Talk:Turkish grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish grammar article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Turkish grammar:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Start

I started an article on Turkish grammar because there wasn't one. I am only a student of the language, informally; I don't speak much, but I read more, and I think I have a fair scholarly understanding of the language. Some notes that I have prepared during my studies are on my webpage; I shall draw on them (and my primary sources), as I have time, to continue this article.
David Pierce 13:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work!

Thank you. I have now done most of what I wanted to do. Some remaining possibilities:

  • The section on "Adverbs from verbs" could be more complete and systematic.
  • A new article called "Turkish vocabulary" might be created. This could contain the discussion, now in the present article, of the "structural suffixes". It could also contain the long list of synonyms on the discussion page of the Turkish language article.
  • Replace or supplement all made-up examples with real quotations. (I have made a start at this.)
  • Say something about word-order. Its strangeness to English-speakers is now only implicit in some of the quotations.
  • Say more about compound verbs and conditional sentences.

In the references, I referred to the Turkish Language Society. This is how Lewis translates Türk Dil Kurumu. Somebody changed my society to foundation for reasons unexplained; I should have thought that foundation would suggest the Turkish vakıf rather than kurum.
David Pierce 08:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I am trying to create the article on Turkish vocabulary. The beginnings of two new articles are on my user page [now obsolete---David Pierce 11:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)]:

But I haven't got the distinction between these clearly worked out. I should like to transfer enough information from the grammar to the vocabulary article to get the former down below the suggested 32KB. This does not seem possible, so perhaps the grammar article can be broken up further, possibly in a way corresponding to the noun/verb distinction.
David Pierce 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I have spun off an article on Turkish vocabulary as planned; but since I have also added to Turkish grammar, it is no shorter than before. Most of its longer examples involve participles and verbal nouns; so I am considering whether to move those to a new article called, perhaps, Turkish verbals.
David Pierce 11:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I read this page, because I have been chatting online with someone from Turkey. I want to have a better idea about how her language works so that I can help with her English better. This page is well written, but it stays in a jargon mode most of the time. What do people think of a page such as this one explaining its concepts more so that the average person can follow them better?

Before starting new pages, I recommend studying how some other language pages have been written and organized.

[edit] Grammar is so regular

Everything is so regular. Exept.one.thing, "ben" turns in. "bana"; seni --> sana... Why?

-Ben means "I", bana means "to me". The same applies for sen -> sana.

I think he asked why "ben" doesn't turn into "bene" and "sen" doesn't turn into "sene" what I also don't know.


-This is probably due to dominance of "ona". It had been used much more frequently than "sene" and "bene" since it's the third person pronoun and corresponds to all genders (he, she, it). In time, it may have forced "sene" and "bene" to sound closer to it. (Tylose 19:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Noun plural weirdness

Any Turkish guys here?? This sounds so terribly wrong to me: Turkish_grammar#Inflexion PLURAL: I know it so far that 'a'-words like 'kitap' - (book) take the -lar, and 'e' words like 'kelime' (word) take the -ler. I've googled around a little and found this: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/21400935/ Current WP article only refers to -ler being the "only possible" plural ending and that -lar means something as "some ... ". In fact, a saz (an instrument) will ALWAYS be pluralized "sazlar", no matter if it is supposed to mean "some ... " or not. Who put this crap in the article? -andy 80.129.96.136 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC) -ler/-lar are the plural suffixes for turkish. And -ler or -lar is used according to vowel harmony of the stem. As in your examples, saz-lar means, more than one saz, and kelime-ler means, more than one kelime. You don't need [some] for every plural. (actually some has a specific word for it, and its 'bazı'). Btw, there's nothing called 'a' word or 'e' word, but (ince sesliler - thin vowels (eiüö) and kalın sesliler - thick vowels (aıou)) so the -ler/-lar suffixes are added looking the vowel type of the previous spell. ie. okul-lar, süpürge-ler, çoçuk-lar, kitap-lar.. (I hope this clarifies things a bit)

[edit] "Helping verbs"

I have changed "helping verbs" to auxiliary verbs. Though I do not know much about turkish language, probably this is a more exact translation, following english language linguistics terminology.--Michkalas 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better than "helping verb", if only because the the article auxiliary verb can be linked to (and because the article had already used the term earlier). But the terminology suggests that Turkish verbs like "et-", "ol-" etc. work in conjunction with a main verb. They work with verbal nouns from Arabic, but not Turkish verbal nouns. Suffixed verbs like "bil-", "ver-" etc. are a bit more like auxiliary verbs in the English sense.
I think the section needs to be broken up and distributed appropriately. It is called "auxiliary verbs", but is a subsection of "nouns". Verbs like "et-" can be discussed further up, where "et-" was already mentioned, under "verbal nouns"; and "ver-" etc. can be discussed where "bil-" already was, under "Negation and potential in verb-stems."
David Pierce 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verbs out of nouns

"Many verbs are formed from nouns by addition of -le: Köpekle-" this, without any mention of other such suffixes, makes one think "-le" is the only method with which verbs can be made out of nouns. In fact there are others like "-leştir" (köpekleştir-), "-sizleştir" (köpeksizleştir-), etc. I am no linguist, only a native speaker so I won't "touch" this article in case I am making a mistake but I'd be glad if a more knowledgeable person considers it. 85.96.26.37 20:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are quoting from the section called "Parts of speech". The section is not meant as a complete account of how complex words are derived from simple ones. Do you think this point is not clear? The suffix -le is mentioned again near the beginning of the section "Verbs". Presently it is pointed out that "A verbal root, or a verb-stem in -le, can be lengthened with certain extensions." This accounts for -leş, -leştir, and so forth. There are other ways to make verbs from nouns, but they are not so common as these, and the article is already too long.
David Pierce 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anchor Links

Is it Wikipedia style to include the # in anchor links?

Good question. I couldn't get a straight answer from the Help desk. I personally don't like the look of the hash, so tend to suppress it on aesthetic grounds; but it does have the advantage of making it clear that you're not linking to a different article.
One thing is clear: you should suppress the hash when you are linking to another article. In fact one of the Help pages describes just such a link as "stylish". --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future tense in verbs

Does Turkish have a future tense? The reason I ask is that I met a Turkish girl once and her English was pretty damn good, but whenever she would speak about stuff in the future, she used the present tense. Thanks.Cameron Nedland 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

- Of course it has! (Tylose 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Participles

In the subsection on Past participles, you should make it clear that -diği forms may equally well refer to the present. Cf your example:

Yaşamın bittiği yer'de hayat: "Life in the place where life ended." More probably " ... where life ends" ( ... funerals taking place every day!).

Other typical examples with a present meaning would include sentences like:

  • Herkes olduğu yerde kalsın "[Let] everyone stay [in the place] where they are."

Congratulations on an interesting article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Lewis, to whose Turkish Grammar you refer in the article, points out this ambiguity of tenses in his section on the "personal participle". The context usually makes the meaning clear; & he shows how the distinction can be made if necessary:
Dün yaptığım ve bugün yapmakta olduğum işler
(" ... which I did yesterday & am doing today").
In my old (1967) edition of his Grammar he has some nice examples, such as:
Beatles'lerin her yaptığı İngiltere'de moda oluyor.
("Everything the Beatles do ...", not "did".) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited in line with your comments; but since you have Lewis to refer to, you could have done the editing as authoritatively as I! David Pierce 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm still a little reluctant to do so when an article is clearly one person's brainchild. I guess I haven't quite got the WikiMentality yet! For the time being, I prefer to bring these things up on the Talk page—unless it's something pretty minor.

I left a message on the Talk page of one article (Gwoyeu Romatzyh, if you're interested in Chinese), but got no answer for a couple [of] weeks, so went ahead & made a pretty thorough revision of the whole thing.

I've changed "sometimes with present meaning" to "Past/present", because it is just as likely to be one as the other. Eg okuduğum bir kitap really means, to use one of Lewis' phrases, "a book characterized-by-my-reading", leaving the tense to be determined by the context. "A book of my reading", perhaps, to stretch English grammar a bit.

BTW The book that I read was a pretty crafty example in the present case! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -ki suffix

One other minor thing that caught my eye. Under Pronouns you write:

"There is a suffix -ki, usually not enclitic, acts as a relative pronoun in that it creates what, in English, would be called relative clauses."
  1. (There's a typo somewhere: "which" missing?)
  2. That "usually" is a bit of a tease! I presume you're referring to the vowel harmony after ö/ü, as in dünkü ("yesterday's"), are you? If so, I think you should spell it out—or perhaps relegate it to a footnote.

--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I was just worried that, if every detail were clarified, the article would grow to the length of Lewis's grammar. But the example of dünkü, now supplied, is perhaps useful. David Pierce 07:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)