Language |
|
|
|
|
|
Pronouns with -li suffix
|
| 1. |
27 Jul 2006 Thu 07:42 pm |
|
Can the -li suffix be used with pronouns???
For example - if someone is eating:
Şulu lahana salatası ister misiniz?
Do you want coleslaw with that?
|
|
| 2. |
28 Jul 2006 Fri 03:31 am |
|
First of all;
Do you want coleslaw with that? = Onun yanında / Onunla lahana salatası ister misin? or Şunun yanında / Şununla lahana salatası ister misin?
-Personal pr. (ben, sen, o, biz, siz ,onlar)
Örnek 1= Senli benli konuşmak / olmak = to talk in a friendly and easy manner; (people) who are on familiar terms.
Bu ne cüret ki benimle böyle senli benli konuşuyorsunuz? You talk in a free-and-easy manner with me, what a temerity is that...This wouldn't be the literal translation but must give you the idea.
Örnek 2 = Sizli bizli konuşmak / olmak = to talk (to someone) in a distant manner. You can not or can only once in a very great while hear this kind of talking in the daily life. You would mostly hear that in the movies or maybe would read in the books.
Artık sizli bizli konuşmayı bıraksak = Let's not talk in a distant manner anymore...This wouldn't be the literal translation but must give you the idea.
I hope this helps a little bit. Someone would go on the answer. Now I can not think of another example. There are some but those do not sound good.
A funny short conversation would be like this;
A= What do you make this soup of? = Bu çorba neli?
B= From everything = Herşeyli.
But B's answer is not good talking. It's imporper. But some like to talk like that.
|
|
| 3. |
28 Jul 2006 Fri 12:29 pm |
|
Quoting impulse: Do you want coleslaw with that? = Onun yanında / Onunla lahana salatası ister misin? or Şunun yanında / Şununla lahana salatası ister misin?/QUOTE]
Taking your last example:
Şununla lahana salatası ister misin?
Where do we get şununla from - is this right?
şu-n-un-la
pronoun + buffer consonant + genative suffix + accompaniment suffix
Is that correct?
If it is - why the genative suffix and why -la and not -li? |
|
|
| 4. |
28 Jul 2006 Fri 02:36 pm |
|
Quoting bod: If it is - why the genative suffix and why -la and not -li? |
If you cared to look at THIS post, maybe you would understand it more easily.
-le -la is used to say 'together with', when -li is to show that something is made/composed/constituted of/with something else.
I m sorry my english is not good enough to explain this better to you, but come on, it's easy 
|
|
| 5. |
28 Jul 2006 Fri 04:13 pm |
|
Quote: Taking your last example:
Şununla lahana salatası ister misin?
Where do we get şununla from - is this right?
şu-n-un-la
pronoun + buffer consonant + genative suffix + accompaniment suffix
Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. "şununla" means "şunun ile" but in written and spoken Turkish "ile" joins to the word and the word becomes "şunanla".
You can find very detailed information about this here >> http://www.tdk.org.tr/turkdili/ocak2006/dogruyazalim.htm However it's in Turkish you can still read it and try to understand what is described.
If it is - why the genative suffix and why -la and not -li?
I am not an expert. That's why somebody else would answer this question better than me. I don't want to confuse you. This is a very technical question. |
|
|
| 6. |
30 Jul 2006 Sun 01:44 am |
|
Greetings,
There are two completely unrelated suffixes.
1. -le, -la
This is the suffix version of the conjunction "ile".
Double click on this >> ile << and you will see a good definition. Main translation is "with", secondary translation is "and".
2. -lı, -li, -lu, -lü
This suffix is used to build adjectives from nouns. Examples:
problem (problem) > problemli (problematic)
Main translation is "the one that is a ..." or "the one that has a ..."
akıl > akıllı
|
|
| 7. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 01:04 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: 2. -lı, -li, -lu, -lü
This suffix is used to build adjectives from nouns. Examples:
problem (problem) > problemli (problematic)
Main translation is "the one that is a ..." or "the one that has a ..."
akıl > akıllı |
But this suffix can also be used to mean "with"
It is the opposite of the -siz suffix.
şekerli kahve
Or would you consider "şekerli" here to be an adjective?
|
|
| 8. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 01:21 pm |
|
Yes,it means 'with' as will
in fact you can translate it like that too
Akıllı...the one with mind
çantalı...the one with the bag
And it is opposite to 'siz'suffix
şekerli kahve ...coffee with sugar
So it is same,only depends on the meaning of the sentence and the better way to translate it like here
Akıllı...it is better to be the one who has mind than the one with mind
|
|
| 9. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:11 pm |
|
Quoting bod: But this suffix can also be used to mean "with" |
I disagree. There is a suffix in English that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü. You will see that "with" is not a good idea.
tuz <> salt
tuzlu <> salty
şeker <> sugar
şekerli <> sugary
"tuzlu ekmek" <> "salty bread"
Since both suffixes make adjectives out of nouns they are very smillar.
The difference is that we use this suffix with more nouns and we use it in a narrower meaning. In English it has secondary meanings.
Yes, you can say "bread with salt" but this is no way as good as "salty bread". Another detail is that "with" (and especially "ile") is sometimes used like "and".
|
|
| 10. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:34 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc:
I disagree. There is a suffix that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü. You will see that "with" is not a good idea.
|
İ don't understand which suffix you mean here (lI ) or (lA) not a good idea for with ?
İ know we use (lA) suffix to express with too like to say
Ali'yle gittim .. as i went with Ali
But at same time,i know we can use (LI ) in the meaning of with too,right ?
Only depends on the best way to translat it
As in çantalı kadın... means here the woman with the bag
İf i am pointing to certain woman among others ,so it is better to say the woman with the bag
So here it can means with too ,right ?
|
|
| 11. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 03:59 pm |
|
I now why you are confused. I had written:
"There is a suffix that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü."
Now I have changed this into:
"There is a suffix in English that is almost the same as
-lı, -li, -lu, -lü."
On reply #7 and #8 bod and you are talking only about one suffix and you both said it means "with" and I disagreed.
Let's summerize:
"-le, -la " is shorter version of "ile" and means ". with 2. and
"-lı, -li, -lu, -lü" is a suffix that creates adjectives from nouns. It is smillar to "-y" in English.
salt > salty
tuz > tuzlu
|
|
| 12. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:05 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: Let's summerize:
"-le, -la " is shorter version of "ile" and means ". with 2. and
"-lı, -li, -lu, -lü" is a suffix that creates adjectives from nouns. It is smillar to "-y" in English.
salt > salty
tuz > tuzlu |
Thanks Erdinç - that makes more sense now.
My problem was that I wasn't seeing words with the -li suffix as being adjectives. Perhaps mainly because words formed with -siz are difficult to translate as adjectives in English. But that is just a difference in the way the languages are used :-S
şekerli kahve - sugary coffee
şekersiz kahve - sugarless coffee
|
|
| 13. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:35 pm |
|
Quoting bod:
şekerli kahve - sugary coffee
şekersiz kahve - sugarless coffee
|
Yes, this is a typical example to show the difference between languages. We in fact say sugary and sugarless.
Here is another example:
pahalı > expensive
This is a normal translation. Let me show you a literal translation:
pahalı > pricey
The word "paha" is almost omited from Turkish. It now only exists in sayings. "Paha biçilmez." It is interesting that sayings last longer than the words themselves.
|
|
| 14. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 04:42 pm |
|
Presumably "paha biçilmez" means "not cut price" or "full price"
|
|
| 15. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 09:36 pm |
|
It is the fifth meaning of biçmek in the dictionary that was used here.
|
|
| 16. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 09:43 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: It is the fifth meaning of biçmek in the dictionary that was used here. |
Then why doesn't the object take a noun state of either /a/ or /ı/??? Is it that the nomative state is valid for biçmek but it is not indicated in the dictionary?
Is this better?
paha biçilmez = priceless
|
|
| 17. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:14 pm |
|
It takes the case suffix but the verb should be "değer biçmek" or "fiyat biçmek".
-e değer biçmek
-e fiyat biçmek
I have no control over the dictionary. I haven't written or revised it.
|
|
| 18. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:23 pm |
|
Quoting erdinc: It takes the case suffix but the verb should be "değer biçmek" or "fiyat biçmek".
-e değer biçmek
-e fiyat biçmek |
Now I am really confused :-S
Wasn't it you Erdinç that mentioned paha biçilmez as an example of where pahalı is derived from. You seem to be saying above that you really should have written paha değer biçilmez or paha fiyat biçilmez.
Quoting erdinc: I have no control over the dictionary. I haven't written or revised it. |
I wasn't suggesting that you had control over the dictionary - or even that there is anything wrong with the dictionary. But I am really struggling with trying to understand noun states and verbs.
|
|
| 19. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:29 pm |
|
1. "-e değer biçmek" = to value, to set a value
2. "-e fiyat biçmek" = to value, to set a price
3. "-e paha biçmek" = to value, to set a value
Number 3 is omited from language. If you read my earlier messages you will also see that I said it was omited. So, if #3 is omited (except idioms) what do we have left? Simple. This is left:
1. "-e değer biçmek" = to value, to set a value
2. "-e fiyat biçmek" = to value, to set a price
This is exactly what I said one reply before.
|
|
| 20. |
31 Jul 2006 Mon 10:31 pm |
|
I said pahalı was derived from paha and paha is omited and so is "paha biçmek".
Paha=value, price >> omited (forget about it)
Paha biçmek = to value, to set price >> omited (forget about it)
If I had known that we are going to talk about words that have been omited then I would not mention them. The word paha and its verb version paha biçmek is omited because paha is replaced with fiyat and değer and its verb version is replaced as well.
Is it still confusing?
|
|
|
