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