If you read my post, alameda, you would find consultation hidden there.

What bothers me in these discussions is placing Islam and democracy into the same sentence. Democracy is not the Islamic form of government. Mashura is. The simplified meaning of mashura is

         - everyone says his opinion

         - the learned leader (amir) decides.

As democracy is a very strong plus word in all cultures no one in his right mind could ever imagine speaking against it. It would be a political suicide even though in many countries with long tradition of democracy big decisions are often made by a small group of people. But if you want to build a democratic country it is necessarily a secular one.

As kişilik also means ´individual´, it might be possible to persuade the meaning into

         Two tables for the price of one

Let´s confuse the questioner properly.

A table for two for the prize of a table for one.

(A learner´s guess. What is a table for one anyway?)

Burada geçen hafta değildim.

Aaa, I got it now (some things just need to be bent for me from iron wire).

That´s what I paid attention to. But it sounded colloquial to me, that´s why I wanted to make sure. There are many practical solutions in Turkish syntax which are against my pedant nature. Clear. Thank you.

- Just for interest, what about anlatıyor olacağım masal, is it bad, too?

- oymuş, is it a verb form of olmak? Never heard of something like this. It seems that I have missed something.

It’s usual in Turkish not to repeat the 3rd person subject if it is the same in consecutive sentences:

Barış bey öğle yemeğini okulda yiyor. Evine saat 18´de geliyor. Evde hiç bir şey yapmıyor. Çünkü çok yorgundur. Yalnız gazete okuyor, radyo dinliyor.

In imperative sentences of course the subject is not visible (you can only see it from the form of the predicate). But typically the direct object, if there is one, is. It often takes the initiative place in the sentence just like the subject normally does. Can it be omitted the same way as the subject of indicative sentences? Sometimes it even seems that it is the logical object that is referred to and you don´t necessary find it written anywhere at least as a direct object.

Food recipes are a typical context for imperative clauses and omitted objects, but can you widen this use into other contexts or is it simplified language?

Elmayı küp küp doğradıktan sonra hamura ekleyip son kez karıştırın. (Elma is the object and it shows.) Önceden yağlanmış bir kek kalıbına dökün. (Hamur is the object, does not show.)  170 derece fırında, yaklaşık 20-25 dakika, üstü kızarıncaya kadar pişirin. (Kek is the object, does not show.)

The motto of this week is “A native speaker can never imagine how many things there are for a learner to take into account before a proper Turkish sentence is done.” But it’s an enjoyable puzzle.

The corrections and improvements are mostly clear. Many of them I had thought of before making up my mind. A couple of notes only:

1. What is this? Geniş krallığımdaki en iyi şey olmuş oymuş” dedi.

2. “Japonya’nın imparatorun bülbülü Çin’inkiden daha kötüdür Çin imparatorununkiden daha zavallıdır” Can’t one ki stand for both imparator and bülbül?

3. taklit bir kuş imparatorun yatağının yakınına yakınındaki ipekli bir yastığa koyuldu/kondu. This seems clear to me: if there are two modifiers of place for one predicate, it’s good to change one of them into adjective attribute with –ki.

4. When the future form of a verb is a part of an idiom like for instance in

can’t it as such be used as a participle?