was caught; he is/would be/shall be detained.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Elfog-t-ák;
    2. catch-pst- def.3pl
    1. pro
    2. 3pl
    1. őriz-tet-ik
    2. detain-caus-def.3pl/
    1. /őriz-tet-né-k
    2.   detain-caus-cond-def.3pl
    1. /őriz-tes-s-ék
    2. /detain-caus-sjv-def.3pl
    1. pro.
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. ‘They caught him, they have/would have/shall have him detained.’
    1. (21)
    1. a.
    1. pro
    2. 1sg
    1. inkább
    2. rather
    1. tanít-tat-n-ám
    2. educate-pass-cond-1sg
    1. (az apá-m-tól).
    2. the father-poss.1sg-abl
    1. ‘I would rather be educated (by my father).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. pro
    2. 1sg
    1. inkább
    2. rather
    1. tanít-tat-n-ám
    2. educate-caus-cond-def.1sg
    1. pro.
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. ‘I would rather have him educated.’
    1. (22)
    1. a.
    1. Fontos,
    2. important
    1. hogy
    2. that
    1. pro
    2. 3sg
    1. őrizet-be
    2. custody-to
    1. vé-tes-s-ék.
    2. take-pass-sjv-3sg
    1. ‘It is important that he shall be taken into custory.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Fontos,
    2. important
    1. hogy
    2. that
    1. pro
    2. 3pl
    1. őrizet-be
    2. custody-to
    1. vé-tes-s-ék
    2. take-caus-sjv-def.3pl
    1. pro.
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. ‘It is important that they have him taken into custory.’

In the Middle Hungarian period, the incomplete -ik conjugation started to disappear, i.e., more and more of its suffixes were replaced by suffixes of the default indefinite paradigms. At present, the -ik conjugation differs from the regular indefinite conjugation in 1SG and 3SG present tense in Standard Hungarian, and only in 3SG present tense in substandard varieties. The attrition of the -ik paradigms was already evident in the 18th century (though there were efforts by Révai 1778 to resurrect it). Verseghy’s Hungarian grammar (1805) says it is used only by a part of Hungarians, and it is used tentatively even by them. Simonyi’s prescriptive school grammar (1879) already characterizes the use of the -ik paradigm as optional.

In sum: Neither element of passive inflection was fully transparent even in the Old Hungarian period. Its causative component, the -(t)At suffix, was formally identical with the morpheme deriving the transitive alternant in many transitive – unaccusative verb pairs, which led to ambiguities in the case of pro-drop. The -(t)At suffix assumes passive meaning when combined with an agreement morpheme of the -ik conjugation. But the -ik paradigms were deficient in the Old Hungarian period already, and their attrition accelerated in the Middle Hungarian period, with more and more agreement suffixes replaced by the corresponding morphemes of the indefinite conjugation. This was the source of further ambiguities.

Middle Hungarian speakers tried to disambiguate passive verb forms by -(t)At doubling, but – as will be demonstrated below – eventually it proved to be more economical to give up the passive conjugation altogether and to use alternative constructions with similar expressive power.

6 Constructions supplanting the passive voice

6.1 Alternative means of encoding information structure

The passive voice, encumbered by the processing problems discussed above, was not indispensable in Old Hungarian any more. In SOV Proto-Hungarian, it presumably served to topicalize the internal argument, to focus the external argument, or to eliminate the external argument. In Old Hungarian, the generalization of object marking to all objects, and the evolution of pre-VP focus and topic positions accessible to subjects and objects alike made the topicalization of the internal argument and the focusing of the external argument possible without the use of the passive construction – as shown by examples from the earliest surviving Hungarian documents:

    1. (23)
    1. a.
    1. Es
    2. and
    1. oz
    2. that
    1. gimils-nec
    2. fruit-dat
    1. wl keseruv
    2. so bitter
    1. uola
    2. was
    1. víz-e
    2. water-poss
    1. hug
    2. that
    1. [TopP
    2.  
    1. turch-uc-at
    2. throat-poss.3pl-acc
    1. [IP
    2.  
    1. mige
    2. prt
    1. zocozt-ia
    2. rive-def.3sg
    1. vol-a ]]
    2. be-pst
    1. ‘And the juice of that fruit was so bitter that it was riving their throats.’
    2. (Halotti beszéd 1195)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. tamag
    2. rise.imp.2sg
    1. Gabriel es
    2. Gabriel and
    1. [TopP
    2.  
    1. cuetseg-em
    2. mission-poss.1sg
    1. [FocP
    2.  
    1. TE visel-l-ed]]
    2. you bear-imp-2sg
    1. ‘Rise, Gabriel, and YOU shall bear my mission’
    2. (Königsbergi töredék, early 13th c.)

The replacement of the passive construction by object topicalization and subject focusing can be traced in subsequent Bible translations:

    1.  
    1. Passive → object topicalization:
    1. (24)
    1. Matthew 12/33:
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Müncheni Codex (1416):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. mert
    2. because
    1. valobizon
    2. indeed
    1. fa
    2. tree
    1. o̗
    2. its
    1. gimo̗lč-e-ro̗l
    2. fruit-poss.3sg-about
    1. èsmèr-tèt-ic
    2. recognize-pass-3sg
    1. meg.
    2. prt
    1. ‘because indeed a tree is recognized from its fruit’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Pesti (1536):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. mert
    2. because
    1. [TopP
    2.  
    1. a
    2. the
    1. faa-t
    2. tree-acc
    1. [FocP
    2.  
    1. Az gijmelch-e-rewl
    2. the fruit-poss-about
    1. esmer-ijk
    2. recognize-def.3pl
    1. meg]]
    2. prt
    1. ‘because people recognize the tree from its fruit’
    1.  
    1. Passive → subject focusing:
    1. (25)
    1. Mark 1/13
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Müncheni Codex (1416):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. 7
    2. and
    1. kėser-tet-ic
    2. haunt-pass-3sg
    1. ual-a
    2. be-pst
    1. a·
    2. the
    1. satanas-tol
    2. Satan-abl
    1. ‘and he was being haunted by the Satan’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Károli (1590):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. és
    2. and
    1. [FocP
    2.  
    1. az
    2. the
    1. Satan
    2. Satan
    1. késért-i
    2. haunt-def.3sg
    1. val-a
    2. be-pst
    1. oͤtet]
    2. him
    1. ‘and the SATAN was haunting him’

6.2 Alternative means of external argument demotion

Old Hungarian also had means to express external argument demotion. Interestingly, these means are listed in Debreceni grammatika (1795) already (for a recent review, see Szily 1999).

(i) When the subject is unknown, or its identity is irrelevant, often a 3Pl verb is used with a pro subject – see (24b) and (26):

    1. (26)
    1. kewlewmbe
    2. different
    1. kylemb
    2. different
    1. felbelewl
    2. part-from
    1. pro
    2. 3pl
    1. ÿew-nek
    2. come-3pl
    1. ual-a
    2. be-pst
    1. hozz-ya
    2. to-3sg
    1. ‘people were coming to him from different parts’
    2. (Jókai Codex, 1372: 24–25)

(ii) Another possibility is to supply the transitive verb with the -ód(ik)/-őd(ik) anticausative suffix (Halm 2020: 4), as in (27a), or to use its unaccusative alternant, as in (27b), containing épül, the unaccusative pair of épít ‘build’ (27b):

    1. (27)
    1. a.
    1. Ott
    2. there
    1. mind
    2. all
    1. o̗ro̗kko̗l
    2. forever
    1. ǵo̗ttr-o̗d-ik
    2. torture-anticaus-3sg
    1. ‘there he is tortured forevermore’
    2. (Bod Codex, early 16th c.: 15v)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Es
    2. and
    1. neky-k
    2. some-pl
    1. emlekó̗z-ee-nek
    2. remember-pst-3pl
    1. az
    2. the
    1. templom-rol,
    2. temple-about
    1. hogy
    2. that
    1. yo
    2. good
    1. es
    2. and
    1. draga
    2. expensive
    1. kó̗wek-bó̗l
    2. stones-from
    1. eppwl-t
    2. buildintr-prf.3sg
    1. vo-na
    2. be-cond
    1. ‘And some remembered the temple that it had been built of good and expensive stones’
    2. (Jordánszky Codex, 1516: 602)

(iii) A third possibility is to denote the result state of the patient of the event with a -vA participle phrase (in a different terminology, converb phrase) + van ‘be’ construction:

    1. (28)
    1. te
    2. you
    1. kyuanat-od …
    2. wish-poss.2sg
    1. nek-ed
    2. dat-2sg
    1. es
    2. and
    1. te
    2. you
    1. kewuetew-y-d-nek
    2. follower-pl-poss.2sg-dat
    1. tewkelletest
    2. perfectly
    1. vagyon
    2. is
    1. enged-ue
    2. concede-vA
    1. ‘your wish… is conceded to you and to your followers perfectly’
    2. (Jókai Codex, 1372: 134)

(iv) In later translations, more and more passive forms are replaced by idiosyncratic solutions, for example, by nominal or adjectival predicates.

The gradual replacement of the passive constructions by these means is also evident in the Bible translations, e.g.:

    1.  
    1. Passive → 3Pl verb, impersonal pro subject:
    1. (29)
    1. Mark 5/36
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Müncheni Codex (1416):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. è
    2. this
    1. źo
    2. word
    1. haluan
    2. hearing
    1. mėlʼ
    2. which
    1. mōd-at-ic-ual-a
    2. say-pass-3sg-be-pst
    1. ‘hearing this word that was being said’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Pesti (1536):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. hogij
    2. as
    1. hall-a
    2. hear-pst.3sg
    1. az bezed-et
    2. the speech-acc
    1. kij-t
    2. which-acc
    1. pro
    2.  
    1. mond-nak
    2. say-3pl
    1. wal-a
    2. be-pst
    1. ‘when he heard the speech that they were saying’
    1.  
    1. Passive → anticausative/unaccusative verb:
    1. (30)
    1. Luke 3/5:
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Müncheni Codex (1416):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Mendz
    2. every
    1. vo̗lg
    2. valley
    1. bè-to̗l-tèt-ic
    2. in-fill-pass-3sg
    1. 7
    2. and
    1. mè̄den
    2. every
    1. heg
    2. mountain
    1. 7
    2. and
    1. halom
    2. hill
    1. alaz-tat-ic
    2. lower-pass-3sg
    1. ‘Every valley is filled in and every mountain and hill is lowered’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Sylvester (1541):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Minden
    2. every
    1. voͤlǵ
    2. valley
    1. fel-tel-ik
    2. up-fillunacc-3sg
    1. ęs
    2. and
    1. minden
    2. every
    1. heǵ
    2. mountain
    1. ęs
    2. and
    1. halom
    2. hill
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. alaczonul
    2. lowerunacc.3sg
    1. ‘Every valley fills up and every mountain and hill lowers’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Heltai (1565):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Minden
    2. every
    1. voͤlgy
    2. valley
    1. be tel-ic,
    2. in fillunacc-3sg
    1. es
    2. and
    1. minden
    2. every
    1. hedgy
    2. mountain
    1. es
    2. and
    1. domb
    2. hill
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. alaczon-od-ic.
    2. low-anticaus-3sg
    1. ‘Every valley fills in and every mountain and hill lowers’
    1.  
    1. Passive → -vA participle phrase + van ‘be’ denoting the result state of the theme:
    1. (31)
    1. Mark 15/7
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Müncheni Codex (1416):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. vala
    2. was
    1. ke· …
    2. however
    1. ki
    2. who
    1. a·
    2. the
    1. kėsasoc-kal
    2. insurgents-with
    1. foǵ-at-tat-ot
    2. catch-caus-pass-pst.3g
    1. val-a
    2. be-pst
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. ‘there was one … who had been caught with the insurgents’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jordánszky Codex (1516):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Vala
    2. was
    1. kegijg
    2. however
    1. akkoron
    2. then
    1. egij, …
    2. one
    1. melij
    2. which
    1. walamij
    2. some
    1. haborwsag
    2. insurrection
    1. zerzewk-el
    2. makers-with
    1. fog-wa
    2. catch-vA
    1. wala
    2. was
    1. ‘there was one … who was caught with some insurgents’
    1.  
    1. Passive → idiosyncratic solution, e.g., a nominal predicate:
    1. (32)
    1. Luke 22/3
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Müncheni Codex (1416):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Bè-men-e
    2. in-go-pst.3sg
    1. kedig
    2. then
    1. Sathanas
    2. Sathanas
    1. Iudas-ba
    2. Judas-into
    1. ki
    2. who
    1. nèuèz-tèt-ic
    2. call-pass-3sg
    1. Scariuth-nac
    2. Scariuth-dat
    1. ‘Then entered Satan into Judas, who was called Iscariot’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Pesti (1536):
    1.  
    1.  
    1. Be men-e
    2. in go-pst.3sg
    1. kegijg
    2. then
    1. a
    2. the
    1. Sathanas
    2. Sathanas
    1. Iudas-ba,
    2. Judas-into
    1. kij-nek
    2. who-dat
    1. wezetek neu-e
    2. sur-name-poss
    1. Iskariotes
    2. Iscariotes
    1. ‘Then entered Satan into Judas, whose surname is Iscariot’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Szent István Társulat (1973)
    1.  
    1.  
    1. A
    2. the
    1. sátán
    2. Satan
    1. hatalm-á-ba
    2. possession-poss-into
    1. kerít-ett-e
    2. take-pst-def3sg
    1. az
    2. the
    1. iskariót-i
    2. Iscariot-adj
    1. Júdás-t
    2. Judas-acc
    1. ‘Satan took over Judas of Iscariot’

The distribution of these replacement strategies among the non-passive equivalents of the 150 passive constructions of Müncheni Codex in later translations is not uniform:

    1. (33)
    1. Proportions of replacement strategies in the Old and Middle Hungarian translations and a Modern Hungarian translation
    1.  
    1.  
    2. PL3 verb, pro subject (e.g. 29b):
    3. Anticausative/other unaccusative V (30b,c):
    4. -vA PTCP phrase + van (31b):
    5. Idiosyncratic (32b,c):
    1. Old and Middle Hungarian translations:
    2.                                  56 %
    3.                                  39.6%
    4.                                  2.2%
    5.                                  2.2%
    1. Modern Hungarian translation:
    2.                                  46.6%
    3.                                  19.3%
    4.                                  1.3%
    5.                                  32.7%

The distribution of the replacement solutions depends on their productivity. The use of a 3rd person plural verb with a pro subject, the so-called impersonal construction, is the most common strategy presumably because it can be used with any verb. The -Ódik anticausative suffix is also fairly productive. It can combine with most transitive verbs, however, if the lexicon already contains an intransitive version of the given verb, it often blocks the use of the anticausative form. For example, the transitive verbs főz ‘cook’ and süt ‘bake’ form transitive – unaccusative pairs with fő and sül, and the latter ban the anticausative forms főz-ődik and süt-ődik (cf. Halm 2020: 13). If a transitive verb, for example, nyit ‘open’, has two intransitive equivalents: nyit-ód-ik and nyíl-ik, the anticausative nyitódik sounds more marked in most contexts, except when e.g. the sentence refers to a non-operating agent or force: Nem nyitódik a bal hátsó ajtóm ‘My left rear door won’t open’.

The use of the -vA participle phrase + van construction is limited both functionally and lexically. It serves to denote the result state of the theme argument. Its use is restricted to verb classes with particular aspectual and semantic features, and the restrictions are related to the result state function of the construction in ill-understood ways. Bartos (2009) provides the following non-exhaustive list of constraints:

  • -‘state’ -vA can only attach to verbs that have an argument that undergoes a change of state;

  • --vA participles are more acceptable if (i) the result state after the change is ‘clearly visible’, (ii) the resulting state holds for a longer period, (iii) the resulting state is relevant and more in quality than just the result of the given change, (iv) some agent is implied;

  • -of the unaccusatives, only those may occur in the predicative construction that are telic, but not even all of them, e.g., verbs of creation, although telic, do not occur in this construction.

In sum: in the present-day Ugric languages and presumably in Proto-Hungarian, too, the primary function of passivization was to topicalize the internal argument, and to focus or to demote the external argument. In the Old Hungarian clause structure, topicalization and focusing could already target any argument without passivization. There were also regular means of agent demotion: the agent could be represented by a non-referring, existentially bound pro subject; it could be eliminated by the use of an anticausative or unaccusative verb; and it was also absent or demoted to a PP in the -vA participle phrase + be-verb construction predicating the result state of the internal argument.

7 Structural differences and distributional consequences

The demotion of the external argument is realized differently in the passive and the various replacement patterns, which has consequences for the distributional possibilities of these constructions. The discussion of their structural and distributional differences will be based on Modern Hungarian examples.

7.1 Ways of agent demotion

The structure of the Hungarian passive construction is represented along the lines of Bruening’s (2013) proposal. It involves a Passive head, realized by the -tAt causative morpheme. When -tAt functions as Passive, it does not project a specifier and does not introduce a causer argument. The complement of Passive is a vP (alternatively labeled VoiceP) that introduces an external argument without projecting it. Its agent or force theta role can be expressed by a PP adjoined to vP. The sentence in (34a), for example, is assigned structure (34b):

    1. (34)
    1. a.
    1. Ki-nyit-tat-ott
    2. out-open-pass-pst.3sg
    1. az
    2. the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. (egy
    2.   a
    1. őr
    2. guard
    1. által).
    2. by
    1. ‘The door was opened (by a guard).’
    1.  
    1. b.

Tense and agreement are assumed to project a joint IP. Passive voice, and tense + agreement are bound morphemes picked up by the verb via head movement. As claimed by Piñón (1992) and Surányi (2009), Spec,IP is filled by the verbal particle or some other predicative element forming a complex predicate with the verb. The internal argument gets nominative case in situ.

The impersonal construction, the most widely used replacement strategy, involves a vP whose external argument is represented by an existentially bound, phonologically empty impersonal pro. This proimp has a [human] feature; thus in (35a), for example, it cannot refer to winds or dogs:

    1. (35)
    1. a.
    1. Ki-nyit-ott-ák
    2. out-open-pst-def.3pl
    1. pro
    2. 3pl
    1. az
    2. the
    1. ajtó-t.
    2. door-acc
    1. ‘The door was opened.’ Lit.: ‘They opened the door.’
    1.  
    1. b.

The -Ód- anticausative suffix is argued by Halm (2020) to realize Middle voice in Hungarian. Like the Passive head,, it does not project an external argument, and it is complemented by a vP whose external argument is not expressed, either:

    1. (36)
    1. a.
    1. Kinyit-ód-ott
    2. out-open-Ód-pst.3sg
    1. az
    2. the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. ‘The door opened.’
    1.  
    1. b.

The non-projected external argument of the v usually either cannot – or only marginally can –be expressed by a PP, unlike in the passive construction:

    1. (37)
    1. a.
    1. *Az ajtó
    2.   the door
    1. Pétertől
    2. Peter-abl/
    1. /Péter által
    2.   Peter by
    1. nyit-ód-ott
    2. open-anticaus-pst.3sg
    1. ki.
    2. out
    1.   ‘The door opened by Peter.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ?A
    2.   the
    1. homok-dünék
    2. sand-dunes
    1. a
    2. the
    1. szél
    2. wind
    1. által
    2. by
    1. épít-őd-nek.
    2. build-anticaus-3pl
    1.   ‘Sand-dunes are built by the wind.’

The ungrammaticality or marginality of these examples may be related to the fact that the -Ód- suffix – as opposed to the -(t)At- morpheme – is not fully productive. Therefore, while the passive -(t)At is clearly an inflectional suffix combining with a syntactically visible vP, -Ód- may be for most speakers a derivational suffix creating an unaccusative lexical verb whose inner components are inactive in syntax. These speakers presumably assimilate anticausative verbs to the other types of unaccusatives, and identify them as Vs, as represented in (38b). In this structure, no agent or force argument is introduced on any level of representation.

    1. (38)
    1. a.
    1. Ki-nyit-ód-ott
    2. out-open-anticaus-pst.3sg
    1. /nyíl-t
    2. /openunacc-pst.3sg
    1. az
    2. the
    1. ajtó.
    2. door
    1. ‘The door opened.’
    1.  
    1. b.

7.2 Different distributional consequences

As shown above, the lack of a phonologically salient external argument in the passive, impersonal, and unaccusative constructions is the consequence of different syntactic structures. The external argument of the impersonal construction is present in syntax; the external argument of the passive is not projected syntactically, but the agent is part of the argument structure semantically; whereas in the the unaccusative construction the external argument is absent in every respect. The presence of an agent-oriented adverb presupposes the presence of an agent in semantic structure. Consequently, it is licensed in impersonal and passive sentences (39a, b), but is anomalous in unaccusative constructions (39c):

    1. (39)
    1. a.
    1.   Az ajtó-t
    2.   the door-acc
    1. okosan
    2. cleverly
    1. ki-nyit-ott-ák.
    2. out-open-pst-def.3pl
    1.   ‘Cleverly, people opened the door.’
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó-t
    2. door-acc
    1. szándékosan
    2. intentionally
    1. nyit-ott-ák
    2. open-pst-def.3pl
    1. ki.11
    2. out
    1.   ‘People opened the door intentionally.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. okosan
    2. cleverly
    1. ki-nyit-tat-ott
    2. out-open-pass-pst.3sg
    1. (a
    2.   the
    1. rendezők
    2. organizers
    1. által).
    2. by
    1.   ‘Cleverly, the door was opened (by the organizers).’
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. szándékosan
    2. intentionally
    1. nyit-tat-ott
    2. open-pass-pst.3sg
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. (a
    2.   the
    1. rendezők
    2. organizers
    1. által).
    2. by
    1.   ‘The door was opened intentionally (by the organizers).’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. okosan
    2. cleverly
    1. ki-nyit-ód-ott
    2. out-open-anticaus-pst.3sg
    1. /ki-nyíl-t.
    2. /out-openunacc-pst.3sg
    1.   ‘The door cleverly opened.’
    1.  
    1. c’
    1. *Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. szándékosan
    2. intentionally
    1. nyit-ód-ott
    2. open-anticaus-pst.3sg
    1. /nyíl-t
    2. /openunacc-pst.3sg
    1. ki.
    2. out
    1.   ‘The door opened intentionally.’

The external argument of an impersonal sentence can be the subject of depictive secondary predication (40a). The non-projected external argument of a passive construction, which is nevertheless present in the argument structure of the verb, can license a depictive adverb if it can be understood to denote the manner of the agent’s action (40b). Unaccusative sentences do not allow a depictive predicated about the external argument (40c).

    1. (40)
    1. a.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó-t
    2. door-acc
    1. gondatlanul/részegen
    2. carelessly /drunk
    1. nyit-ott-ák
    2. open-pst-def.3pl
    1. ki.
    2. out
    1.   ‘People opened the door carelessly/drunk.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. gondatlanul /??részegen
    2. carelessly /drunk(enly)
    1. nyit-tat-ott
    2. open-pass-pst.3sg
    1. ki.
    2. out
    1.   ‘The door was opened carelessly/drunkenly.
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. gondatlanul
    2. carelessly
    1. /részegen
    2. /drunkenly
    1. nyit-ód-ott
    2. open-anticaus-pst.3sg
    1. /nyíl-t
    2. /openunacc-pst.3sg
    1. ki.
    2. out
    1.   ‘The door opened carelessly/drunkenly.’

Obligatory control is a structural relation in which the external argument of an impersonal verb can, the syntactically unrealized agent of a passive verb cannot, take part (41a,b). The missing external argument of an unaccusative verb naturally cannot control; in the marginally possible reading of (41c), the controller is the theme, and the verb akar ‘want’ is coerced to mean ‘be about’.

    1. (41)
    1. a.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó-t
    2. door-acc
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. akar-t-ák
    2. want-pst-def.3pl
    1. nyit-ni.
    2. open-inf
    1.   ‘People wanted to open the door.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. akar-t
    2. want-pst.3sg
    1. nyit-tat-ni.
    2. open-pass-inf
    1.   ‘The door wanted to be opened.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. %Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. akar-t
    2. want-pst.3sg
    1. nyit-ód-ni
    2. open-anticaus-inf
    1. /nyíl-ni.
    2. /openunacc-inf
    1.   ‘The door was about to open.’

The external argument of an impersonal verb can bind an anaphor (42a, a’). The syntactically unrealized external argument of a passive verb cannot bind the internal argument promoted to subject. Interestingly, if the anaphor is a non-subject, ungrammaticality is less sharp (42b’). The non-existent external argument of an unaccusative verb naturally cannot bind (42c).

    1. (42)
    1. a.
    1.     Eb-ben
    2.     this-in
    1. a
    2. the
    1. szektá-ban
    2. cult-in
    1. ostoroz-zák
    2. whip-def.3pl
    1. maguk-at/egymás-t.
    2. themselves-acc/each.other-acc
    1.     ‘In this cult, people whip themselves/each other.’
    1.  
    1. a’.
    1.     Eb-ben
    2.     this-in
    1. a
    2. the
    1. társasház-ban
    2. apartment.block-in
    1. kenyeret-t
    2. bread-acc
    1. süt-nek
    2. bake-3pl
    1. maguk-nak/
    2. themselves-dat/
    1. egymás-nak.
    2. each.other-dat
    1.     ‘In this apartment block, people bake bread for themselves/for each other.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   *Egymás/Maguk
    2.     each.other/themselves
    1. ostoroz-tat-nak.
    2. whip-pass-3pl
    1.     ‘Each other/Themselves are whipped.’
    1.  
    1. b’.
    1. ?*Kenyér
    2.     bread
    1. süt-tet-ett
    2. baketr-pass-pst.3sg
    1. maguk-nak/egymás-nak.
    2. themselves-dat/each.other-dat
    1.     ‘A bread was baked for themselves/for each.other.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1.   *Kenyér
    2.     bread
    1. sül-t
    2. bakeunacc-pst.3sg
    1. maguk-nak/egymás-nak.
    2. themselves-dat/each.other-dat
    1.     ‘A bread baked for themselves/each other.’

7.3 Two types of result state constructions

The least common, most restricted passive replacement pattern, the result state construction involves a -vA participle phrase and the verb van ‘be’. The -vA participial suffix can be merged with either an agentless transitive verb (43a) or an unaccusative verb (43b).12 In the former case, the agent theta role can be expressed by a PP adjunct.

    1. (43)
    1. a.
    1. A
    2. the
    1. hús
    2. meat
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. van
    2. is
    1. süt-ve
    2. roasttr-vA
    1. (a
    2. the
    1. szakács
    2. chef
    1. által).
    2. by
    1. ‘The meat is/has been roasted (by the chef).’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. A
    2. the
    1. hús
    2. meat
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. van
    2. is
    1. sül-ve.
    2. roastunacc-vA
    1. ‘The meat is roasted.’

In traditional grammars, stative -vA participles are labelled adverbial participles because they express states, and because – like adverbs and PPs, and unlike verbal, nominal and adjectival predicates – they cannot function as predicates of finite clauses on their own; they require the presence of a be-verb. Recent approaches, e.g., Dékány & Hegedűs (2021), do not assume a lexical category ‘adverb’; lexical items that have traditionally been categorized as adverbs are viewed by them as PPs headed by an opaque P head. In the case of the suffix -vA, the opaque P is the lative -A suffix, which is also present in the illative -bA, sublative -rA and translative -vÁ suffixes (A. Jászó 1991: 344–345). The -v of -vA can be traced back to -m-, the suffix of the perfect participle and nomen actionis in Proto-Ugric and in the present-day Ob-Ugric languages.13 It evolved into -v- via -β-. Participle phrases are assumed to be extended verbal projections subsumed by an AdjP layer (e.g. Lundquist 2013), hence -vA-marked participle phrases are historically AdjPs combining with a lative suffix.

From a synchronic point of view, the -vA participial suffix is a manifestation of [-Tense] inflection, as represented in (44); the lative-resultative component is part of its feature specification. When the -vA participle phrase is built on a transitive verb, the vP is passivized; that is, it complements a morphologically null Pass head that projects no specifier. The external argument of the vP is not expressed, but its agent or force theta role can optionally be realized as a PP.

    1. (44)
    1. -vA participle phrase derived from a transitive verb (43a)

The theme argument gets nominative case in the matrix clause, where the impersonal finite be-verb has no subject. It tends to be raised to the topic position – see (45a). The verbal particle moves into the specifier of the matrix IP for prosodic reasons (Szendrői 2004). In (45b), the PP is also raised into the matrix clause; it occupies the focus position.

    1. (45)
    1. a.
    1. [TopP
    2.  
    1. A
    2. the
    1. húsj
    2. meat
    1. [IP
    2.  
    1. megi
    2. prt
    1. van
    2. is
    1. [IP ti
    2.  
    1. süt-ve
    2. roasttr-vA
    1. tj ]]].
    2.  
    1. ‘The meat is/has been roasted.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [TopP
    2.  
    1. A
    2. the
    1. húsi
    2. meat
    1. [FocP
    2.  
    1. a
    2. the
    1. szakács
    2. chef
    1. általj
    2. by
    1. van
    2. is
    1. [IP
    2.  
    1. meg-süt-ve
    2. prt-roasttr-vA
    1. ti tj]]]
    2.  
    1. ‘The meat is/has been roasted by the chef.’

The spellout of the agent as a PP is restricted in various ways (Bartos 2009). The restrictions appear to be related to the result state denoting function of the participle phrase. In (46b), the lack of the telicizing verbal particle renders the sentence unacceptable:

    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1.     A
    2.     the
    1. pad
    2. bench
    1. János
    2. John
    1. által
    2. by
    1. van
    2. is
    1. be-fest-ve.
    2. prt-paint-vA
    1.     ‘The bench has been painted by John.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ?*A
    2.     the
    1. pad
    2. bench
    1. János
    2. John
    1. által
    2. by
    1. van
    2. is
    1. fest-ve.
    2. paint-vA
    1. But:
    2.  
    1. A
    2. the
    1. pad
    2. bench
    1. fest-ve
    2. paint-vA
    1. van.
    2. is
    1.     ‘The bench is painted by John.’                                       ‘The bench is painted.’

When the base verb of the resultative -vA phrase is unaccusative, no vP is projected:

    1. (47)
    1. -vA participle phrase derived from an unaccusative verb (43b)

The theme argument undergoes raising to the matrix clause in the case of (47), too. Since no vP is projected, no agent PP is possible:

    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1. *A
    2.   the
    1. hús
    2. meat
    1. meg
    2. prt
    1. van
    2. is
    1. sül-ve
    2. roastunacc-vA
    1. a
    2. the
    1. szakács
    2. chef
    1. által.
    2. by
    1.   ‘The meat is roasted by the chef.’

Though the agent is syntactically unexpressed in structures of type (44), it can license an agent-oriented adverb (49a). Such adverbs cannot appear if the base verb is unaccusative (49b), i.e., if no vP is projected:

    1. (49)
    1. a.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. van
    2. is
    1. direkt
    2. on.purpose
    1. nyit-va.
    2. opentr-vA
    1.   ‘The door is/has been opened on purpose.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. van
    2. is
    1. direkt
    2. on.purpose
    1. nyíl-va.
    2. openunacc-vA
    1.   ‘The door is/has been opened on purpose.’

A -vA phrase built on a vP not projecting a specifier can allow an agent-oriented depictive if it can be understood as the manner of the agent’s action, as is the case with gondatlanul. In the absence of a vP projection, the depictive is not possible.

    1. (50)
    1. a.
    1.   Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. nem
    2. not
    1. volt
    2. was
    1. felelőtlenül /?*részegen
    2. irresponsibly/ drunkenly
    1. kinyit-va.
    2. opentr-vA
    1.   ‘The door wasn’t opened irresponsibly/drunkenly.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Az
    2.   the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. nem
    2. not
    1. volt
    2. was
    1. felelőtlenül /részegen
    2. irresponsibly/drunkenly
    1. kinyíl-va.
    2. openunacc-vA
    1.   ‘The door opened irresponsibly/drunkenly.’

The presence of vP in (44) as opposed to (47) has various further consequences. As pointed out by Bartos (2009), circumstantial adverbs can only appear if a vP is projected:

    1. (51)
    1. A
    2. the
    1. hús
    2. meat
    1. zsír-ban/vacsorá-ra
    2. greas-in/dinner-for
    1. volt
    2. was
    1. megsüt-ve/*megsül-ve.
    2. roasttr-vA / roastunacc-vA
    1. ‘The meat was roastedtr/*roastedintr in grease/for dinner.’

vA-phrases derived from transitive verbs, unlike those derived from unaccusatives, can also combine with the perfective copula lesz ‘become’, in which case they denote inchoative result states, i.e., result states including their starting point. Apparently, the starting point of a state cannot be denoted without implying an agent, even if it is projected without being expressed:

    1. (52)
    1. a.
    1. Az
    2. the
    1. ajtó
    2. door
    1. végre
    2. at.last
    1. ki
    2. out
    1. lett
    2. be-3sg
    1. nyitva
    2. opentr-vA/
    1. /*ki
    2.     out
    1. lett
    2. be-3sg
    1. nyílva.
    2. openunacc-vA
    1. ‘The door has been openedtr/has been openedintr at last.’

In sum: In the passive and the passive-replacing constructions, the external argument is demoted to different degrees, with differing syntactic consequences. The subject of the impersonal construction is only referentially deficient. It is fully active syntactically, capable of controlling, binding, and licensing agent-oriented adverbs and depictives. The external arguments of the passive construction and of the passive vP of the resultative -vA participle phrase are not projected in syntax, but they are part of the argument structure of the v. Therefore, they cannot participate in syntactic relations interpreted on the clausal spine such as control and binding, but they may participate in semantically based relations, licensing agent-related adverbs and depictives denoting the manner of the agent’s action. Finite clauses and -vA participle phrases involving an anticausative or some other type of unaccusative lexical head are agentless in every respect, hence they cannot contain agent-related elements.

8 Conclusion

The passive construction, widely used in the strictly SOV Ob-Ugric languages, must have been a frequent construction of SOV Proto-Hungarian, as well. In Early Old Hungarian, a language with flexible word order, its frequency was already much lower than in the Ob-Ugric sister languages, and it was gradually decreasing. The passive voice practically disappeared from Hungarian by the 20th century.

This paper attributes its disappearance to the growing opacity of the passive construction, and to the existence of more transparent alternative patterns with the same expressive power. Both components of passive inflection, the -(t)At causative morpheme and the subject agreement suffix of the unaccusative -ik conjugation, have been shown to be ambiguous in a wide range of cases. The causative -(t)At ending could be misanalyzed as the transitivizing morpheme of the base verb, which – especially in case of subject and object pro-drop – could lead to passive – transitive ambiguities. The unaccusative -ik conjugation never differed from the default indefinite conjugation in every person and number of every tense and mood, and the set of suffixes specific to the unaccusative conjugation has further been decreasing. As a consequence, a lot of ‘verb + subject agreement’ units were ambiguous between a passive and a transitive interpretation, and in the case of pro-drop, the ambiguity extended to the clause level. Owing to these facts, the parsing of passive constructions must have required more cognitive effort than the parsing of active sentences with similar functions.

Theme promotion to the role of primary topic and agent focusing, performed in the SOV Ob-Ugric languages via passivization, could be realized in Old Hungarian by object topicalization and subject focusing. Agent demotion or elimination, another function of passivization, could be attained by three strategies. The most frequent replacement pattern is the impersonal construction, involving a third person plural verb and an existentially bound pro subject. If the event has no clear external causer, the verb can be supplied with a detransitivizing suffix. When the result state of the theme is predicated, a -vA participle phrase + be-verb construction is used.

The passive construction and these replacement patterns are not completely equivalent. The existentially bound pro subject of the impersonal construction is a syntactically full-fledged subject; it can be associated with agent-oriented adverbs and depictive secondary predicates, it can control, and it can bind anaphors. The projected but not expressed external argument of the passive verb is syntactically inert: it cannot control and cannot bind, but as part of the argument structure it can be associated with agent-oriented adverbs, and with depictives denoting the manner of the agent’s action. Verbs with a detransitivizing suffix have no agent either syntactically or semantically, and the non-existing agent, naturally, cannot participate in any of the above relations.

The -vA participle phrase + be-verb construction displays dual behavior. When the -vA participle phrase is derived from a transitive verb, the -vA head is complemented by a vP with a projected but syntactically not expressed external argument. When the base verb is unaccusative, no vP is projected and no agent is implied.

The replacement strategies cover the discourse-semantic field filled earlier by the passive construction. Since they involve no ambiguity problems, they must have been learnt by children before the passive construction, and their use may also have been easier for adults. This presumably led to their more and more frequent occurrence in the primary linguistic data determining the grammars of later generations, and eventually resulted in the complete disappearance of the passive voice.

Abbreviations

abl: ablative, acc: accusative, adj: adjectivizer, anticaus: anticausative, caus: causative, cond: conditional, dat: dative, def: definite conjugation, imp: imperative, inf: infinitive, intr: intransitive, loc: locative, pass: passive, pl: plural, poss: possessed, prf: perfect, prt: verbal particle, pst: past, sg: singular, sjv: subjunctive, sup: superessive, tr: transitive, transl: translative, unacc: unaccusative

Funding information

This research was supported by Grant NKFIH FK 145985 of the Hungarian National Research, Development, and Innovation Office.

Competing interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

Notes

  1. The Old Hungarian era lasted from 896 (the settlement of Hungarians in Central Europe) to 1526, the Ottoman occupation of the major part of the Hungarian Kingdom. The Middle Hungarian period ended in 1772. [^]
  2. https://khantydatabase.nytud.hu/hu. [^]
  3. -r- in therthetyk is argued to be a typo by A. Molnár (2005). [^]
  4. https://tmk.nytud.hu/about.php, Novák et al. (2018), Dömötör et al. (2017). [^]
  5. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/en-intro.html, Simon (2014) [^]
  6. https://tmk.nytud.hu/about.php. [^]
  7. https://nytud.hu/en/tool/magyar-torteneti-szovegtar-a-magyar-nyelv-nagyszotaranak-korpusza. [^]
  8. https://khantydatabase.nytud.hu/. [^]
  9. Suffix -t/-tt was the morpheme of perfect aspect in Old Hungarian. Later it was reinterpreted as the marker of past tense. [^]
  10. On the causes and the course of the collapse of the -ik conjugation, the blurring of its function, and the increasing uncertainty of the conditions of its use, see Simonyi (1905), D. Bartha (1992), E. Abaffy (1992), and Halm (2020). It was originally a middle conjugation, but in the Middle Hungarian period it spread to many unaccusative and some unergative verbs, and even to a few frequently used transitives, as well. Today it is used with a lexically determined class of verbs. [^]
  11. The adverb szándékosan ‘on purpose’ is to be focused in Hungarian. [^]
  12. There is also a homonimous -vA suffix combining with active transitive, unergative and unaccusative verbs, deriving dynamic adverbial adjuncts expressing manner or time, e.g.
      1. (i)
      1. János
      2. John
      1. kávét
      2. coffee-acc
      1. iszogat-va
      2. sip-vA
      1. olvas-ott.
      2. read-pst.3sg
      1. ‘John was reading sipping a coffee.’
    [^]
  13. In Hungarian, the Ugric -m- suffix was replaced by -t-, but this change did not affect the -m- element of the -vA complex. [^]

References

A. Jászó, Anna. 1991. Az igenevek [Non-finite verbs]. In Benkő, Loránd (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana [The historical grammar of Hungarian] I, 319–351. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

A. Molnár, Ferenc. 2005. A legkorábbi magyar szövegemlékek [The earliest Hungarian linguistic documents]. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem BTK.

Bartos, Huba. 2009. The syntax of Hungarian -vA adverbial participles: A single affix with variable merge-in locations. In É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.), Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces, 75–101. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214802.1.75

Bécsi Codex (1416/1450) 1916. Mészöly, Gedeon (ed.). Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/BecsiK/3a/BecsiK_3a.txt

Bod Codex (early 16th century) 1987. Pusztai, István (ed.). Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/BodK/3a/BodK_3a.txt

Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16. 1–41. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x

Csepregi, Márta. 2023. Khanty. In Abondolo, Daniel & Valijärvi, Riitta-Liisa (eds.), The Uralic languages, 703–752. Milton Park: Routledge. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625096-16

D. Bartha, Katalin. 1992. Az igeképzés [The derivation of verbs]. In Benkő, Loránd (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana [A historical grammar of Hungarian] II/1, 55–119. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Debreceni Grammatika [Magyar grammatika, mellyet készített Debrecenben egy Magyar Társaság ‘Hungarian grammar, prepared in Debrecen by a Hungarian Society’] 1795. Vienna.

Dékány, Éva & Hegedűs, Veronika. 2021. Postpositions: Formal and semantic classification. In É. Kiss, Katalin & Hegedűs, Veronika (eds.), Syntax of Hungarian. Postpositions and Postpositional Phrases, 14–191. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1kmj874.5

Den Dikken, Marcel & Dékány, Éva. 2019. Passives that look like causatives – Causatives that read like passives. Ms under review. Budapest: ELTE Research Centre for Linguistics.

Dömötör, Adrienne & Gugán, Katalin & Novák, Attila & Varga, Mónika. 2017. Kiútkeresés a morfológiai labirintusból – korpuszépítés ó- és középmagyar kori magánéleti szövegekből [Finding the way out of the morphological maze: Building a corpus of Old and Middle Hungarian informal texts]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 113. 85–110. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.15776/NYK.2017.113.3

E. Abaffy, Erzsébet. 1992. Az igei személyragozás. [Verbal conjugation.] In Benkő, Loránd (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana [A historical grammar of Hungarian] II/1, 184–238. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2014. The evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence. In É, Kiss. Katalin (ed.), The Evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 9–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709855.003.0002

É. Kiss, Katalin. 2020. What determines the varying relation of case and agreement? Evidence from the Ugric languages. Acta Linguistica Academica 76(4). 397–428.  http://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2020.00026

Ferreira, Victor S. & Dell, Gary S. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40. 296–340. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730

Haberli, Eric. 2026. Transparency. In Ledgeway, Adam & Aldridge, Edith & Breitbarth, Anne & É. Kiss, Katalin & Simonenko, Alexandra & Salmons, Joseph (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to diachronic linguistics. Hoboken: NJ.

Halm, Tamás. 2020. Grammaticalization without Feature Economy. Evidence from the Voice Cycle in Hungarian. Diachronica 37. 1–42. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19008.hal

Halotti beszéd [Funeral sermon] (1195). 2006. In Dömötör, Adrienne (ed.), Régi magyar nyelvemlékek [Old Hungarian linguistic documents], 27. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kisebbek/HB/3a/HB_3a.txt

Heltai, Gáspár (translator). (1565). A Iesus Christvsnac wj testamentoma [Jesus Christ’s New Testament]. Colosvar. 2019. Ötvös, László (ed.). Budapest: OSZK. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/bibliak/Heltai/3a/Heltai_3a.txt

Horvath, Julia & Siloni, Tal. 2011. Causatives across components. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3). 657–704. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9135-3

Jókai Codex (1372/1448). 1981. Balázs, P. János (ed.). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/JokK/3a/JokK_3a.txt.

Jordánszky Codex (1516). 1888. Toldy, Ferenc & Volf, György (eds.). Buda. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/JordK/3a/JordK_3a.txt.

Kazinczy Codex (1526–1541). 2003. Kovács, Zsuzsa (ed.). Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/KazK/3a/KazK_3a.txt

Káldi, György (translator). 1626. Szent Biblia. Vienna. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/bibliak/Kaldi/3a/Kaldi_3a.txt

Károli, Gáspár (translator). 1590. Szent Biblia. Visol. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/bibliak/Karoli/3a/Karoli_3a.txt

Kess, Joseph F. & Hoppe, Ronald A. 1981. Ambiguity in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.4

Kiparsky, Paul. 2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125. 7–33. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.003

Komáromi Csipkés, György. 1655. Hungaria illustrata. Utrecht: Waesberg. Translated by Zsuzsa C. Vladár. 2008. Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság.

Komlósy, András. 1994. Complements and adjuncts. In Kiefer, Ferenc & É. Kiss, Katalin (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics 27), 91–178, San Diego & New York & Boston: Academic Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373174_003

Komlósy, András. 2000. A műveltetés [Causation]. In Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia, 215–292. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Königsbergi töredék [Königsberg fragment] (early 13th c./1350). 1980. In Benkő, Loránd: Az Árpád-kor magyar nyelvű szövegemlékei [The Hungarian linguistic documents of the Árpád era], 36–43. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kisebbek/KTSz/3a/KTSz_3a.txt

Kulonen, Ulla Maia. 1989. The passive in Ob-Ugrian. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Li, Charles (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 57–140. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7560/750357-005

Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23). New York & London: Cambridge University Press.

Lőrinczi, Réka. 1998. Kéziratos magyar nyelvtanok [Hand-written Hungarian grammars]. Kolozsvári grammatika, Fejérvári Sámuel: Institutiones. Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság.

Lundquist, Björn. 2013. The category of participles. In Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Roy, Isabelle & Takamine, Kaori (eds.), Categorization and category change, 11–32. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Margit Legenda (1510). 1990. Balázs, János P. & Dömötör, Adrienne & Gugán, Katalin (eds.). Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/MargLeg/3a/MargLeg_3a.txt

Martin, Adrea E. & McElree, Brian. 2018. Retrieval cues and syntactic ambiguity resolution: speed-accuracy tradeoff evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(6). 769–783.  http://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1427877

Müncheni Codex (1416/1466). 1971. Nyíri, Antal (ed.). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kodexek/MunchK/3a/MunchK_3a.txt.

Nedjalkov, Igor. 1993. Causative-passive polysemy of the Manchu-Tungusic -bu/-v(u). Linguistica Antverpiensa 27. 193–202.

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39. 1–49. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.006

Novák, Attila & Gugán, Katalin & Varga, Mónika & Dömötör, Adrienne. 2018. Creation of an annotated corpus of Old and Middle Hungarian court records and private correspondence. Language Resources and Evaluation 52. 1–28. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-017-9393-8

Ómagyar Mária-siralom [Old Hungarian lamentations of Mary] (late 13th century). 2006. In Dömötör, Adrienne (ed.) Régi magyar nyelvemlékek [Old Hungarian linguistic documents], 36. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/kisebbek/OMS/3a/OMS_3a.txt

Pesti, Gábor (translator). 1536. Novum Testamentum. Viennae. 2002. (Bibliotheca Hungarica antiqua). Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/bibliak/Pesti/3a/Pesti_3a.txt

Piñón, Christopher. 1992. Heads in the focus field. In Kenesei, István & Pléh, Csaba (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 4, 99–122. Szeged: JATE.

Révai, Miklós. 1778. A magyar nyelvnek helyes irása és kimondása felől kettős tanuság avagy orthografia [Dual evidence on the correct spelling and pronunciation of the Hungarian language]. Nagy-Károly.

Robbeets, Martine. 2007. The causative-passive in Trans-Eurasian languages. Turkic Languages 11(2). 235–278.

Schedel, Ferenc (ed.) 1847. A’ magyar nyelv rendszere [The system of the Hungarian language]. Buda: Magyar Tudós Társaság.

Simon, Eszter. 2014. Corpus building from Old Hungarian codices. In É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 224–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simonyi, Zsigmond. 1879. Magyar nyelvtan fölsőbb osztályoknak és magánhasználatra [Hungarian grammar for higher grades and for private use]. Budapest: Eggenberger.

Simonyi, Zsigmond. 1905. Az ikes ragozás története [The history of the -ik conjugation]. Magyar Nyelvőr 34. 1–11, 113–119, 337–349, 393–401, 444–454, 495–501.

Simonyi, Zsigmond & Balassa, József. 1895. Tüzetes magyar nyelvtan történeti alapon [A detailed Hungarian grammar on historical foundation]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.

Slobin, Dan. 1977. Language change in childhood and history. In Macnamara, John (ed.), Language learning and language thought, 185–214. New York: Academic Press.

Surányi, Balázs. 2009. Verbal particles inside and outside vP. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56(2–3). 201–249. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.56.2009.2-3.3

Swets, Benjamin & Desmet, Timothy & Hambrick, David Z. & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2007. The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(1). 64–81. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64

Sylvester, János (translator). 1541. Uy Testamentū. 1960. Varjas, Béla (ed.). (Bibliotheca Hungarica antiqua). Budapest: MTA Irodalomtudományi Intézet. http://omagyarkorpusz.nytud.hu/documents/bibliak/Sylvester/3a/Sylvester_3a.txt

Szenczi Molnár, Albert. 1610. Novae grammaticae ungaricae. Hanau. Translated by Zsuzsa C. Vladár. 2004. Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság.

Szendrői, Kriszta. 2004. A stress-based approach to climbing. In É. Kiss, Katalin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Verb clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 205–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.69.13sze

Szent István Társulat. 1973. A Katolikus Biblia. Budapest.

Szily, Katalin. 1999. Valahol a passzívum és a mediálisok között… [Somewhere between passives and middles]. Magyar Nyelvőr 123(3). 350–357.

Verseghy, Ferenc. 1805. A tiszta magyarság, avagy a csinos magyar beszédre és helyes irásra vezérlő értekezések [Pure Hungarian, or studies leading to correct Hungarian speech and spelling]. Buda.

Zhornik, Daria. 2018. Passive constructions in Uralic: a special case of contact-induced development? ms. Moscow State University, The Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (ILRAS). https://www.academia.edu/37658639/Passive_constructions_in_Uralic_a_special_case_of_contact_induced_development