1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Turkish
  4. >
  5. "O ayakkabı giyer."

"O ayakkabı giyer."

Translation:He wears shoes.

May 1, 2015



why shoes? It will be shoe


In English you say it in plural.


You use plural in ALL European languages!


Even in Basque and Sami?

I believe it's in the dual in Maltese.


Well, in Armenian we also use singular: Ես կոշիկ եմ հագնում (not կոշիկներ):


But shoes would be ayakkabılar, no?


Yes, plural of ayakkabı is ayakkabılar, however we don't refer to shoes in plural in Turkish unless you're talking about several pairs of shoes.


Then how to stress that im wearing just one shoe at a time?


You can always feel free to include bir to clear up that ambiguity. :)



By the way, the voiced thing is because of compounding two nouns?

No. Many Turkish nouns ending in a voiceless consonant will voice that consonant when you append a grammatical ending that starts with a vowel -- for example, köpek becomes köpeği when possessed or when in the accusative case, kitap becomes kitabı, etc.

Some don't, admittedly -- for example, top becomes topu, not *tobu.

I just wonder why kap +i didn't become kapı.

But it does -- at least, when kap means "container".




I get your point but I am not convinced yet, since kap itself might support my guess.

kap becomes kapı. kap, when making a compound noun, becomes kabı.

Wish I knew more Turkish words and could validate this...

Wish I knew more Turkish words...


kap becomes kapı.

Only in the meaning "cape", where kap is a loanword from French cape.

The native Turkish word kap meaning "container" becomes kabı.

See e.g. https://sozluk.gov.tr/ if you don't trust Wiktionary.


Thanks! I got to understand it.

Similar situations happen in Korean as well. For an instance, p becomes b between sonorants. There is a difference between Turkish and Korean though. Turkish people distinguish p from b, I believe, but Korean people can't.

If you have a Korean friend, let her/him read bibimbap out loud, which is a famous Korean food. Bibimbap is written as 비빔밥 in Korean, as you can see, there are four identical figures. So it should be written as pipimpap, and this is exactly how they think this word is read. But you can tell he/she pronounces it as pibimbap.

/pipimpap/ = [pibimbap] in Korean.


How would you say (for example, in response to the question, "What does she do with those ugly shoes?")? And you answer, "She wears the shoes." I guess in reality, you might answer "O, onları giyer" (She wears them). But how to say "She wears the shoes"?


She wears the shoes → in TR → She - the shoes - wears.

the shoes → Object? Check. Definite? Check. → Accusative required: Ayakkabıyı.

O, ayakkabıyı giyer.

Comma is necessary so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that it's a demonstrative adjective "those shoes".


Aha! Simdi anlıyorum. For some reason, I was seeing the "ı" at the end of "ayakkabı" in the sample sentence as a suffix. But I see that it is actually part of the word for "shoe." Many thanks for your help! I truly appreciate it!


Why is it not "O, ayakkabını giyer"? Is the -ı of ayakkabı not a possessive ending ("foot container", akak + kap + -ı)?


Yes, your logic is correct. Technically speaking, it should.

But some possessive constructions have become fixed words and the possessiveness are no longer taken into account. So "ayakkabı" is just like "kapı"; a random word ending in "ı". The plural is "ayakkabılar" for example, not *ayakkapları as one would expect.

There are other such words: "pazartesi" and "cumartesi" are also treated as regular words albeit being technically possessive constructions. Kahvaltı (breakfast) is another such word. In dialects, you can actually hear: "pazartesine kadar" or "kahvaltından sonra", but these are non-standard and should be: "pazartesiye kadar" and "kahvaltıdan sonra".

Long story short: there is no logic here. You just need to learn them as exceptions. :-]


Just a random guess, but if ayakkabı was ayak + kap + ı, would it be just a compound noun? If that's the case, ı has nothing to do with possessiveness. This is based on the observation which p in kap becomes voiced b. There are similar phenomenon in Japanese, say, ame + kasa becomes amagasa, where k turns into voiced sound g (, and vowel harmony happens at the same time, e becomes a).


if ayakkabı was ayak + kap + ı

It is, historically speaking.

would it be just a compound noun?

Yes, it is.

If that's the case, ı has nothing to do with possessiveness.

How would you analyse the last letter in compound nouns, then, if not as a possessive ending?

For example, cep telefonu "mobile phone" (literally, "pocket phone"), havalimanı "airport", sırt çanta "backpack", etc.

Especially since such endings can change into ("real"?) possessive suffixes when such a compound noun is possessed -- "my backpack" is not sırt *çantasım but rather sırt çantam: the -sı gets replaced by -m. What is the -sı if not a possessive suffix?


You're right. Thanks for your clarification!

By the way, the voiced thing is because of compounding two nouns? I mean if two nouns bound together very tightly, as if it were a single noun itself, p in this case turned into b? I just wonder why kap +i didn't become kapı.


Why he wears the shoes wrong?

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