# evlerindesiniz



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

I'd like to ask you if the word _ev*lerindesiniz*_ makes any sense in Turkish and if it is possible to attach more than four suffixes to a noun (I know that a verb can have more than 4 suffixes). 

Thank you


----------



## TekYelken

Hi,

I'm not an expert on grammar, I will just give you a quick answer.

evlerindesiniz ---> you are at their home

Theoretically you can ad another suffix ;

evlerin(iz)desiniz ---> you are at your homes.

The record word is known to be the one below (only used as a party trick ):

çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdan mısınız?  ---> are you one of those that we could not turn into a czechoslovakian ?
.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you very much, TekYelken. 
Is çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdan mısınız a compound word formed by more roots, or is there only one root plus many suffixes?


----------



## Rallino

A noun can easily have more than four suffixes indeed.

Nino'nunkilerdenmişçesine (as if it was part of those that Nino has)  has 6 or 8 suffixes depending on how you count.


----------



## Nino83

Thanks, Rallino. 
I've just read that in Turkish, suffixes can be recursive, for example "ben tavuk pişirttirttirttim" "I had someone have someone have someone have someone have someone cook a cicken" or the relative "ki", "evdekininkilerdeki" "the one of the one in the one at the house".


----------



## Rallino

Well, in theory yes, but they stop making sense after the 3rd or 4th one.

Pişmek = to cook, intransitively
Pişirmek = lit. To make cook; to cook, transitively
Pişirtmek = To make (someone)  cook (something)
Pişirttirmek = to ask someone to make someone else cook something
Pişirttirtmek =?
Pişirttirttirmek=??

It starts losing sense at that point.


----------



## Nino83

So, words like _Muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine_ or _çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdan mısınız_ are readily understandable or they are not so used in everyday speech?


----------



## Rallino

They are readily understandable  and they're easy to reproduce, in everyday life as well. Perhaps not in such lengths, but there is no difficulty about it other than the daunting aspect of it at first sight. What would be an example for a difficult word is when a word receives different but similar-looking suffixes, such as "*ememememe*_". 
_
Here's an example sentence featuring that word:
_
Kolumdan yılanın zehrini ememememe rağmen hayatta kaldım. (= I survived despite the fact that I wasn't able to suck the serpent's venom out of my arm.)
_
When we have such words, we might ask "hey did I put one too many 'me's there?"  

It's sort of like the Italian word "veementemente", but on a larger scale. 
_
_


----------



## Nino83

Ahah, ok, thanks. 
It seems that, without recursivity, a verb can have, in this order, stem - reflexive - reciprocal - causative - passive - negation - tense - mood - conditional (if) - person, i.e 9 consecutive suffixes.  
_görüştürülyormuşsam_ (if, as they say, I am being made to converse with)? 
Is it possible to put both reflexive and reciprocal suffixes (-in- and -i_ş-)_ in the same verb, or are they mutually exclusive?


----------



## Rallino

Görüştürül*ü*yormuşsam* without the negation; görüştürülmüyormuşsam, with negative.
Which is: root + reciprocal + causative + passive + negation + present tense + rumour past + conditional + first prs. conjugation.

(No one would say this with that 'muş' though, we would use an extra word to better stress the "as they say" part. But it's correct.)

I can't think of an example for a verb that is reflexive and reciprocal at the same time.


----------



## Nino83

Rallino said:


> I can't think of an example for a verb that is reflexive and reciprocal at the same time.


Thank you. So there are 8 consecutive suffixes (without repetitions).


----------



## Nino83

If we start from  _evlerimizdeler_, can we write these sentences?

ev-ler-imiz-de-ler = they are in our houses
ev-ler-imiz-de-ydi-ler = they were in our houses
ev-ler-imiz-de-ki-ydi-ler = those who were in our houses
ev-ler-imiz-de-ki-ler-in-ki-ydi-ler = those belonging to those who were in our houses.


----------



## Rallino

Yes, all of them are correct.


----------



## Nino83

Wow!
It's incredible that in Turkish one can say two consecutive relative clauses with a single word.  
Thank you


----------



## Nino83

Rallino said:


> görüştürülmüyormuşsam, with negative.
> Which is: root + reciprocal + causative + passive + negation + present tense + rumour past + conditional + first prs. conjugation.


Does it sound better if instead of -muş- we use -idi- past form? 
Does it make sense if we add the potential -(y)e- before the negation or the non premeditative -iver- after the negation?


----------



## Rallino

Görüştürülmeyiveriyormuşsam? 

This is extremely convoluted to be used in any context. It's on the frontier of meaninglessness and being theoretically acceptable.

The problem is "muş". Standard Turkish doesn't usually allow more than two tenses. (Dialects do allow it.)

Yapıyor
Yapıyormuş
Yapıyorduysa 
Yapıyormuşsa 

So in your word, all the suffixes are fine except for the sequence "-iyor-muş-sa", or if you want, "-iyor-du-ysa". Same problem.

One of them is too many.


----------



## Nino83

Ahah, it seems we reached the limits of the Tuskish verbal system. 
Thank you!


----------



## Rallino

For the record, it's not about the length. As long as you don't have more than two tenses, it's correct in standard speech. Note the following (I've marked each suffix in a different colour, but underlined each tense) :

Yapıverebileceklerimizinkilerdenmiş 
Yapacak lar mış tı

It doesn't matter how long the verb is, so long as it has a maximum of two tenses.


----------



## Nino83

Does it depend on which tenses are used?
For example _görecektiysem_? 
I read in this page that -ecek- and -mis- are not compatible, isn't it? 
Bob Cromwell


----------



## Rallino

I can easily say "Görecektiysem" in real life, but I'm not so sure if it's really correct. Maybe someone else knows about it.

"Ecek" and "miş" are compatible. Look at rule 6, in the _Future_ row and _Inferential_ column. It's listed there as well.

"Yapacakmış" = Apparently, he's going to do it.
"Yapacakmıştı", which is dialectal but sounds wrong to me in standard Turkish, means: Apparently, he was going to do it.

In standard Turkish, "yapacakmış" would be used for both and we'd understand from the context, or paraphrase the "miş", using a real word in the meaning of 'apparently' and go with the -di past tense.


----------



## Nino83

Rallino said:


> "Ecek" and "miş" are compatible. Look at rule 6, in the _Future_ row and _Inferential_ column. It's listed there as well.


But, as far as I can understand, -miş- past and inferential -imiş- are two different things, am I right?
-ecek- and -imiş- are compatible but -ecek- and -miş- past are not. 
Or are -miş- past and inferential -imiş- the same thing?


----------



## Rallino

Sorry for the late reply. The "-miş" and the "imiş" are the same thing. The former is a suffix, the latter is a word on its own. As a word it can be used with nouns and adjectives, but nowadays it's dying out. We use the suffix form everywhere.


----------



## Nino83

My grammar book ("Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar", Aslı Göksel, Celia Kerslake), says that after the "voice" markers, possibility ((y)a, (y)abil) and negation one can add three types of suffix: tense/aspect markers ((i)yor, (i)r, di, miş, (y)ecek, se, meli, mekte, (y)e), copular markers ((y)di, *(y)miş*, (y)se) and generalizing modality markers (i.e agreement per person).
The aspect markers -miş- and -di- indicate a perfective aspect: sat-*tı*-nız (you have sold, you sold) ver-*miş* (apparently he has given/gave), while the copular marker -di- indicates past tense, for example çalış-ıyor-*du* (he *was* working) yat-mış-*tı* (he *had* gone). 
Then, there is the *copular marker* (y)miş, they say it can be attached to all the tense/aspect markers except -di-.
So we could write _görüyormuşum (_apparently I'm seeing), _görürmüşüm_ (apparently I see), _görmüşümüşüm_ (apparently I have seen).
Then the conditional copular marker (y)se can be attached also to the copular markers (y)di and (y)miş, for example _gör-üyor-du-ysa-m_ (if, I was seeing) and _görü-yor-muş-sa-m_ (if, apparently, I'm seeing). 

Does some of these conjugations seem wrong to you?


----------



## Rallino

They look fine to me. The last two seem a little unusual in written language, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear them in speech.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Rallino. 
So, if I wanted to say "if, apparently, I am not being made/forced to see each other" is it grammatically right to say  gör-üş-tür-ül-mü-yor-muş-sa-m?  
It's only to know the grammarical limits of the Turkish conjugation.


----------



## Rallino

Yep!


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Rallino!


----------

