Bence de. This is incorrect as far as I know because it's using the passive ıl. If I'm correct this then becomes: The door was opened. Mark Hoca :)
"to open" means both "açmak" and "açılmak" in Turkish. Because when used without an object, "to open" also means "to become open". In Turkish you cannot say "kapı açtı" or "kapı açıyor"
The point here I believe is that the Turkish and English don't agree with each other. The English needs to be passive as per other people's comments and mine.
English has these fun little verbs called "unergatives" (things like "open," "broke," or "boil").
In the sentence, "the door opened," the door is not opening anything, it itself just opened. Just like saying, the curtain moved (the curtain didn't move anything, it was moved by something else).
Basically in these sentences the "object" of the verb becomes the "subject" without needed to use the passive. Turkish does not have this phenomenon and just uses the passive. Both "the door was opened" and "the door opened" are perfectly fine here for the English translation. :)
Basically, Turkish passive=English passive OR English ergative
Tam emin değilim ama open'ın "açık" anlamı da olduğu için "the door was open" olmalı.
olmuyor. "açıktı" derken "open"ı isim olarak kullanıyoruz, fiil değil. open isim olduğuna göre, "to be" ile kullanılmaası gerekir, ve geçmiş zamanda da bu "was" olur. "The door was open"
"kapı açılıyor" gibi bir anlam oluyor. "to open" fiili hem açmak hem açılmak anlamına gelebilir.
bence the door was opened olmalıydı cümle çünkü kapı açıldı derken edilgen bir cümle oluyor ingilizce de geçmiş zamandaki bir cümleyi pasif hale getitirken nesne,was veya were ve fiilin üçüncü hali getitilir bu cümlede bir yanlışlık var.