|
Practice Turkish |
|
|
|
Atlar ve çitim
|
(25 Messages in 3 pages - View all)
1 2 [3]
| 20. |
20 Jan 2006 Fri 11:02 am |
|
The accusative case makes the object a direct object where you are going to do something with that object.
In other words, the direct object is "receiving the action of a transitive verb". (1)
What can you do with that object? Almost anything. You can see it, you can touch it, you can cut it, you can eat it, you can throw it, ... It depends on that object itself.
Ali, once explained the transitive verbs with a tomato example which was an interesting reading. Maybe you can find his message.
Of course the object that takes the accusative case suffix wont be a subject of any clause or sentence.
(1) Quote from this page:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?sm1=ZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCA=&fw=-1&fc=-1&ss=0&es=0&gwp=11&ver=1.0.8.207&method=1
|
|
| 21. |
04 Feb 2006 Sat 12:49 pm |
|
Quoting bod: Başlıkdısın hâlâ görüntüler yok!!!
There are still no images in your posts...... |
Did I get that translation right???
|
|
| 22. |
04 Feb 2006 Sat 01:12 pm |
|
There are still no images in your posts......
"Mesajlarında hala resim yok."
|
|
| 23. |
05 Feb 2006 Sun 06:17 am |
|
Quoting erdinc: There are still no images in your posts......
"Mesajlarında hala resim yok." |
Teşekkür ederim
Why "hala" and not "hâlâ" ???
|
|
| 24. |
05 Feb 2006 Sun 10:50 am |
|
Quote: Why "hala" and not "hâlâ". |
You are right bod. It would be correct to write it with the circumflex.
More importantly the pronounciation of hala (aunt) and hâlâ (still) is very different. With the circumflex (uzatma işareti) the sound of the vowel becomes longer (haalaa). But to pronounce them differently do we really need to write them differently as well? Isn't it already clear from the context which one it is?
The answer of the official institution of Turkish Language (TDK) is "no". They say we should include the circumflex in written language as well. So, I'm writing the word incorrectly.
There is a rumor about the TDk. People say once the TDK announced the circumflex to be removed but TDK declared that they didnt make such an official announcement.
|
|
| 25. |
08 Feb 2006 Wed 11:03 am |
|
Quoting erdinc: Quote: Why "hala" and not "hâlâ". |
You are right bod. It would be correct to write it with the circumflex.
More importantly the pronounciation of hala (aunt) and hâlâ (still) is very different. With the circumflex (uzatma işareti) the sound of the vowel becomes longer (haalaa). But to pronounce them differently do we really need to write them differently as well? Isn't it already clear from the context which one it is? |
If we are pronoucing them then there is no need to include the circumflex perhaps. But the same is true of c and ç as well as for i and ı is it not 
|
|
|
|
|
User Statistics
|
| Online users: |
14 |
|
(6 logged in)
|
|
ayseee,
AMANA,
texasizzet,
imutodd,
tamikidakika,
tassia,
more...
|
|
|
|
|
