Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Is Turkish a new language?
Message-ID: <D4M732.89n@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <1995Feb16.012953.15511@Princeton.EDU> <D4Hr7t.MC9@midway.uchicago.edu> <3il14u$ll7@sarasvati.umiacs.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 15:59:24 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <3il14u$ll7@sarasvati.umiacs.umd.edu> jenk@umiacs.umd.edu (Suleyman Cenk Sahinalp) writes:
>[...] the real problem for a foreigner
>in learning Turkish seems to be the locations of suffixes, especially
>in verbs. A very popular example demostrating this fact is:
>   "Evcillestiremediklerimizden misiniz?" 
>which is a one word sentence meaning:
>   "Are you one of many, whom we couldn't domesticate?"
             ***
Why `one'?

>Starting from the simple word "ev" which means home/house, this word
>can be constucted with a number of suffixes having the following uses: 
>"cil": means "liking" - kind of -

It usually doesn't, so the word _evcil_ `domestic' is better learnt as
a whole.  You wouldn't be able to generate or analyse it on the fly if
you didn't know it already.

>"tir": active to passive converter

Causative marker.  (That's the opposite to an active to passive converter.)

>"dik": object - first plural
>"imiz": verb to noun converter

You've managed to get these two backwards.  _-dik_ is the nominaliser
and _-(i)miz_ the first person plural possessive marker.

>"ler": plural suffix standing for "many" 

More precisely, for `two or more', not necessarily `many'.

>"den": means "one of"

Or `several of'.  Ablative marker, as it's usually called.

>"sin": subject - second singular
>"iz": plural suffix

It's probably better to treat _siniz_ as a single morpheme.
A more literal translation would be `Are you of our indomesticables?',
though the meaning isn't quite the same.

>Turkish seem to be a no nonsense language. Once you get familiar with a 
>handful of rules you're done. In this respect, it shouldn't be too hard to 
>learn compared to many others from the Semitic group or South-east
>Asian languages, but it just has a different way of thinking. 

 `Amalgamating [inflecting --ID] languages have many derivatives
  arbitrarily chosen by custom in situations connected by no common
  thread of meaning, and many different ways of forming the derivative
  appropriate to a single context in accordance with meaning or
  conventional usage.  The table manners of an agglutinating language
  are unassuming.  You use a spoon because a spoon is the tool appropriate
  for soup, and there is no difficulty about recogni[s]ing what a spoon
  is, because all the spoons are produced according to a standard pattern.
  The table manners of an amalgamating language are largely moulded by
  a code of gentlemanly uselessness.  You have a large assortment of
  tools before you.  Whether you use a fork with or without a knife
  or a spoon depends on conventions of social class without regard
  to the texture of the food.'  --Frederick Bodmer, _The Loom of Language_

-- 
`I'm sendin a flood tae pit an end tae it aw.  But dinny worry yersel, Noah.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
