mert and miért

[sadtomato]

Hi everyone,

I know that "mert" means "because" and "miért" means "why". My question is the following: can you Hungarian speakers (still) clearly recognize two parts (namely "m" + "ert") in "mert", as you do in "miuta'n", "mialatt" or "miko"zben"?
Do you consider the "-ert" ending in "mert" the same as the "-ért" ending in "miért", although their "e" sounds differ?
Do you think it's plausible to say that "miért" and "mert" were originally the same thing (morphologically), and later "mert" underwent some phonological changes?

Thank you

Giorgio

[CoBB]

I know that "mert" means "because" and "miért" means "why". My question is the following: can you Hungarian speakers (still) clearly recognize two parts (namely "m" + "ert") in "mert", as you do in "miuta'n", "mialatt" or "miko"zben"?

Interesting question. I’d say I perceive ‘mert’ as an atomic word with no internal structure.

Érdekes kérdés. Én azt mondanám, hogy a mertet oszthatatlan, belső szerkezet nélküli szónak érzem.

Do you consider the "-ert" ending in "mert" the same as the "-ért" ending in "miért", although their "e" sounds differ?

I wouldn’t say so.

Nem mondanám.

Do you think it's plausible to say that "miért" and "mert" were originally the same thing (morphologically), and later "mert" underwent some phonological changes?

I’m not a linguist, but it seems plausible to me. For instance, ‘mert’ (but only in the meaning ‘because’, not as the past tense of the verb ‘mer’!) can just as easily drop the ending -t and even the -r in pronunciation as the -ért suffix in general (but only if it’s this suffix, not the accidental coincidence of these letters, like the verb ‘ért’ or the past tense of ‘mér’). That definitely suggests a common origin.

Nem vagyok nyelvész, de elképzelhetőnek tartom. Például a mert (de csak kötőszói értelemben, nem a mer ige múlt idejeként!) ugyanolyan könnyen el tudja hagyni a végéről a -t-t, sőt az -r-et is a kiejtésben, mint általában az -ért végződés (de csak ha toldalék, nem pedig máshogy kialakult betűsorozat, mint pl. az ért ige vagy a mér múlt ideje). Ez határozottan közös eredetet sugall.

[sadtomato]

Thank you CoBB! That was really helpful.

I know that "mert" means "because" and "miért" means "why". My question is the following: can you Hungarian speakers (still) clearly recognize two parts (namely "m" + "ert") in "mert", as you do in "miuta'n", "mialatt" or "miko"zben"?

Interesting question. I’d say I perceive ‘mert’ as an atomic word with no internal structure.

Érdekes kérdés. Én azt mondanám, hogy a mertet oszthatatlan, belső szerkezet nélküli szónak érzem.

Do you consider the "-ert" ending in "mert" the same as the "-ért" ending in "miért", although their "e" sounds differ?

I wouldn’t say so.

Nem mondanám.

Do you think it's plausible to say that "miért" and "mert" were originally the same thing (morphologically), and later "mert" underwent some phonological changes?

I’m not a linguist, but it seems plausible to me. For instance, ‘mert’ (but only in the meaning ‘because’, not as the past tense of the verb ‘mer’!) can just as easily drop the ending -t and even the -r in pronunciation as the -ért suffix in general (but only if it’s this suffix, not the accidental coincidence of these letters, like the verb ‘ért’ or the past tense of ‘mér’). That definitely suggests a common origin.

Nem vagyok nyelvész, de elképzelhetőnek tartom. Például a mert (de csak kötőszói értelemben, nem a mer ige múlt idejeként!) ugyanolyan könnyen el tudja hagyni a végéről a -t-t, sőt az -r-et is a kiejtésben, mint általában az -ért végződés (de csak ha toldalék, nem pedig máshogy kialakult betűsorozat, mint pl. az ért ige vagy a mér múlt ideje). Ez határozottan közös eredetet sugall.