Sağ ol, gokuyum. It was nice of you to look at them. What you corrected is all clear.

The lesson is in the form of statistics this time. As talk was about groups of people I felt there were plural markings everywhere in these sentences and felt like abandoning some of them. Still there were a couple of them missing from my translations.

The plural marking can be there for two reasons:

         1. because the owned are many

         2. because the owners are many.

In your sentence the owned are many, aren´t they? That´s why it is necessary to specify that it is more than one. But when we refer to the lacking owner (or the idea of a shirt) I guess number is not important and thus it is sg. I wish I could find a good example...

I mean  -  and scalpel knows better  -  sg is primary to pl in this function. Or maybe I should say number is not a very important factor. When it comes to inanimate things they are often referred to in sg, isn´t it? Plural lerlerler looks to me like a form which has been created on the basis of analogy on the desk of language planners (and purists) for the sake of clarity and completing the symmetry of the system.

I am talking about cases where there is a POSS in the noun but there is no actual owner around. If the owner is visible it´s another thing I suppose. These ownerless cases are so interesting.

I don´t think so.

lerlerler sentences, please correct me:

1. Some gladiators were freemen but most, like Spartacus, had been sold as slaves to a gladiator school. Bazı gladyatörler hür adamlardı, ama çokları Spartaküs gibi köle olarak gladiatör okuluna satılmıştılar.

2. When these men were not fighting they were locked up in the gladiator school to make sure they did not escape. Bu adamlar mücadele etmiyorken kaçmayacaklarından emin olmak için gladyatör okulunda hapse atıldılar.

3. One day, in 73 BCE, Spartacus did just that  -  he escaped. Spartaküs’ün bir gün M.Ö. 73’te yaptığı buydu  - o kaçtı.
 
4. Rome sent an army of 3000 soldiers to capture the runaway slaves but Spartacus attacked from the rear and defeated the Roman army. Roma, kaçan köleleri ele geçirmek için 3000 askerli bir ordu götürdü, ama Spartaküs arkadan hücum ederek Roma ordusunu yendi.
   
5. After Spartacus and his men had defeated the Roman army, many slaves ran away to join him. Birçok köle, adamlarıyla Roma ordusunu yendikten sonra Spartaküs’e katılmaya kaçtı.

6. Rome’s slaves believed if they could reach Spartacus, he would keep them safe. Roma köleleri, Spartaküs’e yetişebilirlerse onun kendileri koruyacağına inanıyordular.

7. In a very short amount of time, Spartacus and his followers had swelled from 70 to over 100 000 people. Yandaşlarla Spartaküs çok kısa zamanda 70’ten 100 000’den fazlasına kadar sayıca artmıştılar.

8. The Roman way of life for the wealthy was dependent upon slaves. Romalı zenginlerin yaşam biçimi kölelere bağlıydı.

9. The use of slave labor was one of the main reasons so many poor Roman citizens were out of work. Çok Roma’nın yoksul vatandaşın boşta olmasının nedenlerden birisi köle işçiliğin kullanılmasıdır.

10. Wealthy citizens could not allow this revolt to succeed if they wanted to keep their lifestyle. Zengin vatandaşlar, yaşam biçimlerini korumak isterdiyse bu başkaldırının başarmaya bırakamadılar.

11. Spartacus and his followers spent their first winter with plenty of good food that they stole from the surrounding countryside, preparing for battle. Yandaşları ile Spartaküs ilk kışını etraflarındaki kırdan çaldığı bol iyi yemeğin yardımıyla mücadeleye hazırlayarak geçirdiler.

12. The gladiators taught others how to fight like a gladiator. Gladyatörler diğerlerine gladyatör gibi mücadele etmeyi öğrettiler.

13. Spartacus and his followers were hunted for two years. Yandaşlarla Spartaküs iki yıldır avlanıyordular.

14. When Rome finally caught up with him them they killed Spartacus and everyone with him. Roma sonunda onu yakaladığında Spartaküs’ü ve yanındaki herkesini öldürdüler.

I admire the expressing power of 3rd sg POSS. Where does it refer actually? To the Platonic world of ideas. I´m not joking.

Thank you, scalpel.

But there seems to be no aorist (even though I expected it). In the present tense ise attaches straight to the stem but in the past there is -di- in the middle.

         çalış|tıy|sa da

         dile|se|n de.

Just like the past condition was more real than the present. Which is true when you come to think of it.

It means literally ´I became pleased´. olmak often denotes change of state. Look at this thread and the links given in it:

http://www.turkishclass.com/forumTitle_51841

A pro noun by definition is something that represents a noun, stands for it, takes its place.

What makes a pronoun in Turkish is often the third person possessive suffix. It attaches to adjectives and adverbs. Once POSS is added the word can be further declined. The use of POSS makes it possible to make pronouns out of many kinds of adjectives, not only those which we got used to in other languages.

         Öğrencilerin altısı sigara içmiyor. ‘Six (students) of the students don’t smoke.’
         Sarısını satın aldım. ‘I bought the yellow (shirt).’

What I am trying to say is maybe better than talking about Turkish pronouns we should talk about pronominal use of words. Or non-verbs which may have as well a) noun-like, b) adjectival or c) pronominal use.

         a) 4 büyükten en iyisi hangisi?
         b) Büyük oğlum 20 yaşında.
         c) Baba bunların büyüğüne para verdi.

         Gallia valisi onu durdurmaya çalıştıysa da, yenilgiye uğradı.
         Crassus köleleri kuşattıysa da, Spartaküs kuşatmayı yararak çekildi.

Another way to say ´even if´? Does it work in present tense also: aorist + -ise + de?

(Henry, I hope you don´t mind me using your thread, I hate to split things into small pieces.)