"If you had made the fire, we would have cooked the egg and eaten."
Translation:Ateşi yaksaydın yumurtayı pişirir ve yerdik.
isn't "if you had made the fire" ="ateşi yakmış olsaydın" and "if you made the fire"="ateşi yaksaydın" ??
so what about the translation? isnt "ateşi yakmış olsaydın, yumurtayi pişirmiş ve yemiş olurduk." the exact translation? or am i so "titiz"? :)
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.
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!
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?
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.
What the heck is -ip? I finished the whole course phone app and this never appeared!!! Yardım et!!!
Eğer ateşi yakmış olsaydin yumurtayı pisirmis ve yemis olurduk. Dogru olmali, cooked ve eaten past.
Why do so many of these sentences contain grammar points we haven't learned? It's hard enough trying to understand simple 'if' sentences.
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.
to elaborate on that. I have seen the suffix -rek being used in a similar way: "o buraya gelerek para istedi" what is the difference between -rek and -ip?