1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Turkish
  4. >
  5. "If you had made the fire, we…

"If you had made the fire, we would have cooked the egg and eaten."

Translation:Ateşi yaksaydın yumurtayı pişirir ve yerdik.

April 9, 2015



I am confused why "pişirir" seems to be a different tense to "yerdik". Or am I mistaken and they are in fact the same tense?


it is just because sometimes you can "save" suffixes from the first verb when you have 2. (pişirir ve yerdik = pişirirdik ve yerdik)


İ wrote pişirdik ve yerdik and it was incorrect. We have to save one suffix?


I think you got it wrong because you wrote "pişirdik" instead of "pişirIRdik"


there are several alternatives containing "pişirirdik ve yerdik"; as I don't know what your full sentence was I cannot say what might be wrong.


isn't "if you had made the fire" ="ateşi yakmış olsaydın" and "if you made the fire"="ateşi yaksaydın" ??


Both sound ok to me.


so what about the translation? isnt "ateşi yakmış olsaydın, yumurtayi pişirmiş ve yemiş olurduk." the exact translation? or am i so "titiz"? :)


For me:

If you had made the fire, we would have cooked …

(i). Ateşi yaksaydın, pişirirdik

(ii). Ateşi yakmış olsaydın, pişirirdik

(iii). Ateşi yakmış olsaydın, pişirmiş olurduk

Are all correct.


they are all correct but not exactly the same.if you want to make a more detailed sentence you need to choose the exact tense. just take a look at these :

“Yağmur başlamadan ateşi yaksaydın, hemen pişiridik” -> “if+simple past … present conditional” "if you made the fire before the rain begin, we would cook right away"

“Biz gelemden önce ateşi yakmış olsaydın,şimdi pişiridik” -> “if+past perfect … present conditional” "if you had made the fire before we arrived , we would cook now"

"Biz gelemden önce ateşi yakmış olsaydın, şimdiye kadar çoktan pişirmiş olurduk" -> “if+past perfect … perfect conditional” "if you had made the fire before we arrived, we would have already cooked "


For "If you made the fire before the rain begins, we would cook right away", I would say:

Yağmur başlamadan ateşi YAKSAN, hemen pişiririz.

The other two sentences are both usable for the past tense in my opinion.


well, to me what you said is the "type1 conditional " situation and it would be better to use "future"; "If you make the fire before the rain begin, we will cook right away", also in Turkish you would use "future' but what you offered is also good.


But for that, we also have

yakARsan pişiririz, no?


himm :) actually "yaksan" in "Yağmur başlamadan ateşi YAKSAN, hemen pişiririz" to me seems to have a meaning of more desire-wish than conditional-obligation.. like when you say;

Gitmesen nolur?! (what happens if you don't go? -- i beg you not to go ) but after all i am not very sure because i am not original native!


Hopefully no-one is cooking people! (The third example)


Can i use yaktıysan in this case too?


That would be past REALITY. (Have just learned it. :-)) You could have used that form in a slightly different sentence: "If you have made the fire, let's cook the egg and eat it."


Thanks:)).. I would never say a sentence like this, it sounds so weird to me. =))


English is not native to me. Would this be more natural? : "Since you have made the fire, let's cook the egg and eat it." That seems to convey the same meaning: Past reality. (But of course the original sentence is past unreality: the fire wasn't made. But if you HAD made it we would have cooked the egg and eaten it.)


Yes.. that's right: If you HAD made the fire, we would have cooked and eaten the egg (by now).


What the heck is -ip? I finished the whole course phone app and this never appeared!!! Yardım et!!!


If you mean -ip in the "pişirip", its meaning is very close to "ve" but it is only used with verbs. For example "tavuğu pişirip yedi" means "he cooked and ate the chicken" or "düşüp ağladı" means "he felt and cried"


so in this sentence, the first part is "past inreality" and the second part is "geniş zamanın hikayesi" but we translate using "would have" and not "used to". Is it an exception?


"Stem + aorist + past" in Turkish = "used to" or "would have to" or "would to" in English.


Ateşi yaksaydın yumurtayı pişirip yerdik, bu cümleyi de kabul edildi.


Eğer ateşi yakmış olsaydin yumurtayı pisirmis ve yemis olurduk. Dogru olmali, cooked ve eaten past.


can we also say "ateş yaksaydın yumurtayı pişirip yerdik"


İs this correct ((yakdıysan)) instead og ((yaksaydın))???


Why it is not yedik? Isn't yerdik for used to eat??


what is the difference between yaksaydın and yaktısan


How about: "Ateşi yaksaydın yumurtayı pişirip ve yerdik."?


"pişirip yerdik" is OK. you cannot use ve after -ip


Why do so many of these sentences contain grammar points we haven't learned? It's hard enough trying to understand simple 'if' sentences.


What does pişirip yerdek mean? How can I translate it?


As far as I understand it it a way of saying "and" without using ve. It is often used in sentences like the one above where there are two verbs following eachother, like: "Bunu gidip görelim mi?" should we go (and) see this one?


The verbs don't have to be next to each other. There can be other words in between. For example: Norveç'e gidip Oslo'da bir lokantada geyik eti yemek istiyorum.


Thanks a lot, in the meantime I am understanding that.


Although both parts of the sentence are conditional, in Turkish only the first part is so?


Isn't pişiririp yerdik more correct?


Technically, there should be an it at the end.


Why is Ateşi yaktısan yumurtayı pişirir ve yerdik wrong ?


"Ateşi yaktıysan yumurtayı pişirir ve yerdik." da olur mu? Neden yanlıştır?

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