1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Turkish
  4. >
  5. "Parkta ağlayan çocuğu gördün…

"Parkta ağlayan çocuğu gördün mü?"

Translation:Did you see the child crying in the park?

April 13, 2015



It always takes me forever to review this lesson, because of the following:

"Did you see child WHO is crying in the park" is accepted, but "Did you see the child THAT is crying in the park" is not. This distinction is made in the whole lesson, causing me to make many 'mistakes' when translating English.

When referring to human beings from a relative clause, both "who" (or its derivatives) and "that" can be used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses says: "The relative pronoun that is used with both human and non-human antecedents. Some writers and style guides recommend reserving that for non-human cases only, but this view does not reflect general use.").

Please, please, can someone change this, and allow "that"?


As I wrote "that" as well instead of "who" and it was accepted, I think the problem is not the "that". The problem may be that you wrote "....that is crying in the park" and not "...that was crying in the park". You cannot have seen something in the past what is happening right now. "gördün" implies that you must use the past and not the presence. form.


UAU7R8 Very nice club, just for chatting


Have you reported it?


Yes, already many times, and for many sentences, whenever I made this "mistake". None of those reports has ever been adopted. I thus decided to write this comment to point out that this seems to be a general issue in the whole course.


thanks for reporting, but are you aware that this course is just a few weeks old, and we already actually have a lot of alternatives for such a young course? We keep checking reports, but mostly the ones in the earlier skills because really a few people made it to the advanced skills so far.

and "many sentences" are just 4, FYI


Yes, I am aware of this, and I also am quite impressed as to how well this course already working! (Much better than the Danish course when I started it, anyway...). I am also aware that you guys are being very active with working to add reported issues, based on the number of "your-report-has-been-accepted"-mails I get ;) Keep up the good work, and most certainly, do know that I value it!

(and as a small excuse: I only sound so whiny above because even though so many of my reports accepted, none of the "who/that" reports was, so i assumed that it was some active decision to not accept these reports. I didn't know that you just were focussing on earlier lessons.)

Again, thanks for the good work.

[PS: while I was typing this, I received about six "your report has been accepted"-mails... thanks, guys ;) edit: oh, two of them were a bit earlier, and for other lessons, yeah.]


UAU7R8 Very nice club, just for chatting


Hi, you accept both 'did you see the child crying' and 'did you see the child who cried', while in English there is a slight difference. Does this sentence in Turkish have to mean that you saw the child while it was crying, or can it also mean mean that you saw the child after it cried?


It can mean both.


Is there a way to translate this sentence (and others in this lesson) with -ki? Or does -ki only attach to nouns and noun phrases rather than verbs?


-ki is just for nouns :) You can't really use it here.

(Keeping in mind that you can optionally say "parktaki ağlayan çocuğu")


Could you also say "Parkta ağladiği çocuğu gördün mü"? What's the difference between using -(y)an and -(I)dIK?


May someone please answer this question? I really would appreciate! :)


No, you could not. I guess both of you speak French? If in French you use "que", Turkish requires -dik. If in French you use "qui", Turkish requires -an. (And in English, you can use "whom" when we use -dik).

La femme que l'homme voit = Adamın gördüğü kadın. (The woman whoM the man sees).

La femme qui voit l'homme = Adamı gören kadın. (The woman who sees the man).

Basically, when you say verb-diği X. The X is the object of the verb. And the subject of the verb is something else, which is in the genitive if it is present in the sentence. If it's me who's doing something to this X, you will have verb-diğiM X. Or if it is us: verb-diğiMİZ X. Basically, it's conjugatable. And X is the object of the "subordonnée", the sub-clause.

However, if the X itself does something, then you have: verb-an X. So here, X is the subject of the "subordonnée".

So you cannot say "ağladığı çocuk" because that doesn't make sense. It would mean that the kid is the object of crying. Like, the kid that I'm crying. (L'enfant que je pleure). It's meaningless, since crying is intransitive. The kid himself is crying. It's the subject of crying, so: ağla-YAN çocuk is the only option.

It might seem complicated, but it's really quite simple when you get the hang of it.


UAU7R8 Very nice club, just for chatting


Which one would be the plural form of the sentense "Did you see the children who are crying in the park?"

Parkta ağlayanlar çocukları gördün mü?


Parkta ağlayan çocukları gördün mü?


The latter. Ağlayan is an adjective. Adjectives are never pluralized.


I thought it is coming from ağlamak, putting the relative suffix to the stem. So I think it is not an adjective but perhaps used as such. However in one of the first sentences of this lesson I could read "ağlayanlar" Where is the mistake now, in the earlier sentence or here? I am confused now.


Nowhere. :)

Adjectives used alone, i.e. without a noun, become pronouns. In that case they can be pluralized.


Thank you for a quick reply.


I think this lesson is so hard and so bad I used test out and finished but I learned anything


it is hard, but it doesn't make it bad. But that's how it is, it is not possible to teach the -An suffix with simpler sentences


there are a problem in the relatives clauses there aren't any indicators "you can add as a suffix "for neither the tense i mean for example if i wanted to say will you see the child that WAS crying ... will you see the child that IS crying ... will you see the child that criED .. will you see the child that WILL cry i think they are all expressed in the same way in turkish is it right ?


In another comment Alex said it can be each tense, but not future tense. for future tense there is another participle which we didn't learn until now.


["which we didn't learn yet" / "which we haven't learned yet"]


Have you seen the boy who is crying in the park? Why isn't this sentence accepted?


boy = oğlan, erkek çocuk; çocuk = child (it could be a girl or a boy)


wouldn't 'have you seen the crying child in the park 'convey the meaning better?


But in English that would imply that the child is permanently crying in the park - that would be very sad!


I'm a bit confused as to what 'parkta' is actually locating.
If it's the seeing, wouldn't "parktayken" be better?
If it's locating the subject 'you', the same would apply.
And if it's the child, wouldn't "parktaki" be the more accurate translation?


Never mind, I figured that 'parkta' is part of the relative clause, providing information about the child. So the object is the noun phrase: 'Parkta ağlayan çocuğu'.

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