Talk:Turkish grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Start 

message: 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.
-in Turkish (Istanbul dialect):
      1. "me" is "ben" & "to me"  is  "bana"
      2. "you" is "sen" & "to you" is "sana"
but in Azerbaijan Turkish (Turkish which is spoken in Azerbaijan) it is like this:
      1. "me" is "men" & "to me"  is  "mene"
      2. "you" is "sen" & "to you" is "sene"
-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)
thread_title: Grammar is so regular

message: 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)
thread_title: Noun plural weirdness

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anchor Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: So right, like Tylose was saying, Turkish's future tense marker is -ecek(/-acak), which takes the non-past copula -im,-sin,-tir (or bare),-iz,-siniz,-lar (or bare). Thus, we have etmek -> edeceğim, edeceksin, edecek(tir), edeceğiz, edeceksiniz, edecek(tir)(ler). Dextrose (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future tense in verbs 

message: 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."
#(There's a typo somewhere: "which" missing?)
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  -ki suffix 

message: I happen to own a Redhouse Turkish-English Büyük Elsözlüğü (big hand-dictionary, thus I assume abridged, but nonetheless Redhouse), and happen to have looked up many a-verb by its infinitive.  Not exactly a citation needed -moment, but it does seem we have a conflict between reality and the internet here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dextrose (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redhouse dictionary and verb convention 

message: I don't see a proper list here, just some examples in the first person.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're listed in Turkish grammar#Inflexional suffixes. CapnPrep (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal endings of the verb 

message: Turkish has many ways to make nouns out of verbs, but fewer for the other way. Fewer, still, more than one. The article only gives "-le" with the funny example of "köpeklemek". What about "köpekleşmek" - which makes more sense - "to become like a dog"? Or "köpeksemek" - "to feel that something is similar to a dog"? 213.211.19.142 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun to verb

message: The idea of listing the suffixes separately from the things they express (verb person and tense, noun possession and case) is not a good one. This is the second time I'm trying to do a quick check regarding some feature of Turkish grammar and I lose a lot of time trying to find where in this article the information is. Most wiki articles show the morphological expression of a category X in the section titled "category X", and this is where people look for it. But in this article, information about morphological expression is listed in the section "inflectional suffixes", and in the sections "category X" we get general talk about the use of the category and suchlike. Uniformity across articles is a Good Thing.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoveniently organized 

message: Is there any reason why the first sentence of the article is included??  "Turkish grammar is the grammar of the Turkish language."  That is not only obvious and clarifying the unambiguous, but it is telling and not showing.  That would be a definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopedia.  I'm deleting it.  If someone disagrees, please present information about how it is not against Wikipedia rules to  include such information. 
Also, how has it come to be that there is no section on Vowel Harmony?  It's not an obscure phenomenon in Turkish, but rather something Turkish is often cited when talking about Vowel Harmony.  I'll add something later when I have the time if it's still not there. cullen (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already covered at Turkish phonology#Vowel harmony. CapnPrep (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Substituted at 09:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: "Turkish uses second-person pronouns that distinguish varying levels of politeness, social distance, age, courtesy or familiarity toward the addressee." Is this true? The pronouns section only mentions the six basic personal pronouns. Auximines (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  second-person pronouns 

message: This seems a fascinating article. But I am in doubt about the lead. Are these two things, that it is an agglutinative language and that it has vowel harmony, the main things you can say when summing up the characteristics of Turkish grammar? Surely there are other things which make Turkish grammar different from the grammars of other well-known languages, such as English, Spanish, French, Swahili, and Japanese? How about, for example, the fact that it has six cases, rather like Latin, numerous participles, the verb at the end of the sentence, a variety of tenses, active and passive verbs and so on? Even the very regularity of the verbs is different from French, Spanish, and German. I think the lead could afford to be a bit longer in other words and sum up what makes Turkish interesting and attractive to study. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: In the section on Turkish terminology there is a comment, namely "(notably Turkish has no prefixes)"- which is factually incorrect. While there may be no prefixes of Turkish origin, there are some loan prefixes that have become part of current Turkish usage- for example the prefix anti- (antidemokratik) or the prefix bi- (bihaber).Umbereenbmirza (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading comment in Turkish Terminology section 

message: are there any reliable, mainstream grammars of Turkish that list -siz and the others as "pseudo-cases"? In all the grammars I've seen, there are many nominal suffixes which are not considered case-endings. After all, -siz does not mark the grammatical role — indeed, it can be combined with a case ending as in evsize 'to the homeless person' — and it forms a denominal adjective which can be used predicatively: bu adam evsiz 'this person is homeless'. --Macrakis (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing all but -ile. There does seem to be some scholarly support for treating -ile as a case, which we should add to the article. On the other hand, the Wikibooks article is far from a WP:RS. --Macrakis (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm happy to help; just seeing linguistic patterns and wondering whether they're grammatical.  TheWhistleGag (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to start with a personal observation, but you need to find a reliable source for it.... (cf. WP:OR) --Macrakis (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Thanks. I've done this when editing other astronomical articles. TheWhistleGag (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudo-cases