Brightcecilia Monde de la Musique

[Çiğdem Kızılkaya]

Root of Plural Word Suffix Mathematical Expression
Ev 1.0 (House)
Ev -ler 1.1 (Houses)
-ler 0.1 (plural suffix)

Let's assume that all of the words in Turkish consist of two bits (in the following examples, number of the bits will increase). All singular words are represented as 1.0 (i.e., only the root of the word exists), and all plural words are represented as 1.1 (i.e., both root and plural suffix exist). In addition to the fact that this rule never changes, it is so powerful that you can even say plural of a non-existing word (i.e., 0.1), which you can't do in another language. When a person says only "-ler" to another in Turkish, the answer would be something like "OK, I understand '-ler', but what '-ler'?" It is obvious that something plural is being said, but it isn't clear what word.

EMPHASIS ADJECTIVE ROOT DE-EMPHASIS MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION
kirmizi 0.1.0 (red)
kip kirmizi 1.1.0 (very red)
kirmizi msi 0.1.1 (reddish)
kip kirmizi msi 1.1.1 (very reddish)


The rule, which helps emphasize or de-emphasize the meaning of the
adjectives, also never changes in Turkish. Furthermore, you can generate both emphasized and de-emphasized odd adjectives that complies with this rule, but don't exist in the dictionary. For instance, "Günes dogma[z]dan[sic] önce ufuk kipkirmizimsi (kip+kirmizi+msi [1.1.1]) bir renk aldi (The horizon changed to a very reddish color before the sunrise)."
Everybody will understand what that adjective means, because this
adjective-generated-on-the-go complies with this rule thateverybody knows very well although it doesn't exist in the dictionary.

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Çiğdem Kızılkaya

Rules are so certain and powerful that it is almost hard to believe that inventors of Turkish are Turks.

While the rules of English are so ridiculous they could only have been invented by the English (and mucked about with by Americans). I'd love to see a Turkish forum here....

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Çiğdem Kızılkaya

However, for example, in English, "do" becomes "did" whereas "go" changes to "went." It is the same for the plural suffixes: "foot" becomes "feet", "boot" changes to "boots" not to "beet." There is no
logic or rule behind this; you have to memorize them.

To the foreign learner (and most modern first-language speakers) of English I'd agree, there is no obvious "logic or rule behind" the apparently arbitrary variation of "foot" and "boot" with regard to their plural forms (or, indeed, their pronunciation in most of the English-speaking world).

Actually, the reason is this: "foot" is a very common word of Anglo-Saxon (i.e. Germanic) descent, and forms its plural in one of the classically Germanic ways - by the mutation of the medial vowel sound. (Other examples are "man"/"men", "goose"/"geese", "tooth"/"teeth".) Such a common, everyday word has resisted regularisation into the now more common plural form with "-s" (which did exist in Anglo-Saxon times along with other methods of forming the plural). "Boot", however, is a word that did not exist in Anglo-Saxon times, being Norman French in origin (and cognate with the modern French "botte"). Such foreign loan words generally form their plurals regularly (except for such doubtful examples as "fora", "hippopotami", etc.), i.e. with "-s".

"Go" and "went" are grammatically anomalous, since "went", while now serving as the preterite of "to go", is really (historically) the preterite of the verb "to wend" (although modern English would render this as "wended").

[maureen]

i wended my way through that thread and my interest to learn several languages has become mucho more murky
how ever will i mange with my american propensity towards mucking aboot?

[Chilperich]

If you can find a (reasonably priced) secondhand copy on Amazon or (in the UK) eBay, Frederick Bodmer's The Loom Of Language is to be recommended (for European languages). (There are many, more or less adequate, basic courses in specific languages, of which Michel Thomas's (where relevant) are among the best.)

Otherwise, Anthony Burgess's A Mouthful Of Air is a fair alternative.

If you want to learn a foreign language properly there are two basic requirements:

1) You learn the grammar and vocabulary in a traditional fashion (i.e. by rote and exercises, not through intelligence-insulting role-plays and the like);

2) You spend some time in the country where the language is spoken, and speak it.

[Taneyev]

Alguien entiende el castellano? (I speak that lenguage, which is one of the "Spanish", that means talked in Spain.)

[Philidor]

What other Spanish speakers are here?

[lirica]

Yo entiendo el castellano bien, pero hay problema de gramatica cuando escribo.

[Taneyev]

Originally Posted by lirica

Yo entiendo el castellano bien, pero hay problema de gramatica cuando escribo.

Me ocurre algo similar con inglés. Permíteme una pequeña corrección: No "hay problema", sino "tengo problemas"

[lirica]

Originally Posted by Taneyev

Me ocurre algo similar con inglés. Permíteme una pequeña corrección: No "hay problema", sino "tengo problemas"

Le permito esa pequeña corrección. Si - tengo problemas, espero que esos problemas - pasajeros, por que amo mucho la poesia española y leo cada dia algo en castellano.