It seems that in English the division of labour between verb forms is somehow upside down in sentences like

         The Sphinx stands by the Nile

         Mr Smith is standing by the Nile.

The temporary stop of Mr Smith is expressed with a progressive verb form while the patience of the stone takes the basic form of the verb. In the same manner, the English "live in a place" but "are staying at a hotel".

Türkçesi ne acaba.

Here is the Turkish viewpoint on the matter: The stop of both Sfenks and Smith Bey is temporary although the stone has a greater patience

Here are the Turkish equivalents of your sentences:

Sfenks, Nil´in kenarında duruyor.

Smith Bey, Nil´in kenarında duruyor.

In both sentences the verb is in -yor form..

But for example when added -ken, it changes into aorist tense..

Bu resim, Smith Bey Nil´in kenarında dururken çekildi - this picture was taken while Mr Smith was standing by the Nil

-yorken is possible also but rarely preferred..

Here is a good example for literalists and grammar lovers

Dilbilgisi kitabını çalışırken uykuya daldı - she dove into sleep while studying her grammar book.  

I have just read such interesting things about –(i)yor and Turkish aspect in general. There was no way to fall asleep.

The example shows that even though both Turkish and English have a progressive  -  or continuous verb form, however we want to call it  -  they do not always function the same way and connecting them together may lead into confusion.

It’s interesting that you brought up iken here. It also denotes a continuing situation, a state rather than an action. Maybe that’s why it feels good next to aorist which doesn’t obstruct the meaning of a stable situation but doesn’t stress it any more than necessary.

iken can combine with just about anything. Except –di-past. I think it is in conflict with –di- because a verb + -di- always makes perfective aspect, i.e. shows the action as having a clear beginning and a clear end like Odaya girdim ‘I entered the room’. But this is my speculating only.

Agent provocateur!

Your "speculating" anyway I liked..

Yes, -di makes an act dead never to arise

As there is no life sign in -di form of verbs, adding -ken to it is unreasonable..

Quote:scalpel

Yes, -di makes an act dead never to arise

Yes, that´s what happens. These actions go to their grave until doomsday and then they will be scaled.

Look at this sentence:

         Paralarını kasada saklıyor. ´He keeps his money in the deposit box.´

If I wanted to change it into the past without changing anything else but the tense, would it be

         Paralarını kasada sakladı

or

         Paralarını kasada saklıyordu

or something else?

Is it possible to say

         ?Paralarını kasaya sakladı ´He put his money to the deposit box´ ?

The past of "paralarını kasada saklıyor" is "paralarını kasada saklıyordu" (yor+du )

The past of "paralarını kasada saklar" is "paralarını kasada saklardı" (r+di ) 

"paralarını kasada sakladı" is past of nothing.. it is past on its own

But... "he kept his money in the deposit box" can be translated in Turkish either as "paralarını kasada sakladı" or "paralarını kasada saklıyordu" depending on the context.. This really will be an intersting topic to open..

Yes, paralarını kasaya sakladı => he put his money to the deposit box

What made me suspect this was the model of intransitive verbs like yatmak which express an event (‘going to bed’ ) in some forms and a state (‘staying in horizontal position’ ) in their other forms. At least uyumak and oturmak behave the same way, I can’t remember more now but I´m sure there are. In a way the transitive saklamak shows the same difference here.

Isn’t it funny that there is this pure past sakladı in addition to saklıyordu and saklardı? It shows that the aorist –r and progressive –yor are relative tenses, they get their final meaning from the presence or absence of past tense –di. Instead, -di expresses absolute time and can manage on its own.

Sorry but I can´t leave this in peace. Is it possible to explain their difference in a simple manner?

Am I by any chance being dull or something?

Abla I think you keep the native speakers on their "proverbial" toes. (Are you familiar with that expression in English?) with your topics, and questions.

Though I have a feeling they don´t mind when you keep adding another question. Because as learners, we both know that so many times, the answer to one question or confusing grammar subject will inspire more questions. It shows how deeply we we understand (what we´ve already learned) and want to understand more of the language.

I know, Mavili, and I have a bad conscience about that. I would love to be funny, light and easy-going but it just doesn´t work that way with me. I just get excited about something and want to clear it. On some level I am aware of the problem but it is hard to brake.

Thanks for talking straight. You really lighten the whole classroom, Mavili.