hello. would you like to help with this please !! what is the difference between "değil" and "yok" ?? I've understood a little bit the difference but this sentence made me confused .. i used to translate değil like "don't have" so why here yok took değil's place ?? thanks in advance .
My guess would be that the "...-in ...-i var/yok" construction only works for indefinite possessions, as definite possessions use the "... ...-de" construction (onun fili var = she has an elephant; fil onda = she has the elephant).
And possessed things are definite by definition, so "we have our milk" would probably be "sütümüz bizde", and "we don't have our milk", "sütümüz bizde değil".
I hope a fluent speaker can weigh in.
"Süt bizde." seems to mean "We have milk." although that is not how it is worded in Turkish. "We have milk." is taught as "Sütümüz var" or "Bizim sütümüz var."
"the" would require the accusative (for direct object, see mizinamo below), so wouldn't that be at least "Sütü bizde." ?
"the" does not "require the accusative".
If a noun is the direct object of a Turkish verb, then the accusative case is used if the noun is definite (as a rule of thumb). So "I see the milk" would use sütü as it would be a definite direct object of the verb görüyorum.
But there is no Turkish verb for "to have".
As you write, indefinite possession usually uses var in a construction literally equivalent to something like "our milk exists".
But this course teaches that definite possession uses something like "the milk is at us", i.e. süt bizde.
The milk is then the subject, and subjects don't show a difference between indefinite and definite nouns -- Turkish does not have articles.
Sütü bizde would mean "We have his/her/its milk" -- the -ü would be the possessive suffix.
And for nouns where possessive and accusative look different, e.g. elma, I think that Elmayı bizde would be simply meaningless if you used the accusative without a verb. ("We have his apple" would be Elması bizde.)
Ah, thank you. I did not understand the construction. So, I meant "the" would require the accusative for a direct object, but I did not know that it would be like "The milk is at us." which makes milk the subject. (That reminds me of Irish.) Thank you for clearing that up!
"Sütümüz" = our milk, on its own.
If you want to be hyper-literal, you could translate "Bizim sütümüz yok" as "Our our milk does not exist" (bizim = our; sütümüz = our milk; yok = does not exist).
But that's not a natural translation into English. Possessive + var (exists) / yok (does not exist) sentences are used in Turkish where English uses "have" + an indefinite object.
So if you see xxx-(i)m/-(i)n/-(s)i/-(i)miz/-(i)niz/-leri var/yok (or the equivalent with vowel harmony), then translate it into "I/you/he/she/it/we/they (do not) have/has".
So, "Bizim sütümüz yok" = "We do not have milk".
Benim kitabım var = I have a book.
Senin evin yok = You do not have a house
Onun iki amcası var = He has two uncles
Bizim kahvemiz yok = We have no coffee
Onların ekmeği/ekmekleri var = They have bread
and so on.
Bottom line: "var" does not mean "have" -- it's the combination of possessive + var that gets translated as "have", and so you remove the possessive in the English translation. Similarly with possessive + yok for "not have".
That is just wrong, but I understand why people are confused. We spend all this time learning the Turkish possessive and then we are not allowed to translate it into the English possessive.
It is just that in English "have" does not necessarily mean "possess". Don't get me wrong, it can mean possess, but it has other meanings. The person who has the milk is not necessarily the owner of the milk. Is the Turkish possessive really used that way?
I am starting to get what mizinamo was talking about above. "We have milk." usually means that we have some, nothing specific. It doesn't matter whose milk though it is probably ours because it is here at our house. There is some if you are thirsty or you need it for a recipe. If I wanted to specify that "We have our milk.", well, that would be unusual. I went shopping with several people and I brought some of the groceries in and I was asked "Did you bring the milk? " and I could have said "Yes, I have the milk." but I did say "I have my milk, but yours is still in the car." If I had brought all the milk in, I could have said "We have our milk." So, I believe it would have required the definite accusative ending in Turkish. On so many other sentences "bir" was included and so I could not say "I have my turtle." because it was specifically "I have a turtle." with the understanding that this meant that it is my turtle, even though in English this may or may not be possession. Here I thought I would try "We do not have our milk." because "bir" was not included and this was not accepted as correct. So the unusual circumstance would be that "our milk" went in the wrong car to someone else's house, perhaps we accidentally took their milk and when we arrived home, we noticed that it was not the 1% lactaid, but the regular whole milk. This would be very specific and would definitely need the accusative suffix in Turkish if you don't switch everything around, but apparently you do.
(Would it be "Bizim sütümüzü yok." ? or would we say something else and please be specific? If that would mean that the milk (our milk) doesn't exist. Would it be "Bizim sütümüzü bizde değil." ?) No, Mizinamu answered me above. "Süt bizde." is constructed as if "milk" is the subject like "Milk is at us." meaning "The milk is ours (and it is with us)." or "We have our milk." They don't have the verb "have" in Turkish, so this is very hard to understand especially when "have" can mean "possess" in English or simply mean that something is with us whether it is ours or not. What if we wanted to say that we have milk but it is not ours.
Yes, I agree.
- We have no milk: OK
- We do not have milk: OK
- We do not have any milk: OK
- We have not got any milk: OK
"We haven't any milk": OK in England, unusual or wrong elsewhere. "We have not any milk": I think this is wrong. "We have not milk" (without "any") I think is wrong, as well as "We have not got milk".
On another comment section I read that "Benim kedim yok" and "Benim kedim yoktur" are interchangeable so I figured that it's the same rule as for "Onlar mutlular" where -lar can be omitted. I see that it's the -D|r suffix which is normally used for stating facts so I'm slightly confused since you said it's about making a guess
"sütümiz" means nothing; it is probably a mistake for "sütümüz" which means "our milk".
"Bizim sütümüz" also means "our milk", with an explicit "our" -- so it could also mean "our milk" with extra emphasis on "our".
But in general, you can leave off the possessor for "my, your, our".
From the grammar of English.
English has definite and indefinite articles; Turkish does not. So when translating into English, it may be appropriate or even necessary to add an article so that the sentence sounds natural in English, even if the Turkish sentence doesn't have one.
"any" works a bit like an an indefinite article in negative sentences for plural or mass nouns, similar to the way that "some" works a bit like an indefinite article in positive sentences for mass nouns.
Did I understand it right, the -ümüz suffix on süt is the possesive plural for the 1st person?
Well, it's the possessive for the 1st person plural (i.e. plural owner, not plural possessions).
So -imiz (-ımız, -umuz, -ümüz) means "our" -- something belonging to "we" (first person plural).
sütümüz on its own would be "our milk".
Hello all please explane more my question is i think there is some difference between the turkish sentence and english sentence is not equal compleletly because when we want to say we do not have the milk differes to when we want to say this does not belong to us for example a cup of milk is on the table some one ask us this is yours and we want to say no it does not belong us how do we say thanks in advance