Language |
|
|
|
Another dictionary question
|
1. |
24 Jan 2006 Tue 01:05 am |
When you look up some verbs within the dictionary they have a suffix entry immediately below them.........
Examples:
görmek (to see)
before the first entry it has ",-ür"
gelmek (to come)
before the first entry it has ",-ir"
vurmak (to kill)
before the first entry it has ",-ur"
What does this suffix indicate and why do only some verbs have this entry???
|
|
2. |
24 Jan 2006 Tue 02:59 am |
(r) is the affix of simple present tense and other letters are stickers for them...it adds the word simple present... got?
|
|
3. |
24 Jan 2006 Tue 11:30 am |
Quoting ramayan: (r) is the affix of simple present tense and other letters are stickers for them...it adds the word simple present... got? |
Yeah - I realise that -ir is the aorist or present simple tense suffix......
But why do some verbs have "-ir" is their dictionary listing and other do not??? Gelmek is listed with "-ir" yet Havlamak does not have it included!
Does this mean that havlamak cannot be used in the aorist tense???
Are these both correct:
köpeğim havluyorlar
köpeğim havlarlar
my dogs are barking
|
|
4. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 03:02 pm |
Why have you added the plural suffix twice in your second example? Is that what you meant to write "havlarlar"
|
|
5. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 03:49 pm |
Hi bod,
I think the reason is that the aorist tense has too many rules on adding the correct suffix. The number of syllables and the last consonant has an affect. So probably it is to make clear which suffix to add.
http://www.turkishclass.com/grammar_presentSimpleTense.htm
I think there is no information for havlamak becuase here you simply add -r > havlar
Havlarlar is correct but there is a problem. Havla+ r+ lar : verb stem + aorist tense suffix + 3.th person plural suffix
The problem with havlarlar is that we use the singular with animals and objects. If the animals have individual personalities (if their names are known to the listener and speaker) than both singular and plural would be acceptable as it is for human.
In general, for human we can use singular or plural very conjugation for third plural person.
Quote: köpeğim havluyorlar
köpeğim havlarlar
my dogs are barking |
a dog : köpek
my dog: köpek+im : köpeğim
dogs : köpekler
my dogs: köpeklerim
"Köpeklerim havluyor", "köpekler havluyor", "köpeğim havluyor" and "köpek havluyor" would be correct.
"Köpekler havlar" (Dogs bark) would be also correct.
|
|
6. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 04:02 pm |
Thanks Erdinç.
But it is still not clear to me why some verbs have '-ir' or '-ur' or '-der' at the top of their dictionary entry and some do not :-S
Example with '-ir'
vermek
Example with '-ur'
vurmak
Example with '-der'
gitmek
|
|
7. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 04:06 pm |
Quoting bod: Thanks Erdinç.
But it is still not clear to me why some verbs have '-ir' or '-ur' or '-der' at the top of their dictionary entry and some do not :-S
Example with '-it'
vermek
Example with '-ur'
vurmak
Example with '-der'
gitmek |
There is a typo. It is -ir with vermek
vermek -ir: verir
vurmak -ur : vurur
gitmek -der: gider
When you check the link I gave above you will see that the rules are too complicated for this tense. It isnt so simple like in any other tense. In other tenses we were just looking to the last vowel and consonant and were adding the suffix. Can you define a smillar simple rule for this tense? No, you cant. So the dictionary makes it more simple.
yes, maybe havlamak should have -r
|
|
8. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 04:18 pm |
Quoting erdinc: There is a typo. It is -ir with vermek
vermek -ir: verir
vurmak -ur : vurur
gitmek -der: gider
When you check the link I gave above you will see that the rules are too complicated for this tense. It isnt so simple like in any other tense. In other tenses we were just looking to the last vowel and consonant and were adding the suffix. Can you define a smillar simple rule for this tense? No, you cant. So the dictionary makes it more simple.
yes, maybe havlamak should have -r |
Typo corrected - thanks!
So the fact that some verb entries have this information in the dictionary and some do not have it doesn't mean that there are two distinct groups of verb then??? Where the information is there it can be used to form the aorist tense - where it is missing the rules above have to applied.
Is that about right???
|
|
9. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 04:57 pm |
Yes it is right. The rules above could be applied to the ones which have an entry. This means you could find the correct suffix on your own by following the complicated rules for this tense but you would lose some time.
|
|
10. |
25 Jan 2006 Wed 05:04 pm |
Quoting erdinc: Yes it is right. The rules above could be applied to the ones which have an entry. This means you could find the correct suffix on your own by following the complicated rules for this tense but you would lose some time. |
Erdinç çok teşekklür ederim.
It was the fact that some verbs had the entry and some didn't that was confusing me - I am pretty sure I understand now
|
|
|