Word Order and verb endings

[Kreso Megyeral]

>I can say that the comparison might be more than of passing interest if it can
>be shown that the Hungarian indefinite conjugation has uses which suggest
>modalities like intention or necessity; and, as a consequence, are
>non-declarative --- but I do not know if this is or has been historically
>true.

No, Hungarian makes the difference between the two conjugations solely
according to whether the direct object is defined or not. It's actually the
way the definiteness of object is indicated on the verb, which is purely
redundant, since there are other ways to express it, such as definite
article. In meaning, there is perfectly no difference, especially if you
translate it to a language that has no category of lexicalised definiteness,
such as my native Croatian. The endings in Hungarian definite conjugation
agree (at least in singular) more or less with the possessive suffixes added
to nouns. Thus:

Latok egy fizt. - I see a boy. (indefinite)
Latom a fizt. - I see the boy. (definite)

But, in similar way:

Latom a fizmat. - I see my boy (or "my son").

The theory actually proposes that in the definite conjugation the speaker
feels somehow more connected to the action, thus the second sentence can be
translated as "My looking at/of the boy." So, if we propose that for some
reason the thematic vowel had some meaning of definiteness (such as
postponed article), than we can vaguely make connection to forms in
Hungarian, or even to those in Caucasian languages, as well as in
Kartvelian.

Also, I saw later that I made a mistake in my previous message when I wrote:
"...there is no thematic VOWEL of an indisputable IE origin." I meant, no
thematic VERB, of course.

The whole cathegory of definite conjugation in Hungarian is interesting,
since it's limited only to Ugric. If Mr. Aikio could give some more exact
data on the development of the cathegory, I would be very grateful.