"You eat the yogurt."
Translation:Sen yoğurdu yersin.
Sen is singular and informal. "siz" is plural and/or formal.
Interesting! Though that's not what I was referring to. What you've linked to is a lecture by Lewis in honour of Jarring. Lewis gave the lecture the same name as his 1999 book, The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success, which is where my quote comes from. It's is well worth reading.
Sample chapter (just the introduction, but it gives the flavour of the book): http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/13/9780198238560.pdf
(Edited: My original comment mixed up the names Lewis and Jarring)
oh thank you! I am going to get the book. Bookdepot has it, the paperback is reasonably priced.
oooh awesome, they have it at my university library. I think I'm going to read it over the break.
When you add a suffix that begins with a vowel. you will have a consonant mutation. t-->d in this case. Another example is "tat" (taste) but "tadı/tada/tadın" etc.
between two vowels YES. otherwise it makes the previous vowel longer
yağ /yaa/ sağlık /saalık/
So why is the ğ there at all then? Did those words make a sound there back when the alphabet was created?
I don't think the sound was significantly different back in the 1920s. As far as I know, it was added to stand in for an letter (ghayn, I think) of the old Arabic alphabet then used to write Turkish. Why they didn't take the opportunity to eliminate it (at least in some cases), I don't know. It certainly looks like a mistake now.
Then why does it appear in so many words of native origin? Most Arabic loanwords were removed from the language when it was reformed. If it represented the ghayn, then wouldn't you expect it to be much rarer in modern Turkish than it currently is?
Here's the passage (pp. 36–37):
"Two other elements of the new alphabet, ğ and ı, are open to criticism. The raison d'être of ğ ('yumuşak ge') was to replace two characters in the old alphabet. The first was ghayn, the second was kāf where it had the sound of y, as in the words written dkl and ckr in the old letters, and değil, ciğer ('not', 'liver') in the new. Yumuşak ge now serves to lengthen a preceding back vowel, as in kâğit 'paper' (Persian kāġiḍ), pronounced /kʸāt/, and ağa 'master', pronounced /ā/; while between front vowels, as in değil and ciğer, it is pronounced like y. So ğ preserves some features of Ottoman spelling, but that was not the object of the exercise. At least two scholars in the 1930s felt uncomfortable with it. Ahmet Cevat Emre idiosyncratically used ğ for `ayn in his writings on grammar, thus fiğil for fiil 'verb', Arabic fi`l while for ghayn he used ġ. It was doubtless the fact that ğ has two distinct functions that led him not to use it for ghayn."
What I get out of that is that ğ was used to transcribe ghayn, which generally only occurred in borrowings, but that apart from that, there was a y sound in the native words of Ottoman Turkish that, for whatever reason, had come to be written with kāf (ك). So değil "is not" was written as dkl (as دـكــل, I suppose?) but pronounced /deyl/ or so. A truly comprehensive spelling reform would have employed a new spelling like deyil or deyl, but since the old spelling represented this /y/ with a letter that basically has a velar value (k), and since the new spelling system had a velar-style letter that represented a "faint" phone (zero or fricative or semivowel), they just lumped the two together.
Basically, the idea behind ğ seems to be "faint sounds that used to be represented by Arabic letters intended for velar sounds" :-).
It wasn't left out probably because we wanted to maintain our relationship with other Turkic languages and our own etymological roots. Even though this sound has been lost in the dialect of Istanbul it still exists in other accents and languages. It corresponds to /ɣ/ in Azerbaijani for example.
It's also important to note that the dialect of Istanbul was not this much accepted around the country before the alphabet reform.
so would that mean when ğ began representing long vowels, it was added to Turkish-origin words which originally were spelled without it?
Good point. It does seem to occur in native Turkish words. I'm reading Geoffrey Lewis' The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success and I know it mentioned this issue somewhere. I might have misremembered the details. I'll have a look and report back.
it can be, but it cannot be combined with "sen". You can say "siz yoğurdu yersiniz" or "yoğurdu yersiniz"