Practice Turkish |
|
|
|
|
|
Bira
|
| 1. |
26 Jul 2006 Wed 02:34 pm |
|
Şimdi bir varsa birayı içmek istiyorum
Now I want to drink beer if there is one
|
|
| 2. |
27 Jul 2006 Thu 03:10 am |
|
Quoting bod: Şimdi bir varsa birayı içmek istiyorum
Now I want to drink beer if there is one |
I personally would structure this sentence as:
Simdide eger varsa bir bira icmek istiyorum.
Erem,
|
|
| 3. |
27 Jul 2006 Thu 03:39 am |
|
Hi Bod,
You havebuild a good sentence. There are minor issues. it is not "birayı" as you are not talking about a particular beer but about any beer so we say "bira içmek".
In order of preference:
"Eğer varsa bir bira istiyorum"
"Eğer varsa bir bira içmek istiyorum"
"Eğer varsa şimdi bir bira içmek istiyorum"
Erem,
"Şimdi de" means "and now". It is more used when something follows something else.
Örnek 1: "Şimdi size bir şiir okuyacağım." (şiiri okur ve ardından konuşmaya şÃ¶yle devam eder) "Şimdi de bu şiirin anlamını konuşalım. "
Örnek 2: "Mazhar Fuat Özkan'dan bir şarkı dinledik. Şimdi de Fikret Kızılok söylüyor; 'Zaman Zaman'."
|
|
| 4. |
27 Jul 2006 Thu 12:23 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: Hi Bod,
You havebuild a good sentence. There are minor issues. it is not "birayı" as you are not talking about a particular beer but about any beer so we say "bira içmek". |
I used "birayı" because "içmek" takes the /ı/ state......
|
|
| 5. |
30 Jul 2006 Sun 01:32 am |
|
Yes, içmek takes the -i case but the accusative only applies when talking about a certain particular object.
This issue is almost exactly the same as the definitive article in English.
When birayı you just said you want to drink "the beer" but there is no certain beer. Actually you wanted to say "a beer" so you should have used just "bira".
|
|
| 6. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 01:18 pm |
|
So verbs that take the /ı/ state can either take /ı/ or no state depending on the certainty of the subject. But verbs that take no state can never take a state. Verbs that take /a/ /da/ or /dan/ always take that state - it can never be omitted. Is that correct?
|
|
| 7. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:28 pm |
|
Quote: verbs that take the /ı/ state can either take /ı/ or no state depending on the certainty of the subject. |
This is incorrect. There are verbs that don't take the -i state but take another state. Example:
-den hoşlanmak
-e bağlanmak
Quote: But verbs that take no state can never take a state. |
This is correct by definition. You are saying that "A is A". I will rephrase your line:
Quote: But verbs that don't take -i state can never take any state. |
Incorrect and shown above.
Quote: Verbs that take /a/ /da/ or /dan/ always take that state - it can never be omitted. |
Incorrect. Because a verb has a certain meaning with a noun state it doesn't prevent it haveing another or even the same the meaning with another noun state. It might have another noun state or might not have. This is independent then having /a/ /da/ or /dan/.
In other words, a verb having any state doesn't limit it having another. The blank version (nominative) is counted as a state.
I will explain an easier way:
These are noun states:
1. nominative : ev > house
2. dative : eve > to the house
3. accusative : evi > (doing something with) the house
4. locative : evde > in/at/on the house
5. ablative : evden from the house
N for noun.
Example 1: gitmek:
N + gitmek = Possible. "N to go to somewhere."
N'e + gitmek = Possible. "to go to N"
N'i + gitmek = Not possible.
N'de + gitmek = Possible. "to go in/at/on N"
N'den + gitmek = Possible "To leave N"
N'le + gitmek = Possible " to go with N"
Example 2: olmak:
N + olmak = Possible. "to be N."
N'e + olmak = Not possible.
N'i + olmak = Not possible.
N'de + olmak = Possible. "to be in/at/on N"
N'den + olmak = Possible "to lose N"
N'le + possible = Possible "to be with N"
Example 3: dinlemek:
N + dinlemek = Possible. "to listen to N."
N'e + dinlemek = Not Possible.
N'i + dinlemek = Possible. "to listen to N."
N'de + dinlemek = Possible. "to listen to something in/at/on N"
N'den + dinlemek = Possible "to listen to something from N"
N'le dinlemek = Possible "to listen with N"
Example 4: bakmak:
N + bakmak = Possible. "to shop for N."
N'e + bakmak = Possible. "be looking after N"
N'i + bakmak = Not Possible.
N'de + baktım = Possible. "to have a quick look on something in/at/on N"
N'den + baktım = Possible "to look from N"
N'le bakmak = Possible "to look with N"
Example 5: hoşlanmak:
N + hoşlanmak = Not Possible.
N'e + hoşlanmak = Not Possible.
N'i + hoşlanmak = Not possible.
N'de + hoşlanmak = Not Possible.
N'den + hoşlanmak = Possible "to like N"
N'le hoşlanmak = Not possible.
In summary, there is no rule about verbs and noun states. Any of the noun states might exist for a certain verb or might not exist. If it exists it has a certain meaning. If it doesn't exist you can not make it up.
I'm looking for a term for -le case (ile). I need to add this as a sixth.
|
|
| 8. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:53 pm |
|
I explained my question badly I think Erdinç - you have certainly answered a question that I didn't intend to ask :-S
Let me try again:
Consider the verb /ı/ içmek
It has been said above that I should write "bira içmek istiyorum" because it is not a certain beer that I want to drink. So even though içmek takes the /ı/ state, it can be used with the normative noun state (bira).
Let's take another verb hak etmek
Acording to the dictionary this takes the normative state only - so the noun can never take a state in a sentence. Is that what the normative entry in the dictionary means?
Taking another example /a/ taşınmak
Because this takes the /a/ state then it can only be combined with a noun taking the /a/ state. It cannot revert to the normative state (assuming we are using taşınmak to mean "to move") in the same way that "/ı/ içmek" can revert to the nomative state.
Does that make more sense???
|
|
| 9. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:15 pm |
|
Quoting bod: Let's take another verb hak etmek
Acording to the dictionary this takes the normative state only - so the noun can never take a state in a sentence. Is that what the normative entry in the dictionary means? |
No, this means I haven't worked on the dictionary. The dictionary is incomplete. "hak etmek" also takes the accusative and in fact it mostly takes the accusative.
N + hak etmek = Possible. "to deserve a/an N." (notice the "an")
N'e + hak etmek = Not Possible.
N'i + hak etmek = Possible. "to deserve N"
N'de + hak etmek = Not Possible.
N'den + hak etmek = Not Possible.
Quote: Taking another example /a/ taşınmak
Because this takes the /a/ state then it can only be combined with a noun taking the /a/ state. It cannot revert to the normative state (assuming we are using taşınmak to mean "to move") in the same way that "/ı/ içmek" can revert to the nomative state. |
Nominative is just another case that needs to mentioned whether it is possible or not. Think nominative the same way as you think any other case. There is no difference. It is possible for some verbs and impossible for some verbs. This only depends on the verb itself. There is no formula to make the availibility of nominative related to any other case.
taşınmak : to move house
N + taşınmak = Not Possible.
N'e + taşınmak = Possible. "To move into N".
N'i + taşınmak = Not Possible.
N'de + taşınmak = Not Possible.
N'den + taşınmak = Possible. "To move house from N"
N'le taşınmak = Possible. To move with N.
içmek : to drink
N + içmek = Possible. "to drink a/an N"
N'e + içmek = Possible. "to drink for N".
N'i + içmek = Possible. "to drink the N"
N'de + içmek = Possible. "to drink in/at/on N"
N'den + içmek = Possible. "to drink from N"
N'le içmek = Possible. to drink with N.
I will add the -le case to previous ones.
|
|
| 10. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:20 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: No, this means I haven't worked on the dictionary. The dictionary is incomplete. |
Ah!!!
This makes learning a little more difficult :-S
|
|
|
