1. Arkadaşım ora|n ın (or orasının) güzel bir yer ol|duğ|u|n|u söylüyor.
2. O bana tatil için türkiye´ye gitmekten memnuniyet duy|acağ|ı|n|ı söyledi.
Subclauses with the English that typically occur in sentences where someone says or thinks something. It is a form of quoting, indirect speech. (You can use this as a search word to look for more information in old threads.)
In a simple sentence
He said that
or
O bunu söyledi
that and bunu are in the position of object in the main clause, right? If we inlay a whole sentence in their place, it is still the object.
In the above examples two whole sentences are embedded into the clause. These sentences are
1. Orası güzel bir yer
and
2. Tatıl için Türkiye´ye gitmekten memnuniyet duyacak.
When we place these sentences to the place of the main clause object changes happen in two places: in their subject and their predicate. The subject takes genitive ending and the predicate is replaced with a personal participle -dik (sentence 1) or -ecek (sentence 2). The latter is chosen for future reference, the former for everything else.
You might wonder the morphology of the participles:
1., 2. ol|duğ|u|n|u, duy|acağ|ı|n|ı = verb stem + participle marking + possessive suffix sg 3 + pronominal -n- + accusative ending (it was the object, remember?)
Notice that in
1. Orası güzel bir yer
the predicate olmak doesn´t show because it is a nominal sentence with empty copula. But when you embed a sentence like this you need to add olmak: where else would you hang all the grammatical stuff otherwise?
Our native speaker also introduced another way to express a that clause:
Arkadaşım orası güzel bir yer diyor.
No changes in the embedded part at all! This type of "small sentences" is introduced in modern grammar books, too, but personally I am not sure what are the limits of small sentences and I prefer not to use it at all. Maybe someone can explain it better for you.
Edited (2/29/2012) by Abla
Edited (2/29/2012) by Abla
|