# Ne iş yapıyorsun?



## Yubia

thanks a lot of
 now, what means:

 ne iş yapıyosun

 nasil anlaşağız

???

 and how do I say: what do you want? and why you have my mail?

You have to open a new thread for a new question. Moreover, pay attention to proper capitalization, please.


----------



## Honour

Yubia said:
			
		

> thanks a lot of
> now, what means:
> 
> ne iş yapıyosun
> 
> nasil anlaşağız
> 
> ???
> 
> and how do I say: what do you want? and why you have my mail?
> 
> You have to open a new thread for a new question. Moreover, pay attention to proper capitalization, please.


 
Hola! de nuevo
ne iş yapıyorsun? (what work you are doing?, literally) it means what is your job?

nasıl anlaşa*ca*ğız? means "how could we communicate?"

me parace que vos falta un lengua comun en chat


----------



## mansio

"Ne" means what
"iş" means job
"yap-/yapı-" is to do
"-yor-" means the action is taking place (corresponds to the present continuous)
"-sun" means you/thou (tù no usted).


----------



## la tierra

mansio said:
			
		

> "yap-/yapı-" is to do


 
yap(mak) means "to do", but "yapı" has a diffrent mean, which is a noun meaning "structure" or " building".


----------



## mansio

Tierra

You're right. I should have isolated "ı" from "yap-" and shown its function as a liaison letter (or linking letter).


----------



## CCG_student

Hello,



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> "Ne" means what
> "iş" means job
> "yap-/yapı-" is to do
> "-yor-" means the action is taking place (corresponds to the present continuous)
> "-sun" means you/thou (tù no usted).



   "-yor-" corresponds to continuous tense, not necessarily present. For example, "Ne iş yapıyordun?" means "What work were you doing?" or "What was your job?".


----------



## mansio

Should I have said that it is the absence of -d that shows it is a present tense?

-Yord- indicates, as you rightly say, a continuous past. What indicates -yor- ? A continuous action without knowing if it is present or past ?


----------



## CCG_student

Hi again,



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> Should I have said that it is the absence of -d that shows it is a present tense?
> 
> -Yord- indicates, as you rightly say, a continuous past. What indicates a -yor- ? A continuous action without knowing if it is present or past ?



-yor- indicates only continuous action without knowing if it is present or past.  What makes "yapıyordun" past continuous is not -yord- suffix, there is no such suffix in Turkish. This word can be divided into its morphemes as "yap-(ı)yor-dun". Here "yap" is the verb "do", "yor" is continuity marker and "dun" is a result of phonological process originating from "idin" (in my opinion). I mean "yapıyordun" is equivalent to "yapıyor idin", and "idin" means "you were" (It can be divided as "idi-n", where "idi" is the past tensed copular verb meaning "was/were" and "-n" is a marker for singular second person). Somehow "yapiyor idin" becomes "yapiyordun".
    Hope it's not much confusing.

                     Have a nice day


----------



## mansio

Of course there is no "yord" suffix, I did not use the term. Didn't you notice that "yord" is "yor+d"?

 You say that "What makes "yapıyordun" past continuous is not -yord- suffix". I am sorry but I still believe the "yor" gives the continuous aspect and the "d" the past tense (short form of "idi"). By the rest of your post you are saying the same thing as me.


----------



## Honour

mansio said:
			
		

> I am sorry but I still believe the "yor" gives the continuous aspect and the "d" the past tense (short form of "idi"). By the rest of your post you are saying the same thing as me.


 
exactement, c'est la lettre *d* qui donne le sens de passé en ce cas.
yapıyor (sans d)= il est en train de le faire
yapıyordu =  il etait en train de le faire (je doute qu'il y ait telle phrase en français mais de toute façon j'espère que vous compreniez)
geliyorum(je viens/je suis en train de venir)
geliyordum(je venais/j'etais en train de venir)


----------



## CCG_student

Hi,



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> Of course there is no "yord" suffix, I did not use the term. Didn't you notice that "yord" is "yor+d"?
> 
> You say that "What makes "yapıyordun" past continuous is not -yord- suffix". I am sorry but I still believe the "yor" gives the continuous aspect and the "d" the past tense (short form of "idi"). By the rest of your post you are saying the same thing as me.


 
    OK, I supposed that you took "yord" as a single suffix. Apologies for misunderstanding.
    It is right that "yor" gives continuous aspect. In official Turkish (as taught in schools) it is "-di" suffix stating past tense, not "-d". This is supported by the fact that in verbs marked as past you cannot find "-d" alone, it always take one of the vowels ı/i/u/ü to its right: "geldi", "geldiler", "yaptıklarını" etc., but as I said this is the official theory and someone can claim that that past tense marker is in fact "-d", and for some reason it takes a vowel to the right of it as a linguistic hypothesis. Until now I have not heard such an hypothesis and intuitionally I find it unrealistic.
    And one more point: I do not think that past tense marker "-di" is always a short form for "-idi". I think it because despite I find "yapıyordun" and "yapıyor idin" equivalent, I don't find "yaptı" and "yap idi" equivalent, in fact "yap idi" is completely nonsense. I think it is a short form "idi" only when it comes as a suffix to a verb having continuous aspect, otherwise it is just the past tense marker suffix. There is some evidence supporting my idea, for example let's try to put plural person marker to verbs: "yaptılar" and "yapıyorlardı". As you see in the first one "-di" comes before "-lar" and in the second it comes after "-lar". I think since they are different constructions, they behave differently in the existence of "-lar" suffix. If you think in English, it creates a sense too since "-idi" is a copula. If "-di" were always a short form for "-idi", then literal translation of "yaptı" to English would be "you were do", which is also nonsense in English. On the other hand, if "-dı" in "yapıyorlardı" were past tense marker suffix, then its literal translation would be something as "they diding" (?), which is nonsense too.
     Sorry for long answers. If all these come as too much detail to you, please inform me.


----------



## la tierra

CCG_student said:
			
		

> And one more point: I do not think that past tense marker "-di" is always a short form for "-idi". I think it because despite I find "yapıyordun" and "yapıyor idin" equivalent, I don't find "yaptı" and "yap idi" equivalent, in fact "yap idi" is completely nonsense. I think it is a short form "idi" only when it comes as a suffix to a verb having continuous aspect, otherwise it is just the past tense marker suffix. There is some evidence supporting my idea, for example let's try to put plural person marker to verbs: "yaptılar" and "yapıyorlardı". As you see in the first one "-di" comes before "-lar"
> 
> 
> 
> hey
> I think we can't explain the reasons of something clearly in Turkish, because it is our native language I think you forget to explain some detail about "-idi" it is a suffix being used in the end of the noun-verbs(isim fiil). so there is no sense to say "yap idi". but on the other hand you can say "var idi" because "var" isn't a verb and putting "idi" next to "var" , you turn "var" to verb ,or "kırmızıydı"(kırmızı idi) is another example. "kırmızı" isn't a verb but by "idi", it turns into verb.
> I've explained this because I belive this info could be beneficial for Turkish learners
Click to expand...


----------



## hhtt

Honour said:


> Hola! de nuevo
> ne iş yapıyorsun? (what work you are doing?, literally) it means what is your job?
> 
> nasıl anlaşa*ca*ğız? means "how could we communicate?"
> 
> me parace que vos falta un lengua comun en chat




"Ne iş yapıyorsun?" sorusunun direk yani literally çevirisi "What work are doing" olması gerekmez mi? Yani yardımcı fiil cümlenin en sonunda değil de soru kelimesinden sonra gelmesi gerekmez mi?


----------

