Translation:If he had introduced us to his friend, we would have been members of that group.
That's not what I mean. I recognize the value of silly sentences for learning purposes, but they have to have a certain logic too. Like "Antoine, don't bite your aunt's dog" in the French course is silly, but understandable.
This Turkish sentence right here, on the other hand, is way too contrived for my taste.
I am not a native but I've been studying and using Turkish for about 18 months now. "Arkadaşıyla" and "arkadaşı ile" are both correct, but I think the first version is more common. "Bizi" is required indeed, but the subject "o" seems a bit superfluous to me, because it is implied by the verb suffix "-ydı".
1) Is it not quite unclear in Turkish to leave out bizi from the conditional subordinate clause?
2) As I understand it, -saydı makes this an 'Impossible' conditional in Turkish which equates to a Third Conditional in English, so surely the English translation has to be, "If he had introduced us"? "If he introduced us" would be a Second Conditional in English and would require would + infinitive, not would + past infinitive, in the main clause (so "we would be members of that group" - I guess in Turkish the whole thing would come out as eğer arkadaşı ile tanışsa o grubun üyesi oluruz).
It's unclear indeed.
I think the "rule" is:
a. Eğer V+aorist+se, V+aorist → (If I find money, I will go abroad).
b. V+se, V+aorist → (If I found money, I'd go abroad)
c. V+se, V+aorist+past → (If I (had) found money, I'd (have) go(ne) abroad)
d. Eğer V+se+past, V+aorist+past → (If I had found money, I'd have gone abroad)
So… Option C is pretty flexible and can be used for hypothetical facts regarding both present and past. Depending on the context.
Ektoraskan's option C doesn't seem quite right to me... surely the past tense conditional ("If I had found money, I would have gone abroad") can't be formed by using V+se, but should always have V+seydi instead, as shown in option D?
As for the present tense conditional ("If I found money, I'd go abroad"), my grammar book says that the main clause should always have the aorist (not aorist+past). In this light option B would be correct and option C not. But I guess in everyday language aorist+past is used quite a lot even when the conditional clause is in present tense.
I am not a native speaker and I don't have all that much experience in Turkish, I can just say that during the past 8 months of quite intensive studying I've never come across a clause where the object ("bizi") was omitted like that. I am inclined to agree with ugurcansayan (and Ektoraskan), it just sounds wrong to me.
The object can not be implied like that, the sentence is simply incorrect. Which is not a very good thing of course, considering that this site is supposed to be "The world's best way to learn a language".
I am not a native speaker myself so just to be sure I asked a Turkish friend of mine whose knowledge of her mother tongue I trust. She confirmed that "bizi" is not optional here, it has to be included.
There doesn't seem to be agreement on this among the course moderators themselves. It seems to be generally agreed upon that's is unclear at best.
So basically there are two rules:
- when speaking or writing, it's better to (over)use pronouns to avoid ambiguity.
- when reading or listening, look at the main verb to solve ambiguity.
This whole section is badly constructed and leaves a lot to be desired. There needs to be more explanations on this subject. I think that there should be a bizi in there because the sentence is ambiguous. It may be that the duk implies the 'us' at the front but if we beginners in Turkish need the bizi, I think it should be accepted
Note, for example, the next sentence 'Eğer onunla karşılaşsaydık ben onunla yemek yerdim' See that the onunla occurs twice showing exactly how the -dik and -dim relate to the person. In this sentence, the English translation really necessitates another her otherwise, the exercise is arranging words so that only one her needs to be used.
Something seems off about this translation. I would have expected the following pair of sentences.
- Eğer bizi arkadaşı ile tanıştırsaydı o grubun üyesi olurduk.
- If he had introduced us to his friend, we would have been members of that group.
Selcen says in her comment that the fact that "we" is the subject of the final verb somehow implies that "us" is the direct object of the conditional verb in the if-clause, but that doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion for students, at least not at this point in the course. Is she saying that in Turkish it is common for causative/transitive verbs in an if-clause to have no explicit direct object and that in these cases the subject of the sentence is assumed to be that missing direct object? If this is true, it should definitely be in the Tips section to save students a lot of confusion. Could someone please explain this to me, because I'm not following the logic here.
Bazen Türkçe cümleleri kurarken çok fazla kısaltıyorsunuz.O,Biz,Siz gibi şahıs zamirleri fiilin içinde gizli olsa da yabancı biri için bunları anlamak zor oluyor. Cümle içinde bunları kullanmak kendi dillerine çevirmede kolaylık sağlar.Cümle "Eğer o,bizi arkadaşı ile tanıştırsaydı,biz o gurubun üyesi olurduk" şeklinde verilmiş olsa hem Türkçe cümle daha iyi anlaşılır, hem de İngilizce cümlesindeki kelimeler daha iyi karşılanır.
It would make more sense if there weren't a word missing ("bizi") from the Turkish sentence. "Ile" just means "with." In English, you introduce someone to someone else, but in Turkish, you introduce someone with someone else.
- He introduced us to his friend.
- O bizi arkadaşı ile tanıştırdı.
- O bizi arkadaşıyla tanıştırdı.
"Ile" always comes after its object. So "with a book" would be "bir kitap ile." "Ile" can also be used as a suffix in the form of -(y)le or -(y)la, depending on vowel harmony. The "y" is a buffer letter that is used if the suffix attaches to a word that ends in a vowel.
- with a book = bir kitap ile = bir kitapla
- with a dog = bir köpek ile = bir köpekle
- with a frog = bir kurbağa ile = bir kurbağayla
- with a cat = bir kedi ile = bir kediyle
When used with pronouns, "ile" is usually attached as a suffix, and when it is, the pronoun has to be in genitive form.
- with me = ben ile = benimle
- with you (informal) = sen ile = seninle
- with him/her/it = o ile = onunla
- with us = biz ile = bizimle
- with you (formal/plural) = siz ile = sizinle
- with them = onlar ile = onlarla (not onlarınla; this is an exception)
Turkish used to have no word for "and" until it borrowed "ve" from the Persian language. Before that, "ile" was used to join nouns together, and it can still be used that way.
- the man and the woman = adam ve kadın = adamla kadın
- between them = onrların arasında
- between us and them = bizimle onların arasında
And that's everything I know about "ile."
No wonder if you are confused. The sentence is bad in any language, and as discussed above, the Turkish version doesn't even seem to be grammatically correct because the object "bizi" was omitted from the first clause.
Apparently a friend of a friend/acquaintance of the speaker is part of some kind of group. The speaker would like to belong to that group too and deplores the fact that the s/he and another person (or other persons) were not introduced to that friend of a friend/acquaintance.