|
Hello!
I found such a caption under a picture on wikipedia:
"Dated to 10.000 years before Christ, cave painting which alleged to could have been made to represent alien visitors." I have one doubt about this text. Shouldn´t there appear one more -i suffix after olabileceği? Because the first -i is possessive as I suppose - its (the painting´s) "could being". But when theres a direct verb used - ileri sürülen there should be accusative used, right? Like olabileceğini ileri sürülen?
#edit
Btw, why is there future participle used if the text actually refers to the past?
Good question!
I don´t have two cents at hand, but here´s my "beş kuruş":
V -il -miş ol-mak = To have been V-pp
cave painting which alleged to could have been made to represent alien visitors.
Uzaylı ziyaretçileri temsilen yapılmış olabileceği öne sürülen mağara resmi
In Turkish future tense is based on -ecek suffix which actully is used to state an intention, plan or expectation.
Yarın işe geç gideceğim = I intend (have a plan) to go to work late tomorrow
Aligiller yarın akşam bize gelecek = We expect Alis to come to us tomorow night
So if we analyse your sentence it has some expectation in it that the statement may be the case.
Other possibility would be to use -dik (i.e. non-future) participle but that doesn´t sound OK because it would have more certainty compared to -ecek participle.
|
