"Drink tea without sugar!"
Translation:Şekersiz çay için!
20 Comments
- 15
- 11
- 11
- 11
- 10
- 9
- 7
- 6
- 4
Why not: "çay şekersiz iç" ?
What is "için"? The plural imperative?
- 24
- 12
- 10
için is plural or formal imperative, yes. iç would be fine. ("için" also translates to "for"; they're homonyms, no relation other than form and pronunciation.)
"şekersiz çay" would be preferred here, as an adjective modifying tea since "şekersiz" is an adjective (rather than an adverb phrase in English, "without sugar.")
If you did say something like "çayını şekersiz iç!" you actually make "şekersiz" into an adverb, you're putting a lot of emphasis on HOW to drink your tea. It's more like saying "Why not try drinking your tea WITHOUT SUGAR for once!" rather than telling you what kind of tea to drink.
- 19
- 17
- 14
- 13
- 11
- 10
- 8
- 8
- 6
- 5
- 5
- 4
- 4
- 2
- 2
- 2
- 8
If you were going to say "drink THE tea without sugar" would you then maintain the word order but say "şekersiz çayı iç"?
- 23
- 19
- 15
- 14
- 13
- 11
- 6
- 5
Yes, "için" is the polite and/or plural form (for situations where you would use siz rather then sen)
I'd like to know that too, please. :) Why can't you say "çay şekersiz iç" but can say "şekersiz çay iç"? Is it just a word order Thing? And (sorry to bother but still didn't get it) why can you put the tea in accusative although (to me) it doesn't seem to be a specific direct object in the translation?:)
If you move general direct objects award from right before the verb, they must get the accusative case. Then, more often than not, people will interpret it as you are talking about something specific. Only context can make this clear.
Thank you so much! Totally didn't know that (anymore). :)
- 14
- 12
- 12
- 12
- 10
- 9
- 9
- 7
- 6
- 2
In which lesson did it say that a GDO must get the accusative ending if it's moved away from the position before the verb? I feel like I've missed that one.
I don't believe it is anything we explicitly say, but it is something we will explicitly include in a future course. :)
- 14
- 13
- 12
- 11
- 11
- 9
- 9
- 8
- 7
- 6
- 5
- 5
- 3
- 3
- 3
- 3
- 2
Meanwhile, the answer which is obvious, based on what we have been taught, is marked wrong.
"çay" is in the nominative case, which is used for general direct objects and subjects. "çayı" is in the accusative case, which is for specific direct objects :)
- 14
I don't see why one is nominative and one is accusative since their position in the phrase as such is identical. It's just the position of sekersiz that changes.
The position of "şekersiz" wouldn't change. Just the meaning.
'Şekersiz çay iç" -- Drink (sugar-fee/sugarless) tea/Drink tea without sugar
'Şekersiz çayı iç' -- Drink the (sugar-free/sugarless) tea/Drinkthe tea without sugar
The accusative case is used to distinguish specific from general direct objects. This means that it only occurs on direct objects. You will never see it on a subject.
- 14
Yes, I understand that (and you have probably explained it a million times, poor you), but I don't see why the second rendering of that particular phrase (which was something like "Cayi sekersiz icin") has cay in the accusative case.
- 13
- 11
- 10
- 10
- 8
- 7
- 7
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 3
I guess what AmFilip means, and what I'd like to know too: Why can't you write "Cay sekersiz ic."? Keeping Cay general instead of specific.
- 15
- 13
- 13
- 12
- 9
- 6
It still puzzles me,since it's a generalisation and not one particular cup of tea. But then,grammar rules differ in different languages!
