Language |
|
|
|
Use of the short infinitive
|
10. |
16 Sep 2007 Sun 07:36 am |
The "short" form seems to be developed from the "long" form as a result of phonetic changes.
-e/-i cases and possessive suffixes
gelmeğ-im > gelme-m
gelmeğ-e > gelme-y-e
gelmeğ-i > gelme-y-i
Today "long" form seems to be not used anymore so TDK decided that "short" form should be used.
For genitive, I think it was also similar development for Istanbul Turkish:
gelmeğ-in > gelme-n-in
But take this example:
Kumuk Turkish - İstanbul Turkish
ALLAHU TAALAĞA İNANMAQNI BAYANI - ALLAHU TEALÂYA İNANMANIN BEYANI
As for your examples, I think it's about getting right which case should be used when.
- Bunu Türkçe yazmayı deniyorum.
And NOT (as I would have expected): Bunu Türkçe yazmak deniyorum.
-i case is required here. Nominative case is not used
- Sık sık olması gerekmiyor.
And NOT (as I would have expected): Sık sık olmak gerekmiyor.
Both form can be OK with different meanings:
(Bir şeyin) sık sık olması gerekmiyor.
Sık sık (orada) olmak gerekmiyor.
And there is a difference in the first and second example:
First one is the object of the verb (hence accusative). And the second one is the subject of the verb.
(Ben) bunu Türkçe yazmayı deniyorum. - (S)OV
Sık sık olması gerekmiyor. - SV
|
|
11. |
17 Sep 2007 Mon 11:46 am |
Maybe we can get on the same page about terminology and notice that nowhere did I refer to a "LONG infinitive" but rather the "FULL infinitive" and the short infinitive. I would be happy to use the Turkish terms for these two forms, but I don't know them.
Discussing this usage and reading up on it has been a big help to me, clearing up most of my confusion. Before learning this, I thought the /ı/,/a/, etc in dictionary entries just referred to noun objects of the verb.
As for Kumyk dialect, maybe I missed the point, but I will leave Daghestani dialects aside for the time being and just try to get my head around standard Turkish.
Thanks for pointing out the difference in the two examples I was asking about:
[(Ben) bunu Türkçe yazmayı deniyorum. - (S)OV
Sık sık olması gerekmiyor. - SV]
Now let me ask ANOTHER QUESTION about use of the full infinitive and the short infinitive. Look at these sentences:
(1) Yüzmeğe gittim. (full infinitive)
(2) Yüzmeye gittim. (short infinitive)
(3) Konuşmağa başladım. (full infinitive)
(4) Konuşmaya başladım. (short infinitive)
Is there a (yes, subtle) difference in meaning between (1)&(2) and between (3)&(4)?
Ronnie
|
|
12. |
17 Sep 2007 Mon 12:09 pm |
Quoting Malerwinkel: Maybe we can get on the same page about terminology and notice that nowhere did I refer to a "LONG infinitive" but rather the "FULL infinitive" and the short infinitive. I would be happy to use the Turkish terms for these two forms, but I don't know them.
Discussing this usage and reading up on it has been a big help to me, clearing up most of my confusion. Before learning this, I thought the /ı/,/a/, etc in dictionary entries just referred to noun objects of the verb.
As for Kumyk dialect, maybe I missed the point, but I will leave Daghestani dialects aside for the time being and just try to get my head around standard Turkish.
Thanks for pointing out the difference in the two examples I was asking about:
[(Ben) bunu Türkçe yazmayı deniyorum. - (S)OV
Sık sık olması gerekmiyor. - SV]
Now let me ask ANOTHER QUESTION about use of the full infinitive and the short infinitive. Look at these sentences:
(1) Yüzmeğe gittim. (full infinitive)
(2) Yüzmeye gittim. (short infinitive)
(3) Konuşmağa başladım. (full infinitive)
(4) Konuşmaya başladım. (short infinitive)
Is there a (yes, subtle) difference in meaning between (1)&(2) and between (3)&(4)?
Ronnie
|
My grammar book says "hafif mastar" (light infinitive) for short one. Anyway.
Your examples:
I see no difference between 1&2 and between 3&4 as a native spaeker. That's also the reason why TDK decided to use 2 and 4 forms only. 2&4 forms seem easy for pronounciation.
|
|
|