# I don't think (that) this is a good idea.



## amorcelius

Hello!

My question is, (beside what the title says), how do we use the "that" with nouns? - I am aware that with verbs, we adjectivize them with "-dik", "-an".
And also, (I judge it relevant), when we say "I don't know what you are talking about" (and like I said at the beginning  "WHAT the title says", this "what" i.e. that which, I guess is used about the same way as the question I am actually putting (about 'that'). OR AM I WRONG!? and it refers to the turkish "ne".
(by the way, "I don't know what you're talking about" can it be "konusanin bilmem"?)
and even more, (like a suggestion) - "it's not a good idea" into "you should not do it" or "better don't it"
-> iyi fikir yok/degil ;  (honestly, I have some problems with obligations, or any of those - have to, must, should, ought to)
but about them (obligations, or strong advice) I have found expressing them in the form of conditionals - I think I should go. Gitsem iyi olur galiba.
You are superwelcome to help and explain!


----------



## Rallino

Hi amorcelius. You're asking too many questions in one thread.

I don't know what you're talking about = *Neden bahsettiğini bilmiyorum*.

Can you give us an example to show what you mean by _using 'that' with nouns_?


----------



## amorcelius

Rallino said:


> Hi amorcelius. You're asking too many questions in one thread.
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about = *Neden bahsettiğini bilmiyorum*.
> 
> Can you give us an example to show what you mean by _using 'that' with nouns_?



I apologize   I got carried away.

examples -> "I don't think that this your car", "I think (that) he is wrong", "I helped the cat that/which was on the street", "The sign that/which is blue", "you know that this is wrong", "I see the car (which/that) is on the road", "I think that this is a wolf, and not a wild dog"
What I meant was, the "which, what, that, who" (as far as I know do not exist in Turkish, and are rather expressed by transforming the verb performed by some doer into a description, {verb stem+dik} or {verb stem+an}) The relative pronouns, BUT, when around them there is no verb, but rather point at something else - my very title is of similar sort -> "I don't think THAT this is a good idea" (the "that" pointing not at any verb but at "this")
Was it clear enough, or did it sound like a jibber-jabber?
By the way, why did you translate the sentence with "neden"? (doesn't it mean "why"!?)


----------



## Rallino

If there is "am/is/are/was/were/have/has/had" in the sub-clause, we use _olmak_.

I don't think this *is* your car -> _Bunun senin araban *olduğunu* düşünmüyorum._
I helped the cat that *was* on the street -> _Sokakta *olan* kediye yardım ettim._*

*When the English sentence has "which is *in/at/on*", we prefer *-deki*: _Sokak*taki* kediye yardım ettim._

The sign that *is *blue -> _Mavi *olan* tabela._
You know that this *is* wrong -> _Bunun yanlış *olduğunu* _biliyorsun.
I see the car that *is* on the road -> _Yolda *olan* arabayı görüyorum. (Yol*daki *arabayı görüyorum.)_
I think that this* is* a wolf, and not a big wild dog -> _Bunun büyük yabani bir köpek değil, bir kurt *olduğunu* düşünüyorum._


I think that this *is* a good idea -> _Bunun iyi bir fikir *olduğunu* düşünüyorum.
_


amorcelius said:


> By the way, why did you translated the sentence with "neden"? (doesn't it mean "why"!?)


_Neden_ can both be 'why' and 'from/about what'.


----------



## amorcelius

Rallino said:


> If there is "am/is/are/was/were/have/has/had" in the sub-clause, we use _olmak_.
> 
> I don't think this *is* your car -> _Bunun senin araban *olduğunu* düşünmüyorum._
> I helped the cat that *was* on the street -> _Sokakta *olan* kediye yardım ettim._*
> 
> *When the English sentence has "which is *in/at/on*", we prefer *-deki*: _Sokak*taki* kediye yardım ettim._
> 
> The sign that *is *blue -> _Mavi *olan* tabela._
> You know that this *is* wrong -> _Bunun yanlış *olduğunu* _biliyorsun.
> I see the car that *is* on the road -> _Yolda *olan* arabayı görüyorum. (Yol*daki *arabayı görüyorum.)_
> I think that this* is* a wolf, and not a big wild dog -> _Bunun büyük yabani bir köpek değil, bir kurt *olduğunu* düşünüyorum._
> 
> 
> I think that this *is* a good idea -> _Bunun iyi bir fikir *olduğunu* düşünüyorum.
> _
> 
> _Neden_ can both be 'why' and 'from/about what'.



Wow! Thanks! You were very helpful!
After what you wrote, i have another question (maybe because i am missing something out) - you did write    "bunun", but why?, are you trying to say  "of this you know it is wrong"?
So that puts the question, why do we have to say  "of this", instead of just "this" with obj suffix?
Is it because of the descriptive nature of the  turkish sentence construction?


----------



## Rallino

When you have _...that/which *SUBJECT*_ + _verb_, the subject is in the genitive.

I know that *you* speak English. -> _Ben *senin* İngilizce konuştuğunu biliyorum._
Did you know that *Jack* has a new car? -> _*Jack'in *yeni bir arabası olduğunu biliyor muydun?_


----------



## amorcelius

Rallino said:


> When you have _...that/which *SUBJECT*_ + _verb_, the subject is in the genitive.
> 
> I know that *you* speak English. -> _Ben *senin* İngilizce konuştuğunu biliyorum._
> Did you know that *Jack* has a new car? -> _*Jack'in *yeni bir arabası olduğunu biliyor muydun?_



And one more time thank you!!!   
And again another question - you put the object before the participle, instead of after, why?
(Like, yanlis, araba and kurt) (on the first usage of araba you put araba after the participle , but in the second, before the participle) (by accident, or is there exception to the rule?)


----------



## Rallino

It depends on whether _car_ is in the main clause or in the sub-clause. In other words, it depends on if it comes before or after _that/which_.

I don't think that this is your car. -> _Bunun senin araban olduğunu düşümüyorum._
I see the car that is on the road. -> _Yolda olan arabayı görüyorum.
_
In English, participles mark the beginning of the sub-clause. When you see _that_, you go 'Oh okay, now comes the subordinate clause.'
In Turkish, participles mark the *ending* of the sub-clause. Anything after a participle belongs to the main clause.

In the first sentence, _car_ is in the sub-clause; therefore it's before the participle. The participle englobes it.
In the second sentence, _car_ is in the main clause; therefore it comes after the participle. The participle isn't affecting it anymore.


----------



## amorcelius

Rallino said:


> It depends on whether _car_ is in the main clause or in the sub-clause. In other words, it depends on if it comes before or after _that/which_.
> 
> I don't think that this is your car. -> _Bunun senin araban olduğunu düşümüyorum._
> I see the car that is on the road. -> _Yolda olan arabayı görüyorum.
> _
> In English, participles mark the beginning of the sub-clause. When you see _that_, you go 'Oh okay, now comes the subordinate clause.'
> In Turkish, participles mark the *ending* of the sub-clause. Anything after a participle belongs to the main clause.
> 
> In the first sentence, _car_ is in the sub-clause; therefore it's before the participle. The participle englobes it.
> In the second sentence, _car_ is in the main clause; therefore it comes after the participle. The participle isn't affecting it anymore.



Superthankyou!!!
I'm sorry, but i don't know what else to say....
Very much appreciated!!!!


----------



## amorcelius

Rallino said:


> I don't think that this is your car. -> _Bunun senin araban olduğunu düşümüyorum. _



May i wonder, why "araban"? I mean why put it into the genitive and at the same time before it to use the genitive pronoun?
Can't it be " arabayi" indicating that "araba" is the thing owed by "senin"?
I mean, am i wrong if i say that even "senin" is redundant here?
Like, saying "araban" is already clear that it is about "your car" and not someone else's.
If i amasking really too much about one thing,  i really am sorry, but i am trying to understand every single detail.


----------



## Rallino

You can omit 'senin'. Just araban is also grammatically fine. It just makes more sense to use it because we're kinda stressing it: it's someone else's car, not *yours*.


----------



## amorcelius

Rallino said:


> You can omit 'senin'. Just araban is also grammatically fine. It just makes more sense to use it because we're kinda stressing it: it's someone else's car, not *yours*.



But how can it be amibiguoua when you have some speakr "dusunuyorUM" and then an object of possession "araban"? I mean, when i see the "-n" suffix , it is already clear that it is about "yours" not my/mine or else's.
I would have understood clarification about the pronoun "o" - ehether he she or it, but the above...
In the example above i see clearly stated subject of "I" by the "dusunuyoruM" and then someone's possession that isn't the subject's, but ratherr of some object (your) by the "arabaN"

Please, don't get mad! I am just trying to make it clear. But thanks that you are still replying me despite my many questions!!!


----------



## Rallino

I didn't say it creates ambiguity. It just highlights it. It's kinda like the difference between "I want" and "I do want". What purpose does "do" have? Sometimes it feels appropriate to reinforce the sense with an extra word.


----------

