"Yargıcın kedisi var ama avukatın yok."
Translation:The judge has a cat but not the lawyer.
30 Comments
The English translation kinda makes me laugh. It can be taken as "The judge owns a cat, but does not own the lawyer." If you wanted to say that in Turkish, would avukatın turn into avukatı?
902
I think so. I also think you can take this sentence to mean "the judge has a cat but you do not have a lawyer", although I imagine that interpretation would be very unusual absent the "senin".
Posessive endings.
Yargıç - Judge
Yargıcın - Judge's
Avukat - Lawyer
Avukatın - Lawyer's
Not so much. First of all, yargıcı can't be director, it's "judge." For the rest of it, I think it's a trick of English more than anything.
In English, "There is" can mean something exists ("var" in Turkish). Like, there is a cat in the house - Evde bir kedi var.
Or, it can mean you're showing somebody something ("o" or "orada" or something like that). Like, look, there is a cat!
Var can never mean you are SHOWING something directly in the second sense. It just means you're talking about something's existing in the first sense, or somebody HAS something. So you could be super pedantic in your translation and say "The judge's cat exists but the lawyer's does not". (That's a dreadful translation. Don't do that.) What you're REALLY saying is, the judge has a cat but the lawyer does not.
But when you say "there is the director's cat" it sounds like you're SHOWING where something specific is, and var just doesn't do that. That would be more like "yöneticinin kedisi orada!" (the director's cat is there!) or just "o yöneticinin kedisi!" or just "yöneticinin kedisi!"
Impossible :) "The lawyer has not" doesn't make sense (or at least hasn't since probably the late 19th century). You must include an object for the verb "to have" when it means "to possess" and you must include either "do" (American English) or use the form "have got" (British English) when you negate it.
- 27
In ny opinion, the translation should be "The judge has a cat but the lawyer doesn't." That would be clear and it would test the intended objective: whether you understand the sentence, rather than letting you (me :-) get tricked into blindly following the Turkish sentence structure and forgetting proper English :-D
- 414
That is accepted. It's what I typed. The judge has a cat but the lawyer doesn't
To indicate "There is..." you'd have to use "Orada/Şurada" so "There is the judge's cat" would be "Yargıcın kedisi orada" and so on.
yargıç-ın-ın would mean "of your/His/Her judge"
So the sentence would be "Your/His/Her judge has a cat but not the lawyer."
Ok i understand that "Yargıcın kedisi" is a "Belirtili tamlaması" , but why do we add the "-ın" suffix to "avukatın" ?
I put "The judge has cats but the lawyer doesn't." Is this not acceptable because "kedisi" is not plural? I thought that this could also imply plurality.
Exactly. It can only be interpreted as plural when it is a direct object (which it is not in Turkish in this sentence). You would have to say "kedileri" here to get the plural meaning.
I wish the correct answer was not displayed my own response. It would really help me to see where i have gone wrong.
Sian431183
Good morning
"Yargıcın kedisi var ama avukatın yok." Translation: The judge has a cat but not the lawyer.
"The judge has a cat but the lawyer does not." Başka doğru cevap. - Correct other answer.
Please post your answer & all the learners will help you & reply just to you with an explanation as to why your answer is wrong.
Teşekkürler.
Sian431183
I answer many questions incorrectly on DL. The answer is given by Duo anyway even if your answer is correct Duo will offer another correct answer. Please post your issue & we will try to resolve it. You will learn from your mistakes & have a point of reference from learners replies.
Could somebody explain the "yargıc+ın" and "kedi+si" structure please? I was puzzled by an explanation bellow that says
Yargıç - Judge Yargıcın - Judge's (possessive)
"Yargıcın kedisi var ama avukatın yok." Translation: The judge has a cat but not the lawyer.
Alex934538 & hello
Could somebody explain the "yargıc+ın" and "kedi+si" structure please? I was puzzled by an explanation bellow that says
Yargıç - Judge Yargıcın - Judge's (possessive)
"yargıc+ın" - (genitive) case ending. "kedi+si" - (possessive) case ending. You have 1/2 answered your own question & I will post you some examples.
Kind regards.
- 85
This kind of structure always has the definite articles. What about referring to a judge in general? "A judge has..." aside from the context, or am I missing some tips earlier.
Ceviri hatalı. "Yargıcın kedisi var ama avukatı yok" anlamı veriyor bu çeviri
