I find distinguishing between the two forms,  -abildi,  &  -abilirdi confusing!!  Please help.

For example

>"Ahmet could have seen the accident, but he came five minutes after."<

My translation: "Ahmet kazayi görebildi, fakat beş dakika sonra geldi"

Book:  "Ahmet kazayi görebilirdi, fakat beş dakika sonra geldi"

Is the use of the aorist past tense necessary?  Or is my translation acceptable?  .... especially when talking about something which happened in the ´Simple Past´ ...!!!

My recollection is that aorist tense is used to denote something which happens regularly ..!!  Does it imply that Ahmet was in the habit of arriving few minutes late after the accident?

Is there a ´rule´ ???

Thanks, kindly.

Tazx1

Ahmet kazayı görebilirdi, fakat beş dakika sonra geldi.

That means, Ahmet actually couldn´t see the accident because he arrived there five minutes later the accident happen.

But in here;

Ahmet sınavı geçebildi: Ahmet could have passed the exam.

Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı: Ahmet couldn´t have passed the exam, actually he was able to pass it but he didn´t study.

Daha fazla çalışabilirdi ama hastaydı: He couldn´t have studied more, actually he was able to study more but he was sick.

thx

turkishcobra //

 Thanks turkishcobra >>> I get it, yani was able but did not ... -abilirdi !

                                                              was able and did .... -abildi !

Ahmet could have visited his friends > Ahmet arkadaşlari ziyaret edebilirdi.          [ham, yani]

Ahmet was able to visit his friends > Ahmet arkadaşlari ziyaret edebildi.  [tam, yani]

OK.  Thanks a lot.

Tazx1

Let me correct a confussion:

Ahmet was able to visit his friends means "Ahmet arkadaşlarını ziyaret edebilirdi", too.

Ahmet arkadaşlarını ziyaret edebildi: Ahmet COULD visit his friends.

-abilirdi doesn´t have a clear respond in English; that´s why learners have confussions about it.

But this formula is correct:

I get it, yani was able but did not ... -abilirdi !

                          was able and did ... -abildi !

thx

turkishcobra //

My english is not super but i think "might" gives this meaning on sentenses..

Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı: Ahmet couldn´t have passed the exam ( he might pass, but he could not )

turkishcobra kardeşim, burda might ı da kullanabilirdik değil mi ? İngilizcem süper olmadığı için yanlışım varsa lütfen düzeltir misin ?

Aslında olabilir çünkü burada biraz da olasılıktan bahsetmiş; yani Ahmet´in çalışması durumunda sınavı geçme olasılığının var olduğunu anlatmaya çalışmış.

Ama cümlenin genel ağırlığı yapılabilirlik üzerine olduğundan "can/could" kullanılması daha iyi olur; anlamın kesinleşmesi bakımından =)

Zaten şu may/might yapısını oldum olası anlamamışımdır o yüzden çok da fazla bir şey söyleYEmeyeceğim   

English translation:

Actually it may be because there is a possibility in this point; I mean sentence is trying to express than there was possibility for Ahmet to pass the exam if he would have been studied.

But because of the meaning of sentence is based on "ability" "can/could" is better to use; for an exact meaning.

As a matter of fact I have never understood that "may/might" structure that´s why I can´t give information.

I think edebilir in past tense is "could have" "would have"  if the opportunity arose,Edebilirdi "He,She,It "should" have known "  I think the distinction between "edebilirdi" and "edebildi" is "could have" and "should have" respectively.

Sorry but I am trying to make sense of all I have read and I am now very very very confused L

Ahmet kazayı görebilirdi, fakat beş dakika sonra geldi.

You said that - Ahmet actually couldn´t see the accident because he arrived there five minutes later the accident happen.

So would we be able to say – Ahmet would have been able to see the accident , but he arrived five minutes later ?

I do not understand how the examples below demonsrate ‘Could not have ‘ ??   where is the negative.?  I am very confused by the examples.

Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı: Ahmet couldn´t have passed the exam, actually he was able to pass it but he didn´t study.

I am only able to make any sense if it could be something like. ´ Ahmet would have been able to pass the exam but he did not work´.   ??

Daha fazla çalışabilirdi ama hastaydı: He couldn´t have studied more, actually he was able to study more but he was sick.

Same with this I do not understand how it can be ´Couldn’t´ .. ?

I see maybe – He would have been able to work more but he was sick (was able to (with ability )but could not do it as sick)

Sorry if I do not explain my issue clearly but I am very confused..

Could someone maybe be able to give a few more examples with a translation so I could try and work through it . Many Thanks

Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı.

Your translation for this sentence is correct; it is a positive sentence. But in meaning, this sentence is NEGATIVE.

Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı = Ahmet sınavı geçemedi çünkü çalışmadı.

That means, Ahmet couldn´t have passed the exam because he didn´t study (enough).

I wrote the English translation of sentence which is in the right side of equality.

thx

turkishcobra //

Actually the important point in here is "-di" suffix, which use for simple past tense.

Ahmet sınavı geçebilir: Ahmet can pass the exam.

This is present tense ability sentence. And then we add "-di" to express that this situation (Ahmet can pass the exam) remained in PAST (we tell this by adding past tens nearby the geçebilir sentence.) Because Ahmet joint the exam and possibility has ended.

Possibility of passing exam of Ahmet remained in PAST.

geçebilir: he can pass

geçebilirdi: he was able to pass but he couldn´t have been.

thx

turkishcobra //

Let´s try and simplify it ´ebilmek´ abilmek´ is the dictionary verb form, so;

Yapmak=to do (in this example)

Ben yapabildim= denotes  "I ´know i could have done" ´it´  if I had known what ´it´ was,or that there was no other situation that I had the ability to do what was asked of me.

Ben yapabilirdim= denotes "I could have done it" but "I didn´t know what ´it´ is", so;

Ben yapabilirdim= I could/would/even may/ have done if I had known what I needed to do.

Ben yapabildim= I knew what was expected of me or I didn´t do it through choice or I knew what was expected of me, but I still didn´t do it.

hope it helps

Uhm; a lot of mistakes there Mylo, I don´t know if you are a native speaker but I hope I am not offending you.

1) Ben yapabildim = "I was able to do it". There is no negative meaning or whatsoever here. Or nothing about "knowing to do". Probably the suffix -bil derives from the word bil-mek, but it now conveys the meaning "being able to" rather than knowing. "Hocanın sorusunu bir tek ben yapabildim" = "I was the only one who was able to solve teachers question"

2) The mistake I see here(in this topic) is that many will think "yapabilirdi" has some kind of negative meaning, but that isn´t always the case. It depends on the context.

Let´s consider this one:

"Eskiden tüm bu işleri tek bir adam yapabilirdi" = "Back in the old days a single man could do all of this work". Negative meaning? No

or this one "O kadar güçlü bir adamdı ki her istediğini yapabilirdi" -> "He had so much strength that he could do whatever he wanted" (Doesn´t convey he didn´t do some of those things)

Maybe you shouldn´t think of it as a concrete word as "yapabilirdi". For example first consider "yapardı" (without -bil suffix) and work on the Story mode tense(?Geçmiş zamanın hikayesi) and maybe you can have a more clear understanding.

Those sentences aren´t right in English.  

Should be:

´Ahmet COULD have passed the exam (i.e. he had the ability to do so) but he didn´t study (therefore was unable to)

´He COULD have studied more - but he was sick (therefore unable to study).

The negative use doesn´t make sense.

Also - I thought the negative of the aorist potential was ´geçemez´ so why isn´t it ´gecemezdi´ instead of ´geçebilirdi´ for the past of that?

 This is what I was trying to say as well , we would not need to make this a negative sentence in enlglish

Got to say this thread has totally confused me and I am now lost , everyone seeems to be saying something else, but what yersu just wrote helped a little to clear it up.  Thank you

I think sometimes grammar points are a bit ´over-explained´!

Because Turkish grammar is a bit "over-complicated"

Well, I have always thought that Turkish is an easy-to-learn language, logical, consistent so few exceptions compared to any other language. Anyway that´s just my tought. Never mind.

Then how would you assess English based on your this statement of Turkish being "over-complicated"? Even more "over-complicated" than Turkish or less? Please be specific with your claim.

Perhaps I meant ´conflicting´. What´s your answer to my point about the negative?

Do you think that Turkish is not complicated?

I thought I explained it. Well; let me explain one more time for you.

When you say "Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı", a Turkish-native speaker understands it as;

Ahmet was actually able to pass the exam; but he couldn´t because he didn´t study:

Ahmet aslında sınavı geçebilecek durumdaydı; ama geçemedi çünkü çalışmadı.

We call "yapıda olumlu, anlamda olumsuz cümleler" like these structures. That means: sentences that are positive with structure, negative with meaning".

You got it now? I tried to explain about the meaning.

Ahmet sınavı geçemedi çünkü çalışmadı: Ahmet couldn´t have passed the exam because he didn´t study.

Ahmet sınavı geçebilirdi ama çalışmadı: Ahmet was able to pass the exam, but he didn´t study, so he couldn´t pass it.

thx

turkishcobra//

If only there was a way to measure it. I think that it´s an easy-to-learn language compared to other languages. There are some research to support my thought. For example studies showed that Turkish babies are the fastest language learners.

I have read the following in a language forum. In a way it supports both of us.

Turkish is my major foreign language, and I´ve been using it off and on for many years now, including a number of years living in Turkey. I think of it as "an easy language that´s hard to learn", in other words, there are many things that make it MUCH easier than many other languages people study: no sounds that are difficult to pronounce, a simple and very phonetic Latin-based alphabet, no gender differences for nouns (except for a masculine/feminine distinction in a few words borrowed from languages like Arabic) or even pronouns, essentially no irregular verbs, etc. (This extreme regularity of Turkish, once you become accustomed to it, can even spoil you a bit in terms of other languages, which then seem very "quirky" with all their genders, irregular forms, declined adjectives, etc.)

On the other hand, very little of the vocabulary of Turkish is cognate with words from Western languages, and the morphology and syntax, especially as one gets into the longer sentences that mark most formal writing, are an entire other dimension. I think of Turkish sentence structure as a sort of mental gymnastics, which is fun to play with but takes most speakers of Indo-European languages quite a long time to become halfway familiar with, let alone to master. Even people who´ve studied the language for quite some time can get irretrievably lost in some long sentences. Simply put, "the way Turkish works", while quite regular and in fact logical, is totally alien to the way we think and speak in languages like English, and getting used to this difference is a big job that takes a lot of time and effort. As in so much in language-learning, strong and consistent motivation is essential, and you need to put in effort over time to achieve mastery.

In terms of comparison with other Middle Eastern languages, like Arabic or Persian, Turkish is probably the easiest at the beginning, but gets a bit harder, I think, as one progresses. It´s also not as rich in terms of literature or as important culturally as Arabic or Persian. On the other hand, Turkey is arguably the most socially and economically advanced Muslim country, and a knowledge of Turkish also helps one to learn the other Turkic languages spoken in Central Asia, so a good knowledge of Turkish can open the door to a lot of culturally and linguistically rewarding explorations.

OK - but your English translation of the sentence -  however correct it is in Turkish - is not correct.  We are always being told to ´think Turkish rather than English´ when trying to translate from English to Turkish - but we must ´think English when translating from Turkish to English.  What you were saying in your original post is undoubtedly correct for the Turkish but not for the English translation.  (I notice that you substituted ´çünkü´ for ´ama´ in your example above - which actually now DOES make sense in English.

 .

This was my personal idea as well...

thx

turkishcobra //

Here is the information you are looking for:

-abil- (lit. know how to) =can; be able to

-abilirdi refers to ability or capacity in past time:

Ninem Rusça konuşabilirdi - My grandmother could speak Russian

We often use - abilir in a question to ask somebody to do something.The use of -abilir in this way is fairly polite (formal):

Lütfen, bana bir katalog gönderebilir misiniz? - Could you send me a catalogue, please?

-abilirdi is used in conditional sentences:

Yeterli zamanım olsa bunu yapabilirdim  -  I could do this,if I had enough time

Dün denemiş olsaydın bu kutuyu kaldırabilir miydin  - could you have lifted that box, if you had tried yesterday? 

Note that - abilirdi is not used except in conditions, for an isolated achievement in past time. Instead, -abildi- is preferred:

tekne alabora olduğunda, kıyıya kadar yüzebildiler - when the boat upset, they were able to swim to the bank.

(not kıyıya kadar yüzebilirdiler which is incorrect).  

Dün nehire bir adam düştü. Polis onu kurtarabildi.  A man fell into the river yesterday. The police were able to save him.

(not onu kurtarabilirdi which is incorrect)

I hope it helps