# bizim dağ başı (Possessive adjective + Suffixless noun)



## sufler

Merhaba!
So far I have learned that when a possessive pronoun (like _benim_, _senin_, _bizim_...) is used, the noun that it refers to must take the corresponding suffix (_-im_, _-in_, _-imiz_...). This rule seemed very clear and easy to use: _benim köpeğim_, _bizim evimiz_... etc. 


However sometimes, mostly on the web, I encounter examples which do not follow the rule. Actually, a possessive suffix is used after the noun, but it do not correspond with the pronoun appearing before the noun. An example statement I've seen just yesterday: *"O zamanlar bizim dağ başına kar yağmıştı."* = _"Those days snow has fallen to our top of the mountain"_. Shouldn't it be *"bizim dağ başımıza"*?? My first thought was it was because _"dağ başı"_ is a compound noun, but generally the compounds take the ending of the final owner, like:_ el çantam_, right?


Is that just a slang construction or a result of the author's inattention, or perhaps there are really cases when use of suffix different from the pos. pronoun is acceptable? Then, when am I allowed to do that?


----------



## Black4blue

It's a colloquial usage. You can do it anywhere you want, if it's not a formal speech.
There are some situations that we almost never use the possesive suffix, such as:* Bizim ev, bizim sınıf, bizim okul...*

You also may hear this usage in sentences which has ridicule:
*Haha, şu kedinin surata bak, sanki ağlıyor!
Şu çocuğun tipe bak, ne biçim giyinmiş!*


----------



## spiraxo

Hi,

I think, in this sentence, *dağ başı* means _isolated/remote place_. It literally means *any place as remote as a mountain top*. _Dağ_ and _başı_ should have been written as one word.

*BTS
*dağbaşı   
a. (da'ğbaşı) 1. Issız yer: “Dağbaşında gece yarısı beni kim görmek isteyebilir?” -M. Ş. Esendal. 2. Devletin koyduğu yasaların işletilmediği yer.


----------



## shafaq

sufler said:


> * Is that just a slang construction or a result of the author's inattention*, or perhaps there are really cases when use of suffix different from the pos. pronoun is acceptable? Then, *when am I allowed to do that?*



No ! It is neither  slang nor inattention (at least here and in most cases)...


When you are indicating/signing/demonstrating the material (i.e. just after a "demonstrative pronoun"; even the pronoun (by some means) doesn't exist.). as it can be seen in examples that* Black4blue*  has brought.

Haha, *şu* kedinin surata bak, sanki ağlıyor!
*Şu *çocuğun tipe bak, ne biçim giyinmiş!

They both are so because the *demonstrative pronoun*s before them; but not because they have ridicule...

As for your example "O zamanlar (*şu*) *bizim dağ başı*na kar yağmıştı." ; the "demonstraive pronoun" inthere is hidden(ommited) but still sensible...

*Edit:* If you ask that why the "demonstraive pronoun" is ommited here ?; I will say you: because the author of that sentence, was afar from the demonsrated *dağbaşı* at that time... So s/he couldn't be able to point it by finger ...


----------



## spiraxo

I think the context is as follows.

_O zamanlar bizim dağ başına kar yağmıştı..._
_Doğudaki gibi günlerce okula gidemeyince Ebrarla fotoğraflaştık napalım.

_


----------



## sufler

Thank you very much shafaq! Your explanation to the problem is the best of all the places I asked it 
So, in other words, I am allowed to use the pronoun (owning noun) without the corresponding suffix after the owned thing when I want too emphasize the owner?


----------



## Black4blue

Is my answer wrong?



shafaq said:


> They both are so because the *demonstrative pronoun*s before them; but not because they have ridicule...



No, a demonstrative pronoun doesn't have to be there. Can't we say (or don't we say [cause it's slang]) *Unutma, yarın bizim arabayı al gel, olmadı Ali'nin arabayı alırsın ama mutlaka gel!*


----------



## shafaq

sufler said:
			
		

> So, in other words, I am allowed to use the pronoun (owning noun) without the corresponding suffix after the owned thing when I want too emphasize the owner?


If I didn't understand you wrong; it is just opposite. If you want to emphasize the owner; you must add suffix as in "Ali'nin araba*sı* yeşil". Here you emphasize that " the green one is belonging to Ali". When you say "Ali'nin araba yeşil" without suffix; you have been saying that "This car is green; by the way it belongs to Ali" . In that case you are emphasizing the *color of the car* but not the owner of it*;  *this information comes here as a by-product*.
*


Black4blue said:


> Is my answer wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, *a demonstrative pronoun doesn't have to be there.* Can't we say (or don't we say [cause it's slang]) *Unutma, yarın bizim arabayı al gel, olmadı Ali'nin arabayı alırsın ama mutlaka gel!*



Yes ! It doesn't have to be... In such likes cases we say it is omitted or hidden. Please do think the sentence  "demonsrative pronounce"s intact....
*Unutma, yarın şu bizim arabayı al gel, olmadı o Ali'nin arabayı alırsın ama mutlaka gel!

*Have you sense any weirdness or just completeness ...?


----------



## Konanen

I must say, that "Ali'nin araba" sounds, even in colloquial language, very wrong, shafaq.
Maybe in the meantime, colloquial language started to implode a lot in Turkey, but last time I checked these omitted sufficial pronouns only occured in the 1st and 2nd person (sg. and pl.), but *never* have I come across it in the third person.

"Arabayı al da gel." = _Take the car and drive/come (here)_.
"Benim arabayı al da gel." = _Take my car(, that you know about, and, that is farther away) and drive/come (here)_.
"Arabamı al da gel." = _Take my car _(no distance-marking formulation here) _and drive/come (here)._

You can think of it as the commonly known Latin phrasing:

"*illa mea* domus" = _*that my* house_ _(*there*)_; in opposition to 
"*ea mea* domus" = _*this my* house (*here*)_

Omitting the Turkish possession-marking suffices and replacing it by a possessor noun (benim; senin; bizim; sizin) would be like saying "ille meus ..." in Latin.


----------



## Black4blue

shafaq said:


> Have you sense any weirdness or just completeness ...?



No, there's no weirdness, it actually makes more sense now.


----------



## spiraxo

Hi sufler, 

_Bizim dağbaşımız_ can become *bizim dağbaşı*. It is called shortening. 
In normal speech, the expression does not require *şu *or *o*, be they omitted or not.

Shortening is a linguistic issue enabling us to make the expression shorter –based on minimum effort rule- without sacrificing the meaning.

I have found a document for you. I hope you can understand it. Please read it from page 138.

You will see following examples on page 142.
*c. Kısaltma grubu yapısındaki kelime gruplarından bazıları da isim olarak*
*kullanılmaktadır:*
_Nadir Hanım, _*bizim evi *_bilmiyor mu? _(MA, 48)
*Senin araba *_ne oldu? _(O, 51)
_Hemşireleri buna _*Kahvecinin Emin *_derler. _(O, 60 )
*Bizim kadın *_da bana yardım ediyordu. _(O, 160)


----------



## sufler

Thank you *spiraxo *for the link, but honestly some sentences are still difficult for me to translate at this level


----------



## spiraxo

Hi sufler,

I am sorry, but I couldn’t find any other article or information  referring to the abbreviated genitive group or _kısaltılmış ilgi grubu_.

Meanwhile, I sent an e-mail to the author (A. Ozkan) of the article to learn more about the genitive group. He said that the frequency of the use of any genitive group is the main factor of  its formation.

In the article he also mentions that linguistic economy and ease of articulation influence the formation of abrreviated word groups.

If I can learn more about this issue, I will add here.


----------



## Guner

I am not sure if this helps but isn't this *concept* kind of similar to the usage of "Dad" in the following case ?
"Dad thinks I should take this course." ---> Obviously the writer is talking about his own dad yet he is shortening it omitting "My"


----------



## Melaike

sufler said:


> However sometimes, mostly on the web, I encounter examples which do not follow the rule. Actually, a possessive suffix is used after the noun, but it do not correspond with the pronoun appearing before the noun. An example statement I've seen just yesterday: *"O zamanlar bizim dağ başına kar yağmıştı."* = _"Those days snow has fallen to our top of the mountain"_. Shouldn't it be *"bizim dağ başımıza"*?? My first thought was it was because _"dağ başı"_ is a compound noun, but generally the compounds take the ending of the final owner, like:_ el çantam_, right?



I think this expression is shortened.The complete  sentence should be something like ''Bizim evin/köyün olduğu dağbaşına kar yağmıştı'' .''Bizim dağ başımız'' suggests that '''Dağ'' belong to these people.İt would be wrong to use  it in this sentence because they don't own  the mountain.


----------

