Lesson 34
Intermediate
Intermediate
Come to the Party
Whether or not you are trying to convince your friend to come out with you, or you're the party pooper trying to get your friends off your case, you'll need the present conditional to do some convincing.
Psst! Want to access
everything in this lesson?
everything in this lesson?
Aminah
Hi, İ'd also like to know the diference between gelsem-gelirsem, yapsa-yaparsa, olsa-olursa...Thanks
Justin
Good question. All this conditional stuff can get pretty confusing.
You already know from the lesson that gelirsem, yaparsam, etc. are open conditionals.
So, I think your question is: what happens when you add the conditional suffix with nothing else? It appears that it can function as both open and closed, depending on the context.
For example, in "O gelse, sen gelmezsin," it functions very similarly to "gelirse" and takes the open meaning: if he were to come, you won't come.
As another example: "Sinemaya gitsen, onu görürdün." Here, it's closed: if you were to go to the movies (but you're not), you would have see her.
The difference is in the tense of the second verb.
There's not a whole lot written about this form in the texts that I have here, and a lot of stuff I'm finding online is confused. Let me quote directly from an advanced grammar book I have here that is much respected (Lewis):
". . . it expresses (a) remote condition: gelse 'if he were to come'; (b) wish: gelse! 'if only he would come!'"
So, it seems to be more akin to the closed conditional, but as we see above, it can be used in sentences where it does carry an open meaning.
I hope that helps. If you're still confused, feel free to follow up.
You already know from the lesson that gelirsem, yaparsam, etc. are open conditionals.
So, I think your question is: what happens when you add the conditional suffix with nothing else? It appears that it can function as both open and closed, depending on the context.
For example, in "O gelse, sen gelmezsin," it functions very similarly to "gelirse" and takes the open meaning: if he were to come, you won't come.
As another example: "Sinemaya gitsen, onu görürdün." Here, it's closed: if you were to go to the movies (but you're not), you would have see her.
The difference is in the tense of the second verb.
There's not a whole lot written about this form in the texts that I have here, and a lot of stuff I'm finding online is confused. Let me quote directly from an advanced grammar book I have here that is much respected (Lewis):
". . . it expresses (a) remote condition: gelse 'if he were to come'; (b) wish: gelse! 'if only he would come!'"
So, it seems to be more akin to the closed conditional, but as we see above, it can be used in sentences where it does carry an open meaning.
I hope that helps. If you're still confused, feel free to follow up.
Moritz
I am not really happy with the review of this lecture - in the podcast/ text it's only about the open conditional, and the review has more than 50% closed conditional. I was able to get 100% correct in the multiple choice part just by looking out for the "se/sa" and "sey/ say", even though that's not the grammatical rule (as I later saw in the language points part)!
Justin
That's a good point. I think we originally intended to cover both cases and decided half-way through that that was too much, so we ended up with an unbalanced mutant lesson. This was back when we were publishing one of these every day, so we didn't have a ton of time to rework everything.
But you're right - I'm sorry about that. The review for something like this is always going to have that trick - it really is that easy to immediately see the difference between open and close conditionals. The trick is knowing the right one to use in context. . . and immediately so while speaking. Maybe we should prepare another lesson for conditionals? Anything in particular you'd like us to cover in more detail or clarify?
But you're right - I'm sorry about that. The review for something like this is always going to have that trick - it really is that easy to immediately see the difference between open and close conditionals. The trick is knowing the right one to use in context. . . and immediately so while speaking. Maybe we should prepare another lesson for conditionals? Anything in particular you'd like us to cover in more detail or clarify?
Graham
In the sentence construction I have the last option on Show Answers but it says it's wrong - I've copied and pasted below
Amerika'ya gitseydi zengin olacaktı
Graham
Amerika'ya gitseydi zengin olacaktı
Graham
Justin
Thanks for letting us know! It looks like it's a silly coding error in handling the apostrophe. I'll get that fixed soon.
Martha
Merhaba! This was a very good lesson for me, because I have never received more than a cursory explanation of the open conditional. And I didn't know anything about the closed conditional! Also, your vocabulary is starting to race ahead of me in the review, but that's a good thing. I'm learning! ... So, here is tonight's puzzle:
Dünya bile başına yıkılsa, umursamaz.
I think this says something like: Even if everyone is ruined, he doesn't care.
So, I see what looks like an "open" construction in the first part of the sentence (yıkılsa), but "umursamaz" looks like a "closed" construction (although I see that it is its own word in the dictionary).
But if I am understanding this sentence, isn't the sense of it sort of "closed"? It is not giving two possibilities for action. If everyone was fine, he wouldn't care either. There is only one outcome: He doesn't care. He is reckless.
In English we might say: "He wouldn't care if the world blew up!" Or: "If everyone had been ruined, he wouldn't have cared." Now that's definitely closed.
Teşekkürler!
Dünya bile başına yıkılsa, umursamaz.
I think this says something like: Even if everyone is ruined, he doesn't care.
So, I see what looks like an "open" construction in the first part of the sentence (yıkılsa), but "umursamaz" looks like a "closed" construction (although I see that it is its own word in the dictionary).
But if I am understanding this sentence, isn't the sense of it sort of "closed"? It is not giving two possibilities for action. If everyone was fine, he wouldn't care either. There is only one outcome: He doesn't care. He is reckless.
In English we might say: "He wouldn't care if the world blew up!" Or: "If everyone had been ruined, he wouldn't have cared." Now that's definitely closed.
Teşekkürler!
Justin
Excellent points and questions as always :)
First, I see why umursamaz is causing confusion. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the conditional (that "sa" is purely coincidental). We also could guess this because it comes at the end of the sentence, where it doesn't make as much sense to have an "if" statement. Anyway, umursamaz comes from umursamak (to care). You see Turkish form adjectives like this a lot. Another very common example is inanılmaz (unbelievable), coming from inanılmak (to believe).
Your following question about the "open" and "closed" distinction becomes a little more philosophical than the grammar itself can express. Speaking in purely grammatical terms, it's still an open conditional - the world hasn't fallen into ruin yet, so it's referring to an unrealized potential scenario. If the world ends, then I will not care. If I get sick, then I will go to the doctor.
Your final sentence is indeed a good example of how the sentence could be re-expressed in closed form. Nice work :)
First, I see why umursamaz is causing confusion. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the conditional (that "sa" is purely coincidental). We also could guess this because it comes at the end of the sentence, where it doesn't make as much sense to have an "if" statement. Anyway, umursamaz comes from umursamak (to care). You see Turkish form adjectives like this a lot. Another very common example is inanılmaz (unbelievable), coming from inanılmak (to believe).
Your following question about the "open" and "closed" distinction becomes a little more philosophical than the grammar itself can express. Speaking in purely grammatical terms, it's still an open conditional - the world hasn't fallen into ruin yet, so it's referring to an unrealized potential scenario. If the world ends, then I will not care. If I get sick, then I will go to the doctor.
Your final sentence is indeed a good example of how the sentence could be re-expressed in closed form. Nice work :)
Paul
Thanks very much for the lesson. There is one thing that is confusing me though. It says in the language points that closed conditionals are used to express "an event that could have happened, but didn't (a closed future)" However, shouldn't this be "(a closed past)" as Turkish considers the future to be always open or uncertain? My understanding is that the "seydi" form is similar to the English 3rd conditional. Please let me know if this is a mistake on your part or on mine.
I've also spotted a couple of typos in the Language Points section - "gelirseniz" is written twice in the examples of open conditionals, and the "they" form - "gelirseler" is missing. Also, mother is ill in the later example, but it doesn't say in the Turkish that she is "very" ill.
Otherwise, thanks for a very helpful lesson!
I've also spotted a couple of typos in the Language Points section - "gelirseniz" is written twice in the examples of open conditionals, and the "they" form - "gelirseler" is missing. Also, mother is ill in the later example, but it doesn't say in the Turkish that she is "very" ill.
Otherwise, thanks for a very helpful lesson!
Justin
Merhaba Paul!
First off, sorry for taking so long to get back to your comments. I've been bouncing around for the holidays, but I'm back now.
I think we're playing a game of words. When we say a "closed future," we're actually referring to the future relative to a point in the past, not to the future in the absolute sense (relative to now). So, you're right.
You are also correct that these correspond to English third conditionals. Those are often described as conveying "impossible outcomes" - which is another way of saying "closed future."
(And thanks for pointing out the typos, I've patched them up.)
Let me know if that clears things up, or you think I'm missing something. Thanks for the good question.
First off, sorry for taking so long to get back to your comments. I've been bouncing around for the holidays, but I'm back now.
I think we're playing a game of words. When we say a "closed future," we're actually referring to the future relative to a point in the past, not to the future in the absolute sense (relative to now). So, you're right.
You are also correct that these correspond to English third conditionals. Those are often described as conveying "impossible outcomes" - which is another way of saying "closed future."
(And thanks for pointing out the typos, I've patched them up.)
Let me know if that clears things up, or you think I'm missing something. Thanks for the good question.
Paul
And thanks for the great answer. I've also just back from seeing in the Yılbaşı with friends in Izmir (I live in Istanbul). Hope you also had a good one.
I agree with you about the war of words, and your analysis of the situation. I think we have demonstrated the difficulty of describing the concepts of one language in another that has a very different way of looking at things. It all helps to clear up difficulties though.
I was also thinking about -se used with 'keşke' for daydreamy wishes about the future, as in:
Keşke daha zengin olsam
Keşke yaşlı olmasam
The first of the these could come true in the future and so be considered 'open', but the second could, I think, also be seen as 'closed' as it can never be true.
Any thoughts?
I agree with you about the war of words, and your analysis of the situation. I think we have demonstrated the difficulty of describing the concepts of one language in another that has a very different way of looking at things. It all helps to clear up difficulties though.
I was also thinking about -se used with 'keşke' for daydreamy wishes about the future, as in:
Keşke daha zengin olsam
Keşke yaşlı olmasam
The first of the these could come true in the future and so be considered 'open', but the second could, I think, also be seen as 'closed' as it can never be true.
Any thoughts?
Justin
Haha, that's a clever observation, but grammatically speaking, they are both open. It's sort of a semantic coincidence that the literal meaning of that sentence is something that can never happen in reality. We could trade out the word yaşlı here to change the meaning again, but it's still an open form no matter what adjective we use.
One way that I personally remember what closed conditionals are is to remember them as the "accusing" conditional, since you often see them in accusations.
If you had just gone (but you didn't), we wouldn't have this problem!
One way that I personally remember what closed conditionals are is to remember them as the "accusing" conditional, since you often see them in accusations.
If you had just gone (but you didn't), we wouldn't have this problem!
Öğrenci
Bu cümle hakkında bir sorum var.
"Biliyordum başka bir şey olduğunu"
Neden bu cümle "başka bir şey olduğunu biliyordum" olarak yazmaz? önemli farklı var mı?
Teşekkür ederim!
"Biliyordum başka bir şey olduğunu"
Neden bu cümle "başka bir şey olduğunu biliyordum" olarak yazmaz? önemli farklı var mı?
Teşekkür ederim!
Öğrenci
yazılmaz*
verb without mek/mak + se + di'li geçmiş zaman
gel + se + ydim/ydin/ydi/ydik/ydiniz/lerdi
Also for closed conditional, it is worth to mention that the main part of the sentence will always contain:
some form of geniş zaman or gelecek zaman followed by -di.
giderdim
gidecektim
Depending on what is being used, geniş zaman or gelecek zaman, the meaning will be slightly different. Maybe somecan explain this better?
In addition also there is also another conditional form:
gel-sem, sen, se, sek, seniz, seler
I do not know the exact difference yet.
Maybe also this someone can explain this better?
Thanks:-)