Yes. babaları is ambiguous. Funny that you realized it in a real situation. LAR here can mean that

- the owners are many

- the owned are many OR

- both the owners and the owned are many (because you cannot attach two LAR´s in the same word).

Another reason for ambiguity is the similarity in appearance between forms with 2nd person possessive suffix and with the pronominal -n- which is added between the 3rd person (sg and pl) possessive suffix and the case marking:

                   evinde > ev + i + n + de ´in his house´

                   evinde > ev + in + de ´in your house´

So, how many possible meanings does evlerinde have?

Kum gibi

Martılar ağlardı çöplüklerde  -
biz seninle gülüşürdük.
Şehirlere bombalar yağardı her gece   -
biz durmadan sevişirdik.

Seagulls used to cry in the dumps  -

we laughed with each other.

It used to rain bombs every night  -

we made love continuously.

****************

Acımasız olma şimdi bu kadar.
Dün gibi dün gibi çekip gitme.
Bırak da sarılayım ayaklarına.

Kum gibi kum gibi ezip geçme.

Don’t be so merciless now.

Don’t walk away like yesterday.

Come on let me hug your feet.

Don’t sweep away like sand.

****************

Acımasız olma şimdi bu kadar.
Dün gibi dün gibi çekip gitme.
Bırak da dolanayım ayaklarına.
Kum gibi kum gibi ezip geçme.

Don’t be so merciless now.

Don’t walk away like yesterday.

Come on let me wrap around your feet.

Do not sweep away like sand.

******************

Sonbahar damlardı damlarımıza  -
biz seninle sararırdık.
Aydınlansın diye şu kirli yüzler  -
biz durmadan şavaşırdık.

Autumn added raindrops to our tears  -

we turned pale.

In order to prevent those dirty faces from being lightened

we used to fight continuously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k18qloSRtgA

It is not about supporting Mursi or supporting not-Mursi. You miss the point sir.

Can it be this simple?

You get five eggs for five piasters, so how many piasters do five eggs cost?

Then it should be beş but maybe I missed something. What do others say?

Everybody says this and I became curious. Do you have any details about the violations? This is not a sarcastic question, I noticed I know very little myself.

Let´s discuss Copts. They like it when they are discussed and seen as victims. It belongs to the story they want to be a part of. They are being paid for it. I read this article:

                   http://www.merip.org/mer/mer267/copts-under-mursi

It clearly describes that Christians have felt more threatened during Mursi era and the number of sectarian attacks has increased. The Copts were not pleased with the way Mursi reacted to these events. True. A couple of things should be taken into account, though:

1. The fall of Mubarak definitely caused security problems. Outlaw gangs took control of the streets in many suburbs. Every one regardless of religion felt a little bit less confident.

2. Those extremist groups of Muslims and Copts who were silenced with cold iron before suddenly got their voice heard and it created tension between groups of people.

Maybe it was not intentional. The Freedom and Justice Party simply could have had a bad governance which is not very surprising for a quasi-underground opposition movement who overnight finds itself in state power.

What people fail to remember during these dramatic changes is that Muslims and Copts always lived side by side in Egypt, tolerated each other and found their ways. And they will probably continue to do so. The Egyptians as an ancient nation are very civilized in these things and actually very hard to provocate.

I would like to know if there was something in the new constitution which could have irritated the Copts. (Haha I bet it is about money.) I will not ask you AlphaF. I will ask my son. ♥

Ahmet Kaya, Saza niye gelmedin

What I have is more like an impression and a feeling that Ikhwan has been unjustly demonized in the Western media. This serves both the anti-Islamic interests of the West (look, they are having a difficulty in calling the coup a coup) and the old autocratic rulers of the Middle East. In Egypt, Ikhwan traditionally represents democracy on the grass-root level. It has given a voice to millions of oppressed people. Among ordinary street men Ikhwan was mainly a charity organization which has established hospitals and social welfare centers as well as helped people to deal with the corrupted authorities in order to get their rights. All this began long before they had any chance to act as an official political force.

Muslim Brotherhood had an orphanage in the same house where I used to live in Cairo. To take a child from the street and to give him a home and education is one of the biggest good deeds I can imagine. I have also written about my experience of the Egyptian believers in another thread here:

http://www.turkishclass.com/forumTitle_53127, post 10

The support of the Ikhwan has not come from out of nowhere. They did not distribute rice and corn oil to the poor in the streets just in order just to win the election  -  they had been doing the same for 80 years. Ikhwan was a forbidden political party in Mubarak’s Egypt and its members suffered harsh treatment by the despotic police force. At times the members were arrested in big numbers. Ikhwan were represented in politics and the judicial system but officially only as individuals.

I am not sure if it is the ideal situation that a religious party rules any country. Probably not. Mohamed Mursi at least was not able or did not want to unite the whole people. Instead, like your Erdogan he was content with the support of his own voters which is not stateman-like behaviour. This is when the army saw its chance. Don’t tell me Abdelfatah al-Sisi is any more interested in democracy or human rights. What interests the army is the army.

What we can’t understand is what a deeply religious country Egypt still is. It is impossible to think of the future of Egypt without a strong influence of the Muslim Brotherhood which in its political agenda is not as strict or scary as militant Islamists. In Egypt, until today the strongest weapon against ignorance, corruption and abuse is religion whether we like it or not. Maybe the influence of Ikhwan will weaken in the future as societies modernise and global influence reaches the slums and outlying villages of the Nile valley but until then it is very annoying that the army tells who is admissible to be chosen the leader of Egypt and who is not.

First I thought I wouldn´t find anything until I learned how to search:

http://www.nilda.com.tr/urun/gecti-gitti-hayykitap-marjolijn-hof_181864

http://www.idefix.com/kitap/calgili-bahce-simon-vestdijk/tanim.asp?sid=R542Q3L3UB5BK53HDVTP

http://www.idefix.com/kitap/sadik-yemni/urun_liste.asp?kid=2514

http://www.idefix.com/kitap/cami-evi-kader-abdolah/tanim.asp?sid=DS26XZIEYE0ETYGTBTQS

http://www.kitapyurdu.eu/arama/default.asp?anahtar=Mulisch&ara.x=0&ara.y=0&stype=4&type=list&populer=0&aramasekli=1&exactly=ON&satis=2&x2=0

http://www.kitapyurdu.eu/arama/default.asp?anahtar=Julia+Quinn&ara.x=0&ara.y=0&stype=4&type=list&populer=0&aramasekli=1&exactly=ON&satis=2&x2=0

http://www.kitapyurdu.eu/arama/default.asp?anahtar=Simon+Kuper&ara.x=0&ara.y=0&stype=4&type=list&populer=0&aramasekli=1&exactly=ON&satis=2&x2=0

http://www.kitapyurdu.eu/kitap/462139/avrupada-yirminci-yuzyil-boyunca-seyahatler.htm?&sa=50157850

Yes those other things is exactly what Muslim Brotherhood represented in Egypt because they had no voice in the political arena. And that is why they won the first free elections. It was the natural course of events.

I am very sad and bitter about this. The Egyptians did vote for this man. For the first time ever. They organized a campaign, they queued to the polls. The Muslim Brotherhood won it because they had the history, they had the skills and contacts, they were organized. Even if they had been banned from politics for decades they still always acted as a positive force in the society. For instance, when the corrupted administration did not give people what they need the Brotherhood often did.

If you say you support democracy you should also accept what it brings.

There is no greater power in Egypt than the army. They get the U.S. dollars, they control 40 per cent of businesses. They support Tamarod for their own reasons. During Mursi Egypt has received support from IMF which demands the country to possess of its economical structures and this was written to the new constitution. No one knows the budget of the army and the generals want it that way.

There is no greater power in Egypt than the army and there will never be. The demonstrators made this possible. Hosni must be so pleased to see this day. 

Go to Ramses Square and look around: things could not be very much worse in the overcrowded city. It is an emergency and a human disaster. Instead of organizing parties in the Tahrir with flags and fireworks  people should go and do their work better. Each one of them.

May Allah protect Egypt.