So many unisex names. I can hardly think of any in my mother tongue (even though we don´t have grammatical gender either  -  if these things can be connected, maybe not). Just like there is a deeper meaning in this. Who knows?

---

I came out with one explanation. In Finland they are forbidden. A person´s name must have a male or female flavor.

And who do you think is going to translate all this?

You explained gidedurmak, thank you. What I can´t really understand is gidivermek...

In Cairo, try Ministry of Defence Language Institute, Kubri el-Qubbah.

My Try:

Sometimes you just miss excessively.

No, your interpretation was great.

And so is the song. Just not for me.

Oh no. I wish I didn´t watch it.

So nice we people have different opinions.

It looks very nice to me but wait for a native opinion.

The verbs in this lyrics could be divided into two groups: simple past and subjunctive forms. In addition, there is one imperative in the refrain. And yes, one aorist also.

Subjunctive is the mood of envisaging. You have it in English also even though I think it is dying. In Turkish it is a living thing even though it has partly melted together with imperative. The subjunctive marker is -e-/-a- and it has a set of personal endings of its own. Anyway, the person paradigm looks like this:

                        (ben) geç|e|yim

                        (sen) geç|e|sin

                        (o) geç|e *)

                        (biz) geç|e|lim

                        (siz) geç|e|siniz

                        (onlar) geç|e|ler

*) In contemporary language sg 3rd is usually replaced with imperative (geçsin) as you see in the lyrics also.

You see 1st person subjunctives a lot, and also (the imperative looking) 3rd person singulars which often sound funny to me for some reason.

I wonder if it was any use for you, trip. But I was writing to myself as well.

P.S. It happened to me again. I think the language is not very complicated but I cannot catch the idea of the song at all. We all have our limits.

Perhaps I am terribly ignorant what comes to computer linguistics but I find it hard to understand how a computer program could be taught to understand such niceties of human language like moving flexibly from one stage of abstraction to another or the level of lexicalization of a certain queue of words.

I also ask why. Bilingual and learned people were always in the heart of cultural contacts. Translating means more than recoding linguistic entities from one language to another. It widens our chances of communication and as communication is one of the things that makes our life meaningful I wonder why human touch should be minimized in it.

Of course it would be nice if routine texts could be translated just like that but don´t you think qualified translators have always used their previous experience to save their efforts?

Translating like all humanistic work is undervalued. Look at job advertisements: fluency in two or three languages is mentioned in a subclause just like it could be acchieved easily. Those people do not know what fluency means.

Maybe nemanjasrb means monopersonal structures like

                               Gitmem lazım/gerekiyor

where the obliged person is marked with a possessive suffix and the grammatical predicate is always sg 3rd.

Maybe.