Practice Turkish |
|
|
|
|
|
Atlar ve çitim
|
| 1. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 12:00 am |
|
Dün o iki atı bançe çitimi yemdi!
Yesterday two horses were eating my garden hedge!
|
|
| 2. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 12:09 am |
|
Quoting bod: Dün o iki atı bançe çitimi yemdi!
Yesterday two horses were eating my garden hedge! |
dün iki at bahçe çitimi yiyordu
|
|
| 3. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 12:22 am |
|
Quoting SuiGeneris: Quoting bod: Dün o iki atı bançe çitimi yemdi!
Yesterday two horses were eating my garden hedge! |
dün iki at bahçe çitimi yiyordu |
Why is "at" not in the assusative state as it is the direct object of the sentence???
|
|
| 4. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 12:25 am |
|
Quoting bod: Quoting SuiGeneris: Quoting bod: Dün o iki atı bançe çitimi yemdi!
Yesterday two horses were eating my garden hedge! |
dün iki at bahçe çitimi yiyordu |
Why is "at" not in the assusative state as it is the direct object of the sentence??? |
becoz two horses means iki at in turkish...
|
|
| 5. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 12:46 am |
|
Quoting SuiGeneris: Quoting bod: Quoting SuiGeneris: Quoting bod: Dün o iki atı bançe çitimi yemdi!
Yesterday two horses were eating my garden hedge! |
dün iki at bahçe çitimi yiyordu |
Why is "at" not in the assusative state as it is the direct object of the sentence??? |
becoz two horses means iki at in turkish... |
I realise that.......
But I thought that the direct object of a sentence had to be put into the accusative noun state - "iki atı"
|
|
| 6. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 01:13 am |
|
it takes that -ı when you use that two horses as ocject...
but "two horses" is subject here..
|
|
| 7. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 11:36 am |
|
Ohh i didn't know simple html-codes work in the forum too!
Think pink!
|
|
| 8. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 12:02 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Ohh i didn't know simple html-codes work in the forum too!
Think pink!
|
oh yes HTML codes work
|
|
| 9. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 06:20 pm |
|
Hmm inserting images doesn't work tho!
|
|
| 10. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 09:07 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Hmm inserting images doesn't work tho! |
You obviously have too much time on your hands!!! 
|
|
| 11. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 09:17 pm |
|
Or just a smart programme 
|
|
| 12. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 10:51 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Or just a smart programme |
Seni hilekâr seni 
|
|
| 13. |
17 Jan 2006 Tue 10:55 pm |
|
Quoting bod: Seni hilekâr seni |
Ohh  Hilekâr degilim!!! Ben akilliyim (a)
|
|
| 14. |
18 Jan 2006 Wed 12:55 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Quoting bod: Seni hilekâr seni |
Ohh Hilekâr degilim!!! Ben akilliyim (a) |
Hee Hee
Evet, sen akıllısın
Başlıkdısın hâlâ görüntüler yok!!!
|
|
| 15. |
18 Jan 2006 Wed 05:04 pm |
|
Ehm, what are you trying to say Bod
Quoting bod:
Başlıkdısın hâlâ görüntüler yok!!! |
|
|
| 16. |
18 Jan 2006 Wed 05:11 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Ehm, what are you trying to say Bod |
Başlıkdısın hâlâ görüntüler yok!!!
There are still no images in your posts......
but there are in mine!
|
|
| 17. |
18 Jan 2006 Wed 05:31 pm |
|
huh? i used the same code like you did!! But it didn't work :S
Ohh i get it In this forum you need to skip the Http: part..
|
|
| 18. |
18 Jan 2006 Wed 05:35 pm |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Ohh i get it In this forum you need to skip the Http: part.. |
Yup!
The rendering engine expands 'http' to form a hyperlink to an external website
|
|
| 19. |
18 Jan 2006 Wed 06:48 pm |
|
Quoting bod: Dün o iki atı bançe çitimi yemdi!
Yesterday two horses were eating my garden hedge! |
DÃœN, O İKİ AT BAHÇE ÇİMİMİ YEDİ.
Yesterday, those two horses ate the grass of my garden.
DÃœN, O İKİ AT BAHÇE ÇİTİMİ YEDİ.
Yesterday, those two horses ate the hedge around my garden.
|
|
| 20. |
20 Jan 2006 Fri 06:02 pm |
|
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 07:49 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 08:12 pm |
|
There are still no images in your posts......
"Mesajlarında hala resim yok."
|
|
| 23. |
05 Feb 2006 Sun 01:17 pm |
|
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 05:50 pm |
|
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 06:03 pm |
|
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
|
|
|
