"He told me that he knows everything about you."
Translation:Bana dedi ki senin hakkında her şeyi biliyormuş.
-iyor-: present continuous tense
-muş: indicates that you heard this information but did not experience it yourself.
So you are saying that he said he knows everything; you do not know for a fact that he does indeed know everything and you are just repeating his claim.
Does this mean basically that I do not believe him?
He told me that he knows everything about you. I did experience this myself. I was there when he told me! I witnessed him telling me this. I guarantee that that is what he told me.
So, what is it that I cannot be sure of? That he does actually know everthing about you. But how can I experience what it is that somebody knows??
I sense a logical problem here. I can see two statements:
- "He told me he knows everything about you."
- "He allegedly knows everything about you."
And these two were combined into:
"He told me he allegedly knows everything about you."
But that is not what he told me. He told me he does know. I just don't know if it is true. Nevertheless, he said he did know everything about you.
It would not be a problem if he had said he learned everything about you.
So, the question is: is this sentence logically valid in Turkish or is it also problematic this way?
An update on this. After consulting with an expert, I now believe that this sentence is about a person talking about a third person.
"Bana dedi ki senin hakkında her şeyi biliyormuş."
would mean something like:
"Peter told me that Paul knows everything about you."
That is, the to "he"s are not the same person.
Nope, for various reasons. First, you must say senin hakkında. "hakkında" takes the genitive case on pronouns (with onlar being an exception).
Then, think of "senin hakkında" as a modifier of sorts. It is being used to specific "which thing" in an sort of abstract way. Any sort of modifying information must go before what it is modifying in Turkish :)
Well, also, the typical order is to put the direct object right before the verb. However, in this case I'm not sure, grammatically, it would be otherwise absolutely necessary because "her şeyi" is in the accusative (I guess because it's acting as a pronoun and all pronouns get the accusative when needed.) Right?
I am not sure, but I think together with "Bana dedi ki" it is clear that you only heart it and did not experience it yourself. I don't know which word, but I think something must be added to use biliyor. For example I am sure that I know everything about you (I have experienced it) and I say to you, he too said that he knows everything about you. May be that I am wrong, so anybody may correct me.
So the -mIş tense just adds uncertainty to the verb, and not an indication that the action happened in the past?
How would i say "He told me that he knew everything about you" (but now he's dead)?
And why is biliyor not accepted as a solution? Is it just to make a point for this lesson or is it actually wrong?
I had the same question, but I couldn't find anything on the web about -m(ı)ş being used for anything but the past tense. So I looked on Verbix, and it says biliyormuş is in the "past progressive, dubative" tense/mood. Duo just doesn't go into the past progressive in this course. So the English sentence should really say "knew" instead of "know."
I think the reason this is so hard to pin down is that Turkish linguistics draws a clear line between the -miş suffix that you attach to a bare verb stem for "reported" past tense, and the -(y)miş copula that you can attach to many other verb tenses (and to nouns/adjectives) to show that the information is indirect. This distinction is ignored entirely in most online Turkish courses, and does not even show up in all of my textbooks. It makes sense why: it's very hard to understand why evidentiality matters if your native language doesn't address it.