# Hasta hissetse, aspirin veririm



## jbionic2010

For 2 sentences
Hasta hissetse, aspirin veririm.
Hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim.

do I have to use the same translation in both cases:
If he had felt ill, I’d have given him some aspirin.
??


----------



## shafaq

Not exactly...
The first one's time coverage is wide without exception:
 Hasta hissetse, aspirin veririm.=(When (*In any time in the Past, Present and Future*) he feels ill; ...........
But the second's; is limited to time letf back in the Past:

Hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim.=(In a Past time period) If he had felt ill, I’d have given him some aspirin.


----------



## jbionic2010

Well, the example is actually borrowed from a textbook. Please check the following screenshot
https://goo.gl/photos/3MZSh59NAew6Z3rd9


----------



## shafaq

First of all; both
Hasta hissetse, aspirin veririm.
and
Hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim.
doesn't look like so natural for my Turkish ears.
If I had been me; I would say

"Her ne zaman (X) *kendini* hasta *hissetse/hissederse*, aspirin veririm."
or
"(Ne zaman) *hasta olsa/olursa*, aspirin veririm."
All these verbs and affirmations are *valid for all past,present and future times* ("geniş zaman" in Turkish; Simple Present Tense (I think) in English).
Because of that; I always render it into English like
"When/if X feels sick; I (always) dispense him some aspirin."

But all of the verbs and affirmations that appeared in the second
"(Kendini) hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim." sentence; are belonging to *past time* cases and assumptions and maybe rendered as
"If/when he (had) felt ill, I’d have given him some aspirin."

Shortly; although I am not a grammar master; I am going to say that these two sentences aren't equal in the *time* base; so
"_you_ *don't* _have to_ (even* must not*) _use the same translation in both cases:
If he had felt ill, I’d have given him some aspirin. ??_"

Sure I checked the link; but because of insufficient data, I couldn't seize the overall idea in there.


----------



## analeeh

_kendini hasta hissetseydi_ should be counterfactual past - 'if he had felt sick'.
_kendini hasta hissetse_ should be counterfactual/hypothetical present - 'if he felt sick'.

_kendini hasta hissetse aspirin veririm_ - if he felt sick, I'd give him some aspirin.
_kendini hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim_ - if he'd felt sick, I'd've given him some aspirin.

I think.


----------



## garipx

correct translations: 

"hasta hissetse (hisseder ise), aspirin veririm" = if he feels sick, i (will) give aspirin.
"hasta hissetseydi, aspiring verirdim" = if he (had) felt, i'd (have) give (given) him aspirin.

ps: to use the words in paranthesis or not, follow the rest of conversation, this one sentence is not enough to understand the sense/meaning. For example, one may be saying "veririm" as a future verb tense, instead of "verecegim" in the first sentence above.)


----------



## analeeh

Can _hasta hissetseydi_ be used for the present? I.e. _hasta değil. Hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim_.


----------



## garipx

analeeh said:


> Can _hasta hissetseydi_ be used for the present? I.e. _hasta değil. Hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim_.



This is not present. "hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim", as mentioned in my previous post, corresponds to "if he felt sick, i'd give him aspirin", i.e. past.
Present version is the first sentence in my previous post, i.e. "hasta hissetse/hissederse, aspirin veririm" corresponds to "if he feels sick, i (will) give him aspirin."

In both past and present cases above, hasta degil(di) = he is(was) not sick.

some other simple tenses using this example.

hasta hissetseydi, ... = if he (had) felt sick, ... (past)
hasta hissediyor olsaydi, or, hasta hissediyorsaydi, ... = if he was/were feeling sick, ... (past continuous)
hasta hissediyorsa, ... if he is feeling sick, ... (present continuous)
hasta hissederse, ... = if he feels sick, ... (simple present)
hasta hissedecekse, ... if he will (is going to) feel sick, ... (future)
etc

ps: sometimes, people translate "if he had felt sick" as "hasta hissetseymis" which is not exactly so. Past with article "mis" is something else, which implies "unknowing/unaware/hearing from third party, etc". For example, "hastaymisim". i can translate this as "(i didn't know that) i was sick" that can also be translated as "hasta oldugumu bilmiyordum" that can also be said shortly as "hastaymisim." (see two different past articles +di and +mis in turkish)


----------



## analeeh

I think the problem here is that the English translations possibly don't mean exactly what you think they mean.

'If he felt sick, I'd give him aspirin' is, tense-wise, present. It refers to the present time. 'If he felt sick today/now, I'd give him aspirin.' It uses a past _form_, but its meaning is _present_, and _hypothetical_. He's not sick, but if he _was_/_were _sick, I'd give him some medicine. I'm pretty sure this lines up with the simple conditional in Turkish: _bugün kendini hasta hissetse, aspirin veririm_.

Because the past form is used for present meaning, we have to use the pluperfect for actual past. 'If he _had _felt sick yesterday/three days ago, I _would have_ given him aspirin.' This I'm pretty sure is the one that lines up with the simple past in Turkish: _dün kendini hasta hissetseydi, aspirin verirdim_.

These are both hypothetical forms. For non-hypothetical conditionals in English we use the present, for which I learnt _hasta hissed*er*se, aspirin veririm. _Time wise, the English here generally refers to the future - if (later) he feels ill, I'll give him some aspirin.

The question now I guess is whether you think there's a difference between _hasta hissederse_ and _hasta hissetse_. I learnt the first one as an open conditional (if he feels ill) and the second one as hypothetical (if he felt ill) but as the native speakers you'll have to tell me if you perceive a difference or not.


----------



## garipx

We have a saying here, "bu hamur cok su goturur", means literally "this dough takes much water", means "this (here, IF and time tense) is a controversial discussion."

So, let me summarize your words by simplifying:

1) if he had felt (yesterday, past), then, ... (past sentence)
2) if he felt (today, past form, but, present, hypothetical), then, ... (again a past form, but, again hypothetical present sentence)
3) if he feels (tomorrow, future), then, ... (future sentence)

If these are true (of course, must be true as English is your native language), then, I've been using this IF structure wrongly for 30 years. Now, I learnt that "if he felt (yesterday)" is wrong. Ok, thanks for that and now, lets back to Turkish, how "hasta hissederse/hissetse" can be translated according to 1, 2 and 3 above.

First of all, these words "hasta" and hissetmek" are not "oz turkce" words, not original turkish words, but, what we say "istanbul turkish" words which are a kind of Ottomanish which is a language mixed with turkish and arabic mainly and also with some farsi and french words. (hasta and hissetmek have arabic roots with turkish grammer rules.) Therefore, "hasta hissederse/hissetse, aspirin veririm" is not a real turkish sentence. Original, oz türkce version can be like that "özünü sayra duyarsa, aspirin veririm" (note that aspirin too is not turkish, but, it is a noun, its form does not change in the sentence, unlike "hiss+etmek" whose form changed.) Here, of course, I am not trying to open a new debate (old turkish öz turkce, etc), but, I am mentioning about these because (I guess foreigners to turkish too) are confused in some words, in such degenerated words like it happens in "hissederse/hissetse" that I guess people whose native languages is turkish are also confusing. Turkish speaking people, which is correct? hissederse or hissetse? I don't think they will give a sure clear answer to this question. On the other hand, if we say "özünü hasta duyarsa, ..." or "özünü hasta duysa", it'll be more familiar to their ears and will be easier for them to see the difference between "duyarsa" and "duysa" as its root, "duy", is öz turkce, original turkish while "hissederse" and "hissetse" are flue, mind confusing. So, I'll continue with "duyarsa" and "duysa, also to understand difference between "hisserderse" and "hissetse".

note that "duymak" in turkish means "to hear" as well as "to feel" and here in this thread, we take "feel"

according to 1, 2, 3 above:
duyarsa = if he felt ... (verb changing: duy, duyar, duyarsa... similarly: his, hisseder, hissederse)
duyduysa = if he had felt ... (verb changing: duy, duydu, duyduysa... similarly: his, hissetti, hissettiyse)
duyacaksa = if he feels .... (verb changing: duy, duyacak, duyacaksa... similarly: his, hissedecek, hissedecekse)
etc

duysa = (wish/once/etc, NOT if) he feels ... (similarly: hissetse... here "sa/se" does not mean IF, implies wish/ets)
So, if you see "sa/se" just after the root of word/verb, without time tense articles "ar/er, di/mis", cak/cek", then, those "sa/se" articles are not IF.


----------



## garipx

Some more words about these.

Why confusion about "hissetmek"? that doesn't happen about "duymak".

His=originally arabic word.
Hisset+mek=derived verb form to turkish, hence, becomes an ottomanish word (see degeneration, "hiss+et" as new root before verb "hisset+mek".. this does not happen in duy+mak).

A note here. For "to hear", real turkish word is "isitmek". Duy+mak=to feel. (this is especially to Turkish speaking people.)

Btw, in OQ (original question) of OP, original word is not "hissettiyse", but, "hissetseydi". Turkish speaking people, how is it translated? Difference between hissetseydi and hissettiyse? Again, lets use "duymak" to make translation easier.
"Duyduysa" and "duysaydı". When these are translated into English correctly, then, you know Turkish too well.


----------



## garipx

Ok, this page Turkish verb duymak conjugated in all tenses. gives all about "duy+mak".

It says, in English:
- "duysaydı" (past conditional - i.e. if he had felt)
- "duyduysa" (conditional mood past - how will it be translated? This conditional mood tense is somethig like "if he were felt", but, then, meaning changes.)

ps: btw, those above are wrong, should be reverse. True past conditional is "duyduysa" while its true conditional mood past is "duysaydi."
So,
duyduysa=if he had felt...
duysaydı=? I think it is same, duysaydı=if he had felt. But, we need to add a word such as "wish/once/etc" to differ "duyduysa" and "duysaydi" which are different.
ps: google translates "duyduysa" correctly, with a small error, as "if he hears" instead of "if he feels", but, gives absurd translation of "duysaydi" as "it was heard of it" which means "duyuldu/isitildi."


----------

