"No, Duo was not here."
Translation:Hayır, Duo burada değildi.
But here, the location also happens to be the other side of the equation.
If you were to say: "Duo was not rich," which is like: Duo ≠ rich, you would say: "Duo zengin değildi."
Now replace "rich" with "here":
"Duo was not here" → Duo ≠ here: Duo burada değildi.
This is different from the usual sentences where the location is just some extra information, like: "Duo is reading his book here," which can be rendered as: "Burada, Duo kitabını okuyor." The location isn't the most crucial element of this sentence, so wherever you put it is going to be fine in this context. Does it make sense?
Yup. Well, it's the one where nothing is particularly stressed (maybe kitabını is). Depending on the situation, you can alter your word order. For example: "Duo kitabını burada okuyor," stresses the "burada". There you're saying: Duo is reading his book HERE - and not anywhere else.
If you're not über-stressing any particular word, just stick to the: "Subject + everything else + object + verb" type of syntax.
Not really. I'm almost tempted to say that we rarely put the verb at the end! Haha. I'm exaggerating of course, but it's quite common to not put it at the end. Of course in scientific papers, academic articles or legal texts, the verbs will almost always be at the end. But in literature, novels, stories etc, you can easily find all sorts of syntax. In spoken language, too, you have all the freedom obviously.
:) Thank you for answering!
I had to smile reading you 'rarely' put the verb at the end as DL normally tells so and I could see you were joking half way but I also understand now that DL is teaching us 'resmi bir dil' (<- without looking into my dictionary so we can see what amount you teach us). I guess this is an approriate approach to start learning a language.