"Onların yağı yoktur."

Translation:They do not have oil.

March 31, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why yoktur and not just yok?


Still don't understand why: hey do not have the oil, is not correct. Isn't yagi the accusative for oil?


The -i ending is also the ending for the possessed object (their oil), so it's not accusative in this instance. They just happen to look the same.


But the underlined word says (accusative)


The hint is correct for the word, it just doesn't apply in this sentence. Yağı would also be the accusative of yağ -- but it is not that here because (1) a possessive-var sentence is about ownership, not location, and (2) you cannot use the accusative to mark anything here because there is no direct object when there is no verb.


I think yok and var sentences doesnt have accusative


What is the reason of adding (-tur) here?


I am also confused with the use of -tur in this exercise. Did you, or anyone, figure out why it's 'yoktur', and not just 'yok'?


I think the -dIr suffix (which is in this case -tur) is added in order to emphasize or state a fact that they do not have oil. Please correct me if I am wrong :)


How would you differentiate between "They do not have oil" and "They do not have their oil" ?


Say 'Onlarda yağlar yok' maybe değil here and 'Onların yağı yok'


So, we can say "Onların yağı vardır. " as well, to say that they do have oil?


Yes, that's correct.


Yağı is the oil why it is wrong


here in yağı is a possession mark related to -ın of onların, and it's not Definite.


Why "Onların yaği yoktur"?? Why not "onların yağ yok"??


Merhaba, Turkish language has its special way in asking for things' existence. If i want to ask you if there is cheese with you in english, i would say: do you have cheese?. But if i want to ask the same question in turkish, it would be like: do you have your cheese?

Having said that, your cheese means adding a possessive mark to the word "cheese" = peynir => senin peynirin

To review the possessive marks: • my = benim: takes "-im". • your singular = senin: takes "-in". • his = onun: takes "-i". • their = onların: takes "-i". • our = bezim: takes "-imiz". • your plural: takes "-iniz".

Back to our question: saying they don't have oil in turkish would look like: they don't have their oil which is onların yağı yok.

This is how turkish works. İyi şanslar.


Why can it not also be "they don't have fat" ?


Using the hint, İ put "their oil doesn't exist". Duo didn't like that... What would be the correct translation for what İ wrote?


You are right that this is the same sentence you would use to say "their oil doesn't exist." But although it is technically accurate, I am not sure that should be accepted as an alternative answer, since the entire point of this possessive-var structure is to learn how to use it for have/ownership.


Is "they have no oil" a correct option?


Why is this answer "oil". I answered "the oil".yağı is the oil, right?


Dear, if "yağı" stood alone then "-ı" clearly means: "the". However, here "-ı" indicates possession linked to "-ın" of "onların".

Possession mark of "onların" and "onun" which is: "-ı" can be confusing because it looks like the Definite mark. Other possessive marks are clear to be possessive such as "yağım/ yağımız ...".

Let's say you want to talk about a specific oil; ...ugh I forgot how to say that sorry..lol... Good luck


If you want to talk about having specific oil, then you are talking about the location of the oil instead of the ownership of the oil, and you use a "have the" sentence instead.

"They do not have the oil."
Yağ onlarda değil. [lit. The oil is not at/on them.]
Onlarda yağ var. [lit. There is not oil at/on them.]


Oh thanks buddy, you made me recall some. My respect


i still can't understand what's the difference between değil and yok


Değil and yok can both used as: "not" and "no".

But yok can have another special meaning; which is: "doest not exist" and "none".

in this course they are teaching us to use "yok" when we are speaking about the existence of something, while using "değil" for other negations.


Use değil for "Y is/are not X"
Use yok for "there is not/no X at [place]" and "Y does not have (an) X"


The last example had onun pastasi yok So why isn't it onların yağısı here?


Yağ ve pasta.

As you see pasta ends with a vowel, so you can't add the possessive mark (-i) directly because you'll end up with two vowels together which is not preferable in turkish, and so we are in need to implant a protective letter s for a kind separation between these two vowels.

But the yumuşak (soft) "ğ" isn't considered as a vowel. So we can add any vowel (in our case the possessive mark) directly to it.

• Yağ => onun/onların yağı • pasta => onun/onların pastası


Selam! As I understand it so far, the 'possessed' word ending changes to "-ları" or "-leri" (depending on vowel harmony) for the possessive pronoun "onların" - "their". And the word ending changes to "-[s]ı/-[s]i/-[s]u/-[s]ü" (depending on vowel harmony) for the possessive pronoun "onun" - "his/her/its". So by this rule to me "yağı" is "his/her/its oil"? Does it mean both so it needs the pronoun? Is this rule wrong or is "yağ" an exception like "su" is as I know water doesnt follow this rule also? Teşekkürler in advance!


It is not an exception. When you have the genitive-pronoun "onların" that clearly expresses the plural "they," adding the plural possessive ending is not necessary. Using it can also can introduce some uncertainty, because you cannot tell if it is a plural on the noun itself "their oils" -- or a plural because of possessive ending "their oil."


Yağ= oil and yağı = the oil


That is true, but there are more possibilities than that. If you are able to view the other questions and answers, make sure to read the rest of the discussion before posting.

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