I think the one you quoted, ercheksargo, is still quite literal. That´s why I suggested the last alternative

         ‘It was impossible to describe the colours and patterns with words’

which I think is better but of course risky, especially because I don´t master either of the languages well enough. But there is always a chance for debate, no matter how we say it.

By the way, I will open another thread about translation problems. I will do it  -  now.

 Yanıtınız için teşekkür ederim.

yanıt = response (noun)

Bu az bilgiye sahip olunan ilk Türkçeye "Ana Türkçe" denir.

It’s a passive sentence: de|n|ir = stem +  passive marking + aorist ‘is said, is called’. What is said, the subject, is ‘Ana Türkçe’, the term for Turkish protolanguage.

> [Turkish protolanguage][is said]

The rest of the sentence is an indirect object, marked with dative: Türkçe|y|e = stem + buffer + dative ending.

> [for Turkish][Turkish protolanguage][is said]

The indirect object has two modifiers, bu and an equivalent to an English relative clause. Its participle is analysed ol|un|an = stem + passive marking + present participle. sahip olmak is a phrase ‘to own’, so sahip olunan must be treated as a whole.

> [this][for Turkish][which is not owned][Turkish protolanguage][is said]

It makes sense that bilgi|y|e is dative, because sahip olmak governs a dative modifier.

> [this][for Turkish][much knowledge][which is not owned][Turkish protolanguage][is said]

It seems that even though every constituent is present the translation is still all over the place. Using some creativity we can achieve the following meaning:

> “Turkish protolanguage” is said to this Turkish about which not much knowledge is owned.

And further

> “Turkish protolanguage” is said to this Turkish about which little is known.

This is the interesting part. In English this is said the other way round:

> This Turkish about which little is known is called Turkish protolanguage.’

My Try.

wow Henry, you´re so good at learning Turkish. congratulations!

 Yes , Henry is one of the best on this site. !! He has amazing knowledge in Turkish Language that is worth praising.

Ne içindeyim zamanın,

Ne de büsbütün dışında;

Yekpare, geniş bir anın

Parçalanmaz akışında.

I am neither inside,
nor completely outside of the time;
in an indivisible flow

of a singular, wide moment.

and we should not forget his determination i have been here for just 3 or 4 days but i can see that he´s in every thread to learn and share his knowledge =)

Dünyanın en tuhaf mahlukusun yani, hani şu derya içre olup deryayı bilmiyen balıktan da tuhaf. (Nazım Hikmet)

tuhaf ’strange’, mahluk ‘creature’, hani ‘you know’, derya ‘sea’, içre ‘(arc) inside’, balık ‘fish’

The conversational locution hani ‘you know’ in the middle divides the sentence into two parts, the latter being an explanation of the previous.

I Dünyanın en tuhaf mahlukusun yani

The only constituent that smells like a verb is the sg 2nd person enclitic suffix of the verb ’to be’ in mahluk|u|sun = ‘creature’ + poss sg 3^rd + ‘you are’. It seems that the compulsory elements of a complete nominal sentence are in this one word

> ‘You are [creature]’

and all the rest modifies this basic utterance. There is a genitive attribute and a superlative adjective in front of the predicative.

> ‘You are the world’s strangest creature’

II şu derya içre olup deryayı bilmiyen balıktan da tuhaf

The whole queue of words modifies the adjective tuhaf  ‘strange’. The ablative ending in the previous word gives the signal of comparison.

> [stranger] [than fish] 

There are two co-ordinate verbs in the modifier, tied together with the particle –ip which denotes that they both carry the grammatical material, i.e. the present participle marking of the latter. *)

Present participles often translate into English relative clauses where the relative pronoun is the subject of the clause. So it seems to be here also. Added the nominal modifiers the sentence should look something like

> [stranger] [than (which is in that sea) (which doesn’t know the sea) fish]

> stranger than a fish that is in the sea but doesn’t know the sea

Randy Blasing and Mutlu Konuk have translated it into English this way, changing the relative clauses into an idiom (I guess):

“I mean you´re strangest creature on earth-
even stranger than the fish
that couldn´t see the ocean for the water.” 

*) In my opinion the first participle is supposed to have the same negative marking also: bil|mi|y|en = ‘know’ + neg + present participle marking. olup should stand for ol|ma|y|an respectively but I can’t solve the meaning if the negation is there. I looked at the poem on more than one site in order to check if a small da was missing from my sentence after olup but it wasn’t. I don’t understand this syntax. Maybe it has to do with the rhythm or the phraseology of the poem, who knows.

P.S. In another thread it turned out that my information of the use of de/da in -Ip structures was deficient. Even without the small particle the negation of the predicate doesn´t necessarily concern the first verb.

Ne içindeyim zamanın,
Ne de büsbütün dışında;
Yekpare, geniş bir anın
Parçalanmaz akışında.

I am neither inside,
nor completely outside of the time;
 in an indivisible flow
of a singular, wide moment. 

Isn´t this describing Dr. Who? 

No, it´s about aorist tense.

It´s some verses of a famous poem by a famous Turkish poet.