1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Turkish
  4. >
  5. "If you burned the newspaper,…

"If you burned the newspaper, it would be impossible for you to read it from now on."

Translation:Gazeteyi yaktıysan artık onu okuman imkansız.

February 7, 2016



what is the differnce between yakmak and yanmak


yakmak = to make something burn (active) yanmak = to burn (passive)


I don't think that yanmak is passive. Both verbs are active, but yakmak is transitive, where the subject is the person/substance burning/igniting something else (which is the direct object), and yanmak is intransitive, where the subject is the thing burning (and there is no object).

The passive form of yakmak would be yakılmak - to be burned by something - still a transitive verb.


Yapmak = to make Not yakmak*


I)Gazeteyi / yaksaydın/ bundan böyle /onu okuman/ senin için/ imkansız /olurdu (newspaper)/ (burn part) /(from now on) /(reading it part)/(for you) (impossible) / (would be part)

II)Eğer gazeteyi yaksaydın bundan böyle onu okuman imkansız olurdu

I,as a native Turkish speaker, believe that the direct translation of the sentence should be one of these (listed above)


I wrote "Gazeteyi yaktıysan onu artık okuman imkansız" and was marked incorrect. Is that word order unacceptable?


It is true. We can say that.


it's true nothing wrong with that saying too. the both are and okay. do I have to correct this


Why is it wrong to add 'olur' on the end of this? I wrote 'gazeteyi yaktıysan, artık onu okuman imkansız olur' and it was wrong.


Yaktıysan where did the 'tı' come from???


This is a past real conditional, so the "tı" is a past suffix after consonant mutation.
Yak (to burn-transitive verb) + tı (past) + sa (if) + n (you)


Please tell me what is the difference between Yaktıysan and Yaksaydın


This is definitely confusing. There is another response in this thread that explains it well. I think the clearest difference is that "yaksaydın" is something in the past that definitely did not happen, so the "then" is completely unreal. While "yaktıysan" is about a past where we don't know whether it happened, but we are sure what outcome would follow.


This was my answer: "gezeteyı yaktıysan, artık senin için onu okurmak imkansiz olur" according to hints. But I don't see these words in the CORRECT Turkish SOLUTIONS: "it would be", "for you". In addition, I confused about how is "to read it" translated to "onu okuman".


My personal opinion is that, if you had said "okumak" instead of "okurmak", your sentence should have been accepted.

"to read it" alone can't be correctly translated to "onu okuman". But note that it is "you to read it". You might think of it as "your-reading-it" if you like. "It's impossible for me to read it." ---> "Onu okumam imkansız".


Thank you so much for your help.

Now, (("Onu okumam imkansız". "It's impossible for me to read it.")) is more reasonable than (("onu okuman imkansız." " it would be impossible for you to read it.")).

But I'm still confused about "onu okuman", and adding "it would be" & "for you" to the translated sentence.


Now, (("Onu okumam imkansız". "It's impossible for me to read it.")) is more reasonable than (("onu okuman imkansız." " it would be impossible for you to read it.")).

The only difference I see apart from the personal pronoun is "would be" part. So it can be translated as "onu okuman imkansız olur(du)" as you suggested. I think olur/would be part is implied due to the condition in the first part of the sentence, so it can be omitted (in English as well). The sentence is not "Onu okuman imkansız.", but rather "Gazeteyi yaktıysan artık onu okuman imkansız".


You know there are two types of condition: real and unreal.

Chech it out here:


So, I prefer you (devs) differentiate between them by adding "olur(du)".


Okay, I had to go through the relevant sections of grammars of both languages. :) Please note that I'm not a course developer.

Imagine this: "Gazeteyi yaksaydın, onu okuman imkasız olurdu". This would be translated as "If you had burnt the newspaper, it would have been impossible for you to read it.". That is an example of imaginary past conditional and olurdu or something similar is required here. Note that yaksaydın and yaktıysan are different and yaksaydın implies that you didn't burn it.

Our sentence is a bit more complicated, so I want to simplify it a bit: "If you burned the newspaper, you couldn't read it." -> "Gazeteyi yaktıysan, okuyamazsın". Note that I didn't say "okuyamazdın". Because that part would refer to an unreal situation. In this sentence, however, there is indeed a chance that you actually burned it. For the same reason "olurdu" is missing in the original sentence.

Finally, in the "...it would be impossible for you to read it", "it would" part is not translated because the translation would be "okuman imkansız olurdu" which in turn refers to an unreal situation. But the situation can as well be real here. If the condition is true, very much likely is the result, there is not much ambiguity nor imaginary situation. In English you have to put something like would, could etc but not in Turkish.


"for you to read it" means; "onu okuman" = "senin onu okuman"


Can someone analyse the word "okuman"


"okumak" is the infinitive -- "to read"

'okuma" is the gerund -- "reading"

"-m" is the possessive ending -- "my"

"okumam" -- "my reading"

here you are saying something like "my reading of this is impossible" :)


I think this is type 2. So incident has never taken place. It is only an imagination. Am I wrong?


Can we say 'Gazeteyi yaktıysan, onu okuman artık imkansız.' ?


Yes, it's fine.


Is "Gazeteyi yaktıysan artık onu okuman imkansız olurdu" wrong?

what is the difference between "yaktiysan" and "yaksaydin"??? i don't get it.


same here, I understand there is a realistic past and an unrealistic past. but can someone give some clear examples of the difference between yaktiysan and yaksaydin?


It's tricky but i think i got it:

  • yaksaydin - "If you had burned the newspaper you wouldn't be able to read it": in this case the past is hypotetical, you didn't burn the newspaper but i'm telling you what would happen if you had.

  • yaktiysan - "If you have burned the newspaper you won't be able to read it": in this case you either did it or not but i don't know which one, i'm telling you what will happen if you did.

Does this help? Can someone else confirm this?

Btw I believe that the proposed solution is wrong, see my latest comment below.


This is exactly how I understand the difference between these two. Stated very clearly!


In Turkish programs that I watch I hear the word "artık" spoken at the end of a sentence all the time. Why was it marked wrong here? It's the only thing I did differently.


is it really wrong to have onu and artik the other way round in this sentence?


Can someone explain okuman?


okuman imkansiz literally means your reading is impossible and it translates as "it's impossible for you to read". See the lessons about gerunds!


I don't understand why it's yaktıysan and not yaksan.

The action, as described in the English sentence, doesn't take place in the past, but in a hypotetical present :

"if you burned the newspaper [now], it would be impossible for you to read it from now on"

If I had to translate the suggested solution back in English, it would be something like this:

"if you have burned the newspaper [before now], it will be impossible for you to read it from now on".

They look pretty similar but they are crucially different:

  • In the first scenario the speaker (A) is looking at the newspaper (still unburnt) and tells the other person (B) what would happen in case he decided to burn it;

  • In the second scenario A is not seeing the newspaper and doesn't know whether B already burned it or not (either way it's not a hypotetical event), and tells him what will happen in case he already did.

Can someone back me up on this??


I am still tangled up in my understanding, but you sound like you are on the right track. At least the very least, you are making more sense than the tips and many of the comments!

What is crucial in conditionals, I think, is that you have to know what is being said in the "if" and in the "then" before you can figure out which forms/tenses you should apply to each. It does not help that there is not a one-to-one mapping between the meanings in English and the forms/tenses in Turkish.


"Gazeteyi yaktıysan, onu okuman imkansız artık" was marked incorrect but it shouldn't be. The position of "artık" doesn't have to be before "onu okuman" in this sentence.


This chapter is driving me nuts! Why can I not say "Yaksaydin" instead of "yaktıysan"?


these big sentences only work when it's a multiple choice question

Learn Turkish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.