Language |
|
|
|
|
|
Pronouns with -li suffix
|
| 10. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:34 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc:
I disagree. There is a suffix that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü. You will see that "with" is not a good idea.
|
İ don't understand which suffix you mean here (lI ) or (lA) not a good idea for with ?
İ know we use (lA) suffix to express with too like to say
Ali'yle gittim .. as i went with Ali
But at same time,i know we can use (LI ) in the meaning of with too,right ?
Only depends on the best way to translat it
As in çantalı kadın... means here the woman with the bag
İf i am pointing to certain woman among others ,so it is better to say the woman with the bag
So here it can means with too ,right ?
|
|
| 11. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:59 pm |
|
I now why you are confused. I had written:
"There is a suffix that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü."
Now I have changed this into:
"There is a suffix in English that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü."
On reply #7 and #8 bod and you are talking only about one suffix and you both said it means "with" and I disagreed.
Let's summerize:
"-le, -la " is shorter version of "ile" and means ". with 2. and
"-lı, -li, -lu, -lü" is a suffix that creates adjectives from nouns. It is smillar to "-y" in English.
salt > salty
tuz > tuzlu
|
|
| 12. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:05 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: Let's summerize:
"-le, -la " is shorter version of "ile" and means ". with 2. and
"-lı, -li, -lu, -lü" is a suffix that creates adjectives from nouns. It is smillar to "-y" in English.
salt > salty
tuz > tuzlu |
Thanks Erdinç - that makes more sense now.
My problem was that I wasn't seeing words with the -li suffix as being adjectives. Perhaps mainly because words formed with -siz are difficult to translate as adjectives in English. But that is just a difference in the way the languages are used :-S
şekerli kahve - sugary coffee
şekersiz kahve - sugarless coffee
|
|
| 13. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:35 pm |
|
Quoting bod:
şekerli kahve - sugary coffee
şekersiz kahve - sugarless coffee
|
Yes, this is a typical example to show the difference between languages. We in fact say sugary and sugarless.
Here is another example:
pahalı > expensive
This is a normal translation. Let me show you a literal translation:
pahalı > pricey
The word "paha" is almost omited from Turkish. It now only exists in sayings. "Paha biçilmez." It is interesting that sayings last longer than the words themselves.
|
|
| 14. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:42 pm |
|
Presumably "paha biçilmez" means "not cut price" or "full price"
|
|
| 15. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 09:36 pm |
|
It is the fifth meaning of biçmek in the dictionary that was used here.
|
|
| 16. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 09:43 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: It is the fifth meaning of biçmek in the dictionary that was used here. |
Then why doesn't the object take a noun state of either /a/ or /ı/??? Is it that the nomative state is valid for biçmek but it is not indicated in the dictionary?
Is this better?
paha biçilmez = priceless
|
|
| 17. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:14 pm |
|
It takes the case suffix but the verb should be "değer biçmek" or "fiyat biçmek".
-e değer biçmek
-e fiyat biçmek
I have no control over the dictionary. I haven't written or revised it.
|
|
| 18. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:23 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: It takes the case suffix but the verb should be "değer biçmek" or "fiyat biçmek".
-e değer biçmek
-e fiyat biçmek |
Now I am really confused :-S
Wasn't it you Erdinç that mentioned paha biçilmez as an example of where pahalı is derived from. You seem to be saying above that you really should have written paha değer biçilmez or paha fiyat biçilmez.
Quoting erdinc: I have no control over the dictionary. I haven't written or revised it. |
I wasn't suggesting that you had control over the dictionary - or even that there is anything wrong with the dictionary. But I am really struggling with trying to understand noun states and verbs.
|
|
| 19. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:29 pm |
|
1. "-e değer biçmek" = to value, to set a value
2. "-e fiyat biçmek" = to value, to set a price
3. "-e paha biçmek" = to value, to set a value
Number 3 is omited from language. If you read my earlier messages you will also see that I said it was omited. So, if #3 is omited (except idioms) what do we have left? Simple. This is left:
1. "-e değer biçmek" = to value, to set a value
2. "-e fiyat biçmek" = to value, to set a price
This is exactly what I said one reply before.
|
|
| 20. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:31 pm |
|
I said pahalı was derived from paha and paha is omited and so is "paha biçmek".
Paha=value, price >> omited (forget about it)
Paha biçmek = to value, to set price >> omited (forget about it)
If I had known that we are going to talk about words that have been omited then I would not mention them. The word paha and its verb version paha biçmek is omited because paha is replaced with fiyat and değer and its verb version is replaced as well.
Is it still confusing?
|
|
|
