# Hikmet'in 4 yaşındaki (sic) oğlu var.



## 123xyz

Hello all,

In another thread where the sentence "Hikmet'in dört yaşında bir oğlu var" was being discussed, I encountered some perplexing explanations as to why "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" would be incorrect to convey the intended meaning that Hikmet has a four-year-old son. The things that confused me were the analysis of the "var" structure to express the meaning to "have" and the analysis of the role of the "-ki" suffix. 

Based on what I know, the suffix "-ki" can be added to adjectival phrases (or words that would be phrases were it not for Turkish's agglutinative morphology) to turn them into attributive modifiers. For example:

Çocuk bahçededir > Bahçedeki çocuk ... 
The child is in the garden (predicative adjective phrase) > The child in the garden (attributive modifier) ...

Based on this logic, I would have expected "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" to be correct. Namely, I would have expected "Hikmet'in oğlu dört yaşında" to mean "Hikmet's son is four years old" and "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" to mean "Hikmet has a four-year-old son". In the former case, "dört yaşında" is a predicative adjective, part of the predicate together with the copula (although it is omitted/absent in Turkish), whereas in the latter case, it is an attribute modifier, modifying the word "oğlu" (the subject) since there, it can't be part of the predicate - the predicate is already something else, i.e. "var" (I suppose ""dört yaşında" could be part of the predicate in tandem with "var", but then I don't understand how that would make semantic sense). Hence, the usage of "-ki" in the latter case would have appeared quite natural to me.

In relation to this, I was further confused by the following comment:



> 1. [Hikmet'in dört yaşında bir oğlu var] is : _Hikmet *has* a 4-year-old son.
> When you are giving the age you should say *yaşında.
> 
> *The age and the name together are the object for Hikmet and the verb "to have", _


Here, the age and the name are analysed as the object of to "have". Indeed, in English, they are the object of "to have", but Turkish has no verb meaning "to have" - Turks use an existential construction. They don't say "I have a son", they say "*there is a son to me". Thus, how can we speak of an object of "to have" in Turkish? The sentence "Hikmet'in dört yaşında oğlu var" literally translates to *to Hikmet a four-year-old son exists/is". That would make "oğlu" a subject. Hence, the argument about "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" being incorrect because of objects being involved makes little sense to me.

However, another forero has argued similarly, saying that with the "-ki" suffix, the son becomes the subject. This makes no sense to me, since I say it is already the subject in both cases:



> "Hikmet'in dört yaşında*ki bir oğlu var." With the word "bir" it doesn't change. Still, when you are using the suffix "-ki", "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki bir oğlu" as a whole becomes the subject of the sentence and hence saying "var" makes it "the son exists". *



Furthermore, even if we did have an object involved in any of the relevant sentences, how would that affect the usage of the "-ki" suffix? Is it the "-ki" suffix may be used on subjects only? That makes little sense to me - it serves as a suffix to promote predicative adjective phrases to attributive adjective phrases, and attributes can be assigned to both subjects and objects. If this doesn't work in Turkish, would it mean that "Bahçedeki çocuk çok tatlı" is correct (not taking into account any other mistakes I might have made in writing these sentences not related to the topic of this discussion) while "Bahçedeki çocuğu gördüm" is incorrect, because it contains the "-ki" suffix embedded in an attribute of a direct object, i.e. the direct object of the verb "to see"?

Another point I would like to raise is the translation of "var" constructions. A forero has claimed the following:



> Again, don't take it otherwise, "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" is completely correct as being translation of "The 4-year-old son of Hikmet exists."
> 
> And "Hikmet'in dört yaşında bir oğlu var" is translation of "Hikmet has a 4-year-old son."



Thus, he has translated one sentence as "Hikmet has a son" and the other as "Hikmet's son exists". In light of what I have just explained about the construction with "var" in Turkish in opposition to the "have" construction in English and so many other Indo-European languages, how can this distinction even be made? If "to have" is an existential construction in Turkish, "having" and "existing" should really be contrasted? There are other expressions to denote "have" and "exist" that do away with the ambiguity, but I don't believe "var" does, so I fail to understand the logic. I don't understand how the "-ki" suffix could change the meaning from "have" to "exist" or vice versa, given its quite unrelated grammatical role. I suppose this could be a grammatical idiosyncrasy, since it is not uncommon for specific components with a sentence to yield a meaning not reflected in each one's grammatical function across world languages, but I am skeptical as to whether this is the case here.

The final point I would like to have clarified is the one about the possible restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction in Turkish, which seems to be implied by the following comment:



> On the other hand, to say "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var." doesn't sound correct at all, considering the English sentence you gave. Without it, I would think when said "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" that you want to make it clear that one of the sons of Hikmet, the one who is 4 years old, exists. Translating it with "-ki" is wrong because its function is to specify the one son who is 4 and implies Hikmet has other sons as well.



Based on the analysis that "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" means "Hikmet has a four-year-old son" whereas "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" means "Hikmet has a son, who is four years old" (or "Hikmet's son, who is four years old, exists", since as I have argued above, I don't perceive any distinction within the restraints of Turkish grammar), it appears to me that we deal with a restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction. Namely, the first example appears to restrictive (the age information and the son are packed together - it is emphasized that Hikmet has a four-year-old son and not that he merely has a son, that being the key information, about whom we also happen to mention that he is four years old) whereas the latter is non-restrictive (the age information is separated from the information about the son - the existence of a son is affirmed, and that is later complemented with specific age information). I would also like to mention that I am basing these claims on the forero's translations of the two sentences - as far as I knew, Turkish makes no restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction morphologically. I am merely trying to interpret the implications of the quoted translations.

If I have interpreted them to imply restrictiveness and non-restrictiveness correctly, that seems to imply that the "-ki" suffix morphologically conveys these grammatical categories - is this indeed so? More importantly, even if it did so, that wouldn't make it any clearer to me why "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" would be incorrect. The central focus of the original discussion wasn't quite what information "Hikmet'in dört yaşında bir oğlu var" stresses as opposed to "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var", i.e. there was no discussion of restrictiveness. It was simply discussed why the latter was incorrect. However, if the distinction between the two is "Hikmet has a four-year-old son" and "Hikmet has a son, who is four years old", i.e. if the distinction is between restrictive and non-restrictive, I don't see how that would contribute to the correctness of either one - they should both be correct with differences in shade of meaning, which even seem negligible. 

As a final comment, I would like to point of the following example sentence from a Turkish learning website:



> Yanımdaki para yok - I don't have money with me



Regardless of what explanations may hold true or false for the sentences discussed above, i.e. with Hikmet's son, the above example seems to suggest that "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" is correct either way, since as far as I can see, they are structurally identical, i.e. parallel. Namely, we have the subjects "son~money", we have an attributive complement derived from an adjective phrase "dört yaşındaki~yanımdaki", and we have a predicate "var~yok". The only difference worth noting seems to be "yok" vs. "var", but I hardly see how that changes anything - the two words are fully parallel except that one is positive and the other negative.

To summarize, I am unclear as to the following points:
1. Why has the omission of "-ki" in "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" been suggested and how come that doesn't violated the rules regarding the usage of "-ki"?
2. Why have objects been mentioned when talking about the "var" construction in Turkish?
3. Why has a "have" vs. "exist" distinction been referred to when discussing Turkish possessive/existential statements?
4. Is there any restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction in Turkish morphology and if so, what is its exact nature?
5. How does the sentence "yanımdaki para yok" tie in with the discussion?

Above all, why is "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" wrong?

Thank you in advance


----------



## 123xyz

P.S. I am not trying to question or refute anyone's claims in the original thread - I am merely pointing out that I don't follow the reasoning behind them in certain cases, so I am hoping for some clarification.

P.P.S. I realize that I have produced arguments based on multiple assumptions I have arrived at myself, so I would like to point out that I am not trying to assert anything in particular - I am just illustrating how my reasoning works, particularly in comparison to the reasoning I have encountered in the original thread, so that I may better illustrate what and how is unclear to me.


----------



## Gemmenita

Hello 123xyz,

Önce, kolay gelsin!
And then, don't worry and I make you sure that it is not too complicated as you think and no need to get confused.
First, I try to answer to you in your quote and then some more out of it.
(My answers are in red color)



123xyz said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Çocuk bahçededir > Bahçedeki çocuk ...
> The child is in the garden (predicative adjective phrase) > The child in the garden (attributive modifier) ...
> 
> Based on this logic, I would have expected "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" to be correct. Yes but only when you mean "exists" by "var". Namely, I would have expected "Hikmet'in oğlu dört yaşında" to mean "Hikmet's son is four years old" Correct and "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" to mean "Hikmet has a four-year-old son" Never.
> (...)
> They don't say "I have a son", they say "*there is a son to me". Thus, how can we speak of an object of "to have" in Turkish? Just by using possessive adjective with the possessor + the verb "var".
> The sentence "Hikmet'in dört yaşında oğlu var" literally translates to *to Hikmet a four-year-old son exists/is".No, never. Just Hikmet *has* a 4-year-old son.
> That would make "oğlu" a subject. No, in the sentence "Hikmet'in dört yaşında oğlu var", oğlu is not subject but an object (of the verb "var": Neyi var? Büyük bir evi var, kırmızı arabası var, 4 yaşında oğlu var.)  Hence, the argument about "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" being incorrect because of objects being involved makes little sense to me.In this sentence oğlu is subject because the verb "var" means "exists".
> (...)
> Is it the "-ki" suffix may be used on subjects only? No, the word defined by "-ki" can have different functions in a sentence:
> Bahçedeki çocuk benim kuzenim.
> Dün senin 30 yasındaki teyzeni gördüm.
> Arabadaki kadın beni aradı.
> (...)
> would it mean that "Bahçedeki çocuk çok tatlı" is correct (not taking into account any other mistakes I might have made in writing these sentences not related to the topic of this discussion) while "Bahçedeki çocuğu gördüm" is incorrect, Who says so? It is completely correct and I can even say that it is the only correct way to say, here "Bahçedeki çocuk" is the object of "gördüm" (as my explanation and examples above)
> (...)
> Thus, he has translated one sentence as "Hikmet has a son" and the other as "Hikmet's son exists".   Yes, very good translations indeed.
> In light of what I have just explained about the construction with "var" in Turkish in opposition to the "have" construction in English and so many other Indo-European languages, how can this distinction even be made?
> There are 2 “var”s in Turkish:
> Var = to have (possession) [without "-ki"]
> Var= There is, there are(existence) [with "-ki"]
> 
> And each "var" has its own structure. The first "var" without "ki" and the second one, with "ki".
> (As a general rule, with different meanings of one verbe, the structure of sentence changes and we have different stuctures too)
> (...)
> Based on the analysis that "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" means "Hikmet has a four-year-old son" whereas "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" means "Hikmet has a son, who is four years old" (*or* "Hikmet's son, who is four years old, exists", *OR* no,the only correct translation is "Hikmet's son, who is four years old, *exists*"
> (...) it appears to me that we deal with a restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction. Namely, the first example appears to restrictive (the age information and the son are packed together - it is emphasized that Hikmet has a four-year-old son and not that he merely has a son, that being the key information, about whom we also happen to mention that he is four years old) whereas the latter is non-restrictive (the age information is separated from the information about the son - the existence of a son is affirmed, and that is later complemented with specific age information). Well... the point that you have recognized is negotiable... but as far as I know, this question is not explained by the idea of restriction or non-restriction which will make everything hypercomplicated! There are other easier ways to distinguish them and it is not so much complicated! Just I can say: if you get to distinguish which "var" means "to have" and which "var", "to exist" means you have learned everything with no need to restriction or non-restriction.
> (...)
> As a final comment, I would like to point of the following example sentence from a Turkish learning website:
> Regardless of what explanations may hold true or false for the sentences discussed above, i.e. with Hikmet's son, the above example seems to suggest that "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" is correct either way, since as far as I can see, they are structurally identical, i.e. parallel. Namely, we have the subjects "son~money", we have an attributive complement derived from an adjective phrase "dört yaşındaki~yanımdaki", and we have a predicate "var~yok". The only difference worth noting seems to be "yok" vs. "var", but I hardly see how that changes anything - the two words are fully parallel except that one is positive and the other negative. Here the case of "son" and "money" is the same [of course with "ki"] because "var" or "yok" are in the meaning of "existing" and "not existing"
> To summarize, I am unclear as to the following points: Oof, nihayet özetledin. Çok sağ ol! I answer to these questions out of the quote.
> 1. Why has the omission of "-ki" in "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" been suggested and how come that doesn't violated the rules regarding the usage of "-ki"?
> 2. Why have objects been mentioned when talking about the "var" construction in Turkish?
> 3. Why has a "have" vs. "exist" distinction been referred to when discussing Turkish possessive/existential statements?
> 4. Is there any restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction in Turkish morphology and if so, what is its exact nature?
> 5. How does the sentence "yanımdaki para yok" tie in with the discussion?
> 
> Above all, why is "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" wrong?
> 
> Thank you in advance



First of all, as you see, this is the verb "var=to have" which makes us to use *without* "-ki". Now pay attention to these examples:

Onun *yakışıklı* bir oğlu var.    
Onun *büyük* bir evi var.
 Onun *4 yaşında* bir oğlu var.

As you see, no "-ki" is used with the adjectives above.
With the above sentences this is always an adjective which is used and no need for “-ki”, and here “4 yaşında” ( age) is an adjective like other adjectives: “yakışıklı” or “büyük”.
For the same reason that “yakışıklı” an “büyük” never take “-ki” (and I am sure that you agree with this fact), “4 yaşında” also, never takes “-ki” with the verb “var=to have”.



1. Why has the omission of "-ki" in "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" been suggested and how come that doesn't violated the rules regarding the usage of "-ki"?

The omission of "-ki" is  suggested because in this sentence "var" means "have", only in the case where "var" means "exists" it is not suggested. Because of the rule of the verb "var= exist" as I said above in the quote and I repeat again.

2. Why have objects been mentioned when talking about the "var" construction in Turkish?

Because with the verb "var=to have" we need an object. But don't mix: "oğlan" is object and "4 yaşinda" is its adjective.

3. Why has a "have" vs. "exist" distinction been referred to when discussing Turkish possessive/existential statements?

Why not? This a very good point that Muttaki has talked about and is very useful to know and learn. Of course
with different meanings of one verb, the structure of a sentence changes.
I repeat again:
There are 2 “var”s in Turkish:
Var = to have (possession) [ you shouldn't use "-ki" with it.]
Var= There is, there are(existence) [you should use "-ki" with it.]

4. Is there any restrictive vs. non-restrictive distinction in Turkish morphology and if so, what is its exact nature?
Already explained above in the quote.

5. How does the sentence "yanımdaki para yok" tie in with the discussion?

Very good question, because I wanted just to talk about it:

First, here “yok” is in the meaning of “doesn't exist” [the opposite of "var=exists" ] and the sentence means:
The money which was with me(not in my pocket, but besides me) doesn’t exist (is no longer there).
And as you see in the site it is written “money that is by my side.”
Therefore in the meaning of “existing” and "not existing", as I said above,it is very correct to use “-ki”.
Which money is not with you? (_doesn't_ _exist_ no longer besides you?)
Yanımdaki money.

-Above all, why is "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" wrong?

I think that now, you can answer yourself to this question.
However, I write again: Because "Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" doesn't mean "...has a 4-year-old child" which_ is our goal,_ but means "...exists" which _is not our goal_. But in other contexts, if we want to say "...exists" it is completely correct and not wrong.


----------



## Reverence

As a former teacher, one thing I hate with a passion is random sources misaiming people with faulty information. Whatever website that is, I hope they correct themselves as soon as possible, lest they confuse more Turkish enthusiasts.

"Hikmet'in dört yaşındaki oğlu var" is a sentence one would never hear from a native Turkish speaker. It emphasizes that Hikmet's 4-year-old son *exists*, that the kid is out there, occupying some space of a certain volume in our universe. Unless we're actually discussing the existence of this particular child, that sentence won't serve any purpose at all and should be replaced with something like, "Hikmet'in dört yaşında bir oğlu var."

"Yanımdaki para yok" is a similar case. Again, definite versus indefinite. This sentence means something along the lines of, "You know the money I have on me, right? It's nonexistent!" Yep, it makes as much sense in Turkish as well. If one merely wishes to say, "I have no money on me," the correct sentence is, "Yanımda para yok."


----------



## 123xyz

Thank you for the replies; I suppose I understand the matter better now, i.e. the distinction between the two "var" structures, i.e. "to have" vs. "to exist". However, if we don't have any phrase that could end with "-ki", does the distinction still exists? For example, if we replace "four-year-old" with "smart", does "Hikmet'in akıllı oğlu var" mean "Hikmet has a smart son" or "Hikmet's son, who is smart, exists"? In any case, how would you make the distinction?

Also, what happens if we have "sahip olmak" instead of "var"? Is the "-ki" construction valid? For example, would it be "köyde eve sahiptir" or "köydeki eve sahiptir"?


----------



## Gemmenita

123xyz said:


> Thank you for the replies.(...)However, if we don't have any phrase that could end with "-ki", does the distinction still exists? For example, if we replace "four-year-old" with "smart", does "Hikmet'in akıllı oğlu var" mean "Hikmet has a smart son" or "Hikmet's son, who is smart, exists"? In any case, how would you make the distinction?
> 
> Also, what happens if we have "sahip olmak" instead of "var"? Is the "-ki" construction valid? For example, would it be "köyde eve sahiptir" or "köydeki eve sahiptir"?



Rica ederim! and Merhaba 123,

To distinguish between them, usually there are some distinctive words in the sentence which help us to know which "var" it is, for example here,
it should be "Hikmet'in akıllı *bir* oğlu var" to get the meaning of "to have", and without "bir" it is mostly near to the meaning of "exists".

And for "sahip olmak", it depends on what you mean exactly:

"köydeki eve sahiptir" is completely correct (the structure with "-ki") and means:He owns the house which is in the village. 

"köyde eve sahiptir" can be correct just in this way:by adding a comma and "bir" (of course, the meaning changes too):
köyde, bir eve sahiptir. ( He has/owns a house in the village)

p.s. Apart from all the rules we talked above, I make you know a small trick  to get when to use "-ki" and when not :  with the verb "var=to have", we _never_ use "-ki", but with other verbs we _must_ use "-ki"


----------



## Reverence

Um, "var" here is not a verb.

Using "sahip olmak" doesn't change much; if there's a _-ki_ involved, chances are the noun is meant to be definitive. It's much like "the", except when used in conjunction with "bir", which is the Turkish counterpart of "a".


----------

